Milwaukee-Madison High speed rail line

I'll try to describe the first half of the trip beginning at the Madison airport station.

Accelerate to 60 mph then immediately apply the brakes to slow to 30 mph.
Continue at 30 mph for about 3 miles through Madison ending with a 20 mph hairpin turn.
Coming out of the turn, accelerate to 110 mph.
By the time you hit 110, brake again for an 86 mph curve.

Throttle up to 100-110 for the next 4 miles until you approach Sun Prairie.
Slow to 79 mph for about 2 miles through Sun Prairie.
Then highball 110 the next 9 miles, slowing to 79 again for another 2 miles through Waterloo.
Once clear of Waterloo, highball 110 mph for another 11 miles to Watertown.

Cut speed to 45 mph to switch to the CP track and then stop at the station at Watertown.

Distance traveled: 38 miles. Distance at 110 mph: <24.
Measurements are approximate.

jstolberg wrote:I'll try to describe the first half of the trip beginning at the Madison airport station.

Ah, I take it you were looking at the track schematics file from here:

ftp://ftp.dot.state.wi.us/MKE-MSN-PE/9- ... gineering/

Dunno why they don't plan to speed up Sun Prairie. Having nothing below 79 from Watertown to Madison is actually pretty good, but that 20 mph turn in Madison remains a real troublemaker. In the long run they're going to need a downtown station and cabs at both ends, which would put the slowdown during the Madison station stop. Still, 80 mph rail service to Madison is a lot better than one-a-day to Columbus....

jstolberg wrote:I'll try to describe the first half of the trip beginning at the Madison airport station.

Accelerate to 60 mph then immediately apply the brakes to slow to 30 mph.
Continue at 30 mph for about 3 miles through Madison ending with a 20 mph hairpin turn.
Coming out of the turn, accelerate to 110 mph.
By the time you hit 110, brake again for an 86 mph curve.

Throttle up to 100-110 for the next 4 miles until you approach Sun Prairie.
Slow to 79 mph for about 2 miles through Sun Prairie.
Then highball 110 the next 9 miles, slowing to 79 again for another 2 miles through Waterloo.
Once clear of Waterloo, highball 110 mph for another 11 miles to Watertown.

Cut speed to 45 mph to switch to the CP track and then stop at the station at Watertown.

Distance traveled: 38 miles. Distance at 110 mph: <24.
Measurements are approximate.

OMG! And they call that highspeed? It's a lower average speed than on the main conventional lines in my native Denmark - and those lines were built when Queen Victoria still sat on the throne.

priamos wrote: OMG! And they call that highspeed? It's a lower average speed than on the main conventional lines in my native Denmark - and those lines were built when Queen Victoria still sat on the throne.

Thanks to some really ill-thought-out FRA regulations and the near-total abandonment of passenger rail, our lines in the US now generally run slower than they did when Queen Victoria sat on the throne. Lines were running at 100 mph then, and they're not now.

The main line from New York to Chicago runs at a steady 30 mph for miles and miles and miles within the Chicago metro area, despite going on flat tangent track -- except when it stops dead to wait for five minutes.

Pretty much every rail line in the US was built in the Victorian era. I don't think there's been a genuinely new line in the US in ages, except the Alameda Corridor for freight.

The passenger rail system is really, really bad here, in terms of track. But hey, it's better speed than Mexico's total of zero intercity trains, right?

Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, a Republican candidate for governor, says Wisconsin should back out of its new high-speed rail project – and reject the federal funding for it – unless Washington also gives millions more to run it.
http://new.wtaq.com/news/articles/2010/ ... peed-rail/

This project is going nowhere until the legislature passes a bill to accept the $822 million offered by the FRA for high-speed rail.

By the same logic, Wisconsin should also reject federal highway money for new roads unless Washington also includes money to plow them.

jstolberg wrote:This project is going nowhere until the legislature passes a bill to accept the $822 million offered by the FRA for high-speed rail.

Wisconsin lawmakers have now voted to accept the money.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financia ... TFF200.htm