• Hoosier State Discussion (both Amtrak and Iowa Pacific)

  • 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

  • 1305 posts
  • 1
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  by mtuandrew
 
lstone19 wrote: Mon Jul 06, 2020 8:30 pmWhat am I missing? I'm looking at what I thought was the route through Kankakee and I'm not seeing a need to go backwards between Lafayette and Kankakee. At Lafayette, I see the junction to head towards Kankakee is south of the station so a backing move in Lafayette to/from the station would be needed but that would be it. At Kankakee, it joins the IC/CN route pointed north so no reversal needed there. Then just the normal backup move into CUS like anything off the IC/CN.
Oh ok, when he mentioned backing moves I assumed that meant direction reversal, rather than two short backing moves into existing Amtrak stations. I also misread the Lafayette map.

My point still stands about fewer carriers - though that need not have been the case. (It seems like the ICG should have tried to get the old NYC route at Conrail formation in 1976 even at the expense of their own Indianapolis line, given how seamlessly this route feeds their mainline.)
  by justalurker66
 
There seems to be something just naturally wrong about wanting to route Amtrak on a railroad called the Kankakee, Beaverville and Southern RR.

As challenging as the current CSX route in Indiana may be, it still seems like the best route remaining. Restore service to the PRR Lafayette to Indy if one wants to skip Crawfordsville - but the benefit of that restoration would be minimal in the big picture. Getting the CSX track through Indiana back up to full speed would cut time off of Amtrak's run. A better entrance into Chicago would cut time off of Amtrak's run.

How much would it cost to cut an hour off of Amtrak service between Chicago and Indy?
  by eolesen
 
Bypassing Gary/Merrillville and routing on the CN all the way to Kankakee might get you part of that hour. Or, it could cost another hour... It's a single track main on the CN from University Park to Kankakee, and it's not clear how well the Kankakee to Lafayette track is maintained by the short line. Chances are that 45mph might be a challenge if it's still jointed rail maintained to 1980's standards....

*If* this happened, the backup move could be eliminated by moving the Lafayette station a couple blocks south, or over to West Lafayette. There's no shortage of space on either side of the river, and I'd think that being closer to the campus would positively influence ridership from both IND and CHI the way it does in Bloomington, IL and being adjacent to the Illinois State campus.
  by mtuandrew
 
David Benton wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 2:47 am If the Grand Crossing project went ahead , then I would imagine the Kankakee routing would be faster.
It might be, but the Nickel Plate Connection portion of Grand Crossing would also benefit the existing route. Currently the preferred route is CSX -> Munster -> CN (CSX dispatched) -> Thornton -> UP (CSX rights) -> Metra -> Amtrak. The detour is CSX -> Munster -> CN (CSX dispatched) -> Harvey -> CN Lakeshore and St. Charles Air Line -> Amtrak; it would be faster except for the backing move into Union Station. If Grand Crossing is ever finished, the route would shift to CSX -> Munster -> CN (CSX dispatched) -> Harvey -> CN Lakeshore -> Grand Crossing -> NS -> Amtrak, which should theoretically cut at least ten minutes of elapsed time and another twenty minutes of padding out of the schedule.
  by justalurker66
 
mtuandrew wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 10:09 am If Grand Crossing is ever finished, the route would shift to CSX -> Munster -> CN (CSX dispatched) -> Harvey -> CN Lakeshore -> Grand Crossing -> NS -> Amtrak, which should theoretically cut at least ten minutes of elapsed time and another twenty minutes of padding out of the schedule.
I like that route. The other minutes needed to shave an hour off of the current time would need to come from restoring track speed on CSX and improving any bottlenecks/connections.

Faster via the KBS? I don't think so. Even without considering the reverse moves due to current station locations.
  by lstone19
 
justalurker66 wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 2:23 pm Faster via the KBS? I don't think so. Even without considering the reverse moves due to current station locations.
By saying "reverse moves", you're assuming both Lafayette and Kankakee. While I'd say that a stop in Lafayette is needed, I'd say less so for Kankakee. Should such a route be followed, they could skip Kankakee just as the Ethan Allen does not stop at Whitehall, NY since getting to the Whitehall station would require a reverse move.
  by dgvrengineer
 
