Second daily St. Paul Chicago round trip starting up
Comming in at a short 15 year or so wait from concept to delivery. Good sign Amtrak is turning things around with expanding the network (heh-heh).[8D]
What type of equipment will it have?
Would be nice if it runs on time and is kept clean.
So I am going to take a wild guess here because someone was complaining earlier on YouTube about a AmCafe car in the Hiawatha Pool that was half Business class. So my expectation is they will use an Amcafe car plus the regular cars in the Hiawatha Pool which are a mixture of Venture Cars and Horizon Cars last I checked. I have not seen a Venture Cafe CarâŚheard they were on order along with Cab cars but have not seen any yet. So it would be a big surprise if it was an all Venture Car trainset with a new Loco.
Per Amtrak, it will have Cafe service with Coach class and Business class seating.
https://www.amtrak.com/Borealis
The original proposal back in the Obama administration was to develop a high-speed Chicago-Twin Cities train; when that fell through (largely because of Wisconsin) the âplan Bâ was adding a second regular Amtrak train. From that point to now wasnât all that long. Based on the newsletters I have, the change was in February 2019; the MN legislature approved funding in 2021.
Will we get to the point of a âMorning Borealisâ and a âAfternoon Borealisâ?
Probably not since the âEmpire Builderâ covers the other half of the morning-afternoon schedules. MILW had a similar situation when the âOlympian Hiawathaâ was combined with the appropriate âTwin Cities Hiawathasâ.
Possibly, Amtrak has one more in the agreement with CPKC. My guess is if the ridership is strong enough WisDOT & MnDOT would go for it. Not sure about where Illinois stands on it.
Afternoon from CHI would enable all inbound trains to CHI to make connections. Afternoon from MSP no connections. Am afraid that would not be a very high riders desire??
Just noticed this and I think it is slighly offâŚ
You sure it wasnât Milwaukee to Madison proposed? Because I am really sure that Minnesota wasnât even part of that whole debate and Illinois didnât have much input on it either. BTW, when I was in college, Milwaukee to Chicago cost estimates were $4-5 Billion for true HSR. So I am not sure $800 million would have covered much beyond groundbreaking costs for Chicago to Twin Cities and the entire project for that route would have bankrupted probably all three states together if they attempted it without massive up front support from the Feds.
I can almost assure you that nothing between Chicago and the Twin Cities would be âtrueâ HSR (i.e. over even a pathetic 125mph). Iâd be surprised even if they were discussing extended contiguous âEmpire Corridorâ-style 110mph⌠and that in the usual sections almost useless for accelerating operational average speed or reducing time by more than the odd couple of minutes here and there.
We had an extensive discussion on whether Madison was better served via its own dedicated branch or as a stop on a Chicago-Twin Cities route. Someone with patience should find the thread and link it here. Personally I think the question is moot because the new train is an explicit counterpart to the Builder, wherever or however that train runs, providing Amtrakâs beloved âtransportationâ at twice the current frequency in different dayparts, never mind the perceived levels of service or daypart amenitiesâŚ
Completely agree and WisDOT has already come to the conclusion that high speed is not needed between Milwaukee and Chicago and the corridor can become self sustaining without it. My guess is the highest they will go is 90-100 mph in the near term and I have a strong hunch they are going to experiment with no or limited stop express trains in the near future once they increase the train frequencies more between Chicago and Milwaukee. Saw them experimenting with peak and non-peak pricing already. First goal of WisDOT seems to be to try and make the corridor cover itâs costs and ridership goals first before really pushing for any great leaps in speed. Even then I donât ever see the current ground level alignment increasing much higher than 100 to 110 mph.
One obstacle they are currently working around seems to be the METRA part of the corridor and METRAâs unwillingness to increase speed or maintenence levels on the track they own. &n
The majority of the mileage, CHI to MKE, is within Illinois, so obviously IDOT will have a lot to say about route improvements and frequency of service. Already Hiawatha service is 90 minutes (60 mph including 3-4 stops) one way, very competitive with driving and similar to timings back when the Milwaukee Road and C&NW raced. On a 90 mile route, improving top speed to 115 (as on the Chicago to StL speedway) doesnât cut much off the timing. Given the average number of daily riders on the Milw North Metra line (22,100) and altogether on the three Metra lines sharing trackage up to (and even beyond) Western Avenue (48,300) your complaints about Metra âlunch pailersâ are not going to go very far.
I believe the requests for improvement are backlogged on both sides though we still seem to be still trying to accomodate the NIMBY folks in Glenview with the requested CPKC improvements there. Still no plan they find acceptable and so no funding can be applied for the South of Wisconsin border projects until we reach that point.
Regardless, WisDOT is planning on the upgrade to 90 mph North of the Wisconsin Border and potentially to a âsealed corridorâ which I think is some dual use term referring to RR Crossing (quad gate upgrades) rather than fencing it off or elevating it. Additionally WisDOT is paying for Siemens Venture cab cars, I believe through a Wisconsin only supplimental. So it does appear that WisDOT is not completely dependent on IL DOT.
I am pretty confident they will come up with a solution at some point to get the METRA trains out of the way from their current role of unnecessarily tieing up other traffic to do whatever it is they do during the long pauses. I read they want to double track part of the FOX LAKE line that switches onto the Chicago Milwaukee Corridor so they can hold METRA trains at the point of junction. I thin
I think that is the method the Chicago to StL line was upgraded to 115, along with fencing.
Doubtful. You seem to denigrate the needs of ~20,000 daily commuters. I would hope a solution can be found that allows for both Amtrak and Metra to operate properly
âSealed Corridorâ traditionally involves quad or long gates, median separators, an âearly warning systemâ for crossing-equipment malfunction âas soon as it occursâ, and in some cases video monitoring and enhanced ticketing for grade-crossing violations. In California the âsealed corridorâ also involves careful traffic fencing and full-width gates for pedestrian crossings, sometimes involving those nasty bicycle barriers.
North Carolina, probably along with others, also extends âsealedâ to private crossings â they say this includes better signage, but to be fully sensible it would involve some kind of positive gate and lock arrangement (with the alternative being formal closure of some kind).
The Chicago and Alton improvement was four-gate crossings with medians, for 110mph. There are a LOT of grade crossings on that line, which canât be closed and couldnât practically be grade-separated.
110 is the hard FRA maximum for âgatedâ crossings. For speed between 110 and 125, you need âimpenetrable barriersâ, like hydraulically-raising bollards or those barriers you see in Washington and Georgetown where a 10â section of the approach pivots up 3 or 4 feet with a steel and concrete wall appearing in front of you. (Above 125mph no grade crossings of any kind, locked and alarmed or otherwiseâŚ)
The only thing likely to improve the âlast-mileâ METRA situation is going to be precision scheduling and operation of the longer-distance trains, combined with equally âscheduledâ path and hold of the various METRA trains â both in terms of running-schedule delays and actual short-term waits to minimize long-distance dwell. Youâre not going to meaningfully speed up those last miles to and from the terminal no matter how fancy you try to make your trains or locomotives.
Not sure I agree 100%. METRA is making improvements in the South and shifting some trains between stations I noticed already. Double track the CSS line which is of course not Metra but Amtrak apparently sees it might get improvement in switching to CSS.
The long term plan which is wishful thinking at this point is to get CPKC to switch freight trains over to C&NW from Milwaukee all the way to Bensenville. I suspect they have a decent plan to get around the METRA trains though they have not formally rolled it out yet. I agree we will not see speeds above 110 mph South of the border but I think they can do a lot better with the delays and congestion which is there now.
WisDOT plans to spend a bunch to speed up last mile in Milwaukee.
Just get rid of the slow sections to reduce schedule times,
To me it makes much more sense to decrease perceived time into and out of the actual stop at Milwaukee, in ways that donât apply the same to METRA traffic and delaysâŚ
Those on a tight schedule coming north will probably understand how far they are from the station, and quick passage followed by reasonable brisk braking down to close to the platform would translate into better perceived service. Yes, itâs more important to get all the âfastâ segments contiguous so high road speed can be maintained. But 90 is not that far different from 110 unless youâre experienced. Delays and poking close to the end, however â that your clientele would notice. (Or would notice the absence of slothâŚ)
Likewise, if there is reasonable maintenance of slow speed without checks or halts all the way through the Chicago âshort finalâ it would count for more than even short hitches and velocity changes. For those with watches, the idea would be that arrival at the actual platform would be âon the advertisedâ (even if that advertising is an in-car display showing xxx minutes late) without further surprise or uncertainty.