Wisconsin Talgos Disposition - MI and now Pacific Surfliner

[mtuandrew]

Yep, we talked about the NLX up-thread a bit. You could make a pretty good case for splitting the two 14-car Talgo sets into three 9-car sets plus a spare car if MN were to grab them, since that would probably suffice for capacity at first.

Then again, Northern Lights Express would be fine to operate at 90/110 with MP36s and Bombardier BiLevels. They aren't as shiny-new as Talgos, but I'd almost rather MSP-DUL be operated by BNSF with MP36/Bombs under an expanded contract (they already operate Northstar commuter rail for the Metropolitan Council.)

[electricron]

Yep, we talked about the NLX up-thread a bit. You could make a pretty good case for splitting the two 14-car Talgo sets into three 9-car sets plus a spare car if MN were to grab them, since that would probably suffice for capacity at first.

Then again, Northern Lights Express would be fine to operate at 90/110 with MP36s and Bombardier BiLevels. They aren't as shiny-new as Talgos, but I'd almost rather MSP-DUL be operated by BNSF with MP36/Bombs under an expanded contract (they already operate Northstar commuter rail for the Metropolitan Council.)

Does MPI still make MP-36s? A new service will have to meet the new EPA Tier 4 specifications now. I was thinking Minnesota was going to use Amtrak options to buy new Charger locomotives, and Amtrak options to buy new Superliner 3s. Who knows what the ultimate status of the Superliner 3s is going to be? Leasing Talgos should be cheaper than buying anything new.
While buying Bombardier BiLevels is a possibility, and make sense from a fleet compatibilty point of view, I don't think they make a good intercity railcar from a passenger comfort point of view.

Does Minnesota want a regional intercity train or a extended commuter train towards Duluth? Who's going to run this train, Amtrak or BNSF? I doubt Amtrak would want to run Bombardier BiLevels anywhere. The Northern lights rail corridor is going to be 155 miles long, probably taking 3 to 4 hours per trip. Amtrak's ex-North Star train schedule reads around 3.5 hours. To it's going to cost a lot more money upgrading the tracks to run faster than 79 mph. The Bombardier BiLevels will need better seats on the Northern Lights Express than they have on the Northstar trains. The Talgo sets already have comfortable seats.

[mtuandrew]

Does MPI still make MP-36s? A new service will have to meet the new EPA Tier 4 specifications now.
I was thinking Minnesota was going to use Amtrak options to buy new Charger locomotives, and Amtrak options to buy new Superliner 3s. Who knows what the ultimate status of the Superliner 3s is going to be? Leasing Talgos should be cheaper than buying anything new.
While buying Bombardier BiLevels is a possibility, and make sense from a fleet compatibilty point of view, I don't think they make a good intercity railcar from a passenger comfort point of view. Does Minnesota want a regional intercity train or a extended commuter train towards Duluth? The Northern lights rail corridor is going to be 155 miles long, probably taking 3 to 4 hours per trip. The Bombardier BiLevels will need better seats on the Northern Lights Express than they have on the Northstar trains. The Talgo sets already have comfortable seats.

MPI doesn't make MP36s or MP40s anymore - I'd been thinking of the used market. They only make the HSP-46 and the MP54 (the dual-genset thing), if Minnesota decided to go that direction.

As far as I know, MN never signed onto the Midwest order since we didn't have Regional service at the ready-to-build stage. That may have changed since I moved away, but I don't think so. As for the seating, once you start either building new coaches or refurbishing old ones, it seems a minor issue to use different seats and spec a longer seat pitch. I mentioned to Tadman up-thread that I didn't feel that Northern Lights Express needed the Talgo's cornering ability like MSP-CHI does, and the longer platform length needed as compared to bilevels makes it that much less worthwhile to me. (And yup, the schedule will probably be at least 3 hours - the fastest of the GN-NP-Soo pool service was about 3 1/2 in the early 1960s, and there was never the intense competition on that route like there was MSP-CHI.)

Don't get me wrong, I think a 9- or 10-car Talgo train would give good service on the MSP-DUL run, but I don't think they'll show up there except maybe as a demonstration train.

[electricron]

As far as I know, MN never signed onto the Midwest order since we didn't have Regional service at the ready-to-build stage. That may have changed since I moved away, but I don't think so. As for the seating, once you start either building new coaches or refurbishing old ones, it seems a minor issue to use different seats and spec a longer seat pitch. I mentioned to Tadman up-thread that I didn't feel that Northern Lights Express needed the Talgo's cornering ability like MSP-CHI does, and the longer platform length needed as compared to bilevels makes it that much less worthwhile to me. (And yup, the schedule will probably be at least 3 hours - the fastest of the GN-NP-Soo pool service was about 3 1/2 in the early 1960s, and there was never the intense competition on that route like there was MSP-CHI.)
Don't get me wrong, I think a 9- or 10-car Talgo train would give good service on the MSP-DUL run, but I don't think they'll show up there except maybe as a demonstration train.

