Trains.com

Midwest High Speed Rail

10631 views
198 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Indianapolis, Indiana
  • 191 posts
Midwest High Speed Rail
Posted by G Mack on Monday, January 15, 2007 5:50 PM

I just saw an article from the Trains newswire about Illinois passing legislation to join the Midwest High Speed Rail Initiative. While this is good news, it is also a point of frustration with me. As a guy that is in his late 40s now, I will probably be gone by the time a true high speed train system is operational in the midwest. These big ticket items seem to take forever to go from the document signing stage to actual fruition.

I live in Indianapolis and go to Chicago occasionally but I don't like the drive up I-65 into the city. It acutally makes me depressed sometimes to be sitting in traffic knowing that it could be so much easier if we only had rail transit. The midwest could benefit like the northeast and the west coast cities, yet each year passes with nothing changing.

Okay, I feel somewhat better now. I'll get down off the milk crate. Would like to hear from some of the other forum members what they think. Is rail transit in our future or decades down the pipeline?

G Mack

  • Member since
    September 2006
  • From: Mt. Fuji
  • 1,840 posts
Posted by Datafever on Monday, January 15, 2007 5:56 PM
I don't think that this country will get serious about commuter rail, especially high speed, until the price of gas reaches at least five dollars a gallon to stay.  Banged Head [banghead]
"I'm sittin' in a railway station, Got a ticket for my destination..."
  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: Lombard (west of Chicago), Illinois
  • 13,681 posts
Posted by CShaveRR on Monday, January 15, 2007 7:14 PM

I'm about ten years older than you, Mr. Mack, and have thoughts similar to yours about not living to see something like this.

I'm sure that the answer is money--convince the railroads and governments involved that this would work, and be an environmentally-sound alternative transportation mode.  And get these test projects rolling:  publicize the hot travel times between Chicago and Springfield (once things are okayed); move CREATE off dead center to take care of problem spots like Argo and Brighton Park; do a little more upgrading than just from Niles to Kalamazoo in Michigan (why not all the way to Porter?); convince CP that their main line could handle trains at 90 or better (and make it so!) between Chicago and Milwaukee, and maybe get an extra turn or half-turn out of the trainsets.

Wouldn't it be nice if some modern, high-speed train service could bring people to the Olympic games in Chicago by 2016?

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)

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Indianapolis, Indiana
  • 191 posts
Posted by G Mack on Monday, January 15, 2007 7:29 PM

 Datafever wrote:
I don't think that this country will get serious about commuter rail, especially high speed, until the price of gas reaches at least five dollars a gallon to stay.  Banged Head [banghead]

Sadly, I have to agree.

It would be interesting to know what the price of fuel would have been today if we had always had high speed rail.

G Mack

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Indianapolis, Indiana
  • 191 posts
Posted by G Mack on Monday, January 15, 2007 7:39 PM
 CShaveRR wrote:

I'm about ten years older than you, Mr. Mack, and have thoughts similar to yours about not living to see something like this.

I'm sure that the answer is money--convince the railroads and governments involved that this would work, and be an environmentally-sound alternative transportation mode.  And get these test projects rolling:  publicize the hot travel times between Chicago and Springfield (once things are okayed); move CREATE off dead center to take care of problem spots like Argo and Brighton Park; do a little more upgrading than just from Niles to Kalamazoo in Michigan (why not all the way to Porter?); convince CP that their main line could handle trains at 90 or better (and make it so!) between Chicago and Milwaukee, and maybe get an extra turn or half-turn out of the trainsets.

Wouldn't it be nice if some modern, high-speed train service could bring people to the Olympic games in Chicago by 2016?

Thats the spirit!! Thats what I'm talkin' about!!!

Personally, I think there are a lot of backroom deals that are made to slow down or keep rail transit from happening. I remember a plan to connect the Texas cities of Houston, San Antonio, and Dallas/Fort Worth with high speed rail. The public consensus was favorable, yet, nothing happened and the plan went cold. I believe that certain interest, such as the airlines, saw this as a threat and had it quitely snuffed out. Enough money in the right places will overide voter wishes and opinions.

G Mack

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, January 15, 2007 8:38 PM
 G Mack wrote:

I just saw an article from the Trains newswire about Illinois passing legislation to join the Midwest High Speed Rail Initiative. While this is good news, it is also a point of frustration with me. As a guy that is in his late 40s now, I will probably be gone by the time a true high speed train system is operational in the midwest. These big ticket items seem to take forever to go from the document signing stage to actual fruition.

