# Illinois High Speed Rail Work



## Everydaymatters (Aug 30, 2011)

When high speed rail was first announced for Illinois, I thought it was a good thing. Now that a lot of the track work has been completed, I've found out things that make me wonder if it was worth the expense.

First, I thought the high speed rail would permit Acela-type trains to run between Chicago and Springfield. Now I'm hearing it allows the regular Lincoln Service trains to increase their speed to 110 MPH.

I've been reading it shaves only 10 minutes off the trip from Chicago to Springfield. Ten minutes just isn't worth the money spent. The difference between traveling 79 mph and 110 mph results in only 10 minutes saved?

Are there other benefits to all the work has been done? Were the tracks in such desparate condition that they had to be rebuilt?

I'm having a hard time trying to wrap my head around the justification for spending such a large sum of money for high speed rail that really isn't very high speed after all.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 30, 2011)

Betty,

I'm not sure just how much time is being saved Springfield to Chicago, however that end is getting a bit less work than the southern end. And overall IIRC, the faster trains will result in knocking nearly an hour off the run from Chicago to St. Louis, which is significant!

Let me also point out that while Acela does get to 150 MPH, it only does that for a little over 30 miles of its entire run between DC & Boston. And the Regional trains top out at 125 MPH, so running at 110 MPH isn't that far behind.

As for other benefits, I don't believe that the tracks were in desperate shape. But this will provide a much smoother ride for passengers, it will also help cut down on delays as the number of passing sidings have been increased and others made longer. And it will also improve freight service in the area too, meaning more freight that can be moved by train instead of by truck. Trucks that beat up our highways costing us big dollars too.

It's also expected to double ridership on that line, which will also reduce traffic and most likely it will also reduce the amount of subsidies that Illinois has to provide to run the Lincoln Service.


----------



## afigg (Aug 30, 2011)

Everydaymatters said:


> First, I thought the high speed rail would permit Acela-type trains to run between Chicago and Springfield. Now I'm hearing it allows the regular Lincoln Service trains to increase their speed to 110 MPH.
> 
> I've been reading it shaves only 10 minutes off the trip from Chicago to Springfield. Ten minutes just isn't worth the money spent. The difference between traveling 79 mph and 110 mph results in only 10 minutes saved?


As AlanB stated, the total time improvements are much more than 10 minutes. You may have heard the estimated trip time improvements for one project on the corridor in a news release, which the press repeats as the total trip time improvement for the entire corridor. The recent $186 million award to IL from the Florida HSR fund re-allocation to upgrade the Dwight to Joliet section to 110 mph speeds is stated in the grant application as reducing trip time by 9 minutes. Maybe that is where the 10 minute number you saw came from.

The ultimate goal is a Chicago to St. Louis trip time of close to or under 4 hours. The work that has been funded is not enough to achieve that, but should get Chi-StL trip times down to 4:40 or faster. Don't know what the projected times are for Springfield to Chicago. The work from the original $1.2 billion award was for Alton to Dwight only, but there was apparently enough funding left after the revised cost numbers came in to upgrade the slow tracks from East St. Louis to Alton. Interestingly there is a newsletter on the IDOT HSR website about the recent Alton-StL track work: http://www.idothsr.org/pdf/hsr_trt_const_factsheet3_final.pdf

To get an understanding of what the upgrades are and the status is for the Chi-StL corridor, see http://www.idothsr.org/ . The Information Center page has a bunch of documents including the complete federal applications which provide a lot of details for those who want to plow through them.

Recent public presentation on what the new grant awards will be used for: http://www.idothsr.org/pdf/hsr_presentation%20for%20dwight%20to%20joliet%20lo%208411.pdf

The two corridors in the Midwest that will see significant improvements will be Chicago to St. Louis and Chicago to Detroit with 110 mph speeds. Once the new bi-levels arrive, the nice new equipment should also boost ridership. It will take 3-4 years for the funded project work to be completed and to get the new equipment, so it won't happen right away. The Chi-StL corridor needs to land more federal funding to double track the corridor and make Joliet to Chicago upgrades and that funding may not be coming in the next several years. Still, these 2 corridors will be the main test cases for the 90 to 110 mph class corridor projects to find out how many people will switch to trains if the trip time is competitive with driving and even flying for a 250-300 mile trip downtown to downtown. My bet is that they will be seen as quite successful.


