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
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)
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.
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.
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 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?
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?
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
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
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 .
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.
Of course, speed limits on the freeway (paid for in their entirety by taxpayers) are only 65...
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.
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?
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").
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 .
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...
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.
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...
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.
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. 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...
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.)
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 ?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Have fun with your trains
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
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
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?
Brian (IA) http://blhanel.rrpicturearchives.net.
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.
LOL!
Curses!! foiled again
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.