Passenger, High Speed Rail in Midwest

dredger · PostDec 30, 2023#14762023-12-30T00:21+00:00

^ Certainly doable but also you get a more convoluted route and connections. Think of someone in Chicago wanting to go to Memphis and current New Orleans bound train is booked. So your next best option is most likely via a daily through Quincy/Hannibal and then wait on connection in Carbondale to catch the leg to Memphis. Worse yet, think of someone in KC wanting to go to New Orleans via train, catch River Runner to catch a daily train running through St. Louis from Quincy to catch long distance train in Carbondale

Just thinking of the better outcomes of Amtrak & respective states supporting additional daily trains and extended on current corridors, long distance and state supported service. I think the best outcome in Amtrak Connect vision is River Runner thrice, 3x daily, another Chicago to New Orleans long distance daily via St. Louis. Would give KC & St Louis folks some more options as well as Amtrak added passenger base into Memphis & New Orleans.

Long story short, I think Amtrak Connect vision puts way too much emphasis on simply adding towns and should at least put as much emphasis on supporting frequency and connecting larger metro areas/larger passenger base. Probably politically driven in some part but even then I don't think Amtrak will get much out of it from that aspect as well. I just think new proposed routes to Duluth MN or to or to Madison or to Scranton PA or to Baton Rouge, LA are more of an extended commuter lines then anything and Amtrak dollars, equipment & resources can be better suited

imperialmog · PostDec 30, 2023#14772023-12-30T19:46+00:00

When they mentioned adding an extra frequency on the Missouri River Runner, is there any idea on what sort of timetable may occur as a result? Noticed too the study is to extend it to St. Joseph. Ideally it should be extended further to Omaha.

Also interesting is noticing more people getting on and off at the Washington, MO station recently. Would be curious to see what traffic numbers on the MRR will look like this year.

quincunx · PostDec 30, 2023#14782023-12-30T20:07+00:00

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑
Dec 29, 2023
^I don't recall where I first heard the ferry vs. bridge story called into question, but I've long loved that painting that they use to top the article. It used to be on display in Jesse Hall. (Might still be, honestly.) I worked in the building for a great many years (at the theatre end, but we used the same elevator as everyone else, and the rest of the building pretended to be our lobby on show nights.) Anyway . . .

At some point someone pointed out that the Civil War drove traffic north, away from the lines of battle. And of course it put an end to the cotton trade up and down the river. That and the fact that no matter how you slice it, it's just easier to bridge the river the further north you get. At the end of the day you don't really need anything more than geography to make Chicago the better railroad town. It's on a nice straight line from northeast to all points west, across far and away the easiest route. We're in tougher country, still more hilly, since the glaciers stopped and turned around when they got here and caught a whiff of southern summers. We're more eroded, more wrinkled, dissected with more, and larger waterways. Even without the Civil War it may have been inevitable. Sherman Hill is just a nicer crossing than Moffit, Tennessee, or maybe even Glorieta. Down around El Paso things are definitely easier again, and maybe without the war the southern route would have been more logical, but San Francisco was more developed until the quake broke everything, so I'm skeptical anyway. (And there's less water in the southwest, and we all know what that means. Or what it should mean, anyway.)

You're thinking too much like a civil engineer and not a politician. Note the route through Kirkwood goes there because they neamed the town Kirkwood, otherwise a flatter path would have been likely chosen.

I think the Civil War was the biggest factor and not failings of vision by Stl luminaries or MO politicians. People knew the stakes and knew a bridge over the Mississippi was a must but was stalled due to the war.

hebeters · PostDec 30, 2023#14792023-12-30T22:33+00:00

Before the civil war this train disaster: Gasconade Bridge train disaster was a rail accident in Gasconade, Missouri, on November 1, 1855 all but sealed a halt or at the least slow development of railroads in STL/MO Many dignitaries were on the ill fated train
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasconade_Bridge_train_disaster

symphonicpoet · PostDec 31, 2023#14802023-12-31T06:24+00:00

quincunx wrote: ↑
Dec 30, 2023
You're thinking too much like a civil engineer and not a politician. Note the route through Kirkwood goes there because they neamed the town Kirkwood, otherwise a flatter path would have been likely chosen.

