Midwest Regional Rail Initiative

[jpIllInoIs]

We were so close to a great selection 4B Metra Rock Island to a new St.Charles Air connex direct to CUS. Would have benefited the entire East Coast (with new Grand Crossing connect), Michigan, Indy and the Illini/Saluki services.

[ardecila]

I filed a comment in support of 4B, but Amtrak doesn't want to consider reorganizing their maintenance yards.

[Mister Uptempo]

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

We were so close to a great selection 4B Metra Rock Island to a new St.Charles Air connex direct to CUS. Would have benefited the entire East Coast (with new Grand Crossing connect), Michigan, Indy and the Illini/Saluki services.

Alternative 4B may not be completely out of the running, just yet. From the summary of the Final Tier 1 EIS, which can be found here, on page 34-

It should also be noted that during the Tier 2 studies for Section 2, alternative connections that would provide access to Union Station could be considered if that connection would be deemed better than the connection at 40th Street.

[Mister Uptempo]

A question for the folks here on the forum regarding CHI-STL...

The preferred route for the Chicago to Joliet segment is currently alternative 4D, utilizing the Metra-Rock Island District from 40th Street to Joliet Union Station. The plans call for the construction of a suburban station immediately off of the Tri-State Tollway (I-294). I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were regarding the location of this suburban station.

Work is currently being conducted to construct a new interchange between the Tri-State Tollway and I-57, one of only two places in the country where two US interstates cross each other without an interchange. As part of that work, crews are also building a new set of exits from the Tri-State to 147th Street. The Midlothian Metra-Rock Island station is located one mile west of these future exits, along 147th Street at Hamlin Ave. Do folks here think that the Midlothian station will also serve as the future suburban Amtrak station, or is 1 mile not close enough from the tollway?

[Jonboy1983]

I looked that up on Google Earth, and I noticed that the Midlothian and Robbins stations are both roughly a kilometer or so from I-294. Is there really a need for another station right on top of the interstate? I'd suggest upgrading either Midlothian or Robbins. Also, I see it's only double tracked and that there are two at-grade crossings with W 174th Street and Pulaski Road. I guess there's no way of overhauling these, either dropping the tracks below or raising them above street level. Oh, and regarding the double tracking, I guess it would not be possible to add another track in each direction in order to boost speeds along this corridor.

Don't mind me; these are just some observations I'm making here...

[ardecila]

If it was up to me, I would upgrade the facilities in Blue Island and install some large signage to direct drivers from the Tri-State.

If we're trying to encourage TOD and dense development around stations, Blue Island is the most logical choice. It's got a large traditional downtown in need of some stimulus and lots of good transit connections. CREATE should smooth out the various rail-rail and rail-auto conflicts south of Blue Island, too.

Regarding double tracking: this isn't the Main Line/Keystone Corridor. Metra trains on the Rock Island do not run frequently enough to conflict with the Amtrak trains, and Metra does not plan to add trains in the future (the Rock has flat ridership growth and trains are not yet full). However, the Suburban Branch works just like a 4-track overtake; most Metra trains diverge from the mainline at Gresham and return at Blue Island, which allows Amtrak to pass them on the mainline.

In the future, Southwest Service trains will be added to the Rock Island north of 75th Street, and this will probably require a third track between 75th and 40th (where Amtrak trains will diverge).

[Mister Uptempo]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

I looked that up on Google Earth, and I noticed that the Midlothian and Robbins stations are both roughly a kilometer or so from I-294. Is there really a need for another station right on top of the interstate? I'd suggest upgrading either Midlothian or Robbins. Also, I see it's only double tracked and that there are two at-grade crossings with W 174th Street and Pulaski Road. I guess there's no way of overhauling these, either dropping the tracks below or raising them above street level. Oh, and regarding the double tracking, I guess it would not be possible to add another track in each direction in order to boost speeds along this corridor.

Don't mind me; these are just some observations I'm making here...

Regarding the possibility of triple tracking the Rock Island Line, if you go to the Final Tier 1 EIS and select appendix a, which is here, go to page 3 of the document, and you will see that it says very clearly, "TRIPLE TRACK FROM UNION STATION TO JOLIET". I have no idea how much of this is going to be seriously pursued for sure and how much is pie-in-the-sky, but it shows they are clearly looking to increase capacity in the future.

Also in that same document, you will see many at-grade crossings that will be examined for grade separations during the Tier 2 process, 147th Street and Pulaski Road being two among them.

