I think the gap is because the morning trains turn around for the afternoon run back. My hope was that with the higher speed they could get another pair going that could go and come back on a reasonable schedule.
I'd prefer more frequency, then higher speed, then more capacity to each train. Adding capacity is easier, if there's a car available, I'd wager. IIRC they do that for holiday crunch
It's been exciting watching them build a beautiful railroad, and really frustrating that the higher speeds haven't come.
I'm pretty sure there is a new Viewliner II car on the STL->KC River Runner. Or maybe it's a Chicago train? Has anyone been on it or gotten a good photo? They look like this:
^I think I've seen baggage cars on the River Runner once or twice. UP requires a minimum axle count for the sake of track detectors, so Amtrak is or was adding extra cars to boost that. There are some Viewliner bags that could possibly have been shuffled through, I suppose. But apart from that I don't know why you'd want Viewliners on the Runner. Aren't the rest of them sleepers and dining cars? Not much need for those on such a short corridor unless you're deadheading them through.
Aren't the rest of them sleepers and dining cars? Not much need for those on such a short corridor unless you're deadheading them through.
Can't speak for how the River Runner is operated nowadays, but go back 3-4 years when I was riding it regularly to commute between STL and my university, it typically had the Engine, 2-3 Amfleet coach cars, and a combination Cafe/Business class car. Dunno if it ever had a baggage car when I took it, but I believe I've seen it with one once or twice since then. It never had Viewliners though, so it probably is just a train heading to Chicago.
You know, I always wished they'd put a Superliner lounge on the River Runner someday though... if they did, I just might have to book a trip to my alma mater and bar hop or something. Maybe I'm just a stickler for lounge cars on trains.
^That sounds about the same as it was when I was riding . . . a few *mumble* years before that. They'd add a car or two over the holidays, but other than that it was pretty consistent and just what you remember even for me. (Save for the brief period when Amtrak was trying to do some express on the ends of things with those special boxcars they had at the time. But that was a long long time ago and didn't last very long at all.) The car minimum is a comparatively recent thing. When UP had thirty or more trains a day on that line they didn't have any trouble with the track circuits, but I gather things sit long enough now that a tiny patina of rust will sometimes form that insulates the rails and thereby defeats the occupancy detectors until enough cars have passed to wear it off. Not a problem with mile and a half freights that have five hundred axles or more. But with sixteen? The simplest solution is just to have a minimum axle count, so Amtrak is forced to pad with surplus equipment. I don't believe there's any other reason than that for the baggage cars. (Which could well be Viewliner II sometimes. Might be the only really obvious difference between the Horizon and Viewliner bags is the fluting on the bottom half.)
^I think I've seen baggage cars on the River Runner once or twice. UP requires a minimum axle count for the sake of track detectors, so Amtrak is or was adding extra cars to boost that. There are some Viewliner bags that could possibly have been shuffled through, I suppose. But apart from that I don't know why you'd want Viewliners on the Runner. Aren't the rest of them sleepers and dining cars? Not much need for those on such a short corridor unless you're deadheading them through.
I'm stumped on this one. Maybe they're experimenting using the dining cars as lounge cars???
Yes, they are just dining or sleeper cars. They only exist because the bi-level Superliners are too tall for the Hudson Tunnel getting into Penn Station in New York, and possibly various other tunnels east of the Mississippi.
I would say that they're just moving the car west but every Amtrak route west of the Mississippi can accommodate Superliners. And any route that is long enough to need sleepers is already running Superliners. They're not moving it East because they're built in New York. Plus if they were moving it West or East, they would have just tacked it onto the SW Chief and run it straight to Chicago.
Aren't the rest of them sleepers and dining cars? Not much need for those on such a short corridor unless you're deadheading them through.
Can't speak for how the River Runner is operated nowadays, but go back 3-4 years when I was riding it regularly to commute between STL and my university, it typically had the Engine, 2-3 Amfleet coach cars, and a combination Cafe/Business class car. Dunno if it ever had a baggage car when I took it, but I believe I've seen it with one once or twice since then. It never had Viewliners though, so it probably is just a train heading to Chicago.
I have used the River Runner a few times this year (will be on it again this month) and this is pretty much what it's always been. Couple coach cars and a combo business/cafe car. I've never seen a baggage car or any observation cars on the RR.
Sorry for always posting here but I just really like this thread. And this happens to be really big news for passenger rail.
