On the 1995-96 Illinois Official Highway Map, it shows former GM&O/ICG - current UP trackage from Joliet to East St Louis as SPSCL. Obviously this was part of Southern Pacific before SP was acquired by UP in 1996. The acquisition of this trackage followed the failure of a regional who operated former ICG trackage for a couple of years in the late 1980s. Was SPSCL a SP subsidiary like Cotton Belt, or was SPSCL originally an extension of SSW since it was still a subsidiary of SP until 1992? I assume SP or SSW bloody-noose locos operated on SPSCL tracks through the UP merger.
It was SPCSL for SP Chicago-St Louis. I can't remember the exact specifics of it, but I do believe it involved an ex-ICG line.
SPCSL was a paper subsidiary of Southern Pacific which was formed to purchase and own the Chicago-St. Louis line of the bankrupt Chicago, Missouri & Western. Actual ownership extended from just south of Joliet Union Depot to somewhere on the outskirts of Metro East (St. Louis) with trackage rights into Chicago and the St. Louis Terminal area. The line involved is the former Alton/GM&O/ICG Chicago-St. Louis line.
In a similar vein, SKCC was a similar SP subsidiary which held the trackage rights over BN (ex-CB&Q) between Kansas City and Chicago. I don't know if UP still has these trackage rights.
This Chi-St.L line got only the bare minimum maintenance in the latter years of ICG ownership and deteriorated even more in the few years it was the CM&W. I made a round trip over it on the Texas Eagle in 1995 (+or- a year) after the SP acquired it. At the time the SP rehab of the line had been completed from St.L to Bloomington and new ties, ballast, CWR and high speed turnouts had been installed making for a nice smooth ride. North of Bloomington was a different story. The old worn out ties and misaligned jointed rail had not yet been replaced. At 79 mph the Superliner cars swayed and bounced so badly I thought we might derail at any moment. It was the only time in over 60 years of rail travel that I was afraid for my safety and prayed we would slow down and stay on the track. Up until about 5 years ago the CPL signals that had been installed when the Alton was a ward of the B&O were still in use on this line.
Mark
CSSHEGEWISCHSPCSL was a paper subsidiary of Southern Pacific ...
SPCSL was a paper subsidiary of Southern Pacific ...
... usually pronounced as, "the Spizzle."
RWM
KCSfan This Chi-St.L line got only the bare minimum maintenance in the latter years of ICG ownership and deteriorated even more in the few years it was the CM&W. I made a round trip over it on the Texas Eagle in 1995 (+or- a year) after the SP acquired it. At the time the SP rehab of the line had been completed from St.L to Bloomington and new ties, ballast, CWR and high speed turnouts had been installed making for a nice smooth ride. North of Bloomington was a different story. The old worn out ties and misaligned jointed rail had not yet been replaced. At 79 mph the Superliner cars swayed and bounced so badly I thought we might derail at any moment. It was the only time in over 60 years of rail travel that I was afraid for my safety and prayed we would slow down and stay on the track. Up until about 5 years ago the CPL signals that had been installed when the Alton was a ward of the B&O were still in use on this line. Mark
Not long after start-up, Amtrak put the Turbo-Train on that line, and I made the trip from St Louis to Chicago. The line was still ICG property and while I wasn't concerned about flying off the rail, the ride still rattled the teeth. The train was routed over to the Santa Fe at the junction south of Joliet and then "smooth as glass" came to mind.
A few years back, I rode the Eagle up from St Louis. The state, UP and Amtrak had finished the track work from Springfield north for the planned 105MPH operation and it was a great ride. Unfortunately, the project to upgrade the train control system has been abandoned or suspended-at least not finished- so speed is still limited to 79MPH.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Jay, Pat and I had a good ride on the line last summer, so it's still in decent shape, though I doubt that it could take 110 without being restored somewhat.
But isn't that in the works pretty soon? I thought it was only a few weeks ago that I read about funds being appropriated for two Illinois projects related to this: upgrading of tracks and control systems (PTC?) between Joliet and Dwight, and control systems between Dwight and Springfield. I know the wheels of progress turn slowly, so I'm not exactly holding my breath.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Carl: The PTC project on the SPCSL was a IDOT-FRA funded project that sought to create an open-architecture for the software and hardware that would then become a universal AAR-like standard for all North American railroads. It also sought to create a remote-start for grade-crossing protection so that the FRA would permit passenger train speeds greater than 79 mph. Several fundamental mistakes were made in the architecture, which was central-processor based. All the data streams between locomotives and wayside devices had to flow into a central processor, which decided what to do, and then issued instructions back to the wayside device and the locomotives.
This decision resulted in severe bandwidth, latency, and logic problems. It was an unusual approach to train control made by a prime contractor who was inexperienced in train control and railroad Methods of Operation. Typically train-control systems are field-logic and peer-to-peer. Automatic block signal systems, Centralized Traffic Control, and dark-territory operation ranging from Timetable & Train Order to TWC and DTC are all field-logic, peer-to-peer systems that only communicate with a central office to accept new authorities and to notify of fulfilled authorities. For example, the train crew queries the signal system by observing an aspect -- that's peer-to-peer; nothing has come from or gone to a central office. The signal displays an aspect it determines by querying adjacent aspects.
The IDOT system couldn't be made to work, the funding ran out, and the project ended. All was not completely lost, however; some of the subsystems that were developed in this project have become building blocks of subsequent PTC systems that do work and are in service. The project shows the limitations of committee-based approaches that bury a good idea under a mountain of additional good ideas. In other words, rather than the goal being "develop a PTC system that works" the prime goal became "make it open-architecture so no one vendor is favored, make it suitable for every railroad everywhere with every possible condition, and while we're at it let's prove out some ancillary ideas and technologies too." Making it work was secondary to all that.
I'll admit that I am not right up to date on the subject, but I think I read that Illinois is thinking about going to convential ATS to handle the train control. About two years ago Mike Garcia, the I-Dot project for track came in to the Sandhouse Gang http://transportation.northwestern.edu/sandhouse/index.html and explained all the work they did on the track for the Dwight-Springfield segment. Basicly the goal was to minimize reductions from maximum track speed by adjusting alignments and elevations at curves, installing high speed turn-outs, improving crossing protection, as well as getting rail, tie and surface up to the required standards for 105MPH track. Could well be that Dwight-Springfield is due for resurfacing by now. As far as I know, nothing special has been done to this point on the Dwight-Joliet segment.
At the time of the Sandhouse Gang meeting, the train control part of the project was already bogged down. Noting that TC was outside his area, Garcia said he had no comments to make on that problem. As someone suggest on one of the recent PTC threads, perhaps that train control project was being worked on by a crew that "parachuted in" with insufficient expertise in the concept to put it together. Seems to me from very recent news on PTC that there could be an off the shelf system at the newly agreed industry standard that could be installed for this project. Perhaps that will now be the solution.
And I now see that the story has been told.
The Illinois Central ran the Green Diamond, operating between Chicago and St. Louis, at 113-117 MPH in the 1930's.
jeatonCarl I'll admit that I am not right up to date on the subject, but I think I read that Illinois is thinking about going to convential ATS to handle the train control.
I'll admit that I am not right up to date on the subject, but I think I read that Illinois is thinking about going to convential ATS to handle the train control.
While that would enable the line to meet FRA rules to exceed 79 mph passenger, it would not meet H.R. 2095 as ATS or ATC are not PTC systems.
Lead contractor for the IDOT PTC project was Lockheed-Martin.
Railway Manjeaton Carl I'll admit that I am not right up to date on the subject, but I think I read that Illinois is thinking about going to convential ATS to handle the train control. While that would enable the line to meet FRA rules to exceed 79 mph passenger, it would not meet H.R. 2095 as ATS or ATC are not PTC systems. RWM
jeaton Carl I'll admit that I am not right up to date on the subject, but I think I read that Illinois is thinking about going to convential ATS to handle the train control.
I understand. Poor use of the "train control". I was thinking generically to the extent that ATS takes "control" under very limited conditions and would allow an increase in passenger train speed limit.
greyhounds The Illinois Central ran the Green Diamond, operating between Chicago and St. Louis, at 113-117 MPH in the 1930's.
And that was over the original IC route via Clinton which was mostly single track below Gilman but was a very well maintained high speed line. I always regretted that much of this line was abandoned in the ICG era in favor of the former Alton route.
Jay and RWM, I'm sorry I wasn't clear. What I was referring to is a very recent development, in the last couple of months--authorization of money for six passenger projects, two of which were Joliet-Dwight and Dwight-Springfield. I can't even find the news article any more (tried a Newswire search with no luck). I can't remember whether it came out before or after the Chatsworth wreck. Anyhow, I thought I heard mention of installation of a system similar to that employed in Michigan to get speeds up where they belong. I didn't really expect anything to have been done yet, Jay--this is too new.
