HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #581  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2017, 6:07 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 2,840
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey View Post
Do you think the UTA will order some Stadlers for the Front Runner?
The could, and not necessarily EMUs. Stadler also makes DMUs which could run on Front Runner tracks with little problems. The DMUs could slot in between rush hours and late evenings, when UTA could run the smaller capacity cars/trains more economically. UTA does have plenty of large locomotives, Comets, and Bombardier BiLevels cars on hand, so I don't think they will.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #582  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2017, 7:55 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey View Post
Oh wow, never thought they consider electrification... What about an Expansion via a New Tunnel to Logan?
Electrification is definitely in the long-term plans. This planing PDF mentions it several times, and even goes so far as to say that it would cost $12 million per track mile to construct. Strangely, the cost of adding a second track is estimated to cost $10 million per mile. I don't know how electric canary can be more expensive than building a second track, but that's what they're working with.

FrontRunner is really at a crossroads at this point. The trains at rush-hour are at capacity - I often have a difficult time finding any standing room. It is currently the 10th (or thereabouts) busiest commuter rail line in the country, with just over 17k daily boardings. They need capacity.
The easiest thing would be to add more cars onto the trains, but 1) they don't have enough cars and 2)the platforms are not currently long enough to handle longer trains (All the tracks and sidings are long enough to handle 10-car trains, only the platforms are too short). The other way to increase the capacity would be to increase the frequency, which UTA cannot do either since they run a single-track system and don't have enough trains sets to run 15-minute frequencies.
So pretty soon some serious choices need to be made: Do they go the short-term route and buy more coaches and lengthen platforms without increasing frequency, or do they build the second track, electrify the line, and run short but more frequent trains? Compounding their decisions is the increasing population growth of every city along the line, which suggests that capacity is going to be a much larger problem in the immediate future.
Every indication I've been hearing from people 'in-the'know' is that within the next 5-10 years state and federal money will become available to 'upgrade' FrontRunner, and everyone seems to be leaning in favor of the double-track/electrification/EMU route. Due to politics, these people feel it would be unwise to make incremental upgrades to FrontRunner now, so that people will be more in favor of a large overhaul later. So we'll see.


As for Logan, they have a different transit agency and so it will be harder to get rail service to Logan. A tunnel will probably never be considered; rather, a shared alignment with State Road 30 is much more feasible, as shown in this google map. State Route 30, by the way, follows the old Right-of-Way of the old Utah-Idaho Central interurban railway, which ran from Ogden, to Preston, Idaho; Google Map. I wouldn't expect any serious talk of an extension that far anytime soon though. UTA has cooled on its talk about extending FrontRunner or any of its service areas, and is instead working on improving the operations and user experiences (hence the FrontRunner upgrade in the works). In any case, expect for there to be a bus route first, like the Salt Lake City/Park City Connect bus, which is similar to what will need to be done with Logan since Park City also has its own transit agency that would need to coordinate with UTA and state planners.

Exciting stuff to think about.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #583  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2017, 8:35 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 2,840
Interesting Table from the UTA Frontrunner Improvement link....
Table 8: Commuter Rail Improvement Tests 2040 Daily Boardings
Baseline (January 2013 conditions) 19,800
Headway Test (frequency doubled over January 2013 conditions) 33,000 (+67%)
Speed Test (5% improvements over January 2013 conditions) 20,700 (+4%)
Combined Test (headway and speed improvements) 34,100 (+71%)
It's obvious increasing the number of trains running scored better than running faster trains. You can do that by double tracking more if the corridor without having to double track the entire corridor by strategically placing the double tracks and maintaining a rigid schedule. Electrification isn't needed to do that. Electrification requires doing so to every inch of track in the corridor, and at $12 million / mile over 88 miles it would cost $1.056 bllion to do, and that's before purchasing new electric powered locomotives.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #584  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2017, 3:36 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 945
Yes, double-tracking is the key to an increased frequency, and this doesn't require electrifying the line at all. But from a cost-saving perspective, electrifying the line makes economical sense.

The Reason & Rail blog a while back did a calculation for what it would take to electrify the Surfliner corridor between LA and San Diego. This corridor uses diesel locomotives pushing/pulling bilevel cars, just like the FrontRunner does, so I feel the comparison is valid. In the post, he calculated the fuel and maintenance costs of the Surfliner line and compared that to hypothetical construction, energy, and maintenance costs for an electrified Surfliner line. He concluded that it would take between 22-29 bidirection frequencies to for a commuter line to break even.

