I get that Amtrak is not the primary concern in this scenario, but they own CUS and wont dispatch the Hiawatha's and Empire Builder out of Olgilve.

I guess my question is, then, if you switch the commuter lines, but keep Amtrak where it is, does that eliminate enough of the conflicts at A2 to make grade separation unnecessary?

IDK. Good question..But the goal or demand is to ADD a significant number of train sets. The near term plan for the Hiawatha is to add 3 each way for a total of 10, ultimately up to 18. Plus the hypothetical O'hare express on 20 minute intervals. That's alot of traffic even when moving out the other suburban lines.

Interesting speculation that Rahm is hanging a huge CTA rail car deal in front of China to get further investments, including the O'Hare-downtown express train and the Wanda Tower:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...oreUserAgent=1

That article is so juicy. I love it.

Which will deliver a more outdated, dopey looking L car, Bombardier or CNR? It's fair game.

Given that the city really isn't open to much change on the looks it's whatever IMO. Riders are still crapping themselves about more efficient center facing seating. As long as they're built well and last I don't care.

Other than that I fully endorse Rahm squeezing the most out of the city's purchasing power. The often barely perceptible low rumble of mayoral dealmaking is starting to sound more like a jet engine at full thrust these days.

Do you know that for a fact? The addenda to CTA's 7000-series RFP show that CTA requested several aesthetic concepts from each bidder for both interior and exterior, so they will not necessarily copy the c.1980 design of the 2600 series nor will the seats and interiors necessarily copycat.

The specs dictate most of the details but they do allow some flexibility.

I'm not expecting a revolution in car design, but incremental progress along the lines of NY subway with a slow shift towards a sleeker appearance.

IMO the center facing seating is more efficient but CTA flubbed the details, putting in way too many vertical stanchions and keeping the windscreens at every door. It still feels claustrophobic.

Even a remote chance of an open gangway prototype out of this process?

Some slight cosmetic updates are possible but I honestly don't see a design that's radically different being selected.

Center facing seating has been a rider issue for reasons other than that they didn't implement it well. It's markedly different from what people were used to for decades and it is apparently a bridge to far for Chicago commuters at large. People are still complaining about it and the chatter coming out of CTA is that it won't be repeated.

:haha:

Yeah that's what I thought.

OMG, there are a ridiculous number of grade crossings along that route, including a dicey scissor configuration across Grand Ave. Looks like there isn't a single grade separated crossing beyond Central Avenue until you're already in the ORD area (at Irving Park).

So it's not just inconveniences to the street grid, you also get nearly inevitable tragic consequences - and, bad publicity - of a luxe airport express crashing into a truck.

What's the tab for building a 1-track viaduct along the entirety of that section? I eyeball it at 5 miles in length. Sigh.
Is this spelling an inside/foamer joke?

Probably too obscure for most foamers. ;)

Some transit activists with better German skills than me uncovered the German rail planning principle of "organisation vor elektronik vor beton" - Organization before Electronics before Concrete.

As a rule of thumb, it helps planners look for the most inexpensive solution to a given planning problem. It also helps counteract the tendency among politicians to push for large, visible projects with ribbon cuttings. A concrete solution - e.g. the Englewood Flyover - would be the last resort after organizational and electronic/signaling solutions have been exhausted.

Of course, in the US the organizational solutions are often the LAST to be considered. Planners and politicians in the US would virtually never think of asking Metra to solve a problem that CTA is grappling with, even if Metra is better equipped to solve that problem. Mike's Gray Line is a great example... Metra Electric already exists and operational changes to bring service up to CTA standards are only medium-cost, but CTA still insists on pushing a multibillion dollar plan to extend the Red Line.

MUCH THANX for seeing what I see quite clearly.....

Sec. Foxx to Transit officials......
 

New Chicago transit blob
 

Richard Wronski launched a new online news mag.
Citing the loss of such reporting from print and radio.

http://www.chitranspo.com/about-chic...ation-journal/

The Grand Ave crossing is a noted safety hazard. Efforts to grade-separate have been stymied by Elmwood Park in the past, they are (somewhat understandably) concerned about the property impacts. It's very complex and expensive to build a crossing on a skew like that...

It would be better from a construction standpoint to build an S-curve on Grand Ave to reduce the crossing angle, but that would take out half their downtown...

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...alert-20160225

Chicago Transportation Journal - News and Views for Commuters, the Public, and the Tr
 

http://www.chitranspo.com/

Richard Wronski is the Chicago Transportation Journal’s creator and editor. He is a veteran Chicago journalist, with more than 40 years of experience as a writer and editor at four daily newspapers.......

Metra To Study Changes to Make its Fare Structure More “Creative” | Streetsblog Chica
 

http://chi.streetsblog.org/2016/02/2...7a1a-276822525

Thursday, February 25, 2016

by Steven Vance

Metra, the regional commuter train operator, is seeking a consultant to develop “creative recommendations” on how to change its fare structure. The consultant would be in charge of finding the pros and cons of the current fare structure, comparing it to Metra’s commuter rail peers around the country, and building a model that allows Metra to test how different fare policies would affect ridership and revenue. The Request for Proposals is due at the end of the month.......

