Height clearances at Chicago Union Station

west point · Aug 31, 2024

*Most of my trips in and out of US were on single level trains so did not pay a lot of attention to the heights. Now we know that Superliners come very close to the ceiling which brings up questions not only of rail car heights but also the future HSR CAT that will be installed. We also know that any HSR will use 25 kV 60 hZ as a standard though out the USA and even /Canada for GO and VIA. What is needed is for Chigo area posters to observe and report on the following.

1. Are all north station tracks subject to this same clearance?
2. Is there enough present clearance so that maybe a contact rail at 6.25 or even 3.125 kV 60 hZ have enough clearance?
3. Not having observed south station tracks is there the same tall clearances as observed on the north station tracks or is it higher?
4. Are the old postal tracks subject to these clearances?
5. There have been posts about lowering the tracks. Is that possible or would the possibility of the Chicago river flooding them be a problem?
6. What is above these ceilings? Any chance they could be removed?
7. Not just the ceiling but are there any other items that would be clearance restrictions such as away from the station doors to outside the building?

Just-Thinking-51 · Aug 31, 2024

Very technical questions.

1. Are all north station tracks subject to this same clearance?

Yes although I would not be surprised if there a sneaky issue someplace.

2. Is there enough present clearance so that maybe a contact rail at 6.25 or even 3.125 kV 60 hZ have enough clearance?

Not really, a contact rail still needs clearance to prevent arching. Contact rail is great in high usage areas like stations.

3. Not having observed south station tracks is there the same tall clearances as observed on the north station tracks or is it higher?

Should be the same.

4. Are the old postal tracks subject to these clearances?

Yes

5. There have been posts about lowering the tracks. Is that possible or would the possibility of the Chicago river flooding them be a problem?

No, but they’re going to have to lower the tracks. Chicago river is an issues, but never hear of the tracks actually under water.

6. What is above these ceilings? Any chance they could be removed?

Building, some area are still undeveloped, but the air rights have been sold. Could they be removed, yes. You will be impressed with the cost.

7. Not just the ceiling but are there any other items that would be clearance restrictions such as away from the station doors to outside the building?

There going to be surprises, but once you get away from the station most of the clearance issues go away.

Anyways the big question is it cost effective to lower the tracks or relocate the Amtrak station and yard a few blocks west. Chicago has redeveloped itself in the last 25 years. Anything done is going to be expensive.

Cal · Sep 1, 2024

Just-Thinking-51 said:
Anyways the big question is it cost effective to lower the tracks or relocate the Amtrak station and yard a few blocks west. Chicago has redeveloped itself in the last 25 years. Anything done is going to be expensive.

How would this ever work? Isn't all/most of the land developed? You'd need to require the land, and lay tracks, and would lose the gem that is CUS. I feel like this makes sense on no levels.

Just-Thinking-51 · Sep 1, 2024

So there an old intermodal yard just south of CUS, adjacent to the ballpark. Next to the industrial area at the old cattle yards.

A cost analysis for lower tracks in CUS to adjust for taller equipment or building a new station and having CUS become a commuter only station. With an ever 5 min automated metro train connecting CUS, with the new Amtrak station.

Not to look at different options and there cost would be shortsighted. Major work to just lower a few tracks, adding capacity for the commuters might be worth relocating Amtrak.

Looking at all options, before digging holes.

railiner · Sep 1, 2024

Just-Thinking-51 said:
So there an old intermodal yard just south of CUS, adjacent to the ballpark. Next to the industrial area at the old cattle yards.

A cost analysis for lower tracks in CUS to adjust for taller equipment or building a new station and having CUS become a commuter only station. With an ever 5 min automated metro train connecting CUS, with the new Amtrak station.

Not to look at different options and there cost would be shortsighted. Major work to just lower a few tracks, adding capacity for the commuters might be worth relocating Amtrak.

Looking at all options, before digging holes.

While I would be sad to see Chicago to somewhat mirror the way Amtrak exists in Miami, your suggestion certainly sounds interesting, and practical…

Metra Electric Rider · Sep 1, 2024

What weird suggestions...

A few blocks west of CUS is Greektown and the West Loop which is a newly developed residential area and costs to buy property and demolish anything would be astronomical after the expensive fights to condemn or get property through eminent domain or expropriation. Plus getting tracks there would be a major headache - you'd have to do massive tunneling or viaducts, plus there are three major hospitals and a research university in the way as well as a snarl of expressways and in service railroads (freight and commuter).

