Follow this blog:
RSS

High(er)-speed rail zips through Illinois

By | November 26, 2012, 9:57 AM PST

Earlier this year, Amtrak tested higher-speed trains along a portion of its route between Chicago and St. Louis. Now the dream of faster travel between the two major cities in the Midwestern United States is a reality for at least a portion of the trip.

Amtrak announced that along a 15-mile segment of the corridor, trains are now traveling at 110 miles per hour, an upgrade that will reduce travel time along the route by 10 minutes. Along most of the route, trains reach a maximum speed of 79 mph. But this is just the first step for turning the route into higher-speed rail. By 2015, at least 75 percent of the Chicago to St. Louis corridor (known as Lincoln Service) will operate at 110 mph, reducing the travel time of the trip by more than an hour. When complete, the route will be one of the fastest outside the East Coast.

“This next generation rail system gives passengers a safer, more reliable way to travel across Illinois,” said Illinois Governor Pat Quinn in a statement. “Today’s announcement demonstrates significant progress on this major transportation initiative that will continue to boost Illinois’ economy and make sure our state has the best rail system in the nation.”

But juxtaposed with this news of Japan working on trains topping 300 mph, Quinn’s talk of “next generation rail” seems a bit silly. Especially considering rail is generally considered “high speed” when it reaches a minimum sustained speed of 125 miles per hour.

Still, this news is more evidence that high-speed rail is at least moving in the right direction in the United States.

In addition to the speed improvements, the Lincoln Service line will get tech upgrades that include free WiFi.

In the past six years the route’s ridership has doubled. With faster trains that number can only be expected to increase.

(h/t Railway Technology)

Photo: Flickr/Zol87

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Tyler Falk

About Tyler Falk

Tyler Falk is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Tyler Falk

Tyler Falk

Contributing Editor

Tyler Falk freelance journalist based in Washington, D.C. Previously, he was with Smart Growth America and Grist. He holds a degree from Goshen College.

Follow him on Twitter.

Tyler Falk

Tyler Falk

Tyler does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what he covers.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
13
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
Maybe my math is off, but..
It looks like those trains must have been doing about 45/50 mph on that 15 mile stretch for the speed change to cut 10 minutes off the travel time.

At nearly 290 miles between cities there is a good argument to be made for dedicated express rails. At just 150 mph the entire way the non-stop trip would be very competative with regional air travel.

Conventional express trains doing 150 MPH are more cost effective to operate than European or Asian style HSR.
Posted by Hates Idiots
26th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
HIGH SPEED FAIL
LoL @ Hates.... Maybe it's off...lol seems you should work for the Govnor ?? Lmao Why'd he even write this ?
10 mins saved wwwOOOOWW Thats a good Deal !
Was he counting TRACKS plural ? His math could become tomuch for him.
Really, what a waste TELLLL... us Fiber optics are here !!
Tell us wind turbines are approved and installed !!
10 MINS ?? LOL
Posted by Grayskull
26th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Route not segment
The article says it was tested on a segment. Applied to that whole route it would increase time by 10 minutes.
Posted by rodneykeene@...
28th Nov
+2 Votes
+ -
High speed
I began my engineering career designing bridges for railroad grade crossing eliminations. The issue has taken a back seat in recent years. I have been traveling European railroads for some years. They run HIGH speed rail. The first thing we have to do is eliminate grade crossings. Crossing gates cannot keep up with 100+ mph trains.

Unfortunately cars get more votes .

Note: by 2020 this country will wish it had every mile of railroad track it ever laid. The day of oil is past!
Posted by UpstateNewYork
26th Nov
-1 Votes
+ -
HSR is only 1 Transportastion alternative - Not a US Solution
HSR works is Japan because of the high population density and the need for people to travel relatively mid-short distances. There are few places in the US where this might apply, but our cities - especially in the West - are much further apart with much less need for moving high volumes of people between them. What has evolved is an efficient air transportation system that fills that need (longer distances with lower volumes). It's infrastructure is in place, and by it's design can be immediately adjusted to accomodate changes in demand. HSR - by it's nature of requiring fixed tracks is totally inflexible in adjusting to new routes.
The point is that HSR is just another form of transportation, and is not a solution in most places because of exhorbitant construction and operating costs. Automobiles haved served most people quite well because of their relative low costs and great flexibility - why is that so bad? Somehow being crammed into a HSR rail car like they do in Japan does not hold much appeal to me.
Posted by HappiHenri
27th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
grade crossings
Yes, that's part of the problem. The bigger issue is that not much of the track system and the signal system is designed for speeds of 100 and over. And the huge volume of freight traffic has priority. Face it, the government is not going to buy track corridors for exclusive passenger service.

Re: Hsbarney - Your comment on oil - What do you think diesel engines run on?
Posted by coureurd@...
28th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Slow(er)
It must have been a slow(er) news day for this article to make SmartPlanet. I use the Lincoln Service and there is little news here.
Posted by Hal_9001
27th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
can't wait to read all the apologetics bull.
We have become a country of toys, real things like bridges and bullet trains are out of our ability here in the States to make it real long term endeavor. Not going to believe we will have anything like that ever, and I mean ever, our politics and our mind set of spending trillions on war says it all.
Posted by Kiljoy616
Updated - 27th Nov
+2 Votes
+ -
Speed comparison
Just a point to note folks - a L.N.E.R. class A4, "Mallard" steam engine attained a speed of 126 miles an hour, on the descent from Stoke Summit (England) in 1938, a world record for a steam locomotive, which is held to this day. Not bad going for a tank full of hot air!
Posted by Bertie174
27th Nov
+2 Votes
+ -
It also depends on dedicated rails.
The 1930s steam engines that ran the non-stop Boston to NYC route into the late 1940s ran the route faster than Acela can do a non-stop today because it was on dedicated tracks.

They did not have to share tracks with slower trains.

The government ripped up miles of express rails through my home town and the surrounding towns in the 1970s after the creation of Amtrak.
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 27th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Safety first
The main thing that it was safe for passengers. femmes
Posted by aflemo
27th Nov
-1 Votes
+ -
Safety First ?
If safety is the paramount consdieration then you definitely do not want 150 mph HSR. Just look at the horrific accidents they have already had with them in China and Germany. And it seems that there have been several serious Amtrak accidents in NJ with current trains going much slower.
Safety vs. efficiency vs. cost vs. time is always a tough one to balance out, but to me it seems the airline industry has had a pretty good decade doing just that. Is there a risk flying? Sure - but there is also a risk just walking down the street. And efficiency? I can get coast - coast fares $299. Don't know any other form of transportation that can do that as reliably, as cheaply, or nearly as fast, and with a safety record better than driving a car the same distance.
Railroads had their day - when they were a step up from horse & buggy. They still have a role in moving freight, in subway systems in some cities such as NYC, in travel/sight-seeing - such as the glass domed cars traveling through the Rockies, and in serving commuters in and between some urban areas (East coast US, Japan, China, and parts of Europe) but HSR with it's much higher construction & operating costs is hard to justify in most places.
Posted by HappiHenri
27th Nov
-1 Votes
+ -
Fares don't reflect the true costs
Air travel is heavily subsidized - if your ticket price covered the full cost of building and maintaining airports and the air traffic control system, tickets would cost a lot more. Then there are the environmental costs, which you have ignored completely - they are the major reason why both air and automobile travel must be drastically reduced.
Posted by Greenknight_z
28th Nov
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!