I was approached on the question of running the then-CNW North Line into Union Station when it first came up at either CATS or IDOT. The idea behind the proposal was to through-route Amtrak and Metra trains around Lake Michigan. This was more conceptual than anything else, since the SS that didn't go to Union Station was the principal carrier into Indiana. Furthermore, the North Shore and Northwest Indiana didn't match up as mutual destinations.
Through running is still possible, with directional running on the north and south platforms (19/28?) without passengers crossing active tracks. I would suggest BNSF-MDN, RID-MDW, and McCormick Place-NCS with a new direct connection to the Air Line. Even so, there would be little capacity in the rush hours to run all the trains through, and which express and local service patterns would be matched up?
Furthermore, there is a goal to extend Amtrak Midwest trains to O'Hare. Amtrak would have no impact on the morning rush rush; but a number of trains could affect the evening. A West Loop Transportation Center proposes an Amtrak/HSR station on the lowest level that might handle 10 trains an hour on each of two tracks rather than 7 each on the Union Station run-through tracks.
However, I doubt that even 6,000-10,000 passengers a hour would justify an underground terminal with miles-long approach tunnels, both to get out of the downtown and reach existing surface or elevated tracks. Even a maximum of 28,000 commuters an hour (= 10 trains x 1,400 commuters each in both directions) for Metra may be questionable. On the other hand, that would be a lot less costly than 12 expressway lanes.
Very true. The UP West trains would just proceed straight east, rather than swing around briefly to the northeast.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Just for the record, the UP West Line does has direct access to Union Station at the Western Avenue interchange. When the California Zephyr is re-routed to the UP, which happens once or twice a year, that is the way it uses to get in to Union Station.
Very true, as many would agree that Penn Station is a dump, especially in contrast to GCT.
schlimm I agree. As I pointed out in the pictures comparing Union with other stations, it really isn't a very pleasant facility to welcome visitors to Chicago.
I agree. As I pointed out in the pictures comparing Union with other stations, it really isn't a very pleasant facility to welcome visitors to Chicago.
In fairness, Pennsylvania Station in New York isn't much different from Chicago Union Station in that regard.
Union Station may work well for commuters, but it is totally inadequate as an Amtrak facility. Commuters tend to arrive a few minutes before departure and go directly to their train. Longer distance passengers arrive early enough so as to be sure of catching that paticular train and so accumulate in waiting areas.
I believe the waiting area for northbound trains at Union undersized to serve the number of Amtrak passengers involved. I used it twice last year. On both occasions seating was provided for at most 2/3's of the people present, but there simply isn't room to expand available chairs by much. Performing "security theatre" at the entrance to the platforms simply made a bad situation worse.
I just can't imagine adding to the problem by transferring additional trains/commuters to Union Station.
Chicago Union Station isn't that bad and is a whole lot better since the renovations in the late 1980's. Part of the difference is that Union Station tracks are at the actual grade level with skyscrapers built on air rights over the tracks while North Western Station tracks are elevated with nothing above them. Union Station also has some nice shops and concessions on the mezzanine level.
daveklepper And don't forget that NWestern has a direct connection to the Lake Street Elevated with direct rapid transit service to the Loop and southern areas of Chicago, while Clinton CTA subway station does not have a direct connection to Union and requires (or required) some exposure to Chicago weather. My experience was the most commuters who do not walk (and most do or did walk) to their jobs from Union use one of the connecting bus services, while a majority of those arriving at NW do use the Lake Street elevated connection, which now has two lines running on it, possibly a two minute wait between trains during the rush hour.
And don't forget that NWestern has a direct connection to the Lake Street Elevated with direct rapid transit service to the Loop and southern areas of Chicago, while Clinton CTA subway station does not have a direct connection to Union and requires (or required) some exposure to Chicago weather. My experience was the most commuters who do not walk (and most do or did walk) to their jobs from Union use one of the connecting bus services, while a majority of those arriving at NW do use the Lake Street elevated connection, which now has two lines running on it, possibly a two minute wait between trains during the rush hour.
