number of trains through suburbs of Chicago?

Trains Magazine General Discussion
21

I don’t think the lay of the land would allow grade separation anywhere around Park (Proviso was largely built on swamp-land!), nor would the operational grades necessary be desirable. They had a big stink when they put the overpass downtown about how the grade had to be changed between there and the yard.

As for UP “being content” with Metra’s plans, the impression I got when I went to the Metra hearing was that UP was not (yet) involved in Metra’s plans. UP’s demands or desires might make this more expensive than they’re currently anticipating.

You may be right about the relative unimportance or desirability of cutting back on the curves between Glen Ellyn and Wheaton, but I suspect that an expanded Metra service would specifically include more express trains to commuities like Wheaton and Geneva.

You’re absolutely right about the need for more parking just about everywhere. Another thing that’s easier said than done.

22

As for a subway for Main 1 at Park, there are three issues: grades, crossing closure, and groundwater/drainage.

There is roughly 3,500 feet between the underpass at Palmer Dr and the lead to the receiving yard at Proviso. Allowing 700 feet for left and right crossovers, a reasonable preliminary grade of 1.07% would result for a 30 foot change in elevation.

Two crossings at Poplar and Arlington would would be affected by revisions to Park for the grade separation and most likely would need to be closed. A new crossing at Kenmore may be possible if not recommended given the volume of rail traffic. A new crossing also may be possible if not recommended by extending Geneva across the tracks and above the Main 1 subway from First to Park.

Subways are always prone to flooding and require a sump and pumps. The other main tracks provide an alternative routing in case the pumps fail and flooding occurs.

23

Somewhere in Aurora there is a Model RR club called the Little Q? Are they the folks that had a portable layout on the stage of the GMTS?

BTW March could be a good month to attend the NMRA/La Grange train show? Could be a good place to catch some BNSF action & the models inside? S/b at the Lyons Twp High school?

24

Yes, they are the club.

25

I used to be a member some years ago. I’m not sure if their still in the same spot, but they used to be located in the park dist. building on the end of Union St. off of Front. Nice view of the main from the front door. The lead to Hill right was just over and behind the main, all you could see was the rooftops, though. As Eolafan said, they are the club at the Wheaton Train Shows’ on the main stage, but as a few years ago they were only doing bi-monthly shows there, rotating with another layout.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program (or rather post topic)

26

The pyhsical plant at Park actually works very well for meeting the needs of Union Pacific and Metra. It might surprise a few people that one of the recent improvements to this plant was the extension of Metra service from Geneva to Elburn. The extension forced Metra to revise the eastbound passenger schedules. The eastbound local scoots used to stop at Elmhurst @40 minutes past each hour with the westbound local scoots stopping at Elmhurst @10 minutes past each hour. This meant that UP freights departing Proviso had an approximate 15-20 minute window between each scoot to get through the plant. Now, the eastbound local scoots stop at Elmhurst at @13 minutes past each hour increasing the window for freight traffic through the Park Plant.

If I remember this right, Metra would eventually like to see crossovers installed from: Track 2 to 3 (south main) and track 1 (north main) to track 2 just east of the Wheaton and Lombard stations. A new Wheaton plant might also include a track 2 to track one crossover (mainly for freight traffic posistioning).

A third track between the east end of Proviso Yard at 25th Ave in Melrose Park and Vale is prohibitive due to the number of crossings between 25th Ave and Vale and the lack of capacity on the Western Ave corridor and in the Global I yard. Why build the tracks if you don’t have anywhere to hold/send the trains?

CC

27

The reason for extending the third track from Vale to Elmhurst is for more frequent peak express Metra services, not a place to hold trains. I indicated some of my thinking in an earlier post.

Even so, grade separation and crossing elimination may be proposed from River Road to 25th Av. A third main extended west from Vale (removed) would be available during non-rush periods for holding trains. New crossovers could be installed east of the Oak Park station.

Your point about Park working better with the Elburn Extension rescheduling is interesting - something I wasn’t aware of.

Still, While Metra hourly off-peak frequencies may work with freight; 1/2-hour service is needed for serious regional services. For 1/2-hour base and morning rush services, a Trk 1 subway and an additional main may be necessary from Park to Peck Rd.

28

As I mentioned, grade separation of the First Avenue, 25th Avenue, and one other crossing (Fifth?) is mentioned in CREATE’s plan (the only other one on the UP West Line is Route 38, between West Chicago and Geneva).

Metra’s reason for wanting to expand on this line is sort of strange–they just want to provide something that will take some expansion pressure off the BNSF line, which they consider to be operating at near capacity. One of the alternatives to help in that was a fourth track on BNSF, which was ruled out.

At the hearings, they talked about “comparable” service to BNSF on the UP West. So they aren’t thinking about half-hour frequencies, since UP West already has better midday service (more frequent) than does BNSF.

The control point at Park is hardly an issue–it’s vastly improved from what was available for traffic before the late 1980s.

East of HM/Park:

Back then: Two tracks (directional double track) around the yard, an outbound track from County Line, and an inbound track to Yard 9 (also used for outbound moves such as empty hopper trains).

Now: CTC on the main lines, two tracks to County Line/Global 2, and two tracks to Yard 9, all capable of being used in either direction.

Future: third track around the yard, also bi-directional.

West of HM/Park:

Back then: three tracks–one westbound, one eastbound, center track in either direction as needed.

Now: CTC on all three tracks. Same in the future.

The control point itself permits movement from any of the three tracks to the west to any of the six tracks to the east, and vice versa, and it is possible to move three trains through the plant simultaneously in any non-conflicting pattern (and I’ve seen it done in many of those!).

The problem lies to the west of the plant–once you get a train on one of those three tracks, it’s stuck there until Turner (former NI), east of the W

29

I am not bound by what Metra or UP think, although I do welcome any news on those fronts. I am offering my own thoughts about what is needed and my reasons.

  • Metra thinks they can’t expect any growth until people are standing in the aisles despite growth projections that the suburban population will just about double in twenty years.

  • Metra let developers encroach on the ROW between Union Station and Western Av because three tracks was all they’ll ever need, never mind the potential three full-service lines and expanded reverse-commute schedules.

Metra’s reason for improving capacity is not strange. Someone looked at ticket-by-mail addresses and saw that BNSF service was reaching more deeply, closer, to UPW than the other way around. You don’t think service disparities had something to do with that? I’ve suspected that for a long time and recommended expanding rush hour (and Heritage Corridor) service for years.

The crossing proposed for grade separation that you are missing is Broadway/19th Av. 5th Avenue is on the list. Add to that list 9th Av & 15th Av that also need to be done for the community.

Park does have a few more crossovers than HM did. On the other hand, CTC and bi-diectional signalling on all tracks has not made that much of an impact other than facilitate control from Omaha and probably upgrade reliability.

Interesting points you made about North Yard and Proviso generally. I just stumbled across the problem looking at CN & EJ&E yards around Chicago. Most yards of all the railroads are too short for today’s trains. CNW seems to have sold its birthright with the industrial development around and on parts of the old yard.

30

John, I’m a transportation consultant living in Downers Grove (work here too) and sometimes TRAINS author (March 2007). The most recent “official” tabulation of train volumes, by type of service, in the Northeastern Illinois region was compiled and released by the Illinois Commerce Commission in July 2002. The report is titled, “Motorist Delay at Public Highway - Rail Grade Crossings in Northeastern Illinois”. It was prepared by the Research & Analysis Section Transportation Division and is available on the ICC website.

Jim Giblin