# Chi-stl tier 1study draft



## Steve4031 (Jun 30, 2012)

http://www.idothsr.org/tier_1/deis.aspx


----------



## jis (Jun 30, 2012)

Steve, Thanks for posting this. Very useful info!

BTW, see you in a couple of weeks and we can talk about Japan!


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Jun 30, 2012)

Looking at the schedule, what is the point of maintaining one of the 4 round trips as a 79 mph service, if it has the same capability as the others? And once this is implemented, won't the faster trip times maybe allow one more round trip or something out of the equipment?


----------



## Steve4031 (Jun 30, 2012)

Johnny, I wondered the same thing. I think all trips except the Texas eagle should be 110 mph.

Jis, I'll be looking forward to seeing you too. I'll subscribe to hyperpedia and bring my lap top and itinerary. I'll buy your dinner in abq.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Jun 30, 2012)

Steve4031 said:


> Johnny, I wondered the same thing. I think all trips except the Texas eagle should be 110 mph.
> 
> Jis, I'll be looking forward to seeing you too. I'll subscribe to hyperpedia and bring my lap top and itinerary. I'll buy your dinner in abq.


Not just that, but the TE could theoretically go at 100, since that is the max of the current baggage cars and Superliners, right? It could even go 90, which the SWC routinely accomplishes.


----------



## Eric S (Jun 30, 2012)

I've wondered about that as well. I assume that because the 2003/2004 study only included 3 trains (as only 3 roundtrips were operated at that time), the initial plan (which essentially implements the 2003/2004 study) only includes operating 3 trains at 110mph. The study does mention "converting" the other (non-110mph) _Lincoln Service_ train from 79mph to 110mph as part of the next phase.

 

"A possible first step in the service improvement program would be to convert Trains 303 and 304 to 110 mph locals. Since no additional trips are involved, minimal to no infrastructure improvements are expected. The advantage would be that all local trains would be on the same timetable and can be better coordinated throughout the corridor because of their consistency." - Page 7-3


----------



## Anderson (Jun 30, 2012)

As I understand it, the reason that not all trains are being run at 110 MPH has to do with how much of that running the freights (i.e. UP) are willing to accept. Simply put, a 110 MPH train tends to be disruptive to freight movements. I believe that IL only arranged for 3/day at 110 MPH at first, hence the 3/day figure.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 1, 2012)

Anderson said:


> As I understand it, the reason that not all trains are being run at 110 MPH has to do with how much of that running the freights (i.e. UP) are willing to accept. Simply put, a 110 MPH train tends to be disruptive to freight movements. I believe that IL only arranged for 3/day at 110 MPH at first, hence the 3/day figure.


The entire "interfering with freight" issue should be bogus on this line. Do not forget that the UP has a parallel route that is only a few miles longer and goes by their major Chicago area freight yard, Yard Center. That is the ex-C&EI route that is being used as the Texas Eagle detour route. Everything on the upgraded route should be able to run *at least* 110 mph unless equipment issues do not allow it.


----------

