The 75th St Flyover won't require many home removals as it has to remain elevated to go over the BRC at 77th ( like the RI Metra line does) before it drops down next to the BRC on the south side. There once was a track along the south wall that went to Landers (ex Wabash) Yard. Was used by the Rock Island to get to Clearing Yard (via Belt Jct).
On 3/25 I rode empire Builder into Union Station and we did not go in to on of the thru tracks. Go figure.
David S For a while, they didn't even cut off any cars, they just hauled them empty to NO and back. They did this to save on switching costs at Chicago. I'm not sure if it actually was cheaper, or if it was just that the switching costs came out of the Chicago Terminal Manager's budget and the extra wear and tear on the cars didn't.
For a while, they didn't even cut off any cars, they just hauled them empty to NO and back. They did this to save on switching costs at Chicago. I'm not sure if it actually was cheaper, or if it was just that the switching costs came out of the Chicago Terminal Manager's budget and the extra wear and tear on the cars didn't.
Was this for maintenance on the SLs? This was during another bitter winter when there was not enough inside maintenance facilities in CHI? That condition has been rectified
BNSFwatcher A few years ago (+/- seven?), Amtrak's "Empire Builder" arrived at Union Station, was shorn of a few cars, and a bit later departed as the "City of New Orleans". Same basic trainset. Guess that could be called a "run through", but dunno, fur sure. I came in on "The Builder" and departed on the "CofNO" in the same sleeping car room. Changed to the 'Portland' sleeper on the reverse trip (tail car), as my truck was parked at the east end of the Shelby depot. Saved schlepping luggage a bit. BTW, the view out the back window of the 'Portland' sleeper is great, in both directions, now that the express cars are gone. Hays
A few years ago (+/- seven?), Amtrak's "Empire Builder" arrived at Union Station, was shorn of a few cars, and a bit later departed as the "City of New Orleans". Same basic trainset. Guess that could be called a "run through", but dunno, fur sure. I came in on "The Builder" and departed on the "CofNO" in the same sleeping car room. Changed to the 'Portland' sleeper on the reverse trip (tail car), as my truck was parked at the east end of the Shelby depot. Saved schlepping luggage a bit. BTW, the view out the back window of the 'Portland' sleeper is great, in both directions, now that the express cars are gone.
Hays
They didn't actually let you stay on the train the whole time it was in Chicago, dd they? Just on that basis, I would not call it a run through. The Builder has always had to use the through track because it goes in and out on the north side but Amtrak's yard is to the south, but that still doesn't make it a run through. Other trains also sometimes use the through track just for the extra room. (When Chicago Chapter NRHS ran 261 trips out of there, they usually spotted the train all the way through so we could board from both concourses; they were not always so cooperative when we returned. Once, Harrison St. lined us into track 2, which is the shortest on the whole south side; our trainmaster got on the radio, and we backed out of there and they rerouted us into a longer one.)
David
BNSFwatcher Sawtooth500: thanks for the info. Are all these "Daley Condos" public-assistance housing? How do dey do dat??? I have passed through Chicago a number of times, but don't think I was ever in Central Sta., or Grand Central Sta.. Dearborn Sta., perhaps. We came in from eastern Canada in 1949 on the CNR/GTW. Guess Dearborn would have been the place. Went out on the "City of San Francisco" in August, 1949. From which station would that train have departed? I haven't a clue. Could have been on the CMStP&P or C&NW. Also, why do/did they call all these terminals 'stations'? Union is the only real station, with through trains. That nomenclature wouldn't be allowed in New York! Har! Hays, of the "real" Grand Central Terminal fame!
Sawtooth500: thanks for the info. Are all these "Daley Condos" public-assistance housing? How do dey do dat??? I have passed through Chicago a number of times, but don't think I was ever in Central Sta., or Grand Central Sta.. Dearborn Sta., perhaps. We came in from eastern Canada in 1949 on the CNR/GTW. Guess Dearborn would have been the place. Went out on the "City of San Francisco" in August, 1949. From which station would that train have departed? I haven't a clue. Could have been on the CMStP&P or C&NW. Also, why do/did they call all these terminals 'stations'? Union is the only real station, with through trains. That nomenclature wouldn't be allowed in New York! Har!
Hays, of the "real" Grand Central Terminal fame!
Birmingham had a Terminal Station. All SAL and some Southern trains terminated there, the IC-CG trains and the KC-Fla Special ran through, and the through Southern trains backed in or out. The Birmingham L&N station had trains terminating there.
