It's a start.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-amtrak-able-to-travel-to-110-mph-in-indiana-michigan-20120207,0,2207498.story
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The increase in speed from 95 mph to 110 mph followed the Federal Railroad Administration’s approval of a positive train control system. The technology provides safeguards to override human error and prevent train-to-train collisions, speed-related derailments and accidents caused by track-switching errors or malfunctions, according to the agency.
But the positive train control system installed by the Michigan Department of Transportation does not include vehicle-detection technology to alert train crews about a vehicle stopped on the tracks at a crossing or additional protections, including four-quadrant gates, to prevent vehicles from snaking around lowered crossing gates. It does, however, monitor whether the crossing gates, flashing lights and bells are working, officials said.
Crossings on the system being installed in Illinois on the Chicago-to-St. Louis 110 mph corridor will be outfitted with full four-quadrant gates and an obstacle-intrusion detection system to tell locomotive engineers about vehicles on the tracks with enough advance warning so that the train can stop before the crossing, according to the Illinois Department of Transportation.
Good news for America, but allow me a little smile.
I live within earshot of the main line connecting Hamburg and Bremen in Germany. 110 mph is the speed limit for passing through our local train station. Our commuter trains (!) top 100 mph between each stop and on some high speed lines, speeds in excess of 200 mph are reached.
I wonder if Amtrak has installed PTC equipment in some select number of the engines for use in Michigan service, or interoperability standards for PTC have become universal enough so that the equipment installed today will work on anyone's version of PTC in the future?
While it is better than 79 mph, 110 mph is not "High Speed Rail".
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
110 MPH is a reasonable first step, comparable to what the Europeans were doing back in the 1960's. The problem is that most Americans expect HSR as defined by the TGV and comparable trains and aren't aware that a lot of intermediate steps have to come first.
CSSHEGEWISCH 110 MPH is a reasonable first step, comparable to what the Europeans were doing back in the 1960's. The problem is that most Americans expect HSR as defined by the TGV and comparable trains and aren't aware that a lot of intermediate steps have to come first.
Why does what the Europeans, Japanese or Chinese, amongst others, are doing in passenger rail matter for the United States? What is the best solution for the United States is the key question? Where is passenger rail a good fit; what should it look like; and how will we pay for it?
If American's want a system that looks like what they have in many of the European countries, as well as Japan and China, they had better be prepared to pay considerably higher taxes, since most of the overseas systems are not supported entirely through the fare box, which is a way of saying that they get significant government subsides. And those subsidies come from tax payers irrespect of whether they ride the trains.
I spent most of my working life in the electric utility business. We did not build a new power plant because Florida Power and Light was building a new plant. We built a new plant when it became clear that we needed the power for our customers (present and future).
Better than nothing. What caught my interest was the obstacle-intrusion detection system to tell locomotive engineers about vehicles on the tracks with enough advance warning so that the train can stop before the crossing to be used in Illinois, though not yet in Michigan. Higher speed track or not, this device could help us avoid the frequent grade crossing accidents that sometimes can lead to derailments and fatalities for those on trains, passenger and freight alike. Any idea of the cost?
Agree. I'll bet most Americans don't have any idea how fast TGVs and their ilk go, anyway.
Also, now that Michigan has the rest of the old MC and the money to fix it up, good running times all the way to Detroit ought to be possible in not too many years.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd Also, now that Michigan has the rest of the old MC and the money to fix it up, good running times all the way to Detroit ought to be possible in not too many years.
I remember that "back in the day" (the late 1970's when the family was making many trips between Detroit and Chicago) of Turboliners that were being phased out in favor of F40PH's and Amfleet, that communities such as Michigan City, Indiana were imposing things like 25 MPH speed limits on Amtrak passing through town, enforcing them with radar and handing out citations to train crews.
Now if Michigan City, IN had a lot of street running or a lot of poorly guarded grade crossings and such, I can sort of understand. But on the other hand, who in this great country of ours has multiple trains per day serving Chicago and Detroit, and this seemed like a kind of kill-the-goose-that-laid-the-golden-egg situation to take such a hostile view of Amtrak service at your doorstep.
What is the read of the communities along the route? Are they "game" for accelerated service, or do they see high speed operations of passenger trains through their towns as a "nuisance" to control?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Sir Madog Good news for America, but allow me a little smile. I live within earshot of the main line connecting Hamburg and Bremen in Germany. 110 mph is the speed limit for passing through our local train station. Our commuter trains (!) top 100 mph between each stop and on some high speed lines, speeds in excess of 200 mph are reached.
Yeah, man! I was in Germany last fall, including Hamburg. It was terrific. (But, you should see our freight trains!)
HSR - CANNOT - coexist on present day freight line. PERIOD. EXCLAMATION POINT!
HSR either gets it's own grade separated right of way to allow true high speed operation or it is a total waste of time, money and effort in talking about it.
17000 ton freight trains and 170 MPH passenger operations have totally different operating aims and requirements and HAVE to be designed for their own realities. The line, cross-level and super elevation required to support 170 MPH passenger would quickly be pounded out of specification by 17000 ton freight trains. The grades that a 170 MPH passenger operation could handle with a bare minimum of curvature would stop the 17000 ton freight cold. Existing freight rail rights of way contain too much curvature, to support minimizing grade, to be effectively used for HSR.
The Interstate system did not use the design and operating characteristics of the road system it 'replaced' - HSR cannot use the design and operating characteristic of existing freight railroads.
oltmannd Sir Madog: Good news for America, but allow me a little smile. I live within earshot of the main line connecting Hamburg and Bremen in Germany. 110 mph is the speed limit for passing through our local train station. Our commuter trains (!) top 100 mph between each stop and on some high speed lines, speeds in excess of 200 mph are reached. Yeah, man! I was in Germany last fall, including Hamburg. It was terrific. (But, you should see our freight trains!)
Sir Madog: Good news for America, but allow me a little smile. I live within earshot of the main line connecting Hamburg and Bremen in Germany. 110 mph is the speed limit for passing through our local train station. Our commuter trains (!) top 100 mph between each stop and on some high speed lines, speeds in excess of 200 mph are reached.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD:
I agree.
Good reality check by BaltACD. Going to show that, if we should ever mount a serious HSR effort in this country -- highly unlikely, with just 3 entitlements (SS, Medicare and Medicaid) scheduled to soak up 54 percent of the budget in only 10 years, with Obamacare and interest on the debt to go on top of that -- we would need a real railroad man in charge, not some bureaucrat or political appointee.
Actually, Social Security will not exhaust it's trust fund until 2036, and the Medicare trust fund will not be exhausted until 2024. They cannot, therefore, soak up 54 percent of the budget in ten years.
Vet, I don't know everything, obviously (although I believe SS stops taking in more than it pays out in only a year or two, well short of 2036, when it is exhausted absolutely.) What I was going by was this paragraph in the 2-10 Wall Street Journal, Pg. 4:
" In 2011, the U.S. government spent $1.56 trillion on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits -- more than $4 billion a day -- accounting for 43% of all federal spending. In 2022, if no changes are made, the government will spend just under $3 trillion on these programs, or 54% of the expected federal budget, according to the Congressional Budget Office."
But before you do those calculations you need to subtract the money taken in annually in FICA and Medicare Taxes and the interest earned on the trust funds.
As my father-in-law used to say:
"Figures don't lie, but liars figure".
According to the President's FY12 budget, the estimated spend on mandatory programs, which includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, TARP and Other, i.e. military and federal retirement expenditures, was $2.1 trillion. Of this amount $1.5 trillion or 71% of the mandatory budget was for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The mandatory programs account for 57.2 per cent of the total budget. The budget can be found at the OMB.
The estimated FY12 spend for Social Security and Medicare is $1.2 trillion. The estimated payroll taxes that are collected for Social Security and Medicare are $862 billion, leaving a shortfall of $367 billion. Outlays for both programs have exceeded receipts for the last two years. The trust fund(s)' managers have been been forced to present some of the the non-marketable notes held in the funds to the Treasury to cover the shortfall. The Treasury, in turn, has had to borrow the money in the open market, thereby increasing the federal deficit by the amount of the shortfall plus interest on the borrowings.
According to the Social Security and Medicare Trustee's Annual Report, both funds are expected to experience receipt/benefit shortfalls going forward, thereby changing the estimated date when the funds will be exhausted. In a sense they are out of money now, in that the surplus funds collected since the mid 80s were lent to the federal government in exchange for the aforementioned non-marketable notes.
Estimates on when the monies in the trust funds will be exhausted changes each year. They are problematic, which is to say that they are based on statistical projections that produce a range of dates as opposed to a specific date, although for publication purposes the press reports a date certain. They do so, in all probability, because most Americans know little about statistics and statistical forecasts. In fact, the actuaries work up three scenarios, i.e. best case, intermediate case, and worst case. The published estimated date for fund exhaustion is the intermediate case.
The interest earned on the notes held by the Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund(s) is illusory. The Treasury pays the interest on the notes in the trust funds. It gets the money for the interest by borrowing it in the security markets. In effect, it is like a person who uses his or her credit card to pay their mortgage. The debt associated with the mortgage goes down in direct proportion to the increase in the credit card debt. At the end of the day the debtor is no better off. She has just moved the debt. It is a zero sum game. In the case of the trust funds, the taxpayers are still holding the notes.
