Illinois Amtrak Service

NH2060 wrote:

gokeefe wrote:

Matt Johnson wrote:Anyway, here's some news:

Illinois to take lead in buying high-speed locomotives

Check another major item off Amtrak's wish list, a P42 replacement.

Hopefully a more asthetically appealing replacement

Illinois' first task is to compare the Tier 4 compliant locomotives just purchased by Metrolink to the current Next Generation Equipment standards. California has an incentive to choose equipment that would be compatible with the new Metrolink locomotives, which are EMD F125s with a front end that is rather bullet shaped. http://www.emdiesels.com/emdweb/product ... v5RevE.pdf

The bidding will be competitive, but they want to make sure some detail doesn't needlessly exclude the F125s.

I hope they look sleeker than that - maybe more like this:



Also, will the Texas Eagle ever benefit from any speed increases due to this project or will it remain limited to 79 mph on 110 mph track? (I know the Superliners aren't cleared for 110, but should be good for 100 mph.)

Matt Johnson wrote: ... Also, will the Texas Eagle ever benefit from any speed increases
due to this project or will it remain limited to 79 mph on 110 mph track?
(I know the Superliners aren't cleared for 110, but should be good for 100 mph.)

I have the impression that the Eagle will not get to go as fast as the new
corridor trains, but will go faster than it does now. The goal is to get
about an hour out of the corridor schedule Chicago-St Louis, so I've
been thinking at least 30 minutes and maybe 45 minutes out of the
Eagle's run time.

Currently the departure out of Chicago is 1:45 p.m. Make that a 2:30
departure and keep the St Louis arrival at 7:21 p.m.? Probably better
to keep the 1:45 and make the stops earlier all the way down the line.
Getting into St Louis at 6:40 instead of 7:21 p.m. should be good.

Hey, I'd like to see earlier times from Marshall, Texas, down to San Antonio,
now 9:55 p.m. But what about the connection with the Sunset Limited?

Well, scheduling is a dark art. But I'm sure the Texas Eagle's timetable
will look better however the 30 or 45 minutes are squeezed out of it.

Don't have a link handy (it might even be earlier in this thread?), but I remember reading an Illinois-commissioned planning document a couple of years back that included the proposed "high speed" schedules, traffic analysis, meets, etc. It had the Eagle continuing present-day operation.

Assuming the lead locomotive is equipped with the necessary train control devices, there is no good technical reason why the train couldn't be run at 100. However, the planning/backend work would need to go into it, too. No point in the train running faster "just because it can", if it ends up having to sit and wait at meeting points, or to wait for time at stations.

In order to implement a cohesive plan, more suitably equipped locomotives would need to be made available. A scenario which is not likely, IMHO, simply because of the dueling PTC systems. Some engines/routes are set up for one system, some for another... I don't personally see a universal PTC standard being achieved anytime soon. I doubt Amtrak would spend the money to retrofit additional units just to cover this one particular LD service.

I don't know if those are consistently being used in solid Amfleet sets for certain Lincoln service trains

Not that I'm aware of. Typically I see one or two amfleets sprinkled into a set of Horizon cars. Last week I was inbound on a South Shore train under McCormick place (a monstrous convention hall) and I kept hearing a K5LA. I was really puzzled as none of the electric lines use such horn. Turns out an Amtrak corridor train was literally right over us, honking at track workers, on the SCAL flyover. It was your typical setup with one or two Amfleet and quiet a few Horizon cars. I wish I would've got some video. It's a flyover literally under a building (a three story affair in other words).

Matt Johnson wrote:I hope they look sleeker than that - maybe more like this:

Looks cool! Please not a duck-billed design. Anything but that. So ugly!

quincunx wrote:Looks cool! Please not a duck-billed design. Anything but that. So ugly!

So not like this

lirr42 wrote:

quincunx wrote:Looks cool! Please not a duck-billed design. Anything but that. So ugly!

So not like this

42: I got a laugh looking at this picture...This makes a Genesis engine look like a platypus...
I know that they have a face only a mother could love but even Daffy Duck would say "That's Despicable"...
My apologies to "Looney Tunes" and WB...

Hopefully any Illinois high speed train design will be a decent design and not like some of the newest HSR designs
which do look animal-like...duck or goose comes to mind...

MACTRAXX

A public meeting will be held tomorrow regarding the proposed 8.8 mile siding near Girard, IL. This and other siding work should reduce delays on the Illinois Lincoln service.
http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0654

Although called a siding, I think--and hope--this is going to be another main track. Sidings typically have no intermediate signals nor crossovers, and also slower operating speeds. Can you imagine going into this "siding" on a restricting signal and crawling 8.77 miles to the next signal?

Woody wrote:

Matt Johnson wrote: ... Also, will the Texas Eagle ever benefit from any speed increases
due to this project or will it remain limited to 79 mph on 110 mph track?
(I know the Superliners aren't cleared for 110, but should be good for 100 mph.)

