Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown
Why is any electrification needed? Are we going underground for a lengthy stretch somewhere?
|
No, but neither is Toronto. Yet they have deemed electrification to be crucial for converting their commuter rail system into a Euro/Japanese-style regional rail system.
It's a complicated discussion and depends on the assumptions about service. Set the new 10-minute service aside for a second and think about how the existing service will be impacted by more city stations.
Are we assuming that many or most of Metra's existing trains will run express through the North Side, and bypass the new infill stops? If yes, then the schedule will need to somehow juggle fast-moving suburban trains with slow-moving Evanston trains, on two tracks. If the local Evanston trains run at a ten-minute headway in both directions, I'm not sure this is workable.
One way around this is to electrify the line (not to Evanston, but all the way up to Lake Bluff or something) and use the time savings to make all trains local. According to some
unofficial simulations done for SF's Caltrain, an EMU is able to save 13 minutes on a 40-mile corridor vs. a push-pull diesel. That 13 minutes of time savings more than makes up for 3 or 4 additional stops added to the line. Of course, you could make all trains local without electrification, but then the North Shore folks get pissed at how much longer their commute takes.
The other option is to restore the third track up to Evanston without electrification and allow peak-period express trains to bypass the locals. This would be more in line with Metra's style of thinking and does not require any new rolling stock beyond what is required for the Evanston service. However, off-peak and reverse commute service would still face the same limitation of slotting into the Evanston service's ten-minute headway. Any increases to trip time for those trains would likely have the effect of dropping ridership and pushing more people into cars.