# Amtrak to Colorado Springs?



## Anthony V (Dec 6, 2019)

A few weeks ago, I came across an article (posted below) that talks about funding a study on adding a Colorado Springs branch to the Southwest Chief. (I would call this section the Denver Chief or the Rocky Mountain Chief). While this sounds like a good idea, running it a little further north Denver Union Station should be a no-brainer but wasn't mentioned in the article, implying that the proposal would terminate the new section at Colorado Springs. Is this the case? Running it to Denver would open up trips to Denver from Kansas City - as well as other stops along the SWC from La Junta eastward, and would open up another connection to the California Zephyr, allowing trips from those stations to as far as the SF Bay area (with a transfer in Denver). Both of these factors would greatly increase ridership in the new section. My question is, why aren't they considering a logical extension of the proposal to Denver?

https://gazette.com/woodmenedition/...cle_e354d91c-ff4b-11e9-9468-1b85351e1749.html


----------



## neroden (Dec 7, 2019)

All of these ideas are dormant. The big issue is coal traffic on the lines south of Denver. As this goes away, there is an opportunity to advocate for passenger service.


----------



## RSG (Dec 7, 2019)

It sounds like the stringer who wrote the article for the _Gazette_ actually read the application, but if one is not familiar with the proposal, the article can give a misleading impression.

The purpose of the extension is to connect the currently unserved, and potentially future major stops of Pueblo and Colorado Springs with the current stop of La Junta so the _Southwest Chief_ can continue its east- and westbound routes unimpeded. As such, it's a feeder line which would operate much as a connector bus line does for light rail or subway stations. Consequently, extending it past Colorado Springs and Pueblo isn't practical and would further complicate the service and linking.

The other task of the commission which is spearheading the study is to develop a proposal for north-south passenger rail service initially from Colorado Springs to Denver, with Pueblo service to follow shortly thereafter, and eventually, service to Cheyenne & Albuquerque. If that happens, it will provide a greater benefit and serve a greater population than simply extending a new spur north.

The Colorado Department Of Transportation [CDOT] is providing the technical and bureaucratic expertise to navigate the finer details of making the study happen as well as identifying possible future station locations and connection points with existing transportation options. They are not doing so because they are populated with railfans, but because they see the writing on the wall. The Interstate 25 corridor from Colorado Springs to Wellington (due north of Fort Collins) is already congested--and in some points, California-congested--and is expected to remain so after the completion of another lane north of Colorado Springs to Castle Rock and after a multi-year lane expansion from Castle Rock to north of Denver in the mid-2000s.

The current alternate is a state-owned bus service ("Bustang"), which is operated by several private contractors. Depending on the location and time of day, some of the buses already operate at capacity. This is really just a stop-gap measure, since the need to travel between points will only increase and even adding additional buses doesn't do much to alleviate highway congestion.

Of course nothing will happen until the study is completed and the results are in, but it's a first step to expanding passenger rail service to one of the fastest growing parts of the country.


----------



## Willbridge (Dec 7, 2019)

Anthony V said:


> A few weeks ago, I came across an article (posted below) that talks about funding a study on adding a Colorado Springs branch to the Southwest Chief. (I would call this section the Denver Chief or the Rocky Mountain Chief). While this sounds like a good idea, running it a little further north Denver Union Station should be a no-brainer but wasn't mentioned in the article, implying that the proposal would terminate the new section at Colorado Springs. Is this the case? Running it to Denver would open up trips to Denver from Kansas City - as well as other stops along the SWC from La Junta eastward, and would open up another connection to the California Zephyr, allowing trips from those stations to as far as the SF Bay area (with a transfer in Denver). Both of these factors would greatly increase ridership in the new section. My question is, why aren't they considering a logical extension of the proposal to Denver?
> 
> https://gazette.com/woodmenedition/...cle_e354d91c-ff4b-11e9-9468-1b85351e1749.html


The issues were covered in previous posts. Two different projects inspired by ColoRail and supported by local governments and CDOT are in the works and they overlap:

+ Front Range corridor service
+ _SW Chief_ Front Range section

Both ideas can be made feasible, but require hard choices.

