25 replies to this topic

[Steve4031]

I saw this mentioned in the list of projects. I know that the Englewood flyover will be built, but what will happen east of there.

They could build an a new right of way from the abandoned right of ways of the NYC and Pennsylvania RR. I know operations were consolidated at some point, but one can see that the old right of ways between Chicago and Porter. What do you think will happen?

[ryangs]

I saw this mentioned in the list of projects. I know that the Englewood flyover will be built, but what will happen east of there.

They could build an a new right of way from the abandoned right of ways of the NYC and Pennsylvania RR. I know operations were consolidated at some point, but one can see that the old right of ways between Chicago and Porter. What do you think will happen?

Having spent a lot of time looking out the window while crawling slowly or completely stopped between Hammond and Porter, I do believe there is enough open/abandoned ROW to build a dedicated high-speed passenger line, maybe even a double-track line. It seems like such an obvious solution to a persistent problem. It's frustrating that this stretch of track seems to be ignored in any discussion about the Chicago-Detroit line. 105mph running between Porter and Kalamazoo doesn't mean much if it takes 90 minutes between Chicago and Porter!

Hopefully this would happen as a part of upgrading the Kalamazoo-Detroit part of the line, but assuming a lot of that money will come from the State of Michigan, who will pay for Chicago-Porter? Certainly not Indiana. They couldn't care less, unless a stop were added at Porter or the state beach, but even that's a stretch.

Edited by ryangs, 02 March 2010 - 03:21 PM.

[John Bredin]

The Porter-Chicago situation will be addressed with the recent stimulus money for Chicago-Detroit service.

To quote the White House press release following the State of the Union reference to the rail stimulus:

Indiana: A major investment will be made on the most congested and delay-prone corridor in the entire country, between Porter, IN and Chicago. The project includes the relocation, reconfiguration, and addition of high-speed crossovers and related signal system improvements, rail line additions at two locations, and the creation of a new passing tracks. The project will greatly increase service reliability for passengers travelling from communities in Michigan and Indiana to Chicago, reducing train delay times by 24 percent and increasing average speeds by nearly 7 percent through this segment.

As I recall, the State of Indiana was willing to apply for the stimulus money to relieve the Chicago-Porter choke-point at the behest of the States of Michigan and Illinois so long as the Federal funds covered the entire project, without Indiana state funds.

[ryangs]

Great news! I wonder what the "three new tracks" it references in Illinois are?

Illinois: A flyover, approach bridges, embankment and retaining walls will be built to complement additional investments and support the construction of three new tracks for trains operating east of Lake Michigan. This project will greatly reduce congestion and allow for increased speeds of 40 percent through this area.

I'm assuming they're referring to the Englewood (63rd/State) flyover, but looking at the summary of the rest of the CREATE projects, I'm not sure what the supposed three new tracks are.

Edit: Looks like they're confused. The new flyover of the Rock Island (Metra/southbound Amtrak trains) over the NS (Amtrak Michigan trains) will be triple-tracked. So these three new tracks are not for "trains operating east of Lake Michigan," but they will benefit those trains.

Edited by ryangs, 03 March 2010 - 03:19 PM.

[Joel N. Weber II]

Is this going to lead to a faster schedule for the Lake Shore Limited? (I keep wondering what it would take to move the point where 448 meets 449 to not be on the single tracked ALB-SPG part of the route, which probably is not worth upgrading due to the lack of any other passenger trains on that route.)

[MikefromCrete]

Great news! I wonder what the "three new tracks" it references in Illinois are?

Illinois: A flyover, approach bridges, embankment and retaining walls will be built to complement additional investments and support the construction of three new tracks for trains operating east of Lake Michigan. This project will greatly reduce congestion and allow for increased speeds of 40 percent through this area.

I'm assuming they're referring to the Englewood (63rd/State) flyover, but looking at the summary of the rest of the CREATE projects, I'm not sure what the supposed three new tracks are.

Edit: Looks like they're confused. The new flyover of the Rock Island (Metra/southbound Amtrak trains) over the NS (Amtrak Michigan trains) will be triple-tracked. So these three new tracks are not for "trains operating east of Lake Michigan," but they will benefit those trains.

The three track overpass will be for the Metra Rock Island trains to take them over the NS/Amtrak tracks. A separate project will add additional tracks, passing sidings, signals, etc., to the NS Chicago to Porter route to eliminate the delays that currently kill OT performance on the Michigan and eastern long distance trains (except the Cardinal which takes a different route out of Chicago). Both are part of the stimulus "high speed route" grants.

[ryangs]

The three track overpass will be for the Metra Rock Island trains to take them over the NS/Amtrak tracks. A separate project will add additional tracks, passing sidings, signals, etc., to the NS Chicago to Porter route to eliminate the delays that currently kill OT performance on the Michigan and eastern long distance trains (except the Cardinal which takes a different route out of Chicago). Both are part of the stimulus "high speed route" grants.

Any published plans for this yet? It would be nice to see the concrete details of these improvements.

[Steve4031]

When are they going to build the flyover at englewood?

[afigg]

When are they going to build the flyover at englewood?

