Slide 1

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 2

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 3

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 4

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 5

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 6

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 7

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 8

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 9

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 10

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 11

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 12

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 13

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 14

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 15

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 16

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 17

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 18

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 19

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 20

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 21

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 22

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 23

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 24

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 25

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 26

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 27

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 28

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 29

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 30

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 31

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 32

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 33

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 34

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 35

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 36

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 37

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 38

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 39

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 40

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 41

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 42

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 43

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 44

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 45

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 46

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 47

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 48

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 49

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 50

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)


Slide 51

SO, YOU WANT TO BUILD
A RAILROAD?
A CASE STUDY OF TWO PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
William W. Hay Railroad Engineering
Seminar Series
MAY 11, 2007

By:
Robert H. Leilich,
TrainMaster, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
BobLeilich@comcast.net

Today, Building A New
Railroad is Tough









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private benefit issues
Competitive issues
Political issues

Building A New Railroad is
Tough
Though not a scientific finding, it now appears
to take roughly 10 – 15 years to build a 150
mile railroad – roughly 12 miles a year!
At that rate, it would take over 200 years to
build a transcontinental railroad compared to
the 41 years it actually took to connect both
coasts (from the time the B&O started
construction in 1828 until the last spike was
driven at Promontory Point in 1869).

A Study of Two Examples


Tongue River Railroad Corp. (TRRC) –
Montana







Shortcut for BNSF coal traffic
Open new mines in North Powder River Coal
Basin
Studies began in 1978

I-70 Corridor Railroad – Denver Airport
to Glenwood Springs




Relieve congestion on I-70
Add capacity
Studies beginning in 2007

To
Glendive

The TRRC

Miles City

MONTANA

To Billings

129.9
Jones / Moran Junctions

89

Potential new
North Powder
River Basin
(NPRB) coal
mines

TRR
115

TRR will save BNSF
268 to 331 round
trip miles for each
coal train operated

Ashland
136.1
Near Mines
25

BNSF
Spring Creek / Decker
15.9

WYOMING
Dutch

To Donkey Creek

Super Compliant Coal

Powder River Coal Basin

29-Years in Development


Many obstacles to overcome








BNSF (& former BN) initially not convinced
of economics or benefits
Environmental issues
Legal issues
Cyclical changes in the coal market
Aggregating checkerboard coal lease rights
Financing

COSTS

BNSF AND TRRC COST
RELATIONSHIPS VERSUS VOLUME
ARE VERY DIFFERENT

TRRC AVOIDABLE COSTS

BREAK EVEN

TRAFFIC VOLUME

TRRC FIXED
COSTS

BN

0

SF

o
Av

T R R F ix e d
C o s ts

TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRRC AND
BNSF,TBOTH
BENEFIT
R A F F IC V O LMUST
UME

BN

SF

A

i
vo

da

e
bl

C

t
os

S
BN

ost
T R R F u ll C

COST

}

B re a k E v e n

id

F

s

Sa

v

g
in

s

P ro
R
TR

fit

Where we
want to be

RR
T
to
s
nt
e
E c o n o m ic
ym
Pa
B re a k E v e n

T R R F u ll C o s t
B re a k E v e n

0
T R A F F IC V O L U M E

A Look at Cost
Assumptions
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, MILLIONS OF TONS
Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

W Y O rig in

1 3 .6

1 4 .7

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 5 .0

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .8

1 4 .5

1 4 .4

M T O rig in

1 5 .4

1 5 .6

1 5 .7

1 5 .8

1 6 .0

1 5 .9

1 5 .9

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

1 5 .6

7 .0

1 1 .9

1 3 .8

1 4 .2

1 4 .4

1 6 .9

1 6 .9

1 7 .0

1 6 .8

1 6 .9

N e w M in e s

T o ta l

3 6 .0 4 2 .2 4 4 .3 4 4 .8 4 5 .4 4 7 .6 4 7 .6 4 7 .4 4 6 .9 4 6 .9

Selected Revenue / Cost Factors
• TRRC Rate Inflation
• PV Discount Rate
• BNSF Cost Inflation (Except Fuel)
• BNSF Fuel Price and Escalation Rate

Cost Assumptions,
Continued
Operating Factors x Avoidable Costs per Unit =
Avoidable Costs (Existing Route & Via TRRC)

Operating Factors
Train Performance Calculator
Train-Hours, Locomotive UnitHours & Car-Days

Avoidable Cost
Fuel
Labor, Capital,
Maintenance

Train Miles, Railroad Owned
Car-Miles

Maintenance

Gross Ton-Miles

Maintenance

TRR Costs








Capital (construction) costs split
between capital and equity portion
Debt amortized over 20 years
TRRC maintains right of way (track,
signals, road crossings, structures)
BNSF dispatches and operates trains
Minimum TRRC admin expense

Findings








Net BNSF avoidable cost savings exceed
TRR full costs and debt service for total
predicted traffic expectations
TRRC can be justified to serve only
BNSF traffic or local NPRB mines – best
benefit if both are served
Aggregating coal leases required in
order to develop local mines
TRRC and BNSF need to negotiate
splitting of savings so both benefit

Benefits to Investor
Highly influenced/affected by:
 debt/equity ratio
 Interest rate on debt
 Traffic volume
 Inflation rate (TRRC largely fixed
costs, not subject to inflation; all
BNSF costs subject to inflation)
 BNSF captured share of savings

Maybe, Just Maybe

Construction might
start in 2007 or 2008!

BUILDING AN I-70 CORRIDOR
RAILROAD!
An Introduction to
Operational and
Equipment Issues

Picture Credit: Kara K. Pearson and the
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

The Problem






Traffic on the already congested I-70 Corridor
between Denver Airport – Denver – Glenwood
Springs is expected to increase by 50+
percent between 2000 and 2025.
Many severe physical constraints make
adding lanes to I-70 prohibitively expensive
Highway expansion poses many negative
environmental, safety, construction, and
weather reliability concerns

Proposed Solutions


Rail, in one of several forms










Maglev – a “dream” (naïve?) solution
High Speed Rail – á la European TGV
Conventional (Heavy) Rail – passenger and freight
(intermodal)
Light rail – cheaper but may not meet demand or
all needs

Bite the bullet – call in the bulldozers and
concrete mixers
Do nothing

I-70 Coalition Faces
Similar Problems as TRRC









NIMBY (Not in my back yard!) issues
Environmental issues
Regulatory hurdles
Physical space/geographical limitations
Public/private interests, costs and benefits
Competitive issues (public and private)
Political
Education

Proposed Study




26 local towns and cities and 10 counties formed the
I-70 Coalition in 2004 in order to identify, evaluate,
and select the best capacity improving alternatives
Coalition wants to counter established bias for
highway expansion







Federal funding is highway oriented
Strong highway lobbies
American love of cars and independence
Colorado DOT performed a PEIS that appears to favor
highway

Educate public on benefits of rail

Background – Commuter /
Regional Rail






One of the fastest-growing segments
of the passenger business
Over 213 million trips were recorded
in the first six months of 2006 – up
over 3.4 percent from the same
period in 2005
Growing competition for
limited Federal funding

Difficult Hurdles Ahead








High capital costs create a lower
benefit / cost ratio, making it more
difficult to compete for Federal
Funding
Consensus has not yet been reached
that rail is the best solution
Many competing and independent
political interests and government
agencies
The proposed railroad is unique and
the first of its kind in the U.S.

Political, Marketing, Financial, and
Technical Knowledge is Required




The I-70 Coalition is off to a
great start on perhaps the most
difficult challenge – the political
aspect of building project
momentum
This presentation is an
introduction to some technical
and operational aspects of the
proposed railroad.

The Proposed Railroad Must
Be Designed As A System




Start with defining the mission
 Long distance passenger
 Local passenger
 Commuter
 Intermodal
 Freight
 A combination of the above
Markets served
 Desired routing(s)
 Stations and other facilities

Defining the Mission Sets Key
Design Parameters




Quantify Expected Traffic
 Passenger
 Freight
Evaluate Equipment Alternatives
 Locomotive powered trains
 Self propelled Multiple Units
 Tilt or non-tilt
 Cars and interior and capacity
specifications
 FRA safety compliance requirements

Key Design Parameters






Propulsion Selection
 Diesel
 Electric
Select Route
 Engineering design constraints
 Maximum gradient
 Speed limits
 Curvature
 Environmental considerations
 Single track with sidings or multiple tracks
 Trade-off analysis (initial capital versus longrun operating costs, other)
Select train control system(s) (signaling)

A Few Rules of Thumb…










1 - 1.5 HP per ton per one percent gradient –
freight train
4 - 8+ HP per ton per one percent gradient –
passenger train
Maximum comfort speed on curves – 3 inch
imbalance
Maximum comfort acceleration and deceleration
rates – 3 feet per second per second.
Maximum superelevation on curves – three
inches for freight trains, six inches for passenger
trains only