U.S. Finally Legalizes Modern, European-Style Train Cars
Previous federal regulations on crash standards were completely outlandish compared to the rest of the world. Not only could we not import passenger cars from other countries, carriages had to be completely redesigned, often from scratch, to meet U.S. safety standards. As stated in the article, carriage designs from elsewhere in the world will need minimal adaptation for U.S. use. Due to Buy America regulations, I doubt we'll be allowed to buy carriages from other countries but we'll at least be able to use the designs. As for what this will mean for Amtrak crashes, it's okay to be skeptical. Amtrak crashes do still happen, although it's often due to drivers choosing to drive around crossing gates. As for more serious crashes, such as the Washington derailment or the rare freight collisions, I seriously doubt we'll see an increase in fatalities. Again, our previous regulations were completely excessive.
If you're wondering if this has to do with the Trump Admin deregulations, there has been talk of these rollbacks for well over the past 10 years and movement within the Federal Government since 2013 (including a huge push in the final days of the Obama admin). It just happen to become official today.
As for what this has to do with STL, since we've known about this for awhile, I fully expect that the new Siemens cars are being designed to these new standards. Although I haven't confirmed this.
Sorry for always posting here but I just really like this thread. And this happens to be really big news for passenger rail.
U.S. Finally Legalizes Modern, European-Style Train Cars
As for what this has to do with STL, since we've known about this for awhile, I fully expect that the new Siemens cars are being designed to these new standards. Although I haven't confirmed this.
Believe Siemen cars intended for River Runner service are the same design as already in Brightline FL service and therefore meet the previous, tougher FRA standards. So I don't believe this change really impacts River Runner service or the Lincoln Service in the near term. I think the bigger impact is the fact that the contract Siemens taking over from the Japanese firm will be utilizing single level coaches instead of the bi-level cars that where to meet the FRA car standards for 110 mph but failed the tests outright. Unfortunately, no capacity/set gains that the original order would have provided. Some can correct me on that or unless River Runner & Lincoln Service will be running with longer trainsets, more coach cars.
However, I wonder if Siemens will aggressively pursue a new110 mph bi-level car. That could be a big plus for Brightline capacity when adding train sets to extend service to Orlando & then onward to Tampa. The biggest winner in near term might be Caltrain on its project to electrify the peninsula route into San Fran. Caltrain still has a couple years to build out its catenary infrastructure and might be enough time for Caltrain & Seimens to capitalize on the rule change
Part of the $195 million finally released by the federal government as part of "BUILD":
(Basically the current administration's rebranding, and more highway friendly, version of the TIGER program)
City of Springfield, Ill.; $22 million for the Springfield Rail Improvements – Usable Segment IV, which is part of a larger effort to relocate the existing Amtrak/Union Pacific railroad corridor to a new expanded corridor adjacent to the existing Norfolk Southern tracks. Usable Segment IV replaces the existing single track bridge with two new double track bridges over both 5th and 6th Streets to accommodate the expanded corridor. It also includes grading and track work from north of 6th Street to Stanford Avenue.
This would mean that they'll need a new Amtrak station, which cities usually don't have a hard time financing. Not sure if this is a permanent change or just a relocation during upgrades of the current route, my guess is that it's permanent. While the current station is very well centrally located, this reroute isn't bad by any means. Just shifting from west-central downtown to the eastern side of downtown. One new rail bridge project has already taken place on this new alignment at Carpenter St.
A significant amount of dollars going into the plan? yes. But I have mixed thoughts. A big waste of money? not so sure because at some point you need some serious infrastructure investment through Chicago, Metro East and yes Springfield for grade separations & trackwork if you want meaningful decrease in travel time to be competitive with autos in this corridor. Otherwise, I don't think you get as much ridership increased as hoped simply wiht increased frequency & still a significant investment will be required in rolling stock as what you got now isn't being turned quickly enough
^That 3rd Street alignment is lousy any way you cut it. It's one grade crossing after another. Springfield wants it gone no matter what. It's not really about Amtrak. It's about wanting trains off 3rd Street. This reminds me a lot of a project in Lafayette Indiana some years back. Even used a Tiger grant, as I recall. NS and CSX moved from historic Wabash and Monon alignments that involved lots of grade crossings and street running to a new combined ROW along what had been an NYC alignment along the Wabash river. (Can't recall if it became NS or CSX in the great ConRail breakup. Doesn't really matter in this case, as they both use it now anyway.) Lafayette was dead convinced it was a great project. Eliminated nearly every grade crossing in town with the safety improvements that go with that. Gave Amtrak better speeds even without any equipment changes. And a nicer modernized station. (They picked up the NYC station and moved it entire onto a new foundation with entry on one floor and the tracks a floor below that.) Even the freight railroads liked it enough to contribute a little. (Which if you read the fine print they're probably doing here as well. A tithe, to be sure, but a real one.) This seems like a pretty similar project. Get rid of the grade crossings. Consolidate the freight lines to some extent. Give everyone a better route to make them happy. And as a kind of accidental bonus, oh by the way, Amtrak can also go faster.
