I am confused by the article’s title. Isn’t the high speed (110mph) section just in the Pontiac-Dwight area? How is this corridor project near the finish line?
I believe the 110 mph sections are expanding, so that by summer 2016 much more will be higher speed.
But it is not clear.
About two years ago when I last rode the route a good portion of the track upgrades in the Northern part of the corridor was complete and the track upgrades were well beyond Pontiac. So I would guess a good portion of the track upgrades are complete on the corridor.
Definitely they have an issue installing the mandated quad gate crossing signals as those only existed on a very small portion. They stated in the article they have an issue with PTC and UP was working with the Feds to get above 90 mph running…I read that implying beyond Pontiac where the track upgrades are done and they have the quad gates done.
Closer to St. Louis the track still needs work, grade crossings were not updated and the EADS bridge portion was almost as slow as a crawl. Which is stupid and they need to replace that bridge with one that can tolerate high speed.
Eads Bridge? As I understand the situation, the only rail traffic on this bridge is local transit. For many years, the GM&O used the Merchants Bridge, and did not have a stop in East St. Louis. I do not remember the wording of the note in the passenger timetables, but it indicated that the Merchants Bridge was used.
I meant the MacArthur Bridge (shown below)…have never been across the Merchants Bridge and I don’t think Amtrak uses it to my knowledge.
On my last round trip,about a year ago, we used both bridges, one NB and the other SB.
I know I have been across on the MacArthur Bridge twice–once from Carbondale in 1968 and once from Memphis in 1989. I may have ridden over it in 1997–I was asleep on our way from Chicago to Los Angeles. I have been across on the Merchants Bridge at least three times, and the Eads Bridge four times.
What I don’t understand is how Michigan was able to implement HSR without concrete ties, four quad gates and new bridges and culverts. I was told by a reliable railroad consultant that the cost in Michigan was one quarter to one third the price of Illinois. Is it possible that the requirements are UP’s and not that of the Feds? Haven’t heard of any problems in Michigan as a result of lower standards. I am also interested to know how they can spend $3.26M on an 800 sf depot in Dwight, IL a town of 4,300? All the buildings in downtown Dwight are not worth that much.
Yes I cannot explain the quad gates either because they are not a inpeneterable barrier as the FRA requires above 110 mph. However they are probably an experiment or a step in that direction. Michigan is taking a different design approach than Illinois in that Michigans next step up from 110 mph is a sealed corridor. Illinois is going more incremental in that their next step up is 125 mph if possible in sections. On the other hand Michigan has skipped over a lot of required investments to get above 110 mph that it will need to make to take this to the next step as they plan to do. It appears Illinois is investing in some steps to get above 110 mph now in contrast to Michigan not.
Michigan owns the line. Illinois does not and still shares it with UP.
Here are the FRA grade crossing requirements for HSR:
- For 110 mph or less: Grade crossings are permitted. States and railroads cooperate to determine the needed warning devices, including passive crossbucks, flashing lights, two quadrant gates (close only ‘entering’ lanes of road), long gate arms, median barriers, and various combinations. Lights and/or gates are activated by c
[quote user=“CMStPnP”]
sps
What I don’t understand is how Michigan was able to implement HSR without concrete ties, four quad gates and new bridges and culverts. I was told by a reliable railroad consultant that the cost in Michigan was one quarter to one third the price of Illinois. Is it possible that the requirements are UP’s and not that of the Feds? Haven’t heard of any problems in Michigan as a result of lower standards. I am also interested to know how they can spend $3.26M on an 800 sf depot in Dwight, IL a town of 4,300? All the buildings in downtown Dwight are not worth that much.
Yes I cannot explain the quad gates either because they are not a inpeneterable barrier as the FRA requires above 110 mph. However they are probably an experiment or a step in that direction. Michigan is taking a different design approach than Illinois in that Michigans next step up from 110 mph is a sealed corridor. Illinois is going more incremental in that their next step up is 125 mph if possible in sections. On the other hand Michigan has skipped over a lot of required investments to get above 110 mph that it will need to make to take this to the next step as they plan to do. It appears Illinois is investing in some steps to get above 110 mph now in contrast to Michigan not.
Michigan owns the line. Illinois does not and still shares it with UP.
Here are the FRA grade crossing requirements for HSR:
- For 110 mph or less: Grade crossings are permitted. States and railroads cooperate to determine the needed
Wrote a rather long response to this yesterday that somehow never got posted for some reason, I’ll try again but probably less wordy.
The Portor Kalamazoo segment was unique in being owned by Amtrak. The upgrade was specified by the folks in Amtrak’s HQ at 30th St. They were excited to show what could be done without massive investments. (It always fascinates me the infrastructure conditions that some folks feel is necessary for higher speed operations. How did we operate in that speed range with steam power, wood ties, jointed and likely non control cooled rail and what by today’s standards was a very light ballast section, in the 30’s & 40’s?).
Anyhow they made the investments required to bring the track into class 6
Aren’t the Talgos in Michigan’s possession now?
AFAIK they are still at Beach Grove. IMO they , MI, may not see the value of setting up a maintenance facility for what would have been a short term lease. But with the consortium bi levels delayed (any news there?) it may not have been a bad idea!