# Express Trains (Fewer Stops)



## Saluki42 (Dec 28, 2010)

Hi all,

This is my first time posting here and it is due to the fact that my wife got a job in St. Louis but I still have work in Chicago. As a result, rail seems to be the best option in terms of getting back and forth.

That said, I have been very interested in the HSR project and had some questions that some of you might know the answer to.

First, why would they not create of express train that only makes 3 or 4 stops to speed up the trip. If an Amtrak train traveling up to 110mph were to only make stop in Chicago, Springfield, Bloomigton and St. Louis, I don't see why it couldn't make the 284 mile trip in 3 hours or so. I would pay a premium for that and while I am excited about the HSR, I don't see the 4 and half hour trip as something I am willing to pay much more for (tickets are already only $23 bucks).

I read that the project now is supposed to be done live in 2014. Anyone know when they are shooting for in terms of the true bullet trains?

Thanks!


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 28, 2010)

As of right now, and George Harris can probably tell you more about the St. Louis - Chicago line in terms of curvature, there are 4 corridor trains and a long-distance train. The Amtrak P42 is capable of a speed of 110 mph, and is, along with a few others, the fastest diesel locomotive currently in operation in the U.S. To get faster speeds, you have two options: turbines and electrification.

Amtrak has experimented with turbines in 5 different phases: the UA TurboTrain, the ANF Turboliner, and Rohr TurboLiners I, II, and III. The UA turbine was inherited from PennCentral, was briefly toyed with on the Corridor, then shoved into service on a Staggers special, before being retired two years into Amtrak service due to unreliability and an insane appetite for fuel.

The ANF Turboliners went into service in 1974, with limited use on midwestern corridors. Their use was sporadic due to unreliability and hilarious fuel bills. In 1981, they were retired, to cries of joy among many Amtrak people. In the mid eighties, two of the things were refitted for upstate NY service, where they promptly caught fire and were retired. The RTLs were delivered to New York in the 1980s, and ran until the mid 90s, mostly due to NYs political weight pressing the high speed service on. In the 2000s they attempted to rebuild them. They remained more or less the same, slow accelerating, fuel hungry, and unreliable. But they gained the advantage of also having sucky air conditioning. The project was scrapped, and they now sit awaiting the long overdue scrappers torch.

An Amtrak official told me that their opinion of them was essentially Einstein's definition of insanity: doing the same stupid thing over and over again, expecting different results. So scratch them. If you hear one of your states thinking about them, call them on the phone and scream "NO NO NO!"

Now then, the other option, the accepted option, is electric propulsion. Electrification requires stringing catenary wires over the length of the route. The main electrified route in this country is the Northeast Corridor. The least used portion of the route is between Providence and New London. That sees 18 trains in each direction every day. Some sections of it, probably the most being between NYP and Rahway, sees hundreds of trains in each direction.

Unless service between CHI-STL became hourly during daylight hours, electrification makes almost no sense. Real high speed rail won't come to you in your life time, I'd guess.

As for why it can't make the trip in three hours, the distance is 284 miles. The Acela Express is the fastest train in the country, capable, on the run I'm mentioning, of hitting 135 mph at times. Some Acelas take 2h and 50 minutes to make that run, and to run similarly to St. Louis would take 3h and 34 minutes. I don't think a diesel hauled train with 3600 hp and 5 cars could possibly beat a train with, ahem, 12,000 hp and 7 cars. Do you?

That being said, speeding up the line is a good idea and possible. But the key isn't higher top speeds. As with the NEC, the improvements will come from removing low bottom speeds more than raising top speeds.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 28, 2010)

_While I agree with most of what you said, it would also be possible to either purchase new diesel locomotives or regear some P42s for a higher top speed._


----------



## Steve4031 (Dec 28, 2010)

Alton to St louis and Joliet to Chicago are the bottle necks. Both segments feature grade level crossings with freight railroads and complex junctions to navigate. There are plans to build fly overs on the Chicago to Joliet segment. There are plans for the Stl Alton portion too but I don't know what they are. Additionally this segment involves a couple of freight railroads and complIcated operating patterns.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 28, 2010)

Ryan said:


> _While I agree with most of what you said, it would also be possible to either purchase new diesel locomotives or regear some P42s for a higher top speed._


Diesels aren't good for speeds like that. Regearing it for 125 would cut your pulling power to perhaps a 3 car train at that speed, and you'd be burn out the equipment too easily. Diesel locomotives are pushing their envelope as it is at 110.

