General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAmtrak gets OK for 110-mph Chicago-Michigan service
Associated Press
1:36 p.m. CST, February 7, 2012
Amtrak says it has gotten federal approval for its trains in western Michigan and northern Indiana to increase maximum speeds to 110 mph.
Amtrak announced Tuesday that the approval it and the Michigan Department of Transportation received comes after the installation and testing of a train control safety system on Amtrak-owned track between Kalamazoo, Mich., and Porter, Ind.
The Wolverine Service between Pontiac and Chicago via Detroit and Ann Arbor and the Blue Water service between Port Huron and Chicago via East Lansing use the tracks. The Pere Marquette service uses a different route to Grand Rapids.
The change will cut time from the trips. ................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-amtrak-gets-ok-for-110mph-chicagomichigan-service-20120207,0,3069064.story
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)That high ?
For comparison we had steam trains which ran faster than that over 70 years ago and the new link between London and the midlands wil run at up to 250mph.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)An engineering friend explained just how much work they had to do to handle those speeds. Some of that track is 50-60 yrs old. Curves, over and underpasses all needed special attention. (an underpass at 100 MPH creates a shockwave that can knock a train off its tracks, if there is any defect or problem.)
Much like today's high efficiency gas engines, or much like a toddler learning to walk unassisted, our rail industry will upgrade, despite the best efforts of the GOP. This is one very welcome step, and I'll bet you that a year from now, they increase the number of trains because of the increased demand and convenience from starting in Downtown Chicago, and ending up in the city center of Grand Rapids or Detroit.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)It is quite complicated to plan upgrades to their service because public and railroad company funding is involved. Amtrak also has to figure where it is possible to go fast. There is no point in traveling at 110 mph just to catch up to a slow freight train on the same track.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)our high speed track isn't used for freight as far as I'm aware.
marmar
(77,047 posts)nt
marmar
(77,047 posts)..... even the Acela, which has the "look" of a high-speed train, doesn't go faster than that because of the sad track infrastructure situation in this country.
liberal N proud
(60,332 posts)But High Speed Rail is more than 200 mph
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)But if I were forced to go TO Detroit I would be quite content to go about .1 mph with several delays.
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)We had choices and Detroit looked to be our best bet..so far, so good!..been 5 years
marmar
(77,047 posts)nt
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Ok, it's a Steely Dan lyric
lib2DaBone
(8,124 posts)Glad to hear it. This will be an extention of the Acela Service which travels 150 mph up the Philadelphia-Boston corridor.
Heard on the news today.. gas will be OVER $4 a gallon by March. When this happens... short trips of 100-300 miles by car will be much more expensive .
Rail then becomes a great alternative.
YellowRubberDuckie
(19,736 posts)That is insane. No way the rails and those trains can handle that.