DENVER | Transportation Thread

[FrancoRey]

A German ICE train would be siiiick. They are sweet to ride in at full speed. The world flies by in a blur. Can you imagine a express train from Fort Collins to Colorado Springs? Think about flying past all of Denver (north-south) in like 5 minutes.

[bcp]

thats a pretty train...but man, are they tryign to do TOO much as a first step? i fear that it will become so complicated and expensive that it will never happen in this format, or on time for an olympic bid.

[The Dirt]

So, they will have to move the freight lines out east in order to even start this? It sounds like we're at least 10 years out then.

[wong21fr]

Even more than 10 years. There is no way that the state could hope to pay for such a project without some massive federal aid. I know that the numbers are still being worked out but it looks like you're looking at somewhere in the range of $10 billion for the N/S corridor alone.

Hell, we can't even fund our colleges right now. And now that Poundstone has resurfaced with a Bruce-esque tax reduction proposal....

[Octavian]

Being designated the nation's 11th high speed rail corridor opens up federal funding. Private industry brings money if they do a Build-Design-Operate-Maintain. I think the plan is to finish up the study, see what the results say, create an agency to execute the plan, and then put it on a statewide ballot measure in 2010 (like Fastracks). Fastracks will in theory will be done by 2017, 13 years between the ballot measure and completion. If this passes, it could be completed in time for a 2022 Olympics. The Chunnel took 6 years to build after construction began.

[wong21fr]

Do you think that such a ballot proposal would have any chance of passing in 2010?

[Octavian]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Do you think that such a ballot proposal would have any chance of passing in 2010?

Hard to say this early. Depends on what the final plan is, how much it costs, how the economy is, and if Fastracks is also asking for more money. There is strong support among the communities of I-70, Grand Junction and the ski resorts. This article is worth reading too.

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by Octavian

We no longer need to speculate over how fast Maglev would be. Short answer, Maglev and 220 MPH EMU are wicked fast on the plains and slightly faster than driving through the mountains. Updates on the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority site:

They have time tables and alignment studies. Looks like we need to move the CML out east as that's how the trains would access DUS. DIA to DUS under their plan in as little as 13 min. They got feedback to add a tech center station and to look at an alignment along E-470 (to get to DIA I assume).

Boulder, Longmont, Loveland may get bypassed since that alignment heading to Ft. Collins takes a lot longer then one along BNSF lines along where the RTD NE corridor is eventually planned. They estimate between 2:05 (79 mph Diesel train) and 1:05 to get from Denver to Cheyenne, depending on the rail technology. Denver to Ft. Collins in as little as 42 min.

Southbound, the trains have huge savings in time. Denver to Colorado Springs in 1:45 to 0:40. Denver to Trinidad between 4:30 and 1:45.

Heading west, the mountains make it harder to achieve huge advantages in travel time if traffic on I-70 is good. All the technologies they looked at have similar performance. DIA to Denver in 13-16 min. Denver to Copper in between 1:20 and 1:45. Denver to Avon (Vail) 2:12 - 2:32 (they take a longer alignment to Vail to serve Keystone and Breckenridge more easily and because they can't get over Vail pass with a train). Denver to Grand Junction in between 4:10 and 5:05 (the same as driving off peak).

Based on the travel times listed on their preliminary operating plan, looks like they are leaning towards picking the 150 mph non-tilting train, or a tilting train capable of up to 220 mph. The German ICE and French TGV are examples. It lets them use some existing track and is probably cheaper than the Maglev, and definitely more proven, for only slightly less performance.



They have about 23 miles of new tunnels they've identified. At $200 million a mile, that works out to $4.65 billion just for the tunneling.

Well worth looking at all their slides.

I analyzed the data and it looks like to me that they may well be picking two different technologies. One for I-25 and another for I-70. I list first, the best option for that corridor and 2nd is listed the next best option (based on report):

I-25 corridor Best Options: 220mph (tilting) OR 110mph (tilting)
I-70 Corridor Best Options: 125mph (slow mag-lev) OR 110mph (tilting)

[Octavian]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

I analyzed the data and it looks like to me that they may well be picking two different technologies. One for I-25 and another for I-70. I list first, the best option for that corridor and 2nd is listed the next best option (based on report):

I-25 corridor Best Options: 220mph (tilting) OR 110mph (tilting)
I-70 Corridor Best Options: 125mph (slow mag-lev) OR 110mph (tilting)

I think they want to pick the 220 mph tilting for both corridors (best case). Look at slide 31, the best time they list between Avon and Grand Junction is 1:45, which corresponds to their estimate for the 220 tiliting. They list the time between Denver and Ft. Collins as 0:42 . . . again corresponding with the 220 tilting.

[electricron]

I've looked at the recent report posted earlier, and in just about every scenario, the 110 or 125 mph trains were within 10 minutes of most 150 or 200 mph trains. The 300 mph Meglev train wasn't much faster either.
I guess there's too many curves and too much grade in Colorado to really take advantage of the much higher train speed capabilities. Did anyone read the study?

http://rockymountainrail.org/documents/Feasibility_Study_Update_012309.pdf

The 110 mph diesel powered Talgo train performed very well, considering its price advantages. I bet the so called 79 mph trains could reach maximum speeds if the tracks were upgraded to FRA Class 5 and you remove the freight trains from the routes. These locomotives can acheive 110 mph too, if the tracks were refurbished.

So why are you all salivating over the much more expensive electric powered ICE and TGV trains?

[bcp]

right or wrong, people are scared to death of the word 'diesel' out here...ugh.

[wong21fr]

It's more a "boys and their toys" thing, people are salivating over the sexy technology.

The N/S corrdior would be a better bet for the ICE-system, though the Eurostar style would glean some decent cost and time savings. Probably enough time savings to make it attractive over teh 110MPH option.

The mountains are going to be the absolute nightmare. So many tunnels and trying to serve way too many communities that are too far removed.

[Octavian]

I care about speed because I think it would have to be faster than driving for people to use it. I think a lot of people will ask why take a train between Ft. Collins and DIA if it's quicker to drive. I know we can come up with reasons (parking), but time is definitely a selling point.

I'm not against diesel by any means, but they're not even considering diesel for the mountains, because they simply don't have the performance at grade. Look at the last page, page 3 for the I-70 corridor. The I-70 line will be electric. Definitely an option on the eastern plains though.

You are correct about the Eurostar. I confused the ICE-3 (top) and the ICE-T (bottom). ICE-3 is a higher speed train (about 205 mph) but lacks tilting capabilty. The ICE-T has tilting, but lower top speed (about 150) and is comparable to the Eurostar. Both are EMUs. Since only tiliting trains are under consideration for the mountains, ICE-3 is not being considered for I-70. And for those interested, here are the Japanese Shinkansen.



One final consideration is whether or not the train is an EMU or a locomotive. Locomotives have to pull the whole train, which gives less power than an EMU (which powers some or all the wheels) when going up grades. Maybe this won't be a problem, since they say they've managed to keep the grades along their proposed route to less than 4%. On the eastern plains, that is less important and their performance is comparable.

[Paulopolis]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Do you think that such a ballot proposal would have any chance of passing in 2010?

There might be support for it. A new poll came out recently that said that Denver metro residents were ok with a tax increase to complete FasTracks in its original form on time.

I wonder if it would be possible to tie together the RMRA ballot initiative and a potential second FasTracks tax increase ballot initiative. In that way, maybe the political support in the Denver area to finish FasTracks could be bound to the political support in other parts of the state for high-speed commuter rail.

Poll finds support for FasTracks tax hike
By Jeff Leib
The Denver Post
Posted: 01/26/2009 10:21:08 AM MST
Updated: 01/26/2009 04:33:26 PM MST

A poll conducted this month found strong support for a sales-tax hike to complete the Denver area's FasTracks transit expansion by 2017.

A survey commissioned by the Regional Transportation District found 63 percent of respondents would "generally support" a sales-tax increase of up to .4 percent — or four cents on a $10 purchase — to finish the planned transit expansion by 2017. That amount would double the current FasTracks tax, which was approved by voters in 2004.

The survey polled 700 active voters in the eight-county transit district. The lowest support for the tax increase came from Douglas and Adams counties at 54 percent and 53 percent, respectively. The highest support, 68 percent, was found in Boulder County and Denver, followed by Jefferson County at 65 percent.

RTD's board, which received the results this morning, has not decided how to close a roughly $2 billion shortfall to complete FasTracks by 2017.

The district would need the approval of the current session of the General Assembly to get the increase on the ballot this fall.

Officials are assessing whether passage would be more likely in an off-year election or in 2010, when voters also would be turning out to cast ballots for U.S. Senate, governor and congressional races, among others.

Last year, RTD said costs of the six-line FasTracks program had ballooned to $7.9 billion.

When it reported the cost increase, RTD said three of the lines — the train from Union Station to Denver International Airport; the Gold Line to Arvada/Wheat Ridge; and the West Corridor light-rail line to Golden — would have to stay on schedule for completion by 2017 because they expect to get at least $1.3 billion from the federal government.

The DIA and Gold Line trains also expect to benefit from the injection of about $1.2 billion in private financing.

The three other main FasTracks trains — the Northwest commuter rail to Boulder/Longmont; the North Metro train to Thornton/Northglenn; and the Interstate 225 light-rail line — could be completed by 2017 only if the additional $2 billion could be raised, RTD said.

Otherwise, their completion might have to be delayed until 2034.

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by Octavian

I care about speed because I think it would have to be faster than driving for people to use it. I think a lot of people will ask why take a train between Ft. Collins and DIA if it's quicker to drive. I know we can come up with reasons (parking), but time is definitely a selling point.

I'm not against diesel by any means, but they're not even considering diesel for the mountains, because they simply don't have the performance at grade. Look at the last page, page 3 for the I-70 corridor. The I-70 line will be electric. Definitely an option on the eastern plains though.

You are correct about the Eurostar. I confused the ICE-3 (top) and the ICE-T (bottom). ICE-3 is a higher speed train (about 205 mph) but lacks tilting capabilty. The ICE-T has tilting, but lower top speed (about 150) and is comparable to the Eurostar. Both are EMUs. Since only tiliting trains are under consideration for the mountains, ICE-3 is not being considered for I-70. And for those interested, here are the Japanese Shinkansen.

One final consideration is whether or not the train is an EMU or a locomotive. Locomotives have to pull the whole train, which gives less power than an EMU (which powers some or all the wheels) when going up grades. Maybe this won't be a problem, since they say they've managed to keep the grades along their proposed route to less than 4%. On the eastern plains, that is less important and their performance is comparable.

Exactly, it has to be faster than driving, or there is no point in it at all. In order for ridership to be high, it will need to be as fast as economically possible and that means electric (especially in mountains) and that also means more than likely tilting technology, because of the curves. It also means that 110mph woudl barely cut it and ridership woudl suffer if used. The 125mph slow mag-lev was impressive, as it was less effected by bad terrain. However, the 150-220mph tilting trains look superior and they are well proven in Europe, including mountainous terrain.

The most important factor is not building it as cheaply as possible, at the cost of ridership and effectiveness. The number one objective is building it fast enough, it attracts extra-ordinary ridership.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

Exactly, it has to be faster than driving, or there is no point in it at all. In order for ridership to be high, it will need to be as fast as economically possible and that means electric (especially in mountains) and that also means more than likely tilting technology, because of the curves. It also means that 110mph woudl barely cut it and ridership woudl suffer if used. The 125mph slow mag-lev was impressive, as it was less effected by bad terrain. However, the 150-220mph tilting trains look superior and they are well proven in Europe, including mountainous terrain.

The most important factor is not building it as cheaply as possible, at the cost of ridership and effectiveness. The number one objective is building it fast enough, it attracts extra-ordinary ridership.

The Talgo, 110 mph train, is a tilting train. It can run at speed over most existing freight right-of-ways. No need to buy new ROW and build brand new lines. But I do understand the reason for wishing to use electric power trains in the mountains.

But, 10 minutes of total time savings from one train technology over another isn't faster enough to attract extra-ordinary ridership.

Two to three hours travel, over a distance of 100 to 400 miles, is considered by most experts in the field fast enough to compete with air travel. Do we really need to get the longer distances down to just an hour with all the extra expenses?

The study recommended two choices for most of the routes, including the fastest and most expensive choice, and the second fastest and amongst the cheapest choice. The second fastest, and amongst the cheapest choice, was only 10 minutes slower. That's the choice I would make.

[bcp]

they've really got to simplify the plans and options movign forward...especially for phase 1....

keep it simple - but include some funding for local communities that are 'off the path' to connect via good bus service or trams if they can find the extra money. (e.g. keystone, breckenridge, casino towns)

[SnyderBock]

The second fastest choice was the one I was supporting electron...

-- I-25: My first choice for the I-25 route was the faster 150mph (tilting) Eurostar trains over both the 220mph and 300mph trains. relocating the freight out east, would allow for existing track upgrades for this service, with substantial upgrades.Not all segments would be 150mph zones--this will keep costs down.

My second choice for the I-25 route is the 110mph (tilting). Now you can argue about diesel over electric all you want, but electric will be a more stable operating cost and will be available from many sources, including renewable sources along the route and won't require fueling infrastructure at stations and time consuming re-fueling stops. Also, in mountain valleys, smog accumulation is already an issue now, the last thing we need is more smog.

-- I-70: My first choice for the I-70 route was the slow-speed 125mph mag-lev. This could share I-70 ROW much of the route. Since it's elevated, it won't have issues with grade or curves (as much) and being elevated keeps it above rock slides, avalanches and any deeply accumulating snow drifts. If you notice, the slow mag-lev actually outperformed the 150-220mph options and was only 3 minutes slower (on longest route), than the 300mph mag-lev.

My second choice for the I-70 corridor was the 150mph (tilting), because it performs better than the 220mph option and it would not be cost effective to choice the 300mph mag-lev over the 125mph slow mag-lev, for only a 3 minute improvement on the longest route. The primary reason 110mph (tilting) was not an option for teh I-70 route, is because large segments of the route will not following existing rail, so new rail will have to be built no matter what, making the faster options equally as cost effective with better performance.


---I think they can safely remove some alternatives from consideration.

1.) They have demonstrated that the 125mph slow mag-lev nearly equals the performance of the 300mph fast mag-lev and presumably at much lower cost. Remove 300mph mag-lev from consideration.

2.) They have demonstrated that the 150mph (non-tilting) trains will not be able to utilize their speed potential, because of all the curves. The 125mph slow mag-lev using it's grade separation to utilize it's speed potential and the 110mph, 150mph and 220mpg (tilting) trains use the tilting ability to utilize their speed potential. Remove 150mph (non-tilting) from consideration.

3.) The 220-mph (tilting) train shows little or no improvement over the 110mph (tilting), 125mph slow mag-lev and 150mph (tilting) trains. The extra speed simply cannot be utilized in these corridors in a cost-effective way. Remove the 220mph (tilting) train from consideration.


This leaves the final alternatives for each corridor as follows...

I-25 Corridor:
1.) 110mph (tilting)
2.) 125mph (slow) Mag-lev
3.) 150mph (tilting) Eurostar

I-70 Corridor:
1.) 125mph (slow) Mag-lev
2.) 150mph (tilting) Eurostar

[Strange Meat]

Tilting trains are freaking awesome, I got to ride on in Sweden.

