Why would a high level be needed for Superliners?A mini-high platform could go in, but that would require a gauntlet track so freight trains could clear it, I think.
I suppose you recall the original Ski Train run for the Eskimo Ski Club stopping there at one time?I am also very interested in the possibility of resurrecting a stop along 93.
Why would a high level be needed for Superliners?
I don't want to assume, but I'm guessing that jeff.malin may be either too young or too new to the region to remember the Eskimo Ski Club and the stop at Rocky Flats. 40 years might be the cut off for both!I suppose you recall the original Ski Train run for the Eskimo Ski Club stopping there at one time?
He did use the term, "resurrecting"...I don't want to assume, but I'm guessing that jeff.malin may be either too young or too new to the region to remember the Eskimo Ski Club and the stop at Rocky Flats. 40 years might be the cut off for both!
Right, but wouldn't that still be low level?For ADA compliance in today's world, some sort of platform that is at a height flush with the floor level of the superliner entry door is required, so that passengers in wheel chairs have a level entry between platform and passenger car.
It's sort of a bump with a low ramp. DUS is equipped with them.Right, but wouldn't that still be low level?
The heated platform at WPR was paid for by the ski resort. There's no more climbing down into the snow.Is it up to the sponsors to add a stop ? Then we get to the problem of another stop ADA compliance.
As the current trains sell-out and/or go into the top fare bucket frequently, the best way to do what you suggest is by running a second section (yes, a hypothetical train with hypothetical spare rolling stock with hypothetical approval from Omaha). Or extend the catenary from Arvada to Winter Park!I am also very interested in the possibility of resurrecting a stop along 93. I rode the ski train for the first time earlier this month and as a lifelong train fan, I loved the experience and the relaxation factor. However to appeal to more users, it's hard to justify from a time perspective coming from Boulder. Between the drive to Union Station (30m), arrive early/park/carry gear (~45m), and the train's time creeping out of the station and through the western suburbs (~45m+), you're talking almost double the time to drive if conditions are OK. But if a stop were added a 15 minute drive from Boulder, on the road that folks already need to drive out of town - and it only takes 1hr to get up through the tunnel - you've got a real game-changer!
My thought would be whether you you could pay for the necessary construction/improvements to the stop by charging for parking. You're looking at $10-20 to park in Denver anyway, and factoring in the time savings I don't see a similar charge being unreasonable. It would also encourage car-pooling and drop-offs would be free (connect with the G Bus?).
Last thought would be if Amtrak even has more equipment to add to this line, as the train seems to be sold out consistently. If they were capable of adding more cars, would they fit on the platform at WP? Or trial it first for a season to gauge demand and perhaps even look to add a second train set? They could both leave at the same time in the morning, the passengers originating on 93 would still get to sleep in a few minutes and get to the mountain earlier in its opening day, then that train could leave later from WP (after the Denver-bound train) but still get them home at the same time.
All of this a pipe dream perhaps, but as traffic keeps getting worse and this amazing mountain sits just on the other side of the tunnel from the front range, any and all options should be worth of consideration!
......It may have been quietly sold off, but RTD owned land abutting the Moffat Line at the 80th Avenue Xing, planned for a future park-n-Ride. If that's still the case, development of a joint-use facility there would make sense, since parking demand would peak on separate days of the week. However, as CDOT and the ski resorts are still focused on high-tech, high-cost, unlikely solutions whenever rail into the mountains is mentioned, being right and doing right are two different things.
Indeed, I myself am too young to have been around for the prior Ski train runs, but I have been told stories by friends' parents who were around and had quite a lot of fun during those days.He did use the term, "resurrecting"...
The issue with that is one train would likely be much more popular than the other, as most passengers would want a full day at Winter Park.Is there any reason why the one set of equipment can’t deadhead back and get another load of passenger on the same day? Not quite a extra section, but a few hours off should still be workable.
That idea could work for my other harebrained concept which is to make a stop near Rollinsville. One could get a Winter Park day for the "cost" (drive-wise) of a trip to Eldora and a quick ride through the tunnel. Though it would eliminate one of the nice benefits of the current train which is leaving your stuff on board for the day.The issue with that is one train would likely be much more popular than the other, as most passengers would want a full day at Winter Park.
Is there any reason why the one set of equipment can’t deadhead back and get another load of passenger on the same day? Not quite a extra section, but a few hours off should still be workable.
Question : Is the present ski train length maxed out for the platform at Winter Park ? If so how many cars is it running. Otherwise somehow can it get more cars ? That might depend if it is revenue positive for both Amtrak and the supporting club.
Denver platform is long enough for he Zephyr plus private cars. Winter Park platform is shorter. I doubt UP wants multiple stops, makes for an even longer blockage of the main line...The platform length in Denver Union Station would be the issue first, before Winter Park.
Winter Park you could do multi stops if needed.
Enter your email address to join: