# Chicaqo to Detroit line



## Steve4031

I saw this mentioned in the list of projects. I know that the Englewood flyover will be built, but what will happen east of there.

They could build an a new right of way from the abandoned right of ways of the NYC and Pennsylvania RR. I know operations were consolidated at some point, but one can see that the old right of ways between Chicago and Porter. What do you think will happen?


----------



## ryangs

Steve4031 said:


> I saw this mentioned in the list of projects. I know that the Englewood flyover will be built, but what will happen east of there.
> They could build an a new right of way from the abandoned right of ways of the NYC and Pennsylvania RR. I know operations were consolidated at some point, but one can see that the old right of ways between Chicago and Porter. What do you think will happen?


Having spent a lot of time looking out the window while crawling slowly or completely stopped between Hammond and Porter, I do believe there is enough open/abandoned ROW to build a dedicated high-speed passenger line, maybe even a double-track line. It seems like such an obvious solution to a persistent problem. It's frustrating that this stretch of track seems to be ignored in any discussion about the Chicago-Detroit line. 105mph running between Porter and Kalamazoo doesn't mean much if it takes 90 minutes between Chicago and Porter!

Hopefully this would happen as a part of upgrading the Kalamazoo-Detroit part of the line, but assuming a lot of that money will come from the State of Michigan, who will pay for Chicago-Porter? Certainly not Indiana. They couldn't care less, unless a stop were added at Porter or the state beach, but even that's a stretch.


----------



## John Bredin

The Porter-Chicago situation *will* be addressed with the recent stimulus money for Chicago-Detroit service.

To quote the White House press release following the State of the Union reference to the rail stimulus:



> Indiana: A major investment will be made on the most congested and delay-prone corridor in the entire country, between Porter, IN and Chicago. The project includes the relocation, reconfiguration, and addition of high-speed crossovers and related signal system improvements, rail line additions at two locations, and the creation of a new passing tracks. The project will greatly increase service reliability for passengers travelling from communities in Michigan and Indiana to Chicago, reducing train delay times by 24 percent and increasing average speeds by nearly 7 percent through this segment.


As I recall, the State of Indiana was willing to apply for the stimulus money to relieve the Chicago-Porter choke-point at the behest of the States of Michigan and Illinois so long as the Federal funds covered the entire project, without Indiana state funds.


----------



## ryangs

Great news! I wonder what the "three new tracks" it references in Illinois are?



> Illinois: A flyover, approach bridges, embankment and retaining walls will be built to complement additional investments and support the construction of three new tracks for trains operating east of Lake Michigan. This project will greatly reduce congestion and allow for increased speeds of 40 percent through this area.


I'm assuming they're referring to the Englewood (63rd/State) flyover, but looking at the summary of the rest of the CREATE projects, I'm not sure what the supposed three new tracks are.

Edit: Looks like they're confused. The new flyover of the Rock Island (Metra/southbound Amtrak trains) over the NS (Amtrak Michigan trains) will be triple-tracked. So these three new tracks are not for "trains operating east of Lake Michigan," but they will benefit those trains.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Is this going to lead to a faster schedule for the Lake Shore Limited? (I keep wondering what it would take to move the point where 448 meets 449 to not be on the single tracked ALB-SPG part of the route, which probably is not worth upgrading due to the lack of any other passenger trains on that route.)


----------



## MikefromCrete

ryangs said:


> Great news! I wonder what the "three new tracks" it references in Illinois are?
> 
> 
> 
> Illinois: A flyover, approach bridges, embankment and retaining walls will be built to complement additional investments and support the construction of three new tracks for trains operating east of Lake Michigan. This project will greatly reduce congestion and allow for increased speeds of 40 percent through this area.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm assuming they're referring to the Englewood (63rd/State) flyover, but looking at the summary of the rest of the CREATE projects, I'm not sure what the supposed three new tracks are.
> 
> Edit: Looks like they're confused. The new flyover of the Rock Island (Metra/southbound Amtrak trains) over the NS (Amtrak Michigan trains) will be triple-tracked. So these three new tracks are not for "trains operating east of Lake Michigan," but they will benefit those trains.
Click to expand...

The three track overpass will be for the Metra Rock Island trains to take them over the NS/Amtrak tracks. A separate project will add additional tracks, passing sidings, signals, etc., to the NS Chicago to Porter route to eliminate the delays that currently kill OT performance on the Michigan and eastern long distance trains (except the Cardinal which takes a different route out of Chicago). Both are part of the stimulus "high speed route" grants.


