# CHI-MKE electrification



## norfolkwesternhenry (Aug 4, 2016)

I created this letter a while ago and never got to sending it, but how does it look?https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z5Xy9tPyBrwDrw-LHY8nnObDVNJDNf7lrnu3Z8H52J8/edit


----------



## CCC1007 (Aug 4, 2016)

You may want to remove your address from the letter, and I don't think the sprinters will be declared "surplus" in the amount you would need. Good luck!


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Aug 4, 2016)

Purchase the route.

Improve Freight tracks for a bypass.

Improve the now only Passenger tracks. No more flooding, double track full route.

Improve station, and platforms.

Upgrade signal.

Run fast and frequent service.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Aug 4, 2016)

deleted adress, thanks for the suggestion


----------



## bmjhagen9426 (Aug 4, 2016)

I don't get it as to why you would electrify the CHI-MKE corridor. I mean, what about the Empire Builder? Since the EB runs a Superliner consist, the Superliners will be too tall if that corridor had been electrified. Not to mention that Metra uses that corridor between CHI (CUS) and Lake Foreston its Milwaukee District North Line service daily as well (30 round trips on weekdays, 12 round trips on Saturdays, 10 round trips on Sundays and holidays), and it too uses bilevels. If they electrify the corridor, the overhead wires must be 18 feet, plus some extra height for the pantograph, or else the wires will touch the top of the bilevels, which is not good. The corridor between Chicago and Glenview sees 38 round trips on weekdays, 20 on Saturdays, and 17 on Sundays (I'm counting the EB as it uses the corridor, but the EB is discharge-only MKE->CHI, and accept-only CHI->MKE). But I agree that there should be more frequent services on the corridor, as there are only 7 or 8 daily round trips north of Glenview, compared to 10 to 38 daily round trips south of Glenview. But won't the extra trains tie up the corridor, even with signalling improvements?


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Aug 4, 2016)

bmjhagen9426 said:


> I don't get it as to why you would electrify the CHI-MKE corridor. I mean, what about the Empire Builder? Since the EB runs a Superliner consist, the Superliners will be too tall if that corridor had been electrified. Not to mention that Metra uses that corridor between CHI (CUS) and Lake Foreston its Milwaukee District North Line service daily as well (30 round trips on weekdays, 12 round trips on Saturdays, 10 round trips on Sundays and holidays), and it too uses bilevels. If they electrify the corridor, the overhead wires must be 18 feet, plus some extra height for the pantograph, or else the wires will touch the top of the bilevels, which is not good. The corridor between Chicago and Glenview sees 38 round trips on weekdays, 20 on Saturdays, and 17 on Sundays (I'm counting the EB as it uses the corridor, but the EB is discharge-only MKE->CHI, and accept-only CHI->MKE). But I agree that there should be more frequent services on the corridor, as there are only 7 or 8 daily round trips north of Glenview, compared to 10 to 38 daily round trips south of Glenview. But won't the extra trains tie up the corridor, even with signalling improvements?


I know you would need to extend the wires up taller, but what about the CL? When I took it WAS-CHI, we went under the catenary without incident. Also, this would be sort of a preparation for more trains, overbuilding Isway better than being at capacity, when more trains are eventually introduced, which they will, maybe more Hiawathas, or Metra trains, but having extra capacity has a lot more upsides than downs.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Aug 4, 2016)

This might not be the best source, but on New York to New Haven (train sim 2016 route)the Superliners clear with a great deal of headroom, and I would doubt there being much of a difference in catenary height btw Amtrak and Metro North on their electrified routes.


----------



## CCC1007 (Aug 4, 2016)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> This might not be the best source, but on New York to New Haven (train sim 2016 route)the Superliners clear with a great deal of headroom, and I would doubt there being much of a difference in catenary height btw Amtrak and Metro North on their electrified routes.


Train simulator is not something to put lots of faith on the minute details such as cat. height, as there are limitations in the simulation that don't exist in real life, such as only having one cat. height, whereas IRL the catenary can and does change height to accommodate the obstacles on the route.


