Denver Area Light and Heavy Rail (RTD) systems

ne plus ultra wrote: I think there's more to what Mr. Norman points out in the Times than your reply gives credit. The Denver Post had a massive editorial/feature urging cancellation of portions or all of the program when I was out there three weeks or so ago, lamenting cost overruns, delays & lower than expected ridership.

Sigh. There can't be lower-than-expected ridership on lines which haven't opened yet. There haven't been any serious delays -- yet. (There was a 3-month delay on a couple of the EISes to account for changes, and there are some delays on the Denver Union Station project, but interestingly that isn't actually part of Fastracks.) As for cost overruns, that is genuinely news of six months ago. Or longer.

I guess the question is, what pressure group has decided to gin up hostility to the voter-approved program this month? It's odd that all these news reports are coming out, when there *isn't actually anything new*; the bad news was all six months or more ago (and there was quite a lot of it then). So perhaps there is some "news behind the news".

In actual news, the mayors decided not to put a tax increase on the ballot in 2009, because it's an off year and low turnout hurts that kind of vote. The plan is still to do so in 2010.

neroden wrote:

gt7348b wrote: I do wonder if, if they find themselves with extra money or can't find DMUs,.

Just for some friendly ribbing, considering the state of Fastracks why would you write "if they find themselves with extra money"


Seriously though, I've found some of the different choices interesting for a rail fans perspective but confusing from an operations costs perspective. It seem slike they're planning on having a few of all sorts of types of equipment. Making stocking parts, maintenance expertise, etc, etc. a venture that's going to struggle to be very effecient or cheap.

I hadn't thought of that conundrum. The reason that they've gone for both EMU and DMU is because of how construction costs compared to operating costs.

Electric has higher construction but lower operating costs.
Diesel has lower construction but higher operating costs.

For the shorter lines (Gold and DIA), electric won, while for the longer lines (north and northwest), diesel won. The northwest line has the additional problem of coexistence with doublestack freights, which would require high overhead cables.

Thought I would give an update to this thread. Already six month old news, but a consortium has been selected to build the line to DIA:

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15305916

The builder of the rolling stock is Hyundai-Rotem, apparently the type will be based on the Silverliner V currently being tested (with some teething troubles it seems) in Philadelphia.

*on a related note, Japanese firm Mitsubishi Electric will supply the electrical equipment (traction motors, inverters, etc) for this series of rolling stock. The order will be a total of 50 units, formed into 25 pairs.

kaitoku wrote:The builder of the rolling stock is Hyundai-Rotem, apparently the type will be based on the Silverliner V currently being tested (with some teething troubles it seems) in Philadelphia.

The primary difference being the Denver cars will be built for high level platforms only.

Obviously the numbers have already been crunched by someone more expert than I, but I'm surprised at the use of 25KV for a <10 mile transit system. With two execeptions, the only operators of AC commuter/transit in North America are on former PRR/NH trackage that must be AC for compatible for NEC operations. One exception is RDG, which would likely be AC by now anyway for compatibility with the PRR side of SEPTA. The other exception is Montreal. CN built at 2400 DC, and AMT converted to AC. AC construction is cheaper (less substations) but I'm surprised the nominal amount makes much of a diff over 10-20 miles. Further, the pool of equipment available for 600 VDC is much greater - every subway in the country runs at about 600V, as does LIRR and MN.

Anyway, it's a done deal, but an interesting one to me. Especially seeing that the Denver Muni runs 600v LRT now.

I'm not surprised. 25 kV is overkill for a 10 mile heavy rail project.
But, if that same 10 miles is use for the potential, future, pie-in-the-sky Colorado HSR corridors, then 25 kV is perfect....

For the record, the RDG was electrified at 11 kv AC from the beginning. In fact, it's arguable that if they had gone with 3 kv DC, as the DL&W was doing at about the same time, the Center City commuter connection would never have been built because of the additional cost of dealing with two systems.

I see the choice to electrify at 25v 60htz as smart by RTD. This isn't just going to be RTD; hopefully soon there will be something Pueblo-Co Springs-Denver and another route Denver-Ft Collins-Cheyenne. Plus, 25v seems to be the new standard at which projects are electrified at.

Higher voyages, at least twice as high 11kV to 25kV, means half as many service points and transformers, reducing both construction and maintenance expenses. A general electrical rule of thumb for transmission lines, it takes 1kV to push 1 mile, therefore 25kV could push 25 miles in either direction from the power service location. 11 kV would require step up transformers every 11 miles or so. For this airport rail line and the future north, northwest, and west EMU corridors, a single power station near Union Station is enough. Although I'd expect a secondary power source near the airport, it'll be just for backup and reliability purposes - or vice versa with the centrally located Union Station power source providing backup to all the different EMU corridors.

electricron wrote:Higher voyages, at least twice as high 11kV to 25kV, means half as many service points and transformers, reducing both construction and maintenance expenses. A general electrical rule of thumb for transmission lines, it takes 1kV to push 1 mile, therefore 25kV could push 25 miles in either direction from the power service location. 11 kV would require step up transformers every 11 miles or so. For this airport rail line and the future north, northwest, and west EMU corridors, a single power station near Union Station is enough. Although I'd expect a secondary power source near the airport, it'll be just for backup and reliability purposes - or vice versa with the centrally located Union Station power source providing backup to all the different EMU corridors.

I think that two substations are planned on the East Corridor (one near Union Station and one nearer to the other end) though I could be misremembering. This is probably deliberate overkill for reliability purposes, as you say. There seem to be no additional substations planned for the "Gold Line" being built as part of the same project (which is even shorter). The North Metro line is still in design.

Rather than step up the distribution voltage repeatedly to, say, 11 KV with a transformer every 11 miles, it is more customary to step it up at the originating power station to whatever is needed, say, to 33 KV for a 33 mile run, then step it down to 600 volts or so for the catenary at each substation along the way.

Substation spacing depends on the traction (catenary) voltage, the wire size of traction voltage feeders, and the amount of traffic (number of trains run simultaneously) on any given portion of the route. If the East Corridor needs two additional substations, one new substation will probably serve the outermost part of the route, one will serve the middle of the route, and perhaps an existing power station will serve the first few miles. A 600 volt catenary needs closer substation spacing or fatter catenary feeders compared with, say, a 2400 volt catenary.

In some cases the distribution line (11 KV or so) to feed a traction power substation may be run from a nearby electric company substation rather than from the power distribution hub of the transit system.

Bad news....

Is BNSF involved in any other commuter operations.

Cross-posted to BNSF.

http://www.timescall.com/news/longmont- ... i_19669821

...The additional costs were identified in a recent study completed by BNSF, which RTD will contract with to build and operate the commuter rail.

...

The new total cost estimate for the Longmont portion of the metro-wide rail plan now comes in at $1.4 billion, up from the previous estimate of $894.4 million. The additional costs were identified in a recent study completed by BNSF, which RTD will contract with to build and operate the commuter rail.

Council expressed dismay at all three options presented to them but seemed to grudgingly accept option No. 1, which would delay completion of the Northwest line three to five years, meaning the earliest Longmont would see commuter rail would be 2023.

If RTD chooses the second option then certain strategic improvements will be made along the Northwest Corridor, including the building of the transit station at First Avenue and Main Street in Longmont in 2015 and stations in Gunbarrel and Louisville, which are not yet funded. The First and Main station does have funds allocated for it.

The third option would drop rail from the Northwest Corridor altogether and focus on adding bus service and other transit improvements, such as additional bus lanes on the Diagonal Highway.

BNSF seems to do good work with commuter rail, but charges through the nose. At least, that's the experience we've had with Northstar Commuter Rail in the Twin Cities.

At least the BNSF allows commuter trains on their corridors, the UP wouldn't allow commuter trains on their corridor going to the airport. Didn't RTD have to buy an entire new right-of-way?