SPEEDING UP THE TRAINS. The Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act includes substantial moneys for safety improvements and provision for the equipment to permit faster running by Amtrak.

Modern, comfortable, double-deck trains with wide seats and large windows would churn along at top speeds of 110 m.p.h. The faster trains would shave hours off trips, delivering passengers from one downtown to another hundreds of miles away.

Amtrak trains in most of the Midwest now operate at up to 79 m.p.h., although average speeds are much slower, especially around Chicago due to freight traffic.

Driving, which results in more than 40,000 fatalities a year, would take a back seat as a transportation choice, proponents say.

So, too, would air travel as consumers factor in the time it takes to go through airport security, the hassle of flying and the time spent traveling from outlying airports.

Travel times of almost 51/2 hours on Amtrak's route between Chicago and St. Louis would be cut to 3 hours and 49 minutes on a high-speed train, according to preliminary estimates.

In the past year, more than 501,000 rides were taken on Amtrak's Lincoln Service route between Chicago and St. Louis, a 284-mile trip, a 15 percent increase over the previous year. Some 1.2 million rides a year would be taken when the route is served by high-speed trains, according projections by the Illinois Department of Transportation.

In addition to the congressional action, the Federal Railroad Administration last week approved grants to Illinois to install train-control and cab-signaling systems on part of the route to facilitate high-speed trains.

A high-speed rail line between Chicago and the Twin Cities could be running within five years, according to U.S. Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), chairman of the House Transportation Committee. The roughly eight-hour trip on Amtrak from Chicago to St. Paul would be cut to about 51/2 hours under the working proposal.

Planners envision the line running from Chicago up through Milwaukee, Madison, the Twin Cities and eventually Duluth, while separate routes from Chicago would extend east to Detroit, Cleveland and Cincinnati.

It's apparent there would be a strong market. Even today, with slow service and a poor on-time performance record, Amtrak finished fiscal 2008 last week with its sixth straight year of ridership growth.

I've provided an image of a traditional bi-level streamlined train capable of 90 mph operation. The news article has a graphic giving the anticipated travel times after the upgrade. It has no historical context. I've augmented that graphic's presentation of current and proposed running times with best running times from my April 1951 Official Guide. From Chicago to

1. St. Louis (110 mph line) 5:20 current, 3:49 proposed; 5:10 in 1951. Some of the track on this line is good for 110 and the alley tracks through Springfield have been improved. I'll be nice and not mention an electric air line proposal from the early 1900s for this route.
2. Milwaukee (110 mph) 1:29 present, 1:04 proposed; 1:15. Regular readers know where I stand on this service. That accelerated timing is four minutes slower than a Milwaukee Road proposal in 1938, using streamlined 4-6-4s, that was shelved under an agreement with the Chicago and North Western, a competing carrier that could match a 75 minute timing but could not manage a 60 minute timing.
3. Detroit (110 mph) 5:36 current, 3:46 proposed; 5:10. There's some 100 mph track in western Michigan already. There is more potential on this line at some of the intermediate stops, including Dearborn and Birmingham for business travelers and Ann Arbor and Kalamazoo for student traffic than there is in Detroit itself.
4. Cleveland (110 mph) 6:24 current, 4:22 proposed; 5:47. The map suggests a routing along the old New York Central, which calls at South Bend and Toledo and some small cities.
5. Cincinnati (110 mph) 8:10 current (triweekly), 4:08 proposed; 5:30 using the New York Central's route via Indianapolis.
6. Carbondale (90 mph) 5:30 current, 4:22 proposed; 4:32. The Illinois Central used to run extra sections of trains at college breaks, on a 100 mph railroad. Corporate downsizing included removing the safety appliances and much of the second main track.
7. Omaha (79 mph) 8:37 current, 7:02 proposed; 8:57 using the proposed Rocky Mountain Rocket via Des Moines, the Denver Zephyr made it in 7:30 on the current Amtrak route, and the Midwest Hiawatha took 8:30 on trackage that has since been torn out. The Des Moines route is more thickly settled. It requires work.
8. St. Paul (110 mph) 8:05 current, 5:31 proposed; 6:15 on the Afternoon Hiawatha or the Morning Zephyr. The high-speed plan includes a Watertown-Madison-Portage diversion from the current route. Will there be a European-style reversal of direction in Madison, or will the station be somewhere on the east side of town, remote from the university and the capitol?

I'm enthusiastic about this proposal, although I'll believe it when I see it implemented.

YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK. Wisconsin governor Jim Doyle would like to use federal infrastructure money for improved passenger train service.

State officials are seeking federal stimulus money to pay the full $519 million cost of a proposed 110-mph Milwaukee-to-Madison passenger train line, not just part of it, Gov. Jim Doyle says.

If the grant is approved, trains could be running as soon as late 2012 or early 2013, cutting the travel time between Wisconsin's two largest cities to 1 hour, 7 minutes, officials say. That's about 20 minutes faster than the same trip by automobile, depending on traffic.

Service would start with six daily round trips, connecting Milwaukee's downtown Amtrak-Greyhound station with a new station at Madison's Dane County Regional Airport, with additional stops in Brookfield, Oconomowoc and Watertown.

At the same time, service on Amtrak's Milwaukee-to-Chicago Hiawatha line would increase from the current seven daily round trips to 10, with all of the Madison-to-Milwaukee trains continuing to Chicago. If Chicago wins its bid for the 2016 Olympics, the trains would provide a link between the main Olympic sites and the cycling venues in Madison.

But even without the Olympics, authorities expect the Milwaukee-to-Madison trains to carry 1.08 million riders a year within a couple years after service starts, said Randy Wade, the state's passenger rail chief. Hiawatha ridership jumped 24% last year, to 766,167.

That traffic forecast strikes me as wishful thinking. There's a lot more potential on the existing line, and the airport station offers south siders a 75 minute trip to the Loop as well as a convenient airport for residents of the northern suburbs of Chicago. Perhaps a more realistic forecast (maybe even one that would be exceeded by events) would help make the case for additional projects, and there are additional items on the wish list, including 110 mph operation on the C&M and through trains to the Cities and Green Bay.

Upgrading the Wisconsin portion of the current Hiawatha route to 110-mph service would cost $419 million, serving the existing stations downtown, at Mitchell International Airport and in Sturtevant and Glenview, Ill. Once that's done, service would jump to 17 round trips daily, with seven trains continuing to Green Bay and 10 continuing to Madison, with six of the Madison-bound trains continuing to St. Paul.

There's also an intriguing proposal for a freight bypass.

Previously, the state had planned to apply for $137 million to upgrade tracks on just a portion of the route, from Milwaukee to Watertown, and to build a freight rail bypass to improve passenger service on the Hiawatha line.

But that was when state officials thought the stimulus bill would include a little more than $1 billion for high-speed rail. After they saw that figure had soared to $8 billion in the final deal, they set their sights higher.

With so much money available from the federal government, Doyle said, Wisconsin has a good chance of getting money to upgrade tracks all the way to Madison. Stimulus money also may be available for preliminary work on the next stage of the line, which would go to St. Paul.

I'm going to want to talk about that "stimulus" line in a future post (this week, I'm in grading jail) as permanent improvements ought be viewed differently from fiscal stimulus. For the moment, that freight bypass intrigues. There once was a relief line from Brookfield that passed the fairgrounds and the stadium before entering the Menomonee Valley, and the freight bypass from the Valley to Florida Street is in place. There's a connection to the old North Western at Washington Street, and a freight-only line from St. Francis to Bensenville. Freights off the old Milwaukee get on that freight line south of Northbrook. I wonder if the plan is for something else.

The article includes a disclaimer.

Technically, the Midwestern trains wouldn't meet the international standard for high-speed rail, which is closer to 220 mph, well above even the 150 mph top speed of America's fastest train, Amtrak's Acela line in the northeast, said Rick Harnish, executive director of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association. Leaders of the Midwestern effort have said 110 mph service would be more affordable than true high-speed rail.

It's also doable with the current infrastructure, and a train service that included a few additional stops (Gurnee for Great America, Rondout for transfers to the suburban trains) would not be able to exploit 150 or 200 mph capabilities anyway. A 62 minute timing with stops at Airport, Sturtevant, Gurnee, Rondout and Glenview and 110 mph maximum speeds is feasible, at least on my computer.

