bill613a Aren't the Talgos in Michigan's possession now?
Aren't the Talgos in Michigan's possession now?
AFAIK they are still at Beach Grove. IMO they , MI, may not see the value of setting up a maintenance facility for what would have been a short term lease. But with the consortium bi levels delayed (any news there?) it may not have been a bad idea!
MidlandMike I am looking for clarification here. There are 2 segments to the Michigan Wolverine line. Porter to Kalamazoo is owned by Amtrak, and has been previously upgraded to 110mph. I presume this is what sps is talking about. The other segment is Kalamazoo to Dearborn, which the State of Michigan has bouhgt (with federal $) from NS. They paid NS (at least initially) to bring the line back up to its previous speed (79mph ?). As I remember, Michigan put out something of a wish list on making its segment HrSR, but I have not seen that they will be getting any money for doing this. The legislature only recently passed a law to get more money to our crumbling roads, and even that will take 5 years to be fully implemented, and will divert half the money needed from general funds. I don't think the state lawmakers are considering any big money for rail projects.
I am looking for clarification here. There are 2 segments to the Michigan Wolverine line. Porter to Kalamazoo is owned by Amtrak, and has been previously upgraded to 110mph. I presume this is what sps is talking about. The other segment is Kalamazoo to Dearborn, which the State of Michigan has bouhgt (with federal $) from NS. They paid NS (at least initially) to bring the line back up to its previous speed (79mph ?). As I remember, Michigan put out something of a wish list on making its segment HrSR, but I have not seen that they will be getting any money for doing this. The legislature only recently passed a law to get more money to our crumbling roads, and even that will take 5 years to be fully implemented, and will divert half the money needed from general funds. I don't think the state lawmakers are considering any big money for rail projects.
Wrote a rather long response to this yesterday that somehow never got posted for some reason, I'll try again but probably less wordy.
The Portor Kalamazoo segment was unique in being owned by Amtrak. The upgrade was specified by the folks in Amtrak's HQ at 30th St. They were excited to show what could be done without massive investments. (It always fascinates me the infrastructure conditions that some folks feel is necessary for higher speed operations. How did we operate in that speed range with steam power, wood ties, jointed and likely non control cooled rail and what by today's standards was a very light ballast section, in the 30's & 40's?).
Anyhow they made the investments required to bring the track into class 6 compliance. They benefited form the virtual lack of freight traffic. I have been told that even some ex NYC 127lb. non control cooled Dudley rail remained in place.
The other major credit that should be given to Amtrak is the joint development with GE of the Incremental Train Control System which allows the 110 MPH operation from a train control standpoint. This has been a long road having begun in the late '90s and only in the last few years having been fully fuctional. It is basicly a radio based cab signal system and features advance activation of grade crossing protection. Being a distributed rather than an office centric system it can not be upgraded to provide the business benefits the some identify as a future benefit of PTC.
The Illinois project is quite different. The track is still owned by the UP. They intend to operate more intermodal trains (up to 12 per day I've been told) on the route. Remember those double stack wells that have "125-T " painted the articulated joint indicate that they are designed to be able to carry 4 adjacent containers that have weighed out. This results in a 39 ton axle load at that truck, a different track design issue than 110 MPH passenger operation. Needless to say the Amtrak folks feel the line is being gold plated for their needs.
Now to the segment coming to MI from NS. It's my understanding that the upgrade/restoration was specified by MI with the help of some consultants, advised by Amtrak. NS insisted on a 2nd main east of Yipsalanti for use by their freight trains. I believe all of that 2nd main has now been built and may be active. The original concept was two seperate single track railroads, one for passenger one for freight. However rusty rail issues on the freight main (with delayed if not missed activation of grade crossing protectiion) has caused a rethinking, and it may be operated as a more conventional double track railroad to keep the rails polished.
The intention is to get the line up to Class 6 allowing 110 operation. In fact the last geometry car run across the territory tested against Class 6 standards. There were quite a few places that needed attention.
I've been told that ITCS has been installed and will be cut in when operational responsibility is transferred from NS to Amtrak, no idea when that will be but not in the too distant future.
East of the NS territory a new connection has been built between Conrail and CN which will shorten the distance to the Detroit station by a couple of miles. ( forgot the name of the junction.)
All in all some significant progress, hopefully we will see the operational benefits soon.
BTW as an aside I was shown the location along the old GTW where the wheel lathe would have been located had Mi leased the Talgos.
CMStPnP sps What I don't understand is how Michigan was able to implement HSR without concrete ties, four quad gates and new bridges and culverts. I was told by a reliable railroad consultant that the cost in Michigan was one quarter to one third the price of Illinois. Is it possible that the requirements are UP's and not that of the Feds? Haven't heard of any problems in Michigan as a result of lower standards. I am also interested to know how they can spend $3.26M on an 800 sf depot in Dwight, IL a town of 4,300? All the buildings in downtown Dwight are not worth that much. Yes I cannot explain the quad gates either because they are not a inpeneterable barrier as the FRA requires above 110 mph. However they are probably an experiment or a step in that direction. Michigan is taking a different design approach than Illinois in that Michigans next step up from 110 mph is a sealed corridor. Illinois is going more incremental in that their next step up is 125 mph if possible in sections. On the other hand Michigan has skipped over a lot of required investments to get above 110 mph that it will need to make to take this to the next step as they plan to do. It appears Illinois is investing in some steps to get above 110 mph now in contrast to Michigan not. Michigan owns the line. Illinois does not and still shares it with UP. Here are the FRA grade crossing requirements for HSR: For 110 mph or less: Grade crossings are permitted. States and railroads cooperate to determine the needed warning devices, including passive crossbucks, flashing lights, two quadrant gates (close only 'entering' lanes of road), long gate arms, median barriers, and various combinations. Lights and/or gates are activated by circuits wired to the track (track circuits). For 110-125 mph: FRA permits crossings only if an "impenetrable barrier" blocks highway traffic when train approaches. Above 125 mph, no crossings will be permitted. If you look and read through the Michigan Documents they are making allowances for eventual electrification of the line. Planning on it to be double tracked all the way to the interlocking just West of the New Center station. Installing a standing track at New Center Station. Eliminating a lot of railroad crossings up front and planning to eliminate more in the future. Some of that is not happening with Illinois High Speed Line. Also, I think it is cheaper and faster to install track upgrades when you own the line and control the traffic and priority of construction vs a Class I railroad owning it and you having to subcontract via the Class I railroad vs having your own track maintenence vendor and your own schedule not dependent on keeping the frieght trains moving.
sps What I don't understand is how Michigan was able to implement HSR without concrete ties, four quad gates and new bridges and culverts. I was told by a reliable railroad consultant that the cost in Michigan was one quarter to one third the price of Illinois. Is it possible that the requirements are UP's and not that of the Feds? Haven't heard of any problems in Michigan as a result of lower standards. I am also interested to know how they can spend $3.26M on an 800 sf depot in Dwight, IL a town of 4,300? All the buildings in downtown Dwight are not worth that much.
What I don't understand is how Michigan was able to implement HSR without concrete ties, four quad gates and new bridges and culverts. I was told by a reliable railroad consultant that the cost in Michigan was one quarter to one third the price of Illinois. Is it possible that the requirements are UP's and not that of the Feds? Haven't heard of any problems in Michigan as a result of lower standards. I am also interested to know how they can spend $3.26M on an 800 sf depot in Dwight, IL a town of 4,300? All the buildings in downtown Dwight are not worth that much.
Yes I cannot explain the quad gates either because they are not a inpeneterable barrier as the FRA requires above 110 mph. However they are probably an experiment or a step in that direction. Michigan is taking a different design approach than Illinois in that Michigans next step up from 110 mph is a sealed corridor. Illinois is going more incremental in that their next step up is 125 mph if possible in sections. On the other hand Michigan has skipped over a lot of required investments to get above 110 mph that it will need to make to take this to the next step as they plan to do. It appears Illinois is investing in some steps to get above 110 mph now in contrast to Michigan not.
Michigan owns the line. Illinois does not and still shares it with UP.
Here are the FRA grade crossing requirements for HSR:
If you look and read through the Michigan Documents they are making allowances for eventual electrification of the line. Planning on it to be double tracked all the way to the interlocking just West of the New Center station. Installing a standing track at New Center Station. Eliminating a lot of railroad crossings up front and planning to eliminate more in the future. Some of that is not happening with Illinois High Speed Line.
Also, I think it is cheaper and faster to install track upgrades when you own the line and control the traffic and priority of construction vs a Class I railroad owning it and you having to subcontract via the Class I railroad vs having your own track maintenence vendor and your own schedule not dependent on keeping the frieght trains moving.
I know I have been across on the MacArthur Bridge twice--once from Carbondale in 1968 and once from Memphis in 1989. I may have ridden over it in 1997--I was asleep on our way from Chicago to Los Angeles. I have been across on the Merchants Bridge at least three times, and the Eads Bridge four times.
Johnny
CMStPnP I meant the MacArthur Bridge (shown below)........have never been across the Merchants Bridge and I don't think Amtrak uses it to my knowledge. http://www.builtstlouis.net/macarthur.html
I meant the MacArthur Bridge (shown below)........have never been across the Merchants Bridge and I don't think Amtrak uses it to my knowledge.
http://www.builtstlouis.net/macarthur.html
Deggesty Eads Bridge? As I understand the situation, the only rail traffic on this bridge is local transit. For many years, the GM&O used the Merchants Bridge, and did not have a stop in East St. Louis. I do not remember the wording of the note in the passenger timetables, but it indicated that the Merchants Bridge was used.
Eads Bridge? As I understand the situation, the only rail traffic on this bridge is local transit. For many years, the GM&O used the Merchants Bridge, and did not have a stop in East St. Louis. I do not remember the wording of the note in the passenger timetables, but it indicated that the Merchants Bridge was used.
schlimm I believe the 110 mph sections are expanding, so that by summer 2016 much more will be higher speed. But it is not clear.
I believe the 110 mph sections are expanding, so that by summer 2016 much more will be higher speed.
But it is not clear.
About two years ago when I last rode the route a good portion of the track upgrades in the Northern part of the corridor was complete and the track upgrades were well beyond Pontiac. So I would guess a good portion of the track upgrades are complete on the corridor.
Definitely they have an issue installing the mandated quad gate crossing signals as those only existed on a very small portion. They stated in the article they have an issue with PTC and UP was working with the Feds to get above 90 mph running.......I read that implying beyond Pontiac where the track upgrades are done and they have the quad gates done.
Closer to St. Louis the track still needs work, grade crossings were not updated and the EADS bridge portion was almost as slow as a crawl. Which is stupid and they need to replace that bridge with one that can tolerate high speed.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I am confused by the article's title. Isn't the high speed (110mph) section just in the Pontiac-Dwight area? How is this corridor project near the finish line?
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/article/The-ChicagotoSt-Louis-higherspeed-rail-project-nears-finish-line--46379
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.