This was just picked up by a suburban Chicago blogger that I'm passing on.
http://dailyherald.com/article/20110118/news/701189835/ RTA looking at electric trains for Metra By Ted Cox The Regional Transportation Authority will host a workshop in March looking into the possibility of switching Metra's diesel engines to an electric system. The one-day workshop is being sponsored by the Transit Finance Learning Exchange, which RTA Executive Director Joseph Costello described as a "loose consortium" of major U.S. mass-transit agencies. Costello emphasized that "no one's putting the proposal forward" and that the entire concept is in a preliminary phase. "Let's spend the day exploring it," he said. "What would be the cost to do it? What are the potential benefits?" The March 22 workshop will be open to all, including the public, at a fee of $75. Information is at tflex.org. Read more: http://dailyherald.com/article/20110118/news/701189835/#ixzz1BSPHF7xW
This proposal is probably fallout from a recent article in the Trib about diesel fumes in the confines of Chicago Union Station. A similar story in today's Trib stated that Metra views electrification of its diesel routes as "hugely impractical".
CSSHEGEWISCH This proposal is probably fallout from a recent article in the Trib about diesel fumes in the confines of Chicago Union Station. A similar story in today's Trib stated that Metra views electrification of its diesel routes as "hugely impractical".
Metra still has the mentality that this is the way it's been done for the last 35 years. That said, there is no money or funding source in front of Metra, so in that sense they are correct; but the decision is largely public from the energy and environmental aspects and not Metra's. The railroads have been looking over their shoulder at electrification for some time; and the oil situation may prompt some joint action in partnership with public financing.
To be sure, there are costs; but let's start with an inventory the clearance points. The next would be to discuss 25kv ac and 1.5kv dc alternatives and figure the impact on clearances, especially at Union Station; and figure out how much that would cost in addition to the cost of electrification.
Maybe the meeting is a good and timely idea to get these issues out in front of the public regardless of the motivation.
The concept IS hugely impractical. Out of Union Station, the BNSF to Aurora, 38 miles of triple track plus yard tracks, Milwaukee District West to Big Timber, 13 miles of triple track to Franklin Park and 27 more miles of mostly double track to Big Timber, Milwaukee District North to Fox Lake, 32 miles of mostly double track to Rondout (shared with CP and Amtrak) and 17 more miles of single track to Fox Lake. I'm not including the Heritage line or Southwest Service and we already have 127 route miles and a much higher amount of track miles. The Rock Island and ex C&NW lines haven't been addressed either. Where will the funding come from???
CSSHEGEWISCH The concept IS hugely impractical...[and]..here will the funding come from???
The concept IS hugely impractical...[and]..here will the funding come from???
Certainly impractical now, but surely worth considering for the future, in gradual steps on the most densely used lines, which by weekday ridership, would be the BNSF line (63K) and later the UP lines - NW (43K) , N (41K) , and W (30K).
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Certainly impractical now, but surely worth considering for the future, in gradual steps on the most densely used lines, which by weekday ridership, would be the BNSF line (63K) and later the UP lines - NW (43K) , N (41K) , and W (30K).
Someone might want to take a look at oil production and demand and have a good handle on how soon electrification may be prudent; and have a plan developed to implement it.
Much engineering work was done for the North line many years ago, but Mayor Daley vetoed the project. The thought was a 1500V DC overhead electrification compatible with the IC and South Shore, with through operation, somehow, possible some day. This was around 1952 or 1955.
billio Editorially summarizing: Regarding the latter point, they can't even rebuild the decaying infrastructure on the UP North Line.
The funding was in place to rebuild the UP North Line, it was stopped because commuters couldn't deal with the inconvenience.
daveklepper Much engineering work was done for the North line many years ago, but Mayor Daley vetoed the project. The thought was a 1500V DC overhead electrification compatible with the IC and South Shore, with through operation, somehow, possible some day. This was around 1952 or 1955.
By "North line" are you referring to the old Milwaukee Division of the C&NW? I've never heard of such a plan before. What was the reason for the veto, which must have occurred in his first year, as Mayor Richard J. Daley was elected in 1955.
I missed that one. That would have been before Ben Heinemann and the deal to eliminate stations in return for modernization. A local gadfly often spoke of something similar, using the remaining CNW connection to the former Wells (Kinzie?) St Station and Navy Pier Branch, recrossing the Chicago River east of Michigan on a low-level movable bridge to connect with the IC Suburban Line.
I can understand why Mayor Richard J Daley may have objected. One problem was that it crossed a number of streets at grade, Including Grand Av and Lower Michigan. Another was the impact of a lowered bridge on sight-seeing boat operators docked west of Michigan. Finally, the CTA former Ravenswood L paralleled and competed with the Milwaukee Div line for a mile with 3 stations and the Howard L was only a few blocks away from the Rogers Park station.
What would the point have been to connect to the IC line? And in those days, there was still some freight traffic on the river: remember the Medusa cement boat?
I've never heard of this either, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. However, if the engineering was done as early as 1952, it means the decision to do the engineering work was made earlier. Remember, the CNW commuter lines were being run by steam in those days. There was a lot of interest in rail electrification in urban areas because of the smoke problem before diesels made it a moot point.
The point seemingly was a lakefront north-south line serving key destinations such as Northwestern University, North Michigan Avenue, the University of Chicago and museums. This was before McCormick Place or the Bears move to Soldier Field; and Central Station was a major passenger terminal.