PASSENGER RAIL PROGRESS.

In March, we noted a plan for privately-operated passenger trains in Florida.  My assessment at the time noted, "the freight railroads would like to have the kind of control over scheduling and reliability that comes from common mechanical standards, dispatching, and scheduling."  That's evident from the All Aboard Florida filing with the Surface Transportation Board, as reported in Trains.

The passenger train operator will rebuild a second track along the Florida East Coast Railway between Miami and Cocoa, Fla., and build entirely new track on right-of-way leased from the Florida Department of Transportation and Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority. This would place about 40 miles of new rail line alongside or in the median of state Route 528, which runs between Cocoa and the Orlando airport and is operated by the OOCEA.

All Aboard Florida will not seek public operating subsidies for the project, but is exploring the possibility of obtaining construction financing through the Federal Railroad Administration's Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program. Through the program the railroad can apply for direct loans and loan guarantees through the FRA.

The filing stipulates the new passenger service will not be a part of the interstate passenger rail network and should be exempt from federal oversight. All Aboard Florida will not participate in any through ticketing program with Amtrak. It also says no freight service will be operated by All Aboard Florida, or over the new right-of-way to Orlando. It does say that, for flexibility in operations, FEC dispatchers will have the option of using either track on the shared right-of-way for freight and passenger traffic.

It's intriguing that the operator wants to be freed of Congressional meddling with Amtrak, which is the cynic's interpretation of "exempt from federal oversight."  The stipulation that the new trackage will be Passenger Service Only likely calms fears at the CSX Railroad of freight competition.  The absence of joint ticketing, or any mention of connectivity, troubles me.  The value of a Passenger Rail network is in being able to make connections.  Admittedly, Amtrak's Florida service is a pale shadow of what Seaboard Coast Line operated almost up to 30 April 1971, and the Miami to Orlando service has more promise as a boat train connecting cruise ship passengers to the theme parks and Grapefruit League stadia.

In Illinois, passenger trains are again rolling at 110 mph.

The demonstration included a 15-mile segment of 110 mph running between Dwight and Pontiac, Ill., for Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Federal Railroad Administrator Joe Szabo, Amtrak Chairman Tom Carper, and a host of local politicians and reporters.

Heritage-painted GE P42 No. 66 led the special train out of Chicago to Normal, Ill., along with Amtrak No. 63. Both units are equipped with the Incremental Train Control System already used on Amtrak’s 110 mph Michigan Line trackage between Porter, Ind., and Kalamazoo, Mich., as well as UP’s cab signals. This is the first installation that joins ITCS’s ability to verify that quad-gate highway crossings are clear and operational with the UP cab signal system. Although higher speeds up to 150 mph are routinely attained on the grade-separated Northeast Corridor, the cab signal-ITCS combination launched in Illinois fulfills the requirements of positive train control in highway grade crossing territory.

The test run offered the public officials a chance to do what comes naturally.

At Normal, while the politicians were giving speeches, the diesels ran around the train on a passing track and coupled up to [Amtrak official car] Beech Grove for the trip back to Chicago.

Too bad the train doesn't cut as attractive a figure at 110 mph as the Nebraska Zephyr would.

The Associated Press reporting on the Illinois test run does nothing to counter the suspicion that mainstream journalists are Democratic operatives masquerading as journalists.

In a modest milestone for President Barack Obama's high-speed rail vision, test runs will start zooming along a small section of the Amtrak line between Chicago and St. Louis at 110 mph Friday.

The 30-mph increase from the route's current top speed is a morale booster for advocates of high-speed rail in America who have watched conservatives in Congress put the brakes on spending for fast train projects they view as expensive boondoggles. But some rail experts question whether the route will become profitable, pose serious competition to air and automobile travel, or ever reach speeds comparable to the bullet trains blasting across Europe and Asia at 150 mph and faster.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Gov. Pat Quinn are scheduled to be on board when an Amtrak train hits 110 mph for the first time in Illinois. But it will only maintain that speed for a short time, somewhere along the 15 miles between Dwight and Pontiac, before braking back to more normal speeds.

Governor Quinn has publicly hailed the 110 mph speed (a Global Positioning System speed estimate hit 111; that's likely an approximation error) as a first "outside the Northeast." In the Amtrak era, that's true, although the Pioneer Zephyr's dawn-to-dusk run included some Illinois mileage at 112; the 1935 Hiawatha test train maintained 112.5 for several miles across the Wisconsin sand country, and speeds in that range were routine for the 75 Minute Trains between Milwaukee and Chicago until 1950.  Let the younger generations enjoy the higher speeds, as they've had no previous experience of them.

There's also enough repaired and renovated rolling stock on hand to provide Thanksgiving relief trains on the Michigan corridor.

One round trip, Nos. 356 and 359, will make a same-day turn at Ann Arbor on Wednesday, Nov. 21, and the following Friday through Sunday. No. 356 will leave Chicago at 9:20 a.m., 2 hours after the departure of morning train No. 350 to Detroit and Pontiac, and return from Ann Arbor at 4:05 p.m., more than 3 hours prior to afternoon train No. 355’s westbound stop.

A shorter round trip, Nos. 358 and 357, leaves Chicago at 10 p.m. Wednesday through Sunday, remains overnight on Amtrak-owned trackage in front of the station at Kalamazoo, Mich., and returns to Chicago at 6:15 a.m. the following morning, Thursday through Monday. Amtrak tested this schedule over Labor Day weekend in 2010. The four additional trains can be operated with only one additional set of equipment, though the consist will be exchanged with other Midwest operations to allow for maintenance in Chicago.

The holiday service expansion in Michigan can serve as a prototype for expanded frequencies on this corridor, a national network route where only agreements with Norfolk Southern and Canadian National, not states, are needed. Those host railroads approved the temporary service expansion because normally heavy freight traffic would be reduced on a holiday weekend. It is also in a region that has sufficient operating and onboard crews available to staff the additional trains, which will all offer business class and café car amenities.

That freight train interference is salient on the former New York Central main line between Porter and Englewood; less so on the trackage east of Kalamazoo that Norfolk Southern will be conveying to Michigan for Passenger Rail purposes.

The pathing of the relief train indicates a weakness of the network east of Ann Arbor.  I'm referring to the early summer timetable, in which trains require about 4 hours 30 minutes for the 243 miles Chicago to Ann Arbor, and two hours for the 61 miles Ann Arbor to Pontiac.  Thus, the eastbound relief train meets the westbound midday train 353 somewhere in western Michigan, turns on a wheel at Ann Arbor, and meets the eastbound evening train 354 either on the fast rail or on Norfolk Southern's two main tracks.  The regular westbound evening train doesn't get away from Pontiac until after 4 pm.

It's progress, though, compared to what Amtrak inherited from Penn Central.

COST OVERRUNS? Projected cost of high-speed trains doubles.

The projected cost of a proposed Midwestern network of high-speed trains has more than doubled over the past six years, to $7.7 billion, including about $1.2 billion in Wisconsin alone, a new report shows.

But the federal government has yet to show any interest in putting up its $6.2 billion share of the nine-state Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, and supporters agree the 110-mph train plan won't get out of the station without federal money.

On the other hand, federal money is available for rebuilding the Marquette interchange in central Milwaukee, and continuing to operate the St. Lawrence Seaway. The problem, I suspect, is that this Midwestern network would not offer sufficient pork for northern-border state Senators and Representatives to get on board. First some details.

Planners originally sought four round trips daily at 79 mph, with stops in Neenah, Appleton, Oshkosh, Fond du Lac and either Allenton or West Bend. The revised plan seeks seven round trips daily at 110 mph.

Because the Milwaukee-to-Green Bay leg would be a continuation of the existing Chicago-to-Milwaukee route, service between Milwaukee and Chicago also would rise from the originally planned 14 round trips daily to 17.

The Chicago-Milwaukee frequency would still fall a bit short of the frequency once offered by the North Shore Line alone, but would exceed the frequency offered by either the Milwaukee Road, which Amtrak uses, or the Chicago and North Western during the 1930s and 1940s. There is one additional wrinkle: what happens if Wisconsin works with Chicago's Metra Rail to extend the local train service from Kenosha to Milwaukee, along the old Chicago and North Western 400 route.