At this very moment in time, FrontRunner has about 27 bidirectional frequencies, as measured using departures from the Provo station on this schedule. This means that UTA is very close to the 'break-even' point; if they were to get a loan from, say, the FRA and use the money to pay for electrifying the line and buying new equipment, they would be able to pay the FRA back eventually just by using the money saved in operations and maintenance. Essentially UTA would keep budgeting the same amount of money it does now for the diesel locomotives, but would split that budget between the lower cost for the EMU operations and the loan payback.

(Sidenote: This is how Amtrak paid for the new ACS-64 locomotives. They got a $560 million dollar loan from the FRA, and are paying it back using the energy savings from the new locomotives to pay back the loan. The old electric locomotives apparently didn't even have regenerative braking, which saves quite a bit of energy and maintenance costs. So if Amtrak can pull this off with energy savings between electric locomotives, I think it will be extremely likely UTA can also do it by switching between diesel locomotives and EMU's.)

Now, if UTA decides to double-track the route and double the frequencies - which what prospective riders really want - that means UTA would be running approximately 54 bi-directional trips per day, or roughly double the 'break even' point for economical electrification. At that point it would be an absolute no-brainer. So when UTA does decide to double-track the line and double their fleet size, it would be extremely foolish for them to buy more diesel units and coaches. Instead, they ought to completely swap out their fleet with electric units from the start, and save themselves the trouble.

So from my point of view, the only reason UTA isn't electrifying already is that they may need to shift the existing track around a bit in order to accommodate a second track. It makes sense to wait and electrify a line only when you're absolutely sure you know your tracks won't need to be adjusted. It also makes sense to do two upgrades at once and reduce the amount of delays to customers during construction.

I will be extremely disappointing and perplexed if UTA decides not to electrify the FrontRunner when the next round of improvements comes. It makes too much sense economically not to do it, and then there are the other factors as well, such as air quality, speed/acceleration improvements, passenger comforts, noise disturbance to local communities, etc. As I said before, it really is a no-brainer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #585  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2017, 6:27 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 2,840
It’s only a no brainer if they can raise the $Billion to fund it. How many years will it take to repay that $Billion? Will the USDOT choose to fund this much money for this electrification project over other new construction projects across the country? Adding two, three, or four additional passing sidings to double the frequency of these trains isn’t going to cost a tenth as much.
I’ll agree that higher frequency trains make electrification more economically feasible. But you still have to raise the money upfront in a competitive political process. Good luck!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #586  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2017, 11:37 PM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,706
Hatman, correct me if I'm wrong, and certainly any billion-plus project is nothing to sneeze at. It seems that the Wasatch CSA has become a bit of a Houdini when it comes to initiating and completing multi-billion dollar transportation projects over the last fifteen years or more. Salt Lake City and it's multi-county metro seems to build them regularly. I am amazed at how comparatively aggressive it's been with funding transportation infrastructure. Even in the past six years since I moved to L.A., there's been a huge and continuous buildup.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #587  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2017, 1:26 AM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,706
A few update photos from the recent past that we missed posting from the local forum

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMK View Post
8/18/2017 - counted 14 cranes







Reply With Quote
     
     
  #588  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2017, 1:40 AM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,706
More past updates continued...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMK View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arkhitektor View Post

It's shocking to me how much larger the new airport is going to be. The current steel framing looks almost as big as the existing terminals, but it is really just a portion of one of the new concourses:



Does anyone know what is planned for the grassy areas in the rendering on the sides of the new parking garage? Is there something planned there in the future? Maybe an attached hotel someday?
^^^
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wasatch Wasteland View Post

Yes, that is exactly what is planned to go there.
.



.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #589  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2017, 2:14 AM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,706
Construction Updates

Quote:
Originally Posted by jubguy3 View Post

September 6, 2017

- Poured concrete at the Gateway Center and for the final six ground-level columns for the parking garage

- Continued erecting steel for South Concourse-West, which is expected to be completed the end of September

- Began framing for curtain walls on South-Concourse West




Am I correct in assuming that the actual steel erection is moving by at a surprisingly fast rate? Its amazing the amount of time in which they will be able to build nearly 2300 feet of concourse, if my estimates are correct... The scale of the new concourse next to the old D gates and the tiny little E "gates"... erm... hallways... is impressive. Exciting times are ahead for SLC International.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jubguy3 View Post

Update time!

September 20, 2017

Poured initial concrete for ground level of the parking garage
Began interior and exterior framing for the South Concourse-West
Averaged 610 construction staff on-site daily
Worked 1 million staff hours in 755 days without a lost time inside



Construction on the framing (I'm not sure what you call this? But the steel structure erection, not the framing that commenced this week) of South Concourse-West is expected to complete by the end of the month, and hopefully the next update will give us a better look into this.

Okland will break ground on the North Concourse-West sometime later this year. Steel erection in the terminal will continue alongside both concourses. Work is moving quickly and I've noticed a steady increase in the number of daily contractors on site as they post those statistics in the updates. Almost all components of phase 1 are in construction now, and I would expect to see more updates on the terminal and north concourse from here on out (the majority of the work undertaken so far has been prep work, the terminal tunnels, or construction on the south concourse-west). I'm not very familiar with the timeline of the TRP but it seems like the project is ahead of schedule - we are still an estimated 3 years out from the opening date of the new airport. There is always time allotted to test systems and become familiar with the new airport (especially for systems like baggage handling), but based on the speed of construction henceforth (steel erection began on S. Concourse-W, so approximately 4 1/2 months to build the largest and most complex "element" of the TRP) it looks like everything is moving along smoothly and quickly. As with all projects of this scale there is always the risk for people to... screw up, but I don't think they have experienced any hiccups in construction seeing as that nearly 2000 feet of concourse steel has been constructed within 4 months, alongside the rest of the TRP.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #590  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2017, 2:19 AM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMK View Post

$3 billion Salt Lake airport rebuild hits midway mark of Phase 1 and future begins to take shape

-Lee Davidson, SL Tribune

rest of article and a bunch of photos here,

http://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/...to-take-shape/

.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #591  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2017, 3:18 AM
N830MH N830MH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,816
Wow! Looks good! Can't wait to be done sometime in a few years or so. Keep doing it!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #592  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2017, 6:47 AM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 945
Quote:
Originally Posted by delts145 View Post
[A]ny billion-plus project is nothing to sneeze at.
It is if you happen to be in the road and highway business.
http://archive.sltrib.com/article.ph...21&itype=CMSID
Seriously, though, there is an amazing amount of money available for freeways in our state. My hope is that some of this spare freeway change can be combined with some other grants and loans from various levels of government to prevent UDOT from doing the unthinkable - double-decking I-15 through Salt Lake County. Seriously, there are people talking about this as if it is a real alternative. This notion must be killed in the cradle for so, so many reasons, and building a better and more attractive FrontRunner is key to preventing it.

And yes, I tend to agree that Utah spends much more money being proactive in its infrastructure development, rather than being reactive. This is mostly a good thing - except when you get too eager to double-deck freeways.
It's also worth noting that both the north and south segments of FrontRunner combined cost just over 1 billion dollars themselves, so it isn't as though we aren't used to spending that much on transit. It's just a matter of time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #593  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2017, 6:58 AM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 945
Quote:
Originally Posted by redblock View Post
As Salt Lake City is now a rail passenger equipment building town thanks to Stadler, I hope that the local posters can include some news from their plant.
As and ye shall receive - unless I am too busy. But today is your lucky day, I was not too busy, and got pictures of the first two units being prepped for their road trip to Atlanta.









No sign of two other units being ready to ship, (there will be four units per DMU), but progress is already pretty far along for the next mid-train unit:


Treat them well, Atlanta and Texas. You're getting something special.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #594  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2017, 5:48 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 2,840
And after Atlanta, it'll be heading towards Fort Worth, where I hope it remains in service for a very long time.

While Salt Lake City is where Stadler wished to base its factory at, let’s not dismiss the efforts both the Dallas and San Francisco transit agencies to work with Stadler and the FRA to make the FRA Alternate Compliance regulations. Both these regions have placed their money behind their talk, ordering alternate compliance trains and putting them into service. Without their money, Stadler wouldn’t be building these trains in Salt Lake City.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #595  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2017, 6:10 PM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Always Sunny
Posts: 95
Woah. Pretty impressive what's going on with Salt Lake City. I didn't realize they were undertaking a massive airport expansion project. It's been year since I flew Delta. I thought the airport was great then.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #596  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2017, 11:18 PM
redblock redblock is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 25
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatman View Post
As and ye shall receive - unless I am too busy. But today is your lucky day, I was not too busy, and got pictures of the first two units being prepped for their road trip to Atlanta.

las







No sign of two other units being ready to ship, (there will be four units per DMU), but progress is already pretty far along for the next mid-train unit:


Treat them well, Atlanta and Texas. You're getting something special.
Thanks!! Great pictures, looks like you got a backstage pass. FYI, DART has held public presentations the last few days about their plans for their end of the Cotton Belt corridor to Plano. They plan to order 7-8 of the same FLIRT model painted in their white and yellow LRV scheme.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #597  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2017, 1:09 PM
redblock redblock is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 25
Here is a post on the Railway Gazette Internatonal's FB page about Stadler's display of the TexRail equipment in Atlanta.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/t...flirt-dmu.html

Note that Stadler will begin work on their own facility on October 13.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:48 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.