Midwest High Speed Rail

[nanaimo73]

Would 110 mph running require a lot of work at grade crossings, like double gates ?

[zardoz]

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.

[CShaveRR]

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.

[nanaimo73]

  ...(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 ?

[CShaveRR]

... 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.)

[Anonymous]

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. 

[Suburban Station]

... 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...

 

[jeaton]

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.

[JoeKoh]

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

[G Mack]

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 

[Tharmeni]

 

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.

[fuzzybroken]

... 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...
 

[Anonymous]

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]

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...

[Anonymous]

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]

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

[G Mack]

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.

G Mack

[CShaveRR]

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?

[Datafever]

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. 

[G Mack]

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