schlimmThe Hiawatha service schedule is not padded. It is about the same as the best trains were on that run on both the Milwaukee and CNW - 89 minutes.
Ehhh, it is a padded schedule I ride the train. Pretty sure from your armchair comments you have not ridden the train ever. Best train time on that route is not 89 minutes either......75 minutes nonstop was fairly normal in the mid-1950's. Back then Milwaukee to the Illinois border was much more congested with traffic as well. So if anything that time should be matched or better today.
BaltACDObviously you have never tried to schedule a real world - sustainable operation. Shortest running time is not real world schedule time.
I would think Frieght railroad non-time sensitive dispatching experience would be irrelevant to the discussion here. Seen the model in operation at various locals where crews just sit in a stopped train idling away, sometimes sleeping. We are talking High Speed Passenger Rail here intermixed with commutter rail. And of course I have ridden mixed passenger train type operations in Europe where the high speed passenger train is rarely late and the schedule is not padded.........have you?
CMStPnP schlimm Ehhh genius, it is a padded schedule I ride the train. Pretty sure from your armchair comments you have not set foot on it.
schlimm
Ehhh genius, it is a padded schedule I ride the train. Pretty sure from your armchair comments you have not set foot on it.
Any organization that sets 'schedules' at running time is bound to have a 0% On Time performance. The real world presents real interference points and operations that must be routinely accounted for with the scheduling. Any one train is not the only train on the line.
When it comes to schedule setting the normal priorities are - Amtrak - Commuter Rail, Priority Intermodal, Priority Automotive, Scheduled through Mercandise, Scheduled Local Freights, unscheduled bulk commodity trains. If any of the scheduled trains are delayed to the point that they are outside the schedule window - the sledding for them gets difficult as they are now in the windows of other scheduled services. Who do you give 'priority' to? The one train that is out of its window or the 10 to 20 trains that are in their proper windows - when you get measured on On Time operation there isn't much of a choice - the greater number of OT trains beat out the single failure every time. Historically, trains that are outside their window will lose time on their runs as it loses in all the decisions that must be made about it's operation.
The schedules among the various catagories of trains give each segments of the clock where they can operate withoug negatively affecting the other catagories - any of the trains the fall out of their windows then get the decision process going against them. Track Time on a railroad is a very precious commodity with more users seeking it than there are minutes in the day.
All forms of transportation 'pad' their schedules so as to be able to offer ON TIME performance. Air Lines will put out a 2.5 hour trip time for a flight that only has 1.75 hours air time - it has to get away from the gate on time and into who knows what type of take off pattern - as it approaches destination it may get held in the air for a slot to land and once on the ground it may be held for a gate to become available.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
There is a big difference between arranging for legitimate slack in a schedule and 'padding', which is usually a pejorative term that means excessive or needless slack allowance has been provided. I am not familiar with either the train or its usual delays, but if its schedule time is remarkably longer than a calculated running time, or if station or other stops are ridiculously extended, then a claim of 'padding' would likely have merit.
One way to tell might be if the train can keep 'schedule' even when there are extraordinary delays. Not that bureaucrats running numbers from armchairs necessarily care, mind you, but people actually riding the train would indeed begin to notice...
I had alwaysconsidered "padding" to be a legitimate term to describe the adding of time between the penultimate stop and the ultimate stop of a train. For instance, #5 (the California Zephyr) is given 34 minutes to go from Union Station and pick passengers up at Naperville; # 6 is given 57 minutes after leaving Naperville to arrive in Chicago.
As to losing one's slot, I think of leaving Chicago more than two hours late because of congestion east of Chicago which delayed both the Lake Shore Limited and the Capitol Limited, losing time across Iowa, leaving Lincoln about five hours late, and arriving in Salt Lake City at least seven hours late after making the fastest time I ever knew between Provo and Salt Lake City (enough padding just wasn't there west of Provo--!:05 SLC to Provo; 1:39 Provo to SLC).
Johnny
Deggesty I had alwaysconsidered "padding" to be a legitimate term to describe the adding of time between the penultimate stop and the ultimate stop of a train. For instance, #5 (the California Zephyr) is given 34 minutes to go from Union Station and pick passengers up at Naperville; # 6 is given 57 minutes after leaving Naperville to arrive in Chicago. As to losing one's slot, I think of leaving Chicago more than two hours late because of congestion east of Chicago which delayed both the Lake Shore Limited and the Capitol Limited, losing time across Iowa, leaving Lincoln about five hours late, and arriving in Salt Lake City at least seven hours late after making the fastest time I ever knew between Provo and Salt Lake City (enough padding just wasn't there west of Provo--!:05 SLC to Provo; 1:39 Provo to SLC).