-- rwr

http://www.colorail.org


----------



## PVD (Dec 7, 2019)

I've driven Denver to the Springs many times, and for a good part of the drive would see enormous coal freights along the route. With the closure of one major coal plant and the likely closure of another outside of the Springs, volume has to be down considerably. Would that make it more likely for slotting to be available for some front range service that the freights previously opposed, as it would provide revenue that might partially offset decreased freight revenue. I've never driven South from the Springs so i don't know what that looks like.


----------



## Willbridge (Dec 7, 2019)

PVD said:


> I've driven Denver to the Springs many times, and for a good part of the drive would see enormous coal freights along the route. With the closure of one major coal plant and the likely closure of another outside of the Springs, volume has to be down considerably. Would that make it more likely for slotting to be available for some front range service that the freights previously opposed, as it would provide revenue that might partially offset decreased freight revenue. I've never driven South from the Springs so i don't know what that looks like.



You've seen the most difficult part, aside from DUS access. Volume is down, but use of main line tracks for sidings continues.


----------



## PVD (Dec 7, 2019)

Done the backup move on the CZ quite a few times....


----------



## RSG (Dec 8, 2019)

PVD said:


> Done the backup move on the CZ quite a few times....


Which is just one reason the hub for any new passenger service won't be at DUS...


----------



## sttom (Dec 8, 2019)

I've talked with my bf about the passenger rail quite a lot. And there are currently plans to plan a Fort Collins to Pueblo route at some point in the not too distant future. The only thing preventing this from being an Amtrak route is Colorado's weird political structure that makes it impossible for the legislature to raise taxes without putting them to a referendum and a very stringent cap on public spending. This could mean it would be some other company running the trains because they'd foot some of the capital. Also Colorado can't decide on if they want to use conventional equipment or electrify the whole line with equipment that may or may not be allowed to run with other trains. From what he has told me, it would make sense for this corridor to get extended to New Mexico and Cheyenne. New Mexico a few times per day and Cheyenne would make a better end point. Assuming Wyoming would be willing to pay for it.


----------



## TheTuck (Dec 9, 2019)

In a perfect world (one without the 750 mile PRIIA rules, and one with an Amtrak leadership focused on growth) I'd like to see a LAX-DEN route via ABQ. The schedule could compliment the SWC by offering better timings at FLG, and connections to the CZ in DEN.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia (Dec 9, 2019)

sttom said:


> This could mean it would be some other company running the trains because they'd foot some of the capital.



Call in Virgin Trains USA



sttom said:


> Also Colorado can't decide on if they want to use conventional equipment or electrify the whole line with equipment that may or may not be allowed to run with other trains.



If they use existing tracks then electrification will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible cuz BNSF and UP would try to block them from electrifying the tracks they own. So they'll have to build new tracks if they ever want to go electric. Also, we're gonna have to find a way to build through tracks for Denver Union Station


----------



## Qapla (Dec 9, 2019)

TheTuck said:


> I'd like to see a LAX-DEN route via ABQ.



I'd love to see some really good BBQ on the trains ........


Oh - you said "ABQ" ... not "BBQ"


----------



## Willbridge (Dec 9, 2019)

TheTuck said:


> In a perfect world (one without the 750 mile PRIIA rules, and one with an Amtrak leadership focused on growth) I'd like to see a LAX-DEN route via ABQ. The schedule could complement the SWC by offering better timings at FLG, and connections to the CZ in DEN.


Early in the 1970's Amtrak discussed a route concept that would have had a train running CHI-OMA-DEN-ABQ-LAX and another running CHI-KCY-LAJ-DEN-SLC-SF Bay. Loose connections in Denver and Pueblo would have allowed travel on the old routings. The coal boom started and this idea was dropped.


----------



## sttom (Dec 9, 2019)

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> If they use existing tracks then electrification will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible cuz BNSF and UP would try to block them from electrifying the tracks they own. So they'll have to build new tracks if they ever want to go electric. Also, we're gonna have to find a way to build through tracks for Denver Union Station



That is part of the issue that they have been having with FasTracks, along with a severely diminished sales tax base. Also, the state is so far from doing something at this time, I wouldn't count on any movement prior to 2025. The only way I see it happening is if the state legislature works a deal with Amtrak once there are some Horizon cars available, but since they want sexy and expensive over a working service, I wouldn't hold your breath.