If you're talking about the area around 35th in Bridgeport or Englewood that's just way too far from downtown - nearly 4 miles to 35th street. Plus the trains coming in from the north would have to be routed through the existing tracks, station and yards to get there.

Just to be clear, the platforms and tracks are not under the building that most people think of as Union Station, they are under the buildings the next block east, between Canal Street and the Chicago River. Lowering the tracks is probably the easiest solution - if and when electrification occurs (which would be great).

jis · Sep 1, 2024

Just for a reality check of what has actually been proposed so far in a properly chartered study for Chicago Union Station, take a look at The Chicago Union Station Master Plan Study Final Report (PDF)

thefirewarde · Sep 1, 2024

I've heard arguments that DC power would be a better option for low clearance areas. In theory multi mode equipment isn't new tech - the Vectron platform already supports DC and AC multi mode use - and adding DC power capability would allow interoperability with the South Shore Line/Metra Electric.

Super tight clearance areas like CUS could also be a reason to provide onboard battery storage. You'd want the ability to draw from shore power for amenities when parked for a while, but on a fast, frequent schedule where CHI-MLW trains aren't sitting around for hours you could just charge on the way and draw down the batteries for the twenty minutes you're parked.

cirdan · Sep 1, 2024

Before we talk about catenary within CUS, we would have to talk about which lines or corridors are the most obvious candidates for electrification.

So far nobody has even been able to make a case for electrifying the bits of Metra that have not been electrified since forever already. If they can't even make a plausible case for electrifying a popular and vital commuter system such as Metra, I don't see any Amtrak lines out of CUS going electric in the foreseeable future.

thefirewarde · Sep 1, 2024

There's opposition from the freight operators as well. A hypothetical 110 mph Chicago to Milwaukee route would probably be the lowest hanging fruit, and could be used by Metra and Amtrak.

Lowest hanging fruit doesn't mean easy, though - that'd be either the first new freight-under-wires segment in a long time in the US, or a new mostly double track alignment as far as the Wisconsin border at minimum (shared ROW, separate tracks).

The other easiest option would be getting space on the SSL (not easy, just easiest) and ducking into CUS for dual mode Michigan services. Buy DC capable APVs and upgrade/buy new Chargers for Michigan and bypass the South of the lake bottleneck. You'd probably have to improve signalling and passing tracks on the SSL, plus the rest of the connecting infrastructure, but that opens the door to a mostly electric Chicago to Detroit run eventually.

cocojacoby · Sep 1, 2024

Oh course the proposal to lower the tracks brings up the possibility of Amtrak revising it's LD equipment replacement specs to allow for the use of the spectacular Ultradomes which would be even more efficient and "experiential" than Superliners.

Chicago was the major height restriction and built-in ADA lifts pretty much make the level boarding problem moot.

Capacity and revenue would be greatly increased and pass-throughs on both levels would be possible.

Would Amtrak allow an open-air observation platform? Probably not but think of the "experiential" excitement that would bring!

west point · Sep 1, 2024

A plan that is 12 years old unfortunately did not know how much some items would change. Cars taller than Superliners, 25 kV overhead CAT , dual voltages or more, HSR, Amtrak regionals, schedule reductions by speeding up tracks, ADA + ADA lifts, platform heights, lowering tracks, level boarding, ALC-Es. APVs ETC.
So, it may be time to revise that study?

MARC Rider · Sep 2, 2024

west point said:
A plan that is 12 years old unfortunately did not know how much some items would change. Cars taller than Superliners, 25 kV overhead CAT , dual voltages or more, HSR, Amtrak regionals, schedule reductions by speeding up tracks, ADA + ADA lifts, platform heights, lowering tracks, level boarding, ALC-Es. APVs ETC.
So, it may be time to revise that study?

Why? Amtrak is proposing new LD equipment that's superliner height and meets ADA requirements. If Chicago Union Station is going to electrify, they don't need to electrify all of the tracks. Washington Union station is an example where there is a mix of electrified and non-electrified tracks. It accommodates Superliners and multi-level commuter trains as well as the single level trains. The only reason to worry about the clearances is if one wants to fit Ultradomes, which aren't an anybody's plans, anyway.

MikefromCrete · Sep 2, 2024

railiner said:
While I would be sad to see Chicago to somewhat mirror the way Amtrak exists in Miami, your suggestion certainly sounds interesting, and practical…

Interesting maybe, but not practical.

jis · Sep 2, 2024

west point said:
A plan that is 12 years old unfortunately did not know how much some items would change. Cars taller than Superliners, 25 kV overhead CAT , dual voltages or more, HSR, Amtrak regionals, schedule reductions by speeding up tracks, ADA + ADA lifts, platform heights, lowering tracks, level boarding, ALC-Es. APVs ETC.
So, it may be time to revise that study?

