90 minutes was the traditional time for good train CHI-MIL back in the CNW and MILW Road days with steam and a lot more freight. Pathetic if we cannot manage that 60-75 years later.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
You see a lot of this proposed, spending a great deal of money, both short term and long term, for just 2 to 3 minutes savings in travel time over a 90 mile route. An interesting point is that the rail business generally considers a train to be on time if it is within 359 seconds (5 minutes, 59 seconds - less than 1/10th of an hour) upon arrival, so does the 3 miutes really make a difference? A trainset generally makes about 2 to 3 roundtrips a day on the route, so the time saved does not save a set of equipment either. In my opinion, there would be more benefit in looking at the low speed approaches within 5 miles of each station and focusing on slow orders (as the California corridors do) to simply make the trains more reliable.
The 10 trains a day makes sense, especially if they can say every 90 minutes a train leaves. However, with the loading and unloading times, every 2 hours is good as the 90 minutes of travel time and 30 minutes of load and unload lets you turn equipment almost immediately at each end. If you run from 6am until midnight at 2 hour intervals, that is 10 trips a day. 6am is typically slow on weekends, and late is slow weekdays, so about 8 or 9 trips a day works well for that schedule, flipping the early and late trains between weekdays and weekends as was done late in 2015.
bartman-tnTo increase the track speeds from 79 to 90 mph, takes the track from Class 4 to Class 5. The biggest issue is the track geometry measurements that will now have to be tightened, a VERY difficult subject where there is heavy freight activity.
I am not offended....did not know about this. However check out the proposed timetable change from 79 mph to 90 mph running (lmao). 3 minutes are you kidding me?
"The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), in partnership with Amtrak, are conducting an Environmental Assessment and Service Development Plan for service improvements on the Amtrak Hiawatha Service between Chicago and Milwaukee. The proposed service improvements include:
Now check out the projected timetable differences by WisDOT....lol.
http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/projects/multimodal/rail/train-sched.pdf
So I would then ask if that is all we get timewise......why do the project?
No offense to many on here, but it is obvious that few of you understand the subject of track speed. Saying things like how easy it would be to increase speeds just 10mph since the rail is heavy and welded is missing the entire point of the regulations. If anyone wants to sit through a week on the subject, I'll be teaching a one-week workshop in March on the subject. It is being sponsored by the University of Tennessee and is being held at TVRM in Chattanooga.
To increase the track speeds from 79 to 90 mph, takes the track from Class 4 to Class 5. The biggest issue is the track geometry measurements that will now have to be tightened, a VERY difficult subject where there is heavy freight activity. A few of these geometry changes that must be improved are: tangent alinement (max of 3/4" deviation in 62' versus 1-1/2" for Class 4 - picture trying to keep track that straight, or anything that straight); curve alinement deviation (1-1/2" reduced to 5/8"); Vmax on all curves (slow freights tear up the low rail, fast trains tear up the high rail - you generally want trains going about the same speed so you can balance the equation); raise runoff (1-1/2" reduced to 1"); deviation from uniform profile (2" reduced to 1-1/4" - this is any up or down of the track within any 62-foot section); deviation from crosslevel or reverse elevation (1-1/4" reduced to 1"); warp (1-3/4" reduced to 1-1/2" - basically multiple crosslevel locations within 62 feet); guard check gauge (min. changed from 4' 6-3/8" increased to 4' 6-1/2"); and guard face gauge (max. changed from 4' 5-1/8" decreased to 4' 5").
On top of these changes (and there are many more), you have additional track inspections, inspection of joints and rail, and several more inspection processes.
Going above 90mph into the Class 6-9 area can add requirements for daily dynamic ride testing, fencing, multiple warp issues, 124-foot measurements as well as the 62-foot (and 31-foot for curves), multiple combination inspections, etc. Many of these basically require weekly geometry testing as few people can even measure some of these geometry defects by hand.
The rail is actually one of the minor issues, although you must maintain a rail failure rate based upon track speed and tonnage. Ties are a bigger issue, especially if they are concrete ties as you are required to do a gage restraint test of the fasteners on regular intervals based upon track speeds and tonnages.
Some people will estimate that the track maintenance costs increase 50% or more just for the 80mph to 90mph increase - I think that it is more.
Changing the track from 30 mph (passenger Class 2) to 60 mph (passenger Class 3) is far easier and less expensive, thus why some focus on the terminal improvements that can result in the same time savings.
Most of the track between Chicago and Milwaukee is 79 mph and welded rail. I can't see that much of an upgrade or investment to increase 10 mph faster. In fact I think the rail in place can handle it for most of the trip the ride is pretty smooth.
I understand the rest about station approaches and METRA delays. I know the slowdown in speed for Milwaukee takes place about 7-10 miles from the Eastern part of the station and that slowdown extends another 7-10 miles West of the station. Not sure why the slower speed limit on the majority of that track..........seems a holdover from steam days when freight traffic was heavier. Much of the freight movements are gone though. I think the hit on the Empire Builder on that section of track must be at least 20 minutes.
CP freight movements between Chicago and Milwaukee are not much a scheduling concern, IMO. CP already schedules around METRA rush hour and I have seen CP holding trains at the outter limits of METRA territory waiting for the rush hour to end. For two tracks I think the Chicago to Milwaukee Frieght traffic does not even support two tracks (they kept the second track because of the passenger trains).
METRA territory they are at almost saturation though with train movements. So you might need another track there.
WisDOT wants to also move from 7 trains each way to 10. CP laid out that for train #8 they have to add an extended platform for the other track at Mitchell Field stop to end the crossing over to one track (thats it). Train #9 CP wants additional track capacity and 1-3 new sidings. I forget what they are asking for Train #10 but it is more incremental improvements. Bottom line is only one more train for a minor investment. Train 9 & 10 are going to cost.