BaltACD HSR - CANNOT - coexist on present day freight line. PERIOD. EXCLAMATION POINT! HSR either gets it's own grade separated right of way to allow true high speed operation or it is a total waste of time, money and effort in talking about it. 17000 ton freight trains and 170 MPH passenger operations have totally different operating aims and requirements and HAVE to be designed for their own realities. The line, cross-level and super elevation required to support 170 MPH passenger would quickly be pounded out of specification by 17000 ton freight trains. The grades that a 170 MPH passenger operation could handle with a bare minimum of curvature would stop the 17000 ton freight cold. Existing freight rail rights of way contain too much curvature, to support minimizing grade, to be effectively used for HSR. The Interstate system did not use the design and operating characteristics of the road system it 'replaced' - HSR cannot use the design and operating characteristic of existing freight railroads. oltmannd: Sir Madog: Good news for America, but allow me a little smile. I live within earshot of the main line connecting Hamburg and Bremen in Germany. 110 mph is the speed limit for passing through our local train station. Our commuter trains (!) top 100 mph between each stop and on some high speed lines, speeds in excess of 200 mph are reached. Yeah, man! I was in Germany last fall, including Hamburg. It was terrific. (But, you should see our freight trains!)
oltmannd: Sir Madog: Good news for America, but allow me a little smile. I live within earshot of the main line connecting Hamburg and Bremen in Germany. 110 mph is the speed limit for passing through our local train station. Our commuter trains (!) top 100 mph between each stop and on some high speed lines, speeds in excess of 200 mph are reached. Yeah, man! I was in Germany last fall, including Hamburg. It was terrific. (But, you should see our freight trains!)
Yes, only a fool would try to run a 110 car coal train on a HSR line.
But
110 mph passenger trains can coexist with the freight that still exists on the old MC and old NYC Hudson line.
And
You can build a HSR - passenger only line that connects at the terminal ends to 110 mph lines that host 4000 ton unit trains. Happens every day.
Carl rode it. 110 mph for real. He needs to post a trip report! Carl? Carl? Carl? Carl?
In this country, you can't educate people or driver's to watch for trains doing 50 mph, so what's going to happen in some of these heavily populated areas in Indiana and Michigan. Way too many grade crossings, unprotected right of way, and the emergence of more and more freight trains all vying for the same track space.
Concerning Amtrak trying to make any speed thru the towns in Indiana, I'm still at a loss on what they intend to do about Porter Junction? That area is a mish-mash of dilapidated roadbed, switches, and way too much NS business. Amtrak and the NS will not blend well.
PARTSGUY - Welcome to trains.com!
Darren (BLHS & CRRM Lifetime Member)
Delaware and Hudson Virtual Museum (DHVM), Railroad Adventures (RRAdventures)
My Blog
PARTSGUY In this country, you can't educate people or driver's to watch for trains doing 50 mph, so what's going to happen in some of these heavily populated areas in Indiana and Michigan. Way too many grade crossings, unprotected right of way, and the emergence of more and more freight trains all vying for the same track space. Concerning Amtrak trying to make any speed thru the towns in Indiana, I'm still at a loss on what they intend to do about Porter Junction? That area is a mish-mash of dilapidated roadbed, switches, and way too much NS business. Amtrak and the NS will not blend well.
I got your answers right here.
To the question about the 110 mph road Xings. The same thing will happen that happened when they went from 79 to 110 mph on the Hudson line. Not much. You have the same number of trains that were going 80/95 mph now going 110 mph. Fast just turned to faster. Similarly, when NJT and Amtrak started running to Atlantic City at 80 mph through suburban towns, there were fears of road Xing disasters, but none materialized. These crossings went from no trains to 12 trains a day and then to nearly 30 a day in short order.
Porter is a mess. Always has been. And, now, nothing has changed. There are plans in dark pencil to improve the junction and in light pencil to run a 3rd track to Chicago. Most of the delay in the Michigan service occurs in Chicago proper for various reasons and in Michigan when the meets get messed up from a Chicago delay. CN doesn't do well with their Pontiac - Detroit leg, either.
PARTSGUY Concerning Amtrak trying to make any speed thru the towns in Indiana, I'm still at a loss on what they intend to do about Porter Junction? That area is a mish-mash of dilapidated roadbed, switches, and way too much NS business. Amtrak and the NS will not blend well.
There are plans for the Chicago to Porter segment. There was $71 million granted in HSIPR funding for track and crossover upgrades in the Indiana Gateway Corridor project to relieve congestion for the Amtrak trains, but getting the agreements signed have been held up by on-going negotiations between the FRA, NS, Amtrak, and INDOT. No word on when or if they will be be able to reach an agreement.
In the longer term, there have been a series of studies on selecting a route for Amtrak passenger trains with new or restored tracks from Chicago to Porter. The most recent moderately detailed study is the South of the Lake Alternatives Analysis Report, dated April 20, 2011 which is available on the net at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/mdot_south_lake_route_analysis_rpt_354612_7.pdf . In that study, the goal is a passenger corridor able to handle 60 trains a day for corridor service to Michigan, Cleveland, Cincinnati. One of the routes in the study is a up to 110 mph corridor 40 mile route from Chicago to Porter which would cost an estimated $1.2 billion to acquire and build. If there is a sustained federal HSR funded program, then the 110 mph corridor would likely be built for the Chicago to Detroit corridor and to provide a foundation for 90 to 110 mph corridors to Ft. Wayne-Toledo-Cleveland and Indianapolis-Cincinnati when those states are ready to get serious about corridor services.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.