4 Comments Add your own

• 1. Jim Dixon  |  July 25th, 2009 at 8:59 pm

  I rode the former Blackhawk from Chicago to Rockford back in the late 70’s. Amtrak’s proposal to use the same route as back in ‘79 is foolhardy. It was a mistake then and it would be a mistake now. Instead of using a Metra line out of Chicago, the train crawled along a freight line to exit Chicago. Its only suburban stop was Elmurst - not downtown Elmhurst’s Metra stop but a station stop some 2 miles south at what was little more than a bus shelter. It bypassed Elgin altogether. Its no wonder ridership was hard to come by when times were good. The recession in the early 80’s was its death knell.

  To maximize ridership the Blackhawk should utilize the Metra Milwaukee West line that traverses the south edge of O’Hare (future stop one day?) with a stop in Elgin. From there the train has three options, including a cutover to the UP line through Belvidere, a cutover to the CN line at Genoa, or continuing west to Davis Jct with a cutover to BNSF line north to Rockford (past the Rockford airport). I’ll leave it to others to fight over which route makes the most sense. But when it comes to getting in and out of Chicago, I implore you to use the existing Metra Milw West line. Do not make the same mistake that was made back in the 70’s.

• 2. Brian  |  September 16th, 2009 at 8:43 pm

  Jim, I only wish I had seen this article and your comment when it was new, so I could give your debate a run for its money. Contrary to your opinion, I feel much the other way, which is to say that I strongly SUPPORT the original Amtrak Blackhawk route of the 1970’s. While this response may be directed more at Jim’s posting, it is relevant to anyone who feels strongly about the routing of this proposed service.

  Since I was only a little child at the time the original Blackhawk ran, I cannot confirm or deny your recollections. Knowing what I do about Amtrak’s history, however, I certainly cannot defend its accommodations in that era. What I can convey is that in the late 1970s, the railroad industry in general was on its knees, the result of over-regulation, railroad crewing requirements, industry mismanagement and its resulting bankruptcies, under-capacity and other issues. Gas was undeniably cheap; anyone with a car in good repair could travel far cheaper than coach fare on any Amtrak train.

  Fast-forward to 2009. Railroads are not only profitable again, they’re doing exceptionally well despite a nasty economy. Route rationalization allowed railroads to shed unwanted and unnecessary track and concentrate on profitable lines, rebuilding and upgrading them to more modern standards and in the process, making them more efficient. Gas is ridiculously expensive. Suddenly its not so cheap to travel by car anymore and everyone is up in arms about it. And now, unlike 30 years ago, the national highway system is on its knees, the result of overcapacity and underfunding. Public transportation is finally ‘cool’. What a difference!

  At the same time, I feel your reasons for the Amtrak Blackhawk’s failure in 1982 are either not entirely correct or misleading at worst. First off, in 1979 the original Blackhawk route was the ONLY halfway decent route from Dubuque to Chicago; it was in good repair and relatively high speed. The Milwaukee Road never had a direct route between the two cities; their track was in deplorable condition. Even worse was the Chicago & Northwestern (the line through Belvidere), which in the 1970s was down to a mere 10mph in most locations; if it weren’t for the existence of Chrysler in Belvidere, that line would surely be a bike trail today. To say that the original route right out of Chicago was bad may be true, but imagine doing that for 90 miles instead of just eight!

  From your recollections it appears that you would desire Amtrak to use the same stations, or serve the same population centers as, those at Elmhurt and/or Elgin. When you consider this objective it is self-defeating. Why would you want to compete with similar - and more superior in service level - transportation options? Elgin is already served by 60 Metra trains every weekday, and most assuredly Elmhurst is served a similar amount. Other than a few Blackhawk passengers transferring to local Metra service, the only reasoning I could conclude is that perhaps 10 people would want to travel from Elgin to Dubuque. Seeing as both towns have their own casinos, I doubt this to be highly likely. I would recommend Amtrak skip them altogether, or you could just as well build a simple station in South Elgin on the original Blackhawk route and accomplish the same goals.

  Likewise, you hinted at possible train service to O’Hare. With the current rail infrastructure, you will not see any such service with any proposed Amtrak service unless a connecting bus service is established to transfer people from Metra’s Bensenville, Franklin Park or River Grove stations, none of which are currently proposed station stops for the proposed Amtrak service. Metra currently serves O’Hare on weekdays only from a station on their North Central Service line, located about 4 miles north of the Metra Milwaukee-West Line and on the far-eastern edge of the O’Hare property. Again, connecting to these trains would be difficult with the proposed service.

