WoodDraw wrote:
I think it means that the money will go to improvements that fall outside the definition of HSR, but feed into a HS network (for us, Chicago/STL)
Missouri will add a second bridge over the Osage River, which is one of the big bottlenecks. Eventually the entire route has to be double-tracked in order to get HSR speeds. And ultimately we have to eliminate all level crossings - building overpasses and underpasses to separate all rail/road crossings. This would be really hard considering the line goes through populated areas.
The Missouri route will take tens of millions just get up to its 79 mph theoretical limit, not to mention 110 or 200.
ideally, MoDOT should bring back it's kinda-sorta-proposed high speed rail tracks down the center of a rebuilt I-70. that'd be a much straighter route, which is a requirement for true high speed service. we could keep the existing route so those communities still get transportation options.
dangerboy wrote:
Missouri will add a second bridge over the Osage River, which is one of the big bottlenecks. Eventually the entire route has to be double-tracked in order to get HSR speeds. And ultimately we have to eliminate all level crossings - building overpasses and underpasses to separate all rail/road crossings. This would be really hard considering the line goes through populated areas.
The Missouri route will take tens of millions just get up to its 79 mph theoretical limit, not to mention 110 or 200.
How optimistic are you we will get 110-200 mph trains running through Missouri in say the next 10-15 years?
DaveKCMO wrote:
ideally, MoDOT should bring back it's kinda-sorta-proposed high speed rail tracks down the center of a rebuilt I-70. that'd be a much straighter route, which is a requirement for true high speed service. we could keep the existing route so those communities still get transportation options.
I doubt this will happen. It was dropped from the EIS and Pete Rahn will be tilting at truck-only windmills for as long as he's in power.
KCMax wrote:
How optimistic are you we will get 110-200 mph trains running through Missouri in say the next 10-15 years?
I think this is very exciting.
you might get 90 on the existing route. it's not particularly straight. as dangerboy pointed out it also runs through a lot of populated areas that aren't stops. it also sits right on the river bank for quite a stretch. i wouldn't count on anything faster than that for decades. the key is to use what we have now so that politicians won't be afraid to invest more dollars. also, don't vote for a transportation tax ballot initiative (it's coming next year) unless it includes significant funding for transportation alternatives!
Right now I rather see funding for the California Zephyr to be 110 between KC and Chicago than the Missouri river runner. STL is a short drive and the convenience of the train will be fine if it gets to 90MPH (4 hour trip). On the other had, it sucks flying to Chicago and driving is a long arduous journey (it's already shorter to take the train, if there aren't delays). It's a flat, straight shot route that makes much more sense in a future Chicago/Dallas connection. Make the Chicago KC route a 5.5 hour trip and I'm on it 12 to 20 times a year.
shinatoo wrote:
Right now I rather see funding for the California Zephyr to be 110 between KC and Chicago than the Missouri river runner. STL is a short drive and the convenience of the train will be fine if it gets to 90MPH (4 hour trip). On the other had, it sucks flying to Chicago and driving is a long arduous journey (it's already shorter to take the train, if there aren't delays). It's a flat, straight shot route that makes much more sense in a future Chicago/Dallas connection. Make the Chicago KC route a 5.5 hour trip and I'm on it 12 to 20 times a year.
that's the southwest chief, and the current running time (7:35?) has a lot to do with the padding necessary to keep a 2,000-mile train ride running "on time". once the train sits in KC for 45-90 minutes in the morning it's rarely late into chicago. there's no other reason to layover for that long. crew changes can happen much faster than that.
pretty sure they could get those last 437 rail miles down to 5.5 hours by just improving the running time between KC and galesburg.
Ideally the State of Missouri would fund a state-supported KC-Chicago service separate from the Chief and with 2-3 daily trips. But right now all Missouri efforts are focused on improving the KC-St. Louis in order to boost speeds and eventually have 3-4 trips per day. Only then would the state be likely to look at adding new routes.
dangerboy wrote:
Missouri will add a second bridge over the Osage River, which is one of the big bottlenecks. Eventually the entire route has to be double-tracked in order to get HSR speeds. And ultimately we have to eliminate all level crossings - building overpasses and underpasses to separate all rail/road crossings. This would be really hard considering the line goes through populated areas.
The Missouri route will take tens of millions just get up to its 79 mph theoretical limit, not to mention 110 or 200.
The Feds allow speeds up to 150 MPH on shared tracks, no? Obviously we don't have the stock or infrastructure to approach that, but double tracking isn't essential. The Acela has done decent enough in the Northeast with their population and track problems.
Level crossing are a big problem, going forward. Perhaps we should focus on doing as much as possible to allow consistent high speeds in my more rural areas while accepting that we'll have low urban speeds.
shinatoo wrote:
Right now I rather see funding for the California Zephyr to be 110 between KC and Chicago than the Missouri river runner. STL is a short drive and the convenience of the train will be fine if it gets to 90MPH (4 hour trip). On the other had, it sucks flying to Chicago and driving is a long arduous journey (it's already shorter to take the train, if there aren't delays). It's a flat, straight shot route that makes much more sense in a future Chicago/Dallas connection. Make the Chicago KC route a 5.5 hour trip and I'm on it 12 to 20 times a year.
You really think the St. Louis area pols would allow that to happen? Anything leaving KC and going east using high speed will go through St. Louis.
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
aknowledgeableperson wrote:
You really think the St. Louis area pols would allow that to happen? Anything leaving KC and going east using high speed will go through St. Louis.
"high speed" is not needed for a 5.5 hour trip. you can hit that going 79 mph the entire route without a padded schedule. if amtrak or BNSF wants to make additional improvements, there isn't a thing st. louis can do about it.
DaveKCMO wrote:
if amtrak or BNSF wants to make additional improvements, there isn't a thing st. louis can do about it.
But amtrak is always looking some sort of state matching funds. And why would BNSF do it on their own. Isn't all passenger train traffic controlled by amtrak?
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
aknowledgeableperson wrote:
But amtrak is always looking some sort of state matching funds. And why would BNSF do it on their own. Isn't all passenger train traffic controlled by amtrak?
i didn't say it was likely, just that there was nothing st. louis politicians could do about it even though the tracks run through missouri. railroads are a different breed when it comes to property rights.
BNSF owns the tracks and controls all traffic on that route between the outskirts of KC and the outskirts of chicago. amtrak pays BNSF (nominally) for trackage rights, and BNSF is required to host them as a founding member of the quasi-governmental corporation that runs amtrak. if a railroad wasn't an original participant in this corporation, they could technically run passenger trains today (rock island was the last large railroad in existence to represent this).
amtrak has only been looking for state matching funds since it realized that financing expansion of it's own network was politically infeasible, maybe since the 90s? amtrak routinely added and removed services throughout the 70s and 80s with little help from the states.
I didn't follow all the links posted in this thread, so these images may have already been referenced. But, here are two more maps, the first from an FRA planning document dated April, '09, the second showing the grants made this past week. Slightly different from the one posted above.
shinatoo wrote:
Right now I rather see funding for the California Zephyr to be 110 between KC and Chicago than the Missouri river runner. STL is a short drive and the convenience of the train will be fine if it gets to 90MPH (4 hour trip). On the other had, it sucks flying to Chicago and driving is a long arduous journey (it's already shorter to take the train, if there aren't delays). It's a flat, straight shot route that makes much more sense in a future Chicago/Dallas connection. Make the Chicago KC route a 5.5 hour trip and I'm on it 12 to 20 times a year.
six hours, and I use it 6-8 times a year.
I wish KC would get a high speed KC-CHI, with KC the most southwesterly terminus of such a line. I feel the system will be most successful if it stays Chicago centric. If you could get the KC-CHI trip down to 5.5 hours, which seems to be a breaking point, it would be very successful. Right now the 5.5/5.75 hour long STL-CHI line sells out like crazy, and is always a full train when I ride (which is often...im in Chicago on Fridays on the 5:30 PM train well before the bars close). Theres nothing like taking the train to the big city, its a great experience.
Last edited by warwickland on Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
One big advantage of taking a train rather than driving is that you can read, chat, look at the scenery without the stress of staring at the road, watching out for other drivers and checking signs.
I remember (with fondness) going from Kansas City to St. Louis by train with my mother in the late 40s and early 50s fairly regularly, as all my relatives lived there, and my dad had business concerns there. I will just mention here how incredibly wonderful Union Station was back then. What a glorious, mystical, busy place it was then.
“Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains rather than do an immoral act.” —Thomas Jefferson (1785)
Roanoker wrote:
One big advantage of taking a train rather than driving is that you can read, chat, look at the scenery without the stress of staring at the road, watching out for other drivers and checking signs.
I remember (with fondness) going from Kansas City to St. Louis by train with my mother in the late 40s and early 50s fairly regularly, as all my relatives lived there, and my dad had business concerns there. I will just mention here how incredibly wonderful Union Station was back then. What a glorious, mystical, busy place it was then.
How long was the drive from KC to STl in the 50's, before I-70? 6 hours, 7? Back then the train was much faster so it made a lot more sense. Lets get back to that now.
My head would explode if I could take a train to Naperville Il in 4 hours. Chicago in 4.5/5.
shinatoo wrote:
How long was the drive from KC to STl in the 50's, before I-70? 6 hours, 7?
I had no idea of time back then. My mother was always late. We rushed to the station in a taxi, and I remember the gigantic Pontiac sign with rolling/dancing lights on what was then Signboard Hill. There was enough time to eat meals in the dining car and snooze in the sleeper car. We would drive back to Kansas City with my dad in his company-provided car.
“Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains rather than do an immoral act.” —Thomas Jefferson (1785)
Roanoker wrote:
I had no idea of time back then. My mother was always late. We rushed to the station in a taxi, and I remember the gigantic Pontiac sign with rolling/dancing lights on what was then Signboard Hill. There was enough time to eat meals in the dining car and snooze in the sleeper car. We would drive back to Kansas City with my dad in his company-provided car.
Nothing was better than emerging from the doors out front after coming home and seeing The vista from Western Auto to Liberty memorial.
The Pontiac sign was larger than life. It and the Conoco hottest brand going sign at SW Blvd. and 7th st., were my favorites, I think.
