urbanSTL

The idea of a 4 hour train from St. Louis to Chicago is really exciting. I wonder at what time/speed the route would start taking significant market share from the airlines. The route is 284 miles and there are 9 stations between St. Louis and Chicago. I suppose this is snobby, but would it be worth considering an Express or High Speed train that bypassed Dwight, Pontiac, Lincoln, and Carlinville if it took 20 or 30 mins off the trip? There are currently four roundtrips a day. Perhaps two of them could go express.

Or perhaps at the higher speeds (from track improvements, train improvements, and express service), demand would warrant adding two more trains a day, which would leave Dwight, Pontiac, Lincoln, and Carlinville with their current level of service.

wabash wrote: I suppose this is snobby, but would it be worth considering an Express or High Speed train that bypassed Dwight, Pontiac, Lincoln, and Carlinville if it took 20 or 30 mins off the trip? There are currently four roundtrips a day. Perhaps two of them could go express.

Absolutely. I don't think anyone could justify stopping at each station with high-speed in mind. But I'm sure the politicians in each of those stops will clamor for their towns to get as much exposure to the high-speed as possible. Stop in Springfield & Bloomington. That's it. Joliet can take Metra into Chicago.

I have been saying that to a lot of people. I used to take this train every week and still frequently do. The stops at Carlinville and Summit are very inefficient as rarely people use them and there are stops within 30 minutes. Summit doesn't even have a station I don't believe. I don't know why they wouldn't run an express route once or twice a day. It would allow the train to reach close to 110mph speed at longer intervals and a 3 and a half hour trip to Chicago would be worth it.

I am glad to see the funding for this route and I agree with the others who suggested an "express" train. A ore direct route from St. Louis to Chicago would increase the ridership to an even higher level. This is exciting and needed IMO.


While on the subject, I found an interesting take on high speed rail by Peter Calthorp. Calthorp is quite the designer and urban planner. He is probably most famous (in my eyes) for his TOD work.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1MKQ5L.DTL

The plan was to go to 8 Lincoln Service runs a day each direction. I hope at least half are express and skip the low traffic stations. That much service is pointless.

Another big help would be platforms at the busy stations to cut dwell times. I presume the new stations in Normal, Alton, and Joliet will have them. Springfield needs one too if it can ever sort itself out.

Getting average speeds from 51 to 71 mph will be something. I think there's a disconnect from what's been funded and achieving the 4 hour goal.

Track and station upgrades aside, (excuse me if this is an old question as I have been out of the loop) Are new trains a part of this upgrade or are we to assume that the track upgrades allow existing trains to travel at higher speeds?

^ Yes to both. Current engines and cars can go at higher speeds and new train sets are going to be ordered. The first grant for STL-CHI had new rolling stock as well as another grant among CA-IL-MI-MO will put new rolling stock on other routes. It will be a while unfortunately. They're somewhere between desired specs and bidding.

USDOT Press Release

http://www.fra.dot.gov/roa/press_releas ... 6-11.shtml

How is a four hour train to Chicago exciting? That's maybe the same amount of time as a car.

Two hours is exciting. That actually changes things. A hour train ride provides no real benefit in regards to time or mobility of a car ride.

^I'm not sure that really deserves a response.

pat wrote:A hour train ride provides no real benefit in regards to time or mobility of a car ride.

This may be true, but you are overlooking a lot of other benefits to train travel. Trains are more fuel efficient and environmentally sustainable than planes or cars, and taking trains is thought to encourage more pedestrian traffic and office space demand in downtowns. It is also thought to encourage the use of public transit more than airports and cars. If the train takes as long as a car ride and if it takes less time than it currently does, it will be more competitive with planes and cars, more people will use it, and therefore the above listed benefits (both to nature and the built environment) will be even greater than they currently are.

On a personal note, I don't take a car to Chicago. I find it cheaper and easier to not have one.

pat wrote:How is a four hour train to Chicago exciting? That's maybe the same amount of time as a car.

Two hours is exciting. That actually changes things. A hour train ride provides no real benefit in regards to time or mobility of a car ride.

I have a couple thoughts as to why I see it more appealing.

Being a tall guy, the train is far superior in terms of comfort. There is more space and I can get up and move around. A walk can help if you stiffen up. My knees and back sometimes give me trouble, so this is a better mode of transportation for comfort.

The convenience of the food car and bathrooms are definitely a plus. Drinking some wine and talking to interesting people surely beats the boredom of the car. I have never had a bad experience with a train passenger, while riders of the plane and drivers pose a much greater risk of anger/annoyance. Not sure why the train has been so much better, but I will take it.

In Chicago, I dislike downtown driving and the cost to park sucks. The train allows me to avoid all that hassle.

How is a four hour train to Chicago exciting? That's maybe the same amount of time as a car.

Two hours is exciting. That actually changes things. A hour train ride provides no real benefit in regards to time or mobility of a car ride.

I don't mean to pile on, but as an observation, please take this into consideration: If you're implying that 4 hours on a train is not competitive with 4 hours by car, nor 1 hour in a plane (let's leave time at the station/airport out of this), then there should be no one riding the train with the schedule as it is now. As it stands, there have been ridership gains over this route, and it stands to reason that they would grow exponentially if the 5 hour trip was cut by 1 hour, as well as increased frequency.

pat wrote:How is a four hour train to Chicago exciting? That's maybe the same amount of time as a car.