Atlanta also had a Terminal Station. The Sou-WPRte trains and the KC-Fla Special ran through; the Southerner and SAL trains that did not terminate in Atlanta backed in or out, and some CG trains terminated there. No trains ran through the Atlanta Union Station. It was the end of the line for the Ga and the NC's overnight Nashville-Atlanta train. All the Florida trains that used the Union Station were backed in or out.
I know of only two trains that ran through Union Station in Chicago, the two that Amtrak operated Milwaukee-St. Louis for a time.
[Edit] I just looked in the Guide, and saw that the CNW used the C.&N.W. Passenger Terminal.
If the owners of a terminal station prefer calling it a "station," I see it as their privilege to do so.
Johnny
Most of the stations in question had minimal traffic by the late 1960's. Grand Central closed in 1970 and its remaining trains (C&O/B&O) were transferred to North Western Station. Dearborn Station and Central Station were both down to about 12 arrivals/departures daily in the last years prior to Amtrak. La Salle Street survived on the basis of its suburban service.
I have never lived in, or near, Chicago, so I don't know much about it. One of you denizens/habituates might know: could Central Station, Dearborn Station, &/or Grand Central Station be re-vitalized to handle some of the Union Station overload? Have they all been demolished, or rendered useless for rail operations? I do know that La Salle Street Station is still operational, albeit without its "headhouse" and is a block shorter.
David S I'm not sure how many tracks Metra uses on the south side of CUS in the rush hours, but it can't be any more than 8 before they bump into Amtrak.
I'm not sure how many tracks Metra uses on the south side of CUS in the rush hours, but it can't be any more than 8 before they bump into Amtrak.
8 of 14 leaves 6 for Amtrak? That seems a lot, especially during rush hour...
richhotrainrichhotrain Sawtooth500I'm going to start a new list of rebuttals:3. The biggest issue is platform space - even though there are only 8 platforms, how many more trains can they take? If they can't handle all the Metra BNSF trains... that would be a killer. But then you get another alternative - take the Metra Heritage Corridor Trains to Lasalle St - there are definitely fewer of those than BNSF Trains. 5. Why do you need a flyover? The Air Line already empties into the northernmost of the 3 track BNSF main. All the freights turn south anyways, so that wouldn't really be too much of a conflict with Metra coming off the air line, and with no more metra trains running into Union Station from the BNSF line you only have Amtrak traffic to contend with going into Union Station which is not that much compared to Metra... so why not just put some switches in? On second thought, I am going to challenge you on #5. I just looked at a current satellite view of SCAL. There is no access track from the old PRR tracks to the SCAL. So, a passenger train or commuter train approaching SCAL from the south has no way to access the line to turn east to the Rock Island tracks.
richhotrain Sawtooth500I'm going to start a new list of rebuttals:3. The biggest issue is platform space - even though there are only 8 platforms, how many more trains can they take? If they can't handle all the Metra BNSF trains... that would be a killer. But then you get another alternative - take the Metra Heritage Corridor Trains to Lasalle St - there are definitely fewer of those than BNSF Trains. 5. Why do you need a flyover? The Air Line already empties into the northernmost of the 3 track BNSF main. All the freights turn south anyways, so that wouldn't really be too much of a conflict with Metra coming off the air line, and with no more metra trains running into Union Station from the BNSF line you only have Amtrak traffic to contend with going into Union Station which is not that much compared to Metra... so why not just put some switches in?
Sawtooth500I'm going to start a new list of rebuttals:3. The biggest issue is platform space - even though there are only 8 platforms, how many more trains can they take? If they can't handle all the Metra BNSF trains... that would be a killer. But then you get another alternative - take the Metra Heritage Corridor Trains to Lasalle St - there are definitely fewer of those than BNSF Trains. 5. Why do you need a flyover? The Air Line already empties into the northernmost of the 3 track BNSF main. All the freights turn south anyways, so that wouldn't really be too much of a conflict with Metra coming off the air line, and with no more metra trains running into Union Station from the BNSF line you only have Amtrak traffic to contend with going into Union Station which is not that much compared to Metra... so why not just put some switches in?
On second thought, I am going to challenge you on #5. I just looked at a current satellite view of SCAL. There is no access track from the old PRR tracks to the SCAL. So, a passenger train or commuter train approaching SCAL from the south has no way to access the line to turn east to the Rock Island tracks.