So think of this, the Chicago to Milwaukee run is at the most 92 mins long, it actually averages 90-95 min with the regular delays. I never saw a Chicago to Milwaukee Amtrak train in my lifetime leave Milwaukee hours late if it was a corridor train. I am sure there are extraordinary conditions when that might happen. However the so called "Windows" the previous poster was referring to are probably 10 min wide which given the distance traveled a single CTC red signal can probably disrupt. So like I said simpleton band aid approach to arailroading problem......where money should be spent to fix the problem vs a band-aid solution.
Everytime I have ridden Milwaukee Chicago there have been the usual station stops plus two more unplanned stops in METRA territory. Never is it a nonstop roll into Union Station from the last station stop, dispatcher or signalling system always stops the train two more times at the very least for 5 min. Never had that issue outside of METRA territory.
There was actually one time we almost made a 79 min schedule into Union Station but again the METRA traffic control stopped us a little short. I think a 75 min schedule is achievable now without further investment just by better traffic management.
Just like when I rode the Texas Eagle on a Holiday when there were limited UPRR freight trains getting in the way, could easily see there was at least 4-6 hours of schedule padding between Chicago and Dallas......easily. Now that is fine for a once a day LD train. But soon there are going to 10 trains each way Milwaukee to Chicago and over 1 million people riding that route. Should we really spend that taxpayer money if there is no motivation by Chicago to improve Amtrak running time via better management?
CMStPnP ..........But soon there are going to 10 trains each way Milwaukee to Chicago and over 1 million people riding that route. ......
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
CMStPnPThere was actually one time we almost made a 79 min schedule into Union Station but again the METRA traffic control stopped us a little short. I think a 75 min schedule is achievable now without further investment just by better traffic management.
Everybody does great at dispatching one train. Dispatching an entire segment of railroad is geometrically more difficult.
Have had numerous T&E crew members that thought Dispatching was easy. Then they went through dispatcher training and actually tried to become dispatchers. Some made it through, some didn't. Those that made it through the training and on job qualification training now say they never realized how much more involved the process is when you are dealing with 10-15-20 or more trains and MofW requirements, rather than just operating the throttle in accordance with signal indication.
It is easy to say you can do better, it is much harder to get into a position and actually do it. Those that are doing the job are far from the idiots those not doing the job percieve them to be.
CMStPnP schlimm The Hiawatha service schedule is not padded. It is about the same as the best trains were on that run on both the Milwaukee and CNW - 89 minutes. Ehhh, it is a padded schedule I ride the train. Pretty sure from your armchair comments you have not ridden the train ever. Best train time on that route is not 89 minutes either......75 minutes nonstop was fairly normal in the mid-1950's. Back then Milwaukee to the Illinois border was much more congested with traffic as well. So if anything that time should be matched or better today.
schlimm The Hiawatha service schedule is not padded. It is about the same as the best trains were on that run on both the Milwaukee and CNW - 89 minutes.
As is your custom, you spout claims that are not factual and ignore any and all who attempt to set the record straight
In the late 1950s, the Milwaukee Road (same ROW) ran four trains daily, CHI-MKE with times of 1:18 to 1:20, making only ONE intermediate stop in Glenview. Today's Hiawatha Service manages the run seven times on weekdays in 1:29, making THREE intermediate stops (Glenview, Sturtevant and Milwaukee Airport). If you do not think those two additional stops add any time to the run, then perhaps you should ask one of our experts how much time is lost decelerating from 79 mph to a stop, spending 2-3 minutes halted, and accelerating back to 79 mph, X2.
In 1955, the Olympian Hiawatha made the run in the 75 minutes (85 reverse direction), but it was NONSTOP. Obviously you require fact checking.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Murphy SidingWhere is that information coming from? Add
WisDOT expansion plans, they are allegedly negotiating frequency #8 later this year.
schlimmAs is your custom, you spout claims that are not factual and ignore any and all who attempt to set the record straight In the late 1950s, the Milwaukee Road (same ROW) ran four trains daily, CHI-MKE with times of 1:18 to 1:20, making only ONE intermediate stop in Glenview. Today's Hiawatha Service manages the run seven times on weekdays in 1:29, making THREE intermediate stops (Glenview, Sturtevant and Milwaukee Airport). If you do not think those two additional stops add any time to the run, then perhaps you should ask one of our experts how much time is lost decelerating from 79 mph to a stop, spending 2-3 minutes halted, and accelerating back to 79 mph, X2. In 1955, the Olympian Hiawatha made the run in the 75 minutes (85 reverse direction), but it was NONSTOP. Obviously you require fact checking.
