Several times daily regional rail on Colorado's Front Range

[DesertDude]

I first posted this on the commuter rail forum, but since my idea involves the possibility of Amtrak and the state of Colorado partnering to provide a regional service, I thought I'd post it here as well.

So here's what I'm thinking:

I know a huge challenge to having north-south Front Range commuter rail is that the existing corridor is maxed out with freight traffic. Likewise, there simply isn’t room along the entire corridor for a new, separate set of commuter rail tracks (such as the FrontRunner tracks next to the UP line in Utah).

While it’s a shame that Colorado doesn’t have something like the Frontrunner, I wonder if the next best thing would be to implement a several times daily service similar to the regional Amtrak trains in California. Just as the San Joaquin uses BNSF tracks, this train would also run on the BNSF tracks from Ft. Collins to Pueblo. If current freight traffic makes this idea unworkable, perhaps additional tracks/sidings could be constructed along segments of the corridor that do have the extra room. Of course BNSF and the state/Amtrak would have to agree on who pays for what and how the additions are constructed and utilized, which could be a huge obstacle.

Perhaps this idea has already been pitched and dismissed, or objectively isn’t worth pursuing. But I thought I’d throw it out there just in case.

 

[beautifulplanet]

Thank you for posting this. Already saw the other post in the commuter rail forum. There are probably others on this forum who can contribute much more to this topic, still here are already a few links:

There were plans for "high-speed rail" along both the I-70 corridor, as well as actual north-south front range, and they were discussed here in the forum about 2 years ago.

No matter if it is a joint state/Amtrak operation, or just commuter rail by the state or local level, many might think that creating a north-south passenger rail service would be a great idea, and that is also why the rail advocacy organization ColoRail mentions it as one of their goals on their website:

State and Regional Goals – long term:

• Advance front range passenger rail expansion

There even seems to be a group of people getting together solely around the idea of getting north-south passenger rail to the front range called Front Range on Track, still it's not clear how active this group of people still is, as the Facebook page has not been updated for 2 years.

The recent CDOT studies for rail also include a "Draft Interregional Connectivity Study report".

 

[railiner]

While Front Range rail service has been a long term dream of many in Colorado...the current railway serving that location is such that implementing frequent, medium-speed (say 79 mph) passenger service upon it would be a real challenge, and not just in the way of its owner's resistance.

I'm afraid that until such time as population explosion along that corridor reaches a "critical mass" of highway congestion that impedes any further growth, there won't be any serious attempts to run such a passenger service, probably along an entirely new infrastructure...

 

[WoodyinNYC]

It's a good idea, sure. But ...

Under current law, Amtrak can't start up any service of less than 750 miles.

So any corridor service Pueblo-Colorado Springs-Denver-Cheyenne would

have to be mostly Colorado's problem. Those with power seem not at all

interested. The train station in Denver was rebuilt with a shopping mall

and the tracks reconfigured that make it roundabout and difficult for any

train to head south toward Colorado Springs from that station.

At one point when Bill Richardson was Governor of New Mexico, he pushed

for a front range train El Paso-Albuqueque-Raton-Trinidad-Pueblo-Colorado

Springs-Denver-Cheyenne. He got train service going Albuquerque-Santa Fe,

but then he was gone.

One argument for keeping the Southwest Chief on its current route (a hot topic

elsewhere on this board) would be to keep the Albuquerque-Trinidad section

alive for such a possible future service. But don't hold your breath.

 

[Domefoamer]

Listen, I'm far from an expert on the daily traffic of the Joint Line, or its limitations. All I know is that half the times I drive between Denver and the Springs, I see no freight trains. Half the time I do, up to six in one drive. But I've never seen one take the line that runs parallel to I-25 on the east side of the highway. Never, and I've lived here a great long while. What's the status of that pair of lonely rails, and why can't it provide the capacity for commuter rail?

 

[NW cannonball]

The not-so-succesfull Northstar line here in MN runs on an extremely busy BNSF transcontinental mainline. (Like 60-70 freights/day mostly, but not all, double-tracked)

And it works, more or less - would work better if it could serve the next big population center in Saint Cloud, but it doesn't

What it takes to get a regional commuter (and tourist) line running -- that's complicated, political, and needs support from all or most communities and potential users.

