I would strongly prefer Amtrak not use UTA tracks, for several reasons. The platforms are not sized correctly, nor set up for express trains to pass through without stopping. UTA would probably need to update their PTC system for interoperability, which would be expensive and disruptive to operations. Lastly, while Amtrak could avoid freight train congestion, it would now have to deal with commuter train congestion; remember that by 2029 UTA wants to run trains every 15 minutes, which would leave no capacity for Amtrak.
Way too many problems for less than 50 miles of a 400 mile route.
Quote:
Originally Posted by i-215
Pessimism tempers my enthusiasm. I just don't see a good outcome, because we either:
1. Use existing rail corridors. This limits speed to 79 MPH and is much slower on mountainous curves. It means diesel locomotives, which means slow re-start times after stops. It likely means waiting for permission to use U.P. lines, which means poor frequency. In essence, we're re-creating Amtrak. It'll be slow, sucky and nobody will ride it.
2. Clean sheet high-speed design. This would fix all of the problems listed above. But seeing how unbelievably expensive CA HSR is here in the Central Valley, it tells me the project would be D.O.A. in Idaho and Utah. It'll be expensive and legislatures will kill it.
Is there some sort of third option I'm not seeing?
|
I think the model provided by North Carolina (another red state) is a good example of what Amtrak could achieve in Utah/Idaho/Nevada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NC_By_Train
Basically, the state DOT provides the trains, funding for upgraded infrastructure, and even some of the branding and advertising, while Amtrak operates the service. I would prefer an arrangement where the state maintains some level of ownership of the route proportionate to the level of improvements made, but it's not a bad system. Or perhaps I should say that it isn't an unpopular system, since it is currently expanding with more round trips per day.
Ultimately though, these routes were historically (under Amtrak) about 9 hrs each, and unless some serious investment is done to raise speeds, we shouldn't expect proposed travel times to be any shorter. Back before the federal government imposed speed limits on railroads in 1947, passenger trains traveled up to 120mph on some sections of track, even here in Utah. One of those steam engines is preserved in Ogden (FEF #833). If UDOT were serious about raising speeds to 110 mph (see Michigan and Illinois) and removing capacity restrictions (see California and North Carolina), it isn't impossible to imagine travel times shrinking to 6 hrs, which would be competitive with driving, and much faster than the bus.
But such a service needs to start somewhere, and 1 slow train per day per direction is probably the best we can expect for a start.
Prev
Linear Mode
