Wisconsin Hiawatha (Service Talgos Upgrades Maintenance)

Or just bring the Cascades equipment here. Today, one of the Hiawatha sets is running with a Cascades painted cabbage unit on the east end.

Station Aficionado wrote: Never seen the Fiat before--reminds me a bit of the old Brill cars. Do you know when it ran on the Rock?

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPi ... id=1891281

January 1972? The color combination reminds me of Mexican NdeM locomotives and the NdeM did operate this sort of Fiat DMU, but the type was fairly common in South America as well.

I wonder if this particular railcar was meant for a NdeM order and was promoted to the Rock Island by Fiat? Does anyone have any details?

The below picture does prove that ALn 668.920 was somewhere in North America, with snow on the ground, and the cars in the background look to be of 1972 vintage, so January 1972 makes sense?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_vogel ... 3/sizes/o/

Does anyone know anything more? Any NdeM experts on this board?

Not positive if theses are the same 13 cars sets in question, but courtesy of the Trains Magazine Face book page: 2 13 car Talgos in Cascade paint.....

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos- ... 4646_n.jpg

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos- ... 8274_n.jpg

Suburban Station wrote: the pyrenees or, uh, the alleghenies. through service to ny is nice but it's certainly not worth an 80 minute time penalty to achieve it, sorry, that's nonsense. there's nothing oddball about tilting trainsets, they were built for just the situation that exists in PA. as far as the old reading, there's nothing to reactivate, it's already active. NS has already expressed flexibility in accomodating passenger service along it as well. the only thing that doesn't make sense is your knee jerk assumptions against using technology where it makes sense because of some disdain for WI. if WI is already on the hook, PA should be able to negotiate a favorable short term lease to test service. I'd also point out there's no reason why the state couldn't run service IN ADDITION to amtrak's current "through service" to NY.

And there's no sign that Pennsylvania wants to fund a major service expansion, or spend hundreds of millions to restore passenger service to the old Reading. If service ever returns to that line, it would most likely be Septa operated commuter service, and it would cost a fortune, since most passenger facilities were torn down before the end of SEPTA diesel service in 1981-1983. It would take a huge investment, most likely with Pennsylvania taxpayer money, not a gimme Federal grant. Not going to happen. Not any time soon.

Suburban Station wrote:you've provided absolutely no logical rationale why talgo would provide worse service.

Giving up a one seat ride from Pittsburgh to NYP is a major sacrifice? Does anyone enjoy a layover in Phillidelphia, or worse, missing a connection? What about your idea of skipping Keystone stations just because the Talgo isn't compatible with high level platforms? Worse service.

I'd also advise you to look at the seat spacing on the Wisconsin Talgo - only a little more spacious than an old Budd RDC. Not unreasonable for Chicago to Milwaukee, but pretty tight.

Suburban Station wrote: all indications is that it would provide better service to the tune of 80 minutes faster.

So what? Losing the one seat ride to NYP and the layover time in Phillidelphia, and missed connections in Phillidelphia, outweigh the advantages. At best, you'd probably save a few minutes on the Harrisburg to Pittsburgh segment with a tilting trainset, not enough offset the huge costs of trainset and high costs of maintence of the trainset, the loss of patronage from the stops with high level platforms and the end of one seat service to NYP.

The Fiat rail car was tested on the Rock Island's commuter line, specifically the Suburban Line between LaSalle Street and Blue Island in probably the late 1970's. Regional Transportation authority was formed in 1974, the RTA bought the Rock Island tracks and right of way in 1982 at the time of the Rock's bankruptcy. Metra was formed in 1984. I rode the Fiat on a press run at a time after the RTA was formed and before the Rock Island buyout, so I think late 1970's would be the time of this test. On the southbound press run, we came upon a car that was blocking the tracks on the suburban line and had to reverse to get to a crossover before heading south on the normal northbound track. As I recall, the track was really terrible and the ride was rATHER bouncy. The car itself was pretty basic, with transit bus type seats, I believe. The RTA was using the Fiat to test the use of self-propelled cars on non-rush hour trains. It ran in demonstration service for a couple of months and then disappeared, never to return to Chicago again.
The concept of using DMU's in Chicago also went away with the Fiat. In recent years, Metra has proposed using DMU's on the outer belt route using the former EJ&E and the southeast line to Crete using the former C&EI. Both of these projects are on long-time hold and with CN now owning "J" the belt line may never run.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote: And there's no sign that Pennsylvania wants to fund a major service expansion, or spend hundreds of millions to restore passenger service to the old Reading. If service ever returns to that line, it would most likely be Septa operated commuter service, and it would cost a fortune, since most passenger facilities were torn down before the end of SEPTA diesel service in 1981-1983. It would take a huge investment, most likely with Pennsylvania taxpayer money, not a gimme Federal grant. Not going to happen. Not any time soon.

