FWTA: Tarrant Express Commuter Rail Line (TEX Rail)

[SeaToby]

P.T. Barnum was so right....

I have no problems with a communter rail being built along the UP line to Arlington through East Fort Worth. A key development would be a overpass-underpass of Tower 55 railroad tracks intersection. However, there would have to be a colossal change of atttitude from UP. You can't spell stupid without UP. That key intersection and UP's stupidity is keeping the T from going south to Cleburne and west to Weatherford as well. It takes Amtrak's Texas Eagle up to an hour or more to get through Tower 55's intersection twice in both directions every day. It also would help if Arlington paid the T a half cent sales tax too.

Extending the Grapevine line southwest to Granbury I would also support.

With the Ballpark, the new Cowboys stadium, UTA, Six Flags, Lone Star Park, etc. along the east route, I am sure if we can get over UP's stupidity, that would make a great third commuter rail line after the line to Grapevine and DFW airport. And I would continue that east line to Weatherford to the west, and the south line to Cleburne all the way to Roanoke to the north.

But first we have to get UP's approval for Tower 55 improvements. Tower 55 is a major problem for all of these other rail lines.

[electricron]

I have no problems with a communter rail being built along the UP line to Arlington through East Fort Worth. A key development would be a overpass-underpass of Tower 55 railroad tracks intersection. However, there would have to be a colossal change of atttitude from UP. You can't spell stupid without UP. That key intersection and UP's stupidity is keeping the T from going south to Cleburne and west to Weatherford as well. It takes Amtrak's Texas Eagle up to an hour or more to get through Tower 55's intersection twice in both directions every day. It also would help if Arlington paid the T a half cent sales tax too.

Extending the Grapevine line southwest to Granbury I would also support.

With the Ballpark, the new Cowboys stadium, UTA, Six Flags, Lone Star Park, etc. along the east route, I am sure if we can get over UP's stupidity, that would make a great third commuter rail line after the line to Grapevine and DFW airport. And I would continue that east line to Weatherford to the west, and the south line to Cleburne all the way to Roanoke to the north.

But first we have to get UP's approval for Tower 55 improvements. Tower 55 is a major problem for all of these other rail lines.

Looking at the UP old T&P line through Arilington, there's a major choke point at the GM plant near SH 360. There really isn't room for another track at grade. The only way through that choke point is to go up and over that yard. Yes, commuter rail could do it, but it would be easier with light rail.

A light rail line at an average of $60 million per mile over the 32 miles or so would cost over $1.8 billion. I also think both Arlington and Grand Prairie are or could be dense enough to support a light rail line. There's plenty of vacant areas near that right of way for TODs inthe mid cities. A station every mile or two is easy to visualize along this corridor, vs a station every three to four miles.

With the population of both mid cities, a small DMU based line with less frequency would be quickly overcrowded here. They would have to run Bombardier Bi-Level cars to have enough capacity for commuter rail. Light rail cars, on their own dedicated tracks, running more frequently, wouldn't get overcrowded as fast. Another reason to use light rail on this corridor.

What I envision is a grade level light rail line between the UP line and the city street, most often SH 180. At the coke points, raise the light rail line over the UP line, with just the supporting posts at the UP property line. In such a way, there's little to no impact to the UP's operations on this corridor. Expect for the price tag, I believe this is very doable, considering Dart's plans to build a light rail line to West Dallas. It could be lengthened all the way to Ft.Worth.

When considering price for a Regional (DMU cars) or Commuter (Locomotive and Bi-Level cars) train, since a new third rail would have to be built just for capacity reasons alone, I would estimate capital costs around $20 to $25 million per mile, up to $600 million. And that's not including whatever fees are due the UP to use their right of way, which could easily match the construction costs. Then like you say, add ontop of that more $millions to solve Tower 55.

If we're going to have to pay over $1 billion to build this rail line, I would prefer building light rail, and avoid paying the UP any money as much as possible. A light rail line also avoids the pitfalls of weaving through the Tower 55 crossing. Just take the light rail up and over it, possibly leaving the UP right of way edges and head down Lancaster the last half mile or so to either the old T&P Station or the new FTITC.

Then we can leave the costs for fixing Tower 55 to the freight Railroad companies. With regional and light rail, there's always the option to go up and over freight railroad choke points. UTA Frontrunner had to go up and over the UP's wye tracks at Ogden. So it can be done.

For this light rail line to get built, both Grand Prairie and Arlington would have to join either Dart or the T. Either would need the sales taxes from both cities to bond so expensive a project. The Legislature would have to do something, either increase the sales tax limit or increase other fees and taxes to pay for this project. Hopefully, with Austin, San Antonio, Houston, Ft. Worth, El Paso, and Dallas needing more transit funding, next year the Legislature will bite the bullet and do something.

[PennStation]

electricron, you obviously have a passion for rail transit, as evidenced by your numerous recent posts. Speaking just for myself, I’d like to thank you for stimulating so much critical thinking among the board members, and for inspiring so many interesting replies.

You can't spell stupid without using the letters u and p.

You can't spell stupid without UP.

I’ve never been a big fan of the Union Pacific Railroad. Lord knows, they’re far from perfect. However, I think that they’re far and away more knowledgeable about their capacity constraints, both nationally and in the DFW terminal area, than anyone who may post on this board.