I think the Civil War was the biggest factor and not failings of vision by Stl luminaries or MO politicians. People knew the stakes and knew a bridge over the Mississippi was a must but was stalled due to the war.

I rather thought James P. founded the town as an investment. Wasn't aware there even was a town before he put it there. That said, you're not wrong. It's not the best route out of town. The North Missouri (an early Wabash predecessor) took that very soon after. On the other hand, if you want to connect to Jefferson City it really helps to stay on the same side of the river, and James P's route is probably the best cross state route that stays south of the Missouri. Which was politically expedient.

As to the bridge, I have to wonder if the war is part of what helped get it built, since that's how James B. learned his riverbottom craft. The war certainly didn't create diving bells, or the steel industry, but both grew quickly as a result of the war, and I'm not sure you can bridge that thing with iron this far south. Maybe? But the Great Brown God is not to be trifled with once he's wedded to the Missouri. (Maybe not even before, but certainly not after.)

Anyway, don't mind me. I'll go back to playing with my NIMBY rails now and imagining what could be if we actually had trains.

PostDec 31, 2023#14812023-12-31T06:35+00:00

hebeters wrote: ↑
Dec 30, 2023
Before the civil war this train disaster: Gasconade Bridge train disaster was a rail accident in Gasconade, Missouri, on November 1, 1855 all but sealed a halt or at the least slow development of railroads in STL/MO Many dignitaries were on the ill fated train
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasconade_Bridge_train_disaster

It slowed down the Pacific, but I don't think I'd say it had too much to do with slowing down St. Louis, as there were plenty of other railroads competing with it pretty quickly. The Hannibal and St. Joseph managed to cross the state by 1860, and the North Missouri interchanged with it beginning in 1861. It took the Pacific four years just to get to Jefferson City. Not sure they'd have gotten to Kansas City terribly much before that even if they hadn't set such a high bar for Robertson Aircraft to aim at. Anyway, sure, it was a mess and slowed them down, but they were but one railroad and we already had several by then, some having significant success.

imperialmog · PostJan 10, 2024#14822024-01-10T18:24+00:00

In terms of the discussion on adding a 3rd RT on the Missouri River Runner, was anything stated on the train continuing on as another line? Also would be ideal if they do extend the route to St. Joseph if they talk to people in Nebraska about a further extension to Omaha.

On the current line, is there any planned improvements to the tracks to increase reliability along with possibly being able to go faster?

quincunx · PostJan 10, 2024#14832024-01-10T18:39+00:00

Here's the MoDOT 2022 Frieght and Rail Plan

https://www.modot.org/missouri-state-fr ... -rail-plan

MoDOT unfunded needs Oct 2023

https://www.modot.org/sites/default/fil ... 2023_0.pdf

NORTHWEST CARROLL CST OLD US HWY 24 NEW AMTRAK STOP IN CARROLLTON $2,508 IMPROVE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS

ST. LOUIS ST. LOUIS CST ARGONNE AVE ADD THIRD MO RIVER RUNNER TRIP FROM SL TO KC $1,767 IMPROVE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS

imperialmog · PostFeb 02, 2024#14842024-02-02T00:53+00:00

https://www.emissourian.com/local_news/ ... 22bbb.html

Article mentions the increase in demand on the Missouri River Runner route and some future developments for the line.

