charlie hebdo CMStPnP For now. METRA wants to implement stations North of Rondout along CP then build a connector track to the ex-CNW new line around Gurnee to serve Gurnee and Wadsworth, then branch off the ex-CNW new line South of Truesdale and head into Kenosha where the trains would turn....I am guessing at the routing above. Source? A citation? Link?
CMStPnP For now. METRA wants to implement stations North of Rondout along CP then build a connector track to the ex-CNW new line around Gurnee to serve Gurnee and Wadsworth, then branch off the ex-CNW new line South of Truesdale and head into Kenosha where the trains would turn....I am guessing at the routing above.
Source? A citation? Link?
The Wadsworth extension proposal has nothing in it about a connection track to the CNW.
https://metrarail.com/sites/default/files/assets/about-metra/wadsworthfeasibilitystudy_062001.pdf
An "expensive model collector"
CMStPnPFor now. METRA wants to implement stations North of Rondout along CP then build a connector track to the ex-CNW new line around Gurnee to serve Gurnee and Wadsworth, then branch off the ex-CNW new line South of Truesdale and head into Kenosha where the trains would turn....I am guessing at the routing above.
CSSHEGEWISCHThe only trains north of Rondout are operated by Amtrak and CP.
For now. METRA wants to implement stations North of Rondout along CP then build a connector track to the ex-CNW new line around Gurnee to serve Gurnee and Wadsworth, then branch off the ex-CNW new line South of Truesdale and head into Kenosha where the trains would turn. It would be METRA's second line into Kenosha. It's in their expansion plans. Have no idea what the priority is or where METRA will get the money for this third branch of service. I am guessing at the routing above. All there is in the METRA expansion plan is expansion North of Roundout to serve Wadsworth, IL, terminate and turn trains in Kenosha, WI. If you look at the map though it is a logical routing if they can get UP and CP to agree.
If built the new line to Kenosha could also present an opportunity for Amtrak (and Wisconsin) of a second Milwaukee to Chicago routing over the ex-CNW lakefront line after significant upgrading of course but running through the population centers of Racine and Kenosha instead of West of them but then switching back over to the CP line just South of the Illinois border to terminate at CUS.
If they ever do expand, the issue of track capacity South of Roundout is sure to come up.........I think it will be raised before that. Probably when Minnesota enters the fray with the 1 additional morning Twin Cities train service.
One point to get straight is that Metra's Milwaukee North Line does not operate on the former MILW route to Milwaukee north of Rondout, where it diverges for Fox Lake. The only trains north of Rondout are operated by Amtrak and CP.
charlie hebdo You just make stuff up with no evidence and then compound it with more nonsensical statements. Hiawatha is one of Amtrak's stars. You are just a whiner.
Well lets just say I am highly confident that METRA's operating practices on the line and it's ability to handle trains efficiently is going to be a subject of discussion at some point. I can't see two possibly more states forking out money to increase speeds on the lines within their state borders only to lose all or part of the advantage once they cross into METRA territory.
CMStPnP charlie hebdo Facts do matter. For March 2019 Metra reports a percentage of on-time as 96.5% on peak time trains on Milw -N. That allows 6 minutes. Meanwhile Amtrak reports for Hiawatha, 95.3% on time for the same period, all stops counting. This is by far the best performance of the non-NEC corridors, well in excess of the 80% target. Seems to me your impression is not supported by the 'actual' FACTS. The only fact that is supported is that most of those delays are caused by Metra. But the percentage is trivial. Add Quote to your Post Your in denial, you have to think more like a responsible landlord than someone trying to eek out another penny on a line way over capacity. Amtrak On Time stats are distorted and we have been over that again and again. It would be nice if Amtrak actually measured 1 min late as 1 min late but they do not, they allow a grace period of x amount of min before they start counting min late and further more. Take Amtrak out of the picture and you still have a train vs track capacity issue with only a double track. Witness the story below where only one or two trains breakdown and the whole entire METRA MD-N corridor timekeeping goes to pot for hours. I would submit that METRA has stripped out a lot of the track the Milwaukee Road had in place prior to save maitenance costs and you can see that along the route via trackless bridges. Can't say what METRA ripped up on the Fox Lake extension as I have not been on it. However, recovering from an incident such as the below takes hours when it shouldn't have had the impact to start with. The trains behind the trains having issues should have been routed around them. I think that is true of the whole METRA corridor over the ex-Milwaukee Road.........they do not have the track capacity to handle a simple issue such as noted below. APPEARS TO ME TO BE LACK OF RESILIENCY IN TRAIN SCHEDULES ON THIS LINE..........PERIOD. https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/4/23/18619999/mechanical-failure-delays-metra-milwaukee-district-north-trains
charlie hebdo Facts do matter. For March 2019 Metra reports a percentage of on-time as 96.5% on peak time trains on Milw -N. That allows 6 minutes. Meanwhile Amtrak reports for Hiawatha, 95.3% on time for the same period, all stops counting. This is by far the best performance of the non-NEC corridors, well in excess of the 80% target. Seems to me your impression is not supported by the 'actual' FACTS. The only fact that is supported is that most of those delays are caused by Metra. But the percentage is trivial. Add Quote to your Post
Your in denial, you have to think more like a responsible landlord than someone trying to eek out another penny on a line way over capacity.
Amtrak On Time stats are distorted and we have been over that again and again. It would be nice if Amtrak actually measured 1 min late as 1 min late but they do not, they allow a grace period of x amount of min before they start counting min late and further more. Take Amtrak out of the picture and you still have a train vs track capacity issue with only a double track.
Witness the story below where only one or two trains breakdown and the whole entire METRA MD-N corridor timekeeping goes to pot for hours. I would submit that METRA has stripped out a lot of the track the Milwaukee Road had in place prior to save maitenance costs and you can see that along the route via trackless bridges. Can't say what METRA ripped up on the Fox Lake extension as I have not been on it. However, recovering from an incident such as the below takes hours when it shouldn't have had the impact to start with. The trains behind the trains having issues should have been routed around them.
I think that is true of the whole METRA corridor over the ex-Milwaukee Road.........they do not have the track capacity to handle a simple issue such as noted below.
APPEARS TO ME TO BE LACK OF RESILIENCY IN TRAIN SCHEDULES ON THIS LINE..........PERIOD.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/4/23/18619999/mechanical-failure-delays-metra-milwaukee-district-north-trains
Not in denial. You just make stuff up with no evidence and then compound it with more nonsensical statements. Hiawatha is one of Amtrak's stars. You are just a whiner.
zardozAnother reason for delays is that there is no 'fireman' on those trains.
One of the items mentioned that took up track capacity and resulted in some delays was the turning around of METRA trains prior to the Fox Lake cutoff to run back to CUS. Report did not specify what exactly they were doing that was inefficient but said the move tied up two tracks for the duration of the directional change. Not sure how often that happens either.
CMStPnPWitness the story below where only one or two trains breakdown and the whole entire METRA MD-N corridor timekeeping goes to pot for hours. I would submit that METRA has stripped out a lot of the track the Milwaukee Road had in place prior to save maitenance costs and you can see that along the route via trackless bridges.
GrampWhat about looking into the real reasons for delays? https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/01/16/national/japans-trains-always-time-report-highlights-frequency-rush-hour-delays-tokyo/#.XOthH6ROmaM
Chicago is a city in Illinois which is located in the United States.
charlie hebdoFacts do matter. For March 2019 Metra reports a percentage of on-time as 96.5% on peak time trains on Milw -N. That allows 6 minutes. Meanwhile Amtrak reports for Hiawatha, 95.3% on time for the same period, all stops counting. This is by far the best performance of the non-NEC corridors, well in excess of the 80% target. Seems to me your impression is not supported by the 'actual' FACTS. The only fact that is supported is that most of those delays are caused by Metra. But the percentage is trivial. Add Quote to your Post
What about looking into the real reasons for delays?