----------



## west point (Aug 5, 2016)

Clearances are a problem At present Superliners only clear Chicago US by about 6" above rood of SLs which is not enough for 25Kv CAT. Once out of CUS there is a need for at least 23 feet for double stack trains but no problem except for the need to stabilize PANs with that much vertical height. The CUS clearances are a big problem for IC electric being routed there.


----------



## bmjhagen9426 (Aug 5, 2016)

What about dual mode locos?


----------



## Ryan (Aug 5, 2016)

Expensive, heavy and inefficient. Non starter.

I'm not sure what the fetish with electrifying all the things is. It's great for passenger corridors with lots and lots of traffic. Not so much for the rest of the country.


----------



## jis (Aug 5, 2016)

The first step in determining the need to electrify is to figure out what is going to run, how frequently and at what speed. As far as I can tell there is little need for anything running more than 125mph on that corridor and it will probably be a long time before there will be more than hourly service. It fits more the model of a corridor like AAF's than anything like the NEC. So for now forget about electrification.

Once you decide to electrify there may be several civil clearance issue that will need to be addressed. But one thing that will not be an issue is constructing 24' clearance OHE where civil clearance for it is otherwise available. It is well known, tried and tested technology. As a matter of fact India is constructing many km of 26' high catenary on its dedicated freight corridors because they plan to run double stack containers on 4' high flatbeds which require a vertical clearance of that sort. So nothing new about the height of the cat or pantograph dynamics for such. They are well understood and deployed already elsewhere.

Here is an example:







Here is the type of train they are placing under such high catenary on the DFCs:






Those diesel locomotives are standard height EMD units.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Aug 5, 2016)

Metra (and predecessor IC) has run bi-level gallery cars on the Electric District for more than 40 years with no problems. As others have said, there is no real need to electrify the Chicago-Milwaukee route. Hourly service at 110 mph would be the best thing for this route.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Aug 6, 2016)

what about third rail? It may not be as reliable, but it is less expensive, as well as you could run mile high trains with no interference with the power supply


----------



## jis (Aug 6, 2016)

If there is no need to electrify the method to be used is moot. Also it has severe speed restriction issues. Typically diesel trains can run faster than third rail electrified trains. For various reasons not limited to cost of frequent feeder stations, inability to deliver large amount of power and cost of maintenance, it is very unlikely that any main line will ever get electrified using third rail. You appear to be trying to propose solutions for non existent problems both in terms of clearance and cost.

Where wires are a problem on streetcar tracks induction systems are starting to get used. But it is more expensive and has ways to go before it is used widely on main line railroads.


----------



## neroden (Aug 6, 2016)

west point said:


> Clearances are a problem At present Superliners only clear Chicago US by about 6" above rood of SLs which is not enough for 25Kv CAT.


Yuck. Which *specific* parts of CUS are the problem? I know when I'm standing on the platforms on the south side, there's certainly more than 6" of space above the Superliners, and the roof in the area with skylights can certainly be raised. Chicago Union Station needs to be electrified eventually for local pollution reasons *anyway*. There's no problem with having a certain amount of catenary-dead zone, however, if the obstacles are just a couple of bridges. Modern locomotives will probably be able to go a short distance on battery power in any case.

If the obstructions are more serious than that, it may indicate that Superliners should be phased out in favor of single-levels, long-term.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Aug 9, 2016)

neroden said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> > Clearances are a problem At present Superliners only clear Chicago US by about 6" above rood of SLs which is not enough for 25Kv CAT.
> ...


The Midwest High Speed Rail Association has made electrifying at least some of Union Station's tracks an essential part of their CrossRail Chicago proposal, so I'd like to think that someone from that organization would have surveyed the situation before MHSRA included it in its presentation.

One component of CrossRail Chicago proposes to turn Metra Electric EMUs into something of a rapid transit service called Metra City. Trains would run every 10-15 minutes all day and be fare integrated with the CTA. Metra City would serve Metra Electric's main line as far as Kensington, the South Chicago branch, the Blue Island branch, as well as part of the South Shore line, providing stops at Altgeld Gardens and Hegewisch.

