Comments on: Southeast Minnesota Angles for Rail Link through Rochester

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 18:29:08 +0000

Yeah, but the thing is, crumple zones don’t hamper performance the way heavyweight requirements do, so they’re a harmless concession.

By: Julie Gay

Julie Gay — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:10:07 +0000

My website is currenttly down.
I see you know about the Mayo Clinics role in rail.

Do you ever run across any reports on the amount of money that they spend?

They do not release cost figures. I am trying to do some reconstruction on what they spend. For example their 990s do not match such reputable sites as OpenSecrets.org or the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board.
.
Let me know please. Thanks.

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:43:29 +0000

The Mayo Clinic is the driving force behind the passenger rail to the airport nonsense. They have been pursuing a freight rail bypass south of the city for over a decade. They hope to tag the freight bypass to the passenger rail corridor. Mayo is the one paying for the studies.

Locals in Rochester speculate that Mayo either wants the DM&E (CP) right of way for expansion, or they are trying to prop up the local airport (which is operated by Mayo).

By: Woody

Woody — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:25:25 +0000

As far as I can tell, even “crumple zones” would be needed about as much as meteorite protection. How many rail cars actually get crumpled? Next to nil.

But every time a train hits a pickup truck in a grade crossing many passengers get bunged up with bruises, scrapes, cuts, and bone breaks.

What is really needed is seat belts and maybe air bags. Not invented here, I guess.

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:06:56 +0000

“Well, FRA standards don’t increase safety even on lines shared with freight, without positive train control. Caltrain’s done simulations, and is in the process of petitioning the FRA to allow it to run lightweight EMUs on a line it shares with UP.”

God, that would be a godsend. We can sure hope the FRA will revise its rules to match reality soon. That would help every rail proposal in the country, period.

Agreed that the FRA “crashworthiness” standards which don’t match reality are a major handicap and have been bloating expenses unnecessarily. I would love to see those changed as much as you; lighterweight equipment (with proper crumple zones, of course) would improve literally every rail system in the country, and being able to buy European designs nearly off-the-shelf (with only couplers, signalling, and occasionally clearances varying, *no heavyweight requirements*) would make designs both better and cheaper due to more competition.

We can hope. :-)

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:37:09 +0000

Well, FRA standards don’t increase safety even on lines shared with freight, without positive train control. Caltrain’s done simulations, and is in the process of petitioning the FRA to allow it to run lightweight EMUs on a line it shares with UP.

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:16:33 +0000

“The line capacity difference isn’t large; the main issue is platform capacity at the terminals,”

St. Paul Union Depot should have no problems here, since it’s actually a through station.

Chicago is another matter, but until the West Lake Transportation Center is built or Union Station is totally reconstructed, capacity is fixed at its current state. Luckily north side capacity is not nearly full yet.

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:12:30 +0000

Alon, several points:
(1) Eau Claire, while an attractive super-direct route, suffers from some problems: the UP routing will be unobtainable and not very straight, and the I-94 routing stops quite a ways outside Eau Claire. Assuming WisDOT is willilng to give up the I-94 ROW.

(2) *If taking the river route*, FRA track standards for freight will have to be followed, because that is a *busy freight route* and there is *no room* to expand it to four tracks along most of the distance. Remember, this is valuable riverfront property, and it runs through a bunch of downtowns.

*If taking a different route dedicated to passengers* FRA standards might not need to be followed for track construction — but it is correct to assume that the river route is limited to FRA standards.

The river route is a pretty terrible choice for HSR, period. The Eau Claire alternative *or* the Rochester-La Crosse alternative are *both* better.

By: BruceMcF

BruceMcF — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 15:47:58 +0000

“At 220 mph, it shouldn’t take 4:15; it should take at most 3:00, which corresponds to the average speed of most of today’s 186 mph HSR lines. Another major flaw in the study is its belief that the only way to run trains at high speed south of Milwaukee is on a new elevated alignment, which would raise costs unacceptably.

That is also from the state sponsored Tri-State II (MN/WI/IL) study. Hopefully the Midwest HSR Association 220mph study will revisit that – it is clearly a more easily justified use of the funds provided by members of a broad Midwestern rail advocacy group than the funds provided by members of a Southeast MN rail advocacy group.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 04:33:21 +0000

At 220 mph, it shouldn’t take 4:15; it should take at most 3:00, which corresponds to the average speed of most of today’s 186 mph HSR lines. Another major flaw in the study is its belief that the only way to run trains at high speed south of Milwaukee is on a new elevated alignment, which would raise costs unacceptably.

With 3:00, the difference between 5 and 45 minutes is 6:10 versus 7:30 for a roundtrip. The line capacity difference isn’t large; the main issue is platform capacity at the terminals, which, as we know from the case of California, matters a lot. And, again as we know from the case of California, it showcases competence in general.

The Southern Corridor/Northern Corridor difference is another problem – as you note, it’s easy to include Eau Claire in the Southern Corridor approach. The people who designed I-94 didn’t seem to think that going through Eau Claire means avoiding Madison.