110 MPH corridors

The one thing that I can think of that CREATE affected Amtrak on is the METRA LaSalle St. station line flyover of the NS line on the south side of Chicago. There's other stuff in the works that hasn't completed yet.

KTHW wrote:Not 110mph, but I recently saw a Hiawatha near Sturtevant, WI running at 90mph. Not familiar with the area, but I wasn't aware that those tracks had been upgraded to handle 90mph trains.

The Electroliners were rated 90-100 mph for North Shore, probably faster than the old Hiawathas.

Electroliners were capable of about 85 - about the same as the standard cars, which had about the same power-to-weight ratio. The "replacement Electroliner" which ran with Silverliner equipment on days when the Electroliner was being serviced, was made up of a pair of four-motor coaches and a trailer diner-lounge. It had no trouble making the Electroliners' times.

need to repeat 110MPH corridors are great where possible. However as a rule it is less expensive to eliminate all the slow sections of any route. Of course Create is more expensive but if trains could reasonable always transit the whole CHI mess what would that do to decreasing enroute time.

A lot more than connecting a series of choke points at 110 mph. Just one flyover here and another one there is what it takes to achieve improved transit times.

I think that on the Hiawatha 110 is a reasonable goal because there is really only one curve that could use a slight straightening, otherwise the rest of the alignment is good for much faster speeds.

The one curve could be fixed pretty easily. Except for that one house...

benboston wrote:I think that on the Hiawatha 110 is a reasonable goal because there is really only one curve that could use a slight straightening, otherwise the rest of the alignment is good for much faster speeds.

The one curve could be fixed pretty easily. Except for that one house...

Screen Shot 2019-04-01 at 5.20.32 AM.png

Ben: but why though? There are two similar curves north of there, and one south. For the price of eminent domain and grade preparation for this one realignment, you could lay a third and fourth superelevated passenger track between Gurnee and Truesdell. With enough superelevation those curves should be able to handle 90 mph for Superliners and probably 110 for single-level equipment - Amtrak has similar curvature on their Harrisburg line.

"Why" is a good question indeed. You've got a 90 mile route. What does 110 get you? The route's real problem is commuter and freight interference and slow terminal trackage. You've also got three intermediate stops. 150 wouldn't even do much.

Tadman wrote:"Why" is a good question indeed. You've got a 90 mile route. What does 110 get you? The route's real problem is commuter and freight interference and slow terminal trackage. You've also got three intermediate stops. 150 wouldn't even do much.

Right. Five miles of third and four track would do far more than 110 mph running.

If/when the Last Class One Mergers happen and assuming UP and CP merge as has been posited (also assuming that government interests are able to make their case with even a little oomph) one of the three Chicago-Milwaukee routes will end up in public hands. That solves the issue in perpetuity.

Some basic math.
90 miles / 80 mph (rounded up from 79 to keep the math simple) = 67.5 minutes
90 miles / 110 mph = 49.1 minutes
67.5 - 49.1 = 18.4 minutes.
That's assuming all the passenger trains are running at full speed the entire 90 miles - which they aren't doing. Time lost for decelerating, resting, and accelerating for station stops along the way should loose the same amount of time, trains operating at reduced speeds for approach medium and approach slow signals travel at the same speed no matter what their max speed is. Trains operating at track speed lower than the maximum speed affects both trains. Therefore, that 18.4 minutes is the maximum time savings possible - not the real world time savings.

Whether increasing track speed on slower sections to track will save more time than running at faster maximum track speeds can be debated forever without specifics.

And finally, there is more to achieving higher maximum track speeds than straightening curves and buying faster locomotives. Signaling and other safety systems along the track corridor are just as important.

What makes you think one of the three CHI-MKE lines would wind up in public hands? The Soo is still CP owned after the EJ&E merger, and there'd be no fewer freights than today. There's also the possibility of having to hand over one of the three to the CN to keep Milwaukee from being a one-railroad terminal.

It's worth adding to that basic math - the driver of a private car on the Edens Expressway isn't ever going to beat 90 minutes. You'll be lucky to hit two hours, and there's a chance it's more like three on the wrong time of day.

eolesen wrote:What makes you think one of the three CHI-MKE lines would wind up in public hands? The Soo is still CP owned after the EJ&E merger, and there'd be no fewer freights than today. There's also the possibility of having to hand over one of the three to the CN to keep Milwaukee from being a one-railroad terminal.

Not sure what you mean about the EJ&E or the ex-WC nee Soo Line main, they’re both owned by CN and not CP. At least, they own everything above the ballast. A combined BNSF/CN would definitely demand and get trackage rights CHI-MKE from a combined UP/CP though.

I also think there would be fewer freights by number though with even greater tonnage, simply for efficiency’s sake, and the two most efficient corridors would be the ex-MILW and the ex-CNW inland line - perfect for directional running. That leaves the ex-CNW Lakeshore even emptier than today. If the past in the Northeast sets any example, the STB could very easily stipulate that the states be given a long-term lease over the line (not the adjacent properties) and WSOR be the designated freight operator.

My two cents anyway, of what I would seek to do if I ran WisDOT.