HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #8601  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2022, 9:33 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,434
A fantastic 5-minute story on Utah Public Radio about the Rio Grande Plan.

https://www.upr.org/utah-news/2022-03-09...de-depot-and-heal-salt-lake-citys-divide

Colleen, the reporter, got quotes from John Larsen and Dan Dugan of Salt Lake City, as well as an official statement from Union Pacific Railroad, which is hard to do (they are 'aware' of the proposal, which is a really big step on its own, especially since they didn't shoot it down right away!).

I'm very happy that HB0322 passed. That is also a big step forward for the Rio Grande plan, as that significantly simplifies the politics of these sorts of big transit projects. I think the future looks pretty bright for SLC transit!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8602  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2022, 7:21 AM
Paniolo Man's Avatar
Paniolo Man Paniolo Man is offline
Lahaina Strong
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Murray, Utah.
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makid View Post
Current plans will continue.
I apologize, I wasn't clear about what I meant. Double tracking will continue, but UTA's plan Frontrunner Forward is supposed to be complete this summer. It will be their study on feasibility and implementation of double track. Will UDOT do their own planning and force UTA to discard the Frontrunner Forward plan? I don't mind either way, I am just curious about how that works.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8603  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2022, 1:55 PM
Makid Makid is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paniolo Man View Post
I apologize, I wasn't clear about what I meant. Double tracking will continue, but UTA's plan Frontrunner Forward is supposed to be complete this summer. It will be their study on feasibility and implementation of double track. Will UDOT do their own planning and force UTA to discard the Frontrunner Forward plan? I don't mind either way, I am just curious about how that works.
UDoT will be able to use any study information that comes from UTA. I would not expect this to change in the slightest. The State wants FrontRunner double tracked as soon as possible, they also want Construction to start this year. The only way that this is feasible would be to use the UTA study.

Now, this isn't to say that UDoT will ignore parts of the Study, the same way that UTA will. UDoT isn't worried on the feasibility portion and UTA doesn't need to worry about the construction portion. UTA will also be able to ignore some of the feasibility portion as they are only going to be funding the operation of the line and, to my knowledge, the vehicle purchases when needed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8604  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2022, 5:41 PM
billbillbillbill billbillbillbill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 167
Farewell Comet Cars

UTA announced the end for the Comet Cars on Frontrunner starting April 2.
https://www.rideuta.com/news/2022/03/Goo..._NsH-sCAGhc2h-rWOz0kq-mIL1q4CgnSDORS8vuQ

They were my preferred choice on Frontrunner. I didn't see anything about if they will be shrinking the trains or adding an additional matching car. Anyone know the plan?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8605  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2022, 6:11 PM
Reeder113's Avatar
Reeder113 Reeder113 is offline
Eschew Obfuscation
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by billbillbillbill View Post
UTA announced the end for the Comet Cars on Frontrunner starting April 2.
https://www.rideuta.com/news/2022/03/Goo..._NsH-sCAGhc2h-rWOz0kq-mIL1q4CgnSDORS8vuQ

They were my preferred choice on Frontrunner. I didn't see anything about if they will be shrinking the trains or adding an additional matching car. Anyone know the plan?
They were my preferred choice, as well. They were more private because you weren't facing anyone else like you are in the double-decker cars.

I'm also curious to see if they'll be tacking on another matching car, or reducing the length of the train, although that would make the other three cars extremely crowded.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8606  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2022, 6:26 PM
billbillbillbill billbillbillbill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 167
Also in relation to eliminating the Comet cars, the platforms at Frontrunner had the lower level on the north to accommodate the lower entrance doors of the comets. If they were to add another double decker car, is there additional higher platform to the south that can accommodate an additional car? It would be very expensive to raise the north end of each station in the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8607  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2022, 6:53 PM
Atlas's Avatar
Atlas Atlas is online now
Space Magi
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 2,014
Interesting that they're getting rid of those cars. Maybe they have some low-floor replacement in mind?

