# 220 MPH Rail in Illinois?



## The Davy Crockett (Jun 4, 2011)

Here is an article on a new feasability study for 220 mph service between O'Hare, downtown Chicago, McCormick Place, Champaign - Urbana and beyond... At least some places are still dreaming this dream!

The link:

http://www.midwesthsr.org/governor-quinn-announces-partnership-with-university-of-illinois-to-study-220-mph-rail-service


----------



## amtkstn (Jun 4, 2011)

I been happy with 110 mph service.


----------



## Steve4031 (Jun 4, 2011)

Actually, if you look at the USA east of the missippi, the population density and distances between large cities are similar. In fact iirc, the tgv line from paris to nice is 700 plus miles. This the same distance as to Jackson, ms. So it could work here too


----------



## Anderson (Jun 6, 2011)

Steve,

What's the timetabled average speed on that route?


----------



## Ozark Southern (Jun 6, 2011)

Anderson said:


> Steve,
> 
> What's the timetabled average speed on that route?


There is no timetable yet, but the goal is to do the route in 2 hrs. or less. The distance between the two cities via I-55, US-36, and I-57 (roughly equivalent to the proposed route) is 315 miles, according to Google Maps. So 315 miles in 2 hrs. yields an average of 157 MPH.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 6, 2011)

Ozark Southern said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Steve,
> ...


It _might_ be doable given that most of the land is still rural (unlike the NEC, where you're going to be stuck blasting through suburbs right along the main corridor). You've still got practicality issues (_why_ you'd spend that money unless it links into another pretty high-speed line is beyond me...is there a plan to throw a line like this up to Detroit?), and I'm not sure of the market (CHI is big enough, but STL doesn't seem to be large enough on its own). That said, I meant the TGV's timetable from Paris-Lyon.


----------



## Ozark Southern (Jun 6, 2011)

Anderson said:


> Ozark Southern said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


Indeed, the only real urban area is the south suburbs of Chicago. One can blow through Springfield and Champaign-Urbana pretty quickly, and considering that the trains will be stopping in each of these towns, speed restrictions will be irrelevant. St. Louis' Illinois suburbs are not densely populated at all, so there really shouldn't be a space problem for building dedicated rights-of-way.

No, there are no plans or even good candidates for other 220MPH lines (Milwaukee would be a great one if they didn't have a lunatic running the state). Basically, the 110MPH line should take a good share of the surface market, since it will be faster than driving by over an hour. The 220MPH line seems to be focused more on competing with air travel, hence the inclusion of a terminus at ORD rather than CUS.



> That said, I meant the TGV's timetable from Paris-Lyon.


Oh, my bad.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 9, 2011)

Actually, Milwaukee alone is a lousy pick for 220 MPH: The distance is too short to derive much improvement over 150 MPH service (especially if you don't run the trip as a non-stop service), and even then I can't see much point in pushing the route beyond a 60-minute one-way trip (86 MPH average speed; depending on the alignments and so forth, a non-stop could probably manage this with a top speed in the 125 MPH range if there aren't too many slow-running slots between CHI and MKE). Cutting that to 45 minutes (115 MPH average speed) probably qualifies as showboating (we have a bullet train commuter line!), and absent some kind of expansion plans I would start raising the specter of wasteful operation speeds beyond that.

If this was in the context of something that went on to MSP, there might be a case for it...there, you get real benefits out of a faster train because of the distance involved (418 miles); that same 60-minute CHI-MKE run at 86 MPH cuts your travel time from 8:16 to 4:50, while an average speed in the 115 MPH range gets you around 3:30-3:40 (or, in other words, the improvement is 1:10-1:20 rather than :15). Likewise, if MKE-CHI was an extension of CHI-STL, I'd grant that it would make sense (even though I think the amount of through traffic would be...well, dubious at best).

I am wondering...would the bullet train between STL and CHI include some kind of convenient connection to downtown (and no, I don't count a basic Metra train) in the package? If not, my gut is saying this project has a _real_ problem lurking in the wings.

