UP, Illinois, and USDOT Reach HSR Agreement
Good news out of Illinois today as the state and federal governments have reached a deal on high speed rail between Chicago and St. Louis:
Illinois Transportation Secretary Gary Hannig today announced that a historic public-private partnership agreement on high-speed rail development is in place to bring Illinois one giant step closer to achieving high-speed passenger service between Chicago and St. Louis by 2014….
In September 2010, Governor Quinn announced that Illinois had become the first state in the nation to begin high-speed rail construction through an initial agreement to upgrade 90 miles of track between Alton and Lincoln. With the full Cooperative Agreement now in place, construction will continue in early spring from just south of Lincoln to Dwight. This phase of work is expected to conclude next fall.
The next step would then be the installation of new, enhanced grade crossing warning protection. The public can expect to enjoy its first taste of 110 mile-per-hour train service when a 20-mile segment between Dwight and Pontiac is completed in 2012. Procurement of new cars and locomotives, as well as station upgrades, will be other facets of the project completed under the Cooperative Agreement….
The Cooperative Agreement also outlines current plans for 110-mph high-speed rail service upon the completion of the construction that began in September. The agreement calls for a total of five daily round trips between Chicago and St. Louis, including three daily high-speed round trips in the initial 2014 schedule — and confirms on-time performance expectations of at least 80 percent for the service. Expected reductions in travel time of as much as 48 minutes between Chicago and St. Louis are also noted in the agreement, shortening the trip between the two cities to as little as 4 hours, 32 minutes. Amtrak operates passenger rail service along the route in cooperation with Union Pacific, which owns the track.
Illinois received $1.2 billion in federal HSR stimulus funding to help provide 110 mph service on much of this corridor, reducing travel time from 5.5 hours to about 4 hours. It’s not the kind of bullet train service we’re planning here in California, although Midwestern HSR advocates would very much like that. And it makes sense – 220 mph service would put the two cities at less than 2.5 hours apart (the distance is 300 miles). But these improvements are a good start, and can hopefully set the stage for the eventual development of true HSR.
It’s also a clear step in a much more productive direction than what Wisconsin has foolishly done under Governor-elect Scott Walker, whose rejection of HSR stimulus funds is going to set his state back by many years. As Wisconsin residents watch Illinois developing HSR service, employing people and connecting cities more quickly, they’ll quickly regret their decision to hand Walker the governor’s office.
Perhaps of most importance is the fact that Union Pacific did agree to these improvements. For most of 2010 UP had been dragging its feet on agreeing to the track improvements amid speculation they didn’t want HSR at all. But this deal does suggest that UP can be convinced to support HSR.
It’s unclear if that means UP might drop its unreasonable, absurd hostility to California HSR being built next to its ROW. UP is probably going to want to avoid this from being used as a precedent. But hopefully Jerry Brown, Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, and Ray LaHood can come together and lead on UP to play ball.
This is good news for Illinois and, ultimately, for the national HSR system. Wisconsin and Ohio might be giving up, but Illinois is going to show the Midwest that even 110 mph rail is popular and worth supporting. And that will, we hope, build and sustain national support for HSR, especially in Congress.
110mph is high speed rail? We really need to up our standards.
political_incorrectness Reply:
December 22nd, 2010 at 8:54 pm
I’d say 110 mph is mid-speed. If we have learned anything from Keystone, it does help making these speed improvements. I am not sure if part of it would have to do with eletrification but we shall see. Mainline improvements will help increase short-distance travel corridors once true high-speed lines are built.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 22nd, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Yes even this is a good step to shut the big mouth complainers.. it’ll be Florida that will show some true high-speed rail even the short segment, and then once it starts and people see what can be done things may change.. though when we open our California system that’s when people are going to go WOW
Missiondweller Reply:
December 22nd, 2010 at 10:55 pm
So, is 110 MPH just track improvements with existing train sets?
BruceMcF Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Track improvements & crossing gate improvements, across the board, whether it involves existing train sets or tilt trains depends on terrain and corridor configuration …
… the number, spacing and turn radii of curves determine what kind of transit speed you get out of running 110mph with existing Amtrak rolling stock ~ under the new cant deficiency regulations as well as the existing ones, just with higher speeds all around ~ and what speed benefit benefit there is to using tilt trains instead.
AFAIR, the Ohio Rail Development Commission did not talk to UP, but the freight railroads requested wider center spacing for passing track if tilt trains were to be used, but were OK with sharing track in light freight zones and only having dedicated passenger rail track in the heavy freight zones, which is the model that the Ohio Hub adopted from the Midwest Regional Rail System that has CHI/STL as part of its Stage 1.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Does UP operate in Ohio? Be kinda silly for Ohioans to worry about railroad tracks that end in Illinois.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 5:14 pm
I didn’t think they did, but you forced me to look up to be sure {shakes fist}
Anyway, as can be clearly seen in this map, no, they stop at Chicago.
In that map, UP is red, for “stop”, and BNSF is green, for “go”.
Andy M. Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 4:22 am
Would electrification be at all possible. I understand the reason Superliner stock are banned off the NE corridor is the height. So what would happen to the Texas Eagle?
Alan F Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 8:25 am
The catenary can be built high enough to clear Superliners which are 16’2″ high. The Capital Limited long distance train which utilizes Superliners operates under the catenary at Union Station in DC for the short distance to the turnoff onto the CSX line heading to Pittsburgh and Chicago. The issues for Superliners on the NEC are the tunnels in Baltimore & under the Hudson River, bridge overpasses and the hanging catenary sections that were built a long time ago with lower plate clearances.
