Discussion related to commuter rail and rapid transit operations in the Chicago area including the South Shore Line, Metra Rail, and Chicago Transit Authority.

Moderators: JamesT4, metraRI

  by justalurker66
 
Franklin Gowen wrote:
justalurker66 wrote: dinwitty's idea of "going dark" can't be done at control points. NICTD has already removed the intermediates in street running.
Do you mean that this very block signal in the attached image has since been retired? Photo dates from 2006. Thanks in advance!
Yes. That signal (339) is gone. 333 just east of Michigan Ave (US 35) is also gone replaced by the CP 33.0 signal across from what was 328 (WB). The westbound signal is now 330 (and intermediate between CP 32.2 (Shops WB) and CP 34.5 (Amtrak).
  by Franklin Gowen
 
Thanks, JL66. I appreciate the detailed reply. So now my attached photo is "vintage," mmm? :wink: Good thing I took pix of as many Insull-era signals in service as I could the last time I was in South Shore country.

The changes implicit in this whole street-running situation are quite huge...I wish the railroad good luck.
  by justalurker66
 
Franklin Gowen wrote:Thanks, JL66. I appreciate the detailed reply. So now my attached photo is "vintage," mmm? :wink: Good thing I took pix of as many Insull-era signals in service as I could the last time I was in South Shore country.

The changes implicit in this whole street-running situation are quite huge...I wish the railroad good luck.
BTW: We're getting to the last chance to see the "Ideal Section" east of Miller. Several years ago new cantenary supports were put up (lumber with steel crossbars) at a 2:1 ratio between the "Ideal" steel supports. But even though they have been in place for years they have not been used. The "Ideal Section" still exists on the old supports (although you have to look through the new supports to see it). Last year's wire replacement project ended at the west end of the "Ideal Section". One section east of "Ideal" has already been replaced with new constant tension cantenary. The "Ideal" section appears to be next. (NICTD has been working since last year to place the concrete bases for the ends of each constant tension section along the line to Michigan City.)

Insull signals still exist east of Michigan City but CTC should be installed soon. A couple of the older signals have been repurposed for CTC although most CTC locations have completely new signals as the old signals were simple three color without a second head for diverging.
  by neroden
 
jb9152 wrote: Temporal separation, up to this point, has been defined as strictly defined blocks of time during which there are *no* mixed operations. Typical applications normally have freight operating between midnight and 5 AM or so, and the passenger service operating at all other times. I haven't seen any applications of "on demand" or "odd/even" usage.
Actually, I think -- I could be wrong -- there's an "on demand" application in NJT's Newark City Subway extension. It is passenger except when needed for a freight train to access an industrial spur at very low speed.

I suspect that the very low speed and infrequent use is what made this acceptable. I can't see this being practical for anything except a low-usage freight spur.
  by Jonathan R McCann
 
neroden wrote:
jb9152 wrote: Temporal separation, up to this point, has been defined as strictly defined blocks of time during which there are *no* mixed operations. Typical applications normally have freight operating between midnight and 5 AM or so, and the passenger service operating at all other times. I haven't seen any applications of "on demand" or "odd/even" usage.
Actually, I think -- I could be wrong -- there's an "on demand" application in NJT's Newark City Subway extension. It is passenger except when needed for a freight train to access an industrial spur at very low speed.

I suspect that the very low speed and infrequent use is what made this acceptable. I can't see this being practical for anything except a low-usage freight spur.
those tracks you are talking about that leads the freight is the old Orange Branch and its shot to *. it could use more trains and a rehab; christ u should see it.
  by neroden
 
Well, it's good to know the project is popular. If it's sufficiently popular that 100 families are happy to sell their homes.... well, then Michigan City is pretty much going down the tubes, because 100 families are happy to sell their homes and get out, but it's good for the project.
jb9152 wrote: How would you propose, exactly, "expanding into people's yards" with a railroad ROW? Where are they going to exit their homes, which now abut a fence and ballast? That's just silliness.
Alleyways would be the traditional choice. Oh, look, they already have them for practically the entire row of houses facing 11th Street. East of Wabash Street they're conveniently parallel to 11th St. West of Wabash St. they're more annoyingly perpendicular to it.

We have quite a few houses where I live which do not have road frontage for the property and rely on shared driveways or alleys.
Re: 11th Street - there is no scheme that doesn't involve knocking down houses, if only one lane of 11th Street is to be taken (as is the case), and room is to be provided in the ROW for future double track.
It looks to me as though removing the south side sidewalk / front yards would actually make it possible to retain all but about 8 buildings (mostly near Franklin St.) along the length of 11th St., though I'm sure the properties would have to be bought from any owners who didn't want to lose their front doors. Still, for those who were more concerned with retaining the houses proper, it would allow them to do so.