The Metra City line would be extended to O'Hare, by means of a connector between the St. Charles Air Line and Union Station south tracks, eliminating the backup maneuver, as well as electrification of the Air Line, Union Station, and the Metra Milwaukee West to Metra North Central to O'Hare. A second proposed Metra City route, providing rapid transit-like service to Metra's Rock Island District - Beverly Branch, would access the Air Line connector and follow the same route to O'Hare, only using DMUs instead.

One curious thing about the ever-evolving CrossRail presentation (there's far more to CrossRail than what I described), which is available at the following URL-

http://www.crossrailchicago.org/

the icon used in the presentation to represent the Metra City EMUs is shown as single level, while the icon used to represent Metra Electric Suburban service is bi-level. All Metra Electric rolling stock is bi-level. Whether the single level icon was used strictly as a point of differentiation in the presentation or whether there might be clearance issues regarding bi-levels and electrification at Union Station, I don't know. The proposal does not get into specifics regarding rolling stock and does not include costs for same in its projections.

Regarding the western portion of the south train shed which still has access to natural light via the skylights you mentioned, international engineering firm Arup was just hired for the design portion of the so-called Phase 1A improvements to Union Station. Among the improvements is the elimination of 2 baggage platforms, allowing the widening of platforms serving tracks 6/8 and 10/12. Those platforms would also receive stairs/escalators/elevators to allow commuters to exit directly from those platforms to street level, avoiding the concourse altogether. Those platforms are the ones under the skylights. As such one could safely assume that providing access to street level would require getting rid of the skylights and decking over that part of the train shed.


----------



## bmjhagen9426 (Aug 9, 2016)

Would that move also benefit the City of New Orleans, Illini, and Saluki as well, in terms of eliminating backup movement?


----------



## MisterUptempo (Aug 9, 2016)

bmjhagen9426 said:


> Would that move also benefit the City of New Orleans, Illini, and Saluki as well, in terms of eliminating backup movement?


Absolutely. As I mentioned, CrossRail Chicago serves a number of purposes, Metra City service being only one of them. It would make the Amtrak routes you mentioned move more quickly, possibly others as well.

MHSRA also proposes using the connector to move the Hoosier State off its current routing between Union Station and Dyer, IN. One of two alternatives offered would put the Hoosier State on the Metra Electric to, I believe, the South Shore(the route map offered does not specify). The other alternative would involve the Hoosier starting from Union Station onto the Metra Rock Island tracks (via the Air Line connection), transferring onto the Elsdon Sub (ex-GTW) at Blue Island Junction to the Monon.

The connector could also be used for the Lincoln Service and the Texas Eagle, utilizing the Metra Rock island from 16th Street to Joliet. The Chicago-Joliet Tier I EIS suggested moving those routes onto the Rock Island at 40th Street, but at the two meetings I attended, many people were strongly advocating for the connection at 16th Street, because it could serve so many purposes.

The electrified route to O'Hare is also seen as a means to establish an airport express from O'Hare, through Union Station, to McCormick Place.

Finally, MHSRA sees the route as eventually serving as a high speed trunk line of sorts. They see a need to have most, if not all, future high speed routes into the city make a stop at O'Hare.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Aug 10, 2016)

I'll add that not only has my line been running bi-levels under the catenary for 40 plus years, most of it was the original 20's install by the IC (as far as I know) - at least the gantry's are way more than forty years old.

It's been my understanding that once the CREATE project is finished that certainly Amtrak and probably CN freight will shift trains off the MED ROW directly to Union or other route.

Third rail seems to max out in the UK at around 100 MPH. I don't see improving clearances as that big of a problem - if electrification were to happen, tracks could be lowered, etc.

I would argue, however, that hourly service to Milwaukee should be, at least partially, under the aegis of Metra, extending their service from Kenosha the rest of the way north which would create a lot of additional commuting options. If that were a success then additional "express" trains could be added.


----------



## west point (Aug 10, 2016)

Lowering the tracks at CHI US will not be very easy. what about the Chicago river water table and platforms would also need to be lowered ?