Two hours is exciting. That actually changes things. A hour train ride provides no real benefit in regards to time or mobility of a car ride.

Agreed on some of the other responses. Again. I have done both almost once a week.

1. The car is not 4 hours from STL to Chicago. Driving from, downtown STL to the loop in Chicago is gonna be about 5 hours and that is assuming you don't stop along the way.

2. I get a lot of work done on the train due to the outlets and the fact that you can move around the cabin very easily.

3. I also hate dealing with Chicago traffic. In fact, when I lived there I didn't own a car. I hate the fact that I have to have one in St. Louis. So being able to get off the train and on to the El is great. (Although I have my own opinions on the issue that the EL system doesn't run directly to Union Station).

ImprovSTL wrote:

pat wrote:How is a four hour train to Chicago exciting? That's maybe the same amount of time as a car.

Two hours is exciting. That actually changes things. A hour train ride provides no real benefit in regards to time or mobility of a car ride.

Agreed on some of the other responses. Again. I have done both almost once a week.

1. The car is not 4 hours from STL to Chicago. Driving from, downtown STL to the loop in Chicago is gonna be about 5 hours and that is assuming you don't stop along the way.

2. I get a lot of work done on the train due to the outlets and the fact that you can move around the cabin very easily.

3. I also hate dealing with Chicago traffic. In fact, when I lived there I didn't own a car. I hate the fact that I have to have one in St. Louis. So being able to get off the train and on to the El is great. (Although I have my own opinions on the issue that the EL system doesn't run directly to Union Station).

I meant to add this to my response. between my laptop, reading material, a pen and a pad, the train helps my productivity. The train environment also helps me formulate some of my best and most creative/innovative ideas. That in itself is worth the ride.

^^^^^^

1. Much cheaper. $20-ish to take the train vs. about $80 in gas and the wear and tear on your vehicle. (Each way)

2. Much more confortable.

3. You can spend your time reading/working/drinking as opposed to operating your motor vehicle.

Those are my personal favorite reasons. Could list more. A 4 hour ride is a big deal, although I do agree with the original poster's point of a two hour trip. If we are going to spend X billion dollars to build "high speed" rail, why not spend the difference and get true high speed rail transportation. This nickel and diming piece by piece sh*t is going to leave our country choking in the dust. That is (kind of) another discussion, though.

The Midwest High Speed Rail Association estimated a 220 mph, electrified, grade-separated, passenger-only STL-CHI line would cost $12B and that didn't include a new bridge over the Mississippi.

^Exactly. Just go all the way instead of spending the $4B or whatever we are going to end up spending to go from 5 hours to 4. Infrastructure investment in this country historically has some of if not the best return of any spending we do.

This is all fine and dandy, but until they fix the mess between Downtown STL and Alton, it still isn't worth it, IMO.

framer wrote:This is all fine and dandy, but until they fix the mess between Downtown STL and Alton, it still isn't worth it, IMO.

The bottleneck issues in Chicago and STL are supposed to be addressed in the upgrade. We shall see I suppose.

I still think it's worth it if they can get down around 4 hours. But I agree that there seems to be some serious time savings between Alton & St. Louis and between Summit & Chicago. It'll be nice, but also frustrating to zip down to St. Louis at 110 mph only to spend 30 minutes creeping into the city.

I am currently riding said Lincoln Service train as I type this and on the left of me is a highway backed up for miles due to the snow. We are breezing along.

Finally getting to the new Osage River Bridge. Man this stuff takes forever.

KMOX - AMTRAK Bottleneck Unplugs In 2013

State officials have signed a 20- million dollar contract for a new. . .and second. . .rail bridge on the Union Pacific mainline over the Osage River east of Jefferson City.

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/02/04/ ... s-in-2013/

MoDOT has posted their State Rail Plan final draft....

http://contribute.modot.mo.gov/othertra ... _DRAFT.pdf

It is somewhat encouraging that they recognize that people want rail, want more of it, and want better and faster service. They even include budgeting plans for studies and attaining right of way for high speed rail (over 180mph), $10 million and $600 million respectively. Hopefully they implement this.

They also plan on funding coming from 80% federal and 20% state. So a lot of this hinges on funding sources from the Man.

Awesome to see when they say "High Speed" they don't mean 120 mph (one of my biggest pet peeves). The $600 Million shows they realize shared ROW (with freight trains) wont cut it - new dedicated ROW (all grade separated etc) is required long term.

Just like the Chicago-STL run, the problem isn't in the rural areas (as there are numerous abandoned lines they can utilize - even reverting the Katy Trail which is still in the rail-trust), but getting to- and from the city centers. Short of building over a highway (remember the debacle that FPP/metrolink was) - there just aren't any good routes all the way into the city. Clayton could be reached without much effort using Metro owned ROW and the abandoned Rock Island line in suburban KC stops near their sports complex. One thought/option would be to have a main STL terminal be in/near Clayton or at Lambert - linked by Metrolink to the city center. Interesting to see what this $10 Million study will show is a good possible solution.

Why couldn't you use the current Amtrak line going to Downtown or modify it in some form or fashion?

I don't see why you would need to buy new right of way to city centers when there is already space available. I don't know what is required for high speed rail, but it seems unnecessary to purchase new.