[ardecila]

All the viaducts north of Englewood/60th St have been rebuilt. The abutments are wide enough to accommodate the spans for a third track. The Englewood Flyover will also accommodate a third track, but I'm not sure if it will be constructed from Day 1 or whether it's some kind of future provision.

As I mentioned above, the most pressing need for the third track will be on the segment where Amtrak, RI, and SWS trains all need to share the mainline (that is, the segment from 75th to 40th).

[Mister Uptempo]

Originally Posted by ardecila

If it was up to me, I would upgrade the facilities in Blue Island and install some large signage to direct drivers from the Tri-State.

If we're trying to encourage TOD and dense development around stations, Blue Island is the most logical choice. It's got a large traditional downtown in need of some stimulus and lots of good transit connections. CREATE should smooth out the various rail-rail and rail-auto conflicts south of Blue Island, too.

If you are suggesting using the Vermont Street station in Blue Island, not only would one have the benefit of connections to and from Metra-Rock Island, but with Metra-Electric District as well.

Google Maps shows a distance of 3.2 miles from the 127th Street exit on the Tri-State to the Vermont Street station.

[Beta_Magellan]

Illinois 110 mph operations are plagued with issues

by Paul Druce, Reason & Rail

For the most part, it's some technical bugs, scheduling conflicts, and speed limited curves. Cab signals in one area are dropping out regularly which has resulted in a speed restriction and a de facto loss of 5 miles of 110mph operation down to 90mph. That's not too terribly large of a problem as it only amounts to a loss of thirty seconds. More troublesome is a technical flaw in ITCS revealed by a bad meet with a Union Pacific intermodal train; the siding that it takes blocks a grade crossing and tricks ITCS into thinking that there is a potentially hazardous obstruction on the crossing with a resultant 15mph limit for the approaching Amtrak train. While the immediate problem should be fixable with a scheduling change, this is a bug in the ITCS software which will need to be addressed in the near future.

More annoyingly, and in true "This is why Amtrak can't have nice things" fashion, there is the problem of the second locomotive with no power…

Continued at http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2013/...e-plagued.html

[ardecila]

Seriously?

I wanna chalk this up to growing pains, but if Amtrak is so stupid as to build a siding that crosses a road, I'm not sure there's much hope.

[afiggatt]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Seriously?

I wanna chalk this up to growing pains, but if Amtrak is so stupid as to build a siding that crosses a road, I'm not sure there's much hope.

Amtrak? The line is owned by Union Pacific and the upgrade work is being done by UP or their contractors for the state of Illinois. The siding location may have been there going back decades.

The Chicago to St. Louis corridor, has many grade crossings, over 300 total public and private crossings if I recall correctly. May be impossible in some locations not to block grade crossings for a 2+ mile long siding. The long term plan is to double track the entire corridor, which would eliminate the problem of a freight train sitting on a siding blocking grade crossings. But a full double track will take another billion or two along with the revised route through Springfield IL and improvements on the Joliet to Chicago and Alton to St Louis ends.

Meanwhile, they are encountering some glitches on the initial Pontiac to Dwight 110 mph segments that they have to fix or implement work-arounds. That is what an initial high speed test segment is being done to find out.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by afiggatt

Amtrak? The line is owned by Union Pacific and the upgrade work is being done by UP or their contractors for the state of Illinois. The siding location may have been there going back decades.

The Chicago to St. Louis corridor, has many grade crossings, over 300 total public and private crossings if I recall correctly. May be impossible in some locations not to block grade crossings for a 2+ mile long siding. The long term plan is to double track the entire corridor, which would eliminate the problem of a freight train sitting on a siding blocking grade crossings. But a full double track will take another billion or two along with the revised route through Springfield IL and improvements on the Joliet to Chicago and Alton to St Louis ends.

Meanwhile, they are encountering some glitches on the initial Pontiac to Dwight 110 mph segments that they have to fix or implement work-arounds. That is what an initial high speed test segment is being done to find out.

While it is true there are many grade crossings, that's why the max speeds will be limited to 110 mph. I'm starting to think UP is doing everything in their power to sabotage Illinois HSR. First, bad concrete ties between Alton and Springfield. Now bad signaling between Dwight and Pontiac. Who knows, the same may be true between Alton and Springfield too, it's never been tested at 110 mph speeds? They're still arguing over which route to take through Springfield and into Chicago, they're still arguing which bridge to use to enter St.Louis. By the time these decisions have been made, and track upgrades have been completed, will anyone still care? Obama's second term will have expired, will the next follow up upgrades ever get funded?