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/01/16/national/japans-trains-always-time-report-highlights-frequency-rush-hour-delays-tokyo/#.XOthH6ROmaM
CMStPnP charlie hebdo Check out the on-time data for Hiawatha Service. Are delays Metra-caused or CP.? Who cares?
charlie hebdo Check out the on-time data for Hiawatha Service. Are delays Metra-caused or CP.?
Who cares?
Facts do matter. For March 2019 Metra reports a percentage of on-time as 96.5% on peak time trains on Milw -N. That allows 6 minutes.
Meanwhile Amtrak reports for Hiawatha, 95.3% on time for the same period, all stops counting. This is by far the best performance of the non-NEC corridors, well in excess of the 80% target. Seems to me your impression is not supported by the 'actual' FACTS. The only fact that is supported is that most of those delays are caused by Metra. But the percentage is trivial.
blue streak 1The BNSF 3 track raceway IMHO needs a fourth track where possible.
I agree and I would love to see the BNSF take control of the METRA Milwaukee to Chicago line. I am sure they could do a much better job moving trains and improving the infrastructure. Milwaukee deserves better and so do the other cities like the Twin Cities further up the line when they get their train added. I've ridden the BNSF raceway and was very impressed with their dispatching the three tracks.
I like visiting Chicago but to me it makes no sense to run like a bat out hell until METRA territory where I park in the middle of nowhere for 5-10 min min each trip or worse...........crawl along at half track speed or less from yellow signal to yellow signal. It doesn't happen every trip I ride but it does happen more than 50% of the time I ride and I ride pretty randomly.
charlie hebdoCheck out the on-time data for Hiawatha Service. Are delays Metra-caused or CP.?
Who cares? The landlord is selling a transit window from point A to point B. Despite what railroaders say, it is common sense some of those trains may be late that were either sold the window or operate bordering the window. The fact is the landlord should have enough capacity to handle an occasional late train to the point that late train can even gain back some lost time OR the single late train does not impact every other train on the line.
Fact is on the METRA Milwaukee to Chicago route METRA is running at well over capacity and cannot handle late trains and you see a cascading impact when one train is late or delayed. Whose fault is that really? Tenant or landlord (track) owner. Put in a third track, raise the fees and quit beotching at how difficult it is to run a railroad that METRA purchased and said it could run? If I rent a 4 bedroom house and only install a 15 gallon water heater, are the cold showers my fault as landlord or do I get to blame the tenants for using too much water at once?
So thats why I beotch about METRA. It's only 85 miles for gawds sakes. They should be able to navigate Amtrak service around their slower moving METRA trains without delays or stops. And we are not talking heavy duty Amtrak service but just a mere 7 trains each way over what a 12 hour period? If there is not enough track, put a project together to lay more track. Even the residents of Glenview would be on board with that solution and they even suggested it over a short siding.
Check out the on-time data for Hiawatha Service. Are delays Metra-caused or CP.?
Everything posted here by others is interesting. This poster has been too many years since having ridden any CHI Metra. The BNSF 3 track raceway IMHO needs a fourth track where possible.
1. Would allow for more super express trains that would serve the out lying stations with better times.
2, Easier for BNSF to schedule one track out of service for required maintenance.
3. Less interference between freigh and passenger trains.
4. This seems only possibility as longer trains are constrained by storage at CHI and platform lengths.
Of course finding the additional ~ 25 feet to one side or other for 4 th track might be problematic.
Moving station platforms would be a major problem especially the expense.
charlie hebdoOn several occasions he has referred to Metra commuters as Joe lunch pails, as though they were in his way when in fact the tracks are owned by Metra.
The same point of view that a slum lord uses when renting out an apartment.
However, if you rent out the infratructure as a transit medium and you continually obstruct transit on it.....what does that say about the owners ability to meet the terms of the contract of providing the transit medium? You can't use the "we own the tracks" defense in a courtroom because the court will inevitably tell you that it's irrelevant who owns the track. What is relevant to the case is the landlord to tenant relationship. If the landlord refuses to honor the transit window it has previously rented or sold to your firm and it is impacting your business as a firm. You have a case against the landlord. Just as you would if your roof was leaking and you refused to fix the roof because you owned the building.