You just repeated almost exactly what I posted but just added an insult at the front. You didn't add anything new but accused me of being incorrect. Next time read my post slowly. Hit the Nurse Assist button if you have to.
It is a different physical plant with better/newer signaling, welded rail, and more than likely higher speed limits in areas. The Olympian Hiawatha was 75 min Chicago to Milwaukee, you need to review a time table and in fact it was not the only train carded with a nonstop 75 min run. I believe the Tomahawk also had a nonstop 75 min run in the 1955 timetable......probably others but I did not spend a lot of time looking but probably spent more time than your glance since you missed the Tomahawk and as I stated above the corridor was much more congested during that time with freight probably by a factor of two. Also a part you missed in your zeal to be a keyboard commando, the train stops at least 5 times on the way to Union Station not three. Yes there are three station stops but on most runs METRA either slows the train to half speed on it's territory or stops it two additional times. According to your stop a train thoery that should add another 20 min to the run but honestly only adds 10 minutes. I don't have all the rail education you profess to have but I suspect that is because of a higher HP locomotive with higher rail adhesion than they had in 1955.
Also, do you remember the Milwaukee road assigning a 4000 hp road engine to a 6 car train in the 1950's..........I don't seem to recall that. If you find such a picture provide a link please.
Maybe you should ride the train before you spout off as an expert?
CMStPnP schlimm You just repeated almost exactly what I posted but just added an insult at the front. You didn't add anything new but accused me of being incorrect. Next time read my post slowly. Hit the Nurse Assist button if you have to. It is a different physical plant with better/newer signaling, welded rail, and more than likely higher speed limits in areas. The Olympian Hiawatha was 75 min Chicago to Milwaukee, you need to review a time table and in fact it was not the only train carded with a nonstop 75 min run. I believe the Tomahawk also had a nonstop 75 min run in the 1955 timetable......probably others but I did not spend a lot of time looking but probably spent more time than your glance since you missed the Tomahawk and as I stated above the corridor was much more congested during that time with freight probably by a factor of two. Also a part you missed in your zeal to be a keyboard commando, the train stops at least 5 times on the way to Union Station not three. Yes there are three station stops but on most runs METRA either slows the train to half speed on it's territory or stops it two additional times. According to your stop a train thoery that should add another 20 min to the run but honestly only adds 10 minutes. I don't have all the rail education you profess to have but I suspect that is because of a higher HP locomotive with higher rail adhesion than they had in 1955. Also, do you remember the Milwaukee road assigning a 4000 hp road engine to a 6 car train in the 1950's..........I don't seem to recall that. If you find such a picture provide a link please. Maybe you should ride the train before you spout off as an expert?
I imagine in the MILW 'slow to 90' days - there was a lot of superelevation built into all the curves. When Class 1's got out of their own passenger business, superelevation was reduced to what served freight speed better and all the curve speeds got adjusted accordingly. 60 years ago and today are two much different railroad worlds.
CMStPnP Murphy Siding Where is that information coming from? Add WisDOT expansion plans, they are allegedly negotiating frequency #8 later this year.
Murphy Siding Where is that information coming from? Add
CMStPnPYou just repeated almost exactly what I posted but just added an insult at the front. You didn't add anything new but accused me of being incorrect. Next time read my post slowly. Hit the Nurse Assist button if you have to.
I can only charitably assume you have a deficit in reading comprehension. You seem to have ignored the difference between three stops vs none. Then you mention a 2nd train, which is irrelevant. And the tangentially you go off on a tangent about a 4000 hp road engine in the 50s? Where that delusion came from is beyond me. Perhaps a folie a deux with Euclid/Bucky?
Murphy SidingThanks. i was concerned it might be from some government report where they use a lot of PFA numbers and wishful thinking to try and get more free government money for a project.
No they really are committed to ramping up the frequency to three additional trains each way. The subsidy is pretty low already and I think via frequency and speed improvements they are attempting to make the corridor self-supporting. They want to raise the speed outside of METRA territory to 90 mph from 80 mph.......you can guess why they excluded METRA territory.