The worst that I can possibly say about the UP at this time (and this is just uninformed speculation) is that there may not be much of a problem in accommodating the NTTA in Ft Worth, but the railroad may be using access to its right-of-way as a bargaining chip in order to try to ease a capacity problem elsewhere in the terminal. I no longer have all the details, but DART posted a set of subcommittee meeting minutes on its website several months ago, that indicated UP would allow the SW-NE commuter rail on its tracks, if (among other things) the TRE agreed to host Amtrak between Ft Worth and Dallas.

I read two or three months ago that the NTTA was going to take its case to the Surface Transportation Board (in Washington, D.C.). I haven’t checked the STB’s website in a while, but I’m anxious to read the NTTA filing, and the UP’s response. Only then will we (at least those of us who don’t put much stock in anti-corporate hyperbole) have the full story.

[electricron]

electricron, you obviously have a passion for rail transit, as evidenced by your numerous recent posts. Speaking just for myself, I’d like to thank you for stimulating so much critical thinking among the board members, and for inspiring so many interesting replies.

I’ve never been a big fan of the Union Pacific Railroad. Lord knows, they’re far from perfect. However, I think that they’re far and away more knowledgeable about their capacity constraints, both nationally and in the DFW terminal area, than anyone who may post on this board.

The worst that I can possibly say about the UP at this time (and this is just uninformed speculation) is that there may not be much of a problem in accommodating the NTTA in Ft Worth, but the railroad may be using access to its right-of-way as a bargaining chip in order to try to ease a capacity problem elsewhere in the terminal. I no longer have all the details, but DART posted a set of subcommittee meeting minutes on its website several months ago, that indicated UP would allow the SW-NE commuter rail on its tracks, if (among other things) the TRE agreed to host Amtrak between Ft Worth and Dallas.

I read two or three months ago that the NTTA was going to take its case to the Surface Transportation Board (in Washington, D.C.). I haven’t checked the STB’s website in a while, but I’m anxious to read the NTTA filing, and the UP’s response. Only then will we (at least those of us who don’t put much stock in anti-corporate hyperbole) have the full story.

I have no doubt the UP will allow the SW2NE "T" line to go through, as there is an underpass for the FWWR the "T" could use to not cross their main east-west T&P UP mainline, but the "T" will probably have to run a mile of new track parallel to this line, and the UP has two parallel main lines heading north of downtown Ft. Worth. A crossover switch between the two UP lines clears sufficient UP tracks. The SW2NE "T" line isn't going to cause much problems with the UP because it can be routed to avoid Tower 55. But a commuter rail line east through Tower 55 to Arlington and possibly all the way to Dallas will cause the UP significant problems.

And it is true, you can spell stUPid without UP. I wonder how much the UP will charge the "T" to run their tracks just 10 feet north of the UP tracks?

[Haretip]

Be careful. They're going to squeeze a new tollroad inbetween the T&P/UP tracks and I-30. There may be less room there than you imagine. It's going to be pretty hard to swing away from the T&P/UP main and drop the grade to hit the left turn into the underpass while avoiding encroaching on I-30 and/or the Hwy 121 extension.

[electricron]

Be careful. They're going to squeeze a new tollroad inbetween the T&P/UP tracks and I-30. There may be less room there than you imagine. It's going to be pretty hard to swing away from the T&P/UP main and drop the grade to hit the left turn into the underpass while avoiding encroaching on I-30 and/or the Hwy 121 extension.

I assume the SW Tollway will be above the UP tracks, and since the SW2NE tracks will be below the UP's, that there will not be any problem. Yes, it will be tight, but I don't think it will be impossible. The alternate SW2NE route follows the FWWR to the Cotton Belt bypassing downtown Ft. Worth. So, the "T" is probably planning on using this line up to the UP's T&P line anyways.

The "T" trains on the SW2NE line minmum turning radius will most likely be the standard 300 feet. My only worry is there 300 feet clearance between the UP tracks and I 30? There's 560 feet clearance between the southern edge of the existing I 30 and the northern edge underpass under the UP manline along the FWWR tracks. So West Vickery will have to be rerouted here, or crossed twice. Heading east from that RR underpass, it's over 1300 feet to 9th Avenue, so there should be plenty of room for the SW2NE track to cross the UP tracks without an at grade RR crossing.

Should be and will be are two things. Having just looked at the SW Parkway EIS, it doesn't look good. There's just too many off and on ramps to fit in a track as I suggested. There's a spur railroad right of way between 9th and 12th Avenues that the "T" could use. I just don't see a way to grade separate the two rail lines, having one cross above or below the other, as there still too many ramps. But crosssing that many UP tracks at grade could cause dispatching problems and delays, it would be much nicer for the "T" to have a grade separated rail line.

All that's left is fitting the SW2NE tracks under I 30's bridge supports to the old T&P Station. And I don't expect problems doing that, as the UP line is already tripled or quadaple tracks west of the T&P Station under I 30.

[Haretip]

If the SW2NE route is below or South of the UP tracks at the point it turns +/-90° to go south on the FW&W route, what is the point of using the underpass, since they are already south of the UP tracks. I admit that it has been several years since I have seen prints of the proposed 121 extension and the commuter rail link, but seems like I recall the discussion centering on the need for an up and over ramp. I just don't believe the underpass is useable. Don't quote me on that one, but real estate in that corridor is at a super premium and inches make the differnce on that junction, for sure.

[electricron]

If the SW2NE route is below or South of the UP tracks at the point it turns +/-90° to go south on the FW&W route, what is the point of using the underpass, since they are already south of the UP tracks. I admit that it has been several years since I have seen prints of the proposed 121 extension and the commuter rail link, but seems like I recall the discussion centering on the need for an up and over ramp. I just don't believe the underpass is useable. Don't quote me on that one, but real estate in that corridor is at a super premium and inches make the differnce on that junction, for sure.

