Railroad Forums 

  • Illinois Amtrak Service

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1488463  by Matt Johnson
 
HammerJack wrote:I'll be on the Lincoln Service early this November (St. Louis to Normal). Are we still at 79mph?
Yep, even the short 110 demo stretch is now down to 79. The last of many false promises was 90 mph by summer 2018, but it never happened.
 #1488548  by Matt Johnson
 
What I find surprising is how other Obama stimulus projects are quietly producing results with little hype, while Illinois high speed rail has had a lot of hype and not much else to show for it.
 #1488626  by Greg Moore
 
Matt Johnson wrote:What I find surprising is how other Obama stimulus projects are quietly producing results with little hype, while Illinois high speed rail has had a lot of hype and not much else to show for it.
BTW, I LOVE this graphic because it shows how great a network can be.

Honestly though, there need to be more trains on the ALB-BOS segment to make this network even more fully usable.

But this is part of what any train system needs, a viable network with multiple paths.
 #1488778  by benboston
 
Greg Moore wrote:
Matt Johnson wrote:What I find surprising is how other Obama stimulus projects are quietly producing results with little hype, while Illinois high speed rail has had a lot of hype and not much else to show for it.
BTW, I LOVE this graphic because it shows how great a network can be.

Honestly though, there need to be more trains on the ALB-BOS segment to make this network even more fully usable.

But this is part of what any train system needs, a viable network with multiple paths.
Also, to many destinations. I think the current network is only a fraction of what our end goal should be.
 #1489975  by EricL
 
mtuandrew wrote:I wonder how much of the slow progress in Illinois is the landlord rather than the tenant?
It was indeed UP who pulled the plug, though Amtrak shares in the blame. They were looking ahead at the inevitable migration to ETMS. ITCS isn't compatible. They're likely regretting employing it in the first place.
ITCS is about the most poor-mans-PTC as you can get. But, in the earlier days, it was a cheaper solution based on the technology feasible at the time. You have to remember that it started in Michigan in the mid-90s.
 #1489997  by Station Aficionado
 
Some nice new stations—Joliet, Dwight, Pontiac, Alton (not a fan aesthetically of the new Carlinville stop), plus a renovation at Lincoln. Wonder how much speed improvement between Alton and St Louis could’ve been purchased with some of the money.
 #1490051  by mtuandrew
 
EricL wrote:It was indeed UP who pulled the plug, though Amtrak shares in the blame. They were looking ahead at the inevitable migration to ETMS. ITCS isn't compatible. They're likely regretting employing it in the first place.
ITCS is about the most poor-mans-PTC as you can get. But, in the earlier days, it was a cheaper solution based on the technology feasible at the time. You have to remember that it started in Michigan in the mid-90s.
Good to see you back on the forum, and yeah, that makes sense. It’ll be interesting to see if Amtrak moves to I-ETMS in Michigan once ITCS isn’t manufacturer-supported anymore. Also, I’m curious whether UP will try to wriggle out of its commitment for higher-speed rail with the FRA in friendly hands.
 #1490472  by HammerJack
 
gokeefe wrote:Are you serious??!? Would love to see the press on that ...
Just a joke; I doubt many even know about the Rockford train. But that would've made for a good story.
 #1490527  by Tadman
 
HammerJack wrote:
gokeefe wrote:Are you serious??!? Would love to see the press on that ...
Just a joke; I doubt many even know about the Rockford train. But that would've made for a good story.
Was curious where this was going, I haven't heard one thing of it anymore. I don't officially live in Chicago anymore but I'm in town a lot for business.
  • 1
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 108