Chicago - St. Louis Lincoln Corridor to begin higher speed running

[Siegmund]

Honestly, I feel that the Texas Eagle should terminate in St Louis and should be replaced with connecting Lincoln service trains on the Chicago to STL segment....

While I am not saying I think it's a good idea... that is how the Inter-American (St Louis to Laredo) ran from inception in 1974 until it was extended to Chicago in 1977. It was intended that the Inter-American receive transfers both from the National Limited and from a morning train from Chicago.

In a world of severe Superliner shortages but abundant Midwest equipment, if this would actually save a trainset, it might not be the worst idea ever. The SL/TE equipment utilization is shockingly poor. The equipment would have to be rotated to Chicago or Los Angeles every so often, yes.

 

[railiner]

The current routing from Chicago to Joliet, former Alton/GM&O, is owned by CN

Thanks for that correction…
So UP purchased the line south of Joliet from ICG or after CN acquired it?

 

[MisterUptempo]

Thanks for that correction…
So UP purchased the line south of Joliet from ICG or after CN acquired it?

If I have the story correct, the line was initially owned by the Chicago and Alton, later acquired by the B&O, and was then purchased by the GM&O, which would eventually merge with the Illinois Central.

Illinois Central, becoming the Illinois Central Gulf, sold the portion of the line from Joliet to St. Louis to a startup company, retaining the Chicago to Joliet portion for themselves.

The startup failed after about a year, and the Joliet to St Louis portion of the line was picked up by Southern Pacific, which was taken over by UP. CN bought ICG.

So, that leaves UP owning Joliet to St. Louis and CN owning Chicago to Joliet.

ETA - Just did a little digging and the startup I mentioned was known as the Chicago, Missouri, and Western. According to Wikipedia, it operated from 1987-1989

 

[jis]

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_ebc3b7e0-e9d4-11ed-9f4d-b3b9165f6243.html

 

[jis]

superliners are allowed to run 100mph, the 2nd batch along with California and Surfliner cars are designed for 125mph but no one runs them that fast

Don't know about the various California cars, but I am quite certain that no Superliner is rated for over 100mph. I actually have no idea what the phrase "designed for" means in this context. How is the Superliner II design different from Superliner I to make it more amenable to be 125mph capable? Inquiring minds want to know.

Yes, Superliner IIs have the same or close to same GSI trucks that 125mph capable Horizons and Viewliner IIs have, but that does not mean they are certifiable for more than 100mph. Even Viewliner Is riding on similar GSI trucks require some unspecified additional work to have their speed limits raised from 110mph to 125mph. Enough modifications such that they cannot be done just over a weekend within routine maintenance budgets.

 

[TransitTyrant]

The current routing from Chicago to Joliet, former Alton/GM&O, is owned by CN. Several years ago, Amtrak, and I believe IDOT, filed a complaint against CN regarding freight interference with Lincoln Service and Texas Eagle trains. The FRA ruled that since there was another, almost exclusively passenger route available (Metra-Rock Island), Amtrak would have to find a way to get Lincoln/Eagle trains off CN and onto the Rock.

Last year, Amtrak applied for a MEGA grant which tied together the St. Charles Air Line Connector (to get Lincoln/Eagle onto the Rock, among other things), improvements to Union Station, including the mail platform conversion, a second platform at Joliet, the purchase of Union Pacific's Canal Yard, and improvements on the Michigan Line. That request was denied. So, this year, Amtrak has broken up the projects and are filing four separate grant requests.

I find it difficult to understand how the feds, through the FRA, are telling Amtrak to move their trains, while, at the same time, denying them the funds to make that move a possibility.

Well the FRA told them to but it seems the FRA’s parent agency wasn’t interested. FRA wants the trains moved so the FRA can help pay for it.

The unfinished Tier II HSR study also recommended moving the trains to the Rock Island. There was to be meetings held in the South Suburbs about impact and possible station location. The connection was to be made at 40th street. Unfortunately the EIS remains unfinished.

 

[Bob Dylan]

The current routing from Chicago to Joliet, former Alton/GM&O, is owned by CN. Several years ago, Amtrak, and I believe IDOT, filed a complaint against CN regarding freight interference with Lincoln Service and Texas Eagle trains. The FRA ruled that since there was another, almost exclusively passenger route available (Metra-Rock Island), Amtrak would have to find a way to get Lincoln/Eagle trains off CN and onto the Rock.

Last year, Amtrak applied for a MEGA grant which tied together the St. Charles Air Line Connector (to get Lincoln/Eagle onto the Rock, among other things), improvements to Union Station, including the mail platform conversion, a second platform at Joliet, the purchase of Union Pacific's Canal Yard, and improvements on the Michigan Line. That request was denied. So, this year, Amtrak has broken up the projects and are filing four separate grant requests.

I find it difficult to understand how the feds, through the FRA, are telling Amtrak to move their trains, while, at the same time, denying them the funds to make that move a possibility.

It's called Politics! Illinois Elected Reps aren't bringing home the Bacon!

 

[jis]

It's called Politics! Illinois Elected Reps aren't bringing home the Bacon!

This was not really upto the elected reps. The MEGA program is a discretionary funding program funded at something like $5 Billion. To get grants from it project proposals are submitted and then FDOT picks a number of them for funding. It includes all transportation modes, not just rail.

In the FY23 grants, only two rail projects were selected:

METRA UP North Rebuild
Hudson Yards Concrete Casing - Section 3

The rest were road projects. You can see the entire list at:

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2023-01/MEGA FY 2023 Combined Fact Sheet.pdf
It is not unusual for projects to require going through several rounds of funding application before they succeed. So hang in there.

Here is some more info to jog your memory:

https://www.progressiverailroading....Station-project-speeds-up-Acela-trains--66810

 

[GDRRiley]

Don't know about the various California cars, but I am quite certain that no Superliner is rated for over 100mph. I actually have no idea what the phrase "designed for" means in this context. How is the Superliner II design different from Superliner I to make it more amenable to be 125mph capable? Inquiring minds want to know.

Yes, Superliner IIs have the same or close to same GSI trucks that 125mph capable Horizons and Viewliner IIs have, but that does not mean they are certifiable for more than 100mph. Even Viewliner Is riding on similar GSI trucks require some unspecified additional work to have their speed limits raised from 110mph to 125mph. Enough modifications such that they cannot be done just over a weekend within routine maintenance budgets.

I'm not sure what changed other than trucks and being slightly lighter that would have allowed upto 120mph.

Bombardier Transportation / United States - Bi-Level

 

[jis]

I'm not sure what changed other than trucks and being slightly lighter that would have allowed upto 120mph.
View attachment 32364
Bombardier Transportation / United States - Bi-Level

Interesting! I am left wondering if it is mostly marketing fluffware, since I cannot see how a design would be suitable for 120mph, but not 125mph. I am sure Amtrak never asked for anything higher than 100mph for their Superliner 2 order, and indeed they did not have anywhere they could operate them over 90mph anyway, back then. Even if if they did it was more likely to be 110mph than 120mph. I suppose they would have to test them to 120 to get certification for 110mph. That might be it. AFAIK There are no regulatory differences between 100-110-120-125, as far as body structures go either. Quite interesting nonetheless. Thanks.

 

[MisterUptempo]

Well the FRA told them to but it seems the FRA’s parent agency wasn’t interested. FRA wants the trains moved so the FRA can help pay for it.

The unfinished Tier II HSR study also recommended moving the trains to the Rock Island. There was to be meetings held in the South Suburbs about impact and possible station location. The connection was to be made at 40th street. Unfortunately the EIS remains unfinished.

A shiv was stuck in the Tier II EIS, along with Quad Cities and Rockford service, when Rauner became governor. Whether Iowa Interstate would have been as recalcitrant then as now can only be guessed at.