However, the Chi-StL corridor is a freight line which is presumably cleared for double stack containers with Plate H clearance of 20’2″ which would require the catenary to be placed pretty high up, somewhere around 22 to 23′. The locomotive pantographs can be built to go that high, but any bridges that go over the line would have to provide a clearance of around 25′ above the tracks to provide several feet of clearance for a 25KV powered wire. For a 284 mile long corridor, there are likely older bridges that don’t provide that much clearance.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 4:35 pm
The catenary can be built high enough to clear Superliners which are 16’2″ high.
The passengers will be really pissed when they try to get off at one of the more modern ( Depression Era ) stations on the NEC and are confronted with a platform edge at their navels.
AlanF Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 9:02 pm
Well, there are still stations with low platforms on the NEC. They can drop down ladders at the stations with high platforms. :-/ Of course, if they send a super liner train north from Union station in DC, incompatible platform heights will be the least of their problems after the train gets solidly wedged in the B&P tunnel in west Baltimore.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 9:26 pm
You are right about tight clearances north of Baltimore. It’s my understanding that a GG1, running in the tunnels under the Hudson from Penn Station to New Jersey, barely fit the tube, with its pantograph down to about two inches above what would normally be lock-down position. If I remember correctly, that was a fair bit under 16 feet above the rail, perhaps just over 15 feet.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 22nd, 2010 at 9:09 pm
We live in the United States…the backwards types are screaming about even this as a horrible tax waste!
Drunk Engineer Reply:
December 22nd, 2010 at 11:55 pm
110mph is the max speed. 300 miles in 4.5hrs == 66mph average speed
…assuming on-time arrival (this is Amtrak after all)
Alan F Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 8:53 am
The Chicago to St. Louis route is 284 track miles. The ultimate goal with the 110 mph max speed plan is a trip time of 3 hours and 50 minutes which works out to an average speed of 74 mph. Which is not that much less than the current Acela average speed of ~81 mph between DC and NYC.
The funding grant that Illinois got does not get to the 3:50 trip times. The funding covers improvements to the main single track from Alton to Dwight Il, 13 passing sidings, and the installation of a whole bunch of quad gates at grade crossings. According to the application submitted by IDOT, the corridor currently has a whopping 311 grade crossings, 24 of which will be closed in the funded plan. The full build-out plan with 8 daily trains with 110 mph max speeds will require improvements to the St. Louis to Alton, IL segment which currently has some 30 mph sections, double tracking from Alton to Dwight, and triple tracking for much (or some) from Dwight to Chicago. If the current funded upgrades can come in on budget, presumably the $245 million of contingency reserve in the application will be put towards the other pending projects on the corridor.
For anyone interested, the entire 880 page, approx 72 MB PDF Illinois application for $1.1 billion HSIPR stimulus grant for the Chicago to St. Louis corridor can be found at http://recovery.illinois.gov/documents/Applications/HSR225Dwight_StLouispdf.pdf. Some light reading for the holidays!
YesonHSR Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 9:00 am
What is the funding amount needed to complete the upgrades for 3hr50min service?
Alon Levy Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 10:48 am
It all depends on what regulations the trains have to follow. Under reasonable (i.e. non-FRA) rules, all that’s needed is new rolling stock capable of 100+ mph, and very cheap upgrades to provide level boarding.
The ultimate goal for legacy service should be an 8-hour roundtrip including turnaround time, so that 4 trainsets could provide a departure every 2 hours. It’s doable with a 3:50 trip time, but would be very tight; 3:45 would be better.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Did you skip a bit of upgrade to Class VI track, some passing track and the rest of the quad gates in there? Taking away freight capacity is not an upgrade, its a transfer, and the quad gates for trains that fast is a quite reasonable rule.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Were there quad gates when the trains did Chicago-StL in less than 5 hours in the 1930s?
BruceMcF Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Actually, the 80 years between the 1930′s and today did in fact happen, and a 1930′s attitude to people dying at level crossings does not qualify as “reasonable” regulation in 2010.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Neither does thinking that the end all and be all of train speed is FRA-defined track maintenance. Lighter trains can safely achieve higher speeds and higher cant deficiencies on imperfect trackbed.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
What does that have to do with the problem of motorists overestimating available time
and trespassing around closed gates?
Alon Levy Reply:
December 25th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
It’s only a problem if you think FRA rules have anything to do with actual safety: no quiet zones without quad gates because that rule would save 3 lives per year, 900 tons buff strength, etc.
Nathanael Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 3:21 am
There were manned crossings, if I remember my history correctly. What price crossing keepers?
aw Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
We’re looking for ways to get people employed, right?
Nathanael Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
I like your thinking, aw.
aw Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Well, I would actually prefer that any level crossing that I’m driving toward would be gaurded by an electronic or electro-mechanical signal system than having a human in the loop.
Nathanael Reply:
December 25th, 2010 at 10:06 pm
Well, I don’t actually think crossing guards are a good idea, but I like your thinking anyway, I find it a good example of connecting seemingly-unrelated thoughts.
Alan F Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 7:41 pm
Illinois submitted an another application for the full build-out for double tracking the route and implementing all the upgrades to support 8 daily trains at 110 max speeds for $3 billion total, around $2.8 billion of federal money. This includes the phase 1 work IL got $1.142 billion for. Looking at the Double Track phase list, the additional funding would cover “Two new ADA-compliant platforms at Joliet, St. Louis maintenance facility, New station with parking at East St. Louis”. A new Joliet station has already been funded. A new station in East St. Louis could be paid for by other sources including local money, but the station is not necessary for 110 max speeds. Don’t know if some of the already funded CREATE projects in Chicago might cover some of the work in the $3 billion application. The cost numbers are also based on a 2003 EIS, so some costs may have gone up and others may have gone down since then.