Let's face some realities. Whatever Minnesota buys or leases for the future Northern Lights Express train, it'll have to meet "Built In America" standard because Minnesota is looking at receiving at least a 50% share of capital improvements from the FTA. With the present US Presdient, I don't expect the FTA to waive that requirement.
So which manufacturer based in the USA is making new double level passenger cars?
Nippon Sharyo has two models, whose Superliner 3 line is compatible with low platforms has had very serious problems and whose Galley cars will require high platforms for ADA level boarding.
Bombardier has two models, their Multilevel cars will also require high platforms, their BiLevels are compatible with low platforms but they aren't built in the USA.
Kawasaki cars also require high platforms.
Rotem cars are compatible with low platforms and have recently completed cars for both Metrolink and TriRail. Built in Korea but assembled in California, I have no idea if they meet Built In America requirements?
And the last manufacture I'm aware of building double deck railcars in America is Stadler Rail, but those cars are within a set of EMUs. I don't think Minnesota is planning on hanging electric wires above BNSF tracks.

The second hand double deck passenger cars isn't that large a market. The only commuter rail agency I'm aware of wishing to retire any soon in good condition and not completely worn out will be Caltrain. Metra and Metrolink retirees will be completely worn out. Old Bombardier BiLevels weren't made from stainless steel, those you might find second hand will probably be rust buckets.
Ancient ex-Santa Fe Hi-Levels are available that were made of stainless steel, but they will need a thorough refurbishment to make them like new. These will probably be the cheapest double deck second hand rail cars available. Who knows how much it will cost to make them like new?

Which could make those cream-puff Talgos attractive. Especially considering they're planning to place the maintenance facilities for the Northern Lights Express train in Duluth or nearby Sandstone. They could easily contract with Talgo to run it.

[Suburban Station]

Using them as Coast Daylight trains on the tracks used by the Coast Starlight is a possibility, assuming California wished to expand this service along this route. Changing a car or two into Business Class would have to be done, and converting a coach or two into an all table car would have to be considered. If all the seats had drop down tables having an all table cars wouldn't be required.
But the Starlight schedule might have to be changed to run evenings between San Jose and Los Angeles in both directions, or it would be running at the same time as the Daylights. Additionally, I would recommend running the Daylights into San Francisco vs Oakland. Maybe Talgo could set up shop somewhere in San Francisco to maintain them, away from Amtrak's facilities in Oakland and Los Angeles - which could still be used to maintain the locomotives. As is, low platforms exist all along the route that the Talgo cars should have no problems with.
The existing Starlight schedules:
Northbound departs L.A. at 1010 AM, arrives Oakland at 9:24 PM
Southbound departs Oakland 8:35 AM at arrives L.A. at 9:00 PM (with probably a full hour of padding at L.A.)
So the Starlight requires 11.5 hours to travel between the Bay Area and L.A. using slower Superliner trains. Who knows how much time could be saved with Talgo trains? It might be possible 60 to 90 minutes could be saved? A study would be worth the time and costs to find out. But the existing Starlight schedule times would be the prime times for a future Daylight. And that's the problem I have with your suggestion, the Starlight schedule would have to be changed, and that would effect Cascades train schedule further north as well.

two trains are typically better than one even if it means moving one. the long length of the schedule on the starlight might make it suitable to run overnight. ..an overnight run between san jose and LA would make the starlight an evening departure and morning arrival at its endpoints

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

New service doesn't have to meet Tier 4...just new-purchase locos, along with a littany of fine print about which emissions tier rebuilds & upgrades have to meet. SEMCOG commuter rail in Detroit isn't even supposed to start for another 4 years, but they already have an equipment lease on an F59PH fleet and some indestructible ex-Metra 50-year-old Budd gallery cars rebuilt for the nth time. ADA compliance is of course a requirement out the gate for new service, but emissions aren't going to register when talking common-carrier rails that are already unrestricted for any type of diesel-particulate freight belchers.


