Wisconsin Hiawatha (Service Talgos Upgrades Maintenance)

Lack of third rail shoes means the Talgos wouldn't be able to operate into NYP, no?

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.

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.

I missed the part where Amtrak has any say in the storage/disposition of these train sets? They are owned (or leased, or whatever it is) by the State of Wisconsin. Amtrak representatives - myself included - were obviously involved in the design process, and would have been instrumental in the matter of "breaking in" and implementing the new trains. But the only reason for this is that Amtrak already holds the contract for the current Hiawatha service, where the trainsets would have been intended to run.

Since the mothballing, Amtrak's involvement has been limited to agreeing to supply the occasional locomotive + crew to the "Talgo facility" in north Milwaukee, in order for the Talgo people to be able to conduct necessary "static" (stand-still) testing of their equipment. I am quite sure that the State had to pay for this, and negotiations with the CP and WSOR railroads were also involved.

No one knows, at this point, what the ultimate disposition will be. Assuming Amtrak had the available space somewhere, could they make an offer to Wisconsin to store the trains (for a fee, of course)? Certainly. But nothing like that has been negotiated as of this point. I would kind of assume that the things will sit still where they are. Talgo still occupies the improved portion of the ex-A.O. Smith property, but in the event that they 100% pull out, I'm sure the city or state will pick up the tab, just because the train sets and the trackage they sit on is already built and there...

The EGE wrote:Lack of third rail shoes means the Talgos wouldn't be able to operate into NYP, no?

How about an engine change at New Haven? I'm assuming the Vermonter does the same thing as I'm pretty sure they don't run with P32s.

Just couple an AEM-7 (ACS-64) to the front.

The Talgos do not include their own locomotive. If Vermont were to use the Talgos for the Vermonter (which is impossible due to platform height issues), they would do as the current Amfleet consist does, I assume an engine change in New Haven from AEM-7, HHP-8 or ACS-64 to P40/42. But it is impossible to use the as-built Talgos for any service through New York Penn Station (the whole NEC really) as they can only board from low platforms, and whether or not Talgo could refit them to high platform, or whether NYP should get a low platform is a discussion for another topic entirely.

Egad, the affection that rail fans have for oddball equipment never ceases to amaze. Talgos in Oklahoma or Vermont? Shades of the TurboTrain on Harley's Hornet to Parkersburg. Though I'm sure the manufacturer would be delighted (there's one born every minute, as P.T. used to say).

The only place using the Talgos makes any sense is the PNW--they already have them, know how to operate them, have the infrastructure to support them, and with the Wisconsin sets would even have spares. That's not true anywhere else. While I'll defer to the professional railroaders on this point, I'm pretty sure it's not just a simple substitution to put Talgos in place of Amfleets or Superliners.

Station Aficionado wrote:Egad, the affection that rail fans have for oddball equipment never ceases to amaze. Talgos in Oklahoma or Vermont? Shades of the TurboTrain on Harley's Hornet to Parkersburg. Though I'm sure the manufacturer would be delighted (there's one born every minute, as P.T. used to say).

Chuckle...I earned that one!

Station Aficionado wrote:The only place using the Talgos makes any sense is the PNW--they already have them, know how to operate them, have the infrastructure to support them, and with the Wisconsin sets would even have spares.

And therein lies the problem. Too much train for not enough tracks/passengers. The Cascades would have to go through some kind of groundbreaking, life-altering transformation for it to make any sense at all for them to pickup two full extra sets. Then again who knows, with the new administration there could be another round of special capital funding for Amtrak. I wouldn't exclude that possibility one bit.

gokeefe wrote: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....

Vermont it will be not. Nor will it be any state that goes near the Northeast Corridor or the infamous New York Penn Station, as Mr. W alluded to. The Talgo's are low-platform only, there is no way for them to receive and discharge passengers at high stations (they'd bump their heads). And the NEC is primarily high-level only stations (and they're trying to get it all high level stations (for Amtrak at least), a la New London). No, short of the Capitol Limited there will be no as-is Talgos east of Chicago.

They don't need third rail shoes, as they are unpowered coaches. An engine change at New Haven or Albany would be necessary for any Vermont service. But what we don't really know (at least I don't know, maybe somebody does) is how these things fit on and around the NEC width wise. Would the sides of these things smash into existing high-level platforms on Metro-North or the NEC? Would they clear Metro-North's or NYP's third rail? (My guesses are no). Plus the passive tilting would be a mess in tunnels and on Metro-North where it is forbidden. Height clearances shouldn't be a problem being low-level and all, the only problem under wire or in tunnels could be that odd arc thing on the baggage cars, but I'm sure that thing could be removed.

But the main problem is the high level platforms. NHV, STM, NRO, NYP, NWK, PHL, WIL, BWI, YNY, CRT, POU, and maybe even ALB (I haven't been there recently) all have high level platforms and have little or no room for the installation of low-level ones for Talgos. (And all these stations are on Vermont service routes).