----------



## grover5995 (Aug 11, 2016)

This route would seem to be an ideal candidate for electrification since the distance is under 100 miles and the entire distance has double track with few curves. There are still quite a few grade crossings which would limit speeds to 110mph on most of the route. Equipment could involve single-level trainsets (Pendolino), EMUs (Nippon/Sharyo) or possibly second-hand Acela trainsets that will eventually be replaced on the Northeast Corridor. Electric trainsets allow for faster acceleration, regenerative braking and eliminates the need for a diesel power unit.

Daytime service between CUS-MKE in under 60 minutes could be expanded west to Madison or north to Green Bay. Trains could also run south and west of CUS over the former Soo Line route to O'Hare Airport. Using this dedicated route would involve far less grade crossings compared with the MILW West line. Direct service would be provided to both O'Hare and Milwaukee airports for passengers from Northeast IL and Southeast WI. In addition, METRA could also operate mainline locals between CUS and Lake Forest using existing gallery cars with electric or dual power locomotives.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Aug 11, 2016)

west point said:


> Lowering the tracks at CHI US will not be very easy. what about the Chicago river water table and platforms would also need to be lowered ?


Lowering the tracks would pose another big problem as well.

The tracks to be electrified would most likely be the through tracks, to be serviced by converting the unused mail platform into two extra wide (by Union Station standards) platforms. The Phase 1A plans for Union call for the conversion of the mail platform, with only two tracks becoming through tracks initially; the other two would be stub end tracks, until such time that two more through tracks were required.

These converted platforms won't have a connection to the concourse at track level. For passengers to access these new platforms, they will have to take stairs/escalator/elevator from the concourse into Union Station's basement, where a steam tunnel would be converted into a passageway. They would continue south along the tunnel to waiting areas that would be built in spaces adjacent to the tunnel. Passengers would literally be sitting under the trains they would travel on. When boarding time arrived, passengers would access stairs/escalator/elevator which would take them up and onto the converted platform to board.

So, lowering the tracks would also require lowering the basement of at least part of Union Station, where the through track platforms need to be accessed. When one considers the expense involved, it would probably be a whole lot cheaper just to invest in single-level EMUs for Metra City service. MHSRA's plan still calls for the suburban Metra Electric to continue to terminate at Millennium station, so the bi-levels would still be used. Any excess bi-levels could probably be sold to NICTD/South Shore. Their 20-year plan calls for market expansion of their main commuter line, plus the West Lake Extension to Dyer will need rolling stock as well.


----------



## jis (Aug 11, 2016)

So does anyone have a real clearance diagram or information for Chicago Union Station handy or are we basing the discussion on an assumption? Either way, what is the current minimum clearance, known or assumed, and where exactly is it found? What is the next minimum clearance and where?


----------



## neroden (Aug 11, 2016)

MisterUptempo said:


> So, lowering the tracks would also require lowering the basement of at least part of Union Station


Nah. The cheap way to lower tracks when there's something underneath, like a bridge or a basement, is to replace ties-on-ballast with direct fixation. Gets you several inches. Given that we're talking about small changes in clearance, that's what they'd do.


----------



## neroden (Aug 11, 2016)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> I would argue, however, that hourly service to Milwaukee should be, at least partially, under the aegis of Metra, extending their service from Kenosha the rest of the way north which would create a lot of additional commuting options. If that were a success then additional "express" trains could be added.


Politically, the problem is kind of weird. It has to do with the current political control of Wisconsin by very bad people, including Governor Walker. They are elected with core support from the Milwaukee suburbs. They have an unreasoning hatred of Milwaukee, though they probably hate Madison even more. (They hate the rural areas too; strip mining is their plan for rural areas.)
Obviously any Metra extension from Kenosha to Milwaukee would require state support; the city of Milwaukee doesn't have the money. So until the state of Wisconsin is removed from the control of these... people... the state government will not do anything good in Wisconsin.

So anything being proposed should be for the 2018 campaign platform.


----------



## iggy (Aug 14, 2016)

Rick Harnish CrossRail Chicago 2015 MHSRA Spring Meeting video - some elements may have been updated since this presentation.

Jeff Sriver Chicago Department of Transportation detailing Chicago Union Station refurbishment future upgrades Video

I wasn't at camera so graphs etc aren't zoomed in on.


----------



## grover5995 (May 26, 2017)

bmjhagen9426 said:


> Would that move also benefit the City of New Orleans, Illini, and Saluki as well, in terms of eliminating backup movement?


Yes it would save between 10-20 minutes getting into CUS.


----------



## NorthShore (May 28, 2017)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> I would argue, however, that hourly service to Milwaukee should be, at least partially, under the aegis of Metra, extending their service from Kenosha the rest of the way north which would create a lot of additional commuting options. If that were a success then additional "express" trains could be added.


We should have never lost the North Shore!

(Sorry, couldn't help myself.)


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (May 30, 2017)

NorthShore said:


> Metra Electric Rider said:
> 
> 
> > I would argue, however, that hourly service to Milwaukee should be, at least partially, under the aegis of Metra, extending their service from Kenosha the rest of the way north which would create a lot of additional commuting options. If that were a success then additional "express" trains could be added.
> ...


Helpless?

(dodges streamlined object thrown my way)


----------



## west point (May 30, 2017)

For there to be any chance of electrification METRA would need to plan electric service all the way to the Wisconsin border then the short distance to MKE might be feasible for Amtrak or other services. Maybe even METRA all way to MKE ?

These posters have at various times observed Superliner clearances at CHI Union station. It is only a few inches. Now the just announced rebuilding of CHI might allow for clearances to be increased. After all the platform passageways being closed due to debris falling maybe complete destruction of that terrible piece of poor planning and start over wit higher clearances ?f course there are station clearance problems.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (May 31, 2017)

I think, if given the money do to it, Metra wouldn't be opposed to electrification in principal. It would improve air quality in Union and eliminate the need for most locomotives. They answered just this question in their "On the Bi-Level" newsletter a couple months (or more) ago.


----------



## bretton88 (May 31, 2017)

Metra wouldn't be opposed, it just isn't very high on their priority list. The real question is whether CP would allow it, since they are the track owner. CP would probably require any electrification to allow for plate H clearance.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Jun 5, 2017)

grover5995 said:


> This route would seem to be an ideal candidate for electrification since the distance is under 100 miles and the entire distance has double track with few curves. There are still quite a few grade crossings which would limit speeds to 110mph on most of the route. Equipment could involve single-level trainsets (Pendolino), EMUs (Nippon/Sharyo) or possibly second-hand Acela trainsets that will eventually be replaced on the Northeast Corridor. Electric trainsets allow for faster acceleration, regenerative braking and eliminates the need for a diesel power unit.
> 
> Daytime service between CUS-MKE in under 60 minutes could be expanded west to Madison or north to Green Bay. Trains could also run south and west of CUS over the former Soo Line route to O'Hare Airport. Using this dedicated route would involve far less grade crossings compared with the MILW West line. Direct service would be provided to both O'Hare and Milwaukee airports for passengers from Northeast IL and Southeast WI. In addition, METRA could also operate mainline locals between CUS and Lake Forest using existing gallery cars with electric or dual power locomotives.


 fully protected crossings can support 125 MPH, although there must be "an impenetrable barrier", which could be a gate that closes off the road


----------



## west point (Jun 5, 2017)

Another unlikely item would be for the rebuilding of CHI Union Station to raise clearances much above present Superliners. AFAIK CHI is the limiting clearances for western Superliner clearances. So if clearances were raised say 6 feet then the next generation of Amtrak bi-levels could be much higher say what is running on Alaska RR ? Then you would have a true Bi-level which would have much higher head room and sleepers could have viewing much like present Viewliners. Unlikely yes but at least fuel for thought.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jun 5, 2017)

It seems to me, at least, that if Union is going to be rebuilt it should be rebuilt as a through station rather than a stub terminal which would enable an S-bahn style commuter network and shorter dwell times too. Ahhh, dreaming is fun! And I'd like a panda while we're at it.