If a 3rd frequency is added, what sort of schedule would it have?

hebeters · PostMar 18, 2024#14852024-03-18T21:48+00:00

maybe our great grandchildren will run with this:

the start-up Ironlev demonstrates that it is possible to achieve magnetic levitation on existing train routes, successfully testing a prototype vehicle on the Adria-Mestre line near Venice whose speed topped out at seventy kilometres per hour. No modifications were made to the track to accommodate the maglev test carriage, and given the network of underutilised and in some cases abandoned rail infrastructure linking all parts of the continent, the potential applications, despite technical challenges, are significant for efficient and quick transportation of people and goods. Aside from a levitating service run briefly in Germany (die M-Bahn) to supplement gaps left in public transit following the fall of the Berlin Wall until reunification and a few other proof-of-concept trials, there are only six operational lines in China, South Korea and Japan presently with the biggest expensive and barrier to expansion being the high cost laying new dedicated tracks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiAqbE5HI5c&t=172s

quincunx · PostMar 28, 2024#14862024-03-28T18:11+00:00

$7B more for STL-CHI? New Mississippi River bridge? Springfield flyover? I thought moving to 10th St was already reducing conflicts south of SPI.

2023 Illinois Rail Plan page 125

This project would leverage these previous investments by completing the full-build improvements including double tracking the entire corridor, additional sidings, culvert and bridge improvements, roadway grade separations, a rail flyover near Joliet and one south of Springfield, new river crossings over the Chicago and Mississippi Rivers, and station improvements at seven existing locations.

https://idot.illinois.gov/content/dam/s ... cument.pdf

ldai_phs · PostMar 29, 2024#14872024-03-29T00:45+00:00

quincunx wrote:$7B more for STL-CHI? New Mississippi River bridge? Springfield flyover? I thought moving to 10th St was already reducing conflicts south of SPI.

2023 Illinois Rail Plan page 125

This project would leverage these previous investments by completing the full-build improvements including double tracking the entire corridor, additional sidings, culvert and bridge improvements, roadway grade separations, a rail flyover near Joliet and one south of Springfield, new river crossings over the Chicago and Mississippi Rivers, and station improvements at seven existing locations.
https://idot.illinois.gov/content/dam/s ... cument.pdf

All for speeds to remain at 110?

imperialmog · PostMar 29, 2024#14882024-03-29T01:03+00:00

ldai_phs wrote: ↑
Mar 29, 2024
quincunx wrote:$7B more for STL-CHI? New Mississippi River bridge? Springfield flyover? I thought moving to 10th St was already reducing conflicts south of SPI.

2023 Illinois Rail Plan page 125

This project would leverage these previous investments by completing the full-build improvements including double tracking the entire corridor, additional sidings, culvert and bridge improvements, roadway grade separations, a rail flyover near Joliet and one south of Springfield, new river crossings over the Chicago and Mississippi Rivers, and station improvements at seven existing locations.
https://idot.illinois.gov/content/dam/s ... cument.pdf
All for speeds to remain at 110?

I think the idea of these improvements is to remove the bottlenecks and up the average speed overall to reduce times. Some of these improvements is also to allow greater frequency on the route.

Also the Chicago Hub Improvement Projects will also improve service on this route with reliability, speed, and frequency. That could help make train travel be more of an option for places beyond Chicago into Wisconsin and Michigan.

tbspqr · PostMar 29, 2024#14892024-03-29T15:19+00:00

From the link above: "The four full-build alternatives considered in the EIS provide double track along the corridor and allow for eight daily round trips at 110 miles per hour (mph) See Chicago St. Louis Lincoln Service Expansion for prior studies"

More info here: https://www.idothsr.org/environmental_d ... on/tier_2/

imperialmog · PostApr 04, 2024#14902024-04-04T02:31+00:00

Having 8 round trips a day with improvements reducing time will really increase demand.

If the 3rd River Runner frequency happens, curious if the added frequency will create a 2nd through running River Runner/Lincoln Service run? Since that will be great for connectivity.

