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

Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
joelkfla said:
You can do that on Amtrak's website, but you have to go to a different page than the booking page, and it takes like 4 or 5 clicks to get to the full schedule. And you have to know the specific stations, not just the cities. There's room for improvement.
Click to expand...
When you click on a train on the track-a-train page it shows the internary if you click on the '+' sign.
 
BlackDiamond said:
284 miles in 2.5 hours would require an average speed of 114 mph so we would be talking about true high speed rail here comparable to the Japanese Shinkansen, would the current right of way with its grade crossings be able to handle this?
Click to expand...
Two comments. Entering and Leaving St. Louis is pretty slow while Joliet-Chicago could present less of a challenge. Next, is just how many grade crossings are there on this route? I would say lots and they would have to be closed with either over or under passes and fencing. Like the idea and it would be comparable to flying taking into account downtown to downtown, airlines check in, TSA etc.
 
BlackDiamond said:
284 miles in 2.5 hours would require an average speed of 114 mph so we would be talking about true high speed rail here comparable to the Japanese Shinkansen, would the current right of way with its grade crossings be able to handle this?
Click to expand...
All running over 110mph requires essentially the elimination of grade crossings. Likely a new build HSR corridor could be built alongside much of the current ROW but the connections into St Louis and Chicago must be remedied.
 
The current plan is to eventually run the Lincoln Service and Texas Eagle on the Rock Island Line using the unbuilt connection from Union Station yards to the St. Charles airline. The Rock Island line has too many grade crossings for high-speed running.

IMHO, the current route between Chicago and Joilet could be more easily improved by building flyovers over the diamond crossings that frequently delay current operations. Ideally, as soon as a Lincoln Service train turns after crossing the Chicago River, it should be able to accelerate to 79 mph and maintain that speed using the flyovers. Currently, the trains limp at about 30 mph until after crossing Pulaski west of the Corwith intermodal facility. After this, the train could accelerate to 110 mph and maintain that speed until a few miles out of Joilet. An additional flyover west of Summit is needed. These improvements, IMHO, could eliminate 30 minutes off of the travel time between Chicago and Joilet, a distance of 37 miles.

The segment from Alton to St. Louis currently has to contend with slow running through junctions south of the Alton station. Then, it runs at 79 mph until reaching the bridge over the Mississippi River. IMHO, 15 to 20 minutes might be removed from this running time by building flyovers over the junctions and allowing trains to run 79 mph all the way to the bridge.

There appears to be enough room south of the junctions to build separate tracks for Amtrak until reaching the bridge. If these tracks could be built to 110 mph capability, this would reduce the travel time and eliminate the need sometimes to send Amtrak over the slower Merchants Bridge route. Capacity improvements here and probably a few places between Alton and Joilet could allow for additional frequencies. This corridor really should have at least trains every two hours throughout the day.
 
Steve4031 said:
The current plan is to eventually run the Lincoln Service and Texas Eagle on the Rock Island Line using the unbuilt connection from Union Station yards to the St. Charles airline. The Rock Island line has too many grade crossings for high-speed running.

IMHO, the current route between Chicago and Joilet could be more easily improved by building flyovers over the diamond crossings that frequently delay current operations. Ideally, as soon as a Lincoln Service train turns after crossing the Chicago River, it should be able to accelerate to 79 mph and maintain that speed using the flyovers. Currently, the trains limp at about 30 mph until after crossing Pulaski west of the Corwith intermodal facility. After this, the train could accelerate to 110 mph and maintain that speed until a few miles out of Joilet. An additional flyover west of Summit is needed. These improvements, IMHO, could eliminate 30 minutes off of the travel time between Chicago and Joilet, a distance of 37 miles.

The segment from Alton to St. Louis currently has to contend with slow running through junctions south of the Alton station. Then, it runs at 79 mph until reaching the bridge over the Mississippi River. IMHO, 15 to 20 minutes might be removed from this running time by building flyovers over the junctions and allowing trains to run 79 mph all the way to the bridge.

There appears to be enough room south of the junctions to build separate tracks for Amtrak until reaching the bridge. If these tracks could be built to 110 mph capability, this would reduce the travel time and eliminate the need sometimes to send Amtrak over the slower Merchants Bridge route. Capacity improvements here and probably a few places between Alton and Joilet could allow for additional frequencies. This corridor really should have at least trains every two hours throughout the day.
Click to expand...
The FRA already issued a record of decision saying no federal money will be given to improving the HC for Amtrak. It’s Rock Island or bust.
 
Interesting that the access into STL came up - it's like you guys were reading my mind. I was looking at the MacArthur Bridge yesterday (virtually, not in person) and watching videos of crossing it - really, really slow out from it as it turns north in East Stl. I wonder how much that could be sped up - the bridge itself has pretty steep access ramps, but it appears there are improvements (not to the ramps) in the works.

