daveklepper One reason METRA keeps with gallery cars is ticket inspection/collection.
One reason METRA keeps with gallery cars is ticket inspection/collection.
Yup I know that, the fare collection system is a holdover from the past when the Private Railways were running the system and attempting to make a profit on a marginal operation. So are the ticket issuers. It made sense in that era when the conductor had to pace the car every so many stops to collect tickets. In these days of public subsidy, not sure that is a good idea anymore.
They are NOT cattle cars. The gallery cars may be more utilitarian than the previous post would like, but the cars are well-insulated, the HVAC does work quite nicely and they unload fairly quickly at CUS and North Western Station.
I'm not sure what is meant by more efficient train operation, he should watch the Chicago-Aurora line or the electric line in evening rush.
CSSHEGEWISCHThe newer Metra gallery coaches have LED displays and the automated station announcements, wi-fi is being phased in.
Still not as comparable the GO Transit cars. GO Transit cars are a lot warmer in winter and I think that has to do with the exposed stainless steel everywhere in the interior of METRA cars as well as the leaky vesibule design and poor HVAC system as well on METRA.
The GO Transit / TRE cars can also be loaded and unloaded faster at each station stop as they have a pair of dual sliding doors on each side of the car and even with it being fairly cold in Dallas with a strong wind that first floor of the car keeps warm with those doors opening and closing all the time. I don't know how they engineered that with the HVAC but it's pretty neat feature.
Chicago can keep using the cattle cars if it wants to, I am not paying taxes up there. Pretty sure you would have better ridership and more efficient train operation if you switched designs though.
The honor system or proof of fare collection method is used in the United States, Canada and Mexico as well as Europe:
At most you lose 5% of revenue in the United States, worst case scenario, 3% typically otherwise. "Proof of Fare" or Honor System ticketing is used in Dallas, Los Angeles, New York (in part), New Jersey (in part) and other states as well. Not only does it save on paying people for ticket issuance and ticket collecting but station design as well as speed loading and unloading because there are no turnstyles / fencing needed at stations (stations and platforms fully open and accessible to public and police, BTW), passengers do not have to validate or pay as they get on the train, etc. The ticket is validated before you get on the train and the ticket checker they employ (usually transit police) can tell by the time stamp if it is an expired ticket or not.
In Dallas, they randomly spot check the whole car to avoid charges of profiling.....then they get off the train and board another train heading in an opposite direction and repeat.
Really each transit system has to make a business decision what works best for them. I am happy at the choice Dallas made because the stations look better and overall you don't feel trapped on the system.......you can pretty much jump off anywhere and not worry about finding a blocked exit or fence. During peak times there is no waiting in lines for tickets as the machines are plentiful.
CSSHEGEWISCH The newer Metra gallery coaches have LED displays and the automated station announcements, wi-fi is being phased in. Ticket vending machines are being installed in some stations and ticket collection is handled by conductors and trainmen already required. I'm not comfortable with the honor system.
The newer Metra gallery coaches have LED displays and the automated station announcements, wi-fi is being phased in. Ticket vending machines are being installed in some stations and ticket collection is handled by conductors and trainmen already required. I'm not comfortable with the honor system.
If it is known to the public that there is a $500 or higher fine for riding without a ticket and there are random checkers, the savings on labor are worth some cheaters. Works in Europe.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
CSSHEGEWISCH I'm not comfortable with the honor system.
I'm not comfortable with the honor system.
An "expensive model collector"
schlimmI hope the midwest bilevels are better than the various Metra bilevel/gallery cars
I've ridden the Pacific Surfliner cars on which they are based. Less Comfortable than a Superliner but definitely a step up from METRA car. They are not gallery cars and have two seperate floors like the Superliners do. In my opinion the ride is a little rougher than a Superliner and depending on what seats they order the seats could be crappier.
I am surprised why METRA sticks with the gallery cars to tell you the truth, the GO Transit cars are much nicer (Television Monitors, LED Displays, automated station stop announcements) and Chicago really, really, really should go with the honor system on fare and toll collection like most of the rest of the civilized world. Chicago is just screwing itself over with costs and passenger comfort by employing ticket issuers and ticket collectors. Just ridiculous, IMO, Chicago is wasting all that money.