Also Virgin Trains USA? With how poorly their P3 went with DIA, the state might be putting a slight pause on using them. They might have to do a P3, but at the current moment, I think a new one is probably DOA. The short of that is they took the lowest bidder, was going to give them the keys to the castle and they contractor started bilking them. I don't live in Colorado, but that is enough to put the whole P3 concept into question. People there are starting to turn on the idea.


----------



## RSG (Dec 11, 2019)

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> Call in Virgin Trains USA
> If they use existing tracks then electrification will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible cuz BNSF and UP would try to block them from electrifying the tracks they own. So they'll have to build new tracks if they ever want to go electric. Also, we're gonna have to find a way to build through tracks for Denver Union Station


The proposed Front Range rail service would not be electrified, unless it's via a future proposal in an attempt to scuttle it completely.

Also, the hub for any Front Range service would not be at Denver Union Station, but at a to-be-built new location south of downtown. Existing light rail via RTD would commence service at the new hub and that would be the means of connecting with DUS and other light rail lines + Amtrak.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia (Dec 11, 2019)

RSG said:


> The proposed Front Range rail service would not be electrified, unless it's via a future proposal in an attempt to scuttle it completely.
> 
> Also, the hub for any Front Range service would not be at Denver Union Station, but at a to-be-built new location south of downtown. Existing light rail via RTD would commence service at the new hub and that would be the means of connecting with DUS and other light rail lines + Amtrak.



Putting it away from downtown stations will neuter ridership considerably (intercity trains work best when it's downtown-downtown) though. On the other hand, doing Union Station through tracks will involve having to build an underground station (and a couple of other things), which is gonna make it incredibly complex.


----------



## neroden (Dec 12, 2019)

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> Call in Virgin Trains USA
> 
> 
> 
> If they use existing tracks then electrification will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible cuz BNSF and UP would try to block them from electrifying the tracks they own. So they'll have to build new tracks if they ever want to go electric. Also, we're gonna have to find a way to build through tracks for Denver Union Station


BNSF is OK with electrification, and has studied it themselves. UP isn't.

But regardless of that, the two big issues are

1. The coal trains. As time passes this is less and less of a problem.
2. The Colorado state government still does not see this as a priority. I think the support is shifting in its favor, but slowly.

Result is that I just don't see anything happening for several more years. Perhaps after TABOR repeal, which seems likely in the next five years.


----------



## sttom (Dec 12, 2019)

I honestly put 0 hope in constitutional changes on the state level. If we can't even make minor changes to Prop 13 in California when the housing stock has turned over and most people are renting and have crap services, I doubt Tabor would be repealed anytime soon. It's really easy to scare voters into voting against something smart by slapping "billion" to a number 



neroden said:


> Result is that I just don't see anything happening for several more years. Perhaps after TABOR repeal, which seems likely in the next five years.


----------



## neroden (Dec 13, 2019)

In Cali, state legislators are afraid to change prop 13. In Colorado, they all hate TABOR. It makes a difference.


----------



## RSG (Dec 13, 2019)

neroden said:


> Perhaps after TABOR repeal, which seems likely in the next five years.





sttom said:


> I honestly put 0 hope in constitutional changes on the state level. If we can't even make minor changes to Prop 13 in California when the housing stock has turned over and most people are renting and have crap services, I doubt Tabor would be repealed anytime soon. It's really easy to scare voters into voting against something smart by slapping "billion" to a number





neroden said:


> In Cali, state legislators are afraid to change prop 13. In Colorado, they all hate TABOR. It makes a difference.


There was already a trial run to gut, on a large scale, TABOR in the November 2019 election.

