CUS, Should they get H.L. Platforms? Edit 2008 Diagram.

David Benton wrote:Is it possible to have a compromise height , 1 step down for superliners , 1 step up for amfleets ???

I think that would defeat the purpose making it ADA accessible.

Note to EDITOR: in the picture, wouldn't the high-level platform area be to the left in the photo?

Of course . sorry i forgot the ADA angle .

F40CFan wrote:

David Benton wrote:
Note to EDITOR: in the picture, wouldn't the high-level platform area be to the left in the photo?

Yes you are right F40c, it is the empty bland slab of concrete on the LEFT SIDE I am referring to. I just finished working a 15 hr straight shift when I wrote that and found the images.. I was a very tired and very disorientated. So sue me ..lol

In Kevins (kev_1125) photostream, in the Union station stream, there are a few more pics of the empty concrete slab that is purposed to be the Red High level platform if anyone want to get a closer/better look. I will try to find some images of the Mail dock that would be purposed for the Red High level southbound platform.

buddah wrote:Yes you are right F40c, it is the empty bland slab of concrete on the LEFT SIDE I am referring to. I just finished working a 15 hr straight shift when I wrote that and found the images.. I was a very tired and very disorientated. So sue me ..lol

During last year's Amtrak Day at CUS that platform was used to access the train exhibit. It is the one and only time I've ever been out there.

buddah wrote:Hello every one, I'm new to to forum and Ive been searching and it seem no one has any topics on a project that was purposed back in the early 2000's

A research team came up with a mock up for at least one high level platform to be installed in Chicago's CUS, one in each direction south and north bound. Mainly the 2 tracks with a pre-existing dual sided use platform closest to the Chicago River would be rebuilt to to high level standards,

This is not a good choice for the high level platform. There should be one high-level platform, but why should there be one heading north? It should be a terminating platform on the south side.

and include a ramp only at the end closest to the stations. They would run high level to the end of the pre-existing platform and stairs would be at the opposite end. This was even endorsed as a suitable idea from the NCSD. The south platform was intended for use of Michigan service trains as well as east coast bound trains, and Illinois service train that used high level platform equipment. the north platform was intended for Hiawatha service.

Hiawatha service is all low-level platforms, and it would seem crazy to me to make it high-level. It has to be compatible with the Empire Builder and future HSR to Madison and the Twin Cities -- why not build that entire network low-level, and get low-boarding single-level trains if needed?

Michigan service is also entirely low-level platforms at this point -- why change that?

There should be a high-level platform for LD trains destined for New York and Pennsylvania, which are standardizing on high-level platforms. There should also be a high-level platform for emergency equipment substitutions and for South Shore Line compatibility -- again, south side only. Use of the South Shore Line and connections to the east might mean that there should be an all-high-level-line running through Indiana and Ohio to Cleveland. I suppose in the long run that might eventually justify switching Michigan to high level.

But at the moment I can't see any justification for introducing high-level platforms to the "all-low-level" zone west, north, and southwest of Chicago. I guess it depends on rolling stock. We want to have roll-through trains where wheelchairs can move seamlessly from one carriage to the next. This may make 8-inch boarding an impossible technical feat (width of wheelchair, width of train wheel assembly.... I'm not sure). I suspect it's actually possible to build such low-level trainsets, but I'm not an engineer. We want to keep the platform height as low as possible within that constraint, for many reasons but mostly costs. Certainly the very high NEC-level platforms are not necessary or desirable for this; the Talgos in Cascades service in the Pacific Northwest prove that. Perhaps if 8-inch boarding roll-through trains are impossible, a "Talgo platform" standard could be established and "Talgo" level platforms used. (I'm not sure whether there's some "break point" height at which platforms suddenly get much more expensive or if it's a continuous price increase thing -- I can see reasons for both. If there is a "break point" then we want to try to stay under it, and if that's technically impossible, we might as well build NEC-level platforms nationwide. If there isn't, then we just want to keep them as low as possible.)

I would like to know everyone's opinions and suggestions as this is linked to a project I'm currently working on.

neroden wrote: 1) Hiawatha service is all low-level platforms, and it would seem crazy to me to make it high-level.
2) It has to be compatible with the Empire Builder and future HSR to Madison and the Twin Cities --
3)Michigan service is also entirely low-level platforms at this point -- why change that?
4) There should also be a high-level platform for emergency equipment substitutions and for South Shore Line compatibility -- again, south side only. Use of the South Shore Line and connections to the east might mean that there should be an all-high-level-line running through Indiana
5)We want to keep the platform height as low as possible within that constraint, for many reasons but mostly costs. Certainly the very high NEC-level platforms are not necessary or desirable for this
6) I can see reasons for both. If there is a "break point" then we want to try to stay under it,

[/quote]


OK thanks for the response I love argument form both sides of the fence just a few point I have to let you in on...

Yes Hiawatha stations along the route are all low level But Amtrak in there infantile wisdom always use high level equipment (365 days a year) it's always amfleet or horizon fleet cars, go figure? (note: in one of my post I have flickr link a hiawatha train deboarding at CUS)

If you look at my diagram you will notice there are 10 tracks and 5 dual sided platforms for northbound travel. who says the Empire builder could not use one of the other ones instead. Also the Madison HSR train might just be high level equipment very possible , food for thought.

