Oregon buys 2 Talgo trainsets

There are lots of former ACF employees in Milton, PA and Huntington, WV that would like to get back to work. Do they have to move to Wisconsin to find work?
If there ends up to be an "extra" Talgo trainset here in Oregon, a partial reinstatement of the Pioneer from Portland to Boise would be welcomed by many people. It's sort of like a ballpark "If you build it, they will come".

tomfuller wrote:Do they have to move to Wisconsin to find work?

Yes, specifically 35th & Keefe in Milwaukee.

when are the wisconsin sets going to be delivered?

It's being reported that Talgo has chosen the Tower Automotive site in Milwaukee for the new assembly location.

from BizTimes.com:

Talgo Inc., the Spanish train company that is planning to establish a high-speed train assembly plant in Wisconsin, will announce soon that it has selected the former Tower Automotive facility in Milwaukee for that operation, sources told BizTimes Milwaukee.
The company recently informed officials in Appleton, Janesville and Racine that it has eliminated sites in those communities from consideration for the plant. The company also recently informed executives at Milwaukee-based Super Steel that it will not establish the operation at their facility.
Talgo’s train assembly facility is expected to initially create about 80 jobs. A representative for Talgo could not be reached for comment this morning.

Here's a copy of the RFP for the new assembly plant. In the pdf there's a technical drawing of the new trainsets, apparently all coach layout without food or bistro cars.

Vincent wrote:Here's a copy of the RFP for the new assembly plant. In the pdf there's a technical drawing of the new trainsets, apparently all coach layout without food or bistro cars.

Are they really going with a Talgo provided cab control car? The F59 depiction is rather crude, but they did get the ridiculous height mismatch right!

It appears the Talgo cab car has HEP facilities, so it looks like that's a possibility. I would question whether or not F59s will be specifically assigned to the Hiawathas or if it'll be a Cascades-style arrangement where whatever Amtrak has available will get the assignment. But whatever the case, they need to have some shark fins on the end car that hooks up to the locomotive!

A P42 would look a lot less ridiculous than the ultra-tall F59!

Matt Johnson wrote:A P42 would look a lot less ridiculous than the ultra-tall F59!

I'll agree, but wouldn't using the Talgo cab car frame look much better for the locomotive?
Talgo car height: 13.1 feet
P42 height: 14.67 feet (Maximum speed 110 mph with 56:21 GR)
F59PHI height: 15.9 feet (Maximum speed 110 mph with 56:21 GR)
MP36/MP 40 height: 15.5 feet (Maximum speed 108 mph with 56:21 GR)

aren't the talgos currently in service to Eugene "onloan" from WASDOT until they want them back?

from SuburbanStation:

aren't the talgos currently in service to Eugene "onloan" from WASDOT until they want them back?

WA owns 3 trainsets, Amtrak owns 2 sets and there's an arrangement between Amtrak, WSDOT and ODOT to cover the operating and maintenance costs of those trains. Oregon covers the costs of operations between Eugene and Portland, Amtrak covers the cost of trains 500 and 509 between Seattle and Portland, and WA covers the cost of all the other trains that run on the corridor between Portland and Vancouver BC. BC does not contribute to the operating agreement.

WA is looking to add 2 more roundtrips to the Seattle<>Portland schedule, and in order to add those trips, it would be necessary to drop the Portland to Eugene service if only 5 trainsets are available. With the addition of 2 more trainsets, Portland<>Eugene won't be cut and could even be expanded.


In order to avoid confusion with "the other Washington", WA almost always refers to itself as "Washington State" and Washington DC often refers to itself as the "District of Columbia" when naming government agencies. Thus, we get the "The Washington State Department of Transportation" (WSDOT), not to be confused with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT).

Because of the Oregon order, Talgo is planning on hiring 125 workers in Wisconsin.
http://www.biztimes.com/daily/2010/3/2/

The supply chain should create another 450 jobs, although not all of them are likely to be in Wisconsin.

FFolz wrote:Without the Cascades train, I never would have come to visit Oregon last summer. I don't know how important tourists dollars are to your state, but I'm going to guess that at least the state government thinks it's more than chump change.

You mention you wouldn't have visited Oregon, but you mention all points within Portland - did you go to Salem, Albany or Eugene?

Once in Salem or Albany - how did you get around? Salem has no weekend or evening bus service. Albany's bus system is even more limited. Eugene has a decent bus system but I don't think it operates when Amtrak pulls into town.