The reality is there are six other west and north lines that would comprise a larger volume of connecting travel if that were convenient from today's Metra Electric District. Correspondingly, there are at least five South and West routes that comprise a greater volume of potential trips than on the MED. I've seen the results of CATS trip assignment gravity model with the travel data I had a part in entering and evaluating.
The C&NW Chicago Av coach yard coexisted quite well with the freight service, And the Navy Pier branch had room, even serving the New Sun-Times building that subsequently gave way to the Trump Tower. Later Chicago Av became the Tribune yard for receiving newsprint and a lead still serves Bloomer "Worlds Finest" (?) Chocolate on the remnant of the wye to the West Line.
Both proposals come with, if not a pedigree, then at least a history...
Regarding electrification (1908): http://books.google.com/books?id=425BAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=railroad+electrification+as+a+solution+to+smoke&output=text&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=6
And the interconnection of (among others) the IC & C&NW (1914): http://books.google.com/books?id=3BA9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA75&dq=through+routes+for+the+city+of+chicago&hl=en&ei=SEU5TfbkIoOKlwe7zrz_Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=through%20routes%20for%20the%20city%20of%20chicago&f=false
thanks, kevin
Interesting proposals, although about 40 years before the late Mayor Daley's first term. The IC-CNW connection proposed was a tunnel under the Chicago River to the Navy Pier branch.
Actually here's what I find funny about Metra's idea - they said that one of the big reasons to consider this were the environmental reasons. Which brings me to the point - a few months back, I believe it was Popular Science Magazine (although it could have been another, can't remember for sure) that ran an entire article about strictly electric cars and their impact on the environment. The big thing that the article took into account is the SOURCE from where the electricity is coming - in regions like the pacific northwest where there is a lot of hydro energy having an electric car definitely does pollute less into the air. However, the midwest was specifically noted as a region that if all cars switched over to electric it would actually pollute more, because the majority of the power in the midwest is produced by belching coal power plants. You must consider the additional output the power plants would have to put out if everything switched to electric. So to be honest with you would switching all of Metra to electric really be better for the environment? Perhaps not...
The USA and Canada are finding large new sources of natural gas . Coal-fired power plants can be converted to use this energy. Scri\ubbing and prevention of CO-2 buildup is a lot easier. So electrification holds real promise for reducing overall air pollution in the future, if not at the present time.
daveklepper The USA and Canada are finding large new sources of natural gas . Coal-fired power plants can be converted to use this energy. Scri\ubbing and prevention of CO-2 buildup is a lot easier. So electrification holds real promise for reducing overall air pollution in the future, if not at the present time.
Very true. Natural gas exploration is [sorry for the pun] exploding. In a number of areas in Wisconsin and other states, sand companies are buying up deposits, since huge quantities are used in the recovery technique called "fracking" which fractures the rock layers trapping the gas underground. Conversion of power plants would allow for very clean and cheaper generation.
CSSHEGEWISCH billio: Editorially summarizing: Regarding the latter point, they can't even rebuild the decaying infrastructure on the UP North Line. The funding was in place to rebuild the UP North Line, it was stopped because commuters couldn't deal with the inconvenience.
billio: Editorially summarizing: Regarding the latter point, they can't even rebuild the decaying infrastructure on the UP North Line.
Given overall history, most metro areas would be so fortunate as to have had a Metra to run their commuter rail system.
Mass transit agencies are political creations and would ignore the complaints of the public at their own peril. The wailing over the temporary schedules that were instituted to accommodate the UP North rebuilding was unusually loud and if Metra's management ignored it, various political leaders would have taken up the cause, which may have led to other problems.
billio Precisely my point, although I would have spun it a bit differently. Which is: Confronted with the squawks and squeals of riders inconvenienced by construction delays, Metra's "management" wimped out and postponed the duly scheduled rehab work on the UP North Line. So what happens when work eventually recommences, and the commuters are inconvenienced once more, and their whines, plaints and squawks resume? Will our lionhearted, pooh-on-the-torpedoes Metra management defer the work again? And yet again? Oh, where are you Phil Pigano, when we need you! (The tears are strictly crocodilian) My point is that if Metra lacks the fortitude, the oomph, the drive, the moxie (call it what you want) to prosecute a badly needed infrastructure project, chooses to do the manly thing by defering and delaying, then don't look for them to embrace an infrastructure project which is "nice" but not critical to the running of Chicagoland commuter trains. Especially when capital (in the form of local match) is scarcer than ever.
Metra has acted passively in most areas. Stations are improved only with local political support and funding. Same with service expansion, sometimes to the point of questionable projects like the North Central and proposed STAR and Southeast lines.
My question is why? The amount of energy to propel the trains will not change but line and transformer losses to get the power to the locomotives will increase the power plant demand to 15% above train demand resulting in no energy improvement.. If the power plant burns coal or oil the emissions will just be moved to anotheer location. It's a "nimby" solution
One idea concerning the North Line should be considered. Both the Evanston elevated and the UP line need rebuidling. But they are both adjacent in Evanston (and Willmet?) So rebuild one at a time, not obth at the same time. And the reduced service on one should be compensated by extra service on the other, possibly even with temporary stations where required. I's rebuild the UP line first. taking advantage of the existing four tracks on the el structurer, with beefed up Evanston Express service, connecting with some UP north line trains that start and end in Evanston. And this would give a good reason to rebuild the UP with a third track. Then, after the UP line is rebuilt, the el can suffer the reduced service of its rebuilding.
HarveyK400 responding to billio: Metra has acted passively in most areas. Stations are improved only with local political support and funding. Same with service expansion, sometimes to the point of questionable projects like the North Central and proposed STAR and Southeast lines.
responding to billio:
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.