Faster trains coming to Detroit - Chicago Amtrak line

**Novine** · February-07-12, 04:36 PM

Official word from Amtrak

"CHICAGO and LANSING, Mich. - Amtrak and the Michigan Department of Transportation [[MDOT) have received federal approval to increase maximum speeds of Amtrak trains in western Michigan and northern Indiana to 110 mph following successful installation and testing of a positive train control safety system on Amtrak-owned track between Kalamazoo, Mich., and Porter, Ind.

Amtrak and MDOT will celebrate the faster service on Wednesday, February 15, with details to be announced.

"This is the first expansion of regional high speed rail outside the Amtrak-owned Northeast Corridor," said President and CEO Joseph Boardman. "With our partners in Michigan, we will extend this 110 mph service from Kalamazoo to the state's central and eastern regions in the coming years."

**CLAUDE G** · February-07-12, 06:51 PM

Yea, but how fast was it before?

**wolverine** · February-07-12, 07:26 PM

I clocked it at 75 mph on my phone several times going between cities. It went slower through parts of Indiana bringing total average speed to around 60 mph factoring out stops.

Chicago is building the $133 million Englewood flyover which will eliminate a track crossing and support high speed trains with shallow approaches. That will hopefully shave off time.

**Lowell** · January-02-14, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by wolverine

I clocked it at 75 mph on my phone several times going between cities. It went slower through parts of Indiana bringing total average speed to around 60 mph factoring out stops.

I'll be damned. There's an app for that too. It never occurred to me as I never have the opportunity to ride any trains other than the People Mover. Makes sense though - locations services plus simple math.

~If~ a route could be established that averaged 100 MPH from Detroit to Chicago including stops in, say, AA and Kazoo, I think it would succeed greatly as it would beat out trip times by air and auto at that point [especially considering it would deliver one to the heart of the cities as well]. Eventually it could include non-stops. If I'm the airlines, I'm trying to figure out how to prevent this.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-02-14, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by Lowell

~If~ a route could be established that averaged 100 MPH from Detroit to Chicago including stops in, say, AA and Kazoo, I think it would succeed greatly as it would beat out trip times by air and auto at that point [especially considering it would deliver one to the heart of the cities as well]. Eventually it could include non-stops. If I'm the airlines, I'm trying to figure out how to prevent this.

If I'm an airline, I'm *encouraging* this. Because our national rail service sucks so bad, our airlines are forced to operate money-losing short-haul flights to-and-from hub airports.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep...outes-20120927

**iheartthed** · January-02-14, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

If I'm an airline, I'm *encouraging* this. Because our national rail service sucks so bad, our airlines are forced to operate money-losing short-haul flights to-and-from hub airports.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep...outes-20120927

I wonder why airlines don't encourage this more. If they could lobby the feds to invest in rail infrastructure from smaller cities that are close proximity to larger cities [[like Flint to Detroit) then that could supplement their routes air routes. Perhaps they could even sell airline tickets bundled with train tickets.

**DetroitPlanner** · January-02-14, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by Lowell

I'll be damned. There's an app for that too. It never occurred to me as I never have the opportunity to ride any trains other than the People Mover. Makes sense though - locations services plus simple math.

I've done this with my handheld Garmin too. The ones meant for cars don't have much capability other than to guide people down roads.

Regarding airlines, there is a lot of fuel used just to get the big planes up in the air and back down safely. I would think that they would welcome fewer mid-length flights as the cost per passenger has to be pretty high. The train network is not as complete as the plane one. For example, I have landed in some pretty desolate places where trains fear to travel. [[Rapid City SD, Bozeman MT to name a couple).

**Detroit** · February-09-12, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by CLAUDE G

Yea, but how fast was it before?

Took the train to Chicago 2 weeks ago, we are going 90-95 miles an hour for part of the Amtrak owned trackage, but we still had to stop and wait for other traffic ahead.

**CLAUDE G** · February-07-12, 08:23 PM

Do they still have that rule they can only go 25 MPH in Detroit?

**Downriviera** · February-08-12, 08:26 PM

One of the problems with this line is all the twists and turns. Why not use the Norfolk Southern line that parallels I-94 by Metro Airport. Its a straight shot to Butler Indiana, then a quick switch to the mainline right to Chicago.

**jcole** · February-08-12, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by Downriviera

One of the problems with this line is all the twists and turns. Why not use the Norfolk Southern line that parallels I-94 by Metro Airport. Its a straight shot to Butler Indiana, then a quick switch to the mainline right to Chicago.

Because if they use lines that aren't owned by them, they are liable to be sidelined when other trains take the right of way. That's a big part of Amtrak's problem; they don't own enough lines so they are second class citizens, so to speak, and have to often sit on sidings and wait for freight traffic to clear

**Hermod** · February-14-12, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by jcole

Because if they use lines that aren't owned by them, they are liable to be sidelined when other trains take the right of way. That's a big part of Amtrak's problem; they don't own enough lines so they are second class citizens, so to speak, and have to often sit on sidings and wait for freight traffic to clear

Talking with the AMTRAK people here in Florida, the railroads schedule their freights around the AMTRAK schedule. So long as the AMTRAK train stays on schedule. it should not be sidelined for a freight. When the AMTRAK train falls behind schedule, then it becomes the dispatcher's red-headed stepchild and the freights have priority. If the AMTRAK Pontiac-Chicago train is delayed getting out of Detroit westbound or Chicago eastbound, then it gets scheduled around the freights. If it is on time, the freights are cleared unless there is a problem with the freights and they are blocking the tracks.

**jcole** · February-14-12, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by Hermod

Talking with the AMTRAK people here in Florida, the railroads schedule their freights around the AMTRAK schedule. So long as the AMTRAK train stays on schedule. it should not be sidelined for a freight. When the AMTRAK train falls behind schedule, then it becomes the dispatcher's red-headed stepchild and the freights have priority. If the AMTRAK Pontiac-Chicago train is delayed getting out of Detroit westbound or Chicago eastbound, then it gets scheduled around the freights. If it is on time, the freights are cleared unless there is a problem with the freights and they are blocking the tracks.

And if you've ever taken Amtrak from Denver to Chicago and Chicago to Detroit , you will know that it's almost always behind time.

**PeachLaser** · January-02-14, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Hermod

Talking with the AMTRAK people here in Florida, the railroads schedule their freights around the AMTRAK schedule. So long as the AMTRAK train stays on schedule. it should not be sidelined for a freight. When the AMTRAK train falls behind schedule, then it becomes the dispatcher's red-headed stepchild and the freights have priority.

I attempted to meet the AMTRAK train in Jacksonville that was coming in from Los Angeles. Got to the station 15 minutes early and was told that the train was running late. I asked, "Running an hour late?" The reply, "No, about a day."

**DetroitPlanner** · February-08-12, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by CLAUDE G

Do they still have that rule they can only go 25 MPH in Detroit?

Yes they slow down in urban areas. That is why it is best to get on at Dearborn if at all possible. Heaven forbid those unlucky folks who start in Pontiac.
Getting from Metro to New Center would take a lot more reconfiguration. It also has a lot more freight traffic on it. The Michigan Ave line allows it to connect all of the Major Cities in Southern Michigan. The Airport rail goes only through Adrian hen leaves the state for Ohio.

**Dexlin** · February-10-12, 04:06 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Yes they slow down in urban areas. That is why it is best to get on at Dearborn if at all possible. Heaven forbid those unlucky folks who start in Pontiac.
Getting from Metro to New Center would take a lot more reconfiguration. It also has a lot more freight traffic on it. The Michigan Ave line allows it to connect all of the Major Cities in Southern Michigan. The Airport rail goes only through Adrian hen leaves the state for Ohio.

In a normal city, Pontiac would be connected to intercity rail by light rail, instead of having to run the actual intercity train up to Pontiac slowing the entire trip down. Detroit should very obviously be the terminus of the line.

Either that, or the Pontiac line should go up to Flint connecting it with the Blue Water. That's the only way a Pontiac stop would make logistical sense. Pontiac should not be a terminus, that much is clear.

BTW, someone said it up thread, but work on new tracks and improvements at the West Detroit Junction are slated to start this summer. This will make getting to and from the New Center Station considerably quicker [[currently, the train has to do some incredibly tedious and odd manuevers to get on the track that gets you up to New Center).

**DetroitPlanner** · February-14-12, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Dexlin

In a normal city, Pontiac would be connected to intercity rail by light rail, instead of having to run the actual intercity train up to Pontiac slowing the entire trip down. Detroit should very obviously be the terminus of the line.

Show me a normal City where someone commutes almost 30 miles on a light rail line running down the middle of the street and I will show you the city with the highest depression and suicide rates in the country. This trip should be commuter rail. Unfortunately, you are connecting two nodes with shrinking populations making it a very tough sell to the politicos. The stops between Pontiac and Downtown would not be much better as everywhere will show a job loss along that corridor.

**Detroit68** · February-14-12, 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Show me a normal City where someone commutes almost 30 miles on a light rail line running down the middle of the street and I will show you the city with the highest depression and suicide rates in the country. This trip should be commuter rail. Unfortunately, you are connecting two nodes with shrinking populations making it a very tough sell to the politicos. The stops between Pontiac and Downtown would not be much better as everywhere will show a job loss along that corridor.

As someone who lives in Orion Twp. and works downtown, I would love the option of taking the train each day if only the schedule [[and cost) were more accomodating for commuters.

**Hermod** · February-14-12, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by Dexlin

In a normal city, Pontiac would be connected to intercity rail by light rail, instead of having to run the actual intercity train up to Pontiac slowing the entire trip down. Detroit should very obviously be the terminus of the line.

Either that, or the Pontiac line should go up to Flint connecting it with the Blue Water. That's the only way a Pontiac stop would make logistical sense. Pontiac should not be a terminus, that much is clear.

The train runs up to Birmingham and Pontiac in an attempt to increase ridership. Folks that would hesitate to drive down to New Center to catch a train just might board it in Pontiac or Birmingham. As noted in here, many board in Dearborn in an attempt to avoid Detroit.

**bibs** · February-08-12, 09:47 PM

Money has been allocated for the West Detroit Junction which I think is at the intersection of Federal St and Junction St. This project will separate the passanger traffic from the freight traffic.

**Novine** · February-08-12, 11:11 PM

"One of the problems with this line is all the twists and turns. Why not use the Norfolk Southern line that parallels I-94 by Metro Airport. Its a straight shot to Butler Indiana, then a quick switch to the mainline right to Chicago."

That might make sense if the population centers in Michigan were Milan and Adrian. But since stops like Ann Arbor and Kalamazoo are major destinations for passengers, it makes more sense to use a line that actually services those cities.

**Rocko** · February-08-12, 11:16 PM

Most recently, the speed limit over the portion of track now ok'ed for 110 was rated for 95mph, and the trains would do every bit of that. Otherwise, the maximum authorized speed for Amtrak is 79mph, except for select places out east [[Northeast Corridor, Keystone line, Empire Service Route), and a segment of the BNSF Transcon where the Southwest Chief goes 90.

As mentioned, the completed Englewood Flyover will eliminate one such at-grade interlocking where frequent delays to Amtrak, Metra commuter and freight trains occur. It's certainly not the old choke-point for Michigan Amtraks going to Chicago, but it's one of the worst.

Do they still have that rule they can only go 25 MPH in Detroit?

Sometimes it might seem like this is a rule, but it isn't. Trains going west from West Detroit Junction toward Dearborn certainly exceed 25 mph, with only two road crossings between there and Dearborn. Same deal going north on the CN beyond Milwaukee Junction. Trains do go extremely slow along the segment between West Detroit and Milwaukee Junction thanks to the several interlockings and crossovers that must be negotiated, the multiple freight dispatchers which must be communicated with, and the geographic limitations of a very curvy track layout. The West Detroit connection [[yes, at Federal and Junction), will eliminate about 10 minutes-worth of slow track around Bay City Junction, and eliminate some conflicts with freight moves. Of course, if they never would have gotten rid of that connection decades ago, this may never have been a problem. But priorities were different back then, not to mention the routing of passenger trains into Detroit.

And yes, besides Metro Airport, what else is there on the old Wabash line before you get to Fort Wayne? Not a whole lot. The Michigan Line has Ann Arbor, Jackson, Battle Creek and Kalamazoo, not to mention Detroit suburbs and lesser small towns. One advantage of the current routing is that Amtrak does own the Kalamazoo-Porter, IN segment, thereby minimizing any freight delays [[the one local freight job per day, that is), and can maximize the time keeping for it's own trains. A special signalling system has been installed on this segment, called the Incremental Train Control System, or ITCS. It's a positive train control system and is what allows the speed of 95 and now 110 mph.

The increase up to 95mph has made a difference from 79mph, although the timetable was not shortened. Trains departing from Niles could arrive in Kalamazoo up to 12-15 minutes early. Not a bad way to make up some time when things get sticky leaving Chicago. Upgrading to 110 will allow them to actually shorten the schedule, even if only by 15 minutes, thereby still allowing a little "makeup" room.

A more detailed press release can be found here:
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/BlobSe...event_date.pdf

**Hypestyles** · February-09-12, 04:57 PM

hopefully, eventually, there will be an expansion of rail options for metro Detroit..

**bibs** · February-11-12, 06:08 PM

Rocko mentioend the Englewood Flyover in Chicago so I did a little research on it. It will seperate, freight, Amtrak and META trains. Learned that it is huge bottle neck in Chicago. Regarding the West Detroit Junction, I agree with Dexlin that it will eliminate some nastry turn. I'm think these two projects will cut off about 30 to 60 minutes from the train and I don't think I exaggerating.

**wolverine** · February-12-12, 12:16 AM

I'm happy to hear the bottle neck in Detroit is getting resolved. The more junctions that can be cut out, and hopefully someday/somehow the elimination of at grade crossing, the better the service.

The only other choke point I can think of is possibly the bridge at Ping Tom park south of the station. I've see trains stopped at it before, and the bridge does operate for boats, though that could probably be coordinated to not disrupt rail traffic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ecfka...feature=relmfu