Lincoln Service 110mph sections as of 2017?

[Steve4031]

Can I buy that hat from you. I need something to take a crap in if there are no public restrooms available.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Can I buy that hat from you. I need something to take a crap in if there are no public restrooms available.

You mean you want an empty cap?

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Some of the work is being carried out based upon a 2003 federal study (EIS, perhaps, can't recall), unfunded of course until the 2009 ARRA. And there were efforts and studies in the 1990s as well.

But even just looking at the Obama-era funding, it seems to be taking far longer than somewhat comparable projects elsewhere.

I seem to recall that Illinois had high hopes and spent a lot of money on better signaling that simply didn't work. Maybe 30 years ago? LOL. Well, at least they've persisted.

And to be fair, where is a comparable project moving faster? The Wolverines line? Um, I don't think so. Maybe the Piedmont corridor and the Cascades will make the deadline, maybe not. Looks like the stuff around Albany might come thru on time.

I remember that $300 million -- for a reroute thru or around the East River tunnel mouth where trains exit Penn Station to head toward Boston -- was gonna save 3 whole minutes for Acelas, Regionals, etc. Now think about that. For $300 million you'd save more run time than they're gonna get with $4 Billion for the new Baltimore tunnels.

Sept. 30, hunh? Not Amtrak's fault, at all. The LIRR has wrapped its East Side Access work around the project. So don't hold your breath.

 

[Eric S]

Maybe it was just wishful thinking on my part that other projects hadn't dragged on and on like CHI-STL seems to have. The New York (Albany area) projects do seem to have dragged on and on as well. I thought that the CHI-DET project got a later start than CHI-STL so perhaps that's what I'm thinking of.

And yeah, I believe Illinois spent something around $100 million in the 1990s trying to come up with signaling for the CHI-STL that would permit higher speeds. If only the state had spent the funds in the early 1990s to buy the line when SP (I think they were the owners at that time) was willing to sell the line, or rather the majority of the line.

 

[grover5995]

I don't think there's ever been any indication that there will be additional CHI-STL trains added. I thought that it was left to a future (unfunded) phase to add the improvements that would result in 8-9 trains/day (up from the 5 trains/day today). Buried somewhere in the planning documents for the current improvements there is a 5 train/day 110mph schedule, although I cannot recall if travel times were adjusted at all for the Texas Eagle or if it was just for the Lincoln Service trains.

I'd add that the question of when 110mph running will be instituted (beyond the short DWT-PON section) is also unsatisfying. "It *could* be sometime next year (2018)."

As to the question of ride quality in the 110mph section, I've ridden it a number of times (including a few days ago) and I don't recall noticing much difference between 79mph and 110mph sections, other than seeing that you're going around the same speed as traffic on the adjacent I-55 or significantly faster than traffic.

I attended an IDOT seminar on this project last year and it seems like things are on schedule so far. The biggest obstacle to higher speeds is likely to be required installation of PTC on a route which is largely single track. Additional trains are likely out of the question unless they double-track most of the route. Local road crossings also need to be upgraded for higher speeds. Current plans call for 110mph operation between Joliet-Alton by the end of this year. There is also a proposal to eventually re-route these trains over former Rock Island line between Chicago-Joliet to avoid freight interference. However the current Heritage Corridor route seems to be fine since many of these delays have been reduced by ongoing CREATE projects in the Chicago terminal.

 

[Eric S]

Everything I've seen recently has been very noncommittal about just when 110mph operations would start (or, rather, be extended beyond the current short stretch).

Do you have a recent update for the 110mph operation start up date? Or is that based upon the seminar from last year?

 

[grover5995]

Everything I've seen recently has been very noncommittal about just when 110mph operations would start (or, rather, be extended beyond the current short stretch).

Do you have a recent update for the 110mph operation start up date? Or is that based upon the seminar from last year?

No definite date yet although most northbound corridor trains have been running 5-10 minutes ahead of schedule out of Joliet lately.

 

[Palmetto]

I don't think there's ever been any indication that there will be additional CHI-STL trains added. I thought that it was left to a future (unfunded) phase to add the improvements that would result in 8-9 trains/day (up from the 5 trains/day today). Buried somewhere in the planning documents for the current improvements there is a 5 train/day 110mph schedule, although I cannot recall if travel times were adjusted at all for the Texas Eagle or if it was just for the Lincoln Service trains.

I'd add that the question of when 110mph running will be instituted (beyond the short DWT-PON section) is also unsatisfying. "It *could* be sometime next year (2018)."

As to the question of ride quality in the 110mph section, I've ridden it a number of times (including a few days ago) and I don't recall noticing much difference between 79mph and 110mph sections, other than seeing that you're going around the same speed as traffic on the adjacent I-55 or significantly faster than traffic.

I attended an IDOT seminar on this project last year and it seems like things are on schedule so far. The biggest obstacle to higher speeds is likely to be required installation of PTC on a route which is largely single track. Additional trains are likely out of the question unless they double-track most of the route. Local road crossings also need to be upgraded for higher speeds. Current plans call for 110mph operation between Joliet-Alton by the end of this year. There is also a proposal to eventually re-route these trains over former Rock Island line between Chicago-Joliet to avoid freight interference. However the current Heritage Corridor route seems to be fine since many of these delays have been reduced by ongoing CREATE projects in the Chicago terminal.

They would be wise to make Blue Island-Vermont St. a suburban stop if they run the service on the Rock.

 

[Steve4031]

I would think Tinley park or Oak forest would be better choices for suburban stops. There is more space for taking at those stations.

 

[Lonestar648]

Adding a station served by METRA could be an issue.

 

[Eric S]

Adding a station served by METRA could be an issue.

How so?

 

[MikefromCrete]

Amtrak already serves Homewood, Glenview, Naperville, Summit and Joliet, so there should be no problem with stopping at a Metra Rock Island District station.

 

[Lonestar648]

Amtrak has agreements with METRA for those stations. Same thing occurs in LA and other cities. The main issue is pick-up going into the city.

 

[John Bredin]

Amtrak has agreements with METRA for those stations. Same thing occurs in LA and other cities. The main issue is pick-up going into the city.

And Amtrak is consistently inconsistent on this point. :giggle: Between Glenview and Chicago, you can buy a Hiawatha ticket -- I've done it for the points -- but not an Empire Builder ticket. Ditto Joliet: you can buy a Lincoln Service ticket between Joliet and Chicago but not a Texas Eagle ticket. You can't buy an Amtrak ticket between Naperville, LaGrange, or Homewood and Chicago except maybe as part of a longer Amtrak journey. Even odder is the status of Summit: the timetable notes seem to indicate you can ride a Lincoln Service train from Chicago to Summit but not Summit to Chicago. :wacko:

That said, it doesn't sound like a conscious Metra-Amtrak agreement not to compete: if it was, it would be consistent because Metra would be insisting on Amtrak not poaching any of its riders, not just some.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Amtrak has agreements with METRA for those stations. Same thing occurs in LA and other cities. The main issue is pick-up going into the city.

... Metra would be insisting on Amtrak not poaching any of its riders, not just some.

I'm dumbfounded to imagine any instances where Amtrak's fares, or the State of Illinois' fares, from any point into Chicago Union Station were not higher than METRA's fares. Similarly for any other overlapping segments served by both Amtrak and the local commuter train operator, whether VRE, MARC, SEPTA, Jersey Transit, MetroNorth, MBTA, Sound Transit, Capital Corridor, or others. So what they got to fight over?

A suburban stop makes sense to collect passengers heading not north into the city, but south to the Illinois State campus at Bloomington-Normal, to the state capital of Springfield, to the other main end-point station at St Louis, or even transferring to the River Runner to Jefferson and Kansas City.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

Like Chicago to Joliet? I believe Amtrak has lower fares.

 

[MisterUptempo]

A suburban station has been part of the plan all along. When I attended an IDOT presentation just after the Tier I EIS was released, I discussed with an IDOT rep which Metra station might be most favored for a suburban stop.

I was told that Blue Island-Vermont Street was favored for its connection to the Metra Electric District trains (the Blue Island branch terminates at Vermont Street), the Rock Island main line and Beverly Branch, as well as a number of Pace bus routes, but the rep mentioned that any long-term parking arrangement would need to be "more secure", as he put it.

Midlothian was favored for its proximity to the highway. The Illinois Tollway Authority just built a limited-access exit from the Tri-State Tollway to 147th Street, which would be less than a mile from the Midlothian station. They also finally completed an interchange between the Tri-State and Interstate 57 (it was one of only two places in the US where two interstates intersect without an interchange), which is just south of the 147th Street exit off I-57. The Tier I EIS mentioned that access from the Tri-State would be a determining factor in station selection. While parking is a little tight, there are several older single-level retail buildings around the station that could be torn down for additional parking and/or facilities.

Oak Forest was also mentioned because of highway proximity; 2.5 miles from the Tri-State, 1 mile from I-57. Parking is tight, with fewer chances for creating additional parking.

Tinley Park-80th Avenue was the other station mentioned, because of its plentiful parking and the quality of its station facilities. Located about a mile from I-80, Tinley Park-80th Ave. has thousands of parking spaces, and the relatively new station is large, open all day, and has a food/coffee concession inside. The station is also adjacent to 280 acres of land that the village of Tinley Park is desperate to develop (the land became available when a state mental hospital closed several years ago.). They could easily provide a little land for long-term parking and any other requirements Amtrak might have.

The IDOT rep also mentioned that they may not utilize any Metra station and IDOT would build its own. But with the Tier II EIS in funding limbo, thanks to Rauner, it's possible nothing further happens until he's run out of Springfield.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

Currently the South Shore Line can only discharge passengers inbound and pick-up outbound en route to the loop. It's been my understanding that this agreement pre-dates Metra by many decades and the conductors enforce it pretty rigidly (the inbound SS trains are often very full in the morning anyways, more so than most MED trains) at 57th Street. Only exception was during Snowmageddon when they conductor said "come on onboard."

So there is actually precedent for this with Metra.

 

[wdscott]

Currently the South Shore Line can only discharge passengers inbound and pick-up outbound en route to the loop. It's been my understanding that this agreement pre-dates Metra by many decades and the conductors enforce it pretty rigidly (the inbound SS trains are often very full in the morning anyways, more so than most MED trains) at 57th Street. Only exception was during Snowmageddon when they conductor said "come on onboard."

So there is actually precedent for this with Metra.

To reinforce this it may be added that inbound to the Loop riders may board in Hegewisch, which is in Chicago. The distinction being that the South Shore has, at that point, not yet entered the Metra Electric line.

 

[MikefromCrete]

Currently the South Shore Line can only discharge passengers inbound and pick-up outbound en route to the loop. It's been my understanding that this agreement pre-dates Metra by many decades and the conductors enforce it pretty rigidly (the inbound SS trains are often very full in the morning anyways, more so than most MED trains) at 57th Street. Only exception was during Snowmageddon when they conductor said "come on onboard."

So there is actually precedent for this with Metra.

To reinforce this it may be added that inbound to the Loop riders may board in Hegewisch, which is in Chicago. The distinction being that the South Shore has, at that point, not yet entered the Metra Electric line.

South Shore service to Hegewisch is subsidized by Metra/RTA, so in effect the South Shore trains in Illinois are Metra/RTA trains. Since there aleady is Electric District service at 57th Street, there's no need to make the South Shore trains "locals."

 

[jackal]

Like Chicago to Joliet? I believe Amtrak has lower fares.

Just did it today. $6.50 for the Amtrak LS out to Joliet; $8.00 for Metra RI back.

A note worth mentioning from a recent Amtrak In The Heartland news post:

The new locomotives are being withheld from Chicago-St. Louis trains, and the Blue Water and Wolverine Service trains pending testing of Wabtec’s I-ETMS positive train control system and the two versions of Incremental Train Control installed on the routes of those trains.

“These are new installations, it’s a different locomotive, and the systems have to be merged and integrated with the Siemens software, so we will continue to run 110-mph between Porter and Kalamazoo with the existing P42 locomotives until testing is completed,” said Tim Hoeffner, director of Michigan’s rail office.

A similar situation exists in Illinois on Union Pacific track in the Chicago-St. Louis corridor. A 110-mph section between Dwight and Pontiac is reverting to 79 mph until the new system is in place.

The maximum speed of Lincoln Service trains will increase to 90 mph after track and signal work are completed.

Once the Federal Railroad Administration certifies that the positive train control system on the route is reliable, then top speeds will rise to 110 mph.