There used to be a direct indoor connection between Northwestern (Ogilvie) station and the Lake Street 'L" called (appropriately) the "Northwest Passage", but it was removed some years ago. Now, you have walk down Clinton Street about a block between the "Suburban Concourse" (the concourse under the tracks between Washington and Randolph) and the 'L' station. Still, that's not too bad, and a whole better than the 'L' connections from Union Station.
If I'm a commuter with a choice of stations, I'd choose Ogilvie over Union Station every time. It's the difference between using a modern, attractive station with lots of nice shopping and concessions and a station that looks (and smells) like something designed for the Soviet Gulag.
Moving suburban trains from North Western Station to Union Station would involve shoehorning them into a smaller station: North Western Station has 16 departure tracks while the north side of Union Station has 10 tracks if you include track 19 (usually reserved for Amtrak) with an existing operation already in place.
Agreed. The difference between Union Station's cave-like train level, with dark, narrow platforms and Ogilvie's brighter concourse and platforms is notable.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/soleil1016/2627087204/:550:0
http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2979736120034784182xYFuUV:550:0
But still pretty grim compared to the old Hamburg Main Station in Germany:
http://bahnblog.agentur-65.com/2006/12/06/herzlichen-glueckwunsch-hamburg/:550:0
CMStPnP OK, well thats interesting. I don't think Union Station is at full capacity now to tell you the truth neither is Ogilvie for that matter. So the background on all this is interesting. I understand historically thats how the stations were built and thats what we ended up with. I'm willing to bet that there is a possibility that Ogilvie could be shutdown with some fixing of track and better signalling, have everything route to Union Station North Platforms. I don't think the traffic on the Milwaukee Lines is all that heavy nor do I think the Milwaukee Line trains have to sit in Union Station for so long. It would make the leads on the North Side of Union Station a lot more busy though. Also, not sure if the concourse of Union Station could handle the extra people, so maybe thats a concern along with the tight squeeze rush hour traffic would create I'd be curious if the freed up real estate would pay for the changes in track configuration if they did one day decide to consolidate.
OK, well thats interesting. I don't think Union Station is at full capacity now to tell you the truth neither is Ogilvie for that matter. So the background on all this is interesting.
I understand historically thats how the stations were built and thats what we ended up with. I'm willing to bet that there is a possibility that Ogilvie could be shutdown with some fixing of track and better signalling, have everything route to Union Station North Platforms. I don't think the traffic on the Milwaukee Lines is all that heavy nor do I think the Milwaukee Line trains have to sit in Union Station for so long. It would make the leads on the North Side of Union Station a lot more busy though. Also, not sure if the concourse of Union Station could handle the extra people, so maybe thats a concern along with the tight squeeze rush hour traffic would create I'd be curious if the freed up real estate would pay for the changes in track configuration if they did one day decide to consolidate.
There's NO chance that Ogilivie Station would be "shutdown" in my lifetime or in the lifetimes of my grandchildren - none, nada. In order to close Ogilvie. Metra would have to move more than just the UP North line trains to Union Station, They would also have to move the UP-Northwest and UP-West lines as well. There's simply no way that Union Station could handle this additional traffic unless it were completely rebuilt with lots of additional tracks. And that couldn't be done without tearing down the many office buildings that have been built west of the Union Station tracks over the past few decades. The possible sale of the land now occupied by the Ogilvie trainsheds couldn't even come close to the cost of laying waste to several square blocks of existing office buildings.
Further, what possible service advantage is there in moving trains from Ogilivie to Union Station? The stations are both on the Chciago River, just west of downtown, and are only two blocks apart. From the standpoint of access to downtown destinations, Ogilvie is at least as convenient as Union Station. Also, Ogilvie station has been rebuilt over the past decade or so so and, frankly, is a much more attractive and commuter friendly station than the cellar they call Union Station. Consolidation of commuter service into Union Station is a solution looking for a problem.
The subject brought a question into my mind: What routes were followed in the days of transcontinental Pullman service?
LaSalle St, Grand Central, and Union-CNW and Dearborn
and LaSalle St-Union
I think this covers all of the interchanges (working off the top of my head).
Johnny
Sorry to hear that. Although the BLS averages for management, business and financial white collars in metro Dallas in 2009 was $40/hr., better than Milwaukee's $36.67, Chicago was higher than Dallas by a buck, $40.98. Admittedly our taxes are higher, but...
