27 replies to this topic

[AlanB]

It's an operational thing, as there is only 1 through track between the north side and the south side of the station. They simply cannot offer run through services easily.

[Steve4031]

There is an operational constraint. Union station is a not a through station except for 1 or 2 tracks. So this would be hard to do with lots of trains. Secondly the maintainance facilities are in Chicago.

[the_traveler]

Yes, there is only 1 thru track (near the river) - all others terminate on either the south side or north side of CUS. Unless you want crossing gates inside the station!

[Anderson]

There used to be one or two "through trains" (IIRC the Ann Rutledge did this, running St. Louis to Milwaukee), but as has been said...the station just isn't set up for it. Also, I suspect that there might be an issue with the large number of passengers who would "change out" at Chicago limiting how worthwhile this would be (much like tends to be the case at NYP).

[jphjaxfl]

As was stated, Amtrak tried through trains from Milwaukee to St. Louis and to Detroit in the early 1970s. It didn't work. Milwaukee was not a big enough market to yield a lot of through passengers. Not being able to travel through Chicago by train has been an item of contention for 60-75 years. Robert Young who was President of the Chesepeake & Ohio and later New York Central developed some controversey about it by stating that a hog could ride a train through Chicago, but a human couldn't. After WWII, there were many through Sleeping Cars that traveled through Chicago, but no through coaches. It was thought that with all service operated by Amtrak, more through service would happen, but it hasn't. There are actually 2 tracks that operated through Union Station, but only 1 has a platform next to it. The other has been used for freight and years back mail and express movements. There was a grandiouse plan in the 1920s for a new large railroad station in Chicago that would combine 6 stations and have mutiple through tracks that would allow trains to travel from the Pacfic Northwest to Southeast and from the East Coast to the West Coast, but it never happened.

[Swadian Hardcore]

It is mainly operational reasons,. You could still run a train on the single through track, but it's just not practical. It on't happen and nobody want's it to happen just because the cons are more than the pros.

[AlanB]

And come to think of it, doesn't Los Angeles Union Station have no through-tracks yet has a number of through trains?

Yes, LA has no "through" tracks at present, although there is talk of creating some.

However, there is a big difference with LA's layout compared to Chicago. In LA all trains come in the same way and go back out the same way. It is a one sided terminal.

Chicago isn't one sided. Trains come to the station from the north and trains come to the station from the south. And the station sits in the middle of all of those tracks, save the easternmost 2 tracks. And as noted, only one of those tracks can access platforms on both sides of the station. The other track does not.

[Mackensen]

There's an additional operational consideration. Most of the Midwestern corridor services use a mixture of Amfleet and Horizon coaches. These are all high-level, requiring a step up to board in Chicago. This makes boarding an obnoxious time-consuming process in Chicago, one complicated by (to my mind) the general inefficiency of the staff there. Given the sheer number of passengers who change trains in Chicago, I suspect any stop which featured both boarding and alighting would be quite lengthy.

I'd also question the utility. Sure, you could back a Wolverine right out and send it to St. Louis, but that only makes sense if you have numerous Michigan-southern Illinois passengers. You're also stretching out an already strained schedule. It's 6+ hours and 300 miles from Pontiac/Detroit to Chicago already. How much padding would the Chicago stop need to keep timekeeping to St. Louis. Amtrak would also have to match up all these schedules and negotiate slots with the freight railroads. This also leaves out (for example) having enough locomotives equipped with ITCS to operate on the Michigan Line. Through running a Michigan train, the only scenario which makes sense, would mean either more so-equipped locomotives or an engine change in Chicago.

In short, the operational conditions faced by Amtrak aren't those faced by Deutsche Bahn and Chicago is not Frankfurt.

[railiner]

Amtrak has also attempted to run long-distance 'thru' trains in other locales that traditionally required changes. In the early days, they ran the 'National Limited' from New York into and out of St. Louis on its way to Kansas City, (and then forwarded a sleeper onto Los Angeles). In more recent years, the Sunset Limited was extended in and out of New Orleans to Florida, until that route was suspended.

[TCRT]

As per Wikipedia and old timetables, in the mid 1990's Amtrak allowed passengers connecting between the Capitol Limited and Southwest Chief to remain on the equipment during their layover. Amtrak had even planned to market this service as the National Chief, with running numbers 15 and 16, but this was not implemented and the practice of allowing connecting passengers to remain aboard was dropped.

Edited by TCRT, 27 May 2012 - 05:58 PM.

[AlanB]

As per Wikipedia and old timetables, in the mid 1990's Amtrak allowed passengers connecting between the Capitol Limited and Southwest Chief to remain on the equipment during their layover. Amtrak had even planned to market this service as the National Chief, with running numbers 15 and 16, but this was not implemented and the practice of allowing connecting passengers to remain aboard was dropped.

There was also a short period of time after they stopped allowing passengers to remain onboard, that they would allow you to keep your luggage in your room. But that practice stopped rather quickly when people started reporting things missing from their luggage.

[Mackensen]

As per Wikipedia and old timetables, in the mid 1990's Amtrak allowed passengers connecting between the Capitol Limited and Southwest Chief to remain on the equipment during their layover. Amtrak had even planned to market this service as the National Chief, with running numbers 15 and 16, but this was not implemented and the practice of allowing connecting passengers to remain aboard was dropped.

Amtrak was turning the equipment sets anyway. Note that the layover was longer than it is now--the Chief used to leave at 5:10 PM, so if the Capitol Limited was on time you were looking at an eight hour layover. Trainweb has more information about it: http://www.trainweb..../route_15.html. I'm guessing that Amtrak dropped the idea because it wasn't all that practical. There just isn't demand (and corresponding equipment) for that kind of through service. More's the pity now that I live on the East Coast and might actually use it!

[AlanB]

As per Wikipedia and old timetables, in the mid 1990's Amtrak allowed passengers connecting between the Capitol Limited and Southwest Chief to remain on the equipment during their layover. Amtrak had even planned to market this service as the National Chief, with running numbers 15 and 16, but this was not implemented and the practice of allowing connecting passengers to remain aboard was dropped.

Amtrak was turning the equipment sets anyway. Note that the layover was longer than it is now--the Chief used to leave at 5:10 PM, so if the Capitol Limited was on time you were looking at an eight hour layover. Trainweb has more information about it: http://www.trainweb..../route_15.html. I'm guessing that Amtrak dropped the idea because it wasn't all that practical. There just isn't demand (and corresponding equipment) for that kind of through service. More's the pity now that I live on the East Coast and might actually use it!

No it got dropped for safety reasons and theft reasons.

[Swadian Hardcore]

And I guess having trains reverse directions is just not worth it? Frankfurt, for example, has ZERO through tracks, but plenty of through trains. (Station map here: http://www.bahnhof.d...kfurt__main.pdf). They just pull in and then back out.

It dosen't work that way. Trains don't come in one end and out the same end. Basically, to get from STL to MKE through CHI, you must go on the single through track in CHI, no other option.

If you back out, you can only back in the same direction that you came from, you can't switch to the opposite direction.

Edited by Swadian Hardcore, 28 May 2012 - 12:12 AM.

[Steve4031]

On my first trip to Europe this really surprised me. The train pulled into a stub terminal, and 5 minutes later pulled out going the other direction.

The new Midwest bilevels will have cab control cars and automatic doors do this could be possible then.

[AlanB]

And I guess having trains reverse directions is just not worth it? Frankfurt, for example, has ZERO through tracks, but plenty of through trains. (Station map here: http://www.bahnhof.d...kfurt__main.pdf). They just pull in and then back out.

It dosen't work that way. Trains don't come in one end and out the same end. Basically, to get from STL to MKE through CHI, you must go on the single through track in CHI, no other option.

If you back out, you can only back in the same direction that you came from, you can't switch to the opposite direction.

Nearly all trains that operate out of Frankfurt Hbf (as well as MANY other European stations, such as Zurich Hbf, Stuttgart Hbf, Milano Centrale, Firenze SMN, Roma Termini, and all the main stations in Paris) are bidirectional, with seats half facing one end and half facing the other, and trains such as the ICE having cabs built on to either end, while older "conventional" equipment can easily and quickly swap in a new engine to reverse direction, as virtually all long to medium distance trains in Europe are electrified.

Yes, we have many trains just like that in this country too. It still doesn't solve the problem for Chicago, at least when it comes to permitting run through service with the Hiawatha line. In the cases you describe, the trains all pull in going let's say north for the sake of this discussion. They change ends and go back out going south.

In the case of Chicago, a train coming in from Detroit for example is going north. To interline with a Hiawatha, that train cannot reverse directions and go out to the south. It must keep going north, only there is a station in the way. A station that only has one track that runs through to the north side from the south side.

A train interlining from Detroit to say St. Louis could use the same practices used at Frankfurt, as that train would enter CUS going north and then leave to the south. But again, it doesn't work when one wishes to interline with the Hiawatha service.