PeterXCV · PostApr 04, 2024#14912024-04-04T02:38+00:00

I don't view the linking of the River Runner & Lincoln Service trains as having been a success, it often leads to delayed departures out of St. Louis. KC has a faster connection to Chicago via the Southwest Chief so it seems to mostly benefit a small number of travelers in Eastern MO outside of STL getting a direct train to Chicago, Springfield, Bloomington. Also the layover in STL is pretty long in order to pad the runtime in case of delays.

dredger · PostApr 04, 2024#14922024-04-04T04:32+00:00

^ Have to agree,

I really think the low hanging fruit is additional River Runner frequency but getting one or two of those dailies to extend & connect with City of New Orleans in southern IL. Or maybe a better option is another City of New Orleans daily but running via Lincoln service route before continuing south via Arkansas/Memphis onto New Orleans. Just thinking that a better outcome for KC and St Louis via Amtrak is having options/connectivity to Memphis and New Orleans.

ldai_phs · PostApr 04, 2024#14932024-04-04T12:09+00:00

dredger wrote:^ Have to agree,

I really think the low hanging fruit is additional River Runner frequency but getting one or two of those dailies to extend & connect with City of New Orleans in southern IL. Or maybe a better option is another City of New Orleans daily but running via Lincoln service route before continuing south via Arkansas/Memphis onto New Orleans. Just thinking that a better outcome for KC and St Louis via Amtrak is having options/connectivity to Memphis and New Orleans.

I’ve long thought the solution is the St Joseph extension MoDot is planning combined with shifting schedule to an early AM Departure, Mid AM (9-10:30) departure, and an evening (5pm). Also need to boost route speeds especially past Jeff City.

aprice · PostApr 04, 2024#14942024-04-04T15:36+00:00

PeterXCV wrote: ↑
Apr 04, 2024
I don't view the linking of the River Runner & Lincoln Service trains as having been a success, it often leads to delayed departures out of St. Louis. KC has a faster connection to Chicago via the Southwest Chief so it seems to mostly benefit a small number of travelers in Eastern MO outside of STL getting a direct train to Chicago, Springfield, Bloomington. Also the layover in STL is pretty long in order to pad the runtime in case of delays.

Completely agree as well. As much as I love the idea of people boarding Chicago bound trains in Washington and Kirkwood, the 45 minute schedule padding in STL pretty much negates that convenience. The River Runner is going to get passengers regardless; the Lincoln Service is reaching the point where people aren't taking it just because they want to take the train (you can argue it's been that way for awhile but something like 95% of STL to CHI trips are still by car). We should do everything we can to make the Lincoln Service an international caliber passenger service. I would say we should originate Lincoln Service trains in Washington or Kirkwood but delays into STL from the west can be pretty bad and there's staffing and service logistics to deal with.

KC deserves it's own train to Chicago like they're doing with Minneapolis. The Southwest Chief ain't cuttin' it.
Also, I'd be down for coming up with a slightly more flashy name than "Lincoln Service". Brightline is starting to become a very recognizable name across the country. Acela was also a bit of marketing genius. We deserve the same.

imperialmog · PostApr 04, 2024#14952024-04-04T16:35+00:00

aprice wrote: ↑
Apr 04, 2024
PeterXCV wrote: ↑
Apr 04, 2024
I don't view the linking of the River Runner & Lincoln Service trains as having been a success, it often leads to delayed departures out of St. Louis. KC has a faster connection to Chicago via the Southwest Chief so it seems to mostly benefit a small number of travelers in Eastern MO outside of STL getting a direct train to Chicago, Springfield, Bloomington. Also the layover in STL is pretty long in order to pad the runtime in case of delays.
Completely agree as well. As much as I love the idea of people boarding Chicago bound trains in Washington and Kirkwood, the 45 minute schedule padding in STL pretty much negates that convenience. The River Runner is going to get passengers regardless; the Lincoln Service is reaching the point where people aren't taking it just because they want to take the train (you can argue it's been that way for awhile but something like 95% of STL to CHI trips are still by car). We should do everything we can to make the Lincoln Service an international caliber passenger service. I would say we should originate Lincoln Service trains in Washington or Kirkwood but delays into STL from the west can be pretty bad and there's staffing and service logistics to deal with.

