Ride the Cedar Rapids and Iowa City Again

[Victrola1]

IOWA CITY — Creating passenger rail from Iowa City to Cedar Rapids will get another look.

The Cedar Rapids and Iowa City Railway, or CRANDIC, with financial support from several public agencies has commissioned a new feasibility study for service between Iowa City and The Eastern Iowa Airport.

http://thegazette.com/subject/news/government/local/with-growth-new-study-looks-at-passenger-rail-20150630

The heyday of passenger service would not last long, however. With the advent of affordable automobiles and a paved highway system, CRANDIC's ridership declined quickly. In 1952, only 188,317 rode the Interurban, and only nine round trips were scheduled each day. The last official run of a CRANDIC passenger train occurred on May 30, 1953. With Engine #119 in the lead, the "Rail Fan Passenger Special" marked the end of the CRANDIC Interurban era.

http://www.crandic.com/CompanyHistory/TheLastPassengers/

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen.  While having the tracks already in place would help lower start-up costs, I'm not sure that CRANDIC would be willing to allow a service restriction on its line to allow a light-rail operation.

[daveklepper]

They could Stadler-built diesel cars compatible with FRA crashworthy regulations.  There are such.  Or rehabilitated RDCs!  They can be reconfigiured for one-man operation if necessary.

[Wizlish]

I have to wonder: with historical interurban speeds on this railroad being over 85 mph in some places, if I remember... what would modern track construction and maintenance allow on the portion under consideration? 

[Wizlish]

CSSHEGEWISCH

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen.  While having the tracks already in place would help lower start-up costs, I'm not sure that CRANDIC would be willing to allow a service restriction on its line to allow a light-rail operation.

1.  CRANDIC itself asked for the study;

2.  The referenced story points out that the "24/7" rail traffic is all north of the airport; there are only something like 100 carloads a year on the segment under consideration...

[Victrola1]

"Don't hold your breath," is correct. 

 

http://thegazette.com/2013/07/07/eastern-iowa-commuter-rail-proposal-on-slow-track

 

http://www.kcrg.com/subject/news/cedar-rapids-iowa-city-express-bus-service-set-to-begin-in-2017-20150427

 

The Crandic used its original route to interchange freight with the Rock Island in Iowa City for decades. The move resulted in blocking crossings in Iowa City for long periods of time. The City of Iowa City was not happy with blocked crossings. 

 

The Iowa City crossing problem is no more. Freight moving from between Cedar Rapids and the Iowa Interstate now utilizes the old Milwaukee Road to West Amana. The CRANDIC's original route south of Cedar Rapids now sees little use. 

 

The CRANDIC being interested in passenger service as way to generate revenue on its original route south of Cedar Rapids is not surprising. Service into Cedar Rapids itself would conflict with switching ADM's huge facility and others.  

[wanswheel]

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislators/legislator?ga=27&personID=3638

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=27020879

 

Electric Railway Journal, December 12, 1914

Telephone Train Dispatching on the Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Railway

The Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Railway has recently placed in successful operation a telephone train dispatching equipment covering the entire line. This road runs from Cedar Rapids south to Iowa City, a distance of approximately 30 miles, with a branch going east from Cedar Rapids to Mt. Vernon, an additional distance of 15 miles. This includes some of the best farming land in Iowa, where interurban traffic is exceedingly heavy. The passenger trains on the line are operated by electricity and the freight trains by steam.

Along the route ten open stations are equipped with telephones and selective signaling apparatus. Sets containing the Western Electric selectors are used for signaling station operators and self-contained, folding-gate telephone arms are used for the operators’ talking apparatus. Six way station outfits are installed between Cedar Rapids and Iowa City and two between Cedar Rapids and Mt. Vernon. The power house, the superintendent's office and the shop are also connected with the telephone distpatching circuit. The dispatcher is located in the shop office building 2 miles south of Cedar Rapids and is in control of all points on the line.