Other than the approaches to Union Station, Western Avenue and somewhat at Grand, the MILW North RoW does not have many curves in Chicago and beyond.
Urban track speed is mostly a real estate problem.
Railroads staked out their routes in the 19th Century. Urban development filled up the areas that the railroads didn't claim in the 20th Century. Now, in the 21st Century the railroads have no way to improve their route alignments without major investments into real estate they do not own. Getting local governments involved would bring the option of eminent domain into the equation with the resulting bad PR that that could engender plus even with eminent domain the value of the property must be paid to the owner.
To the extent that there is curvature involved in non-urban routes that are used for through freight service, superelevation of the curves, can present issues with increasing speeds to 110 MPH or greater.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Cutting dwell time at station stops to two minutes (as elsewhere) has been rejected on here and at Amtrak before.
Why not do all of the above?
1. Cut dwell times.
2. Improve speed on urban trackage.
3. Increase speeds to a minimum of 110 mph in open stretches. Other countries seem to be able to do this even on conventional trains.
4. Re-examine costs for RoW improvement and electrification. Ours seem excessive.
A number of years ago I was doing projects for Amtrak on the NEC and they were looking at a curve to save 30 seconds a trip. The cost was going to be enormous as wires, signaling, and a building was going to have to be moved. I suggested speeding up boarding at NYC where most trains stop for 10 to 20 minutes. This could have been done with little to no cost except for some better signage and staff training, but that suggestion was rejected initially.
The idea of cost/benefit ratio is a standard analysis looked at, but high speed rail is one of those "sexy" things that people look at without seeing the entire picture. In Illinois, even with all of the spending between Chicago and St. Louis, the Quincy train is still the fastest from end to end (258 miles in 4hr 23 min versus 284 miles in 5hr 20 min) as it doesn't have much of the slow terminal trackage to negotiate - it gets out there and runs at track speed. The Chicago-St. Louis trains spend almost an hour between Chicago and Joliet (37 miles) and then almost another hour between St. Louis and Alton (33 miles). The remaining 215 miles takes just over 3 hours. A problem is that the federal high speed railroad money sends many dollars to where the benefits are often far less than if they were spent on slower track. Taking track from 20mph to 40 mph cuts the travel time in half. If the track is already at 60mph, then you have to go to 120mph for the same benefit.
bartman-tn. Therefore, going to higher speeds in this area will save only a few minutes but at a great cost. As demonstrated in many places, steady but reliable speed, with frequent service, is more important than a few saved minutes.
Therefore, going to higher speeds in this area will save only a few minutes but at a great cost. As demonstrated in many places, steady but reliable speed, with frequent service, is more important than a few saved minutes.
The junction/crossovers at Western Avenue in Chicago is a real speed killer.
I seem to recall a posting some time ago that suggested that the FRA may modify the speed classes once PTC is operating.
The FRA has track classes based upon speed which then defines the engineering standards/requirements of the track. Each class has both a freight and a passenger maximum speed. For the higher speeds, they are the following for passenger trains.
Class 4 - max pass = 80mph
Class 5 - max speed = 90 mph
Class 6 - max speed = 110 mph
Class 7 - max speed = 125mph
Going from Class 4 to Class 5 is a fair amount of work, but going from Class 5 to Class 6 is like entering a whole new world of track engineering, and going to Class 7 is even worse. You start looking at a number of additional track and rail inspection procedures, and some very difficult standards to comply with (mulit-warp, fencing, etc.). You could probably save far more time at a lot lower cost by increasing the speeds in the urban areas on each end of the route.
For example, on a recent trip, it took 25 minutes to cover the first 17 miles to Glenview (40 mph average), then 60 minutes to get to the Milwaukee airport (61 miles at just above 60mph average), then 10 minutes to cover the last 7 miles into Milwaukee (again about 40mph average). Of the travel time, 9 minutes was spent stopped at stations, so the Glenview to Milwaukee Airport moving time was actually 50 minutes at an average moving speed of about 73mph. Therefore, going to higher speeds in this area will save only a few minutes but at a great cost. As demonstrated in many places, steady but reliable speed, with frequent service, is more important than a few saved minutes.
In terms of speeding the schedule, possibly some intermediate stops could be eliminated on 1-2 trains of the 7 (+1 for EB) 16 RT daily. An express Hiawatha designed for business people might work well, or added as an extra, weekdays only run with more services on board and a premium fare.
Sturtevant (Racine) has 74,472 boardings + alightings yearly, 203 daily, 12.7 per train.
Glenview has 58,143 yearly, 159 daily, 10 per train.
Those number include the EB services.
=
86 miles. It (the 100 mph top speed) might improve the timings (add 10 mph to the 57 mph current sustained speed) down to 77 minutes, from the current 90. If they could manage a top speed of 110, the timing might improve to 67 minutes. Only an approximation, of course.
On such a very short haul as Chicago-Milwaukee (85 miles), I'm not sure how much of an overall time difference that a 90 MPH speed limit would make.
After the Amtrak station improvements in Milwaukee. I suspect WisDOT is going to first wait for the PTC to be installed on Chicago-Milwaukee........then push for 90 mph operation which was one of their stated goals for the corridor. I think Wisconsin as well needs to move to better grade crossings for that to happen but I don't think they need the absolute road barrier until the 110 mph threshold.
I am curious if they need to do track improvements or if the 10 mph increase in speed can be handled just with the PTC. If it is just PTC I would guess other Amtrak corridors might attempt the same thing after PTC is installed?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.