American Flyer High Speed Rail

[USrail21]

Why does it take so long to get from Chicago to Kansas City? Well the answer is no. How about a high speed rail operated by Amtrak that goes from Chicago to Kansas City via St. Louis gets implemented. This rail would have a max operating speed of 150 MPH. Stations are Chicago, Joliet, Bloomington-Normal, Springfield (Illinois), St. Louis, Jefferson City, Independence, then Kansas City. It would be the old American Flyers that ran on the NEC that were replaced by Acela Express. It would need crossings eliminated so vehicles nor pedestrians are hit by high speed trains. It will also run on electricity reducing pollution. Bet you can make a lot of money on this. Plus put freight trains on separate tracks so there are no collisions with the American Flyers.

 

[Ozark Southern]

Actually, we (meaning Missouri and Illinois) are in the midst of upgrading that very route. When the first stage is completed, one will travel 90MPH Kansas City-St. Louis and 110MPH St. Louis-Chicago. It will be the fastest service in America outside the NEC. We're also looking into 220MPH true HSR along that corridor as well, but that probably will be years out, and in the end will likely only be in Illinois. Missouri just has too many mountains and rivers to make it cost-effective.

 

[saxman]

Why does it take so long to get from Chicago to Kansas City? Well the answer is no. How about a high speed rail operated by Amtrak that goes from Chicago to Kansas City via St. Louis gets implemented. This rail would have a max operating speed of 150 MPH. Stations are Chicago, Joliet, Bloomington-Normal, Springfield (Illinois), St. Louis, Jefferson City, Independence, then Kansas City. It would be the old American Flyers that ran on the NEC that were replaced by Acela Express. It would need crossings eliminated so vehicles nor pedestrians are hit by high speed trains. It will also run on electricity reducing pollution. Bet you can make a lot of money on this. Plus put freight trains on separate tracks so there are no collisions with the American Flyers.

That's in the works as Ozark stated. 110 mph is currently under construction between Chicago and St. Louis. It would be cool to see 150 mph plus, you gotta start with small upgrades. Going that fast will indeed require totally new right of way, and that requires lots of money. In this age of budget cuts, that extra money is hard to come by right now. You are probably familiar with California's HSR project that is estimated to cost almost $100 billion for 220 mph service. Although it's expected to make a profit, thats a huge down payment to come up with. Hopefully it'll happen one day, in our lifetime.

 

[Trogdor]

old American Flyers that ran on the NEC that were replaced by Acela Express.

I think you're a little confused. The "American Flyer" was the concept train that eventually became the Acela Express.

 

[J-1 3235]

Or, perhaps, the 1937 Osgood Bradley coaches built for the New Haven and many other Railroads. They were know as 'American Flyers' after AC Gilbert produced models of these cars

 

[Anderson]

Why does it take so long to get from Chicago to Kansas City? Well the answer is no. How about a high speed rail operated by Amtrak that goes from Chicago to Kansas City via St. Louis gets implemented. This rail would have a max operating speed of 150 MPH. Stations are Chicago, Joliet, Bloomington-Normal, Springfield (Illinois), St. Louis, Jefferson City, Independence, then Kansas City. It would be the old American Flyers that ran on the NEC that were replaced by Acela Express. It would need crossings eliminated so vehicles nor pedestrians are hit by high speed trains. It will also run on electricity reducing pollution. Bet you can make a lot of money on this. Plus put freight trains on separate tracks so there are no collisions with the American Flyers.

That's in the works as Ozark stated. 110 mph is currently under construction between Chicago and St. Louis. It would be cool to see 150 mph plus, you gotta start with small upgrades. Going that fast will indeed require totally new right of way, and that requires lots of money. In this age of budget cuts, that extra money is hard to come by right now. You are probably familiar with California's HSR project that is estimated to cost almost $100 billion for 220 mph service. Although it's expected to make a profit, thats a huge down payment to come up with. Hopefully it'll happen one day, in our lifetime.

1) In your first sentences, your answer is not related to your question (A "why" question does not indicate a yes/no answer).

2) Part of the problem right now is a long STL layover (3 hours, 40 minutes).

3) Another part is the indirect route. If you want a faster CHI-KCY trip, the Southwest Chief leaves Chicago every afternoon at 3 PM and arrives in Kansas City at 10:11 PM, a trip time of 7:11 (versus CHI-STL-KCY's on-board time of 11:00). Coming back, it leaves KCY at 7:43 AM and arrives in CHI at 3:15 PM, a trip time of 7:32 (and some of this is end-of-trip padding). Compare to CH-STL-KCY's on-board time of 11:20.

4) Let's assume that your proposal were to be implemented, expensive though it would be. If you could "timetable" a train at 100 MPH (remember, 150 MPH would be your top speed, which you'd have to slow down from for any tight turns as well as for bridges you can't get around, not to mention intermediate stops), assuming a 15-minute layover in STL you're basically looking at a six-hour trip. This would give you two sub-markets (CHI-STL and STL-KCY) with three hour trips...sellable, yes, but with one big glitch in that Kansas City and St. Louis are no Washington and Boston, and there is an almost complete lack of major intermediate markets like the Acela serves. The two metro areas have a combined population of around 4.9 million, while Boston alone has 4.5 million people, Philadelphia has 5.9 million, Washington has 5.5 million, Baltimore has 2.7 million (on par with St. Louis), Providence has 1.6 million, and Bridgeport-Stamford has 900k, and New Haven has 860k. In essence, you have to gamble that Chicago, half the size of New York, will "carry the water" for the route. The only thing Chicago might have going for it is a better connection "net" in the region (something which is probably a dubious claim, IMHO, given both the far lower frequencies and messier times involved at the moment)

5) And the problem with #4 is the expense involved for a new, more or less dedicated alignment. I just don't see it happening, given the low populations involved...at least, not before you get a major beef-up of the more conventional lines in the region.

 

[jis]

3) Another part is the indirect route. If you want a faster CHI-KCY trip, the Southwest Chief leaves Chicago every afternoon at 3 PM and arrives in Kansas City at 10:11 PM, a trip time of 7:11 (versus CHI-STL-KCY's on-board time of 11:00). Coming back, it leaves KCY at 7:43 AM and arrives in CHI at 3:15 PM, a trip time of 7:32 (and some of this is end-of-trip padding). Compare to CH-STL-KCY's on-board time of 11:20.

However, it should be noted that many premier HSR routes in the world are not exactly direct routes as seen on the map. One prime example is the London to Paris route, which is a big dog leg connecting with the Brueelse - Paris route which is more direct, the connection being at the Fretin Triangle. Eventually as traffic saturates this route there are plans to build the more direct Frethune - Amiens - Paris HSR. But for current traffic the longer route suffices. Due to the high speed of the train the travel times still come in below 3 hours and is wildly popular anyway.

Another example is the train I rode two weekends back - the Pars - Zurich Lyria, which first goes East to Strasbourg and then South to Zurich, again just the fact that the first 2/3rd of the Paris - Strasbourg run is on 200mph HSR makes it worthwhile to use an obviously longer than the best existing route via Dijon - Besancon. Of course with the Rhine - Rhone LGV getting inaugurated on 11th December the routing will change to use that since that will become an overall faster route.

It is entirely possible that in terms of getting ridership on a true HSR a routing CHI - STL - KCY might work out better than a straight CHI - KCY. Of course I don;t know that for sure since I don;t have enough potential traffic study data handy to make such a determination.

 

[Ozark Southern]

2) Part of the problem right now is a long STL layover (3 hours, 40 minutes).

Not true. The layover in STL is only about an hour. EB, the #314 arrives 13:55 and the #304 departs 15:00. WB, the #303 arrives 15:00 and the #313 departs 16:00.

 

[PRR 60]

The American Flyer trainsets were removed from NEC consideration because S-guage was just too small.

You have to be a certain age to get that one.

 

[jis]

The American Flyer trainsets were removed from NEC consideration because S-guage was just too small.

You have to be a certain age to get that one.

That apparently did not dissuade the sellers of the American Flyer from complaining to Bombardier for stealing their name

 

[George Harris]

The American Flyer trainsets were removed from NEC consideration because S-guage was just too small.

You have to be a certain age to get that one.

I resemble that remark hboy:

 

[GG-1]

The American Flyer trainsets were removed from NEC consideration because S-guage was just too small.

You have to be a certain age to get that one.

I resemble that remark hboy:

Most of us do, heck, that was my first train. :giggle: :help: :wub: :wub: :lol:

Aloha

 

[Shawn Ryu]

I think we need to start with basic electrification and upgrading tracks first.

Only Amtrak tracks that are electrified is the Northeast corridor. And oh, parts of Empire corridor (MN section) but Amtrak doesnt use that one for most part.

 

[AlanB]

Only Amtrak tracks that are electrified is the Northeast corridor. And oh, parts of Empire corridor (MN section) but Amtrak doesnt use that one for most part.

Amtrak cannot, and does not, use the electrification on the Metro North section of the Empire Corridor. As far as Amtrak is concerned, there is no electrification between NY City and Albany on the Empire Corridor.

 

[Anderson]

2) Part of the problem right now is a long STL layover (3 hours, 40 minutes).

Not true. The layover in STL is only about an hour. EB, the #314 arrives 13:55 and the #304 departs 15:00. WB, the #303 arrives 15:00 and the #313 departs 16:00.

Yes and no. When I try to book through Amtrak's website, I get the longer layover (301 to 313) instead of the one hour 303-313. So while it should be doable, Amtrak may have bumped the connection because of trackwork. EB, you're right, but WB you get a long layover.