CMStPnP I think this is good news as they are positioning themselves for the next tranche of the ongoing infrastructure investment program. I am hoping they add to the Midwest Car order for the new bi-level Corridor cars for another 20 cars or so. I think the only reason they have not is they are in wait and see mode to see if the MFR can actually deliver. We'll see but I am going to Email in my input.
I think this is good news as they are positioning themselves for the next tranche of the ongoing infrastructure investment program. I am hoping they add to the Midwest Car order for the new bi-level Corridor cars for another 20 cars or so. I think the only reason they have not is they are in wait and see mode to see if the MFR can actually deliver. We'll see but I am going to Email in my input.
I hope the midwest bilevels are better than the various Metra bilevel/gallery cars.
BuslistWhy would CP have any preference?
Since it would probably fall in part to CP to maintain or monitor a duck under. I just guessed there, if it was me and my railroad I would be leary of any tunneling under the ROW out in the country due to future ground settling around the tunnel as well as ancillary issues such as rerouting ROW drainage around the tunnel to keep it dry. Structural cracks in the roof or lining, etc, etc. Also the worry if the tunnel under the ROW collapsed.
[quote user="CMStPnP]
2. They are going with bridges over the tracks because the CP and Amtrak likes that better than duck unders. I think it has to do with both ADA and potential crime is less on the bridge over. So there will be a huge bridge over structure like there is at Sturtevant Station.
[/quote]
Actually Amtrak does not "prefer" bridges. I had several of their 30th ST. Engineering Dept. folks complaining to me about their cost, asked them why they used them? Their ADA compliant lawyers said they were required. I took several of them to several of the recent METRA station rebuilds to show them obviously ADA compliant underpasses. It really seemed to open their eyes on the topic, so we'll see if it has any effect on future designs. Why would CP have any preference?
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/milwaukee/2016/10/17/input-sought-milwaukee-chicago-rail-upgrades/91938326/
"After nearly four years of studying and talking about increasing passenger rail service between Chicago and Milwaukee, Amtrak and the Wisconsin and Illinois transportation departments are ready to hear from the public."
RME blue streak 1 What are the CPs & distances north and south of the station where southbounds divert and then return to normal direction of travel? You can use the mapping program of your choice with the station coordinates: 42°56′26″N 87°55′29″W and it is pretty clear from a quick inspection what the operational problems are, and why there is no 'easy fix' involving an added platform. It appears to me (from the color and general appearance of the ballast) that the somewhat expensive station construction involved building double track in the vicinity of the station and then adding a third track that serves the station eastbound platform (and which has a little additional spacing away from the two new-construction main tracks that can accommodate a (thin) west platform). Note that the switches for this track are relatively close to the station, and lengthening of the track to accommodate longer car consists is nontrivial (perhaps particularly so at the north end, under the highway). You can readily see from this what the problem with crossovers is; a southbound train on the 'correct hand' main would have to cross over once to the east track, then again to go onto the siding with the platform. And then cross twice again to get back. You can browse the aerial or satellite view with an appropriate program to see where the likely crossovers are, and perhaps correlate where the CPs would be. There may be room for platforms on either side of the double main, bridges over (or duckunders under) the tracks, and some kind of path across that third track (it wouldn't need high-wide clearance except in emergencies, and in the absence of other train service that had to use the third track some kind of crossing gate and signal arrangement might be sufficient to assure reasonable safety). This still has passenger trains decelerating and stopping on the active mains, however, which seems to be what the three-track arrangement was trying to preclude. Even for crayonistas, I don't think flyovers are a solution here (you would only really need one, for the southbounds, going directly over to a switch at the north end of that platform track, but it would have to clear all the existing bridges and restrictions) and, especially given how new and probably how expensive the construction in 2003 was, I don't see any easy way to arrange service that is safe for passengers and doesn't involve a great deal of switching tracks. Careful consideration is needed of how to build the west side platform. IMO It should be designed and built so it can become an island platform with a future 3rd track west of the platform. Then any time the platform can have a station track with switches north and south for mainline access of a potential third main track for express service. Can you explain this a little better? It does not seem to match any interpretation I can make of the existing trackwork. So I am missing something important.
blue streak 1 What are the CPs & distances north and south of the station where southbounds divert and then return to normal direction of travel?
