110 mph in Illinois this year?

I remember reading that the upgraded portion of the Chicago - Springfield route should see 110 mph revenue service this year. Is that still likely? This report seems to indicate the high speed upgrades in Illinois are in jeopardy:

http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df0 ... tml#LaHood

Planners want trains to be able to go 110 mph in the corridor, while the current top speed is 79 mph – but it would take nearly $200 million for the next phase of track and equipment upgrades.


I assume "next phase" means upgrades above and beyond the initial 110 mph section, as I thought all work was complete on that stretch of track.

what locomotives would Amtrak use? P-40's can't go 110

But P42s can.

The P40 top speed is 103 mph (hence their "alias" AMD103), but I recall a while back that there was an effort underway to upgrade them to be similar to P42s, but as for the aspects of the upgrade and whether or not they would get a higher top speed, I cannot speak to.

Just made me think it seems people always mix up the top speeds and the HP with the P40's and P42's...

Yep, P42's can do 110, and that's all you'll see on that corridor. The few P40's in service are pretty much relegated to the Auto Train and sometimes the Sunset Limited, and occasionally see use in upstate New York and New England.

In October of 2002, Amtrak did a demonstration run at 110 mph along some of the upgraded track in Illinois. If the track and signal upgrades are complete, I don't know what's holding up the increase in revenue service speeds.

What's the difference between a P40 and a P42?

Do they look different?

Rhinecliff wrote: Do they look different?

No, aside from maybe a small window in the back of the P40 that doesn't exist on the P42. The P40's are numbered 800 thru 843. The P42's are numbered 1 thru 207.

P40: http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=66086

P42: http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=69946


The P40's were delivered starting in 1993, and the P42's are basically just an updated version, appearing around 1996 I think, and delivered through 2002.

I'm pretty sure we were talking about upgrading track in Illinois to 110 mph? Let's get back on topic.

-otto-

I'm not sure what the $200 million is supposed to be for. this [utu.org] seems to indicate most if not all of hte required trackwork and signalling is done, but some additional subsidy is required, along with substaitial testing.

LaHood obviously is not a supporter, while he suggests he's not really against trains, he then goes on to say that his constituents don't support trains going '120, 125, 150 mph through rural areas' What exactly that has to do with 110mph service is anyones guess. Perhaps the 200 million figure is for an upgrade to 125 mph as part of MWHSR, that he's banding about because he's generally against the idea of fast trains though his backyard?

hmmm

The basic functionality of the Positive Train Control (PTC) system has been tested and it functions properly. Trackwork is complete. The additional money is for developing some additional functionality to handle track gangs and track inspectors, and to ensure the "moving block" software functions properly.

The project runs from Mazonia to Springfield. About half the distance will be an "overlay" in which the existing signals remain in place, with PTC permitting higher speeds and positively enforcing movement authorities. The other half will have no wayside signals, and will allow "moving blocks", permitting minimum following distances between trains (no fixed signal blocks).

This is an ambitious undertaking, the first of its kind. If politics and railroad resistance don't kill it altogether, it could be the beginning of a new era in train control technology...and about time, too. CTC was first installed on the Toledo & Ohio Central Railroad in 1927. It's time we tried something new.

Maybe track is ready for PTC and 110 mph but now every engine used on that track, freight and passenger needs to be getting the Positive Train Control (PTC) system.
it will disqualify any run trough power for freight unless equipped. all Amtrak engines are not equipped with this propriatery system used on this line. so yes $200 million is probably lowballing it.

110 MPG on the old GM&O route through Illinois....

With all those grade crossings???????

Hardly seems safe at all to do.

At 79 mph (115.9 ft/sec), a train covers 500 feet in 4.3 seconds. At 110 mph (161.3 ft/sec), it covers that distance in 3.1 seconds. Is this enough difference to have a measurable effect on grade-crossing safety?

mattfels wrote:At 79 mph (115.9 ft/sec), a train covers 500 feet in 4.3 seconds. At 110 mph (161.3 ft/sec), it covers that distance in 3.1 seconds. Is this enough difference to have a measurable effect on grade-crossing safety?

Exactly my point...Not safe at all!

ClubCar wrote:110 MPG on the old GM&O route through Illinois....

With all those grade crossings???????

Hardly seems safe at all to do.

At what point does it become safe? 100mph?, 90mph?, 80mph? 10mph? Collisions happen at all speeds. I once saw a car try to beat a train that was going no more than 5 mph, but the car lost. And after all, a train going 110mph vs 79mph hitting a car still kills the cars occupants. They can't get any worse than dead.

Though to be serious, that's why this stretch of rail has had a program of grade crossing closures and grade crossing improvements (including testing of some net barriers along this stretch)