Amtrak's Hiawatha line now runs seven daily round trips at 79 mph, covering the distance in about 11/2 hours, with stops in Sturtevant and Glenview, Ill. The boost to 110 mph would cut the trip by about 25 minutes, the report says.

That's a long-sought improvement over the best running time, which was 75 minutes until the late 1950s.

Of the 17 trains on the Chicago-to-Milwaukee route, 10 would continue to Madison, another destination not currently served by Amtrak. At 110 mph, the Milwaukee-to-Madison trip would take about an hour, with some trains stopping in Brookfield, Oconomowoc and Watertown.

Plans have long called for the Milwaukee-to-Madison route to be one of the first in the Midwest network, because of its potential to attract new riders. In June, Amtrak urged Congress to jump-start the route, predicting that extending the Hiawatha to Madison and adding more trips would more than double ridership, to 1.09 million by 2008.

This Madison service would also be a significant boost in frequency compared to the 1930s and 1940s. Now comes the rub.

Of the 10 Milwaukee-to-Madison trains, six would continue to the Twin Cities. That service would replace Amtrak's once-a-day Empire Builder, which now links Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis-St. Paul and the Pacific Northwest on a route that bypasses Madison.

And thus the problem. That northerly train does a little bit of ferrying college kids to St. Cloud or Fargo or Grand Forks, as well as hauling excursionists to Glacier Park. The second function might properly be farmed out to a Nostalgie Orient Express type operation, but that might spell finis to any votes for Amtrak from Minnesota, the Dakotas, Montana, or eastern Washington.

We are, incidentally, speaking of a Neubaustrecke for this service. There is a Milwaukee Road line leaving the current Empire Builder route (which was a 100 mph railroad until 1960) at Watertown and going to Madison, but to continue three trains from Madison to the Twin Cities involves either new construction or an upgrade of a line from Madison to Portage, where it rejoins the old 100 mph railroad. But either there will be a reversal of the train's direction in Madison or a new station somewhere on the east side of the city.

The shopping list for that 12" = 1 ft hobby store runs like this:

The plan now estimates track improvements would cost $227 million between Milwaukee and Madison; $285 million from Milwaukee to the Illinois state line; $243 million from Madison to La Crosse; and $311 million from Milwaukee to Green Bay, Wade said.

New trains for the Milwaukee-to-Madison route would add another $89 million, bringing the total cost of that route to $316 million, with $253 million from the federal government and $63 million from the state, Wade said. For the rest of the Wisconsin routes, trains would cost $152 million, but Illinois and Minnesota would share part of that cost, he said.

Probably a cheaper investment than some of the highway improvement projects in other transportation bills.

Although the overall plan hasn't been approved, more than $100 million has been spent on engineering and on facilities that could improve existing service even if the full network isn't built.

Additional economies could be achieved with a little understanding of history. Those 75 minute trains of years ago were pulled by steam locomotives -- not necessarily built especially for speed -- on jointed rail past semaphore signals that were not repeated in the cab. One does not require space-age electronics and global positioning systems to run fast trains.

PAYBACK?  The Hiawatha service will not receive any of the latest round of federal rail improvement grants.  The money sought is for additional trains, locomotives, and a maintenance base.

The money Wisconsin was seeking in Monday's round of funding would have been a step toward high-speed rail but would not have covered track improvements needed to speed up the Hiawatha from 79 mph to 110 mph.

The track in question was quite capable of supporting 110 mph train operation, without special tilting trains, or, for that matter, diesel locomotives.  The national government, however, was directing money toward states where faster conventional trains could act as the next step toward something more like an electric bullet train, or perhaps the next generation of High Speed Trains in the British style.

Other Midwestern states shared $672.3 million, or one-third of the dollars handed out Monday. In addition to the $268.2 million for train sets and locomotives for Illinois, Michigan and Missouri, the grants included $196.5 million to Michigan to upgrade tracks for 110-mph service between Chicago and Detroit, and $186.3 million to Illinois to upgrade tracks for 110-mph service between Chicago and St. Louis, plus smaller amounts to plan a 110-mph Minneapolis-to-Duluth line, a Michigan train station and a Missouri railroad bridge.

The Alton Route is a logical candidate for faster trains, and it's time for a progress report on that service, once grading is finished. A faster train from the Cities to the Head of the Lakes intrigues, although there's little by way of a network for the rail traveller into or out of the Cities.  (Minnesotans once enjoyed a Passenger Rail network with multiple frequencies to Winona or Fargo or Winnipeg.)  The article suggests that contemporary passengers still value frequency and connectivity.

Helen Wiedeman would have liked to see more round trips. Wiedeman lives in rural Missouri and drives to Quincy, Ill., to catch the train to Chicago before transferring to the line to Milwaukee.

"I think Amtrak is important. It would be nice to get some more trains," Wiedeman said. "The last train to Chicago is 3 p.m. My daughter and future son-in-law often take it to Chicago, and an improvement of equipment would make a big difference."

The last train from Milwaukee that connects to the Illinois Zephyr, into Quincy in the late evening, is the 3 pm departure.  Right up to Amtrak Day, Burlington Northern offered a late evening departure from Chicago, overnight to Kansas City, which once upon a time was the American Royal Zephyr.  Ms Wiedeman would arrive in eastern Missouri at an hour more suitable for a special-forces operation on that routing.  And Amtrak, and its Congressional paymasters, remain ambivalent about first-class and overnight accommodations.

Editorial writers at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel claim the state "deserved better" and also suggest the Obama Administration is paying Wisconsin Governor Walker out for returning the money to extend the Milwaukee train to Madison.  Enjoy the four-buck-a-gallon gasoline and the work zone that is Interstate 94.

ADVANTAGE, COLD SPRING SHOPS.

It's easy being a prophet when one pays careful attention to the fundamentals.  Wisconsin's Department of Transportation continues to work on upgrades to its existing Amtrak routes.

Trains from Milwaukee to Chicago and St. Paul, Minn., may be faster and more frequent in the near future, as Amtrak and transportation departments in Wisconsin and neighboring states study the possibility of expanding service on regional routes.

Encouraged by ridership that has doubled over the past decade and standing-room-only conditions on some trains, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation has plans to add three express trains to the Hiawatha route, boosting the number of trips a day from seven to 10.

The express trains would skip local stops, serving only Union Station in Chicago, Mitchell International Airport and downtown Milwaukee, and reach a maximum speed of 90 miles per hour, compared with 79 mph now, decreasing travel times by 11 minutes.

"The department really feels that people are becoming aware of the Hiawatha service and its convenience, and are looking for alternative modes of transportation," said DOT spokesman Brock Bergey.

That's converting 89 minute trains to 78 minute trains. The Cold Spring Shops Free Rein to 110 campaign involves spending additional money on signalling and crossing protection, compared to boosting train speeds to 90 (yes, yes, the Hiawatha used to Reduce to 90 for Rondout and the State Line curve).  "The Cold Spring Shops position, however, is that incremental improvements -- where incremental can mean getting rid of those post-war Interstate Commerce Commission regulations that ended 110 mph running on block-signalled railroads with jointed rail -- will build ridership in such a way that subsequent upgrades to bullet trains make more sense."

In a 2011 survey by the Texas Transportation Institute, more than half of Hiawatha passengers on weekdays were commuting or making a business trip, while about three in four weekend passengers were visiting family or taking a trip for fun. A significant number of passengers, 14%, said that if the train weren't available, they would not have made a trip. Avoiding highway congestion was the primary reason people took the train.

A recently completed project has paved the way for added trains by making it easier for passenger and freight trains to bypass one another on the tracks and stay on time, Bergey said. New crossovers, which allow trains to switch tracks, and other infrastructure went into operation in January, according to Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd., a publicly traded freight company that owns the tracks.

Let's hope that the added schedules permit shifting one of the 89 minute trains ... 85 minute trains? to late evening, for those Summerfest or Lyric Opera or just out for dinner on the Mag Mile or in East Towne to go on a date and return the same evening.

But wait, there's more ...

Ridership growth is also driving plans for a second daily train on the Empire Builder route, which grew by 16% from 2011 to 2012, that links Chicago, Milwaukee, the Twin Cities and stops to the west, including Seattle, Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari said. Amtrak is conducting the study.

"A second round-trip is a significant improvement for passengers by providing more same-day trips without overnight stays and by making it more likely our scheduled arrivals and departure times meet their travel needs," Magliari said.