Oregon's top four tourist destinations (not in any particular order) are the Oregon Zoo, Spirit Mountain Casino, the Tillamook Cheese Factory, and Multnomah Falls. Only one of those is accessible by Amtrak Cascades (the Zoo). The Casino runs their own buses, and there is one city bus (from Salem) to the Casino. The Cheese Factory is served by the Tillamook County bus system (which does stop at Union Station). Multnomah Falls has no public transit access.

Did you visit the Mission Mill Heritage Site? The Oregon State Capitol? Not sure what there is in Albany...OSU is in Corvallis. What about the Evergreen Air & Space Museum in McMinnville? (It has no public transit access, period.)

Mt. Hood? Astoria/Seaside/Cannon Beach? Lincoln City/Newport? Bend? Crater Lake? Ashland and the Shakespearan Festival? The Pendleton Round-Up? Hood River?

Oregon is not Portland, Oregon is Astoria to McDermott and Brookings to Joseph. Amtrak Cascades serves such an insignificant part of Oregon's tourist destinations and population that it is a joke. Yes, for a few people (namely folks in Eugene who need to get to Portland and return home the same day) it works - but the mere passenger numbers - the fact that you could put the ridership on just two buses and still have room to stretch out - speaks volumes. As the airlines have learned, it's all about frequency and schedules. You could have a bus leave every hour in both directions, and it likely would attract more ridership because it's more convenient. Sure, there will be a few pro-rail folks who absolutely will not touch a bus - but it's not my job to accomodate your wish. Otherwise, I could just as well say I won't touch Amtrak - are you willing to provide me with alternate transportation? It works both ways.

wigwagfan wrote: Sure, there will be a few pro-rail folks who absolutely will not touch a bus - but it's not my job to accomodate your wish. Otherwise, I could just as well say I won't touch Amtrak - are you willing to provide me with alternate transportation? It works both ways.

Setting aside the silly overstatement here that no one could possibly believe (that people who would ride a train but not a bus are only "a few pro-rail folks" - clearly there are vast numbers who don't particularly care abuot trains, but will take one though they'd never take a bus), I think it's interesting to hear from wwf that the ridership of the average Cascades trip is apparently about 40 people. A typical intercity bus would seat 40, but he says that the ridership could fit on 2 buses with room to spread out, presumably meaning you'd have the pair of seats to yourself, so 20 per bus X 2.

That's an extraordinarily low figure. Can anyone confirm this number?

(After doing a bit of research, I'm editing my post to point out that ridership last year was 761,000, or more than 2,000/day. So wwf seems to be telling us that there are 50 cascade trains running each day - 25 round trips. Is that true?

Or is he making things up again?)

(Edited a second time to note that there are apparently only six trains a day - round trips. So that means there are 2,000 riders on 12 trains, or about 165/trip. So wwf was off by almost 400%. That's a pretty massive fail. I can't wait for the retroactive explanation that when he said Cascades ridership could fit on two buses, he really meant ... oh, who knows ... it'll just be interesting to hear the rationalization of it all. WWooooF!)

ne plus ultra wrote:

wigwagfan wrote: Sure, there will be a few pro-rail folks who absolutely will not touch a bus - but it's not my job to accomodate your wish. Otherwise, I could just as well say I won't touch Amtrak - are you willing to provide me with alternate transportation? It works both ways.

Setting aside the silly overstatement here that no one could possibly believe (that people who would ride a train but not a bus are only "a few pro-rail folks" - clearly there are vast numbers who don't particularly care abuot trains, but will take one though they'd never take a bus), I think it's interesting to hear from wwf that the ridership of the average Cascades trip is apparently about 40 people. A typical intercity bus would seat 40, but he says that the ridership could fit on 2 buses with room to spread out, presumably meaning you'd have the pair of seats to yourself, so 20 per bus X 2.

That's an extraordinarily low figure. Can anyone confirm this number?

(After doing a bit of research, I'm editing my post to point out that ridership last year was 761,000, or more than 2,000/day. So wwf seems to be telling us that there are 50 cascade trains running each day - 25 round trips. Is that true?

Or is he making things up again?)

(Edited a second time to note that there are apparently only six trains a day - round trips. So that means there are 2,000 riders on 12 trains, or about 165/trip. So wwf was off by almost 400%. That's a pretty massive fail. I can't wait for the retroactive explanation that when he said Cascades ridership could fit on two buses, he really meant ... oh, who knows ... it'll just be interesting to hear the rationalization of it all. WWooooF!)

I believe wigwagfan is referencing the number of Cascades passengers south of Portland.

MudLake wrote: I believe wigwagfan is referencing the number of Cascades passengers south of Portland.

Well, obviously he'll have to come up with SOME way of arguing that when he clearly said one thing, he was "referencing" something quite different.

I have another word for those who consistently say one thing, but are really "referencing" something else.