Not to mention the local steamboat lobby.
- 6,119
^They didn't help, but it was really every bit as geographically inevitable as our status as a river town was in the first place. The river really is just that much harder to bridge here, and the south lost the war. So places that served as a bridge to the south lost out too as economic activity and population shifted north. Add to it that, at the time, Chicago was probably an easier place to do business, with less regulation and less entrenched power and the rest is history. It's popular to blame the boat boys, but I'm not really sure how much of a difference that few extra years would have made. And keeping the river open to navigation really is a legitimate concern. Everybody is complaining about the closures now. Imagine how much more of an impact a yearlong loss of navigation between the upper and lower Mississippi would have had then. (If traditional centering had been used, getting in the way of navigation, say.)
- 1,610
Fun & off-topic fact (and possibly historically inaccurate), Abraham Lincoln's first case as a lawyer was defending the railroads when steamboat rammed into the first railroad crossing over the Mississippi. Case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The bridge was allowed to stand.
https://www.iowapbs.org/iowapathways/my ... ffie-afton
https://www.iowapbs.org/iowapathways/my ... ffie-afton
Amtrak is testing 110mph. Assuming all goes well should be operational this year.
I thought they already were doing 110 in stretches. I assume this extends that?
No they raised the top speed to 90 mph like a year or two ago. I will say that they have been testing 110 mph for like 10 years lol.jshank83 wrote: ↑Apr 26, 2023I thought they already were doing 110 in stretches. I assume this extends that?
Plus wasn't that 90mph a real short stretch and barely enough to change the timetables?
Also, Illinois finally had its first meeting for the high speed rail commission established by law in 2021.
https://idot.illinois.gov/transportatio ... ssion.html
First meeting was basic. Chicago to St. Louis is still the primary focus. Seems that some on the commission already prefers St. Louis > Springfield > Champaign > Chicago.
RFP going out this month for a planning/engineering firm to develop concept routing and operations.
https://idot.illinois.gov/transportatio ... ssion.html
First meeting was basic. Chicago to St. Louis is still the primary focus. Seems that some on the commission already prefers St. Louis > Springfield > Champaign > Chicago.
RFP going out this month for a planning/engineering firm to develop concept routing and operations.
The timetables did change, not a ton but noticeably imo. Travel time between STL and Chicago fell from 5 hours 40 minutes to 5 hours 25 minutes.dweebe wrote: ↑Apr 26, 2023Plus wasn't that 90mph a real short stretch and barely enough to change the timetables?
- 985
Isn't that the preferred line on any proposed 200-220 mph rail line? Recall one reason for that preference is that from Champaign you can then branch off for a line to Indianapolis and have more than one route use the same rail line.addxb2 wrote: ↑Apr 26, 2023Also, Illinois finally had its first meeting for the high speed rail commission established by law in 2021.
https://idot.illinois.gov/transportatio ... ssion.html
First meeting was basic. Chicago to St. Louis is still the primary focus. Seems that some on the commission already prefers St. Louis > Springfield > Champaign > Chicago.
RFP going out this month for a planning/engineering firm to develop concept routing and operations.
- 2,419
It also would just make more sense for the state of Illinois in the same way that having rail go through Columbia instead of Jefferson City would for Missouri.
Bring on Brightline Midwest ❤addxb2 wrote: ↑Apr 26, 2023Also, Illinois finally had its first meeting for the high speed rail commission established by law in 2021.
https://idot.illinois.gov/transportatio ... ssion.html
First meeting was basic. Chicago to St. Louis is still the primary focus. Seems that some on the commission already prefers St. Louis > Springfield > Champaign > Chicago.
RFP going out this month for a planning/engineering firm to develop concept routing and operations.
Maybe an STL>Springfield>Champaign>Chicago route makes sense as part of a much bigger route to Indianapolis or whatever.
But it seems like it'd be a massive expenditure for little gain. How many people want to go from Springfield to Champaign? Decatur's probably too close to Champaign to draw much ridership. There's probably few riders south of Springfield going to Champaign. And Chicago traffic is already served with the Chicago-Champaign-Carbondale route.
Plus that route from Champaign to Chicago requires a time-consuming backup move to get into and out of Union Station. So that's another expenditure.
Also, no Brightline. State-funded rail ran while Brightline shut down for more than 1.5 years for the pandemic in a state that mostly ignored the pandemic.
But it seems like it'd be a massive expenditure for little gain. How many people want to go from Springfield to Champaign? Decatur's probably too close to Champaign to draw much ridership. There's probably few riders south of Springfield going to Champaign. And Chicago traffic is already served with the Chicago-Champaign-Carbondale route.
Plus that route from Champaign to Chicago requires a time-consuming backup move to get into and out of Union Station. So that's another expenditure.
Also, no Brightline. State-funded rail ran while Brightline shut down for more than 1.5 years for the pandemic in a state that mostly ignored the pandemic.