----------



## Everydaymatters (Aug 31, 2011)

In Illinois we were being told about the great time savings from Chicago to Springfield, which is our state capitol. It seemed a good idea for Illinoisans as it covered most of the length of the state. South of Springfield, ie Springfield to St. Louis, is rarely mentioned in the media and really not at all a concern to most Illinois residents. Here in the heart of Illinois, people are not happy with the amount of money spent for the small amount of time savings to our state capitol. Our highways are a mess and money was/is sorely needed to repair them. It would be interesting to see a comparison to what is actually being shipped via rail and via truck between Chicago and southern Illinois.

When this HSR issue first appeared in the media it was touted as a great thing for Illinois. In reading the replies it would seem that the greater benefit is not as much to the people of the state of Illinois as it is to the city of St. Louis.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Aug 31, 2011)

The former Alton Route tracks that Amtrak uses between Chicago and St. Louis had deteriorated. Prior to Amtrak, the Abe Lincoln made the run in 5 hours and 10 minutes but it became more difficult to keep even slower times. I lived in Peoria back in the 1950s when we could ride the IT to Bloomington to connect to St. Louis. Even back then, they were talking about futuristic plans to have a 4 hour schedules from Chicago to St. Louis, but the GM&O had no money to upgrade tracks. I think its marvelous that the upgrade is finally happening.


----------



## jis (Aug 31, 2011)

It should be pointed out that the work between Chicago and St. louis is more appropriately referred to as "Higher" speed upgrades, and not really "High Speed" anything. Trying to characterize anything below 125mph (indeed some would even say below 150mph) as "High Speed" just muddies the water and spreads confusion.


----------



## stntylr (Aug 31, 2011)

I rode on the new track two weeks ago and it was a very smooth ride. I don't know how they are going to fix the problem of having to wait for frieght crossing in front of the trains. It was a problem once we got to Joliet in a couple of places.


----------



## Steve4031 (Aug 31, 2011)

A couple of weeks ago I rode on the tracks between St. louis and the point where the Texas Eagle enters the UP detour. I saw that the southbound track had concrete ties and improved rail. The northbound track was still in very poor condition. I understand that Union Pacific owns the south bound tracks. And another railroad owns the northbound track. The IDOT website indicates that work is being done on the UP tracks. What is going to be done for the north bound track owned by the other railroad?


----------



## afigg (Aug 31, 2011)

Everydaymatters said:


> In Illinois we were being told about the great time savings from Chicago to Springfield, which is our state capitol. It seemed a good idea for Illinoisans as it covered most of the length of the state. South of Springfield, ie Springfield to St. Louis, is rarely mentioned in the media and really not at all a concern to most Illinois residents. Here in the heart of Illinois, people are not happy with the amount of money spent for the small amount of time savings to our state capitol. Our highways are a mess and money was/is sorely needed to repair them. It would be interesting to see a comparison to what is actually being shipped via rail and via truck between Chicago and southern Illinois.
> 
> When this HSR issue first appeared in the media it was touted as a great thing for Illinois. In reading the replies it would seem that the greater benefit is not as much to the people of the state of Illinois as it is to the city of St. Louis.


If I recall correctly, Illinois is putting up around $400 million of state funding spread over multiple years for the Chicago to St. Louis corridor project. And around $50 to $60 million each for the 2 new corridor services they are adding. Compared to the costs of road projects, $400 million might be one medium sized road widening or bridge replacement project. Without spending the time to dig up the budget numbers, Illinois is probably spending 10 times on highway and road projects what they are spending on intercity passenger rail. People see the x dollar figure for a passenger rail project and complain that it is a waste of money, no one rides trains, yada yada. But they don't bat an eye about a $2 billion dollar road project for a road that they may never drive on. Maintaining roads and highways and building new ones is expensive. Much more so than I suspect many people realize. Rail projects by comparison are much more affordable.

In 10 to 15 years, I think many people in Illinois will be very grateful that IL built the intercity passenger rail system that they are working towards. By then, the long term trend line for increasing oil and gas prices as the world struggles to maintain daily oil production levels should become pretty clear. Rather than driving and pay for expensive gas, the trains will provide a viable option for intercity travel.

As for benefiting the people of Springfield, the upgrades will result in faster and more reliable trip times to both Chicago and St. Louis. The new bi-level passenger cars will make for a much nicer travel experience. The long term goal is to also increase service to 8 daily Lincoln service trains which will be of benefit to Springfield. Checking the Fact Sheet for the FY2010 Lincoln service (http://www.narprail.org/cms/images/uploads/fels/trains/20.pdf), Chicago to St. Louis was the 2nd busiest city pair with Chicago to Springfield at #3 and with Springfield to St. Louis at #5. The fact sheet shows the jump in ridership starting in 2007. Add in faster trip times, more reliable service, and new trains? I expect too see a doubling or tripling the FY2010 in a few years afterwards.


----------



## afigg (Aug 31, 2011)

Steve4031 said:


> A couple of weeks ago I rode on the tracks between St. louis and the point where the Texas Eagle enters the UP detour. I saw that the southbound track had concrete ties and improved rail. The northbound track was still in very poor condition. I understand that Union Pacific owns the south bound tracks. And another railroad owns the northbound track. The IDOT website indicates that work is being done on the UP tracks. What is going to be done for the north bound track owned by the other railroad?


Looking it up, the north bound track is owned by Kansas City Southern. Different company, so a new agreement between IDOT and KCS would be needed. If IL is willing to pay for basic repair and improvements of the track, I would think KCS would agree to it, but there may be who pays for maintenance issues. Whether there is funding set aside for fixing the KCS tracks, don't know.

The trip time for St. Louis to Alton is right around 1 hour to go 27 miles according to the Amtrak schedule which works out to a seriously slow 27 mph average. If they get the average speed to even 45 mph over those 27 miles, that would cut 24 minutes from the trip time which is pretty significant. Low hanging fruit this is.

I see in the Lincoln Service fact sheet that Alton to Chicago is the #4 busiest city pair. I would guess that much of this is people in the St. Louis area driving to Alton to skip the very slow leg to downtown St. Louis.


----------



## RRrich (Aug 31, 2011)

I drive to Alton to get convenient/free parking.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Sep 2, 2011)

The part of the line that will allow faster trip times to Detroit, does that cover part of the same line that the Cap Ltd. and Lake Shore Ltd. travel on? Will those trains will be able to increase speeds on this section of the corridor as well?

and I ask this because then 1/4 of the line from Chicago to Cleveland is higher speed.


----------



## Trogdor (Sep 2, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> The part of the line that will allow faster trip times to Detroit, does that cover part of the same line that the Cap Ltd. and Lake Shore Ltd. travel on? Will those trains will be able to increase speeds on this section of the corridor as well?
> 
> and I ask this because then 1/4 of the line from Chicago to Cleveland is higher speed.


No. The faster speeds on the Michigan Line will begin after the split at Porter, IN, so the Capitol Limited and Lake Shore Limited will not see any changes.


----------



## afigg (Sep 2, 2011)

Trogdor said:


> Oldsmoboi said:
> 
> 
> > The part of the line that will allow faster trip times to Detroit, does that cover part of the same line that the Cap Ltd. and Lake Shore Ltd. travel on? Will those trains will be able to increase speeds on this section of the corridor as well?
> ...


That is correct for the $400 million awarded to Michigan. However, Indiana got $71.3 million for the Indiana Gateway Corridor which is described the the FRA HSIPR selected project summary as "Construction of eight independent improvements along a congested railroad segment between Porter, IN and the Indiana/Illinois state line. Seven of the investments would be on the NS railroad line and one of them on the Amtrak Michigan Line at Porter, IN. Improvements include crossovers and related signal system improvements, minor rail additions and siding improvements." This project is stated as benefiting the CL and LSL in various places. However, the funds for the IN project have still not been obligated.

However, Michigan DOT has received $3.2 million in FY10 funds which was recently obligated to complete a Service Development Plan and corridor EIS which appears to be mainly for the Chicago hub section of the Chicago to Detroit/Pontiac corridor. Michigan is contributing $400K, Indiana and Illinois $200K each to make up the 20% state matching. My interpretation (which could be wrong) is the $71 million will make some improvements, but not all that needs to be done to achieve the end goal of a Chicago to Porter IN corridor with major increases in passenger traffic capacity. If that can be accomplished under the umbrella of a Chicago to Detroit/Pontiac "HSR" corridor, then it will be in place if Ohio (well, whenever they get a new Governor) and Indiana get serious about corridor service to Fort Wayne, Cleveland and so on.

Dug up the Michigan DOT application for the $3.2 SDP and EIS in which the goal in passenger trains for the Chicago to Porter segment is stated as "The Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac High Speed Rail Corridor currently has three round trips of intercity passenger rail service each day for Amtrak Wolverine Service. This project will increase the service frequency of Amtrak Wolverine intercity trains from three to nine round trips per day with a one train intra Michigan service from Battle Creek to Detroit. The Chicago to Porter segment will need to host a projected 50 passenger trains between Porter and CP501, a projected 62 passenger trains between CP 501 and Grand Crossing, and a projected 72 passenger trains between Grand Crossing and CP518. The Statement of Work is developed to ensure that the growth of passenger and freight service in this segment is properly considered."

That is not only a lot of trains to Michigan, but Cleveland, Cincinnati, etc.


----------



## hoffbird (Sep 14, 2011)

I've only ridden the Lincoln Service (Northbound) and Texas Eagle (Southbound) once from Alton to Chicago but my observation from that trip was that a huge amount of time was wasted at station stops. With 10 stops between St. Louis and Chicago, shortening stops by just 2-3 minutes each would save as much trip time as that gained through hundreds of millions of dollars of rail improvement.

For a fraction of the rail upgrade cost, relatively easy station improvements, such as increasing platform height, would significantly speed passenger loading and unloading. Increasing platform height even modestly could enable the Superliner cars to load direct from the platform with no need for conductors to put out step stools. Every step up/down saved per passenger really adds up--especially at the busier stops.

Better crew coordination or adding platform assistants at busier stops could speed unloading and loading also. If they can reduce the passenger logjam and get the passengers onboard faster, they get the trains rolling quicker. Even doing something as simple as posting instructions on a kiosk message board about where passengers should stand for business and coach class loading would cut down on loading times.

These simple station upgrades aren't as glamorous to politicians as big dollar rail improvement projects but they end up attaining similar results by boosting the average speed for the trips. Attack the station stop downtime in concert with the rail improvements (especially speeding the painfully slow St Louis-Alton segment) and you might actually approach the magical 4 hour trip time from Chicago to St Louis.


----------



## Steve4031 (Sep 15, 2011)

I think the new equipment order will address this issue to degree. IIRC, the doors on these cars will be automatic. Thus the conductor can open and close all of the doors or certain doors from one location once the train stops. This should expedite boarding. This practice is done on the NEC with Acela and regionals.

The other issue, is the practice of some conductors to collect tickets before passengers board trains. This adds to delays significantly.


----------



## George Harris (Sep 15, 2011)

afigg said:


> Steve4031 said:
> 
> 
> > A couple of weeks ago I rode on the tracks between St. louis and the point where the Texas Eagle enters the UP detour. I saw that the southbound track had concrete ties and improved rail. The northbound track was still in very poor condition. I understand that Union Pacific owns the south bound tracks. And another railroad owns the northbound track. The IDOT website indicates that work is being done on the UP tracks. What is going to be done for the north bound track owned by the other railroad?
> ...


If KCS gets new rail and ties for this segment, they should be crying all teh way to the bank. With new welded rail and good ties, wheter wood or concrete, teh maintenance cost will go down, even with an increase in speed.

Another potential for increased speed would be to see if the speed on the Mississipi rover bridge and approaches could be increased. Don't know what it is now, but usually bridges of this nature have fairly low speed limits.


----------



## Anderson (Sep 15, 2011)

What are the two corridors IL is working on? I _think_ one is the IL segment of the Iowa City line; is the other one the line a bit further north that also goes to the IL/IA border (near Dubuque, IIRC)? Or is it a different line?


----------



## MikefromCrete (Sep 15, 2011)

Anderson said:


> What are the two corridors IL is working on? I _think_ one is the IL segment of the Iowa City line; is the other one the line a bit further north that also goes to the IL/IA border (near Dubuque, IIRC)? Or is it a different line?


1. Chicago to Dubuque via Rockford via CN

2. Chicago to Rock Island (Quad Cities) via BNSF/Iowa Interstate, could be extended to Iowa City, but I think Iowa's Republican governor has quashed this.

By no means are these high speed routes, just extending regular Amtrak service to two new routes. (Actually resumption of routes once served by Amtrak (Blackhawk to Dubuque) and Rock Island Line (to Quad Cities).


----------



## Anderson (Sep 16, 2011)

Mike,

That's what I thought. I seem to recall the Blackhawk as lacking any sort of food service...which I'm sorry, but unless Amtrak kicks in at least a couple of vending machines or something, I think that renders the route rather difficult to ride.


----------



## eagle628 (Sep 16, 2011)

Anderson said:


> Mike,
> 
> That's what I thought. I seem to recall the Blackhawk as lacking any sort of food service...which I'm sorry, but unless Amtrak kicks in at least a couple of vending machines or something, I think that renders the route rather difficult to ride.



The Pere Marquette doesn't have any food service, does it? And it seems to do perfectly fine.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Sep 16, 2011)

Blackhawk operated with RDC's, so I'm not sure what kind of food service was available. With the exception of the Hiawathas, Illinois-DOT supported trains operate with food service/business class cars, so I would guess the new trains would also operate with similar equipment.