But, based on the full double track application price tag, getting the entire Chicago to St. Louis corridor to the sub 4 hour trip times with 8 (or more) daily round trip trains is somewhere in the ballpark of another $1.5 billion. It may be less, depending on how much of a reserve they put in.
thatbruce Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 9:42 am
The article also cites an expected 80% on time performance. Personally, I’d take a slightly slower journey for something far closer to 100% on time.
spokker Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Is on time still considered less than 15 minutes late?
thatbruce Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 2:30 pm
On time is arriving and departing at the times declared in the timetable. If the service cannot consistently meet those times, then adjust the timetable or service operating conditions to suit.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Oh, my, printing “Arriving 2:53am~3:08am, Departing 2:59am~3:14am” etc. on all the schedules would consume so much extra paper. Think of the trees!
But the Cardinal/Hoosier State is up 2% in on-time performance, from 60.7% to 62.7%.
Of the top three causes of delays accounting for 76.5% of delay (in minutes), train interference, track and signals, and operational, ~42% of delays are attributed to CSX, ~9.5% on Amtrak, ~7.6% to Buckingham Branch, ~4.6% to NS.
Eliminating train interference delays would raise on time to about ~75%, eliminating track and signal delays not attributed to Amtrak would bring that up to ~84%.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 9:45 am
Bruce,
On my printing, there is lots of schedule padding. They don’t do it for individual stops, just the endpoints. Alton to St. Louis is 1hr, just to go 20 miles.
If this agreement with UP is like others, then trains can be 20 minutes or more late, and still be on-time. And even then, to have 20% late trains is absurd.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 10:11 am
In the Cardinal, above, there is 1:16 padding in Indianapolis bound to Chicago, in at 4:44, out at 6:00, and they still only get 62.7% on time. For the Cardinal, 80% on time entails eliminating almost half the delays.
And over 50% of the delay is train interference, track, and signaling.
Nathanael Reply:
December 25th, 2010 at 9:53 pm
The Cardinal schedulekeeping doesn’t speak well for CSX. I would have expected more of the delays to be attributed to the mess of railways which it crosses on the Chicago approach, or to the low-speed branch line (Buckingham Branch), or to the southern approach to DC, but nope, it’s mostly CSX.
aw Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
I believe schedule padding is independent of any leeway to determine whether a train is on-time. Also, the leeway differs depending upon the length of the trip. Corridor trains need to be closer to the scheduled time than LD trains.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 25th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Seems like of the Cardinal uses a substantial amount of its 1:16 westbound padding at at Indianapolis, it must have been wracking up late minutes before it got to Indianapolis.
Nathanael Reply:
December 25th, 2010 at 9:55 pm
After reading about the state of the Alton- St. Louis tracks (one of them is fast and also signalled for reverse running, the other is very slow and not really signalled at all), it’s clear they need serious upgrades. Oddly the upgrade work isn’t taking place there first, perhaps because the two tracks have two different owners and it’s messier to negotiate….
Emma Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Exactly. 110mph is commuter rail in some areas of this beautiful planet. But hey, that’s all that Amtrak gets done. They never get anything done.
jimsf Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 5:59 pm
uh, its not up to amtrak to get done. Its up to the owners of the track to upgrade and maintain it. its up to the voters to vote to pay for implement 110,125, or 220 service, its up to the states and their contractors to build such systems. And it sup to the FRA to approve speeds, equipment and signaling. Amtrak is an operator. If IL wants to build a 220 system, Amtrak would be more than happy to bid on operating those trains upon completion.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Originally from the 90′s anything faster than 90mph was high speed, so the three tiers of 110mph for “Emerging HSR”, 125mph for “Regional HSR” and above for “Express HSR” already represents a substantial lifting of our game from the official US “high speed” of the last two decades.
I’m in Chicagoland this holiday and grew up here including college in rockford.
St Louis isn’t a local city for Chicagoland. Milwaukee is and so is Gary.
St Louis is elsewhere. The northern Il and mid-southern are different states which is why this HSR line surprises me – in a good way.
There’s a newer SUI College campus in Edwardsville on the IL side. There is obviously statewide support and this service will help unite Chicago to the middle and Western part of IL.
“But this deal does suggest that UP can be convinced to support HSR.”
Well, it shows that UP can be convinced to accept FRA compliant passenger rail.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 22nd, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Unfortunately the only reason they may have came around on this line is because the former SP railroad that owned it signed an agreement with the state of Illinois to develop this for faster passenger trains. Too bad the Santa Fe did not get the purchase of Southern Pacific we have had may have had no problems at this point with the right away.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 22nd, 2010 at 9:12 pm
sorry dup have hads!!
thatbruce Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 9:39 am
OT: that that had had
Well, remember that as a condition of UP buying SP back some time ago, UPRR had to accomodate future passenger rail plans (I seem to remember that the short-line operator – before SP bought the line – received state funds for track improvements back in the ’80s, and the passenger train improvements seen now may have been a condition of that money) in this particular corridor (STL to CHI). This unfortunately is a one-route only deal – not to be interpolated onto the rest of the UPRR system. UPRR will always be anti HSR whenever and wherever it can. Back when UP agreed to this deal when purchasing the SP, the former SP (nee GM&O/ICRR) line was not very strategic to UPRR’s long term plans. BNSF is a very much more forward thinking railroad than UPRR.
Will the Florida HSR trainset be equal to the one for CAHSR? Are the requirements different even if it won’t hit 220? Can it be a Velaro D for both systems?
Joey Reply:
December 22nd, 2010 at 10:13 pm
There’s no reason it couldn’t be, but there’s no particular reason why both systems would choose the Velaro D.
What does this mean for the Amtrak routes in CA? It seems that there are several areas on the LOSSAN corridor, and possibly the Capital and San Juaquin corridors that could support faster speeds. Are these routes limited to 79 MPH due to FRA rules, resistance from UP/BNSF, or just due to crappy tracks? What is needed to get up to 110 MPH? It seems that if they are going to go with incremental upgrades in IL, that it would be possible to up the speed a little bit in CA as funds trickle in for track improvements.
Jarrett Mullen Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 12:52 am
I believe the Surfliners get up to 90MPH out in the Camp Pendleton/Oceanside/Carlsbad area. But, this requires special signaling equipment that automatically stops the train should the engineer run a red light. This equipment is not required for speeds 79MPH and below. With positive train control on the scene, this might make it easier for trains on other California lines to shave some minutes and run faster than 79MPH. But, increased track maintenance costs might outweigh the benefits. I don’t know if there’s a huge cost difference between maintenance for 110mph tracks and 79mph tracks.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Some of the ARRA money was for 110mph service on the Surfliner if I remember right.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Note that the “no need for Positive Train Control (PTC) below 80mph” was a legacy of the 1950′s, when it was “PTC must be installed to go 80mph or above” as an effort to push the installation of PTC, and instead the railroads dropped their speed limits to 79mph.
The new regulation is that there must be PTC on all the corridors shared with passenger rail, so that is one 80mph barrier that is going away.
The others are the class of track and the class of level crossing ~ the 110mph class of track is two steps above the 79mph class, with a 90mph class in between.
Between 110mph and 125mph, the FRA says that level crossings should be a hard obstacle to traffic. That might be automatic pillions behind the level crossing, maybe they’ll accept some form of the Michigan system of a long arm gate that locks into place on the opposite side and is reinforced with a steel cable.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 4:26 pm
The 79 MPH hour rule is based in reality. It’s difficult to see conventional signals within the safe stopping distance at higher speeds.
nick in the uk Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 5:44 pm
here in the uk the maximum allowable speed under conventional signals is 125mph. on both main lines from london to the north the trains used are capable of 140mph but this requires fitting the entire lines and trains with cab signalling. the lines to the midlands and the west country are also max 125mph. so There are still a number of level crossings on our main lines. the two lines to scotland are electrified and part of the midland line is electrified. the west county line electrification planned is under review but is eventually supposed to go to bristol and hopefully into wales.
our only hsl to date is from the chunnel to london and the line speed is 185mph but 140mph through the london tunnels. the revised route of the planned hsl from this line to birmingham and points beyond was announce this week. the planned speed being 240 mph…………..
as in california there is opposition from those who will be near the new line which is understandable and is one of the reasons for the revised route. also as in california, the criticisms of hs2 as it is called are shall we say not always completely factual !!!!
the normal line speed for electric commuter trains on most main lines is 100mph. where i live there are 4 tracks plus 2 station loops so there can be a train at one platfom with a through commuter train also running past at 100 mph and an intercity passing through at 125 mph. we normally have 4 trains an hour into london for most of the day and with 4 stops it takes about 25min for the 20 mile journey. except when in snows of course then no transport here goes anywhere !!!
BruceMcF Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 6:12 pm
That’s cab signaling … Positive Train Control encompasses more than cab signaling.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 6:35 pm
It’s nearly trivial to add stopping the train to cab signals. They did it back in the 50s.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 8:39 pm
How trivial it is depends on whether its continuous or intermittent cab signaling. Continuous cab signaling is not a technical challenge, it just costs more money than people want to spend if they don’t have to. Intermittent cab signalling requires more on top to provide full Positive Train Control.
Plus you’d have to run signaling through all the dark zones first, since cab signaling does not do any good unless there are signals in the zone, and there’s also financial rather than technical reasons why dark zones are dark in the first place.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 9:12 pm
I’ve had this up before, but it might be of interest here: a Pennsylvania Railroad PR film, notable for showing the use of the cab signals (continuous inductive type on this railroad), starting at about 3:45 in part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vomP_n4viio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hX57Oy2SA0
This New York Central film is of interest in showing how signals developed over the years, and its highest development of the time, as shown here from 1948, is what is called an “entrance-exit” interlocking, in which a route can be lined up through something as complex as the yard throat at Buffalo, N.Y., simply by pressing one button and another, with the machinery doing the rest. It worked, it was reliable, but it was a hard-wired job with 1,600 relays for one location! It’s no wonder such set-ups were rare, based on the labor in designing and building such a system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC5EJp1Ott0
No doubt this is done very differently today (i.e., a lot of solid-state stuff), but it may be noted that Amtrak’s NEC trains have a cab signal indicator that looks like the PRR job, reproducing the three lights of the position-light signal system still used on the Corridor.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 9:26 am
The Penn was the railroad that went all in for continuous loop in cab signaling. Unfortunately, they kind of went bankrupt forty years back.
BNSF seems to be the most pro-active, building a full traffic management system rather than aiming to build just the bare minimum.
One reason that UP might be more willing to reach agreement on Chicago / St. Louis is that 120 miles of that corridor is the location of their trial PTC system. If the project funding includes extending that the whole length of the corridor, that may be able to be leveraged into greater capacity for that corridor.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 9:18 pm
Being the blooming nostalgia hound I am, I have to admit to not keeping up with the new PTC, but my understanding of it is that it has the important advantage of being a wireless and satellite based technology, using GPS among other things to keep track of trains. This means it can be implemented on almost any railroad, and you don’t have to spend all that money on wires, relays, signals, etc., to get the benefits of the PRR system. Of course, it also relies on computer programs and continuous radio links; can we really trust that the signals will come through the air dependably and be able to ensure safety?