I am guessing it is partially due to METRA performance in managing trains so far, why squander money there. However it could also be a parochial state interest in only spending the HSR money in Wisconsin, not sure yet which it is. Whatever it is, the speed up to 90 mph will make METRA's train handling performance even more visible as an issue, South of the border. Heck I ride the Texas Eagle in from the South and as soon as it hits METRA territory significant slowdown and frequent stops or slow running. It's not just a Chicago to Milwaukee corridor issue.....across the board METRA issue with handling non-METRA trains. Like I said earlier as more money is spent on HSR and multiple states start to view Chicago as the issue, they will get the Feds to intervene.
Metra could via some investment improve train handling by routing the Northbound cross over to the NW Milwaukee line to below grade instead of at grade and eliminate quite a few obstructions of the Southbound flow of traffic, it's a holdover from the Milwaukee era and one reason why Milwaukee Northbound from Chicago trains had a faster schedule than Southbound from Milwaukee trains. Northbound traffic to the NW line has to obstruct the Southbound mainline. Don't hold your breath on METRA investing money there without massive funds and initiative from the Feds though as it only disrupts Amtrak and CP operations not METRA operations..........so their attitude is why bother with it.
BaltACDI imagine in the MILW 'slow to 90' days - there was a lot of superelevation built into all the curves. When Class 1's got out of their own passenger business, superelevation was reduced to what served freight speed better and all the curve speeds got adjusted accordingly. 60 years ago and today are two much different railroad worlds.
Yeah schlimm is lost in the 1950's somewhere. Locomotive Technology and the route has changed substatially since then. Locomotives of today can accelerate and brake passenger trains much faster today than the 1950's.
Railfans like to dream about the slow to 90 days but truth of the fact was the high speed Milwaukee Road was limited in areas like it is on the NE Corridor today. You had stretches of 100 mph running but not very long stretches of track that had that speed limit and they had slower speed limit track between the stretches. Rarely was it a sustained 100 mph over a distance. Additionally back then it was directional running (inefficient). In fact, even though the Milwaukee had CTC it was mostly directional running on each track across the whole state. A practice which CP still follows in double track territory unless it is stretched for capacity, then they use the new signaling improvements. Canadian Pacific after takeover changed out the signalling to reverse CTC for most of the route and thats why they removed a track West of Milwaukee. I rode the Milwaukee passenger trains to Chicago pre-Amtrak. When they would run against the flow of traffic they would reduce speed considerably (no idea why but speculate it was signaling and rules related).........no longer is that the case with the new reverse CTC signaling. Regardless of the track Amtrak runs on, it runs 79 mph now. Even West of Milwaukee I am surprised to see Amtrak running West on the steeper grade Eastbound main at speed while a slower frieght uses the easier grade Westbound main.........very cool that CP fixed that......which was largely a signaling issue. Milwaukee would send frieghts wrong main up the hill via Brookfield with helpers on the rear when the other main was out of service (cha-ching on the $$$ for that).....very slow speed operation when it would take place.
Not a lot of tight curves between Chicago and Milwaukee the ROW is pretty straight until you get within city limits in close proximity to the terminus in Chicago and Milwaukee. Hence it is engineered as a high speed line vs C&NW which does have a few more curves. The state has also added a few more cross overs between mains North of the border to facilitate run arounds with frieght trains.....again it was a CP idea and done at CP's request. Not clear if the cross overs existed in the 50's and were later removed or if the Milwaukee with it's directional running never had the crossovers and they are completely new. With the directional running Milwaukee had passing sidings off each main in some places instead of using a crossover track to use the other main. So in places the Milwaukee main had three and sometimes four tracks.........that's how they did it in the 1950's which differs from today in some areas. Those tracks are gone now for the most part with the improved CP signalling across the state.
One more item is there were small yards on the old Milwaukee with yard speed limits between Milwaukee and Chicago. The yards were used to collect cars from South Milwaukee, Sturtevant/Racine (interchange with the Southwestern and Kansas City passenger route to Milwaukee). Those yards are greatly reduced or gone now and yard speed limits are long gone.
These are the kinds of things that you notice riding the train route over time vs just looking at a timetable. The run between Milwaukee and the border is either a higher avg speed limit now than it was in the 1950's or very close because it is a sustained 80 mph now vs a 60-70-90-100-70-60 mph route......which it was in the 1950's.
