by gokeefe
Superelevation was my guess as well ...
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
gokeefe
Railroad Forums
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman
Arlington wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 7:59 amI get that some curves are curvy because they were laid along a curvy centerline because they anticipated “freight” sidings that are either long gone or never existedThere is always more work that can be done. I don't believe Amtrak/DOT have reached the limit of possible improvements. Just the limit of money available (until the next funding cycle).
Now that we know the track will never be constrained between sidings and the ROW boundary, it’s free to drift within the ROW in the interests of being straightened. Was that all done 2011-2018?
justalurker66 wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 1:38 pm There is always more work that can be done. I don't believe Amtrak/DOT have reached the limit of possible improvements. Just the limit of money available (until the next funding cycle).More money can solve many problems. But since most railroads tracks are placed in the center of a 100 feet wide corridor, adding 50 feet to the radius of a curve is not going to change the speed allowed through the curve much.
I am glad that you get the concept of "drifting" within the ROW. I do not know the entire history of the Michigan Central line, but many railroads were built as double track and had one track pulled or had sidings removed as you suggested. The ROW is wide enough that curves can be realigned to take advantage of the full width instead of following the path where one track was laid 100+ years ago. Given enough money there may be additional ROW acquisition to change the arc of the curves.
electricron wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 11:07 pmBut since most railroads tracks are placed in the center of a 100 feet wide corridor, adding 50 feet to the radius of a curve is not going to change the speed allowed through the curve much.That is not the assumption that I am willing to make. What I am suggesting is that the track was originally a double track ... possibly centered in the ROW, possibly not. Thanks to the "lets rip out rail to save money" trend one track was removed with no expensive effort to recenter the tracks on the ROW. The cheapest solution.
Amtrak announced Monday it will increase the maximum speed of its trains along a 45-mile stretch between Kalamazoo and Albion next week and restore an additional Pontiac/Detroit-Chicago Wolverine Service round trip this summer.
The federal government granted approval to Amtrak and the Michigan Department of Transportation to increase maximum speeds of Amtrak Midwest trains to 110 miles per hour between stations in Kalamazoo and Albion.
...
Accelerated speeds between Kalamazoo and Albion will be effective May 25 and follow infrastructure improvements and testing. This is another phase of accelerated speed increases for Amtrak along the Detroit/Pontiac-Chicago corridor. The train service can run at up to 110 miles per hour on an Amtrak-owned track between Porter, Ind., and Kalamazoo.
...
Train trips between Detroit and Chicago will be a little faster starting May 25, as the Amtrak trains will speed up from 79 mph to 110 mph between Kalamazoo and Albion.(bold added)
It joins the stretch of track from Porter, Indiana to Kalamazoo that’s already been sped up to 110 mph. This will become the longest stretch of track at 110 mph in the United States outside of the northeast, Amtrak spokesperson Marc Magliari.
Arlington wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 6:19 pm How much faster would it be to Grand Rapids as a spur off Kalamazoo instead of at the end of the Pere Marquette?Holland almost equals Grand Rapids (36k vs 40k) and SJM and BAM add another 18k. So you certainly wouldn't want to replace the Pere Marquette. However, Michigan Service could really do with better Thruway connections - the existing Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo buses don't allow for train connections, and bizarrely there's no connection to Muskegon.