UUMM friend... Southshore line does not terminate at CUS they arrive at Millennium station. Chicago has 4 major train stations all within a few city blocks of each other La salle, Union aka: CUS, Millennium, and Ogilvie. Southshore terminates at Millenium as well as Metra electric, All Millenium platforms are high level and run under centenary wire. also Southshore does not share there ROW with amtrak like NJT, metro north etc. in the NEC. totally seperate ROW for us here in the midwest. on emergencies if there's a derailment Amtrak will use Southshrore ROW from Indiana to inside the Chicago city limits then transfer back to there own trackage.

That's why they were only purposing 1 high level in each direction 2 total, still leaving 9+ low level platforms for all the other trains. no point in wasting money on more than 2 platforms when 1 in each direction is sufficient enough.

Im glad your looking at the situation from both sides, glass half empty and glass half full.

I Kind of like to see High level platforms also, I don't think it will happen for a long time, with CUS metra uses tracks 1-15, on the north concourse, and tracks 2-16 on the south concourse, and also that during the morning rush the metra HC trains unload on 19, on there way to western ave. yd., and that there are 3 morning metra SWS trips that arrives, and departs from track 28, (don't ask me why, but this is from what I experienced).

With amtrak on the north the Hiawatha's depart out of track 17, except 329, and 342 that goes into track 28, sometimes it will depart, and arrive on 17, or 19, but most of the times when I ride, especially 342(7:30 from Milwaukee) which I use when I come from Milwaukee, it will go towards 28, because since it is the last train it will go into the yd., and with 329(6am to Milwaukee) in which it is coming from the yard.

Yes Hiawatha stations along the route are all low level But Amtrak in there infantile wisdom always use high level equipment (365 days a year) it's always amfleet or horizon fleet cars, go figure? (note: in one of my post I have flickr link a Hiawatha train deboarding at CUS)

CP, and metra who owns the tracks will not go with it, and that with the exception of Sturtevant, and the Mitchell Airport station, they are also used by the Empire Builder.

Basically unlike the NEC in which Amtrak mostly own, here in the midwest these amtrak lines are operating on freight railroads with the exception of that one section of track from Portage, IN to Kalamazoo, MI, and the freight railroads won't like that Idea. Outside of CUS as Amtrak owns the tracks around CUS, and also owns CUS via the Chicago Union Station Co.

Also at CUS amtrak trains may also use the lower number tracks when metra trains are not using the tracks, especially during the midday on weekdays, and on weekends, when there are less metra trains at CUS.

JamesT4 wrote: CP, and metra who owns the tracks will not go with it, and that with the exception of Sturtevant, and the Mitchell Airport station, they are also used by the Empire Builder.
Basically unlike the NEC in which Amtrak mostly own, here in the midwest these amtrak lines are operating on freight railroads with the exception of that one section of track from Portage, IN to Kalamazoo, MI, and the freight railroads won't like that Idea.
Also at CUS amtrak trains may also use the lower number tracks when metra trains are not using the tracks, especially on weekends, when there are less metra trains at CUS.

well James Im glad u agree but there's one point your missing about the Hiawatha. only CUS would get the high platform none of the other station north would be remodeled/affected, as not to impede metra and the empire builders operations. and I don't think that it would be hard for Amtrak to take which ever track it wants as they own CUS and metra is a tenant. There's No objections from the freight railroad for they don't own CUS or operate trains through it. The other option was to install a lot of mini highs in CUS roughly 4 per each and every platform on both sides.. I oppose that with a passion, it just seems ludicrous. but would be quite interesting to see and walk on.

There is no need whatsoever for any high platforms at CHI. Nor is there any need for mini-highs.

If there were to be high speed trains running from the New York City area to Chicago, let's say of the Acela type of construction, route them into Randolph Street Station. Already high platforms there, and already electrified; the power cars could be adapted to switch to 1.5kV DC voltage.

amtrakowitz wrote:There is no need whatsoever for any high platforms at CHI. Nor is there any need for mini-highs.

If there were to be high speed trains running from the New York City area to Chicago, let's say of the Acela type of construction, route them into Randolph Street Station. Already high platforms there, and already electrified; the power cars could be adapted to switch to 1.5kV DC voltage.

I think it would be best for amtrak to keep all of their business in 1 station, then their is confusion between the two stations. Plus I don't see the acela running to chicago in the near future.

hi55us wrote: I think it would be best for amtrak to keep all of their business in 1 station, then their is confusion between the two stations. Plus I don't see the acela running to chicago in the near future.

Very good reason Hi55 ..... simpler is just better. all Amtrak trains in one building leave little room for confusion. In Chicago we have 4 major terminating train stations downtown (Union aka: CUS, Lasalle, Millennium, and Ogilvie). I managed to find a shot of the soutbound platform originally submitted in 2000. This Picture was taken looking northbound on the platform in between track 26 & 28. The platform that was to be converted into the high level platform in this shot it the platform to the RIGHT in between 28&30. The one were suggesting now be turned into a high platform is the one directly RIGHT of that one. ( as its already high level and is no long in use, it was the old mail dock).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/prasenberg ... 8/sizes/o/