One of two statewide initiatives on the ballot was to eliminate the TABOR-required tax refunds in years in which projected excess revenues exceed expenditures. It failed, despite media saturation for the measure and a somewhat misleading campaign suggesting that taxes would not increase (technically true, but if you pay a tax and don't receive a refund your taxes effectively did increase) and that the money would be spent on infrastructure, among other things (no legal requirement to spend refunds on anything in particular was in the initiative). [Meanwhile, the other initiative, to permit sports betting--as recently enabled by SCOTUS--and implement a tax on same, passed handily.]

So I don't see any abrogation of TABOR anytime soon. It may not be as resilient as Proposition 13, but even with a state government controlled by Democrats, the results of the campaign in November are a shot across the bow. No one in the legislature may like TABOR, but they don't see the public as backing them in that sentiment. As such, they will be reluctant to do anything more than the steady chipping away at it as has been done over the past 25 years.


----------



## RSG (Dec 13, 2019)

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> Putting it away from downtown stations will neuter ridership considerably (intercity trains work best when it's downtown-downtown) though.


This is generally true, but I don't think it will have a major impact on downtown Denver, particularly when the suburbs are experiencing as much growth as the urban core. The airport is miles away from downtown and people still come to downtown to take the "Train To The Plane", while others still readily make the trek by passenger vehicle---and others by rideshare or taxi.

Similarly, there have been private services which run shuttles to Fort Collins and Colorado Springs since Stapleton International Airport was in existence---all of which have bypassed downtown. Likewise, I expect that after north-south rail service is established, there will still be people who will rent a vehicle at DIA to go to Colorado Springs or Fort Collins, just as there will be some commuters who will not give up their car to go to either place. But there will be plenty more who will be enticed to travel another way. This doesn't take into consideration that more individuals--particularly the young and those without a nuclear family in their household--don't own cars and rely exclusively on public transportation or for-hire alternatives.


> On the other hand, doing Union Station through tracks will involve having to build an underground station (and a couple of other things), which is gonna make it incredibly complex.


The best way to kill this idea is to make it so complex that it drives up the cost and makes people who aren't die-hard supporters question the propriety of the concept in its entirety. (See California High Speed Rail.) Therefore, making it as realistic as possible will be the key to moving it forward.

On an aesthetic level, the underground bus terminal at Denver Union Station works pretty well, but there is no desire to put an NYC Penn Station equivalent in the Mile High City. This is particularly true when all current public transportation is at or slightly below ground level with no history of underground connections.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia (Dec 13, 2019)

RSG said:


> On an aesthetic level, the underground bus terminal at Denver Union Station works pretty well, but there is no desire to put an NYC Penn Station equivalent in the Mile High City. This is particularly true when all current public transportation is at or slightly below ground level with no history of underground connections.



Well, we could instead make DUS rail elevated (I think it would be less complex than DUS underground and have gentler grades, as well as enable Amtrak to continue using its diesels) This, however will come at the cost of having several buildings south of it be demolished. Also, the bus ramp to I-25 HOV will have to be demolished and be made into a tunnel.
At the same time, a Denver elevated rail line can serve as a backbone for building an I-70 rail line in the future.


----------



## Willbridge (Dec 28, 2019)

neroden said:


> BNSF is OK with electrification, and has studied it themselves. UP isn't.
> 
> But regardless of that, the two big issues are
> 
> ...


-Both the UP and BNSF have had experience running under catenary, but all of the employees who knew about it should be retired by now, so the learning curve will start at zero.  I'd take the UP's reaction as a typical rail corporation starting point.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia (Dec 29, 2019)

Willbridge said:


> -Both the UP and BNSF have had experience running under catenary, but all of the employees who knew about it should be retired by now, so the learning curve will start at zero. I'd take the UP's reaction as a typical rail corporation starting point.



Where at exactly? Also, the UP's reaction to Caltrain electric was oppositional but they ultimately relented, though they also decided to stop hosting freights on the SF peninsula and insteal will hand it over to a short-line operator.


----------



## Willbridge (Dec 29, 2019)

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> Where at exactly? Also, the UP's reaction to Caltrain electric was oppositional but they ultimately relented, though they also decided to stop hosting freights on the SF peninsula and insteal will hand it over to a short-line operator.


The ones that come to mind are the GN's AC operation in the Cascades and the UP's operation under the Milwaukee Road's DC catenary between Tacoma and Seattle. The UP also owned an interurban, the Yakima Valley Traction, for a while, but the TAC-SEA segment is more relevant. (One of the thrills of riding trains when I was a kid was studying the catenary and watching for electrics from the Astra-Domes of the UP pool train. I built catenary for my Lionel layout; it worked just well enough.)

For more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_electrification_in_the_United_States


----------



## toddinde (Dec 30, 2019)

PVD said:


> Done the backup move on the CZ quite a few times....


There is some nutty, irrational fear of backing trains in the US. We used to do it all the time. St. Louis Union for example. It’s done routinely all the time throughout Europe. The Frankfurt Hauptbahnhof is a prime example. We have to stop thinking that backing a train into a station is somehow impossible.


----------



## jebr (Dec 30, 2019)

RSG said:


> This is generally true, but I don't think it will have a major impact on downtown Denver, particularly when the suburbs are experiencing as much growth as the urban core. The airport is miles away from downtown and people still come to downtown to take the "Train To The Plane", while others still readily make the trek by passenger vehicle---and others by rideshare or taxi.
> 
> Similarly, there have been private services which run shuttles to Fort Collins and Colorado Springs since Stapleton International Airport was in existence---all of which have bypassed downtown. Likewise, I expect that after north-south rail service is established, there will still be people who will rent a vehicle at DIA to go to Colorado Springs or Fort Collins, just as there will be some commuters who will not give up their car to go to either place. But there will be plenty more who will be enticed to travel another way. This doesn't take into consideration that more individuals--particularly the young and those without a nuclear family in their household--don't own cars and rely exclusively on public transportation or for-hire alternatives.



Even with the suburbs expanding, having the train avoid downtown entirely would have a major dampening impact on ridership. It's one thing to take a train to/from the airport, where the door-to-door trip time is still far more advantageous for plane + train/shuttle than private automobile. It's quite another to have to make significant extra transit time from the station when a private automobile will do it in a couple of hours. Sure, there's some people that have no access to a vehicle, but the vast majority of people can still drive to some extent, even if it would involve renting a car for the journey.

There's no one part of suburban Denver that has the density or draw that downtown Denver has. Downtown Denver is also much easier to get around by non-automobile forms of transportation than most of the suburbs, and with parking costing a decent amount of money downtown there's an incentive not to drive into downtown. It doesn't need to go into Union Station itself, but it needs to go downtown to be successful. Looking at maps, the trackage from Colorado Springs appears to go near the Union Station light rail station. That seems like an obvious place to put the station - it still connects into the Union Station complex area, but wouldn't require nearly as much money as bringing it in to the rest of the heavy rail area.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia (Dec 30, 2019)

jebr said:


> Looking at maps, the trackage from Colorado Springs appears to go near the Union Station light rail station. That seems like an obvious place to put the station - it still connects into the Union Station complex area, but wouldn't require nearly as much money as bringing it in to the rest of the heavy rail area.



Those are the through-tracks the freight railroads use (they are also the only through-tracks between Denver south to Colorado Springs and Denver north to Cheyenne), and I'm not sure if the freight railroads would allow them to put a station right there.


----------



## neroden (Dec 30, 2019)

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> Those are the through-tracks the freight railroads use (they are also the only through-tracks between Denver south to Colorado Springs and Denver north to Cheyenne), and I'm not sure if the freight railroads would allow them to put a station right there.



The answer is that in practice it's totally dependent on the death of coal traffic. That line is almost all coal and oil traffic now.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia (Dec 31, 2019)

neroden said:


> The answer is that in practice it's totally dependent on the death of coal traffic. That line is almost all coal and oil traffic now.



There appears to be 3 tracks in the Union Station segment (not sure if that will be enough to host a frequency of passenger trains needed to offset congestion on I-25 and I-70). Of course once the coal and oil freights are gone for good, they can remake the Denver railway landscape since the only freights left after that are east-west freights.