For speed, you need horsepower. Diesels don't do horsepower, they are torque motors. They're good at hauling, hence why they are used in large trucks and the like. Neither, quite honestly, do the mechanisms used for powering diesel-type traction motors. Diesel engines are much more efficient than either turbines or electric catenary- anyone who tells you otherwise is taking powerful stuff- or an idiot.

There is a reason why they use inherently less efficient power for fast trains worldwide- because the more efficient system isn't suited for it.

Besides, when you're dealing with high speed over American terrain, you don't want a locomotive hauled set anyway- you want a distributed power multiple unit. There are so many rail lines in this country where a R32 could blow the doors off of an Acela set.


----------



## George Harris (Dec 29, 2010)

By now I have gotten to be skeptical about any of this "pushing the envelope" when it comes to rail. 50 years ago going much beyond 100 mph was considered being on the edge and 125 mph truly at "the envelope". That, in addition to mountainous terrain, had a lot to do with the initial Shinkansen lines being designed for 200 to 210 km/h (125 to 130 mph). Now, 50 years later, 350 to 400 km/h (220 to 250 mph) is a design target. Who knows where the limit will be perceived as being in another 50 years.

As to 110 mph being near the practical limit with diesel, I would say not so. The speed in itself is not an issue at the 100 to 110 mph range. You need to recall that the Milwaukee Road, and the AT&SF, was running 100 mph with STEAM in the 1930's. There was quite a bit of unrecorded running above 100 mph with steam done with scheduled trains trying to catch up on the schedule, and not just on these lines. It was unrecorded because it violated the rules, but was generally winked at by all as it was being done by very senior engineers trying to make the top trains live up to their reputation.

Most of the AT&SF main had a 100 mph speed limit up to sometime in the 1960's. The ICRR also had a section of 100 mph speed limit in Illinois. No problem doing this on a day in and day out basis.

Yes, the acceleration rate gets a little low at higher speeds, and yes, there is the problem that you are hauling extra weight with diesel power becuase you are hauling around the power plant, but there is nothing in a diesel that puts a ceiling on it moving a train at 110 mph to 125 mph.

As to speed on the Chicago to St. Louis: I really do not know that much about the alignment, but I am of the impression that there are long continuous sections of straight or near straight track between Joliet to near Alton. Not continuous, but in long segments. For these, the maximum speed is dependent upon track condition and equipment capabilities, not alignment geometry.

*IF and hopefully, when* we get around to generating more to most of our electricity by means other than burning oil, gas, and coal (and in my opinion burning oil and gas in power plants should be criminal. It is a waste of a resource better used in other way, incuding in home heating, smaller vehicle fuel, and other small point consumers of power. Bulk power consumers should be burning coal, if burning anything at all) the picture will be different. I would like to see us do a lot more work in this country toward geothermal power. That is about as sustainable as we can possibly get.

When this happens, it then becomes the correct choice to electrify railroads to the greatest extent practical. Not to mention in then become even more important to transfer the movement of both passengers and freight to rail to the greatest extent practical.


----------



## Saluki42 (Dec 29, 2010)

George Harris said:


> By now I have gotten to be skeptical about any of this "pushing the envelope" when it comes to rail. 50 years ago going much beyond 100 mph was considered being on the edge and 125 mph truly at "the envelope". That, in addition to mountainous terrain, had a lot to do with the initial Shinkansen lines being designed for 200 to 210 km/h (125 to 130 mph). Now, 50 years later, 350 to 400 km/h (220 to 250 mph) is a design target. Who knows where the limit will be perceived as being in another 50 years.
> 
> As to 110 mph being near the practical limit with diesel, I would say not so. The speed in itself is not an issue at the 100 to 110 mph range. You need to recall that the Milwaukee Road, and the AT&SF, was running 100 mph with STEAM in the 1930's. There was quite a bit of unrecorded running above 100 mph with steam done with scheduled trains trying to catch up on the schedule, and not just on these lines. It was unrecorded because it violated the rules, but was generally winked at by all as it was being done by very senior engineers trying to make the top trains live up to their reputation.
> 
> ...


Wow! All of this is great info and I never expected to go the far in depth. So in terms of creating an express line, the bottle neck areas seem to be the issue. If I am reading everything correctly, an express run with just a few stops could make it to STL in about 3 and half hours. That would be pretty outstanding in my mind.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 29, 2010)

It is possible to do so, yes. With superior equipment. I think George would agree with me that a 125 mph geared P42 would not be practical locomotive for pulling revenue trains. They are increasingly unreliable heaps of garbage when run at 110, I shudder to think what they'd do pushed to 125.

That being said, if you were to create a carefully engineered train set operating distributed power on a technology similar to the ALP-45DP (you don't need to know) and more power, you could potentially, I suppose, create a diesel train that could operate at 125.

However, if you have a lot of straight running, you electrify it, you grade separate it, you could conceivably get it to hit 150 mph in numerous locations. You might actually be able to do that, because UP would find the electrification beneficial and you could electrify more than just the higher speed stuff. Anyway, so if we could come up with an average of 125, say, between Joliet and Alton, you could do that run in about two hours. Which, if you maintained services at their present speed otherwise, you could run it pretty close to 3.5 hours, sure, assuming no stops between Joliet and Alton.

But we're daydreaming here, really. Over here in New Jersey, we have an amazingly good public transit system. I can catch a local bus less than a mile from my house, and I live 40 miles from the nearest major city. Our public transit culture means we use it extensively, and we proposed a project to build additional tunnel capacity into the city for trains. It started at about $5 billion with a sane amount of improvement, ballooned to $12 billion with much less purpose, and was ultimately killed. Despite the fact that we need that capacity desperately and we don't need to prove that public transit works in this area.

They talk about Florida HSR, Las Vegas maglevs, Cali HSR, and some smaller more realistic speed ups in the midwest. As an experienced transit advocate, I'll believe it when the trains turn wheels in revenue service. Until then, bro, its a pipe dream.

Most people around here who do more than wish for trains from the golden era to come back will probably tell you the same thing. No offense to those people, but I find them irritating when my cause celebre at the moment is getting more service from Bay Head to Hoboken for the many people I know who are sick of transferring to PATH at Newark.

I mean one of these days I'd like to conk a certain person I know for derailing attempts to accomplish useful things with trying to focus on a pointless NYP to Scranton line. Big projects like that make me leery when we can't get NJ Transit back up and running properly 3 days after a snow storm. Same thing with St. Louis, actually. HSR? Please, lets get the Lincoln Service running on time better.


----------



## George Harris (Dec 29, 2010)

"Florida HSR, Las Vegas maglevs, Cali HSR" don't belong in the same breath, or paragraph. Maglev is an expensive toy, as real and easonable as the 19th century attempts at a vacuum tube trains, or worse. Florida HSR as currently being proposed is a good starter system, but should sprout legs to Miami and Jacksonville to be really useful. Calif HSR fills a real need and will be in a corridor whwere there are plenty of people that have the train riding habit with the starter segmetn being in the middle of the best of that: I am betting the last years of my owrking life on this one.

Having ridden on a couple of really nice 100 mph plus diesel trains in Korea a few years back, I see no reason to start pushing electrification early in the Chicago to St. Louis game. Get the tracks up to 110 mph to 125 mph, get some *truly reliable* diesel engines, and have at it.

For approximate a reasonable schedule, figure the runs base on maxing at 90% of the actual speed limits and add 5 minutes plus a guess at dwell time per stop. Note that I said actual speed limits. That means you cannot simply take the overall maximum and assume that you run at that speed from end to end.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 30, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Despite the fact that we need that capacity desperately and we don't need to prove that public transit works in this area.


Actually there are plenty in NJ who don't think that public transit works. Many tend to be from the more southern climes of NJ, but there are still plenty of voters who don't think that it works.



Green Maned Lion said:


> I mean one of these days I'd like to conk a certain person I know for derailing attempts to accomplish useful things with trying to focus on a pointless NYP to Scranton line. Big projects like that make me leery when we can't get NJ Transit back up and running properly 3 days after a snow storm.


Perhaps it was more luck, than actual planning and work, but I've got to tell you that NJT did a much better job at keeping its trains running than did the MTA. And NJT was almost back to a full schedule, while the LIRR was limping along with minimal service on just 3 lines late yesterday (Tuesday).


----------



## jis (Dec 30, 2010)

George Harris said:


> Having ridden on a couple of really nice 100 mph plus diesel trains in Korea a few years back, I see no reason to start pushing electrification early in the Chicago to St. Louis game. Get the tracks up to 110 mph to 125 mph, get some *truly reliable* diesel engines, and have at it.


It should be noted that in the UK a very robust and relatively reliable schedule is run using 125mph diesel HSTs, and also potentially 140mph capable DMUs which are restricted to 125mph due to track limitations. Indeed Virgin trains among others is now planning to convert the high speed DMUs to DEMUs by adding a pantograph car per each articulated set, allowing them to run on electricity when they are running under the wire.

