Moving to one terminal per big city - wise?

Rockingham Racer wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 1:17 pm There's room for a flyover though, that would take HC trains over the SCAL and onto the RI tracks, where their main line goes from 2 tracks to 3 and on northward up to the La Salle St. Station. Possible? Yes? Probable? Don't think so.

And to Tad: IF a connection [not a flyover] from the SCAL to Metra RI were constructed at 16th St., some BNSF Naperville commutes could conceivably run over to La Salle St.

Having lived in Blue Island and used La Salle St., I can safely say that La Salle St. is underused with its 8 tracks. I would imagine that CN would not be too happy with that idea, however!

I don't disagree with anything you say here. Your point about CN being happy is well-made.

Worth going back to the beginning: the main idea of this thread is that handoffs, flyovers, bypasses, and diversions add needless complexity, unreliability, and scheduled running time.

We're solving a huge problem of awful routing forcing trains into unnatural terminals.

Secondarily we may contribute to solving a crowding problem at CUS.

Finally, this is a corridor train solution, and doesnt have nearly the usefulness to long distance trains. A 30 hour run doesn't have much of a win from shortening by 45 minutes. Corridor trains, on the other hand, could see a reduction in scheduled time that takes a big chunk of the schedule out. And they don't need much service other than a vaccuum and a toilet dump. No beds, no baggage, no diners.

Well, back to the title of this topic: it's become abundantly clear that in the largest of the cities, one terminal per city is not possible--let alone wise. And in the case of Chicago's Loop, there seems not to be any space to build another. OTOH, headway times, as well as turnaround times at terminals, could be done with a little more alacrity, IMO. That alone would add capacity.

Tadman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:10 am It means using stations that are on the route they serve to reduce 30-40 minutes of timetabled running time and reduce delays and complexities from hand-offs between class 1's that cause unscheduled delays.

Terminating trains 30-40 minutes before their destination? If you're just talking about adding stations 30-40 minutes away from CUS and still terminating there it isn't decentralizing. Terminating early then running trains empty to CUS doesn't make sense. (The required mechanical inspections and fueling have to take place somewhere. CUS is set up to handle those services.)

Tadman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:33 am We're not building any new stations, just letting trains run into the stations they were designed to run into.

Stations that no longer exist?

Tadman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 10:10 am We need to get back to basics. Trains should go where they can terminate the fastest. The legacy terminals that were intended to use by profit-making railroads.

They can terminate fairly fast before they enter the city. The only argument is how far away from the city center you want to spend money building stations then building infrastructure to deliver those passengers to the city the station allegedly serves. The disagreement is over where one defines "ridiculous". I believe forcing CN-IC trains to a different station is ridiculous (whether it is located at 27th St, 115th St or Homewood).

And yes, A Grand Crossing connection has been a dream for many years. So has the rebuild of the 75th St corridor that is in the final planning stages. The grade separation at Englewood that has been completed. The West Lake NICTD project that is in final funding. The double track NWI (including ending Michigan City street running) that is in final funding. Good projects do get built eventually.

As for decentralizing? I believe it has much less of a chance of gaining traction than anything in CREATE. I believe Michael Payne's Gray Line has a better chance of being built than any decentralizing plan. I take comfort in knowing that this is just a "fun discussion" on the Internet and decentralization has a near zero chance of wasting taxpayer dollars.

The solution is complex but a simple statement would cover it all. Make all the SE, South, and SW approaches into CHI new Amtrak only tracks. Flyovers of all the choke points. Got a few+ Billions ?

Lets take a few steps back and look at the problem of Chicago as a whole.

You have four terminals and a heavy in-fill: Ogilvie, Union, LaSalle, Millenium, and Van Buren. Only two have within-one-block connections to subway/heavy rail transit: Ogilvie (Green/Pink) and LaSalle (Blue). Everything else needs a multi-block walk. Going to Ogilvie to Union is a multi-block walk. Ogilvie and Union are at capacity. LaSalle is not.

You have a *TON* of rail traffic, hand-offs, etc to get into Union station because... Chicago is Train Town. It's been built up and causing pain to get into Union Station. It's a cluster**** of hand-offs that is being slowly un****ed. (Yes, I'm censoring that myself)

And while you have minimal transfer between Amtrak trains, it's not insignificant. There has to be a connection, ether in station or by "direct", easy to use link. And no, a bus is right out.

You also have all the commuter Metra traffic to deal with, as Amtrak traffic pales in comparison to it. This makes the "mass" in "mass transit" require capital letters and a font so bold it's classified as "black." Oh, and none of the METRA or Amtrak lines have connections to CTA outside those five stations above.

The solution is not simple. In fact, it's down-right expensive. You need to get people off the METRA lines earlier, which means building more CTA lines and connecting them *to* Metra.

Funny thing... poking around Open Railway Map, I see that there's some abandoned track underneath Merchandise Mart, a CTA L station. Why not build a station that connects to that to offload Ogilvie?

This discussion reminds me of the first time I came to Chicago by train during '61.

Growing up along the New Haven (Riverside), my rides into Grand Central were through the well engineered Woodlawn Jct where the NH and the NYC Harlem Division join. New Haven trains then only stopped at 125th St. Otherwise, save a few restrictions 45-60mph all the way.