I do recall the 40th Street Connector, between the NS Chicago Line and the Rock, from the Tier I EIS. The concept of the St. Charles Air Line Connector was first suggested by HSRA as part of their Chicago Crossrail concept.

After FRA handed down its decision seemed to be when Amtrak got on board for the Air Line Connector, as it solved two problems at once. It would allow Lincoln Service and Texas Eagle trains to get off CN between Union Station and Joliet, and it would also allow CONO/Illini/Saluki and Michigan service trains onto CN's former-IC main without the backup maneuver. Once NICTD West Lake is complete, the Cardinal and a potential restoration of the Hoosier State would benefit as well.

 

[Touchdowntom9]

I find it difficult to understand how the feds, through the FRA, are telling Amtrak to move their trains, while, at the same time, denying them the funds to make that move a possibility.

Obviously its bureaucracy and a lack of communication between government entities, which isn't remotely surprising.

 

[George Harris]

If I have the story correct, the line was initially owned by the Chicago and Alton, later acquired by the B&O, and was then purchased by the GM&O, which would eventually merge with the Illinois Central.

Illinois Central, becoming the Illinois Central Gulf, sold the portion of the line from Joliet to St. Louis to a startup company, retaining the Chicago to Joliet portion for themselves.

The startup failed after about a year, and the Joliet to St Louis portion of the line was picked up by Southern Pacific, which was taken over by UP. CN bought ICG.

So, that leaves UP owning Joliet to St. Louis and CN owning Chicago to Joliet.

ETA - Just did a little digging and the startup I mentioned was known as the Chicago, Missouri, and Western. According to Wikipedia, it operated from 1987-1989

There was a lot of unrealistic optimism going on in this entire debacle. The "merger" was essentially a takeover of the GM&O by ICRR, not a merger of equals. The GM&O had long been a thorn in ICRR's side. They were essentially parallel from end to end. GM&O was historically a shoestring operation that knew how to run a low to moderate density railroad profitably. They built up their system by taking over low density lines nobody else wanted, including finally taking the Alton after B&O decided to get rid of it. Other than the former Alton, which is the issue here, and the Jackson TN to Corinth MS segment where ICRR had rights, very little of the GM&O had signals and they were still buying 90 pound rail for main line use into the 1950's. Eliminating as much of the GM&O trackage as possible was the outcome suspected by many who opposed the merger, and was then proven to be the reality. As part of this, the ICRR managed to do what the Yankees could never manage, destroy the M&O. They sold many parts of the GM&O off piece by piece and abandoned numerous segments, (including many of the lighter density ICRR lines), but when doing so they kept the main traffic generating end points. That is what made the CM&W a financial disaster. All the through and overhead traffic that depended upon access to Chicago was lost because the ICRR held onto Chicago to Joliet. As to destroying the M&O, they did likewise, selling off Corinth MS to Mobile AL, but keeping access to Mobile itself. Again, destroying any through traffic due to lack of access. This led to abandonment of most of the main line south of Meridian MS, one of the oldest pieces of railroad in the area.

 

[GDRRiley]

Interesting! I am left wondering if it is mostly marketing fluffware, since I cannot see how a design would be suitable for 120mph, but not 125mph. I am sure Amtrak never asked for anything higher than 100mph for their Superliner 2 order, and indeed they did not have anywhere they could operate them over 90mph anyway, back then. Even if if they did it was more likely to be 110mph than 120mph. I suppose they would have to test them to 120 to get certification for 110mph. That might be it. AFAIK There are no regulatory differences between 100-110-120-125, as far as body structures go either. Quite interesting nonetheless. Thanks.

it seemed to be a 80s thing were quite a few were only good for 120mph not 125mph. why they'd pick that when 125mph was right there not sure unless the idea was design for 120mph so they can run at 110mph given the 7-10% testing margin the FRA wants.

its always just been a weird little footnote that I've always found strange.

