Is it possible? It wouldn’t be so bad to have a second Amtrak route to Milwaukee.
The Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee commuter service wouldsatisfy the need for service to the respective downtowns.
That said, adding Hiawatha stops for Kenosha and Gurnee would do the trick and provide an interim or even alternative service with larger catchments without the operating and capital costs of another route.
In the future, I see a third Chicago-Milwaukee route via Waukesha and the CN for a regional service.
Then there is the problem of getting from Union Station to the UPN or operating out of Ogilvie. The only practical connection between the MDN and UPN would be over the CN (xEJ&E) between Rondout and Waukegan. A doubling of Amtrak service on the MDN would not be welcome by either Metra or CP. Ogilvie would seem to be a non-starter for Amtrak.
I think that Amtrak would be totally opposed to any new route or having commuter service expanded to Racine. It built that new station in Sturtevant which offers excellent service to Racine. Amtrak’s service to the Milwaukee airport has also been a success. There is nothing stopping Amtrak from increasing its frequency of Chicago Milwaukee trains.
I suspect that any commuter service on UP North beyond Kenosha would get its passengers from out of cars, rather than from Amtrak (at least I would hope so). If I’m not mistaken, the proposals provide for service from Milwaukee to Kenosha, at which location you’d have to switch to Metra for the trip into Chicago (I suspect that through runs could be arranged eventually). I can’t envision service more than every two hours like this, so it would be roughly as frequent as Amtrak. I would hope that they could somehow coordinate things so that departures would make hourly trips to Chicago a reality. Obviously, the commuter route would be a longer option, particularly if the Amtrak (CP) route is upgraded to accommodate trains traveling at 90 or better.
As a service takes hold, other possibilities might reveal themselves: if commuter service to Racine draws passengers away from Sturtevant to some degree, there might be some Amtrak runs that would no longer make the stop at Sturtevant, thereby saving several minutes of travel time. The airport stop would probably not be affected, since the CP route is far closer to the terminal than anything UP North could offer. Perhaps 'way down the road, the commuter agency could provide service between downtown Milwaukee and the airport over the CP line, with appropriate additional trackage at the airport end.
I’ve forgotten what was being planned for service west of Milwaukee. Was there to be commuter service to Waukesha or beyond? Perhaps those trains would be logical ones to extend beyond the downtown to the airport.
I know some of my friends here think that the idea of any commuter service at all is preposterous (especially those whose tax dollars will help fund it into perpetuity). I just like the possibility better than the alternative–widening I-94 beyond its, what…four? lanes in each direction now. Or perhaps deciding that another similar roadway, free or toll, needs to be built after land is acquired, environmental studies made, etc. I thi
Why would Amtrak go and fund something like this on a duplicate, parallel route less than 5 miles from a current Amtrak route? Folks can’t drive out to the new Sturtevant station?
Gee, the people of Rockford, Freeport, Galena and Dubuque have been asking for Amtrak service, along with the other potential new route to the Quad Cities. New service into an area without service would seem to serve more people than two lines 5 miles apart.
Lance W.
It might not be as possible as you think. First of all, what condition are the tracks in? It will cost a small ransom to get several segments of the ex-CNW back into passenger train eligible shape. Second, you’re dealing with Union Pacific, who want nothing to do with passenger trains of any carrier interfering with their freight operations. I think it would be a smarter move to concentrate one’s energies upon getting the Midwest High Speed Rail Initiative into existence before adding service over a route with a hostile host railroad, that is parallel to a line with existing service.
UP may not be as “hostile” as you might think. The North Line isn’t a particularly heavy freight route. Further, this is the route Wisconsin wants to use for its Milwaukee commuter service (which would likely be more intrusive than intercity service because of its slower point to point speeds), and UP hasn’t vetoed that. UP has also voluntarily agreed to commuter passenger operations in other areas. And UP is the road over which most of the proposed Chicago-St. Louis high speed line will operate. It’s not surprising that UP (or any other railroad) would be opposed to passenger services on their lines that use capacity they need for freight operations, and a passenger operator should not expect a freight railroad to do this. But it’s a different story if the passenger operator is willing to provide the additional capacity it will require, as Metra did for the Elburn extension on UP and Wisconsin plans to do for their Milwaukee commuter service on UP. The real problem with Amtrak service on this route, which is mentioned in one of the earlier posts, is that there’s no good way for Amtrak trains to access Union Station from the route. There used to be a connection (the “Weber” line) between the North Line in Evanston to Mayfair which could have been used for this purpose, but it’s long gone.
With respect to "run