----------



## afigg (Sep 16, 2011)

MikefromCrete said:


> Blackhawk operated with RDC's, so I'm not sure what kind of food service was available. With the exception of the Hiawathas, Illinois-DOT supported trains operate with food service/business class cars, so I would guess the new trains would also operate with similar equipment.


The Blackhawk will be a Illinois state supported corridor service, so it is up to IL to determine whether to provide food service. What equipment the corridor train operated with decades ago has no relevance to the new/restored service. According to what I could find, the Blackhawk service won't start until 2014. By then, the new bi-level corridor trains may be available or shortly thereafter. The bi-level train sets may have food or café service as a matter of course in each train set.


----------



## Anderson (Sep 17, 2011)

afigg said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> > Blackhawk operated with RDC's, so I'm not sure what kind of food service was available. With the exception of the Hiawathas, Illinois-DOT supported trains operate with food service/business class cars, so I would guess the new trains would also operate with similar equipment.
> ...


I was referring to the presently proposed service, not the predecessor line. I seem to recall looking at a feasibility study on the Blackhawk, and Amtrak noted that IL wasn't asking for any food service at that point. From the language, Amtrak (though willing to operate the line, obviously) seemed iffy about the prospect because it would make for a nearly six-hour trip with no food service, which is a _very_ long time (and would almost assuredly run across a major meal time for riders and OBS alike).


----------



## Everydaymatters (Sep 17, 2011)

hoffbird said:


> I've only ridden the Lincoln Service (Northbound) and Texas Eagle (Southbound) once from Alton to Chicago but my observation from that trip was that a huge amount of time was wasted at station stops. With 10 stops between St. Louis and Chicago, shortening stops by just 2-3 minutes each would save as much trip time as that gained through hundreds of millions of dollars of rail improvement.
> 
> For a fraction of the rail upgrade cost, relatively easy station improvements, such as increasing platform height, would significantly speed passenger loading and unloading. Increasing platform height even modestly could enable the Superliner cars to load direct from the platform with no need for conductors to put out step stools. Every step up/down saved per passenger really adds up--especially at the busier stops.
> 
> ...


That makes sense to me. That's simple cure for a problem that truly never existed in the first place.

Another arugment for the money spent is that it would take truck traffic off the highways. The problem with that is that products arrive from China or where ever and are then railed to the Chicago area distribution points. I believe these distribution points are in Bedford Park and somewhere around Rockford. From there trucks pick them up and deliver them downstate. The quantities being delivered downstate are small enough that it would not be cost effective to ship them by train. Additionally, when products are delivered downstate it is to small towns which do not have rail service. Take a look at the map of Illinois. Once you are out of the Chicago area there are mostly small towns. I don't see rail service coming to these small towns any time in the future. Trucks are here to stay.


----------



## AlanB (Sep 17, 2011)

Everydaymatters said:


> Another arugment for the money spent is that it would take truck traffic off the highways. The problem with that is that products arrive from China or where ever and are then railed to the Chicago area distribution points. I believe these distribution points are in Bedford Park and somewhere around Rockford. From there trucks pick them up and deliver them downstate. The quantities being delivered downstate are small enough that it would not be cost effective to ship them by train. Additionally, when products are delivered downstate it is to small towns which do not have rail service. Take a look at the map of Illinois. Once you are out of the Chicago area there are mostly small towns. I don't see rail service coming to these small towns any time in the future. Trucks are here to stay.


Betty,

You're just thinking locally though. Probably half to 2/3rds of all freight trains pass through Chicago. So while the small local town may not see an immediate benefit by improving this line, freight can now get to Chicago and those distribution points that you mentioned much faster and easier. And remember that Union Pacific moves large amounts of freight out of Los Angeles Port on its Sunset route to San Antonio. Those freights would then come up the line in question to Chicago where they might head to a distribution point for dispersal to the small towns.

The better & faster freight moves, the cheaper it is for the consumer. And the more freight that can be moved by train, the less impact on our roads and the less subsidies that our roads will need.

I remain firmly convinced that this is a good thing for everyone, including those in Illinois paying the bills. This line will help to prove to the many naysayers that one doesn't need the likes of Boston, NY City, Philly, and DC to have higher speed trains.

Additionally this will lead to further funding for this line, so as to increase the speeds on the northern end to benefit still more people.

Finally, please let me leave you with two other thoughts. One, this will see improvements made to some of the Illinois stations, which will benefit the locals. Two, part of the money being spent here is being spent on new cars. That alone is a huge benefit for the locals, having brand new modern cars.


----------

