# Ambitious restoration and transformation in the Chicago area



## George K (Feb 17, 2016)

Interesting plans. More restaurants, mixed-use, wider platforms....

http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2016/02/17/union-stations-ambitious-restoration-and-redevelopment-plan.php


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Feb 17, 2016)

That's a great article. Good enuff to leave me feeling optimistic.


----------



## George K (Feb 17, 2016)

I was there last Thursday night. Obvious that *something's* going on, but not apparent in my walk from the Metra platforms (south concourse) through the Amtrak area to Canal street.

However, once I got outside, I saw that the cab stands had been moved from the east side of Canal to the west.

Sounds good, though, doesn't it?


----------



## Manny T (Feb 17, 2016)

Here's a link to a live stream of the panel.



I've often thought Amtrak may be better at being a landlord than an operator of passenger rail service.


----------



## tim49424 (Feb 17, 2016)

George K said:


> I was there last Thursday night. Obvious that *something's* going on, but not apparent in my walk from the Metra platforms (south concourse) through the Amtrak area to Canal street.
> 
> However, once I got outside, I saw that the cab stands had been moved from the east side of Canal to the west.
> 
> Sounds good, though, doesn't it?


I'll be there tomorrow for the day. I'll check out what can be seen.


----------



## SarahZ (Feb 17, 2016)

I was all over Union Station last Friday and Sunday and only noticed the cab stand had relocated to the other side of Canal Street. It was a bit of a cluster, as people were trying to board the cabs that were dropping people off at the normal drop-off.

They also had the entrance enclosed with one of those weather tents you see at weddings and such. I'm not sure if it was because of the subzero temps or something else. To add to this mayhem, they only had one door open. The others were blocked with yellow tape and construction cones.

The ceiling tiles along the south concourse had been removed, but I figured that was their way of ensuring the pipes didn't freeze and perform a repeat of last year's shenanigans.

Also, they had another promotional photo in the lounge, but I forgot to take a picture of it.

Oh, and the lounge had a bunch of new, blue chairs and loveseats. The material was durable and comfortable, and the color was pretty awesome. I'm not sure how long those have been in there.


----------



## cirdan (Feb 18, 2016)

George K said:


> Interesting plans. More restaurants, mixed-use, wider platforms....
> 
> http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2016/02/17/union-stations-ambitious-restoration-and-redevelopment-plan.php


I wonder what the implication of wider platforms is.

Does this mean fewer platforms?


----------



## caravanman (Feb 18, 2016)

"I wonder what the implication of wider platforms is." ... 

The answer could be they will be needed because the new station will have "more restaurants", and therefor wider passengers...   

Ed.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Feb 18, 2016)

cirdan said:


> George K said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting plans. More restaurants, mixed-use, wider platforms....
> ...


They are tearing out the old baggage platforms that are adjacent to tracks 8 and 12, moving the tracks where the platforms were, and widening the platforms. The two wider platforms will each receive 3 staircases and an elevator, so those platforms can be accessed directly from street level. This primarily benefits users of Metra's BNSF commuter rail service, which currently boasts more riders than any other line operating out of Union Station. There will be no reduction in the number of passenger platforms.


----------



## andersone (Feb 18, 2016)

I am glad the Chicago Fire Marshal wasn't around,,,, you cant put a table in front of an exit,,,, Where is Mayor Daley (Sr - "His Honor") when we need him


----------



## Manny T (Feb 18, 2016)

As explained at the roundtable, there are mail platforms adjacent to some of the passenger platforms. The mail platforms are not currently in use--they have ramps that lead downstairs rather than into the passenger corridors. The plan is to renovate the ramps so they go into the station, rather than down, and then join the mail platforms to the passenger platforms. This will widen the platforms, relieve METRA congestion, and allow two Metra trains to load or unload at the same time.

One of the things you get from the presentation is a sense of how small Amtrak's operation is to the operation of CUS, present and future. It's not the primary tenant now, Metra is, and it will be even less so in the future, when the entire bldg. is occupied.


----------



## MisterUptempo (May 25, 2017)

Amtrak and the City of Chicago have chosen a winner from four developer bids for its plans to redevelop Chicago Union Station and adjacent parcels. Invoking Fair Use, posting portions of an article from Crain's Chicago Business - http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20170524/BLOGS02/170529932



> Chicago Union Station redevelopment gets a developer - Blogs On PoliticsGreg Hinz on Politics
> 
> City Hall and Amtrak have selected a real estate firm to lead an ambitious, $1-billion-plus redevelopment of Union Station and land adjacent to the historic structure for a variety of commercial uses.
> 
> ...


-snip-



> Riverside's project—a full contract still has to be negotiated—is separate from efforts by the city and Amtrak to get up to $1 billion in federal funds to renovate and expand the part of the facility actually used for rail operations by Amtrak and its largest tenant, Metra. But it may make the process somewhat easier, since officials will be able to say they're involved in the sort of "public-private partnership" that Trump envisions nationally.


-snip-



> *THREE PHASES*
> 
> Under what's now envisioned, the Union Station project would be broken into three phases.
> 
> ...









Image Source - Crain's Chicago Business

This is the only rendering available thus far. I would imagine that there will be plenty once Wickman and Emanuel make their public announcement. Keep in mind that the designs depicted in the rendering may be mere placeholders, so no point in critiquing the architecture right now.

ETA - for those wondering about the "tuning fork" building mentioned in the article, it refers to the newly opened 150 North Riverside building, built over Chicago Union Station's North approach tracks -






Image Source - jll.com


----------



## MisterUptempo (May 25, 2017)

^^^

Second rendering found. This appears to be looking Southeast, from the corner of Adams and Clinton.






Image Source - skyscraperpage.com user "Spyguy"


----------



## PerRock (May 25, 2017)

> Union Station Rendering. _Goettsch Partners_
> 
> Amtrak has chosen a Chicago development firm to lead a more than 3 million-square-foot real estate redevelopment of Union Station and surrounding land, a project expected to take about six years to complete and cost more than $1 billion.
> 
> ...


 Read the rest: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-union-station-redevelopment-0526-biz-20170524-column.html

peter


----------



## KmH (May 25, 2017)

Related:

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/67127-ambitious-restoration-and-redevelopment-at-chicago-union-station/


----------



## Manny T (May 25, 2017)

Glad you advised not to comment on the architecture MrUptempo or I might be tempted to say something about the two ridiculous apartment buildings stuck on top of historic Union Station, instead of being planted on terra firma where they belong.

With a time frame of 6 years, and thinking about the dilatory progress being made on Moynihan Station in NYC, it will be interesting to see if the city of Big Shoulders beats the Big Apple in getting its station renovation done. Moynihan station is promised for completion in 2020 I think.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 25, 2017)

Imagine if this was how they handled NYP instead of turning it into an instantly dated 1960's era dump.


----------



## John Bredin (May 25, 2017)

Manny T said:


> Glad you advised not to comment on the architecture MrUptempo or I might be tempted to say something about the two ridiculous apartment buildings stuck on top of historic Union Station, instead of being planted on terra firma where they belong.


As the article points out, the original architects intended in the original 1920s plans for Union Station that a taller building would be "stuck on top". As can be seen here: https://chicagology.com/skyscrapers/skyscrapers044/


----------



## PRR 60 (May 25, 2017)

Topics merged.


----------



## MisterUptempo (May 25, 2017)

Manny T said:


> Glad you advised not to comment on the architecture MrUptempo or I might be tempted to say something about the two ridiculous apartment buildings stuck on top of historic Union Station, instead of being planted on terra firma where they belong.
> 
> With a time frame of 6 years, and thinking about the dilatory progress being made on Moynihan Station in NYC, it will be interesting to see if the city of Big Shoulders beats the Big Apple in getting its station renovation done. Moynihan station is promised for completion in 2020 I think.


If they can build on top of the headhouse, and they can, it will happen. Amtrak will not leave money on the table for the sake of aesthetic purity. The design will likely be refined. If not, Amtrak probably figures that people will get used to it.

Regarding the residential buildings on top of the headhouse, they do look kind of silly, but Union Station was built with the idea of later constructing an office building of up to 12 floors on top of the headhouse.

Here is an image of that concept that John Bredin's link was pointing to...






Image Source - chicagology.com

The original idea is certainly better blending, but it does resemble a ziggurat, for better or worse. I also wonder whether Riverside chose towers flanking the North and South sides of the headhouse, instead of a box that encircles the whole structure, in order to allow more light into the main waiting room. Just a guess. Also, by building to the North and South, they can flank 222 Riverside and offer some units with a skyline view. Placing a tower on the East would offer a view of only the 222 Riverside building, and, quite frankly, who wants to look at that?

Again, this is probably not a final design. The competition was held to find a developer, not to make final architectural choices for the structures themselves. Still, I hope that all four proposals are released to the public at some point. I would expect to see a final design for the residential to have some form of floor-to-ceiling windows, as in the renderings. Most buyers that would consider moving into the area will demand it.

Residential makes the most sense for that available square footage. Today's demands for new Class A office space require large, unbroken floorplates, and that could not be accomplished over the headhouse, given the physical restraints. The office space that will be developed in the headhouse will probably be for smaller firms, startups, and professionals. The twin office towers immediately to the south will provide plenty of desirable Class A space for larger companies. The immediate area is not a tourist draw (save for the Willis Tower), nor will it ever be IMO, so limiting hotel space to floors 4 thru 8 of the existing structure is probably more than sufficient.


----------



## Larry H. (May 25, 2017)

Manny T said:


> Here's a link to a live stream of the panel.



Boy your right there. Its often very irratating to see them go so lavish on off the rails projects and when you pay the big fare your riding in substandard equipment at the best. How about like in the past the lounges onboard are as inviting as the ones at the stations? Someone is dropping ball somewhere. Granted its most likely a money issue but Amtrak it self has never really acted like a first class operation. At least never for long.


----------



## cirdan (May 26, 2017)

Isn't the headhouse a listed monument?

I can understand that money talks and that empty space doesn't make money, but if they must do something, why not something more in keeping with the historic character of the building?

Furthermore, has anybody thought about what the higher buildings will do to the amount of natural light entering the main hall?


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (May 26, 2017)

cirdan said:


> Isn't the headhouse a listed monument?
> 
> I can understand that money talks and that empty space doesn't make money, but if they must do something, why not something more in keeping with the historic character of the building?
> 
> Furthermore, has anybody thought about what the higher buildings will do to the amount of natural light entering the main hall?


My guess is that the design with two towers on the North and south side of the clear roof was created to maximize sunlight. As long as this is true and no part of the structure is destroyed, I actually like the design presented in the posted images.


----------



## MisterUptempo (May 26, 2017)

cirdan said:


> Isn't the headhouse a listed monument?
> 
> I can understand that money talks and that empty space doesn't make money, but if they must do something, why not something more in keeping with the historic character of the building?
> 
> Furthermore, has anybody thought about what the higher buildings will do to the amount of natural light entering the main hall?


The station is designated as a Chicago Landmark. As such, any additions or alterations require the approval of The Commission on Chicago Landmarks.


----------



## cirdan (May 26, 2017)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't the headhouse a listed monument?
> ...


I guess some part of the structure will certainly have to be destroyed as there will need to be separate entrances and elevators and stairwells amd whatnot. But as long as they only tear out some of the more tatty bits away from the parts the public see, and espcially leave the main hall and the facades alone, I guess this doesn't matter much.


----------



## NorthShore (May 26, 2017)

Manny T said:


> Glad you advised not to comment on the architecture MrUptempo or I might be tempted to say something about the two ridiculous apartment buildings stuck on top of historic Union Station, instead of being planted on terra firma where they belong.


Well, if you won't, I will: UGLY UGLY UGLY UGLY! Certainly, they could do better (even with initial renderings) to find a way to better blend in new development with an historic building.


----------



## Eric S (May 26, 2017)

cirdan said:


> Isn't the headhouse a listed monument?
> 
> I can understand that money talks and that empty space doesn't make money, but if they must do something, why not something more in keeping with the historic character of the building?
> 
> Furthermore, has anybody thought about what the higher buildings will do to the amount of natural light entering the main hall?





John Bredin said:


> As the article points out, the original architects intended in the original 1920s plans for Union Station that a taller building would be "stuck on top". As can be seen here: https://chicagology.com/skyscrapers/skyscrapers044/


The designs are in keeping with what had been originally planned. In fact, by only building along two sides more light will probably be allowed in than if the proposed addition completely surrounded the Great Hall as envisioned way back when.


----------



## frequentflyer (May 26, 2017)

Interesting that Union Station "bones" can support a 30 story building. I imagine the engineers will be going over those old "bones" with a fine tooth comb to make sure its still capable of supporting that weight.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 26, 2017)

NorthShore said:


> Manny T said:
> 
> 
> > Glad you advised not to comment on the architecture MrUptempo or I might be tempted to say something about the two ridiculous apartment buildings stuck on top of historic Union Station, instead of being planted on terra firma where they belong.
> ...


Compared to what, exactly? Maybe in a perfect world they could keep everything closer to the original design but these days the only industry that is flush with tax money is the US military. This is downtown Chicago where commercial and residential space is at a premium. Amtrak needs all the money they can get and there will be plenty of customers ready to buy any space they can create. All things considered this looks perfectly fine to me.



frequentflyer said:


> I imagine the engineers will be going over those old "bones" with a fine tooth comb to make sure its still capable of supporting that weight.


We can only hope.


----------



## neroden (May 26, 2017)

The building is designed to support an "overbuild".

This was done with a small historic two-story building where I live, in Ithaca, NY, which is now a five-story building. It looks great. You can't see at at all from nearby (since it's set back a little, from ground level right on the same street as the building, you see only the historic part of the building) and from a distance, it looks cool. It added much-needed office space to downtown. I am totally in favor of construction which adds height to a building without demolishing the old building or seriously changing its appearance.

For reference, the building in Ithaca after:

https://ithacavoice.com/2016/08/carey-building/

and before:

http://www.biotech.cornell.edu/news/ithaca-business-incubator-locate-carey-building

This is just a MUCH better thing to do than tearing down the old building like they did with the concourse of Union Station. It's like having a whole new building next door, but instead of being next door, it's on top  I really want to encourage this concept to completely replace teardowns of old commercial buildings, but I guess not all commercial buildings were designed for the extra weight.


----------



## neroden (May 26, 2017)

222 Riverside remains a problem. Imagine how great it would be if they'd been thinking this way when they'd built it, and had left the Union Station concourse in place *underneath* a skyscraper.

I really look forward to having a hotel IN Chicago Union Station -- something which works quite wonderfully in Denver -- but I think only 4 floors is actually seriously underestimating the demand which such a hotel will get. It's going to be way more popular than they think, even though it will be really expensive. (I can now afford to, so I would most likely stay there every time I went to Chicago, if they could accomodate my fabric allergies.)


----------



## MisterUptempo (May 26, 2017)

cirdan said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> > cirdan said:
> ...


There is a hint that additional entrances are in the offing-







Image Source - amtrak.com

This is the Jackson Street side of Union Station, looking east from Clinton. You might notice what appears to be awnings, five flank either side of the current Jackson Street entrance, made accessible via new staircases. I would have to imagine that those additions would signal either additional entrances for the residential/office/hotel portions or some sort of small scale retail. The announcement did mention developing street-facing retail to add a little vibrancy, though it wasn't specific as to where.

Also, the former taxi drive entrance, the large arch on the Clinton side just north of the intersection, appears to be permanently closed off in the rendering, with an "e" visible (perhaps the last letter in "Entrance") over what looks to be new doors.

===========================================================================

The new food hall, which will be located inside the former Harvey House lunch room appears to have three new entries punched out of the facade, to allow access directly off Clinton Street.






Image Source - amtrak.com

The Midwest High Speed Rail Association, in their proposal to improve Union Station, advocated converting the former lunch room into a grand entrance off Clinton. While this is no grand entrance, one can envision Metra commuters using the new doors and cutting through the food hall to get to their trains.

These are just peeks into plans not yet finalized, but it does illustrate the ability to provide new entrances without altering the structure in any way that would jeopardize its landmark status .


----------



## BoulderCO (May 26, 2017)

Today's (I think) Chicago Tribune had a big article on this by their architectural critic. While a few aspects of the design got some positive comments, the overall assessment in the review was very negative. The critic seemed to think that many of the new public spaces and plazas would be unpopular and seldom used.


----------



## NorthShore (May 26, 2017)

Devil said:


> NorthShore said:
> 
> 
> > Manny T said:
> ...


I think that the building addition ought to have a more historic styling/appearance which would complement the historic facility rather than a Miesian glass tower atop. Actual construction methods can be modern (and create just as much additional space to sell/lease) without the clash of modernistic over classic. Such wouldn't be terribly difficult for a decent architect. But, it likely has to be specified as desirable.


----------



## PaulM (May 27, 2017)

> Phase One involves developing 110,000 square feet of retail in unused space adjacent to the Great Hall. Included would be a food hall, to be located where the Harvey House Restaurant once stood until it was destroyed in a fire decades ago.


Apparently this is the only part of the plan that has any thing to do with train travelers.


----------



## Sactobob (May 27, 2017)

Having a hotel within the building will also be very convenient for train travelers.


----------



## SarahZ (May 27, 2017)

I'll reserve judgment until it's actually built. I've seen a few "renderings" of buildings that looked strange/hideous, but then the final version was actually pretty nice.

I like the idea of having a hotel at the station. I imagine the rooms will cost a pretty penny, though.


----------



## Blackwolf (May 27, 2017)

Maybe Amtrak could learn more than a few things from opening and running their first land-based hotel operation! Imagine a First Class, Five-Star hotel Amtrak hotel complete with all the modern amenities, but with a train-centric twist to the decor and styling of the rooms (each floor perhaps being themed on the First Class offerings of the predecessor railroads who turned their operations over on A-Day.) Amtrak owns the building, right? Use it as a means for expressing the very best, then carrying that same attitude and offering to their core transportation product.

But knowing Amtrak, you'd end up mighty disappointed with a fantastic hotel followed by a broken down, malfunctioning and filthy bedroom on your train. Maybe the rooms would be better off themed on the trains Amtrak runs instead. You can even manage to get the malfunctioning toilet system and resulting raw sewer smell as a free amenity! :giggle:


----------



## dlagrua (May 27, 2017)

NorthShore said:


> Manny T said:
> 
> 
> > Glad you advised not to comment on the architecture MrUptempo or I might be tempted to say something about the two ridiculous apartment buildings stuck on top of historic Union Station, instead of being planted on terra firma where they belong.
> ...


Must agree here that the design of those two high apartment buildings on top of Union Station are ugly and destroy the look of a historic landmark.. As for the station itself, Amtrak is doing an excellent job of revitalizing the space but like Penn station, the basement train shed ( that is more like a crawl space), just cannot handle the rush hour crowds well. If you've even been there during rush hours people are shoulder to shoulder cramped like sardines in a can. Chicago may eventually need to reopen one of its old RR stations to accommodate the kind of traffic that will increase over time. Whats left of the train shed is inadequate to do the job.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (May 28, 2017)

dlagrua said:


> NorthShore said:
> 
> 
> > Manny T said:
> ...


The only capacity issue is on the south side of the station, where traffic could relatively easily be rerouted to underutilized Lasalle Street Station if necessary. I doubt such a move would even affect Amtrak trains, but instead the south terminal Metra lines. The old railroad stations with the exception of those currently used by Metra have long been built over and are highly unlikely to be reopened.


----------



## NorthShore (May 28, 2017)

Blair Kamin, architecture critic for the Tribune, repeatedly confused me by referring, inaccurately, to the Great Hall as Union Station's head house. He ought to know better than that, and realize that the original head house was long ago demolished and has been office building-ed over.


----------



## George K (May 28, 2017)

NorthShore said:


> has been office building-ed over.


Best verbing of a noun I've seen in a long time. :giggle:

And, it's the perfect description as well.


----------



## ehbowen (May 28, 2017)

NorthShore said:


> Blair Kamin, architecture critic for the Tribune, repeatedly confused me by referring, inaccurately, to the Great Hall as Union Station's head house. He ought to know better than that, and realize that the original head house was long ago demolished and has been office building-ed over.


I believe that is incorrect; the building with waiting, ticketing and offices is properly referred to as the head house while the area which connects the head house with the individual tracks is traditionally known as the "concourse". It is the concourse of Union Station which was demolished in the early 1970s (IIRC). Droege's authoritative _Passenger Terminals and Trains_ does not settle the matter; he uses the "concourse" term numerous times but "head house" only infrequently; his preferred term for what I am calling the head house is "main building."


----------



## willem (May 28, 2017)

Wikipedia says in its short article on the subject that a head house is "an enclosed building attached to an open-sided shed." It goes on to say that "Head house is most commonly encountered as an American railroad term for the part of a train station which does not house the tracks and platforms."


----------



## NorthShore (May 28, 2017)

Why not, simply, call it "Great Hall" or "historic waiting room", like everyone else does?


----------



## NorthShore (May 28, 2017)

ehbowen said:


> NorthShore said:
> 
> 
> > Blair Kamin, architecture critic for the Tribune, repeatedly confused me by referring, inaccurately, to the Great Hall as Union Station's head house. He ought to know better than that, and realize that the original head house was long ago demolished and has been office building-ed over.
> ...


