Illinois Amtrak Service

I was wondering if this was just a situation where the terminal line happened to own a lot of mileage beyond the main yards. Most of the terminal lines I'm familiar with extend only a few miles beyond the yards. I understand of course Chicago would be an exception but it is surprising nonetheless....

Maybe I used a misleading term. "Terminal tracks" is a technical term that has a specific meaning. I put it in "quotes" in my post because I couldn't think of a better word.
"Suburban tracks," maybe?

What I meant was that between Chicago and Joliet, and again between Alton and St. Louis, the line is congested with industry, yards, crossings with busy freight lines, switching moves, and other features that cannot be readily avoided and that dictate slower speeds.

Passenger trains through this congestion are limited to about 60 mph—not slow by any definition, but not 110 mph, either. Barring a brand-new, hideously expensive, dedicated right-of-way, these 55 miles will never be speedy.

--eastwind

jstolberg wrote:The original construction agreement with UP calls for the reconstruction of the existing single main and 12 sidings with the extension of 3 sidings. The net increase is 32.5 miles of double track (16 miles Godfrey-Shipman, 8 miles at Girard and 8.5 miles at Elkhart).
http://www.idothsr.org/pdf/2a%20route%2 ... 3-4-11.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To this has been added 7 miles of second main track from Elwood to Joliet, 2.1 miles of new siding at Braidwood and reconstruction of one more siding.
http://www.idothsr.org/pdf/first%20amnd ... ecuted.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks for the details, jstolberg, and the source.
OK, so, not 52 miles of additional double track, more like 42.

Revising, then:
92 current miles of double track plus another 42 gives a total of 134 miles.
192 current miles of single track minus 42 leaves a total of 150.
When the current work is done a tad less than half the route will be double track.

Still not too shabby. This will make a big big difference in OTP, perhaps matching that of the Missouri River Runner (better than 90%, although it slipped a little last month—heat restrictions?). It may even allow for a decrease in running times. Looking forward to it.

--eastwind

I don't think the funding for rerouting the trains through Springfield has been allocated or budgeted yet. Does anyone know what the cost estimations are for the Springfield realignment?

While double tracking and track improvements will probably be made between Alton and St. Louis, if they ever decide on which Mississippi bridge to use, and between Joliet and Chicago, if they ever decide on which corridor to use, those tracks will probably not see any top speed increases. Any improvements in suburbia will probably favor better traffic flows than increasing top speed - adding flyovers over rail junctions or bypass tracks around yards, etc.

electricron wrote: While double tracking and track improvements
will probably be made between Alton and St. Louis ....

Back to this page, Illinois DOT
http://www.idothsr.org/about/overview.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

See the timeline at the bottom of that Overview page, with
the small-print captions, one reading:

"Program schedule includes
upgrades that will permit
higher speeds [of up to 79 mph,
not 110 mph] in the Alton-East
St Louis area by the end of 2015."

I just don't see how they can get it done by 2015.

The Illinois DOT gives us a good site with lots of info, but I think it
needs a close fact-checking and edit to reflect more current activity,
funding outlook, etc. There has been slippage on delivery dates.
Work that's on-going summer 2013 is not described in the same
complete way the work of 2011 and 2012 was described . So looks
like a low level of error has crept into the site.

Still, it's the most authoritative source on the subject that I've seen,
and I give them proper respect for this transparency. Wish that
the Michigan DOT would put up a site for the similar project on
the Wolverines/Blue Water route!

The estimate for rerouting to 10th St in Springfield is $315M. A bit much for the outcome I think. Will the outcome really add that much value to the city?

The Merchants Bridge needs work. It is double-tracked yet only one train is allowed on it at a time. My worry is that they are trying to make it the preferred route for Amtrak in order to get funding for the bridge work. The route through St Louis from the Merchants Bridge has many more grade crossings than the MacArthur Bridge route (~15 more). Plus you get a great view of the city from the MacArthur route. I rode the Merchants route this past weekend and from what I can tell the MacArthur route has more potential for improvement. It's straighter and there's more room. It might help to double-track the approach to the MacArthur. Or in a dream world build a new railroad bridge near it. The Merchants Bridge opened in 1889 and the MacArthur in in 1917

Woody wrote: So, in the name of "high-speed" trains, many miles of siding
have been installed and many miles are being double-tracked,
signals and communications are being upgraded, grade crossings
ameliorated. New bi-level cars with 30% more capacity are
on order, with an order due (or rather overdue) for the
necessary quick-accelerating Next Gen diesel locomotives.

