Railroad Forums 

  • Amtrak Quad Cities Proposal Chicago, Moline, Iowa City

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1409555  by quincunx
 
Man, this is taking forever!

WQAD - Moline expects passenger rail to be rolling by early 2018
MOLINE, Illinois - Passenger rail is on track to return to the Quad Cities by early 2018.

That's the word from Moline officials, who learned that final track work should begin in January 2017. That work includes $177 million in federal funding that's waiting for state release.
http://wqad.com/2016/11/15/moline-expec ... arly-2018/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 #1410033  by afiggatt
 
Woody wrote:So it looks like they will have the trackwork done before they will have any Nippon Sharyo bi-levels to run on this route.
Based on the info in the NGEC executive committee minutes, the Nippon Sharyo bi-levels, well assuming no more show stopper test failures, should be entering revenue service before or by early 2018. But I would expect the first batches of bi-levels will go to the Lincoln and Wolverine service trains as those are the high profile corridors. However, once enough bi-levels get delivered, that should free up single level equipment for starting up the Quad Cities service. Should be plenty of SC-44 Chargers available by then as Siemens has been cranking them out at a good clip.
 #1439116  by Jeff Smith
 
News: QCTimes.com

Illinois considers another extension for Q-C rail project

Illinois is making plans to ask for yet another extension to complete work on the Chicago-to-Moline passenger rail connection, according to a state official.

No final decision has been made yet on whether to seek the extension, the official said, but if it happens, it would be the second consecutive year that Illinois has asked for more time.

The federal government awarded a grant in late 2010 for the rail connection, with $177 million devoted to the link between Chicago and Moline.
...
The rail project is aimed at establishing a twice daily service between Moline and Chicago with four stops in between and an average travel time of about three and a half hours, with train speeds at up to 79 mph. It also would leave open the possibility of speeds up to 110 mph. The last time there was passenger rail service to the Quad-Cities was in the 1970s.
 #1439138  by mtuandrew
 
gokeefe wrote:I am amazed that after all these years the project is still alive.
I'm glad, since $177M is a lot of free money to give up.

At minimum, what would Illinois need to start this service? The Wyanet connection, permission from IAIS (not an Amtrak signatory) and whatever BNSF requires, a temporary station in Moline or Rock Island, equipment...?
 #1439166  by gokeefe
 
The previous federal statutes which considered whether or not a railroad joined Amtrak on Day 1 are now moot. Amtrak would simply need to sign an operating agreement with IAIS. If necessary access can be compelled by the STB but that is almost never required.
 #1439184  by gokeefe
 
The incentive structure for On Time Performance is built in along with the basic compensation structure for # of trains. Arrangements for guarantees regarding track class are often included as well. The costs for additional maintenance are then baked in to the basic structure of the agreement. Worth noting that operating agreements for state sponsored corridors in particular often focus on quality metrics that will ensure success (maintenance standards, etc).
 #1439186  by east point
 
The Capitol corridor has an agreement with UP that CC pays for a full time extra surfacing crew that causes twice as often surfacing of the route. There are very few delays on its route due to slow orders. Do not know if that applies to the San Joaquin route as well ?

The biggest delays for CC are trespasser incidents, fouling of the tracks, & a big one is the Suisun bridge delays. Today was especially bad as at least 4 trains took 1:00 delays or more + the following trains that missed their turn times.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12