A draft of a feasibility study should be available in December, and would focus on adding a second train at current speeds, 79 mph. It would terminate in St. Cloud, Minn., instead of continuing on to Seattle as the existing route does.

A Minnesota planner refers to the St. Cloud train as a "baby step" toward increased service.  Or toward restoring what used to be. "Consider a network consisting of Chicago - Madison - Portage - LaCrosse - Rochester, Chicago - Milwaukee - Portage - LaCrosse - St. Paul, possibly continuing to St. Cloud, Fargo, and Grand Forks." Leave the Chicago - Madison - Portage for another day.  I give you the April 10, 1974 Amtrak system timetable.  Westbound, the North Coast Hiawatha operated daily Chicago - Minneapolis, and tri-weekly west of there, leaving Chicago at 10.30, Minneapolis (the now-demolished station) 7.00, calling at St. Cloud 8.15 and arriving Fargo at 11.20.  The Empire Builder operated via Willmar in those days, leaving Chicago at 2.30, Minneapolis at 10.45, and arriving Fargo 3.25 and Minot at 9.00.  Eastbound the Builder left Minot at 7.55, Fargo 1.25, overnight to Minneapolis with a 7.00 departure, and arriving Chicago 2.50.  The triweekly Hiawatha left Fargo at 6.40, St. Cloud 10.15, made a 45 minute stop at Minneapolis (on the days it operated, it switched in additional coaches there), leaving at 12.30 with an 8.20 arrival in Chicago.  Make use of some of that faster track on the Old Milwaukee Road and these schedules can be tightened.

Several groups in favor of expanding the Hiawatha and Empire Builder routes say both lines have had proven success and would be a boon for the economy.

The added trips on the Hiawatha, in particular, would be positive for economic development, strengthening a vision of southeastern Wisconsin, Chicago and northwestern Indiana as one mega-metro area, said Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce spokeswoman Julie Granger.

"The stronger connections we have to what is a huge thriving city can only benefit the region," Granger said.

Frequency, connectivity, convenient times, reliable schedules.  Build it and the riders come.

IN THE SPIRIT OF BILTY AND NYSTROM. The national government spends $3.7 million on internal improvements in the Cold Spring Shops neighborhood.

“That money will be used to replace two railroad bridges, which the U.S. Department of Transportation said would lay the groundwork for eventually raising the speed on the route to 110 mph. Earlier this year, the federal government granted the state $810 million in stimulus money to extend the Hiawatha from Milwaukee to Madison, a 110-mph leg that could one day be part of a Chicago-to-Twin Cities route and a larger Midwestern network of fast, frequent trains,” wrote Sandler.

It's more accurate to say that the infrastructure improvement might be a step toward restoring 110 mph speeds on the line, however regular readers have seen my "give them their head to 110" campaign for some time, and infrastructure improvements that allow Hiawathas, whether powered by butt-ugly P-series diesels or by the world's fastest steam locomotives, to mingle with freight trains the way The Milwaukee Road did it during World War II has a benefit-cost ratio that merits the small addition to the national debt it incurs.

The comments to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel article include the observation that the current 89 minute trains get people from Milwaukee into Chicago much faster than drive time, and a tribute to the gentleman who offers the trolley service of beverages and snacks on selected trains. (It is a shame, however, that Amtrak can't roll out a Super Dome with downstairs bar, or a buffeteria car, or a Skytop Lounge, let alone a seventh car when loadings are high.)

In related news, the current Wisconsin government has reached an agreement with the national government to commit the entire capital budget for upgrading the tracks from Milwaukee to Watertown and building passenger-capable trackage from Watertown to Madison. One candidate for governor has pledged to stop the Milwaukee to Madison train project. Neither the opponents nor the proponents of the Madison service in Wisconsin have thought things through. The opponents suggest that the money might be better spent on patches to the interstate highways; the proponents fail to stress the usefulness of a Madison to Chicago train that would enable Brookfield residents to get to Chicago without driving to the Airport station, Sturtevant residents to view the antiques and the fall colors in Watertown, or, horrible dictu, north suburban flatlanders to get to college in Madison.

The news tends to speak of Passenger Rail improvements in isolation. Chicago is a logical hub for a midwestern train network, heir to the Rockets and Zephyrs and Hiawathas and Arrows, provided the resulting trains are scheduled with a view toward connectivity.

A CLARIFICATION FROM THE VATICAN.

Britain's Railway is the longest-published ferroequinology magazine in the world.  They've recently released a number of single-theme short books (bookazine is the latest barbarism perpetuated as a neologism) on a number of subjects, including a Flying Scotsman Travelogue.  That work made reference to s previous offering, World's Fastest Steam Railway:  London King's Cross to Edinburgh Waverley.

Yes, a number of fast steam locomotive trials took place on the East Coast Main Line, but turn to page 79 for an intriguing passage from the Defenders of the Faith.

On July 20, 1934, Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad 4-6-4 No. 6402 was tested in order to show that a high-speed service was feasible.  Heading a regular service train from Chicago, to Milwaukee, it hauled the 380-ton train over the 85 minutes [c.q. -- 85.5 miles from Union Station to the Everett Street Depot] in 67 minutes and 37 seconds.  A maximum speed of 103mph was reached.

It also averaged 89.92mph for a 68.9 mile length.  British author Bryan Benn believes it is the first claim of more than 100 mph (in which the surviving documentation strongly indicates its accuracy), and therefore it may be deemed by some to have beaten Flying Scotsman by a few months.  The success of the test run led to the railroad launching its 'Hiawatha' express in 1935.

Count Cold Spring Shops among the "some".  For partisans of British steam performance, however, the next paragraphs are instructive.

At the time, the 'Hiawatha' was the fastest scheduled express train in the world.

A recorded run with a dynamometer car behind locomotive No. 2 on May 15, 1935, from Milwaukee and Wisconsin [Milwaukee to New Lisbon, actually -- there is still a wye to turn a steam train at New Lisbon] saw 112.5mph recorded over a 14 mile stretch [this figure out of deference to the claimed speed record of New York Central 999, which Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry still unaccountably credits with that speed].  As such, it would have been the first steam locomotive to  officially exceed 110 mph.

They were followed in service by the six F7 streamlined 4-6-4s which were introduced in 1939 and ran at speeds in excess of 100mph on a daily basis.  One was recorded at 125mph on a run between Chicago and Milwaukee after managing an average of 120mph for 4 1/2 miles, a whisker short of Mallard's record.  The F7s were also recorded as running to the fastest scheduled speed between stations; the 'Twin Cities Hiawatha' [Morning Hiawatha] had to cover the 78 miles from Portage to Sparta [other way] in 58 minutes at an average of 81mph.

All as we have informed readers for years.  We await the opportunity to declare a new North American steam speed record.

That noted, the Flying Scotsman Travelogue clearly describes a more colourful railroad than the Route of the Hiawathas.  Dauntless dive-bombers flying out of Glenview or off lake steamers converted to practice aircraft carriers and on occasion crashing in Lake Michigan aren't quite as exotic as Zeppelins brought down by rifle fire, and Abraham Lincoln's stolen horse in Portage not as wild a political story as Cromwell or Mary Queen of Scots.  It's also hard to conceive of a camp train headed for a college of wizardry and witchcraft loading from any odd-numbered track in Chicago's Union Station.

MORE TRAINS TO COME. Despite Illinois's parlous fiscal condition, the state has sold sufficient bonds for Governor Quinn to visit Rockford and the Quad Cities to announce capital expenditures for restored passenger train service to Dubuque via Rockford, Freeport, and Galena and to the Quad Cities. These trains will not be the speeded-up conventional trains that received federal grants under the economic stimulus rubric. I've commented on both of these services before: the Rock Island Line less frequently. The most logical routing for both of these services, assuming away issues such as competing freight operators, would be on the Overland Route, with the Rockford service diverging at Rochelle and the Quad Cities service diverging at Clinton, Iowa. That, however, would involve running passenger trains on a 110 mph-capable Union Pacific, a company that would prefer to run 70 mph intermodal trains without any interference. The routing of the Dubuque service east of Rockford is yet to be determined, but at least my fear from last July that wrangling over the route could preclude any trains is allayed for the moment. The proposal currently envisions one train a day (that was the old morning-eastward, evening-westward Black Hawk) which is unlikely to please passenger rail advocates at Northern Illinois University -- see also this post, which includes a splendid video of a 110 mph Hiawatha departing Chicago.