BruceMcF Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 10:23 am
There are a variety of PTC systems. The wireless / GPS based seems to be lowest capital cost per route mile, but some argue that its not reliable enough.
A hybrid system would support both, with continuous loop installed in higher traffic areas, and the wireless in current dark zones. In dark zones, the wireless would be a substantial upgrade in signaling, even if it is not as secure as continuous loop. And even continuous loop is subject to occasional breakdowns, so a back-up wayside wireless system might be a modest upgrade there as well.
Obviously UP will be pushing hard to make what passed for “Positive Train Control” as cheap as possible, both per route mile and in cab, and BNSF, aiming to leverage it into more efficient trains management, will aim for it to be required to be as capable as they need for their management system, to level the playing field on capital costs.
Nathanael Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
The wireless/GPS based system has great difficulty telling whether a train is on track 1 or track 2 when there are two adjacent tracks. For this reason a wayside-based system is pretty much necessary everywhere except single-track sections.
There are non-continuous wayside-based systems, based on axle counters, as well as the track circuit systems. I’m sure there will be some complex hybrid of solutions for train detection, depending on local circumstances.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Yes, but most of the dark zones are single track. “Everywhere except single track sections” may be a majority of traffic, but its a minority of corridor miles.
Nathanael Reply:
December 25th, 2010 at 10:05 pm
Yeah, I know the long double track lines are mostly fully track-circuited already, but the trouble is *sidings*. The GPS can’t tell whether you’re in a siding or on the main line. And so-called single track lines have lots of sidings.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 26th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Or the FRA can decide to avoid reinventing the wheel and mandate an off-the-shelf system like ETCS or ATS/ATC.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 26th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
The FRA has been studiously avoiding naming a preferred system.
If they did mandate ETCS the rabble on the right would immediately go into full frothing rabid foam about how the guvmint is fettering the free market titans of the railroad industry with something they don’t need, want or can afford. The ones not foaming at the mouth about ramming things down the railroad’s throat would be screaming about how we don’t need nothing Yourohpean.
The FRA has set out some performance criteria. It’s up to the free market titans to decide on hwo to implement that. … who seem to be converging on ETMS…
From the FRA’s 2009 report
….BNSF has received FRA approval for full revenue deployment of their ETMS Version 1 on 35 separate BNSF subdivisions. BNSF and FRA are working together on testing a second enhanced version of ETMS…..
…CSXT has subsequently decided to modify the original CBTM architecture to implement an ETMS-based architecture…..
…..UP and their contractor are in the full-scale development phase of a fail-safe non-overlay derivation of the BNSF ETMS, called the Vital Train Management System (V-TMS). The V-TMS provides similar functionality as the BNSF ETMS……
…..The NS is implementing another fail-safe non-overlay derivation of the ETMS system called Optimized Train Control (OTC). ….
nick in the uk Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 6:38 pm
i know. we do have a system that automatically brakes the train if a signal is passed at danger – tpms but it only works up to certain speeds. the great western also has a system but that is very basic – the driver must acknowledge a bell that rings to confirm mthat the signal has been seen. if he doesnt acknowledge it the brakes are applied. the full european train control system ertms is being trialled on a branch l;ine in wales. ertms2 is used on the dutch hsl which was one of the main reasons its opening was delayed.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 4:28 pm
But, this requires special signaling equipment that automatically stops the train should the engineer run a red light.
It’s not particularly special. It’s been around for decades. It’s not particularly cheap which is why it’s not used often.
There are two key FRA rule thresholds:
79 MPH is the limit before automatic signaling (i.e. Positive Train Control) is required.
110 MPH is the limit before grade separation is required.
Between Tustin and Sorrento Valley on the Surfliner Route there is ATS Automatic Train Stop signals that can allow speeds up 90 MPH. The 1920′s technology uses electromagnets to signal when the train passes a green signal. If there isn’t a green signal an alarm goes off which the operator must acknowledge. Failure to brake by the operator will force the brakes to come on. For speeds over 90 MPH the FRA requires total grade separation unless there is wavier and a good reason this can be done safely. Yes using conventional equipment operating cost for running trains climb quickly above 90 MPH due to the weight (unsprung mass) of the locomotive banging on the rails which increases with speed.
In the 1930s, Chicago-St. Louis trains took about 4:30, and there were 12 roundtrips a day. At the time, when car ownership was one third what it is today and airplanes were limited to 200-250 km/h, it was successful. Today, it won’t be.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Because there is a magic threshold somewhere between the present transit time and the new transit time when the observed response of patronage to transit time, frequency and reliability will suddenly click off like a light switch.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 4:26 pm
30-45 minutes to get to O’Hare, 45+ minutes prior to flight, say another twenty to get into St. Louis itself. The train will only be about an hour slower than flying, more reliable in poor weather, and cheaper. I could see it being pretty popular and creating a good deal of public support for true HSR along the line.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 8:54 pm
You do have to admit that twelve services each way each day would likely not be successful at the initial speed ~
~ though of course the number of services they actually have planned are, naturally, likely to be successful.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 1:22 am
Well, there are only 20 daily flights each way with a total of 1,800 seats as it currently stands based off some quick travelocity research. Defining success in terms of rail/air marketshare, it should easily account for the majority of the market or even a supermajority if they do their advertising right, even at only eight trains per day per direction. It would be interesting to see how many riders in the current capture zones of the airports choose to take Amtrak over flying as it is right now. And of course, some of the largest passenger counts will be made at intermediate stops. Bloomington-Normal already has a very high ridership; I can’t help but imagine that shaving 40 or so minutes from the current commutes wouldn’t knock it up even more.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 9:38 am
Four hours is not going to dominate the rail/air marketshare, though it will start to bite into it. The pattern in Europe is for three hours to grab ~40%, and two hours to grab ~70%. Three hours is an important threshold for supporting same day business travel, and when you can save employers hotel expenses, while avoiding the dead time involved in self-chauffeuring a company or rental car, you start getting the bean counters including the train as a preferred transport mode.
