Passenger Trains > Discussion on making Metra Electric rapid transit

I'm sure the subject of making the Metra Electric route in Chicago a rapid transit instead of commuter line has been discussed here before. I often see it discussed locally in Chicago. But this interview with a researcher, Sandy Johnston, has one especially interesting item: old IC schedules.

• "The South Chicago branch had service every ten minutes (and every 20 on weekends and evenings) in 1946. There was a Rand McNally map in 1947 that included the Illinois Central (now Metra Electric) along with the ‘L’ lines as rapid transit."
  http://www.thechidispatch.com/sandy-johnston-interview

I would have never guessed that service to South Chicago was that frequent. That would make a huge difference today. I was shocked to see that the South Chicago branch is stuck with the every-2-hour Sunday service, I figured frequency was higher. 

To make matters worse, CTA runs semi-express buses in competition with Metre Electric. That is what happens when the umbrella organization RTA, has a board, but also allows each of its 3 subsidiaries to each have their own boards, like putting a lion, a tiger, and a wolf in the same cage fighting over the same chunck of raw red meat.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/26/16 11:16 by joemvcnj.

It does, and I know some who use them, because they are the only frequent transportation.

Buses are in "direct" competition, ie where they start, end, stop:  and competition and choices for consumers is bad?

Bob

When you cross the fine line to redundancy, yes, when ME service goes down to useless 2-hour intervals.

inCHI Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The South Chicago branch had service every ten minutes (and every 20 on weekends and evenings) in 1946."

> I would have never guessed that service to South Chicago was that frequent. That would make a huge
> difference today. I was shocked to see that the South Chicago branch is stuck with the
> every-2-hour Sunday service . . .

The Illinois Central as a private operator could tailor their service to their market (at least within the constraints on changes to the status quo imposed by the Illlinois Commerce Commission).  Metra has to be "fair" and provide approximately the same service on all lines regardless of market, with some allowance for historical service levels and legacy capacity constraints.  Just before Metra, the off-peak frequencies were every 30 minutes on all three IC Electric lines (mainline, Blue Island, South Chicago).  No other commuter railroad in Chicago then provided more than hourly service off-peak.  So, in "fairness", the IC service had to be cut back to hourly, and now is even less especially on the Blue Island branch.  The Electric is Metra's most expensive line to operate, considering the capital cost requirements of the electrification system.  We can debate what that suggests to a transportation economist regarding the pros and cons of more (or less) frequency.

If portions of the Metra Electric were turned over to, for example, the Chicago Tranist Authority, the CTA would be free of the regional "fairness doctrine" and could operate rapid-transit-like frequencies of four to ten trains per hour.  Incident to their takeover, they would also relieve Metra of a sizable chunk of the line's capital budget burden.  The current Metra/South Shore Line "North of Kensington" capacity study may look into some of the possibilities given the interest of City politicians (including Mayor Rahm Emanuel) in the idea.  For example, a couple of tracks on the 4-track mainline could be devoted to "rapid transit" trains serving all the local stations and the South Chicago and Blue Island branches.  The other two would be used by the South Shore Line to Kensington and the Metra trains to University Park, both running express to Kensington with one intermediate stop, most likely at the University of Chicago (57th or 59th streets).

illini73 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
For example, a couple
> of tracks on the 4-track mainline could be devoted
> to "rapid transit" trains serving all the local
> stations and the South Chicago and Blue Island
> branches.  The other two would be used by the
> South Shore Line to Kensington and the Metra
> trains to University Park, both running express to
> Kensington with one intermediate stop, most likely
> at the University of Chicago (57th or 59th
> streets).

That option seems to me to have significant potential.

illini73 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If portions of the Metra Electric were turned over
> to, for example, the Chicago Tranist Authority,
> the CTA would be free of the regional "fairness
> doctrine" and could operate rapid-transit-like
> frequencies of four to ten trains per hour.
>  Incident to their takeover, they would also
> relieve Metra of a sizable chunk of the line's
> capital budget burden.  The current Metra/South
> Shore Line "North of Kensington" capacity study
> may look into some of the possibilities given the
> interest of City politicians (including Mayor
> Rahm Emanuel) in the idea.  For example, a couple
> of tracks on the 4-track mainline could be devoted
> to "rapid transit" trains serving all the local
> stations and the South Chicago and Blue Island
> branches.  The other two would be used by the
> South Shore Line to Kensington and the Metra
> trains to University Park, both running express to
> Kensington with one intermediate stop, most likely
> at the University of Chicago (57th or 59th
> streets).