 

[rlcabin]

301 this morning arrived at intermediate stations a total of 32 minutes early and still arrived at St. Louis 16 minutes early. What does this suggest for a possible future schedule?

Taking into account the 32 minutes of dwell time at the 4 intermediate stations and factoring in the 16" early arrival at St. Louis, the actual running time was 258 minutes. In building a schedule, Amtrak might allow 10 minutes dwell time (3 minutes each at Bloomington and Springfield, 2 minutes each at Joliet and Alton). There would also be recovery time built in at the St. Louis end. Train 301 currently is scheduled for 118 minutes from Springfield to St. Louis whereas northbound #301 has 102 minutes. That indicates Amtrak currently has 16 minutes recovery time in its southbound schedule. Adding 10 minutes dwell time and 16 minutes recovery time to today's 258 minute run time equals 284 minutes, or 4 hours 44 minutes. So I'm guessing Amtrak might establish a 4'45" schedule for train 301, which is 21” faster than the present schedule and 10" faster than the record prewar schedule of the Alton "Abraham Lincoln". Other trains on the route would probably be 10" or so slower based on additional station stops, taking siding for scheduled meets, etc. (and of course the Eagle would be slower still with the 100 mph top speed and additional recovery time). Let's see what happens!

 

[frequentflyer]

Running the Eagle at a 110mph will not be doing the tired Genesis locomotives any favors.

 

[jis]

Running the Eagle at a 110mph will not be doing the tired Genesis locomotives any favors.

You cannot run it at 110mph. Superliners cannot run at 110mph.

BTW, Genesis locomotives both in the form of P42 and P32ACDM routinely run at 110mph on the Empire Corridor every day. They also run at 110mph on the Keystone Corridor on the Pennsylvanian between Philly and Harrisburg.

 

[DSS&A]

I rode the Lincoln Service from Chicago to Bloomington. We were about 10 minutes late arriving at Bloomington. The train had an Amcafe behind our Charger, then 3 new Siemens coached and a Horizon coach on the rear of our train. Our station stop was over 10 minutes long because Amtrak unloaded and then loaded the train using only ONE vestibule stair. They had a full crew and Bloomington/Normal station attendants. To unload and load the train. The station stop would have been significantly less is they would have used more than ONE vestibule stair. So the train fell farther behind schedule....

The Siemens coaches were mostly full after everyone boarded our train in Chicago. The ride in the new coaches was comfortable at 90 mph.

 

[Roomette11]

I’m so excited by this! Really rooting for more route mileage operating over 100 mph. There’s no better advertisement for taking the train than zipping past cars on parallel roads — even when they’re Interstate highways.

All the positive publicity and attention that 110mph can/will create can be undone by lateness. That one-vestibule thing seems like an embarrassing “own-goal”. Especially when the spotlight is on and they should be in “best-foot-forward” mode. Is there accountability at Amtrak for decisions that delay trains?

I hope I can get to Chicago soon and try out the new cars and the new speeds.

 

[TransitTyrant]

One of the last projects partially funded but incomplete is the Elwood to Wilmington double track. Some work has been done but according to this now UP is trying to modify the requirements? The bridge was rebuilt to handle two tracks and even some track has been installed through road crossings; it abruptly ends a couple feet on either ends of the crossing.

 

[MisterUptempo]

One of the last projects partially funded but incomplete is the Elwood to Wilmington double track. Some work has been done but according to this now UP is trying to modify the requirements? The bridge was rebuilt to handle two tracks and even some track has been installed through road crossings; it abruptly ends a couple feet on either ends of the crossing.

I know this is the CHI-STL thread, but I couldn't help but notice the blurb in your graphic regarding CHI-MOL service. $800 million? The Iowa Interstate portion of the trip, between Wyanet and Moline, is only like 65 miles, 37% of the route's distance.

Obviously, the $800 mil is not just to rebuild IAIS, but if the cost of that 65 miles is the only thing holding up construction so the trains can start running to the Quad Cities, someone might need to sit on IAIS just a little bit. Only one station needs to be built, and the BNSF portion of the route is doing just fine (though they are likely asking for capacity improvements).

According to Wikipedia, the entire right of way and infrastructure of what is now IAIS was bought 40 years ago for $31 Million. Plug that number into the Inflation Calculator and you get a figure of $92 Million in today's dollars, only 11.5% of the projected costs of the route. And, if the assessment of track conditions is accurate, IAIS certainly isn't investing in its infrastructure. The 65 miles in question constitutes only 11% of IAIS system miles.

The state should make an offer to buy the IAIS. You get a state-owned ROW that could be used for Quad Cities and far beyond. You'd be well on the way to a dedicated line between CHI and Peoria, which could be utilized in the future as the route for CHI-STL HSR. Get Iowa to invest in the Davenport to Omaha portion (yes, I'm delusional).

CSX owns the New Rock Sub, the line between Joliet and Utica, but, from what I understand, they are only running one train a day on that line. Maybe they'd be willing to sell, or at least be more amenable to allowing passenger traffic for a reasonable price. Perhaps set up a rent-to-own arrangement.

CHI-STL HSR routed through the Illinois Valley and Peoria, rather than Normal, is 50-60 miles longer, but I don't see UP ever giving up control of the line Lincoln Service trains currently run on, and CN would be even less cooperative for an HSR route to STL via Kankakee and Champaign. Plus, 220mph HSR, running an average speed of 165mph, would blow through those 50-60 miles in 20-25 minutes. Not a deal breaker.

I'm ranting again, but, suffice it to say, a breakdown of the costs would be something worth seeing.

ETA - corrected 1984 purchase price of IAIS

 

[TransitTyrant]

I know this is the CHI-STL thread, but I couldn't help but notice the blurb in your graphic regarding CHI-MOL service. $800 million? The Iowa Interstate portion of the trip, between Wyanet and Moline, is only like 65 miles, 37% of the route's distance.

Obviously, the $800 mil is not just to rebuild IAIS, but if the cost of that 65 miles is the only thing holding up construction so the trains can start running to the Quad Cities, someone might need to sit on IAIS just a little bit. Only one station needs to be built, and the BNSF portion of the route is doing just fine (though they are likely asking for capacity improvements).

According to Wikipedia, the entire right of way and infrastructure of what is now IAIS was bought 40 years ago for $31 Million. Plug that number into the Inflation Calculator and you get a figure of $92 Million in today's dollars, only 11.5% of the projected costs of the route. And, if the assessment of track conditions is accurate, IAIS certainly isn't investing in its infrastructure. The 65 miles in question constitutes only 11% of IAIS system miles.

The state should make an offer to buy the IAIS. You get a state-owned ROW that could be used for Quad Cities and far beyond. You'd be well on the way to a dedicated line between CHI and Peoria, which could be utilized in the future as the route for CHI-STL HSR. Get Iowa to invest in the Davenport to Omaha portion (yes, I'm delusional).

CSX owns the New Rock Sub, the line between Joliet and Utica, but, from what I understand, they are only running one train a day on that line. Maybe they'd be willing to sell, or at least be more amenable to allowing passenger traffic for a reasonable price. Perhaps set up a rent-to-own arrangement.

CHI-STL HSR routed through the Illinois Valley and Peoria, rather than Normal, is 50-60 miles longer, but I don't see UP ever giving up control of the line Lincoln Service trains currently run on, and CN would be even less cooperative for an HSR route to STL via Kankakee and Champaign. Plus, 220mph HSR, running an average speed of 165mph, would blow through those 50-60 miles in 20-25 minutes. Not a deal breaker.

I'm ranting again, but, suffice it to say, a breakdown of the costs would be something worth seeing.

ETA - corrected 1984 purchase price of IAIS

IAIS is just trying to extort the state. There’s no way it would cost 800 million to upgrade 50ish miles of track.

