CHI-MKE electrification

[norfolkwesternhenry]

I created this letter a while ago and never got to sending it, but how does it look?https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z5Xy9tPyBrwDrw-LHY8nnObDVNJDNf7lrnu3Z8H52J8/edit

 

[CCC1007]

You may want to remove your address from the letter, and I don't think the sprinters will be declared "surplus" in the amount you would need. Good luck!

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Purchase the route.

Improve Freight tracks for a bypass.

Improve the now only Passenger tracks. No more flooding, double track full route.

Improve station, and platforms.

Upgrade signal.

Run fast and frequent service.

 

[norfolkwesternhenry]

deleted adress, thanks for the suggestion

 

[bmjhagen9426]

I don't get it as to why you would electrify the CHI-MKE corridor. I mean, what about the Empire Builder? Since the EB runs a Superliner consist, the Superliners will be too tall if that corridor had been electrified. Not to mention that Metra uses that corridor between CHI (CUS) and Lake Foreston its Milwaukee District North Line service daily as well (30 round trips on weekdays, 12 round trips on Saturdays, 10 round trips on Sundays and holidays), and it too uses bilevels. If they electrify the corridor, the overhead wires must be 18 feet, plus some extra height for the pantograph, or else the wires will touch the top of the bilevels, which is not good. The corridor between Chicago and Glenview sees 38 round trips on weekdays, 20 on Saturdays, and 17 on Sundays (I'm counting the EB as it uses the corridor, but the EB is discharge-only MKE->CHI, and accept-only CHI->MKE). But I agree that there should be more frequent services on the corridor, as there are only 7 or 8 daily round trips north of Glenview, compared to 10 to 38 daily round trips south of Glenview. But won't the extra trains tie up the corridor, even with signalling improvements?

 

[norfolkwesternhenry]

I don't get it as to why you would electrify the CHI-MKE corridor. I mean, what about the Empire Builder? Since the EB runs a Superliner consist, the Superliners will be too tall if that corridor had been electrified. Not to mention that Metra uses that corridor between CHI (CUS) and Lake Foreston its Milwaukee District North Line service daily as well (30 round trips on weekdays, 12 round trips on Saturdays, 10 round trips on Sundays and holidays), and it too uses bilevels. If they electrify the corridor, the overhead wires must be 18 feet, plus some extra height for the pantograph, or else the wires will touch the top of the bilevels, which is not good. The corridor between Chicago and Glenview sees 38 round trips on weekdays, 20 on Saturdays, and 17 on Sundays (I'm counting the EB as it uses the corridor, but the EB is discharge-only MKE->CHI, and accept-only CHI->MKE). But I agree that there should be more frequent services on the corridor, as there are only 7 or 8 daily round trips north of Glenview, compared to 10 to 38 daily round trips south of Glenview. But won't the extra trains tie up the corridor, even with signalling improvements?

I know you would need to extend the wires up taller, but what about the CL? When I took it WAS-CHI, we went under the catenary without incident. Also, this would be sort of a preparation for more trains, overbuilding Isway better than being at capacity, when more trains are eventually introduced, which they will, maybe more Hiawathas, or Metra trains, but having extra capacity has a lot more upsides than downs.

 

[norfolkwesternhenry]

This might not be the best source, but on New York to New Haven (train sim 2016 route)the Superliners clear with a great deal of headroom, and I would doubt there being much of a difference in catenary height btw Amtrak and Metro North on their electrified routes.

 

[CCC1007]

This might not be the best source, but on New York to New Haven (train sim 2016 route)the Superliners clear with a great deal of headroom, and I would doubt there being much of a difference in catenary height btw Amtrak and Metro North on their electrified routes.

Train simulator is not something to put lots of faith on the minute details such as cat. height, as there are limitations in the simulation that don't exist in real life, such as only having one cat. height, whereas IRL the catenary can and does change height to accommodate the obstacles on the route.

 

[west point]

Clearances are a problem At present Superliners only clear Chicago US by about 6" above rood of SLs which is not enough for 25Kv CAT. Once out of CUS there is a need for at least 23 feet for double stack trains but no problem except for the need to stabilize PANs with that much vertical height. The CUS clearances are a big problem for IC electric being routed there.

 

[bmjhagen9426]

What about dual mode locos?

 

[Ryan]

Expensive, heavy and inefficient. Non starter.

I'm not sure what the fetish with electrifying all the things is. It's great for passenger corridors with lots and lots of traffic. Not so much for the rest of the country.

 

[jis]

The first step in determining the need to electrify is to figure out what is going to run, how frequently and at what speed. As far as I can tell there is little need for anything running more than 125mph on that corridor and it will probably be a long time before there will be more than hourly service. It fits more the model of a corridor like AAF's than anything like the NEC. So for now forget about electrification.

Once you decide to electrify there may be several civil clearance issue that will need to be addressed. But one thing that will not be an issue is constructing 24' clearance OHE where civil clearance for it is otherwise available. It is well known, tried and tested technology. As a matter of fact India is constructing many km of 26' high catenary on its dedicated freight corridors because they plan to run double stack containers on 4' high flatbeds which require a vertical clearance of that sort. So nothing new about the height of the cat or pantograph dynamics for such. They are well understood and deployed already elsewhere.