It was fun because I didn't have a seat reservation and the train was full, and I had been up for about 34 hours at that point, so I kept moving from empty seat to empty seat, falling asleep and waking up to people angrily talking to me in Swedish.

Great times.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

The second fastest choice was the one I was supporting electron...

-- I-25: My first choice for the I-25 route was the faster 150mph (tilting) Eurostar trains over both the 220mph and 300mph trains. relocating the freight out east, would allow for existing track upgrades for this service, with substantial upgrades.Not all segments would be 150mph zones--this will keep costs down.

My second choice for the I-25 route is the 110mph (tilting). Now you can argue about diesel over electric all you want, but electric will be a more stable operating cost and will be available from many sources, including renewable sources along the route and won't require fueling infrastructure at stations and time consuming re-fueling stops. Also, in mountain valleys, smog accumulation is already an issue now, the last thing we need is more smog.

-- I-70: My first choice for the I-70 route was the slow-speed 125mph mag-lev. This could share I-70 ROW much of the route. Since it's elevated, it won't have issues with grade or curves (as much) and being elevated keeps it above rock slides, avalanches and any deeply accumulating snow drifts. If you notice, the slow mag-lev actually outperformed the 150-220mph options and was only 3 minutes slower (on longest route), than the 300mph mag-lev.

My second choice for the I-70 corridor was the 150mph (tilting), because it performs better than the 220mph option and it would not be cost effective to choice the 300mph mag-lev over the 125mph slow mag-lev, for only a 3 minute improvement on the longest route. The primary reason 110mph (tilting) was not an option for teh I-70 route, is because large segments of the route will not following existing rail, so new rail will have to be built no matter what, making the faster options equally as cost effective with better performance.


---I think they can safely remove some alternatives from consideration.

1.) They have demonstrated that the 125mph slow mag-lev nearly equals the performance of the 300mph fast mag-lev and presumably at much lower cost. Remove 300mph mag-lev from consideration.

2.) They have demonstrated that the 150mph (non-tilting) trains will not be able to utilize their speed potential, because of all the curves. The 125mph slow mag-lev using it's grade separation to utilize it's speed potential and the 110mph, 150mph and 220mpg (tilting) trains use the tilting ability to utilize their speed potential. Remove 150mph (non-tilting) from consideration.

3.) The 220-mph (tilting) train shows little or no improvement over the 110mph (tilting), 125mph slow mag-lev and 150mph (tilting) trains. The extra speed simply cannot be utilized in these corridors in a cost-effective way. Remove the 220mph (tilting) train from consideration.


This leaves the final alternatives for each corridor as follows...

I-25 Corridor:
1.) 110mph (tilting)
2.) 125mph (slow) Mag-lev
3.) 150mph (tilting) Eurostar

I-70 Corridor:
1.) 125mph (slow) Mag-lev
2.) 150mph (tilting) Eurostar

I guess those TGV and ICE trains weren't all that great a choice after all.
It's nice to discuss the study after someone has actually read it.

Since it's going to cost a fortune building a brand new electric powered I-70 Corridor, let's save a few bucks on the I-25 Corridor. I still prefer the Tilting 110 mpg Talgo train for the followinng reason. It's FRA compliant. Meaning it can run on tracks with active freight business.
If Colorado built the freight bypass line as proposed, there will still be freight trains servicing industries along the existing rail corridor. The bypass rail line would only displace "through" freights from the passenger train line of choice. The Eurostar and Meglev trains aren't FRA compliant, so both of these trains would require completely separated tracks from the existing freight tracks. The Meglev would need that anyways, because it wouldn't use rails at all, but so would the Eurostar.

My other choice, for both routes to keep it simple, is use the 150 mph, tilting Acela trains Amtrak uses on the NE Corridor.
Costs will be more predictable, and they are FRA compliant. No need to run grade separations between Passenger and Freight tracks in the same ROW.