Amtrak may not be able to get $$ for the Heritage Corridor, but could Metra? I'm not that familiar with that part of the region along the canals and river, but what were the plans along that corridor, from CREATE, if any? It does seem like the route could be relatively fast and speedy - there aren't a lot of grade crossings (Lemont could be a problem) since most of the major roads are on bridges/viaducts to be above the canals although there are some local roads and industrial areas that would require access.
 
The current Amtrak route between Chicago and Joliet, the so-called Heritage Corridor, is the former Alton RR, right?
What about the former ATSF route that the Chief’s used to use? Is that route still intact?
I am not familiar with which of the three routes is heavily used by freight…
 
railiner said:
The current Amtrak route between Chicago and Joliet, the so-called Heritage Corridor, is the former Alton RR, right?
What about the former ATSF route that the Chief’s used to use? Is that route still intact?
I am not familiar with which of the three routes is heavily used by freight…
Click to expand...
The connection to the Santa Fe tracks was pulled up years ago. The ATSF alignment continued on the north side of Interstate 55 while the HC branches to the south along the Orange line.
 
railiner said:
The current Amtrak route between Chicago and Joliet, the so-called Heritage Corridor, is the former Alton RR, right?
What about the former ATSF route that the Chief’s used to use? Is that route still intact?
I am not familiar with which of the three routes is heavily used by freight…
Click to expand...
The track east of Corwith Yard was retired and pulled up years ago. Trains can no longer access Union Station from that line. That is why the SW Chief was rerouted over the former Burlington between Chicago and Cameron just west of Galesburg.
 
A basic point to keep in mind is the reality that a true high-speed (!50+ mph) route must be passenger-only and publicly-owned. No Class 1 RR would want any involvement with such an endeavor. There has been a lot of discussion and planning for a high-speed alignment that would use the fully grade-separated alignment shared by Metra Electric/CN to the end of Metra and then build a new alignment (following I57 part of the way) to Champaign (stopping at the existing multi-level station owned by the local transit authority), continue to Springfield on a new alignment (stopping at the new station there), then continue to E. St. Louis mostly by purchasing lightly-used existing alignments, which are significantly straighter than UP and avoid Macoupin swamp (where double track would not be permitted). Initially, the route could terminate in E. St. Louis, using the light rail to connect to St. Louis, avoiding having to deal with Missouri and the Mississippi River bridge issues. The K.C. trains could be extended to E. St. Louis. Fortunately, there are no mountains in Illinois and the only significant water crossing would be the Kankakee River.
 
If the Lincoln Service/Texas Eagle were to be moved to a different set of tracks, I suspect that my hometown (Dwight, IL) would lose passenger rail service entirely. And this would be after the state of Illinois subsidized the construction of a new (but still unmanned) Amtrak station along the existing tracks. I can live without a Lincoln Service train going past my town at over 110mph, if I can still board the train at my town.
 
In Europe, High-speed trains operate on separate alignments until they are near a city. Then they join the "classic main lines" to reach the city center. The same practice could work on a Chicago to St. Louis route. The high-speed alignment would end within a couple of miles of the approach to the bridge over the Mississippi River.
 
Steve4031 said:
In Europe, High-speed trains operate on separate alignments until they are near a city. Then they join the "classic main lines" to reach the city center. The same practice could work on a Chicago to St. Louis route. The high-speed alignment would end within a couple of miles of the approach to the bridge over the Mississippi River.
Click to expand...
One thing I don't understand is why the reluctance about building a high level dedicated bridge across the river at St. Louis. Afterall the river is not spectacularly large or anything, and is relatively easily bridged. There is plenty of space around in the area of the Amtrak Station and the Union Station to build out an elevated station. Bottom line to me seems to be that the powers that be do not really wish to invest at the level necessary to complete a successful project, and yet wish to give the impression that they are doing something.
 
MccfamschoolMom said:
If the Lincoln Service/Texas Eagle were to be moved to a different set of tracks, I suspect that my hometown (Dwight, IL) would lose passenger rail service entirely. And this would be after the state of Illinois subsidized the construction of a new (but still unmanned) Amtrak station along the existing tracks. I can live without a Lincoln Service train going past my town at over 110mph, if I can still board the train at my town.
Click to expand...
Clearly, the existing 110 mph route between Chicago and Springfield, via Normal (and Dwight), would be retained. In fact, it should be double-tracked, which would unlock the right to run 8 daily trains, per the agreement with UPRR.
 
MccfamschoolMom said:
If the Lincoln Service/Texas Eagle were to be moved to a different set of tracks, I suspect that my hometown (Dwight, IL) would lose passenger rail service entirely. And this would be after the state of Illinois subsidized the construction of a new (but still unmanned) Amtrak station along the existing tracks. I can live without a Lincoln Service train going past my town at over 110mph, if I can still board the train at my town.
Click to expand...
There are absolutely zero plans on moving the Lincoln Service anywhere between Joliet and Alton. What’s being discussed is that last few 20-30 miles into the terminals. Dwight will not lose service and will likely see more in the coming years.
 
Metra Electric Rider said:
Interesting that the access into STL came up - it's like you guys were reading my mind. I was looking at the MacArthur Bridge yesterday (virtually, not in person) and watching videos of crossing it - really, really slow out from it as it turns north in East Stl. I wonder how much that could be sped up - the bridge itself has pretty steep access ramps, but it appears there are improvements (not to the ramps) in the works.

Amtrak may not be able to get $$ for the Heritage Corridor, but could Metra? I'm not that familiar with that part of the region along the canals and river, but what were the plans along that corridor, from CREATE, if any? It does seem like the route could be relatively fast and speedy - there aren't a lot of grade crossings (Lemont could be a problem) since most of the major roads are on bridges/viaducts to be above the canals although there are some local roads and industrial areas that would require access.
Click to expand...
Metra is already preparing for the Amtrak relocation to the Rock Island lines tracks. They’re in the process of applying for grant money for said work. It’s a matter of if but when, Amtrak running daily over the HC is on borrowed time.
 
jis said:
It is true that paper as a medium for delivering dynamic things like time tables is being progressively discounted, and the primarily device wielding generation is missing the paper/pdf stuff less and less. I noticed this in my behavior in England last month when I did extensive travel by train and never once used a paper timetable. Of course the fact that I had to electronically attach the train I traveled on to my mobile pass had a lot to do with it, but the interesting thing is with a map on the device of routes, I never felt the need for a paper time table, which surprised even me.

Of course Amtrak's web site is much clunkier than the much better designed web sites I go to use there. Given my age, if a paper time table was available I'd probably been more at home with such, but even absent them I was not significantly hindered in any way. OTOH, someone who is not internet and device savvy would probably have been completely crippled.
Click to expand...
I would tend to agree with this if electronic timetables actually worked properly all the time.

In my experience, even in Europe, it is not uncommon for the algorithm to either miss obvious connections (it once assumed I needed at least 20 minutes to walk to a bus stop that was in reality just across the road, and thus denied me a logical connection), or sent me on a convoluted detour involving multiple changes of train and even kicking me out of a comfortable sleeping car at silly o'clock, only because some other combination of trains would supposedly get me to my destination 20 minutes faster. Not something I ever wanted or asked for.

I am always happy to have a printed timetable or at least a pdf at hand to do some plausibility checks. A pdf will also tell me whether or not this is the only train on this route so i need to make an effort to get on it, or whether it doesn't really matter if I miss this train as there is another not far behind.

Until the electronic timetable can do these things reliably without me having to use lots of advanced tricks to squeeze that information out of it, I still prefer to have my pdf as a backup.
 
cirdan said:
I would tend to agree with this if electronic timetables actually worked properly all the time.

In my experience, even in Europe, it is not uncommon for the algorithm to either miss obvious connections (it once assumed I needed at least 20 minutes to walk to a bus stop that was in reality just across the road, and thus denied me a logical connection), or sent me on a convoluted detour involving multiple changes of train and even kicking me out of a comfortable sleeping car at silly o'clock, only because some other combination of trains would supposedly get me to my destination 20 minutes faster. Not something I ever wanted or asked for.

I am always happy to have a printed timetable or at least a pdf at hand to do some plausibility checks. A pdf will also tell me whether or not this is the only train on this route so i need to make an effort to get on it, or whether it doesn't really matter if I miss this train as there is another not far behind.

Until the electronic timetable can do these things reliably, I still prefer to have my pdf as a backup.
Click to expand...
First of all we need to discuss Apples to Apples feature replacement. Since a PDF or printed timetable does not give you all possible connections and has no relation really to any reservation systems, we should compare it with similar features in electronic timetable. An interaction with the reservation/ticketing system is a possible added benefit that may or may not work to ones satisfaction, but that has not much to do with whether the timetable is usable or not.

I agree that an electronic timetable should be available in equivalent PDF form and an added advantage would be that if such is created on the fly it would have the real current information rather than information that is out of date possibly by many months. The maintainer of the timetable system would need to specify the templates and routes for which PDF timetables would be created, and these would presumably be linked to an Index or to a Map to help navigate to individual timetables.

In order to build connections, I have found a map linked to timetables to be the most useful presentation. Automatic connection generation systems inevitably suffer from either missing obvious connections or providing a whole bunch of bogus possible connections including circular ones which no one in their right mind would use. Until AI catches up the best solution is to provide a map linked to segment timetables, which is essentially what one does with a paper timetable anyway.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top