This is from Amtrak's News. It is a detailed analysis and has moving graphics of how freight and passenger traffic goes thru the project areas. It only covers the to be built create projects P-2, P-3 & P-4 . Note also P-1 Englewood is shown as completed however there will be more connections there.
Not: there is a call for a conssolidated dispatch center for the greater Chicago area.
http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/867/1013/Amtrak-Chicago-Gateway-Blue-Ribbon-Panel-Report-ATK-15-051.pdf
http://www.amtrak.com/ChicagoGateway
Information of Indiana Gateway
http://www.in.gov/indot/3373.htm
blue streak 1 This is from Amtrak's News. It is a detailed analysis and has moving graphics of how freight and passenger traffic goes thru the project areas. It only covers the to be built create projects P-2, P-3 & P-4 . Note also P-1 Englewood is shown as completed however there will be more connections there. Not: there is a call for a conssolidated dispatch center for the greater Chicago area. http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/867/1013/Amtrak-Chicago-Gateway-Blue-Ribbon-Panel-Report-ATK-15-051.pdf http://www.amtrak.com/ChicagoGateway Information of Indiana Gateway http://www.in.gov/indot/3373.htm
note that every member of that panel is a politico or a lawyer not an experienced railroad person around. Well done Joe!
The video animations (based on RTC?) were pretty well done. Good PR. If there is RTC simulation behind the video, then the facts are pretty solid, too.
Linda Morgan had some UP experience, I think.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
IMO the first step is to get the Chicago dispatch center. There would need to have several safeguards.
1. The center would be a completely independent of all affected RRs.
2. Each RR would own a percentage based on their ton miles or maybe train length miles in the covered area or a combination of both. Could be some other method. Each new year ownership would change based on those miles. dispatch costs also based on same formula.
3. Dispatch would not be RR specific but whole dispatch orginization specific.
4. That way high use routes could have one dispatcher or series of dispatchers to expedite.
5. Dispatch positions would have performance standards that would require more dispatchers when performance falls below standard. Performance standards for Passenger trains would be higher.
6. Severe limits on how long train has to wait for any question to be answered.
7. If certain trains or time brackets show high delays major effort to resolve problems. Of course until Create project locations completed those locations will have worse performance metrics.
Somehow all the RRs will have to be required to join. If Trump was president he would probably say join or the PTC extension will not apply to you.
Our dispatchers on this forum probably have much better ideas.
I think they need to fully fund the CREATE project and complete it. I am a big supporter of doing that and I feel it should have been a higher Federal priority than Chicago to St. Louis HSR. However, money flows to the widely visible infrastruture programs first. It's why our water and sewer systems will probably collapse before they see any investment.
The Create projects referenced (75th St (P2+P3), and Grand Crossing (P4)) have only recently completed enough review to go after funding. The 75th street project requires the cooperation of five railroads and the City, the simpler Grand Crossing project "only" two railroads and the City. Since both involve real estate taking and street closure, it's surprising how quickly they got to the current state. Both projects are also a little bigger than their initial footprint. Normally that would be ascribed to mission creep, but in this case it actually adds a fair amount of value at modest cost.
I don't believe there will be any more connections at Englewood! What were you thing there was yet to come?
If the Illinois HSR plan is adopted the Metra line over the Englewood flyover is part of the route between Chicago and St. Louis. Connections to tracks leading to Union station would be made about three miles north, somewhere near the abandoned CR&I bridges over the Dan Ryan Expressway. Aside from possibly restoring the connection to the tail track of the ex-NYC piggyback yard in the northeast quadrant, there don't seem to be any other connections planned for Englewood.
rcdrye If the Illinois HSR plan is adopted the Metra line over the Englewood flyover is part of the route between Chicago and St. Louis. Connections to tracks leading to Union station would be made about three miles north, somewhere near the abandoned CR&I bridges over the Dan Ryan Expressway. Aside from possibly restoring the connection to the tail track of the ex-NYC piggyback yard in the northeast quadrant, there don't seem to be any other connections planned for Englewood.
The plan as I understand it is to use those bridges (wasn't it the CJ at this point?) requiring a new connection between the former CJ and the old PRR in the NE quadrant.
You are correct. The CJ and CR&I are pretty much the same thing. If my memory serves me the CJ was leased by the CR&I, in turn controlled by NYC. Since the CJ/CR&I crosses under the NS Chicago Line, and the bridges have sat unused for a long time, the bridges would require some significant changes, including probably double tracking. That's not spelled out in detail in the HSR plan. There's an industrial building in the northeast quadrant now.
rcdrye You are correct. The CJ and CR&I are pretty much the same thing. If my memory serves me the CJ was leased by the CR&I, in turn controlled by NYC. Since the CJ/CR&I crosses under the NS Chicago Line, and the bridges have sat unused for a long time, the bridges would require some significant changes, including probably double tracking. That's not spelled out in detail in the HSR plan. There's an industrial building in the northeast quadrant now.
What significant changes are you foreseeing for the bridges. They were built in the early 60s with Federal Interstate money so I am sure they were built to a fairly high Cooper Rating. Bridges really only deteriorate due to fatigue and corrosion. Fatigue wouldn't be a factor here as they have hardly been used at all, corrosion is another issue but with the bridges being this new I doubt there is much. I'm sure something will be found to justify consultant fees.