Trawling through the UTA Board of Directors meeting agenda for tomorrow, I noticed that they intend to officially name the Vineyard FR station "Vineyard Station" and the 650 Main TRAX stop "600 South Station." Kinda lame. "Midtown Station" would have been my choice for the latter!

It also looks like they now intend to open 600 South Station on June 30th due to supply-chain delays.

And here's a look at all of the crossings that are going to be rebuilt when they start double-tracking FrontRunner (pending an agreement with Union Pacific)

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8608  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2022, 7:32 PM
Paniolo Man's Avatar
Paniolo Man Paniolo Man is offline
Lahaina Strong
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Murray, Utah.
Posts: 832
I know they have been concerned about safety with the comets, their raised design means it it easy for kids to climb under them. I really hope they find a replacement quickly. I wonder if this is a move to free up platform space so they can move on raising the northern ends to the bilevel height.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8609  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2022, 2:26 PM
Atlas's Avatar
Atlas Atlas is online now
Space Magi
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 2,014
Via https://kslnewsradio.com/1965930/frontrunner-to-retire-comet-cars/

Quote:
Update: 7:28 p.m.

UTA spokesman Carl Arky contacted KSL Tuesday evening to say that the Comet cars are not being taken out of operation. He says an evaluation is still underway, but no decision has been made.

He says there was an internal communications error and a misunderstanding at UTA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8610  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2022, 4:44 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,434
That is good they are not getting rid of the comet cars yet. They don't have enough bilevels to compensate for the lost capacity. Those comet cars have been a source of debate ever since I can remember, with proposals to either delete them or add a second one to all consists gaining momentum then dying out. (Check out my photos link for a test train they ran years ago with two comet cars, it looks pretty good!)
If they ever do scrap the comet cars, it would be trivial to adjust the steps on some of the bilevel cars for low platform use. Literally every other agency that uses those bilevel cars has only low platforms, with a 'high block' for wheelchairs. Uta is alone in the world for offering level boarding for those cars. Even stranger, Salt Lake Central is the only station that offers level boarding for Amtrak's superliner cars, which gives that station the distinction of having two unique platform heights but no standard platform for other visiting trains. It's just a weird place.

Thanks, Atlas, for finding the grade crossing numbers! I looked over which crossings they correspond to, and here's my guesses for the double track project:

Complete double track between American Fork and Draper, including through old town Lehi and the Jordan River narrows.

Complete double track between South Jordan and Murray Central, excluding the flyover bridge and the two crossings on either end.

Lengthening the siding at 1700 South in Salt Lake City southward, probably as far as 3300 south, leaving a 3 mile gap to Murray Central.

Complete double track between Woods Cross and Farmington, and possibly up to the Kaysville siding (though probably not).

Lengthening the Clearfield siding northward to 6000S street in Roy, leaving a 3 mile gap to Roy (unless the list is incomplete, since there are only two more crossings to get all the way to Roy).

Then there is some confusing stuff, like a bunch of crossings near the Warm Springs maintenance area that will get rebuilt despite the fact that there is already double track there. Presumably they will need to rearrange the yard to hold twice the amount of trains. I can only hope that they take this opportunity to reroute the mainline to the west of the maintenance buildings, in order to eliminate the sharp S curves, but that may be asking too much.

Overall I'm really excited for these changes! I am very happy that it appears UTA is building real double track, not just lengthening sidings. This way, trains can still run at their top speed between stations instead of slowing down for the switches. In talking to some people building the new Vineyard station, I learned that UTA has splurged on a very expensive 60 mph switch, rather than the regular 40 mph switch, so that trains won't have to slow down quite as much as I thought, but it will still drag down the travel time overall.

If there is anything I'm disappointed about, it is the 3 mile gaps that will remain on both sides of the Vineyard station and between Clearfield and Roy. Those are going to prove very annoying in operation, but hopefully they are short enough that they can be rectified later in smaller projects.
The 3 mile gap between Murray and the South Salt Lake siding is very understandable, considering how many bridges and relocations needed in that area.