REDUCE SPEED TO NINETY.

Regular readers know there were a few spots along The Milwaukee Road that the Hiawatha could not safely exceed that speed.

Regular readers will therefore not be surprised that I was delighted to discover this.  Orlando's Sun-Sentinel is alerting readers to infrastructure construction that doesn't involve tax dollars.

Next month, motorists on S.R. 528 may notice earth work for rail corridor that will cross south Orange County through an area of state conservation lands and Deseret Ranches pasture.

Michael Cegelis, Virgin’s senior vice president for rail infrastructure, said the ride from Miami to Orlando will span three speed limits.

From Miami to West Palm, Virgin Trains will be limited to 79 mph.

From West Palm Beach to Cocoa, top speed will be 110 mph.

From Cocoa to Orlando International Airport, speed will vary slightly.

Cegelis said at Interstate 95, Virgin tracks will pass under S.R. 528 from its north side to its south side, a jog that will hold trains to 90 mph.

From I-95 to State Road 417, Virgin Trains will hug S.R. 528 – the Beachline – at 125 mph. Even motorists breaking the 70 mph speed limit on the adjoining expressway will be quickly overtaken by Virgin’s trains, company officials noted.

"Virgin" are the partners with Brightline. The trains will use existing Florida East Coast tracks as far as Cocoa Beach, and the area south of West Palm is thickly settled with lots of level crossings.  Thus "Free Rein to 110" is pretty good.  There's no reason to apologize for not running at Acela speeds.

Amtrak’s Acela Express between Washington D.C. and Boston advertises itself as capable of 150 mph, making it the nation’s fastest rail service. But Acela is hampered by an aging track corridor and doesn’t often reach that speed.

Virgin and Florida East Coast are demonstrating the value of diesel trains on existing track structures, as well as a less expensive line west to Orlando.

ACCUMULATING SMALL ADVANTAGES.

On a Passenger Rail corridor, frequency and capacity matter, more than dramatic increases in speed.

Amtrak’s Chicago-Milwaukee Hiawatha Service set a ridership record in 2011, carrying 823,163 passengers. According to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, that is a nearly 4 percent increase from 2010 when ridership totaled 792,848.

Amtrak’s Hiawatha Service includes seven Chicago-Milwaukee round trips Monday through Saturday and six round trips on Sunday. A one-way 86-mile trip from Chicago to Milwaukee takes about 90 minutes.

In addition to the calendar year record, monthly records for the service were set in every month but August of last year. According to Amtrak’s 2011 fiscal year data, the Hiawatha is the busiest Amtrak corridor in the Midwest and the sixth busiest in the country.  

Hiawatha Service began in 1989. It is jointly funded by the states of Wisconsin and Illinois. The service was to be extended from Milwaukee to Madison, Wis., but last year Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker refused the federal money that would have paid for the extension.

That 1989 reference is to the state support from Wisconsin and Illinois for operating additional trains, boosting the frequency from three round trips a day to the current six daily and a seventh except Sunday.  At Amtrak's inception, there were two round trips daily and a third except Sunday, a few of which offered lunch-lounge service in Tip Top Taps once in use on the Afternoon and Olympian Hiawathas.  Today's trains are six-car formations, with beverage service from a cart on selected trains.

The California corridors have received new cars in the last few years, the Northeast Corridor has the Acela Expresses, and there are stretches of the Empire Corridor capable of 110 mph speeds.  The Hiawatha and Downeaster services make do with Amfleet or Horizon coaches and top out at 79 mph, yet the riders keep coming.

Another Midwestern corridor that is doing well is the Chicago-St. Louis by way of Normal and Springfield. I understand that Northern Illinois University faces stiff competition for students from Illinois State, one reason given for the marketing and branding initiatives.  Perhaps the prospect of fast frequent trains to Normal matter more.  Whether the absence of a train connecting the northern suburbs of Chicago to Madison affects Wisconsin's recruiting efforts is a topic worthy of further investigation.

A NEW COLD WAR INITIATIVE. Fruits and Votes picks up a Wilson Quarterly article on the state of high speed Passenger Rail in the world.

Since entering service in Japan in 1964, fast trains have been gaining in speed and popularity. The first Shinkansen, or bullet train, traveled between Tokyo and Osaka at a maximum of 130 m.p.h. The latest-generation Shinkansen runs at a top speed of 188 m.p.h., and its ancestor is now in a museum. France launched Europe’s first high-speed railroad between Paris and Lyon in 1981, the Train à Grande Vitesse (“train of great speed”), better known as the TGV. Today, trains doing 125 m.p.h. or more zip across 13 European countries as well as Russia, South Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey. In the Middle East, Saudi Arabia recently let contracts for a European-style supertrain between the western port of Jeddah and the religious centers of Mecca and Medina, while Israel has a new Tel Aviv-to-Jerusalem line in the works and Iran is upgrading its main lines out of Tehran to standards exceeding 120 m.p.h.

We've seen those museum pieces. There was no imperative to view the Soviet Union's trains as a strategic threat, with their streamlined 4-6-4s in service as late as 1957. But Iran and Saudi Arabia ... perhaps there's reason to stay ahead of them in Passenger Rail as well as in nuclear weapons.

It doesn't matter whether the author reads Cold Spring Shops or not.

The result is that train service is slower today than it was in the 1940s, when “streamliners” touted for their speed—such as the Super Chief, 20th Century Limited, Denver Zephyr, and Hiawatha—routinely topped 90 to 100 m.p.h. between station stops. While the rest of the world has advanced, America’s passenger rail has stalled, if not reversed direction.

Preach it, brother.

While maybe not a pie-in-the-sky project, instituting high-speed rail—or even getting train speeds back to 1940s standards—will be a tall order requiring years of commitment and vastly more than $13 billion to pull off.

Rethink the speed and signalling standards. Repaint the westbound speed boards at A-5 that currently read 79-55 as 110-55. Continue in like manner through Rondout and Wadsworth and ...

Not so fast, say critics. According to Randal O’Toole of the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank, high-speed rail is a “mirage” that would do little to reduce highway traffic congestion or improve the environment. He and others argue that most congestion involves travel within cities rather than between them, and O’Toole contends that high-speed rail in any event “won’t take more than three or four percent of cars off the highways it parallels.” At best, supertrains would replace commuter airlines, and at worst, the lines would cause a long-term drain on public finances at a time when the United States is in dire fiscal straits.

“Taxpayers and politicians should be wary of any transportation projects that cannot be paid for out of user fees,” O’Toole warns. But roads and airports are paid for only in part by those who use them through gasoline taxes and other user levies. For example, airline ticket tax receipts cover airport construction costs, but the costs of safety measures and a portion of air traffic control—more than $2.5 billion per year—are subsidized by all taxpayers, including those who never fly. Intercity trains are likewise subsidized out of tax revenues from the whole population. Last year, Amtrak earned 72 percent of its costs from ticket receipts and received about $1.2 billion in direct federal subsidies.

Passenger Rail and air compete for a small share of total passenger mileage, with a three- to four- percent reduction in automobile mileage leading to a substantial reduction in congestion. Passenger Rail need not be restricted to high-speed intercity limiteds: more frequent commuter service, perhaps mixing expresses and stopping trains, can also reduce congestion. To repeat, the weekend Chicago area commuter trains, some of which run on two hour headways, routinely run six to nine full cars, as shoppers and museum goers balk at congestion and at parking charges beginning at $20 for the first half hour, without any European-style policies in place specifically to discourage urban driving. And those regional airlines are undependable tax sinks.

Even the most farsighted planners behind the Interstate Highway System did not anticipate the extent to which the new roads they built would help spawn a burgeoning suburbia, with its far-flung office and industrial parks, edge cities, and immense shopping malls and commercial areas.

Complex adaptive systems will do what they please.

High-speed rail doesn’t simply proceed from point A to point B; it has the potential to energize the cities and towns where it stops in between. The normal practice is to locate intermediate stations in populated areas roughly 50 miles apart. In Europe, high-speed railroads have generated the most growth in provincial cities, as once remote districts benefit from their newfound closeness to hubs such as Paris and Berlin. In a century that will demand more compact, energy-efficient development, high-speed rail has the potential to establish a new superstructure for growth.