To be really frank, there's absolutely no way that anything worth calling high speed rail could ever use the current alignment. At present there's about an eight mile stretch that can support an average speed of maybe twelve miles an hour. What's it take to get through Springfield? Forty-five minutes, maybe? Not counting the station stop? This project could cut that in half or maybe better. And there's nothing about the Siemens locomotives or any others that can fix this. The Shanghai Maglev would still have to slow down to exactly the same crawl as every drag freight through town if it had to follow that route. It's the alignment. This is a good project. It will save lives. It will make Springfield more walkable. You'll see the difference in the timetable immediately. Hell, it might help to reduce freight congestion on the line just because things will flow through town better. Fewer occasions of someone hogging on the main because they hit some idiot who ran a gate. This is almost as big a deal as the Merchants Bridge replacement. (It will absolutely have a more direct and noticeable impact on Amtrak.) But . . . it's not about Amtrak. Amtrak is barely a footnote. It would be a good idea if Amtrak didn't even serve Springfield. Wouldn't make a darn bit of difference.
Also note: this will put Amtrak back on the route past the old Wabash station that took Lincoln to DC and brought him home in the end. I'm altogether in favor of that. For reasons. See . . . there's already a station there. (Albeit a bit south of the one shown in the illustration.) It's a law office right now, but you know what? Lawyers can move. Put the Lincoln Service in the Lincoln Station.
Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox, but I actually like this one. Even if it does mean less cool street running in the future.
I've never really looked at the current Amtrak route thru Springfield before, at least not from any perspective other than the train window. Looking at streetview, I've never realized before how integrated it is with the street. I guess their long term intent is to abandon this ROW and turn it back into a street? This entire stretch of rail would have amazing greenway trail potential, would be a fun design project.
Looking a bit closer at the new route, I'm guessing Amtrak trains are going to have a pretty wicked turn at Grand Ave &15th. Hopefully upgrades are planned for that turn, there aren't event crossing gates yet.
One of these days I am going to show up to this thread and learn the journey to Chicago will now only take 4.5 hours and they have new passenger cars for the line........
When the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. When the seas go dry and mountains blow in the wind like leaves. When your womb quickens again, and you bear a living child. Then 110 mph trains will return, and not before.
One of these days I am going to show up to this thread and learn the journey to Chicago will now only take 4.5 hours and they have new passenger cars for the line........
And after that, they can implement a boarding system more respectful of passengers' time, like they have in the rest of the developed world. Not this get there 30-60 minutes early and wait in line BS.
And add a departure from STL that's post-dawn but still gets you there early enough to do something. That schedule of STL departures at 435a, 640a, 3p and 530p really, really needs something mid-day-ish in there.
Amtrak Plan to Expand Ridership Could Sidetrack Storied Trains
Railroad wants to offer more service between cities in fast-growing regions. That could mean swapping sleepers for passenger cars
Also posted this on another thread, but thought it would be relevant for this one as well:
Apologies for linking to a paywalled article, but the WSJ has a very interesting article on the challenges for high-speed rail in America, and it extensively uses the Chicago-St Louis example as a poster child for why the US cannot build decent high-speed rail. https://www.wsj.com/articles/high-speed ... 1551713342
"High-Speed Rail in the U.S. Remains Elusive: Illinois Shows Why
A $2 billion Chicago-St. Louis project will offer a top speed of just 110 mph and shave an hour off the trip"
Pretty pathetic. They built the transcontinental railroad in 4 years.
They put a man on the moon 50 years ago
But they can't figure out 110 mph trains
They're going to be ready soon for the 110 service. I don't think there is much doubt that higher speeds can be done but nobody wants to pay for it. Maybe with steady increase in passengers they can make the case to create a new ROW and separate the line from freight.
I haven't been following the development in California but it seems like a cluster. With so much money spent, what issues did they have?
I thought I had read somewhere that a big part of the reason for the delays in getting to 110MPH service was the issues with the new rail cars being behind schedule. Something about the current crop of coaches isn't able to run at 110MPH or something like that so they have to wait for delivery of these new cars before they can run at top speed.
For those interested, if you copy the link to the WSJ article and paste it into the box on outline.com you can get the text. I was a bit surprised to learn that more people travel between St. Louis and Chicago by train than by air. Car travel makes up about 97% of the more than 51 million travelers between the two cities in any given year.
