Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Atlas]

The 600 S TRAX Station opened today!



My favorite tidbit from the article:

So will it take another 20-plus years until the next new TRAX station in Salt Lake City?

“Heck no!” Mayor Erin Mendenhall said. “We’re going hard after [light rail on] 400 West.”

A station at Pioneer Park would be great and only a half-block from the Rio Grande Depot. Then, after a couple stops in the Granary District (550 S and 850 S?), it could use the existing ROW to link up with the other tracks at Ballpark. I'm thinking Green could be diverted to this ROW to make airport journeys from WVC quicker and a new line created to go straight from Research Park to the airport via downtown.

[Paniolo Man]

Amtrak #301 was parked at Central Station this afternoon.

[Atlas]

I'd love to see a regional rail service in the next 10 years with some Siemens Chargers at the helm. Trains to Logan, Moab, Cedar City, and maybe Boise seem doable.

As I understand it, an entirely new rail ROW would be needed to get to St. George.

[Paniolo Man]

Originally Posted by Atlas

I'd love to see a regional rail service in the next 10 years with some Siemens Chargers at the helm. Trains to Logan, Moab, Cedar City, and maybe Boise seem doable.

As I understand it, an entirely new rail ROW would be needed to get to St. George.

They NEED to start with service to Moab. Thrice daily service during the busy season and once daily in the winter. Build 1/2 mile of rail and a cheap platform in Moab, Set up a small regional bus service and have a new Arches NP shuttle connect as well. UPRR could totally handle 6 total more trains daily on the line between Provo and Moab, just have it run on Frontrunner ROW until Provo. This would make millions. So many tourists would fly into SLC and take a train to Moab instead of renting a car in Salt Lake or Denver. It would help the air quality a lot and decongest some of the roads.

I still like the idea of calling it Amtrak Intermountain or Amtrak Mountain West.

[bob rulz]

Does anybody know how active the Utah Rail Passengers Association is these days? It seemed to have some momentum in trying to get a regional rail system in Utah and it had some good people behind it, but I haven't heard anything for quite a while.

A Salt Lake-to-Moab route was their top priority afaik.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Paniolo Man

Amtrak #301 was parked at Central Station this afternoon.

That is so cool! Was this announced ahead of time, or did you just get lucky? I'd love to have seen their new locos in person.

Once while commuting south on TRAX, I saw a very late Amtrak eastbound at Murray Central with an ACS-64 in tow, being delivered from Siemens in Sacramento to the NEC. It absolutely made my day.

I couldn't agree more about the need for a regional rail network centered on SLC. Since I am on vacation in southeast Idaho, I updated my old graphic from a couple years ago to include a line from SLC to Yellowstone:



The Yellowstone line would use ~50 miles of railroad grade that has been abandoned since 1971, but is still mostly intact. Imagine the potential for tourism by linking SLC to Arches, Zion, Yellowstone, and Grand Teton National Parks by rail!

[Paniolo Man]

Originally Posted by Hatman

That is so cool! Was this announced ahead of time, or did you just get lucky? I'd love to have seen their new locos in person.

Once while commuting south on TRAX, I saw a very late Amtrak eastbound at Murray Central with an ACS-64 in tow, being delivered from Siemens in Sacramento to the NEC. It absolutely made my day.

I couldn't agree more about the need for a regional rail network centered on SLC. Since I am on vacation in southeast Idaho, I updated my old graphic from a couple years ago to include a line from SLC to Yellowstone:


The Yellowstone line would use ~50 miles of railroad grade that has been abandoned since 1971, but is still mostly intact. Imagine the potential for tourism by linking SLC to Arches, Zion, Yellowstone, and Grand Teton National Parks by rail!

I love the idea of linking the national parks by rail, can you imagine how many fewer cars would need to travel those long distances? Bringing back the Pioneer and desert wind would be an amazing start and take very little effort.

The charger was a surprise, I showed up to SL Central and had to make sure I wasn't seeing things. Ran into another dude taking pictures of it who claimed it was there for "Crew Familiarization". I assume this means they are looking to place them into service on the Zephyr soon.

[bob rulz]

Speaking of out-of-place vehicles, last week I was waiting for the 220 bus on 100 South and I saw a bus from a transit agency in New York (the Capital District Transportation Authority I believe) driving down the route, complete with the route display (I saw Albany and Schenectady listed on it). I felt like I had entered an alternate reality for a moment lol.