Carl, I will look into what the funding is for out of professional interest.
I sure hope it's not for a Michigan-type PTC system. That one doesn't work either, and it's also not FRA-legal; it's grandfathered.
One interesting aspect of the line from Joliet to Springfield is the current signals in use. Many of the signals are only about 8-10 feet off of the ground. The signal masts are considerably shorter than what is normally seen on railroads. The old CPL (B&O signals) were very tall.
Is that normal for UP to install shorter signals? If so, what is the rationale?
ed
Height of mast is a signal-maintainer safety issue these days, when life is no longer sold cheaply. Some railroads such as B&O, which installed the CPL-type signals on the Alton when it owned it, thought that tall masts provided better visibility to enginemen over ground fog, steam locomotive exhaust, etc.
Railway Man Height of mast is a signal-maintainer safety issue these days, when life is no longer sold cheaply. Some railroads such as B&O, which installed the CPL-type signals on the Alton when it owned it, thought that tall masts provided better visibility to enginemen over ground fog, steam locomotive exhaust, etc. RWM
RWM,
I'm sure you're right about maintainer safety being the reason for the short masts. But I think the aspect they display are more prone, under poor visibility conditions, to be compromised by other colored lights adjacent to the ROW such as highway traffic signals. I think the old high masts were better in this regard and of course the CPL's even further minimized this possibility with their distinctive position array of colored lights.
Hope the rationale for signal height was a little better than the skyscraper mileposts down on the SP Tucumcari Line.
RWM:That makes a lot of sense. These signals are really short, taller than dwarf signals, but not by much. I certainly wouldnt want to be changing a lamp in January, 25 feet off the ground with a north wind and snow or sleet.
Anyone know of any other location these are in service?
MP173 One interesting aspect of the line from Joliet to Springfield is the current signals in use. Many of the signals are only about 8-10 feet off of the ground. The signal masts are considerably shorter than what is normally seen on railroads. The old CPL (B&O signals) were very tall. Is that normal for UP to install shorter signals? If so, what is the rationale? ed
UP installed those short, long-hooded block signals between Cedar Rapids and Mt Vernon, IA back in 01 or 02. The signals between Clinton, IA and Sterling, IL are also short.
Jeff
I always wondered why they just didn't install UP's coded cab signal system system?
On the other hand it was bureaucrats with Federal and State money. so they felt they had to reinvent the square wheel.
rrboomer I always wondered why they just didn't install UP's coded cab signal system system? On the other hand it was bureaucrats with Federal and State money. so they felt they had to reinvent the square wheel.
They didn't use a cab-signal system because they wanted a system that would provide for remote grade-crossing signal starts, enforce permanent speed restrictions, enforce temporary speed restrictions, provide an open-architecture system that was unrestricted as to vendors, and avoid the conflicts between the cab-signal frequencies, the grade-crossing signal frequencies, and EMF-induced frequencies from power lines that greatly inhibit the flexibility of a cab-signal system. Cab signals can't do any of that without an enormously complex and expensive pile of hardware.
SPSCL was a SP subsidiary although, sitting here at my home computer, I'm not sure whether it was technically a direct subsidiary of SP, or a subsidiary of SSW. It was formed to purchase the Joliet-East St. Louis line from the bankrupt Chicago Missouri & Western Railroad. SPCSL also obtained trackage rights from Joliet into Chicago over IC as part of his transaction (although I believe they were ordered by the ICC rather than voluntarily agreed to by SPCSL and IC) . SPCSL was operated as an integral part of the SP system.
CMW, in turn,had purchased the line, and a connecting line from Springfield to Kansas City (both of which had been parts of the old Chicago & Alton) from Illinois Central Gulf (which, in turn, had acquired them in the IC-GM&O merger). CMW was owned by Venango River Corp which, at the time, also controlled the Chicago, South Shore & South Bend. CMW's bankruptcy dragged the South Shore down too, apparently because the South Shore had been used to guarantee CMW's acquisition debt. Follwing the bankruptcy, the Springfield-Kansas City line was purcharse by a new railroad called Gateway Western, which eventually became part of KCS. The South Shore's bankruptcy led to the sturucture of the railroad, when the infrastucture is owned and operated by a trainsit agency and the freight railroad has operating rigths, although the path to this structure was somewhat convoluted.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.