  It is at this point that I must declare that this proposed passenger train service cannot be all things to all people. I do not believe serving O’Hare would rise to anything near the level of importance required in the re-establishment of this service. What should be important in consideration for this service is that it provide efficient and sufficient service to that portion of the route that lies outside Metra territory, that is, west of Elgin through Rockford to Dubuque. To this end is where I believe the original Blackhawk route would best be of service.

  Unlike the Metra Milwaukee-West Line, the original Blackhawk route has little rail traffic, freight or passenger, which could interfere with the proposed Amtrak service. The original route hosts only a few freight movements each day, whereas the Metra route is well at capacity, hosting 60 passenger trains (82 east of Franklin Park, where their North Central Service joins in), plus a wide host of freight trains from 3 different railroads (ICE, CP and CN railroads). Altogether, the proposed Amtrak service would intermix with well over 120-135 other train movements a day on the Metra route. It does not take much imagination to envision many service disruptions due to train delays. If you want to kill this service before it really begins, then run them on the Metra route.

  As if the previous situation weren’t bad enough, now you’re proposing to have the proposed Amtrak service diverge on a new connection somewhere west of Elgin onto another railroad to continue its journey. This requires a degree of inter-railroad communication and cooperation that, in 175 years of railroading, has yet to manifest itself in a meaningful way. Ask any railroader who runs Amtrak trains from Chicago to St. Louis and they’ll tell you just how well the Union Pacific works with Amtrak. They don’t. And now you’re asking them to do a similar thing on the line to Rockford. As a former railroader of 13 years, I can tell you with experience and certainty that you will encounter service disruptions with this.

  Do keep in mind that, no matter which route you would choose to take to Rockford, you will ultimately end up on the original Blackhawk route at Rockford and continue on it the final 110 miles to Dubuque. In the end, the debate comes down to this: Do you want to run your proposed Amtrak service on the route of only one railroad, or do you want to run on four railroads instead? Here’s how it breaks down if you run via Metra and then through Belvidere:

  Amtrak - Chicago Union Station to Canal Street
  Metra - Canal Street to Big Timber Road (west of Elgin)
  Union Pacific - Big Timber Road - Rockford
  Canadian National - Rockford - Dubuque

  God forbid we go through Davis Junction:

  Amtrak - Chicago Union Station to Canal Street
  Metra - Canal Street to Big Timber Road
  ICE - Big Timber Road to Davis Junction
  Illinois Railway - Davis Junction to Rockford
  Canadian National - Rockford - Dubuque

  Compare this to the original routing:

  Amtrak - Chicago Union Station to 21st Street
  Canadian National - 21st Street to Dubuque

  Technically, there is yet another railroad to deal with: The BNSF Railway controls trackage west of Galena to East Dubuque, although the route is actually owned by the Canadian National. But I digress.

  I can tell you that the Blackhawk route makes sense for many reasons: It is a direct and little-used route out of Chicago; it has been shown to cost less to introduce service than the other routes; it is a single-railroad route that requires less communication and cooperation to operate the service; and lastly, it still attains the required goals of serving the desired population centers.

  I ask that you take this into consideration with the knowledge that I have amassed over 13 years of railroading on both the Metra Milwaukee West Line and the original Blackhawk route from Chicago to Dubuque.

  Brian

• 3. Lance  |  October 6th, 2009 at 8:21 pm

  There need to be some hard questions posed to Amtrak and Illinois Department of Transportation officials regarding the decision to use the original Blackhawk route out of Chicago over the old Illinois Central (now Canadian National) route.

  Although this route may be the quickest NOW to get up and running in regards to funding, putting any money into this route east of Elgin toward Chicago will be a huge mistake in the coming years. What no one has mentioned is that the Canadian National (CN) is planning on downgrading the line that the train will use from the connection to the old Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway (the EJ&E) at Munger (South Elgin, IL) all the way into the junctions in downtown Chicago–a distance of more than 30 miles. The CN is doing this because they have purchased and mergered the EJ&E and will soon be building a new connection for freight trains at Munger. Once this new connection is complete, there will only be local trains on the route needed to serve the online industries around Addison, IL.

  The CN’s own filing with the Surface Transportation Board (STB) shows that they will be putting far fewer freight trains over these portions closer to Chicago. From their own filing with the STB on October 30, 2007 the CN has a chart showing the reduction in daily train traffic planned after the connections to the EJ&E are built (page 246). From Bridgeport to the 16th Street Crossing, daily CN train traffic will drop from the current 4 movements to zero trains a day. From Bridgeport to Belt Crossing the freight traffic will drop from the current 2.6 trains a day to only 1.7 trains a day and from Belt Crossing to Hawthorne yard the count will drop from the current 4.5 trains a day to only 1.7 daily movements.

  These changes are expected to be fully implemented over the next few years as the CN builds new connections to their Freeport Sub. to the newly acquired EJ&E.

  Now some could say that this will mean less interference from freight traffic since there will be less freight trains, but the real cost needs to be examined when the CN downgrades the line and will no longer maintain the tracks to the current standards. Less maintainance will mean slower track speeds and longer running times UNLESS the state of Illinois steps up and maintains the trackage OR pays the CN a substantial share to keep the higher speed running. There also is the issue of the signal system. The CN will not really need to maintain the signal system over this route if they are only going to be running a handful of freight trains that will only serve the online industries, so Amtrak and/or the IDOT will have to help defer the cost of the signal system.

  Someone will have to insure the costs associated with maintaining the route from 16th Street Crossing to Bridgeport also, since the CN will no longer be using that segment at all once the new connection is completed.

  Using the old Blackhawk route maybe the quickest and cheapest to get running in the next few years, but the true cost of using this route will only be completely visible once the mistakes have already been made.

  Lance W.

• 4. Brian  |  November 29th, 2009 at 1:36 pm

  To put it briefly and bluntly, I disagree with Lance’s opinion that putting money into the CN/IC route east of Elgin would be a mistake.

  In a more articulated way, I believe this argument has merit, but ultimately serves little good. If there is a bona-fide need for spending a bit more over time to use the CN/IC route, then Amtrak or another government entity should pick up the tab. And I believe there is a need to use this route more than the alternatives.

  For one reason, CN’s figures don’t take into account Amtrak’s St. Louis trains, which operate between Bridgeport and 21st Street, the very portion they claim will have zero freight traffic once the re-routes are complete. The truth is, the route will still be there as it already hosts over 12 passenger trains a day (both Metra and Amtrak) and still will after the freight traffic is gone. In fact, if Amtrak purchased the line from 16th Street to Munger, they could actually invest some money in speeding up this slow portion of trackage (its currently 25mph now but could easily be 40+, especially west of the IN automatic interlocking at MP7).

  Cost is a factor, but let’s not fool ourselves; Amtrak will pay to use whatever portion of track they operate on. If they run via Metra tracks at Elgin, they’ll pay for the trackage rights and a percentage of the maintenance just as they would the CN/IC route. I do understand that there is a likelihood of paying higher maintenance on the CN/IC route, however if there is little freight traffic to wear and tear down the infrastructure, these costs would occur over longer periods of time, making it viable.

  In the end, you get what you pay for. If you put a little more money for the CN/IC route, it would essentially be their own railroad and be free of Metra’s stupidity and slower, commuter-styled operation, allowing for more flexible operation and the possibility of expansion.

  Ahh yes… has anybody ever thought of EXPANSION? Just try asking to add 4, 6 or 8 more trains on Metra’s route after you put the first 2 or 4 on… it can’t and won’t be done, as they’re near capacity with their own trains now. With the CN/IC route, you have much room for expansion, which is certainly worth the extra cost. Personally, I would be delighted to see Amtrak pony up and buy the line from 16th Street to Munger as part of the Rockford route if it were made available just for those reasons.

  I do not dispute that Metra has the better route from a maintenance and infrastructure standpoint; however I cannot see any real viability in running an inter-city train onto a line that focuses on stop-and-start commuter service. As I’ve mentioned before, a 32mph average run between Elgin and Chicago is not going to suffice for meaningful passenger rail travel on the proposed Rockford route. If this is to be the case, this rail supporter will continue to use his car. Period.

  If they’re going to run it, run it like they mean business; otherwise, don’t even start wasting more taxpayer dollars we don’t have.

  Brian

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed