Red Line Extension (RLE)

[Nitro]

9 hours ago, Busjack said:

Why don't you look at what's going on in Chicago? Your premise that the railroads can handle the traffic is FALSE. If you had read the Gray Line topic, the original theory was that the Highliners were just sitting in the yard midday. Then some consultant told the advocate that the cars would take too long to board and unload, and a new fleet of single-level cars would be needed. The cost of that finally killed the idea.

Now, you answer this question: Shouldn't NYC replace its subway with elevated railroads, like Chicago has, because the subways flood? That's less frivolous than your "why doesn't Chicago do what ... does" line of scattershot.

And if you are arguing costs, after finally securing federal funds, do you think Chicago is going to give $2 billion back so NY can get it?

NYC isn't replacing it's subways anytime soon. Thanks to NIMBYs that will never happen. Also they could still use the Highliners, purchase Single Level EMUS, or use NICTID EMUs if the NICTD is willing to give their cars up. Which I doubt they would ever do that. The Gray Line wouldn't be so expensive as you exaggerate it to be. Yes the CTA will have to accommodate FRA regulations. Though this can be easily managed like the TFL. Also this is a forum about the Red Line not any other lines. 

[Busjack]

9 hours ago, Nitro said:

NYC isn't replacing it's subways anytime soon. Thanks to NIMBYs that will never happen. Also they could still use the Highliners, purchase Single Level EMUS, or use NICTID EMUs if the NICTD is willing to give their cars up. Which I doubt they would ever do that. The Gray Line wouldn't be so expensive as you exaggerate it to be. Yes the CTA will have to accommodate FRA regulations. Though this can be easily managed like the TFL. Also this is a forum about the Red Line not any other lines. 

The only thing you said that was correct was the last sentence, which also means this isn't about the Gray Line. But even if it were an alternative, what is your engineering experience to make cost and capacity estimates for something you have never seen? Are you a graduate of Columbia University or RIT? If so, publish the results of your analysis and turn it over to IDOT. At least the Gray  Line had consultants, who came to those conclusions, such as that Highliners would not work.

Also, the idea that excess capacity exists is negated by NICTD saying that it has to add a track in Chicago for its trains (see the South Shore thread).

I don't know WTF TFL is, but obviously you know nothing about Chicago or NW Indiana. Stop your buckshot attacks.

[Nitro]

11 hours ago, Busjack said:

The only thing you said that was correct was the last sentence, which also means this isn't about the Gray Line. But even if it were an alternative, what is your engineering experience to make cost and capacity estimates for something you have never seen? Are you a graduate of Columbia University or RIT? If so, publish the results of your analysis and turn it over to IDOT. At least the Gray  Line had consultants, who came to those conclusions, such as that Highliners would not work.

Also, the idea that excess capacity exists is negated by NICTD saying that it has to add a track in Chicago for its trains (see the South Shore thread).

I don't know WTF TFL is, but obviously you know nothing about Chicago or NW Indiana. Stop your buckshot attacks.

Hey you want both sides of the argument. TFL is Transport for London aka UK's MTA.

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, Nitro said:

Hey you want both sides of the argument.

What makes you "think" that?

1 hour ago, Nitro said:

TFL is Transport for London aka UK's MTA.

...and I don't care.

You're just playing your "Chicago should do what some other agency is doing" boring and meaningless game.

Now, lets get to the real point. In response to your assertions with regard to RLE, which you said is the only point of this topic, I asked: "what is your engineering experience to make cost and capacity estimates for something you have never seen?" You did not answer that. It is because you don't have any.

 

[Nitro]

7 hours ago, Busjack said:

What makes you "think" that?

...and I don't care.

You're just playing your "Chicago should do what some other agency is doing" boring and meaningless game.

Now, lets get to the real point. In response to your assertions with regard to RLE, which you said is the only point of this topic, I asked: "what is your engineering experience to make cost and capacity estimates for something you have never seen?" You did not answer that. It is because you don't have any.

 

I'm using basic knowledge of how railroads operate and FRA regulations. About the RLE the trackage is close to the railroad ROW. This would subject the Red Line to FRA standards. Which I just addressed already.

[Sam92]

On 10/5/2023 at 4:49 AM, Nitro said:

NYC isn't replacing it's subways anytime soon. Thanks to NIMBYs that will never happen. Also they could still use the Highliners, purchase Single Level EMUS, or use NICTID EMUs if the NICTD is willing to give their cars up. Which I doubt they would ever do that. The Gray Line wouldn't be so expensive as you exaggerate it to be. Yes the CTA will have to accommodate FRA regulations. Though this can be easily managed like the TFL. Also this is a forum about the Red Line not any other lines. 

In other words that's how much sense your suggestions would've made here. We know NYC wouldn't replace it's subways just like NONE OF THE IDEAS you've been posting would make a lock of sense here which was the point in his sarcasm. You still have yet to justify your cyan line which duplicates a line most of it's length and adds more capacity issues to Tower 18

[Busjack]

7 hours ago, Nitro said:

I'm using basic knowledge of how railroads operate and FRA regulations. About the RLE the trackage is close to the railroad ROW. This would subject the Red Line to FRA standards. Which I just addressed already.

FRA standards isn't a justification for something people in the far south side of Chicago don't want and haven't ridden. They have been demanding RLE for about 40 years. They want something that connects to the CTA L system. They don't want a 40-minute bus ride to a rapid transit station.

Again, this may be "off track," but I looked at the MTA map, and the Metro North RR (turns out it is from Grand Central Station) has only one stop in Harlem--125th St. Meanwhile, the Lexington Ave. Subway is parallel to it. By your twisted logic, shouldn't you be advocating for FRA standard service there, rather than intermeddling here? Rank hypocrisy.

5 hours ago, Sam92 said:

In other words that's how much sense your suggestions would've made here. We know NYC wouldn't replace it's subways just like NONE OF THE IDEAS you've been posting would make a lock of sense here which was the point in his sarcasm. ...

Exactly correct.

[Nitro]

 

5 hours ago, Busjack said:

FRA standards isn't a justification for something people in the far south side of Chicago don't want and haven't ridden. They have been demanding RLE for about 40 years. They want something that connects to the CTA L system. They don't want a 40-minute bus ride to a rapid transit station.

Again, this may be "off track," but I looked at the MTA map, and the Metro North RR (turns out it is from Grand Central Station) has only one stop in Harlem--125th St. Meanwhile, the Lexington Ave. Subway is parallel to it. By your twisted logic, shouldn't you be advocating for FRA standard service there, rather than intermeddling here? Rank hypocrisy.

Exactly correct.

The Lexington Avenue Line is grade separated so it isn't under FRA regulations. The Red Line may be because of its proximity to the railroad corridor unless they grade separate it from freight traffic. The PATH in NY/NJ is under railroad regulations because of its proximity to the Northeast Corridor. Why haven't the FRA lifted that already?

[artthouwill]

20 minutes ago, Nitro said:

 

The Lexington Avenue Line is grade separated so it isn't under FRA regulations. The Red Line may be because of its proximity to the railroad corridor unless they grade separate it from freight traffic. The PATH in NY/NJ is under railroad regulations because of its proximity to the Northeast Corridor. Why haven't the FRA lifted that already?

I already told you that the.RLE corridor parallel to the UP freight tracks would be grade separated.

[Sam92]

2 hours ago, Nitro said:

 

The Lexington Avenue Line is grade separated so it isn't under FRA regulations. The Red Line may be because of its proximity to the railroad corridor unless they grade separate it from freight traffic. The PATH in NY/NJ is under railroad regulations because of its proximity to the Northeast Corridor. Why haven't the FRA lifted that already?

 

2 hours ago, artthouwill said:

I already told you that the.RLE corridor parallel to the UP freight tracks would be grade separated.

Imma just pray for this man at this point ?

[Busjack]

4 hours ago, Nitro said:

The Lexington Avenue Line is grade separated so it isn't under FRA regulations. The Red Line may be because of its proximity to the railroad corridor unless they grade separate it from freight traffic. The PATH in NY/NJ is under railroad regulations because of its proximity to the Northeast Corridor. Why haven't the FRA lifted that already?

 

Quit dodging and weaving. You claimed there was some advantage of using the Gray Line proposal because the tracks were already there, parallel to the proposed RLE. You said before:

On 10/4/2023 at 2:48 PM, Nitro said:

The Gray Line would cost less compared to [various essentially fantasy transit proposals] because the infrastructure is already there. They could boost the Metra Electric headways ...

 

On 10/4/2023 at 4:52 PM, Nitro said:

I mean look at the Triboro Rx or the London Overground both mimic the subway system. The railroads can run more trains and handle additional capacity. It's amazing when you look at it.

You also surmised that NICTD could give some operating unit some single-level cars, but at least realized that wasn't going to happen.

My Lexington Avenue subway remark was in direct refutation of that. Somehow your native NY believes that a subway and commuter rail should run within a quarter mile of each other, but, so amazing as commuter rail is, people of certain demographic groups in NYC have access to the subway. Suggesting something different for Chicago is hypocrisy.

Now, in your recent post, maybe you meant parallel to the UP and not the ME/CN. But as pointed out to you by @artthouwillstarting September 24, the part parallel to the UP will be grade separated; then there was this exchange:

• You: Grade Separation like the Orange & the Green (D) Lines in Boston.
• Me: No, basically grade separation like on the RPM (according to the renderings).
• You: I know about it.