So I'm with you that increased frequency is the overlooked
feature of better train service, while higher speed gets
all the glory. But that's probably just a characteristic of
the politician/media, good-hair brain type, and we'll
just have to live with it.
M

Where did you get the 30% increase in capacity from?
Just looking at the existing Horizon and California cars....
Horizon seating capacity = 68
California (coach) seating capacity = 90
So off hand, my math shows 90/68 = 1/32 a 32% increase per car.
But will the new trains actually use the same number of cars in a consist?

Looking at the MidWest order........
Midwest (Iowa, Illinois, Michigan and Missouri) 7 locomotives and 48 bi-level rail cars
Illinois 12 locomotives and 30 bi-level rail cars
Subtotal = 19 locomotives and 78 bi-level railcars
Some more math: 78 x 90 = 7020 total seats.

Don''t forget the Hiawatha trains subsidized by Wisconsin:
As of 2009, the usual Hiawatha train set consists of one GE Genesis locomotive on the northward end, an EMD F40PH "cabbage car" on the southward end, and six coaches, consisting of four Horizon Fleet coaches and an Amfleet coach on each end that serve as "quiet" cars.
(6 x 68) x 2 = 816 total seats

Therefore, upon delivery of the new Superliners, Amtrak will have 7836 total seats available for Midwest regional serviced.

Some more math, 70% of 7836 = 5485 seats are available today.
Assuming Horizon cars at 68 seats per car, Amtrak would need 80 cars today to carry that capacity.
Amtrak owns 80 ADA Horizon coach cars in its roster today, just doable. Amtrak also runs 11 club-cafe Horizon cars with 14 business class seats and 5 full Horizon dinettes, plus a number of Amfleet I food services cars are available for Midwest service, although I don't know how many.
Therefore, it is apparent that the new Superliner Midwest order should increase seating capacity around 30%. But how much of that will be used to equipped new routes to new cities, and how much will they be used to run more trains or longer trains on existing routes?

The idea that Amtrak will be able to double the number of trains on these routes isn't possible without continuing to use Horizons, or ordering more new Superliners.

electricron wrote:

Woody wrote: So, in the name of "high-speed" trains, many miles of siding
have been installed and many miles are being double-tracked,
signals and communications are being upgraded, grade crossings
ameliorated. New bi-level cars with 30% more capacity are
on order....

Where did you get the 30% increase in capacity from?

Still looking for that 30% thingie.

Meanwhile I found the item below and thought it was interesting.
Seems like the Horizon cars will be in pretty good shape
to cascade down to other routes when the Next Gen
bi-level cars do finally show up.

"The Lincoln Service will have more to offer than ever before.
New next generation passenger cars and locomotives are being
purchased ... Until these are delivered, starting in 2015, the
Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) has provided
funding for Amtrak to refurbish existing Amfleet cars for the
Lincoln Service Corridor. Refurbished equipment will be easy
to spot, since it will be branded with the Illinois High-Speed Rail
logo. ... Refurbished cars will feature new interiors with more
comfortable business and coach class seating, new LED reading lights,
new heating/air conditioning systems, and Wi-Fi. Cafe cars will
feature new menus with improved selection and higher quality
fresh products. ..."

http://www.idothsr.org/pdf/hsr%20factsh ... 101512.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The proposed Chicago to Iowa City railroad line originally planned to begin operation next year has been postponed to at least 2015 according to the Illinois Department of Transportation.

Iowa Interstate Railroad president Jerry Lipka thinks that may be optimistic.

http://newstrib.com/Main.asp?SectionID= ... leID=30439" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Woody wrote:

electricron wrote:

Woody wrote: So.... New bi-level cars with 30% more capacity are
on order....

Where did you get the 30% increase in capacity from?