Edit: Actually, MKE-CHI is something along the lines of RVR-ALX (ALX-WAS is, frankly, impractical to impossible to upgrade): Even assuming you could blast the alignment through, in a vacuum it makes no sense to run a train down that 101-mile segment _too_ fast. Going off of the old Blue and Gray Clipper timetable (1:59 for a slightly longer route from 1956, terminating on Broad Street instead of on Staples Mill Road), you're timetabling around 55-56 MPH overall and about 60 MPH RVR-ALX. Right now, that section runs about 2:10 on the faster timetables (1:50 RVR-ALX).

To cut RVR-WAS to 90 minutes, you have to cut RVR-ALX to 70 minutes (86.5 MPH). 80 minutes would require 60 min. on the RVR-ALX section (101 MPH), etc...at some point, the project doesn't make sense in a vacuum. Of course, if you were doing this in the context of a WAS-CLT/WAS-ATL line, or as an extension of the Acela (should Amtrak become so possessed to think that a worthwhile investment on its own...yeah, right), this might make sense. Alone, though, it's a non-starter.


----------



## Steve4031 (Jun 9, 2011)

I think Paris Lyon is 2 hours flat or 2 hours 15 minutes. When you depart Gare de Lyon, within minutes the train is traveling approximately 110 mph. About 10 miles from Gare De Lyon, IIRC, the TGV enters the high speed line and immediately accelerates to top speed. Approaching Lyon, the last several miles are at around 50 or 60 mph.

On Amtrak's current route, I think it would look kind of like this. Depart CUS. By the time the train is crossing the south branch of the Chicago River, it would be running at 110 mph. Moments later it would leave the CSX alignment and enter the "high speed line" on the CN alignment. Homewood would be the first stop about 15 minutes after leaving CUS. The next stop, Champaign would be reached about 1 hour 10 minutes after leaving CUS, etc. I was actually telling my Dad about this, and created a mock timetable for fun.

Dp CUS 8 a.m.

Dp Homewood 8:15

Dp Champaign 9:10 a.m.

Dp Decatur 9:30 a.m

Dp. Springfield 10 a.m.

Ar. St. Louis 10:30 a.m.

Keep in mind that I am assuming that this proposal includes totally new infrastructure so that operation would be similar to what I saw in Paris.


----------



## Steve4031 (Jun 9, 2011)

Anderson said:


> Actually, Milwaukee alone is a lousy pick for 220 MPH: The distance is too short to derive much improvement over 150 MPH service (especially if you don't run the trip as a non-stop service), and even then I can't see much point in pushing the route beyond a 60-minute one-way trip (86 MPH average speed; depending on the alignments and so forth, a non-stop could probably manage this with a top speed in the 125 MPH range if there aren't too many slow-running slots between CHI and MKE). Cutting that to 45 minutes (115 MPH average speed) probably qualifies as showboating (we have a bullet train commuter line!), and absent some kind of expansion plans I would start raising the specter of wasteful operation speeds beyond that.
> 
> If this was in the context of something that went on to MSP, there might be a case for it...there, you get real benefits out of a faster train because of the distance involved (418 miles); that same 60-minute CHI-MKE run at 86 MPH cuts your travel time from 8:16 to 4:50, while an average speed in the 115 MPH range gets you around 3:30-3:40 (or, in other words, the improvement is 1:10-1:20 rather than :15). Likewise, if MKE-CHI was an extension of CHI-STL, I'd grant that it would make sense (even though I think the amount of through traffic would be...well, dubious at best).
> 
> ...


Actually, I think a HSR alignment from Chi-MKE via Ohare makes the most sense. This would take a lot of traffic off of I-94 with hourly service between Chicago and Milwaukee.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 9, 2011)

Steve4031 said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, Milwaukee alone is a lousy pick for 220 MPH: The distance is too short to derive much improvement over 150 MPH service (especially if you don't run the trip as a non-stop service), and even then I can't see much point in pushing the route beyond a 60-minute one-way trip (86 MPH average speed; depending on the alignments and so forth, a non-stop could probably manage this with a top speed in the 125 MPH range if there aren't too many slow-running slots between CHI and MKE). Cutting that to 45 minutes (115 MPH average speed) probably qualifies as showboating (we have a bullet train commuter line!), and absent some kind of expansion plans I would start raising the specter of wasteful operation speeds beyond that.
> ...