[ardecila]

Have you looked at the recent Record of Decision? IDOT has made decisions on all three route options. The nature of the relationship between IDOT and UP is confusing, though... I don't know whether the ROD reflects the opinions of UP.

At least the Michigan corridor won't have this excuse, though... Amtrak or MDOT controls all engineering work now that they own the corridor.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Have you looked at the recent Record of Decision? IDOT has made decisions on all three route options. The nature of the relationship between IDOT and UP is confusing, though... I don't know whether the ROD reflects the opinions of UP.

At least the Michigan corridor won't have this excuse, though... Amtrak or MDOT controls all engineering work now that they own the corridor.

I will agree with you about Michigan, the UP wasn't involved there.
There's a difference between selecting a preferred alignment, and finally choosing when completing the EIS process. Changes can still be made, the alternate alignment can still be chosen as the amount of financing is identified.

I'm still worried about finding the funding to complete the corridor.

[Mister Uptempo]

Originally Posted by electricron

I will agree with you about Michigan, the UP wasn't involved there.
There's a difference between selecting a preferred alignment, and finally choosing when completing the EIS process. Changes can still be made, the alternate alignment can still be chosen as the amount of financing is identified.

I'm still worried about finding the funding to complete the corridor.

This comment brings up a question I've been wanting to ask...

How often does a preferred alignment get changed during the EIS process?

I ask because I was recently going through the draft EIS for the Chicago-Omaha Corridor, which is posted here, on the Iowa DOT page. The eventual service envisioned calls for 7 round trips between Chicago and Omaha daily, at a speed of 110mph. This would, of course, be built incrementally, starting with the Chicago-Quad Cities route, then to Iowa City, then Des Moines, and finally Council Bluffs/Omaha, with an initial speed of 79mph.

There were several potential routes studied. Two that survived the coarse screening process were Alternatives 4 and 5. Alternative 5 (Metra-BNSF/old Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy) was shot down, as the route would not have adequate ridership. Alternative 4(Metra-Rock Island/CSX/IAIS) was turned down primarily because Metra-Rock Island did not have access to Chicago-Union Station.

Instead, a hybrid alternative was developed, Alternative 4/5A, which would use Metra-BNSF to BNSF to IAIS. This alternative would require a new connection be built between BNSF and IAIS just west of Wyanet, IL.

But with the Record of Decision recently being released by the FRA regarding the Chicago-St. Louis route, which includes a connection between Metra-Rock Island and Chicago-Union Station, would it make sense to re-evaluate the Chicago-Omaha route selection, possibly revisiting Alternative 4?

Metra has expressed concern about using the BNSF route, as it is the busiest line in their system. Alternative 4 was the least expensive alignment considered; Alternative 4/5A is estimated to cost $147 million more. Couldn't there possibly be further savings realized, if improvements to the Metra-Rock Island segment were to benefit two regional routes(Chicago-Omaha & Chicago-St. Louis), instead of Chicago-St. Louis alone? Granted, Alternative 4 is about 19 miles longer than 4/5A, but couldn't that difference easily be negated, considering the Rock Island route would have fewer potential conflicts than the BNSF route?

[ardecila]

Interesting. From the EIS:

At West 40th Street, Route Alternative 4 junctions with an NS freight line that runs west to Ashland Avenue Yard. Approximately ½ mile to the west, this freight line passes under the NS route to Chicago Union Station used by Amtrak long-distance trains. A connection track constructed in the northeast quadrant would obtain access to Chicago Union Station. This connection would occur in an industrial neighborhood, but present significant challenges to overcome vertical differential with surface streets, and must mitigate heavy freight traffic on the NS line to Ashland Avenue. This connection is not practical.

This is exactly the connection that IDOT is proposing for the Chicago-St. Louis corridor. It's kinda tricky, because each planning team is trying to achieve maximum benefits with minimal cost, but sometimes two separate projects can benefit greatly from a more expensive investment shared between the two.

It doesn't matter, really, for Phase I. There are no upgrades being performed on the BNSF corridor except the Wyanet connection and some signal work near Aurora, so no money will be wasted if IDOT later decides to upgrade the Rock Island mainline through the Illinois Valley and send the trains that way.

[ardecila]

It's a few weeks late, but St. Paul's Union Depot finished its big renovation in December.









source

[Mister Uptempo]

Ran across these two stories while sniffin' around the web...