I got the 30% from news articles, and for such common use
there's not much difference between 30% or 32%. Especially
if for once the spokesperson is trying not to over promise,
to avoid eating words in the future.

Here below is a more official source, except that this report is
labeled as the Specifications for medium to long distance
cars. I thought there was a separate template for
short distance corridor trains, but I'm not finding it.


"Specification Summary
1-7
1.4.2
Capacity and Consist Performance
1.4.2.1
Capacity
As specified, the PRIIA 305-001/Amtrak 962 cars are configured
to have the following passenger capacities:

Coach: 89 revenue seats
1 wheelchair parking location

Cab/Baggage: 74 revenue seats
1 wheelchair parking location

Café/Lounge: 33 revenue seats
1 wheelchair parking location
21 lounge area (non-revenue) seats
4 crew workstation seats

The above figures are defined as the maximum capacities
and therefore may differ from specific descriptions in
other portions of this Specification including
the conceptual drawings Figure 1-1 through
Figure 1-3. ....


1.4.2.2
Consist Performance

Trains typically consist of 4 to 10 cars with
all trainline functions operating normally.

Maximum consist of 12 cars for all trainline functions
to operate at reduced levels, as specified by the Customer.

Maximum consist of 24 cars for brake system to operate properly.

Cars are designed for continuous operation for up to
18 hours and 1,200 miles (1,931 km) per day."

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents ... proved_rev" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; C.1.pdf

Here is the lowdown on the "terminal areas" at Chicago and St. Louis. Whomever above posted that they are inherently slow because of switching, traffic, etc. is a bit off base.

On the pertinent portion of the CN/IC line in Chicago, there are SIX diamond crossings to deal with, NONE of which are controlled by CN/IC. From east to west: 16th St (Metra), 21st St (Amtrak), Brighton Park (NS), Corwith (BNSF), Lemoyne (BRC), and Argo (IHB).

Of course the Amtrak CHI-STL trains do not actually traverse the diamonds at the first two locations, but they ARE impacted on a larger scale, due to the freight traffic which shares the line. CN trains must not proceed past 16th St or 21st St, until it is known that they will be lined up at BOTH locations. This is so as to avoid blocking either one of those two busy north-south routes. Once lined up, it is a 10mph crawl through that entire area. A great degree of cooperation is required between the CN dispatcher, the Amtrak train director, and the Metra operator at 16th St. There are simply times when one (or more) of these three parties can not play ball, and so they all throw up their arms and say "f*** it". The end result is that CN freights are stopped on both main tracks, and Amtrak is unable to even GET onto the CN (at CP "Cermak", just west of 21st St) as a result.

As for the other four foreign RR crossings that Amtrak directly deals with: the CN dispatcher is again tasked with notifying all four of those respective operators/dispatchers when to expect each passenger train's arrival. Some of the dispatchers simply don't, and leave the trains to "self dispatch" themselves. i.e.: tone up each foreign operator, ask for a light, hope they don't already have anything else lined up on their own rail. Or, the CN DS might do his due diligence, and call up those four guys, and they might all say "OK, sure", only to promptly forget (or not care). All four of these foreign lines are pretty busy, themselves, and even in spite of the highest degree of coordination, there is still bound to be a conflicting movement. In this territory, there are no hard and fast rules prescribing who goes first. So one's best bet is to simply try to establish a good rapport with all of the various characters involved....

Once one gets past the quagmire of at-grade crossings, it is actually a fairly modern railroad: two main tracks, CTC, 79 mph, 40 mph universal crossovers at five locations. Freight traffic is not particularly heavy west of Glenn Yard. There is no point in trying to improve track speed on the CN line, until all of the diamond crossings are gone. The folks at IDOT and CREATE are both aware of this, but constructing flyovers would be a VERY expensive concern, just because of the way the land is laid.