A portable telephone set has been furnished to each train crew so that communication may be established with headquarters from various points along the line. These telephones are fitted with cords and plugs arranged for plugging in pole jacks which are placed at a convenient height on the telephone poles along the right-of-way. This equipment is especially valuable in emergencies. Nine pole jacks are placed on the Cedar Rapids and Iowa City division and six on the line to Mt. Vernon. The normal traffic on this railway system involves the operation of thirty-eight passenger trains and four scheduled freight trains daily between 5 a.m. and 1 a.m. on the Cedar Rapids & Iowa City line and eighteen passenger trains and two scheduled freight trains between 5 a.m. and 12 o’clock midnight on the Cedar Rapids & Mt. Vernon branch. The telephone dispatching system has now been in use for some months and excellent results from every point of view, notably those of economy and efficiency of operation, are reported.

[jeffhergert]

Victrola1

"Don't hold your breath," is correct. 

 

http://thegazette.com/2013/07/07/eastern-iowa-commuter-rail-proposal-on-slow-track

 

http://www.kcrg.com/subject/news/cedar-rapids-iowa-city-express-bus-service-set-to-begin-in-2017-20150427

 

The Crandic used its original route to interchange freight with the Rock Island in Iowa City for decades. The move resulted in blocking crossings in Iowa City for long periods of time. The City of Iowa City was not happy with blocked crossings. 

 

The Iowa City crossing problem is no more. Freight moving from between Cedar Rapids and the Iowa Interstate now utilizes the old Milwaukee Road to West Amana. The CRANDIC's original route south of Cedar Rapids now sees little use. 

 

The CRANDIC being interested in passenger service as way to generate revenue on its original route south of Cedar Rapids is not surprising. Service into Cedar Rapids itself would conflict with switching ADM's huge facility and others.  

 

Growing up in West Amana, I don't recall any railroad tracks there.  Except for those in my, and a couple of other basements.   I think you mean South Amana.  Where the Iowa Interstate built it's new yard and shop.  Even that isn't geographically correct.  South Amana (the town) is a couple of miles to the west, Homestead a couple of miles to the east.  In Rock Island days, they went over the top of the Milwaukee Road's original Kansas City line.  There wasn't a connection until after the IAIS started up.  First just a switch and then another leg laid down to form a wye.

Over the years there have been a few studies done about passenger service between Cedar Rapids and Iowa City.  While some studies may have been somewhat favorable, I think not enough to pursue the idea.  It's one thing to say you'll use something, another to actually do so.

Jeff  

[Victrola1]

South Amana is the interchange point. The Amanas were included in the 2006 study on passenger rail feasibility project. 

Cedar - Iowa River Rail Transit Project Feasibility Study, November 9, 2006.

http://www.iowadot.gov/iowarail/pdfs/Ia_city_to_CR_rail_transit_feasibility.pdf

[Buslist]

daveklepper

They could Stadler-built diesel cars compatible with FRA crashworthy regulations.  There are such.  Or rehabilitated RDCs!  They can be reconfigiured for one-man operation if necessary.

 

There are no FRA compliant light rail vehicles at the moment.

[daveklepper]

Google the Stadler website and you will find an equivalent.  One that either will pass FRA regs or would require little modification to do so.   And Budd RDCs are available that could be modoified for one-man operation if desired.  Glad to be specific on this if you are intersted.

[CMStPnP]

I think this is dreamland on the part of more than one individual.    Those population numbers do not support passenger train service and I can't see Iowa or the Feds paying for it.    Cedar Rapids and Iowa City can't afford to bond it and maintain it without a subsidy from higher up the food chain

[Buslist]

daveklepper

Google the Stadler website and you will find an equivalent.  One that either will pass FRA regs or would require little modification to do so.   And Budd RDCs are available that could be modoified for one-man operation if desired.  Glad to be specific on this if you are intersted.

 

None of those cars would pass an FRA squeeze requirement, beefing up the under frame to meet that requirement is no minor task, one of the reasons off the shelf Japanese DMUs are not being used for the Toronto Airport service or the SMART service but new custom built DMUs built in the U.S. . So be specific if you like but they don't currently exist as you claim.