----------



## ryangs

MikefromCrete said:


> The three track overpass will be for the Metra Rock Island trains to take them over the NS/Amtrak tracks. A separate project will add additional tracks, passing sidings, signals, etc., to the NS Chicago to Porter route to eliminate the delays that currently kill OT performance on the Michigan and eastern long distance trains (except the Cardinal which takes a different route out of Chicago). Both are part of the stimulus "high speed route" grants.


Any published plans for this yet? It would be nice to see the concrete details of these improvements.


----------



## M. McClure

The Chicago-Porter project involves using the long-dormant ex-NYC ROW from Englewood to east of Colehour Yard in Whiting, Indiana on the north side of the ex-PRR. East of the state the new tracks would move south and north at times of the current NS route (ex-NYC) using both ex-PRR ROW and vacant land. This line really needs attention. The best of all worlds would be to connect at Grand Crossing and join the ex-IC north to a new Millennium Park station on the east side of the South Loop. This station could then service the line south toward Champaign with a branch west at Kankakee heading to the old GM&O to avoid the painfully slow crawl along the south side side/suburbs. This same ex-IC line is bereft of crossings---rail or road---for nearly 30 miles south toward Homewood and this would be the route for true 220 MPH trains. Union Station is choked and a Millennium Park Station in the South Loop could connect to Union via the St. Charles Air Line and shuttle passengers.

South of the Loop Project (embedded): http://www.scribd.co...-the-Lake-Study

M. McClure

mkmcclure at uchicago.edu


----------



## Steve4031

When are they going to build the flyover at englewood?


----------



## afigg

Steve4031 said:


> When are they going to build the flyover at englewood?


Starting this summer. After the agreement and contracts talks were reportedly stalled for quite a while, the agreements for the Englewood Flyover were signed this week. The official US DOT press release on the release of $126 million in funding: http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2011/fra1311.html

Now, when will the rest of the stimulus funds for the Gateway Corridor project in IN and the various track acquisition, upgrade, and short term fixes for the Kalamazoo to Detroit section of the route be signed off on?


----------



## Chuck

The current state of the Wolverine line is a travesty. Norfolk Southern has crippled the line between Dearborn, MI & Kalamazoo, MI. They are often forcing the train to run at low speeds such as 25 mph. The train often gets backed up AGAIN between Porter, IN & Chicago. What an absolute mess & clusterf---. Terrible. These trains are often times arriving in Chicago or Pontiac about 1.5 to 3 hours late on average! Just when we were getting ready for HSR & the hype about the fed funds, our service levels even in the nicer weather months got much worse. This is a heavily traversed line and I ride it at least once every couple months if not more and there is always a very large crowd on the train especially on the weekends. Megabus is not a much better option now that they are canceling buses often (or delaying departures significantly) and stranding their passengers. This leaves the only other options of flying or driving. Don't feel like getting groped by TSA, jostled around by turbulence, or sitting in I-94 traffic and having to stop for food or restrooms. The train could allow you to do all of that while keeping you MOVING. The train performance on this popular route needs to improve ASAP.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

Amtrak is in talks with NS on buying the line since NS wants Amtrak to pay to maintain it at passenger speeds. NS said they don´t have any problems with running Amtrak they just don´t feel that they should pay to maintain it to passenger train speeds.


----------



## afigg

amtrakwolverine said:


> Amtrak is in talks with NS on buying the line since NS wants Amtrak to pay to maintain it at passenger speeds. NS said they don´t have any problems with running Amtrak they just don´t feel that they should pay to maintain it to passenger train speeds.


There is a total of $400.7 million in HSIPR funding awarded to Michigan for the Chicago-Detroit corridor after the initial stimulus, FY10, and Florida HSR reallocation grants. So far, only $3.6 million has obligated for the Battle Creek, MI station. There is a threat from Republicans in the House who are looking to rescind the unobligated stimulus funds in funding bills. Hopefully, the FRA and Michigan will lock up some of the funding soon, very soon. It is taking a long time to get even the original stimulus grants announced in January, 2010 obligated.

In the FY10 grants, Michigan got $150 million to help fund the purchase of the 135 miles of NS line from Kalamazoo to Dearborn. In the applications, it is Michigan DOT that is looking to actually buy the NS line, not Amtrak. There might be a plan to then turn ownership of the line to Amtrak for a nominal sum, but my guess is that Michigan would retain ownership of the 135 miles, but would give Amtrak the responsibility to oversee maintenance and upgrade of the tracks. In the recent Florida HSR re-allocation grants was $196 million to rehabilitate and upgrade the 135 miles to allow for 110 mph speeds.