Admittedly, the Union Station website agrees with this assessment:

http://www.chicagounionstation.com/cusfacts.html

http://www.greatamericanstations.com/stations/chicago-il-chi/

Still, I have a hard time considering a building behind the building that fronts it, a "headhouse."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_Union_Station_Chicago_1924.jpg

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chicago_Union_Station_Plan.jpg

Of course, part of the challenge here is the unusual and unique configuration of CUS as a double stub station, with two buildings rather than one.


----------



## jis (May 28, 2017)

Does it really matter what it is called as long as we all agree which part of the built up area we are talking about?


----------



## AmtrakBlue (May 28, 2017)

jis said:


> Does it really matter what it is called as long as we all agree which part of the built up area we are talking about?


Of course it matters, for some....


----------



## MisterUptempo (May 29, 2017)

I have a small question, quite trivial, really.

In Amtrak's Fiscal Year 2017 Capital Projects List, there is a line item of $4.5 million for "CHICAGO UNION STA HEAD HOUSE DORM ROOMS". Does anyone know what the status of this project might be? Has it started? Is it finished? Will it be abandoned in light of the new development agreement?

Like I said, trivial, but I'm still curious.


----------



## NorthShore (May 29, 2017)

jis said:


> Does it really matter what it is called as long as we all agree which part of the built up area we are talking about?


I guess it's sort of like watching a movie or tv show, where the locals all scoff and say, "They got that entirely wrong." Or how people not native to an area make references that the locals never would. "Chi-town", for example. It just rings wrong in the ear. Which is all that I was really saying, initially. Keep the ketchup off your hotdog! ;-) Ew!


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 30, 2017)

To be perfectly honest I've never truly understood what a "head house" is or how it differs from any other enclosed area. It seems to be a term than is so vague in meaning and so rare in usage that it probably confuses more than it clarifies.


----------



## Eric S (May 30, 2017)

I guess I assumed head house was analogous to the landside portion of an airport terminal, usually containing areas for baggage and ticketing, with the station concourse being analogous to the airside portion of an airport terminal. Of course, this becomes a bit jumbled in the case of Chicago, where until recently Amtrak had few if any services in the head house (Great Hall) area.

Then again, maybe I'm mixed up as well.


----------



## jis (May 30, 2017)

Yeah, try separating the Headhouse from the Concourse in New York Penn Station 

Or even for example, in Berlin Hauptbahnhof.

OTOH, there are many stations where it is relatively straightforward, like for example in Washington Union Station.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (May 30, 2017)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> The only capacity issue is on the south side of the station, where traffic could relatively easily be rerouted to underutilized Lasalle Street Station if necessary. I doubt such a move would even affect Amtrak trains, but instead the south terminal Metra lines. The old railroad stations with the exception of those currently used by Metra have long been built over and are highly unlikely to be reopened.


Aren't they shifting some over to LaSalle Street once some track work is done anyways?


----------



## Eric S (May 30, 2017)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> > The only capacity issue is on the south side of the station, where traffic could relatively easily be rerouted to underutilized Lasalle Street Station if necessary. I doubt such a move would even affect Amtrak trains, but instead the south terminal Metra lines. The old railroad stations with the exception of those currently used by Metra have long been built over and are highly unlikely to be reopened.
> ...


Pretty sure the thought has been that Metra SouthWest Service would be shifted to LaSalle if/when the connection is built near 75th St. to link the SWS with the Rock island District line.


----------



## MikefromCrete (May 30, 2017)

The plans are to shift the Southwest Service trains to LaSalle Street, but that would require the CREATE rebuilding of the 75th Street and it is quite a ways in the future. It will not be an "easy" shift.

There are no plans to shift any BNSF or Heritage Corridor trains to LaSalle.


----------



## west point (May 30, 2017)

Amtrak could write the hotel lease for availability of so many rooms per year due to over late train passenger connections. The work on the station should if possible create enough clearances for CAT for electric train services. Maybe some overhead ceilings raised or removed ?


----------



## Manny T (May 30, 2017)

And the winner is: 

Today's Union Station, the building containing the Great Hall, is the Head House.

The Concourse was destroyed in 1968, and an office building was built over the tracks. As explained in the following:

Chicago Union Station is in fact, not a station (like Penn Station, New York or 30th St. Station, Philadelphia,) but two stub end terminals back-to-back. The lack of through tracks reduces capacity and makes it difficult to schedule the through trains the region needs.

On the passenger side, a major change in design really messed the place up.

When the station opened in 1925 there were two connected buildings designed to process large crowds efficiently.

The headhouse, on the west side of Canal Street held the main waiting room, ticket counters, customer service and retail.




The original concourse was designed to process large crowds quickly and efficiently.

The concourse, on the east side of Canal Street, was dedicated to getting people to their trains efficiently. It had an open floor plan so passengers could quickly identify and move to their gate and queue up for their train.

Then in 1968, the Concourse was demolished. A new concourse was constructed in the basement of a new high-rise office building. The supporting columns of the buildings above severely limited space in the concourse. Then in 1990, the ticket counters, waiting rooms and other passenger related functions were moved into the concourse.

Now, Amtrak, Metra and the City of Chicago are working to correct those mistakes.

http://fixunionstation.com/bad.shtml


----------



## MisterUptempo (May 31, 2017)

MikefromCrete said:


> The plans are to shift the Southwest Service trains to LaSalle Street, but that would require the CREATE rebuilding of the 75th Street and it is quite a ways in the future. It will not be an "easy" shift.
> 
> There are no plans to shift any BNSF or Heritage Corridor trains to LaSalle.


The 75th Street Corridor Project Tier I EIS received a Record of Decision in 2014 and nothing has happened since. Money is at the heart of the matter. A recent editorial was published in the Chicago Tribune about the stalled project. Invoking Fair Use, a couple of snippets from the editorial follows.



> As far back as 2005, an initiative called CREATE (Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency) began planning to relieve congestion around and in Chicago, including at the 75th Street Corridor. CREATE is a partnership of federal, state and city transportation officials, Amtrak, Metra and freight rail companies. Twelve years later, though, the 75th Street Corridor is as congested as ever. Why?
> 
> *One word: money, as in not enough of it.* Solutions will be expensive — two flyovers and a grade separation, along with a series of other improvements. Overall price tag: $1 billion. Right now, the goal is to finish design work and begin construction. That would cost $473 million, and CREATE's plan was to divvy up the bill: 41.7 percent paid by state and local governments, 34.8 percent by the feds and 22.5 percent by the freight railroads.
> 
> ...


-snip-



> One project already completed, CREATE's $142 million Englewood Flyover project, separated north-south Metra trains from an east-west rail line used by freight trains and Amtrak. The railroads put up $3 million — just 2 percent of the price tag — while federal and state taxpayers shouldered the rest. CREATE, however, is supposed to be a public-private partnership, not solely a government endeavor. Lipinski says the railroads should shell out more money for CREATE projects.


The entire editorial can be found at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-rail-freight-chicago-trump-edit-jm-20170516-story.html

Also, Amtrak's You Tube channel provides a great illustration of the problems at 75th Street and the proposed solution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aer4P5jNrms


----------



## NorthShore (Jun 4, 2017)

Of course, in Chicago, we do have an old intercity train station (Dearborn) headhouse remaining, without a concourse or platforms, as well as a former intercity station (ex C&NW, now UP/Metra commuter) with platforms/concourse but a demolished head house replaced by an office/retail building, and a former intercity station (LaSalle) with platforms, no real concourse, and a building where the head house formerly stood.


----------



## NorthShore (Jun 4, 2017)

And, I guess Randolph Street/Millennium Park could be said to have a concourse with no real head house. Though, at one time there was a small entrance building on the far north end of the platforms.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jun 5, 2017)

NorthShore said:


> And, I guess Randolph Street/Millennium Park could be said to have a concourse with no real head house. Though, at one time there was a small entrance building on the far north end of the platforms.


You mean you don't consider the Prudential Building to be the headhouse? (Or Illinois Center is the headhouse for the South Water exit)


----------



## MisterUptempo (Sep 27, 2017)

The Great Hall and skylight are finally getting their makeover. Invoking Fair Use on material from Amtrak's website-



> Skylight to be restored and protected, water damage repaired
> CHICAGO – In about a year, customers of Amtrak, Metra and other users of Chicago Union Station will enjoy a Great Hall painted in its original colors, made brighter by a restored and protected skylight with improved lighting in a $22 million project.


---SNIP---



> In order to maintain the historic appearance of the skylight from within the Great Hall and to overcome the complications of the existing drainage system, the team will construct a modern energy-efficient, skylight above the historic skylight. The new skylight will protect the historic skylight with a new drainage design and maintenance system.
> 
> When finished, natural light into the Great Hall is expected to increase by about 50 percent by replacing the 2,052 pieces of glass in frames that had been made bigger over the years in a failed effort to prevent leaks in the historic skylight. The panes will be transparent, rather than the wire-embedded glass that was used previously. The new skylight will have 858 panes of clear, high-efficiency glass, five feet above the historic skylight.
> 
> Once the skylight and roof work has been completed, ensuring that the Great Hall will remain dry, the historic skylight – along with water-damaged plaster and stone – will be restored. The finishes will include the return of the historic paint colors to the walls and ceiling.




















img src - media.amtrak.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB50av5cAIE

Link to the full story, including more photographs - https://media.amtrak.com/2017/09/cus-project/


----------



## DSS&A (Sep 28, 2017)

The redevelopment project for Chicago Union Station has a website to provide information as the large project moves forward.

http://www.unionstationmp.org/


----------



## cirdan (Sep 28, 2017)

Exciting developments ahead.

I like the idea of placing a new skylight over the historic one. This should finally solve the long enduring problem of water ingress, while at the same time allowing restoration to its former glory..

I notice the old skylight has catwalks and stairs on the outside, presumably to allow acces for inspection and repairs.

The new one doesn't seem to have any of that.

How will that get inspected and repaired?

And what this about restoring the original colors?

What colors did the Great Hall have originally?


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Sep 28, 2017)

As I recall from a tour earlier this year, not drastically different color, but more authentically stone faux finishes (and cleaning the actual stone) and regilding where applicable. There are some sections already done or stripped as test sections - I'm sure somebody can find and post them.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Jun 25, 2018)

This is what you call going from bad to worse...






img src - crain's chicago business

This, to refresh memories, was the initial proposal






img src - amtrak.com

And this is the what the original architects envisioned-






img src - chicagology.com


----------



## SarahZ (Jun 25, 2018)

The revised version looks top-heavy and awful. Why on earth would they go with a glass monstrosity like that when they can simply continue the historic look of the station (and make it look balanced)? Did they go to the Soldier Field Academy of Design?

I don't think using the original architects' plans would be as ziggurat-ish as people imagine. Back then, perhaps, but not now. Union Station is surrounded by skyscrapers.

(Edited for clarity)


----------



## railiner (Jun 26, 2018)

Manny T said:


> And the winner is:
> 
> Today's Union Station, the building containing the Great Hall, is the Head House.
> 
> ...


I missed seeing this when it was posted...but anyone familiar with the story of Penn Station - New York reading it will get....in the immortal words of Yogi Berra, "deja-vu all over again".


----------



## MisterUptempo (Jun 26, 2018)

SarahZ said:


> The revised version looks top-heavy and awful. Why on earth would they go with a glass monstrosity like that when they can simply continue the historic look of the station (and make it look balanced)? Did they go to the Soldier Field Academy of Design?
> 
> I don't think using the original architects' plans would be as ziggurat-ish as people imagine. Back then, perhaps, but not now. Union Station is surrounded by skyscrapers.
> 
> (Edited for clarity)


To read an account of someone who attended the presentation this evening, the decision to cantilever the residential addition is strictly economic in nature.

The architect explained that the floor plates of the offices immediately below the addition are only 50 feet deep. In order to be able to accommodate a residential building with a double-loaded corridor (with more rentable units), the floor plates would need to be around 70 feet deep. As such, the building will hang over Union Station about ten feet and intrude into the light well (where the Great Hall's skylight is located) by another ten feet.

I just don't get the design. It's a mess. At least the initial proposal attempted to pay tribute to the head house's grand architecture. Not anymore. They didn't even try to continue the lines of the original. I wouldn't even object to a contrasting design, if the design broke any new ground. This is just pedestrian; an insult, because it looks like they really didn't give a damn.

Union Station is a registered city landmark, so perhaps we'll see some design revisions before they receive approval. If nothing else, the person responsible for producing the rendering did us the favor of disappearing 222 South Riverside.


----------



## cirdan (Jun 26, 2018)

It was a principle in neo classicist and beaux arts architecture that you had a progression from the lower floor to the upper. So typically on the lower floors you have rendering with relatively coarse stones and then you have a level or ledge and on top of that you proceed with a somewhat finer stone, maybe also the decorations progress from rough to more refined. And then you do another cuorse, and reach the next level of refinement. And so on. Look at any large building from that period and you see the general principle. At the same time you get a progression in the windows. Lower floors typically have arched windows. An arch is a structural element used for its strength. The ancient Romans used arches for things like foundations and basements and aqueducts. Things that weren't supposed to be pretty but just functional. Of course by the renaissance period and since, arches were cosnidered decorative, but they were also used as a reference to their original purpose. As you move up into the more refined parts, you get rectangular windows which represent a greater degree of refinement.

The idea behind that was that you represent the progression from earth to sky. Think of an old castle on a rock, or a rocky pier in the sea. At the lowest level you have the natural rock formation as nature made it, maybe just blasted to the right shape, and the on top of that there is a massive retaining wall made of large blocks, designed more to be stable and provide a good fouhdation that for any intrinsic use of their own, then on top of that you get the parts of the building where people live and work, that are of real use, and then you have the battlements or turrets or roof shape, finally you get things like chimney stacks reaching into the sky. The building as a whole thus forms a bridge between earth and sky.

Now to apply this to Union Station, having a glass tructure on top does certainly capture that sentiment of getting lighter and more sky-like as you go up.

But maybe having a transitional level between that has more glass but also some stone might make it clear that the decison was intentional rather than just, we use glass because its cheap and everyone does it.


----------



## frequentflyer (Jun 26, 2018)

CUS looks to be wearing a turban. Odd symmetry.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jun 26, 2018)

I can tell you right now that several preservation groups are up in arms and will protest and are going to do so vocally. I can't remember now if it was Lohan (Dirk Lohan, Mies' grandson) or Lucien LaGrange (Chicago's preeminent, uh, "classicist"? He does really tacky work) who did the previous very traditional proposal. Frankly, the original proposal (as in original architects) was rather clunky - it looks like Chicago's Clunky City-County Building (people forget that 'City Hall' in Chicago is actually half City and half County) which also was supposed to have a tower atop it.

I personally would prefer something light and airy. And, while I like the way they carried the column lines up, a metal facade matching the stone color just won't work well. In fact, the whole thing has quasi-brutalist proportions (corporate brutalist, like for an East Coast 60's Corporate HQ).

Being that it is a Landmark, they will need to apply for essentially a variance which will be difficult if there is opposition to it from multiple quarters. I was actually sort of surprised that they would want residential in the building rather than hospitality.

As an aside, the Great Hall is under construction and very dark.


----------



## SarahZ (Jun 26, 2018)

Cirdan:

Beaux Arts is one of my favorite architectural styles.

Chicago has many beautiful examples of Beaux Arts architecture.

This proposed atrocity is not one of them.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Jun 26, 2018)

Me personally I wish they could just leave a landmark alone. It's a landmark for a reason because it has some historical significance in its current form. I say leave it alone. If you want to develop a train station just throw another office tower over the train shed at Northwestern.


----------



## NorthShore (Jun 26, 2018)

SarahZ said:


> Did they go to the Soldier Field Academy of Design?


You win the thread!


----------



## tommylicious (Jun 27, 2018)

The propsed design was unequivocally slammed by Chicago's preeminent, Pulitzer Prize winning architecture critic: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kamin/ct-biz-union-station-assessment-kamin-0626-story.html


----------



## tommylicious (Jun 27, 2018)

"The seven-story addition and its 404 rental apartments would bring to the forlorn but grand train station all the grandeur of a Holiday Inn." -- Blair Kamin, Pulitzer Prize Winner.


----------



## frequentflyer (Jun 27, 2018)

Seaboard92 said:


> Me personally I wish they could just leave a landmark alone. It's a landmark for a reason because it has some historical significance in its current form. I say leave it alone. If you want to develop a train station just throw another office tower over the train shed at Northwestern.


Agreed.


----------



## frequentflyer (Jun 27, 2018)

tommylicious said:


> "The seven-story addition and its 404 rental apartments would bring to the forlorn but grand train station all the grandeur of a Holiday Inn." -- Blair Kamin, Pulitzer Prize Winner.


Holiday Inn? He is being generous.


----------



## cpotisch (Jun 27, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> tommylicious said:
> 
> 
> > "The seven-story addition and its 404 rental apartments would bring to the forlorn but grand train station all the grandeur of a Holiday Inn." -- Blair Kamin, Pulitzer Prize Winner.
> ...


I think that's the point.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 27, 2018)

tommylicious said:


> "The seven-story addition and its 404 rental apartments would bring to the forlorn but grand train station all the grandeur of a Holiday Inn." -- Blair Kamin, Pulitzer Prize Winner.



*404*​Style Not Found


----------



## tommylicious (Jun 27, 2018)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kamin/ct-biz-union-station-assessment-kamin-0626-story.html



Devil's Advocate said:


> tommylicious said:
> 
> 
> > "The seven-story addition and its 404 rental apartments would bring to the forlorn but grand train station all the grandeur of a Holiday Inn." -- Blair Kamin, Pulitzer Prize Winner.
> ...


----------



## jis (Jun 28, 2018)

This proposal appears to be a variation on the original plan for that space, which was never built out.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Jul 12, 2018)

Just a small update. The Chicago Union Station Facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/ChicagoUnionStation/ 

posted a few photos of the restoration work in the Great Hall, specifically of the ceiling.

From February-







And from late June-











These photos appear to be of the ceiling over one of the Canal St. staircases.


----------



## cpotisch (Jul 12, 2018)

MisterUptempo said:


> Just a small update. The Chicago Union Station Facebook page
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/ChicagoUnionStation/
> 
> ...


From this angle at least, I can't really see any significant difference.


----------



## keelhauled (Jul 12, 2018)

The scaffolding is gone and the ceiling is once again visible from ground level.


----------



## frequentflyer (Jul 12, 2018)

And eventually the main hall is where the majority of pax will wait for their trains?


----------



## MisterUptempo (Jul 12, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> From this angle at least, I can't really see any significant difference.


Here is a shot of the staircase ceiling before restoration, largely a warm monotone, whereas the ceiling has now been restored to the color scheme that was original to the station when it first opened.






img src - Chicago Architecture Foundation

With the restoration, the coffered ceiling really shows off its magnificent detailing.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Sep 1, 2018)

Well, it appears as if the developers got the hint-











img src - Chicago Sun-Times

Invoking Fair Use, a portion of an article from the Chicago Sun-Times - https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/new-renderings-union-station-office-tower-acquired/



> Howls from people across the city unhappy with plans to construct a massive glass tower on top of Union Station — including Emanuel — led to an abrupt change of plans, which was reported Thursday in Crain’s Chicago Business, which stated the revised proposal would not include a residential component, but would include 400 hotel rooms.


-snip-



> Word is hizzoner worked quietly behind the scenes with Ald. *Brendan Reilly *(42nd) and Riverside Investment & Development to preserve Union Station and build a new office tower and plaza across the street from the historic train station.
> 
> Sneed has also learned an anchor tenant has been already lined up for the building, which will bring several thousand jobs to the city, according to mayoral spokesman *Adam Collins*.


Alderman Reilly will conduct another community meeting for the project, in which the details of the redesign will be presented. The meeting will take place on Tuesday, September 11, 2018, 6PM-8PM, in the Burlington Room at Union Station.

The big news, of course, is that the headhouse is left intact, save for what appears (in the top rendering) to be a single-level structure that rings around the inner portion of the headhouse roof. There are a couple of small structures up there already. Unclear whether this will be used strictly for mechanical purposes, or the developer will locate any hotel amenities up there. Very likely the new addition won't be visible from street level.

The fact that the room count is being bumped up without a major addition leads me to believe that Riverside ditched the idea of making floors 2 & 3 of the headhouse available as office space, as was originally planned, and will instead use it to grow the hotel from 330 to 400 rooms.

The top rendering looks very basic. The office building appears as if it is taking some design cues from the Immigration Court building across the street, and the plaza looks like a sketch an architect might make on a cocktail napkin over drinks with a client. The second rendering does show a more refined vision of both the building and plaza.

Knowing that Rahm had a hand in getting this deal done makes me wonder whether the tenant that the Sun-Times article mentions was the carrot Emanuel dangled in front of the developers to convince them to eliminate the residential units from the headhouse. Either that, or Rahm found a bunch of TIF money in between his couch cushions.

