The tint on the first Metra car was the worst glass I've ever seen, it was like trying to look through a Glass Sprite Bottle. Oh boy was that track nice though!
SMRGUY wrote:The tint on the first Metra car was the worst glass I've ever seen, it was like trying to look through a Glass Sprite Bottle. Oh boy was that track nice though!
I think that is all too common on those metra cars. When I was in Chicago, I was expecting a much better view when I was on the racetrack, but that darn green tint spoiled it. But talk about nicer gallery cars, those new South Shore bilevel EMU's are comfortable, have great windows, and accelerate faster than anything else I've seen.
There are some interesting comments on the newspaper site that I think are a good mirror to public opinion about this.
"I remember at the outset they said they would not use tax money and now they are groveling like two bit beggars. This is just the beginning - wait till the shortfalls start on the operating budget. You will never hear such big crybabies .... while the original investors run to their banks with the loot they took from the grants."
"Chanel 7 tonight has a short clip on the WALLY and it intoned that these wonderful expander's are going to try for public funding by another route. As I said before, hopefully Snyder will be in and put an end to the idea of using State Monies for the fiscaso. "
I had high hopes for this line. There was / is a definite need, rush hour congestion on US 23 with no immediate plans for road improvements. It was going to be relatively inexpensive - $7 million IIRC. The railroad – GLC is commuter friendly, had some used equipment etc. This was a project I thought had a real chance to succeed
Then the consultant RL Banks got involved. Now it is a gold plated $32 million project. Why gold plated you might ask.
Here’s why, they are recommending CTC, welded rail and 60 mph maximum operating speed and full handicap access cars and stations. Keep in mind the total rail commute length is 26.9 miles. They are proposing another siding in Osmer for daytime storage, an overnight storage facility in Oak Grove , standby 480 power etc.
I dug out a copy of the GLC timetable. It’s 7.0 miles from Howell to Chilson, 7.5 miles from Chilson to Hamburg, 2.5 (yes 2.5) miles from Hamburg to Whitmore lake and 9.9 miles from Whitmore Lake to Plymouth Road (On the AARR by the way).
I looked up the transit times on the proposed schedule on the Wally web site.
Howell to Chilson 7.0 miles 8 min. = Avg speed 58.5 mph
Chilson to Hamburg 7.5 miles 10 min. = Avg speed 45 mph
Hamburg to Whitmore Lake 2.5 miles 3 min. = Avg speed 50 mph
Whitmore Lake to Plymouth Road 9.9 miles 11 min. = Avg speed 54 mph
Total 26.9 miles 32 min. = Avg speed 55.5 mph
That’s 30 minutes of travel time plus a total of 6 minutes station time = 36 minutes total time in transit.
So what happens if the average operating speed is dropped to 40 mph. (For simplicity and not knowing how the original times were chosen, I’m using an average speed of 40, not a maximum speed)
Howell to Chilson 7.0 miles = 10’ 30”
Chilson to Hamburg 7.5 miles = 11’ 15”
Hamburg to Whitmore Lake 2.5 miles = 3’ 20”
Whitmore Lake to Plymouth Road 9.9 miles = 14’ 51”
Total 26.9 miles = 45’ 56”
That’s 46 minutes of travel time plus the 6 minutes station time for 51 minutes total time in transit. It will take 15 more minutes but should translate into lower capital & operating costs. It sure shouldn’t require CTC for 40-45 mph trains operating on a time table or a block system (trains are 30 minutes apart).
I would request a waiver for the ADA requirement for a three year trial period. This would allow for time to see if the service was truly a “build it and they came”. ADA service could be provided with a “on – demand” bus service that would be scheduled the day before or even a few hours before. Once the service was deemed a success, the ADA compliant facilities could be built.
In conclusion, I surely thought a bare bones trial period would be worth the $7 million to give it a try. The $32 million proposal sure looks like it has a lot more of amenities than is needed to provide basic service.
Great analysis RDD. I guess RL Banks had to come up with some different colclusions to justify their fee.
I wonder how long a car trip down the line is? It seems like what I hear on the drivers report is its all stop and go for those 26 miles. I could see it being an hour long trip.
PatC created a monster, 'cause nobody wants to see Don Simon no more they want AARR I'm chopped liver, well if you want AARR this is what I'll give ya, bad humor mixed with irrelevant info that'll make you roll your eyes quicker than a ~Z~ banhammer...
If the drivers are averaging 25 mph it will take an hour. When I was a conductor on some of the GLC excursions, more than one person told me they would take the trains just so they could read the paper, a magazine or work on their laptops even if the commute time was the same. They also mentioned bad weather or an accident would significantly increase the commute while the train would keep right on moving a track speed .
Raildudes dad wrote:They also mentioned bad weather or an accident would significantly increase the commute while the train would keep right on moving a track speed .
The local traffic reports indicate there are frequent accidents on this stretch. It's also very slippery when ice/snow season is upon us. Based on your analysis I could see many people interested in the train.
PatC created a monster, 'cause nobody wants to see Don Simon no more they want AARR I'm chopped liver, well if you want AARR this is what I'll give ya, bad humor mixed with irrelevant info that'll make you roll your eyes quicker than a ~Z~ banhammer...
Why are we assuming that a consulting firm with many years of experience, composed of retired railroaders from high management positions and centuries of cumulative experience, working within known federal guidelines, would deliberately create a fictional, inflated cost structure to justify their fee? Do any of you personally know anyone who works for RLBA? (I do.)
You can not get around ADA requirements. Equal access for the disabled is a right in this country, not something to be ignored because those who are fully abled don't feel like bearing the equal cost burden for those less fortunate. If the idea of keeping vehicles off the road and avoiding traffic backups is the whole purpose of this line, why would we stick the disabled people right back on the road?
No 480V standby power? You really want to leave four sets of equipment running all night and all day to keep the coaches heated or air-conditioned? Do you have any idea what that will cost in diesel fuel in just one year?
No sidings for storage? Do we just leave the trains on the main line? How can that possibly make any sense?
When Mr. Bagwell, president of GLC, stood before the Bluewater NRHS banquet and announced that "Commuter rail has never happened before in this state, and this service will be revolutionary for Michigan," I knew that he was the one out of touch with reality. Ask yourself where that original low-ball estimate came from? Originally it was less than $3M for service. By comparison, Minneapolis' Northstar service cost $300M. You might get to call that gold-plated, but RLBA's 30M assessment is bare bones. And the original GLC estimate was delusional. RLBA's assessment is dead-on for what is required. Most people who think that costs are high have no real idea what components cost. $50,000 might buy you a nice luxury car, but it will buy the railroad exactly two power switch machines for a siding.
.
