posted
Here's a recent picture and brief update on the Denver Union Station Project. Interesting that the plans call for 8 tracks behind Union Station.
posted
Thanks for the update. In that picture, is that looking south-ish, with Chicago to the left?
One of my fave areas and it's seen so much change in the years that I've visited, and not just this project.
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
Good eye Geoff -
This photo is looking 'south-ish'..... or southeastward to be more precise.
That hole in the ground is where the trains boarded before this project (to put an underground city bus terminal in) got underway. Downtown Denver is beyond the station and, when trains return, they will be backing in from and pulling out towards the left of this view.
I'll add that one of the fellows who posts this blog lives in a high-rise condominium near the construction site. This photo was likely taken from his balcony. Play around with the blog and you will find many, many photos of this project as it has unfolded..... including some of the temporary Amtrak facility.
If all goes as planned, Amtrak will return to Union Station along with a new commuter rail operation in 2014.
palmland Member # 4344
posted
I'm surprised to see this includes 8 tracks - let's hope no one tells them the ski train no longer runs.
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
Perhaps they know the Ski Train no longer runs......but they have no clue how huge the obstacles to getting a Ski Train back are.
palmland Member # 4344
posted
Today's Trains.com reports that Amtrak will be back into the new 'Train Hall' at the renovated Denver Union Station in early 2014. Work is progressing on time and on budget.
It can't come soon enough. On our recent trip passengers crossing the road to the temp station were fair game for the traffic as the Rockies game at the stadium across the tracks was starting about train time.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
How "Ironclad" is it that Amtrak will relocate back to the DUS facility. Possibly they have discovered that with "one a day" their costs of making the "temporary" station "permanent" would result in savings.
Amtrak seems to be dragging feet over accessing St Paul UD, and I'll place bets that they are not going to use the Miami Intermodal Center.
However, Amtrak was agreeable to occupying Cincinnati UT for "three a week", and of course Kansas City US. However, that involves "three a day" and with reasonable possibility of increased service.
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
Having been 'on the ground' in Denver for an hour in February, it appears to me that the one track into the temporary Denver Amtrak station must itself be temporary.
They won't be able to finish the 8 commuter tracks planned for the new DUS intermodal facility until after the existing track is removed.
I believe that the forces behind the renovation of DUS fully intend for Amtrak to return. Whether Amtrak is still on the same page, I suppose, is what remains to be seen.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Mr. Presley, regarding your immediate reference to eight commuter tracks, are these tracks for the Regional Transit District (RTD) existing light rail system, for which expansion plans are in place, or are these eight tracks part of some vision that there will be heavy rail, i.e. real trains, regional service (plus Amtrak's one a day) in the foreseeable future?
Also of interest; the RTD has a rather impressive underground bus terminal located at 17th and Market. Will those bus routes serve DUS and this facility closed? While not certain if such was the case when the facility was built, it would appear that it's now located on prime real estate and could net the RTD a pretty penny (or at the least release from ground rent that surely has escalation clauses within the lease agreement) upon its redevelopment.
sojourner Member # 3134
posted
How much do you want to bet about the Miami Intermodal center, Mr N? I would like to take you up on that bet and make some money!
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Ms. Sojourner, let us move discussion of Miami to another topic as such here would result in a "hijack".
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Mr. Presley, regarding your immediate reference to eight commuter tracks, are these tracks for the Regional Transit District (RTD) existing light rail system, for which expansion plans are in place, or are these eight tracks part of some vision that there will be heavy rail, i.e. real trains, regional service (plus Amtrak's one a day) in the foreseeable future?
Also of interest; the RTD has a rather impressive underground bus terminal located at 17th and Market. Will those bus routes serve DUS and this facility closed? While not certain if such was the case when the facility was built, it would appear that it's now located on prime real estate and could net the RTD a pretty penny (or at the least release from ground rent that surely has escalation clauses within the lease agreement) upon its redevelopment.
Just back in town and still catching up -
The eight tracks at Denver Union Station are intended primarily for expanded heavy rail commuter service either abuilding, planned, or under consideration. The existing light rail has been set up with a station about two blocks away at the far end of the new underground bus transfer station.
I am under the impression that the underground bus station which exists at 17th and Market will be replaced by this new, larger, facility underground behind DUS.
Heavy rail commuter routes are planned heading east, north, and west from downtown Denver. Construction of the first route, a line on a dedicated right-of-way, from DUS to the Denver Airport is already underway and service could begin in late 2015 or 2016. I'm not familiar enough with the plan (though I could probably research it a bit more) to say whether the trains on this route will be electric powered from overhead wires or use diesel-powered vehicles. I'm also unsure whether any construction is underway on any other heavy rail route.
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
And another update -
The Denver Infill Blog now reports that Denver Union Station is scheduled to reopen May 9, 2014.
Presumably Amtrak will be returning as a tenant on opening day.
palmland Member # 4344
posted
I saw somewhere that Boardman took an inspection trip on the SWC to the AAR testing facility near Pueblo via the BNSF from LaJunta. Someone commented that maybe he was scouting out a possible SWC reroute to Denver.
If it ever came to a decision to either reroute the SWC via the Transcon (Amarillo) or just cancel it altogether (as some have suggested), I hope Amtrak does in fact consider a reroute to Denver via LaJunta. This would provide service again to those fast growing front range cities including Pueblo and Colorado Springs. It would also retain service to Kansas City and western KS towns. In fact, through cars from KC to the Bay area would be possible via connection to the CZ.
A bus bridge from LaJunta to Albuquerque would take 4 hours and 51 min. (google maps) as compared to the SWC time of 7 hours. Now, how a rerouted SWC (maybe called the Denver Zephyr?) would get into Denver Union Station with all the track changes would be..interesting. And, the other big negative - if you wanted to go to LA from Chicago you'd have to endure 3 nights on the Texas Chie and the unpleasant very early am arrival..
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
Pueblo to Denver would be slow. Both very curvy and heavily congested.
DonNadeau Member # 61606
posted
@ palmland Interesting.
Although not being abandoned, hasn't much of the Newton to Las Animas Junction line across Kansas already deteriorated significantly, with no desire by BNSF to bring it back to passenger train standards, at least without huge Amtrak investment?
Part of what you want could be done by extending a Missouri River Runner out of St. Louis from Kansas City to a connection with the CZ at Omaha. At least Kansas City would retain a western connection.
palmland Member # 4344
posted
Good idea, Dan. But while we're at it, why not just start your train in St. Paul through Omaha, KC, combine with Heartland Flyer to Ft. Worth. Then you'd have a mid-west north south train like the CONO and CS to connect the EB, CZ, and TE/Sunset. BNSF might go for it if the SWC went away (at least from Albuquerque east).
My last trip on the SWC was in a lower level roomette. We boarded around midnight in Garden City, KS heading east. As much as I like the sound of moving over jointed rail, it felt somewhat like riding in a washing machine. We did see a local freight working in Garden City, as well as one intermodal - but that was before the BNSF removed all freights off Raton.
Geoff Mayo Member # 153
posted
quote:Originally posted by palmland: Now, how a rerouted SWC (maybe called the Denver Zephyr?) would get into Denver Union Station with all the track changes would be..interesting.
If you mean approaching from the tracks that run up the west side of downtown, that shouldn't be a problem. Heading north/west the train would pass Union Station on the right, pass over the diamonds, and then approach the yard that it already uses for reversing FROM the west. It then backs in using the tracks under 23rd St. From the west I would assume a straight-in, head-first arrival into Union Station and then back out to the yard, forward over the diamonds, then to head south.
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
quote:Originally posted by DonNadeau: @ palmland Interesting.
Although not being abandoned, hasn't much of the Newton to Las Animas Junction line across Kansas already deteriorated significantly, with no desire by BNSF to bring it back to passenger train standards, at least without huge Amtrak investment?
Part of what you want could be done by extending a Missouri River Runner out of St. Louis from Kansas City to a connection with the CZ at Omaha. At least Kansas City would retain a western connection.
I agree.
I've long thought that many, many new city pairs would become realistic travel options by creating a connection in Omaha. I cannot think of another connection would get as much 'bang for the buck' as simply extending an existing Missouri River Runner to Omaha from Kansas City.
RRCHINA Member # 1514
posted
Any of these - St Paul south; KC north would likely cost Amtrak much more to implement than would be required to upgrade the SWC line, especially if KS, CO and NM could be persuaded to participate to some degree. And then you must negotiate with the RR's for any new routes while the SWC route is established.
DonNadeau Member # 61606
posted
KCY and OMA are less than 200 miles apart, with service by both BNSF and UP.
New Mexico has already firmly nixed funds for Raton (with the tracks probably to be removed) and Kansas has yet to contribute anything to its portion of the SWC route.
I wish I had better news.
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
While the SWC topic has been debated and debated again, I believe that it is 95% probable that this train will be rerouted off Raton Pass and on to the BNSF transcon via Wichita and Amarillo by 2016. The traditional Chief route continues to deteriorate and the more time passes with no maintenance, the more costly it will become to bring those tracks back up to standard.
To be honest, I would not be surprised if this reroute occurs sooner than expected and with little, if any, advance official notice. All it would take is one big landslide on Raton Pass. The SWC would be annulled for a few days and then perhaps begin detouring over the transcon. Before long some asphalt has been laid and temporary trailers have been hauled in to establish a few station stops and suddenly the detour becomes permanent.
DonNadeau Member # 61606
posted
@ notelvis
I hope you are right.
For I believe political reasons, not to make enemies in Kansas and New Mexico, Amtrak did not jump at the chance when BNSF offered the southern Trans-con several years ago.
Now, I am afraid that with no government funding for Raton, BNSF has Amtrak over a barrel. In spite of having the best trans-con, it may demand almost anything for "improvements." I believe Fred Frailey expects the SWC to cease operations at least its full route.
palmland Member # 4344
posted
Here is an update on the return of the CZ to Denver Union Station next week.
RRRICH Member # 1418
posted
That's good to hear, Palmland! I was under the impression (until just a couple months ago) that the original Denver Union Station was closing FOR GOOD -- I thought the new "temporary" station was going to be the new permanent station, so I went and changed my CZ route maps to reflect that. No problem redoing them though, as long as I can keep my Windows XP computer which runs my De Lorme topo mapping program (I'm probably going to have to buy a new computer soon, which will likely not run my 1999 De Lorme applications, which have NOT been updated by De Lorme) --
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
Great news from a local source. I'm excited.
fixj Member # 3179
posted
Just read that the first evening CZ arrived at new Union Station platforms last night
posted
That station looks really good. I feared the worst years ago when I read that the tracks would be buried underground with "skylights for daylight".
Looks like the first train last night had a private car or two on the back.
palmland Member # 4344
posted
Today's Trains.com stories provide a link to the new Denver Union Station website.
Nicely done. Click on the links at the top of their site to see details on the restaurants, hotels ans other items including Travel. This quote there caught my eye:
"a full Amtrak schedule including expanded regional and national rail timetables"
I'm sure there is nothing more planned than the CZ but the thought of future expansion is tantalizing. It does seem the Denver area has embraced commuter rail to the point where the lines between light and heavy rail are blurring with Golden 15 miles from the city and the new airport line 25 miles. Perhaps, in the future that might expand to front range intercity service. But, perhaps I am too optimistic.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
From yesterday's Wall Street Journal (likely free content):
Behind the scenes, Denver's revamped Union Station transit hub is venturing into unfamiliar territory: It is among the first such projects to draw much of its financial backing from two little-known federal-loan programs aimed mostly at other forms of transportation such as freight rail and highways.
How Denver fares, including how quickly it repays the $301 million in loans with property-tax gains from the blocks surrounding the hub, is being monitored by other transit systems searching for additional funding.
The loans came from the Federal Railroad Administration's Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing program, or RRIF, and the Transportation Department's Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, or TIFIA.
palmland Member # 4344
posted
With the grand opening next week of Denver Union Station (although CZ already uses the station) this is the first restaurant. It sounds like a good place to wait for the eastbound CZ.
And in case anyone didn't know, the younger generation thinks rail transit is a good thing and it does in fact spur economic development:
"The $52 million redevelopment of Union Station, which will include a 112-room hotel and a number of restaurants from some of Denver’s best-known food purveyors, has attracted roughly $1 billion in private development on surrounding properties so far" Read some of the links the article provides, it is quite interesting how the old idea of downtown stations as a hub for the city is again popular.
Other cities will catch on. Now the question is can this acceptance spread beyond local transit to intercity trains as well. I believe the answer is yes for corridors, but probably not for us LD lovers.
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
I'm flattered that this thread is still relevant!
posted ![[Frown]](frown.gif)