Salesforce has been in town a lot recently, and have been in discussions about locating a new office, bringing thousands of new jobs into the city, at the yet-to-be-built Wolf Point South building. Among Salesforce's demands were a tax break (no problem there - Rahm gives those out like candy), the right to install a large video display on the building (on the riverfront? could be a problem), and exclusive access to riverfront public space several times every year (close riverfront access to tourists? potentially big problem). At the Union Station site, Salesforce could get all of those demands met without much trouble. Might also explain why the two tower plan is now a taller single tower plan, with a much larger public space. Just a guess on my part.

One question that lingers is what Riverside is going to do with the 3.1 million square feet it is allowed to build on the Union Station properties. The new office building is thought to be about 1.5 million square feet. Phase 3 of the project calls for a residential building over the south train shed of 500,000 square feet. That still leaves 1.1 million square feet unaccounted for.

ETA - The design of the office building may just be preliminary. As has already been mentioned elsewhere, the structure bears a remarkable resemblance to 110 N. Wacker Dr., which is currently under construction, and was designed by the same architectural firm that is partnered with Riverside on this project (they did not design the residential monstrosity that was plopped onto the headhouse in the previous proposal).











img src - Crain's Chicago Business


----------



## DSS&A (Nov 13, 2018)

The restoration of the Great Hall is nearing completion. Here are a few photos I took this morning.  The Polar Express display locomotive was installed over the weekend for the holiday season.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Nov 13, 2018)

Looks truly great!  A good reason for another trip to Chicago to see this for myself!


----------



## Pere Flyer (Nov 13, 2018)

Looks like it can now rival GCT! Hope to connect through CUS on my next train adventure!


----------



## tim49424 (Nov 13, 2018)

Sweet..... I’ll be there next month on my way to New Orleans!


----------



## SarahZ (Nov 13, 2018)

Oh, wow. I can really see the difference. It looks gorgeous.


----------



## George K (Nov 13, 2018)

I was there last Thursday (6 days ago) and was impressed with what I saw. The new pictures are even better.


----------



## gswager (Nov 13, 2018)

Those natural lights do really brightened up the interior of building!  I visited that station nearly two months ago.  Now I need to visit it again to see the glass ceiling!


----------



## daybeers (Nov 14, 2018)

Wow! Can't wait to see it in July! Thanks for the pictures and report!


----------



## cpotisch (Nov 14, 2018)

SarahZ said:


> Oh, wow. I can really see the difference. It looks gorgeous.


Welcome back, Sarah!


----------



## oregon pioneer (Nov 14, 2018)

Oh, that's lovely! It was full of scaffolding and plastic draping when I went through last winter. Can't wait to see it on my next trip, whenever that may be!


----------



## AGM.12 (Nov 14, 2018)

When all of the redevelopment is done, how much additional income can Amtrak expect? I feel that maybe Amtrak should follow the lead of FEC and try to gain as much real estate revenue, even if it means forming a subsidiary to deal with it.


----------



## cpotisch (Nov 14, 2018)

DSS&A said:


> The restoration of the Great Hall is nearing completion. Here are a few photos I took this morning.  The Polar Express display locomotive was installed over the weekend for the holiday season.
> 
> View attachment 11085
> 
> ...


Preeeeeetty.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Dec 7, 2018)

Just a few newer renderings of the office building planned for the Amtrak parking lot.
















image source - Chicago Department of Planning and Development

Updating an earlier post I made in this thread, Salesforce eventually decided to locate to the yet-to-be-built Wolf Point South. The commitment has prompted the developer to push up groundbreaking on the project. The developers of the Union Station office tower are trying to hammer out an agreement to sign BMO Financial, which would combine current Chicago operations, currently spread out among several Loop locations, plus the transfer of some functions from BMO's Montreal home office.


----------



## cirdan (Dec 7, 2018)

Not exactly ana mazing feat of architecture in my opinion, but at least it's sufficiently respectful of the old Union Station, so that's one thing to be please about, and also an improvement on the hotchpotch of concrete that's on that site now.

What i don't get is that these modern office towers all have massive ground floor lobbies with esentially wasted space, which essentially leads to the streets feeling like a ghost town if you're  a pedestrian outside of office hours. I would have thought with the proximity to Union Station and all that, they could easily find tenants for some eatery or take out or convenience store on at least one part of that otherwise wated floor area.


----------



## neroden (Dec 7, 2018)

I hope the new building construction quickly leads to an underground connection to the Blue Line.


----------



## Manny T (Dec 7, 2018)

cirdan said:


> What i don't get is that these modern office towers all have massive ground floor lobbies with esentially wasted space, which essentially leads to the streets feeling like a ghost town if you're  a pedestrian outside of office hours.﻿


The redevelopment plan calls for the addition of "175,000 square feet of office, retail and public space inside the station, including a new entrance and windowed shops along Clinton Street." This is in addition to whatever will be left of the current food court and retail operations. So the area is not likely to be a ghost town.  As for the lobby of the office tower, it will be the entrance of the BMO Harris bank HQ (500,000 square feet) and a 400 room hotel. I think from a branding point of view, they would want a dignified entrance space for their enterprises. Putting fast food,  Panera or Starbucks in that lobby would probably not fit the corporate image of the hotel or BMO Harris. I think this revised plan is about the best we can get.


----------



## Steve4031 (Dec 8, 2018)

This article talks about how these plans don’t address capacity issues at union station. 

https://default.salsalabs.org/Td0d438ad-b001-4b17-b78e-ef9d953b63c3/edd68708-c141-4881-8e11-556bc2f4e918


----------



## cirdan (Dec 12, 2018)

Manny T said:


> The redevelopment plan calls for the addition of "175,000 square feet of office, retail and public space inside the station, including a new entrance and windowed shops along Clinton Street." This is in addition to whatever will be left of the current food court and retail operations. So the area is not likely to be a ghost town.  As for the lobby of the office tower, it will be the entrance of the BMO Harris bank HQ (500,000 square feet) and a 400 room hotel. I think from a branding point of view, they would want a dignified entrance space for their enterprises. Putting fast food,  Panera or Starbucks in that lobby would probably not fit the corporate image of the hotel or BMO Harris. I think this revised plan is about the best we can get.


True, yes, but then maybe the hotel could run something that is more aligned  with their own clientzele,, such as an up-market wine bar or piano bar or a dignified and classy restaurant that could be out to attract  both their own guests and people using Amtrack.


----------



## cirdan (Dec 12, 2018)

Steve4031 said:


> This article talks about how these plans don’t address capacity issues at union station.
> 
> https://default.salsalabs.org/Td0d438ad-b001-4b17-b78e-ef9d953b63c3/edd68708-c141-4881-8e11-556bc2f4e918




The article makes some interesting points.

The whole crowd handling and crowd flow side needs to be re-thought if passenger numbers are to increase, and just adding commercial space and ad-hoc passages is not the solution.

Just wondering though, how great a problem is it really not having thru tracks connect between the North and south sides. Is this being overstated? All trains presently  terminate. Would there be a significant number of trains running thru if this was possible, and would this genuinely open new markets, or is this just a wish disconnected with reality?


----------



## jis (Dec 12, 2018)

CUS certainly has very poor pedestrian circulation plan, if there is one at all that is. I think the article makes a very good point about that. It also suffers from extremely narrow platforms, even worse than Penn Station NY. What were they thinking?


----------



## MisterUptempo (Dec 12, 2018)

cirdan said:


> True, yes, but then maybe the hotel could run something that is more aligned  with their own clientzele,, such as an up-market wine bar or piano bar or a dignified and classy restaurant that could be out to attract  both their own guests and people using Amtrack.


Actually, now that the apartment component has been mercifully exorcised from the head house plan, the developers have decided to divide the 400 planned hotel rooms into two separate hotels, under different flags. 240 rooms for one, 160 rooms for the other. And it appears as if the 240 room hotel will, in fact, be more upscale. The entrance for the 160-room hotel will be located on the Jackson Street side; the entrance for the 240-room hotel will be located on the Adams Street side. ETA-Now that BMO will be locating its offices in the Union Station tower, perhaps the upscale hotel will located on the Jackson Street side, so that accessing the hotel will just require crossing Jackson. Who knows?

When I get the chance, I'll upload some graphics from the approved plan that show the layout for both hotels. But I will mention now that one feature that was thrown into the redesign, that surprised me, will be the installation of a swimming pool in Union Station's basement. If I have the location correct, it will be located somewhere under the Burlington Room, where the women's restrooms were located.

Also, the developers are going to bring the taxi drive back into service, for valet parking for hotel guests. Guests will drop off their cars at the entrance of whatever hotel they are staying. Valets will then park the cars on the lower level of the head house. To pick up their cars, guests from both hotels will have to go to the old north taxi drive to get them.

As an aside, in addition to the 400 hotel rooms that are being built in the head house, an additional 615 hotel rooms are slated to be added at 320 S. Clinton, currently a vacant lot across the street from the current Amtrak parking garage. The planned property will be a Toyoko Inn Hotel, which is a Japanese-owned chain which tends to lean on the "no frills" side. There have been some delays over a dispute with the local alderman, but they did some caisson work earlier in the year, and about 6 weeks ago the city finally gave its approval to some design changes, so construction might get started in earnest soon. I mention it because I find it amusing that within a span of 18 months to 2 years, the number of available hotel rooms within spitting distance of Union Station will go from virtually nil to 1015 rooms.


----------



## NorthShore (Dec 13, 2018)

MisterUptempo said:


> But I will mention now that one feature that was thrown into the redesign, that surprised me, will be the installation of a swimming pool in Union Station's basement. If I have the location correct, it will be located somewhere under the Burlington Room, where the women's restrooms were located.


There's already a swimming pool at that level: The Chicago River!


----------



## ehbowen (Dec 13, 2018)

NorthShore said:


> There's already a swimming pool at that level: The Chicago River!


Got your cement flip-flops?


----------



## zephyr17 (Dec 13, 2018)

jis said:


> CUS certainly has very poor pedestrian circulation plan, if there is one at all that is. I think the article makes a very good point about that. It also suffers from extremely narrow platforms, even worse than Penn Station NY. What were they thinking?


As designed, with the original open Concourse building, it had great flow.  Of course, they torn down half the station and replaced it with a rabbit warren underneath office towers in its place, a rabbit warren so cramped it kind of makes Penn Station look good.  Then for many years Amtrak essentially moved out of the great hall, and all services were stuffed into the rabbit warren that replaced the original open Concourse, making things worse.  That is a mistake they are starting to undo.

The narrow platforms are probably at least in part because they had the separate baggage platforms on the other side of the track from the passenger loading platform so that checked baggage handling (and maybe red caps back in the day, don't know about that) didn't conflict with passengers.  They are talking about taking at least some of those out so they can relocate some tracks and widen the platforms, btw.


----------



## neroden (Dec 20, 2018)

MisterUptempo said:


> Actually, now that the apartment component has been mercifully exorcised from the head house plan, the developers have decided to divide the 400 planned hotel rooms into two separate hotels, under different flags. 240 rooms for one, 160 rooms for the other. And it appears as if the 240 room hotel will, in fact, be more upscale. The entrance for the 160-room hotel will be located on the Jackson Street side; the entrance for the 240-room hotel will be located on the Adams Street side. ETA-Now that BMO will be locating its offices in the Union Station tower, perhaps the upscale hotel will located on the Jackson Street side, so that accessing the hotel will just require crossing Jackson. Who knows?
> 
> When I get the chance, I'll upload some graphics from the approved plan that show the layout for both hotels. But I will mention now that one feature that was thrown into the redesign, that surprised me, will be the installation of a swimming pool in Union Station's basement. If I have the location correct, it will be located somewhere under the Burlington Room, where the women's restrooms were located.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the information.  I really hope it's possible to enter the hotels in the headhouse directly from the station, like in Denver; it feels stupid to walk out onto the street in order to go back into the same building.  I'd appreciate an upload of the layouts.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Dec 20, 2018)

Sorry for the delay. With the holidays upon us, time is at a premium.

The images posted here were extracted from a presentation hosted on the local alderman's website. The entire document is available right here.









You probably noticed the mention of the swimming pool in the above graphic. Looking at the location of the pool (shown as a slight divot in the basement floor) in the following two graphics, I'm guessing that the pool will be located under the Burlington Room, in the northwest corner of the basement.

Also the floorplan for the concourse level shows the space under the north staircase is designated as "f & b", but does not include the square footage as part of the plan. That leads me to believe that the space will serve as a kitchen for hotel room service and for the Burlington Room and what will probably be function rooms on the roof. That space has direct access to an elevator marked as "F/S", which, I assume, means "Food" and "Service" . The kitchen would have likely been located in the basement, had the basement not been relegated to serve as valet parking space.






The diagram for the concourse level does indicate that both hotels can be accessed from inside the station, by either stairs or elevator.

Looking at the old Harvey lunchroom, there is much more pedestrian space set aside at concourse level for people who might access the new Clinton St. entrance than renderings previously showed. To compensate for the lost revenue-producing floorspace, it looks like the developers are building a full second floor(save for a small cutout over the entryway).








Below is the layout for the "penthouse" expansion. It does not specify the purpose for that space, whether it will be premium rooms/suites or serve as function space.





Here's the page that shows the valet pickup for both hotels, that will be located at the old north cab stand, and that hotel valet drop-off will take place at the front of each hotel.





Hoping that the info answers any questions you might have.


----------



## CAQuail (Dec 21, 2018)

Some of those hotel rooms look absolutely tiny.


----------



## NorthShore (Dec 21, 2018)

CAQuail said:


> Some of those hotel rooms look absolutely tiny.


Are they to be converted office spaces from the existing building?


----------



## John Santos (Dec 21, 2018)

CAQuail said:


> Some of those hotel rooms look absolutely tiny.


They're not rooms.  They're roomettes.


----------



## railiner (Dec 21, 2018)

John Santos said:


> They're not rooms.  They're roomettes.


Looks like the inside rooms have a view into the 'atrium', or 'light court' as named in that...could be more interesting view than an outside view....


----------



## DSS&A (Dec 21, 2018)

Here are a few photos I took today.  The Burlington Room has blue light bulbs for the Polar  Express train.  The PE train this season consists of GE #64, followed by Horizon coaches 54514, 54577 & 54544, then baggage 61014 (to stage staff and supllies) followed by 3 more Horizon coaches; 54522, 54567 & 54502.


----------



## DSS&A (Dec 21, 2018)

One more photo of CUS the other day.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Jun 21, 2019)

Just a blurb...Demolition of the Amtrak parking structure, directly south of Union Station's headhouse, is scheduled to start on the first or second week of October. It will make way for the 715 ft. BMO Tower. 

I believe that during construction of the foundation and sub levels of the new building that the promised passage from Union Station to the Clinton CTA Blue Line station will take its first step, going as far as the corner of Van Buren and Clinton. It will be up to Chicago DOT to build the final block of passageway to the Blue Line station at Clinton and Congress/I-290/Ida B Wells Dr.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Jun 8, 2022)

Something of a roundup of info regarding Union Station and the surrounding area that might be of interest to many here.

*1)* From Crain's Chicago business, invoking Fair Use-



> *A unified push to revamp Union Station*
> 
> At long last, the Chicago region is making a unified push for serious money to begin rebuilding overcrowded, dilapidated Union Station and position it for an era in which passenger rail could again plan a major role in moving us around.
> 
> ...


source - Crain's Chicago Business

I highlighted the word "Metra" in the article, because I believe the author meant to write "Amtrak".

In a Zoom discussion with the High Speed Rail Alliance many months ago, Magliari mentioned that Amtrak would provide support for either a 16th Street Connector or CREATE's Grand Crossing project. If the article is accurate, it appears they've chosen the 16th Street Connector. If they receive funding, it has the potential to be a real game changer.

It opens up the possibility of Metra RER-type service, provides some of the basic building blocks (though certainly not all) for South of the Lake, while providing benefits to CONO/Illini/Saluki, Lincoln Service/Texas Eagle, and potentially Amtrak Connects project between Chicago, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, and Louisville as well as the Cardinal.

When the Metra Fulton Market Station/A-2 separation project gets completed (Metra projected a timeline as long as 10 years, depending on funding and any potential legal proceedings associated with land acquisition), the road will be nearly clear for an airport express service.

Can anyone elaborate as to which 11-mile stretch of track in SW Michigan the writer is referring to?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*2) *New Dining Options

While Amtrak continues its search for an food hall operator for its refurbished Fred Harvey Lunch Room space, a new food hall opened this week at the Old Post Office building, immediately south of Union Station, at 433 West Van Buren. The 18,000 square foot food hall opened with 7 local independent vendors, with the potential of an additional 4 in the future.

Available now-
-Tempesta, an Italian sandwich and charcuterie shop
-Familiar Bakery
-Hot Chi Chicken, Nashville Hot Chicken, serving up, among other things, its signature, "Popeye's Ain't Sh!t" chicken sandwich
-Flo’s Kitchen, specializing in the food of Durango, Mexico
-Millie’s Pancakes, an old-school breakfast/lunch diner
-PhoBox, Vietnamese specialties
-Snorkelbox, craft cocktails

Learn more about the vendors here.

In addition to the food hall, diners may choose to sit out on the 26,000 sq ft patio, which runs along the Chicago River.

The food hall will be open Monday thru Friday 7AM to 7PM to start, with a possibility of hours being extended at some point in the future.

Here are a few shots of the hall. They were taken a few weeks ago, before everything was fully set up-












img src - Chicago Tribune


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*3)* While some progress has been achieved on the dining front, less encouraging news on the subject of new hotel rooms being available around Union Station.

As the search for two hotel flags to occupy the former office space in Union Station's headhouse drags on, another planned hotel project, the Hotel Toyoko Inn at 320 S. Clinton, after repeated permit changes, now has a "FOR SALE" sign on the property as construction has halted and the project has been declared dead. The company also abandoned a planned Hotel Toyoko Inn in Long Island City earlier this year.

One existing nearby hotel, the Holiday Inn at Canal and Harrison Streets, is in the midst of a complete gut rehab. So there's that. I guess....





img src - bizjournals.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*4)* BMO Tower, 320 S. Canal, built on the site of Amtrak's former parking garage. has long since topped out and is nearly ready for occupancy. While the building's opening is largely unimportant to folks here, the privately-owned public park, immediately west of BMO Tower, is now open to the public. Looks like a nice place to get some fresh air while waiting for your train.




The shot below shows one of the entrances into the park - along Canal on the north end of the building




The second entrance is accessed from the CTA Transit Center




The third entryway is from the stairs located on the corner of Clinton and Van Buren.

Here is a shot of the underground walkway between Union Station and the corner of Clinton and Van Buren, which gets us one step closer to an all-weather passage to CTA's Clinton Blue Line station.








img src - twitter,com member @chibuildings






There is now a question whether this passage will be part of a permanent solution or not.

One option has CDOT extending the passageway under Clinton, connecting with a rebuilt ADA-compliant mezzanine at the Clinton station. The other involves building new entrances to the rebuilt Clinton station at Jefferson and Canal, extending the mezzanine, with an all-weather connection from Union Station to the Canal entrance.

The Canal entrance was an idea floated several years ago, while the Old Post Office was just a hulking ruin. Now that the 2.5 million sq ft building has been completely rehabbed and is at 95% occupancy, the chances of a Canal entrance may have improved. A complete reconstruction of the Forest Park Branch, as well as the Eisenhower Expressway, is the second "big ask" the Chicago area has made for Infrastructure Bill funds, along with the Union Station/16th Street Connector request.

That's all I've got for now.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Jun 9, 2022)

MisterUptempo said:


> Can anyone elaborate as to which 11-mile stretch of track in SW Michigan the writer is referring to?


I think I can answer my own question.

Was digging around and found a November, 2020 presentation by Amtrak to the Midwest Intercity Passenger Rail Commission, which you find here, as well as in MDOT's "Michigan Mobility 2045 Plan" , a double-tracking project between the Niles station and Glenwood Rd, several miles outside of Dowagiac. It's described in both presentations as a 16-mile project (as opposed to the Crain's report's 11 miles), which means the scope of the project was reduced or the reporter got some bad info. The purpose is to reduce travel times by 5 minutes. The line item for this project on the mobility plan lists the cost in 2020 dollars as $100,500,000. Here's a graphic from the Amtrak presentation-





Also in the Amtrak presentation, is a reproduction of an Amtrak draft used for a feasibility study on the 16th Street Connector. It's dated April 15, 2020, so the idea of the connector has been on Amtrak's radar for some time. Sorry for the poor quality image. It's the best I could find-





The text that accompanies the graphic is as follows-
• Feasibility study draft done, showing structure is feasible
• Remaining key issue is impact on yard operations during construction and thereafter, particularly storage space
• Amtrak examining alternatives in Chicago area for make-up storage space

The mobility plan has a number of interesting rail projects that perhaps everyone here is already familiar with, including connecting the Michigan Line with CSX so the Pere Marquette can service New Buffalo, and also connecting the Michigan Line to the South Shore at Michigan City, to allow the Pere Marquette to take the South Shore into Chicago, no doubt utilizing the 16th Street Connector (or St. Charles Airline Connector, whatever) when and if it gets built.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (Jun 9, 2022)

Is the taxicab stand still at the same place? Can you still get to it by walking out the door from the upstairs part of the lounge? 