- 1,792
Its a tough call. I think Champaign makes sense because of UofI and the potential ridership among college aged people. People of that age are both more open to rail transit and potentiallly dependant on it. Unfortunately Illinois geography is such that any route between St. Louis and Chicago will at most serve three of the five major population centers in the state. Peoria, Bloomington Normal, Decatur and Urbana Champaign. On balance i think the Champaign route is better but its not definitive.
I also think Missouri ahs a similar challenge choosing between Columbia and Jeff City. I wish i could go back in time and convince the state legistlature of 1821 to locate JeffCity roughly where Rocheport is today along the Missouri. Then It would be very obvious the best wat to route transit would follow through the state. Or maybe convince the legistlature of 1839 to put MU in Jeff City. Either or really.
I also think Missouri ahs a similar challenge choosing between Columbia and Jeff City. I wish i could go back in time and convince the state legistlature of 1821 to locate JeffCity roughly where Rocheport is today along the Missouri. Then It would be very obvious the best wat to route transit would follow through the state. Or maybe convince the legistlature of 1839 to put MU in Jeff City. Either or really.
I definitely think capturing the college crowd would the right choice for any new route as a higher-percentage car-free and mobile population that's more open to efficient train travel. I think the state would definitely be better if MU was in Jeff City, but then if we're waving the magic wand I'd put both the capital and university in St Louis.
- 1,792
I was wondering if the engines for AmTrak are much smaller because they don't have to pull the shear mass of a 100 fully loaded freight cars and ran into this article which was pretty interesting. Not specific to the Midwest, but could be because while they are investigating new routes and upgrades maybe electrification of the route should be a consideration.
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/02/07/europe-china-india-can-electrify-all-rail-why-cant-the-us/
Pretty interesting that a lot of the trains are actually driven by electric motors at the wheel with a diesel powerplant. I wouldn't even assume that freight should be the first candidate to electrify. To me passenger rail makes more sense as the relative length and weight of the train has to be much less energy intensive to accelerate. Not sure how a catenary-tied power negatively affects top speed, i assume there is some limit. In the grand scheme of things passenger rail is low on the list of carbon generators in the US but piloting the technology in the US for a highspeed rail corridor is not a bad idea IMHO.
Also score another dunce cap for the privatized rail system in the US.
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/02/07/europe-china-india-can-electrify-all-rail-why-cant-the-us/
Pretty interesting that a lot of the trains are actually driven by electric motors at the wheel with a diesel powerplant. I wouldn't even assume that freight should be the first candidate to electrify. To me passenger rail makes more sense as the relative length and weight of the train has to be much less energy intensive to accelerate. Not sure how a catenary-tied power negatively affects top speed, i assume there is some limit. In the grand scheme of things passenger rail is low on the list of carbon generators in the US but piloting the technology in the US for a highspeed rail corridor is not a bad idea IMHO.
Also score another dunce cap for the privatized rail system in the US.
They did some testing in 2017. I clocked it at 110 on two different stretches with a GPS app.jshank83 wrote: ↑Apr 26, 2023I swear I did 110 on it a decade ago up by Dwight.
- 2,630
I was actually in Decatur yesterday and was surprised to find that they don't have a train station. Yes. the city is in pretty deep decline but it's still pretty populous (68k) with a decent sized university. Proximity to Champaign and Springfield aside, it has to be the biggest city in Illinois without Amtrack?
Also, living car free would have been so much easier at Mizzou if I could take Amtrack. Super underrated amenity in a college town. IMO that's the reason Champaign has such a higher car free student population than COMO despite being fairly similar cities.
Also, living car free would have been so much easier at Mizzou if I could take Amtrack. Super underrated amenity in a college town. IMO that's the reason Champaign has such a higher car free student population than COMO despite being fairly similar cities.
Rockford, Peoria, and Quad Cities don't, though they have their bus service.
It's been amazing how IDOT has maintained that Amtrak service to Rockford and the Quad Cities is like 2 years away for over 10 years.
- 6,119
It perpetually saddens me that NS pulled up the old Wabash from Decatur to Chicago. One could, I suppose dodge from the Alton to the Wabash in Springfield, take that to Decatur, and then jump on the IC in Decatur and take that to Chicago, but you'd lose Bloomington-Normal. I think a better answer would be a train running from Kansas City to Detroit via Moberly, Hannibal, and Decatur and a second running from Memphis to Minneapolis via St. Louis, Hannibal, and the Quad Cities. Between the two you could get a lot of connectivity that's presently missing.GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑Apr 28, 2023I was actually in Decatur yesterday and was surprised to find that they don't have a train station. Yes. the city is in pretty deep decline but it's still pretty populous (68k) with a decent sized university. Proximity to Champaign and Springfield aside, it has to be the biggest city in Illinois without Amtrack?
Also, living car free would have been so much easier at Mizzou if I could take Amtrack. Super underrated amenity in a college town. IMO that's the reason Champaign has such a higher car free student population than COMO despite being fairly similar cities.
Also, you're dead right about the lack of service to Columbia. I used to have friends drop me off in Jeff City fairly regularly. Would have been much more pleasant if there were a bus on the route.
- 1,291
Was definitely a huge convenience having Amtrak in Warrensburg while I was going to college.