Confirmed with contractor today steel for elevator towers at Washington / Wabash being delivered today. Should be impressive to see them be installed in place.

fhp? I think it has the potential to be the best looking CTA station.

Useful of you to link to the aerial photo version of that location, since the original r-o-w remains visible there for comparison. Although it's peculiar that the intersection that had to be rebuilt was relocated to the viaduct, rather than a couple dozen yards to the west and at grade level where it could have been constructed more cheaply, presumably. It's as though they put the beton before the organisation there!

(I guess they must have been allowing for a potential future extension of the perpendicular road.)

Yeah, they figured it was cheaper to suspend the intersection over the tracks than to build two overpasses. There's a similar structure a few miles west.

Critics say the O'Hare express train plan sucks. CrossRail could improve it.
 

http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago...t?oid=21215854

Connecting the airport to the southeast side could broaden the project's appeal.

February 29, 2016 NEWS & POLITICS | TRANSPORTATION

By John Greenfield

With Mayor Emanuel under fire over police scandals and the schools crisis, it's a strange time for him to move forward with a plan for an airport express train aimed at well-heeled business travelers. But last week the city awarded a $2 million contract to local engineering firm Parsons Brinckerhoff to identify possible routes, station locations, and a cost estimate for pricey high-speed rail service between the Loop and O'Hare.....

People say that an O'Hare express train, in order to have a chance at success, would have to run to the air terminal buildings (the current CTA station) rather than requiring passengers to change trains to the ATS for the last mile. In that case, a bunch of concrete would have to be poured in order to create a flyover connection somewhere, whether as Blue Line bypasses or as a spur off of Metra tracks.

So assuming some kind of federal funding could be obtained to build a short section of trackage and substructure, how would a connection between UP-NW and the Blue Line in the Jefferson Park area sound? There is a 2 to 3 mile straightaway there where UP-NW and the Blue Line are parallel and practically next to each other; there might be a way to add a brief 3rd track to the Blue Line where a flyover connects. If some highway realignment were absolutely necessary there seems to be space for it to happen (and the expressway will have to go under construction at some point in its lifespan anyway, and probably for a widening as well).

The benefit is zero grade crossings, unlike the troublesome MD-W option. Coexistence with Blue Line trains would occur over a stretch that has just 3 stations, or just 2 assuming operating an easy bypass track at Rosemont.

The city terminus would not be at Union but at Ogilvie, but Ogilvie has plenty of upsides too. The wildcard would seem to be whether a trainset at reasonable cost could be had that has self-contained propulsion yet can run on the el tracks and in a short tunnel; these exist in the world but in our case is that considered a major hurdle? Or is getting CTA and UP/Metra to interoperate a bigger problem?

The real problem is FRA buff strength requirements. Anything operating on real "steam road" railroad tracks has to be big and heavy enough to survive a crash with a freight train. That means it can't be allowed to run on the same tracks as CTA trains. FRA rules have even forbidden side-by-side running at the same level of rapid transit and suburban rail lines.

If you can solve the grade crossing problems on the Milw-W, your best bet is to come in to O'Hare from the south, from Bensenville.

FYI, the contract for the 7000-series cars should be announced soon. The two finalists are Bombardier Transportation and CSR America. The base order of these cars should be assigned to the Blue and Orange Lines to replace their 2600-series cars, while the options (if exercised) should replace the 3200-series cars on the Orange and Brown Lines.

Maybe I'm nuts, but the 3200's can't possibly be that old, the cars on the "Charlie Line" were built in 1926, and the RTA still manages to keep them running; are these newer cars designed to be replaced (like today's bad Computer Printer), instead of maintained? 'Sup??

The 3200s will only be replaced if the options are picked up. In the meantime, CTA is currently doing a mid-life overhaul with 3200s with new color LED destination signs similar to the 5000s, rebuilt propulsion systems, door motors, and wheel/axle assemblies, as well as brand new air conditioning systems.

The reason for their planned replacement is that CTA wants to move to a 100% AC-powered fleet. The 3200s were the last cars to use the less efficient DC motors. There was an earlier proposal that would have converted the 3200s to an AC fleet, however, this proposal was deemed to not be economically feasible.

AirTrain in NYC was originally intended to be compatible with LIRR so that trains could run from Penn Station to JFK directly. I think that idea fell through for the reasons you mention.

That is the main reason I propose using a group of existing Class I MED Rolling Stock to provide an in-city Lakefront Rapid Transit service -- no FRA rules conflict, MED locals and expresses (and NICTD trains) presently run side-by-side all day long!