I'm pleased to see this idea diffused.

There's a lot more in the article, it will reward careful study. But note this paragraph, on the current constraints on mixing freight and passenger trains.

The Association of American Railroads currently requires dedicated track for passenger trains running at 90 m.p.h. and over. An agreement relaxing this policy to permit shared-use trackage could reduce expenses. Still, retrofitting freight lines will not be easy or cheap. A coalition of midwestern governors hopes to use stimulus money to develop lines out of Chicago with train speeds of 110 m.p.h. Wisconsin plans to rehabilitate a rail link between Milwaukee and Madison, at a cost of $600 million.

Look at this speed tape, and visualize the opposing passenger and freight train traffic on the C&M.

RUNNING EXTRA. There's a conversation of the validity of Mr Reutter's faster 1940s service assertion going on at Marginal Revolution.

THE CONCEPT IS CORRECT, THE EXECUTION, NOT SO MUCH.

Trains Passenger Rail pundit Malcolm Kenton suggests these might be the good new days for Ontario residents who would like more rail options.  Among other things, there is now a Kitchener to Waterloo latter-day interurban.  It's not quite the second coming of the old Grand River Railway and Lake Erie and Northern that offered connecting service as far south as Brantford and Port Dover.  It's a start.

More encouraging is what the Passenger Rail authorities would like to accomplish with the Toronto - Ottawa - Montreal service.

[The authority] won a significant victory to advance its plan to build a new high-performance passenger-only rail line between Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City. The Canada Infrastructure Bank’s decision last week to spend $71 million CAD to begin engineering and economic analysis on the project, while remaining open to helping fund its construction provided that the analysis returns favorable results, gives VIA [the authority -- ed.] confidence that it can attract private investment to help the government-owned corporation complete the project.

Keep in mind that the proposed line is not world-class high-speed rail — it would be a conventional line allowing conventional equipment to operate at up to 110 mph with numerous grade crossings. Nevertheless, it would cut travel times by up to one third less than current schedules and offer much greater reliability by not being shared with freight. This milestone, along with Virgin Trains USA’s expansion to Orlando proceeding apace, proves that modern passenger rail projects in North America don’t have to be grade-separated bullet trains or use some flashy new technology like maglev or hyperloop in order to attract private-sector participation and deliver tremendous utility to the traveling public and to local and regional economies.

If VIA can overcome the hurdles of political will and resistance on the part of its host railroad Canadian National, and if its urban regions continue to develop and modernize rail transit, Ontario’ populous southeast and southwest regions would be well-positioned to continue providing a high quality of life to their growing populations as energy and other resources inevitably become scarcer with climate change and growing global demand. Many locales stateside could learn from this success.

In fact, given the state to which Passenger Rail has fallen, as well as the nature of the high-density corridors in North America, including the Richmond to Portland stomping grounds of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor services, Free Rein to 110 with contemporary diesel trains is the more sensible way to start.

The plan to separate passenger and freight trains between Montreal and Toronto makes sense on paper.  It's also a way to provide for even faster running later, if the tracks are surveyed and laid out with a subsequent installation of electrified running in mind.

In practice, though, Bill Stephens, who is also a Trains columnist, has doubts.

There’s much to like in VIA’s so-called high frequency rail plan. Transit times on the new corridor, VIA says, would be 25% faster than the current schedules, which cover Toronto-Montreal in about 5 hours. The new corridor would permit 110 mph operation, up from the current maximum of 100 on some sections of CN. VIA could provide more frequent service without begging CN for permission to run additional trains. And VIA projects 95% on-time performance on its own tracks.

But the whole plan falls down in the busy terminal areas in and around Toronto and Montreal. That’s where VIA’s trains would still have to negotiate trackage thick with freight and commuter traffic.

Transport Canada’s solution to this problem is laughable. “VIA Rail Canada would work with track owners to conclude necessary agreements and ensure that both freight and passenger operations can go smoothly,” a spokeswoman says.

Perhaps a few overpasses in the right places (would you believe one will be built in the area of Tower A-2 in Chicago?) might help. That, and people who know how to move trains.

VIA has said that passenger trains and freight trains are simply incompatible. What’s required, the thinking goes, is separate routes for passenger and freight. That’s never been true. If it were, Amtrak’s Hiawatha trains would not have clocked 96% reliability last year on Canadian Pacific trackage between Chicago and Milwaukee.

Keeping passenger and freight trains on time takes a combination of operational discipline, the right track capacity, and a willingness to make it work. CN takes pride in its operational discipline, and executives say the Eastern portion of the railroad, between Chicago and Halifax, is underutilized. What’s missing, it seems, is a willingness to expedite VIA trains.

VIA needs a cooperative host railroad more than it needs a new route that would bypass intermediate population centers, face opposition from the not-in-my-backyard crowd, take years to build, and in the end would still have to rely on shared trackage in key areas.

Yes, the current seven Hiawatha trips a day are generally reliable (although on occasion a rake misses an entire trip: if it doesn't run at all, it can't be late?), but getting back to ten trips is proving to be difficult, and separate passenger and freight routes well might be the way to go.  (Stay tuned.  I'm working on that one.)  Yes, it's on public officials to sell internal improvements: we have not-in-my-back-yard sentiments in part as a reaction to the excesses of eminent domain over the years.  The point of internal improvements, though, is to introduce trade-tested betterments, that is to say, Pareto improvements.

Perhaps we begin by suggesting that provincial transportation authorities run the assets they have as businesses.  Here's a question for discussion: what are the current tolls on the Queen's Expressways?

FREE REIN TO 110, IN MY LIFETIME?  Wisconsin's governor wasn't interested in speeding up access to Madison from Chicago's northern suburbs, or to Chicago from Oconomowoc, but he's happy to take federal money to achieve the fastest running time ever for Milwaukee trains.

Gov. Scott Walker's administration announced Tuesday that the state will seek at least $150 million to add equipment and facilities for Amtrak's Hiawatha line.

Walker said the money would be used to upgrade service on the Hiawatha line, as a step toward increasing the speed of the trains to nearly 110 mph and reducing the trip time from 90 minutes to one hour. If the improved service draws more riders, the number of round trips could be increased, he said during a news conference in the Milwaukee Intermodal Station.

The governor said he expected Illinois, Michigan and Missouri would join in the application for the federal dollars, part of the $8 billion rail element of President Barack Obama's administration's stimulus package.

In a bizarre twist, some of the money that Walker now seeks originally was allocated for the Milwaukee-to-Madison route he previously turned down. That money is available because a fellow Republican governor rejected it as well.

Walker said the money would allow Wisconsin to buy two more train sets and eight locomotives and to build a maintenance facility for that equipment and two train sets now under construction.

But speeding up the trains would require additional track improvements in future years, said Reggie Newson, executive assistant to state Transportation Secretary Mark Gottlieb.

The locomotives, train sets and maintenance base would have been covered by the earlier $810 million grant. But the maintenance base, originally envisioned as a $52 million facility in Madison, now would be a $60 million facility at the Talgo Inc. train plant in the Century City complex on Milwaukee's north side.

Cold Spring Shops endorses the faster running times, and the enhanced frequency.

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel table.

The newspaper, no fan of the new governor, notes that his decision to seek federal money for the Hiawathas creates a political controversy.

Asked about the apparent reversal in his position on rail initiatives, Walker said he always had supported improvements to the Hiawatha. It's a popular and established service, without the local opposition that complicated the Milwaukee-to-Madison link he campaigned against.

"This is not inconsistent with the position I took in the past," he said.

Milwaukee Ald. Robert Bauman called the governor's pursuit of federal stimulus money for the Hiawatha "rank hypocrisy."

Walker criticized federal stimulus spending during his campaign and rejected federal money that could have been used for the maintenance building on the city's north side. The state will pay more for that facility than if it had accepted the initial $810 million, Bauman said.

The Hiawatha provides the Midwest's most frequent and heavily used Amtrak service. It's one of the top 10 routes nationwide, nearly doubling ridership in the past eight years, to a record 792,848 last year. Ridership has continued to rise, notching gains of almost 8% each in January and February, on a pace to exceed 850,000 this year.

The choice of a fixed-formation train, the Talgo, that cannot easily be strengthened by adding cars, seems unwise in light of the increasing ridership, and the likely further increases induced by more frequent trains, later into the evening, and by rising fuel prices.  The current Hiawathas are six-car rakes, up from the four cars that protected each trip in 2004.