----------



## sttom (Jan 1, 2020)

Coal traffic aside, it's not like it would be out of the question to walk between the main line and Union Station, it's only two blocks. I had to walk at least that far at DIA just to get from the drop off point to Terminal C not including riding the people mover. For that matter, it's not like they couldn't add a people mover between the bus terminal and the through platforms anyways. It's not like Colorado is going to be funding a full train line in the next 5 years. And with their frankly stupidity of having to use P3s, I doubt the public would go for one. After having been to Denver and talking to locals, a lot of them are turning against having to use P3s with the frankly bungling of FasTracks and the DIA remodel.


----------



## jis (Jan 1, 2020)

Two tracks with proper signaling is good enough for 20 - 30 tph in each direction. How much traffic is there on I-25? What part of I-70 traffic do you believe will be impacted by the North-South line through Denver?


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia (Jan 1, 2020)

jis said:


> Two tracks with proper signaling is good enough for 20 - 30 tph in each direction. How much traffic is there on I-25? What part of I-70 traffic do you believe will be impacted by the North-South line through Denver?



Traffic on I-25 between Castle Rock and Monument has become similar to that of what's on the LA freeways, so it's pretty congested.
As for I-70 traffic, most likely within the Denver area but there's a good amount of congestion on I-70 in the mountains.


----------



## sttom (Jan 1, 2020)

A Front Range Corridor would be approximately 170 miles and have a similar population as the Capitol Corridor living near it. Colorado also has highways with far fewer lanes than in California and they already have a toll lane along their highways. From what I've been told, the two non tolled lanes get as bad as Bay Area highways at peak times. Also given the geographic features of the area, which are the towns not being huge yet and fairly close together, I could see an Amtrak line from Fort Collins to Pueblo doing well if the state could scrap up the funds to replace the Bustang frequencies with trains. So far there are 10 of those per day from Fort Collins to Denver and Denver to Colorado Springs. That would put it on par with the Capitol Corridor on weekends.


----------



## jis (Jan 1, 2020)

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> Traffic on I-25 between Castle Rock and Monument has become similar to that of what's on the LA freeways, so it's pretty congested.


My point is that a two track railroad can carry the raw demand fine with properly configured trains and signaling. The problem will be dispersal of those folks once they arrive at the stations on the route to get them to/from their final destinations.


> As for I-70 traffic, most likely within the Denver area but there's a good amount of congestion on I-70 in the mountains.


True. But none of that is going to be addressed by a north-south oriented front range system. So while an interesting side note, it has not much to do with a Fort Collins - Denver - Colorado Springs - Pueblo system


----------



## sttom (Jan 1, 2020)

jis said:


> True. But none of that is going to be addressed by a north-south oriented front range system. So while an interesting side note, it has not much to do with a Fort Collins - Denver - Colorado Springs - Pueblo system



Colorado already has a fairly substantial bus service: https://ridebustang.com/routes-maps/
And they already have shuttle buses that link the Front Range to the mountains along with the Winter Park Express. Adding train service to the mountains seems to need only the will of the voters to accomplish. Most people in Colorado are starting to accept that the success of the Bustang service will mean full train service at some point in the future. And looking at https://www.openrailwaymap.org/ there are tracks to replace at least 4 of the 7 Bustang routes with trains if the state wanted to.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia (Jan 1, 2020)

jis said:


> My point is that a two track railroad can carry the raw demand fine with properly configured trains and signaling. The problem will be dispersal of those folks once they arrive at the stations on the route to get them to/from their final destinations.



Dont forget the Spanish Solution.



sttom said:


> Colorado already has a fairly substantial bus service: https://ridebustang.com/routes-maps/
> And they already have shuttle buses that link the Front Range to the mountains along with the Winter Park Express. Adding train service to the mountains seems to need only the will of the voters to accomplish. Most people in Colorado are starting to accept that the success of the Bustang service will mean full train service at some point in the future. And looking at https://www.openrailwaymap.org/ there are tracks to replace at least 4 of the 7 Bustang routes with trains if the state wanted to.