I live in Indianapolis and go to Chicago occasionally but I don't like the drive up I-65 into the city. It acutally makes me depressed sometimes to be sitting in traffic knowing that it could be so much easier if we only had rail transit. The midwest could benefit like the northeast and the west coast cities, yet each year passes with nothing changing.

Okay, I feel somewhat better now. I'll get down off the milk crate. Would like to hear from some of the other forum members what they think. Is rail transit in our future or decades down the pipeline?

G Mack

 

Depends upon what one considers "high speed" I guess.  Are you talking about bullet trains? Or something fast, yet more practical on the pocket book? Say in the neighborhood of 110 mph

 

At the Indiana DOT website they have a plan outlined for a 110 mph system:  MAP - OPERATING PLAN  that looks interesting , but look at the price tag.

$7.7 billion to build a system that will cut travel time from chicago to cleveland  from the current 6 1/2 hours down to 4 1/2 hours.

 I'm 49 and I'd be willing to bet That I'll be dead before such a system ever reached operation.

 

SO clearly the only plan that makes sense is to let future generations pay for the sucker too. They are gonna ride it, so why should we pay for it? 

 

 

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Rockton, IL
  • 4,821 posts
Posted by jeaton on Monday, January 15, 2007 10:40 PM
 TheAntiGates wrote:
 G Mack wrote:

I just saw an article from the Trains newswire about Illinois passing legislation to join the Midwest High Speed Rail Initiative. While this is good news, it is also a point of frustration with me. As a guy that is in his late 40s now, I will probably be gone by the time a true high speed train system is operational in the midwest. These big ticket items seem to take forever to go from the document signing stage to actual fruition.

I live in Indianapolis and go to Chicago occasionally but I don't like the drive up I-65 into the city. It acutally makes me depressed sometimes to be sitting in traffic knowing that it could be so much easier if we only had rail transit. The midwest could benefit like the northeast and the west coast cities, yet each year passes with nothing changing.

Okay, I feel somewhat better now. I'll get down off the milk crate. Would like to hear from some of the other forum members what they think. Is rail transit in our future or decades down the pipeline?

G Mack

 

Depends upon what one considers "high speed" I guess.  Are you talking about bullet trains? Or something fast, yet more practical on the pocket book? Say in the neighborhood of 110 mph

 

At the Indiana DOT website they have a plan outlined for a 110 mph system:  MAP - OPERATING PLAN  that looks interesting , but look at the price tag.

$7.7 billion to build a system that will cut travel time from chicago to cleveland  from the current 6 1/2 hours down to 4 1/2 hours.

 I'm 49 and I'd be willing to bet That I'll be dead before such a system ever reached operation.

 

SO clearly the only plan that makes sense is to let future generations pay for the sucker too. They are gonna ride it, so why should we pay for it? 

 

 

Just for the record, folks.  The $7.7 billion covers more than just Chicago-Cleveland.  Add Chicago to: Detroit/Grand Rapids/Post Huron; Indianapolis/Cincinnati; Carbondale; St Louis/Kansas City; Quincy/Omaha; Milwaukee/Green Bay/Twin Cities.  2002 dollars.  Lotta bucks., but, you know, spread it around a little...

"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

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 12:03 AM
 jeaton wrote:

Just for the record, folks.  The $7.7 billion covers more than just Chicago-Cleveland.  Add Chicago to: Detroit/Grand Rapids/Post Huron; Indianapolis/Cincinnati; Carbondale; St Louis/Kansas City; Quincy/Omaha; Milwaukee/Green Bay/Twin Cities.  2002 dollars.  Lotta bucks., but, you know, spread it around a little...

 

Very true, I never meant for the example to be misleading. I was just using it to illustrate the (typical) time savings offered

 

Interesting that they are saying they will cut the travel time from chicago to cincinnati in half, but from Chicago to Cleveland by only one third.. 

Look at all those bus routes proposed. How long do you think most of them will last beyond startup of the system?  My personal view is that most of those are just offered to pump taxpayers that do not live near the actual rail line  themselves, for monetary support. (those not living near the  rail lines being less inclined to ante up the construction costs) the proposed bus lines being a 'bridge' of sorts.

 

Can you imagine riding the bus from Duluth  to Minneapolis, to get on a high speed train to Cincinnati? I'll bet you could fly from Duluth to Cincinnati before the bus ever arrived in Minneapolis .

 

 

 

  • Member since
    October 2002
  • From: Milwaukee, WI, US
  • 1,384 posts
Posted by fuzzybroken on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 12:20 AM

 CShaveRR wrote:
... convince CP that their main line could handle trains at 90 or better (and make it so!) between Chicago and Milwaukee, and maybe get an extra turn or half-turn out of the trainsets.

