General Discussion

Of course, living in Champaign, I'm all for it. However, it seems redundant with the Chicago-Bloomington-St Louis HSR. But, curiously, the route through Bloomington would be a 110 mph route, but the Champaign route would be 220 mph. And, the Bloomington route has an abandoned 2nd main the entire way. Whereas, the Champaign route would have to use the single tracked NS from Tolono to St Louis.

Personally, I think the Midwest High Speed Rail Study is just an idea tank and nothing will come of it. Here's a couple of links:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/30/plan-calls-for-midwest-hi_n_223500.html

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=20770

There is no way 220 mph trains are going to run between Chicago and St. Louis through Champaign, Tolono and Decatur. This route passes through far too many towns and has multitudes of grade crossings that would make anything approaching this speed an impossibility. This proposal, like some of the other HSR routes being talked about, is just a pipe dream and it baffles me why the media would give any credence to it.

Mark

Also, Tolono to Decatur is one the absolute arteries of the NS system, with noticeable traffic.  I can't imagine NS is going to allow 220 mph trains there.

I know I sound like a broken record, but why we (we being this country rather than this forum) keep talking about high speed rail is beyond me.  The Chicago - Saint Louis corridor is a great example. 

WIth comparatively miniscule funding, they could bring the old Alton to 90-110 mph track speeds, remove some of the bottle necks--like poor sidings and waiting points--and have reliable service with only three or four stops, you would be getting 90% of the benefit of high speed rail for 5% of the cost.  Same for Indianapolis to Chicago.

If you give me a reliable train between Indy and Chicago that travels at 80 mph, I don't think I would ever drive to Chicago.  Why we have to keep making the standard some 220 mph elixir that will never happen is beyond me.

Gabe

P.S. Sorry for the misspellings.  I am on the road and it is hard to type.

gabe:

Also, Tolono to Decatur is one the absolute arteries of the NS system, with noticeable traffic.  I can't imagine NS is going to allow 220 mph trains there.

I know I sound like a broken record, but why we (we being this country rather than this forum) keep talking about high speed rail is beyond me.  The Chicago - Saint Louis corridor is a great example. 

WIth comparatively miniscule funding, they could bring the old Alton to 90-110 mph track speeds, remove some of the bottle necks--like poor sidings and waiting points--and have reliable service with only three or four stops, you would be getting 90% of the benefit of high speed rail for 5% of the cost.  Same for Indianapolis to Chicago.

If you give me a reliable train between Indy and Chicago that travels at 80 mph, I don't think I would ever drive to Chicago.  Why we have to keep making the standard some 220 mph elixir that will never happen is beyond me.

Gabe

P.S. Sorry for the misspellings.  I am on the road and it is hard to type.

Gabe,

I am in total agreement with all the points you make. Ditto your comments for the Michigan, Missouri, Heartland and other Illinois corridor routes (and also for many other Amtrak routes, both corridor and LD). 220 mph HSR on existing ROW's is just not practical anywhere in the US in the foreseeable future. Maybe some day, but if it ever comes to pass it'll likely be a totally different technology such as maglev.

Mark

DennisHeld:

The local Champaign news outlets have been running a story that the Midwest High Speed Rail study group has released a HSR study plan for a Chicago to Champaign to St Louis route of 220 mph trains. The plan would use the abandoned 2nd main of the CN (ex-IC) from Chicago to Tolono, IL. It would pick up the NS from Tolono through Decatur, then to St Louis.

Of course, living in Champaign, I'm all for it. However, it seems redundant with the Chicago-Bloomington-St Louis HSR. But, curiously, the route through Bloomington would be a 110 mph route, but the Champaign route would be 220 mph. And, the Bloomington route has an abandoned 2nd main the entire way. Whereas, the Champaign route would have to use the single tracked NS from Tolono to St Louis.

Personally, I think the Midwest High Speed Rail Study is just an idea tank and nothing will come of it. Here's a couple of links:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/30/plan-calls-for-midwest-hi_n_223500.html

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=20770

Personally, I think the reporters and editors at the "local Champaign news outlets" have been hitting the champagne -- or perhaps been smoking a controlled substance -- a little too much.

Here's why:  first, freight and high-speed (herein defined as averaging faster than 150 MPH) passenger traffic CANNOT share the same roadway.  Freight trains will get in the way.  To justify the enormous expense of constructing from the ground up a Eurasian-style high speed line, delays from freight trains cannot be allowed.  So...you have to build a dedicated high-speed railway, just like the Europeans do (I've seen high-speed and freight/local service tracks running side by side, but like oil and water, the two do not mix).  Moreover, ALL grade crossings (rail and highway, including private crossings) must, for safety reasons, be engineered out of the high-speed railway -- you can't allow them (to do otherwise is to beg some farmer with his combine, or schoolbus or fuel truck, to be on the crossing at the wrong time...).   Moreover, if we spend that much money for dedicated high speed train service, you have to run the trains at intervals of no less than hourly -- else why build the line in the first place -- if you build it anyway with infrequent service , you accomplish just as much good as if you connect by high-speed rail Chicago with Paducah, KY -- who's gonna ride the thing?

Finally, when politicians (including our own fearless leader from Punahou) talk about "high-speed trains," they may think of 120- or 150- or even 220 MPH service, but their funding ceiling stops at 69 MPH, maybe 79 MPH.  Like the ballyhooed $9 billion in federal bucks for high-speed rail rail being spread around multiple corridors so that nobody anywhere will see anything like high-speed service.  Maybe politician high-speed equals in their mind eurasian high-speed.  Still, to inject a note or reality here, if anyone were semi-serious about high-speed rail, the $9 billion number would be followed by another zero, and if truly serious, two zeroes.

Now other commentators could all be wrong about this, and even I could be grossly mistaken; yet although I haven't had any champagne before belting this out (nor smoked any controlled substance), I can assure you that even if I had, my perspective on this issue would remain unchanged!

 Here's the story:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-high-speed-rail-30-jun30,0,2990669.story

 Sorry, not in my lifetime.

The study turns a $4Bil project into a $11Bil project. Not going to happen. The HSR crowd can be just like the pioneers and connect Chicago & somewhere to St Louis. Sometimes rail fans can be their own worst enemies, spending somebody else's money. They must think this Global Warming money comes from the thin air for them to spend.

The Champaign papers that know nothing get excited if they get to share in that $11Bil pot

....If "high speed corridors" are constructed in the near future....I'd like to see design and construction stay "reasonable"....such as upgrade existing ROW's where possible and new where necessary....to be run at speeds, perhaps in the 100 to 115 mph or so.  Maybe in the near future, that might be possible and adequate.