 

[Crowbar_k]

I know this is the CHI-STL thread, but I couldn't help but notice the blurb in your graphic regarding CHI-MOL service. $800 million? The Iowa Interstate portion of the trip, between Wyanet and Moline, is only like 65 miles, 37% of the route's distance.

Obviously, the $800 mil is not just to rebuild IAIS, but if the cost of that 65 miles is the only thing holding up construction so the trains can start running to the Quad Cities, someone might need to sit on IAIS just a little bit. Only one station needs to be built, and the BNSF portion of the route is doing just fine (though they are likely asking for capacity improvements).

According to Wikipedia, the entire right of way and infrastructure of what is now IAIS was bought 40 years ago for $31 Million. Plug that number into the Inflation Calculator and you get a figure of $92 Million in today's dollars, only 11.5% of the projected costs of the route. And, if the assessment of track conditions is accurate, IAIS certainly isn't investing in its infrastructure. The 65 miles in question constitutes only 11% of IAIS system miles.

The state should make an offer to buy the IAIS. You get a state-owned ROW that could be used for Quad Cities and far beyond. You'd be well on the way to a dedicated line between CHI and Peoria, which could be utilized in the future as the route for CHI-STL HSR. Get Iowa to invest in the Davenport to Omaha portion (yes, I'm delusional).

CSX owns the New Rock Sub, the line between Joliet and Utica, but, from what I understand, they are only running one train a day on that line. Maybe they'd be willing to sell, or at least be more amenable to allowing passenger traffic for a reasonable price. Perhaps set up a rent-to-own arrangement.

CHI-STL HSR routed through the Illinois Valley and Peoria, rather than Normal, is 50-60 miles longer, but I don't see UP ever giving up control of the line Lincoln Service trains currently run on, and CN would be even less cooperative for an HSR route to STL via Kankakee and Champaign. Plus, 220mph HSR, running an average speed of 165mph, would blow through those 50-60 miles in 20-25 minutes. Not a deal breaker.

I'm ranting again, but, suffice it to say, a breakdown of the costs would be something worth seeing.

ETA - corrected 1984 purchase price of IAIS

How do you propose the route from Peoria to STL go?

 

[MisterUptempo]

How do you propose the route from Peoria to STL go?

When a study was done in 2013 exploring the feasibility of a CHI-STL HSR service, a routing via Champaign and Decatur was used. That routing had trains going Chicago-Kankakee-Champaign-Decatur-Springfield-Litchfield-Edwardsville-East STL-STL. The portion of the route between Springfield and STL could be used in a route via Peoria.

The report produced for the proposed Chicago-Peoria service already held out the possibility of extending the route from Peoria to Springfield, in part, I would imagine, to connect to Lincoln Service trains to St. Louis.

So, splicing the two proposed alignments together would give us a CHI-STL HSR of
-Chicago
-South Suburban station
-Joliet
-Illinois Valley (one or two stops)
-Peoria
-Pekin (maybe)
-Springfield
-Litchfield
-Edwardsville
-East St. Louis
-St. Louis

 

[Roomette11]

If I read this right, Illinois has a Chicago-Springfield-StLouis route (the now-100+mph Alton). And they are working on two more — one via Champaign and another via Peoria?

Also, seems to me that the easiest way to get service to Peoria is to have shuttles from Peoria to Bloomington. This would work for both CHI-bound and SPR/STL-bound passengers. Once upon a time, there were NKP and NYC lines between those cities. Is one of them still a railroad?

Last point: if IAIS doesn’t want to participate, negotiate with BNSF to get to Moline on the Burlington via Galesburg. Such a move would take any infrastructure money for IAIS off the table AND take the ongoing trackage rights payments, too. I know it’s a longer route. The goal is to dopeslap IAIS. If that doesn’t work, I love the suggestion of buying the whole railroad. That would save us from repeating the extortion routine further east in the effort to reach Peoria via Joliet, Morris, and Ottawa.