DENVER | Transportation Thread

[Octavian]

But the ICE train is shiny!

[The Dirt]

Hmm... that's a good point.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Octavian

But the ICE train is shiny!

So is the Acela train.



Most of the exterior surface is shiny stainless steel!

Best of all, it's FRA compliant and can be used on shared tracks with freight trains.

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by electricron

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 following 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 Maglev trains aren't FRA compliant, so both of these trains would require completely separated tracks from the existing freight tracks. The Maglev 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.

The 150mph tilting Acela trains are an interesting option for the I-25 corridor. This corridor will be connecting two existing AmTrak lines together, between Trinidad (SW Chief) and the one through Denver (california Zephyr). In fact, this line might be eligible for up to 80% government funding as a system complimenting AmTrak.

Now I doubt AmTrak will be electrifying either of those routes into Colorado any time soon, but there is still compatibility here. Acela trains are already compatible for existing AmTrak Stations, making for easier integration at transfer stations. Also, as you said, they are FRA compliant, meaning they can utilize the maximum amount of existing tracks as possible, and not be dependent on the CDOT relocating freight out east. That could save costs dramatically and allow this to move forward prior to freight relocation. As passenger service grows, there will be more pressure on the CDOT to stop putting this relocation off and get the freight bypass built--using separate funding sources.

Anyway, I need a more detailed report, before I can make my final decision on which technologies I would choose for each corridor. I think thinning the choices down simular to what I suggested is a good start. Next, we will need more detailed cost analysis and ideas for funding sources and their potential funding capacities which they might generate for this project.

The Acela idea, I like a lot. I am sure the 150mph (tilting) Eurostar train they are considering will be a finalist. I think once it selected as a final alternative, they will include the Acela type train as an FRA compliant version of this option.

[Octavian]

Amtrak is so poorly run, the minute this becomes an Amtrak operation is the minute I stop supporting it.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Octavian

Amtrak is so poorly run, the minute this becomes an Amtrak operation is the minute I stop supporting it.

I didn't suggest having Amtrak take over the operations, I meant using the same equipment they use.

Better yet, if electrification of the lines proves too costly, Bombardier's Jet Train is another option for I-25. It's design is based upon Acela's locomotives, so it is FRA compliant, just using a different engine. It's rated at 150 mph top speed too.



Bombardier tried selling it earlier this century to both Amtrak and VIA Rail.

The advantage of using FRA compliant trains makes it far simplier to get the FRA approval to use them on shared tracks. As I tried to suggest before, even after Colorado builds the freight bypass, freight trains will still need to use the existing ROW to services industries. At least one daily local freight train will run through downtown Denver doing so.

Since Colorado will be building a brand new line on the I-70 corridor, there aren't any industries to service. Since Colorado will also own this new line, they can control if and when freight trains can use it. But I doubt the freight railroad corporations are going to abandoned ownership of their busy lines for nothing. The UP asked and will receive from the NTTR (North Texas Toll Roads) $95 million for access to build a new turnpike over their Davison Yard in Fort Worth. That's correct, $95 million to move one track, place bridge abutments, and aerial rights over their yard; not $10 million.

[Octavian]

Yeah, its too early to know which technology works best, until they finish their report. That being said, this is from their existing conditions report:

The U.S. Acela is about 45% heavier than a comparable TGV, because of modifications that were made to comply with the U.S. Federal Railroad Administration’s Tier II buff strength requirement, as well as its internal seating configurations. It is worth noting, however, that the latest European designs could reduce this weight penalty to 10-15 percent. As built, Acela weighs 567 metric tons with six passenger cars, for a capacity of only 328 seats22. In contrast, TGV Atlantique weighs 484 metric tons for ten cars with a capacity of 485 seats.23 Up to its top speed of 150 mph, the Acela accelerates just as fast as a TGV due to its very high power to weight ratio. Acela’s weight penalty however, expresses itself in terms of a higher operating cost and lower revenue generating capacity than a comparable TGV. The electric Eurostar train and the Korean TGV offer 794 seats and 935 seats12, respectively, which represent practically the upper limit of today’s rail technology. Some European diesel-powered 125 mph trainsets offer up to 500 seats, but if U.S. safety regulations are applied, added vehicle weight (10-15 percent) would reduce the practical capacity of such trains down to 400-450 seats.

The interesting thing about the Talgo to me is less that its FRA compliant, since it seems like the study's authors believe all the trains can pass that test, than that it's diesel won't require electrification.