Also, do Lyft and Uber pick up there as well? Or elsewhere at the station?

Sorry if this was posted above and I missed it. Going to Chicago soon, and this would be helpful to know. Thenks.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Jun 9, 2022)

Mystic River Dragon said:


> Is the taxicab stand still at the same place? Can you still get to it by walking out the door from the upstairs part of the lounge?
> 
> Also, do Lyft and Uber pick up there as well? Or elsewhere at the station?
> 
> Sorry if this was posted above and I missed it. Going to Chicago soon, and this would be helpful to know. Thenks.


The last time I was there, yes, the cab stand was still on the west side of Canal near the south stairs and the Metropolitan Lounge's upper doors.

Uber and Lyft do service Union Station. Pick up/drop off has been on the west side of Canal at Adams.

I haven't been at Union in a while, but might take a run on the Southwest Service soon to see what I can see.

When I have to head downtown for work, I've been using the Rock Island. It's about as close to me as the Southwest Service. While the Southwest only runs 6 or 7 round trips right now, The Rock runs multiple times that many, and with the South Cook Fair Transit Program, tickets on The Rock are much cheaper.

ETA - For anyone planning a trip through Union in the future, I know CDOT has mentioned recently that they plan on reconstructing the Canal Street Viaduct soon. It's one of the reasons Amtrak pushed to get the new Clinton Street doors, which open into the not-yet-complete food hall and into the Great Hall, ready for use. If you head to Google Maps, you can see the three new doors and canopy on the Clinton side.

Right now, CDOT is working on the intersection of Harrison and Canal, as well as Harrison from the C&A Sugar House to the intersection at Canal.

A side note - It's really great to see the Clinton Street side of Union fully opened up. All the windows have been reinstalled and that side no longer resembles a fortified military installation.

When the time comes for CDOT to rip up Canal, most of the traffic that uses Canal will temporarily use Clinton instead. That would, I'd imagine, means taxis and rideshare as well. But I don't think it's happening in the _very _near future. CDOT will post plenty of warnings when it does.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jun 9, 2022)

MisterUptempo said:


> The mobility plan has a number of interesting rail projects that perhaps everyone here is already familiar with, including connecting the Michigan Line with CSX so the Pere Marquette can service New Buffalo, and also connecting the Michigan Line to the South Shore at Michigan City, to allow the Pere Marquette to take the South Shore into Chicago, no doubt utilizing the 16th Street Connector (or St. Charles Airline Connector, whatever) when and if it gets built.


It seems surprising that they would use the NICTD tracks to Chicago (obviously once in Chicago they would use CN). 

That's for digging all this information up, very interesting.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Jun 9, 2022)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> It seems surprising that they would use the NICTD tracks to Chicago (obviously once in Chicago they would use CN).
> 
> That's for digging all this information up, very interesting.


It does mention the South Shore in the line item in the mobility plan as well as the MIPRC presentation. I'm wondering whether "south shore" is just shorthand for any tracks that head up to Chicago on what was the IC, including the CN tracks. I dunno.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jun 9, 2022)

MisterUptempo said:


> It does mention the South Shore in the line item in the mobility plan as well as the MIPRC presentation. I'm wondering whether "south shore" is just shorthand for any tracks that head up to Chicago on what was the IC, including the CN tracks. I dunno.


Same person who transposed Amtrak and Metra in the other article? Amtrak could certainly run on the NICTD but with their increased traffic coming with the Munster extension I wonder if they would want Amtrak clogging things? Metra certainly wouldn't want them on the main line (plus the CN tracks already run the right way - funnily enough I got to see the inbound CONO from LSD and one of the Illinois service trains from the Stevenson the other day - kind of fun trainspotting!).


----------



## MisterUptempo (Jun 9, 2022)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> Same person who transposed Amtrak and Metra in the other article? Amtrak could certainly run on the NICTD but with their increased traffic coming with the Munster extension I wonder if they would want Amtrak clogging things? Metra certainly wouldn't want them on the main line (plus the CN tracks already run the right way - funnily enough I got to see the inbound CONO from LSD and one of the Illinois service trains from the Stevenson the other day - kind of fun trainspotting!).


Using the NICTD figures into Amtrak's plans to run 8 round trips CHI-IND, with 4 headed to Cincy and 4 to Louisville. In the Amtrak Connects plan, NICTD is listed as one of the host railroads. I took that to mean using the CN tracks, connecting to the NICTD/South Shore at Kensington, to the West Lake Extension tracks at Hammond, where they'd eventually transfer to the Monon sub at Dyer., where West Lake terminates. 

West Lake is anticipated to be complete in 2025, which likely means if Amtrak starts the service to Indy before the 16th Street Connector is complete, they'd just have to perform the backup onto the Air Line.


----------



## jis (Jun 10, 2022)

> Interconnected series of projects would include new entry to city, improvements at Union Station and in Michigan











Amtrak unveils infrastructure plan to transform Chicago operations - Trains


CHICAGO — Amtrak is seeking more than $200 million in federal funding, along with money from state and local sources, in an attempt to fix a series of long-standing deficiencies, capacity limitations, and how trains from the south and east enter Chicago. The passenger operator is competing for a...




www.trains.com





Includes rerouting of Cardinal between Chicago and Dyer! If it happen it will indeed transform entrance into Chicago from the east and south.


----------



## moselman66 (Jun 10, 2022)

jis said:


> Amtrak unveils infrastructure plan to transform Chicago operations - Trains
> 
> 
> CHICAGO — Amtrak is seeking more than $200 million in federal funding, along with money from state and local sources, in an attempt to fix a series of long-standing deficiencies, capacity limitations, and how trains from the south and east enter Chicago. The passenger operator is competing for a...
> ...



Anybody with better insight have an idea of how much time this could shave off CHI-IND?

That it's _five hours_ between Chicago and Indy just kills what could be a potentially big rail market. Even if there's a way to overcome all the routine issues every potential expansion faces to one degree or another (hostile government, funding, uncooperative freight lines, etc.) the current route for CHI-IND is prohibitively slow to ever make much headway. Speed improvement usually come in smaller increments -- five minutes here, fifteen minutes there, but every bit helps.

Making Michigan service more reliable and maybe shaving a little time is great, and those have realistic benefits toward improving service (reliability, frequency, increased usage) we can hope to see. But CHI-IND seems like such a hopeless topic without huge money and a reversal of political will that a little optimism here would be welcome.


----------



## NES28 (Jun 10, 2022)

moselman66 said:


> CHI-IND seems like such a hopeless topic without huge money and a reversal of political will that a little optimism here would be welcome.


With the money now available from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) this would be the right time for Indiana to respond to the FRA Request for Expressions of Interest for Corridor Identification. Interestingly, the FRA Midwest Regional Plan found that Chicago-Indianapolis high-speed rail would be profitable to operate.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jun 10, 2022)

It's kind of surprising to me how indirect the route into Indy is from the NW - whereas I-65 is fairly direct. I know there are a lot of old ROW's in the area, but not sure they were going in that direction (there was one in the Tippecanoe River SP for example).


----------



## jis (Jun 10, 2022)

moselman66 said:


> Anybody with better insight have an idea of how much time this could shave off CHI-IND?


Some educated guesses from people that know way more about the lay of the land around there than I says 10-15mins conservatively.


----------



## Burns651 (Jun 10, 2022)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> Same person who transposed Amtrak and Metra in the other article? Amtrak could certainly run on the NICTD but with their increased traffic coming with the Munster extension I wonder if they would want Amtrak clogging things? Metra certainly wouldn't want them on the main line (plus the CN tracks already run the right way - funnily enough I got to see the inbound CONO from LSD and one of the Illinois service trains from the Stevenson the other day - kind of fun trainspotting!).


I have a copy of the "Michigan Line Corridor Plan- Operational Schematic" showing current and long-term configurations, prepared by Amtrak Corporate Planning and dated 5/18/20. It shows not only Michigan trains but also eastern long-distance ones using the NICTD to 16th St.- Chicago and into a "New St. Charles Airline Head-on Connection." Double-track extension and other improvements would allow for extensive sections of higher-speed running up to 110 MPH as far west as Hegewisch. It notes that "80 mph universal XO's on each end of all NICTD platforms would be best for Amtrak."

Long-distance trains would run on approximately .7 mile of relaid NKP track from where it currently ends at N. Dickson St. in Michigan City to the MC. They'd then cross the drawbridge and veer off immediately west of it along with the Michigan trains to the NICTD power plant spur, which ties into the NICTD mainline on the west side of town. "Future Amtrak-NICTD connection from South Shore tail track to Amtrak MI Line along ex Monon [that's an error, it's NKP] RoW. Allows Amtrak LD trains to operate via NICTD from South Bend. While not using the Michigan City Street Running tracks." I don't know if the recent removal of that street running would change those plans to allow LD trains to use the NICTD mainline all the way. The "tail track" route would still involve less grade crossings.

The plan notes the oft-discussed new connection at New Buffalo to reroute the PM onto the MI Line, and illustrates the new section of double track in Michigan. It would begin at the new station of "Glenwood" at approximately MP 174 and end at CP 192/Niles. The existing Dowagiac and Niles controlled sidings would be upgraded into this new double track.


----------



## Steve4031 (Jun 10, 2022)

Iirc there are high level platforms at South Chicago and Gary with gauntlet tracks for freights to work around the platform. I’m assuming these would work for getting Superliners through there. There is another area at the state line, iirc, where there’s shark curves and diamond crossings of a freight rt.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Jun 11, 2022)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> It's kind of surprising to me how indirect the route into Indy is from the NW - whereas I-65 is fairly direct. I know there are a lot of old ROW's in the area, but not sure they were going in that direction (there was one in the Tippecanoe River SP for example).


There have been a number of routings suggested between CHI-IND.

One, promoted by some pushing for a CHI-FTW-COL route, envisions heading out of Chicago, picking up the CFE running east-southeast to Wanatah, turning south onto 25 miles of reconstructed Monon line to a rehabbed Medaryville Industrial Line (former Monon), continuing onto CSX's Monon Sub and completing the trip to Indy in the same fashion as The Hoosier State.

You'd lose Dyer and Rensselaer, but potentially pick up Gary and Valparaiso.

To play a little Amtrak Fantasy League, it would be nice to continue rebuilding the Monon Line north from Wanatah all the way back into Michigan City, giving passengers riding on the Michigan Line a route to Indy without having to go all the way into Chicago, as the Michigan Line parallels the former Monon in Michigan City (Is it possible that portion of the Michigan Line _was _Monon at one time?).

Another routing, coming from the High Speed Rail Alliance, has trains heading out of Chicago on CN's former IC Line to Kankakee, turning onto the KBS to Lafayette, where it turns onto the Monon sub, and, as with the CFE routing, heads to Indy on the same route as the Hoosier State. HSRA see it as a high speed line, which would mean extensive rebuilding of the entire route.

Here again you lose Dyer and Rensselaer, but pick up Homewood and Kankakee.

Station location is a problem; Kankakee's station is several thousand feet too far south and Lafayette's station is about 1000 feet too far north.


----------



## Cal (Jun 11, 2022)

jis said:


> Amtrak unveils infrastructure plan to transform Chicago operations - Trains
> 
> 
> CHICAGO — Amtrak is seeking more than $200 million in federal funding, along with money from state and local sources, in an attempt to fix a series of long-standing deficiencies, capacity limitations, and how trains from the south and east enter Chicago. The passenger operator is competing for a...
> ...


I am unfamiliar with the Chicago area. Is there a map anywhere that provides a visual to these plans?


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jun 11, 2022)

MisterUptempo said:


> There have been a number of routings suggested between CHI-IND.
> 
> One, promoted by some pushing for a CHI-FTW-COL route, envisions heading out of Chicago, picking up the CFE running east-southeast to Wanatah, turning south onto 25 miles of reconstructed Monon line to a rehabbed Medaryville Industrial Line (former Monon), continuing onto CSX's Monon Sub and completing the trip to Indy in the same fashion as The Hoosier State.
> 
> ...


Yeah. there would be lots of options. I'm talking more what is available now - it's not readily obvious to me if there was actually a direct, "air line" route to Indy from Chicago. Historically NW Indiana was very interesting with the various lines splaying out to the east, southeast and south all converging closer and closer together to get to Chicago. Driving through Porter County, for example, you cross so many old ROW's close together. 

Gary and Valpo would certainly be bigger population centers than Dyer - seems that you'd want to add a station in like Hammond to get those passengers (does Dyer have that many as it is? None of them will make their way to Gary to catch the train). Plus you'd be able to give Valpo commuter service again - I think it's one of the bigger & more prominent cities around Chicago that doesn't have rail service at the moment.


----------



## Burns651 (Jun 11, 2022)

MisterUptempo said:


> ...would be nice to continue rebuilding the Monon Line north from Wanatah all the way back into Michigan City, giving passengers riding on the Michigan Line a route to Indy without having to go all the way into Chicago, as the Michigan Line parallels the former Monon in Michigan City (Is it possible that portion of the Michigan Line _was _Monon at one time?).


That's a very cool idea! The Monon RoW parallels the east/south side of the Michigan Line in Michigan City. The Michigan Line is strictly ex-MC from Porter to West Detroit, except for the CN segment in Battle Creek.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jun 11, 2022)

Burns651 said:


> That's a very cool idea! The Monon RoW parallels the east/south side of the Michigan Line in Michigan City. The Michigan Line is strictly ex-MC from Porter to West Detroit, except for the CN segment in Battle Creek.



That seems like a lot of additional mileage to get to Chicago from the south, especially since you'd be backtracking back to the south around the bottom of the lake to get there (hopefully my snip from OpenRailwayMap works). It also illustrates my earlier comment about the converging lines to Chicago.


----------



## jis (Jun 11, 2022)

Cal said:


> I am unfamiliar with the Chicago area. Is there a map anywhere that provides a visual to these plans?


Map specific to the NICTD proposed West Lake Corridor and how it affects the Cardinal by connecting into its route at Dyre is illustrated in this map:






West Lake Corridor







www.nictdwestlake.com





The general project page is West Lake Corridor Project

The Amtrak Dyre station is on the same line a little past the terminus station of the West Lake Corridor at Munster Dyer Main St.

Today the Cardinal joins this line at the point that CN line crosses this line between the proposed Munster Ridge Rd. and the Munster Dyer Main St. station.

After the full buildout of the direct access to the St. Charles Airline from Chicago Union Station, the Cardinal would get onto the St. Charles via the new direct link and thence onto NICTD. It will travel on NICTD to the proposed new station at Hammond Gateway where it will branch off to the NICTD West Lake Corridor and follow it to Dyer and then on the current route from Dyer to Indy.

You can also see all this on the FTA Map (PDF).

For a more comprehensive Chicago area projects under the CREATE umbrella you can see these two PDF documents:

CREATE Projects with Passenger Benefits opens in a new tab (PDF)

CREATE High Speed Rail and Intercity Benefits opens in a new tab (PDF)


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jun 11, 2022)

Here's what I'd like to know - eventually - is whether Amtrak would actually share track or run on adjacent track in the ROW (which is what happens now on the CN/MED ROW - which obviously was originally the IC mainline [and if I understand it correctly, was a branch which eventually became the IC mainline once Chicago's rail primacy became obvious/evident - it was going to run straight up the middle of the state to Rockford, more or less]). Certainly north of Kensington it's a no brainer to run on CN - Amtrak already runs at 70+ MPH along Lake Shore Drive and the connection to the St Charles Airline is already in place.

Keep in mind that from Van Buren to 115/Kensington NICTD runs on MED tracks (NICTD has their own terminal at Randolph) - after that to the east it's NICTD trackage. The CN are double (not sure from where to where but it looks like from just north of McCormack Place to somewhere south of U Park) and with some new bridges the Airline could be doubled. Metra is electroquad tracked to 115th (really 111th being the end of the express-limited-local service pattern soutbound).


----------



## jis (Jun 11, 2022)

I think the general idea is to get Amtrak off of freight railroad dispatched trackage and onto passenger railroad dispatched trackage (METRA, NICTD, Amtrak etc.) wherever possible.

We have been exploring similar opportunities wherever possible in Florida too. New York has done so with the New York - Albany segment of the Empire Service.

The idea is to see how much of such can be achieved in the Chicago area, and specifically South of the Lake to avoid the fiasco otherwise known as NS, with its high tech auto-dispatcher which cannot find its way out of a wet brown paper bag (incidentally apparently CN is in the process of acquiring the same Wabtec system). This includes the possibility of running Amtrak entirely on NICTD all the way out to South Bend, and avoid freight railroads completely to gain access from Chicago to Amtrak trackage in Michigan.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jun 11, 2022)

Looks like there is already a connection between CN and NICTD (this is an aerial shot just south of 115th) which I couldn't remember - there's a crossover just to the north between the two CN tracks. The four left hand tracks are the electric MED tracks:


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jun 11, 2022)

jis said:


> I think the general idea is to get Amtrak off of freight railroad dispatched trackage and onto passenger railroad dispatched trackage (METRA, NICTD, Amtrak etc.) wherever possible.
> 
> We have been exploring similar opportunities wherever possible in Florida too. New York has done so with the New York Alabny segment of the Empire Service.
> 
> The idea is to see how much of such can be achieved in the Chicago area, and specifically South of the Lake to avoid the fiasco otherwise known as NS, with its high tech auto-dispatcher which cannot find its way out of a wet brown paper bag (incidentally apparently CN is in the process of acquiring the same Wabtec system). This includes the possibility of running Amtrak entirely on NICTD all the way out to South Bend, and avoid freight railroads completely to gain access from Chicago to Amtrak trackage in Michigan.


Yes, that makes sense. I just can't see adding Amtrak onto MED - with both South Shore and the frequent Metra stops it seems like a recipe for congestion. MED already is by far and above the rest of Metra for on-time performance. The CONO comes through at wildly varying times (obviously we're talking other service which potentially would be on time). I know it's done on MetroNorth and elsewhere on the NEC, but it seems if CN could be bought or Amtrak taking over dispatching there it would solve the issue. 

IIRC CN has talked about dumping the northern section of the line once CREATE happened thought with that slow-tracked who knows - they've put a lot of money into the tracks lately. 

Of course.... I just had a brilliant idea. Amtrak could build two exclusive tracks along the ROW - it's certainly wide enough north of Kensington - in fact it looks like there are 8 tracks for several miles north of there - six start just south of 79th street, but the ROW supported more for years. I think it sported 10-12 tracks north of Kenwood to Central Station when that existed.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Jun 11, 2022)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> Yes, that makes sense. I just can't see adding Amtrak onto MED - with both South Shore and the frequent Metra stops it seems like a recipe for congestion. MED already is by far and above the rest of Metra for on-time performance. The CONO comes through at wildly varying times (obviously we're talking other service which potentially would be on time). I know it's done on MetroNorth and elsewhere on the NEC, but it seems if CN could be bought or Amtrak taking over dispatching there it would solve the issue.
> 
> IIRC CN has talked about dumping the northern section of the line once CREATE happened thought with that slow-tracked who knows - they've put a lot of money into the tracks lately.
> 
> Of course.... I just had a brilliant idea. Amtrak could build two exclusive tracks along the ROW - it's certainly wide enough north of Kensington - in fact it looks like there are 8 tracks for several miles north of there - six start just south of 79th street, but the ROW supported more for years. I think it sported 10-12 tracks north of Kenwood to Central Station when that existed.


The _Trains _article jis linked to further up the thread mentions that purchasing the CN freight tracks from downtown Chicago to Kensington is very much part of the plan, but it is the only portion of the plan that is not constrained at this time.

I took another look at MDOT's Tier 1 South of the Lake plans, and Route 9 (options 1 and 2), which utilized the same CN tracks, would have flown over NICTD at Kensington to connect to the IHB and then onto CSX Porter Sub (option 2 connected to CSX at Ivanhoe, option 1 connected to CSX 5 miles further east at a greenfield connection), eventually turning onto the Michigan Line at Porter.





I'm glad that Amtrak is trying to get off freight corridors, but their plans lean pretty heavily on NICTD at the moment. I just hope, at some point, they consider building a little redundancy into the system, in case, for example, there is an accident on the 16th Street Connector or a major derailment on NICTD, either of which could gum up the works pretty badly. Keeping these South of the Lake plans in their back pocket might not be a bad idea.


----------



## jis (Jun 11, 2022)

It would be interesting to see what the Amtrak plans alluded to by @Burns651 in his post above has to say about all this. Clearly they do have to address the issues raised by @Metra Electric Rider. I am referring to this post.


----------



## west point (Jun 11, 2022)

auto router appears that the freight RRs and passenger RRs are on two different paths. Freights are trying to reduce dispatchers as much as possible but as reported else where there are as many as 9 dispatchers on the NEC WASH - NYP. It appears that the examples of automated dispatching for NS on the CRESCENT and into CHI have been somewhat of a failure..
The problem is IMO unanticipated happenings. Auto router might be able to handle one problem but when there are multiples there is no way a computer probgram can anticipate all.. 