That the CP isn't convinced of a higher speed isn't the case -- that very line hosted Hiawathas (led by steam engines!) going well over 100 -- the FRA is the one that needs to be convinced!  The FRA wants cab signals for anything going 80MPH+ -- which is why Amtrak's Hiawathas are limited to 79.Grumpy [|(]Sigh [sigh]  And neither Amtrak nor CP want to pay to upgrade the line for cab signals...

Of course, speed limits on the freeway (paid for in their entirety by taxpayers) are only 65... Wink [;)]
 

-Fuzzy Fuzzy World 3
  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Southwestern Florida
  • 501 posts
Posted by Tharmeni on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 4:59 AM

 

Yeah, I've come to the sad conclusion that my grandparents and my grandchildren will both see great passenger rail service in this country.  Not me, though.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Indianapolis, Indiana
  • 191 posts
Posted by G Mack on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:34 AM

The "bullet" style of high speed rail, like that in Japan, would be great. But I don't see us going from what we have now directly to a system like that. I looked at the Indiana plan mentioned by AntiGates in the previous post and I would be happy with those travel times. It takes about four hours to go from Indianapolis to Chicago, city center to city center, on I-65 now. To go from Chicago to Cincinnati in the same amount of time would be a big improvement.

As for myself, I wouldn't mind paying for a rail transit system, even if I didn't live near it. It would still mean more to me than some of the other things my tax dollars are spent on. I feel we need to start somewhere on getting this nation on the way to rapid public transit. I have read that most transportation planners have come to the conclusion we can't build our way out of highway congestion. Where else can we go? 

G Mack 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: Defiance Ohio
  • 13,324 posts
Posted by JoeKoh on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:43 AM

anyone remember the C&LE? and all the other interurbans around in the midwest? (that were replaced by cars) kinda like what goes around comes around . just my thoughts.

stay safe

joe

Deshler Ohio-crossroads of the B&O Matt eats your fries.YUM! Clinton st viaduct undefeated against too tall trucks!!!(voted to be called the "Clinton St. can opener").

 

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Rockton, IL
  • 4,821 posts
Posted by jeaton on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 7:47 AM
 TheAntiGates wrote:
 jeaton wrote:

Just for the record, folks.  The $7.7 billion covers more than just Chicago-Cleveland.  Add Chicago to: Detroit/Grand Rapids/Post Huron; Indianapolis/Cincinnati; Carbondale; St Louis/Kansas City; Quincy/Omaha; Milwaukee/Green Bay/Twin Cities.  2002 dollars.  Lotta bucks., but, you know, spread it around a little...

 

Very true, I never meant for the example to be misleading. I was just using it to illustrate the (typical) time savings offered

 

Interesting that they are saying they will cut the travel time from chicago to cincinnati in half, but from Chicago to Cleveland by only one third.. 

Look at all those bus routes proposed. How long do you think most of them will last beyond startup of the system?  My personal view is that most of those are just offered to pump taxpayers that do not live near the actual rail line  themselves, for monetary support. (those not living near the  rail lines being less inclined to ante up the construction costs) the proposed bus lines being a 'bridge' of sorts.

 

Can you imagine riding the bus from Duluth  to Minneapolis, to get on a high speed train to Cincinnati? I'll bet you could fly from Duluth to Cincinnati before the bus ever arrived in Minneapolis .

 

 

 

I know it wasn't your intent to mislead.  Just wanted to keep anybody from swinging off your comment to make it out as if the cost was way out of line.  Even I would admit that $7 billion for Chicago to Cleveland would be a very steep price for rail service and would be better spent for more lanes on the Ohio and Indiana Tollways.

"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

  • Member since
    August 2006
  • 72 posts
Posted by Suburban Station on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 8:13 AM
 fuzzybroken wrote:

 CShaveRR wrote:
... convince CP that their main line could handle trains at 90 or better (and make it so!) between Chicago and Milwaukee, and maybe get an extra turn or half-turn out of the trainsets.

That the CP isn't convinced of a higher speed isn't the case -- that very line hosted Hiawathas (led by steam engines!) going well over 100 -- the FRA is the one that needs to be convinced!  The FRA wants cab signals for anything going 80MPH+ -- which is why Amtrak's Hiawathas are limited to 79.

Why does the FRA require cab signals? Is this the case for other Amtrak routes?

I live off the Keystone line which is greatly improved after the track upgrades. It may only be 110mph, but it's enough to make it that much more appealing. It was as low as 30mph at some points, uncomfortable, and unreliable. Now, if only we coudl get offices within walking distance of the stations...

 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 8:23 AM

I think that my biggest reservation about the HSR proposals I've seen thus far, is there always seems to be some private entity that expects the taxpayer to pay for 80+% of the construction, yet the private party expects to control the fare box.

 

Which just seems like putting them in business for free.

 

At least with the taxpayer funded highways, I can go out and drive on the thing anytime I want, without having to grease anyone's palm for the privy. (yeah I know, "gas tax" etc etc) but at least there's not someone expecting me to pay to enter the on ramp, on most highways. 

  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: Lombard (west of Chicago), Illinois
  • 13,681 posts
Posted by CShaveRR on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:52 AM
 fuzzybroken wrote:

 CShaveRR wrote:
... convince CP that their main line could handle trains at 90 or better (and make it so!) between Chicago and Milwaukee, and maybe get an extra turn or half-turn out of the trainsets.

That the CP isn't convinced of a higher speed isn't the case -- that very line hosted Hiawathas (led by steam engines!) going well over 100 -- the FRA is the one that needs to be convinced!  The FRA wants cab signals for anything going 80MPH+ -- which is why Amtrak's Hiawathas are limited to 79.Grumpy [|(]Sigh [sigh]  And neither Amtrak nor CP want to pay to upgrade the line for cab signals...

Of course, speed limits on the freeway (paid for in their entirety by taxpayers) are only 65... Wink [;)]
 

I'll admit to forgetting at the time I wrote this about this one factor holding the trains to 79.  But that doesn't seem to be the case on the UP line toward Springfield and Amtrak's own line in southwestern Michigan.  Both have a current-generation control system (albeit different from each other) that allows--or will allow--passenger train speeds up to 110.  What is so different about CP's line that such a system couldn't be installed there at a very reasonable cost?  As I said, money needs to be found, and the presence of such a train control system seems to be a relatively small impediment.  (CP would have to equip a lot of freight locomotives for service on this line, though.)

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)

  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Nanaimo BC Canada
  • 4,117 posts
Posted by nanaimo73 on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 10:12 AM

 CShaveRR wrote:
  ...(CP would have to equip a lot of freight locomotives for service on this line, though.)

That is fine, but who is going to pay for that ? CP shouldn't. Will Wisconsin ?

Dale
  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: Lombard (west of Chicago), Illinois
  • 13,681 posts
Posted by CShaveRR on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 10:20 AM
This may be a moot point, if the system that BNSF has gotten approval for is used.  Isn't this what railroads want?  I think that type of train control is enough to permit the higher speeds.

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)

  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 6,567 posts
Posted by zardoz on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 11:44 AM
 Suburban Station wrote:

Why does the FRA require cab signals? Is this the case for other Amtrak routes?

Because if you miss a line-side signal (due to fog, snow, heavy rain, etc) at that speed, you will have NO chance to stop if the next signal you see is red.

What I cannot figure out is why all the hype for HSR on such short routes.  The Milwaukee-Chicago trip is only 86 miles, and takes over 90 minutes with 3 station stops.  If the train could do 110mph on even 60 of those 86 miles, the time savings would amount to only about 15 minutes.  Is a mere 15 minutes quicker trip going to attract that many more riders?  And is 15 minutes of time saving worth the huge costs involved in track maintenance and signal upgrades? 

 

FYI: A few years ago, the CP upgraded the signal equipment on the Chicago-Milwaukee route.  I talked to a signal maintainer at the time, and he told me the upgrades are being installed to accommodate the changes to the signal system for high-speed trains.

  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Nanaimo BC Canada
  • 4,117 posts
Posted by nanaimo73 on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 11:58 AM
Would 110 mph running require a lot of work at grade crossings, like double gates ?
Dale
  • Member since
    August 2006
  • 72 posts
Posted by Suburban Station on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 12:24 PM

 zardoz wrote:
What I cannot figure out is why all the hype for HSR on such short routes.  The Milwaukee-Chicago trip is only 86 miles, and takes over 90 minutes with 3 station stops.  If the train could do 110mph on even 60 of those 86 miles, the time savings would amount to only about 15 minutes.  Is a mere 15 minutes quicker trip going to attract that many more riders?  And is 15 minutes of time saving worth the huge costs involved in track maintenance and signal upgrades? 

most likely. decisions are made at the margin. For example, although the keystone cut off 15-30 min off the travel time, those 15-30 min made it faster than driving thus making the option more attractive than driving. Ridership is way up. I think the original thinking was that if you could string together enough of these "money routes", the long distance trains woudl be able to travel over them at higher speeds as well. however, putting in the money to upgrade rail for the relatively few riders on those trains doesn't make sense alone whereas these corridor trains serve many more people on a more regular basis. Also, I'd imagine that eventually the Hiawathas will be extended beyond it's current route. Faster speeds also let you utilize a given pool of a equipment better.

