Moving the station from 3rd St stinks. It's a great location, more in the middle of things.dredger wrote: ↑Nov 19, 2021Springfield rail plan secured a RAISE grant (formerly BUILD, and TIGER).
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/do ... Sheets.pdf
This project will construct Usable Segment III of the Springfield Rail Improvements Project. The project includes: a new underpasses at Madison and Jefferson Streets, grading and trackwork from Capitol Avenue to Mason Street, and new grade crossing/pedestrian signals at Washington Street, Monroe Street, and Capitol Avenue. The proposed project is the third segment of the larger Springfield Rail Improvements Project which will double-track a portion of the Chicago to St. Louis Union Pacific freight and Amtrak passenger corridor for 110 mph services and relocate the existing Amtrak/Union Pacific Railroad corridor to a new expanded corridor adjacent to the existing Norfolk Southern tracks through Springfield.
It was a glitch. I just checked and all four Lincoln Services were less than 30% full on Jan 2. Amtrak's website is kind of awful and for some reason, it's not discussed nearly as much as it should. I was standing in 30th St station one time and was curious what an Acela ticket would cost. I was getting an error message on the app, website, and the kiosk in the station before getting schedule search results.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Nov 19, 2021I tried to get a late afternoon train from Chicago to stl on January 2, 2022 and it’s sold out, idk if it’s a glitch or a lot of people from here are going to Chicago for NYE
- 3,433
- 1,868
I don't think they have that many cars sitting around, particularly if it's a heavy travel day for the entire system. Certainly it's easier to add a car than to add a lane to a highway, but not that much easier.gary kreie wrote: ↑Nov 28, 2021Why are trains ever sold out. Can’t they just add a car? It’s not an airplane.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's assuming you have a car in the correct city that's clean with functional restrooms; there's extra staff in the correct city to crew and clean it; and the platforms, signaling, switching, and locomotives can handle additional cars. Do longer trains need to slow down for some bridges? Are there additional fees from the freight companies for more axles? I'm no expert but I'm sure Amtrak would happily take the extra revenue if they could.gary kreie wrote: ↑Nov 28, 2021Why are trains ever sold out. Can’t they just add a car? It’s not an airplane.
^ & ^^ As Mark and Aprice noted it comes down to old, outdated and insufficient number of railcars and trainsets. They had some success pursuing new equipment but the Infrastructure Bill signed by POTUS will have a big impact as part of it will go for rail car replacement, northeast upgrades/tunnel replacment and expansion. Summary from Wash Post article. Their is also a link to Amtrak's actual plan a page or two back in thread I believe
https://www.washingtonpost.com/transpor ... l-funding/
The infrastructure funding will help Amtrak upgrade its rolling stock over the next decade. Amtrak plans to replace nearly 40 percent of its rail car fleet by 2031, and is looking to remove its oldest cars, some of which have been in service for 45 years.
Amtrak signs deal for 83 multi-powered trains. Some will replace rail cars that are 50 years old.
Amtrak said in July it inked a contract with manufacturing company Siemens Mobility for 83 new train sets, part of a $7.3 billion plan to upgrade over the next decade. The carrier said at the time that Congress authorized $200 million for the rail cars, with the deal relying heavily on securing funding through the infrastructure bill.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/transpor ... l-funding/
The infrastructure funding will help Amtrak upgrade its rolling stock over the next decade. Amtrak plans to replace nearly 40 percent of its rail car fleet by 2031, and is looking to remove its oldest cars, some of which have been in service for 45 years.
Amtrak signs deal for 83 multi-powered trains. Some will replace rail cars that are 50 years old.
Amtrak said in July it inked a contract with manufacturing company Siemens Mobility for 83 new train sets, part of a $7.3 billion plan to upgrade over the next decade. The carrier said at the time that Congress authorized $200 million for the rail cars, with the deal relying heavily on securing funding through the infrastructure bill.
Lincoln Service and Texas Eagle Schedule Changes Due to Speed Increase
This is huge. I wasn't at all expecting to see 110 mph without another major investment. Maybe it's been going on behind the scenes, maybe the initial project was enough and it just took time.This is a step toward 110 mph schedules that are planned for the next 12 to 18 months. These improvements use federal grants and other funds from the Illinois Department of Transportation.
Yeah I'd all but given up on this happening, even just the increased speed times they just implemented. I mean they spent $1 billion on this project with the promise of increasing speeds to 110 mph, so I'm glad they're at least following through on that promise, even it is 5+ years late.
I'll also believe it when I see it.PeterXCV wrote: ↑Dec 13, 2021Yeah I'd all but given up on this happening, even just the increased speed times they just implemented. I mean they spent $1 billion on this project with the promise of increasing speeds to 110 mph, so I'm glad they're at least following through on that promise, even it is 5+ years late.
Plus does the $1 billion do anything to address the crawl between Joliet and Chicago?