3. I believe I read there are 30 trains on the Wabash. There are over 90 on BNSF. You could probably divert one express each from Aurora, 59/Naperville, Lisle, and Downers Grove, plus a couple of locals, to La Salle and have people grateful for it. But I doubt it could handle all of them on top of the existing Rock Island trains.Come to think of it, though, I'm not sure how many tracks Metra uses on the south side of CUS in the rush hours, but it can't be any more than 8 before they bump into Amtrak. They probably have already figured out that moving the 30 over to La Salle will balance things nicely. (In fact, moving the 30 out of CUS might be all they need to add more trains on BNSF.)
5. If you guys can't see the connection between the PRR and the IC at 21st St., you need to smoke more weed to clear your cataracts. Yes, it's partially hidden by the CTA line overhead, but not completely. You can see it better if you use maps.live.com and switch to bird's eye view. Quite often, the Amtrak trains to Carbondale go straight south and use that connection instead of going west on BNSF and up over the top. If the Amtrak bridge gets stuck (which it does once in a while), Amtrak runs all trains on a zig-zag route through 16th St. and the SCAL bridge.
Here is a link to the article that I mentioned earlier in this discussion. It is an article from Railway Age magazine that discusses the Passenger Express Corridor (PEC) and the 75th Street Corridor Improvement Project:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1215/is_1_205/ai_n6005236/?tag=content;col1
The article describes the re-routing of the Metra tracks at 75th Street and the proposed flyover to connect with the Metra Rock Island tracks at 76th Street. If you are able to look at a satellite map of the area, there is a park at 76th Street. A flyover at the south end of the park will eliminate the need to condemn any residential housing.
Also, a close reading of the article indirectly addresses the issue of the St. Charles Air Line (SCAL). Part of the larger CREATE Project is to re-route the CN trains that currently rely on SCAL to move west toward Iowa on the old ICG route, via SCAL from the lakefront to the junction west of the Chicago River at 16th Street. When the Englewood Flyover is completed at 63rd and State Street, along with the improvements at Grand Crossing, apparently CN will completely abandon the SCAL route and use the old PRR tracks to follow the route west through Englewood crossing and then turn north to 16th Street, then finally west. This re-routing will result in the complete abandonment of the SCAL, clearing the way for removal of the SCAL and the continuation of urban renewal south of the Loop.
Alton Junction
richhotrainI cannot say for sure how many tracks LaSalle Street Station had at the height of its usage. But, I do have an aerial photo in a book on Chicago passenger stations that shows 10 passenger tracks, pre-1980. Also, in that same photo, there looks to be two additional outermost tracks, one on the east side and one on the west side of the station for a total of 12 tracks.
I believe that I now have the answers to make an educated guess. You will have to help me here. The outer platforms are wider than the other platforms and may have had tracks outside of these platforms at one time? Even though that may have been the case 8 tracks now or even 10 are not enough to run Rock Island, SW, and just some Burlington route trains to LaSalle. I am having trouble getting the Metra web site to publish an all trains schedule for each of these routes. There is absolutely no way to put all those trains into LaSalle, My idea was if some Burlington trains went to LaSalle and still CHI US there would be an interchange station close to the west end of the Air Line or the closest present BN station. It could be run much like Jamacia station is on the LIRR.
Until or If there is enough passenger demand to overload CUS I see no reason for any Burlington trains to be scheduled to LaSalle.
of /h
BNSFwatcherI haven't de-trained at LaSalle Street since 1955. Guess it is not there anymore.
I haven't de-trained at LaSalle Street since 1955. Guess it is not there anymore.
Re #7: if the 'Chicagoland' commuters can't fit on the platforms, they will just have to forego "Supersizing" at McDonalds. Of course, the Grand Canyon Railway may run out of fuel, but tough!
Methinks all the drawbridges in Chicago should be welded shut and excess superstructure sold for scrap.. We don't need barge traffic. Day-sailors can step their masts and go to 'stink-pot' mode, if they dare cruise in the foul waters. Bulldoze the houses! It is quicker than Gerrymandering political districts. Dailey knows that, the conniving... "Fighting City Hall" is only a matter of $$$$$$$$$$$$!
blue streak 1 richhotrain Sorry, I hit the Post button prematurely: Of course none of us have ever done that hitting the wrong button. Station quite different from what i recall. Now remember people speaking of predestrian restrictions getting in and out of the station. Sounds as if there are not enough tracks anyway and that would be a fatal flaw. Anyone know how many tracks LaSalle had at its height?
richhotrain Sorry, I hit the Post button prematurely:
Sorry, I hit the Post button prematurely:
Of course none of us have ever done that hitting the wrong button. Station quite different from what i recall. Now remember people speaking of predestrian restrictions getting in and out of the station.
