urbanSTL

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.

I don't see a problem sharing as long as the freights fit under the catenary wires. It's not like the passenger trains will be going very fast through the city anyways. Plus I think it's very important that any STL-KCY and STL-CHI trains end up at the same place, and that should be downtown.

First, there is the FRA compliance issue... I don't know of any EMU,DMU, rail cars or conventional engines which are capable of going 180 MPH have been approved crash worthy by the FRA. IIRC FRA documentation specifically states max of current standards is 150 MPH. Options:
- Don't go 180 MPH, limit speeds to 150 dictated under current FRA regulations (against premise of true HSR) -OR-

- Develop a new train set (or standards for one) which is both High Speed and FRA compliant (highly unlikely - extra structure needed to make it FRA compliant also adds weight which makes high speeds difficult to achieve, also increases equipment expense and track maintenance) -OR-

- Develop a 'FRA-compliance exempted' route - done with ROW containing zero at-grade road crossings (?or very few - crossed at lower speeds?) and not sharing track with other FRA complaint trains. I don't think heavy rail lines (such as Chicago 'El' or NYC Subway) are specifically FRA complaint - mainly because they are fully independent grade-separated systems. This option is better because the same parameters required to grade separate the route ALSO facilitate higher speeds. This also would eliminate the huge congestion based delays that plagues Chicago, STL and KC - increasing the distance which a train can be going at higher speed further reducing travel times. If this is done, off the shelf technology from Europe or Asia could be used.

I am not saying this has to be done all at once. Lets start with off the shelf 120 MPH DMUs (FRA complaint) which would require an upgrade to the 'final' ROW in "rural areas". This route should be designed to full HSR standards minus having some grade crossings (designs would be in place to grade separate the entire ROW at a later date).
Eventually, after popularity (and political support) picks up, upgrade the "suburban and urban" areas the same way.
Lastly, grade separation and electrification (switch to EMU or similar) of the entire route will allow for 180-220 MPH service.

Then there is the time issue:
Current: total 283 miles in 4 hrs 40 minutes = average speed 60 mph
Future1 - 180 MPH in rural areas - use existing approaches in the two urban areas:
total 283 miles in 3 hrs 20 minutes = average speed 85 mph
Future2 - 220 to 180 MPH in rural areas & dedicated ROW for urban areas:
total 283 miles in 2 hrs 00 mintues = average speed 150 mph+

When trying to convince people to use this mode of transport - that extra hour savings makes rail that much more competitive against road and air traffic. Downtown KC to downtown STL in car takes 4 hours 11 minutes by car (according to google).
Flying time is 1 hr Lambert to KCI, assume 1/2 hour at either end to go thru security/get luggage and then 1/2 hour to get downtown - 3 hours downtown to downtown. Travel times of rail need to be comparable - 4 hours 40 minutes doesn't cut it, and going a max 120 MPH (FRA compliant) thru rural Missouri to only go 30-40 MPH in urban areas doesn't cut it either.

^Double-tracking from Jefferson City to Independence would be a major leap forward in faster, more reliable rail transit across Missouri. Hopefully they find funding for the Lee's Summit-Pleasant Hill stretch, to start picking away at it.

wabash wrote:^Double-tracking from Jefferson City to Independence would be a major leap forward in faster, more reliable rail transit across Missouri. Hopefully they find funding for the Lee's Summit-Pleasant Hill stretch, to start picking away at it.

I assume you mean on the current route? The volume of freight traffic barely allows for a 79 MPH top speed, even with upgrades such as double tracking, better signalling, time blocking etc, the current route will never be a HSR for the issues I mentioned previously.

KC-STL or CHI-STL, if the goal is eventual 180-220 MPH service, any money spent on the route upgrades is wasted. A new dedicated (AMTRAK owned?) ROW would be most likely needed to get reliable HSR. Compared to today, more reliable service and slightly faster service (90 MPH +/-) is possible, but putting the very limited rail budget in Missouri (or Illinois) toward "picking away at it" is a good way to ensure no HSR.

Another issue that needs to be addressed is the need for better mass transit connection at both terminals of the network (and maybe some intermediate stops also). Instead of spending the huge sums of money needed to get 220 MPH rail service, spend that same amount of money on a combination of
1)"pick away at the current rail routes" increasing speed, frequency and reliability (bring it down to maybe a 3 1/2 or 4 hour trip) and
2) north/south side metrolink routes & various street car/BRT routes in St. Louis, increased transportation between Jeff City and Columbia, light rail and/or commuter rail transit in KC. All used as feeders to the "improved speed rail" trunk line.

Best would be to get 220 MPH service AND amazing transit at both ends... we can only dream.

^I think we can all agree where transit should be. It would be amazing to be able to hop on the Metrolink, take a two hour trip up to Chi town, get on the L, hang out for the evening, and come back home the same night without ever having to park a car.

The reality of the situation is that it costs a LOT of money for all of that. The powers that be don't have the stomach for it and many citizens don't as well. Hopefully some will see the light soon though. I think as my generation (twenty somethings now) gets older and moves into those political rolls that things may change.

Construction has begun on the new Osage river bridge.

The new 1200-foot bridge, located just east of Jefferson City in Osage City, will unclog a major bottleneck that was caused by partial single tracking in that area. When the bridge is complete, the rail corridor between St. Louis and Jefferson City will consist entirely of two mainline tracks that will allow four Amtrak passenger trains and some 60 freight trains to pass through the area unimpeded.

http://www.fra.dot.gov/roa/press_releas ... 1-12.shtml

I really hope they go new bridge while leaving the McArthur in place. Light all these up and it is really going to add some life to the view of the city.

gone corporate wrote:^So before the entry into STL is completed, they are thinking they may need to tear down the MacArthur Bridge and build a newer, bigger replacement where it currently stands? Crap, this won't get done until 2020.

I think the region is still stuck with the fact that this is a funding issue at the end of day. Illinois committment is too Alton (since they have skin in the game with state money) unless Feds spend more money and even then my thought is that IL would want to steer any funds through Springfield first where they will have 3rd street tracks vs 10th street tracks decision in near future.

newstl2020 wrote:I really hope they go new bridge while leaving the McArthur in place. Light all these up and it is really going to add some life to the view of the city.

Missouri was awarded a HSR grant for preliminary engineering on Mississippi River crossing. Have no idea if the grant has been obligated/committed to MoDOT or not? or if MoDOT has ran with it yet, put out any engineering contracts and/or doing in house? or even if this grant would cover study of new or replacement bridge.

Can't help to make a poitical comment, MoDOT has shown much more initiative then most people realize and it really boils down to one more item where Nixon fails St. Louis on economic developement in my opinion. Anything to improve connectivity to a global city like Chicago gives Missouri one more argument on why business should choose St. Louis over Indy, Twin Cities, Detriot, Milwaukee or evern Warren Buffet's Ohama.

Took the train to Chicago last weekend. In the station there was a poster describing the construction of the high speed rail line, what and when. By 2014 when finished, we can look forwqard to an 85% on time rate. Wow.

Pretty good improvement from our current "on time rate" of approximately 0%.

Here's the view form the MacArthur Bridge:

test trains to hit 110 mph today.

This supposed HSR is still something of a boondoggle: http://www.marketplace.org/topics/busin ... e-airlines

They've already done test runs. Today is when the VIPs ride along and take credit. Wouldn't want a repeat of the Gasconade River disaster! Here's a video from Oct 4. I think I see 111 mph max.

Again, all of this means nothing to St. Louis until they can improve conditions from Downtown to Alton.

The fields of north-central Illinois may seem like an unlikely backdrop to showcase the future of the nation’s transportation system, but for fans of high-speed rail, they may have done just that.

On Friday, a train on Amtrak’s Chicago-St. Louis corridor traversed those fields at a speed of 111 mph., 40 percent faster than the line’s normal top speed of 79 mph and faster than any U.S. train outside Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor.
http://www.nbcnews.com/travel/travelkit ... -1C6643651

Environmental approval final-

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/illi ... d9249.html

beer city wrote:Environmental approval final-

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/illi ... d9249.html

I understand the approval recommends a 10th street Amtrak routing on the edge of Springfield downtown versus the current downtown 3rd street. What I don't know from the articles out there is if they are also recommeding that the freights will also be routed to 10th street, meaning that both will continue to share the same tracks. Anybody with insight?

Can't recall where I read the article about a 10th street routing of both passenger and freights is only a win for some influential advocates/businessmen who want trains out of downtown Springfield. The article made a good case why the best thing for Springfield, HSR and the freight railroads going forward as a whole was keeping passengers on 3rd street and moving the freights, in which UP is expecting higher trains counts, through addition interchange connections onto 10th Street route was the best outcome.

In other words, why not maximize the use of parallel rail infrastructure/ROW instead of simply shifting it. That is what I understand the same environmental review recommended for Union Station to Joliet re-route of the passenger train and investment to a rail line with lot less freight traffic, thus improving capacity and reducing dwell time/delays through Chicagos congested rail network.