You can use the mapping program of your choice with the station coordinates:
42°56′26″N 87°55′29″W
and it is pretty clear from a quick inspection what the operational problems are, and why there is no 'easy fix' involving an added platform. It appears to me (from the color and general appearance of the ballast) that the somewhat expensive station construction involved building double track in the vicinity of the station and then adding a third track that serves the station eastbound platform (and which has a little additional spacing away from the two new-construction main tracks that can accommodate a (thin) west platform). Note that the switches for this track are relatively close to the station, and lengthening of the track to accommodate longer car consists is nontrivial (perhaps particularly so at the north end, under the highway).
You can readily see from this what the problem with crossovers is; a southbound train on the 'correct hand' main would have to cross over once to the east track, then again to go onto the siding with the platform. And then cross twice again to get back. You can browse the aerial or satellite view with an appropriate program to see where the likely crossovers are, and perhaps correlate where the CPs would be.
There may be room for platforms on either side of the double main, bridges over (or duckunders under) the tracks, and some kind of path across that third track (it wouldn't need high-wide clearance except in emergencies, and in the absence of other train service that had to use the third track some kind of crossing gate and signal arrangement might be sufficient to assure reasonable safety). This still has passenger trains decelerating and stopping on the active mains, however, which seems to be what the three-track arrangement was trying to preclude.
Even for crayonistas, I don't think flyovers are a solution here (you would only really need one, for the southbounds, going directly over to a switch at the north end of that platform track, but it would have to clear all the existing bridges and restrictions) and, especially given how new and probably how expensive the construction in 2003 was, I don't see any easy way to arrange service that is safe for passengers and doesn't involve a great deal of switching tracks.
Careful consideration is needed of how to build the west side platform. IMO It should be designed and built so it can become an island platform with a future 3rd track west of the platform. Then any time the platform can have a station track with switches north and south for mainline access of a potential third main track for express service.
Can you explain this a little better? It does not seem to match any interpretation I can make of the existing trackwork. So I am missing something important.
1. Ballast changes color because Milwaukee abandoned the branch to it's main ballast quarry in Waukesha from Brookfield, WI during the Soo Line era and Soo found a different source of ballast. So that tells you when the lines were last ballasted during what era (lol).
3. There is no third track currently. Small freight yard to the South of the Airport Station used to be busier when I was younger it was the holding area for frieght cars collected via the South Milwaukee patrols out of Menoninee Yard. Instead of pulling the cars all the way back to the yard they would wait for the next freight in or out and tack them on from this small yard. Pretty empty these days because CP has lost most of Milwaukee Roads loose car customers in the Milwaukee area and is not really making much of a marketing effort to recover.
4. I do not think they care about the trains stopping on the active mains as for dispatching they have enough Milwaukee to Chicago crossovers they can slip in a freight between Amtrak runs and Amtrak can run around it OK without worrying about encountering an Amtrak opposing movement or freight opposing movement. Their Milwaukee to Chicago dispatching and wrong main running is very flexible with the two track setup. CP upgraded the signaling Milwaukee to Chicago to handle this and the signalling handles reverse directional running all the way out to the end of double track in Pewaukee, WI (far West of the Amtrak station and well into the Empire Builders running). CP did this about 3-4 years after takeover and switched from single lens target signal lights to tri-color three position target lights. Chicago to Pewaukee and points further west. Not sure if it goes all the way to the Twin Cities like this now but most of the way probably.
blue streak 1 The second platform at Mitchell field brings up several points. 1. What are the CPs & distances north and south of the station where southbounds divert and then return to normal direction of travel ? 2. With 7 southbound crossover trains a day that seems excessive and a potential for many delays. 3. Careful consideration is needed of how to build the west side platform. IMO It should be designed and built so it can become an island platform with a future 3rd track west of the platform. Then any time the platform can have a station track with switches north and south for mainline access of a potential third main track for express service. 4. The present set up is a slow section that has the potential when eliminated having the most schedule tightening rather than the other EIS projects. 5. Then the other upgrades can proeed as well.