But its also not desert between Chicago and St. Louis ~ there are a number of smaller transport markets pooled by the corridor that offer one, two and three hour trips to Chicago and one, two and three hour trips to St. Louis, and the middle obviously offering one and a half to two and a half trips both ways.
With reduced transit times and increased frequencies, a larger share of trips become feasible to take on the train, and within those specific markets, the marketshare grows. Given the patronage base on the existing service with lower frequency and lower transit speeds, growth in patronage as they increase both frequency and transit speed is certain, on transport to and from intermediate populations alone.
Nathanael Reply:
December 25th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Springfield, IL traffic in particular should be utterly dominated by the train if built.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Why do you think that the same service quality of the 1930s will create demand for HSR now when in the 1930s all it did was make people demand better roads?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Because roads were new then and HSR is new now.
Nathanael Reply:
December 25th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Because oil was cheap then, and roads were uncongested (outside the densest of downtowns) then, and neither is true now.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 26th, 2010 at 7:08 am
The uncongested roads of the 1930s were still much slower than the overdesigned freeways of today.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
False dichotomy. Demand for HSR is not determined by a binary, single input function, its determined by a continuous, multiple input function.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 25th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
What would those other inputs be?
May I remind that the only city in Ohio that enjoys urban rail transit is Cleveland, and it is the one in the worst shape.
James Fujita Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Hawaii is the only state in the union which produces pineapple. Hawaii also produces ukuleles. Therefore, pineapples cause ukuleles.
synonymouse Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Re-reading this I see how I lost my point in the wording. There is no connection between Cleveland’s plight and urban rail transit. I meant to bring attention to resistance to rail, especially in Columbus and Cincinnati, where there is a profound ideological commitment to suburbanization and “mobilty”. Columbus annexed a big chunk of surrounding Franklin County to promote sprawl and freeways rather than the opposite
Cleveland is flattening whole neighborhoods it doesn’t like. Ohio is against the high density fad.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Columbus annexed a big chunk of surrounding Franklin county to avoid being choked to death by parasitic inner suburbs gaining the benefits of a growing urban center without shouldering any of the responsibilities. The claim that it did it to promote sprawl rather than to cope with sprawl is plain ignorance.
On the other hand, Cleveland flattening whole neighborhoods rather than reducing neighborhood density by, eg, flattening each second lot as evidence that Cleveland is “against high density” is a wonderful example of having a pre-determined conclusion and picking whatever seems like it will get there without looking very hard at whether it makes any sense.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Ohio is planning a gambling game with the hope that oil will somehow remain stable and within reasonable price… foolishness and wishful thinking that everything will go back to 1965. Republicons that stopped the 3C project, with all their snide comments about the California high-speed rail will be eating their words in 2020 and Ohio unfortunately will have slipped down to a second-tier state by then.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 8:49 pm
That is assuming that the policy is looking ahead at all. Ohio Republicans planning on getting as much campaign contributions as they can from the road-building industry in the short term and “who in the hell cares what is going to happen in five to ten to twenty years down the track” seems a more likely explanation.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Also, on the argument, include the fact that Cincinnati will shortly start building a streetcar line and the big eastern highway expansion includes a commuter rail line in an effort to drum up more support.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Oh pshaw, Cincinnati has had a subway since the 20s….
http://www.cincinnati-transit.net/subway.html
BruceMcF Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 8:51 pm
But no service in the subway in all that time ~ most people talking about a subway are most of the time talking about the trains running IN the subway.
Indeed, the subway ends not far from the streetcar, so running an extension of the streetcar line through the subway would be a fine use of that infrastructure. Its too tight curves and loading gauge for heavy rail, but it seems like it could well work for the streetcar.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Ohio’s future should be like its glorious past.. dense cultural urban cities with transit and vibrant downtowns connected with rail.. Ohio once had one of the top 10 cities in American population and it was a place people move to.. unfortunately the culture and the political mindset is so bent to the right they can’t even understand why they’re in this situation, suburbnation destroyed Ohio’s big cities
BruceMcF Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 9:45 am
Don’t confuse balance of power with homogeneity. The loss in the blue collar vote has swung the balance of power, the out-migration of college graduates and working class families has swung the balance of power, but its also a state that voted for Obama, Brown and Strickland. With real unemployment above the national average of 14%, an big protest vote was certain, and with the removal of all limitations on corporate spending, the radio and television airwaves and the cable stations were inundated with effective propaganda to point the protest vote against Strickland.
In a real sense, swing inner suburban Columbus and the Ohio River Valley, and you swing the state.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Indeed, it is important to remember that decades of aggressive de-industrialization policies not only undermines our national economic security but also hits hard on those cities that host the industries under attack, and simply having a legacy of a modicum of urban infrastructure is not necessarily sufficient to withstand the onslaught.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 23rd, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Oh, yes, and Columbus applied for New Start funds for a commuter rail line from downtown to North Columbus, but the application was knocked back.
