Amtrak Michigan: Wolverine, Blue Water, Pere Marquette

electricron wrote:

Woody wrote: TV reporting at its worst. No way in heck will 30 miles of new rails etc
save two hours. It's merely a nice start.

Some basic math,
120 mph = 2 miles per minute
60 mph = 1 mile per minute

... these two speeds will show some truth about speed and distances.

At 60 mph, it takes 30 minutes to travel 30 miles, and 15 minutes
to travel that same 30 miles at 120 mph. Total savings in this example
is 15 minutes. To save 2 hours, using the same speeds, the distance
would need to be eight times as much, or 240 miles.

The rail miles currently used by Amtrak between Chicago and Detroit
is 281 miles. Therefore, it might be physically possible if the entire
corridor was improved.

But the tracks owned by freight railroads aren't being improved for
higher speeds. ...

Thanks for the basic math. It helps to think about not just
this route but Albany-Buffalo and others.

I do expect the entire Wolverines corridor to be improved
eventually, double tracked, the whole nine yards.

Now if the current work takes 10 minutes out of the schedule
Dearborn/Ann Arbor -- Battle Creek/Kalamazoo, that's quite
a nice percentage savings for those short run passengers,
with more time savings to come from this segment.

Even half an hour, better an hour of course, of schedule
reduction will have a huge impact. It's not just the hours
spent on board, it's also departure and arrival times.

Assuming minimal changes in the times at Union Station
because of the crowding, changes will likely mean earlier
arrivals in Detroit and Royal Oak/Birmingham/Pontiac.

Or maybe not. The last train out of Detroit arrives at
10:57 p.m., not to say 11, while 10:30 would be more
likely to get you in bed by midnight.

But the third train out of Chicago now arrives in New Center
Detroit around 12:20 a.m. Make that even 11:50 p.m.
and it feels so much better than "after midnight".
The tired business person now arrives in the northern
suburbs around 12:45 a.m. Well, 11:45 p.m. would be
less tough.

If you're not a morning person, departing Pontiac after 6 a.m.,
instead of 5:45 a.m. as now, will seem more do-able.

==========================

"South of the lake", meanwhile, will take much longer
and more billions. (Just stand by for another stimulus:
if Wall Street doesn't bring down the house again soon,
the House will. LOL.)

Once the route is chosen, studied, documented, and so forth
-- and then funded -- isn't the best outcome likely to be
a passenger-train-only route?

This part of the corridor already carries the Capitol Ltd,
the Lake Shore Ltd, the Pere Marquette, Blue Water, and
the three Wolverines. Seven daily trains each way.

Figure three minimum, likely five or more, additional
Wolverines when the trains speed up and more Next Gen
equipment gets delivered, with likely a second or third
run of the Blue Water. And a second Pere Marquette
(done for political reasons if not to respond to demand).

Then plan ahead to corridor service Chicago-Cleveland,
at least another eight trains a day, and maybe another
couple or three frequencies on the long distance routes.
Also possible that the Cardinal could be rerouted south
of the lake before heading down to Indianapolis -- and
on to Cincinnati in another corridor some day.

All that to say, easily 20 passenger trains using tracks
better not shared with freights.

(I know that today such a project would be ridiculed
in Indianapolis and Columbus. But after the Wolverines
start running eight trains a day carrying about 2 million
passengers a year, jealousy could set in and opinions
change dramatically.)

Anyway, we're gonna be talking about projects and
speeds on this route for the life of this forum. LOL.

Interesting that you posit another Pere Marquette, Woody. I've thought for a while that a PON-DET-CHI train via Lansing and Grand Rapids would be a great addition to Michigan service, particularly since Grand Rapids and Lansing have ridden out the economic downturn much less painfully than Detroit or Flint. For that matter, were Michigan not investing megabucks into the Michigan Central mainline, I'd suggest rerouting a Wolverine...

As for the south-of-the-lake line, I still think Amtrak could do a lot worse than buying/leasing the Michigan Central east of Porter from CSX and reattaching it to the Illinois Central at Kensington.

twropr wrote:On the Amtrak-owned Kzoo-Porter segments, have some slow orders cropped up? Normal running time for #351 nonstop from Kzoo to CP 482 is 1'03". The last several Saturdays that I have listened to the Chesterton Radio feed, it has been taking him 70 min or more from when Amtrak.com shows the Kzoo departure till he calls the signal at 482.

Andy

I went through on the South Shore last week and there were work crews out working on several street crossings in Michigan City. That might explain it but I don't know for sure or how extensive the work is.

Woody wrote:Are you sure? The public meetings call refers to "alternative
routes south of the lake", in other words, Porter to Union Station.

I'm talking about the route east of Kalamazoo. It was owned by
NS, which MDOT bought with stimulus funds and then got more
stimulus funds to upgrade this stretch. Going way back I was
under the impression that MDOT expected to squeeze out an
hour or so from this section alone.

Add time savings from "south of Detroit" and "south of the lake"
and further tweaks here and there to get the trip Chicago-Detroit
down to about 4 hours. Now that is really long term.

But I'm focusing on how long it will take them to use the roughly
$300 million they got to fix up Kalamazoo-Dearborn. I think
they have by law another 2 or 3 years to spend stimulus grants.
"South of the lake" into Union Station will take much longer
than that, I'm sure.

The Service Development Plan and the Tier I EIS are for the entire route. The route alternatives are all the same east of Porter and only vary between Chicago and Porter.

The Service Development Plan will regurgitate and update the alternatives from the Midwest Regional Rail System (MWRRS) report. In 2004, the recommended service was 9 daily round trips Chicago to Detroit, one more Chicago-Ann Arbor for a total of 10, plus four more Chicago-Port Huron. Recommended MAS was 110 mph although alternatives of 79 mph, 90 mph, 110 mph and 125 mph were studied.

The final Environmental Impact Statement must be approved before federal funds are spent on any improvements which will result in an "environmental impact." Examples of environmental impacts include noise impacts from running more trains per day or vibration impacts from increasing the maximum authorized speed.

So replacing rail, replacing wood ties with concrete ties, replacing ballast, improving signals are all work that can be done without creating an environmental impact. But adding a second main or siding which will allow for increased frequency or easing a curve to allow for increased speed will have to wait until the final EIS is completed and approved.

As for time frame, they have until September 30, 2017 to spend $346.5 million for acquisition of the NS line and improvements between Kalamazoo and Detroit.

Freddy wrote:22 year old man, middle of the morning walking down the middle of a railroad track with earphones on. Sounds like a real credit to society.

My 22nd birthday is in a month. -_- while i do listen to music, I do not walk down railroad tracks, and When im on the platform waiting for a train i never stray too close to the tracks. Not all 21-22 year olds are boneheads.

It's quite surprising to me that any human being could survive even a glancing blow at 110 mph without death or loss of body parts, but suffice it to say he was extraordinarily lucky. A direct hit would obviously be unsurvivable unless he was Superman or somehow not subject to the laws of physics. There is a video on youtube of a young woman in Sri Lanka getting hit by a train in a similar manner (glancing blow while walking down the tracks). I won't link it here because it's a little disturbing, but as bad as it looks initially she gets up and walks away apparently uninjured.

25Hz wrote:I wonder if amtrak will be pressing charges for trespassing?

Hopefully they will.

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2013/RAB1306.pdf Will the engineer be able to use the photo of the clear green signal to get his job back, or will Amtrak use the photo of the switch lined into the yard to keep him fired for running on the wrong route?

8th Notch wrote:Well if he wasn't made aware of the open switch then you can't hold him at fault, he was on a clear signal which is "suppose" to indicate a normal route. Unless he did something else wrong during the trip I would expect him to get his job back with any back pay he missed while oos.

If you read the report, it states that the speed came up long before he reached the signal, but he didn't begin accelerating the train until he had the signal in view. I'm not sure what procedures under cab signaling with wayside signals is, so I don't know if he was allowed to accelerate and opted for the safer option, or if the safer option which he took was standard.

JimBoylan wrote:Will the engineer be able to use the photo of the clear green signal to get his job back

Is there sarcasm I'm missing in this part of the quote or did Amtrak actually fire the engineer?

Other posts on the Group have claimed that many railroads (Union Pacific, for example) always fire the employees that were involved in an accident. Then, their union representative may demand a hearing to try to get their jobs back. The railroad may only allow evidence from locomotive cameras at the hearing if it shows the employee to be at fault. But, in this case, the National Transportation Safety Board got the pictures away from Amtrak.

JimBoylan wrote:Other posts on the Group have claimed that many railroads (Union Pacific, for example) always fire the employees that were involved in an accident. Then, their union representative may demand a hearing to try to get their jobs back. The railroad may only allow evidence from locomotive cameras at the hearing if it shows the employee to be at fault. But, in this case, the National Transportation Safety Board got the pictures away from Amtrak.

For the life of me, I do not understand why some people assume that railroads are always looking for the slimmest reason to fire someone no matter how good an employee. It makes no business sense. Having invested (and I emphasize "invested") in training that employee, why would you want to throw that investment away in favor of someone new who will need to be trained from scratch.
From my days as a railroad supervisor, of course there were the problem employees you wanted to get rid of. And then there were the ones you didn't want to part with for anything because they got things done and made your life as a supervisor easier. Why would you automatically fire someone who was blameless and did a good job?
I currently work for an airline and while I'm not involved with pilot matters, I know of two incidents in our past where lives were lost but the pilots survived. Both flew again (and quite quickly) because the incident was not of their making (both major systems failures) and although there was loss of lives, that there weren't more deaths was a direct result of the skills of the pilots and knowing what they could and could not do with their damaged airplane.
For every railroad employee whose mistake has cost lives, there's one whose extra attention has saved lives or minimized casualties when something just didn't seem right (on the railroad where I worked, it was the engineer, running long-hood forward so used to seeing the signal drop as the front passed it, who decided a signal dropped just a little too soon. He was right, it did - they found a vandalized switch; in this case, no metal bent but if there had been, why would you want to fire the person whose actions turned what could have a been a major incident into a minor incident).
In any event, what goes on in the internal hearing (kangaroo court) is in the long run irrelevant. If a blameless employee is fired and that is upheld by the internal hearing, it will get appealed (potentially into the court system) and the employee will get reinstated with back pay. So if the railroad knows (or should know) the employee will eventually get reinstated with pay, why would you not let him work since in the long run, you're still going to pay him?

JimBoylan wrote:Other posts on the Group have claimed that many railroads (Union Pacific, for example) always fire the employees that were involved in an accident. Then, their union representative may demand a hearing to try to get their jobs back. The railroad may only allow evidence from locomotive cameras at the hearing if it shows the employee to be at fault. But, in this case, the National Transportation Safety Board got the pictures away from Amtrak.

There was no hearing. Typically, crews are removed from service after accidents and are medically disqualified until the results of post accident D&A tests are available. In a situation like this, the investigation would show there was no crew culpability (unless they messed up on something else earlier in the trip) and they would be put back into service.

ThirdRail7 wrote:

JimBoylan wrote:Other posts on the Group have claimed that many railroads (Union Pacific, for example) always fire the employees that were involved in an accident. Then, their union representative may demand a hearing to try to get their jobs back. The railroad may only allow evidence from locomotive cameras at the hearing if it shows the employee to be at fault. But, in this case, the National Transportation Safety Board got the pictures away from Amtrak.

There was no hearing. Typically, crews are removed from service after accidents and are medically disqualified until the results of post accident D&A tests are available. In a situation like this, the investigation would show there was no crew culpability (unless they messed up on something else earlier in the trip) and they would be put back into service.

The investigation after the accident would show that the signal was working properly and could NOT display Clear while the switch was lined for the siding. The jumper wires had been removed by that time. The only proof the engineer had to show that he was operating on a Clear signal against a diverging switch was the recording in Amtrak's camera. If the NTSB hadn't got possession of it, would the engineer have been allowed to use that evidence to show the impossible, an apparent false Clear signal, which happened because a Supervisor had tampered with some wires? Ordinarily, when a railroad has a choice between a Supervisor and an engineer, who gets fired?
At Chatsworth, Calif., the Conductor testified that the Engineer had a green signal, but investigation afterwards showed that should not have happened, and the dead Engineer on the cell phone was blamed for the accident.