Joliet - itself - is a big, slow, antiquated mess, and this is 100% due to disinvestment and disinterest. There is no reason why speeds should be so slow through there. The Santa Fe hammers right on through at a good clip. Meanwhile, Amtrak trundles through at 20mph or less (10 mph thru all crossovers, on the Rock Island diamond, and on the puzzle switch which no longer even connects to the Santa Fe). Oh, and it's all yard limits, for absolutely no reason, other than laziness, and poor signaling. Additionally, if a BNSF train happens to be approaching from either direction, the tower operator usually lets it go, and holds Amtrak out until it clears (because the passenger crosswalks go across the Santa Fe).


Right, so, onto the St. Louis terminal area...

The beginning of double track, and also the end of CTC, is at Wann, just a few miles from Alton. From Wann to WR Tower is joint UP/KCS track, dispatched by KCS. No CTC, just track warrants and automatic blocks. Main 1 is signaled southbound only. It IS 79 mph, but with many caveats:
- turnout at Wann is 15 mph - no reason for this other than disinvestment/disinterest
- crossings at Wood River are 25/40 - same reason as above
- speeds thru Lenox interlocking are 10/30 - same reason as above
- speed on main 2 between Lenox and WR (eight miles, if I recall) is 30. Main 1 is 79. Huh? Well, IDOT paid to improve one track, but not the other. Again: disinvestment/disinterest. All northbound trains usually go main 2, because again, main 1 is only signaled in one direction.

Once you get past WR, the ACTUAL "terminal" slow-speed stuff starts to kick in a bit. (Although the UP route between WR and Q Tower is 60mph.) But the railroad between Wann and WR is a sad state of affairs, and it's disappointing to see it written off as hopelessly slow terminal railroad, because it's a fairly long stretch of track, and it would not be that difficult to improve it. Good luck getting KCS to play ball, though: they don't care.

If you have to take the TRRA "High Line" in/out of STL, instead of the "fast" UP Route via Q Tower and McArthur Bridge - well, you're just boned. It's all 20-30 mph, and will never be improved, because again the TRRA doesn't care. Amtrak usually only goes the high line when it has to, i.e., the fast way is otherwise tied up.



In summary: Chicago terminal area needs major improvements (grade separations); St Louis terminal area needs just marginal improvements (better track & signals). In ten years, not much has been done, because no one can ever agree to anything, especially financing. Carry on...

EricL wrote:In ten years, not much has been done, because no one can ever agree to anything, especially financing. Carry on...

At least there is some help on the way right now. $1 billion won't do it all to Class VI but it is going to make a significant difference.

EricL wrote:- turnout at Wann is 15 mph - no reason for this other than disinvestment/disinterest
- crossings at Wood River are 25/40 - same reason as above
- speeds thru Lenox interlocking are 10/30 - same reason as above

Do you mean that it's not a sharp curve in the switch, but that no one wants to spend money to remove the low speeds from the Special Instructions? (Or, is it bad ties, etc.?)

In the case of Wann, the turnout would need to be reconstructed and lengthened, but that would not be a huge project. Currently it exists with #10 turnouts and extra stock rail between the switches, since the space between the main tracks is unusually long.

Wood River: Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the NS trackage which crosses here does not seem to be particularly heavily patronized - I don't recall ever being stopped there for cross traffic - and I doubt the freight speed is very high. Maybe these could be replaced with one-way-low-speed diamonds? The diamonds do sit on a funny angle, though, so that might not be possible (I'm not a track geometry expert). At the very least, they should rate conventional diamonds at 60mph.

Lenox: sits on a curve, but again, I think it's at least good for 50, if not higher. The puzzle switch on main 2 (one track of the UP Pana line goes across) is 10 mph. That's another maintenance issue which could be fairly easily addressed.

gokeefe wrote:

EricL wrote:In ten years, not much has been done, because no one can ever agree to anything, especially financing. Carry on...

At least there is some help on the way right now. $1 billion won't do it all to Class VI but it is going to make a significant difference.

In 10 years, about the only thing "settled" is why not use the old ATSF route from CUS to Joliet that had been used by the Chief. AFAIK the route suffers from similar crossings from Brighton to Joliet. I thought some work had been done on the 2 Chicago river bridges to bring them up to 40mph from 10. I wasn't sure about refinery traffic in the Lemont-Lockport-Joliet area. Seems to me the UPS traffic to Willow Springs travels at a good clip.