OvermodIs there any heavy-rail transit system of comparable size and capacity anywhere in the United States that 'pays for itself as a service' with 'farebox' returns? Even those with enough off-peak ridership to justify operating rush-hour-sized consists for periodic daily or nighttime service?
No and it doesn't have to. However, it should pay for itself via local fees, taxes, farebox recovery without having to go to the state or feds for supplimental cash just to be used for sustainment. Otherwise, what is the benefit? How does METRA benefit someone in Northern Wisconsin that never travels to Chicago and has to pay for it via Federal Tax money? It does seem that larger cities are using this as their model though (probably following the New York City example).
Get the regional authority to secure funding to pay for sustainment entirely. Fine if they use apportioned state funds to do so (say a portion of the sales tax). However, I don't think the model of having the local rail authority go to the state or Feds repeatedly for supplimental funds is a good funding model given how politics at the state and Federal level swing back and forth. It leads to repeated cases of deferred maintenence and then the need for a "catch up" budget that is oversized.
Seems to me that having the local authority work with the state for a ongoing and secure funding source that covers sustainment of the entire rail system would be far more preferable than the feast or famine method they are using now.
Overmod CMStPnP To me that says that METRA is either too large OR the communities it relies on to pay for it as a service are not paying enough money into the pot. Is there any heavy-rail transit system of comparable size and capacity anywhere in the United States that 'pays for itself as a service' with 'farebox' returns? Even those with enough off-peak ridership to justify operating rush-hour-sized consists for periodic daily or nighttime service? I had thought the particular economics of 'commuter' operations, including the specific fact that very expensive equipment in large numbers is often utilized for only about 4 hours a day, and directionally at that (with little better than deadhead ridership in the counter-peak direction, too). There can be plenty of apparent farebox marginal profit from, say, a double-deck car stuffed full of people, but all the costs have to be averaged over 24 hours with many if not most of the trains expensively moved to holding facilities and then taken back to origin stations twice a day. This was part of the critical argument leading to the establishment of what is now Metro North in 1966, and I don't recall having seen any more rosy prediction of getting away from massive government subsidy 'justified for social purposes' since then.
CMStPnP To me that says that METRA is either too large OR the communities it relies on to pay for it as a service are not paying enough money into the pot.
Is there any heavy-rail transit system of comparable size and capacity anywhere in the United States that 'pays for itself as a service' with 'farebox' returns? Even those with enough off-peak ridership to justify operating rush-hour-sized consists for periodic daily or nighttime service?
I had thought the particular economics of 'commuter' operations, including the specific fact that very expensive equipment in large numbers is often utilized for only about 4 hours a day, and directionally at that (with little better than deadhead ridership in the counter-peak direction, too). There can be plenty of apparent farebox marginal profit from, say, a double-deck car stuffed full of people, but all the costs have to be averaged over 24 hours with many if not most of the trains expensively moved to holding facilities and then taken back to origin stations twice a day. This was part of the critical argument leading to the establishment of what is now Metro North in 1966, and I don't recall having seen any more rosy prediction of getting away from massive government subsidy 'justified for social purposes' since then.
Of course not. The person asking why Metra is not self-sustaining is not informed about its original purpose and its funding. Additionally he seems to have some odd grudge against Metra because it interferes with his Amtrak service to and from Milwaukee. On several occasions he has referred to Metra commuters as Joe lunch pails, as though they were in his way when in fact the tracks are owned by Metra.
CMStPnPTo me that says that METRA is either too large OR the communities it relies on to pay for it as a service are not paying enough money into the pot.
No transit authority in the United States is self-sustaining strictly from the farebox. The RTA covers the rest of its operations from a gasoline tax levied in the six-county operating area. It is not dependent on appropriations from the General Assembly to cover operations expenses. Capital improvements do tend to require grants from various state and Federal programs.