But man, that section between Woods Cross and Farmington is going to be amazing, especially if the rumors are true and UTA plans to run at the full 90 mph the track is built for! Flying past traffic at that speed will be so satisfying.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8611  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2022, 4:54 PM
Paniolo Man's Avatar
Paniolo Man Paniolo Man is offline
Lahaina Strong
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Murray, Utah.
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatman View Post
Complete double track between American Fork and Draper, including through old town Lehi and the Jordan River narrows.
Their initial maps showed double track from Lehi and Draper all the way up to Jordan Narrows with single track through. I hope they double track the entire thing, though that stretch would likely exhaust the budget they are working with at the moment. Still hoping for some sort of federal funding match.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8612  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2022, 5:44 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paniolo Man View Post
Their initial maps showed double track from Lehi and Draper all the way up to Jordan Narrows with single track through. I hope they double track the entire thing, though that stretch would likely exhaust the budget they are working with at the moment. Still hoping for some sort of federal funding match.

Ooh, a map! Would you happen to know where I could find it?

Honestly, going single track through the narrows is not the worst thing. The trains already have to slow to 45 mph due to the curves. My hope is that they will one day dig through the last remains of that hill so that the tracks will go straight north from Lehi. It is only a mile long, the hill is basically carved out by the quarry already, it would save money long-term by reducing maintenance on the sharp curves, and you could double train speeds through the narrows to reduce travel times. The downside is that new ROW/bridges would be needed over the Jordan River, which would take time+money to complete all the paperwork.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8613  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2022, 6:23 PM
Paniolo Man's Avatar
Paniolo Man Paniolo Man is offline
Lahaina Strong
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Murray, Utah.
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatman View Post
Ooh, a map! Would you happen to know where I could find it?

Honestly, going single track through the narrows is not the worst thing. The trains already have to slow to 45 mph due to the curves. My hope is that they will one day dig through the last remains of that hill so that the tracks will go straight north from Lehi. It is only a mile long, the hill is basically carved out by the quarry already, it would save money long-term by reducing maintenance on the sharp curves, and you could double train speeds through the narrows to reduce travel times. The downside is that new ROW/bridges would be needed over the Jordan River, which would take time+money to complete all the paperwork.
Here is the most recent version I have seen from this IGG Subcommittee (PDF) update that was presented in October. My understanding is that this is the plan unless more funding can be secured.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8614  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2022, 7:20 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,434
Thank you for the map!

...and after looking at it, it would appear that I made quite a few assumptions about how far the double track sections would continue. This map is basically what I was afraid would happen.
I just don't understand how UTA planners can believe that adding an extra mile here and there will solve the scheduling issues. Double track only works if the track keeps going to where you need to go. Sure, it's a money issue, but that is less of a problem now that UDOT is handling rail expansion. Instead of lengthening sidings, UTA should take their 300 million, build complete double track between the easiest station pairs (Draper to South Jordan, Orem to American Fork, Clearfield to Roy, Woods Cross to North Temple, etc) and wait for UDOT funding to come online before increasing train frequency.

Also, I'm really dubious about this express service idea. Not only will it disrupt the regular service pattern, but can you imagine the safety hazards associated with having trains flying through stations at full speed? People already get hit in the crosswalks when trains are crawling out of the station. I have a bad feeling about this...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8615  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2022, 9:34 PM
Paniolo Man's Avatar
Paniolo Man Paniolo Man is offline
Lahaina Strong
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Murray, Utah.
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatman View Post
Thank you for the map!

...and after looking at it, it would appear that I made quite a few assumptions about how far the double track sections would continue. This map is basically what I was afraid would happen.
I just don't understand how UTA planners can believe that adding an extra mile here and there will solve the scheduling issues. Double track only works if the track keeps going to where you need to go. Sure, it's a money issue, but that is less of a problem now that UDOT is handling rail expansion. Instead of lengthening sidings, UTA should take their 300 million, build complete double track between the easiest station pairs (Draper to South Jordan, Orem to American Fork, Clearfield to Roy, Woods Cross to North Temple, etc) and wait for UDOT funding to come online before increasing train frequency.

