CSSHEGEWISCH The legally defined service area of the Regional Transportation Authority (parent agency of Metra, Pace & CTA) is Cook, Will, DuPage, Kane, McHenry and Lake Counties in Illinois. UP North Line service extends into Kenosha only because that was the terminal point long established by C&NW. Metra's mandate is to provide suburban rail service within its service area. It has no legal authority to operate beyond the service area or operate intercity trains. Most other metropolitan transit operations have similar restrictions.
The legally defined service area of the Regional Transportation Authority (parent agency of Metra, Pace & CTA) is Cook, Will, DuPage, Kane, McHenry and Lake Counties in Illinois. UP North Line service extends into Kenosha only because that was the terminal point long established by C&NW. Metra's mandate is to provide suburban rail service within its service area. It has no legal authority to operate beyond the service area or operate intercity trains.
Most other metropolitan transit operations have similar restrictions.
Some folks outside the Chicago MSA might not be aware of that necessarily. However, a state-sponsored train(s), oprated by a bidder, could use UP NW track to get to WI. It is not owned by Metra.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Fred,
After sitting idle for 30+ years, UP did improve some if not the full length of the Wyeville-Camp Douglas line a couple years ago. Frac sand hopper car storage.
FRED CAPPELLER WI and MSP would be "putting in". WI needs to rebuild Camp Douglas to Wyeville, and probably upgrade numerous spots, south and north of Madison. MSPs Northstars showing up in Chicago would be quite a triumph.
WI and MSP would be "putting in". WI needs to rebuild Camp Douglas to Wyeville, and probably upgrade numerous spots, south and north of Madison. MSPs Northstars showing up in Chicago would be quite a triumph.
I think they could lift some of the yard limits approaching and departing Milwaukee as well. Geez they slow that train down to a crawl for like 10 miles approaching and departing Milwaukee and for all intensive purposes the passenger main completely avoids the yard limits trackage (they are pretty safely split in Milwaukee). Thats a quick hit to schedule of about 7-10 min, IMO, if someone could negotiate that with CP.
A minor correction: The Metra Board Chairman only was appointed by Rahm Emmanuel. The others are appointed by the various suburban county boards, only some of which are controlled by Chicago.
ccc There is no way that METRA would be able to do this type of trip, as there would be backlash from Illinois where the tax payers would be questioning why wisconsin and minnesota are not putting in for any of it, even if there were wrong about funding. this would be better as an Amtrak train simply because of having multiple states to talk with.
There is no way that METRA would be able to do this type of trip, as there would be backlash from Illinois where the tax payers would be questioning why wisconsin and minnesota are not putting in for any of it, even if there were wrong about funding. this would be better as an Amtrak train simply because of having multiple states to talk with.
I agree and I don't get why it is so difficult to deal with METRA. Wisconsin has had past experience attempting to extend METRA service from Kenosha to Racine and then to Milwaukee. Part of the reason is Milwaukee and Chicago City administrations are like fire and gasoline when you get them together in a room (been that way since before I was born), IMO and METRA is a local political creation vs being at the National level. Milwaukee is primarily ethnic German and does not like how Chicago does things........not saying Chicago does things bad all the time but this is the source of the issue as to why they typically do not get along as neighboring cities. Anyhow, I think it rolls up into trying to use METRA across the Wisconsin border.
If Wisconsin were to start using METRA heavily with cross border extensions the legislature would start to insist someone from Wisconsin sit on the METRA board and you know how that would cause riots within Chicago City Hall because along with the Wisconsin rep would be increased scruitiny on all things METRA.
As it is with the Chicago to Milwaukee Amtrak service Wisconsin has a LOT of say on how the service is run and what type of equipment is used and can override Amtrak decisions in some cases.
FRED CAPPELLER Imagine a METRA train (NCS?) leaving downtown, stop at Ohare, add new crossover at Deval to UPNW, Arlington Heights? then Janesville, Madison in two hours? , Dane Airport, WI Dells (transfer to/fro Amtrak),rebuild Camp Douglas to Wyeville, then Eau Claire, MSP in five hours?
Imagine a METRA train (NCS?) leaving downtown, stop at Ohare, add new crossover at Deval to UPNW, Arlington Heights? then Janesville, Madison in two hours? , Dane Airport, WI Dells (transfer to/fro Amtrak),rebuild Camp Douglas to Wyeville, then Eau Claire, MSP in five hours?
In a rational and modern world, rational routes could be developed. But when it comes to rail routes, we still live within the parmeters of the late 19th century.
In the peak era of streamliners, the Burlington Zephyrs were the fastest to MSP. There is a lot of single track. If we had rational routings (as opposed to competing, non-cooperative lines), the BNSF would handoff to the UP at Rochelle.
schlimmYou proposed a route CHI > near Rockford > Madison > MSP awlie back. That route or the old Burlington Route might be good alternatives.
The BNSF might be a good alternative but it is also longer and I heard it was more congested. Also not sure on the engineering (sharp curves) it has. I would have a lot more confidence in BNSF handling passenger trains than CP because they do so much better in Chicago with their METRA share.
CSSHEGEWISCH 24-30 through trains a day is not exactly light traffic. I'm assuming that this figure does not include local freights, road switch jobs, etc. Also, what would be the financial incentive for CP to re-route this traffic by way of Savanna?
24-30 through trains a day is not exactly light traffic. I'm assuming that this figure does not include local freights, road switch jobs, etc. Also, what would be the financial incentive for CP to re-route this traffic by way of Savanna?
I grew up about 3-4 blocks from the Twin Cities mainline in Brookfield, WI and still visit regularly back to Wisconsin. No, it's approx one train an hour. Very few hours there are two. So traffic levels probably include the local trains. Although there are a LOT Less local trains under CP than there were under Milwaukee.....that is definitely noticeable. Which I would chalk up to more efficient handling of frieght by CP vs. Milwaukee and far less reclassification of traffic (closing of some frieght yards).
There were more frieghts in the Milwaukee Road era. However, that was before a general lengthening of freight train length and increase in locomotive HP as well as before all the cancellations (Sprint Trains, the Ford Hauler, Brewery traffic trains, etc) and the branch to Waukesha was open from Brookfield. About once a week or twice a month they would pull a unit train off that branch of ballast from the Waukesha quarry for line upgrades. Other than gravel it generated pretty good mixed freight as well.........which apparently the Milwaukee turned over to WSOR.
From the golden era through the 1960s, there were about 10 trains each way daily on the Milwaukee Road (4-6), Northwestern (1-3) and the Burlington (4), some of which managed the run CHI-StP in 6:20. This does not include the Soo. [BTW, in 1972, Amtrak ran 7 trains each way daily between CHI-MKE.]
As to stops, in 2014, Tomah had a paltry 9426 boardings+alightings. Portage only 5847. Even Columbus had only 12,962. The Dells is a major tourist destination for sure, but only had 12,742 alightings+boardings, which means only 6371 out of a total of approximately 5 million visitors annually. Families drive.
In Minnesota, Red Wing generates only 7587. Stops like those could be eliminated and speed up the time by 30 minutes. The Casino there is a big draw, but patrons drive or take (free) buses.
You proposed a route CHI > near Rockford > Madison > MSP awlie back. That route or the old Burlington Route might be good alternatives.
Chicago-Milwaukee started at three round trips with a top speed of 70-75 mph I believe over jointed rail. It was a really rough ride in places in 1972.
My current issue with CHI-MSP travel time is approx 8 hours is over the limit of what most business travelers will consider as reasonable alternative to driving. Three of the eight hours are in MN and approx one hour is in IL. Which puts approx half the travel time outside the State of Wisconsin. Cut the 8 hours down to 6 hours and I think your going to see a rise in ridership on the line. That speed increase is not necessarily HSR but better schedule keeping. 418 miles divided by 6 hours..........what speed limit does that come out to? 70-75 mph sustained?
So one of the speed increases without ANY improvement to the CHI-MSP route would be the second train as specified in the MN & WI study documents would not stop twice at any station along the route. One stop for 2-3 min. Right there that cuts running time. Remove some of the more idiotic stops like say TOMAH for example, you save more time.
So in my view I think with some monetary investment and cooperation with CP & METRA & BNSF they could get a second train over the road in 6 hours between CHI-MSP. CP only has 24-30 through trains on that line.........which is not a lot even for single track......some could be routed easily via Savanna, IL and the CP West Line to Bensenville.
CMStPnPI don't know why anyone would say that because incrementalism is what rebuilt the Chicago to Milwaukee Corridor into what it is today.......and they are continuing with the program and intend to add slowly three more frequencies.
Perhaps I should have said incremental from close to zero frequency. Even in the worst days of Amtrak, CHI-MKE had more than one train daily each way. It is hard to attract passengers to a new route when almost nobody would have considered "taking the train" for 50 years because there was none. The only "service" between CHI-MSP for most of these years has been at the beginning or end of a notoriously unreliable EB. Corridor service means fast, frequent and reliable service, not waiting for a late train once per day.
The other nice thing about O'Hare Car rentals is they go above the basic American Cars and you can rent a Mercedes E 350 sedan from Avis I think. They also offer BMW's if I am not mistaken. Best you can do in Milwaukee if your lucky is a Chevy Impala...........thats all you will get even if you attempt to rent a Cadillac in Milwaukee.......because they will bait and switch you in MKE.
GrampIt's just interesting what people do. I was having a conversation with a car rental employee at the Appleton airport last tuesday. He told me they rent a lot of cars to road warriors who fly in from the Twin Cities, who then drive to Milwaukee and south for business. They don't want to take the chance of having their flights delayed or cancelled which happens often from the Twin Cities to/from Milwaukee and Chicago by air plus congestion. Flying 75 min. to noncongested Appleton, then driving I-41 90+ min. to their Milwaukee or North Chicago area appointments turns out to be the better tradeoff between reliability and travel time.
I am a former road warrior and former Wisconsinite. In my case I hate renting cars from Milwaukee Airport because they usually commit fraud on the car rental, that is they bait you with a nice car to get you to rent then attempt a switch at the airport for a crappier model. I flew in once with a rented full size Lincoln and guess what, they were out when I arrived and attempted to get me into a full size Chevy Pickup Truck instead.........it was either that or a Hyundai Santa Fe (which also sucks). I could imagine being a sales person and attempting to entertain clients in either car type. I used to fly all over the country and Milwaukee Airport rental car counters are notorious for the bait and switch game. O'Hare....never had a problem and whats also funny is the taxes on the rental cars at O'Hare are cheaper than Milwaukee........some cases making the overall rental cheaper. In a lot of cases the rental cars in Milwaukee are dirty with a stupid note saying they could not wash the car because it was too cold (yeah I used to live there THAT is not an excuse). I have also been given cars with very low air in the tires at MKE......Rental car counters there are crappily managed compared with O'Hare or another competing airport. They need to insert crowbar between azz and chair in Milwaukee and conduct some decent line supervision.
Your right about flight reliability out of Milwaukee though. Last flight out of MKE on former Midwest Express (doesn't fly anymore) or American Airlines is usually cancelled with low patronage because the airline does not have to compensate with the very last flight out, second last flight out is like 5 pm or 6 pm which is tight if your conducting business. And then there is the weather, MKE Is closed a lot due to weather, more so than DFW. Either fog or snow.
Last but not least. O'Hare is akin to a unsinkable Aircraft carrier with the sheer numbers of flight frequencies and options it offers in case there needs to be a rerouting at some point.
So I think it is a bunch of items why they choose Appleton over Milwaukee. Milwaukee's airport used to be real nice.....now it is a dump. They are trying to fix it up at least and I see they are working on the baggage claim area finally.
schlimmI wonder if there are studies that realistically show passenger traffic projections for the segment Madison and MKE to MSP as well as Chicago to MSP? I don't think the numbers are there unless it were a true HSR corridor (>150mph). It's been almost half a century since it was a corridor (multiple trains), unlike CHI-MKE, thus very few peope would consider "taking the train."
I would agree not a lot of people are going to ride it at 79 mph as it is mostly now, I think Amtrak does add a Superliner Coach or two or used to between MSP and CHI on the Empire Builder. That is not a lot of extra people. Though I am curious on how the former North Star did (CHI-MKE-MSP-DULUTH) it was an overnight train. I think an overnight train with sleepers might be a better option than restoring the morning frequecy in each direction.
schlimmThe concept of incrementalism is flawed. It did work in places that have always had frequent, if slow services, such as Germany, which is the example folks like Oltmann consider. The speed on those corridors increased steadily for many years. CHI-STL and CHI-DET retained a service, if slow.
I don't know why anyone would say that because incrementalism is what rebuilt the Chicago to Milwaukee Corridor into what it is today.......and they are continuing with the program and intend to add slowly three more frequencies. Each new frequency however has a CP Rail track improvement program tied to it. CP stated no more frequencies until Wisconsin adds another platform to the Mitchell Airport station so that trains do not have to always cross over to use the single platform.
Also the incremental approach was used to rebuild the Rock Island line and restore passenger service on it between Dallas and Ft. Worth. Incrementalism is still used in this country to build rail corridors and it has proved to be successful in times of limited budgets more so than an all at once program.
Gramp He told me they rent a lot of cars to road warriors who fly in from the Twin Cities, who then drive to Milwaukee and south for business. They don't want to take the chance of having their flights delayed or cancelled which happens often from the Twin Cities to/from Milwaukee and Chicago by air plus congestion. Flying 75 min. to noncongested Appleton, then driving I-41 90+ min. to their Milwaukee or North Chicago area appointments turns out to be the better tradeoff between reliability and travel time.
Really? Flight time to non-congested Mitchell takes 5 minutes longer than to Appleton, but saves the 90 minute driving time. Also, there are only two non-stops to/from Appleton @ $910 r/t versus five flights to/from Mitchell @ $584 r/t.
It's just interesting what people do. I was having a conversation with a car rental employee at the Appleton airport last tuesday. He told me they rent a lot of cars to road warriors who fly in from the Twin Cities, who then drive to Milwaukee and south for business. They don't want to take the chance of having their flights delayed or cancelled which happens often from the Twin Cities to/from Milwaukee and Chicago by air plus congestion. Flying 75 min. to noncongested Appleton, then driving I-41 90+ min. to their Milwaukee or North Chicago area appointments turns out to be the better tradeoff between reliability and travel time.
As a Wisconsinite, I think the best option right now for Wisconsin is to provide the Hiawatha's with 1) new, attractive equipment suited to the operation, 2) extend service to an easy-access Waukesha county station stop with plenty of parking (Village of Pewaukee at Hwy 16?), (Miller Park flag stop in addition, if that works), 3) rebuild the Mayfair Junction area outside of Chicago Union Station to speed up all train movements there, and 4) eliminate grade crossings from Rondout to the Milwaukee airport station.
Madison should be forgotten for now. Glad Walker nixed the "free" money. The city is a nitemare to deal with. Watertown-Madison-Portage is out of reach.
The Empire Builder should be broken into a Twin Cities - Chicago train (CP), and a Twin Cities - West Coast train (BNSF). The TC-Chic. schedule should be suited to stops between TC and Chic. If resources become available for a second train per day and it's warranted, great!
My two cents - one for the card, one for the stamp.
I wonder if there are studies that realistically show passenger traffic projections for the segment Madison and MKE to MSP as well as Chicago to MSP? I don't think the numbers are there unless it were a true HSR corridor (>150mph). It's been almost half a century since it was a corridor (multiple trains), unlike CHI-MKE, thus very few peope would consider "taking the train."
The concept of incrementalism is flawed. It did work in places that have always had frequent, if slow services, such as Germany, which is the example folks like Oltmann consider. The speed on those corridors increased steadily for many years. CHI-STL and CHI-DET retained a service, if slow.
schlimm Not misleading at all. Facts are simply that for reasons valid or not (that is all that is in dispute) he did reject the plan and thus forfeited the $400+ millions in the federal stimulus money which was conditioned on the accepted proposal. He also forfeited the jobs and the Talgo plant in Milwaukee and lost $40+ million in a lawsuit. He also lost title to the unused Talgo trainsets.
Not misleading at all. Facts are simply that for reasons valid or not (that is all that is in dispute) he did reject the plan and thus forfeited the $400+ millions in the federal stimulus money which was conditioned on the accepted proposal. He also forfeited the jobs and the Talgo plant in Milwaukee and lost $40+ million in a lawsuit. He also lost title to the unused Talgo trainsets.
I don't disagree on that but that is the Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison corridor, there were no plans to build beyond Madison with the money the Feds gave.
The problem I have with MN is they do not have any idea what they want to do. They keep flipping routes despite stating they agree on Wisconsins proposal for using the Empire Builder route that skips Madison. Despite the ongoing flip-flopping on routings......MN has not decided on a priority on which it will focus on first. In fact it has several routes it seems to want all of them built. Then the real frosting on the cake is if you read in depth on what MN wants they state basically "We just want to be ready with the planning if at some point in the future the Federal government ever gives out money again to states with rail plans". Thats it. No intent to build or improve with MN own money. Right now all MN is doing is EIS studies........nothing much more and most of those studies are funded directly from the Feds via grants.
So MN basic complaint against Wisconsin is Wisconsin will not conduct EIS studies on the Empire Builder route or commit to a date or planning towards a final project. Wisconsin does still have a HSR commitment to the Empire Builder route that it HAS NOT cancelled, it just has not set a date and the plan remains in the future. MN has complained that Wisconsin is blocking it by failing to plan. Which is not really a valid argument. If you look at the MN HSR website they have done a study already on the MSP to Chicago route and identified some issues that can be worked on===> ON THE MN SIDE OF THE BORDER from North of La Crosse to St. Paul that would positively impact train times. The real truth is that MN does not want to commit to the rail corridor financially unless #1 both Wisconsin and Illinois are also in the funding stage and #2 Some trains beyond the Empire Builder are already running.
Stating that Illinois and MN are "waiting" on Wisconsin is also misleading since niether has contributed their own tax money to development of Amtrak trains on the proposed corridor whereas Wisconsin has. Including ongoing station and parking improvements as well as some rail improvements. Wisconsin also has a DOT fund that directly supports and funds rail frieght line rehabilitation and rail banking which I am not sure IL or MN have.
So largely, IMO, it is a political argument that WI is blocking Chicago to MSP HSR development. It can proceed in both IL and MN for quite a ways without Wisconsin participation..........yet it hasn't.
wjstix Well, regardless of whether you feel Walker was right or wrong in doing what he did, the facts still show that the MSP-Chi high speed line proposal needed the approval of three states, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois. Only Wisconsin under Gov. Walker rejected it, even though an earlier Gov. of WI had supported it.
Well, regardless of whether you feel Walker was right or wrong in doing what he did, the facts still show that the MSP-Chi high speed line proposal needed the approval of three states, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois. Only Wisconsin under Gov. Walker rejected it, even though an earlier Gov. of WI had supported it.
Again your mixing up partisanship with fact and the end result is the readers of this Forum are left misinformed. Schlimm does this as well sometimes What you state and how you state it is untrue. The former Democratic Governor agreed to a lot of things without any real money to pay for them but only really planned for the Chicago to Madison route because he had a Candyman (Feds) that were going to provide the downpayment for it........it was the one project proposal rejected.........Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison. I say project proposal because I do not think the rail passenger corridor was rejected. Instead I think it was the corridor as 110-125 mph HSR and the projected costs as well as the Federal Government terms for accepting the money that was rejected.
The current Chicago to MSP route as far as I know is still on WisDOT's long range plans and HAS NOT been rejected. If it had been rejected the study Amtrak was conducting and paid for by the state would have been cancelled as well.
Currently there is a disagreement over Chicago to MSP routes and that right now is the issue between MN and WI. Additionally MN wants to get started right away on the planning for the project whereas WI is more looking in the future. So WI long range plans, MN short term plans. MN wants an ex-C&NW routing (now UP) and Wisconsin likes the current CP routing. Obviously there is a difference in cost for upgrade between the two routes. Bottom line is though there has to first be an agreements on rail routes across the state of Wisconsin from MSP to MKE.
Article attached:
http://volumeone.org/news/1/posts/2014/11/07/8004_chugging_forward_local_train_service_on_minnesotas
sjgiss The Midway Station isn't in Chicago, its the old Minnie station.
The Midway Station isn't in Chicago, its the old Minnie station.
Johnny
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.