An EMU could make a 7% gradient (Vail Pass, if they chose to go this route) and has better acceleration up grades. Seeing as I-70 will be an electrified route anyway, why not go with the newer train? The RMRA explains the advantages (and disadvantages) of an EMU:

"The most recent trend in development of the highest speed trains is a move towards Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) technology, such as the German ICE-3 train shown in Exhibit 3-3. Rather than using locomotives, the EMU design places traction motors underneath each individual railcar. This has the advantage of eliminating the dead weight of the locomotive, increasing the number of traction motors leading to an increase in power, improving adhesion since half or more of the train’s axles are powered, and making more effective use of station platform length. . .

. . .For rail equipment, the adhesion question determines whether a train set should be locomotive-hauled or self-propelled. Often it is less expensive to have separate locomotives and railcars. Self-propelled units however, have much better adhesion, and since traction motors are distributed along many more driving axles, self-propelled trains can have more power than locomotive-hauled trainsets.

Using two real-world train sets as examples, Exhibits 3-8 and 3-9 show the maximum tractive effort for two versions of the German ICE train. Both are powerful electric trains, the 1st generation ICE train is locomotive-hauled, whereas the 3rd generation train is a self-propelled Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) train
that has traction motors under every car. Applying the tractive effort equation to these two trains, it can be seen that their hill-climbing capability is vastly different:

• The 1st generation ICE-1 train in Exhibit 3-8 has two lightweight locomotives, which sharply limit this train’s hill climbing capability, because only the locomotive’s weight is available to provide tractive effort. The ICE-1 cannot even manage a 4% grade without spinning wheels. A possible solution may be to make the locomotive heavier; this is in fact done for freight locomotives but is not appropriate for a high speed passenger locomotive, because the combination of high speed and weight can be too damaging to the tracks. By reducing the number of passenger coaches, the ICE-1 could barely go up a 4% grade, which is considered the practical upper limit for locomotive-hauled trainsets.

• In contrast the 3rd generation ICE-3 train in Exhibit 3-9 can manage a 7.5% grade with only half the axles powered and it could manage a 15% grade with all axles powered. This difference is because the total weight of the train including passenger coaches, rather than just the weight of the locomotive, is available to contribute to tractive effort.

Of course, this is all academic until we know how much it costs. Somewhere I read that they estimated the rail would cost between 2 and 200 million per mile depending on the conditions. 2 million for flat, easy segments, 50 million for elevated sections and bridges and 200 million for each mile of tunnels.

At least we all agree that 79 mph diesel is out.

[Octavian]

Originally Posted by electricron

I didn't suggest having Amtrak take over the operations, I meant using the same equipment they use.

Better yet, if electrification of the lines proves too costly, Bombardier's Jet Train is another option for I-25. It's design is based upon Acela's locomotives, so it is FRA compliant, just using a different engine. It's rated at 150 mph top speed too.



Bombardier tried selling it earlier this century to both Amtrak and VIA Rail.

Electricron, I wasn't suggesting that you thought Amtrak should run the operation. Snyder's about integration with Amtrak made it seem like he might however. I apologize if I misunderstood.

Yeah they should definitely look at that train for I-25.

[FrancoRey]

That looks like Pike's Peak in the background anyway.

I think the ICE train would be the sexiest AND shiny as Octavian said, but I could deal with a Eurostar train like the one I rode in Spain:



But aren't these still too pricey and technical for our pooey tracks? I think their slowest and oldest model still in operation tops out at 185 mph. I'm not a huge fan of the Acela train, but I could deal. I don't like AmTrak.

[SnyderBock]

What I was suggesting wouldn't make the I-25 corridor an AmTrak operation. But there would be coordination and passengers could buy an AmTrak ticket to Trinidad, with a transfer to the Front Range Rail to Denver, all included in the ticket price. Like how some airlines share agreements.

Also, in that report, I think they are underestimating tourist based ridership. Perhaps that huge chuck of "other" is all those tourists? What I saw was something like 0.1% tourism ridership, but then 54% ridership was unspecified as simply "other."

[electricron]

If the ICE3 models really can pull 7% grades, that certainly makes it a front runner for the I-70 routes. That alone should cut down on trackage costs, less fills, less bridges, and possibly less tunnels.

[wong21fr]

In other news, there's a construction office trailer and a supply trailer for a company called "American Infrastructure" out by Union Station. Along with a bucket excavator and a front end loader.

Looks like the infrastructure work is about to get underway for the new LRT station.