I vaguely remember something about FRA rules but wasn't sure they instantly foreclosed all discussion. For example, is it that the CTA trackbed has physical limitations, or is it that the CTA railcars simply are put at risk by sharing with the fortified trainset? What if the fortified trainset is beefy enough to share with Metra (via creative crumple zones or something) but not so heavy-rail-ish as to pancake the poor straphangers in a Blue Line collision?

And can the side-by-side prohibitions be escaped by erecting a concrete wall of modest height?

Not Schiller Park and Rosemont, but Bensenville? What is this secret back door route?

Union Station Transit Center
 

March 4, 2016

According to a post on ChiTransit.org, the award of the 7000-series contract is expected to be announced this Wednesday.

FRA-compliant railcars are like tanks. Rapid transit cars are like aluminum cans. Legally, the two cannot share the same tracks without some kind of FRA waiver.

FRA has historically not granted this type of waiver without a strict time separation that would be unworkable in the case of the Ohare Express.

An OHare Express sharing both Metra and CTA tracks with lightweight trains would require all heavyweight service, including Metra and freight, to be banished to night time which is obviously a nonstarter.

^ UP-NW has at least 3 tracks all the way to Jefferson Park; can't they spare one for dedicated "aluminum" heavy rail use?

Anyhow, I assume not, so convert the Blue Line to 1-track service between the airline terminus and Jefferson Park and then run the airport express (as "heavyweight" heavy rail) out on UP-NW, across a connector at Jefferson Park, and down a dedicated 1-track line all the way into the terminals. Each of the Blue Line and the airport express could have a 2-track section for opposite-direction trains to pass each other at or around the River Road yard.

It's convoluted and has issues. But you get a perfect airport express route, with no grade crossings, as close to a straight line as you could get, and as close to ideal terminals as you could reasonably ask for.

In a future phase, when the Kennedy is a parking lot and if some serious federal money materialized for this, dedicated tracks along the UP-NW alignment could be built, since there seems to be space for it. (One day UP will probably be rebuilding those viaducts anyway like it's having to do in Ravenswood now.) At that stage you could downgrade the express to a CTA-caliber trainset and revert to normal 2-way operation between Jefferson Park and the air terminals; construction of the connector would effectively have just been a first phase of this.

Yes, but you have to build a very expensive reinforced crash wall and multiple feet of separation between tracks. CTA did side-by-side tracks on the Orange Line, but such a configuration would not be allowed today following several crashes that occurred in other cities where light rail and freight shared a right-of-way.

Metra rebuilt all the viaducts between Montrose and Armitage back in the late 90s, so those should not need replacement for many decades.

The Milw-W runs along the south edge of the airport, easily visible across Irving Park Rd. from Runway 10R/28L. It's almost exactly the same distance from Terminal 2 as the Wisconsin Central is, and any tunneling would be on airport property.

UP-NW is 3 tracked all the way out to McHenry County, and has one of the highest ridership of Metra's lines. The middle track is the express, morning rush inbound, evening rush outbound. No, it can't be spared.

The segment in question for OHare Express only includes 4 stations (Clybourn, Irving Park, Jefferson Park, Gladstone Park) and these are actually some of the most widely-spaced stations on the whole line.

Metra doesn't do a lot of passing on these tracks, and arguably even the express trains should stop at Jeff Park, like they do at Clybourn. It's possible to run a pretty busy schedule of express trains on two tracks, which Metra already does on UP-N.

Looks like CSR America has won the 7000-series contract:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...309-story.html

Now let's see if Bombardier files a protest.

CTA Press Release with Images:
http://www.transitchicago.com/news/d...ArticleId=3524

The bid called for three alternate exteriors and three alternate interiors, I'm guessing CTA has not yet chosen which design they want from CSR but they shared the renderings below:

http://i64.tinypic.com/219yyv5.jpg

http://i65.tinypic.com/2v1koat.jpg

Those end caps seem to be a throwback to the now-retired 2200-series cars, except colored blue.

As for the fronts, not bad actually. I was expecting something much more mundane - or understanding how adventuresome the cta is, otherwise identical to 5000s, 3200s et al.

Which is a good thing, since, industrial design speaking, the Budd 2200s were IMO easily the snazziest to ever run - minus the blinker doors maybe.

I'm not sure I like the exact hue of blue they've chosen, but in concept I like the baby blue that starting to crop up as a unifying motif for public transit in the city (Divvy, Ventra, 5000-series interiors, etc).

Yeah i was just going to mention that. I'm sure the periwinkle shade shown in these renderings is for the most part meaningless. I would actually prefer a charcoal or platinum color on the noses, similar to the old Pullman 2000s cars, not a bold or bright color.

Pullman Standards with the charcoal noses:

http://www.chicago-l.org/trains/gall...0/cta2054b.jpg
Chicago-L.org

Another rendering showing front view of one of the three exterior proposals:

http://www.trbimg.com/img-56e08155/t...1850/1850x1041
http://www.trbimg.com/img-56e08155/t...1850/1850x1041