If you ask me, I think all new rails and rail upgrades should be designed so that trains can operate at 110mph.
Nathanael Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 3:28 am
As far as I can tell, they generally are. How often do we actually see new rails built in this country? All the ones I can think of are designed to go 110mph. Upgrades? Well, it depends on whether they have to acquire lots of new land to increase speeds — if they don’t, they do consistently go for 110mph.
OT, but i just flew from sacramento to john wayne airport, went to disneyland for a day or so, and then flew to phoenix before renting a car and driving to relatives in AZ, and i have to say, anyone who says air travel is quick, convenient or affordable, much less better than a HSR system linking SF to anaheim is freaking out of their gourd. i would have given my left nut to hop a bullet train from sac to ARTIC pangalactic.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
As opposed to having to surrender it to the TSA as a potentially lethal device?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Yep. I just drove from Monterey to Santa Ana yesterday and spent about 3 hours in traffic from Thousand Oaks to Anaheim. It was ungodly. The whole time we kept saying “if we were on a high speed train we’d be there by now.”
wu ming Reply:
December 26th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
just the traffic from SNA to disneyland was astoundingly awful. proof positive that more highway lanes do not solve traffic jams.
A friend just inadvertently posted on Facebook the best reason I have ever heard of for increasing Amtrak routes and frequency: “Well I wasnt texting this time- during a 6 hour drive, I played with my GPS, called my sister, watched half of a movie, and crocheted….”
I have never been so relieved to be on the other side of a country from someone (granted, highways out East are an incredible exercise in monotony, but still!).
jimsf Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 4:46 am
don’t forget the ones who read books.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 9:50 am
I can’t fathom that. I listened to a large number of audio books in the year when I did several drives from Central Ohio to Augusta, GA, but I can’t imagine reading a book.
OTOH, while taking the almost 3 hr train from Newcastle to Sydney for a weekly class at the downtown Sydney branch, I watched a large number of movies on my portable DVD player.
Hello fellow Americans…
Just a Frenchman’s two cents here, as an avid reader of everything concerning HSR and follower of US HSR development :
- Chicago – Saint Louis : 110 mph : boring, 3h50 : too long (would have it been 3h instead, I think it would’ve been a winning ticket) ; I think it’s poised to fail and won’t win peoples’ hearts.
What’s more, it will blur your country’s already veiled perception of what HSR actually is – didn’t your article mention High Speed Rail instead of Rapid rail?We all know there is a world of difference between 110 mph rail on conventional tracks and true HSR ; blurring this notion allows people like the clown Randall o’Toole to show a 70mph transit choo-choo and pretend that this is state of the art HSR (and look, nobody rides it!) wtihout a reaction, which is quite sad.
- Tampa – Orlando : the WORST segment to start true HSR with, on an eventually profitable line (once Tampa – Orlando – Miami is completed), which will never be extremely profitable anyway ; I sincerely hope that this segment is completed AFTER the first segment of the californian line ; HSR ennemies must be salivating in advance, waiting for the first year’s ridership figures…If I were Ray Lahood and al, I wouldn’t have one bodyhair dry left knowing that this may be the first true HSR segment in all of the US…Brrr…It ain’t good news to me.
- First California segment : This line will serve as the benchmark for all the rest of the US network : TORA TORA TORA!!! But I wish you luck, because if you look at any LGV construction planning on RFF sites (LGV RHIN-RHONE, Est part, is wonderfully informative on the different phases of an HSR line construction), you will see that even in France, securing the financing, acquiring the land and resolving all the disputes is a very lenghty and difficult process, and sometimes when I read your blog I feel a llittle sad for you…You really have the faith that can displace mountains…Keep on the good job and let’s all cross fingers in hope to see the first true Amercian HSR segment in California before 2016 and SF – LA before 2020…
jimsf Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
well then, have your people call our people and let’s get this moving. tout de suite!
ericmarseille Reply:
December 25th, 2010 at 1:23 am
Hey, you already have a very serious proposal from SNCF to build and manage your lines! the choice is yours.Best wishes anyway.
jimsf Reply:
December 25th, 2010 at 6:06 am
I hadn’t heard about that. What are we waiting for?
Andre Peretti Reply:
December 25th, 2010 at 10:43 am
The SNCF would hardly be the ideal candidate for CHSR. It tends to ignore politicians, and creating jobs is never mentioned when it plans a new rail link. Line construction goes to the lowest bidder, whatever its nationality, and not to the one which will create the more local jobs.
Nielsen, LaMalfa look to keep train from running”>
J. Wong Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 8:37 am
Given that the Democrats control both Houses of the Legislature in California, their bill has a zero chance of passing even ignoring the fact that Jerry Brown would veto it.
synonymouse Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 11:17 am
The Repubs could insist that a re-vote on hsr accompany Jerry’s tax increase ballot measure in the spring. And a veto would be part of the process of resorting to signature gathering on the grounds the pols are trying to suppress the will of the people, which has changed due to the crisis.
Nathanael Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
No, they couldn’t. What part of “Given that the Democrats control both Houses of the Legislature in California” didn’t you read? If I’m not mistaken, it only takes a majority for the legislature to put something on the ballot (such as the budget, as Jerry Brown is planning).
Matthew F. Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Hopefully someone who knows what they’re talking about *ROBERT* will chime in, but I heard that you normally need 2/3rds of the legislature to put a tax increase on the ballot, EXCEPT with a budget emergency. The plan I’ve heard is that they’ll pass an austerity budget that creates a balanced budget with no gimmicks and no year-after-year shortfall, and then vote to put on the ballot a proposition that would raise taxes and reverse the austerity cuts.