The second platform at Mitchell field brings up several points.
1. What are the CPs & distances north and south of the station where southbounds divert and then return to normal direction of travel ?
2. With 7 southbound crossover trains a day that seems excessive and a potential for many delays.
3. Careful consideration is needed of how to build the west side platform. IMO It should be designed and built so it can become an island platform with a future 3rd track west of the platform. Then any time the platform can have a station track with switches north and south for mainline access of a potential third main track for express service.
4. The present set up is a slow section that has the potential when eliminated having the most schedule tightening rather than the other EIS projects.
5. Then the other upgrades can proeed as well.
Although CP did reverse CTC in parts this is mostly directional running left over from when the Milwaukee Road was in charge.
Southbound Main = Furthest West away from Airport station
Northbound Main = Furthest East and closest to Airport station.
1. I believe Southbounds depart the Amtrak station on the wrong main all the way to the Airport then cross over after the Airport stop back to the proper main You'll note that the Frieght main diverges from the Amtrak Station route some ways West of the Amtrak Station at a point called cutoff tower and then rejoins the main back South of the Amtrak Station. Some frieghts take this route right past the Milwaukee classification yard while others just go through the Amtrak station. No idea why some trains diverge and others do not, CP Rail makes the decision somehow. So Southbound frieghts are free of Amtrak traffic right now until after the Airport station. CP for Southbound frieghts that use the cutoff is right before they rejoin the main South of the Amtrak station otherwise they use the same CP as do Amtrak trains and you'll gave to find those on Google Earth using the groundview sweep option.
1b. Part two of the story is not all Southbound trains depart on wrong main only some due others stay on the proper Southbound main and load on the very small asphalt cross over north of the Amtrak Airport Station. Again no idea why some do and others do not.
2. Not all seven a day cross over see 1b. I think in winter for the trains that do not cross over they have to manually plow this little asphalt patch (lol).
3. I don't think CP wants a third track there but I could be wrong.
Current CP Twin Cities to Chicago to practice for Frieght is to run most through the Amtrak Depot and then they go into a holding yard just North of Roundout junction just outside of METRA controlled territory waiting either for rush hour to stop or a METRA window to open to get the frieght to Bensenville yards. Why they wait North of Roundout is another area I have no clue about. Seems to me it would have been best to keep the train running to it's destination but my suspicion is METRA cannot clear enough track space across two Milwaukee District lines and METRA/CP are too cheap to put down a third main track between Roundout and the cutoff to the West Line. Sometimes up to three frieghts waiting at Roundout and sometimes overflowing holding tracks leading again to Amtrak having to use one line to get around them in both directions. So it is another choke point just not prioritized yet.
blue streak 1What are the CPs & distances north and south of the station where southbounds divert and then return to normal direction of travel?
Seems like only a small pack on schedules, just a few minute improvement from end point to end point.
Currently the line is 79 mph and totally welded rail on one track (not sure about both tracks). They used the stimulus to add proper rail crossovers for higher capacity. However, they have some issues CP has asked them to fix before they add anymore trains.
1. Add a Southbound platform with pedestrian climb and crossover bridge for the General Mitchell Airport station as well as lengthen platforms at that station. This is going to hold up Frequency #8 (the first additional). CP is tired of Southbound Amtrak trains having to cross over to the Northbound main or stop and use the abbrevated 15 foot long improvised platform.........which is more a pedestrian crossover.
2. I believe they want more grade crossing improvements as well as signaling enhancements for 90 mph running. I am not sure what they need in the area of track improvements. The welded rail should be fine as they went with the heaviest grade I believe. But I am not sure about ties or ballast or how that works moving from 79 mph to 90 mph.
Personally, I think the three additional RT will improve cost recoverability for the corridor not sure how much and I think they should move to yield management with the ticket pricing after this next change. Not sure if they will or not but some of the peak time trains leave Chicago are really close to standing room only. Just a matter of time when they will hit that point. The train consists are fixed at 6 cars.....which is a lot of capacity already.
Proposed 10 train schedules
79mph limit and 90mph limit.
Link
"NO significant impacts on any of the three routes"
WISDOT documents
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.