I don't envision any need to double track this say 2 mile (including crossovers) stretch as the only traffic planned for it are the St.Louis trains and they use miles and miles of single track south of Joliet.
Buslist ... I don't envision any need to double track this say 2 mile (including crossovers) stretch as the only traffic planned for it are the St.Louis trains and they use miles and miles of single track south of Joliet.
...
I don't know about the 2 mile section, but Amtrak's plan is to double track the CHI-STL line. They have already done the Environmental Assessment.
blue streak 1 Not: there is a call for a conssolidated dispatch center for the greater Chicago area.
Which is a joke.
An "expensive model collector"
n012944 blue streak 1 Not: there is a call for a conssolidated dispatch center for the greater Chicago area. Which is a joke.
I don't know. UP dispatches the the territory about 10 miles on each side of Bailey yard from Harriman? No. It's dispatched from Bailey. The dispatcher is in the building with the terminal superintendant and in the room with power desk and lead yardmaster. So, the would seem open to the concept of coordination through co-location.
The CTCO office already exists, it would just take co-location of dispatch desks.
Moving dispatch desks isn't really all that difficult, these days.
oltmannd n012944 blue streak 1 Not: there is a call for a conssolidated dispatch center for the greater Chicago area. Which is a joke. I don't know. UP dispatches the the territory about 10 miles on each side of Bailey yard from Harriman? No. It's dispatched from Bailey. The dispatcher is in the building with the terminal superintendant and in the room with power desk and lead yardmaster. So, the would seem open to the concept of coordination through co-location. The CTCO office already exists, it would just take co-location of dispatch desks. Moving dispatch desks isn't really all that difficult, these days.
I am a dispatcher in an office that houses two railroads. The dispatchers are about 50 ft from each other. The majority of the communication between the two railroads is done over the phone. They might as well be located miles from each other.....
n012944 oltmannd n012944 blue streak 1 Not: there is a call for a conssolidated dispatch center for the greater Chicago area. Which is a joke. I don't know. UP dispatches the the territory about 10 miles on each side of Bailey yard from Harriman? No. It's dispatched from Bailey. The dispatcher is in the building with the terminal superintendant and in the room with power desk and lead yardmaster. So, the would seem open to the concept of coordination through co-location. The CTCO office already exists, it would just take co-location of dispatch desks. Moving dispatch desks isn't really all that difficult, these days. I am a dispatcher in an office that houses two railroads. The dispatchers are about 50 ft from each other. The majority of the communication between the two railroads is done over the phone. They might as well be located miles from each other.....
n012944It doesn't matter. You still will want things on a recorded line. Talking doesn't give you that
And waiting for someone to answer the communication on the other end raises the FQ (frustration quotient) as every ring goes by - and then to get a quick 'please hold' before you can say anything max's the FQ meter.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD And waiting for someone to answer the communication on the other end raises the FQ (frustration quotient) as every ring goes by - and then to get a quick 'please hold' before you can say anything max's the FQ meter.
blue streak 1 BaltACD Blasphmey as far a management is concerned but that sounds as if there are not enough dispatchers.
BaltACD
That is when managers are trying to contact each other! Let alone Dispatchers.
When you put organizations behind telephone walls - the FQ builds at all levels that have to contact their counterparts on the other side of the wall.
MidlandMike Buslist ... I don't envision any need to double track this say 2 mile (including crossovers) stretch as the only traffic planned for it are the St.Louis trains and they use miles and miles of single track south of Joliet. I don't know about the 2 mile section, but Amtrak's plan is to double track the CHI-STL line. They have already done the Environmental Assessment.
According to my Amtrak contacts only part of the St. Louis line will be double tracked (some already graded) but substantial portions will remain single. They also feel that they are not ready to sign off on the RI, CJ, PRR routing from Joliet, they are concerned about fitting trains between the METRAs. They are still trying to work out something with the Alton route.
At at this point there are no plans to run the Texas Eagle at 110 not due to any restrictions on the equipment but due to contract conditions with the UP (and my guess speed related track access charges).
Buslist MidlandMike Buslist ... I don't envision any need to double track this say 2 mile (including crossovers) stretch as the only traffic planned for it are the St.Louis trains and they use miles and miles of single track south of Joliet. I don't know about the 2 mile section, but Amtrak's plan is to double track the CHI-STL line. They have already done the Environmental Assessment. According to my Amtrak contacts only part of the St. Louis line will be double tracked (some already graded) but substantial portions will remain single. They also feel that they are not ready to sign off on the RI, CJ, PRR routing from Joliet, they are concerned about fitting trains between the METRAs. They are still trying to work out something with the Alton route. At at this point there are no plans to run the Texas Eagle at 110 not due to any restrictions on the equipment but due to contract conditions with the UP (and my guess speed related track access charges).
From page S-4 in the Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail Tier 1 Final EIS Summary " In general, the proposed improvements would include double tracking along the entire length of the corridor in addition to improvements to railroad crossings (including rail to rail grade separations and pedestrian grade separations at the train stations), signals, and stations. "
The EIS lists alternatives (including no build), and perhaps one of the less ambitious alternatives was chosen. Also the UP expressed interest in using the line more if it was improved, so maybe Amtrak didn't want to make it too attractive.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.