So, you knew about it two weeks ago. But now you bring up the irrelevancy that the NY subway and M-NR are grade separated.

Also, again you made assumptions that involve CTA's engineering expertise (implication is that CTA doesn't know  it has to or how to engineer a grade-separated guideway), but you don't have any. I bet your knowledge is based on foamer magazines or websites.

Unlike @Sam92, I only hope that you be man enough to admit that you have been consistently wrong and don't know anything beyond the rudimentary  about anything in Chicago, nor understand what we have been saying.

[Jstange059]

Just going to leave this document overlining the track profiles illustrating the grade separation, and step out of this warzone

CTA_RLE_FEIS_20220805_AppF_PlansAndProfiles_1of2.pdf

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, Jstange059 said:

Just going to leave this document overlining the track profiles illustrating the grade separation, and step out of this warzone

CTA_RLE_FEIS_20220805_AppF_PlansAndProfiles_1of2.pdf 14.46 MB · 0 downloads

Thanks. If I am reading this right:

• The stretch from the connection at 95th to about Michigan-116th will be more than 30' above current grade.
• The track will go over he ramp from SB Dan Ryan to SB I-57 and then go over I-57 at about Eggleston Ave.
• It says "CTA ENGINEERING." ?

[strictures]

2 hours ago, Jstange059 said:

Just going to leave this document overlining the track profiles illustrating the grade separation, and step out of this warzone

CTA_RLE_FEIS_20220805_AppF_PlansAndProfiles_1of2.pdf 14.46 MB · 12 downloads

So what's the purpose of the center track between 116th St & 117th St, as the end of the line is only less than two miles away? 

[artthouwill]

1 hour ago, strictures said:

So what's the purpose of the center track between 116th St & 117th St, as the end of the line is only less than two miles away? 

Good question.   Could it be a short turn?  Or could it be a way to access the  ew railcars with the  Michigan station being similar to the Rosemont station?  Maybe the center track is the track from 130th and the outer track is the track that accesses the railyard.

Also consider the only other middle track along the Red Line South branch is 63rd middle.  It probably is a good idea to have another middle track between 63rd and 130th,  even if it is 2 to 3 miles from the end of the line.   I suppose that it's possible to build one south of 95th, but the middle track couldn't go up with the main tracks going over to follow I -57.  The next question then becomes what does CTA do with 98th Yard?

[Sam92]

3 hours ago, artthouwill said:

  Maybe the center track is the track from 130th and the outer track is the track that accesses the railyard.

 

 

4 hours ago, strictures said:

So what's the purpose of the center track between 116th St & 117th St, as the end of the line is only less than two miles away? 

I thought the same at first about it being a yard track but looking back at the file it ends so it is a bit weird of a spot to do that with the yard being so close. Then speaking of Rosemont I thought maybe some runs would start at Michigan station like with Rosemont  but the yard track connection runs from 130th to the southern end of the yard so that's out of the question. Just odd all around cause If we're talking imbalances then the 800s out of Howard would most likely be short turning but that far south isn't really saving much. At that point you might as well do what's being done and run them to the end and lay up at 120th. 63rd would make more sense to turn back those runs if not Roosevelt via 37th middle (although purple might use that if it reroutes to the subway). Heck even finding a way to make 98th more accessible as a yard for short turn runs makes more sense but unfortunately that can't be done due to the layout

[Sam92]

3 hours ago, artthouwill said:

 The next question then becomes what does CTA do with 98th Yard?

Converted to non revenue equipment yard (so new 61st?) The layout of the area doesn't allow a way for 98th to connect to the extension in a way that it can feed in short runs without interfering with other trains from somewhere in the reports. I'm sure it's in my phone somewhere I'll post a screenshot later 

[Nitro]

On 10/6/2023 at 8:17 PM, Busjack said:

 

Quit dodging and weaving. You claimed there was some advantage of using the Gray Line proposal because the tracks were already there, parallel to the proposed RLE. You said before:

 

You also surmised that NICTD could give some operating unit some single-level cars, but at least realized that wasn't going to happen.

My Lexington Avenue subway remark was in direct refutation of that. Somehow your native NY believes that a subway and commuter rail should run within a quarter mile of each other, but, so amazing as commuter rail is, people of certain demographic groups in NYC have access to the subway. Suggesting something different for Chicago is hypocrisy.

Now, in your recent post, maybe you meant parallel to the UP and not the ME/CN. But as pointed out to you by @artthouwillstarting September 24, the part parallel to the UP will be grade separated; then there was this exchange:

• You: Grade Separation like the Orange & the Green (D) Lines in Boston.
• Me: No, basically grade separation like on the RPM (according to the renderings).
• You: I know about it.

So, you knew about it two weeks ago. But now you bring up the irrelevancy that the NY subway and M-NR are grade separated.

