Passenger Trains > New Buffalo MI connection proposed

New Buffalo is seeking funding for a connection that would move the PM onto the Wolverine route through its city, plus provide 19 more miles of passing <sic> track on the Amtrak line from Niles to north of Dowagiac:

http://www.harborcountry-news.com/articles/2013/08/28/news/doc521e34b299e79912167237.txt

Bring it on!

Same article but has a picture of the overpass:

http://www.heraldpalladium.com/news/local/new-buffalo-junction/article_09ecacaa-6a86-529e-91af-1b1a0bd82ee6.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/13 11:30 by ts1457.

ts1457 Wrote:

> Bring it on!
>

Why?

And please don't say for the faster speeds. You are only talking about a 35mph gain for 19 miles. CSX's line from New Buffalo south is either a 70 or 79mph railroad for passenger, with a small slow order in Michigan City. Almost all the time you gained going faster on the Amtrak line would be lost slowing down for and traversing what no doubt would be a 25mph connection track.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/13 12:32 by Typhoon.

Typhoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ts1457 Wrote:
>
> > Bring it on!
> >
>
> Why?
>
> And please don't say for the faster speeds. You
> are only talking about a 35mph gain for 19 miles.
> CSX's line from New Buffalo south is either a 70
> or 79mph railroad for passenger, with a small slow
> order in Michigan City. Almost all the time you
> gained going faster on the Amtrak line would be
> lost slowing down for and traversing what no doubt
> would be a 25mph connection track.

I think its better to concentrate the passenger trains on one route. All trains will use the same station in New Buffalo, and we will have to rely on CSX for a few less miles. Yes, I will take the few minutes time savings, better grade crossing protection when the 110 mph is implemented, and benefits for more passenger trains when additional investments are made in the future.

If anyone is interested, here is a discussion from about a year and a half ago:

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,2707660,2707746#msg-2707746

The Pere Marquettes currently do not stop in New Buffalo. With a connection, they could, which, for a state-sponsored train, would be a plus.

I don't know what the timetable says about this PM track, but 79 mph it most assuredly is not!

Unfortunately (and this should be addressed!) the connection from the PM line to the NS at Porter is a better one than Amtrak's own. I wish that curve could be eased somehow!

Carl Shaver
Lombard, IL

CShaveRR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't know what the timetable says about this PM
> track, but 79 mph it most assuredly is not!
>

It most assuredly is.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54981535/CSX-Chicago-Division-ETT-NO-2-4-1-2008


The area around Michigan City slows to 25mph, which is I think is a municipal slow order. The Amtrak line has a similar slow order from the Trail Creek bridge to the South Shore diamond.

At $20 million for 3,000 ft. of track that affects one train a day, I can think of better investments for my tax dollars.

Typhoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> It most assuredly is.
>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/54981535/CSX-Chicago-Div
> ision-ETT-NO-2-4-1-2008

Looks like CSX would be happy as a 50 mph (freight) railroad.

illini73 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At $20 million for 3,000 ft. of track that affects
> one train a day, I can think of better investments
> for my tax dollars.

Maybe so, but we have had a lot worse ones get through. I look at this as a small step in building a decent corridor (with branches).

CShaveRR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unfortunately (and this should be addressed!) the
> connection from the PM line to the NS at Porter is
> a better one than Amtrak's own. I wish that curve
> could be eased somehow!

Amtrak is working on it. Improvements to that junction and east along the Amtrak line are part of a project that was funded a few years ago to improve several places along the NS line from Porter to Chicago.

Last time I was through there it was nowhere near 79, regardless of what the TT says. Must have been on the "before" end of one of CSX's maintenance blitzes. I would swear that we never got above 40 between Grand Rapids and Holland, and only slightly better down from there.

I will confess that I did not clock our speed using mileposts (let alone GPS, which I do not own), but I remember many trips on C&O trains along this line when the speed limit was only 50 for passenger (soon before the end), and my most recent trip didn't even compare favorably to that.

Carl Shaver
Lombard, IL

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . . . we have had a lot worse ones get through. I look at this as a small step in
> building a decent corridor (with branches).

I agree there have been worse cases (aka "bridges to nowhere"). But for $20 million we should be able to take several small steps, not just one. If CSX were building this for their own purposes, it would cost two million, not twenty. I'm sure there's more to the project than what's been reported. There is absolutely no way you can honestly spend $18 million in 3,000 feet in that terrain, or $2 million designing it and assessing the environmental impact.

illini73 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree there have been worse cases (aka "bridges
> to nowhere"). But for $20 million we should be
> able to take several small steps, not just one.
> If CSX were building this for their own purposes,
> it would cost two million, not twenty. I'm sure
> there's more to the project than what's been
> reported. There is absolutely no way you can
> honestly spend $18 million in 3,000 feet in that
> terrain, or $2 million designing it and assessing
> the environmental impact.

You're right. Look at the first post on this Colton Crossing discussion for how much less a private railroad can do things:

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,3168267

Maybe we are talking about a connection that is good for more than 25 mph. Anyhow in my dreams, we will have additional PM trains to use the connection daily in the future.

I had never heard of "New Buffalo MI" until I took the Wolverine to Dearborn last month. (full disclosure: I live in the Los Angeles area)

illini73 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree there have been worse cases (aka "bridges
> to nowhere"). But for $20 million we should be
> able to take several small steps, not just one.
> If CSX were building this for their own purposes,
> it would cost two million, not twenty.

