Illinois Amtrak Service

Gilbert B Norman wrote:The IC X's the Fox River at South Elgin near the Trolley Museum.

A picture post card has been published of an Amtrak RDC on the bridge over that trolley line.

Amtrak trains 302, 21 and 22 detoured down the Rock Island between Joliet and Chicago today due to a oil leak between Lemont on Lockport on the old GM&O. Train 303 was stopped at Lemont, where passengers got on buses and took those to Joliet, where they got on another Amtrak train.

http://www.suntimes.com/2845379-417/amt ... spill.html

Now that would have been a fun detour. What was the delay for those trains?

303 was two hours late, 21 was three hours late, 22 was two hours late. 300 and 302 were several hours late even without the oil spill causing a factor. 304-307 were busstituted.

FYI to everyone:

Today is the last day of the UP track work until next spring. All trains will return to normal service on Monday, December 20.

UP & Amtrak have reached an agreement for higher speed service on the Chi to STL line according to media reports. 3 trains a day at 110mph starting in 2014.


""-More details are coming together about the high-speed passenger rail plans between Chicago and St. Louis. The Illinois and U. S. Departments of Transportation, Union Pacific Railroad, and Amtrak late Wednesday announced what is described as an "historic cooperative agreement."""

http://www.wgil.com/localnews.php?xnews ... newsid=266

and

"Only 20 miles of track on the 284-mile Amtrak route between Chicago and St. Louis will be upgraded to handle 110-mph trains by 2012, state officials said Thursday"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 9423.story

So, it'll take until 2014 to get speeds up to 110 mph on 190 miles of existing track in Illinois. Meanwhile, the Chinese will build thousands of miles of brand new truly high speed rail lines (200 mph +) within a similar timeframe.

Matt Johnson wrote:So, it'll take until 2014 to get speeds up to 110 mph on 190 miles of existing track in Illinois. Meanwhile, the Chinese will build thousands of miles of brand new truly high speed rail lines (200 mph +) within a similar timeframe.

1. The Chinese government has a tax surplus and a trade surplus. Hence no shortage of money

2. They can turf people off their land by sending in the police. No compensation.

But it does show the limitations of the US constitution, as it is almost impossible to do big projects if they are not military.

As far as improving passenger rail is concerned, the USA is starting to resemble those old 1930's Hollywood movies about China.

In those days, a train trip across the country would involve crossing the territories controlled by different "warlords" (think: Ohio, Wisconsin and some others).

Pacific 2-3-1 wrote:As far as improving passenger rail is concerned, the USA is starting to resemble those old 1930's Hollywood movies about China.

In those days, a train trip across the country would involve crossing the territories controlled by different "warlords" (think: Ohio, Wisconsin and some others).

Tell the Tea Party and Murdoch.

george matthews wrote: 1. The Chinese government has a tax surplus and a trade surplus. Hence no shortage of money

2. They can turf people off their land by sending in the police. No compensation.

But it does show the limitations of the US constitution, as it is almost impossible to do big projects if they are not military.

All true, but still, we're talking about merely upgrading some existing track from 80 to 110 mph. (And the Europeans and Japanese manage to get stuff built at a decent pace too.) I read that Union Pacific in cooperation with Illinois DOT and Amtrak has already upgraded over 80 miles of track on the Chicago - St Louis route, with more to come this spring, but it's the new signaling system and grade crossing upgrades that will take longer.

george matthews wrote:

Pacific 2-3-1 wrote:As far as improving passenger rail is concerned, the USA is starting to resemble those old 1930's Hollywood movies about China.

In those days, a train trip across the country would involve crossing the territories controlled by different "warlords" (think: Ohio, Wisconsin and some others).

Tell the Tea Party and Murdoch.

What does this have to do with the subject at hand, or, more appropriately, the "price of tea in China"?

george matthews wrote:

Matt Johnson wrote:So, it'll take until 2014 to get speeds up to 110 mph on 190 miles of existing track in Illinois. Meanwhile, the Chinese will build thousands of miles of brand new truly high speed rail lines (200 mph +) within a similar timeframe.