Work for it. Go for it. Probably a real good long-term investment for the people who will eventually use it

And hey--consider -- the BNSF line that our Northstar runs on -- (BNSF's North transcon) is and has been really really congested the last few years. Like -- joyriding the Northstar to Big Lake (where it unfortunately stops, doesn't get you to Saint Cloud)

I see hard evidence of BNSF's underinvestment every day. There's the oil-trains parked in sidings, some foul the main line. There's always many mixed freight and grain or lumber trains parked in any convenient siding -- waiting for who knows what.

But, even on this BNSF bottleneck, the Northstar commuter line keeps mostly on-time.

The politics (?bribery?) needed -- who knows?

The Front Range seems like a good (tax-saving, commute-helping) idea.

 

[DesertDude]

WoodyinNYC:

How recently was that 750 mile law passed? Both the Pacific Surfliner and Capitol Corridor routes in California are shorter than that; are regional partnership trains like those exempt from that requirement?

Yes, the way the tracks are configured at Union Station is problematic. I think a more workable solution is placing a siding and a new platform in the space between the BNSF tracks and the light rail tracks where the E,W, and C lines terminate.This would eliminate the need for turning trains around at Union Station. I can't post a satellite image here to show the exact spot I'm talking about, but if you go to google maps and zoom in on the Union Station light rail station, you can see the space that I'm referring to.

Trains could come off the easternmost set of BNSF tracks, and passengers would step off onto a single platform sitting to the east of the regional train and west of the RTD light rail line. Pedestrian crossings would have to be configured over the light rail tracks, but that's certainly doable. Commuters at the I-25 & Broadway station who are heading south towards Littleton have to walk across two sets of light rail tracks to board the southbound C and D lines. Same concept here.

 

[jis]

Capitol Corridor and Surfliner are California funded and not Amtrak funded. Amtrak currently holds the operating contract. Anything that operates along the Front Range will have to be funded by Colorado. And at that point one would wonder why Colorado would contract with Amtrak when they have a perfectly good outfit of their own to run it, as in RTD. A very large proportion of intra-state Regional service is already run by state agencies and not Amtrak.

Only the NEC spine and Springfield Amtrak service is exempt from PRIIA Section 209.

 

[neroden]

This has been proposed before. It has support in Ft Collins and Loveland. The hangup is money for sidings... much of the route is single track.

South of Denver there is support from Pueblo, opposition from Colorado Springs, and a LOT more freight traffic. So if you are campaigning, work on the north line first. Boulder and Longmont are also supportive.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

WoodyinNYC:

How recently was that 750 mile law passed? Both the Pacific Surfliner and Capitol Corridor routes in California are shorter than that; are regional partnership trains like those exempt from that requirement?

PRIIA was signed into law in October, 2008.

The section we're talking about took effect in October, 2013,

with 19 states agreeing to pick up costs on 28 routes.

"Some say" that Section 209 was aimed at New York and Michigan,

which both enjoyed corridor service from Amtrak that dated back

before Amtrak was created. States that had begun corridor service

since then had to pay more. In any case, everybody is operating

under the same rules now.

 

[XHRTSP]

Why exactly are there no longer (assuming there were at one point) any tracks extending south from Denver Union?

 

[DesertDude]

JIS - good point and good information. I was not aware that those routes were only funded by CA. The Northstar line mentioned by NW cannonball (which I had not previously heard of) seems to be a better example of what could be implemented on the Front Range.

I know there are practical reasons that enabled Utah and New Mexico to have heavy commuter rail that didn't play out for Colorado, but it's still frustrating that Denver is behind when it's such a congested metro area. North-south commuter rail is needed yesterday. Some Southern California transplants in Denver will even tell you that traffic is almost as bad here as it was in SoCal.

What worries me is that those in charge are focusing too much on building an entirely new corridor or high speed rail (there's even the idea of having an HSR line bypass Denver and go to the airport instead - bad idea IMHO). While I appreciate those ideas and the effort behind them, it will take a good 15-20 years before HSR could be up and running. But a Northstar-esque service on the BNSF line could be a reality in 5-10 years if all the stakeholders in CO came together to make it happen.

 

[railiner]

Why exactly are there no longer (assuming there were at one point) any tracks extending south from Denver Union?

In a nutshell....the land became too valuable. And there was an absence of passenger trains since Amtrak's inception. There were tracks to the south (the original Joint Line), on a bridge over the Cherry Creek. The through freight line now runs a good distance to the west, closer to the Valley Highway (I-25). To access it would require first going northeast a fair distance before a connection could be made to turn south. All thru valuable and rapidly developing land.