EDIT: Is the 10th Street street running actually more of a problem than the 11th Street running? No alleys there, no alternate street accesses.
  by jb9152
 
neroden wrote:We have quite a few houses where I live which do not have road frontage for the property and rely on shared driveways or alleys.
Well, then, too bad NICTD's not relocating to your neighborhood. Sounds perfect!
neroden wrote:It looks to me as though removing the south side sidewalk / front yards would actually make it possible to retain all but about 8 buildings (mostly near Franklin St.) along the length of 11th St., though I'm sure the properties would have to be bought from any owners who didn't want to lose their front doors. Still, for those who were more concerned with retaining the houses proper, it would allow them to do so.
And you measured this how? I'm really not trying to be a jerk, but unless you're an engineer or work for, say, the city planning commission, you really have no way of knowing what would be "possible to retain". The railroad and city don't even know that yet, since the project hasn't even gone to environmental analysis yet.
neroden wrote:EDIT: Is the 10th Street street running actually more of a problem than the 11th Street running? No alleys there, no alternate street accesses.
The proposed ROW doesn't use 10th Street at all - the track would not make that big S-curve as it crosses Amtrak, but would continue straight, going behind the homes on 10th Street, and gently curving back north to meet the current ROW at CP 35.2.
Last edited by jb9152 on Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  by justalurker66
 
neroden wrote:It looks to me as though removing the south side sidewalk / front yards would actually make it possible to retain all but about 8 buildings (mostly near Franklin St.) along the length of 11th St., though I'm sure the properties would have to be bought from any owners who didn't want to lose their front doors. Still, for those who were more concerned with retaining the houses proper, it would allow them to do so.
Much of this has been covered in the previous thread on the move:
http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... 73&t=62195
EDIT: Is the 10th Street street running actually more of a problem than the 11th Street running? No alleys there, no alternate street accesses.
The proposal for 10th St puts the new alignment behind the houses ... basically straight from the new 11th St alignment with a slight curve to a tangent that joins the current track at Sheridan. The last couple of houses on 10th St would be taken with 10th St realigned north around the new connection. (There is a PDF in the other thread and on Wikipedia that shows the proposal as it was presented to Michigan City.)
  by jb9152
 
neroden wrote:
jb9152 wrote: Temporal separation, up to this point, has been defined as strictly defined blocks of time during which there are *no* mixed operations. Typical applications normally have freight operating between midnight and 5 AM or so, and the passenger service operating at all other times. I haven't seen any applications of "on demand" or "odd/even" usage.
Actually, I think -- I could be wrong -- there's an "on demand" application in NJT's Newark City Subway extension. It is passenger except when needed for a freight train to access an industrial spur at very low speed.

I suspect that the very low speed and infrequent use is what made this acceptable. I can't see this being practical for anything except a low-usage freight spur.
It's not on demand - it doesn't even happen any more, as the last shipper on the line has closed. When it was operating, it was also not "on demand" - it happened at the same time every day, and the services were physically and temporally separated during that time. LRT service was completely halted, and no light rail trains allowed into the joint segment, while the freight switched the customer.
  by El_Kabong
 
Apologies if this has been asked and answered, but I just reviewed the PDF showing the planned 11th St. reroute.

Since they're moving the tracks anyway, why wouldn't they take advantage of that and separate the grade crossing with Amtrak?

Does it add that much to the cost of the project?
  by jb9152
 
El_Kabong wrote:Apologies if this has been asked and answered, but I just reviewed the PDF showing the planned 11th St. reroute.

Since they're moving the tracks anyway, why wouldn't they take advantage of that and separate the grade crossing with Amtrak?

Does it add that much to the cost of the project?
Absolutely. Grade separation is expensive, because you're going up and over or down and under.
  by justalurker66
 
For reference, the recently funded Englewood Flyover (funded as part of the $8B "High Speed Rail" Stimulus) is going to cost $133 million. I believe it was originally listed at $110 million as a two track bridge and will now be three. (To be fair, it is a lot more bridge and less embankment as it also crosses over a nearby freeway, but it is grade separating a current two track line from a current three track line with one line going over the other.)
  by justalurker66
 
It appears there were problems with the signal circuits in the streets of Michigan City on Saturday. Trains were running at restricted speed and stopping for the Restricting signals. Eastbound 505 was delayed enough that westbound 608 had to wait in the yard for it to pass and start it's journey late. (There is normally 15 minutes between these trains.) I followed 608 through town. As it left Shops 608 got an approach at CP 32.2 . The Restricting signal was at 330 (an intermediate). 608 also came to a full STOP at CP 34.5 (Amtrak).

Yep, time to get the rails out of the street.
  by dinwitty
 
I went down to the train show today, saw a 6 car train in the distance while making my way around, later some of the traffic signals were flashing, but no trains around.


Probably the dispatcher should know and allow stop and proceed, go by train order.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 13