All of those factors, or the technology that they are based on were well developed 12 years back. Let's face it the US no longer is in the vanguard of much to do with passenger railroad or modern electrified higher speed or high speed railroad. So those alone I don't think particularly affects the proposals, and they alone do not justify another study.

thefirewarde said:
There's opposition from the freight operators as well. A hypothetical 110 mph Chicago to Milwaukee route would probably be the lowest hanging fruit, and could be used by Metra and Amtrak.

Lowest hanging fruit doesn't mean easy, though - that'd be either the first new freight-under-wires segment in a long time in the US, or a new mostly double track alignment as far as the Wisconsin border at minimum (shared ROW, separate tracks).

You do not require electrification for 110mph or even 125mph.

cirdan said:
Before we talk about catenary within CUS, we would have to talk about which lines or corridors are the most obvious candidates for electrification.

So far nobody has even been able to make a case for electrifying the bits of Metra that have not been electrified since forever already. If they can't even make a plausible case for electrifying a popular and vital commuter system such as Metra, I don't see any Amtrak lines out of CUS going electric in the foreseeable future.

I agree. In an aggressively electrifying country like China or India, it would be electrified and done yesterday. In a reluctant country like the US, unlikely until traffic perhaps quadruples from what it is today.

jimdex · Sep 2, 2024

Making people go down go 35th Street to board an Amtrak train would really hurt ridership. There's would also be the question of what to do about the Amtrak trains that come into the north side of the station (Empire Builder, Borealis, Hiawatha Corridor).

toddinde · Sep 2, 2024

An option would be to make Union Station a through station with a new terminal built near O’Hare. All trains would stop at Union but continue on to a new, intercity passenger terminal at O’Hare. I suppose most people would still board at CUS, and it wouldn’t make sense running nearly empty trains to a far west side terminal, but it might be something to consider. Trains coming in from the north wouldn’t serve this new station and would still need to be maintained in the existing coach yard downtown.

jimdex said:
Making people go down go 35th Street to board an Amtrak train would really hurt ridership. There's would also be the question of what to do about the Amtrak trains that come into the north side of the station (Empire Builder, Borealis, Hiawatha Corridor).

The outlying terminal replacement for Union is not a good one. Nobody wants to be left out in the middle of nowhere or schlep bags onto a connector.

cocojacoby said:
Oh course the proposal to lower the tracks brings up the possibility of Amtrak revising it's LD equipment replacement specs to allow for the use of the spectacular Ultradomes which would be even more efficient and "experiential" than Superliners.

Chicago was the major height restriction and built-in ADA lifts pretty much make the level boarding problem moot.

Capacity and revenue would be greatly increased and pass-throughs on both levels would be possible.

Would Amtrak allow an open-air observation platform? Probably not but think of the "experiential" excitement that would bring!

I have PTSD from Richard Anderson’s experiential nonsense. In any event, while it’s nice to hear what the sightseers have to say, trains are transportation at their core. The experiential aspect is secondary to that. Strange, novelty equipment is for the private tour operators, not for our national, passenger railroad.

thefirewarde · Sep 2, 2024

jis said:
You do not require electrification for 110mph or even 125mph.

You don't require it for even faster speeds, technically.

It's absolutely a benefit to whichever commuter operator is on the line in question (and to Amtrak, but less so) even at 50 or 60 or 70 mph, and then you have the existing electric operators and the potential to double up or extend that infrastructure.

jis · Sep 2, 2024

thefirewarde said:
You don't require it for even faster speeds, technically.

It's absolutely a benefit to whichever commuter operator is on the line in question (and to Amtrak, but less so) even at 50 or 60 or 70 mph, and then you have the existing electric operators and the potential to double up or extend that infrastructure.

All true. But unless there is an established on going electrification department for whom adding another electrified branch is just another cookie-cutter project, individual electrification projects land up costing a lot more, and that is why there is a huge obstacle to doing the first five projects, and even more if the same trained crew is not rolled over from one to the other. And the more the project is projected to cost the higher the traffic (and political will) required to justify it and so on, as that Catch 22 goes. My guess is that unless some significant change in the politics of transportation happens in Chicagoland, we are far away from any significant electrification on new routes.

NorthShore · Sep 2, 2024

I just don't see where a station could be relocated in the West Loop. Or why. What was once Skid Row and a meat market district is now all entertainment and tech companies, along with entire blocks of fairly new housing.