Just checked the Lincoln Service and only one will save you 21 minutes the 4:30AM service.
The others will only save you 9 minutes when you do the math. (I compared my previous trips).
Driving takes me 4.5 hrs from my house in STL to my house in Chicago.
I take the train to help the region and environment but is not practical it all. They need minimum match the driving time.
Never do the Texas Eagle*** its always running late. Lincoln Service is regional STL to CHI and is on time most of the time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The others will only save you 9 minutes when you do the math. (I compared my previous trips).
Driving takes me 4.5 hrs from my house in STL to my house in Chicago.
I take the train to help the region and environment but is not practical it all. They need minimum match the driving time.
Never do the Texas Eagle*** its always running late. Lincoln Service is regional STL to CHI and is on time most of the time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 1,797
It’s very practical for people who place a $ value on their time.
I was under the impression the reason for the delay in achieving the higher speeds was because of the railroad’s delay in installing the positive train control system? Not due to any shortcomings with the infrastructure that’s been built.
Wasn’t the PTC supposed to be done years ago but Congress kept granting extensions? Anyway I thought it was something along those lines, I could be wrong though.
Wasn’t the PTC supposed to be done years ago but Congress kept granting extensions? Anyway I thought it was something along those lines, I could be wrong though.
You’re correct!! It has taken them a long time.sc4mayor wrote:I was under the impression the reason for the delay in achieving the higher speeds was because of the railroad’s delay in installing the positive train control system? Not due to any shortcomings with the infrastructure that’s been built.
Wasn’t the PTC supposed to be done years ago but Congress kept granting extensions? Anyway I thought it was something along those lines, I could be wrong though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The first attempt at installing signaling to support 110 failed. Otherwise the improbements have helped the ride. I hope new rolling stock results in a smoother ride.
Looks like about 5 fewer mins to Springfield. Judging form my last rides they could have shaved a few more off.
There's a video presentation of the project linked upthread. CHeck it out.
Looks like about 5 fewer mins to Springfield. Judging form my last rides they could have shaved a few more off.
There's a video presentation of the project linked upthread. CHeck it out.
Wow. The early morning express train is knocking on the door of under 5hrs at 5hrs and 9 mins. Hopefully the upgrades in the next 12-18 months get them there. That'd be a great barrier to break.aprice wrote: ↑Dec 13, 2021Lincoln Service and Texas Eagle Schedule Changes Due to Speed Increase
This is huge. I wasn't at all expecting to see 110 mph without another major investment. Maybe it's been going on behind the scenes, maybe the initial project was enough and it just took time.This is a step toward 110 mph schedules that are planned for the next 12 to 18 months. These improvements use federal grants and other funds from the Illinois Department of Transportation.
It will be good when PTC is finally settled and resolved which seems finally about to happen as per Aprice post and link.
Going back to Dweebe's comments the bigger issue going forward is how do you address a lot slow corridors through urban areas in part that railroad and highway/street right of ways intersect mostly at grade and the fact that freight didn't have to go fast. Yes a grade separation project here and there in urban areas but still far from ideal. Most projects to date they have been about picking low hanging fruit in rural areas whether it Lincoln Service corridor which has seen most of the investment between Joliet and Alton, or Amtrak's Detroit corridor with most of the investment in rural Michigan, and even Cali HSR went all in on the cheaper Central Valley sections hoping for enough momentum.
The big infrastructure will give Amtrak a much needed boost and tackle a much needed fleet replacement and NEC infrastructure. But I'm also hoping that Amtrak won't go all in on route expansion while keeping existing corridor improvements outside of NEC moving at a snail's pace. It would be nice if a balance can be found. Otherwise, what is the up side of more service to Iowa and Rockford for limited ridership gain if you can't make a meaningful improvement on existing service and therefore an opportunity for significant ridership gain on larger metro areas already served.
As far as competition for rail/transit funds , In my neck of woods you got desire for rail/transit funds to keep BART expansion/tunnel to and through downtown San Jose apace, desire to keep Caltrains electrification apace while spending another couple billion to tunnel/extend from 4th street station into the new Transbay Center. Nor does that cover a tentative plan to add 3rd/4th track through Richmond/Berkeley/Oakland area for future Capital Corridor expansion on a busy freight corridor into Port of Oakland. Southern California has a host of big ticket rail investments including a mile long tunnel between SD & LA to get coastal rail route away from eroding shoreline/bluff as well as adding more rail capacity. Throw in the fact that Brightline is floating a propose rail connecting their western express with Cali HSR & current metrolink service. Plenty of big ticket worthwhile rail projects out there.
Going back to Dweebe's comments the bigger issue going forward is how do you address a lot slow corridors through urban areas in part that railroad and highway/street right of ways intersect mostly at grade and the fact that freight didn't have to go fast. Yes a grade separation project here and there in urban areas but still far from ideal. Most projects to date they have been about picking low hanging fruit in rural areas whether it Lincoln Service corridor which has seen most of the investment between Joliet and Alton, or Amtrak's Detroit corridor with most of the investment in rural Michigan, and even Cali HSR went all in on the cheaper Central Valley sections hoping for enough momentum.