----------



## west point (Jun 5, 2017)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> It seems to me, at least, that if Union is going to be rebuilt it should be rebuilt as a through station rather than a stub terminal which would enable an S-bahn style commuter network and shorter dwell times too. Ahhh, dreaming is fun! And I'd like a panda while we're at it.


That definitely is a + for the station. Some trains could still turn back by having end stopping at a stairway just under a new above concourse. Switches at those ends could enable for the thru trains. Unless the trains were electric the diesel emission ventilation would have to be solved which Amtrak has already noted that it will take $50M to fix.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Jun 5, 2017)

west point said:


> Metra Electric Rider said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to me, at least, that if Union is going to be rebuilt it should be rebuilt as a through station rather than a stub terminal which would enable an S-bahn style commuter network and shorter dwell times too. Ahhh, dreaming is fun! And I'd like a panda while we're at it.
> ...


Perhaps you can clear something up for me. You mentioned that Amtrak's estimated costs to improve the train shed ventilation will take $50 Million. But in the FY2018 Budget Request, under State of Good Repair Projects, there is a request for $100 Million for "Chicago Union Station Train Shed Ventilation". Further still, in the same report, under Supplemental Project List for a Proposed Infrastructure Bill, there is a request for $175 Million, which would be Amtrak's 50% share towards a $350 Million "Chicago Union Station Train Shed Ventilation" project.

$350 Million?!

For $350 Million, Amtrak could probably fix the ventilation problems AND buy 222 S. Riverside AND knock the thing down. Makes me wonder whether that $350 Million isn't just mislabeled, and would, in fact, be used to build a new concourse at 300 S. Riverside. And that $350 Million is in addition to a request for $150 Million towards "Chicago Union Station Improvements", that has a total price tag of $265 Million. I'm assuming those are probably the Phase 1 improvements they've been planning.

Any thoughts?

edit - grammar


----------



## west point (Jun 6, 2017)

Yes noted those discrepancies. Guess above my pay grade.

One point. Started a "simple" DIY project here. Costs estimate is now 4 times original. A got you.


----------



## cirdan (Jun 6, 2017)

jis said:


> The first step in determining the need to electrify is to figure out what is going to run, how frequently and at what speed. As far as I can tell there is little need for anything running more than 125mph on that corridor and it will probably be a long time before there will be more than hourly service. It fits more the model of a corridor like AAF's than anything like the NEC. So for now forget about electrification.
> 
> Once you decide to electrify there may be several civil clearance issue that will need to be addressed. But one thing that will not be an issue is constructing 24' clearance OHE where civil clearance for it is otherwise available. It is well known, tried and tested technology. As a matter of fact India is constructing many km of 26' high catenary on its dedicated freight corridors because they plan to run double stack containers on 4' high flatbeds which require a vertical clearance of that sort. So nothing new about the height of the cat or pantograph dynamics for such. They are well understood and deployed already elsewhere.
> 
> ...


The photo you link shows a freight train and I assume it's not going to be going at 125mph.

Do you know whether IR have done any studies into the suitability of such pantographs for higher speed?

Obviously problems of this type are not insurmountable, but it's not just a question of scaling what we alraedy have. For example at high speeds there will be aerodynamic problems as the pnatograph has a larger exposure to the wind. Also with the longer arms there will be a different (lower) frqeuency of mechanical oscillation and damping on both pantograph and catenary would have to be designed to accomodate this.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jun 6, 2017)

I'm wondering if one cost is for ventilation with the current layout and the higher costs are with new buildings overhead? The canopies are in bad, no, terrible, shape as is the ceiling of the northern portion which is under the building so some repair might be required to install _anything_ to the ceiling, such as ducts and fans. I gather that Metra is either replacing locomotives or the emissions controls in some as part of the ventilation issue.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Jun 6, 2017)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> It seems to me, at least, that if Union is going to be rebuilt it should be rebuilt as a through station rather than a stub terminal which would enable an S-bahn style commuter network and shorter dwell times too. Ahhh, dreaming is fun! And I'd like a panda while we're at it.