Also back in the Milwaukee Passenger run days and early Amtrak days you used to encounter at least 4 freights on the way to Chicago, now your lucky if you see just one. So again the freight traffic is less on the former Milwaukee because CP runs more efficiently than the former Milwaukee Road did OR it has far less traffic. I like to be an optimist and state the CP runs more efficiently as they spent some decent money on improving the route after takeover from the Soo Line. Though I think it is both a dropoff in traffic and more efficient handling of the remaining traffic.
On the super-elevated curves, Milwaukee only removed it when it was an issue with freight operations, not sure what CP's policy is but the curves in Brookfield that see just one Amtrak train a day still have their super elevation so I am guessing in some cases maintaining elevated curves helps with frieght operations if the freight trains run above a specific speed and on CP the speed limit is 55-60 for frieghts where I see the curves still elevated but I don't know if that is a across the board rule with speed limit and leaving the elevation in the curves.
I would also point out that the METRA trains are longer and I would be curious what the HP per ton is now of METRA trains vs when the private railroads were running the show and owned the lines. Just seems to me the METRA trains are more sluggish at gaining speed than when the private railroads ran the trains. METRA has also increased the train frequency a lot more than when the private railroads were running the show. Some of it is due to population growth but I also think METRA is far less concerned with profit and loss as well.
Quoting CMStP&P: " When they would run against the flow of traffic they would reduce speed considerably (no idea why but speculate it was signaling and rules related).........no longer is that the case with the new reverse CTC signaling. " When running against the flow of traffic, you were running in dark territory--thus the reduction in speed--a maximum of 59 mph for passenger and 49 mph for freight.
CMStPnPMetra could via some investment improve train handling by routing the Northbound cross over to the NW Milwaukee line to below grade instead of at grade and eliminate quite a few obstructions of the Southbound flow of traffic, it's a holdover from the Milwaukee era and one reason why Milwaukee Northbound from Chicago trains had a faster schedule than Southbound from Milwaukee trains. Northbound traffic to the NW line has to obstruct the Southbound mainline.
Typically uninformed observations.
CMStPnP Murphy Siding Thanks. i was concerned it might be from some government report where they use a lot of PFA numbers and wishful thinking to try and get more free government money for a project.
Murphy Siding Thanks. i was concerned it might be from some government report where they use a lot of PFA numbers and wishful thinking to try and get more free government money for a project.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
JPS1Given the Hiawatha’s statistics, it is difficult to see how adding another three trains a day would improve the route’s financial numbers. The load factor is significantly below the average load factor for similar trains.
It is hard to see how adding 1-3 more trains daily is justified at this time.
Duplicate post; deleted.
Well fortunately for Wisconsin taxpayers, we have state licensed Accountants running the numbers and auditing the projections. There isn't any food and beverage service on the trains. I forgot to mention they also want to increase the train consist by one car to seven cars from six to eliminate the standing room only condition on some rush hour trains.
They must know something yourself and Schlimm do not.........not a big surprise there.
CMStPnP JPS1 Well fortunately for Wisconsin taxpayers, we have state licensed Accountants running the numbers and auditing the projections. There isn't any food and beverage service on the trains. I forgot to mention they also want to increase the train consist by one car to seven cars from six to eliminate the standing room only condition on some rush hour trains. They must know something yourself and Schlimm do not.........not a big surprise there.
JPS1
So the bigger question is. Should this really be interstate METRA service, or is the preponderance of the commuter traffic destined and originating at Milwaukee?
CMStPnP JPS1 Given the Hiawatha’s statistics, it is difficult to see how adding another three trains a day would improve the route’s financial numbers. The load factor is significantly below the average load factor for similar trains. Well fortunately for Wisconsin taxpayers, we have state licensed Accountants running the numbers and auditing the projections. There isn't any food and beverage service on the trains. I forgot to mention they also want to increase the train consist by one car to seven cars from six to eliminate the standing room only condition on some rush hour trains. They must know something yourself and Schlimm do not.........not a big surprise there.
JPS1 Given the Hiawatha’s statistics, it is difficult to see how adding another three trains a day would improve the route’s financial numbers. The load factor is significantly below the average load factor for similar trains.
The numbers for the Hiawatha’s come from Amtrak's Monthly Operating Reports.