Having looked at the SW Tollway plans, taking advantage of that RR underpass went up in smoke. There's going to be several ramps just north of that RR underpass, I also doubt now there will be room for a RR line. Which is a shame, the T having to have its trains dispatched by the UP. UP will ask much more than it's worth to cross their mainline.
It'll be much cheaper for the SW2NE rai to stay on the FWWR to reach the Stockyards and the Cotton Belt line. But it would skip downtown doing so, and that's not as good as using the UP. I just hope the UP doesn't delay too many trains and make the SW part of the SW2NE rail project a joke.

[electricron]

The "T" has finally posted their DEIS:

http://www.sw2neRAIL.com/environment...y.asp?area=eis
Some good news, they plan to join the main east-west UP line on the north side track, so at least only one of the two tracks needs to be clear for the T's train. Which means they plan to go over or under the south side track.

I'm not sure I like the initial station designs. Aa many the bus loops are far away from the train platform. At most stations the parking lots are too. Whereas the train sets haven't been officially chosen, it looks like the Colorado Railcar FRA compliant trains are the favorite.
Which should mean much lower construction costs, as they will not need to lay a second track along the entire route. But, Colorado Railcar isn't the best vendor to rely upon for timely delivery of the trains.

Portland's TriMet had to purchase/pay all of Colorado Railcar's suppliers to get their trains built 6 months late, and send engineers to Colorado to help them. Trains delievered to Portland had to be thoroughly checked, and some rework had to be done to get them operable enough for testing. They only ordered three DMUs and one trailer.
http://www.djcoregon.com/articleDeta...ested-properly
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/argus...630.xml&coll=6

Additionally, the next transit agency, Alaska Railroad, is having to do the same thing to get their Colorado Railcar trains built too. I don't think one can trust Colorado Railcar to do the job by themselves. They will have to be watched very closely.

But TriMet's WES trains certainly look beautiful.




I worry because the "T" and DART will probably want to buy a total of 40 or more DMUs and trailers. If Colorado Railcar is having trouble financing building four, how are they going to be able to find financing to build 40?
Remember, the SW2NE line is going to be 36+ miles long, and another 22+ miles to Plano from DFW. That's almost 60 miles for the entire corridor, almost twice the distance of the TRE. That means it'll need at least twice the number of DMUs as the TRE has locomotives, and who knows how many trailer non powered passenger cars, to maintain a similar operating schedule.
The TRE has 6 diesel locomotives, 17 bi-level passenger cars, and 13 RDCs.
The locomotives usually pull three bi-level cars, 3 cars x 5 locos =15 cars. I'm assuming one loco and 2 cars are mantained as spares. The RDCs usually are paired up as twins or triplets, either 4 to 6 trains depending upon the trains setup. Let's assume an average of 10 trains are needed for 30+ miles of track. To maintain a similar schedule, the entire Cotton Belt is going to need twice as many trains, 20 DMUs including at least one trailer, more likely two trailers, as that's the maximum each Colorado Railcar DMU can pull. That's a total of 40 to 60 DMUs and trailers, not including the desired spares.
I'm not so sure Colorado Railcar can make that many trains in a few years, at the rate they have been building them lately, it'll take over 10 years. That's much too slow! It sure would be nice if Stadler can build a FRA compliant GTW trainset. They could build that many in just a few years. Their trains are also sized more like light rail cars.

And that's important, as that's what DART has promised will be used on the Cotton Belt to the citizens of North Dallas.

But alas, we'll just have to wait and see what happens in the next few years.

[Double Wide]

I cant open the pdf

[electricron]

I cant open the pdf

I've change the url, try again.
If the link still doesn't work, surf to http://www.sw2nerail.com/ and click on the link provided there.

[RobertB]

I've got them all downloaded, and I can't wait to see the engineering details. (But I'll have to wait anyway... darned job keeps interfering with my forum duties!)

[NThomas]

The platforms do seem too far away from the lots. A couple even have long walks to the station that might not discourage us from riding but for others, its something of a hurdle for them. Not being close to the platform (think Parker Road Station) might hurt the SW2NE.

[RobertB]

I've only had time for a quick look at the docs, but there seems to have been a change of heart about the "Western Bypass" and "Choctaw" options. I've got a "Final Alternative" tacked to the wall of my cube that still matches the current LPA (Locally Preferred Alternative), but all the docs that I've looked at so far (again, not many) describe the options in detail. Here's a description from the Executive Summary doc:

Two alignment options around the downtown area are also being considered through the DEIS process as design options or future connections. The Western Bypass Design Option would continue to use the FWWR alignment north of the Medical District Station, serving the area west of downtown on what is known as the Western Bypass alignment, reconnecting with the main alignment at Tower 60 north of downtown in the stockyards area. The Choctaw Design Option would transition onto the UP Choctaw Subdivision north of Purina Junction and reconnect with the main alignment east of the Beach Street station at what is known as Choctaw Crossing at the intersection of Old Denton Road and Meacham Boulevard.

The description above doesn't point out that the "Western Bypass" misses downtown FW entirely, and the "Choctaw" alternative doesn't give you a good Stockyards station.

I also noticed that there has been a significant amount of design done on stations in towns that haven't made any financial committment to the project. There's a Haltom City station, two in North Richland Hills, and one in Colleyville. Interestingly, those cities and others (including Southlake) are noted as among the "Participating Agencies" (though that list also includes organizations like the Texas Historical Commission). The T seems to be assuming that those cities will participate some day, if not right away -- even going as far as to project employment increases near those stations. By contrast, DART seems to hold non-member-cities at arms' length, with economic impacts on non-member suburbs like Seagoville and Balch Springs never even mentioned.