First, HSR on the Chicago-St. Louis route forges ahead-

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 1, 2013

CONTACT:
Paris Ervin (IDOT) 217.782.5025
Mike Claffey (IDOT) 312.814.3198
Illinois Transportation Secretary Announces Next Step to Advance Toward Full High-Speed Rail Service from Chicago to St. Louis

IDOT Selects Consultant Firms to Complete Environmental Studies for the Project


SPRINGFIELD – Illinois Transportation Secretary Ann L. Schneider announced today the three consultant firms recently selected to complete Tier 2 Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and advance the high-speed rail project from Chicago to St. Louis.

“The environmental studies are a crucial element to move projects of this magnitude to construction,” said Secretary Schneider. “Once these environmental studies are complete and approved by the Federal Railroad Administration, we will be several steps closer to offering high-speed rail service on the entire Chicago-St. Louis corridor in Illinois.”

Through the leadership of Senator Durbin and Governor Quinn, Illinois has received more than $1.4 billion in federal funding to develop high-speed service between Chicago and St. Louis, which is expected to reduce travel times between the two cities and create about 6,200 direct and indirect jobs. The governor’s Illinois Jobs Now! capital program has invested a total of $400 million toward high-speed rail. In 2012, the first trains traveling at 110 mph made their successful debut on a stretch between Dwight and Pontiac during a demonstration run and began service for daily passengers. The project will deliver 110 mile per hour rail service between Dwight and Alton by 2015 and between Dwight and Joliet by 2017.

Hanson Professional Services was selected to complete the environmental study for the Springfield Flyover component, a needed rail overpass south of Springfield to eliminate a bottleneck for train congestion. Parsons Transportation Group was selected to complete the environmental study for the Chicago to Joliet corridor segment, and Michael Baker Jr. and STV Inc. were selected for the Alton to St. Louis corridor segment.

As part of the project requirements, each consultant firm is required to meet or exceed a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal for subcontractors working on the projects. The DBE goal for the Springfield Flyover is 25 percent, Chicago to Joliet is 30 percent and Alton to St. Louis is 20 percent. The total cost for the three environmental studies is $47 million.

For large projects, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) encourages agencies to tier their environmental reviews in stages, Tier 1 and Tier 2. The Tier 1 environmental review received final approval in December 2012 by the FRA, and documents potential environmental impacts at the corridor or program level. In a Tier 2 environmental document, more site-specific projects or actions are addressed to prepare for construction. The EIS is required to complete the full build-out of the project, including the double-tracking and route improvements between Joliet and Chicago, through the city of Springfield and from Alton to St. Louis.

The consultant firms were among a total of 21 selected by the IDOT Consultant Selection Committee last week for 21 projects totaling $68 million as advertised in the Professional Transportation Bulletin.

To follow progress, updates and completed improvements along the signature Chicago-St. Louis high-speed rail corridor, please visit www.idothsr.org. For the latest Amtrak schedules, fares and more information, visit www.Amtrak.com or call 800-USA-RAIL.

Source

Second, we dust off an old favorite-

Ardis and Durbin Discuss Amtrak in Peoria

By WEEK Reporter
By Dana Fulton
January 27, 2013 Updated Jan 28, 2013 at 10:57 AM CST

PEORIA, Ill-- Last week, Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis and U.S. Senator Dick Durbin met to discuss the future of transportation in Illinois, specifically connecting the Peoria area to Bloomington by high-speed rail.

"Connecting Peoria with the high speed rail hub in Bloomington-Normal is an investment in the future of Central Illinois that will give residents and visitors access to travel and business opportunities throughout Illinois," Durbin said.

The Amtrak station in Normal is the busiest in Illinois outside of Chicago and a considerable amount of that ridership is from the Peoria area.

According to the Economic Development Council of Central Illinois, more than 7,500 people travel between the Peoria area and Bloomington-Normal from work on a daily basis. It has been estimated that over 95 percent of these commuters travel alone in a single-occupancy vehicle.

A study to investigate passenger rail options is the first step to better connecting these two hubs and reducing travel times and congestion while improving air quality in the region.

Ardis sees more than just potential work commuters from area businesses, such as Caterpillar and Mitsubishi. He says potential customers between the universities -- Bradley, ISU, and Illinois Wesleyan -- could also bring big business for Amtrak.

US Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood supports the addition of his hometown to the rail system.

"It would be a mode of transportation that currently does not exist; it would be an opportunity to really connect the region," said LaHood.

Source

That is all.

[ardecila]

Here's an interesting article about the Talgos; it goes into the design process.

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/COMM/docs...nuary_2013.pdf

Apparently the ugly front was designed over the original, graceful bullet nose because Amtrak insisted on having two drivers' seats with equal visibility. Sounds like crashworthiness had nothing to do with it.