Perhaps you could show us where Amtrak’s numbers are wrong. A good way to do that would be to present the numbers generated by the state accountants, as you put it that refute and/or illuminate Amtrak's published numbers.
Amtrak's revenue numbers include state operating and capital payments, if any, as well as food and beverage revenues, if any. The point often lost is that the loss on ticket revenues is greater than the loss shown on Amtrak's Operating Report. Whether money comes out of the pockets of local, state, or federal taxpayers, at the end of the day the taxpayer picks up the losses.
CMStPnP...state licensed Accountants...
Interviewer to applicant for an accounting job: "How much is two plus two?"
Applicant: "How much do you want it to be?"
He got the job...
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...
CMStPnP I think a 75 min schedule is achievable now without further investment just by better traffic management.
Please show us some facts to support that. Please don't say that you have rode the train, so you know, that means nothing. Balt has already explained why that is. So show me how you would do it, while keeping Metra traffic moving. Where would you make the meets, where the overtakes would happen, and how you would keep the owners traffic moving...
I'll be waiting for your response, although I doubt I will get one. If I do, I no doubt will get much facts, just subjective garbarge with a few insults, it seems to be your MO.
An "expensive model collector"
n012944 CMStPnP I think a 75 min schedule is achievable now without further investment just by better traffic management. Please show us some facts to support that. Please don't say that you have rode the train, so you know, that means nothing. Balt has already explained why that it. So show me how you would do it, while keeping Metra traffic moving. Where would you make the meets, where the overtakes would happen, and how you would keep the owners traffic moving... I'll be waiting for your response, although I doubt I will get one. If I do, I no doubt will get much facts, just subjective garbarge with a few insults, it seems to be your MO.
Please show us some facts to support that. Please don't say that you have rode the train, so you know, that means nothing. Balt has already explained why that it. So show me how you would do it, while keeping Metra traffic moving. Where would you make the meets, where the overtakes would happen, and how you would keep the owners traffic moving...
+1 Don't hold your breath waiting on facts.
JBS1 never said there was F&B service [On a total revenue basis, which includes the state operating and capital payments, as well as food, beverage and miscellaneous revenues, Amtrak recorded a loss of $2,600,000 or 4.0 cents per passenger mile.] it is just a standard line item. Fortunately, he and others here can at least read accurately, if not understand accountancy. You apparently are deficient in both. But then, what else should we expect from someone who couldn't even manage a sandwich shop successfully?
BaltACDSo the bigger question is. Should this really be interstate METRA service, or is the preponderance of the commuter traffic destined and originating at Milwaukee?
METRA won't cross the state lines because of their business charter (they have an exception to that rule called Kenosha but they stick to it otherwise). They discussed a slower type METRA service on C&NW from Kenosha North but it would not be an extension of METRA instead it would be the same METRA type equipment with a different paint scheme funded by Wisconsin terminating in Chicago C&NW's lakefront line is more urbanized and runs though more densely populated area but has more curves and is not in very good shape, North of Kenosha. Cost of startup I seem to remember was North of $200 million so they backed away from it for now. The plan was they would still run Amtrak though on CP with the METRA type service on the lakefront line......so it was meant to be a suppliment vs a replacement to Amtrak service.
So they looked at that but decided the costs were too expensive to have two rail options running concurrently at this point in time but the option is still on the table for the future.
n012944Please show us some facts to support that. Please don't say that you have rode the train, so you know, that means nothing. Balt has already explained why that is. So show me how you would do it, while keeping Metra traffic moving. Where would you make the meets, where the overtakes would happen, and how you would keep the owners traffic moving... I'll be waiting for your response, although I doubt I will get one. If I do, I no doubt will get much facts, just subjective garbarge with a few insults, it seems to be your MO.
I normally would not waste my time responding to you. I know you think highly of yourself in whatever your past capacity was. However, I do need to point out that you restated the argument being made to be more compatible with your opinion and then asked me to support an argument I was not making to begin with.
So I have to provide facts to prove your argument that it can be done without modification to METRA traffic management? I'm sorry, where did I state that above? Anywhere? How about you follow what it is I am arguing instead of restating the argument to your liking and producing a totally new strawman argument.
It's only a 85 mile corridor and it is not even congested until the last 25% of the 85 miles. Allegedly with your railroad experience your making an argument you can't see how to better manage a two to three track railroad over a few miles with some infrastruture improvements? Really?
So no I am not going to waste my time on it because in the past any argument contrary to your own opinion is impossible.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.