If it's 40 for freight then it's 60 for passenger(class3). Now how comfortable that would be is another question. The CSX line from Indi to Crawfordsville is 60 max. Not sure what the speed is north of Crawfordsville.
  by justalurker66
 
dgvrengineer wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 7:22 pm If it's 40 for freight then it's 60 for passenger(class3). Now how comfortable that would be is another question. The CSX line from Indi to Crawfordsville is 60 max. Not sure what the speed is north of Crawfordsville.
CSX Monon: 2008 speeds were 60/40. 2005 speeds were 79/50 passenger/freight.
  by mtuandrew
 
lstone19 wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 2:29 pmBy saying "reverse moves", you're assuming both Lafayette and Kankakee. While I'd say that a stop in Lafayette is needed, I'd say less so for Kankakee. Should such a route be followed, they could skip Kankakee just as the Ethan Allen does not stop at Whitehall, NY since getting to the Whitehall station would require a reverse move.
You plan to uproot both a theoretical new Hoosier and the existing Cardinal from its current route, face backlash from Indiana for eliminating two in-state stops and possibly have to add a station stop in western Indiana, introduce two new host roads (CN and KBS), spend around $100m to fully raise the KBS mainline to Class IV signaled track, and redo all internal and outward-facing protocol in regards to this route which might gain 30 minutes over the existing - and you plan to skip one of the only population centers on the route? :P
  by David Benton
 
justalurker66 wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 7:00 pm Perhaps I am underestimating the KBS?
A local newspaper reported a high speed rail test on their track April 1st, 2010:
https://www.daily-journal.com/news/loca ... 191d9.html


Seriously - Most of the KBS is 40 MPH.
I think the april 1st part of the date may be significant.
  by Bob Roberts
 
David Benton wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:03 am I think the april 1st part of the date may be significant.
Which leads me to wonder (somebody needs to, its probably my turn): If Indianapolis to Chicago got the Texas Central treatment (new ROW and new construction true HSR) and it was only an hour for the train to travel the 160 miles between downtown Indy and the Loop, Including a stop near Lafayette, what would ridership look like? (with trains leaving every 30 minutes)

Would either city gain economic heft from the combination of labor markets? Would quality of life be improved at either end of the track? Could there ever be a long-run economic justification for the investment?

(This is a purely theoretical question, I am not trying to suggest this is a great idea)
Last edited by Bob Roberts on Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
  by CraigDK
 
mtuandrew wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:29 am
lstone19 wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 2:29 pmBy saying "reverse moves", you're assuming both Lafayette and Kankakee. While I'd say that a stop in Lafayette is needed, I'd say less so for Kankakee. Should such a route be followed, they could skip Kankakee just as the Ethan Allen does not stop at Whitehall, NY since getting to the Whitehall station would require a reverse move.
You plan to uproot both a theoretical new Hoosier and the existing Cardinal from its current route, face backlash from Indiana for eliminating two in-state stops and possibly have to add a station stop in western Indiana, introduce two new host roads (CN and KBS), spend around $100m to fully raise the KBS mainline to Class IV signaled track, and redo all internal and outward-facing protocol in regards to this route which might gain 30 minutes over the existing - and you plan to skip one of the only population centers on the route? :P
I was going to make that point, but didn't get a chance to yesterday, that the current route of the Cardinal has an advantage for a state supported route. Namely that all of it's stops, save for Chicago, are in Indiana. And if the only change that is made is routing it via Kankakee, you have to add additional miles to the trip, I would estimate somewhere between 15 to 20 miles. If you are going to invest money in track improvements, it would be better to do it on the shorter route. And that is all before the need to consider the downside for reverse moves or the cost of relocating some of the stations.
  by justalurker66
 
David Benton wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:03 am I think the april 1st part of the date may be significant.
Which is why I posted it bold, highlighted and underlined to make sure the date was noticed. :wink:

As for the 40 MPH track, I will note that UP Villa Grove is 40 MPH freight and passenger (at best). Assuming a 40 MPH freight track (KBS) can do 60 MPH passenger without upgrades is a bad assumption. If the money is spent it should be spent on the CSX Monon, which had 79 MPH passenger service in 2005.

79 MPH isn't 125 MPH or 200 MPH rail ... but it shaves a few minutes off. Although I agree with Bob Roberts' question, if we build it will people come? Is there really a high enough ridership demand to make any major investment in this link? Would there be an economic return on the investment?
  • 1
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87