Amtrak Hiawatha Discussion: Chicago - Milwaukee and Possible Extensions

Tadman wrote:It's not the greatest idea either - (SNIP) and the crawl west from Milwaukee at 40mph on some line that hasn't seen passenger service in forty years.

Tadman,

You seem to forget that from Milwaukee to Watertown, the trains would operate on the CP, on the SAME 79 mile an hour stretch that the Empire Builder currently operates on.. Not some 40 mph line that hasn't seen passenger service in 40 years as you sugguest ( now the waterloo line, on the otherhand, hasn't seen scheduled passenger service, though the empire builder detoured several times in the 70's on th ewaterloo and M&P subs

Additionally the state plans would include rebuilding the Watertown to Madison Waterloo Subdivision to allow for increased speeds.

Does this mean it will happen, of course not, but should it happen, it will not be the Janesville Javelin all over... and I should know.. I worked that train, and it really wasn't that bad EAST fo Walworth... the west end was the bad part.

AMTK1007 has made some important points, but I thought I would try to show why the direct path will not happen.

First, it is a dead letter. The state is already committed to the Milwaukee - Watertown - Madison route. It has purchased the Watertown - Madison line and completed the environmental impact process as well as preliminary engineering.

Second, the Madison - Milwaukee connection is at least as important as the one to Chicago. It provides better access to air travel via the Mitchell Field station. Thus the Milwaukee routing will generate more potential trips and better justify the expense of the upgrade and multiple frequencies.

Third, the direct route isn't dramatically shorter, cheaper, or faster. There are two possible direct routes from Chicago, one that follows the same route as the Metra Milw. District- North (MD-W) and the WSOR to Janesville, or one that follows the Metra UP-MW route and the UP to Janesville. (There may be a possiblity of connecting to the route used by the Metra NCS line which passes O'Hare, replacing the lost airport connection.) From Janesville there are also two options: 1) WSOR to Milton, Edgerton, Stoughton, and McFarland or 2) the UP to Evansville then along a rail banked line to Oregon and the south side of Madison. Both lines meet crossing Monona bay then pass the state capitol before hitting the line to Portage, La Crosse , and St. Paul, with the station stop at airport. I don't have the actual distance along this route, but my guess would be that it is about 30 miles shorter to Chicago. The more extended trip through Madison negates much of the length advantage, and the Madison - Janesville segments aren't very straight. It would likely cost similar amounts to upgrade the line from Madison to the end of the chosen Metra route and build new stations.

[There are a few advantages, the station could be built in downtown Madison with better access to the goverment, university, and business activities as well as more central location for Madison residents and a somewhat shortened trip time to Chicago. This shortened time would likely be given back reaching the airport site for through trains to the Twin Cities. A central Madison station would have a higher cost and more difficult parking, and the planned commuter service could complicate things.]

Fourth, by skipping Milwaukee, the direct connection complicates train options from Chicago to the Twin Cities. The existing plan envisions a "110 mph mainline" Chicago - Milwaukee - Madison - La Crosse - St. Paul and assumes that all corridor trains will use it, no divergences. If you build the Madison - Janesville - Chicago route then which way to trains from the Twin Cities reach Chicago? The travel demand from the Twin Cities to Milwaukee is likely higher than to Madison, so most trains would go directly to Milwaukee, so the whole CP mainline would be upgraded to 110 mph. For the handfull of trains between Madison and St. Paul the CP Portage-Madison sub-division would have to be fixed-up for at least 79 mph passenger service, and perhaps all the way to 110 mph. None of this would satisfy the demand for Madison to Milwaukee service, and a fast line close by at Watertown, so there would be demand to upgrade from Madison to Watertown as was done to Portage. Now you've built a system with two paths from St. Paul to Chicago, via Madison and via Milwaukee (or three if you duplicate the current plan for via both), and all of the upgraded lines of the current plan, plus, upgraded lines between Watertown and Portage via Columbus and Madison and Chicago via Janesville that are unnessary to operate the system effectively.

Summary: The benifits of such a routing are few and modest (slightly faster to Madison from Chicago, potential of centrally located station in Madison, HSR to Janesville) and the costs are rather high (no Madison - Milwuakee without additional investment, which way to St. Paul?, extra trackage required, etc.)

Post Script If what you really desire is service to Janesville and vacinity there are a few options:
1) traditional commuter service (minimal or non-existant reverse commute or mid-day service) through a Metra UP-NW extension (jurisdictional issues)
2) Rockford - Beloit - Janesville, full day, bi-directional commuter/ local service. These cities are decent sized and fairly close together. Not sure of track availability though. Jurisdictional issues would exist.
3) Extend a (conventional) Blackhawk train (one not going to Dubuque) through Beloit and Janesville to Madison. This would connect Janesville, Beloit and Rockford to Madison by rail as well as Beloit and Janesville with Chicago. Best tried after one of the commuter options above has improved tracks and/or stations, and there is Milwaukee-Madison service.

I don't have much to add to EricJ's post, other than that the State of Wisconsin is preparing to increase its bonding authority to $80M for this project. That works out to 20% of the projected cost to make the upgrades necessary for Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago service; the other 80% is assumed to come from federal matching funds such as those proposed in the Lautenberg-Lott bill.