It is an estimate ... and $2 million for all the environmental paperwork isn't out of line (the governments just spent $1 million for a study to decide a route through nearby Michigan City for the South Shore - and that does not include any of the environmental paperwork).

The studies will have to prove that there will be no harm done to the environment by the project ... and offer mitigation for any harm that is done. Hopefully there are no protected sites or sites that anyone thinks should be protected nearby. No rare species of butterfly that might be harmed. No old settlement (or ruins thereof) that might be disturbed. No creeks that will be rerouted or runoff patterns that will be changed. It is nice when everything works out :)

As far as the $18 to build ... a couple of turnouts and a section of track sounds cheap. Getting the new terrain path that the track will be going on ready for trains sounds expensive. Hopefully the current owners of the land are willing to sell. And hopefully it can be done for less than the estimate - but a high estimate isn't bad when one considers everything that might go wrong.

justalurker66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . . .hopefully it can be done for less than the estimate - but a high estimate isn't
> bad when one considers everything that might go wrong.

True. But I'll go back to my original two points. I suspect there are other things Amtrak, New Buffalo and the State of Michigan want in the same general area that are included in the project, and if not, we should spend the money elsewhere. $20 million should buy about 10 miles of double track re-installation on the Michigan Central, for example.

illini73 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> $20 million should buy about 10 miles of double track
> re-installation on the Michigan Central, for example.

A "19-mile passing track on the Amtrak line from Niles to north of Dowagiac" is part of the total $73 million group of projects.

For more information:
http://www.cityofnewbuffalo.org/tiger2013.asp

Amtrak trains 370 and 371 are the "Pere Marquettes."  These trains are much slower than the Feceral Railroad Administration would endorse due to some blunders by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation and several bad cities.

1.  When the Michigan Department of Transportation was supporting the restoration of passenger service from Grand Rapids to Chicago, they met with CSX.  At the time, Michigan was raising the speed limits on Interstate Highways from 55MPH to 65MPH.  MDOT asked CSX if they would agree to a 65 MPG speed limit.  CSX said sure, even though the track condition would have been approved by the FRA for 79MPH.  An instant idea to improve train speed.

2. Watervliet, MI has either a 20 or 25 MPH speed limit through town because some homes are too close to the tracks.  The line is straight and trains could run 79MPH with some fencing.

3.  Michigan City, IN has always had a speed restriction on CSX near Franklin Street.  With some fencing and force from the Federal Government due to interference with Interstate Commerce, speeds could be raised substantially.

4.  Zeeland, MI has a 40 MPH speed limit that could easily be raised.

5. In Wyoming, MI, there is a yard limit speed of 10 MPH for nearly 3 miles through the yard..  I fully understand yard limits having worked for a Class I railroad, but some easy quick redesign could raise the speed to 50 or 60 MPH with fencing for railroad employee safety.

6. When the westbound train gets the "highball" at St. Joseph, MI, it is about 2 miles of excellent straight track with no grade crossings before the enginner can see a signal. He/she is restricted to 40 MPH.  Put a signal at the depot and the train could move at track speed immediately.

I'm intrigued with these municipal speed limits on railroads.

I've always understood the railroads thumb their noses at towns trying to control local rail speeds.

What gives?

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm intrigued with these municipal speed limits on railroads.
>
> I've always understood the railroads thumb their noses
> at towns trying to control local rail speeds.
>
> What gives?

There are a lot of them in place ... perhaps left over from the days when the railroads first came through town amd they needed property and easements to build the railroad. Even though "by the book" one would think that Interstate Commerce would push aside any local restrictions.

But the current level of restriction would be federal. If a railroad sought to increase track speeds I suspect they would face the "environmental impact statement" hurdle. They would have to show that their plan would not be harmful to the environment - which includes the local communities and the livability of the property along the tracks. And any prior agreements that were in place (such as a speed limit within city limits) would need to be mitigated or explained why such a limit is no longer required.

It is a long and often tedious process ... one that isn't worth the trouble unless a MAJOR improvement can be made. Purchasing and upgrading the Michigan Central line from Kalamazoo to Detroit was worth the expense of doing the study (and additional work of doing the work). How much would it cost to derive how much benefit from improvements to the Pere Marquette trains?

justalurker66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm intrigued with these municipal speed limits
> on railroads.
> >
> > I've always understood the railroads thumb their
> noses
> > at towns trying to control local rail speeds.
> >
> > What gives?
>
> There are a lot of them in place ... perhaps left
> over from the days when the railroads first came
> through town amd they needed property and
> easements to build the railroad. Even though "by
> the book" one would think that Interstate Commerce
> would push aside any local restrictions.
>
> But the current level of restriction would be
> federal. If a railroad sought to increase track
> speeds I suspect they would face the
> "environmental impact statement" hurdle. They
> would have to show that their plan would not be
> harmful to the environment - which includes the
> local communities and the livability of the
> property along the tracks. And any prior
> agreements that were in place (such as a speed
> limit within city limits) would need to be
> mitigated or explained why such a limit is no
> longer required.
>
> It is a long and often tedious process ... one
> that isn't worth the trouble unless a MAJOR
> improvement can be made. Purchasing and upgrading
> the Michigan Central line from Kalamazoo to
> Detroit was worth the expense of doing the study
> (and additional work of doing the work). How much
> would it cost to derive how much benefit from
> improvements to the Pere Marquette trains?


Thanks for that follow up.  I missed it on the first go around.

It makes sense that any voluntary restriction the railroad accepted might still be enforced, but many local restrictions are treated like confetti and shredded by the majors.