Has the vendor contract been written such that if any dispatcher over rides any auto router set up then vendor will not investigate the screw up?


----------



## dlerach (Jun 11, 2022)

Would it not be more advantageous to simply restore the ex-PRR passenger mains from the 21st St. Bridge through Gary? I believe the ROW supported freight and passenger mains for both the PRR and NYC from Englewood to Clarke Junction. What prevents Amtrak from building two more tracks that are separate from the current NS tracks and dispatching them themselves?


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jun 11, 2022)

MisterUptempo said:


> The _Trains _article jis linked to further up the thread mentions that purchasing the CN freight tracks from downtown Chicago to Kensington is very much part of the plan, but it is the only portion of the plan that is not constrained at this time.
> 
> I took another look at MDOT's Tier 1 South of the Lake plans, and Route 9 (options 1 and 2), which utilized the same CN tracks, would have flown over NICTD at Kensington to connect to the IHB and then onto CSX Porter Sub (option 2 connected to CSX at Ivanhoe, option 1 connected to CSX 5 miles further east at a greenfield connection), eventually turning onto the Michigan Line at Porter.
> 
> ...


I agree on multiple routes for redundancy and convenience. It might make more sense to run further south.

Funnily enough it got me looking at the MED map and wonder if it would be possible to extend the South Chicago branch to like the southeast side which has no transit, but it looks like it would be far easier to take it to Jeffrey Manor.



dlerach said:


> Would it not be more advantageous to simply restore the ex-PRR passenger mains from the 21st St. Bridge through Gary? I believe the ROW supported freight and passenger mains for both the PRR and NYC from Englewood to Clarke Junction. What prevents Amtrak from building two more tracks that are separate from the current NS tracks and dispatching them themselves?



I think that the owners of the ROW were the problem - but also CREATE was supposed to do something along those lines, at least in part. I'm not as familiar with NW Indiana in that area, but there is a lot of industrial freight in there - oil/petroleum tankers, chemicals, raw iron and steel products.


----------



## Burns651 (Jun 11, 2022)

MisterUptempo said:


> ...consider building a little redundancy into the system, in case, for example, there is an accident on the 16th Street Connector or a major derailment on NICTD, either of which could gum up the works pretty badly. Keeping these South of the Lake plans in their back pocket might not be a bad idea.


There's also no redundancy built into the current exclusive use of the NS west of Porter. Unfortunately it will be all that Amtrak can manage to do to secure use of the NICTD; there's no extra money lying around to also build and/or relay a parallel alternate route.


----------



## west point (Jun 11, 2022)

dlerach said:


> Would it not be more advantageous to simply restore the ex-PRR passenger mains from the 21st St. Bridge through Gary? I believe the ROW supported freight and passenger mains for both the PRR and NYC from Englewood to Clarke Junction. What prevents Amtrak from building two more tracks that are separate from the current NS tracks and dispatching them themselves?


I agree. The out of service lift bridge would be the most expensive portion.


----------



## railiner (Jun 12, 2022)

dlerach said:


> Would it not be more advantageous to simply restore the ex-PRR passenger mains from the 21st St. Bridge through Gary? I believe the ROW supported freight and passenger mains for both the PRR and NYC from Englewood to Clarke Junction. What prevents Amtrak from building two more tracks that are separate from the current NS tracks and dispatching them themselves?


Not sure, but didn't they sell off portions of the right of way to power lines and other uses?


----------



## Burns651 (Jun 12, 2022)

dlerach said:


> Would it not be more advantageous to simply restore the ex-PRR passenger mains from the 21st St. Bridge through Gary? I believe the ROW supported freight and passenger mains for both the PRR and NYC from Englewood to Clarke Junction. What prevents Amtrak from building two more tracks that are separate from the current NS tracks and dispatching them themselves?


Because without hugely expensive flyovers there'd still be freight interference. NS would still have to cross any new Amtrak tracks to get to the intermodal yard on the north side of the right of way at 63rd St. There's a freight connection from the north that ties into NS/Amtrak just east of the Calumet Sag Channel bridge. Another freight connection on the north side of the RoW just west of the Indiana Harbor canal. Diamonds at Pine Jct. More conflicts on the north side between there and Porter at US Steel, Cleveland Cliffs Burns Harbor mill, etc.


----------



## dlerach (Jun 12, 2022)

Burns651 said:


> Because without hugely expensive flyovers there'd still be freight interference. NS would still have to cross any new Amtrak tracks to get to the intermodal yard on the north side of the right of way at 63rd St. There's a freight connection from the north that ties into NS/Amtrak just east of the Calumet Sag Channel bridge. Another freight connection on the north side of the RoW just west of the Indiana Harbor canal. Diamonds at Pine Jct. More conflicts on the north side between there and Porter at US Steel, Cleveland Cliffs Burns Harbor mill, etc.


I hadn't looked at Englewood in a while, but couldn't you route traffic bound for the 63rd St. yard via the ex-NYC mains, which were 4 (?) tracks to the north of the ex-PRR tracks, rather than constructing multiple flyovers? You are also correct about the connection just east of the Calumet River and the Indiana Harbor Canal west of Pine Jct. While there would still be interaction between freight and passenger trains if Amtrak had its own dedicated passenger tracks, would the situation still not be dramatically more favorable than it is now? Installing flyovers or restoring the ex-NYC tracks for freight on the north side of the ROW would be great, but is *completely* severing freight and passenger traffic necessary for smooth passenger operations? NS runs a number of trains from Perryville to Baltimore on the NEC, no? And that's on a 2-track line where freight and the Acela are running on the same track...


----------



## Burns651 (Jun 12, 2022)

jis said:


> It would be interesting to see what the Amtrak plans alluded to by @Burns651 in his post above has to say about all this. Clearly they do have to address the issues raised by @Metra Electric Rider. I am referring to this post.


I can't tell for sure from the plan which tracks would be used between Kensington and the St. Charles Airline connection. It only depicts two tracks, and the only details given between those points is a planned 45 MPH crossover at 39th St, and a maximum speed of 79 on the whole stretch. It does show mileposts but they're the same on that segment whether you're on electric or CN tracks.

I would scan parts of the plan but it was given to me by an Amtrak employee under the condition that I not post images of it. It doesn't have close engineering detail aside from speeds of planned turnouts and platform lengths.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Jun 12, 2022)

Burns651 said:


> There's also no redundancy built into the current exclusive use of the NS west of Porter. Unfortunately it will be all that Amtrak can manage to do to secure use of the NICTD; there's no extra money lying around to also build and/or relay a parallel alternate route.


I can appreciate that funding is in short supply. But what concerns me most is that we will have Amtrak eastern trains, Amtrak southern trains, Illinois and Michigan service trains, possibly new Amtrak regional trains, future O'Hare-McCormick Place trains, and potential Metra RER-type service all depending on a one track connector. One. Track. For a lot more trains than just those that currently use the NS Chicago Line.

What I wrote earlier about Amtrak (and all the other entities involved in this project) having a backup plan in their back pockets should still hold true. Yes, there won't be any money available right now, as the cash needs to be spread in a lot of different places. But CREATE projects have been getting built long before the current pot of gold materialized. And more will be completed as time goes by. 

Having CREATE-Grand Crossing plans, for example, handy and shovel-ready should hopefully prove to be insurance against the possibility that the Air Line Connector isn't able to deliver everything all its proponents are counting on it to be.


----------



## Burns651 (Jun 12, 2022)

dlerach said:


> I hadn't looked at Englewood in a while, but couldn't you route traffic bound for the 63rd St. yard via the ex-NYC mains, which were 4 (?) tracks to the north of the ex-PRR tracks, rather than constructing multiple flyovers? You are also correct about the connection just east of the Calumet River and the Indiana Harbor Canal west of Pine Jct. While there would still be interaction between freight and passenger trains if Amtrak had its own dedicated passenger tracks, would the situation still not be dramatically more favorable than it is now? Installing flyovers or restoring the ex-NYC tracks for freight on the north side of the ROW would be great, but is *completely* severing freight and passenger traffic necessary for smooth passenger operations? NS runs a number of trains from Perryville to Baltimore on the NEC, no? And that's on a 2-track line where freight and the Acela are running on the same track...


It just seems that if Amtrak has the opportunity to move onto the South Shore tracks, it would be simpler than building new trackage by the NS that still would leave substantial freight conflicts. The South Shore isn't 100% free of freight interference but the issues are more minor than along the NS.


----------



## dlerach (Jun 12, 2022)

Burns651 said:


> It just seems that if Amtrak has the opportunity to move onto the South Shore tracks, it would be simpler than building new trackage by the NS that still would leave substantial freight conflicts. The South Shore isn't 100% free of freight interference but the issues are more minor than along the NS.


The ex-PRR has a superior profile though, no? Is it not shorter than rerouting via South Shore + Air Line? It also only has curves greater than 1° at Englewwod and on both sides of the Hammond-Whiting Station. It's also grade separated to Gary save one employee crossing directly north of the 21st St. Bridge, three crossings again adjacent to the Hammond-Whiting station, and Clarke Rd. near the Gary airport. That kind of track geometry is screaming for high passenger speeds. Perhaps 125 mph with Chargers and 160+ if electrification ever makes it across the Alleghenies...


----------



## Burns651 (Jun 12, 2022)

MisterUptempo said:


> I can appreciate that funding is in short supply. But what concerns me most is that we will have Amtrak eastern trains, Amtrak southern trains, Illinois and Michigan service trains, possibly new Amtrak regional trains, future O'Hare-McCormick Place trains, and potential Metra RER-type service all depending on a one track connector. One. Track. For a lot more trains than just those that currently use the NS Chicago Line.


Are you assuming that Amtrak isn't contemplating re-double tracking the Air Line? There are 3 bridges (Michigan, Wabash, State) on the Air Line that had the second track span removed, and the right of way is still there on the whole line to reinstall the second track. Hardly a deal breaker. 

In fact, the Dearborn St. bridge was recently completely replaced with a span wide enough to allow a second track.


----------



## Burns651 (Jun 12, 2022)

dlerach said:


> The ex-PRR has a superior profile though, no? Is it not shorter than rerouting via South Shore + Air Line? It also only has curves greater than 1° at Englewwod and on both sides of the Hammond-Whiting Station. It's also grade separated to Gary save one employee crossing directly north of the 21st St. Bridge, three crossings again adjacent to the Hammond-Whiting station, and Clarke Rd. near the Gary airport. That kind of track geometry is screaming for high passenger speeds. Perhaps 125 mph with Chargers and 160+ if electrification ever makes it across the Alleghenies...


I would imagine that the Amtrak engineering department has studied the South Shore geometry thoroughly and approved it for its purposes. A shorter distance on the ex-PRR and NYC doesn't matter when you still end up stopping for freight traffic, regardless of if some new parallel tracks are built.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Jun 12, 2022)

Burns651 said:


> Are you assuming that Amtrak isn't contemplating re-double tracking the Air Line? There are 3 bridges (Michigan, Wabash, State) on the Air Line that had the second track span removed, and the right of way is still there on the whole line to reinstall the second track. Hardly a deal breaker.
> 
> In fact, the Dearborn St. bridge was recently completely replaced with a span wide enough to allow a second track.


I'm specifically referring to the Connector itself, which utilizes the Air Line bridge, then curving to the north and onto Union Station's approach tracks. The draft I posted and the _Trains _article reported it will be a one track affair. I'm really hoping it's not true, but we have no info to contradict.


----------



## west point (Jun 12, 2022)

Can you imagine the delay post. train xx delayed by commuter RR trafic. AKA--South shore line.


----------



## john_f (Jun 12, 2022)

MisterUptempo said:


> I'm specifically referring to the Connector itself, which utilizes the Air Line bridge, then curving to the north and onto Union Station's approach tracks. The draft I posted and the _Trains _article reported it will be a one track affair. I'm really hoping it's not true, but we have no info to contradict.


Would a one-track feeder, with provisions to later upgrade to two, be that much worse? I have not tried to answer that through modelling, as the present arrangement only adds roughly a half hour a year to 15 hours of (my) travel. I would think any direct route would be a big improvement over the present arrangement!


----------



## jis (Jun 12, 2022)

MisterUptempo said:


> I'm specifically referring to the Connector itself, which utilizes the Air Line bridge, then curving to the north and onto Union Station's approach tracks. The draft I posted and the _Trains _article reported it will be a one track affair. I'm really hoping it's not true, but we have no info to contradict.


In my thinking that connector is a short piece of single track (assuming the Air Line is doubled) which takes a short time to traverse and should be manageable for traffic foreseen in the next decade or two. It is like the Empire Connector from Penn Station to the Empire trackage in west Manhattan. When traffic grows sufficiently it can be double tracked. A single track there should be able to handle 10tph which for now should be more than sufficient. Naturally it would be prudent to leave easements for future doubling.

All in all I think it OK to build out a single track connection now leaving easements for future double tracking.


west point said:


> Can you imagine the delay post. train xx delayed by commuter RR trafic. AKA--South shore line.


One does not need to imagine. Just come to Orlando to see it in real life  specially when the Silvers come to the Sunrail territory out of slot, which is, needless to say, quite often.



dlerach said:


> The ex-PRR has a superior profile though, no? Is it not shorter than rerouting via South Shore + Air Line? It also only has curves greater than 1° at Englewwod and on both sides of the Hammond-Whiting Station. It's also grade separated to Gary save one employee crossing directly north of the 21st St. Bridge, three crossings again adjacent to the Hammond-Whiting station, and Clarke Rd. near the Gary airport. That kind of track geometry is screaming for high passenger speeds. Perhaps 125 mph with Chargers and 160+ if electrification ever makes it across the Alleghenies...


That would indeed be a good alignment if there was financial stomach to make that new trackage completely grade separated from everything else and dispatched by Amtrak or METRA. But that is a pretty long shot I think.



dlerach said:


> NS runs a number of trains from Perryville to Baltimore on the NEC, no? And that's on a 2-track line where freight and the Acela are running on the same track...



A couple of nits that need pointing out... It is not a two track segment all the way between Perry and Bayview. The bridges are two track but the trackage on solid ground is mostly three track, and 4 track west of Chase. The number of trains NS runs on that segment are few, around three or so per day and most importantly, (a) they run mostly at low traffic times at night and (b) they are dispatched by Amtrak. The situation in NS land in south of the Lake is very very different from that and not comparable at all IMHO.

Incidentally there are other segments of the NEC that host some freight too, and a classic case of freight on substantially double track railroad happens around New London to Providence segment with an occasional P&W job. But again, they are very few, dispatched by Amtrak, and usually far away temporally from any significant passenger traffic.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jun 12, 2022)

Burns651 said:


> I can't tell for sure from the plan which tracks would be used between Kensington and the St. Charles Airline connection. It only depicts two tracks, and the only details given between those points is a planned 45 MPH crossover at 39th St, and a maximum speed of 79 on the whole stretch. It does show mileposts but they're the same on that segment whether you're on electric or CN tracks.


My guess if it's two tracks would be using CN. There's a siding around 39th Street - will try to check tomorrow on my way to work (if I remember). Amtrak certainly runs at or close to that speed on that stretch now. 

Somehow I think the term connection is a misnomer since the CN tracks merge into the Airline with no interruption - there's nowhere else for trains to go. 

The Airline itself definitely needs to be rebuilt in places with new bridges and two tracks.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jun 12, 2022)

Routing Amtrak trains away from Norfolk Southern is a solid idea. The railroad has proven itself to be incapable of handling passenger trains on an on-time basis. Rerouting on to the South Shore would pretty much guarantee better handling. Of course there might be some delays during rush hour periods, but those delays would be of much shorter duration than NS' unreliable dispatching. Putting the eastern trains on the former IC's lakefront route will be much more reliable than running through NS' yard trackage. As far as the 10 mph approach to CUS from the Airline, how much faster can you run a train through terminal yard trackage? Moving the Lincoln Service and Texas Eagle trains from the CN to Metra Rock Island also allows a much smoother entrance to Chicago. 
CN would probably have no problem selling the lakefront line north of Kensington since just about all its trains are now routed on the former EJ&E to points north of Chicago. 
Sending the Cardinal and any future Indianapolis trains north of Dyer on the now being built South Shore line would drastically cut the problems the train now has getting through UP's Yard Center and being handed off from CSX to UP to Metra.


----------



## Burns651 (Jun 12, 2022)

I took another look at the plan and noticed that Amtrak would utilize "track typically used by commuters" (thick black lines, not thin ones) between Kensington and the Airline. As I mentioned before I'm not at liberty to reproduce the original, but I replicated as best as I could in Paint the westernmost section shown on the plan. The speed limit grid was color-coded but I didn't bother re-creating the colors, or showing the mileposts.

Best wishes to anyone attempting to decipher the image further or read between the lines!


----------



## neroden (Jun 12, 2022)

dlerach said:


> Would it not be more advantageous to simply restore the ex-PRR passenger mains from the 21st St. Bridge through Gary? I believe the ROW supported freight and passenger mains for both the PRR and NYC from Englewood to Clarke Junction. What prevents Amtrak from building two more tracks that are separate from the current NS tracks and dispatching them themselves?


Funding. They have to get the money to buy the ROW out from under NS/CSX/Conrail. Basically that's all that prevents it


(PS -- Also see my next comment: the ROW from Englewood to Union Station -- where there were never any NYC tracks -- is actually a seriously expensive problem. It may make sense to run on St Charles Air Line and IC/CN tracks from Union Station to Grand Crossing just to avoid that section, even if you are building two new tracks from Englewood to Gary on the former NYC ROW.)


----------



## neroden (Jun 12, 2022)

jis said:


> Amtrak unveils infrastructure plan to transform Chicago operations - Trains
> 
> 
> CHICAGO — Amtrak is seeking more than $200 million in federal funding, along with money from state and local sources, in an attempt to fix a series of long-standing deficiencies, capacity limitations, and how trains from the south and east enter Chicago. The passenger operator is competing for a...
> ...


It's a good list. Most of this is the "low-hanging fruit":
-- Direct connection from St Charles Air Line to Union Station -- yes, it's single track, but it's OK for a station throat for now. Eventually it'll need to be double tracked at great expense but only once there are so many trains running that there's a large political lobby to advocate for it
-- Faster connection from St. Charles Air Line to Metra Rock Island District -- gets high-speed rail from Chicago to St Louis out of the freight gauntlet from Chicago through Joliet
-- reactivating the mail platforms (which are HIGH LEVEL) makes a big difference in boarding at Chicago
-- Chicago Union Station trainshed ventilation is depressingly overdue, and a basic health need
-- Buying the CN tracks parallel to Metra Electric from Chicago to Kensington is a sensible matter of preserving capacity for passengers while the tracks are cheap to buy. It will at any rate be good for the Illini, Saluki, and CONO. And a vast improvement over the Cardinal's current route.

Using this and the South Shore Line is an utterly stupid route for the Michigan services, LSL, and CL from Union Station to South Bend -- it's got a lot of twists and turns and is very slow -- but it has proven quite difficult to fund buying the vacant straight, fast ROW from squatter NS. CN has been very interested in selling off its tracks and this one may be cheap right now. Buy it while it's for sale.

Of course, none of this *precludes* buying the fast, straight route from NS later. It could be bought in segments.

I will discuss this possibility.
Union Station to Grand Crossing is one segment. Probably the really expensive one to buy. The ROW is very constrained in places north of the Dan Ryan, meaning people's back yards and alleys would need to be taken; with tight S-curves. And there's a lot of elevated viaducts and bridges over roads and highways (including the LONG bridge over Dan Ryan, and bridges over many many roads) which would need new spans for Amtrak -- very expensive.

Also, NS is jealous of their access to their yard just south of 63rd St near the place where the Metra Rock Island Line flies over, which is on the north/east side of the line, when all the other yards are on the south/west side of the line, and there's no room to fly over the NS tracks there.


Also, Amtrak really doesn't like the former Pennsy drawbridge across the Chicago River -- it's apparently a major cause of delays. It's the lowest-clearance drawbridge on the river and has to open for a lot of boat traffic. So it may make more sense to take the St Charles Air Line / CN route just to avoid that, even if Amtrak has an all-passenger route.

The St Charles Air Line / CN route is only 0.2 miles longer and has gentle curves.

Grand Crossing is where the Metra Electric and CN lines dive under the NS and vacant former NYC lines. 

So, Grand Crossing to Gary is another segment. This is where the Metra/NICTD route is really slow and twisty, with lots of sharp curves, and the NS route is extremely direct. This, however, has a lot fewer problems and would be a lot cheaper to implement than Grand Crossing to Union. 

There's room to fly up from the Metra Electric tracks into the vacant former NYC ROW, and then the bridges are intact up to the decommissioned swing bridge over the Calumet, with no freight tracks to the east to cause trouble. Some goofball ran high-voltage power lines along part of the route, but there's still enough room for passenger tracks. 

The vacant ROW is wide open from there south, with only one connecting track crossing it, all the way to Hammond-Whiting station. In fact there are several places the tracks coule be placed, between various other tracks.

More rearrangement of tracks and bridges (at least one more crossing of freight tracks and a couple of troublesome road bridges to get around, one river bridges, plus at least one flyover to get from one side of a set of freight tracks to the other) would be needed to thread the passenger tracks through Whiting, Indiana Harbor, and Buffington Harbor, but there's a lot of space.

The vacant ROW is clear again from Buffington Harbor all the way to where the NS tracks meet the NICTD tracks, with one river bridge needed and one crossover freight track to deal with. It would run through the derelict Gary Union Station (or, more expensively, could cross over the Indiana Toll Road to Gary before that).

Anyway, it's six miles shorter than the Metra/NICTD route, avoids the level crossing at Kensington, avoids waiting behind commuter traffic, and doesn't have the slow curves. But it could be done independently of the portion north of Grand Crossing, which has lot more ROW and construction issues.

So thinking about it, I think this is how the thinking goes:

-- once it was decided to run Chicago-St Louis service on the Rock Island Line, it became necessary to get from Union Station to the Rock Island Line. There are various bad ways of doing this, but the connection from the St Charles Air Line directly to the north to Union Station is definitely the best way.
-- That connection also benefits the Illini/Saluki/CONO. Buying the St Charles Air Line and the CN line next to the Metra Electric Line preserves that capacity for passengers and protects it.
-- Since West Lake Corridor is already being built, once you've done this, it makes sense to reroute the Cardinal from its current incredibly messy route to this route and NICTD
-- Given the problems with the Grand Crossing - Union Station section on the existing LSL/CL/Michigan route, especially the low drawbridge and the need to take backyards and alleys to get exclusive passenger tracks, and the difficulties in trying to improve it, it makes sense to shift LSL/CL/Michigan over to the route you just bought, even if you do eventually want to reclaim the vacant Grand Crossing - Gary ROW and build proper fast tracks there.


----------



## west point (Jun 12, 2022)

The more track can be bought and upgraded to HrSR the better. Very important for future HSR in abd out of CHI US.


----------



## Burns651 (Jun 12, 2022)

neroden said:


> Using this and the South Shore Line is an utterly stupid route for the Michigan services, LSL, and CL from Union Station to South Bend -- it's got a lot of twists and turns and is very slow -- but it has proven quite difficult to fund buying the vacant straight, fast ROW from squatter NS.


Amtrak plans for substantial speed upgrades on the NICTD from Michigan City as far as Hegewisch. Lengthy stretches of 90 to 110 MPH. Probably raised speeds east of Michigan City as well, I haven't come across any detailed plan for that yet.

Even if Amtrak relaid the NYC from Englewood to Whiting, that does nothing to resolve the freight interference from there to Elkhart. Those delays alone likely exceed any problematic curves on an upgraded NICTD-- and at any rate Amtrak's engineering department has already done the calculations to show it!


----------



## neroden (Jun 12, 2022)

Burns651 said:


> Amtrak plans for substantial speed upgrades on the NICTD from Michigan City as far as Hegewisch. Lengthy stretches of 90 to 110 MPH. Probably raised speeds east of Michigan City as well, I haven't come across any detailed plan for that yet.



The curves from Gary to Kensington cannot be improved significantly. And don't underestimate the potential delays at Kensington.



Burns651 said:


> Even if Amtrak relaid the NYC from Englewood to Whiting, that does nothing to resolve the freight interference from there to Elkhart. Those delays alone likely exceed any problematic curves on an upgraded NICTD-- and at any rate Amtrak's engineering department has already done the calculations to show it!



Agreed. The South Shore Line should be a faster route from Gary through South Bend. It's only possible once the South Shore Line finishes their double tracking project (still in progress); trying to fit Amtrak in on the single-track line would have messed up the schedule way too badly.

Unfortunately, the currently-funded double-tracking is only as far as Michigan City; so the Michigan trains could use the South Shore Line as soon as it's done, but the LSL and CL can't until double tracking is done from Michigan City to South Bend.

Unfortunately, a lot of NS's dispatching mess is *east* of South Bend, for which none of this will help. The extension of passenger-exclusive tracks to Elkhart would be necessary, and probably further east, too.

Anyway, buy the tracks whenever possible...


----------



## jis (Jun 12, 2022)

Perhaps Kensington needs to get a flying junction if all this comes to pass..

The NS mess begins from east of Elkhart at the junction with the line coming in from Michigan. But still being able to avoid west of South Bend would be a huge improvement. 

I guess the opportunity should be taken to get the South Bend Station platform(two tracks) off of the NS Main Line. There is ample space. Perhaps a single track from South Bend station could go east as far as the west end of CP Bend to join the NS Main there. Afterall, the only traffic on this at least for now would be the LSL and the CL. 

More intriguingly, there is space to extend that all the way to Union Station and have it join the main line just east of it! But that is getting us away from this thread to the old South Bend thread.


----------



## PaTrainFan (Jun 12, 2022)

Other than adding additional double tracking to the South Shore Line, would there be additional upgrades needed to the roadbed to accomodate much longer and, I presume, heavier Amtrak trains?


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jun 12, 2022)

PaTrainFan said:


> Other than adding additional double tracking to the South Shore Line, would there be additional upgrades needed to the roadbed to accomodate much longer and, I presume, heavier Amtrak trains?


Certainly around Burns Harbor (Mittal, formerly Bethlehem and USS steel mills) has handled heavy freight on NICTD - not sure how far east of Mineral Springs Road they would run freight, but certainly west of there Amtrak should be no problem - at least weight-wise.

The South Shore Line has always handled quite a bit of freight historically.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jun 12, 2022)

Only thing heavy about an Amtrak train would be the locomotives. The cars themselves would not be a whole lot heavier than the South Shore MUs in a railroad context. Both are mostly empty space, as opposed to, say, a loaded coal car, or coiled steel on a flat car.


----------



## west point (Jun 13, 2022)

Doesn't it just seem to be too many delays from CHI to SOB?


----------



## jis (Jun 13, 2022)

PaTrainFan said:


> Other than adding additional double tracking to the South Shore Line, would there be additional upgrades needed to the roadbed to accomodate much longer and, I presume, heavier Amtrak trains?


I believe CSS is 286K compliant over most if not all of its main line trackage. Weight of Amtrak trains should not be an issue.


----------



## Crowbar_k (Jun 14, 2022)

So, about that new St. Charles Air Line ramp. My question is, where on earth is it going to go?



It just does not look like there is any room to install a new bridge, unless they can take a few storage tracks out of service.


----------



## Crowbar_k (Jun 14, 2022)

Honestly, I think there is a much simpler solution: use Millenium Station. Sure, not all amtrak services won't be in the same place, but that's already the case in Boston. I feel there are very few people who make connections anyway. Not only that, but Millenium station is in a much more convenient location for passengers, just steps away from hotels and attractions.


----------



## west point (Jun 14, 2022)

Cannot tell for sure. Is the north bascle permantly raised?. I see no tracks going to it.


----------



## Crowbar_k (Jun 14, 2022)

west point said:


> Cannot tell for sure. Is the north bascle permantly raised?. I see no tracks going to it.


It's permanently raised. Too expensive to demolish.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jun 14, 2022)

west point said:


> Cannot tell for sure. Is the north bascle permantly raised?. I see no tracks going to it.


Yes, permanently raised... (as above I see)



Crowbar_k said:


> So, about that new St. Charles Air Line ramp. My question is, where on earth is it going to go?
> 
> 
> It just does not look like there is any room to install a new bridge, unless they can take a few storage tracks out of service.


I believe that they will remove the maint. bldg. for the track - they are planning a new maintenance building possibly demolishing the Union Station Power Plant (further north - north of Roosevelt) which has become a bit of a cause among deco aficionados and preservationists in Chicago. If I'm understanding operations, it also to some degree frees up other tracks going west too.



Crowbar_k said:


> Honestly, I think there is a much simpler solution: use Millenium Station. Sure, not all amtrak services won't be in the same place, but that's already the case in Boston. I feel there are very few people who make connections anyway. Not only that, but Millenium station is in a much more convenient location for passengers, just steps away from hotels and attractions.


No room at the inn. Lots of reasons why it won't work, but the heavy Metra service really won't allow much else there - there's a train at least every ten minutes in or out from rush hour to rush hour (NICTD has their own platforms as it is). Unless Amtrak is planning on dual modes the diesels won't work there. Plus Amtrak would have to double up on maintenance staff, facilities, ticketing, etc. Trains would still have to go over the airline for heavy service so it makes sense to centralize it all.

I'm sure if the Downeaster could run to South Station in Boston Amtrak would be there rather than have two terminals.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Jun 14, 2022)

Crowbar_k said:


> So, about that new St. Charles Air Line ramp. My question is, where on earth is it going to go?
> 
> It just does not look like there is any room to install a new bridge, unless they can take a few storage tracks out of service.


I'll repost this draft from a couple pages ago-





It appears that trains will use the eastern approach to the Air Line bridge, cross the Chicago River on that bridge, then utilize parts of the western approaches of both the Air Line and B&O Chicago Terminal bridges, making a slow turn north, and descending onto the westernmost lead track into Union Station.

ETA - It is entirely possible that using the B&O bridge was never an option in the first place. In the draft, you'll notice at the very bottom of the illustration a series of boxes on the eastern bank of the river. Those are placeholders for buildings Related Midwest intends to construct on the property, now called "The 78". One placeholder clearly sits within the former right of way of what was the eastern approach to the B&O bridge. So, it's possible it's considered abandoned and ownership of that land transferred to Related.

Some tracks in the yard will require relocation and one or two will need to be removed. As for the yard space this project will take out of service, Amtrak intends to acquire UP's Canal Street Yard, located at the intersection of Canal Street, 23rd Street, and Archer Avenue, about 3/5 of a mile south of the Air Line.


----------



## Crowbar_k (Jun 14, 2022)

MisterUptempo said:


> I'll repost this draft from a couple pages ago-
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I could be wrong, but doesn't the yard on the west side of the mainline tracks belong to Metra?


----------



## jis (Jun 14, 2022)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> I'm sure if the Downeaster could run to South Station in Boston Amtrak would be there rather than have two terminals.


Indeed! The huge counter example to maintaining two separate terminal stations is New York, where a large sum of money was spent to consolidate Amtrak operations at a single station. There is next to zero chance that Amtrak will contemplate splitting operations into two stations in Chicago.


----------



## Crowbar_k (Jun 14, 2022)

jis said:


> Indeed! The huge counter example to maintaining two separate terminal stations is New York, where a large sum of money was spent to consolidate Amtrak operations at a single station. There is next to zero chance that Amtrak will contemplate splitting operations into two stations in Chicago.


Yeah. It all makes sense now that I've thought about it more. However, I do think a new platform should be built at 55th-56th-57th street to serve Amtrak trains, especially if that line is about to get a lot more passenger traffic.


----------



## jis (Jun 14, 2022)

A good concise explanatory blog from the High Speed Rail Alliance:









Amtrak’s plans for Chicago will vastly improve train travel across America







hsrail.org





So the layout at Joliet will involve Amtrak use a platform quite far from the headhouse, a platform adjacent to the old Rock Island METRA stop, before entering the sharp curve to join the line to St. Louis?


----------



## MisterUptempo (Jun 14, 2022)

jis said:


> A good concise explanatory blog from the High Speed Rail Alliance:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link. I was about to post it myself. Here is a direct link to the application filed by Amtrak and the rest of the group for the funding.

I do notice, among other things, the one track Air Line connector is to be viewed as an interim solution, holding out the possibility of either an expanded connector or an entirely new bridge at some point in the future.

Regarding the new Joliet platform, I think it's a matter of making the best of a bad situation. The curve leading from the Rock Island onto the UP tracks already exists. Considering the location of the current Metra platform and the UP tracks being the two eastern tracks heading out of Joliet, I'm not sure a turn could have been built that works. If UP occupied the two western tracks, instead of BNSF, then maybe.

It would be nice, if at all possible, to get a look at the attachments and appendices that were part of the application. They'd probably answer a lot of the questions being asked at the moment.



img src - industrialscenery.blogspot.com


----------



## rs9 (Jun 14, 2022)

A quick thought on the potential for Lake Shore Limited route changes from Chicago to South Bend: on 49/449, the inevitable NS delays don't feel like an issue until the train passes South Bend and the next station is the final destination - and that of everyone on the train...and the train crawls along all too frequently. Perception wise, a fast final segment would do a world of good.


----------



## west point (Jun 14, 2022)

I have seen very few on time arrivals at SOB for trains leaving CUS. That is for only on time departures from CHI. Mechanical probllems after logging out of CUS also were not counted.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jun 14, 2022)

Improved flow from the Airline will benefit Metra as well as Amtrak - I'm sure they can make allowance for track movement in the yard. Interesting that we've now confirmed that Amtrak would use CN rather than Metra. 

Interesting report on the S-bahn type service (which keeps getting floated). I'm not a huge fan of the idea at the moment because I fear it would take away service from the loop (although in theory CUS is slightly closer to my office). 

Is a curve that big of a deal if it's immediately adjacent to a station stop?


----------



## neroden (Jun 14, 2022)

Crowbar_k said:


> So, about that new St. Charles Air Line ramp. My question is, where on earth is it going to go?
> View attachment 28629
> 
> 
> It just does not look like there is any room to install a new bridge, unless they can take a few storage tracks out of service.


It's basically landing between the Metra tracks curving to the West and the Amtrak tracks heading straight south. It'll remove one or two of those, and I'm not sure which ones, but Amtrak doesn't really need three tracks heading straight south if they're *rerouting all the Amtrak trains which currently head straight south over the new St Charles Air Line Bridge*, so it'll probably remove one of those.


----------



## neroden (Jun 14, 2022)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> No room at the inn. Lots of reasons why it won't work, but the heavy Metra service really won't allow much else there - there's a train at least every ten minutes in or out from rush hour to rush hour (NICTD has their own platforms as it is). Unless Amtrak is planning on dual modes the diesels won't work there. Plus Amtrak would have to double up on maintenance staff, facilities, ticketing, etc. Trains would still have to go over the airline for heavy service so it makes sense to centralize it all.



Of course Millennium Station is not viable. But I'll be punchy and suggest that while Amtrak is building all of this stuff on the St Charles Air Line, Amtrak should add a stop at McCormick Place. There's room (though all those columns supporting the building might be a problem).


----------



## neroden (Jun 14, 2022)

MisterUptempo said:


> Some tracks in the yard will require relocation and one or two will need to be removed. As for the yard space this project will take out of service, Amtrak intends to acquire UP's Canal Street Yard, located at the intersection of Canal Street, 23rd Street, and Archer Avenue, about 3/5 of a mile south of the Air Line.


So this is interesting; it means Amtrak would still be crossing that low Pennsy drawbridge over the Chicago River *for yard moves*, but not for *revenue* moves. Seems like an improvement definitely.


----------



## rs9 (Jun 15, 2022)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> Improved flow from the Airline will benefit Metra as well as Amtrak - I'm sure they can make allowance for track movement in the yard. Interesting that we've now confirmed that Amtrak would use CN rather than Metra.
> 
> Interesting report on the S-bahn type service (which keeps getting floated). I'm not a huge fan of the idea at the moment because I fear it would take away service from the loop (although in theory CUS is slightly closer to my office).
> 
> Is a curve that big of a deal if it's immediately adjacent to a station stop?


For CN vs Metra tracks running parallel: can the Superliners fit under the catenary?


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac (Jun 15, 2022)

jis said:


> A good concise explanatory blog from the High Speed Rail Alliance:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for this. For the first time this whole discussion now makes sense to me.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jun 15, 2022)

neroden said:


> Of course Millennium Station is not viable. But I'll be punchy and suggest that while Amtrak is building all of this stuff on the St Charles Air Line, Amtrak should add a stop at McCormick Place. There's room (though all those columns supporting the building might be a problem).


Bigger problem is the ramp to cross MED which starts pretty early within the building and creating access from above to get to the platform. 



rs9 said:


> For CN vs Metra tracks running parallel: can the Superliners fit under the catenary?



While it probably won't be relevant since Amtrak will use the CN tracks and I don't see electrification happening for a long time, the answer would be yes, since they Amtrak is considering using NICTD who do have a few highliners which MED uses.


----------



## Deni (Jun 15, 2022)

Crowbar_k said:


> Yeah. It all makes sense now that I've thought about it more. However, I do think a new platform should be built at 55th-56th-57th street to serve Amtrak trains, especially if that line is about to get a lot more passenger traffic.


I do wish that Amtrak had some secondary stations that served neighborhoods in Chicago. Probably not for LD trains but it seems for corridor trains we could have some stops in farther out neighborhoods, like on the northwest side for the Hiawatha, somewhere around 35th/Archer for St. Louis trains, maybe around 95th St for Illini/Saluki, and maybe somewhere like the border suburb of Cicero for IL Zephyr/Sandburg trains.


----------



## toddinde (Jun 15, 2022)

Crowbar_k said:


> Honestly, I think there is a much simpler solution: use Millenium Station. Sure, not all amtrak services won't be in the same place, but that's already the case in Boston. I feel there are very few people who make connections anyway. Not only that, but Millenium station is in a much more convenient location for passengers, just steps away from hotels and attractions.


Boston is a huge problem, and multiple stations aren’t an answer. We’re talking about building a bridge. I think we can do that. This isn’t hard.


----------



## NES28 (Jun 15, 2022)

rs9 said:


> For CN vs Metra tracks running parallel: can the Superliners fit under the catenary?


Generally, yes. Superliners on Capitol Limited have operated via the South Shore when the NS was blocked.


----------



## toddinde (Jun 15, 2022)

cirdan said:


> I wonder what the implication of wider platforms is.
> 
> Does this mean fewer platforms?


It shouldn’t. It means getting rid of the baggage/mail platforms that are between each track.


----------



## NES28 (Jun 15, 2022)

Correct. Platform widening can be accomplished pretty easily by removing the unused baggage platforms (a holdover from when passenger trains handled huge amounts of mail and Railway Express) and shifting alternate tracks into that space. The few widenings now proposed were identified as a "proof-of-concept" in the earlier Union Station Master Plan Study.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jun 15, 2022)

toddinde said:


> Boston is a huge problem, and multiple stations aren’t an answer. We’re talking about building a bridge. I think we can do that. This isn’t hard.


Adding a station on the way out of town isn't a bad idea, though. Back in the day, most everything on NYC or Pennsy stopped in Englewood. Totally agree about having two terminal stations. Amtrak has been consolidating them for years. Such a proposal would be putting back the 21st century equivalent of Chicago Union versus Central Station, which they got rid of in like 1972.

Amtrak used to have several cities with different terminals, GCT and Penn, Galesburg Santa Fe and Burlington, Pomona Santa Fe and SP, the previously mentioned CUS and Central station come to mind. Heck, BON wasn't even an Amtrak station until after Downeaster service started. They rightfully were getting rid of multiple stations where they could, not adding them.


----------



## NorthShore (Jun 16, 2022)

Deni said:


> I do wish that Amtrak had some secondary stations that served neighborhoods in Chicago. Probably not for LD trains but it seems for corridor trains we could have some stops in farther out neighborhoods, like on the northwest side for the Hiawatha, somewhere around 35th/Archer for St. Louis trains, maybe around 95th St for Illini/Saluki, and maybe somewhere like the border suburb of Cicero for IL Zephyr/Sandburg trains.



Historically, pre Amtrak trains stopped at Englewood, which was the real major entry point to Chicago and well trafficked, back in the day.

South Shore used to stop at 115th. With the reinvigorated Pullman destination, I think it (or an eventually renovated 111th, more likely) should be added back, with Amtrak potentially serving it, also.


----------



## jis (Jun 16, 2022)

I stumbled upon the original Chicago Union Station Master Plan document for CUS:









Master Plan


Amtrak, the Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT), Metra and the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) – known as the "Project Partners" - invite you to learn more about the transformative initiatives taking place at Chicago Union Station, which will help the historic Station evolve into a…




chicagounionstation.com


----------



## Billvasili (Jun 16, 2022)

George K said:


> I was there last Thursday night. Obvious that *something's* going on, but not apparent in my walk from the Metra platforms (south concourse) through the Amtrak area to Canal street.
> 
> However, once I got outside, I saw that the cab stands had been moved from the east side of Canal to the west.
> 
> Sounds good, though, doesn't it?


George K 
Those cab stands were better on the east side of Canal. Now if you pull up in a limo or town car or Uber duber they have to pass all those cabs please either stop in the lane away from the curb. Also there is the elevator which is very small there and or steps for passengers going into the station. Buses are using the east side of Canal. This needs to be improved.


----------



## Michigan Mom (Jun 18, 2022)

Billvasili said:


> George K
> Those cab stands were better on the east side of Canal. Now if you pull up in a limo or town car or Uber duber they have to pass all those cabs please either stop in the lane away from the curb. Also there is the elevator which is very small there and or steps for passengers going into the station. Buses are using the east side of Canal. This needs to be improved.


This must have been a recent change? Last couple trips to Chicago it was easy to get a cab on the street outside the Metro lounge (is that Adams?)


----------



## zephyr17 (Jun 18, 2022)

Michigan Mom said:


> This must have been a recent change? Last couple trips to Chicago it was easy to get a cab on the street outside the Metro lounge (is that Adams?)


