I was in Three Oaks MI over the weekend and witnessed a WB Amtrak train go through town at 100+mph traveling on wooden ties and going through crossings that do not have 4 quadrant gates. Can someone tell me why that was "required" to initiate HS operations in Illinois? I had no way to determine the weight of the rail but I am thinking that it might not be as heavy as what was installed on the SPCSL. I was once told by a rail consultant friend of mine that Michigan paid about one third of what it cost Illinois for HS rail. I really hope the answer is not "politics", but after building an $8M station in Dwight, I am afraid that will be the answer.
Timing is a major cause. Four-quadrant gates at grade crossings didn't reappear until FRA standards were promulgated for quiet zones. It isn't much of a stretch to require them for grade crossings on high-speed routes. While the former Alton Chicago-St. Lous line doesn't handle that much freight traffic, there is more of it on that line than on Amtrak's line through Michigan. Union Pacific is also the owner of the Alton line so they probably had some input into what was required.
The wooden ties are not a factor as long as everything is properly maintained.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Nothing is done in Ill that dosent involve politics.
Ladder1 Nothing is done in Ill that dosent involve politics.
(1) Illinois is working towards a higher class of service than Michigan is.
(2) State agencies deem what is the proper level of protection at a crossing. The feds, by MOU with each state, set the signal parameters and a baseline. The states take it from there, usually as an ombudsman.
(3) There is no minimum weight of rail that determines speed. 115 is as good as 136 if you maintain it properly (meets the 213 criteria)and hold it to the class of service (in this case Cls 5 or higher as you exceed 90 mph)....
(4) The Illinois line was a seriously worn out, tired railroad when UP got it. SPCSL reversed the decay (but never was intending to get much beyound Cls 3 or Cls 4 - SP had its own finance issues) going back to the IC/ICG rationalisation that started with a sick and weary GM&O. The Venago River shortline tribe was clueless and broke from the word go. The Michigan lines did not have to come as far to get back to a decent state of repair, but there will be more investment needed to keep the shiny revenue-inadequate toys running at that speed for long.
mudchicken (1) Illinois is working towards a higher class of service than Michigan is.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha...
I would be interested in how much time the Chicago-St. Louis HSR actually saves over current speeds. They still have to contend with getting in and out of the Chicago and St. Louis areas, and they aren't going to be doing it at 100 mph. Non-rail folks are looking at the 100 mph as an average, and I think they're going to be disappointed.
BLS53I would be interested in how much time the Chicago-St. Louis HSR actually saves over current speeds. They still have to contend with getting in and out of the Chicago and St. Louis areas, and they aren't going to be doing it at 100 mph. Non-rail folks are looking at the 100 mph as an average, and I think they're going to be disappointed.
Which is the kind of excuse that is used against HSR wherever it is proposed or implemented - it won't be high speed end to end on day one so why spend any money on it to have HSR five years out, 10 years out.
Rome wasn't built in a day. Neither are any other large products.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
(1) The plan for the Chi-StL midwest corridor is out there, just take a look at IL DOT's site and the stand alone site for MidWest HSR.
(2) Lenox Tower - StL and Chicago-Joliet's practical reality is that they won't ever match the speed of the middle of the line, HOWEVER the Class of Track speeds up in phases 2 and 4. The last phase moves everything to a separate, parallel corridor- BUT that is a long ways out and only is a target to shoot for - what really happens isn't in the cards yet. Attacking the project in little bites is prudent. CA HSR is showing the problem with attacking the problem in one sitting.
BaltACD BLS53 I would be interested in how much time the Chicago-St. Louis HSR actually saves over current speeds. They still have to contend with getting in and out of the Chicago and St. Louis areas, and they aren't going to be doing it at 100 mph. Non-rail folks are looking at the 100 mph as an average, and I think they're going to be disappointed. Which is the kind of excuse that is used against HSR wherever it is proposed or implemented - it won't be high speed end to end on day one so why spend any money on it to have HSR five years out, 10 years out. Rome wasn't built in a day. Neither are any other large products.
BLS53 I would be interested in how much time the Chicago-St. Louis HSR actually saves over current speeds. They still have to contend with getting in and out of the Chicago and St. Louis areas, and they aren't going to be doing it at 100 mph. Non-rail folks are looking at the 100 mph as an average, and I think they're going to be disappointed.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.