Wisconsin Hiawatha (Service Talgos Upgrades Maintenance)

New video of the Talgo trains released by HighIronofWisconsin on Youtube: http://youtu.be/QfzqSc4L5Q0. It appears 510 was used for initial testing.

Does anyone know if the state has filed a reply brief? I wonder about the state's defenses.

gregorygrice wrote:New video of the Talgo trains released by HighIronofWisconsin on Youtube: http://youtu.be/QfzqSc4L5Q0. It appears 510 was used for initial testing.

Those new Talgos will look great sitting next to the rusting RTL-III equipment in Bear, DE! How soon until we're not allowed to discuss the Wisconsin Talgos, as Amtrak tries to erase them from history Soviet regime style?

Good video, btw! For those who have asked me what's wrong with Amfleet equipment, this should be required viewing! 21st century equipment just makes it look lacking in comparison!

Why would amtrak want to erase them from history,the dispute has little to do with them .I'm sure amtrak would want to see them in service asap on a suitable route.of which there are plenty.

And the critical differentiation is that the turbos will not be returned to service. Ever. There is a chance that some other operator may buy the Talgos. So we allow discussion of the Talgos. Also, nobody has yet become a Talgo foamer and beat the topic to death to the gross annoyance of everybody else. Those are the two triggers.

David Benton wrote:Why would amtrak want to erase them from history,the dispute has little to do with them .I'm sure amtrak would want to see them in service asap on a suitable route.of which there are plenty.

I'm not 100% convinced that Amtrak necessarily likes running routes operating Talgo equipment. Among other issues they are non-standard equipment using fixed trainsets with the requirement that the protect sets of equipment are close to or nearly equal to a full trainset. If Amtrak were running Talgo equipment throughout the rest of their national fleet it probably wouldn't be so bad but in general I think this equipment causes complications for them.

Notice Amtrak's extensive support and involvement with the creation of new standards for corridor cars and also their involvement with the new order of bi-level cars for Illinois. This is clearly the direction they want things to go in.

The Best hope would be to send the 2 Wi Talgo sets to To Wasington state and Oregon for use there.
the needed support already exists,and would allow for cycling of the other sets in/out of the shops.

Backshophoss wrote:The Best hope would be to send the 2 Wi Talgo sets to To Wasington state and Oregon for use there.
the needed support already exists,and would allow for cycling of the other sets in/out of the shops.

Perhaps there could be an opportunity for Washington and Oregon state to look at opening up another corridor. Are there any corridors out there besides the Cascades that could use the extra service?

gokeefe wrote:

Backshophoss wrote:The Best hope would be to send the 2 Wi Talgo sets to To Wasington state and Oregon for use there.
the needed support already exists,and would allow for cycling of the other sets in/out of the shops.

Perhaps there could be an opportunity for Washington and Oregon state to look at opening up another corridor. Are there any corridors out there besides the Cascades that could use the extra service?

Eugene-Vancouver is the only corridor service worthwhile to maintain. Every other location is just a far off rural destination that's already served by the Empire Builder and Coast Starlight. Not worth the money of investing in a corridor service anywhere else.

What about the Heartland Flyer?

It could free up some Superliner equipment maybe; perhaps it may even facilitate an additional daily (or weekdaily) departure.

The same thing that's gonna keep 'em from running in Wisconsin will probably keep 'em from running anywhere else except maybe the Cascades route - the need for a dedicated maintenance base.

Amtrak will likely send 'em to Bear, DE to rot for a few years until they no longer look shiny and new, and then scrap 'em.

lirr42 wrote:What about the Heartland Flyer?
It could free up some Superliner equipment maybe; perhaps it may even facilitate an additional daily (or weekdaily) departure.

The Heartland Flyer is a possibility, assuming you can get both Texas and Oklahoma to buy one train set each. I don't think Oklahoma could afford (monetary and politically) to buy one - or both - unless the Flyer was extended to Tulsa.
Texas might be more likely to buy Talgo if they were the equipment choice for Dallas to Houston HSR services, but I believe the Japanese partner would be more keen to order Japanese trains. Never-the-less, the I-35 corridor in Texas could use these train sets, if Texas decided to subsidize regional rail. Fort Worth would make a great hub to maintain Talgo trains along the I-35 corridor.
Of course, there would have to be some modifications made, at least include a Bistro car, for the long distances these trains would have to make in Texas and Oklahoma. The only route I can see them being used as is, all coach seats, is on the relatively short distance between Oklahoma City and Tulsa.

Matt Johnson wrote:The same thing that's gonna keep 'em from running in Wisconsin will probably keep 'em from running anywhere else except maybe the Cascades route - the need for a dedicated maintenance base.

If Washington State really wanted to do the "big bang" and "go big" with rail service in the State on their Cascades corridor this would be the way to do it. Unfortunately the trains are obviously ready long before the necessary capital improvments are.

[quote"Matt Johnson"]Amtrak will likely send 'em to Bear, DE to rot for a few years until they no longer look shiny and new, and then scrap 'em.[/quote]

Such an optimist! First, the trains are still owned by Talgo, not Amtrak. In fact none of the Talgos are owned by Amtrak. Sorry to inform you that the "trains which shall not be named" won't be getting any 'friends' anytime soon.

One way or another someone inside the U.S. is going to pick these up. It would be neat if it was WA or OR but I think we've established that they have probably maximized their equipment needs for the time being. IL is going to be using the new bi-levels as is CA. I thought PA was an interesting proposal but I don't think the Legislature there has enough liberal types to support it. So we are looking for a state with a really liberal legislature, fiercely devoted to passenger rail that has a current operating state funded corridor train that might need equipment replacement....yes, indeed Vermont (VT) it is.

I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if they go in that direction. VT won't care in the least about problems with setting up a maintenance base, they will either get Amtrak to do it on their property or they'll build it themselves. Plus the speed increase that they could get on their tracks through VT from 79 to potentially more would probably be pretty substantial. I'll ask around in the other threads....

Vermonter would presumably want them for the Vermonter. They don't have third rail capability for NYP.

The EGE wrote:Vermonter would presumably want them for the Vermonter. They don't have third rail capability for NYP.

?

Yes, they would want them for the Vermonter. Not sure what you're trying to say about the rest....?