On of the features across the board of all these trains is that they do not use traditional diesel engines. They either use power heads that are more like the diesel part of the ALP-45DPs, using Caterpillar or similar engines, or have the engines under floor. The DMUs (Voyagers) have them under floor, while the HSTs have them in power heads. Originally the HSTs had Paxman-Valenta engines. But of late they have been upgraded with Caterpillar engines AFAIR.

Over the Thanksgiving weekend when I was over in England, I had a chance to ride one of the refurbished HSTs from Reading to London Paddington, and they were almost as good as new even though they are getting to be almost 50 years old. And those Mark III cars do run smoother than our Amfleets, though I don't know if it is the track or cars or a combo or what.

I also had a chance to ride a Virgin Voyager DMU from London Euston to Milton Keynes Central on the West Coast Main Line. I actually specifically skipped an earlier Pendolino, which I have ridden before to get a few miles on a Voyager. They were superb trains as far as ride quality goes. They are the ones that have under floor engines and are going to be converted to DEMUs.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 31, 2010)

George Harris said:


> "Florida HSR, Las Vegas maglevs, Cali HSR" don't belong in the same breath, or paragraph.


They do, because I was talking about it in terms of ambition, and the California project is ambitious. It makes sense, but we both have been around this stuff long enough (you certainly so) to know that "making sense" and "being built" don't always go together. Actually, sometimes it seems like they are mutually exclusive.

I hope the CA project gets built. I hope the Maglev project, built or not, sees not a penny of my tax dollars in its construction. I actually hope the Florida system does not get built as planned because a Tampa-Orlando train could be made into a poster child for not building HSR far too easily.

All are ambitious.

And I'll believe they will build it when the first train turns wheels in revenue service.



AlanB said:


> Actually there are plenty in NJ who don't think that public transit works. Many tend to be from the more southern climes of NJ, but there are still plenty of voters who don't think that it works.


First of all, I don't live in south Jersey, so my statement stands. Second of all, while there are some who feel that way, even many in South Jersey are being convinced due to the success of the RiverLine and I know plenty of people between Camden and Glassboro who are fit to be tied about the tabling of the DRPA light rail project.



AlanB said:


> Perhaps it was more luck, than actual planning and work, but I've got to tell you that NJT did a much better job at keeping its trains running than did the MTA. And NJT was almost back to a full schedule, while the LIRR was limping along with minimal service on just 3 lines late yesterday (Tuesday).


You are right. I was mostly referring to the busses, which is unfair since NJT is not in control of the infrastructure they depend on.


----------



## DET63 (Jan 1, 2011)

Wouldn't the maglev project be mainly a pork-barrel project to get Los Angelenos into the casinos owned and operated by Harry Reid's friends?


----------



## George Harris (Jan 1, 2011)

DET63 said:


> Wouldn't the maglev project be mainly a pork-barrel project to get Los Angelenos into the casinos owned and operated by Harry Reid's friends?


Absolutely correct.


----------



## Ozark Southern (Jan 4, 2011)

There already is an express STL-CHI: The Texas Eagle. It skips Summit and Dwight entirely and reduces Carlinville to a flag stop (there is talk of eliminating Carlinville from the TE entirely once the speed limit is raised). In fact, Illinois is the only state in the Midwest that operates express services: The CONO is an express for the Illini/Saluki route, and the Chief and CZ are express trains for the IZ/Carl Sandburg route.


----------



## fairviewroad (Jan 21, 2011)

Ozark Southern said:


> There already is an express STL-CHI: The Texas Eagle. It skips Summit and Dwight entirely and reduces Carlinville to a flag stop (there is talk of eliminating Carlinville from the TE entirely once the speed limit is raised). In fact, Illinois is the only state in the Midwest that operates express services: The CONO is an express for the Illini/Saluki route, and the Chief and CZ are express trains for the IZ/Carl Sandburg route.


:huh:

Um...you're kidding, right? Or, you have a different understanding of "express."

Hard to call the Texas Eagle an "express" when its scheduled running time between Chicago and St. Louis is actually longer than

_every single one_ of the Lincoln Service trains.

Meanwhile, the CONO saves you a whopping 9 minutes over the 309 mile journey southbound from CHI to Carbondale and its northbound schedule is actually

longer than the "local" trains. Plus, you have to arrive/leave Carbondale in the middle of the night.