I'll take a cat. My last one died a long time ago.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Jun 7, 2017)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> I'm wondering if one cost is for ventilation with the current layout and the higher costs are with new buildings overhead? The canopies are in bad, no, terrible, shape as is the ceiling of the northern portion which is under the building so some repair might be required to install _anything_ to the ceiling, such as ducts and fans. I gather that Metra is either replacing locomotives or the emissions controls in some as part of the ventilation issue.


I took a few minutes to look at the Union Station Master Plan, in hopes of getting some insight into the ventilation question.

As you know, Amtrak plans on remodeling the current concourse, including the Canal Street entrance. Plans for the entrance call for moving stairs and escalators to improve traffic flow on the concourse floor. The rendering from the December, 2013 edition of the Master Plan showed this-











In the illustration below, you can see the location of the diesel exhaust plenum. It would be right behind the wall that the departures/arrivals board is hanging on in the first rendering above. Despite the optimistic amount of light that the second rendering shows, that plenum really gets in the way of allowing light down onto the concourse.






Now, look at the most recent renderings for the Canal Street entrance -











The new design seems to provide for not only improved traffic flow, but also a marked improvement in the amount of light allowed into the concourse, achieved from the use of what appears to be highly reflective materials and the much more open, flowing transition from the Canal entrance to the concourse below. I can't see how they can achieve anything like that with the exhaust plenum as it currently exists.

A sizable chunk of the money they seek must be going towards redesigning the plenum.

Regarding repairing the ceiling of the train shed, I was of the understanding that maintenance/repair of the ceiling is the responsibility of the owners of the buildings over the tracks. The City of Chicago has the responsibility of maintaining the portion of the train shed that sits under Canal Street. If that's correct, Amtrak's only responsibility would be the portion of the south tracks not covered by 300 S. Riverside or the Old Post Office.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Jun 7, 2017)

How bad is the fume problem in CUS? I can imagine having so many LD trains idling for so long, as well as all the commuter routes, and even the SD routes that sit for hours before going anywhere. Is it bad enough where electrification would solve many problems, or few? Also, if oil prices spike for long periods, electric trains could save money...


----------



## west point (Jun 8, 2017)

Maybe fumes could be reduced by hooking all trains to station HEP until 5 minutes before departure ? Cost analysis needed for ongoing labor verses fixed capital costs.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Jun 13, 2017)

How long does it take to start up a P42, SC-44, F40PH (and all Metra variations), and the other Metra engines from cold?


----------



## ehbowen (Jun 14, 2017)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> How long does it take to start up a P42, SC-44, F40PH (and all Metra variations), and the other Metra engines from cold?


If the engines are cold...especially Chicago cold...they very well may not start at all. Sure you want to go there in a busy terminal?

There's a reason that many railroads and heavy equipment operators in the cold country run their Diesel engines 24/7, except for maintenance.


----------



## west point (Jun 14, 2017)

ehbowen said:


> If the engines are cold...especially Chicago cold...they very well may not start at all. Sure you want to go there in a busy terminal?
> 
> There's a reason that many railroads and heavy equipment operators in the cold country run their Diesel engines 24/7, except for maintenance.


Even some outfits put some kind of heater in the fuel tank.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jun 14, 2017)

If starting engines in Chicago is an issue due to cold, there are many other Amtrak terminals that are even more vulnerable. Milwaukee, Grand Rapids, Port Huron, Pontiac, Toronto, Niagara Falls, Rensselaer (NY), Montreal, Rutland, St. Albans, Springfield (MA), Portland (ME), and Brunswick are all colder. Most of these are smaller cities with few or no extra Amtrak locomotives stored, so is it ever an issue of the locomotive not being able to start whatsoever?


----------



## jis (Jun 15, 2017)

It is not an issue because locomotives are not shutdown perhaps? I know they are not shut down at St. Albans for sure.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Jun 16, 2017)

ehbowen said:


> norfolkwesternhenry said:
> 
> 
> > How long does it take to start up a P42, SC-44, F40PH (and all Metra variations), and the other Metra engines from cold?
> ...


 I've seen ads in TRAINS magazine for block heaters so you can shut down the prime mover when it's cold.