There is an good, recent (May 31, 2007) summary of the current state of affairs from the Wisconsing Legislative Fiscal Bureau at this link (pdf).

mkellerm wrote:I don't have much to add to EricJ's post, other than that the State of Wisconsin is preparing to increase its bonding authority to $80M for this project. That works out to 20% of the projected cost to make the upgrades necessary for Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago service; the other 80% is assumed to come from federal matching funds such as those proposed in the Lautenberg-Lott bill.

There is an good, recent (May 31, 2007) summary of the current state of affairs from the Wisconsing Legislative Fiscal Bureau at this link (pdf).

Just thought I'd say thanks for the pdf warning. My system opens acrobat in 10 seconds, and decent size pdf's in about 10 seconds. But for some reason, if I click on a pdf link without acrobat opened, it'll take about 2 minutes, more or less freezing the browser and other operations for the intervening moments.

I've only seen Horizons. Have Amfleets ever been on it?

There was a period in the 1980s, after the retirement of the French Turboliners and before the assignment of the Horizon coaches, when Amfleet equipment covered the Chicago-Milwaukee service. Others more local can probably fill in further details -- I only ride the line about once a year.

Yes, indeed, there was a period of time when there were Amfleets on the Hiawathas. As Mr. Nelligan stated, after the Turbos were withdrawn, the trains were made up of F40's and amfleets.. Later on trains were made up of F-40's with a mix of Amfleets and ex CNW Bi-Level Cab Coaches ( or just F40's and ex CNW Bi-Levels). In the Early 2000's we saw Michigan coaches that were rebuilt from Metroliner Cab cars to fill in with the Horizon cars. Ocassionaly during the holidays we will see an amfleet car, often a food service car, to add extra capacity. Last year the train sets were augmented with a Horizon Cafe on one set and an AmCafe on the other.

There was also a period when the trains ran with ex Metroliner cab cars...

In short, Kenosha WI, newspaper has an article about the funding for a number of SE Wisconsin transport projects. The most relevant is the $1.9b I-94 expansion/rebuild, versus the $200m Kenosha commuter service. It appears the commuter service plan has stalled while the I-94 program is going ahead. Meanwhile, the Hiawatha, which is one of the most successful non-NEC corridors, could use much less that $1.9b to add quite a few trains or purchase more reliable equipment.

http://www.kenoshanews.com/article_comm ... um=3069577

The road can be very slow but the train gets past the traffic jams excellently. I would suggest speeding up the trains and increasing frequency and much of the road traffic should be diverted.

I wonder how much the price tag would be to install an ATC system on the C+M. With the exception of a some curves and the last vestiges of jointed rail on track 1, everything is pretty much good for 90 already. The trip time is already very competetive to driving during rush hours, but if you could get there faster on the train at any time, on any day, then there would be no reason not to take it.

My personal pipe dream would be for WisDOT to kick in capital funding for new equipment. Horizon cars are junk.

GALLERY CARS!!! Everybody in Chicago loves them, they are safe, they carry more, and there's plenty of maintenance know-how around town. But instead, we reinvent the darn wheel... Unfortunately Amtrak is not short of coaches, otherwise there could be a good case for Illinois and WI DOT to buy stainless gallery cars for corridor service. I would suggest cab cars also have a small snack bar, but no real "lounge" area. I don't think its even worth reconfiguring from Metra's High Density seats - the ride to Milwaukee is about the same time as full trip on a Metra route due to Amtrak's five-station route.

Gallery Cars are less suitable for the trip to Milwaukee.. Metra cars have been leased in the past for Holiday ( read Thanksgiving) service and were not liked by the crews OR the passengers. A better idea might be for the Midwestern States ( Illinos, Michigan, Missouri, Wisconsin) to get together and purchase a fleet of California/Surfliner style cars.. and as part of that purchase invest in platform upgrades so that the train could use trainlined doors to speed loading and unloading...

In the Very Short term Wisdot/Idot need to look at securing funding to add a 3rd trainset and aditional frequencies during the construction

I would presume Mr. Dunville is addressing Gallery cars configured with reclining seats and with appropriate pitch for a 1'45" journey. Lest we forget, the C&NW circa 1958 acquired a number of such for use on Chi-Northern Wisconsin trains, this was part of a "deal" that allowed them to discontinue passenger service over an array of routes. While the cars were designed with conversion to commuter seating, they were not so converted and remained in intercity service until "the end" on A-Day eve.

Amtrak subsequently acquired a number of these cars and assigned them to routes such as the Illinois Zephyr, the Chi-Valpo "Local" (whoops, The Calumet), and a Chi-Springfield train.

I like the idea of the CNW-style long distance configuration, but the Hi is a very short ride, shorter than South Shore and about as long as a ride to Aurora or Joliet on Metra. Passengers that gripe about uncomfortable seats on a short ride like that will be made to ride in baggage cars some day...

Tadman wrote:I like the idea of the CNW-style long distance configuration, but the Hi is a very short ride, shorter than South Shore and about as long as a ride to Aurora or Joliet on Metra. Passengers that gripe about uncomfortable seats on a short ride like that will be made to ride in baggage cars some day...

Passengers that pay Metra fares expect Metra equipment. Passengers that pay Amtrak fares expect something better such as typical intercity passenger equipment, not commuter equipment.