urbanSTL

Thanks to The Mayor, here is the outline of the article:

https://outline.com/eSPVU9

My understanding is that the basic problem is the following:
1) High speed rail European and Asian style requires a specific type of tracks
2) Acquiring the land to build those tracks plus environment permits is a very expensive and lengthy process

“Land acquisition alone [would] take half a decade,” says the Illinois Secretary of Transportation in the article.

None of this is particularly a mystery. It's not a "special sort of rail" so much as it is conventional rail built to particular standards: alignments with broader and super-elevated curves, more generous clearances, grade separated rights-of-way, lines separate and apart from freight lines and having high speed turnouts and crossovers and so forth, lines with heavier rail and roadbed to sustain the greater forces produced by trains traveling at higher speeds, and so on and so forth. The NE corridor already had much of this from the days of private rail service, since the Pennsylvania railroad had built a high speed electrified dedicated passenger line between DC and New York on their own nickel. Amtrak essentially inherited this line in the Penn-Central bankruptcy and they've been able to improve on it without too many obstacles. But everywhere else they were beholden to the otherwise solvent freight railroads to sign on to the project. They eventually all did so, but only with strings. They're not, after all, looking for competition. And gargantuan infrastructure projects like new railroad line four hundred miles long (just for a start) require substantial public support; support Amtrak has been largely unable to secure for a complex web of reasons starting with their own enabling legislation and radiating out from there through a web of interests that touches on the Highway gang, the airlines, and a host of interests that make money off the status quo. You want high speed railroads? vote for politicians that will support them. Hell, knock doors and phone bank for them. Until then . . . STFU, frankly. They're a societal-level project. That's what it will take. At a bare minimum. If that's a price you find too high to pay that's fine. But that's the game. There's only one way to play. If you don't want to ante up . . .

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Mar 06, 2019

. You want high speed railroads? vote for politicians that will support them.

Agree 100%. Afterall, we are talking about a country that undertakes defense and space projects that are completely out of reach for any country on Earth both scientifically and economically (except perhaps China) not being able to undertake an infrastructure project that any small European country can. It's all about political priorities.

Pretty minor news in the STL to Chicago route, an update to the earlier discussion of the new alignment through Springfield. The city would like to send the work out for bid in June. The most interesting bit is the first actual mention of a new Amtrak station, which we were all expecting of course. It's the last phase listed in the project, implying that the new station likely wouldn't open until after 2025. 

I was hoping for an update at the end of the article on the new higher speed time table or possibly mention of the new rolling stock but no such luck. 

https://www.sj-r.com/news/20190505/next ... cil-agenda

CREATE has been making some progress with untangling the Chicago rail web as of late and believe the Capital bill includes another $400 million towards it.  

However, not sure if any of these new funds will help Lincoln Service between downtown Chicago and Joilet but it would be nice to see if Illinois could work towards a seal corridor and faster speeds out of Chicago urban area.   

dredger wrote: However, not sure if any of these new funds will help Lincoln Service between downtown Chicago and Joilet but it would be nice to see if Illinois could work towards a seal corridor and faster speeds out of Chicago urban area.   

The Brighton Park project would but I don't know the status of it. 

For a state that's broke, Illinois sure spends a ton of money. 

Still waiting for the STL-CHI trains to go faster.

Still waiting for the STL-Alton trains to go faster. 

framer wrote: Still waiting for the STL-Alton trains to go faster. 

Well, that would require untangling the St. Louis rail web, and I think we all know Illinois isn't going to do that. For reasons.

Full statement from Midwest HSR Assoc.
https://www.midwesthsr.org/we-did-it-il ... s-and-more
Unfortunately nothing too exciting regarding the Lincoln Service route. Although the Chicago-Carbondale improvements could someday effect STL-CHI. Many on this thread and elsewhere have discussed that Chicago -> Champaign -> Springfield -> STL might be a better route in the future than the current Lincoln Service. 

chaifetz10 wrote: The biggest hurdle with that alignment is the interlocking / exchange / whatever the rail term is at Toledo, IL right?  If I'm remembering correctly (and I'm most likely not) wasn't this a major reason that Amtrak dropped Decatur back in 1971?  

I suspect you mean Tolono, where the Wabash line from Decatur to Fort Wayne and points east crossed the IC from Chicago to Paducah and points south. The old Wabash is easily the best route from St. Louis to Decatur, but the Wabash route from Decatur to Chicago was pulled from Forest north. And it never went through Champaign in any case, though it got you close. The IC had lines to all of the above places, but it would have been a circuitous route at best, since the St. Louis line ran through Springfield and Clinton, not Decatur. There is an interlocking at Tolono between the Wabash and IC that at one time appears to have included a couple of interchange tracks that would have allowed a train to transition from eastbound on the W. A. Bash to  northbound on the IC, but I don't think it was ever a major junction for either road. Alternately you could have gotten from St. Louis to Decatur and Champaign on the IT, but I doubt their tracks would have pleased Amtrak in the best of days, and most of that was pulled in the sixties in any case, if I recall correctly. So . . . failing that, you go via the old Alton route, which is what they do now. There's no reason you couldn't go St. Louis, Decator, Tolono, Champaign, Chicago. But you would have to rebuild the junction.

Also: a short bit of explanation. An interlocking is a type of junction where a mechanical device, called an interlocking machine, controlled the switches and signals. The "interlocks" between the handles and levers prevented an operator from selecting conflicting routes. So every interlocking is a junction of sorts, but not all junctions had interlockings. And interlockings do not necessarily facilitate interchange between different railroads or lines, though it is pretty common that they include that. (Not a lot of reason to have an interlocking for a simple crossing or "diamond." Those can be controlled entirely automatically, or even just with operating rules if traffic is light enough.) Short version: the terms are different, but they overlap quite a lot. Junction is pretty much always safe. (And you'll hear particular junctions referred to as tower, cabin, crossing, junction, station, and probably a host of other historic names I can't immediately think of. Just based on what the thing was called at one time a hundred fifty years ago.)