[electricron]

The T seems to be assuming that those cities will participate some day, if not right away -- even going as far as to project employment increases near those stations. By contrast, DART seems to hold non-member-cities at arms' length, with economic impacts on non-member suburbs like Seagoville and Balch Springs never even mentioned.

Well, it will be much easier to join the "T" in the future because they only ask for a half cent sales tax, leaving the cities the other half cent for other "special" purposes. DART asks for a full cent, leaving the cities with zero "special" sales taxes, only with the full penny every city gets anyways.

DART doesn't go around suggesting other cities join, DART leaves that for locals to decide, and DART has avoided sending trains through non member cities in the past. The"T" has to send this train through non member cities because that's where the Cotton Belt ROW is. Therefore, the "T" must deal with this.

DART, if they also build regional rail to DFW using the Cotton Belt ROW, will be sending trains through a non member city, Coppell to be specific. I'm assuming we might be seeing DART co-operating with Coppell, asking for some financial assistance, when plans for the Cotton Belt are much further along.

Having a train run through your city sooner rather than later, might be reason enough for Coppell to join DART. But we'll have to wait and see what DART and Coppell do.

[mrowl]

I don't understand the need for a DFW North station, and a downtown Grapevine station...

They are less than a mile apart.

[dfwcre8tive]

Well, it will be much easier to join the "T" in the future because they only ask for a half cent sales tax, leaving the cities the other half cent for other "special" purposes. DART asks for a full cent, leaving the cities with zero "special" sales taxes, only with the full penny every city gets anyways.

DART doesn't go around suggesting other cities join, DART leaves that for locals to decide, and DART has avoided sending trains through non member cities in the past. The"T" has to send this train through non member cities because that's where the Cotton Belt ROW is. Therefore, the "T" must deal with this.

DART, if they also build regional rail to DFW using the Cotton Belt ROW, will be sending trains through a non member city, Coppell to be specific. I'm assuming we might be seeing DART co-operating with Coppell, asking for some financial assistance, when plans for the Cotton Belt are much further along.

Having a train run through your city sooner rather than later, might be reason enough for Coppell to join DART. But we'll have to wait and see what DART and Coppell do.

DCTA also didn't do any station designs for non-member Corinth or the other Lake Cities, which the A Train will pass through without stopping.

[electricron]

DCTA also didn't do any station designs for non-member Corinth or the other Lake Cities, which the A Train will pass through without stopping.

True, but at least DCTA did take the time and effort to allow Corinth another chance to join. Too bad Corinth's City Council on again, off again double talk never produced another election in November 2006. DCTA even had selected a preferred location for a train station in Corinth near North Central Texas College campus.

But you got to pay to join the club. Membership isn't free.

[Double Wide]

Why Commuter rail over Light Rail like Dart?

[NThomas]

DCTA also didn't do any station designs for non-member Corinth or the other Lake Cities, which the A Train will pass through without stopping.

Actually, when there was a proposal for a special election for Corinth to join DCTA late, DCTA released a concept station for Corinth.




Unfortunately, the Corinth city council didn't let the voters decide wither or not to join DCTA.

[electricron]

Why Commuter rail over Light Rail like Dart?

Because the "T" (1) doesn't have the money to build light rail that far, and (2) the Cotton Belt is an active freight railroad line.

The proposed SW2NE rail line is over 30 miles in length. Light rails costs $40 to $50 million per mile. Assuming the "T" is frugal, they'll be spending a total of at least $1.2 Billion for this line alone. Commuter rail costs $10 to $15 million per mile. Assuming the "T" enriches it with every bell and whistle, they could be spending a maximum of $450 million. The "T" member cities have half the population of Dart's member cities, and charge half the sales tax that Dart collects, raising a quarter of Dart's revenues.

The SW2NE line is planning to use tracks operated by three active freight railroads. FWWR, UP, and DGNO (Cotton Belt). With Freight trains and Passenger trains sharing the same tracks, the Passenger trains must be FRA compliant. This line also shares tracks with the TRE, which is also FRA compliant. Therefore, the SW2NE passenger trains will have to be FRA compliant, and that means Commuter rail, since there isn't a single Light rail train built that is FRA compliant.

To use Light rail on this corridor, the "T" would have to lay another passenger only track over the entire route, having grade separations over every other track it comes across. Like Dart does in Garland, like Dart will do with the Green Line in both SE and NW sections. Dart's Red and Blue lines construction costs were less because the were built in abandoned railroad corridors, not in active railroad corridors.

Because the Cotton Belt is so active with freight railroad operations, even Dart is planning to use Commuter rail on their half of this corridor.

[RobertB]

I don't understand the need for a DFW North station, and a downtown Grapevine station...

They are less than a mile apart.

You could add "DFW Airport" to the list, because it's close too. But the stations serve entirely different purposes.

Downtown Grapevine is a neighborhood station. It will serve people who live nearby who go to DTFW, and is also a destination in itself for tourism and events.

DFW North is a commuter station. People from Denton and Collin Counties will drive there, park in one of hundreds of spaces, and ride to DTFW. That's simply not possible in the middle of Downtown Grapevine.

And of course, DFW Airport doesn't have any parking at all. It serves the airline passengers -- and more importantly, the employees, who will (eventually) be able to park in NRH or Colleyville and ride to work.