Starting this summer. After the agreement and contracts talks were reportedly stalled for quite a while, the agreements for the Englewood Flyover were signed this week. The official US DOT press release on the release of $126 million in funding: http://www.dot.gov/a...11/fra1311.html

Now, when will the rest of the stimulus funds for the Gateway Corridor project in IN and the various track acquisition, upgrade, and short term fixes for the Kalamazoo to Detroit section of the route be signed off on?

[amtrakwolverine]

Amtrak is in talks with NS on buying the line since NS wants Amtrak to pay to maintain it at passenger speeds. NS said they don´t have any problems with running Amtrak they just don´t feel that they should pay to maintain it to passenger train speeds.

Edited by amtrakwolverine, 10 July 2011 - 01:26 PM.

[afigg]

Amtrak is in talks with NS on buying the line since NS wants Amtrak to pay to maintain it at passenger speeds. NS said they don´t have any problems with running Amtrak they just don´t feel that they should pay to maintain it to passenger train speeds.

There is a total of $400.7 million in HSIPR funding awarded to Michigan for the Chicago-Detroit corridor after the initial stimulus, FY10, and Florida HSR reallocation grants. So far, only $3.6 million has obligated for the Battle Creek, MI station. There is a threat from Republicans in the House who are looking to rescind the unobligated stimulus funds in funding bills. Hopefully, the FRA and Michigan will lock up some of the funding soon, very soon. It is taking a long time to get even the original stimulus grants announced in January, 2010 obligated.

In the FY10 grants, Michigan got $150 million to help fund the purchase of the 135 miles of NS line from Kalamazoo to Dearborn. In the applications, it is Michigan DOT that is looking to actually buy the NS line, not Amtrak. There might be a plan to then turn ownership of the line to Amtrak for a nominal sum, but my guess is that Michigan would retain ownership of the 135 miles, but would give Amtrak the responsibility to oversee maintenance and upgrade of the tracks. In the recent Florida HSR re-allocation grants was $196 million to rehabilitate and upgrade the 135 miles to allow for 110 mph speeds.

So relief and track improvements are coming, assuming it does not taken away in a rescission, but it could be a while. Michigan filed a separate application for $5.1 million for short term maintenance and repair to the the line, but that does not appear to have been selected. The track work funding is likely waiting for Michigan and NS to come to an agreement on selling the line and the wheels of bureaucracy & negotiations can turn very slowly on this sort of thing. Even slower than the slow orders track sections. If it all get funded and done - along with the $71 million to Indiana for the Porter IN to the MI border section - the Chicago to Detroit service will see serious trip time improvements - eventually.

[PerRock]

Most stuff I've seen has trains on the NS portion of the Michigan Line running 10-15mph, not the 25 mentioned above. Also I believe MDOT, not Amtrak is talking with NS about buying the line. As this is the same line the MiTrain will be running on between DTW & ARB; although I haven't seen any MiTrain updates in a while things may have changed.

peter

[MikefromCrete]

Most stuff I've seen has trains on the NS portion of the Michigan Line running 10-15mph, not the 25 mentioned above. Also I believe MDOT, not Amtrak is talking with NS about buying the line. As this is the same line the MiTrain will be running on between DTW & ARB; although I haven't seen any MiTrain updates in a while things may have changed.

peter

The 10- and 25-mph slow orders are for selected short periods of track. The main slow downs include dropping 79 mph zones to 60 mph and other areas to 40 mph. This is all part of a game being played by NS to get the state of Michigan and Amtrak to purchase the NS route. Federal funds have been allocated for the purpose but it looks like Michigan and Amtrak have been dragging out negotiations. This just puts the problem into the public area to get passengers and passenger train advocates to put pressure on Michigan and Amtrak to get the job done before the Republicans attempt to take the money away.

[Anderson]

Most stuff I've seen has trains on the NS portion of the Michigan Line running 10-15mph, not the 25 mentioned above. Also I believe MDOT, not Amtrak is talking with NS about buying the line. As this is the same line the MiTrain will be running on between DTW & ARB; although I haven't seen any MiTrain updates in a while things may have changed.

peter

The 10- and 25-mph slow orders are for selected short periods of track. The main slow downs include dropping 79 mph zones to 60 mph and other areas to 40 mph. This is all part of a game being played by NS to get the state of Michigan and Amtrak to purchase the NS route. Federal funds have been allocated for the purpose but it looks like Michigan and Amtrak have been dragging out negotiations. This just puts the problem into the public area to get passengers and passenger train advocates to put pressure on Michigan and Amtrak to get the job done before the Republicans attempt to take the money away.

Thank you for reminding me why I hate having all of this sent through the states.

[amtrakwolverine]

Well you do what it takes to light a fire under ones A$$ to get them to move faster.

[Anderson]

Well you do what it takes to light a fire under ones A$ to get them to move faster.

Here's the problem: Michigan, Illinois, and Minnesota all support HSR. Missouri seems to be on board to a decent extent as well. Wisconsin and Indiana? Not so much, and voters in IL and MI can only do so much about IN, and nobody can get around WI's issues.

Now, it would be nice if the Feds were willing to say "If a line going from state A to state C passes through state B and states A and C want it, then A and C can get the project if B is only marginally involved, whether or not B supports". I wish...

[George Harris]

Now, it would be nice if the Feds were willing to say "If a line going from state A to state C passes through state B and states A and C want it, then A and C can get the project if B is only marginally involved, whether or not B supports". I wish..

Example of this: Boston to Portland, Maine.