Now I'm coming to Chicago - the Railroad Capital! Riding the Capitol Limited as it picked its way through "diamonds", Stop and Proceeds, and finally heading West over the B&OCT when the crow would have been flying North to Grand Central (B&O varietal)....what a disappointing way to enter The Railroad Capital!!! (no wonder as a college kid I had to listen to my train-hating Father's "why can't you just fly like everyone else does?").

justalurker66 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 7:40 pm

Tadman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:10 am It means using stations that are on the route they serve to reduce 30-40 minutes of timetabled running time and reduce delays and complexities from hand-offs between class 1's that cause unscheduled delays.

Terminating trains 30-40 minutes before their destination? If you're just talking about adding stations 30-40 minutes away from CUS and still terminating there it isn't decentralizing.

Dude you are so far in the weeds here I think everybody is lost. Nobody has ever ever ever mentioned terminations out in the burbs but you. I'm talking about some very basic concepts:

Target <3 hour timing for corridor trains (or a large portion of their routes) by the following steps:
1. Send trains into the terminals at the end of their routes
2. Stop forcing handoffs between Class 1's


Sending trains into terminals at the end of their routes would mean the Carbondale trains go to Randolph or Van Buren rather than going over the Saint Charles Airline, which is a very slow and circuitous route. It also requires a backup move over BN and Amtrak trackage (see #2) that adds quite a lot of time to the schedule. This also means new-start trains to Quad Cities go over the Rock the entire length and into LaSalle.

Forcing handoffs and backup moves requires two host railroads to liaison together and hand off a train. This works every day for freights because the freight can be an hour late, no problem. The passenger trains cannot viably deal with the unpredictable and unscheduled delays. A big reason the Hoosier state died is the multiple handoffs in Chicago alone made it unviable as a corridor train. If we force the new Rockford train into a multi-host route, it may have the same result.

There is significant statistical evidence that the handoffs cause problems. We can see in the timetable that the extra distance over bypasses to CUS causes extra time. I have been on numerous Detroit, Carbondale, and Indianapolis trains where this happens.

Consider the Detroit train passenger, waiting for CN and NS to hand off at West Detroit. You can almost see the Detroit station, but you are sitting there for 20+ unplanned, unscheduled minutes. This is really bad optics. The average suburbanite is not going to suffer this again, they're going to drive or fly next time.

Again, nobody has ever said anything about terminating trains in the suburb.

We have also cited evidence of multi-terminal success above such as Downeaster to Boston North and Brightline to Miami Central. The entire rail network of multiple countries terminating in their capital. The Flyer going to Fort Worth but not Dallas. The Northern Lights will probably skip SPUD, just like the commuter train does.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 23, 2020 7:57 am This discussion reminds me of the first time I came to Chicago by train during '61.

...

Now I'm coming to Chicago - the Railroad Capital! Riding the Capitol Limited as it picked its way through "diamonds", Stop and Proceeds, and finally heading West over the B&OCT when the crow would have been flying North to Grand Central (B&O varietal)....

The B&O in Chicago was always a mystery to me. Their first route was right up the lake, join the IC in South Chicago, run straight into Central Station. The simplicity was amazing. Then they built Grand Central and ran half way around Midway to get there. Then they dumped Grand Central and borrowed a track or two at Northwestern, and detoured all the way to the north. Why they didn't go back to Central is beyond me. By then it was perhaps 1970 and only a few trains left, mostly C&O Grand Rapids runs.

Tadman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 23, 2020 8:06 am The B&O in Chicago was always a mystery to me. Their first route was right up the lake, join the IC in South Chicago, run straight into Central Station.

Mr. Dunville, if the Baltimore and Ohio ever operated passenger trains into the Illinois Central's Central Station, it's news to me.

The Chesapeake and Ohio's subsidiary, Pere Marquette, did. There were also through Pullman lines interchanged at Cnci between the C&O and the C,C,C, & StL (NYC Big Four) which used Central Station.

The B&OCT's Grand Central Station, used by B&O, SOO, and Chicago Great Western, was closed during '69 or '70 and chopped down shortly thereafter. Ironic in that the "head house" parcel (Harrison & Wells) to my knowledge remains vacant (the "throat" has been redeveloped).

But, as you note, the routing for the surviving B&O trains into C&NW (that's Ogilvie, youngsters) made a circuituous route even more so!

We're a bit off topic here but the ancient history is interesting. After a bit of review, it appears B&O originally went to a pre-Central Station that IC owned, pre-1900. Then it built Grand Central around 1891 and perhaps used the SCAL to reach it. Either way, trains used the B&O Brookdale branch to reach IC at 67th where the IC South Chicago branch joined the main line, and one can easily see abnormally-sited houses covering the ROW even today.

Once the B&O and IC parted ways, B&O used the Rock's relatively unknown east-west main in South Chicago to reach their own B&OCT, then northward to a track that led back eastward and over the river to GCT (chicago). This happened about 1893. The Brookdale branch was then a freight only line dead-end, as IC severed the connection when it elevated the main per Chicago's mandate that all mains be elevated.