KC deserves it's own train to Chicago like they're doing with Minneapolis. The Southwest Chief ain't cuttin' it.
Also, I'd be down for coming up with a slightly more flashy name than "Lincoln Service". Brightline is starting to become a very recognizable name across the country. Acela was also a bit of marketing genius. We deserve the same.

I saw that the River Runner numbers have been steadily improving. Ideal solution would be to have regional rail service that can help feed Amtrak and provide expanded mass transit service in the area. (also have it run through Downtown and go to Alton creating a Washington to Alton Regional Rail and add other stops)

Illinois rail plan seems to help reduce times which at this point will create greater returns in terms of ridership. Fixing the approach to Chicago will be big in terms of time and reliability.

As to connecting to Memphis there are several options. Could go towards Carbondale and then follow City of New Orleans Line. Other option is use the Texas Eagle line then split off at Walnut Ridge, AR.

Another possibility is since there is the study to extend the Chicago to Quincy line to Hannibal, is to have that continue down to St. Louis and then to Carbondale. Would start connecting the Illinois lines and make more trips possible.

addxb2 · PostApr 19, 2024#14962024-04-19T20:36+00:00

Watched the recording of the last meeting of the Illinois High Speed Rail Commission so you don't have to. Here is the link if you must.

To summarize, the consultant's initial concepts missed the mark entirely and everyone on the commission shared frustration. Three of the four routing concepts suggested connecting transportation hubs in suburb (Joliet) to suburb (East St. Louis). They suggested that maneuvering urban land use was going to be impossible and should just improve the public transportation that connects it. They suggested that the commission just get comfortable now with a three or four seat trip between Downtown Chicago and Downtown St. Louis. This included a map of just how convenient it would be to take "Metro... I think it's called Metro or MetroLink" to Downtown St. Louis.

Thankfully, no one bought any aspect of it. Peoria, Bloomington, and Decatur noticed quickly that this would be five or six seat trips for their community. Chicago, St. Louis (Jim Wild, EWGW), Springfield were also solidly against the idea. Chicago members pulled up ideas for Chicago and when mentioning St. Louis one member said "We should assume this will go to Kansas City someday, we have to cross the river anyways".

Generally, the consultants were not very enthusiastic to be there and at times felt quite dismissive of IDOT and members. Commission members seem comfortable with the concept of billions and billions. I'm not sure why the consultant is being so conservative.

+2

leeharveyawesome · PostApr 21, 2024#14972024-04-21T20:53+00:00

^ interesting info. I checked the link. I like the route in pic 1. The tracks already exist. I have a pied-a-terre in central Illinois and live STL city for decades. If Amtrak access truly is an "economic engine" then, well, they need it desperately.

If Illinois is going to lead the nation in people moving out in perpetuity and also bankrupt they might as well go out in style. I'm all for it.

imperialmog · PostApr 22, 2024#14982024-04-22T15:33+00:00

addxb2 wrote: ↑
Apr 19, 2024
Watched the recording of the last meeting of the Illinois High Speed Rail Commission so you don't have to. Here is the link if you must.

To summarize, the consultant's initial concepts missed the mark entirely and everyone on the commission shared frustration. Three of the four routing concepts suggested connecting transportation hubs in suburb (Joliet) to suburb (East St. Louis). They suggested that maneuvering urban land use was going to be impossible and should just improve the public transportation that connects it. They suggested that the commission just get comfortable now with a three or four seat trip between Downtown Chicago and Downtown St. Louis. This included a map of just how convenient it would be to take "Metro... I think it's called Metro or MetroLink" to Downtown St. Louis.

Thankfully, no one bought any aspect of it. Peoria, Bloomington, and Decatur noticed quickly that this would be five or six seat trips for their community. Chicago, St. Louis (Jim Wild, EWGW), Springfield were also solidly against the idea. Chicago members pulled up ideas for Chicago and when mentioning St. Louis one member said "We should assume this will go to Kansas City someday, we have to cross the river anyways".