However, it really makes no sense to move Metra UP into Union Station.
Metra UP lines: 114,100 average weekday passengers on 194 trains
Metra MD and NC lines: 52,200 passengers, on 140 trains.
schlimm If you lived in Chicago, rather than Texas, you would not propose such an idea as consolidation. There are three suburban lines coming into the north platforms at Union, and three more even busier lines coming into Ogilvie. If someone wished to build where the tracks at Ogilvie are currently, they would use air rights over them, the same as other locations in the city.
If you lived in Chicago, rather than Texas, you would not propose such an idea as consolidation. There are three suburban lines coming into the north platforms at Union, and three more even busier lines coming into Ogilvie. If someone wished to build where the tracks at Ogilvie are currently, they would use air rights over them, the same as other locations in the city.
Born and raised in Milwaukee and Milwaukee Metro area, where most of my family is currently.
I'm an economic refugee from the low white collar salaries and high taxes in the Midwest.
Falcon48: Nicely put. What possible benefit would there be in putting UP trains into Union? And the stations are not 4 blocks apart, only 2, from Madison to Adams. And there is another direct to platform entrance to the north platforms for MDN and MDW trains at Union Station on Madison.
CMStPnP I noticed via Google Maps the former C&NW freight lead to the Merchandise Mart comes within a City Block of connecting with the Northern tracks into Chicago Union Station (Canal Street). Looks like you could make a connection to Union Station with a short routing down Canal Street. I am curious why Metra has not looked into this? Seems to me it might offer more operational flexibility. No idea what condition that lead is in or what the clearences are but it only appears to be 2-3 miles before it connects with the North Line to Kenosha. Thought I would point this out as it has been mentioned more then once there is no connection to the C&NW North Line from Union Station. Just looking at Google Maps and not knowing any other physical limitations does not look to be too capital intensive of a project.
I noticed via Google Maps the former C&NW freight lead to the Merchandise Mart comes within a City Block of connecting with the Northern tracks into Chicago Union Station (Canal Street). Looks like you could make a connection to Union Station with a short routing down Canal Street. I am curious why Metra has not looked into this?
Seems to me it might offer more operational flexibility. No idea what condition that lead is in or what the clearences are but it only appears to be 2-3 miles before it connects with the North Line to Kenosha.
Thought I would point this out as it has been mentioned more then once there is no connection to the C&NW North Line from Union Station. Just looking at Google Maps and not knowing any other physical limitations does not look to be too capital intensive of a project.
A few comments to supplement the posting made by Billio.
The track in question connects on the north end with the commuter trackage beween Clybourn and Ogilvie (North Western) Stations used by both the UP-North and UP-Northwest lines. It doesn't connect with any active trackage on the south end. It is largely on the alignment of the old passenger main that used to connect the CNW main lines running north and northwest of Chicago to the old C&NW Wells Street Station (the present site of the Merchandise Mart). After the "new" North Western Station on Madison was opened and Wells Street was closed, the track was used as an industrial track and also for passenger car storage. The passenger storage ended decades ago. Today, the track is used solely as low speed industrial track, serving the Tribune Printing Plant and some other industries.
I suppose it would be physically possible to use this track as a connection to Union Station, but it would be very expensive. Not only would the entire line have to be completely rebuilt, but a large building would have to be torn down on Canal Street for the connecting track and a very expensive interlocker would have to be built at the Union Station leads. The curvature on the UT tracks at this point is pretty severe, and I expect the track engineers wouldn't be real keen to put switches in it.
But what real benefit would Metra get from such a project? There's no apparent value in getting the capability to move some passenger trains from Ogilvie to Union Station. After all, Ogilvie already has the capacity to handle these trains - why move any of them to Union Station, where you would have to create additional capacity for them? The only thing you really gain from such a connection is the ability to operate Amtrak trains from Union Station to Milwaukee over the UP (ex CNW) route. But Amtrak already has a high speed Chicago-Milwaukee route from Union Station. Why should they spend anything on a second route, most of which is already served by commuter trains? If Chicago-Milwaukee service is ever restored over the UP route, it should be an extension of the existing commuter service from Ogilvie.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.