Good points above and I think there are many good reasons for increasing service along this line. A lot of capital investmena will be required. There are many issues to be addressed:
1. What type of equipment will the CTA use? If they want to use their standard car and not the Metra current EMUs this leads to:
2. What will the traction power system look like? Metra uses a 1500V DC overhead catenary system while CTA uses a 600V DC contact rail system. The substation requirements are different.
3. If the CTA chooses to go with their standard car, there will have to be a clear separation between the CTA tracks and the Metra tracks. They will not be able to share tracks or cross each other's tracks at grade. This may require flyovers are certain locations.
4. There are horizontal constrictions along the right of way especially north of 22nd Street into Millennium Station. I've worked on a couple of projects in this area and there are a few spots where there is only room for four tracks on very tight track centers.
5. If different equipment is used, where will the maintenance facility be located? Metra current Weldon Yard is already undersized.

Now is the perfect time for these discussions as the entire MED need serious investment in the catenary and signaling system.

And don't forget, NICTD has service expansion plans of its own and these trains will add to the traffic north of Kensington. This will happen sooner rather than later if the current design and construction schedule holds up


 

kevink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Now is the perfect time for these discussions as the entire MED need serious investment in the
> catenary and signaling system.

I almost hate to say it, but I think a conversion of the line to diesel, especially if the CTA takes over the local service north of Kensington, needs to be considered.  The new Highliner cars could be re-used with their traction components removed.  (I had envisioned the new operator of the local services keeping the Highliners and sharing the existing physical plant - that's what makes the proposal economically attractive, as the early proponents who called it the "CTA Gray Line" first pointed out.)

> And don't forget, NICTD has service expansion plans of its own and these trains will add to the
> traffic north of Kensington. This will happen sooner rather than later if the current design and
> construction schedule holds up

Which is why the dieselization idea is probably a non-starter.  I expect the "North of Kensington" study will look at such things as adding bi-directional signalling on some or all of the four main tracks, adding additional interlockings, or even converting the usual current of traffic from the present SSNN arrangement (tracks numbered 1-2-3-4 west to east) to a SNSN setup of two parallel two-track railroads, one local and one express.

> There are horizontal constrictions along the right of way especially north of 22nd Street into Millennium Station.
> I've worked on a couple of projects in this area and there are a few spots where there is only room for four tracks on very tight track centers. 

The situation north of (roughly) 31st Street, is a sad story of short-term decisions intended to reduce the IC's costs or maximize the amount of sold real estate that took priority over any long-term considerations of the future needs of passenger (and freight) traffic.  The various McCormick place expansions, the re-development of the Central Station and Weldon Coach Yard properties, the Illinois Center project, the McCormick Place busway, and even the Millenium Park overbuild have all created permanent limitations on what Metra and NICTD can do in this area.  A long-time Mayor (Richie Daley) indifferent to railroads, not liking anything he didn't control (i.e., Metra) and friendly to real estate development interests didn't help matters (at least those interests weren't able to get Metra's La Salle St. Station, though they tried).

Edited to remove the following:   (though NICTD is planning a non-electrified branch, too).  They are not - the current Preferred Alternative for the West Lake Corridor project is an electrified line with through trains to Millenium Park.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/27/16 15:41 by illini73.

kevink Wrote:
. There> are many issues to be addressed:
> 1. What type of equipment will the CTA use? If
> they want to use their standard car and not the
> Metra current EMUs this leads to:
> 2. What will the traction power system look like?
> Metra uses a 1500V DC overhead catenary system
> while CTA uses a 600V DC contact rail system. The
> substation requirements are different.

NICTD trains use the Metra tracks as well, and use the same 1500 V system. That would have to be considered.