1. The Chinese government has a tax surplus and a trade surplus. Hence no shortage of money

2. They can turf people off their land by sending in the police. No compensation.

But it does show the limitations of the US constitution, as it is almost impossible to do big projects if they are not military.

it's not about money it's about priorities. we spend plenty of money. we turfed plenty of people off their land for highways

Suburban Station wrote:it's not about money it's about priorities. we spend plenty of money. we turfed plenty of people off their land for highways

True. But, and this is a major one, highways are usually located so the previous landowner can subdivide his property for maximum profits. There's access from the property to the highway.
That's not true for most of the property taken for railroads. Usually there's no access to the railroad at all, and where there is access from a station, there's more land taken for a huge park and ride lot. There's less land left for redevelopment, and without access, the small parcels of land opposite the tracks are usually much harder to reach for farming or ranching.

Taking land for railroads has a far different impact on the landowners than taking land for highways.

I think the issue of using eminent domain for railroad right of way creation ignores the essential truth that the vast majority of railroads in this country were designed and built well before there were any concerns about subdividing land into parcels that were too small for the owners to make any use of. In all cases with the Transcontinental railroads the federal government was the primary landowner. They then deeded the land to the railroads in large blocks so and so many square miles on either side of the right of way. The railroads were then required to settle the land and build small towns. For the few towns in these frontier areas that existed prior to the railroads getting bypassed often led to their immediate demise. In the eastern United States, including Illinois and elsewhere the railroad was usually granted a permanent right of way through the property without necessarily dispossesing the landowner of their entire farm/homestead.

In regards to China they are now 'hell bent' on building a national high speed system as fast as possible because their population of 1.3 billion (CIA World Fact Book) which is rapidly becoming more affluent (and still growing) is no longer willing to put up with 30 hour train rides in smelly sleeper cars with little or no privacy. The result has been massive and umanageable congestion on their national roads network which is also straining to handle the increase in traffic. The legacy of underinvestment in population and infrastructure during the Mao years continues to haunt them to this day thus necessitating these enormous 'catch-up' projects in which they will attempt to build 40 years worth of infrastructure in about 4 years. I cannot imagine that every mile of every track of this type of construction will be properly built to standard leaving them with even more headaches to contemplate over the next 20 years as they try and get everything 'straightened out'.

We do not undertake projects of this scale and magnitude in the United States because a) in many parts of our country our population density cannot justify it, b) our roads have sufficient capacity to handle most of our traffic (even if they are behind on upkeep) and c) our air network handles most of what's left (outside the Northeast of course). China on the other hand has none of these luxuries nor can they afford to develop an air travel network comparable to our own. Current jet techonology and air traffic handling technology (even when assuming certain improvements) would never be able to provide sufficient capacity to move the numbers of people who will be travelling in China within the next 20-30 years. Unlike ours their population is densely packed (much like western germany along the Rhine), and their road networks and air networks will never be capable of handling the same proportion of travel as ours can.

Not surprisingly the intelligent planners in China have realized (perhaps belatedly) that they must construct the world's largest and fastest network of high speed trains if they are to have any hope of coping with the numbers of people who will be living in the cities of China within the next 20 years. I do not envy their position in the least. In dealing with this problem the Central Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist Party has trumpeted this 'great advance' and fooled many of us into thinking this is a 'Great Leap Forward' all over again for them. They will be lucky if they can get this system planned, engineered, built and operating before their entire national transportation system melts down (which it has already started to do in some places on certain occasions).

We on the other hand are in the enviable position of having substantial excess capacity in our rail networks in the form of unused landways (and even some modern rolling stock) that can very easily be relaid(!) with track, or we have tracks and railroads that can be upgraded relatively easily at comparatively very low costs (due to the recession and generallly moderate demand). There are no land disputes to speak of in virtually every case because most of these rights of way have existed now for the better part of the last 100 years. I'm sure there is many a frazzled Chinese planner who would give you his last yuan (renminbi) if he could be faced with such a simple problem set as this.

For several years now the State of Illinois, like the State of Maine where I live, has chosen to make incremental investments in their passenger rail infrastructure because they believed in the importance of rail as an essential part of an integrated passenger transportation system. This demonstrated commitment to passenger rail has been amply rewarded by the current administration. 'Favorite son' politics aside I don't think if the President had been a resident of Hawaii at the time of his election that Illinois would have necessarily fared any worse, nor for that matter would Hawaii suddenly have received funding to build a railroad on Oahu. More importantly the new service have been a measured response to predicted trends in travel which are now beginning to materialize, perhaps a little faster due to historical and economic factors. I for one am thankful that this new construction is occurring in a measured and careful fashion which will allow thorough planning, engineering and result in a track structure that will stand the test of time.