Sounds as if there are not enough tracks anyway and that would be a fatal flaw. Anyone know how many tracks LaSalle had at its height?
I cannot say for sure how many tracks LaSalle Street Station had at the height of its usage. But, I do have an aerial photo in a book on Chicago passenger stations that shows 10 passenger tracks, pre-1980. Also, in that same photo, there looks to be two additional outermost tracks, one on the east side and one on the west side of the station for a total of 12 tracks. Whether that was the maximum at any one time, i do not know. However, from even older photos of the surrounding buildings, I would venture to say that 12 tracks was the maximum.
RRKen So, relocating the Metra Burlington route (which, incidentally won't happen and no one is proposing it) ..... They did on the previous page. That's why I don't understand why they don't reroute BNSF to LaSalle St station instead... I would not want to be the person to tell the tens of thousands of people who commute on the BN, "we are moving your station". Good luck with that.
So, relocating the Metra Burlington route (which, incidentally won't happen and no one is proposing it) .....
They did on the previous page.
That's why I don't understand why they don't reroute BNSF to LaSalle St station instead...
I would not want to be the person to tell the tens of thousands of people who commute on the BN, "we are moving your station". Good luck with that.
I meant no one in government or the railroads is proposing it. :)
Sawtooth500What really makes me upset is the houses and park they will have to bulldoze to make the 75th St. junction happen. Sure, it's in the ghetto but still those are people who have homes and communities and are just as attached to them as you or I to ours. I could understand if there was absolutely no other alternative but in this case there are definitely other alternatives... it just doesn't reflect well on railroading.
It has been done for years, in the name of progress. And in this case, anyone involved would welcome it. If you walked into the homes there and dangled money or a new home at them, they would snatch it in a heartbeat. If you don't believe me, take a walk out there some day along Parnell or Normal from 74th Street.
I am quite sure the planners involved in CREATE, have taken due diligence in looking at the alternatives. Social and financial impacts. And we are not talking R.J. Daley's bulldozing of the west side for the Eisenhower expressway in the name of urban renewal. Personally, I think it would have very little effect upon Hamilton Park.
RRKen Folks, take some time and think about why people live where. As a part time commuter back in the 90's, I had access to both the IC and Rock out of Blue Island, a rare instance in most communities. While it did not influence my job choices, it did open up various venues after work. I quiet enjoyed going to Burghoffs before heading home on the IC, something I would not have done if I road the Rock or BN. This gets to my point. For years, people migrated to areas where commuter service took them to their jobs. One would not move to New Lenox, and work close to Union Station. Just as one would not move to Naperville when he worked at the CBOT. When people watching downtown to kill time, I did not see many commuters getting off of buses and entering Randolph or LaSalle. Yes, there were some, and it was summer. Saw a few cabs too. But nothing in volume. Back to my point. People who have worked for years near one station, would not like their trains going to a different part of town requiring further commuting. For example, if I lived in Manhattan, I would be quite upset if I had to walk 5 extra blocks to Sears Tower. Thus it has always been. Distinct groups moved to suburbs where their jobs could be easily accessed by train. Lines like the Wabash, actually expanded suburbs as service expanded, hence my example of Manhattan which has seen a boom. In other words, people have shaped their lives over the commute. While I am all for the CREATE program, the suggestion of moving people from one station to another en mass is FOLLY, especially in the case of BN. One hopes that Metra looked at the demographics before they decided to move the Wabash commuters to LaSalle.
Folks, take some time and think about why people live where. As a part time commuter back in the 90's, I had access to both the IC and Rock out of Blue Island, a rare instance in most communities. While it did not influence my job choices, it did open up various venues after work. I quiet enjoyed going to Burghoffs before heading home on the IC, something I would not have done if I road the Rock or BN.
This gets to my point. For years, people migrated to areas where commuter service took them to their jobs. One would not move to New Lenox, and work close to Union Station. Just as one would not move to Naperville when he worked at the CBOT. When people watching downtown to kill time, I did not see many commuters getting off of buses and entering Randolph or LaSalle. Yes, there were some, and it was summer. Saw a few cabs too. But nothing in volume.
Back to my point. People who have worked for years near one station, would not like their trains going to a different part of town requiring further commuting. For example, if I lived in Manhattan, I would be quite upset if I had to walk 5 extra blocks to Sears Tower.
Thus it has always been. Distinct groups moved to suburbs where their jobs could be easily accessed by train. Lines like the Wabash, actually expanded suburbs as service expanded, hence my example of Manhattan which has seen a boom. In other words, people have shaped their lives over the commute.