although I agree that it seems unlikely, I disagree with the rest of your assessment. it would actually be much cheaper to establish diesel amtrak service on the old reading than to extend septa service to a more limited area. septa requires upfront electrification and reading itself is outside its service area.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote: Giving up a one seat ride from Pittsburgh to NYP is a major sacrifice? Does anyone enjoy a layover in Phillidelphia, or worse, missing a connection? What about your idea of skipping Keystone stations just because the Talgo isn't compatible with high level platforms? Worse service.

incorrect, Philadelphia is a pleasant place to layover (perhaps the best in the amtrak system, so much so that there is hardly a need for the first class lounge). second, connections to NYP are abundant. currently the Pennsylvanian only stops at elizabethtown (that station is irrelevant to ridership) and lancaster (the only problem). Paoli can accomodate low levels and even once the new hlp's are built, there's no reason the low levels couldn't be kept. otoh, if you come in via reading and phoenixville, there is no such problem. you are also wrong about worse service since there would be more and faster service to Pittsburgh

goodnightjohnwayne wrote: I'd also advise you to look at the seat spacing on the Wisconsin Talgo - only a little more spacious than an old Budd RDC. Not unreasonable for Chicago to Milwaukee, but pretty tight.

that could be an issue, though given the cost is sunk, a potential negotiating point much like negotiating upgrades for a house.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:
So what? Losing the one seat ride to NYP and the layover time in Phillidelphia, and missed connections in Phillidelphia, outweigh the advantages. At best, you'd probably save a few minutes on the Harrisburg to Pittsburgh segment with a tilting trainset, not enough offset the huge costs of trainset and high costs of maintence of the trainset, the loss of patronage from the stops with high level platforms and the end of one seat service to NYP.

incorrect, at best you'd save 80 minutes. with time savings of that magnitude you'd easily offset ridership losses at any intermediate stops with ridership gains at the much larger endpoints. crews to work harrisburg-pittsburgh and back in a day, and ny ridership would also be boosted with a second frequency and faster ride.

Talgo could lessen the current 5 hour 30 minute schedule to 4 hours 10 minutes. The 4 hour 10 minute schedule retains the current schedule cushion of 34 minutes.

http://testplant.blogspot.com/2011/12/c ... gh-to.html

the reason is the number of curves (and therefore speed advantage) is substantial. the fact that amtrak has not considered tilting equipment for this run is a reflection of incompetence on their part.

Suburban Station wrote:the fact that amtrak has not considered tilting equipment for this run is a reflection of incompetence on their part.

I disagree with only this last. It isn't Amtrak responsibility to make plans for an intra-state route such as this one, it's PennDOT's.

gokeefe wrote:
I disagree with only this last. It isn't Amtrak responsibility to make plans for an intra-state route such as this one, it's PennDOT's.

actually, until recently, it was amtrak's...and the only reason this is "penndot's" is because Amtrak inexplicably chose DC-Pittsburgh over Pittsburgh-Philly-NYP. today, for reasons political and otherwise, it is Penndot's. of course, that is another matter (not related to technology)

there are still some old stations..ephrata, phoenixville, reading...I believe the hershey transit ctr was built next to the tracks in anticipation of service that never came
http://readingeagle.com/articlephotos.aspx?id=92435
not that I'm married to one or the other, just that the basic route between philly/harrisburg and pittsburgh is ideal for tilting trains..much moreso than milwaukee-chicago

Suburban Station wrote: incorrect, at best you'd save 80 minutes. with time savings of that magnitude you'd easily offset ridership losses at any intermediate stops with ridership gains at the much larger endpoints. crews to work harrisburg-pittsburgh and back in a day, and ny ridership would also be boosted with a second frequency and faster ride.

Talgo could lessen the current 5 hour 30 minute schedule to 4 hours 10 minutes. The 4 hour 10 minute schedule retains the current schedule cushion of 34 minutes.

http://testplant.blogspot.com/2011/12/c ... gh-to.html

the reason is the number of curves (and therefore speed advantage) is substantial. the fact that amtrak has not considered tilting equipment for this run is a reflection of incompetence on their part.

Even if it is considered and money is allocated to finance it, what makes you think you'd actually yield the time savings? Did anyone have a conversation with Norfolk and Southern, indicating they'd allow this train run at higher speeds on their territory?

In other words, how do you know N&S won't take the same position as Metro-North: Yes, it's lovely that you purchased a train with (passive) tilt capability for higher speeds. Just make sure IT IS OFF ON OUR TERRITORY!!!

To add to the discussion of the Rock's Fiat railcar: If you do some serious googling, you'll find pics in Chicago and also on MBTA territory. It demo'ed there, too. I'm not sure what line. This car obviously is a poor choice for commuter service as it's a bit counter productive at rush hour to have a single-unit DMU taking up a track slot when a 10-car train is necessary.

That said, it could be useful on the Springfield Shuttle, Downeaster, a Tampa-Orlando shuttle to meet Silver trains, E&N (Via), Sudbury-White River (Via)... Even the Danbury Shuttle or White Plains Shuttle.