I still do not understand why there is no movement by the state to make METRA self-sustaining instead of continuing to rely on these massive infusions of cash to keep it going. Most of this money is going to support sustainment programs vs expansion programs. That should raise a large red flag in the Illinois legislature that Chicago's METRA cannot sustain itself via local fee / fare collections.
To me that says that METRA is either too large OR the communities it relies on to pay for it as a service are not paying enough money into the pot.
CSSHEGEWISCH Rockford was on a state-supported route to Dubuque on the former IC into the early 1980's. Several proposals have been made about reinstating this service but nothing ever came of them.
Rockford was on a state-supported route to Dubuque on the former IC into the early 1980's. Several proposals have been made about reinstating this service but nothing ever came of them.
Why was the route dropped?
charlie hebdo n012944 charlie hebdo Gramp Illinois is such a disgrace. Lincoln must be tired of turning in his grave. Long time gone. Illinois residents will decide. Well, since this proposal is asking for 10 billion in Federal funds, lets hope not. Illinois residents pay in a lot more to the federal government than we get back. We are tired of subsidizing places like MS and AL.
n012944 charlie hebdo Gramp Illinois is such a disgrace. Lincoln must be tired of turning in his grave. Long time gone. Illinois residents will decide. Well, since this proposal is asking for 10 billion in Federal funds, lets hope not.
charlie hebdo Gramp Illinois is such a disgrace. Lincoln must be tired of turning in his grave. Long time gone. Illinois residents will decide.
Gramp Illinois is such a disgrace. Lincoln must be tired of turning in his grave. Long time gone.
Illinois is such a disgrace. Lincoln must be tired of turning in his grave.
Long time gone.
Illinois residents will decide.
Well, since this proposal is asking for 10 billion in Federal funds, lets hope not.
Illinois residents pay in a lot more to the federal government than we get back. We are tired of subsidizing places like MS and AL.
I didn't know you spoke for the entire state. Also, welcome to being part of a country.
Overmod Just out of curiosity: what would the incremental cost of adding the 2015 Black Hawk 'revival' into this proposed project be? And, of that, what additional percentage in dollars would derive from Federal sources? Does not seem that Rockford is 'that' far beyond existing Metra end of service. The question then becomes what local 'boosting will provide actual, consistent, predictable demand between the Rockford area and Chicago.
Just out of curiosity: what would the incremental cost of adding the 2015 Black Hawk 'revival' into this proposed project be? And, of that, what additional percentage in dollars would derive from Federal sources?
Does not seem that Rockford is 'that' far beyond existing Metra end of service. The question then becomes what local 'boosting will provide actual, consistent, predictable demand between the Rockford area and Chicago.
That's been on and off, and not just because of a lack of funding. The proposal that was settled on with some work completed was using the former IC route. But CN changed its mind and did not want any passenger train interference, even though that line is not especially dense in traffic compared to pre-1971. Then a route partly using some former CNW track was chosen/explored but Gov. Rauner pulled a Walker and pulled out. It should go on to Galena (and Dubuque) for the tourist trade to maximize potential ridership.
richhotrainNothing against the Quad Cities, but c'mon. If you want to do that, how about to St. Louis or some other big city destination 5 to 8 hours away
All that needs is a coordinated shuttle to and from existing service at Carbondale. As charlie hebdo indicated, Illinois voters are the ones who should pick the priorities, and if they're actually going to use money for actual rail construction and operation, why are we trashing it on a railfan site?
Yes, I rode the Blackhawk numerous times into Chicago from Rockford back then. One of my brothers worked in the Loop not far from CUS at the time and lived in Rogers Park. Amtrak plus the subway made travel very convenient. Always liked seeing Wrigley Field. Amtrak ran 3 RDCs most of the time. I was able to get a cab view sometimes. The conductor on the run was really nice. For awhile when the RDCs were out of service, Amtrak ran a three car train, two of the cars being observation cars, one at each end. That was fun. Today, the route wouldn’t have to go all the way to Dubuque. It could end at Freeport.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.