Generally, the consultants were not very enthusiastic to be there and at times felt quite dismissive of IDOT and members. Commission members seem comfortable with the concept of billions and billions. I'm not sure why the consultant is being so conservative.

Route1.pngRoute 2.pngRoute 3.pngRoute 4.pngStLouis_IHR.png

Not having it go downtown to downtown removes a lot of the connectivity since its to connect to other Amtrak lines and to the local mass transit system. Also isn't the idea as well for the line to Chicago to continue on towards O'Hare and points North?

Isn't there also a good chance a Mississippi River Bridge could get federal funding? Since it would be seen as key national infrastructure? Since it could be part of an overall new bridge that can be used for HSR, non-HSR service, and any future regional rail. This would help increase throughput of the existing rail bridges to increase freight traffic and not have to worry about passenger trains since dedicated rail would exist in this scenario and would be a national interest in terms of overall infrastructure.

dredger · PostApr 22, 2024#14992024-04-22T16:14+00:00

Think Illinois is doing more harm than good. The STL-CHI existing Lincoln Serice corridor would make a big leap forward if the time, resources and energy is simply put towards double tracking, grade separation & extending 110 mph through the respective urban cores in Chicago & East St. Louis.

Amtrak doesn't even need to add frequency as getting the overall travel time down would probably make it more attractive for a possible 3rd party service to come online. If Amtrak could get beyond itself and realize that 8 Lincoln trains and another 4 Brightline trains would only help each other in ridership. Frees up Amtrak to add another Texas Eagle Daily as well as entertain another daily Chi-New Orleans long distance train via Stl or the Cardinal extension splitting and heading west to Stl

STLEnginerd · PostApr 22, 2024#15002024-04-22T16:26+00:00

addxb2 wrote: ↑
Apr 19, 2024
To summarize, the consultant's initial concepts missed the mark entirely and everyone on the commission shared frustration. Three of the four routing concepts suggested connecting transportation hubs in suburb (Joliet) to suburb (East St. Louis). They suggested that maneuvering urban land use was going to be impossible and should just improve the public transportation that connects it. They suggested that the commission just get comfortable now with a three or four seat trip between Downtown Chicago and Downtown St. Louis. This included a map of just how convenient it would be to take "Metro... I think it's called Metro or MetroLink" to Downtown St. Louis.

Thankfully, no one bought any aspect of it. Peoria, Bloomington, and Decatur noticed quickly that this would be five or six seat trips for their community. Chicago, St. Louis (Jim Wild, EWGW), Springfield were also solidly against the idea. Chicago members pulled up ideas for Chicago and when mentioning St. Louis one member said "We should assume this will go to Kansas City someday, we have to cross the river anyways".

Huge difference between a connection in ESTL to downtown St. Lois and a connection in Joliet to downtown Chicago.
ESTL is fewer stops from the convention center (where a lot of the hotel capacity is) via metro link than Civic Center station. No matter where you land in downtown your trip is most likely going to require another seat, either metro link bus cab or uber to get to your final destination. I know a lot of people on the forum dislike my advocacy for a replacement to Gateway Amtrak station being built in ESTL but i think that IF you were HYPOTHETICALLY starting from scratch that it would be the more logical place for it. Given there is already a Gateway Amtrak Station at Civic Center station the investment in a new station would have to justify the abandonment of the current built infrastructure. So its not a slam dunk but I think if the time came for a replacement then there is a strong case to putting it in ESTL. I realize that its outside the city limits but in its current state it is a drag on the city. A healthy thriving EST will mean a better downtown as well.
On the flip side transferring in Joliet is ridiculous. Joliet is like 30 miles from downtown Chicago and that section is probably responsible for the majority of delays on getting to downtown. And also considering the investment in Chicago's Union Station as THE Amtrak hub i can't imagine that being an acceptable solution.

Passenger, High Speed Rail in Midwest

Choose Display Mode