[electricron]

You could add "DFW Airport" to the list, because it's close too. But the stations serve entirely different purposes.

Downtown Grapevine is a neighborhood station. It will serve people who live nearby who go to DTFW, and is also a destination in itself for tourism and events.

DFW North is a commuter station. People from Denton and Collin Counties will drive there, park in one of hundreds of spaces, and ride to DTFW. That's simply not possible in the middle of Downtown Grapevine.

And of course, DFW Airport doesn't have any parking at all. It serves the airline passengers -- and more importantly, the employees, who will (eventually) be able to park in NRH or Colleyville and ride to work.

Don't forget, the DFW North Station will be able to handle transfers between Dart and the T better than the one at DFW.
But I do agree, there should be a way to reduce three stations down to two. I'm all in favor of dropping the downtown Grapevine station, using the existing depot as is and only for special events or occasions. But, since Grapevine doesn't have and will not have a decent bus system, it looks like everyone heading for DFW is going to have to stop in downtown Grapevine. A Park & Ride station should be enough, and would be if Grapevine had a good bus system. DFW Airport is "the" major reason for building this line, so I'm not for dropping it.

[NThomas]

I don't understand the need for a DFW North station, and a downtown Grapevine station...

They are less than a mile apart.

You could add "DFW Airport" to the list, because it's close too. But the stations serve entirely different purposes.

Downtown Grapevine is a neighborhood station. It will serve people who live nearby who go to DTFW, and is also a destination in itself for tourism and events.

DFW North is a commuter station. People from Denton and Collin Counties will drive there, park in one of hundreds of spaces, and ride to DTFW. That's simply not possible in the middle of Downtown Grapevine.

And of course, DFW Airport doesn't have any parking at all. It serves the airline passengers -- and more importantly, the employees, who will (eventually) be able to park in NRH or Colleyville and ride to work.

A good example of this already in place is the DART Red line. Parker Road is a commuter station and the Downtown Plano station is a neighborhood station. Just like the future DFW North station and Downtown Grapevine stations.

[mrowl]

You could add "DFW Airport" to the list, because it's close too. But the stations serve entirely different purposes.

Downtown Grapevine is a neighborhood station. It will serve people who live nearby who go to DTFW, and is also a destination in itself for tourism and events.

DFW North is a commuter station. People from Denton and Collin Counties will drive there, park in one of hundreds of spaces, and ride to DTFW. That's simply not possible in the middle of Downtown Grapevine.

And of course, DFW Airport doesn't have any parking at all. It serves the airline passengers -- and more importantly, the employees, who will (eventually) be able to park in NRH or Colleyville and ride to work.

Thanks for the explanation.

[RobertB]

Don't forget, the DFW North Station will be able to handle transfers between Dart and the T better than the one at DFW.
But I do agree, there should be a way to reduce three stations down to two. I'm all in favor of dropping the downtown Grapevine station, using the existing depot as is and only for special events or occasions. But, since Grapevine doesn't have and will not have a decent bus system, it looks like everyone heading for DFW is going to have to stop in downtown Grapevine. A Park & Ride station should be enough, and would be if Grapevine had a good bus system. DFW Airport is "the" major reason for building this line, so I'm not for dropping it.

Ever hear the saying, "You gotta dance with the one who brought you"?

Grapevine voters approved paying sales tax to The T. Without that revenue, the line doesn't get built.

If Grapevine wants The T to paint the train like Santa's sleigh and draw it with a team of diesel-powered reindeer, the only question The T will ask is, "How red do you want Rudolph's nose?"

(Of course, designing an FRA-compliant reindeer might take a while...)

[FoUTASportscaster]

The other thing the LRT fan section seems to forget is that there are just some places that aren't suitable for LRT. This line would be one of them. Aside from the TCU to Stockyards stretch, less than 20% of the line's length, the area is too spread out without any significant concentrations of residential or commercial activity. The ridership per mile would be extremely low for this line if it were LRT.

In Dallas, on the other end it passes through DTD, the Stemmons corridor, Love and Las Colinas and DFW. It is pretty consistent from start to finish and could be a line with the most inbound and outbound traffic at all hours, though not neccesarily the highest ridership.

[electricron]

The other thing the LRT fan section seems to forget is that there are just some places that aren't suitable for LRT. This line would be one of them. Aside from the TCU to Stockyards stretch, less than 20% of the line's length, the area is too spread out without any significant concentrations of residential or commercial activity. The ridership per mile would be extremely low for this line if it were LRT.

In Dallas, on the other end it passes through DTD, the Stemmons corridor, Love and Las Colinas and DFW. It is pretty consistent from start to finish and could be a line with the most inbound and outbound traffic at all hours, though not neccesarily the highest ridership.

I'll agree this corridor doesn't have many high density developments, nor the opportunities for building many TODs later to warrant using light rail trains. There's not than many apartment complexes adjacent to the proposed route either.

But it does have four really good draws that warrants building a rail line.
Downtown Fort Worth, Stockyards, Medical Center, and DFW airport.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Let me add TCU to the list and yes, as you say, it does warrant a rail line, just not an LRT rail line.

[electricron]

Looks like the SW2NE web site has been refreshed. Looks much better than it did.

There's three photos of potential trains in the main page header.


Can you name all three manufactures?

Answers:
Left = EMD F-59 PHI with Bombardier Bi-Level coach cars
Middle = Colorado Railcar DMU
Right = Did you find this one hard? It looks like a Stadler RS1 Regio Shuttle DMU.
Siemens Regio Sprinter and Adtranz Swinger are no longer in producton.
Too bad none of them were FRA compliant.

Here's a much larger photo of a RS1 Regio Shuttle


Some stats for the RS1 Regio Shuttle:
Length: 25.360 m (83.20 ft)
Width: 2.900 m (9.51 ft)
Height: 4.041 m (13.26 ft)
Low Floor Height; 0.600 m (23.6 in)
High Floor Height: 1.000 m (51.18 in)
Door Width: 1.300 m (5.91 ft)
Seating Capacity: 71
Standing Capacity: 77
Weight: 42.000 kg (92,600 lbs, or 46.3 tons)
Engine: 2 x 257 kW diesel (Euro 2) (2 x 345 HP, for a total of 690 HP)
Max Speed: 120 km/hr (75 mph)
Max Acceleration: 1.2 m/s2 (2.68 mph/s)

Technical Features:
Carbody constructed of welded square steel tubes
To achieve low vehicle weight, the carbody sides have latticework structure
Side panelling consists of 20 mm thick GFRP laminated sheets bonded directly onto the body shell structure
Carbody designed to withstand a longitudinal force of 1500 kN
Vehicles equipped with automatic couplers
Two independent proulsion systems ensure high availability
Bogies fitted with air suspension guarantees a smooth ride
Vehicles equipped with MICAS traction control technology
Multiple unit control for up to 6 vehicles
Bi-directional vehicle designed for one man operation
Spacious passenger area with 65% low floor content
Double-leaf, sliding plug doors with a width oof 1.300m
Equipped wth concealed toilet system
Air conditioned passenger areas
Ergonomically designed driving cab with air conditioning system

To add: They are assembled in Berlin.....
Over 340 of them ride the rails in Germany.

[Haretip]

The debacle of Colorado Railcar

I know the T set aside money for one of these a year or so ago. I sure hope they didn't stuff it in an envelope and mail it off with their order form. It's disappointing, because they have a lot of features I like.

[electricron]

The debacle of Colorado Railcar

I know the T set aside money for one of these a year or so ago. I sure hope they didn't stuff it in an envelope and mail it off with their order form. It's disappointing, because they have a lot of features I like.

Thanks for posting that link. It explains why smarter transit agencies have avoided Colorado Railcar DMUs with passion. They certainly haven't delivered any trains on time and on budget, ever.

Besides the very poor delivery history, a major disadvantage of these trains is they require high blocks for assisted boardings because they are 100% high floors. Another, disadvantage is that the DMU has a single cab. To reverse directions, you need an additional cab car trailer, at almost the same expense as the DMU, or mechanical means to turn the train around.

The Siemens, Bombardier, and Stadler DMU trains have dual cabs. They are also several articulate choices, as well as some un-articulate trains to choose from. But, so far none of the light weight DMUs are FRA compliant, although Siemens also have some high floor DMUs in their inventory, being produced for Australia and England. But those aren't sized about the same as Dart Kinkisharyo light rail trains.

[zaphod]

Well this is bogus, I mean without Colorado Railcar there is zero chance of seeing a FRA-Compliant DMU, right?

SW2NE will either need to use loco hauled trains or borrow the TRE's old Budd Cars. I guess it would impractical here to mandate time segregation if the line is so busy, never mind it couldn't interact with the TRE services either...

I wish a bunch of agencies could get together, maybe T, Amtrak, Alaska RR, Tri-Met, NJ Transit, etc, and place some kind of big order for a FRA-Compliant Siemens product

[RobertB]

With VP-elect Biden being an avowed fan of rail, I wouldn't be surprised to see the compliance regulations relaxed soon, especially the ones that are clearly bogus.

On the other hand, there's clearly a need for safety, as witnessed only recently in the California commuter rail tragedy. But the solution to that is an infrastructure project too: Add more dedicated commuter rail lines and improved signaling, possibly with automatic interlocks to prevent Signal Passed At Danger situations.

[Haretip]

I am curious how the whole Colorado Railcar thing is going to fall out. Even though the founder appears to have been promising results above his level of performance, he has been chased out of the company. A new manager is involved and the skill sets have been developed to build the cars. American railcar and transit vehicle builders are virtually non-existent. Perhaps there is an opportunity for Colorado Railcar to restructure and continue. I realize how unconventional and risky this sounds, but perhaps if a viable product is now being produced, TriMet can continue to produce the cars or sell the assets of the company to another group (perhaps Oregon Iron Works' United Streetcar) and make some of their money back.

[electricron]

I am curious how the whole Colorado Railcar thing is going to fall out. Even though the founder appears to have been promising results above his level of performance, he has been chased out of the company. A new manager is involved and the skill sets have been developed to build the cars. American railcar and transit vehicle builders are virtually non-existent. Perhaps there is an opportunity for Colorado Railcar to restructure and continue. I realize how unconventional and risky this sounds, but perhaps if a viable product is now being produced, TriMet can continue to produce the cars or sell the assets of the company to another group (perhaps Oregon Iron Works' United Streetcar) and make some of their money back.

I would feel much better if Colorado Railcar was sold to Bombardier, Siemens, or another train manufacture with lots more capital. I don't see other transit agencies placing their new must be FRA compliant rail projects at risk over a company with this poor a record, when going the traditional route of using locomotives and passengers cars is so risk free.
Bombardier makes two different bi-level, as well a single level FRA compliant passenger cars. There's many different diesel-electric locomotive and electric locomotive manufacturers.

Whereas light rail sized DMUs are a great choice for more rural lines, with higher fuel milage and smaller platform lengths saving much in O&M costs, a diesel locomotive pulling single level passenger cars is always available vs pulling bi-level passenger cars.

10 years ago, FRA compliant ADtranz Flexliner DMUs were available. It's possible Bombardier may bring them back, as I believe Bombardier bought ADtranz out.
I certainly hope they do. Here's a photo of one:

[zaphod]

Looks like it's official

http://coloradorailcar.com/

ATTENTION: Effective December 23, 2008 Colorado Railcar Manufacturing ceased it's business operations. Colorado Railcar Manufacturing has a major liquidity problem, and it's lenders have a secured position in the assets of the company. The company is in the process of liquidation. The company has no employees effective December 31st, 2008.

[electricron]

Looks like it's official

http://coloradorailcar.com/

Since there isn't an American supplier of FRA compliant DMUs, what happens next?

Will the FRA make transit agencies requiring FRA compliant vehicles buy heavy weight FRA compliant vehicles? Or will the FRA now allow non-compliant FRA foreign built DMUs, or at least make them easier to use???

[RobertB]

I can't think of a better time for Colorado Railcar to fail. It puts a spotlight on the problem you cite: we want to move to rail, but we have no domestic production capacity. Passenger rail is almost certain to get a huge boost in the next year, so whoever ends up with Colorado Railcar's physical assets is going to be in a great position -- now that the company's idealistic but unsavvy founder is out of the picture for good.

And don't forget that their customers are among the company's creditors -- that's incentive right there to keep the business moving forward.

Here's an idea: Ford is the only one of the Big 3 US automakers who isn't begging for a handout. With appropriate government incentives, would they be in a position to take over Colorado Railcar?

[electricron]

I can't think of a better time for Colorado Railcar to fail. It puts a spotlight on the problem you cite: we want to move to rail, but we have no domestic production capacity. Passenger rail is almost certain to get a huge boost in the next year, so whoever ends up with Colorado Railcar's physical assets is going to be in a great position -- now that the company's idealistic but unsavvy founder is out of the picture for good.

And don't forget that their customers are among the company's creditors -- that's incentive right there to keep the business moving forward.

Here's an idea: Ford is the only one of the Big 3 US automakers who isn't begging for a handout. With appropriate government incentives, would they be in a position to take over Colorado Railcar?

Why not Bombardier or Siemens? They both make trains in North America, Bombardier makes Bi-Level and single level cars in Canada and Siemens makes light rail vehicles in California. Neither needs the CR assets, what they need are the FRA approved engineering designs. They already own their own factories.

[electricron]

I've been surfing at other Transit Agencies web sites last night, look what I found at SMART (Sonoma Marin Area Rapid Transit), who are also looking at buying DMUs in the near future.

http://www.sonomamarintrain.org/user...09_Revised.pdf

They found five potential manufactures of Compliant FRA DMUs.

FRA Compliant Heavy DMUs:
1) Bombardier M7 Designed for commuter service mixed with freight, Married pair configuration, Design base: LIRR M7 (FRA compliant), Diesel electric drive, No cost estimate available.

2) Nippon Sharyo Designed for Commuter service mixed with freight, Married pair configuration, New Design, Diesel hydraulic drive, No cost estimate available.

3) Rotem Designed for commuter service mixed with freight, Married pair configuration, Design based on TTA project, Diesel hydraulic drive, ROM cost estimate $8 to $9M. Note: In August 2006, Triangle Transit (formerly Triangle Transit Authority) announced that it would not file a “New Starts” report on the Regional Rail Transit Project with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for Federal FY 2008.
Triangle Transit, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC), Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG), NC Department of Transportation and Regional Transportation Alliance will work with the community as we rethink transit in the Triangle.

4) Siemens No information available (Siemens exhibits interest in building FRA-compliant DMU)
5) CAF No information available (CAF offered an FRA-compliant DMU to NJT)

All the potential FRA Compliant DMU designs with drawings or photos have high floor doors. Meaning the stations will require low platforms with high blocks or high platforms for ADA access.

DART and the T don't have to use familiar large TRE equipment on the Cotton Belt line to have FRA Compliant vehicles. There are other choices available after the demise of Colorado Railcar.

The Nippon Sharyo design comes in two varieties, blunt or streamline nose. The streamline nose version looks fast! The Rotem design almost ordered by a North Carolina transit agency looks cool too. I don''t like the appearance of the blunt nose trains.

Remember, DART has already stated the will only allow one type of vehicle on the Cotton Belt, FRA Compliant trains. Therefore, these are probably the choices the T will have since Colorado Railcar has been liquidated.

[electricron]

SomonaMarinAreaRapidTransit(SMART) posted links to the 6 DMU vendor presentations made last week to them. They include both FRA and non-FRA compliant trains.
Surf to SMART's web site at
http://www.sonomamarintrain.org/

I've downloaded the presentations, and posted them on my server at
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.P...ldoBredaDMU.pdf
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.P...mbardierDMU.pdf
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/CAFDMU.pdf
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.P...onSharyoDMU.pdf
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/SiemensDMU.pdf
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/StadlerDMU.pdf

These are large files, so please give them a few minutes to open.

Briefly, Ansaldo Breda, Bombardier, CAF, Siemens, and Stadler presented non-FRA compliant DMUs. CAF, Nippon Sharyo, and Siemens presented FRA compliant DMUs.