Meanwhile, the two California-bound trains do save you roughly 15 minutes from Chicago to Galesburg...but on the return trip from Galesburg the Chief

takes 5 minutes longer than the "local" trains...and the CZ doesn't even accept boarding passengers.


----------



## Ozark Southern (Jan 22, 2011)

fairviewroad said:


> Ozark Southern said:
> 
> 
> > There already is an express STL-CHI: The Texas Eagle. It skips Summit and Dwight entirely and reduces Carlinville to a flag stop (there is talk of eliminating Carlinville from the TE entirely once the speed limit is raised). In fact, Illinois is the only state in the Midwest that operates express services: The CONO is an express for the Illini/Saluki route, and the Chief and CZ are express trains for the IZ/Carl Sandburg route.
> ...


Nice analysis. I would love for there to be a true express of any kind anywhere in the Midwest. Yet the point stands that the service in Illinois exceeds that of any other Midwestern state. In Missouri, where I live, I have to drive over two hours just to get to the nearest Amtrak station, and then only one of the three Missouri routes has service more than once a day--and it has only two daily trains. So the Illinois expresses may not be the greatest in the world--as you point out, they are quite far from it--but from next door, they are still enviable.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Jan 24, 2011)

My first ever Amtrak trip was on a Turboliner between STL and CHI back in the early 70s. I still remember the train being packed to standing room only, Mom bitching nonstop about having to sit backwards and then her complaining about the overpriced microwave cheeseburgers and the glaring fluorescent lit plastic Mod Squad interior. But as a rail loving teenager, this was beyond fun, even more so than the American Airlines Astrojet 707s we normally took on that run.

To this day I cannot help but wonder if advances in engine technology will bring us a natgas turbine, one that is fuel efficient and not prone to the maintenance problems common with earlier railroad turbines. I can easily see such an engine becoming the mainstay on all the 5 hour or less non-electric "dog runs" on the Amtrak System.


----------



## train person (Feb 27, 2011)

jis said:


> Originally the HSTs had Paxman-Valenta engines. But of late they have been upgraded with Caterpillar engines AFAIR.
> 
> Over the Thanksgiving weekend when I was over in England, I had a chance to ride one of the refurbished HSTs from Reading to London Paddington, and they were almost as good as new even though they are getting to be almost 50 years old. And those Mark III cars do run smoother than our Amfleets, though I don't know if it is the track or cars or a combo or what.


HST power cars on Great Western and the East Coast route have been reengineered with MTU 16V 4000 power units.

http://www.mtu-online.com/great-britain/applications/country-applications/rail-vehicles/

They do ride well for something that was introduced in 1976 and may well be about for a good few years yet.


----------



## train person (Feb 27, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Diesels aren't good for speeds like that. Regearing it for 125 would cut your pulling power to perhaps a 3 car train at that speed, and you'd be burn out the equipment too easily. Diesel locomotives are pushing their envelope as it is at 110.


Funny how the HST in the UK has been running at 125mph since about 1976. Granted it has 2 power cars around the 7, 8 or 9 coaches, but it does travel at 125mph and does so very well.

If you want proper 'High Speed' then bear in mind each of the latest TGV trains has around 6000hp (in an 80 ton power car) at each end to get to 186 or 200 mph. Not many diesels or turbines around that could do that.

Most of your train would consist of fuel tanks anyway......


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 27, 2011)

train person said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Diesels aren't good for speeds like that. Regearing it for 125 would cut your pulling power to perhaps a 3 car train at that speed, and you'd be burn out the equipment too easily. Diesel locomotives are pushing their envelope as it is at 110.
> ...


HST125s don't really have "locomotives". They have power cars. They aren't set up in the way American locomotives are.


----------



## George Harris (Feb 27, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> HST125s don't really have "locomotives". They have power cars. They aren't set up in the way American locomotives are.


"Locomotive" - "Power Car": different names for the same thing. Don't know what you mean by "aren't set up the same way." There are many ways to skin this cat.

By the way with a train of 4 or so cars per diesel, a stop from 79 mph adds 3 minutes plus dwell time while stopped to the run time. That is 3 minutes plus or minus about 5 seconds, based on timing done a few years back on the CONO and calculations that came up with really close to the same number.


----------



## train person (Feb 28, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> train person said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


I know they are 'power cars' rather than locomotives in the traditional sense, thats why I used the words '2 power cars'.

As for not being set up in the way that American locos are, they have one cab, knuckle couplers on the end that couples to the train and 3 phase 415 v head end power. So not that different really.......


----------