I'll agree that the indirect routing might work better for HSR...criticism #3 was more in the vein of rebutting "Why does the current trip take so long?". The main problem I see with the idea of CHI-STL-KCY HSR is the combination of travel time CHI-KCY and the low population densities outside Chicago (and especially past St. Louis on that line), followed by the sheer cost involved.

 

[me_little_me]

old American Flyers that ran on the NEC that were replaced by Acela Express.

I think you're a little confused. The "American Flyer" was the concept train that eventually became the Acela Express.

Nah! I had a set of them in 1950. Much cooler than the stupid 3-rail Lionel. I had Pullman cars and even a postal car that grabbed the mailbag of a pole as it spit out the one from the train. :giggle:

Still have the movies of me and my brother playing with them around the tree.

 

[JayPea]

old American Flyers that ran on the NEC that were replaced by Acela Express.

I think you're a little confused. The "American Flyer" was the concept train that eventually became the Acela Express.

Nah! I had a set of them in 1950. Much cooler than the stupid 3-rail Lionel. I had Pullman cars and even a postal car that grabbed the mailbag of a pole as it spit out the one from the train. :giggle:

Still have the movies of me and my brother playing with them around the tree.

I still have my dad's American Flyer set he had when he was in high school. It needs to be restored to working order, (which I'm too cheap to do :lol: ) and has both steam and diesel engines. It too has Pullman cars and a mix of freight cars as well, my favorite being a crane car with a working boom. I had a lot of fun with it as a kid.

 

[USrail21]

Why does it take so long to get from Chicago to Kansas City? Well the answer is no. How about a high speed rail operated by Amtrak that goes from Chicago to Kansas City via St. Louis gets implemented. This rail would have a max operating speed of 150 MPH. Stations are Chicago, Joliet, Bloomington-Normal, Springfield (Illinois), St. Louis, Jefferson City, Independence, then Kansas City. It would be the old American Flyers that ran on the NEC that were replaced by Acela Express. It would need crossings eliminated so vehicles nor pedestrians are hit by high speed trains. It will also run on electricity reducing pollution. Bet you can make a lot of money on this. Plus put freight trains on separate tracks so there are no collisions with the American Flyers.

That's in the works as Ozark stated. 110 mph is currently under construction between Chicago and St. Louis. It would be cool to see 150 mph plus, you gotta start with small upgrades. Going that fast will indeed require totally new right of way, and that requires lots of money. In this age of budget cuts, that extra money is hard to come by right now. You are probably familiar with California's HSR project that is estimated to cost almost $100 billion for 220 mph service. Although it's expected to make a profit, thats a huge down payment to come up with. Hopefully it'll happen one day, in our lifetime.

1) In your first sentences, your answer is not related to your question (A "why" question does not indicate a yes/no answer).

2) Part of the problem right now is a long STL layover (3 hours, 40 minutes).

3) Another part is the indirect route. If you want a faster CHI-KCY trip, the Southwest Chief leaves Chicago every afternoon at 3 PM and arrives in Kansas City at 10:11 PM, a trip time of 7:11 (versus CHI-STL-KCY's on-board time of 11:00). Coming back, it leaves KCY at 7:43 AM and arrives in CHI at 3:15 PM, a trip time of 7:32 (and some of this is end-of-trip padding). Compare to CH-STL-KCY's on-board time of 11:20.

4) Let's assume that your proposal were to be implemented, expensive though it would be. If you could "timetable" a train at 100 MPH (remember, 150 MPH would be your top speed, which you'd have to slow down from for any tight turns as well as for bridges you can't get around, not to mention intermediate stops), assuming a 15-minute layover in STL you're basically looking at a six-hour trip. This would give you two sub-markets (CHI-STL and STL-KCY) with three hour trips...sellable, yes, but with one big glitch in that Kansas City and St. Louis are no Washington and Boston, and there is an almost complete lack of major intermediate markets like the Acela serves. The two metro areas have a combined population of around 4.9 million, while Boston alone has 4.5 million people, Philadelphia has 5.9 million, Washington has 5.5 million, Baltimore has 2.7 million (on par with St. Louis), Providence has 1.6 million, and Bridgeport-Stamford has 900k, and New Haven has 860k. In essence, you have to gamble that Chicago, half the size of New York, will "carry the water" for the route. The only thing Chicago might have going for it is a better connection "net" in the region (something which is probably a dubious claim, IMHO, given both the far lower frequencies and messier times involved at the moment)

5) And the problem with #4 is the expense involved for a new, more or less dedicated alignment. I just don't see it happening, given the low populations involved...at least, not before you get a major beef-up of the more conventional lines in the region.