MPI has thus far been unable to come up with Tier 4 versions of the MP36PH or MP40PH, so they are not available for sale at the moment. Those makes use lightly updated second-source reproductions of the venerable 16-cylinder EMD 645 (of F40PH, GP40, SD40 fame...debuted 1965) and 12-cylinder EMD 710 (F59PH/PHI...debuted 1984) prime movers. So far the highest emissions rating anyone's ever been able to push a '645 is Tier 2 for the newest MP36's and certain recent rebuilds of old EMD product, and the highest for the '710 @ Tier 3 on the MP40 and some fresh F59PHI rebuilds. It's simply approaching the outer technical limits of such old engine tech to reach Tier 4 without losing ground to performance compromises. The MPXpress is further hampered because it's already maxed out at 290,000 lbs. and has no wiggle room to add any emissions control bulk exterior to the prime mover as a helper to get the engine over the top. It did not help, either, that the MPXpress team was raided to help bail out the HSP-46 when it was running very late in design and risking contract penalties for tardiness...so their legacy platform has gotten no further R&D in the last several years on how to get around that limitation. The MP54AC was a hack to replace the old EMD-derivative single prime movers with twin Cummins gensets to hit Tier 4 and upgrade the power rating while staying at the same weight in the same MPXpress packaging. And they whipped it up on-the-quick when GO Transit came calling asking for more horsepower than an MP40. They ended up being...very briefly...first-to-market with a Tier 4 because they did it quick. Since gensets are anathema to most commuter rail operators MPI got very lucky that GO--for reasons hard to fathom--went so enthusiastically that route and plunked down for a large order. It's not a product that's got much future potential beyond GO maxing out its order and converting more of its MP40's to 54 spec. Nearly all other operators don't want to mix single-engine and genset fleets when there's no ironclad reason (i.e. dual-mode capability) to do so, and now that competition like Siemens has conventional prime-mover Tier 4 product available in mass production at falling price point there's no compelling reason to even look at the 54AC in an RFI let alone for a final bidding.

[electricron]

two trains are typically better than one even if it means moving one. the long length of the schedule on the starlight might make it suitable to run overnight. ..an overnight run between san jose and LA would make the starlight an evening departure and morning arrival at its endpoints

I'm not going to disagree. But changing the Starlight's schedule times in California is going to affect its schedule in Oregon and Washington as well. Which might cause other train schedules to be changed.

[gokeefe]

Which could make those cream-puff Talgos attractive. Especially considering they're planning to place the maintenance facilities for the Northern Lights Express train in Duluth or nearby Sandstone. They could easily contract with Talgo to run it.

Very well said.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

Let's face some realities. Whatever Minnesota buys or leases for the future Northern Lights Express train, it'll have to meet "Built In America" standard because Minnesota is looking at receiving at least a 50% share of capital improvements from the FTA. With the present US Presdient, I don't expect the FTA to waive that requirement.
So which manufacturer based in the USA is making new double level passenger cars?

Nippon Sharyo has two models, whose Superliner 3 line is compatible with low platforms has had very serious problems and whose Galley cars will require high platforms for ADA level boarding.
Bombardier has two models, their Multilevel cars will also require high platforms, their BiLevels are compatible with low platforms but they aren't built in the USA.
Kawasaki cars also require high platforms.
Rotem cars are compatible with low platforms and have recently completed cars for both Metrolink and TriRail. Built in Korea but assembled in California, I have no idea if they meet Built In America requirements?
And the last manufacture I'm aware of building double deck railcars in America is Stadler Rail, but those cars are within a set of EMUs. I don't think Minnesota is planning on hanging electric wires above BNSF tracks.

The second hand double deck passenger cars isn't that large a market. The only commuter rail agency I'm aware of wishing to retire any soon in good condition and not completely worn out will be Caltrain. Metra and Metrolink retirees will be completely worn out. Old Bombardier BiLevels weren't made from stainless steel, those you might find second hand will probably be rust buckets.
Ancient ex-Santa Fe Hi-Levels are available that were made of stainless steel, but they will need a thorough refurbishment to make them like new. These will probably be the cheapest double deck second hand rail cars available. Who knows how much it will cost to make them like new?

Which could make those cream-puff Talgos attractive. Especially considering they're planning to place the maintenance facilities for the Northern Lights Express train in Duluth or nearby Sandstone. They could easily contract with Talgo to run it.

The same entirely-foreign companies always have the capability of U.S. assembly satisfying "Buy America" provisions can bid...i.e. all of them. Everyone big enough to mass-produce passenger stock at a price point that'll gain any consideration on someone's RFP already has had that problem licked. There aren't a lot of very small builders like the Brookvilles of the world who can compete at all with the big boys at producing RR coaches, because nobody's ordering them only 5 at a time like a Brookville produces locomotive or trolley orders. Small builders never bid on coach contracts because the manufacturing scale of those orders so overwhelmingly favors the behemoths who can mass-produce large quantities of a coach make...and anyone that size already has the means of mobilizing for "Buy America". Bombardier, Kawasaki, Siemens, Alstom, CAF, Nippon-Sharyo, Hyundai Rotem, CRRC, Hitachi (ex-AnsaldoBreda), Stadler, Talgo, Kinki Sharyo, and on and on: if they're big enough to be a behemoth on one continent, they're big enough to play "Buy America" on this continent. Even the ones trying to crack the U.S. for the first time...because they're still behemoths in the world market.

Now, "Buy [some state]" at the state level can be trickier, but none of the big boys (well....except Rotem) have any problems quickly popping up an assembly local factory to satisfy those extra political hoops as the price of doing business. And that's much more a thing in New York, NJ/PA, New England, California, and Chicagoland where all rolling stock orders are big by nature rather than in any passenger rail-poorish state like Minnesota.


Bombardier BLV is still the best-selling passenger coach in North America in active new production and rebuild production. At the rate some of the oldest ones are still to this day being actively rebuilt, they sure aren't aging like rustbuckets...no more than some of the best-built and best taken care-of aluminum Comet flats in the east have acted their chronological age. That simply hasn't been borne out by any factual evidence in the supply chain, where aftermarket BLV's are a present-day hot commodity being furiously swapped...not scrapped. And in addition to the massive ongoing GO Transit order, Sounder has 9 new-manufacture cab cars from the latest "BLV VIII" design generation on-order for delivery later this year to facilitate adding more trains to its schedule. With SunRail's purchase of the last batch of pre-redesign "BLV VII" coaches being only 3 years old. With Rotem leaving skidmarks with its BLV clones just like they did with their East Coast Kawasaki clones, Bombardier is still in 2017 the undisputed king of 8-inch boarding territory for any commuter rail operator with stated preference for the fully enclosed bi-level floorplan over the open gallery car setup. BLV vs. gallery layout is enough of a philosophical decision that those vehicle types don't compete directly head-to-head at most operators, even though they do at some (e.g. Caltrain). So far nobody's been able to beat the king in that segment, though certainly many a future challenger will step up where Rotem utterly failed at direct-cloning and N-S appears to be failing at fresh closed-floorplan 8-inch/bi design.

[electricron]

No one runs Bombardier BLVs 155 miles on a run anywhere. Changes will be needed for passenger comfort, and I'll agree seats are easily interchangeable.
All the Bombardier BLVs are built in Thunder Bay, which is probably closer to Duluth than any other manufacturing railcar plant. No one has bought Bombardier BLVs using FTA funding that I'm aware of, are you aware of any?

If Minnesota was funding this train inclusively, they could buy any railcar from anyone. And yes, Bombardier could open a plant in the USA for making trains for Minnesota. But I don't see them doing so for the BLVs, because they haven't done so for anyone else.

[mtuandrew]

Far as I'm concerned, Bombardier could build all the components and ship them (via CN, naturally) to International Falls to be bolted together. Then again, I'm not picky what kind of rolling stock Northern Lights Express uses, whether it's Talgo, BLV, Superliner, gallery, Comet/Horizons... as long as it runs.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

No one runs Bombardier BLVs 155 miles on a run anywhere. Changes will be needed for passenger comfort, and I'll agree seats are easily interchangeable.
All the Bombardier BLVs are built in Thunder Bay, which is probably closer to Duluth than any other manufacturing railcar plant. No one has bought Bombardier BLVs using FTA funding that I'm aware of, are you aware of any?

If Minnesota was funding this train inclusively, they could buy any railcar from anyone. And yes, Bombardier could open a plant in the USA for making trains for Minnesota. But I don't see them doing so for the BLVs, because they haven't done so for anyone else.

Here's the complete list of New Starts grant awards: https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/gra ... g-projects" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Associated "Buy America" rolling stock purchases cover many more modes than just commuter rail, and CR is an artificially limiting comparison because the only CR project with an active match-funding award on the FTA list that is making a directly/indirectly related rolling stock purchase just so happens to be one of those time separation DMU jobs running non- FRA-compliant stock. But the FTA requirements don't discriminate by mode; there are plenty of BRT, LRT, HRT, and mainline rail projects getting New Starts awards under the same "Buy America" provisions. So lets have a look at what these lucky duckies are ordering.