Metropolitan Lounge has an outside door out to the west side of Canal on the second floor. It was locked and unused when I was there in November.


----------



## jis (Jun 21, 2022)

The West Lake Corridor we have been talking about here got some RRIF funding...

West Lake Corridor project receives $203.3 million RRIF loan


----------



## jis (Jun 21, 2022)

One more CREATE project completed...









Officials celebrate completion of CREATE Argo Connection project - Trains


SUMMIT, Ill. — Some projects in Chicago’s CREATE program, which seeks to address rail congestion, bring dramatic changes to the landscape. The Englewood Flyover, the lengthy bridge which raised Metra’s Rock Island District above the Norfolk Southern main line on the city’s South Side, is the...




www.trains.com


----------



## cirdan (Jun 22, 2022)

NES28 said:


> Generally, yes. Superliners on Capitol Limited have operated via the South Shore when the NS was blocked.


The NICTD also has double-decker trains. I wonder if these have more or less the same dimensions as superliners.

Now just imagine an Amtrak train running along the street running section in Michigan City. That would be a sight worth seeing.


----------



## cirdan (Jun 22, 2022)

Just wondering.

Some years ago we were hearing reports of bits of the concrete roof / ceiling over the platforms falling down and presenting a danger to passengers.

Has that been resolved by any constructional activity or repairs, or is that still an ongoing issue?


----------



## WWW (Jun 22, 2022)

zephyr17 said:


> Metropolitan Lounge has an outside door out to the west side of Canal on the second floor. It was locked and unused when I was there in November.


Yes there is a street side door from the upper level of the Metropolitan Lounge.
No entry exit !
Has a desk for an attendant and wiring for a computer terminal near that entrance.
HOWEVER due to staffing reduction and covid issues - have never seen it open or utilized - AND - probably never will -
BUT - the upper level is so quiet and relaxing elevator access if needed nice clean spacious restrooms and the gallery of photos !
P.S. keep it that way don't let the secret out !


----------



## joelkfla (Jun 22, 2022)

cirdan said:


> Now just imagine an Amtrak train running along the street running section in Michigan City. That would be a sight worth seeing.


But that's being removed. It will end up running down the street but in a separate ROW, something like Ashland VA but with street traffic on just one side.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jun 22, 2022)

joelkfla said:


> But that's being removed. It will end up running down the street but in a separate ROW, something like Ashland VA but with street traffic on just one side.


I haven't delved that deeply into the Michigan City end, but was Amtrak going to stay on NICTD through Michigan City or switch over to their current routing somewhere on the west side or downtown? I guess if they route the LSL et al via NICTD they will run on that.


----------



## leccy (Jun 22, 2022)

I think there is a connection from the Amtrak Michigan line to the Chicago and South Shore (freight) line at Michigan City station. Using that would avoid street running.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Jun 22, 2022)

cirdan said:


> Just wondering.
> 
> Some years ago we were hearing reports of bits of the concrete roof / ceiling over the platforms falling down and presenting a danger to passengers.
> 
> Has that been resolved by any constructional activity or repairs, or is that still an ongoing issue?


Amtrak made some repairs to the trainshed ceilings; in some cases they installed scaffolding to provide protection against the possibility of future incidents.

The road to a more permanent solution goes through the funding request Amtrak (along with CDOT, IDOT, MDOT, Metra, and Cook County) made for Infrastructure Bill money.

A direct quote from the application -



> *Trainshed Ventilation Improvements (Component #3)*
> 
> The Platform Level/Trainshed at CUS has ventilation concerns that stem from the absence of a coordinated mechanical ventilation system along with a deficient volume of ventilation. CUS, with below grade platforms and tracks, has over a mile of overbuild that encloses the platform/trainshed, causing stagnant smoke and diesel exhaust to accumulate. The lack of natural cross ventilation, along with insufficient mechanical ventilation, exacerbates the ventilation problem. The ventilation project would also advance Amtrak’s ability to address the urgent need to remove failing plenums. A recent ventilation study conducted in 2020 has shown true promise for rectifying the stagnant diesel exhaust and providing a code compliant emergency ventilation system. The scope of Project activities for this component includes Preliminary Engineering, NEPA, and Final Design. Please see Appendix 11 for a map of falling concrete incidents at CUS.



(In the application, several small photos of the most glaring problems accompany the paragraph above.)

Notice how the funding request is for preliminary engineering, NEPA, and final design, but not for construction funds. Responsibility for the maintenance and repair of the trainshed ceilings and ventilation systems falls on the shoulders of any of six separate entities, depending on _where _in either of the trainsheds you are talking about.

Just a guess, but if they get funding for this, Amtrak will likely hire an engineering firm to make a complete assessment of the work needed to get the ventilation systems and ceilings into SOGR, and hand each stakeholder a bill for them to cover their portion of the work. I can foresee that leading to lawsuits or some such nonsense.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jun 23, 2022)

cirdan said:


> The NICTD also has double-decker trains. I wonder if these have more or less the same dimensions as superliners.
> 
> Now just imagine an Amtrak train running along the street running section in Michigan City. That would be a sight worth seeing.


The street running in Michigan City is right now being replaced. There will be a two track railroad, separated from a one-lane road.


----------



## DSS&A (Jul 3, 2022)

Amtrak has proposed new routes for its eastern trains, City of New Orleans and the Saluki trains into Chicago buy purchasing former Illinois Central tracks in Chicago and securing trackage rights from NICTD in Indiana. NICTD already has Gauntlet bypass tracks at its high-level platforms for freight trains to pass by them. If this purchase and trackage rights agreement are accomplished, this will reduce train running times and increase on-time schedule performance.

If the new NICTD West Lake Corridor stations aee built with high-level platforms, they will need gauntlet tracks too for the Cardinal and any future trains.

Here are a few links to articles:









Amtrak unveils infrastructure plan to transform Chicago operations - Trains


CHICAGO — Amtrak is seeking more than $200 million in federal funding, along with money from state and local sources, in an attempt to fix a series of long-standing deficiencies, capacity limitations, and how trains from the south and east enter Chicago. The passenger operator is competing for a...




www.trains.com













Amtrak’s plans for Chicago will vastly improve train travel across America







hsrail.org


----------



## jis (Jul 8, 2022)

More on funding for Chicago Union Station Access Project...









Officials stress importance of grant for Chicago passenger project - Trains


CHICAGO — Key contributors seeking $251.1 million from a federal competitive grant program focused on Chicago Union Station improvements at a Thursday event to announce their involvement. U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, Amtrak CEO Stephen Gardner, and Metra CEO/Executive...




www.trains.com


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jul 8, 2022)

I think that we should probably keep the NICTD and CN plans slightly separate in our minds for the moment. I'm hopeful for the CN routing since that would be quite practical (the new tracks into the CUS approach especially). 

IIRC the Munster extension will be alongside existing freight (although, after being out that way last week, it seems like there was no track at all where I thought the route was - a rail trail, but I don't know Munster that well).


----------



## joelkfla (Jul 8, 2022)

jis said:


> More on funding for Chicago Union Station Access Project...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_"The plan was presented as “The Chicago Union Station Access Project,” even though many aspects address how Amtrak trains enter the Windy City from the south and east."_​
Gee, that sounds like Union Station access to me.


----------



## jis (Jul 8, 2022)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> I think that we should probably keep the NICTD and CN plans slightly separate in our minds for the moment. I'm hopeful for the CN routing since that would be quite practical (the new tracks into the CUS approach especially).
> 
> IIRC the Munster extension will be alongside existing freight (although, after being out that way last week, it seems like there was no track at all where I thought the route was - a rail trail, but I don't know Munster that well).


At Munster (by where the proposed NICT service will terminate, there better be at least one freight track since the Cardinal runs on it today! It just uses a different more convoluted routing to get to it.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jul 8, 2022)

jis said:


> At Munster (by where the proposed NICT service will terminate, there better be at least one freight track since the Cardinal runs on it today! It just uses a different more convoluted routing to get to it.


It's a trackless trolley?


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jul 8, 2022)

There actually isn't a track in places - further north, at Ridge, there are no crossings! So we were both right, yay! 

Here's the crossing @ Ridge and Manor which I was thinking of - looks like the Cardinal joins the route with active tracks further south.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jul 8, 2022)

The site in the picture is the former Monon Railroad right of way that NICTD will use to build the West Lake Corridor. It will end on the north side of Dyer, just a bit north of the present CSX route used by the Cardinal and the Dyer Amtrak station. A short section of track would be needed to connect the NICTD with CSX.


----------



## jis (Jul 8, 2022)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> There actually isn't a track in places - further north, at Ridge, there are no crossings! So we were both right, yay!
> 
> Here's the crossing @ Ridge and Manor which I was thinking of - looks like the Cardinal joins the route with active tracks further south.
> 
> View attachment 28809


Yes. I knew that


----------



## Brystar41 (Jul 9, 2022)

Hi everyone!

I saw the recent news of the new massive plan for Chicago Union Station, and I am puzzled because isn't Chicago doing the whole CREATE project with the Railway networks of both Freight and Passenger in the Chicago metropolitan area?
I know that CREATE has P4, which will be from the Grand Crossing area of Chicago and will link from CN tracks to NS tracks. I wonder if that is still going in effect, or is it still on hold because that would be a direct way for Amtrak trains to head into Chicago easily.

All of the massive plans are amazing and looking forward to it when I go to the Midwest region since I am in Florida.
Anyways it is nice to meet y'all.


----------



## Brystar41 (Jul 9, 2022)

Also on that note since this will affect Amtrak then what about Metra and the communities it serves? How will this affect their services? Such as the Heritage Corridor that goes to Joliet?


----------



## jis (Jul 9, 2022)

Brystar41 said:


> Also on that note since this will affect Amtrak then what about Metra and the communities it serves? How will this affect their services? Such as the Heritage Corridor that goes to Joliet?


Read the entire thread including the linked documents and the answer to your questions will become self-evident.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jul 10, 2022)

Brystar41 said:


> Also on that note since this will affect Amtrak then what about Metra and the communities it serves? How will this affect their services? Such as the Heritage Corridor that goes to Joliet?


The St. Charles Air Line revamp along with the new entrance to CUS from the Air Line will negate any use of the Grand Crossing plan. The Grand Crossing plan would just put more Amtak trains on NS, and we know what that means, more delays. The use of the South Shore route for the Michigan and LD trains will also take Amtrak off the NS which is continually in a state of breaking down.
As far as moving the Lincoln service and TE trains onto the Metra Rock Island, this should have no effect on the Heritage Service, except to open up a few time slots for more Heritage trains, all subject to CN's delays, of course.


----------



## Brystar41 (Jul 12, 2022)

MikefromCrete said:


> The St. Charles Air Line revamp along with the new entrance to CUS from the Air Line will negate any use of the Grand Crossing plan. The Grand Crossing plan would just put more Amtak trains on NS, and we know what that means, more delays. The use of the South Shore route for the Michigan and LD trains will also take Amtrak off the NS which is continually in a state of breaking down.
> As far as moving the Lincoln service and TE trains onto the Metra Rock Island, this should have no effect on the Heritage Service, except to open up a few time slots for more Heritage trains, all subject to CN's delays, of course.


Ahh so that explains it, so it means the P4 could possibly be that project Amtrak, Metra, and Chicago have in store with the grade separation and connections to the Air Line. Also didn't know that of NS, I thought they are working with Amtrak to improve their railway lines?
Still looking forward to it and among other changes coming too. I hope Metra can electrify some of its lines, I understand not all will be but at least the ones that are possible and could make sense.

But for now, this is great, and glad they are improving these crossings as it will be more efficient to do so. Just wondering what will happen to stations such as Summit? And Heritage corridor is still going to continue on the CN route to Joliet, I hope you are right and they did increase service it seems weird that there is no weekend service at all.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jul 12, 2022)

The Heritage Corridor is definitely the Metra line with the least service. It originated with a single Gulf, Mobile and Ohio commuter train. After Metra took over, several new trips were started. The line probably has the lowest population of any Metra route, so that probably helps explain the low level of service. Metra is offering Saturday trips this summer as part of a tourism promotion with towns like Lockport and Lemont. Whether this develops into year-round service is yet to be seen. Metra has still not resumed Saturday service on the Southwest Service route whose weekday service is mostly rush-hour commuters.
As far as Summit is concerned, it will still be served by Metra. With the Lincoln service and Eagle trains rerouted on the Rock Island, Amtrak may add a stop at some place like Tinley Park or Blue Island, both much larger towns than Summit. 
The CN/Heritage corridor line is plagued by delays with grade-level crossings of major freight routes. The Rock Island's only grade level crossings with other railroads are with the CN/ex-EJ&E at Joliet and the St. Charles Air Line south of LaSalle Street station.


----------



## NorthShore (Jul 13, 2022)

This seems like an appropriate time to recall the CWI Plan: an alternative proposed by local rail advocates to portions of CREATE, as well as construction/implementation of new commuter rail 20 years ago. It was designed as a way to incrementally improve service and eliminate cross traffic such that these benefits would be realized in more immediate impact than CREATE could. It was a substantive plan, which ought to have been given more credence and serious consideration. However, having been put together not by paid consultants or official planners, it wasn't offered the kind of thoughtful potential that it deserved by powers that be at that time. Nonethless, it was reasonably promoted and publicly recognized. It ought to be revisited as part of historical understanding of possibilities which existed and in comparatively evaluating the effectiveness and cost of what has been accomplised (or not) with CREATE, as well as considering what still might be of worth today.






The Transit Riders' Authority







transit.chicago.il.us


----------



## Brystar41 (Jul 13, 2022)

MikefromCrete said:


> The Heritage Corridor is definitely the Metra line with the least service. It originated with a single Gulf, Mobile and Ohio commuter train. After Metra took over, several new trips were started. The line probably has the lowest population of any Metra route, so that probably helps explain the low level of service. Metra is offering Saturday trips this summer as part of a tourism promotion with towns like Lockport and Lemont. Whether this develops into year-round service is yet to be seen. Metra has still not resumed Saturday service on the Southwest Service route whose weekday service is mostly rush-hour commuters.
> As far as Summit is concerned, it will still be served by Metra. With the Lincoln service and Eagle trains rerouted on the Rock Island, Amtrak may add a stop at some place like Tinley Park or Blue Island, both much larger towns than Summit.
> The CN/Heritage corridor line is plagued by delays with grade-level crossings of major freight routes. The Rock Island's only grade level crossings with other railroads are with the CN/ex-EJ&E at Joliet and the St. Charles Air Line south of LaSalle Street station.


Thanks for the info on the situation with the whole upgrade projects Chicago and Amtrak Midwest is going thru. Also, Note I haven't been to Chicago nor the Midwest before but I do want to make a trip there on future Amtrak trains, I do want to try out the Venture cars they have there.

I was hoping to see the CREATE P4 project go thru because its a bummer on how the NS tracks, Amtrak won't be able to go thru because I checked the track routings of the surrounding area and also the Map that CREATE has and I do see that for Amtrak Trains coming into Chicago from the South and East of the US. It's more or less a Straight line to CUS. But it's a bummer that with the delays that NS has that Amtrak is thinking of a way around it, which I am looking forward to their new plan to use the CN route and use that flyover. But I wonder how the trains will be able to go up the flyover and be able to connect.

Another concern I see is Metra's Rock Island and Southwest services have to go thru a flat crossing? I am wondering if that is going to be addressed because that way there wouldn't be interference in each other operations. Also, another flat crossing would be for the Amtrak Trains heading to Michigan and the east coast, Is there any in the plans for a possible flyover that way it won't interfere with operations. I know places such as Europe and Asia where Railway operations are mostly separated by flyovers that way, there won't be interference?

Still, I do hope this project happens and any improvements to Railway infrastructure and Transportation, in general, are better than a no-build.


----------



## Brystar41 (Aug 1, 2022)

Hello everyone!

Also what is the recent update to this amazing news so far!


----------



## MisterUptempo (Aug 18, 2022)

FRA awards $3 million grant for Chicago Union Station concourse project​


> The Federal Railroad Administration will award $3 million in funding to complete the design for planned renovations to the concourse at Chicago Union Station.
> 
> The federal grant will be matched with $1.5 million from Metra, $600,000 from the Chicago Department of Transportation, $400,000 from Amtrak, and $250,000 each from the Illinois Department of Transportation and Cook County Department of Transportation and Highways. Amtrak and Metra trains serve the station.



Link to story at Progressive Railroading

Amtrak says that they anticipate an answer to their MEGA grant request by the end of September. Maybe getting FRA cash to complete the final designs might bode well for a thumbs up from the Feds on MEGA. Fingers crossed.


----------



## TransitTyrant (Aug 18, 2022)

MisterUptempo said:


> FRA awards $3 million grant for Chicago Union Station concourse project​
> 
> 
> Link to story at Progressive Railroading
> ...


I’m thinking the fact that lots of high profile Illinois politicians were at the July press conference bode well for its chances. That and Gardner calling it Amtraks most important current project. Getting everything funded before the 2024 election would ideal too.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Aug 25, 2022)

I thought this might be a worthwhile video to post.

On August 12, 2022, the High Speed Rail Alliance hosted a presentation/Q&A with Joe Shacter, Senior Manager at Amtrak for State-Supported Routes.

In the presentation, Shacter addresses plans to get Amtrak into/out of Chicago more quickly and reliably (now known as the Chicago Access Program), as well as changes to improve the traffic flow within Chicago Union Station.

It is estimated all the necessary work will cost $850 Million. This current phase of the project is estimated to cost $418.5 Million. Amtrak, as well as local agencies, have applied for a federal MEGA grant, which will cover 60% of the costs, Amtrak will cover 20%, while the local agencies will also cover 20%.

Of note during the presentation and Q&A-

1) On a slide showing a page from the actual MEGA application, here are a few projected dates for project start/completion, based on timely approval of the grant request-

a) The St. Charles Air Line Connector and upgraded Airline connection to the Rock Island tracks
(Engineering/NEPA/Construction)
-Start date 1st quarter(Q1) calendar year (CY) 2025
-Completion Q4 CY2026
-Improvements to the Rock Island connector would allow speeds on the connector to increase from 5MPH to 15MPH.

b) A new interim platform at Joliet for Lincoln Service and Texas Eagle trains
(Engineering/NEPA/Construction)
-Start Q4 CY2026
-Completion Q2 CY2027

c) Phase 1 of Union Station mail platform conversion to high-level passenger platform
-Final design complete by Q2 CY2023
-Construction start Q4 CY2023
-Completion Q1 CY2025.

d) Capacity improvements of platforms servicing tracks 2/4, 6/8, 10/12
(Engineering/NEPA only)
-Start Q1 CY2025
-Completion Q1 CY2027

e) Improvements to the concourse area
(Final Design/Construction)
-Start Q4 CY2024
-Completion Q4 CY2026

f) Niles-Glenwood Rd. (MI) double-tracking
(Engineering/NEPA only)-
Start Q2 CY2024 -
Completion Q2or4 CY2025

g) Train shed ventilation improvements
(Engineering/NEPA only)
-Start Q1 CY2025 -
-Completion Q1 CY 2027

h) Property acquisition (likely UP Canal Yard) $29 Million

2) Shacter mentioned that sending Amtrak onto NICTD at Kensington would apply, at least initially, to Michigan Service trains only. Negotiations with NICTD are only focused on MI Services now. But if it can be shown that adding eastbound LD trains would not adversely affect NICTD, Amtrak would very much like to get them off the NS Chicago Line as well. He said if the Capitol Limited were moved onto NICTD, it would likely mean ditching Superliners in favor of single-level rolling stock.

3) Amtrak is in talks with Metra about what capacity improvements would be necessary on the Rock Island to accommodate Lincoln/Eagle, which would be performed in conjunction with Metra increasing capacity for Southwest Service trains, which will turn onto the Rock north of 75th Street at some point in the future.

4) According to Shacter, maximum speeds on the Lincoln Service are anticipated to increase (Joliet to Alton) from 90MPH to 110MPH "in the next few months".

5) Several projects are being pursued by Amtrak and MDOT in MI; two he mentioned are-

a) a one-mile by-pass in Battle Creek to avoid having to use CN track there.

b) in Jackson, re-aligning the station track to accommodate two platforms, each servicing its own track.

6) Regarding the repurposed mail platforms, Shacter (who admitted he wasn't the best person to speak on the subject) mentioned accessing the mail platforms (and new waiting areas) from Harrison Street, or perhaps Van Buren, or both. I have no idea if that means a Harrison/Van Buren entry/exit would be the only place to access those platforms, or if it would be in addition to the converted Union Station basement steam tunnels under the platforms, as described in the Union Station Master Plan.

7) A decision on this MEGA grant is expected in the second half of September, 2022.

8) Regarding Chicago-Peoria service, Shacter says that IDOT has not yet formally requested Amtrak to look at Peoria service. But that might change. In related news, the mayor of Peoria recently announced that IDOT has decided to include Peoria service in its state rail plan, an important step in applying for Corridor ID funding.