Also, I'm really dubious about this express service idea. Not only will it disrupt the regular service pattern, but can you imagine the safety hazards associated with having trains flying through stations at full speed? People already get hit in the crosswalks when trains are crawling out of the station. I have a bad feeling about this...
The only solution is for them to move forward with complete double tracking, they should plan as if they will be getting recurring funding through the legislature. UDOT can make that happen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8616  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2022, 11:49 PM
Paniolo Man's Avatar
Paniolo Man Paniolo Man is offline
Lahaina Strong
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Murray, Utah.
Posts: 832


I know we've been on this all day, though I hadn't seen the actual announcement here. They do acknowledge that they are actively looking for new rolling stock. I really expect some sort of announcement this year about them raising the northern end of the platforms. By the initial timeline they should be starting public engagement for Frontrunner Forward any time now. I'm really hoping for word soon on what rolling stock they are looking at. More bilevels just make sense, but locomotives? Their current MP36PH-3C aren't built anymore. I really hope nothing gets delayed by UDOT taking these projects over, hoping for any news on this soon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8617  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2022, 2:20 PM
Atlas's Avatar
Atlas Atlas is online now
Space Magi
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 2,014
Going "off the rails" a bit here: if electrification becomes a stated goal sometime soon and UTA is also looking into buying more locomotives, why not look into a dual-power option like the Stadler Euro Dual? That way, the line could be electrified in sections over time and places like the future Rio Grande trench could be electric from the start.


Source
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8618  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2022, 4:05 PM
Paniolo Man's Avatar
Paniolo Man Paniolo Man is offline
Lahaina Strong
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Murray, Utah.
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlas View Post
Going "off the rails" a bit here: if electrification becomes a stated goal sometime soon and UTA is also looking into buying more locomotives, why not look into a dual-power option like the Stadler Euro Dual? That way, the line could be electrified in sections over time and places like the future Rio Grande trench could be electric from the start.


Source
All or nothing, they should buy Stadler KISS like Caltrain. Dual mode is a nightmare to deal with. Plus like anything Stadler, the KISS would be built in Salt Lake City.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8619  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2022, 4:43 PM
Atlas's Avatar
Atlas Atlas is online now
Space Magi
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 2,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paniolo Man View Post
All or nothing, they should buy Stadler KISS like Caltrain. Dual mode is a nightmare to deal with. Plus like anything Stadler, the KISS would be built in Salt Lake City.
I admit I don't know a lot about this. Why is dual mode a nightmare?

With there being some long term interest in a more regional-style rail system, with destinations like Moab and Cedar City for example, the Stadler Euro Dual seems like a cool option to my layman brain. Even if FrontRunner is fully electrified at some point, destinations farther afield would still be on the table without electrification. FrontRunner itself could then be upgraded to KISS and these could be repurposed for regional service.

Based on the Wiki pages, Euro Dual has similar diesel-electric performance as the MP36PH-3C and can run on the same electric system as KISS.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8620  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2022, 5:08 PM
Paniolo Man's Avatar
Paniolo Man Paniolo Man is offline
Lahaina Strong
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Murray, Utah.
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlas View Post
I admit I don't know a lot about this. Why is dual mode a nightmare?

With there being some long term interest in a more regional-style rail system, with destinations like Moab and Cedar City for example, the Stadler Euro Dual seems like a cool option to my layman brain. Even if FrontRunner is fully electrified at some point, destinations farther afield would still be on the table without electrification. FrontRunner itself could then be upgraded to KISS and these could be repurposed for regional service.

Based on the Wiki pages, Euro Dual has similar diesel-electric performance as the MP36PH-3C and can run on the same electric system as KISS.
I'm not opposed to Euro Dual, though if you wanted to use it on a regional system like mentioned it would likely need extensive modification to meet FRA crash worthiness standards. My opinion is that a regional system (ideally state Amtrak) should have completely dedicated rolling stock and probably use locomotives targeted at the long distance market (Like the EMD f125 or Siemens Charger). Trains like that could one day run on 100% biodiesel, and since they are tier 4 they wouldn't do horrors to our air quality.

It's hard to explain why dual mode is hard, it is mostly the complication of having to maintain separate infrastructure. Amtrak does it in New York.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:49 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.