At one time there was some talk of the old post office being redeveloped into some sort of high speed rail transit hub. I really don't know how that would have practically worked out either. But that building has also now been redeveloped and reopened. And just to the south of there (and above the tracks) is the new main post office.

Perhaps, if there were ever any real desire for a new station, it would have to be on the now vacant property dubbed "the 78" (for 78th future Chicago neighborhood) where the White Sox have proposed building a new stadium, next to the Rock Island tracks, though on the opposite side of the river from the Amtrak yard. I suppose such could, theoretically, make some sense. There is certainly, historic precedent, for a station at Roosevelt Road and the area around there has been redeveloped.

NorthShore · Sep 2, 2024

Until more of the long vacant property was built upon in recent years, one might have proposed the old Grand Central Station site as a possible location for an alternate Amtrak terminal.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Central_Station_(Chicago)

cocojacoby · Sep 2, 2024

toddinde said:
I have PTSD from Richard Anderson’s experiential nonsense. In any event, while it’s nice to hear what the sightseers have to say, trains are transportation at their core. The experiential aspect is secondary to that. Strange, novelty equipment is for the private tour operators, not for our national, passenger railroad.

Are Superliners strange and novel? The Sante Fe High-Levels certainly were at the time but now the usage of bilevel trains has grown worldwide from regional commuter trains to high-speed TGVs. We are talking efficiency here. Superliners are more efficient than single level cars and Ultradomes would be more efficient than Superliners.

An Ultradome sleeper would be like stacking two Viewliner sleepers one on top of the other. That's the ultimate efficiency in space utilization. The "experiential" part comes from the entire travel experience and at the prices Amtrak charges for sleeper rooms, the experience from fine dining to lounge space, should be a big part of the trip.

Why take the train when you can fly for probably much cheaper? The train is a lot more than basic transportation even for coach passengers.

zephyr17 · Sep 2, 2024

cocojacoby said:
Are Superliners strange and novel? The Sante Fe High-Levels certainly were at the time but now the usage of bilevel trains has grown worldwide from regional commuter trains to high-speed TGVs. We are talking efficiency here. Superliners are more efficient than single level cars and Ultradomes would be more efficient than Superliners.

An Ultradome sleeper would be like stacking two Viewliner sleepers one on top of the other. That's the ultimate efficiency in space utilization. The "experiential" part comes from the entire travel experience and at the prices Amtrak charges for sleeper rooms, the experience from fine dining to lounge space, should be a big part of the trip.

Why take the train when you can fly for probably much cheaper? The train is a lot more than basic transportation even for coach passengers.

It would mean efficiency in space utilization if the space was actually there to utilize. It isn't. Clearance restrictions mean that the space is not there.. Trying to stuff an 18'rail car under a shed that is 17' or less will not do the shed or the car any good. I do not think it is smart to build a sleeper that will get pretty severely bent and passengers flattened like Wile E. Coyote the first time out. While my opinion of the intelligence of Amtrak management is not high, I do not think even they are that dumb.

And speaking of dumb, while not in the same league as a non-clearing car, moving to another station in Chicago is stupid as well. For one thing, they already own CUS.

cirdan · Sep 4, 2024

cocojacoby said:
Are Superliners strange and novel? The Sante Fe High-Levels certainly were at the time but now the usage of bilevel trains has grown worldwide from regional commuter trains to high-speed TGVs. We are talking efficiency here. Superliners are more efficient than single level cars and Ultradomes would be more efficient than Superliners.

The concept of bi-level train cars has been around since almost the very beginning of passenger trains:

Here is one from France (seen in in the Mulhouse railroad museum). Note the outside stairs.

and I guess this one needs no explanation. I'm not quite sure how people would have gotten upstairs.

xPontchartrain.jpg.pagespeed.ic.L2Fe8eQ8ka.webp

zephyr17 · Sep 4, 2024

cirdan said:
I'm not quite sure how people would have gotten upstairs.

Ladders?

Height clearances at Chicago Union Station

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

Engineer

Very bored and cranky pundit

Engineer

Very bored and cranky pundit

Engineer

Engineer

Permanent Way Inspector

Service Attendant

Engineer

Service Attendant

OBS Chief

Engineer

Robber Baron

Engineer

Permanent Way Inspector

Service Attendant

OBS Chief

Service Attendant

Permanent Way Inspector

Conductor

Conductor

OBS Chief

Engineer

Engineer

Engineer

Join the conversation!

Join today and get all the highlights of this community direct to your inbox. It's FREE!