Suburban Station wrote:Talgo could lessen the current 5 hour 30 minute schedule to 4 hours 10 minutes. The 4 hour 10 minute schedule retains the current schedule cushion of 34 minutes.
http://testplant.blogspot.com/2011/12/c ... gh-to.html

the reason is the number of curves (and therefore speed advantage) is substantial. the fact that amtrak has not considered tilting equipment for this run is a reflection of incompetence on their part.

So your source for this figure is a blogger, who claims that he approached an unnamed Talgo staffer, who supposedly made this claim? A bit thin, isn't it? Who was this Talgo staffer, was this staffer some sort of European, did this staffer have any engineering experience with North American railroading and has this claim ever been published or fact checked? A real negative is the idea that Talgo equipment would involve a 50% fare premium, and that's one aspect of this blog that I wouldn't necessarily contest.

Actually, I don't think that Amtrak would want the negative publicity of touching the Wisconsin Talgos, at least not at the moment, especially when you consider that Amtrak has absolute no place to run Talgos, unless they're purchased by another state. That's just political common sense.

I second that line of reasoning. An un-named Talgo employee? That's a bad joke. About once a month, a VP-level or higher employee of Boeing or Airbus issue a press release stating that their new XYZ airliner will obsolete the competition's ABC airliners, before it's even unveiled. Nobody believes them, it's just posturing for the stockholders mostly.

When you hear some Talgo employee making a claim, and he/she isn't even willing to name themself? I don't buy into it much.

Tadman wrote:I second that line of reasoning. An un-named Talgo employee? That's a bad joke. About once a month, a VP-level or higher employee of Boeing or Airbus issue a press release stating that their new XYZ airliner will obsolete the competition's ABC airliners, before it's even unveiled. Nobody believes them, it's just posturing for the stockholders mostly.

When you hear some Talgo employee making a claim, and he/she isn't even willing to name themself? I don't buy into it much.

With all due respect if you peruse the blog Samuel walker knows more than most people on here (not all). I have more reason believe his posts than john Wayne's.
Third rail- great question but one we ultimately don't know the answer to. I used to know someone in n's planning and provided they were compensated he didn't seem to think ns was inherently against such things. Bnsf allows a schedule to save 30 minutes. I'd sooner lump ns with bnsf than.metro north. I don't think its a sure bet but certainly worth exploring. I also don't think talgo is damaged goods. As a Pennsylvanian I think the state of Wisconsin is the damaged goods not talgo.

I would like to see Amtrak consider the Talgo series 8 equipment for long distance service. On a trial basis maybe they could lease the Wisconsin Talgo's and put them in service on the Coast Starlight between Seattle and Los Angeles. It could be a lease with the option to purchase. They could use the same maintenance facility as the Cascades. Unless it would remain an all-coach train Amtrak could purchase sleeper cars from Talgo (similar as used on Germany's Intercity Night Talgo service).

I was recently reading on NARP's website a recommendation that Amtrak could improve it's long distance service by operating smaller, lightweight and faster equipment on a more frequent schedule (at least 2 trains a day). The Talgo equipment would be a perfect match for that. Even if no need to take advantage of the tilting function, the most important benefit of Talgo equipment is still it's light weight resulting in less fuel consumption. The fact that electrification is a very long ways off for most of the country having lightweight diesel hauled equipment is all that much more important.

Since the Talgo series 8 is FRA compliant the old arguments against use of Talgo equipment no longer apply. It seems purely rational to me that Talgo could be the successor to all current Superliner equipment. Talgo already makes bi-level train sets as well so that is another option. I could even see a Talgo consist that is mostly single level except mixed with bi-level cars for the lounge/cafe, diners and sleepers. The advantage of the current Talgo bi-level car design over Superliners is that you have double level vestibules with through passage on both the upper and lower levels. That provides a lot of flexibility in the arrangement of the cars.

Talgo consists could be used on the Empire Builder, California Zephyr and Southwest Chief as well. In a quite distant future the Coast Starlight could run from Seattle to Sacramento as a diesel hauled Talgo train set, switch to a high speed electric locomotive in Sacramento, switch onto California HSR trackage and arrive in Los Angeles about 3 hours later, shaving a good 10 to 12 hours off the schedule. With an all-Talgo fleet Amtrak would have the opportunity to take advantage of new HSR trackage when it slowly gets put into service. That's assuming agencies like CA HSR would be willing to share trackage. They would most likely operate the trains for Amtrak, with an Amtrak consist behind a CA HSR electric locomotive.

Otherwise I just hope those Wisconsin Talgo's get put to good use. The Talgo designs have so much potential for the U.S. rail market and I hate to see them go to waste or deteriorate while being mothballed.

The coast starlight route is ideal talgo country .the 2 talgo sets could be used for the Seattle -kamatlh falls section ,connecting to a superliner south of there .
With the bilevel specs ruling out use of t