Only thing I can think of is that UTA maybe bought some buses from them, it did look a lot like current UTA buses (very much like the one in the picture on this link):
https://www.cdta.org/news/annual-rpr-released

Anyone have any idea? Is there a way to find out about UTA bus orders?

[msbutah]

Coworker on the Green line spotted a new seat configuration.

[bob rulz]

It looks like the S-Line is benefitting from increased residential density in Sugarhouse.

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2022/8/...ax-sugar-house

[Atlas]

So I mocked this up in MS Paint today because I had a day off. Curious what you guys think of this for a future downtown rail network:

Notes:

• Rio Grande Plan train box is assumed to be in place (FrontRunner stops at North Temple and Rio Grande)
• Orange is the new University-to-airport line that has long been planned. To the east, it would interline with Red until splitting off to terminate at the U's Research Park.
• The Blue Line fully encircles downtown and to make this work without adding another new line, you'd need trains to alternate between clockwise and counterclockwise going around the loop starting from Ballpark. Kinda weird but it might work.
• Getting people to and from various destinations like the U, Rio Grande, the airport, and the CBD is tricky without completely rethinking the entire network. This is what I came up with after thinking about some of the tradeoffs.
• Greektown and Salt Lake Central would be abandoned in this scenario in favor of the direct 400 W line and Rio Grande Central Station. Another thought I had for these two stations is that they could be part of a new streetcar line along 200S but I didn't include that here.
• The half-block between the Rio Grande Depot and Pioneer Park could be completely pedestrianized

[Paniolo Man]

Originally Posted by Atlas

So I mocked this up in MS Paint today because I had a day off. Curious what you guys think of this for a future downtown rail network:

Notes:

• Rio Grande Plan train box is assumed to be in place (FrontRunner stops at North Temple and Rio Grande)
• Orange is the new University-to-airport line that has long been planned. To the east, it would interline with Red until splitting off to terminate at the U's Research Park.
• The Blue Line fully encircles downtown and to make this work without adding another new line, you'd need trains to alternate between clockwise and counterclockwise going around the loop starting from Ballpark. Kinda weird but it might work.
• Getting people to and from various destinations like the U, Rio Grande, the airport, and the CBD is tricky without completely rethinking the entire network. This is what I came up with after thinking about some of the tradeoffs.
• Greektown and Salt Lake Central would be abandoned in this scenario in favor of the direct 400 W line and Rio Grande Central Station. Another thought I had for these two stations is that they could be part of a new streetcar line along 200S but I didn't include that here.
• The half-block between the Rio Grande Depot and Pioneer Park could be completely pedestrianized

It looks amazing. Thanks for making this.

I like to hope that by the time I kick the bucket TRAX will become a metro-style system downtown, underground tunnels and platforms.

[Paniolo Man]

I was reading this article. I had not heard of these people before, but I had to check out their website. Their proposed service is admittedly a little aspirational.



But their map of the proposed Amtrak Restoration makes me wanna write my reps again.

We NEED the Pioneer back,and restoring it wouldn't cost much. Same with Desert Wind. Xpresswest or whatever the hell it's called now has been on the verge of breaking ground for 20 years now. Amtrak would fill every train between LA and Vegas if they restarted service this year. Amtrak should also acquire Xpresswest from Brightline and actually build the damn thing. Throw in RGP and it's all complete. I'm beginning to think I'm going crazy with how little this would all cost compared to how much we spend on new lanes every year.

[tygr]

This might be better than electrifying FrontRunner. And, it could be done now, providing immediate environmental benefits without the need to wait for future double-tracking or expansion plans.

CNN The future of environmentally friendly travel might just be here -- and it's Germany that's leading the charge, with the first ever rail line to be entirely run on hydrogen-powered trains, starting from Wednesday.

Apparently, just 2.2 lbs of hydrogen fuel can do what takes 10 lbs of diesel fuel. "The trains are emissions-free and low-noise, with only steam and condensed water issuing from the exhaust."

The trains have a range of 621 miles per tank and can travel 87 mph.

[Atlas]

Some of Caltrain's new Stadler KISS trainsets going through SLC, via Luke Garrott on Twitter:



Hope to see those with a UTA pain scheme in the not-so-distant future! I do prefer the European body designs though.

[Hatman]

UDOT chooses the gondola option:
https://kslnewsradio.com/1974365/gon...od-canyon/amp/

At least they are going to implement tolls and an enhanced bus system first, and only resort to a gondola when those options are maxed out. This decision seems more like a diplomatic way of appeasing both sides.

Also worth noting that funding for the $590MM price hasn't been identified. Hopefully the ski resorts are compelled to contribute, since they would be the only beneficiaries.

[ucsbgaucho]

Originally Posted by Hatman

UDOT chooses the gondola option:
https://kslnewsradio.com/1974365/gon...od-canyon/amp/

At least they are going to implement tolls and an enhanced bus system first, and only resort to a gondola when those options are maxed out. This decision seems more like a diplomatic way of appeasing both sides.

Also worth noting that funding for the $590MM price hasn't been identified. Hopefully the ski resorts are compelled to contribute, since they would be the only beneficiaries.

It's a hot topic, but I don't personally think the gondola is going to run the experience of the canyon. The views out the mouth of LCC from higher up, whether it's for a sunset or what, are not necessarily considered "iconic". People don't drive up LCC and then pull off the road to turn around and look at the valley, so while that photo may eventually have a gondola in the shot is not a huge deal to me, and I'm a professional photographer. What's also funny is that the iconic images of Snowbird, for example, are literally of the gondola itself.

I think a gondola makes a lot of sense all year round, for obvious reasons. For those wanting to do hiking trails or stops along the canyon, they can drive. Maybe add a toll booth farther up if you want to go all the way to Snowbird or Alta in the summer. But for those that just want to get from the bottom to the top, the gondola will be really easy. And it will probably open up new photo opportunities for aerial-based images that aren't currently available.

[Paniolo Man]

I had kinda forgot this was happening. Wonder when we'll hear news about it.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Paniolo Man

I had kinda forgot this was happening. Wonder when we'll hear news about it.

Neat! What are you quoting, BTW?

My first thought is that this may be an opening for that long-shot possibility Atlas and I were discussing some months ago about dual-power locomotives (in order to justify electric catenary in the Rio Grande Plan train box). Obviously still on the far edge of what is likely to happen, but with specific funding it comes slightly closer to possible. Especially since the most likely option - the Siemens Charger locomotive - is getting several dual-power variants designed already for Amtrak and Metro North commuter rail.
Those Dual-power locomotives cost $12.5 million per locomotive (according to Metro North) , and UTA would need at least 10 in order to cover its existing 30 minute schedule (and twice that to increase frequency to 15 minutes!). A diesel-only Charger costs around $11.5 million (based on Amtrak's most recent purchase), so maybe the cost difference isn't that awful. $5 million for 15 years would certainly cover difference, anyway. Maybe even also pay for electrifying the initial segment between North Temple and Murray.

[Paniolo Man]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Neat! What are you quoting, BTW?

My first thought is that this may be an opening for that long-shot possibility Atlas and I were discussing some months ago about dual-power locomotives (in order to justify electric catenary in the Rio Grande Plan train box). Obviously still on the far edge of what is likely to happen, but with specific funding it comes slightly closer to possible. Especially since the most likely option - the Siemens Charger locomotive - is getting several dual-power variants designed already for Amtrak and Metro North commuter rail.
Those Dual-power locomotives cost $12.5 million per locomotive (according to Metro North) , and UTA would need at least 10 in order to cover its existing 30 minute schedule (and twice that to increase frequency to 15 minutes!). A diesel-only Charger costs around $11.5 million (based on Amtrak's most recent purchase), so maybe the cost difference isn't that awful. $5 million for 15 years would certainly cover difference, anyway. Maybe even also pay for electrifying the initial segment between North Temple and Murray.

Sorry, I should have mentioned. This is in the minutes from the last Local Advisory Council Meeting.

It would be useful to know if the charger could easily be refitted for dual mode, because then UDOT could just buy regular Chargers and reconfigure them when the time comes.

The charger seems like a very versatile locomotive. My understanding is that Metro North and Amtrak are ordering very different versions. Metro North is buying chargers with a third rail shoe whereas Amtrak's are more or less normal chargers but they will use a "power car" with a pantograph and an extra set of powered wheels, they will also use a "Battery Car" that will function similarly but only be capable of pulling the train through Penn Station, because trains are too heavy for long distance battery operation. I honestly hope Amtrak dumps the Battery Car in favor of the Metro North style locomotives, because Dual Mode chargers have almost no trade off, as I understand they have no horsepower penalty compared to the P32AC/DM, which is significantly less powerful than others in it's family. The battery car seems excessive here.