I was reading online that Columbus Ohio was complaining that they are the biggest city in the US without Amtrak service.  What are the chances of re-creating the line from St. Louis to Indy to Dayton to Columbus to Pittsburg, like the one I see in this Amtrak history map from 1971?

Zero

Columbus is the largest city without any kind of passenger rail. Technically Phoenix is the largest U.S. city without Amtrak service but there's a station about a 40 minute drive south of the city center. Nashville would be next largest city without intercity service. The only Amtrak station in TN is in Memphis. 
"Largest city without passenger rail" is an odd title though. Having commuter rail and/or having intercity service is pretty apples to oranges. Phoenix has a pretty good light rail system and Nashville has a commuter rail with 8 or 9 stops. 

god, damn it. i would love to have that St. Louis to Charlottesville via Indy route back. taking a train from the mid-Atlantic to anywhere in the Midwest between Chicago and New Orleans–what *should* be a viable 1-day train trip–becomes a 2- (if you're lucky) or 3-day cluster f*ck.

Had a fun one-night trip to KC on Amtrak Tuesday and Wednesday.  Wife and I walked to Kirkwood station Tuesday morning and rode bout 5 hours to KC.  Train arrived about 1/2 late.  Not bad.  Took the free streetcar to President Hilton restored old hotel at Power & Light.  Ubered to the game Tuesday evening -- my first time at "The K".  Beautiful stadium with tons of cool areas -- like the Craft and Draft area.  Took taxi home since pickup by taxi and Ubers are out in the middle of Lot A, instead of next to the stadium.  We took the first taxi back since we didn't want to try to find a called Uber in that chaos.  

Next morning after breakfast, we rode the free streetcar round trip to the City Market and back to Union Station.  Lots of Cards fans doing the same thing.  Then visited the WWI museum.  Not an easy climb in the heat from Union Station since museum door is on the other side and there are lots of ancient steps with no hand rails, which my wife requires.  So next time I'd uber to the South side of the museum from Union Station.  They didn't seem to anticipate that anyone with minor mobility issues would ever want to walk to the Museum from the station.  They just assumed everyone has a car.  

Took the 4PM train back last night.  But it didn't leave until about 5 PM because the 3 PM incoming train was 1.5 hours late.  We got back to Kirkwood about 11:00 instead of 9:00, which was not bad.  We sprang for business class on the way back and imbibed.  

We stopped at least twice on the way back between Dresden and Syracuse.  I looked on Google maps and saw that there is only one track through that span of 30 or so miles except for a tiny portion in the middle with 2 tracks.  So we had to stop and wait for a train going the other way at the start of the single track span.  Then again in the middle fo the span where there were 2 tracks for a short distance.   But it was a fun adventure we wanted to try it given we could easily walk to the Kirkwood station.  Lots of Cardinal Fans on the train.  

Took Amtrak back from Chicago today for the second time in a month.  Train left Chicago a few minutes late but was never more than 10 minutes behind schedule.  Arrived into Carlinville 7 minutes ahead of schedule, Alton 3 minutes ahead of schedule and St. Louis 20 minutes ahead of schedule.

Travel time from Alton to St. Louis was 36 minutes -- for an average speed of 45 mph.  

^I've been in the UK for a while now. The UK is not particularly known for its fast trains, but the difference between an LNER train from Edinburgh to Peterborough, and an Amtrak train from St. Louis to Chicago is nevertheless impressive. Similar distance. Similar number of station stops. But the train makes the journey in about four hours flat here and beats the highway by more than an hour. Mind you, beyond that the comparison isn't so dramatic, and shaving an hour off the trip isn't all that much. And at least part of the time they do seem to achieve those (modest) speeds and timings with diesel electric locomotives. (Train up was electric. Train back was diesel under pantograph. Not sure why. Maybe availability or demand. The train up was ridiculously overcrowded, so maybe they needed the flexibility to add more cars or even extra trains and that was what was available.) But the fact that it worked out the same both ways gives me hope we can improve without stringing wire everywhere. (At least a little.) There is no reason a four or fewer hour train you can step on and step off in the central cities quickly and easily couldn't compete with airlines, even on a short route. Saves drives to and from airports, security lines, and gets you a bigger seat in the deal. (And possibly food and more than one cup of coffee.) Anyway . . . enough ranting for now.

^You also can't take a plane from Davenport/Champaign/Memphis/Springfield to STL, but the "STL doesn't have the same service as the 3rd largest metro in the country" is a pretty hot take.

I always thought only the long distance trains were mostly federally funded. MO River Runner and all the Illinois routes are mostly funded by the states. If you look at similar cities like St. Louis in states like Missouri, STL is better connected by rail than any other. Most cities our size have ONLY long distance trains connecting them. Minneapolis has ONLY long distance, no regional. We have the River Runner, Illinois regional service to Chicago, plus the Texas Eagle heading southwest. That's three directions.

I'm not a fan of Amtrak by any means, especially their current leadership, but they've done nothing but grow rail ridership throughout the country for the last 30 years. What they've done to capture the NEC market is incredible. The Lincoln Service grows in ridership every year with growing reliability, although more credit goes to the Illinois government for winning federal funds and and itself funding upgrades to the corridor. The Lincoln Service upgrades has been a huge gift to St. Louis from the state of Illinois. If the two states had worked together, or if it were completely federally managed like it would have been in any other almost country, we'd have 110 mph speeds by now. 
Claiming that this is a subsidy to Chicago is flat out wrong and completely ignorant of urban economic contribution to state and the federal governments.