The 75 minute trains of 1951 frequently ran with up to a dozen cars, inclusive of parlor cars and tap-lounges or dining cars.

The Alco diesel set at the right would have been capable of protecting a 60 minute schedule, something that was envisioned for the 1938 steam Hiawathas.

THIS TRAIN REACHED CHICAGO 75 MINUTES AFTER LEAVING MILWAUKEE.
IT WAS CAPABLE OF GETTING THERE IN 60 MINUTES.

Faster, please.

PENNY-WISE, POUND-FOOLISH.  The Wisconsin legislature appropriates money for upgrades to the Hiawatha service.

Wisconsin taxpayers could wind up paying more to keep existing passenger train service from Milwaukee to Chicago than they would have paid to run new high-speed rail service from Milwaukee to Madison, according to a Journal Sentinel analysis of state figures.

The Legislature's budget committee voted 12-2 Tuesday to spend $31.6 million in mostly borrowed state money on Amtrak's Milwaukee-to-Chicago Hiawatha line, costs that could have been paid largely by an $810 million federal grant that would have extended the Hiawatha to Madison.

But Tuesday's vote doesn't cover all the spending that will be needed to keep running the Hiawatha, a growing service that carried nearly 800,000 passengers last year.

State transportation officials have estimated they would need millions more for locomotives, signals and a new maintenance base, even without expanding service beyond the current seven daily round trips.

And, like the spending approved Tuesday, all or most of those new costs would have been covered by the federal grant spurned by Gov. Scott Walker last year. That's because the Milwaukee-to-Madison service would have operated as an extension of the Hiawatha, as part of a larger plan to connect Chicago to the Twin Cities and other Midwestern destinations with fast, frequent trains.

Taken together, state taxpayers' share of the Hiawatha capital costs that would have been covered by the federal grant could total as much as $99 million, significantly more than the $30 million they would have paid for 20 years of operating costs on the Milwaukee-to-Madison segment, as estimated by former Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle's administration.

Walker had cited those operating costs as his main reason for opposing the 110-mph extension. Federal money would have paid all of its capital costs. And that doesn't count the other potential benefits that high-speed rail supporters have cited from the Milwaukee-to-Madison line, such as jobs, economic development, expanded tax base and improved freight rail tracks.

Conversely, high-speed rail opponents contend the Milwaukee-to-Madison extension could have cost taxpayers more than budgeted, even though the $810 million grant included a cushion of more than $150 million to cover inflation and unexpected cost overruns. They have questioned estimates on ridership, revenue and operating costs, as well as projections for economic development and job creation.

That debate played out Tuesday in the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee, as Democrats backed the passenger rail measure but said it showed that the Republican governor's decision to cancel the high-speed rail line had cost the state thousands of construction jobs, lower service levels and - in the short term, at least - money. They pointed to an estimate from the Legislature's nonpartisan budget office that found that the federal funds would have covered at least $22.4 million of the additional costs approved by the panel Tuesday.

The legislature is on the hook for more money for a number of reasons, some political, some self-inflicted. In anticipation of the stimulus money for the Madison extension, the state department of transportation previously committed money for four fixed-formation Talgo trains that will replace the existing variable-formation Horizon and Amfleet consists on the line.  The maintenance base and train upkeep will therefore be for orphan trains, the nearest copies of which are in the Pacific Northwest.  Those trains are still under construction, although there are cost overruns and logistical difficulties.

Train cars: Under Doyle, the state borrowed $47.5 million for its no-bid contract with Spanish train manufacturer Talgo Inc. to build two 14-car train sets to replace aging Amtrak-owned passenger cars on the Hiawatha line. Spare parts and design changes - such as adding wireless Internet service for passengers and improving sight lines for the crew - could boost the cost by $3.6 million, plus another $6.9 million to pay a British consulting company to oversee manufacturing.

After using $800,000 from lower-than-expected fuel costs, the committee agreed to borrow the remaining $9.7 million. Doyle's former transportation secretary, Frank Busalacchi, has said the $810 million federal grant would have covered those costs. Current state and federal transportation officials disagree with Busalacchi, although the Legislative Fiscal Bureau found the federal aid might have covered some of the consulting contract with British-owned Interfleet Technology Inc.

Maintenance bases: The state's contract with Talgo requires it to provide a maintenance base for the company to service the trains it builds. State officials have already spent $3.2 million to retrofit Talgo's plant in the Century City complex as a temporary maintenance base, and equipping that base will cost another $8.5 million. All sides agree the federal grant would have paid that $11.7 million, which the panel agreed to borrow.

But the north side plant, formerly home to Tower Automotive, can only be used as a maintenance base for three years, because of restrictions imposed by the freight railroad that owns the tracks connecting it to the downtown Amtrak-Greyhound station, the fiscal bureau said. Earlier this year, state officials asked the federal government to cover $48.1 million of the $60.1 million cost of turning the Talgo plant into a permanent base, plus $27.6 million for track upgrades.

With that request rejected, state officials now seek to build a permanent base closer to the station, Newson said. He said the new base would cost "much less than $60 million" but declined to predict a new price range.

It's probably asking too much to propose a maintenance base at Oconomowoc or Brookfield, where the trains could load passengers for Glenview and Chicago with a minimum of deadheading. Some faster running times west of Milwaukee and through Milwaukee would be required, though, otherwise Waukesha County residents have a shorter travel time driving to the airport station.

It's probably asking too much to make transportation funding decisions on the basis of benefits and costs rather than out of political pique.

There's plenty of blame to go around for the fact that Wisconsin taxpayers - and not the feds - will be paying $31.6 million on the Milwaukee-Chicago Hiawatha rail line. But in the end, it's the political games played by both sides that are to blame - games that should take a back seat when it comes to such issues.

Gov. Scott Walker started this mess when he unwisely shot down a federal grant for passenger rail service from Milwaukee to Madison that also would have covered a hefty chunk of the money for the Hiawatha work.

In fact, a Journal Sentinel analysis found that Wisconsin taxpayers could end up paying more to keep existing passenger train service from Milwaukee to Chicago than they would have paid to run new high-speed rail service from Milwaukee to Madison.

Turning down the grant was a big mistake - the funding could have paid for upgrading fast rail from Chicago to Madison as part of a Midwest rail network to keep the region more economically competitive with other parts of the country - and could have brought more jobs to Wisconsin.

On its face, rail transportation is not a conservative or liberal issue. Former Gov. Tommy Thompson, for example, was a huge rail backer. It's an issue that should be decided by objective factors involving need, cost and technology.

Objective factors? That takes all the fun out of it.

TONIGHT'S RAILROAD READING. Ezra Klein commends Congress for funding Amtrak.

It's true that America doesn't have the density to support a train infrastructure like that of Europe's, but parts of America certainly do, and in those areas, Amtrak just isn't funded well enough to be a competitive option. This, of course, creates a rough cycle in which a poor reputation drives away customers, which in turn increases fares and lowers service quality, which in turn harms the reputation, which in turn drives away customers, which...

Much of the United States east of the Mississippi River has a population density comparable to France, and there are a number of corridors which could be brought up to a respectable 110 mph service at a relatively low cost, particularly if policymakers drop those cartel-era speed limits compelling trains to plod along at 60-80 mph. Increased frequencies, even on passenger-unfriendly Guilford (or is it Pan Am Rail) and on the inefficiently-downsized Main Line of Mid America, not to mention on the Hiawatha service, which in my view is capable of setting the pace for economical upgrades of corridors without the folly of electrification and 180 mph running, have been bringing in the riders. More reliable timekeeping would help.

The reader comments are instructive (there are no comment links, just scroll. Hand-fired commentary, forsooth.)

It would help Amtrack [c.q] a lot if the railsystem would become independent from the company owning the rolling stock and providing the actual service. Decades of neglect have turned the rails into a state beyond repair, and its [c.q] totally illusionary to run something like a modern rail service on them. In Europe, railway compaqnies [c.q] had to rebuilt most of the tracks connecting cities from scratch, too. This is a multi-billion-dollar endeavor, but it will be an attractive alternative for flying,if finished. It's quite an ironic fact that Amtrack's [c.q.] engines are dewsigned [c.q.] for speeds of 150 mph and more, but that it's impossible to actually drive that fast most of the time. The explanation is, of course, that politicians wanted Amtrack [c.q.] trains to look like TGVs or ICEs, but shied away from the costs that it would have taken to really bring the system up to that standard. Let's hope this scrooge attitude will change soon.