An austerity budget would be a horrible loss for the state, but it would be better than this “death by a thousand needles” that we’ve been living with…
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
My understanding, and this is from Dan Walters at the Sac Bee who knows what he’s talking about on this (and on most other things, though definitely not HSR), is that Dems actually can put the tax initiatives on the ballot by a majority vote since this is a budget emergency and since it can be done as a change to existing taxes.
synonymouse Reply:
December 25th, 2010 at 11:18 pm
This sounds interesting. But if you change the formula, say to a tax the rich a lot more progressive income tax scheme a judge might consider that such a difference as to constitute a new tax.
If Jerry could not get any Republican support for any tax proposal to place before the
electorate an initiative would be very dicey.
Could be he will renege on his campaign pledge under pressure from his welfare base and simply ram a big income tax increase thru the Legislature across the board and dare the voters to recall him.
synonymouse Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Obviously the patronage machine does not have control of the initiative process; otherwise we would not have Prop 13 nor the 2/3 limit on taxes or fees. Same applies to the recall; remember that Gray Davis was elected by a decent majority but that did not protect him from a Socal coup.
The machine has successfully built a welfare state on the bleeding heart brainwash, but there is trouble in paradise. Not only has wolf been cried too often, but the explosion in social spending, entitlements and pensions exceeds future revenue potential. They have run out of enough taxpayers to cope with the structural deficit.
So expect some serious wheeling and dealing with everything being on the table, including the hsr. Jerry & Co. will have some explaining to do as to how the hsr is a sacred cow vis-a-vis welfare. Especially if the incoming Repubs in Congress find a way to get at LaHood’s lameduck hsr appropriations.
jimsf Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
So expect some serious wheeling and dealing with everything being on the table, including the hsr. Jerry & Co. will have some explaining to do as to how the hsr is a sacred cow vis-a-vis welfare
give the welfare folks shovels and they can build hsr. Two problems solved at once.
Nathanael Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Sigh. As usual, syn has never actually looked up the facts. Just like the federal government, California’s long-term shortfall of revenue relative to spending is largely due to CUTS IN TAXES, not to increases in spending. Though the massive explosion in the prison budget is one part of it, too. Perhaps that will be on the table, and people will be let out of prison. Health care spending is a small part of the issue, but not a large one at the state level.
The rest of “social spending, entitlements, and pensions” makes no meaningful contribution to the long-run deficit in California.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 25th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Yes, I found it odd that the prison-industrial complex was neglected in “Not only has wolf been cried too often, but the explosion in social spending, entitlements and pensions exceeds future revenue potential.“. The majority of a state budget is educatin’, medicatin’, and incarceratin’, so skipping one of the big three stands out like a sore thumb.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
December 25th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
You talk to people and they almost all say that, despite locking up more people than any other nation, we aren’t putting enough people in prison. Political suicide as well; being “soft on crime” and “sending violent offenders out onto the streets” is a big bloody shirt to give the opposition to wave.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 25th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
The power of professional marketing in action. All the yellow bellied surplus suckers are excellent at marketing.
Nathanael Reply:
December 25th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
I think legalizing drugs would be a good and effective way to empty out the prisons without changing any other policies, or releasing any “violent offenders”. Maybe the state’s not ready for it yet, but it will be soon.
wu ming Reply:
December 26th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
that is why the election of kamala harris is so significant. cooley was the ideal socal attorney general “tough on crime” drug warrior type, and he still lost in LA county to a SF bleeding heart lib’rul. in a GOP national wave election, no less. the 60s-90s california political calculus has shifted. i can see harris promoting prison reform as a cost saving measure, and brown selling it, and neither taking a political hit for it.
drug legalization will have to come from the people, tho. i think it’s a bridge too far for this generation of elected pols, who fear the last generation’s electorate.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 24th, 2010 at 11:05 am
They can suck rocks!!!
If there ever was “the power of professional marketing in action” it was the Prop 1A bait and switch.
And will you see brainwashing in action when the tax hike initiative comes up for a vote in the spring. Vote against it and Tiny Tim won’t get his operation. yeah,sure.
And forget about Columbus – it is the city of the future and always will be. I watched the dumbf**ks cut down the trolley bus contact wire on High Street in 1965. They tore down University Hall and then had to rebuild a Disneyland replica afterwards because the alumni were so pissed off.
I am always arguing with my homie back there about how Columbus has needed light rail for like 50 years. He was a psych major, is aretired welfare evaluator, and pretty liberal as the Buckeye State goes. His argument is that all the jobs are in the suburbs and that trunk-rail is passe and won’t work. They love their buses. But at least Ohio had the good sense (unlike the Golden State under Steve Wynn’s thumb) to tell the phoney holy rollers to go to hell and legalized four big city casinos, even if the hokey way they set it up was typically crooked as hell.
Spokker Reply:
December 26th, 2010 at 11:31 am
I heard the CHSRA hired Donald Draper to head their promotional campaign.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 26th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
The argument of “your homie” seems to lead to the conclusion that Columbus wouldn’t apply to build a commuter rail system. When arguments contradict reality, its the argument that is tossed aside, not the reality.
And given your opposition to California investing in the most capital efficient means of providing intercity transport capacity that it has available, it is not surprising that you support Ohio approving the draining of Ohio incomes out of state.
synonymouse Reply:
December 26th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
The argument is that modern cities are too dispersed and sprawled to support rail transit, which futurists see as 19th century. I don’t agree with it but that is “modern” Columbus.
I cannot divine the meaning of your second paragraph. Ohio was forced to legalize instate casinos as local money was being leeched by casinos in neighboring states.