  • Member since
    September 2006
  • From: Mt. Fuji
  • 1,840 posts
Posted by Datafever on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 12:29 PM
 Suburban Station wrote:

most likely. decisions are made at the margin. For example, although the keystone cut off 15-30 min off the travel time, those 15-30 min made it faster than driving thus making the option more attractive than driving. Ridership is way up. I think the original thinking was that if you could string together enough of these "money routes", the long distance trains woudl be able to travel over them at higher speeds as well. however, putting in the money to upgrade rail for the relatively few riders on those trains doesn't make sense alone whereas these corridor trains serve many more people on a more regular basis. Also, I'd imagine that eventually the Hiawathas will be extended beyond it's current route. Faster speeds also let you utilize a given pool of a equipment better.

When you say that the train is faster than driving, does that take into account the time spent driving to the station, parking, waiting for the train, and dealing with alternate transportation at the other end of the trip? 

"I'm sittin' in a railway station, Got a ticket for my destination..."
  • Member since
    July 2005
  • From: Northeast Missouri
  • 869 posts
Posted by SchemerBob on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 4:48 PM

High Speed Rail in the Midwest is a long, long ways off. And right now, it isn't really needed. You know what's really needed? How about bringing passenger service back to places where it is not provided right now? All you need is track (and you already have that), stations, and a little fleet of modern doodlebugs. Yes, that requires money. But I think it would be better to get some trains running rather than waiting to aquire enough money (and the freight railroad's patience) for high speed rail. If a lot of people ride the new routes, buy higher-capacity trains. If even more people ride it, then think about providing additional trips. If even MORE people want to ride, then maybe high speed rail should be brought into consideration. But right now, I think we should focus on getting passenger services back to these areas.

Long live the BNSF .... AND its paint scheme. SchemerBob
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 459 posts
Posted by jclass on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 5:43 PM
I'd like to see reliable, fast rail service in my lifetime, too.  But I'm not betting on it.  I think a morning Indy-Chicago and a late afternoon Chicago-Indy start-to-stop 60mph average run would attract riders.  They could offer space for on-board poker games for the guys and stitch-n-b**ch sessions for the gals (or whatever the leisure fad of the day is) to build ridership.  Hard to do those in an auto or on a plane.  (Just trying to offer ideas that many people might be willing to pay for).
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:11 PM
Been trying for a HST here in California for decades, just wait till the NIMBY's and the BANANA's get involved.

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Aledo IL
  • 1,728 posts
Posted by spokyone on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:27 PM
 TheAntiGates wrote:

I think that my biggest reservation about the HSR proposals I've seen thus far, is there always seems to be some private entity that expects the taxpayer to pay for 80+% of the construction, yet the private party expects to control the fare box

Does this include corporations like American, Delta Northwest United? Taxpayers build the airports, staff the controller centers, and build the access roads. The airlines buy the planes and pay the employees pay some landing fees and control the fare box. And if the pension load is too great to bear, let government take care of it.
  Just a thought.
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Cedar Rapids, IA
  • 4,213 posts
Posted by blhanel on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:31 PM

 vsmith wrote:
Been trying for a HST here in California for decades, just wait till the NIMBY's and the BANANA's get involved.

What's a BANANA?  A very 'appealing' person? 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 8:00 PM

 spokyone wrote:
]Does this include corporations like American, Delta Northwest United? Taxpayers build the airports, staff the controller centers, and build the access roads. The airlines buy the planes and pay the employees pay some landing fees and control the fare box. And if the pension load is too great to bear, let government take care of it.
  Just a thought.

 

So then your argument is essentually one of "since everyone else is doing it, the RR's deserve to play with public funding too?"
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Aledo IL
  • 1,728 posts
Posted by spokyone on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 8:32 PM
 TheAntiGates wrote:

I think that my biggest reservation about the HSR proposals I've seen thus far, is there always seems to be some private entity that expects the taxpayer to pay for 80+% of the construction, yet the private party expects to control the fare box

Actually I was responding to this statement that you made. I agree with you on this one particular post. Surprise.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:18 PM

LOL!

 

Curses!!  foiled again 

 

 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy