Railroad Forums 

  • North Coast Hiawatha - Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority (BSPRA)

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1545540  by Tadman
 
From what I understand, the Glacier Park red buses were heavily rebuilt by Ford a few years ago and are continuing to operate. I'm not a bus guy to say the least, but this sounds fun.
 #1545549  by Rockingham Racer
 
There are alternate routes, yes, but they are longer. Longer means more crews and more time, which , in turn, means more costs. It's not difficult to conclude that the railroad would not want this situation to obtain, unless of course, it was reimbursed for said increased costs. And even then, I'm not sure the railroad would go for it.
 #1545577  by gokeefe
 
gokeefe wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 8:24 am What's the estimated running time to Billings?
Depends on the amount of upgrades accommodating the restart. With minimal upgrades, 15 hours. Just over 600 miles. Jefferson Lines bus does it in 10.5 hours.

--Mark Meyer[/quote]

Given the sometimes awful weather conditions that sounds like a winning proposition. Not a great option but not a bad one either. Better than 10.5 hours on a bus for sure.

FRA Track Class 3?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 #1545606  by Rockingham Racer
 
The BNSF spent oodles of money on the former NP between KO Jct [west of Fargo] and Billings in the last several years, including putting in CTC the entire distance. Top speed for freight trains is 60 MPH now. I don't know off hand what class FRA would assign to it, and I'm too lazy at this hour to look it up! :-D
 #1545662  by dgvrengineer
 
60 for freight is class 4(80/60). I think the big problem in Montana for speed is curvature restrictions and heavy grade. NP used to allow 79 in some areas of Montana but not sure MRL is maintaining class 4.
 #1545695  by mtuandrew
 
dgvrengineer wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:49 pm 60 for freight is class 4(80/60). I think the big problem in Montana for speed is curvature restrictions and heavy grade. NP used to allow 79 in some areas of Montana but not sure MRL is maintaining class 4.
Then figure Amtrak/Montana would need to pay for the necessary upgrades from Class 3 (60/40) to Class 4. To be honest the track probably would meet Class 4 standards, most major railroads maintain their mains to that standard in re: gauge and ballast, but MRL may not want to pay to inspect it that thoroughly. (That’s why so few roads inspect to Track Class 5 or run freights faster than 60 mph unless the line also hosts passenger service.)
 #1545714  by gokeefe
 
If they're already at Class 3 with signals that is a really good start. Takes the project scope down from $1 Billion to maybe $100 Million.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 #1545731  by Rockingham Racer
 
mtuandrew wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 6:55 am
dgvrengineer wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:49 pm 60 for freight is class 4(80/60). I think the big problem in Montana for speed is curvature restrictions and heavy grade. NP used to allow 79 in some areas of Montana but not sure MRL is maintaining class 4.
Then figure Amtrak/Montana would need to pay for the necessary upgrades from Class 3 (60/40) to Class 4. To be honest the track probably would meet Class 4 standards, most major railroads maintain their mains to that standard in re: gauge and ballast, but MRL may not want to pay to inspect it that thoroughly. (That’s why so few roads inspect to Track Class 5 or run freights faster than 60 mph unless the line also hosts passenger service.)
I do not think MRL would have to upgrade to Class 4. It's quite curvy and has some very stiff grades, so speeds for Class 3 should be more than adequate. It's east of Billings where topography flattens out, and that's already Class 4 on the BNSF, good for a MAS of 79 in a lot of places.
 #1545735  by vermontanan
 
gokeefe wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 10:58 am If they're already at Class 3 with signals that is a really good start. Takes the project scope down from $1 Billion to maybe $100 Million.
Hardly. Six sets of equipment would cost well over $200 million alone. Then there is the station costs (14 to 17 stations) at $5 million or so each. Then we would see about other infrastructure such as additional track through Laurel Yard, Bozeman Pass, Winston Hill, and Mullan Pass on MRL. If the train was routed via Yakima in Washington State, BNSF will certainly demand installation of CTC (it only has CTC islands at sidings between Auburn and Pasco now) and additional capacity. Also possible signaling of the DeSmet-Paradise route via Evaro, and of course retiming most highway crossing warning devices for a higher speed. And, somewhere along the route, there will need to be inspection locations constructed (with watering facilities for passenger cars) and carmen hired.

All told, still much closer to $1 billion than $100 million. This is based on a Chicago-Seattle train. A regional train running a shorter distance of course would require less rolling stock and less infrastructure to upgrade.

--Mark Meyer
 #1545757  by gokeefe
 
Yes regional was my point (Billings to Spokane) and without purchasing equipment. Rolling stock can be leased from Amtrak. No shortage of Superliners to work with. Platforms right now are bidding out in Maine at around $2M. I would imagine Montana would be the same or less. Interested to hear if they're more.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 #1545761  by vermontanan
 
gokeefe wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 7:01 pm Yes regional was my point (Billings to Spokane) and without purchasing equipment. Rolling stock can be leased from Amtrak. No shortage of Superliners to work with. Platforms right now are bidding out in Maine at around $2M.
No shortage of Superliners? True. Usable Superliners? Not true. And leasing still has a cost, so probably is a wash. And since a top priority for those who care about long distance trains is new equipment, it's only logical that any additional service and its equipment demands would be the same as purchasing new equipment.

Billings would require significant signal work and additional crossovers to get the train at a track nearest the station (currently double track). Most of the other infrastructure requirements are Billings and West. Just a platform wouldn't work at several locations, especially Bozeman, where there is nothing nearby the current station site and the railroad is on the edge of town. I went to school in Bozeman. 30 below zero happens multiple times each winter. Need some kind of heated shelter in addition to the platform.
 #1545838  by gokeefe
 

vermontanan wrote:
gokeefe wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 7:01 pm Yes regional was my point (Billings to Spokane) and without purchasing equipment. Rolling stock can be leased from Amtrak. No shortage of Superliners to work with. Platforms right now are bidding out in Maine at around $2M.
No shortage of Superliners? True. Usable Superliners? Not true. And leasing still has a cost, so probably is a wash. And since a top priority for those who care about long distance trains is new equipment, it's only logical that any additional service and its equipment demands would be the same as purchasing new equipment.
I do not agree with the proposition that equipment ownership is the same cost as leasing from Amtrak. This has absolutely been proven with the Downeaster and I've had a few conversations with people who actually know because it was their job. It simply doesn't work with small equipment pools. Doing some rebuilds of wrecked or out of service Superliner cars is probably the best possible outcome. Notable too on costs that platforms in Maine at $2M was for a mini high level with heated edges.

I'm sure a low level would not cost anywhere near as much. With regards to shelters Amtrak can always start with temporary structures and move on from there. The Amshacks served their purpose and perhaps could do so again for however brief a period of time. We are taking about some large communities that probably have enough resources available to build a station with grant funds and a local match.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 #1545850  by Tadman
 
Amtrak is notorious for charging top dollar for their equipment leases/allocations to state operations. For example their total tab to Indiana for a 1x/day three car operation was something like 1/4 of the entire NICTD annual subsidy, which includes 20x trains at 8 cars, plus 50 miles of double track and 40 of single, and catenary above all that. It's no surprise that many of the state funded operations are moving to their own equipment. Piedmont, Cascade, Surfliner, Capitol Corridor, and now the midwesterners are eventually getting Viaggio cars.
 #1545854  by mtuandrew
 
Not to get too foamer, but the Hi-Levels would be a good choice in this fantasy world where Montana starts regional service. Fairly gentle usage, low top speeds, suited for low platforms, and the lounges would have spectacular views - especially eastbound - without requiring that Amtrak dig out and rebuild Superliners at gold-plated prices.
  • 1
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 32