Passenger Trains > Chicago-St.Louis project NOT delayed

The article posted by Gene Poon awhile back (see below), which made me feel so sad, is apparently in error.

I no longer subscribe to Progressive Railroading Mag's High-Speed Update website, but they still send me the latest "Headlines" (not the complete story). They advised that the Illinois DOT has issued a statement stating that the Chicago-St.Louis Project has NOT been delayed.

I can't offer any details regarding IDOT's statement, but I'm sure it will be available soon, somewhere.

So, none of us should have worried that Alton-St.Louis was delaying things. Where do these ridiculous articles come from? Regarding rail matters, it often seems the media publishes a lot of undocumented baloney.

Joe

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,2864122

Thanks for the reference to that article, Joe.

I DO have today's Progressive Railroading item about the CHI-STL project not being
delayed. IDOT blames misunderstanding by the media for the confusion, restates
that some segments are to be operating at 110mph by some time in 2015 (which
DOES represent a delay from the originally-announced 2014), and that the project
was planned to be completed by 2017 all along, as was stated in the KMOV story in
the first place:

> “It could be as early as 2016-2017 when it comes to the full
> project,” said (IDOT spokesman) Kauffman...

...so there is actually no delay, and no official change from the 2017 completion date,
which turns out NOT to be ridiculous "undocumented baloney" after all.

===============================================================

> Monday, September 10, 2012

> Illinois DOT: Chicago-St. Louis project has not been delayed
>
> During the past week, Illinois news outlets have been reporting that
> the Illinois Department of Transportation's (IDOT) Chicago-St. Louis
> high-speed rail project has been delayed and won't be completed for
> several more years.
>
> However, IDOT spokesperson Josh Kauffman told HSRupdates.com the
> project has not been delayed — and that reports of said delay are due
> to a misunderstanding by media outlets regarding the project
> timeline.
>
> Portions of the project initially were scheduled to be complete by
> 2014, enabling trains to operate at speeds up to 110 mph on certain
> segments of the corridor. And although that date now has been set
> back to 2015, the remainder of the corridor work is still on track to
> be completed in 2017, Kauffman says.
>
> — Angela Cotey, Progressive Railroading

http://www.hsrupdates.com/news/details/Illinois-DOT-ChicagoSt-Louis-project-has-not-been-delayed--1222



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/12 20:39 by GenePoon.

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for the reference to that article, Joe.
>
> I DO have today's Progressive Railroading item
> about the CHI-STL project not being
> delayed. IDOT blames misunderstanding by the
> media for the confusion, and restates
> that some segments are to be operating at 110mph
> by some time in 2015 (which
> DOES represent a delay from the
> originally-announced 2014),

Hmm, I thought the first segment of 110 mph ops was supposed to happen this year!

hsr_fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Hmm, I thought the first segment of 110 mph ops
> was supposed to happen this year!

===================================================

Maybe the whole issue is due to IDOT doubletalk, of which more may exist than media confusion.

hsr_fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hmm, I thought the first segment of 110 mph ops was supposed to happen this year!

They are hoping to test the grade crossing warning systems at 110 mph between Dwight and Pontiac this fall. That's less than 20 miles. I don't think they have all the approvals necessary to start the test just yet. The cab signal system was supposed to be placed in service today, as I recall.

The delay from 2014 to 2015 has to do with the need for upgraded grade crossing warning devices on the remainder of the route before increasing the speed to 110. There is also the question of the PTC mandate which takes effect in 2015 (the test section will have cab signalling and ITCS similar to the Michigan Line between Porter and Kalamazoo) and how UP plans to meet it on this route. At one time it was reported they tried to dissuade IDOT from the cab signalling idea as that system would end up being scrapped almost immediately upon installation of PTC.

It will be interesting to see how well the FRA Class 6 track geometry holds up once UP starts running long intermodal trains on the line to/from the logistics park just south of Joliet.

illini73 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It will be interesting to see how well the FRA
> Class 6 track geometry holds up once UP starts
> running long intermodal trains on the line to/from
> the logistics park just south of Joliet.

So, is it possible to keep up a Class 6 track for high-speedy passenger operations shared with this freight or will freight be forced to slow down to 50MPH or less for example to keep up the passenger trains running 110MPH...

110MPH class 6 track for passenger should be good for 70MPH intermodals... But then, should the freights be slowed down?

Geep Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> illini73 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It will be interesting to see how well the FRA
> > Class 6 track geometry holds up once UP starts
> > running long intermodal trains on the line
> to/from
> > the logistics park just south of Joliet.
>
> So, is it possible to keep up a Class 6 track for
> high-speedy passenger operations shared with this
> freight or will freight be forced to slow down to
> 50MPH or less for example to keep up the passenger
> trains running 110MPH...
>
> 110MPH class 6 track for passenger should be good
> for 70MPH intermodals... But then, should the
> freights be slowed down?

It will be interesting to see if the class 6 track remains class 6 after a few hundred heavy coal or mineral trains use it.

Light intermodal trains shouldn't affect it too much.

Not delayed, yet. The next round of funding will be difficult.

Question - how far does the current funding go?

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Geep Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > illini73 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > It will be interesting to see how well the
> FRA
> > > Class 6 track geometry holds up once UP
> starts
> > > running long intermodal trains on the line
> > to/from
> > > the logistics park just south of Joliet.
> >
> > So, is it possible to keep up a Class 6 track
> for
> > high-speedy passenger operations shared with
> this
> > freight or will freight be forced to slow down
> to
> > 50MPH or less for example to keep up the
> passenger
> > trains running 110MPH...
> >
> > 110MPH class 6 track for passenger should be
> good
> > for 70MPH intermodals... But then, should the
> > freights be slowed down?
>
> It will be interesting to see if the class 6 track
> remains class 6 after a few hundred heavy coal or
> mineral trains use it.
>
> Light intermodal trains shouldn't affect it too
> much.

it will take a really good maintenance schedule to keep that track to class 6 and they'll find out real soon where their soft spots are especially if they get alot of moisture through that area but high speed passenger trains have just the amount of rail and roadbed wear and tear as long heavy freights ... i would venture to say that freights will be limited to 55-60mph rather than top out at 70mph due to the maintenance factor to keep the passenger trains running at 110mph ... rail temp recording and proper rail adjusting will be a crucial and an integral part of keeping the track up to class