If passed in its current form, Trump's budget would pretty much kill rail travel in this country. Chicago to St. Louis isn't being threatened but just about every other line west of Philly is under serious threat.
- 1,610
One of the new locomotives in Springfield. No idea when they'll be in service, when the trains will run faster, when time comes off the schedule, nor when there will be more service.
![]()
New Alton station
![]()
![]()
Good lookin' transit center. Is it possible Alton, IL has a nicer transit center than the City of St. Louis? 
- 3,431
When will they start high speed travel to Chicago. Amtrak schedules still show 5 hrs and 20 minutes.
https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/253/377/Il ... 0117,0.pdf
https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/253/377/Il ... 0117,0.pdf
Actually it's closer. 3.5 miles now. 2.9 at the new place. (I used Tony's on 3rd Street as downtown). Depending on where you want to go downtown that could change though. Plus, now it's set up at a transit station with the busses. The old station was hidden away and not very transit friendly. I think it's a big upgrade personally.
There isn't a firm timeline. They have said before the end of the year but I think that's optimistic. I have a feeling it won't be til next spring.gary kreie wrote: When will they start high speed travel to Chicago. Amtrak schedules still show 5 hrs and 20 minutes.
https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/253/377/Il ... 0117,0.pdf
It's like they're in a competition with the Loop Trolley to see who can be the latest.
Stltoday.com - Aug 6 - Bus service begins at new Alton train station; Amtrak likely to follow next month
http://www.stltoday.com/news/traffic/al ... bd5c6.html
http://www.stltoday.com/news/traffic/al ... bd5c6.html
Too bad the Bi-Level car order that was supposed to be built by Japanese for Illinois, Missouri and California got screwed up. I don't think they even got a prototype to even pass the FRA crash test which amazes me considering who the builder is.
I believe the Federal Funding that was awarded in 2012 expires September of this year not mistaken & be surprised if this administration would go out of its way to extend it..
So the new engine is the one with the giant "X" on the side? That thing is huge! Anyone know what the horsepower is?
- 1,868
So what does that mean, we're all going to have to ride on top of the new engine?dredger wrote: ↑Aug 15, 2017Too bad the Bi-Level car order that was supposed to be built by Japanese for Illinois, Missouri and California got screwed up. I don't think they even got a prototype to even pass the FRA crash test which amazes me considering who the builder is.
I believe the Federal Funding that was awarded in 2012 expires September of this year not mistaken & be surprised if this administration would go out of its way to extend it..
- 6,123
Per wiki it's around four thousand horsepower at the wheel. It's apparently rated for just a little more, but when you subtract out hotel power that four grand figure is probably about right. Honestly, it's only incrementally better than the late GE Genesis locomotives. The biggest advantage is that it's supposed to have a very slightly higher top speed, but . . . it's still not really all that fast. We're not talking bullet speeds, just 125. The steam roads did that in the forties from time to time. Heck, they broke the hundred mile an hour mark in the 1890s. I'm . . . not seeing where this thing is supposed to be so much better. It's got a smaller prime mover, so maybe it's more efficient, but the locomotive is reported at about the same overall weight. And it's Cummins, who've never made locomotive prime movers before. We'll see how well it stacks up in the maintenance department against the big two.
Anyway, if you're interested, it's all on wiki. I've found their rail materials to be generally fairly accurate. Should be at least as accurate as the latest issue of TRAINS, and maybe a bit better.
The above is the [urlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Charger]Siemens SC-44 Charger[/url].
I am comparing it to your usual midwestern Amtrak power, which would be the GE P42DC Genesis..
Here's to hoping it helps, but the bigger issue by far is the track structure. Even the humble EMD F40PH of the 80s was capable of exceeding a hundred miles an hour . . . if the track would take it. In practice there's been a speed limit on virtually all US rail save the NE corridor of 79 mph since the sixties I believe it was. And most of the time you can't even get to that. (Nowhere in the city, for instance, almost all of which is yard limits, so 12 mph is your best case, mostly. It improves once you're past the city limits a bit, but the first place you hit 79 outside of the city to the west was past Eureka, I think. And you'll not do any better to the east, since that's where most of the yards are. Haven't been involved in a while, so my information is dated. (And I was volunteer train crew for a history organization, not a paid railroader. And low grade at that. So take it with at least a grain of salt. We ran a real train on real railroads, but I was the junior trainee kid at the very end of the game.) Anyway . . . It's pretty, but so much more is needed. And bigger gains can be made in the places the wheels go than the stuff above the wheels. And even that probably won't be enough to compete with the sleek jet aeroplanes for warm bodies. Though on shorter routes smaller gains might make a bigger difference. And Chicago isn't that far, so . . . maybe? Can't imagine it'll ever again be a money maker, but if it loses less and gets you there faster and in greater comfort that'd be a nice touch.
Hotel power?
Aren't these supposed to have faster acceleration?
How much speed can you expect from a diesel-electric? Won't much faster require electrification? Grade separation? Passenger-only ROW?
Aren't these supposed to have faster acceleration?
How much speed can you expect from a diesel-electric? Won't much faster require electrification? Grade separation? Passenger-only ROW?
- 1,610
I assume "Hotel Power" is for powering the passenger cars - electricity, A/C, etc.
- 6,123
Sorry. Ricke002 is correct. Hotel power is jargon for things not related to pulling the train: lights, air conditioning, and anything else that borrows power from the generator.