Why would CTA not have to worry about sub-area equity, but METRA does?

Waybiller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why would CTA not have to worry about sub-area equity, but METRA does?

They do, under Civil Rights Act provisions, but their service area is smaller (City and a few legacy lines into adjacent suburbs).  If the CTA did take over the South Chicago Branch and the local stops north of 67th St., or the mainline local stops between 63rd St. (Woodlawn) and 115th St. (Kensington), they would have to provide an equitable level of service compared to the other CTA rail lines, rather than to the other Metra lines.  This would mean at least 5 trains per hour weekday off-peak, similar to the Green and Purple Lines.

One thing is certainly true.  Metra has failed to recognize the difference of this line.  They bought cars which load / unload more slowly than the Highliners.  Highliners not only had vestibules at one end but their center vestibules could accomodate 3 abreast movement while the N-S cars have a center divider (which an N-S employee told me was structural) and thus limited to 2 abreast.  (Highliners were built with two dividers but one was removed.)

When Illinois Central electrified their suburban service, they were among the first such operations to use rapid-transit style couplers rather than railroad standard types.

Regarding running both 600 and 1500 volt trains on the same tracks: the Bridge Railway over the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge had 600 volt third rail for the Key System trains, and 1200/1500 volt overhead for the short-lived Sacramento Northern and Interurban Electric service into SF.

Converting the Electric Division to rapid transit would also have huge regulatory savings, PTC included.  The M-E is preactically isolated as is with zero freight or through passenger service.  If the South Shore couldn't run on a transit Electric Divsion an accross the platform transfer could be worked out at Kensington.

mbrotzman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Converting the Electric Division to rapid transit
> would also have huge regulatory savings, PTC
> included.  The M-E is preactically isolated as is
> with zero freight or through passenger service. 
> If the South Shore couldn't run on a transit
> Electric Divsion an accross the platform transfer
> could be worked out at Kensington.

The South Shore ceased stopping at Kensington several years ago. This is from the press release announcing the change:

<<Over the past several years NICTD has been working on a major capital project to improve our connection with the Metra Electric District. This new connection uses the Canadian National tracks east of the Kensington platform and effectively "by-passes" Kensington Station; allowing South Shore trains to connect directly with Metra's Tracks 3 and 4 north of Kensington platform. This improvement will increase train speed and track capacity, while reducing the potential for train delays when merging with Metra.>>

In addition, NICTD is planning on double tracking the line between Michigan City and Gary to improve travel times. I suspect that they would be unwilling to have trains stop at Kensington to transfer passengers. There are also plans to build an extension south from Hammond to Dyer, although I am not sure if this would be electrified. Somewhere I read that it could be dieselized. 

 

Dyer would have to be electrified. They can no longer run diesels into Millenium station.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/16 10:11 by joemvcnj.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dyer would have to be electrified. They can no
> longer run diesels into Millenium station.

Of course...how could I have forgotten that! 

 

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dyer would have to be electrified. They can no
> longer run diesels into Millenium station.

The last time I checked the diesel tie down connection was still present and energized at the end of the platform. Ventilation was built in to Millenium Station when it was rebuilt. I would not expect NICTD to run a diesel, but I would never say never.

As for the broader push to convert MED to CTA: At least it is't from Mike the pain from Lisle. It seems that others are tilting at his 20 year old windmill. Smile, nod, move on to the next wild flawed idea with no chance of ever being done. Perhaps a study will put the idea in its place - but the last time real numbers were applied to Mike's idea conversion wasn't cheap.

The main problem I see with converting MED to CTA (making the MED "rapid transit") is the fare integration. Effectively MED would become a cheap free link between a CTA bus and the loop, So not only does the plan increase costs for the service (running more trains takes more people, equipment, maintenance, electrical substation improvements, etc.) but also severely cuts income down to the price of a transfer fare.

Increase frequencies? Fine, if the study shows people will USE the additional trains. But cut fares to make MED part of CTA? One might as well make MED free than pay to collect the reduced transfer fares. (For a single seat journey MED is already competitive with CTA on price within Chicago. Where the loss would come is transfer fares.)