Amtrak Milwaukee Airport Station

The roi is that a 2nd Western track platform will allow 2 way directional service. As the article mentions the existing single platforms requires all Amtrak service to load and unload on eastern platform. The 2nd platform will eliminate a 10.7 mile bottleneck. The 2nd platform is also required in order to increase frequency on the Hiawatha route which currently has 8 NB/SB trains, the joint plan from WisDot and IDOT [https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects ... facts.aspx][/url] is to increase frequency up to 10 a day. The Hiawatha route is the busiest route in the Midwest with 829,000 riders in 2017. The Milwaukee Airport station had 180,000 passengers in 2018 and at the time of opening in 2006 was one of 4 Amtrak stations with direct airport access.

Another pop quiz:

What would be the cost of installing crossovers immediately north and south of the platform vs. a new high-level platform with accompanying gauntlet--as well as overpass and elevators? Less flexibility than a second platform, but I'd think cheaper. (Probably too late to change anything without forfeiting the money, I suppose.)

^I'm not sure 2 sets of cross overs would save any money. It would add crossover costs and save a platform. But undoubtedly would require another environmental and engineering study. Why not proceed with the project as requested by the agencies involved with their view for enhance - more frequent service?

mtuandrew wrote:Tad/ keep in mind the current crew can’t feasibly open more than 3-4 doors at a time in Horizon cars. That changes with the Siemens cars, which presumably will have trainline-controlled automatic doors. I can’t say whether the new platform is needed but it won’t be as simple as what you describe.

I've considered that side of the issue, and here's my hangup: The layovers at the terminals are about 25 minutes. There is plenty of time to open all doors to ease boarding, but instead they cram 5-7 cars worth of people through 2-4 doors at the terminals. Given that they don't bother to open more doors at terminals where there is plenty of time, I take it that they just don't want to open all the doors rather than having a manpower issue. It's borderline unsafe with the amount of people and suitcases jamming up stairs and down the aisles.

At intermediate stops like the airport, it significantly lengthens dwell time to the point where the cost-benefit ratio to opening more doors is definitely tilted in favor of opening more doors. Dwell time at the airport can be big, and that's what's causing those 10 mile traffic jams mentioned above. Open a few more doors and the train will unload faster.

Frankly, given that track 19 at Chicago and 1 at Milwaukee are defacto exclusive to Hiawatha, I'm not sure why they didn't make them high-level. The Builder always uses adjacent platforms in both terminals. Freight uses tracks 3 & 4 in Milwaukee.

Back to the airport. It sucks getting off the train there. I've done it and they do the same pair of door sets that they do at terminals, and there is a big line.

I wish the Nippon Sharyo cars had been delivered instead of needing to buy Siemens cars, so high-level platforms wouldn’t have needed to be a consideration.

You and me both, brother. It was one illustrious f*** up in a pantheon of illustrious f*** ups. I spend a lot of time on Nippon Sharyo products and they are very good products and they last forever. Siemens it seems has a good product when new, but we don't have any domestic install base older than a few years to gauge their durability in the US market. It seems the ICE trains last, but Germany is a different culture, weather, infrastructure, etc...

Also wish Alstom had gotten a crack at the contract, being as the Surfliner and California Car were essentially the Midwest car. I would have had zero worries about their product holding up in Chicago Hub service.

I’m sure the Viaggios will be fine, of course.

So we have no idea if this will be a high platform or not?

STrRedWolf wrote:So we have no idea if this will be a high platform or not?

I have not seen anything that indicates high or low, but it's a safe bet to be low. There is decent CP freight through here and they would have to build a gauntlet for high platforms to make clearances with that freight.

mtuandrew wrote:Also wish Alstom had gotten a crack at the contract, being as the Surfliner and California Car were essentially the Midwest car. I would have had zero worries about their product holding up in Chicago Hub service.
.

Absolutely agree. It's a proven concept that works great. I have only spent a bit of time on those cars, but they were quite nice. Also, said California cars can fit about 20 more passengers. Spread across a six car train, that means one less coach. Subtract the expenses of towing and maintaining one extra coach from each train for service life of the cars and we're talking some very serious money saved.

Tadman wrote:

STrRedWolf wrote:So we have no idea if this will be a high platform or not?

I have not seen anything that indicates high or low, but it's a safe bet to be low. There is decent CP freight through here and they would have to build a gauntlet for high platforms to make clearances with that freight.

If they're smart, they'll move the platforms into pocket tracks like what CSX did with MARC at Greenbelt and high platform off the pocket tracks. Takes care of the freight trains (making CP happy) and makes Amtrak happier (they can remote-open on high platforms).

As you know, it's likely they're be dumb ("SAVE MONEY!!!") and go low.

As far as the crossovers I believe they would only need one.
LAKE Interlocking is not that far south (RR East). So you'd have to put one North/West of the station.

mkerfe wrote:As far as the crossovers I believe they would only need one.
LAKE Interlocking is not that far south (RR East). So you'd have to put one North/West of the station.

That north interlocking will have another benefit. The north bound trains leaving the station will get an immediate signal (* maybe clear ) allowing that train to go faster than restricting speed until the next visible signal. BTW how far is the next northbound signal?+ depending on how far will save 2 - 5 minutes.

Not positive about the next northbound signal. The next, current, interlocking is KK Bridge which is 5ish miles.

I suspect that one of the Amtrak safety rules states that at low level platforms, Amtrak staff must be at each open door to assist passengers. Amtrak even does that at the brand new high level platforms on the New Haven-Springfield corridor...2 conductors...2 doors open. They do 3 doors at Hartford, but two of those are adjacent to each other.

Think about the necessity to help little old ladies or passengers with disabilities up and down those very steep stairs. Consider the possibilities of ice and snow both in the vestibule, on the steps, and on the platform. Somebody slip and fall at an unattended open door and stair and it's time to call in the lawyers! Also, keeping track of how many passengers are expected to be on or off and verifying those numbers is far easier when there's somebody counting at door.

>It's borderline unsafe

If lawyers and accountants haven't determined that it's unsafe, it isn't unsafe. They err the other way.