Here is an example:

Here is the type of train they are placing under such high catenary on the DFCs:

Those diesel locomotives are standard height EMD units.

 

[MikefromCrete]

Metra (and predecessor IC) has run bi-level gallery cars on the Electric District for more than 40 years with no problems. As others have said, there is no real need to electrify the Chicago-Milwaukee route. Hourly service at 110 mph would be the best thing for this route.

 

[norfolkwesternhenry]

what about third rail? It may not be as reliable, but it is less expensive, as well as you could run mile high trains with no interference with the power supply

 

[jis]

If there is no need to electrify the method to be used is moot. Also it has severe speed restriction issues. Typically diesel trains can run faster than third rail electrified trains. For various reasons not limited to cost of frequent feeder stations, inability to deliver large amount of power and cost of maintenance, it is very unlikely that any main line will ever get electrified using third rail. You appear to be trying to propose solutions for non existent problems both in terms of clearance and cost.

Where wires are a problem on streetcar tracks induction systems are starting to get used. But it is more expensive and has ways to go before it is used widely on main line railroads.

 

[neroden]

Clearances are a problem At present Superliners only clear Chicago US by about 6" above rood of SLs which is not enough for 25Kv CAT.

Yuck. Which *specific* parts of CUS are the problem? I know when I'm standing on the platforms on the south side, there's certainly more than 6" of space above the Superliners, and the roof in the area with skylights can certainly be raised. Chicago Union Station needs to be electrified eventually for local pollution reasons *anyway*. There's no problem with having a certain amount of catenary-dead zone, however, if the obstacles are just a couple of bridges. Modern locomotives will probably be able to go a short distance on battery power in any case.

If the obstructions are more serious than that, it may indicate that Superliners should be phased out in favor of single-levels, long-term.

 

[MisterUptempo]

Clearances are a problem At present Superliners only clear Chicago US by about 6" above rood of SLs which is not enough for 25Kv CAT.

Yuck. Which *specific* parts of CUS are the problem? I know when I'm standing on the platforms on the south side, there's certainly more than 6" of space above the Superliners, and the roof in the area with skylights can certainly be raised. Chicago Union Station needs to be electrified eventually for local pollution reasons *anyway*. There's no problem with having a certain amount of catenary-dead zone, however, if the obstacles are just a couple of bridges. Modern locomotives will probably be able to go a short distance on battery power in any case.

If the obstructions are more serious than that, it may indicate that Superliners should be phased out in favor of single-levels, long-term.

The Midwest High Speed Rail Association has made electrifying at least some of Union Station's tracks an essential part of their CrossRail Chicago proposal, so I'd like to think that someone from that organization would have surveyed the situation before MHSRA included it in its presentation.

One component of CrossRail Chicago proposes to turn Metra Electric EMUs into something of a rapid transit service called Metra City. Trains would run every 10-15 minutes all day and be fare integrated with the CTA. Metra City would serve Metra Electric's main line as far as Kensington, the South Chicago branch, the Blue Island branch, as well as part of the South Shore line, providing stops at Altgeld Gardens and Hegewisch.

The Metra City line would be extended to O'Hare, by means of a connector between the St. Charles Air Line and Union Station south tracks, eliminating the backup maneuver, as well as electrification of the Air Line, Union Station, and the Metra Milwaukee West to Metra North Central to O'Hare. A second proposed Metra City route, providing rapid transit-like service to Metra's Rock Island District - Beverly Branch, would access the Air Line connector and follow the same route to O'Hare, only using DMUs instead.

One curious thing about the ever-evolving CrossRail presentation (there's far more to CrossRail than what I described), which is available at the following URL-

http://www.crossrailchicago.org/

the icon used in the presentation to represent the Metra City EMUs is shown as single level, while the icon used to represent Metra Electric Suburban service is bi-level. All Metra Electric rolling stock is bi-level. Whether the single level icon was used strictly as a point of differentiation in the presentation or whether there might be clearance issues regarding bi-levels and electrification at Union Station, I don't know. The proposal does not get into specifics regarding rolling stock and does not include costs for same in its projections.

Regarding the western portion of the south train shed which still has access to natural light via the skylights you mentioned, international engineering firm Arup was just hired for the design portion of the so-called Phase 1A improvements to Union Station. Among the improvements is the elimination of 2 baggage platforms, allowing the widening of platforms serving tracks 6/8 and 10/12. Those platforms would also receive stairs/escalators/elevators to allow commuters to exit directly from those platforms to street level, avoiding the concourse altogether. Those platforms are the ones under the skylights. As such one could safely assume that providing access to street level would require getting rid of the skylights and decking over that part of the train shed.

 

[bmjhagen9426]

Would that move also benefit the City of New Orleans, Illini, and Saluki as well, in terms of eliminating backup movement?

 

[MisterUptempo]

Would that move also benefit the City of New Orleans, Illini, and Saluki as well, in terms of eliminating backup movement?

Absolutely. As I mentioned, CrossRail Chicago serves a number of purposes, Metra City service being only one of them. It would make the Amtrak routes you mentioned move more quickly, possibly others as well.

MHSRA also proposes using the connector to move the Hoosier State off its current routing between Union Station and Dyer, IN. One of two alternatives offered would put the Hoosier State on the Metra Electric to, I believe, the South Shore(the route map offered does not specify). The other alternative would involve the Hoosier starting from Union Station onto the Metra Rock Island tracks (via the Air Line connection), transferring onto the Elsdon Sub (ex-GTW) at Blue Island Junction to the Monon.

The connector could also be used for the Lincoln Service and the Texas Eagle, utilizing the Metra Rock island from 16th Street to Joliet. The Chicago-Joliet Tier I EIS suggested moving those routes onto the Rock Island at 40th Street, but at the two meetings I attended, many people were strongly advocating for the connection at 16th Street, because it could serve so many purposes.

The electrified route to O'Hare is also seen as a means to establish an airport express from O'Hare, through Union Station, to McCormick Place.

Finally, MHSRA sees the route as eventually serving as a high speed trunk line of sorts. They see a need to have most, if not all, future high speed routes into the city make a stop at O'Hare.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

I'll add that not only has my line been running bi-levels under the catenary for 40 plus years, most of it was the original 20's install by the IC (as far as I know) - at least the gantry's are way more than forty years old.

It's been my understanding that once the CREATE project is finished that certainly Amtrak and probably CN freight will shift trains off the MED ROW directly to Union or other route.

Third rail seems to max out in the UK at around 100 MPH. I don't see improving clearances as that big of a problem - if electrification were to happen, tracks could be lowered, etc.

I would argue, however, that hourly service to Milwaukee should be, at least partially, under the aegis of Metra, extending their service from Kenosha the rest of the way north which would create a lot of additional commuting options. If that were a success then additional "express" trains could be added.

 

[west point]

Lowering the tracks at CHI US will not be very easy. what about the Chicago river water table and platforms would also need to be lowered ?

 

[grover5995]

This route would seem to be an ideal candidate for electrification since the distance is under 100 miles and the entire distance has double track with few curves. There are still quite a few grade crossings which would limit speeds to 110mph on most of the route. Equipment could involve single-level trainsets (Pendolino), EMUs (Nippon/Sharyo) or possibly second-hand Acela trainsets that will eventually be replaced on the Northeast Corridor. Electric trainsets allow for faster acceleration, regenerative braking and eliminates the need for a diesel power unit.

Daytime service between CUS-MKE in under 60 minutes could be expanded west to Madison or north to Green Bay. Trains could also run south and west of CUS over the former Soo Line route to O'Hare Airport. Using this dedicated route would involve far less grade crossings compared with the MILW West line. Direct service would be provided to both O'Hare and Milwaukee airports for passengers from Northeast IL and Southeast WI. In addition, METRA could also operate mainline locals between CUS and Lake Forest using existing gallery cars with electric or dual power locomotives.

 

[MisterUptempo]

Lowering the tracks at CHI US will not be very easy. what about the Chicago river water table and platforms would also need to be lowered ?

Lowering the tracks would pose another big problem as well.

The tracks to be electrified would most likely be the through tracks, to be serviced by converting the unused mail platform into two extra wide (by Union Station standards) platforms. The Phase 1A plans for Union call for the conversion of the mail platform, with only two tracks becoming through tracks initially; the other two would be stub end tracks, until such time that two more through tracks were required.

These converted platforms won't have a connection to the concourse at track level. For passengers to access these new platforms, they will have to take stairs/escalator/elevator from the concourse into Union Station's basement, where a steam tunnel would be converted into a passageway. They would continue south along the tunnel to waiting areas that would be built in spaces adjacent to the tunnel. Passengers would literally be sitting under the trains they would travel on. When boarding time arrived, passengers would access stairs/escalator/elevator which would take them up and onto the converted platform to board.

So, lowering the tracks would also require lowering the basement of at least part of Union Station, where the through track platforms need to be accessed. When one considers the expense involved, it would probably be a whole lot cheaper just to invest in single-level EMUs for Metra City service. MHSRA's plan still calls for the suburban Metra Electric to continue to terminate at Millennium station, so the bi-levels would still be used. Any excess bi-levels could probably be sold to NICTD/South Shore. Their 20-year plan calls for market expansion of their main commuter line, plus the West Lake Extension to Dyer will need rolling stock as well.

 

[jis]

So does anyone have a real clearance diagram or information for Chicago Union Station handy or are we basing the discussion on an assumption? Either way, what is the current minimum clearance, known or assumed, and where exactly is it found? What is the next minimum clearance and where?

 

[neroden]

So, lowering the tracks would also require lowering the basement of at least part of Union Station

Nah. The cheap way to lower tracks when there's something underneath, like a bridge or a basement, is to replace ties-on-ballast with direct fixation. Gets you several inches. Given that we're talking about small changes in clearance, that's what they'd do.