As to how much faster a Diesel Electric could possibly go I couldn't say. I'd be inclined to think a great deal faster under the right conditions, but that's an engineering question. A traction motor is a traction motor is a traction motor, whether there's a diesel above it or not. Well, that's not quite true, but electric locomotives do basically use the same kinds of motors. The fundamental difference is that a diesel carry's the power plant onboard. I can't immediately see a reason you couldn't tow a generator large enough to power a bullet train behind a bullet train. It would probably accelerate more slowly, as the peak power required to accelerate is a lot higher than the sustained power required to keep it going. While a base-load power station doesn't care a small onboard diesel generator does. But good design might get you around some of that. You'll never make it as efficient, since electrics get to put their fuel and generators a hundred miles away in plants that can operate at a fixed RPM with little vibration and all the best constant TLC, but I can't really see any good reason the potential top speed should be enormously different.
Of course the grade separation and Passenger-only do basically apply. Which is why I was saying the bigger gains are to be had in improving the tracks below the train than the locomotives in front of it. Faster acceleration is nice, but really only a big deal on transit that starts and stops every few blocks. For long haul top speed really is more important. Let's say the electric accelerates from zero to max in five minutes and the diesel in ten. Even if it's that big a difference you'd still be talking a difference of less than an hour on the Chicago run. And if you make some of the trains express rather than local the problem is reduced to five minutes. (And I can't believe it's remotely that obnoxious or there wouldn't be diesels in commuter service.) On long runs nobody really cares about that kind of difference. (Which is related to why the Concorde failed.) The reason electric wins is because it's much more fuel efficient. Which makes a VERY big difference to the bottom line on the high traffic routes. And . . . real high speed rail routs tend to be the routes that get the most traffic, not the ones where the high speed would necessarily save you the most time. A lot of people saving an hour is probably worth a lot more in dollars than a few people saving a lot of hours. Especially when you add in the cost differential in improving those long routes. Per passenger it's got to be brutal.
So the real question is whether there's a way to make high speed cheap. Fast diesels could be a part of that. This Siemens locomotive isn't actually fast. It's . . . okay. Not horrendously pokey, but not really substantially faster than a passenger locomotive from 1890. It's really just the new diesel that Amtrak would want anyway. The Genesis locomotives are pushing a quarter century at this point. Probably past, actually. Nearing end of life. Time for the new thing that gets better gas mileage and makes less noise and so forth. Maybe has a better cupholder for the crew. And if it also accelerates a bit faster I'm sure that's great, but I don't really guess that'd be the major selling point.
I'd guess that dedicated passenger lines would make the biggest difference, but they'd also cost the most, since that's new rail all the way from here to Chicago. That's how you do real high speed rail: you build a new line specially for new trains that go fast. After that grade separation projects help the second most. And measures to decrease rail congestion in St. Louis and Chicago. Amtrak is in fact pursuing both, and I'd guess that's really where they expect to see their improvement. New locomotives probably help the least, but since they're needed anyway there's really no reason not to do it. Functionally that's more or less free. It's basically a sunk cost. Price of doing business. You have to do it anyway, so why not get the most out of it, even if that most is rather modest?
Further, those Siemens locomotives probably have positive train control and much more advanced cab signalling and communications. I don't think the GE Genesis kids have positive train control. Or at least I doubt they did when new. And I think is actually required for operating beyond 79 mph. You could retrofit it, of course. And it may well be Amtrak is doing that too, selectively. And I'm sure they are quieter, more fuel efficient, and probably burn cleaner to boot. I've no doubt they're better. They're much newer. Much has changed in the last twenty five years. I wish they were faster. But if wishes were fishes . . . There are doubtless lots of good reasons that paying the cost of that extra speed would be wasted money. My only real question is whether they'll be reliable. They might be. They might not. New manufacturer in the industry. That can be . . . interesting. The new kid tends to either succeed or fail in spectacular fashion. Either way, it will be interesting.
More double-tracking would be where to spend next (if $ only for hardware), unless I'm missing something.
Wish all this came with more service.
Wish all this came with more service.
- 6,123
Indeed yes, double tracking would help a great deal. For some reason I was thinking the route was already double tracked, but I've not ridden the rails to Chicago in a very long time indeed. (I rode most often between Jefferson City and St. Louis.) If there are single track sections, especially if they're more than just bottlenecks at bridges, that might help quite a lot. And it would certainly be cheaper than major projects in the two terminal areas.
Yes, it is mostly single-tracked. They've added sidings. I think there's be more true double-track added near Joliet. On my last trip SPI-STL we passed three northbound and one southbound train thanks to the sidings. Still caused delays, even though we got to STL ~10 mins ahead of schedule.
If no more service is possible, at least some more varied departure times would be nice. Not counting the Texas Eagle, northbound trains depart at 4:35am, 6:40am, 3pm and 5:30pm.
Those trains two-ish hours apart would be more useful if they were a bit more evenly spread.
Those trains two-ish hours apart would be more useful if they were a bit more evenly spread.
I think it's like that because the morning ones turn around and comes back the same day.
It' be huge if they could get fast enough to go back and forth more times in a day. Saves on labor costs too.
It' be huge if they could get fast enough to go back and forth more times in a day. Saves on labor costs too.
- 3,235
So what is the time it takes to travel between Chicago and St Louis via train? Are the delays still bad?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk