I will miss the comet cars - mostly from my days as a train host, since I didn't really like to ride in them. Their major drawbacks were that they were far from the bike rack., and their windows were basically opaque. Had passengers been able to see out the windows a little easier, they may have been more popular. It is pretty funny though that the comet cars are heavier than the bilevel cars!
Here are some pictures from my train ride today, which I made just as a way to say farewell in case I don't get the chance again:
I wonder how quickly UTA will get to work raising the low-block section of the platforms? They will only need to do that for the original FrontRunner platforms, since the south platforms and North Temple were all built with a high-block section long enough to accomodate 4 cars. In fact, I've already ridden on a FrontRunner train with 4 bilevel cars, back in 2018:
I don't know why UTA ran 4 bilevel cars, but it proves that it can be done. The lower floor of the bilevel cars is 25 inches above the Top of Rail, and the low block platform is 8 inches above the Top of Rail, leaving a 17 inch step between the two, which is 2-3 times larger than what people are used to in public spaces. So obviously not something I expect them to do until the original 7 stations are modified.
(Salt Lake Central, Woods Cross, Farmington, Layton, Clearfield, Roy, and Ogden)
Though they only need to raise a section of platform about 120 feet long (90' for the car, the rest for the ramp), I imagine this will be fairly intense work, since you cannot just pour more concrete on top of the platform. For one thing, that would create two layers of slabs, which could shear like snow layers in an avalanche. Secondly, whether UTA uses it or not, all FrontRunner platforms are equipped with an embedded snowmelt system along the 4' directly adjacent to the tracks. This is supposed to heat the concrete edges just enough to make sure ice does not form and passengers do not slip onto the tracks, or beneath a train. I'm told UTA maintenance people are fed up with the old electrical heating elements and no longer use them, and that Vineyard station will be the first one to use a new fluid-cycling system to heat the platforms - in which case, UTA may decide it is time to upgrade the entire platform to this system at all 7 original stations. Or it may not, since 7 station platform extensions is already a pretty big deal. Ridership is down at the moment, but who knows how long that will last, and it is better to get the new capacity in place sooner than later. This is, of course, supposing UTA is able to negociate for ~10 used bilevel cars from Toronto pretty quickly, since new cars are much more expensive and take much longer to deliver.
Ah, interesting times. To end, let us pause and remember a future that was not to be:
With the departure of the comet cars, I wonder if UTA will ever run 5 car trains in the future? With FrontRunner Forward looking to add more frequency, it seems as though UTA will be handling its capacity not through longer trains, but through more frequent trains, which is much better for the rider experience.
Still, though, there is something about a long train that just looks so much better than a short one, practical realities aside.
Prev
Been saying that for two years now, ever since I moved to Denver. It really is the prototype for what SLC could do with the Rio Grande Depot and surrounding lands, and like you say the Rio Grande could actually be even better since it's a through-running station.
Linear Mode