 

[rubber duck]

Its easy do able: Just need money, money, money and lots of it! Its approx. 450 miles from Denver to Amarillo and from Amarillo to Dallas it is 350 miles So you have your choice --less than 750 miles non Amtrak or 750 miles+ Amtrak. Good Idea It is mine too.

 

[jis]

Just because it is more than 750 miles does not mean it has to be Amtrak. All that PRIIA says is that if it is less than 750 miles then the difference between firebox collection and actual cost must be covered by someone other than Amtrak.

 

[rubber duck]

You are right it doesn't have to be Amtrak, but the previous replies were using the two Comparisons. By the same token it does not have to be any of governmental bodies to build the infrastructure. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[jis]

You are right it doesn't have to be Amtrak, but the previous replies were using the two Comparisons. By the same token it does not have to be any of governmental bodies to build the infrastructure. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it.

PRIIA 2008 does not say much about infrastructure other than how to fund such for the NEC and that is Section 212. The discussion here is about the effect of Section 209.
Of course there are other things possible too. But that seems like a red herring to me. Most infrastructure funding comes either from targeted appropriations, transportation trust funds, FTA grants or from some private source on occasions. So what?

Many states build and operate on their own infrastructure which has nothing to do with Amtrak per se. Sometimes Amtrak trains are hosted on such infrastructure (NEC in Connecticut). Sometimes Amtrak is contracted to maintain and operate such state owned infrastructure (NEC in Massachusetts), and sometimes not (NEC in Connecticut).

 

[bretton88]

Why exactly are there no longer (assuming there were at one point) any tracks extending south from Denver Union?

In a nutshell....the land became too valuable. And there was an absence of passenger trains since Amtrak's inception. There were tracks to the south (the original Joint Line), on a bridge over the Cherry Creek. The through freight line now runs a good distance to the west, closer to the Valley Highway (I-25). To access it would require first going northeast a fair distance before a connection could be made to turn south. All thru valuable and rapidly developing land.

Also, The FRA and the Dept. of Homeland Security (don't ask me why they where involved) shot down the initial plan, which had a through tunnel running underneath Union Station (where the bus bays are now). That would have preserved the through running.

 

[Domefoamer]

Interesting stuff, but so far no one has enlightened me by responding to my question about the apparently unused tracks Running East of !-25 from Denver through Castle Rock to Monument Hill. Also, why can't the Front Range coal train traffic be concentrated at night, leaving room for commuters in the daytime?

 

[bretton88]

Interesting stuff, but so far no one has enlightened me by responding to my question about the apparently unused tracks Running East of !-25 from Denver through Castle Rock to Monument Hill. Also, why can't the Front Range coal train traffic be concentrated at night, leaving room for commuters in the daytime?

Those tracks are still part of the Joint Line, and are still in use, then they merge into the big choke point, the single track through Palmer Lake.

 

[chakk]

I have seen trains on both tracks thru castle rock many times

 

[MikeM]

Why exactly are there no longer (assuming there were at one point) any tracks extending south from Denver Union?

The tracks were pulled several years ago as the lower downtown area was redeveloped. The river bottoms used to contain rail yards have now been built up with an amusement park, retail, and condos among other uses. This happened back in the late 90's if I recall correctly, well before the more recent redevelopment of Denver Union Station.

 

[railiner]

Even in the Amtrak era, those tracks were used to some extant, when switching cars in or out of trains at that end of the station. Not to mention, the Rio Grande Zephyr, and the Ski Train, used those tracks to and from their home at the Burnham Yard.....

 

[George Jenista]

I've wondered if the right-of way between Palmer Lake, past Academy, to where double track currently starts along Fountain Creek north of the former Rock Island interchange is wide enough to support a 2nd track..

 

[Guest]

For all these Denver to south dreams, I have two things to say:

1. Look at the 1960's schedules for passenger trains this line

2. Get your hands on the track charts and look at them.

These reality checks will tell you that the curves on this line make high speeds impossible. You are not going to get any average speed about about 40 mph, (I have not looked recently) if that fast.

The freight traffic volume makes the restoration of full double track a minimum requirement. A third track would be needed for a lot of the distance to achieve reliability