And putting low-level platforms in Penn Station!? Lets take the most congested, busy, passenger crammed, crowded, over congested, dingiest, and nastiest train station in the country and we're going to bring all these people 4 feet closer to the tracks so they can push and shove for a seat right next to third rail and with trains moving all over the place!? And then make them take narrow clumsy stairs to get onto the train, immensely delaying the boarding process of a station that sees six bagillion departures a minute during rush hour. And the LIRR has 0 low platform capable cars, so they won't be happy about that. And never mind the delays in boarding messing up train operations, the thirce daily train strikings of wanderers or pushees would sure mess Penn's already dismal operational capabilities up for good. And if you make one platform low-level you must make them all low-level alike. You won't be able to get away with making just one platform low-level and making all Talgo's board from there. NYP's flexibility is already equal to that of a 100 year old oak tree's trunk and now if we're adding more conditions of what trains can stop at what platforms we're even more royally screwed in the event of a delay with less ways to work around it.

Sorry if it sounds a bit standoffish (I've had crazy ideas of my own), but Talgos will not see the east coast without major modifications anytime soon. The Pacific Northwest is where they belong, as Mr. Aficionado said.

EricL wrote: I missed the part where Amtrak has any say in the storage/disposition of these train sets? They are owned (or leased, or whatever it is) by the State of Wisconsin.

I wouldn't put it past Amtrak to steal them!

Station Aficionado wrote: The only place using the Talgos makes any sense is the PNW--they already have them, know how to operate them, have the infrastructure to support them, and with the Wisconsin sets would even have spares. That's not true anywhere else.

The PNW didn't have them before they did have them. You've gotta start somewhere - who's to say another region couldn't start with a couple of Talgo sets as the Cascades service did? I know Amtrak doesn't have much vision beyond boxes on wheels, and would probably like every state to use Amfleet/Horizon/Superliner type equipment, but thankfully some of the states do have more ambition than that. Invest in better, more modern equipment, and it makes for a more popular service in the long run.

How bout we go through the list of Corridor Services and see if we can find a home for them:

Corridor Service Routes

• Amtrak Cascades already has them
• Blue Water maybe? (do the bi-level cars on order include the Michigan services, if not this could be a home)
• Carl Sandburg bi-level cars on order
• Downeaster perhaps, but they're doing good with what they have
• Empire Service NO (NEC)
• Heartland Flyer Maybe, as discussed
• Illini bi-level cars on order
• Illinois Zephyr bi-level cars on order
• Lincoln Service bi-level cars on order
• Missouri River Runner bi-level cars on order
• Northeast Regional NO (NEC)
• Pere Marquette maybe? (do the bi-level cars on order include the Michigan services, if not this could be a home)
• Piedmont maybe...NC's been pretty expeditionary on the rail frontier, but they already have their own equipment that suits them, even though it is kinda aging. This could be a possibility if high-level platforms isn't an issue
• Saluki bi-level cars on order
• San Joaquins bi-level cars on order
• Shuttle NO (NEC)
• Wolverine maybe? (do the bi-level cars on order include the Michigan services, if not this could be a home)
• Acela Express NO
• Capitol Corridor bi-level cars on order
• Hiawatha Service they don't want them!
• Keystone Service NO (NEC) though could be nice if it wasn't for PHL
• Pacific Surfliner bi-level cars on order

So we're down to the Michigan Services (maybe), the Downeaster, the Heartland Flyer, or the Piedmont. Which of those is the best candidate? Who knows.

lirr42 wrote:Sorry if it sounds a bit standoffish (I've had crazy ideas of my own), but Talgos will not see the east coast without major modifications anytime soon. The Pacific Northwest is where they belong, as Mr. Aficionado said.

No problem. That was my stupid fault for even mentioning it. Completely forgot about the height issue.

The New Haven RR's Talgo train did use the high level platforms and 3rd rail in Grand Central, but it was built with that in mind.

lirr42 wrote:So we're down to the Michigan Services (maybe), the Downeaster, the Heartland Flyer, or the Piedmont. Which of those is the best candidate? Who knows.

The Downeaster is definitely out. Boston North Station has high level platforms and the rest of the Downeaster stations have mini-high platforms or full length platforms (Brunswick!).

What if these Talgos were split up and used to lengthen the Cascades sets? How often do Cascades trains sell out?

lirr42 wrote:So we're down to the Michigan Services (maybe), the Downeaster, the Heartland Flyer, or the Piedmont. Which of those is the best candidate? Who knows.

Here's an idea...let's take a vote of the Railroad.net community. Click here to vote on where the Talgo's should go in a quick poll I created. It would mean absolutely nothing, merely add a little side-track to this rough thread.

lirr42 wrote:

lirr42 wrote:So we're down to the Michigan Services (maybe), the Downeaster, the Heartland Flyer, or the Piedmont. Which of those is the best candidate? Who knows.

Here's an idea...let's take a vote of the Railroad.net community. Click here to vote on where the Talgo's should go in a quick poll I created. It would mean absolutely nothing, merely add a little side-track to this rough thread.

Nice touch! That's a first.