Speed vs Curvature With
3 Inch Imbalance
160
150

T

en
ang

e
t L in

D egree (R ate ) of C urvature

140
130

SPEED - MPH

1 0 0 F eet
120
110

Superelevation:
6 Inches
3 Inches

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

C u rv a tu re - D e g re e s

3

3.5

4

A Few More Rules of Thumb
Practical gradient limits for:
 freight trains – 2 percent (4% under
very special circumstances)
 passenger trains – 4 percent (7% under
very special circumstances)
(Interstate Highways are usually limited
to a maximum of 6 percent)

A Few Safety
Considerations




Maximum design speed
 Class 4 track – 80 MPH – most Amtrak
routes
 Class 5 track – 90 MPH – Automatic Train
Stop or Cab Signals required
 Class 6 track – 110 MPH – Special
restrictions on grade crossings
 Class 7 track – 125 MPH – Requires total
right-of-way protection
Braking on descending gradients – requires
reduced speeds or external (non-adhesion
dependent) braking

A First “Armchair” Look at a
Potentially Feasible Operation








110MPH maximum operating speed where
safety and equipment permits
Maximum gradient of 4 percent to enable
handling intermodal freight traffic off-peak
Speed limits on selected gradients
Service to all local I-70 communities
Electric propulsion
 Reduces weight by omitting diesel prime
mover
 Regenerative braking
 Alternate energy sources

DIA TO UNION STATION

UNION STATION TO C-470 & I-70

Approximate Route

4,500

5,000

0

5,500

10
20

6,000

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110

D IS T A N C E - M IL ES
120
130
140
150
160

G L EN W O O D
SPG S - 183

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4
F R IS C O - 9 8

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

E L E V AT IO N - F E E T

11,500

11,000

10,000

9,500

8,500

8,000
60

7,500
50

7,000

6,500
40

30

170
180

20

10

4,000
0

190
S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

R O U G H I-70 P R O FILE AN D R AIL S P E E D LIM IT S
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G LE N W O O D S P R IN G S
110

100

10,500

90

80

9,000
70

Station Stops
Station
Denver Airport (DIA)
Denver Union Sta
Golden
Idaho Springs
Georgetown
Silverthorne
Frisco
Copper Mountain
Vail
Avon
Edwards
Eagle
Gypsum
Glenwood Springs

Miles from DIA
0
29
39
59
71
94
98
103
119.5
132
136
152
159
183

Stop Duration (Mins)
-3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
--

Equipment Simulated
Equipment
Type*

Propulsion

Cars Per
Train

Max Speed,
MPH

Seats Per
Train

Adtranz
Flexliner

Diesel (DMU)

3

75

180

X2000

Electric

3

110

180

AMD103 /
Talgo

Diesel Electric

12

103

312

Colorado
Railcar

Diesel Electric
DMU

3

90

180

Stadler
FLIRT

Electric
(EMU)

3

100

154

*Bombardier equipment candidates submitted too late for analysis.

FLIRT (Fast, Light, Innovative Trains) – 2 to 6 car trains
Matching floor / platform
Height is a must for fast
ingress and egress,
especially with luggage,
skis, and bikes

Bombardier Regina –
2 & 3 car EMU’s are
sinews of Sweden’s
intercity and
interregional services
at speeds up to 250
km/h (150 mph).

Bombardier Electrostar
trains are designed to
operate at speeds of up
to 160 km/h (100 mph).

Bombardier Merdian
family of DMU’s – up
to 200 km/h (120
mph), tilt and non-tilt
versions.

Bombardier Talent
DMU’s (2, 3, or 4-car
configurations) operate
at speeds up to 140
km/h (85 mph).

