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.
Prev
/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-sltrib.s3.amazonaws.com/public/BY4WLLC7TZBNLLREQA2VUCMCBI.jpg)
Linear Mode