[daveklepper]

I have a greater respect for Stadler's abilities than you do.  But in any case, you provided an alternative, the Toroonto Airport DMU's can easily be converted to one-man operation, especially if the usual proctice of zero on-board fair collection, ticket validators instead, and occasional inspections is the fare policy.  This is usual on nearly all modern light rail systems where all doors are avaialble and level boarding, either low-level or high-level is implemented.  RDCs could be adapted for one-man operation on the same basis, and there are several in at the rebuilder in Moncton,Canada, that are available.` This would involve the construction of high-level platforms for the RDCs, with ticket machines at each platform.

It isn't rocket science, and the problems are trivial and inexpensive to solve

----- compared to trans-Hudson tunnels.

The RDCs or any new DMUs would be equipped with operator-controlled sliding plug doors, automatic and emergency public addrss, and similar features of modern light rail cars.

[Wizlish]

Buslist

daveklepper

Google the Stadler website and you will find an equivalent.  One that either will pass FRA regs or would require little modification to do so.   And Budd RDCs are available that could be modified for one-man operation if desired.  Glad to be specific on this if you are interested. 

None of those cars would pass an FRA squeeze requirement, beefing up the underframe to meet that requirement is no minor task, one of the reasons off the shelf Japanese DMUs are not being used for the Toronto Airport service or the SMART service but new custom built DMUs built in the U.S. . So be specific if you like but they don't currently exist as you claim.

But then again, the issue might not be as 'showstopping' as you think.  Consider

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/article/FRA-issues-alternativedesign-vehicle-waiver-to-Denton-County-Transportation-Authority--31230

Of course, whether or not the FRA would extend a comparable waiver to any given project is not certain.  But if the FRA agrees with what the DCTA officials claimed:

The waiver request “demonstrates that the enhanced crashworthiness and passenger protection systems inherent to DCTA’s new rail vehicles meet the latest and most stringent safety standards in the U.S.,”

then it is entirely possible that Stadler can establish enough 'crashworthiness' in its proposed designs to make waivers likely.

(In the interests of fair disclosure:  I think this 'alternate crashworthiness' stuff is expedient, perhaps in the extreme, and I agree with buslist that the FRA buff requirements ought to be retained for any passenger equipment that is to operate where it might come into contact with freight equipment while carrying passengers.  Even then, I'm not entirely satisfied -- weren't the original IC Highliners compliant with the buff standard?)

[Buslist]

[quote user="Wizlish"]

 

 

Buslist

daveklepper

Google the Stadler website and you will find an equivalent.  One that either will pass FRA regs or would require little modification to do so.   And Budd RDCs are available that could be modified for one-man operation if desired.  Glad to be specific on this if you are interested. 

None of those cars would pass an FRA squeeze requirement, beefing up the underframe to meet that requirement is no minor task, one of the reasons off the shelf Japanese DMUs are not being used for the Toronto Airport service or the SMART service but new custom built DMUs built in the U.S. . So be specific if you like but they don't currently exist as you claim.

 

 

But then again, the issue might not be as 'showstopping' as you think.  Consider

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/article/FRA-issues-alternativedesign-vehicle-waiver-to-Denton-County-Transportation-Authority--31230

Of course, whether or not the FRA would extend a comparable waiver to any given project is not certain.  But if the FRA agrees with what the DCTA officials claimed:

 

 

The waiver request “demonstrates that the enhanced crashworthiness and passenger protection systems inherent to DCTA’s new rail vehicles meet the latest and most stringent safety standards in the U.S.,”

 

 

then it is entirely possible that Stadler can establish enough 'crashworthiness' in its proposed designs to make waivers likely.

(In the interests of fair disclosure:  I think this 'alternate crashworthiness' stuff is expedient, perhaps in the extreme, and I agree with buslist that the FRA buff requirements ought to be retained for any passenger equipment that is to operate where it might come into contact with freight equipment while carrying passengers.  Even then, I'm not entirely satisfied -- weren't the original IC Highliners compliant with the buff standard?)

 

[/quote

 

If you look at the condition of the first car in the ATK 188 derailment do you agree?