What does my American Flyer have to do with Acela. Totally different. The American Flyer will operate on a section I call the Northcentral Corridor which is from Chicago to Kansas City via St. Louis. The stations especially other than the termini and St. Louis are busy. Bloomington-Normal and Springfield had about 200,000 passengers each. And Acela does not stop in Bridgeport.

 

[Ozark Southern]

2) Part of the problem right now is a long STL layover (3 hours, 40 minutes).

Not true. The layover in STL is only about an hour. EB, the #314 arrives 13:55 and the #304 departs 15:00. WB, the #303 arrives 15:00 and the #313 departs 16:00.

Yes and no. When I try to book through Amtrak's website, I get the longer layover (301 to 313) instead of the one hour 303-313. So while it should be doable, Amtrak may have bumped the connection because of trackwork. EB, you're right, but WB you get a long layover.

I'll agree that the indirect routing might work better for HSR...criticism #3 was more in the vein of rebutting "Why does the current trip take so long?". The main problem I see with the idea of CHI-STL-KCY HSR is the combination of travel time CHI-KCY and the low population densities outside Chicago (and especially past St. Louis on that line), followed by the sheer cost involved.

It appears that the long layover was temporary. Amtrak is again allowing the 303/313 connection. I myself have booked it several times in the past, and it has always been legal.

As for the indirect route, yes, it will be the CHI-STL-KCY corridor that is upgraded, if any line ever is. Western Illinois and northern Missouri are very sparse, indeed.

 

[John Bredin]

This would give you two sub-markets (CHI-STL and STL-KCY) with three hour trips...sellable, yes, but with one big glitch in that Kansas City and St. Louis are no Washington and Boston, and there is an almost complete lack of major intermediate markets like the Acela serves.

I respectfully disagree. There are three significant intermediate markets, Bloomington/Normal and Springfield on the CHI-STL leg and Jefferson City on the STL-KCY leg.

Normal station is, IIRC, the second busiest station in Illinois behind Chicago itself, due to Illinois State University as well as some corporate headquarters (State Farm insurance leaps to mind).

Springfield is the Illinois capital, of course, and while many people from metro Chicago have business there, few want to lodge there and even fewer want to reside there. :lol: The traffic to Springfield is particularly heavy when the Assembly is in session, and one sees Assembly members and other officials in business class on the Lincoln Service. I imagine Jefferson City, state capital of Missouri and inbetween the two principal metropolitan areas of that state, is similar. If it's not similar now, with two trains daily, I imagine it would be with a more frequent service.

 

[Anderson]

While I'll allow that higher train frequencies are in no small part responsible (something like 35 trains/day between WAS and NYP, and close to 50 between PHL and NYP, to say nothing of the massive commuter interchange options in PHL, NYP, and BOS/BBY...and lesser options in WAS, BAL, and other cities, plus cross-honoring of tickets in some places), Normal and Springfield are more on par with either New Carrollton, MD or Richmond, VA (and in light of service frequencies, Richmond is probably the most apt comparison). The jam with IL is that it doesn't have a couple of big markets, but rather a lot of smaller markets (a number in the 50,000 range, a few scattered higher, spread over three primarily IL corridors plus the Hiawatha), so your ability to run a more express train gets hamstrung. Granted, I suspect that if you boosted the Lincoln Service to roughly hourly operation, you'd generate a boon (and have more comparable numbers to hold up to the NEC), but my point is that the volume situation just isn't there in the same way it is up in the NEC.

As to Missouri, Jefferson City only netted 49,000 passengers in FY10 (Kirkwood was at 48,000 and everyone else trailed behind). Again, the problem is that Jefferson City's metro area only comes to about 150,000 (Kirkwood rolls into the St. Louis metro area). It's a candidate for more frequent service, but it just doesn't quite come to the level of a number of other proposed services.

Look, getting the corridor to 90 MPH (really the new top end of conventional rail IMHO after the PTC ruling) is an excellent priority, and 110-125 MPH trains on the route make perfect sense and should drive ridership. It's going beyond there that I don't quite buy the cost/benefit calculation on anymore than I buy the idea someone mooted in Virginia of dropping a 150 MPH train on the Virginia Peninsula.

 

[DET63]

I think we need to start with basic electrification and upgrading tracks first.

Only Amtrak tracks that are electrified is the Northeast corridor. And oh, parts of Empire corridor (MN section) but Amtrak doesnt use that one for most part.

Empire corridor trains include a portion through Minnesota? Talk about going around Robin Hood's barn!

Although it sounds like a trip the_traveler would relish.

 

[PRR 60]

I think we need to start with basic electrification and upgrading tracks first.

Only Amtrak tracks that are electrified is the Northeast corridor. And oh, parts of Empire corridor (MN section) but Amtrak doesnt use that one for most part.

Empire corridor trains include a portion through Minnesota? Talk about going around Robin Hood's barn!

Although it sounds like a trip the_traveler would relish.

in this case, MN = Metro North, not Minnesota.