So relief and track improvements are coming, assuming it does not taken away in a rescission, but it could be a while. Michigan filed a separate application for $5.1 million for short term maintenance and repair to the the line, but that does not appear to have been selected. The track work funding is likely waiting for Michigan and NS to come to an agreement on selling the line and the wheels of bureaucracy & negotiations can turn very slowly on this sort of thing. Even slower than the slow orders track sections. If it all get funded and done - along with the $71 million to Indiana for the Porter IN to the MI border section - the Chicago to Detroit service will see serious trip time improvements - eventually.


----------



## PerRock

Most stuff I've seen has trains on the NS portion of the Michigan Line running 10-15mph, not the 25 mentioned above. Also I believe MDOT, not Amtrak is talking with NS about buying the line. As this is the same line the MiTrain will be running on between DTW & ARB; although I haven't seen any MiTrain updates in a while things may have changed.

peter


----------



## MikefromCrete

PerRock said:


> Most stuff I've seen has trains on the NS portion of the Michigan Line running 10-15mph, not the 25 mentioned above. Also I believe MDOT, not Amtrak is talking with NS about buying the line. As this is the same line the MiTrain will be running on between DTW & ARB; although I haven't seen any MiTrain updates in a while things may have changed.
> 
> peter


The 10- and 25-mph slow orders are for selected short periods of track. The main slow downs include dropping 79 mph zones to 60 mph and other areas to 40 mph. This is all part of a game being played by NS to get the state of Michigan and Amtrak to purchase the NS route. Federal funds have been allocated for the purpose but it looks like Michigan and Amtrak have been dragging out negotiations. This just puts the problem into the public area to get passengers and passenger train advocates to put pressure on Michigan and Amtrak to get the job done before the Republicans attempt to take the money away.


----------



## Ginger

Chuck said:


> The current state of the Wolverine line is a travesty. Norfolk Southern has crippled the line between Dearborn, MI & Kalamazoo, MI. They are often forcing the train to run at low speeds such as 25 mph. The train often gets backed up AGAIN between Porter, IN & Chicago. What an absolute mess & clusterf---. Terrible. These trains are often times arriving in Chicago or Pontiac about 1.5 to 3 hours late on average! Just when we were getting ready for HSR & the hype about the fed funds, our service levels even in the nicer weather months got much worse. This is a heavily traversed line and I ride it at least once every couple months if not more and there is always a very large crowd on the train especially on the weekends. Megabus is not a much better option now that they are canceling buses often (or delaying departures significantly) and stranding their passengers. This leaves the only other options of flying or driving. Don't feel like getting groped by TSA, jostled around by turbulence, or sitting in I-94 traffic and having to stop for food or restrooms. The train could allow you to do all of that while keeping you MOVING. The train performance on this popular route needs to improve ASAP.


My son left Chicago today at 12: 16 and is expected to arrive in Ann Arbor around 9 PM.


----------



## Anderson

MikefromCrete said:


> PerRock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most stuff I've seen has trains on the NS portion of the Michigan Line running 10-15mph, not the 25 mentioned above. Also I believe MDOT, not Amtrak is talking with NS about buying the line. As this is the same line the MiTrain will be running on between DTW & ARB; although I haven't seen any MiTrain updates in a while things may have changed.
> 
> peter
> 
> 
> 
> The 10- and 25-mph slow orders are for selected short periods of track. The main slow downs include dropping 79 mph zones to 60 mph and other areas to 40 mph. This is all part of a game being played by NS to get the state of Michigan and Amtrak to purchase the NS route. Federal funds have been allocated for the purpose but it looks like Michigan and Amtrak have been dragging out negotiations. This just puts the problem into the public area to get passengers and passenger train advocates to put pressure on Michigan and Amtrak to get the job done before the Republicans attempt to take the money away.
Click to expand...

Thank you for reminding me why I hate having all of this sent through the states.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

Well you do what it takes to light a fire under ones A$$ to get them to move faster.


----------



## Anderson

amtrakwolverine said:


> Well you do what it takes to light a fire under ones A$ to get them to move faster.


Here's the problem: Michigan, Illinois, and Minnesota all support HSR. Missouri seems to be on board to a decent extent as well. Wisconsin and Indiana? Not so much, and voters in IL and MI can only do so much about IN, and _nobody_ can get around WI's issues.