The big infrastructure will give Amtrak a much needed boost and tackle a much needed fleet replacement and NEC infrastructure. But I'm also hoping that Amtrak won't go all in on route expansion while keeping existing corridor improvements outside of NEC moving at a snail's pace. It would be nice if a balance can be found. Otherwise, what is the up side of more service to Iowa and Rockford for limited ridership gain if you can't make a meaningful improvement on existing service and therefore an opportunity for significant ridership gain on larger metro areas already served.
As far as competition for rail/transit funds , In my neck of woods you got desire for rail/transit funds to keep BART expansion/tunnel to and through downtown San Jose apace, desire to keep Caltrains electrification apace while spending another couple billion to tunnel/extend from 4th street station into the new Transbay Center. Nor does that cover a tentative plan to add 3rd/4th track through Richmond/Berkeley/Oakland area for future Capital Corridor expansion on a busy freight corridor into Port of Oakland. Southern California has a host of big ticket rail investments including a mile long tunnel between SD & LA to get coastal rail route away from eroding shoreline/bluff as well as adding more rail capacity. Throw in the fact that Brightline is floating a propose rail connecting their western express with Cali HSR & current metrolink service. Plenty of big ticket worthwhile rail projects out there.
StlToday - Trains on Amtrak’s St. Louis-Chicago route now running at up to 90 mph
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... f536d.html
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... f536d.html
- 1,868
I like trains. My wife hates when I play gameboy while I'm driving.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Dec 13, 2021It’s very practical for people who place a $ value on their time.
I take it this represents some occasional speed boosts along the route, but there is still more to be done to hit 4 hours? Or is this as good as it gets unless they untangle the urban portion of the track?
Goal is 110MPH Max! But I wish we had a HSR that could make it in two hours or less.MarkHaversham wrote:I like trains. My wife hates when I play gameboy while I'm driving.JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Dec 13, 2021It’s very practical for people who place a $ value on their time.
I take it this represents some occasional speed boosts along the route, but there is still more to be done to hit 4 hours? Or is this as good as it gets unless they untangle the urban portion of the track?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To coincide with the speed increase announcement and the hope for more on-time trains, now would be a good time to roll out the new Venture rail cars. It would really change perceptions of Amtrak (maybe).
- 1,868
I was really excited about the possibility of HSR back in 2008 or whatever. At this point I've admitted that if it ever happens, I'll be an old man by then.JJ Taino wrote: ↑Dec 14, 2021Goal is 110MPH Max! But I wish we had a HSR that could make it in two hours or less.
I know! The USA overall is so behind in HSR. Its actually embarrassing. I loved it when I lived in Germany.MarkHaversham wrote:I was really excited about the possibility of HSR back in 2008 or whatever. At this point I've admitted that if it ever happens, I'll be an old man by then.JJ Taino wrote: ↑Dec 14, 2021Goal is 110MPH Max! But I wish we had a HSR that could make it in two hours or less.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Pathetic
StlToday - Amtrak cites lack of state funding in cutting service in Missouri
StlToday - Amtrak cites lack of state funding in cutting service in Missouri
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... f4a64.htmlAccording to MoDOT, the projected cost to fund one daily round trip is $9.1 million. The projected cost to fund twice daily round trips is $13.25 million.
By comparison, the current budget for Amtrak approved by the Republican-controlled General Assembly and signed by Gov. Mike Parson allocated $8 million.
^ Yep, pretty pathetic of MO considering the bump up in cash that the state will get from the formula based renewal of the five year transportation act/funding & infrastructure bill but not surprising.
The only other option I can think of is ST, KC and Jeff City with their Restore or Fed transit funds doing cost share with state. State supports one RT serving all stop and the city pair does second RT w limited stops. Of course not ideal but St Louis and KC have most to gain by maintaining or even trying to expand corridor service. Heck, I still think St. Louis and KC should collaborate with IL/Memphis and New Orleans to extend River Runner./pursue new mid gulf state long distance train.
The only other option I can think of is ST, KC and Jeff City with their Restore or Fed transit funds doing cost share with state. State supports one RT serving all stop and the city pair does second RT w limited stops. Of course not ideal but St Louis and KC have most to gain by maintaining or even trying to expand corridor service. Heck, I still think St. Louis and KC should collaborate with IL/Memphis and New Orleans to extend River Runner./pursue new mid gulf state long distance train.
I'd think that, on a relative basis, Washington, Hermann, Jeff City, Sedalia, and Warrensburg also have a lot to gain by maintaining their current, albeit very basic, level of Amtrak service.dredger wrote: ↑Dec 14, 2021Of course not ideal but St Louis and KC have most to gain by maintaining or even trying to expand corridor service.