CHICAGO: Transit Developments

[pyropius]

Is there any talk of bringing back A/B stations on the red line?

My biggest beef is getting up to Evanston during non-rush periods. When I do it, I all too often end up waiting at Howard for a purple line train for ten minutes or more. I'm not alone, either; in my experience there are usually a lot of people waiting on the platform that came on the red line with me, especially around noon. It would be nice if say every other or every third NB non-rush red line train continued on to Evanston, as it would save a lot of people that transfer time. I also worry that the CTA wouldn't recognize that this is an unmet need because (I believe) they don't have figures for how many passengers ride the red line through to the purple line, since (I believe) they track only boardings.

I know it's largely self-serving, but I think there would be a demand for a non-rush quasi-express service on the red line via a combination of A/B (or other limited-stop) service and some trains that continue on to Evanston.

[ardecila]

That's why they plan to expand the express service through new stations at Wilson and Loyola in certain alternatives. That would accompany the introduction of more express service. I'm not sure how it would work operationally... they might send the Purple Line into the State St Subway, or they might only run it as far as Belmont or Fullerton (taking over from Howard as the transfer point), or they might just extend the existing rush-hour service into a 5am-10pm sorta thing from Linden to the Loop.

[Equilibria]

Originally Posted by pyropius

It would be nice if say every other or every third NB non-rush red line train continued on to Evanston, as it would save a lot of people that transfer time.

As a fellow Evanston resident, I've puzzled over why this hasn't been done already. My best guess (other than the historical element) is that the CTA would face opposition from Evanston and particularly Wilmette residents about the "bad element" taking the train up from the South Side. I actually think that's the biggest reason the Purple Line exists at all at this point. (I don't mean to pick on Wilmette - that would be the dead end for people who rode all the way).

It's unfortunate that people would think that way, but the Red Line does have a bit of a seedy reputation up here. Not so much of a problem during rush hour, but late at night...

[VivaLFuego]

^ More problematically, the Purple Line platforms can only handle 6-car trains, while the Red Line runs 8-car trains from about 6am til 10pm.

[pyropius]

Ah, I didn't realize that.

[ardecila]

RTA to weigh cost, practicality of switching diesel locomotives to electric
Concern over soot, emissions prompts officials to study issue
January 18, 2011|By Richard Wronski, Tribune reporter

Of Metra's 11 routes, the Electric Line is the only one whose trains are powered by electricity. But with heightened concerns over toxic locomotive fumes, some officials wonder if dumping diesel power on Metra's other lines isn't such a bad idea.

No one is proposing that Metra stop running diesel, Costello said, but the RTA and the Transit Finance Learning Exchange are co-hosting a March 22 discussion of the costs and issues involved in converting to electric commuter rail lines.

-----

Metra says electrifying its 10 diesel lines would be hugely impractical.

"To convert from diesel, you'd have to rebuild the entire line and start from scratch," spokeswoman Judy Pardonnet said. "The costs are astronomical."

Metra bought the former Illinois Central Electric line in 1987. The IC electrified its commuter tracks in 1926 to allay complaints of smoke and noise from steam locomotives along the lakefront.

Electrifying the whole Metra network might be impractical. However, if it can be done on the BNSF and the UP-North lines, it would be hugely beneficial to the service. At rush hour, trains are packed very densely on these lines. Especially on the BNSF, I'm not sure there's any more room for growth, withe one of the busiest schedules in the country for passenger rail (both Metra and Amtrak) and one of the busiest schedules in the country for freight.

Electrification would allow for quicker acceleration, shaving a few minutes here and there and possibly allowing for another set of trains to be added. Of course, the wires would need to be designed to allow double-stack containers underneath them. It is possible... the Indians have already done it.

Plus, BNSF has already indicated that they're willing to consider electrification. Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but Berkshire Hathaway owns both BNSF and IMPulse NC (an overhead wire company).

[Beta_Magellan]

I remember reading that electrification was supposed to be finished in the thirties, but it was interrupted by Great Depression and only the IC was able to finish. It definitely made the most sense to electrify that line first, since it probably had the highest density of riders at the time and basically worked more like a rapid transit than commuter line, and the Electric District still has the second-highest number of passengers per mile today. However, the interurbans at that time also ran on electric power to the western and northern suburbs, so maybe the C&NW and whatever the BNSF's predecessor was saw less need to electrify their lines as they occupied different niches (I think--don't know much about regional rail in the early-mid twentieth century).

It would be great to electrify the BNSF and UP-North, but at least on the BNSF line we'd miss out on one of the big benefits--switching to lightweight EMU's along the lines of what Caltrain hopes to do, since there's way too much freight on that line. I could see it working on the UP-North and Northwest given the low levels of freight traffic there, but that would preclude eventually through-routing it to the BNSF line (I know how impossible the West Loop Transportation Center seems, but I was at one of the Go TO 2040 meetings this summer and CMAP emphatically stated that Metra needs really through-routing). Still, we'd be able to claim that Chicago has nuclear-powered trains.

[ardecila]

In the 1920s, the BNSF would have been the CB&Q (Burlington Route).

Caltrain may have the option of switching to EMUs, but Chicago simply doesn't. Not unless we accept EMUs heavy enough to operate on US railroads (like SEPTA uses). If Metra electrified, we'd most likely end up more like NJT, with some European knockoff locomotive pulling the same bilevel cars we've always used.

[Thundertubs]

In light of mayoral candidate Emanuel's recent endorsement of the Red Line extension to 130th Street: I'm curious, what is capacity like on the Dan Ryan branch? Would there be enough room to handle riders from the four proposed new stations, or would more trains need to be added?

[Busy Bee]

^Yeah, lightweight EMU's (like a Stadtler or Siemens Desiro) are better suited to 1 to 2 train length consists. The passenger volume on most of Metra's long-haul commuter lines warrants bigger and longer trainsets anyway. Think Berlin S-Bahn, Paris RER, London Overground. FRA compatibilty is only one issue, and an issue I don't think would really be part of the equation. As far as North American operations, an electrified Metra line would pretty much look just like the current Metra Electric or CSS+SB. Other examples of course would be Metro North New Haven branch, NJT (Arrow cars) and Septa suburban routes. I see no reason that with electrification, Metra would continue with locomotive hauled push-pull consists. Technology has made that type of operation less desirable and efficient through the introduction of powered bogies under multiple cars that increases acceleration and multi-car dynamic braking.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Thundertubs

In light of mayoral candidate Emanuel's recent endorsement of the Red Line extension to 130th Street: I'm curious, what is capacity like on the Dan Ryan branch? Would there be enough room to handle riders from the four proposed new stations, or would more trains need to be added?

Because there's a longer distance to travel, there would more likely be more trains added.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Thundertubs

In light of mayoral candidate Emanuel's recent endorsement of the Red Line extension to 130th Street: I'm curious, what is capacity like on the Dan Ryan branch? Would there be enough room to handle riders from the four proposed new stations, or would more trains need to be added?

At present, service levels and capacity are primarily driven by the northern half of the route. Also, the nature of ridership on the Dan Ryan branch involves a lot of rides within the branch --- it's less downtown-focused than other routes, so it's peak vehicle requirement isn't as steep.

That said, the extension would obviously still require the purchase of more railcars because of the increased running time of the route (i.e. even at similar service frequencies as now, you'd need more railcars to provide service).

[whyhuhwhy]

Chicago No. 1 in road congestion
New study says commuters here waste an average of 70 hours on the road annually
By Jon Hilkevitch, TRIBUNE REPORTER

http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified...congestion-0120-20110119,0,4877984.story

--

Is there ANY good news lately in Chicago? I used to be really fond of this place, even just 10 years ago, but my wife and I are actively trying to leave lately, it's just a matter of finding another job. Everything just seems to be getting worse here.

[the urban politician]

^ There's plenty of good news.

But no amount of good news will convince the person who has already made up his own mind. You chose to leave, and now you're rationalizing your decision.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I see no reason that with electrification, Metra would continue with locomotive hauled push-pull consists.

Cost of the rolling stock. One loco and nine unpowered trailers is cheaper than 10 MU cars. Look at NJTransit, which has moved away from MU operation to loco-hauled.

[Beta_Magellan]

And aren’t the new Metra Electric trains mixing in unpowered cars pulled by EMU pairs, too?

[CTA Gray Line]

http://www.ntui.org/itef/cta-to-waste-12-billion-in-red-line-boondoggle#more-324

As stated here by the NTUI, the Red Line Extension is a HUGE WASTE of SCARCE Transit Capital Funds (like the +$200 Million spent on the U N U S E D Block 37 Airport Express SuperStation) ; when there is a Project that would create NINE TIMES AS MANY New CTA 'L' Stations (37 vs 4) on Chicago's South Side for ONE / SEVENTH the Red Line Extensions Capital Cost ($200 Million vs $1.2 BILLION): http://bit.ly/GrayLineInfo

And on Page 19 of their Getting-on-Track Report, CNT and CTAQC recommend the Gray Line Project for Immediate Funding above A L L Transportation Projects in the entire Chicago Area: http://www.illinoispirg.org/uploads/C3/Yv/C3YvO-xHoA5eWCFoMMQhvQ/Getting-on-Track.pdf

[CTA Gray Line]

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan

And aren’t the new Metra Electric trains mixing in unpowered cars pulled by EMU pairs, too?

No, they are all Motor Cars (and thus all have to be Inspected and Certified as Locomotives - more expensive than plain trailers).

[emathias]

Originally Posted by CTA Gray Line

http://www.ntui.org/itef/cta-to-waste-12-billion-in-red-line-boondoggle#more-324

As stated here by the NTUI, the Red Line Extension is a HUGE WASTE of SCARCE Transit Capital Funds (like the +$200 Million spent on the U N U S E D Block 37 Airport Express SuperStation) ; when there is a Project that would create NINE TIMES AS MANY New CTA 'L' Stations (37 vs 4) on Chicago's South Side for ONE / SEVENTH the Red Line Extensions Capital Cost ($200 Million vs $1.2 BILLION): http://bit.ly/GrayLineInfo

And on Page 19 of their Getting-on-Track Report, CNT and CTAQC recommend the Gray Line Project for Immediate Funding above A L L Transportation Projects in the entire Chicago Area: http://www.illinoispirg.org/uploads/C3/Yv/C3YvO-xHoA5eWCFoMMQhvQ/Getting-on-Track.pdf

I think you're mostly preaching to the choir, Mike

[CTA Gray Line]

Originally Posted by emathias

I think you're mostly preaching to the choir, Mike

Thanks, that is Really Good to hear!!