Some more thoughts on the Chicago - St. Louis - Kansas Citry private operation possibility.
1. Again, I am assured that Acela more than makes it operating expenses. This may not be true of Northeast Regional, but I am only proposing an Acela-like service, with passengers who might otherwise use the bus, people traveling on a budget, only provided with the local overnight, which would use otherwise idle equipent, and one subsidized train isn't going to really have an adverse effect on the basic Acela-type business and reasonable income traveler service, aimed at capturing solo-driver and airline passenger business.
2. One high platform at Chicago Union would not disturb capacity, because there are enough Amtrak trains to the east that use single-level Horizen and Amfleet equipment, all with traps, that can share the UP dedicated service tracks.
3. With the kind of investment needed to make UP Chicago - Kansas City frieght competitive with BNSF and to provide even 125 mph passenger service, not to mention 160, expenditures for high platformas, gauntlet and separate tracks, isn't going be a great percentage of the total cost.
4. Joliette presents an interseting problem. Possibly the Metra yard should be replaced by one east of Joliette, and most Rock Island route trains not required to cross the diamonds. The high speed passenger service might have to endure a single-track bottleneck at the Joliette station to obtain a high-platform advantage. However, of course the dedicated equipment would still be capable of low-level boarding, just as the old IC mu's were, if only for emergencies, and also possibly for the overnight economy local stopping at many local stations without high level platforms.
For FY 2007 the NEC regional trains covered their operating expenses and contributed $80.2 million to other charges, e.g. interest, depreciation, infrastructure management, etc. The contribution works out to 8 cents a passenger mile compared to 30 cents a passenger mile for the Acela.
The profitability of the NEC Acelas is related as much to the corridor population as to the trains. Chicago - Saint Louis - Kansas City population doesn't come close to that of the Northeast Corridor from Washington to Boston.
While 125-mph and faster speeds are conceivable over much of the distance between Chicago and Saint Louis, such speeds are only possible for much less of the distance between Saint Louis and Kansas City due to much more restrictive curvature.
The 4-inch superelevation as on NEC curves would increase the risk of overturning and track maintenance costs including more frequent rail and wheel replacement for the much heavier volume of UP freight traffic between Kansas City and Saint Louis.
When states are straining to fund any intercity rail passenger service; the pretty bells and whistles are just plain unaffordable. Intercity rail is competing for funds for health care, education, and roads.
Sustained 110-mph service is possible in Illinois, justifiable in part to the added safety provided by automatic train control, with tilt technology that obviates the needs for grade separation and curve easement. Tens of millions for high-level platforms including track and signal work, and hundreds of millions for crossing elimination are avoidable costs. Tilt technology will improve performance through Missouri as well, even if 110-mph cannot be attained over much of the route.
One lesson learned was the unexpected opposition to high speed rail in Illinois from small towns that would be fenced off by grade separation while no service benefit would be provided.
Ideally, a train could make it from Chicago to Saint Louis in around 4.5 hours at a top speed of 79 mph. Obviously, allowances have been made that increase the overall running time. Raising the top speed to 110 for 180 miles would reduce the ideal time to roughly 3.8 hours, for a respectable 74.7 mph average.
Largely a single-track line betrween Chicago and Saint Louis where each train currently meets two or three opposing moves, delays can snow-ball for the six meets in the morning and evening cycles.
Schedules currently are fit around existing passing tracks to the detriment of optimized market-based scheduling and running time. Some cost may be incurred to install sidings where they are needed.
Another schedule wild card is the impact of security measures on the time needed to process passenger boarding.
Dolton is an important gateway point for traffic to the East. The UP measures 271 miles from Saint Louis to Dolton by way of the former C&EI, and 289 miles by way of the longer Amtrak route to Argo including the 17 miles on CSX to Dolton. Which would you choose?
I am not familiar enough with the territory to completeliy respond to the points you have raised. but certianly double track through the Chicago - St. Louis - Kansas City corridor would be a must for real improvements in both passenger and freight service. Does the C&EI route completely bypass the passenger boarding points and thus make freight and passenger improvements completely separete issues? Please understand that I am looking at this long-term, where highway and airport congestion continue to worsen and there is a push to do something. What you may be suggesting is that improvements be made on an incremental basis, and I have zero problem with that. Most towns would prefer grade separation with increased traffic than simply preserving grade crossings, in my experience, despite the visual presense of the railroad grade - which can be minimized by proper landscaping and tree planting. I do think that Chicago - St. Louis time needs to be reduced to three hours for the nonstops to be competitive with air.
If you have access to the population figures, do go ahead and post them.
At one point I too considered a partnership with freigt for Chicago - Saint Louis corridor improvements. It seemed that this might only succed as a niche market given the alternatives. One promising opportunity is for intermodal to the logistics center south of Joliet. While UP has a connection on the east side, nearly all the busines seems to be coming off the BNSF on the west side.
Intermodal is interesting inasmuch as I've thought that platforms could ride on passenger-type trucks for higher speeds. The next problem to solve is air resistance, particularly the turbulance between trailers and containers.
125-150 mph corridor speeds require full grade separation. The State of Illinois met fierce opposition to grade separations and crossing closures proposed for high-speed service between Chicago and Saint Louis.
The opposition stemmed from many large and small communities being cut in two. Communities often either developed downtowns between primary and secondary highways along section lines or diverted routes and through traffic away from the downtown. The consultant for the State of Illinois proposed a minimum number of grade separations for only the primary or secondary highways and closure of local street crossings to hold down costs. Closing local street crossings in the downtown area imposed unrealistic and unacceptable circuitry, especially for walking. Overpasses being 2-4 blocks long imposed additional circuitry.
The solution for communities would seem to be for grade-separating the railroad for multiple pedestrian and vehicular crossings. The footprint can be confined largely to the railway. No circuitry and dislocation are imposed for roadway approaches; but some dislocation or temporary easement may be necessary for railroad grade separation. The cost for raising or lowering the tracks can be less than that for the combined street crossings.
With a more sensitive approach to issues that can turn political quickly, high speed service may be more feasible in the future; but I'm beginning to wonder if I'll see it in my lifetime.
The UP xCEI route does not pass through any community even close to a population of 10,000 between the Chicago and Saint Louis metro areas. The only significant curve restrictions would seem to be at junctions at Tuscola and Findlay. The route has ctc with 10,000-foot passing tracks every 20 miles or so with a capacity for up to 24 trains a day in each direction and around 140 million gross tons a year (averaging 8,000 tons per train).
The core section of the xGM&O/Alton has more frequent 10,000 feet long passing tracks. This would allow 20-30 freight trains a day with 10 passenger trains and equates to around 90 million gross tons a year. My question is whether the location of passing tracks is best suited for passenger meets.
Most B&O-style color-position signals have been replaced recently with standard three-color signals; and pole lines have been replaced with track circuits that simplify adding cab signals. Many UP and Amtrak locomotives already are equipped with cab signal receivers for operation on other lines.
Most of the West Coast traffic on UP going through Kansas City and Saint Louis is headed to the Southeast. From Rand-McNally, the distance of 567 miles from Kansas City to Chicago via Saint Louis may be slightly less than the 577 miles via Nevada, IA, but congestion in Saint Louis and dealing with the TRRA outweigh the distance advantage. Since competing with BNSF or offering alternative capacity is your intent, exercising trackage rights between Kansas City and Chicago is moot.
From Los Angeles to Saint Louis is 2044 miles by way of Tucumcari and 2138 miles through Fort Worth and Little Rock. Continuing to Chicago brings the mileage via Tucumcari to 2328 compared to only 2264 via Ogden and Blair, NE, bypassing Omaha, and 2378 (2361 to Dolton, IL) via Little Rock and Murphysboro, IL bypassing Saint Louis. Lifting trains over the Continental Divide on the Overland Route where substatial capacity exists has been preferrable to the Golden State Route.
Another freight service factor may be the impact of energy costs on transportation. I've read that food and goods may be produced more locally. This may reduce somewhat the demand for freight service from ocean ports to the heartland. With the current economic slow-down, trailer and container trafic declined by 2.8% for the week compared to a year ago (Trains, 7/18/09).
You asked about populations. Wikipedia is not consistent which I did not realize at first, so there may some small discrepancy. At least this gives a feel for corridor demographics.
Chicago (Cook, Lake, Lake (IN) & Porter) 6.6 million
Joliet (Will, Kane, Dupage & McHenry) 2.4 million
Dwight 4,363
Pontiac 11,864
Bloomington-Normal 110,194
Lincoln 15,369
Springfield 111,454
Carlinville 5,685
Alton (Madison & St.Clair Counties) 526,522
Saint Louis (metro less Madison & St.Clair) 2.3 million
Corridor Total: ~12 million
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.