What is sad is that most of this is old news - I mean like as much as 30-plus years.
Communication between dispatching authorities seems to be lacking. Nothing seems to happen until after Amtrak shows up on the screen or board of the next railroad. Maybe a conflicting movement has been cleared or someone is just being ornery.
I wonder if the UP control center has the capability and capacity to be contracted as the master dispatching center for the Chicago - Saint Louis Lincoln Service with communication links with the other railroads? This would allow Amtrak trains to be tracked for timely advance alerts, progress reports, to the respective railroad with dispatching authority to facilitate priority handling. Documentation could be created for State and Amtrak review of performance for the whole corridor and assessments of penalties as defined in contracts.
Street running is a bit of a misnomer for Springfield. The track is in a median reservation, so allowing 40 mph is not unreasonable and is consistent with an approach-medium signal indication for the junction with the NS at Iles.
Relocating the mainline at Ridgely on the north side of Springfield and at Bloomington may take a few bucks; but this would reduce speed restrictions and allow acceleration and braking closer to the station. The benefits will be greater with 110 mph service.
The issue of siding "rusty rail conditions" leaves me shaking my head. Trains do run on the sidings some times and back out on other occassions. Backing out was sop for the C&NW in abs territory with manual turnouts in Wisconsin. My limited experience from only a few trips is that the gates were in the down position; and the train stopped and time was still taken for crew to walk up to flag a rural crossing. One appeared to be a private farm crossing with gates and flashers!
At Joliet, Amtrak no longer crosses over onto the BNSF tracks for station stops; but freights must be held to allow passengers to cross the tracks for both Amtrak and the Metra Heritage Corridor trains. "Freight congestion" is relatively simple to remedy with the plan for rehabilitating the pedestrian subway to the east side of the tracks and constructing a new platform.
The problem of railroad crossings in the first few miles out of Chicago has been addressed in the Chicago Regional Environmental and Transportation Efficiency proposals for grade separations. The crossings presently expose service to significant delays.
Harvey: The trains article on this route is an eye opener. You have evendiently spent a lot of time there and having worked on projects have some insight. Several questions.
1. The dispatching in the St. Louis area maybe should be covered by an area dispatch system owned by all the RRs such as in operation in other local citys. Has this ever been considered for the St. Louis area? It appears that control from St. Louis station to Wann should be under one dispatcher as Wann is the beginning of rural running northward on the UP line. I agree that there is no way to access penaltys for delaying AMTRAK under the present system of dispatching.
2. Is the Merchants Bridge route 10 minutes slower because of slow track?
3. What are the prospects for Q to Wann getting bi-directional signaling and both tracks class IV?
4. The permanent slow at WR (TRRA) sounds like a problem for RWM to fix.
5. Definitely siding from Wann to Hazel Dell needs 40 MPH capable sidings.
6. How did NS get to dispatching Hazel Dell to Iiles Jct since this is old Alton ROW? I would suspect that UP would want to dispatch that small length to tie in with their whole route. Maybe a flyover of UP and NS will be a final answer or at least AMTRAK have a flyover and seprate track for that short distance.That way a much higher speed.
7. Rusty rails? Shaking my head also. Why can't Up dispatch 3 or 4 empty trains a week (hopper, etc) on those sidings to get rid of rusty rails? Sounds like the grade crossing signals need upgrading also. RWM any comment?
8. Joliet - Yes to the passenger subway but I believe CREATE plans to fly over one line over the other (major rebuilding of passenger access). That would speed trains way up.
9. Mazonia - Pequot needs to be purchased to give an alternate route on to Joliet.
10. Joliet to CUS needs flyovers and third track non speed restricted. Can't believe it takes METRA 1:05 and AMTRAK 1:00 Joliet - CUS for 37 miles.
1. I am no authority in the matter of dispatching, whether my suggestion or yours of a Saint Louis area dispatch system; but something along these lines seems necessary. This authority will not come without costs. Related to this is Springfield-Hazel Dell and Joliet-Chicago.
Congestion and delay at Springfield-Hazel Dell stems from both NS and UP taking the opportunity, what should be a free-flowing 3-track weaving section, for meets. I don't know off hand whether sufficient distance exists between grade crossings to hold trains out until they can be sent all the way through.
The question of how NS gained control of Springfield-Hazel Dell (#6) is immaterial. NS still may have more traffic on its Kansas City line as Amtrak and UP combined; so they will defend their control and it will cost to wrest it away short of $5-10M for a flyover and the advantage of detour routes.
Joliet-Chicago would require the same area dispatching as for Saint Louis except for the CREATE proposals for railroad grade separations.
2. I once had track charts, and the Merchants Bridge route is inherently slower snaking along the west bank for three miles before crossing over to Illinois. The current MacArthur route from Relay has nominally a minimum of 1-deg curves except at junction turnouts where the route diverges. This could include the restriction at WR (#4). These could be realigned for at least 90-110 mph as the through route.
3. No meet is scheduled between Saint Louis and Alton. #303 is supposed to arrive at 3:00 when #304 departs. Given that, only one high-speed Amtrak priority track is needed and can be used to relieve freight traffic as the situation permits. This was the plan in the 1990's. If Class VI track and bi-directional cab signals are desirable, that shouldn't cost too much more than what has been spent.
5. I haven't come up with any pat answer for passing tracks on a single track railroad. Developing a schedule around existing sidings can be a marketing disaster. Two questions: do departures allow a reasonable capture of the potential market; and can the trains reach important destinations in time to attract travelers? A regular schedule would allow common passing locations; but delays for one will delay the other and cascade to following trains. Different lengths of dwell time for different trains at the same station are another source of unreliability. A change in speed, going from 79 to 110, will change meet locations as well; but might be offset by longer boarding time with small crews and ticket and identity checks for boarding.
7. No further comment.
8. Joliet doesn't need flyovers. Yes, it would be elegant for Amtrak passengers to board from the landmark station; but that is not a cost-effective solution at this time.
9. Mazonia-Peqot is part of a costlier second main from Joliet that is dispatched, if not owned now, by BNSF. Additional passing tracks may be required; and Metra service to Braidwood is probable in the future.
10. I have no idea what you mean when you're getting at about a non-speed restricted third track from Chicago to Joliet. Beside the yard limit operation in the City itself, frequent curves limit speed on the CN from Willow Springs to Romeoville Rd. Most are 1.5-degree and allow 70 mph, with sharper curves through Lemont where the limit is 50 mph. Even single tracking around freights between Metra meets in the AM rush doesn't take an hour unless there is a delay or two along the way. I fully agree that an hour is too long and should be speeded up whether by cooperation of the freight railroads or by flyovers.
I no nothing of the operations between Chicago & St.Louis.
The cause for the 'Rusty Rail' designations on the passing sidings MAY be that the sidings are too short for routine use by freight trains to meet and pass each other. On passenger routes, small sidings are sometimes left in service because of the short length of passenger trains as opposed to freight trains. Were the line freight only, in all proabability these short sidings would be removed, unless they are needed for serving local industries.
Railroads do not run trains through sidings, just to run them through sidings....if there is a meet or pass to be made the siding will be used, if not the Main Track will be used.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
To the contrary, these are 8,500-10,000 foot CTC sidings installed when the GM&O rationalized its double track mainline around 1950. The track circuits worked just fine until the State and UP tested a prototype PTC that failed to work properly and has been abandoned.
The B&O-style color-position light signals and pole lines have been replaced with straight color light signals.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.