Now, it would be nice if the Feds were willing to say "If a line going from state A to state C passes through state B and states A and C want it, then A and C can get the project if B is only marginally involved, whether or not B supports". I wish...


----------



## George Harris

Anderson said:


> Now, it would be nice if the Feds were willing to say "If a line going from state A to state C passes through state B and states A and C want it, then A and C can get the project if B is only marginally involved, whether or not B supports". I wish..


Example of this: Boston to Portland, Maine.


----------



## Anderson

George Harris said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, it would be nice if the Feds were willing to say "If a line going from state A to state C passes through state B and states A and C want it, then A and C can get the project if B is only marginally involved, whether or not B supports". I wish..
> 
> 
> 
> Example of this: Boston to Portland, Maine.
Click to expand...

The HSR plan that goes to Atlanta is another possible case: VA and NC are on board, and I think you could get GA on board. SC, on the other hand, gets virtually no benefit from such a project compared to everyone else. It feels like giving Delaware a veto over the Acela.

Of course, it's also a shame that, if MA and ME felt strongly enough about it, that they couldn't just do a backwards deal with the Feds to cover the cost in their states and then have them buy the linking track in NH and do _that_ themselves. Granted, I'm all too familiar with the political issues of _that _("You're building something just barely outside our state! How dare you!"), but still...

Edit: This is actually one advantage of declaring a "national system" like Amtrak started with: You get a partial end-run on the states on at least _some_ routings.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

So make it high-speed in Michigan and screw the other states. Why pay to make the line highspeed in states that don't want to play ball.The Line NS crippled runs between Ypsilanti and Kalamazoo so no need to involve the other states.


----------



## Anderson

amtrakwolverine said:


> So make it high-speed in Michigan and screw the other states. Why pay to make the line highspeed in states that don't want to play ball.The Line NS crippled runs between Ypsilanti and Kalamazoo so no need to involve the other states.


No, but Michigan HSR is screwed over by the bottleneck in northern Indiana (which IN went along with improving only reluctantly). Also, it's kinda hard to run a train from CHI-MSP without passing through WI (at least in a timely manner).


----------



## Trogdor

Anderson said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> 
> So make it high-speed in Michigan and screw the other states. Why pay to make the line highspeed in states that don't want to play ball.The Line NS crippled runs between Ypsilanti and Kalamazoo so no need to involve the other states.
> 
> 
> 
> No, but Michigan HSR is screwed over by the bottleneck in northern Indiana (which IN went along with improving only reluctantly). Also, it's kinda hard to run a train from CHI-MSP without passing through WI (at least in a timely manner).
Click to expand...

Wisconsin isn't relevant to the discussion of fixing up 30 mph track slowdowns in Michigan (nor is Indiana, for that matter).


----------



## Anderson

Trogdor said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> 
> So make it high-speed in Michigan and screw the other states. Why pay to make the line highspeed in states that don't want to play ball.The Line NS crippled runs between Ypsilanti and Kalamazoo so no need to involve the other states.
> 
> 
> 
> No, but Michigan HSR is screwed over by the bottleneck in northern Indiana (which IN went along with improving only reluctantly). Also, it's kinda hard to run a train from CHI-MSP without passing through WI (at least in a timely manner).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wisconsin isn't relevant to the discussion of fixing up 30 mph track slowdowns in Michigan (nor is Indiana, for that matter).
Click to expand...

Indiana is relevant insofar as the Hammond-area bottleneck kills your timetables (I recall a comment to the effect of "Why worry about running a train at 125 MPH in Michigan if you lose all the time in Indiana?") and potentially harms the viability of CHI-DET(and CHI-anywhere-in-MI for that matter) routing. Wisconsin is relevant in the same way as New Hampshire is, regarding similar examples of headaches like this (i.e. where one disinterested state can make a real headache of something several other states want).


----------



## DET63

Regarding CHI-MSP and Wisconsin: there may be a "Robin Hood's barn" route between Chicago and the Twin Cities that avoids Wisconsin, but I believe it would have be upgraded immensely to be competitive with the far shorter route that is now used.

Regarding CHI-DET, there is no "Robin Hood's barn" or other routing that connects the two cities yet avoids Indiana (unless you're talking about going all the way to Kentucky, then back through Ohio). However, any route through Indiana will only go through a small corner of the state, so the state has a great incentive not to get involved in a project that would stand to benefit comparatively few Hoosiers.


----------