Looking at the map, for an I-70 rail line (between Denver and Grand Junction), the existing tracks that Amtrak uses follow I-70 from Grand Junction east before diverging north at Dotsero. There are tracks do that continue to follow I-70 east (serving Eagle) before diverging south at the I-70/US 24 junction at Miniturn all the way to around Colorado Springs. This is the Tennessee Pass line, which is currently owned by the Union Pacific after acquiring Southern Pacific (who acquired its builder D&RGW), but it hasn't seen any trains at all since 1997 (as UP preferred the more direct Moffat Subdivision). A company called Colorado Pacific has been trying to buy the rail line to use for transporting import and export grain from Kansas heading West to Dotsero and head en route to California, Nevada and Utah. Colorado DOT can try to buy the Tennesee Pass line between Dotsero and Miniturn (with Colorado Pacific receiving trackage rights to it) and modernize and rebuild the line. This also includes building a direct rail line serving Vail and reaching to Denver (as the existing line detours north between Denver and Dotsero). Given the steep gradients and numerous long tunnels, only electric trains can use the line (and multiple units are going to be the best choice unless you like running locomotive trains that are double-headed and banked). As Vail is a ski resort like Winter Park, Amtrak can run a Ski Train to Vail.


----------



## sttom (Jan 1, 2020)

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> Dont forget the Spanish Solution.
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at the map, for an I-70 rail line (between Denver and Grand Junction), the existing tracks that Amtrak uses follow I-70 from Grand Junction east before diverging north at Dotsero. There are tracks do that continue to follow I-70 east (serving Eagle) before diverging south at the I-70/US 24 junction at Miniturn all the way to around Colorado Springs. This is the Tennessee Pass line, which is currently owned by the Union Pacific after acquiring Southern Pacific (who acquired its builder D&RGW), but it hasn't seen any trains at all since 1997 (as UP preferred the more direct Moffat Subdivision). A company called Colorado Pacific has been trying to buy the rail line to use for transporting import and export grain from Kansas heading West to Dotsero and head en route to California, Nevada and Utah. Colorado DOT can try to buy the Tennesee Pass line between Dotsero and Miniturn (with Colorado Pacific receiving trackage rights to it) and modernize and rebuild the line. This also includes building a direct rail line serving Vail and reaching to Denver (as the existing line detours north between Denver and Dotsero). Given the steep gradients and numerous long tunnels, only electric trains can use the line (and multiple units are going to be the best choice unless you like running locomotive trains that are double-headed and banked). As Vail is a ski resort like Winter Park, Amtrak can run a Ski Train to Vail.



Electrifying a line that might only see two extra trains a day would be out of the question for any state. That's also assuming that Colorado would want to replace the one bus a day with a train instead of running more buses. I know you like recommending emus and tunnels for everything, but Colorado couldn't even spare $450 million to prevent FasTracks from requiring a P3, electrifying a rail line through sparsely populated mountains would be out of the question for the legislature in Colorado. Not to be a jerk about it, but Colorado isn't even at the point of working with Amtrak for standard equipment let alone committing to at least a mutli-million dollar project in the mountains that would require what would essentially be special order equipment in the US.


----------



## railiner (Jan 1, 2020)

A ski train to Vail???
Even if new construction built a line from Minturn to Vail, whether restoring service via Tennessee Pass, or running via Dotsero, the train would probably take well over 5 hours, compared to a 2 hour drive.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia (Jan 2, 2020)

railiner said:


> A ski train to Vail???
> Even if new construction built a line from Minturn to Vail, whether restoring service via Tennessee Pass, or running via Dotsero, the train would probably take well over 5 hours, compared to a 2 hour drive.



Since it transports people from Vail to a sparsely populated area in the west whilst the other has to go down to Colorado Springs before going north to Denver in the east, hence the need for a wholly new rail line to Denver to make a Vail Ski Train work. How much skigoers does Vail get compared to Winter Park? Given that the Winter Park Ski Train performs well enough, I think a Vail Ski train would work.



sttom said:


> Electrifying a line that might only see two extra trains a day would be out of the question for any state. That's also assuming that Colorado would want to replace the one bus a day with a train instead of running more buses.



