Illinois Amtrak Service

GWoodle wrote:

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.

The main reason is that you can no longer directly access CUS via the Santa Fe; the trackage has been ripped out. The present-day Chillicothe Sub ends at Corwith Yard. There is no appropriate "east-east" wye connection track provided at Corwith interlocking, which might facilitate such a move. Now, there is a length of "other than main track" which still extends on the BNSF, east of Corwith. Theoretically, a connection could be built between that line and the CNIC Freeport Sub, and then through moves could continue on the CN up to Bridgeport and 21st St. Passenger trains would be the only ones to make such a move, however, and I suspect a LOT of track and signal work would be necessary. Would probably be a hard sell, even in spite of the light traffic on the Freeport line.

Bridges: last I checked, the Bridgeport bridge is 25, and the 21st St bridge is 15. Both have been that way for quite a while.

Refinery traffic: there is a daily local which normally does hold one of the main tracks between Justice and Flagstone. This is not normally a HUGE issue. If it were to become such, those trains could be made to lock in the clear of the main track. If electric locks aren't present (I don't recall), then they could be installed for relatively cheap.

Intermodal traffic: It's sad, but it's actually not altogether uncommon for a Z train and an Amtrak to depart Corwith at roughly the same time, and for the Z train to beat Amtrak to Joliet. See my comment above about holding Amtrak out at Joliet for BNSF traffic.

Until 2007-ish, there was an effective "double track" between Mazonia and Joliet, as the Santa Fe line via Pequot/Coal City could be used as an alternate main. Since then, the connection at Joliet has been ripped out, and the UP Pequot sub has been mostly out of service.

Wasn't using Metra's Rock Island line between Chicago and Joliet put forth as a possiblity to avoid the mess on the CN?

The Rock Island route was chosen by the FRA for Joliet-Chicago. Double track will be extended from Joliet to Elwood.

First of three bustitutions starts on 8/16. The usual - Texas Eagle re-route, Chicago-St Louis bus or the two leg Saluki to Champaign to St Louis by bus.

What's the timeline for the shift to be made from the CN to the RI?

In a nice (from my perspective) stealth move, Chicago's metropolitan lounge is now available to business class passengers. At least that is what the July 15, 2013 Illinois and Missouri table

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/586/330/Ill ... 071513.pdf

says, although the station lounges page of Amtrak.com

http://www.amtrak.com/station-lounges" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

disagrees.

jobtraklite wrote:In a nice (from my perspective) stealth move, Chicago's metropolitan lounge is now available to business class passengers. At least that is what the July 15, 2013 Illinois and Missouri table

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/586/330/Ill ... 071513.pdf

says, although the station lounges page of Amtrak.com

http://www.amtrak.com/station-lounges" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

disagrees.

I have to assume that's a misprint, especially as there's no corresponding language for the Michigan Services: http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/25/750/Mich ... 071513.pdf.

I use the Metropolitan lounge when travelling corridor business class quite often. It's usually clean and quiet and well-staffed. The place is a bit threadbare - it's not exactly the AA Admirals' Club - but it works and it gets you out of that utter dump that is the general waiting area.

That said, I was there a few days ago and the entrance is awfully shabby, hopefully they're cleaning it up a bit.

Tadman wrote:I use the Metropolitan lounge when travelling corridor business class quite often.

Did you get to board from the lounge ahead of everyone else in the general boarding area? I don't have a ton of experience with CUS but each time I have ridden corridor business class I was part in the general boarding area where they board BC first. I'll take any opportunity I can get to have the first crack at the single seats with 'good' windows in BC.

Bob, I can't really remember - I wasn't paying very close attention to who was boarding and when. I was just glad not to wait in your traditional "gulag food line" CUS boarding procedure.

Oddly enough, tonight an older friend told me about his experience on Aeroflot (communist russia airline) in 1970. He noted that upon debarking, a very low power zapper (IE cattle prod) was used to herd the crowd out of the terminal. I was a bit surprised the CUS staff hasn't bought a few surplus units for passenger herding.

Bob Roberts wrote:I'll take any opportunity I can get to have the first crack at the single seats with 'good' windows in BC.

So will I. At a primary terminal like CHI, WAS or, in my case, BOS simply snag a red cap, give them your briefcase and tip them a few dollars. They won't mind in the least and you'll be discretely ushered past the general boarding lines and seated at your preferred place.

Tadman wrote:I use the Metropolitan lounge when travelling corridor business class quite often. ...

So just to clarify, the verbiage in the July 15, 2013 Illinois and Missouri time table is not a misprint? I'm curious when were you able to start using the lounge when traveling business class? Have you seen any signs at the station announcing the good news?

If there is no misprint, it does present an interesting situation. I've heard that it was pressure exerted on Amtrak by the state of Illinois that got the policy changed. So I can sort of see the reason why the verbiage wouldn't be in the Michigan service time table. But it's also right there on the page with the Missouri service trains. Are the lounge gate keepers going to make a distinction between Michigan and Illinois trains? How about Missouri ones?

As I said earlier, a stealth move.

cjdunk wrote:What's the timeline for the shift to be made from the CN to the RI?

I don't know, but it's a question that I'd like the answer to, also--if in fact, there exists a timeline. I'm also wondering if they'll make Blue Island-Vermont St. a stop.

Rockingham Racer wrote:

cjdunk wrote:What's the timeline for the shift to be made from the CN to the RI?

I don't know, but it's a question that I'd like the answer to, also--if in fact, there exists a timeline. I'm also wondering if they'll make Blue Island-Vermont St. a stop.

I'm not sure there has been an announced timeline for that just yet. Back in February, IDOT awarded the contracts to perform Tier 2 EIS studies. Parsons Transportation Group was selected to complete the Tier 2 for the CHI-JOL segment.

Regarding selection of a suburban stop for the route, a meeting was held in July in Tinley Park to address the issue. Representatives of Tinley Park, Midlothian, Blue Island, Oak Forest, Mokena and New Lenox attended the closed-door meeting. An article in the Beverly Review newspaper about the meeting is available at-

http://www.beverlyreview.net/news/featu ... 0f31a.html

Among the requirements listed for a suitable station are accessibility from the highway(the Tier 1 EIS specifically mentioned I-294/Tri-State Tollway) and arterial system, adequate parking and the length of uncrossed rail.

I'd imagine if having access to connecting transportation options were to be a key factor, Blue Island-Vermont Street would be in the lead right now, with Metra-Rock Island, Metra-Electric, and Pace bus service. If proximity to the Tri-State Tollway was the concern, Midlothian would be best, with Robbins clocking in at a close second. A new exit at 147th Street is being built along the Tri-State now. If station amenities were important, either of the Tinley Park stations would rank highly. Tinley Park-80th Ave, which is the largest station, and possesses nearly 2,200 parking spaces, has the added bonus of being adjacent to 280 acres of state-owned land, which would be available if IDOT had the need to construct any facilities. The land became available when the state closed the Tinley Park Mental Health Center and Howe Developmental Center.

Tough call. Vermont St. has more public transit connectivity than Tinley, and Tinley has more available parking than Vermont St. I think I'd come down on the side of Vermont St. though. Tinley isn't that far a car trip from Joliet, either. In the end, I suppose it comes down to how the south suburbs people would be more likely to access the service: by public transit, or by car.

And now we wait for "early" next year.
But at least we got this step behind us.

Federal Railroad Administration Announces
Multi-state Request for Proposals for
Next-Generation Passenger Rail Locomotives

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) today announced
that U.S. manufacturers are being invited to submit bids
to produce high-performance, next-generation
diesel-electric locomotives.

“When we make smart investments in rail, we are investing
in America,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.
“Our Buy America provisions ensure that the major components
of these locomotives will be built with American hands and
with American produced steel, iron and manufactured goods.”

The Request for Proposals (RFP) to manufacture approximately
35 new diesel-electric locomotives in America comes from
a groundbreaking multi-state effort to jointly purchase
standardized rail equipment to be used on state corridor
routes in Illinois, Michigan, Missouri and Iowa in the Midwest
and Washington, California, and Oregon on the West Coast.

The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) is leading
the multi-state locomotive procurement, with first deliveries
expected in 2016. The FRA has allocated $808 million to
manufacture the next generation of passenger rail equipment
including the 35 new locomotives and 130 bi-level rail cars.

The engines will be built to standardized technical
specifications developed by the Passenger Rail Investment
and Improvement Act (PRIIA) Section 305 Next Generation
Corridor Equipment Pool Committee and will comply with
the latest Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
emission standards.

The new uniform standards will drive down costs and
allow more manufacturers and suppliers to compete,
fostering a healthy competition while re-establishing
the U.S. domestic supply chain for passenger rail equipment.

The intent to purchase 35 new locomotives comes as
intercity passenger rail ridership continues to post and
exceed ridership records. Last year, Amtrak carried
more than 31.2 million passengers, marking the highest
annual ridership total since they started operations in
1971, and the ninth ridership record during the past
ten years. The state corridor routes where these new
locomotives will be deployed are among those services
with the highest ridership growth.

“We’re taking historic steps to build the rail system
our economy needs and – more importantly – that
Americans deserve, all while creating American jobs,”
said Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph C. Szabo.
“The need for new rail equipment has never been
greater and the more than 750 railroad suppliers
located in the United States are up to the job.”

Selection of the manufacturer will occur in early 2014.
Delivery of the locomotives is planned for 2016.
A copy of the RFP can be found here.

###
Thursday, August 8, 2013

Re Fair Use: Government Press Releases are NOT
covered by copyright and may be reprinted in full,
as done here. Edited to reduce hed size. WW.