DART and T will be looking for FRA compliant DMUs for the Cotton Belt. DCTA is looking for non-FRA compliant DMUs. The CAF FRA compliant DMU was by far the ugliest choice.
The existing TRE RDCs look better! The streamline nose Nippon Sharyo and Siemens trains take a while to get use to, their designs look more like wieners, but the blunt noise
designs aren't that much better than the TRE RDCs as well.

I didn't see a FRA compliant DMU that is appoximately the same size as a Dart LRV or SLRV.

Here's an image of what I believe is a FRA compliant CAF DMU


Although this was presented to North Carolina transit agency a few years ago.

[electricron]

I've made many posts about what type of train will be running on the SW2NE & Cotton Belt rail lines.
Finally NCTCOG and DART have posted a presentation about what they call a New Technology Light Rail Train.
Here it is: http://www.nctcog.org/trans/spd/tran...esentation.pdf

[electricron]

Well this is bogus, I mean without Colorado Railcar there is zero chance of seeing a FRA-Compliant DMU, right?

SW2NE will either need to use loco hauled trains or borrow the TRE's old Budd Cars. I guess it would impractical here to mandate time segregation if the line is so busy, never mind it couldn't interact with the TRE services either...

I wish a bunch of agencies could get together, maybe T, Amtrak, Alaska RR, Tri-Met, NJ Transit, etc, and place some kind of big order for a FRA-Compliant Siemens product

I've posted DART's June 2009 presentation about future FRA compliant DMUs. That presentation suggested changing the FRA standards to include European "Crash Management" technologies and either adopting EN standards directly or adding upon them. That would allow DART to buy beefed up European light DMUs and get FRA Tier 1 certification. If the FRA decides not to do this, then DART's fall back plan may be Siemens new FRA compliant DMUs. Here's the drawings of this new Siemens design.


A SMART presentation for both Siemens DMUs, FRA and light(pdf)
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/SiemensDMU.pdf

The Siemens' FRA compliant design is the same size, although a modern version, as a Budd RDC. It could come with a streamlined nose or walk through models.
For comparisons only, here's the dimensions.
Siemens DMU
Height: 14 feet, 8 inches
Width: 10 feet
Length: 85 feet
Weight: ~150,000 pounds each
Passenger Capacity: 76 seated
Floor Height: 51 inches (for 48 inches platform)
Travel Speed: Top operating speed: 79 mph.
Propulsion: Diesel-electric
Body: Stainless steel
Special Features: Accessible/accommodations for 2 wheelchairs per car
Vehicle Cost: Married pair $8 Million ($4 Million per car)

Budd RDC
Height: 14 feet, 8 inches
Width: 10 feet
Length: 85 feet
Weight: 135,000 pounds each
Passenger Capacity: 96 seated
Floor Height: 51 inches (for 48 inches platform)
Travel Speed: Top operating speed: 79 mph. Average speed: 45 mph
Propulsion: Diesel-hydraulic
Body: Stainless steel
Special Features: Accessible/accommodations for 4 wheelchairs per car
Cost (when Dart bought theirs): $1.8 million each (cost includes engineering, shipment, etc.)

This new Siemens DMU design does not match what DART desires for the Cotton Belt through Far North Dallas neighborhoods. It's nowhere close to a Dart LRV or SLRV in size. But it will meet EPA Tier 4 pollution standards that the old Budd RDCs can't.

[electricron]

Guess what train is back in business?

American Railcar Company buys rights to Colorado Railcar DMUs.

http://www.amrailco.com/

I don't know how well finance American Railcar Company is, where their factory is located, nor if they can actually build these DMUs.



They are American made FRA compliant DMUs, with just a little bit of history.
If the T gets FTA "New Starts" funds, there is a buy American requirement.

[JCL]

From the Grapevine city council meeting 6/16

http://www.grapevinetexas.gov/Portal...n%20Agenda.pdf

1. City Council to conduct a closed session relative to:
A. Real property relative to property acquisition regarding the commuter rail
pursuant to Section 551.072, Texas Government Code. AUTHORIZED THE
PURCHASE OF 815 S. MAIN STREET. APPROVED 7-0.

[CTroyMathis]

I've been out of the loop for a really long time now, is there an updated status on this? Still waiting for the FEIS to be submitted to the FTA sometime in the near future?

[electricron]

Ever since DART held the big meeting at Union Station for the Cotton Belt PPP, not much has been heard about the SW2NE from the FWTA. I suppose private, behind the scenes, talks are underway about the PPP (Public-Private-Partnership)

The FRA hasn't selected what projects to fund under the FTA "New Starts" program. FWTA hasn't released the FEIS yet. I suppose we're waiting on FWTA FEIS to be released first.......

Why does it take so long to get anything done? Answer: It takes much too long to get anything approved.....

[RobertB]

From the FWST today: The T freezes salaries but presses ahead with land purchases for a commuter rail line. Not to worry -- Wage freezes affect both management and labor, so it doesn't look like there will be a repeat of the 2006 5-day strike. Tidbits:

* The land purchases, at Berry St and just south of I-20, will let The T build bus transfer centers now, in advance of future rail stations.

* The T also got offered a parking lot catty-corner from the ITC depot, and jumped on the deal. For now, they'll keep leasing it to the parking lot folks.

* On the non-rail side, The T got a good price on some land off I-35W north of the US 81/287 split that they'll use for a commuter park-n-ride. It looks like a good staging area for an Alliance/Texas Motor Speedway shuttle, too.

[NThomas]

The T agrees to buy 8 properties in Fort Worth for a bus transfer center

http://www.star-telegram.com/metro_n...y/1779623.html

This will also be one of the rail stations.