-- MBTA Green Line extension: 24 CAF Type 9 LRV's + 30 options.
-- TEX Rail: 8 Stadler FLIRT3 DMU's.
-- Portland MAX Yellow Line extension: Siemens S70 LRV's (delivered).
-- LYNX Blue Line extension: 22 Siemens S70 LRV's.
-- Denver FasTracks (Phase 2, 2017-19 extensions): 66 Hyundai-Rotem Silverliner V's (delivered).
-- MUNI Third St. line & Central Subway: 260 Siemens S200 LRV's
-- Valley Metro NW + SW extensions: 11 Siemens S70 LRV's.
-- LA Purple Line extension: CRRC heavy rail cars.
-- BART San Jose/Santa Clara: fleet expansion rolled into ongoing 775-car Bombardier fleet replacement contract.
-- Sound Transit Central Link & Tacoma Link extensions: 122 Siemens S70 LRV's.
-- LA Regional Corridor Connector: n/a...interlining of existing services.
-- San Diego Trolley Mid-Coast Corridor: n/a...no fleet expansion required (most recent purchase: Siemens S70, 2012).
-- NICTD West Lake branch of the South Shore line: TBD...too early to advertise procurement (most recent purchase: Nippon Sharyo bi-level EMU's, 2009).
-- GoTriangle Durham-Orange light rail: TBD...too early to advertise procurement (new system)


Yep...nuthin' but the usual suspects big-boy global manufacturers. There is absolutely nothing that makes Duluth unique as a snowflake for "Buy America" when the same FTA match-funding regs impose no such burdens on any other projects. They all go through the same artificial "Buy America" gymnastics, and the same foreign conglomerates with the global scale to effortlessly set up assembly plants in the U.S. end up winning those gymnastics. Yes, N. Lights has an added requirement to consider in the seating livery for comfort vs. distance traveled. No...that absolutely does not change the game for them radically and completely on who can bid and how wide a net the law allows them to cast. Witness:




If intercity seating can be done with an aftermarket-conversion-twice-removed NJT Comarrow originally built in 1968, why can't it be done to an aftermarket BLV I/I/III/IV manufactured between '76-94? No reason whatsoever. They may ultimately buy new, they may ultimately buy to refurb...but you can be damn sure when it's time to RFI/RFP for rolling stock they (and any startup in the same situation) will fully benchmark the refurb costs to see if new vs. refurb is the best value. It would be silly not to and absolutely nothing FTA strings-attached limits them in any way from giving those options a full workup. There is no special constriction here...none whatsoever.

[Woody]

While the two ex-HiawathaTalgo train sets could be used on the Cascades service, they would have to be modified because Wisconsin didn't order any business class cars, any Bristol cars, or any all table (dining) cars. Wisconsin only ordered coach and baggage (service) cars. As is, they aren't acceptable for Cascades service.

Wonder if it would be cheaper to just build those cars in addition and add them to The Hiawatha cars?

Who's gonna pay for this handful of cars to fill out the two trainsets? If it's federal funds involved, then you get the "Buy America" requirements.

If it's California's own dime, can't they buy imported cars? I'm sure CAF could have the needed cars for Surfliner use or Golden State revival (or Seattle-Spokane, or whatever) on the next boat out of Barcelona with no problem.

[Woody]

Nah, I don't see Amtrak substantially shifting the Starlight schedule to accommodate a Talgo Daylight. ... [but] ...a Coast Daylight could leave SFO at 7-8am and arrive LAX 3-6 pm, and not poach the Starlight's ridership because they serve different markets. (That's true of any train, Talgo or no.)

A two or three hour difference when they ran would be better than just an hour, imho.

Nobody should mess with the Starlight's current schedule. It's almost perfect, hinging at Sacramento to run thru near-empty Northern California and southern Oregon at night both directions, while south of Sacramento it runs daylight both ways.

California's planners have firmly declared that another frequency L.A.-Santa Barbara-San Luis Obispo is a priority. And they are posting studies on the Net about extending one of those Surfliners on up to San Jose and either S.F. or Oakland.

In that case, the second southbound frequency only needs to arrive 2 or 3 hours earlier in L.A. than the Starlight, to make a huge impact. The current 9 p.m. scheduled arrival in L.A. allows a connection to a 10:10 p.m. departure that arrives in San Diego after 1 a.m. Obviously, an L.A. arrival at 6 or 7 p.m would allow a connection arriving in San Diego before 11 p.m.

Talk about serving different markets! The 2 or 3 hours would add the San Diego metro (~3 million population) to the coastal service, either the Starlight or the California train on the same route.

[R36 Combine Coach]

Far as I'm concerned, Bombardier could build all the components and ship them (via CN, naturally) to International Falls to be bolted together. Then again, I'm not picky what kind of rolling stock Northern Lights Express uses, as long as it runs.

More than likely Plattsburgh. Aluminum bilevel kit shells from Thunder Bay have been assembled here.