The whole point of an I-70 rail line is to relieve traffic on I-70 between Denver and the Rocky Mountain towns, since congestion has gotten pretty bad, and I never assumed it would outright replace the Bustang service. Seems the best option would make it part of a greater project.


----------



## railiner (Jan 2, 2020)

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> Since it transports people from Vail to a sparsely populated area in the west whilst the other has to go down to Colorado Springs before going north to Denver in the east, hence the need for a wholly new rail line to Denver to make a Vail Ski Train work. How much skigoers does Vail get compared to Winter Park? Given that the Winter Park Ski Train performs well enough, I think a Vail Ski train would work.
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point of an I-70 rail line is to relieve traffic on I-70 between Denver and the Rocky Mountain towns, since congestion has gotten pretty bad, and I never assumed it would outright replace the Bustang service. Seems the best option would make it part of a greater project.


What route from Vail are you proposing?
A standard (non-cog) railroad could never follow the steep grades (over 7%) of I-70.
Going via Colorado Springs?? What, restore the Colorado Midland?? A whole new railroad would require lots of long tunnels and prohibitively expensive construction.
Just basically for a seasonal ski train?
Never going to happen in this century, at least...


----------



## jis (Jan 2, 2020)

railiner said:


> What route from Vail are you proposing?
> A standard (non-cog) railroad could never follow the steep grades (over 7%) of I-70.
> Going via Colorado Springs?? What, restore the Colorado Midland?? A whole new railroad would require lots of long tunnels and prohibitively expensive construction.
> Just basically for a seasonal ski train?
> Never going to happen in this century, at least...


Yup. Lots of unbounded fantasies floating around. Not unusual here though.

Frankly I would be delighted to see a well organized north south corridor around Denver within Colorado as a starter get off the ground and succeed first. That seems quite doable and viable if folks around there put their minds to it.

Incidentally, that would also be closer to the subject matter of this thread than some of these other flights of fancy. .


----------



## sttom (Jan 2, 2020)

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> Since it transports people from Vail to a sparsely populated area in the west whilst the other has to go down to Colorado Springs before going north to Denver in the east, hence the need for a wholly new rail line to Denver to make a Vail Ski Train work. How much skigoers does Vail get compared to Winter Park? Given that the Winter Park Ski Train performs well enough, I think a Vail Ski train would work.
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point of an I-70 rail line is to relieve traffic on I-70 between Denver and the Rocky Mountain towns, since congestion has gotten pretty bad, and I never assumed it would outright replace the Bustang service. Seems the best option would make it part of a greater project.



Electrification isn't remotely necessary for starting a corridor service. After the CalIDOT cars come in, Amtrak might have the equipment for train service in Colorado. Colorado would only need about 8 train sets to maintain hourly frequencies along the Front Range, and I doubt that Colorado would start with that high of a frequency.

As for Vail, on open railway maps, there isn't a line there, nor has there been. At best an industrial line passes nearby at Avon and that's assuming the line isn't abandoned. The sad thing is, Colorado doesn't have the capacity to build an electrified commuter line without the private sector fleecing them, a corridor service would be just as bad. At this point there is even a good chance another FasTracks tax gets voted down, a multi million dollar project to the mountains would get voted down on a statewide ballot for sure. It would be one thing to ask for funding to replace the Front Bustang routes, but a train to Vail, why? That makes no sense from a business or public transit stand point, why put $13 million per mile, excluding tunnels into a line virtually no one would use?


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia (Jan 2, 2020)

railiner said:


> What route from Vail are you proposing?
> A standard (non-cog) railroad could never follow the steep grades (over 7%) of I-70.
> Going via Colorado Springs?? What, restore the Colorado Midland?? A whole new railroad would require lots of long tunnels and prohibitively expensive construction.
> Just basically for a seasonal ski train?
> Never going to happen in this century, at least...



It goes from Denver to Vail through the I-70 alignment. I'm not proposing bringing back the Tennessee Pass route (i.e. via Colorado Springs). Looks like someone made an I-70 rail alignment
But yeah I got way over my head with an I-70 intercity rail idea.


----------