While I am all for the CREATE program, the suggestion of moving people from one station to another en mass is FOLLY, especially in the case of BN. One hopes that Metra looked at the demographics before they decided to move the Wabash commuters to LaSalle.
You know what, your argument makes sense, but in Chicago, we move stuff all around all the time to accomodate improvements in roadways, rail lines, train stations, etc. This current CREATE project is going to do just that. The Metra SWS commuters will be relocated from their current terminal at Union Station to a new terminal (sic) at LaSalle Street Station.
So, relocating the Metra Burlington route (which, incidentally won't happen and no one is proposing it) wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility and, as has been already pointed out, would only require a spur track from SCAL to the Rock Island tracks since the BNSF line already feeds into the SCAL west of the Chicago River.
In any event, this is all academic because the 75th Street project is already funded and work will begin to construct a flyover around 75th Street.
blue streak 1 Sawtooth5003. The biggest issue is platform space - even though there are only 8 platforms, how many more trains can they take? If they can't handle all the Metra BNSF trains... that would be a killer. But then you get another alternative - take the Metra Heritage Corridor Trains to Lasalle St - there are definitely fewer of those than BNSF Trains. And Richhotrain said: " There are 8 access tracks to the current LaSalle Street Station which, incidentally, is elevated from ground level". A. Could some one please clarify 8 platforms or 8 tracks; that can be a great difference? Also are there buildings just east and west outside of the present platform/track boundaries? B. Could the throat of the station be placed farther south to lengthen the platforms? C. Of course the platform area could be double decked for additional tracks? Any work such as this needs to have Congress street access added from the platforms and overpasses of the CTA northward. I had forgotten about those problems. D. Now we have the rest of the story;--- Mayor Daley has a condo around the proposed ROWs there. E. If we really want to get Daley upset propose that METRA electric and South Shore run some trains on the Air Line to a doubledecked LaSalle? To throw him a bone the Air Line could be elevated to the LaSalle throat. F. Now I remember the north bascule bridge being permanently in the up position. That part of the line could certainly be upgraded from 10 MPH to at leaast the speed of the connector from the Air Line to the station throat. Sawtooth5005. Why do you need a flyover? The Air Line already empties into the northernmost of the 3 track BNSF main. All G. The flyover at the west end of the Air Line is needed to move east bound scoots (probably locals) from the southern most track to the air line. Also I would imagine there would still be service to CHI US as well further making a flyover (s) necessary..
Sawtooth5003. The biggest issue is platform space - even though there are only 8 platforms, how many more trains can they take? If they can't handle all the Metra BNSF trains... that would be a killer. But then you get another alternative - take the Metra Heritage Corridor Trains to Lasalle St - there are definitely fewer of those than BNSF Trains.
And Richhotrain said: " There are 8 access tracks to the current LaSalle Street Station which, incidentally, is elevated from ground level".
A. Could some one please clarify 8 platforms or 8 tracks; that can be a great difference? Also are there buildings just east and west outside of the present platform/track boundaries?
B. Could the throat of the station be placed farther south to lengthen the platforms?
C. Of course the platform area could be double decked for additional tracks? Any work such as this needs to have Congress street access added from the platforms and overpasses of the CTA northward. I had forgotten about those problems.
D. Now we have the rest of the story;--- Mayor Daley has a condo around the proposed ROWs there.
E. If we really want to get Daley upset propose that METRA electric and South Shore run some trains on the Air Line to a doubledecked LaSalle? To throw him a bone the Air Line could be elevated to the LaSalle throat.
F. Now I remember the north bascule bridge being permanently in the up position. That part of the line could certainly be upgraded from 10 MPH to at leaast the speed of the connector from the Air Line to the station throat.
Sawtooth5005. Why do you need a flyover? The Air Line already empties into the northernmost of the 3 track BNSF main. All
G. The flyover at the west end of the Air Line is needed to move east bound scoots (probably locals) from the southern most track to the air line. Also I would imagine there would still be service to CHI US as well further making a flyover (s) necessary..
You answered your own question, 8 tracks, 5 platforms, would have to get the City and State and maybe Feds to agree to add to tracks on the outer side of existing platforms. Won't happen.
You could probably move the throat south but you would only need to if adding two tracks. Won't happen.
Double decking? You jest.
richhotrainOn second thought, I am going to challenge you on #5. I just looked at a current satellite view of SCAL. There is no access track from the old PRR tracks to the SCAL. So, a passenger train or commuter train approaching SCAL from the south has no way to access the line to turn east to the Rock Island tracks.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.