I have the impression that the Eagle will not get to go as fast as the new
corridor trains, but will go faster than it does now. The goal is to get
about an hour out of the corridor schedule Chicago-St Louis, so I've
been thinking at least 30 minutes and maybe 45 minutes out of the
Eagle's run time.

Currently the departure out of Chicago is 1:45 p.m. Make that a 2:30
departure and keep the St Louis arrival at 7:21 p.m.? Probably better
to keep the 1:45 and make the stops earlier all the way down the line.
Getting into St Louis at 6:40 instead of 7:21 p.m. should be good.

Hey, I'd like to see earlier times from Marshall, Texas, down to San Antonio,
now 9:55 p.m. But what about the connection with the Sunset Limited?

Well, scheduling is a dark art. But I'm sure the Texas Eagle's timetable
will look better however the 30 or 45 minutes are squeezed out of it.

One other thing to consider when discussing the possibility of a Eagle with increased speeds and corresponding schedule changes.. Track capacity at CUS. Remember you have 21 at 13:45, 5 at 14:00 and 3 at 1500, in addition you have 4 due in right around 1500, 6 right behind him and 22 right ahead of 3.. holding 21 to say 14:25 or 14:30 could create issues of track capacity to handle 3 and the inbounds.. I am guessing you would see a departure on the current schedule and an earlier arrival at downline points as opposed to a late departure, If a schedule change were to occur because the eagle benefits from a speed increase ( and I would guess that 22 would arrive in Chicago about the same time with probably a later departure out of San Antonio and points east to make up the difference, again IF a schedule change were to take place)

Rockingham Racer wrote:Although called a siding, I think--and hope--this is going to be another main track. Sidings typically have no intermediate signals nor crossovers, and also slower operating speeds. Can you imagine going into this "siding" on a restricting signal and crawling 8.77 miles to the next signal?

I can't believe they'd do that. The use of the term "siding track" suggests that the writer is more familiar with environmental or funding issues than with railroads. I want to believe that it will be designated a second main track, with an 80-mph turnout at each end.

AMTK1007 wrote:

Woody wrote:

Matt Johnson wrote: ... Also, will the Texas Eagle ever benefit from any speed increases
due to this project or will it remain limited to 79 mph on 110 mph track?
(I know the Superliners aren't cleared for 110, but should be good for 100 mph.)

I have the impression that the Eagle will not get to go as fast as the new
corridor trains, but will go faster than it does now. The goal is to get
about an hour out of the corridor schedule Chicago-St Louis, so I've
been thinking at least 30 minutes and maybe 45 minutes out of the
Eagle's run time.

Currently the departure out of Chicago is 1:45 p.m. Make that a 2:30
departure and keep the St Louis arrival at 7:21 p.m.? Probably better
to keep the 1:45 and make the stops earlier all the way down the line.
Getting into St Louis at 6:40 instead of 7:21 p.m. should be good.

Hey, I'd like to see earlier times from Marshall, Texas, down to San Antonio,
now 9:55 p.m. But what about the connection with the Sunset Limited?

Well, scheduling is a dark art. But I'm sure the Texas Eagle's timetable
will look better however the 30 or 45 minutes are squeezed out of it.

One other thing to consider when discussing the possibility of a Eagle with increased speeds and corresponding schedule changes.. Track capacity at CUS. Remember you have 21 at 13:45, 5 at 14:00 and 3 at 1500, in addition you have 4 due in right around 1500, 6 right behind him and 22 right ahead of 3.. holding 21 to say 14:25 or 14:30 could create issues of track capacity to handle 3 and the inbounds.. I am guessing you would see a departure on the current schedule and an earlier arrival at downline points as opposed to a late departure, If a schedule change were to occur because the eagle benefits from a speed increase ( and I would guess that 22 would arrive in Chicago about the same time with probably a later departure out of San Antonio and points east to make up the difference, again IF a schedule change were to take place)

I read the proposal,(Trains magazine), is to run the Eagle considerably later, in order to restore connections with the Empire Builder. It would make for a late arrival into St Louis.

Don't forget the Eagle must arrive in Fort Worth at approximately the same time for connections with the Flyer. As it is today, both Eagles meet in each in the DFW area in the early afternoon. Although I can see adjustments of an hour or two will still allow transfers to the Flyer, anything larger will probably destroy those connections.

Press release from yesterday.

Illinois Transportation Secretary Ann L. Schneider, Springfield Mayor Michael J. Houston and Sangamon County Chairman Andy Van Meter today announced an Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement (IGA) to advance design work as a part of the 10th Street Railroad Consolidation Plan. Under the IGA, the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) will commit up to $8.65 million to support approximately half of the total design cost for the 10th street corridor rail improvements.

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

Presumably, the City of Springfield will be on the hook for the other half of the design cost.

The construction cost will be hundreds of millions, plus the state has to move the offices of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.