Milwaukee-Madison high-speed rail route

[BigBlueBuddha]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/63360012.html

Route was hoping to get boost from Olympics in Chicago. Madison Mayor Cieslewicz said, "We thought we had a very strong application even without the Olympics. The fundamentals of that route are very strong and the Olympics would have sealed the deal."

 

[OlympianHiawatha]

Concurrently, the Oklahoma Dept. of Transportation just submitted their funding request package to the FRA. It includes building a 150 MPH high speed route between OKC and Tulsa, improving the OKC to Texas border BNSF Red Rock Sub to allow 90 MPH operation of the Heartland Flyer and double tracking that line between OKC and Norman.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Concurrently, the Oklahoma Dept. of Transportation just submitted their funding request package to the FRA. It includes building a 150 MPH high speed route between OKC and Tulsa, improving the OKC to Texas border BNSF Red Rock Sub to allow 90 MPH operation of the Heartland Flyer and double tracking that line between OKC and Norman.

150mph? They're either going to be getting the best diesel never made or going for broke with an electrified line. I suppose its the diesel option.

I'm surprised the Wisconsin project costs that much. It's more than the 3-C project.

 

[AlanB]

I'm surprised the Wisconsin project costs that much. It's more than the 3-C project.

Well first, Wisconsin is buying the Talgos for this. Second, the route is about 100 miles longer than the 3C's. And finally I believe that they want either 90 MPH or 110 MPH running, whereas Ohio is only looking to get to 79 MPH initially.

 

[OlympianHiawatha]

Concurrently, the Oklahoma Dept. of Transportation just submitted their funding request package to the FRA. It includes building a 150 MPH high speed route between OKC and Tulsa, improving the OKC to Texas border BNSF Red Rock Sub to allow 90 MPH operation of the Heartland Flyer and double tracking that line between OKC and Norman.

150mph? They're either going to be getting the best diesel never made or going for broke with an electrified line. I suppose its the diesel option.

I'm surprised the Wisconsin project costs that much. It's more than the 3-C project.

Current plans call for a dedicated electrified line and artist conceptions show TGV type trains. Of course this is just concept and even though plans are to have dirt turning next year, be certain studies and those "unforeseen delays" will keep this many, many years away. The BNSF upgrades will likely be much more realistic.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

I'm surprised the Wisconsin project costs that much. It's more than the 3-C project.

Well first, Wisconsin is buying the Talgos for this. Second, the route is about 100 miles longer than the 3C's. And finally I believe that they want either 90 MPH or 110 MPH running, whereas Ohio is only looking to get to 79 MPH initially.

Fair enough. I wonder how the Feds are going to slice this cash... I mean if they only throw in 100 million and the rest is on the state, it may be a dealbreaker for a lot of projects. I know Ohio needs about half the initial costs...

Current plans call for a dedicated electrified line and artist conceptions show TGV type trains. Of course this is just concept and even though plans are to have dirt turning next year, be certain studies and those "unforeseen delays" will keep this many, many years away. The BNSF upgrades will likely be much more realistic.

Good for them. It still sounds like a far-fetched idea but we all have dreams.

 

[BigBlueBuddha]

I'm surprised the Wisconsin project costs that much. It's more than the 3-C project.

Well first, Wisconsin is buying the Talgos for this. Second, the route is about 100 miles longer than the 3C's. And finally I believe that they want either 90 MPH or 110 MPH running, whereas Ohio is only looking to get to 79 MPH initially.

Um, the Milwaukee-Madison route is only about 80-90 miles total; I thought the 3Cs was longer?

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

I'm surprised the Wisconsin project costs that much. It's more than the 3-C project.

Well first, Wisconsin is buying the Talgos for this. Second, the route is about 100 miles longer than the 3C's. And finally I believe that they want either 90 MPH or 110 MPH running, whereas Ohio is only looking to get to 79 MPH initially.

Um, the Milwaukee-Madison route is only about 80-90 miles total; I thought the 3Cs was longer?

258 miles for the propose 3-C route.

 

[AlanB]

I'm surprised the Wisconsin project costs that much. It's more than the 3-C project.

Well first, Wisconsin is buying the Talgos for this. Second, the route is about 100 miles longer than the 3C's. And finally I believe that they want either 90 MPH or 110 MPH running, whereas Ohio is only looking to get to 79 MPH initially.

Um, the Milwaukee-Madison route is only about 80-90 miles total; I thought the 3Cs was longer?

Oops, quite right. Somehow I had Minneapolis-St. Paul on my mind when I measured things.

 

[Kramerica]

I'm surprised the Wisconsin project costs that much. It's more than the 3-C project.

Well first, Wisconsin is buying the Talgos for this. Second, the route is about 100 miles longer than the 3C's. And finally I believe that they want either 90 MPH or 110 MPH running, whereas Ohio is only looking to get to 79 MPH initially.

1. The Talgo purchase is completely separate from the MKE-MAD line. The Talgos have already been approved for purchase.

2. The 3-C line three times as long as the MKE-MAD line.