9) Even though Metra will be the primary driver for service connecting O'Hare and McCormick Place through CUS, Amtrak is exploring the possibility of through-running some Midwest corridor trains up to O'Hare. An analysis of future through-running capacity will have to be completed to determine whether it's doable. This runs counter to what Amtrak Government Affairs rep Derrick James told HRSA last year, who said Amtrak had no interest in running to O'Hare. If this does occur, it would be nice to see Amtrak, Metra, IDOT, CDOT, and the Chicago Department of Aviation get together and provide significant improvements to O'Hare Transfer station, with an eye towards building a station at the terminals.

10) Shacter says Gardner, "wants to see Chicago on the path to being fixed within the next five years".

11) In Indiana, Fort Wayne service is being "looked at" at the request of local stakeholders, but INDOT has not yet expressed an interest in partnering with Amtrak on this. Discussions are just getting started over Amtrak using the future NICTD West Lake Extension as part of an "eventual" revived Hoosier State, which he said is several years out. Amtrak believes CHI-IND would be a perfect candidate for 110MPH, and considering the extensive work that will be required to get the CSX Monon sub into shape to run at any decent speed, they will seriously consider building for 110MPH. But, in the end, Amtrak takes all its cues from INDOT.

12) In Ohio, Amtrak is working very closely with state rail officials there on 3C, CLE-DET. Currently in the hands of Amtrak's Government Affairs people, not with State-Supported Routes.

13) Contrary to something Marc Magliari mentioned last year, Amtrak is supposedly still considering a long-term idea of building their own dedicated tracks on the old NYC/Nickel Plate(?) ROW, now being used by Commonwealth Edison. The concept would entail connecting to Amtrak-owned lines at Porter. That means, at some point, CREATE Grand Crossing will be back in play, as Shacter envisions using the CN Lakeshore tracks, connecting to the new dedicated tracks at Grand Crossing on the way out of Chicago. If MI Services utilize NICTD to Michigan City, the Amtrak-owned tracks from Porter to MC will go unused until those dedicated tracks are built.

Edit - to correct a project completion date


----------



## west point (Aug 26, 2022)

I like the idea of thru running using the mail platforms. However IMO enough height clearance is done to allow fuure OCS CAT to be installed to clear Superliners.


----------



## Touchdowntom9 (Nov 9, 2022)

Is there any update regarding the approval of the MEGA grant? 
Also would Amtrak be planning to make any upgrades to the South Shore Line in the event they begin to plan to run trains on that track? Could be a big benefit to both groups


----------



## TransitTyrant (Nov 9, 2022)

Touchdowntom9 said:


> Is there any update regarding the approval of the MEGA grant?
> Also would Amtrak be planning to make any upgrades to the South Shore Line in the event they begin to plan to run trains on that track? Could be a big benefit to both groups


No news yet, possibly by the end of Q4. Obviously Amtrak would have to upgrade the SSL further. What those upgrades entail is anyones guess but possibly include 
-multiple crossovers 
-higher speed track
-signal upgrades


----------



## Touchdowntom9 (Nov 9, 2022)

TransitTyrant said:


> No news yet, possibly by the end of Q4. Obviously Amtrak would have to upgrade the SSL further. What those upgrades entail is anyones guess but possibly include
> -multiple crossovers
> -higher speed track
> -signal upgrades


Thanks for clarifying as I wasn't sure if I missed an update (2 months after the mid Sept timing they suggested). The SSL from what I can tell has some great track geometry esp once you get outside of Chicago that Amtrak could really step on the gas on if they wanted to use it for their other routes. Owning track is always nice, but using track owned by a state gov entity is 90% as good.


----------



## TransitTyrant (Nov 9, 2022)

Touchdowntom9 said:


> Thanks for clarifying as I wasn't sure if I missed an update (2 months after the mid Sept timing they suggested). The SSL from what I can tell has some great track geometry esp once you get outside of Chicago that Amtrak could really step on the gas on if they wanted to use it for their other routes. Owning track is always nice, but using track owned by a state gov entity is 90% as good.


Also a grant was awarded by the FRA back in August to finish the design of concourse renovations. Part of the overall scope of the project but separate from the MEGA funding.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Nov 9, 2022)

TransitTyrant said:


> No news yet, possibly by the end of Q4. Obviously Amtrak would have to upgrade the SSL further. What those upgrades entail is anyones guess but possibly include
> -multiple crossovers
> -higher speed track
> -signal upgrades


Looking _much longer_ term, upgrading the Metra Electric/South Shore to constant tension catenary. Besides the Hiawatha, if there are two routes in the Midwest screaming out for future electrification, they'd be the Wolverine/Michigan Line and a renewed Hoosier State/Monon Line. And both routes look to use ME/SSL out of Chicago.

The RTA has funded a study to explore that possibility.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac (Nov 10, 2022)

west point said:


> I like the idea of thru running using the mail platforms. However IMO enough height clearance is done to allow fuure OCS CAT to be installed to clear Superliners.


If the mail platform is to be high level, doesn't that preclude its use by Superliners, which I believe can only use low platforms?
If Superliners are excluded then future catenary installation should not be a problem.


----------



## jis (Nov 10, 2022)

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> If the mail platform is to be high level, doesn't that preclude its use by Superliners, which I believe can only use low platforms?
> If Superliners are excluded then future catenary installation should not be a problem.


The plan in Chicago is to reuse the currently disused high level mail platforms for single level trains and continue using the low level platforms for low level doors bi-level equipment. So use of one does not preclude the use of the other. and for Superliners catenary clearance remains a bit of a problem as I understand it. Maybe some clever use of ceiling rails instead of catenary will be workable.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Nov 10, 2022)

Keep in mind that the bulk of CUS patronage is Metra which is 100% bilevel (and low level platform boarding outside of MED which is 100% level step-free boarding from high level platforms).


----------



## Touchdowntom9 (Nov 10, 2022)

MisterUptempo said:


> Looking _much longer_ term, upgrading the Metra Electric/South Shore to constant tension catenary. Besides the Hiawatha, if there are two routes in the Midwest screaming out for future electrification, they'd be the Wolverine/Michigan Line and a renewed Hoosier State/Monon Line. And both routes look to use ME/SSL out of Chicago.
> 
> The RTA has funded a study to explore that possibility.


Side question, is any part of the SSL owned by CN? Just wanted to confirm that by using that track they are essentially on state owned rail all the way through south bend or Porter when leaving Chicago. 
Also, what is the need for constant tension cat unless you plan to go well above 100mph? Seems like a huge project that has limited upside unless they REALLY want to crank the top speeds on the SSL


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Nov 10, 2022)

Touchdowntom9 said:


> Side question, is any part of the SSL owned by CN? Just wanted to confirm that by using that track they are essentially on state owned rail all the way through south bend or Porter when leaving Chicago.
> Also, what is the need for constant tension cat unless you plan to go well above 100mph? Seems like a huge project that has limited upside unless they REALLY want to crank the top speeds on the SSL


As far as I'm aware the entirety of the NICTD route is owned by them as soon as they leave MED at Kensington. 

There used to be rumors that the old Highliners were speed constrained by their brakes - which I've never been able to confirm. The new Highliners might be capable of higher speeds - especially between HP and downtown and on the express routes. However, the cat is, at least the structure, about 100 years old and has been damaged in the past by freight derailments. They are doing work at the yard area in Grant Park, but I'm not aware of a wholesale replacement as yet. If MED ever were to extend to Kankakee then it would be worthwhile to do replacement with addition of new territory.


----------



## MARC Rider (Nov 10, 2022)

Touchdowntom9 said:


> Also, what is the need for constant tension cat unless you plan to go well above 100mph? Seems like a huge project that has limited upside unless they REALLY want to crank the top speeds on the SSL



The Baltimore Light Rail uses constant tension catenary, and its speeds don't exceed 50 mph. There must have been an advantage to using it, even for such low-speed operations, or they wouldn't have installed it.


----------



## NES28 (Nov 10, 2022)

Superliners can run past the CUS mail platforms (as the Empire Builder consist often does, on the way to/from the yard), they just can't board there. In other threads it has been noted that the Superliners may eventually be replaced by single-deck cars since an ADA-compliant double-deck design may well not be feasible.


----------



## jis (Nov 10, 2022)

MARC Rider said:


> The Baltimore Light Rail uses constant tension catenary, and its speeds don't exceed 50 mph. There must have been an advantage to using it, even for such low-speed operations, or they wouldn't have installed it.


You are right. I am literally not aware of anybody that build non-constant tension catenary anymore these days irrespective of the speed, well maybe except some street cars with trolleys.

It should be noted that no one will mistake Metro North for a high speed operation in Connecticut and yet they have converted their entire electrification to constant tension.


----------



## Touchdowntom9 (Nov 10, 2022)

jis said:


> You are right. I am literally not aware of anybody that build non-constant tension catenary anymore these days irrespective of the speed, well maybe except some street cars with trolleys.
> 
> It should be noted that no one will mistake Metro North for a high speed operation in Connecticut and yet they have converted their entire electrification to constant tension.


From my original question, I wasn't really questioning the constant tension catenary, I was more so asking why it needed to be upgraded given there is already catenary presently installed. Seems like the answer is simply that its so old it needs replacing and might as well make it constant. 

But now that I think about it--Amtrak wouldn't want to contribute to that upgrade would they? The power is currently DC overhead, and their Chicago rolling stock is diesel. Even if they used their dual mode rolling stock in the future, that is designed for exclusively AC power if I am not mistaken, so I would assume that part of that replacement would involve a conversion to AC overhead or I would doubt that Amtrak would be willing to support it.


----------



## Touchdowntom9 (Nov 10, 2022)

Given the limited but non 0 amount of freight that travels on the SSL, for some of the higher degree turns on that track that currently cause slow downs, would they ever consider building a siding for those freight trains at those turns so that they could have a more super-elevated track exclusively for those passenger trains? That would hypothetically let them continue to share the track w freight but keep the passenger trains running as close to top speed for as long as possible. Or am I talking crazy?


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Nov 10, 2022)

Touchdowntom9 said:


> Given the limited but non 0 amount of freight that travels on the SSL, for some of the higher degree turns on that track that currently cause slow downs, would they ever consider building a siding for those freight trains at those turns so that they could have a more super-elevated track exclusively for those passenger trains? That would hypothetically let them continue to share the track w freight but keep the passenger trains running as close to top speed for as long as possible. Or am I talking crazy?


There are already a few freight sidings iirc - I don't think they run freight east of Mineral Springs Road.


Touchdowntom9 said:


> From my original question, I wasn't really questioning the constant tension catenary, I was more so asking why it needed to be upgraded given there is already catenary presently installed. Seems like the answer is simply that its so old it needs replacing and might as well make it constant.
> 
> But now that I think about it--Amtrak wouldn't want to contribute to that upgrade would they? The power is currently DC overhead, and their Chicago rolling stock is diesel. Even if they used their dual mode rolling stock in the future, that is designed for exclusively AC power if I am not mistaken, so I would assume that part of that replacement would involve a conversion to AC overhead or I would doubt that Amtrak would be willing to support it.


I wouldn't think they wouldn't contribute. If it isn't totally clear (I don't think it's decided yet anyway) Amtrak would, I assume, continue to run on CN to Kensington and then on NICTD to South Bend. CN isn't electrified although it runs next to MED which, obviously, is. I don't think they were planning on changing rolling stock for this other than any future orders - which sounds like dual modes will be included in that. Nor do I think they would electrify the CN tracks. Biggest bang for the buck there would be reinstating double track on the St. Charles Air Line and access improvements to that to speed up traffic at the north end of the ROW.


----------



## west point (Nov 12, 2022)

jis said:


> You are right. I am literally not aware of anybody that build non-constant tension catenary anymore these days irrespective of the speed, well maybe except some street cars with trolleys.


Tell me if I am wrong. Last time at BOS south station all tracks just had a single wire trolly wire to the bumper post. No weights at bumper cannot remember how often trolly wire was between overhead connection posts.


----------



## jis (Nov 12, 2022)

west point said:


> Tell me if I am wrong. Last time at BOS south station all tracks just had a single wire trolly wire to the bumper post. No weights at bumper cannot remember how often trolly wire was between overhead connection posts.


I was not talking about yard and station trackage in the text that was quoted above.


----------



## Touchdowntom9 (Nov 17, 2022)

Is there a reason why Amtrak would continue to use freight rail lines vs SSL/Electric district ROW? Sure they would use diesel rollingstock for the immediate future, but I cant imagine the CN track is a higher quality or is their dispatch treating them well. I also don't think that the Electric district is constrained by capacity especially given that Amtrak wouldn't be running 10 extra trains per day on that track. Getting Amtrak to use until Kensington and then switching over to SSL for all their east bound trains eliminates so many issues for them in terms of reliability and Metra could very easily request Amtrak make a number of key track improvements prior to getting access to that line. 

That line to Kensington is so straight, I don't think you should be going below 79mph for any of it unless you are making a station stop (which amtrak shouldnt). If that's not the case, then Amtrak can make the needed improvements to get it to be the case. Either way, unless you plan to build a viaduct over the NS chicago ROW or buy them out (impossible), then they need to get off the freight track as much as possible as soon as possible.


----------



## Touchdowntom9 (Nov 17, 2022)

This is frustrating because Amtrak doesn't need to build a bullet train to increase their ridership in Chicago--getting off the freight ROW and thereby eliminating 90% of the delays getting in/out of Chicago would make it a superior transit option to driving during rush hour, and the ROW/Infrastructure is right there for them to use!


----------



## GDRRiley (Nov 17, 2022)

jis said:


> The plan in Chicago is to reuse the currently disused high level mail platforms for single level trains and continue using the low level platforms for low level doors bi-level equipment. So use of one does not preclude the use of the other. and for Superliners catenary clearance remains a bit of a problem as I understand it. Maybe some clever use of ceiling rails instead of catenary will be workable.


The clearance for centenary needed is smaller if we'd just adopt Europe or the UK regs. AREMA recommendations seem to be pulled out of thin air or are based on 1940s standards

This is standard for the UK with the option to go even tighter


----------



## TransitTyrant (Nov 18, 2022)

Touchdowntom9 said:


> Is there a reason why Amtrak would continue to use freight rail lines vs SSL/Electric district ROW? Sure they would use diesel rollingstock for the immediate future, but I cant imagine the CN track is a higher quality or is their dispatch treating them well. I also don't think that the Electric district is constrained by capacity especially given that Amtrak wouldn't be running 10 extra trains per day on that track. Getting Amtrak to use until Kensington and then switching over to SSL for all their east bound trains eliminates so many issues for them in terms of reliability and Metra could very easily request Amtrak make a number of key track improvements prior to getting access to that line.
> 
> That line to Kensington is so straight, I don't think you should be going below 79mph for any of it unless you are making a station stop (which amtrak shouldnt). If that's not the case, then Amtrak can make the needed improvements to get it to be the case. Either way, unless you plan to build a viaduct over the NS chicago ROW or buy them out (impossible), then they need to get off the freight track as much as possible as soon as possible.


The CN track is higher quality, the ME track has way too many slow turnouts and crossovers. CN barely runs any freight over that stretch anyway, why route Amtrak onto potentially congested commuter tracks, a commuter line with weird service patterns too. 

It was also mentioned that Amtrak or some other public entity might purchase the CN tracks from Kennigston north. Perhaps buying the Air Line is also in the picture? Either way we’ll know more if this project is selected to move forward.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Nov 18, 2022)

TransitTyrant said:


> The CN track is higher quality, the ME track has way too many slow turnouts and crossovers. CN barely runs any freight over that stretch anyway, why route Amtrak onto potentially congested commuter tracks, a commuter line with weird service patterns too.
> 
> It was also mentioned that Amtrak or some other public entity might purchase the CN tracks from Kennigston north. Perhaps buying the Air Line is also in the picture? Either way we’ll know more if this project is selected to move forward.



All this plus running past stations would slow the trains - and with Amtrak's scheduling it _would_ impact Metra's best performing line if a train came through at a weird time. The Amtrak trains already cruise through the south side at pretty fast speeds - it's quite impressive seeing them zipping and zooming by from the street up on the viaduct. Plus they would need to build a connection to the air line at McPlace from MED which doesn't exist - why not just continue to use the tracks they do now?


----------



## Touchdowntom9 (Nov 22, 2022)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> All this plus running past stations would slow the trains - and with Amtrak's scheduling it _would_ impact Metra's best performing line if a train came through at a weird time. The Amtrak trains already cruise through the south side at pretty fast speeds - it's quite impressive seeing them zipping and zooming by from the street up on the viaduct. Plus they would need to build a connection to the air line at McPlace from MED which doesn't exist - why not just continue to use the tracks they do now?


Any idea what the MOS is getting out of Chicago on that route? Seems like the schedule is so padded that they could travel at 10mph and still make the first/last stop on time


----------



## TransitTyrant (Nov 22, 2022)

Touchdowntom9 said:


> Any idea what the MOS is getting out of Chicago on that route? Seems like the schedule is so padded that they could travel at 10mph and still make the first/last stop on time


The CN lakefront line is 70mph while over the airline is currently about 10 but will be ~30 once all the track is realigned.


----------



## Touchdowntom9 (Nov 23, 2022)

TransitTyrant said:


> The CN lakefront line is 70mph while over the airline is currently about 10 but will be ~30 once all the track is realigned.


Is that due to geometry or because CN owns and sets the track standard on it? Seems like if Amtrak bought it outright they could get it to class 5 or 6 even


----------



## TransitTyrant (Nov 24, 2022)

Touchdowntom9 said:


> Is that due to geometry or because CN owns and sets the track standard on it? Seems like if Amtrak bought it outright they could get it to class 5 or 6 even


It’s just CNs speed limit, the geometry is fine for increased speed.


----------



## Touchdowntom9 (Dec 6, 2022)

jis said:


> Yes. But about the S Line they are still arguing about whether they want to spend the money for restructuring the curves etc. We'll see how that goes. It is not really a terribly straight alignment. I agree that they should spend the money, but I have learned to wait until I see it to believe it when it comes to passenger rail in this country.


I'm confused because the S line maps don't look all that straight... how can they expect to run at such high speeds on tracks that turn so often? I get that new rail is new, but the high speed sections of the NEC look as straight as an arrow on a map and the S line does not. Am I missing something?

I guess what I am asking is why is there such a high potential speed limit here with new track in a somewhat curvy ROW on the S line, but building a second track with the South Shore Line, in which that second track is technically just as new, there is no discussion of breaking 100mph let alone 160. Its not like grade separation requires it to be stuck at 80mph


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Dec 7, 2022)

Touchdowntom9 said:


> I guess what I am asking is why is there such a high potential speed limit here with new track in a somewhat curvy ROW on the S line, but building a second track with the South Shore Line, in which that second track is technically just as new, there is no discussion of breaking 100mph let alone 160. Its not like grade separation requires it to be stuck at 80mph


If you're talking about the NICTD SSL there's no reason for it to run that fast - plus the existing track won't be that quick. Probably the cost for the new track to be high speed would be a lot more (and it isn't grade separated, certainly isn't in Porter County...).


----------



## Touchdowntom9 (Dec 7, 2022)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> If you're talking about the NICTD SSL there's no reason for it to run that fast - plus the existing track won't be that quick. Probably the cost for the new track to be high speed would be a lot more (and it isn't grade separated, certainly isn't in Porter County...).


That may be true but that isnt my point, and if Amtrak wishes to use the SSL in the future to get out of Chicago there will be plenty of reason to run it as fast as possible. What I am saying is that I have the impression before that there were alot of speed restrictions on that SSL because of curves etc, but that does not seem to apply to this S line that is being built as they are mentioning 150mph+ yet it still has curves that are likely higher degree than many places on the NEC. I was trying to get to the cause of why curvy but brand new track would not have the restrictions older track might (ignoring grade crossings, because that would keep it at 110 which is still >25% increase in existing max speeds on SSL)


----------



## jis (Dec 7, 2022)

Touchdowntom9 said:


> That may be true but that isnt my point, and if Amtrak wishes to use the SSL in the future to get out of Chicago there will be plenty of reason to run it as fast as possible. What I am saying is that I have the impression before that there were alot of speed restrictions on that SSL because of curves etc, but that does not seem to apply to this S line that is being built as they are mentioning 150mph+ yet it still has curves that are likely higher degree than many places on the NEC. I was trying to get to the cause of why curvy but brand new track would not have the restrictions older track might (ignoring grade crossings, because that would keep it at 110 which is still >25% increase in existing max speeds on SSL)


I am not sure what the question is, but based on my best guess, the reason that an old curvy line manages to get higher speed limits when reconstructed is because in the process of reconstruction many of the worst curves get smooth out into gentle curves or S curves simply get replaced by almost straight segments. That is how speed limits go up.

BTW, the S Line is being built for 110mph operation, not 150+, if you believe what the governing FEIS says.


----------



## Touchdowntom9 (Dec 7, 2022)

jis said:


> I am not sure what the question is, but based on my best guess, the reason that an old curvy line manages to get higher speed limits when reconstructed is because in the process of reconstruction many of the worst curves get smooth out into gentle curves or S curves simply get replaced by almost straight segments. That is how speed limits go up.


Ok that makes sense thanks for clarifying


----------