----------



## grover5995 (Nov 24, 2018)

CCC1007 said:


> You may want to remove your address from the letter, and I don't think the sprinters will be declared "surplus" in the amount you would need. Good luck!


There are plenty of older AEM7 electric units available that were replaced by the Sprinters.  Once the new NEC electric trainsets start arriving, some of the older Acelas could be used here since they are designed for bi-directional operation.  Installing catenary on less than 100 miles shouldn't take too long.


----------



## west point (Nov 24, 2018)

just how long do you think it took to electrify New haven  -   BOS ?


----------



## ehbowen (Nov 24, 2018)

west point said:


> just how long do you think it took to electrify New haven  -   BOS ?


Four years; ground was broken December 1995 and the system was in use by January 2000. And that was 155 miles with a lot of movable bridges.


----------



## cpotisch (Nov 24, 2018)

grover5995 said:


> There are plenty of older AEM7 electric units available that were replaced by the Sprinters.  Once the new NEC electric trainsets start arriving, some of the older Acelas could be used here since they are designed for bi-directional operation.  Installing catenary on less than 100 miles shouldn't take too long.


They are not going to put the AEM-7s back in service for this. They just won't. And installing high voltage electric overhead wire on a near 100 mile stretch of trackage can take a LONG time. Even putting aside the actual time it takes to put up the catenary itself, that's still 100 miles of zoning requirements and permissions. It's just not fast or easy.


----------



## jis (Nov 24, 2018)

Stringing catenary on a 100 mile railroad executed competently should not take more than a couple of years. The key word is “competently”. Key assumption is that the project is adequately funded in a timely manner.


----------



## PRR 60 (Nov 26, 2018)

Railroad electrification has a lot of elements. Besides the foundations, structures (about 25-30 per mile) and the various wires. there is also:


Having the local utilities establish adequate service points. Trains draw a lot of power, so that could require some build on the utility side of the fence.

Building substations to convert the three-phase utility power to single phase power at the correct voltage. 25kV (modern catenary voltage) is not a standard utility voltage. One every 8 miles or so.

Establishing an electric protection and control system including a power dispatch center and fiber optic data communications lines tying it all together.  Lots of sophisticated electronics to design, manufacture, install and test.

Likely rebuilding or replacing the existing railroad signal system due to voltage and current induced into the rails by the catenary and feeders that can disrupt standard signals used in non-electrified territory.

Is some respects, the overhead wires are just the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## jis (Nov 26, 2018)

Funnily, the primary culprit for the hopeless delay and budget overruns on the Great Western electrification in the UK is supposedly because of their inability to dig holes in the ground and install posts as fast as they thought they could. It finally led to scaling back of the project in CP-5 excluding electrification for the time being of the segments Chipenham - Bath Spa - Bristol Temple Meads, Bristol Temple Meads - Bristol Parkway and Cardiff- Swansea.

They have been having ongoing issues with Class 80x's interfering with signal circuits not only in the newly electrified areas but also on the previously electrified areas, like on ECML, and Hitachi is working overtime to reduce the dirty electromagnetic footprint of their trains, while NR is working overtime for replacing parts of the signaling systems that are inadequately shielded. So electromagnetic issues can affect long existing electrified areas too, as new technology (specially trains with a whole bunch of inverters) are introduced, apparently.

BTW, three phase is seldom converted to single phase when the electrification use standard frequency. They just alternate phases for feeds to different segments of the catenary. But they do supply the power in center tapped 50kV feeders in typical modern 2x25 configuration of power supply to increase the distance between feeder posts. But then there are booster auto transformers installed in between as needed to maintain line voltage.


----------



## neroden (Nov 27, 2018)

The only really hard part is the civil engineering -- lots of structural work making sure the poles won't sink, relocating buried utilities, raising bridges, lowering or widening cuts, etc.  This often requires slewing the track as well, and you want to optimize the geometry while you're doing it.  The rest of it is really pretty quick.  The Great Western electrification is a classic example.

Putting up the wires and replacing the entire signal system is sort of expensive, but it's easy.  The civil engineering is the painful part.


----------