Also, again you made assumptions that involve CTA's engineering expertise (implication is that CTA doesn't know  it has to or how to engineer a grade-separated guideway), but you don't have any. I bet your knowledge is based on foamer magazines or websites.

Unlike @Sam92, I only hope that you be man enough to admit that you have been consistently wrong and don't know anything beyond the rudimentary  about anything in Chicago, nor understand what we have been saying.

The infrastructure is already there for the Gray Line. Yeah it'l be under FRA regulations though a platform can be easily used for the line only. Also there isn't a difference at all. Most subway/light rail lines when they run near or next to railroad are GRADE SEPARATED. I only asked if the Red Line would be Grade Separated like everything else. If there is a connection to the rail network it may be under the jurisdiction of the FRA. Unless the connection is used for work trains and delivering rolling stock into Chicago.

[Nitro]

1 hour ago, Sam92 said:

Converted to non revenue equipment yard (so new 61st?) The layout of the area doesn't allow a way for 98th to connect to the extension in a way that it can feed in short runs without interfering with other trains from somewhere in the reports. I'm sure it's in my phone somewhere I'll post a screenshot later 

As a matter of fact we know the reason why cities like Chicago, New York City, & Boston's subways have connections to the rail network. To deliver and unload rolling stock via trucking is quite expensive, Especially for maintenance.

[Nitro]

5 hours ago, artthouwill said:

Good question.   Could it be a short turn?  Or could it be a way to access the  ew railcars with the  Michigan station being similar to the Rosemont station?  Maybe the center track is the track from 130th and the outer track is the track that accesses the railyard.

Also consider the only other middle track along the Red Line South branch is 63rd middle.  It probably is a good idea to have another middle track between 63rd and 130th,  even if it is 2 to 3 miles from the end of the line.   I suppose that it's possible to build one south of 95th, but the middle track couldn't go up with the main tracks going over to follow I -57.  The next question then becomes what does CTA do with 98th Yard?

So then what do we do with Interstate 57? Build a line running alongside the highway? Uh I don't think so.

[Sam92]

1 hour ago, Nitro said:

As a matter of fact we know the reason why cities like Chicago, New York City, & Boston's subways have connections to the rail network. To deliver and unload rolling stock via trucking is quite expensive, Especially for maintenance.

We're not talking about connections for delivering we're talking about A RED LINE YARD THAT WILL BE DECOMMISSIONED AND USED FOR NOM REVENUE RAIL EQUIPMENT. 

[Sam92]

1 hour ago, Nitro said:

So then what do we do with Interstate 57? Build a line running alongside the highway? Uh I don't think so.

If you would read you would know

[artthouwill]

7 hours ago, Nitro said:

The infrastructure is already there for the Gray Line. Yeah it'l be under FRA regulations though a platform can be easily used for the line only. Also there isn't a difference at all. Most subway/light rail lines when they run near or next to railroad are GRADE SEPARATED. I only asked if the Red Line would be Grade Separated like everything else. If there is a connection to the rail network it may be under the jurisdiction of the FRA. Unless the connection is used for work trains and delivering rolling stock into Chicago.

You need to read the Gray Line thread to understand why it doesn't make any sense.

Maybe you can help New York figure out how it wants to build a Brooklyn-Queeens rail line that directly connects the two Burroughs.   If that ever gets built, then you can help them figure out how to connect the Bronx to that line. Figure out if that will be a subway line or commuter line 

[strictures]

7 hours ago, Nitro said:

As a matter of fact we know the reason why cities like Chicago, New York City, & Boston's subways have connections to the rail network. To deliver and unload rolling stock via trucking is quite expensive, Especially for maintenance.

At one time there was a rail connection from I believe the Pennsylvania RR to the 63rd St. Lower Yard.  That's how the 6000s were delivered fro St. Louis Car.  The 2400s were delivered to the Skokie Shops by the C&NW from the North Ave. Yard, then along the North Line to the Mayfair Cutoff & into the Skokie Shops.  They were lashed down to Trailer Train flat cars, with heavy chains & that had standard gauge rails bolted to the wooden floor & then there were a piece of steel, shaped to fit the opposite of the wheel, welded to the rails, so the new cars wouldn't move forward or backward. The Mayfair Cutoff is now gone, so trucks are used to bring the new cars from the South Side to Skokie now.

I once saw a photo of about 100 new NYC Transit cars in tow from St. Louis Car, running on the rails, with some sort of freight car used to transition from the standard Janney coupler on Class 1 rails to the coupler used by NYC.

[Busjack]

8 hours ago, Nitro said:

So then what do we do with Interstate 57? Build a line running alongside the highway? Uh I don't think so.

Maybe if you clicked on what @Jstange059 you would find out that you again are wrong. But I guess New Yorkers don't do that.

It also looks as though you can't post coherently at 2 a.m. EDT.