Demsetz auctions for train operating franchises, British-style? The British are still learning some of the difficulties with the approach. Designed for speeds of 150 mph? True of the latest power on the Northeast Corridor, but neither the New Haven nor the Pennsy really have the speed potential of the Great Western or the Milwaukee Road or the old Big Four lines from Chicago to Cincinnati or Cleveland to Cincinnati (to consider a couple of neglected corridors).

We should build out the infrastructure for rails for both freight and passenger services. These need to designed to allow each type of service to operate well.

Then we can let various operators compete to run on the rails. This is somewhat like trucking which uses the highways.

We know that freight hauling by rail is competitive and if subsidized as the roads are would be huge. We can see this becuase [c.q.] trucking is forced to build trains on the roads with triple trailer trucks. This system is silly.

I would agree that a clear transportation road map and investment to build strong long haul freight rail and local region rail passenger service infrastructure is long over due.

The problem, dear reader, is that freight and passenger rail are really two different technologies. The day will come when the BNSF will do all in its power to keep the intermodals on the Transcontinental and the coal on the Burlington Route. But to argue that the freight infrastructure is deficient is to have missed the Track Renewal Train in action or news of that 70 mph bridge across the Des Moines River.

TIME TO ROLL BACK THE STATE. A Wisconsin Policy Research Institute survey finds a narrow majority of Wisconsin residents opposing the extension of Hiawatha service to Madison.

Service would start at a top speed of 79 mph in 2013, rising to 110 mph by 2015, and eventually could be extended to the Twin Cities, as part of a larger Midwestern network of fast, frequent trains.

The project wasn't sold well to Wisconsin residents, and there are cheaper ways to obtain 110 mph trains, most of which involve repeal of excessively restrictive safety standards.

Perhaps there's an opportunity for Passenger Rail advocates and the highway lobby to make common cause in restoring the transportation policies of the Eisenhower era.

Toll roads also have been a controversial transportation issue, although they played a much smaller role in the gubernatorial campaign.

Supporters of charging tolls voice concerns that the gas tax and vehicle fee revenue will be inadequate to pay the growing costs of rebuilding and repairing the state's aging highways. But toll road proposals have rarely survived long, beaten back by voters who despise the idea of paying to drive and who particularly dislike the Illinois tollways.

The alternative being mooted is worse.

Federal law prohibits charging tolls on existing interstate highway lanes but allows tolls on newly added lanes. Regional planners have recommended expanding most Milwaukee-area freeways from six to eight lanes when they are rebuilt.

That was not President Eisenhower's original intent. The first proposals for the Interstates envisioned turnpikes beginning outside city limits. Freeways pushed through the middle of cities came later. High-occupancy toll lanes have some redeeming features, but they're administratively more costly than open road tolling.

Perhaps there is an opportunity for the highway backers to make some of their projects self-financing, by working with the railroad backers to restore the train speeds of the late 1940s.

EVALUATING THE CASE. Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel columnist Patrick McIlheran suggests it's wasteful to spend money speeding up passenger trains.

States already have submitted plans for more than $100 billion in train projects. And a private group favoring high-speed rail released a study this summer of what genuine bullet trains on one route would cost. Answer: Gulp.

Because what governors are planning isn't high-speed rail. The Midwest plan is for diesel trains that can go up to 110 mph, about what steam locomotives did across Wisconsin in the 1930s. Nice, but train backers point out that's mere normal speed in Europe or Japan. "I am shocked by the timidness of America," Andy Kunz, head of the U.S. High Speed Rail Association, told a newspaper.

In presenting the arguments that way, the columnist limits the policy options. Yes, European high-speed is faster. It's also more expensive. At the margin, a restoration of the 1938 timetables ("Speeding Up The Rails") might suffice to divert traffic from the roads and the airways to make the project worthwhile. A much faster service provides very little in the way of reduced running times, particularly on the shorter than end-to-end journeys that are passenger rail's greatest strength. ("Reliability More Important Than Rapidity") That steam locomotives could achieve such timings ("Applied Hiawatha Research") on jointed rail protected by semaphore signals also suggests the current regulations governing signalling and track structure are excessive. On the other hand, freight railroads operating long freight trains without cabooses also see advantages in positive train control systems that let crews know exactly where the tail end of a stopped train is, suggesting possibilities for strengthening the railroad network.

If you really want to lure riders, say backers, trains ought to exceed 200 mph. The Midwest High Speed Rail Association hired engineers to cost out such a line linking St. Louis to Chicago. Like high-speed rail in Europe, it would use a dedicated line - no freight mixing with light, fast trains. It would bypass towns and have no road crossings. It would be electric.

And it would cost $11.5 billion. That's one 305-mile line. Did you want to go somewhere else, too?

The association, which sees this as a reasonable price to replace a 65-minute flight with a two-hour ride, isn't overestimating. At $38 million a mile, it's on the low end of what the Government Accountability Office guessed. Assume a similar price in denser southeastern Wisconsin, and this implies that real high-speed rail from Milwaukee to Madison would cost $2.6 billion. Chicago-Minneapolis would be $15 billion.

The airlines dissipate all the time advantage of a 550 mph jet over even a 100 mph train by checking passengers through security, loading and unloading through one door, diverting or delaying when a thunderstorm moves through, and setting passengers down at some distance from their destination. Railroad stations exist in central business districts and have a relatively small footprint near office parks.

Yes, well, freeways cost a fortune, too: The state's twice-a-century rebuild of I-94 southward is $2 billion.

But freeways carry many more people. Even in the European Union, rife with 200-mph trains and $5-a-gallon gas, cars carry 76% of passenger travel, trains 5.8%. That's down from 8% since 1980, even as Europe built irresistible trains. Cars' share is up.

Air, bus, and rail do compete for a relatively small share of total passenger miles. The way in which these modes compete is in providing relatively cheap additions to capacity, compared to the cost of providing sufficient roads to replace the trains and planes. A fast train is an expensive way to get to the grocer or the day-care, errands that account for some of those automotive passenger miles. On the other hand, providing additional expressway, arterial, and parking capacity in Chicago or London or Tokyo to provide for the intercity and commuter rail passengers would be more expensive than finding additional capacity on the existing tracks. On the weekend, some of the British I talked with described efforts in London and Paris and other European cities to discourage driving into the city and encourage rail use. Chicago, without any special legislation, experiences the same effect by market pricing of downtown parking and a reluctance to build new expressways. A lot of drivers shift to Metra and the Transit Authority.

And freeways bring in paying customers. Cars pay more in fuel and other taxes than is spent on building and keeping highways. The feds reckoned in 2004 that for every 1,000 miles traveled, cars paid $1.79 more in taxes than their roads consumed in public money.

Passenger trains took in $210 of net subsidy for every 1,000 passenger miles, that report found. While air-travel taxes, other economists say, cover the costs of airports and traffic control, fares don't cover trains' operating costs, much less the cost of tracks.

That's why costly roads differ from costly rails. "The users of (roads) willingly pay the capital costs as well as the operating costs," said transportation scholar Bob Poole of the nonpartisan Reason Foundation. "That just makes them a different category."

Fundamentally, road and air infrastructure is funded by taxes on road and air travelers. Rail infrastructure is funded by taxes on road travelers. Non-users pay in a way they don't for roads.

Not quite. Read the report. (Page 13)

The estimates in this report include net federal subsidies to passenger transportation for highway, air, transit, and intercity railroad transportation. Subsidies to passenger transportation by state and local government are not included. The data for highway are further subdivided into net federal subsidies to autos, motorcycles, pickups and vans; school buses; transit buses; and intercity buses. Subsidies to air transportation are also presented separately for commercial air carriers and general aviation.

Without the counties and the municipalities maintaining the side streets out of general tax revenues, drivers have a more difficult journey to the roads that receive federal matching funds (roads that they share with trucks, "It's Corporate Welfare".) Some cost estimates can be done on an incremental cost basis, others require allocation of common or joint costs. Yes, improvements in the rail network are costly. It does not have to follow that improvements in the road network are cost-effective, or that the current allocation of resources to transportation infrastructure is efficient.