[glowrock]

So, when is the last time anyone here's ridden an Amtrak? If noone else has ridden one since New Year's, I guess I'd be the last one, having gone from Bakersfield to San Francisco!

My opinion? Other than the obvious need to upgrade the rails to allow for faster service (my god, the Central Valley in CA needs faster service!), the service is great! Comfortable seats, smooth ride, easy to move around the train, reasonable food service, etc... etc...

Amtrak just needs additional funding to be able to actually live up to its potential. And perhaps the FRA rules need to be revisited???

Aaron (Glowrock)

[enjo13]

Originally Posted by glowrock

So, when is the last time anyone here's ridden an Amtrak? If noone else has ridden one since New Year's, I guess I'd be the last one, having gone from Bakersfield to San Francisco!

My opinion? Other than the obvious need to upgrade the rails to allow for faster service (my god, the Central Valley in CA needs faster service!), the service is great! Comfortable seats, smooth ride, easy to move around the train, reasonable food service, etc... etc...

Amtrak just needs additional funding to be able to actually live up to its potential. And perhaps the FRA rules need to be revisited???

Aaron (Glowrock)

I had a buddy who took 38 hours to get from Denver to L.A.

I won't be spending any time on Amtrack any time soon

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by electricron

If the ICE3 models really can pull 7% grades, that certainly makes it a front runner for the I-70 routes. That alone should cut down on trackage costs, less fills, less bridges, and possibly less tunnels.

Yes, that would make it worthy for further consideration. Not only as it is faster than the other technologies (except 300mph mag-lev), when running in open straight track, but it is also tilting and able to handle impressive grades up to 7%. That sounds like a very solid option for I-70 corridor. Makes since, because in Germany, they also have many extreme grades and curves. The distances and populations in main part of the German system are also comparable (to some degree) to Colorado (at least projected 2035 Colorado pop. approaching 9 million).

[FrancoRey]

(I was bored)

[Octavian]

Originally Posted by FrancoRey

(I was bored)

I dig it

Now, the route they chose so far has 4% grades, so any of the electric options are still viable. It's too soon to know anything yet, but sure is fun to speculate.

[SnyderBock]

yes, 4% grades keeps all electric options viable. Also, being able to run at 7% grades is great, if necessary, but it would probably mean much slower speeds on those sections. A lot of acceleration and deceleration may not be great. Operating as close to optimum speed for as much of the route as possible, is ideal. For the I-70 corridor, it appears the slow mag-lev is most capable of performing nearest it's optimal speed for a majority of the trip. The 150mph (tilting) would be nest closest in performance. The 220mph (tilting) would also be a close third in performance. But if the tracks could include more viaducts and tunnels (funding permitting), then it might well perform better than any option on the table.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

yes, $% grades keeps all electric options viable. Also, being able to run at 7% grades is great, if necessary, but it would probably mean much slower speeds on those sections. A lot of acceleration and deceleration may not be great. Operating as close to optimum speed for as much of the route as possible, is ideal. For the I-70 corridor, it appears the slow mag-lev is most capable of performing nearest it's optimal speed for a majority of the trip. The 150mph (tilting) would be nest closest in performance. The 220mph (tilting) would also be a close third in performance. But if the tracks could include more viaducts and tunnels (funding permitting), then it might well perform better than any option on the table.

But remember, performance comes at a significant cost. As I pointed out earlier, the slower, cheaper 110 mph Talgo train was only 10 minutes slower than the higher performing and costlier trains for the I 25 corridor. Just about every town is going to want a station on the I 70 route too. Once you add many stations, placed 5 to 10 miles apart, the faster trains could never reach full speed, thus making the slower trains more attractive.......

It's a difficult political balancing act between number of stations and speed.

[blm3034L!fe]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

In other news, there's a construction office trailer and a supply trailer for a company called "American Infrastructure" out by Union Station. Along with a bucket excavator and a front end loader.

Looks like the infrastructure work is about to get underway for the new LRT station.

SAY WHAT!!!

OMG it's about time...

Union Station and FastTracks is going to put Denver on the Nations Forfront for the Second Decade in the 21st Century. No Freaking Doubt, I am hoping that the Nations Economic situation begins to improve as Denver moves forward with it's progress and other key elements will pull from Union Station's Success and Progress beyond what any Coloradoian could ever dream. Etc; Downtown Denver, DTC, Vail/Aspen, DIA, Boulder & Castle Rock and every suburb in the area. Most importantly Denver's shot at impressing the entire World by Hosting the Olympics and having everything in place to WOW the WORLD!!!

IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN!!!