Then around 1968 or 1970, B&O and C&O moved to North Western Station. I have no idea how they got there. Here is a cool Marty Bernard pic of a B&O E next to a yellow gallery car. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1e/51/16 ... f8142e.jpg

Tad, you’ve brought up two points I want to address: using stations at the “natural end” (my term) of a train’s route, and lack of connecting traffic at least through Chicago.

I’m not familiar with the routes of the Lincoln Service and Texas Eagle to know how they get to CUS from the southwest, presumably along the Heritage Corridor which best empties into Union Station. Otherwise every other train aside from the Illini/Saluki, City of New Orleans, and Cardinal has a set route that leads directly to Union Station’s doorstep. Even if moved to LaSalle, the Cap, LSL, and Michigan trains won’t improve their timekeeping so long as Norfolk Southern Railway isn’t invested in being a good host. The trains coming via BNSF and CP tend to be better, and also don’t really have better station options. That leaves the trains from southern Illinois (and the Card) as I mentioned.

First, can they even run into Millennium anymore? You haven’t addressed that they would need to run under wire, unless there is still unwired track in place (which doesn’t seem to be the case, from satellite views.) Assuming it isn’t Plate H certified, the process of de-energizing the wire each time Amtrak arrives with a Superliner train seems like a deal-breaker for Metra. Are there diesel platforms at McCormick if the trains can’t readily go further north on electric track? And what’s the relative cost of building out a station on the CN/IC Lakeshore Line versus building Grand Crossing/Nickel Plate connector?

Second, by saying “people don’t connect between trains, therefore let’s take away the possibility of connection” you’re going against every transportation precept. The name of the game shouldn’t be giving up the possibility, but making the connection stronger through route improvements. For the CN trains that could mean running with an NPCU on the far end as a baggage car - the backing move into CUS then becomes that much easier.

I think it bears repeating that the main reason that some big cities have multiple downtown terminals is that that was the best the railroads could do when they built them. The land for a single union terminal and the ROWs to get to it just didn't exist. Maybe the PRR and the NYC would have kept separate terminals to try to glean extra passengers on routes where they competed directly, and some other RRs in similar situations in other cities would have done the same, but in general I think both the RRs and the municipal authorities would have preferred unified central stations with good onward and local connections. Just look at the big cities that have spent huge sums building tunnels to link those legacy terminals: Oslo, London to some extent, Paris to some extent. Pretty much everyone's ideal was always to have one big central terminal, possibly with through stations in appropriate spots on some of the lines coming in, on the order of Back Bay, London Bridge, Nasjonaltheatret (Oslo), Shinjuku, and so forth.

I doubt any transportation planner has ever sat down and written a proposal about how great it would be if people in the east suburbs of city A could only take the train to the east side of the city and people on the west suburbs could only take the train to the west side, and how much better that would be than having one central terminal.

That doesn't mean that Amtrak made the right choice or that Amtrak's choice is still right. It just means that any choice will be a choice hemmed in by a lot of constraints.

So we have a choice between subpar solutions to inherited problems caused by the way cities grew. In the Chicago case, either we have a few Amtrak trains routed to a terminal that's awkward for them to access, or we break connections and need to maintain extra station facilities.

Back again to my first rail trip to Chicago during '61 (I had actually been to Chicago first during '57, but that was just to land and take off at MDW), if I may, Moderator, what would had I thought if such were on the NYC or PRR?

Likely a little different; X-ing the CRIP "diamond" at Englewood would have been the first "bump" and of course if PRR, next would have been 21st bridge. But alas, I wanted to be nice to Mom and Dad on this college visit trip and save 'em a few $$$, for the Central and Pennsy had a higher fare than B&O or ERIE (Pullman Roomette same).

Now, for any of us who have "been over", if I wanted a Europe-like entry to a terminal, my first trip into town would have had to have been on the "Q".

Either way , they need to spend few billion to "fix " Chicago , which no one seems willing to do . Create 's been on the books for years , the Englewood flyover been the only really big spend.

Tadman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 23, 2020 8:01 am 1. Send trains into the terminals at the end of their routes

CUS *is* the end of the route for all Amtrak trains entering Chicago, whether or not the train is routed over one railroad or many to reach the station.

Tell us how a CN-IC train would reach Van Buren or Randolph. New crossovers so they can run under wire into the most congested part of the MED?

Draw up a service plan. List where you want the terminal stations. Then tell us where three hours away from your chosen terminal station along which chosen route will take the train.

Include in your service plan where the trains will be inspected and serviced. Understand that this is more than passing through with Lysol and Windex, emptying trash and toilets and filling box lunches (if offered) and water. Full mechanical inspection with a pit. Fueling the engines. Or are you planning on doing complicated moves to get the equipment to CUS after kicking off the passengers?

Don't forget to include the cost of all the upgrades needed to make it work.

BTW: Thank you for not describing the Cardinal route through Chicago as "north on UP, west on BRC, east on Metra SWS, west on NS, north on Amtrak" when that path is nearly a straight line. But since that routes over several class 1s please let is know where the terminal at the end of the Cardinal route is.