Ambitious restoration and transformation in the Chicago area

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
That may be true but that isnt my point, and if Amtrak wishes to use the SSL in the future to get out of Chicago there will be plenty of reason to run it as fast as possible. What I am saying is that I have the impression before that there were alot of speed restrictions on that SSL because of curves etc, but that does not seem to apply to this S line that is being built as they are mentioning 150mph+ yet it still has curves that are likely higher degree than many places on the NEC. I was trying to get to the cause of why curvy but brand new track would not have the restrictions older track might (ignoring grade crossings, because that would keep it at 110 which is still >25% increase in existing max speeds on SSL)
I am not sure what the question is, but based on my best guess, the reason that an old curvy line manages to get higher speed limits when reconstructed is because in the process of reconstruction many of the worst curves get smooth out into gentle curves or S curves simply get replaced by almost straight segments. That is how speed limits go up.

BTW, the S Line is being built for 110mph operation, not 150+, if you believe what the governing FEIS says.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure what the question is, but based on my best guess, the reason that an old curvy line manages to get higher speed limits when reconstructed is because in the process of reconstruction many of the worst curves get smooth out into gentle curves or S curves simply get replaced by almost straight segments. That is how speed limits go up.
Ok that makes sense thanks for clarifying
 
Unfortunately it appears this project will not win the MEGA Grant from USDOT. Not sure what the next steps are for Amtrak DOT - Mega Rankings 2022.pdfView attachment 31139
Frustrating. I wonder if there is a further explanation somewhere about how it failed to meet two of the statutory requirements, specifically C) The project will be cost-effective and E) The applicant has, or will have, sufficient legal, financial, and technical capacity to carry out the project.
 
Some wishful food for thought:

Chicago Union Station is unique in that it was built with separate passenger and baggage platforms on opposite sides of the train. There are proposals to rebuild Chicago's platforms to eliminate the unused baggage platforms and move the tracks to that area so that the passenger platforms can be widened. The baggage platforms have direct access to a basement tunnel underneath which is probably also unused.

So the question is could this new relocated track be lowered to allow Ultradome height cars? Don't know but the opportunity might be there for at least a couple of extra clearance tracks for Amtrak LD service.

Before/After renderings:

chicago.jpg



1675608077513.png

Really interesting further reading:

https://chicagounionstation.com/uploads/documents/CUS_MasterPlan_FinalReport_Opt.pdf
 
Last edited:
Some wishful food for thought:

Chicago Union Station is unique in that it was built with separate passenger and baggage platforms. There are proposals to rebuild Chicago's platforms to eliminate the unused baggage platforms and move the tracks to that area so that the passenger platforms can be widened. The baggage platforms have direct access to a basement tunnel underneath which is probably also unused.

So the question is could this new relocated track be lowered to allow Ultradome height cars? Don't know but the opportunity might be there for at least a couple of extra clearance tracks for Amtrak LD service.

Before/After renderings:

View attachment 31310



View attachment 31312

Really interesting further reading:

https://chicagounionstation.com/uploads/documents/CUS_MasterPlan_FinalReport_Opt.pdf
Roosevelt bridge might also be a problem, the Superliners barely clear it. Its south of the station
 
Some wishful food for thought:

Chicago Union Station is unique in that it was built with separate passenger and baggage platforms on opposite sides of the train. There are proposals to rebuild Chicago's platforms to eliminate the unused baggage platforms and move the tracks to that area so that the passenger platforms can be widened. The baggage platforms have direct access to a basement tunnel underneath which is probably also unused.

So the question is could this new relocated track be lowered to allow Ultradome height cars? Don't know but the opportunity might be there for at least a couple of extra clearance tracks for Amtrak LD service.

Before/After renderings:

View attachment 31310



View attachment 31312

Really interesting further reading:

https://chicagounionstation.com/uploads/documents/CUS_MasterPlan_FinalReport_Opt.pdf
The only way that moving the tracks lower would work is if one of two things happens-

1) Amtrak builds a new station building at 300 South Riverside Plaza

As your graphic of Union Station's layout clearly shows, the two platforms that would be formed from the unused mail platform do not and cannot reach Jackson St. The through tracks narrow to such an extent as they travel north that it would be too narrow for the west platform and allows absolutely no room at all for the east platform.

That is why the plans for reaching those platforms from the concourse included passengers walking under the tracks, through a large tunnel, and reaching the platforms from below. Lower the tracks into the basement and that option disappears.

Reaching those platforms would require building a new station over the south train shed at 300 S Riverside Plaza, envisioned in the Union Station Master Plan as a long-term option. All passengers boarding trains on the south platforms would do so from above, as seen here-
vM6jspe.jpg

F5xwxjg.jpg

OR

2) A new station servicing only the converted mail platforms would need to be built east of the Old Post Office Building along Harrison Street, where the old Chicago and Alton freight building, also known as the Sugar House, also known as the Center Carrier Annex currently stands.

And this assumes that 601W, the owners of the Old Post Office, would sell the property at all. Plans have been floated in the past of tearing down the Sugar House and erecting a skyscraper in its place. 601W invested hundreds of millions of dollars resurrecting the Old Post Office and the project has been an incredible success. Who knows whether they would even consider selling an adjacent property like the Sugar House, especially if they feel lightening could strike twice there?

Such a station would have no physical connection to the rest of Union Station. Accessing Union would require either a walkway that would have to go over or under Interstate 290/Eisenhower Expressway, which IDOT would likely not allow, OR any passenger connecting between the regionals and any other train at Union Station would have to hike from this new station west on Harrison to Canal, then north on Canal to either the Great Hall or the concourse entrance at the 222 Riverside building, a distance of nearly a half mile. Not ideal.

ETA - I am fully in favor of a new station building at 300 Riverside, and have been ever since I saw the plans. The question, as always, is where does the money come from? And if the tracks were to be lowered as a component of a 300 Riverside station, just take all cost estimates and double or treble them.

It would be far simpler to just build new Superliner replacements at the same height or go with single-level cars.
 
Last edited:
Or, while they certainly don't have to, the owners of the Old Post Office could consider direct rail access to their building a valuable feature and cooperate with Amtrak to provide access from the mail platforms right into the building the mail platforms used to serve. It would still be a separate station from the main Union Station, but it would not be nearly as remote as the Carrier Annex building (VanBuren St. instead of Harrison St.).
 
Why would IDOT be opposed to a pedestrian walkway over a freeway? These exist all around the country.
Here's why there might be issues:
1677206961000.png
Here's the view of what Mr. Uptempo is talking about (view towards the west) - the expressway goes right through the old Post Office building and those are drawbridges - all of the bridges seen here are, in fact. The building he was talking about demolishing is the pinkish red building to the left. It's the only part of the old PO still in use (or was anyways, after they closed the old PO) after the new PO was built just to the very left of the image (the new PO wasn't built with truck ramps with enough capacity for the weight of the mail trucks - oopsie). It's a tough site to make work as a station, although it would have great access to the Blue Line which runs immediately under the expressway.

And in case anybody missed it, the tracks are immediately under most of the buildings in the image to some degree or other.

Another little tidbit, the lower portion of the building was built first and the taller building later enveloping it. It also originally had massive light wells before it was air conditioned - it's truly massive inside with 20 foot +/- ceilings which had hanging walkways with one way mirrors for postal inspectors. And it was designed for Congress Parkway to pierce through which eventually became the Congress Expressway and then the Ike (some semi-oldtimers like Gen X me, call it the Congress because that's what my parents did - Native Chicagoans never use the numbers, always the names of the expressways).

(as an aside, Ferrero seems to be misspelled, Mr. Google - and they have moved elsewhere anyways)
 
The High Speed Rail Alliance announced in a recent email that Amtrak plans to break the project into 4 separate grants and will use the Federal State Partnership 22’- 23’ to fund it.
 

Attachments

  • 83C584FE-11E4-4711-9A00-61DF52EBFB25.jpeg
    83C584FE-11E4-4711-9A00-61DF52EBFB25.jpeg
    658.8 KB · Views: 0
Back
Top