There's HSR and there's HSR. Assuming that you went CUS-O'Hare-MKE, I think an Acela-speed (150-160 MPH) alignment makes sense in a vacuum (I _do_ think the downtown/Amtrak national network connection is _completely_ non-negotiable), but I'm not sure that the added costs of going to 220 MPH (and getting presumably more expensive trainsets, extra ROW, etc.) would be justified. You also can't substitute STL for CHI as that link unless you start running regular trains from NYP/WAS to STL as well.


----------



## Ozark Southern (Jun 15, 2011)

Anderson said:


> I am wondering...would the bullet train between STL and CHI include some kind of convenient connection to downtown (and no, I don't count a basic Metra train) in the package? If not, my gut is saying this project has a _real_ problem lurking in the wings.


Yes. McCormick Place is proposed as a scheduled stop for all trains, which will connect CUS with downtown. The proposed stations are as follows:

St. Louis Gateway (STL)

Springfield (SPI)

Decatur (new service)*

Champaign/Urbana (CHM)

Kankakee (KKE)*

McCormick Place (currently a Metra station)

Chicago Union Station (CHI)

O'Hare Airport (currently a Metra station)

*Stations marked with an asterisk will not be scheduled stops for most trains, but can expect 3-4 trains per day. All other stations will be served hourly.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 15, 2011)

Ozark Southern said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > I am wondering...would the bullet train between STL and CHI include some kind of convenient connection to downtown (and no, I don't count a basic Metra train) in the package? If not, my gut is saying this project has a _real_ problem lurking in the wings.
> ...


Alright, I'm on board with this. CUS is close enough to downtown to be workable (it's a couple of blocks); I just wanted to make sure this wasn't about to become Orlando Redux.


----------



## Steve4031 (Jun 16, 2011)

Mckormick place is good too. One could catch metra eletric for a short ride to millineum plaza. This is close to Michigan avenue.


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 16, 2011)

Anderson said:


> Alright, I'm on board with this. CUS is close enough to downtown to be workable (it's a couple of blocks); I just wanted to make sure this wasn't about to become Orlando Redux.


Huh? I've always considered CUS to be in downtown Chicago. Many others around here do, too (including those hundreds of thousands who commute in via Ogilvie/Union Stations daily).

Other than rerouting the trains into Millennium Station (which isn't big enough to handle the additional crowds of frequent HSR, and would offer no connections elsewhere) or LaSalle Street Station (which actually doesn't have much of anything in the way of passenger facilities, and still doesn't connect to anything), it's not possible to get closer to downtown than CUS is right now. There are no railroad tracks into the heart of the Loop (not counting the CTA 'L' which, obviously, is not an option here), and you couldn't build a station without tearing down some loop skyscraper or spending several billion dollars just digging a tunnel.



Ozark Southern said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > I am wondering...would the bullet train between STL and CHI include some kind of convenient connection to downtown (and no, I don't count a basic Metra train) in the package? If not, my gut is saying this project has a _real_ problem lurking in the wings.
> ...


Not sure how McCormick Place connects anything with downtown. McCormick Place isn't downtown, and its more difficult to get to most downtown destinations from McCormick Place than Union Station (unless your destination is right around Millennium Park, in which case you'd have to transfer to Metra, which "doesn't count"). Everything else in the Loop is walkable from Union Station in 10-15 minutes. McCormick Place is at least 30 minutes walking time from the southernmost edge of the loop (which generally isn't a destination for most people visiting from out of town, either for business or pleasure).


----------



## Ozark Southern (Jun 16, 2011)

Trogdor said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Alright, I'm on board with this. CUS is close enough to downtown to be workable (it's a couple of blocks); I just wanted to make sure this wasn't about to become Orlando Redux.
> ...


Both CUS and McCormick are downtown. Neither is in the Loop, granted, but the Loop is a very small area. If McCormick cannot be included as part of downtown, then neither can the Navy Pier or any of the museums--all of which are top destinations in the city. Let's face it: the idea of getting HSR to get you directly to your destination without any transfers is just silly. One cannot expect an exit ramp from the Interstate directly to their hotel, but does expect quick access on a couple of side streets. So it is with HSR: one can get almost to the destination, and if getting to the hotel requires one or two transfers, fine. If one expects better than that, then it is one's expectations that are in error, not the service.


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 16, 2011)

I've never heard anyone consider McCormick Place to be downtown. Whether or not Navy Pier is considered "downtown" is a matter of opinion, but it is much closer to the Loop than McCormick Place is. At best, the Museum Campus is about as far south as downtown extends. McCormick Place is another mile farther south.

If you look at most maps of downtown Chicago, they'll extend from about Water Tower to Roosevelt, and Lake Michigan to, roughly, Union Station or Halsted. Here's one example (which is interesting because they also include a rough map of Amtrak service in the state as well).


----------



## Ozark Southern (Jun 16, 2011)

The point is that the 220MPH alignment will go to downtown Chicago. Whether it has one or two downtown stops is really a matter of semantics.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 16, 2011)

Ozark Southern said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


If it takes a ten-minute cab ride to get from the train to your hotel, then I suspect that's 20-40 minutes better than you'll usually get from the airport in CHI. The key in my mind is just not doing something zany like you saw with the Orlampa plan, where the main business district was a fair distance off the line (and where there was no service interchange to boot). A station at O'Hare is effectively outside of Chicago (I know the city boundary runs out and includes the airport, but it cuts through a good chunk of suburban Cook County to do that), and would be akin to cutting service to NYC at Newark Airport or trying to get away with running a train to Dulles and calling it a train to Washington. On the other hand, a station at McCormick Place is at worst something akin to having your DC stop get plunked in Georgetown instead of at Union Station.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Jun 16, 2011)

I don't see why a transfer to Metra is poo-pooed on. If the HSR gets me to McCormick place and Metra can get me into downtown, that's fine. My concern would be whether McCormick place can handle the traffic.


----------



## jis (Jun 16, 2011)

Why do people get so worked up about whether a 220mph line will get to downtown or not I don't understand. They don't in London or Paris or Tokyo, those icons that are blissfully referred to by all HSR aficionados in the US, whether they have ever seen an HSR with their own eyes or not. What's the big deal? The last 10 or so miles is on slower tracks. So what?


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Jun 16, 2011)

The ICE certainly doesn't pull into Frankfurt Hauptbahnhof at 300kph. You don't start to pick up speed until you are well outside of city limits.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jun 16, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> I don't see why a transfer to Metra is poo-pooed on. If the HSR gets me to McCormick place and Metra can get me into downtown, that's fine. My concern would be whether McCormick place can handle the traffic.


A McCormick Place station would basically serve people attending conventions. A direct line from O'Hare to McCormick via CUS would be quite convenient for convention-goers and conventions are a major source of revenue for the city of Chicago.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Jun 16, 2011)

220mph from O'Hare to McCormick? Isn't that a bit like sandblasting an oyster cracker?


----------



## jis (Jun 16, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> 220mph from O'Hare to McCormick? Isn't that a bit like sandblasting an oyster cracker?


Whenever people talk about 220 mph service with stops every 5 or 10 miles, you know that they are smoking something quite potent  or have come upon a lot of money they can afford to **** away for nothing.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 16, 2011)

The train wouldn't hit 220 MPH on that leg...you _might_ get up to 79 MPH "in the city", but the 220 MPH legs would be mostly/entirely new track alignments running through the countryside. Basically, it would be "conventional" speeds until you get about 10 miles out of town, and then high speeds the rest of the way. The _train _may run into town, but the higher speed line won't necessarily accompany it all the way (and indeed, in some cases it would be an utter waste because of the acceleration time you tend to need).

As to the issue about switching trains: Metra would have to tinker with service schedules, and you start losing your advantage if you get to the edge of town in two hours...and then have to spend another hour and a half getting into town because there isn't a Metra for another hour on Sundays. Union Station is important for another reason, namely interchangability with the national Amtrak system (and I would submit that this applies in St. Louis as well). Drop that and you're going to lose a _lot_ of riders who would, say, take the Hiawatha or Wolverine into Chicago from a few stops out (or who would take the Metra in) and switch to the higher-speed line.


----------