ELEC
IC T R AIN Sample
- M AX SPEED
125 M PH
Let’s X2000
Look
atT RSome
Operating
D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
Characteristics

Train Performance Graph
X-2000 Electric Train,
Max Speed 110 MPH
DIA to Gelenwood v e T i m e
a ti
ul
Springs
um

S p e e d L im it
110
100
90

180
170
160
150
140
130

C

80

120
70

110
100

60

90
80

50

Spe e d

70

40
C O PPER M T N - 103

40
SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

EA G L E - 152

ED W A R D S - 136

A VO N - 132

50
V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

10

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

D EN VER

20

G O L D EN - 39

30

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

60

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

190

30
20
10

0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M IL ES

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

120

10

0

20

10
20
30
40
50
60

30

70
80
90

0

M IL ES
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

SPG S - 183

G L EN W O O D

G YPSU M - 159

100
S p e e d L im it

90

80
e

140

60
130

120

50
110

100

40
90

Spe e d
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

190
CUM UL AT IV E M INUT E S

at

EA G L E - 152

ul
m

ED W A R D S - 136

C
um
Ti
ive

A VO N - 132

70

V A IL - 1 1 9 .5

C O PPER M T N - 103

F R IS C O - 9 8

S IL V E R T H O R N E - 9 4

G EO R G ET O W N - 71

ID A H O S P G S - 5 9

G O L D EN - 39

U N IO N S T N - 2 5

D EN VER

D IA

S P E E D & S P E E D L IM IT - M P H

C O LO R AD O R AILC AR 5-C AR D M U

D E N V E R AIR P O R T T O G L E N W O O D S P R IN G S
210

200

190

180

170

160

150

Simulation Operating
Results
E Q U IP M E N T T Y P E
Pow er
C ars in T rain
Seats (N om inal)
E qpt M ax Spd (A s C onfigured)
W E ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H
E A ST B O U N D
R unning T im e (H ours)
E nergy (G al/K W H )
Seat M iles per G al or K W H

F L E X L IN E R
D iesel
1
60
75

X 2000
E lectric
3
180
125

A M D 103
T algo
D iesel
12
312
103

COLORADO
R A IL C A R
D iesel
5
300
90

F L IR T
3-C A R
E lectric
3
154
100

3.5
252
44

3.1
4302
8

3.2
355
161

3.4
537
102

3.1
3219
9

3.5
269
41

3.1
4519
7

3.3
369
155

3.4
567
97

3.1
3234
9

So What Do These Results
Mean?








Total times in either direction range from 3.1 to 3.5
hours – about a 25 minutes difference
A speed limit of 110 is not as important as
maintaining a high average speed
Electric trains, with less weight (no heavy diesel
engine) and with short term overload power draw
offer superior performance in mountainous territory
Carefully matching equipment, profile (grades,
curves, mileage), limiting number of stops and
duration suggest that total running time could be
designed to be less than three hours

Emergency Stopping on
Grades is a Critical Issue
T R AIN E M E R G E N C Y S T O P P IN G D IS T AN C E
S p e e d & T im e V e rs u s G ra d ie n t
110

80

S t o p p in g
T im e
0%
-4 %
-7 %

90
80

S p eed , M P H

70

70

60

S t o p p in g
D is t a n c e

50

0%
-4 %

40

50
40

-7 %

30

60

30

20

20
10
10
0

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000
Fe e t

5000

6000

7000

T im e - S eco n d s

3-Car FLIRT

100

T ra in R e s is ta n c e o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
T o ta l T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
14,000
13,000

T O T A L R E S IS T A N C E - P O U N D S

12,000

e s is t
R
l
a
t
To

11,000

ance

G ra vit a t io n a l R e s is t a n c e

10,000
9,000
8,000

3-Car FLIRT

7,000
6,000

Most of the power
required is to move the
train up the hill,

5,000
4,000
3,000

o ll
R
&
A ir

2,000

in g

is t a
s
e
R

nce

1,000
0
0

20

40

60
S P EED - M P H

80

100

120

T ra in P o w e r R e q u ire m e n ts o n 4 P e rc e n t G ra d e
H o rs e p o w e r P e r T o n ; T ra in W e ig h t = 1 1 9 T o n s
32

H OR SEPOW ER PER TON

28

24

3-Car FLIRT
20

16

T

a
ot

lH

T
P/

12

on

G

it
ra v

at

a
io n

lH

o
P /T

8

HP/
g
n
i
l
ol
& R
r
i
A

4

n

Ton

0
0

20

40

60

SPEED - MPH

80

100

120

The Proposed I-70 Corridor
Railroad is Unique







Line gradients (ruling grade) is critical in
determining equipment requirements, safe speeds,
and operating and maintenance costs
Train weight is very important
Required power to weight ratios are high, and
increase as speed limits, weight and gradients
increase (more power adds weight)
FRA crash worthiness requirements (weight) need
to be modified to focus more on accident
avoidance and prevention

The Opportunity is Here…





Needed technology is proven, off the shelf
Highway alternatives are more expensive, less
environmentally sound, less safe, and will incur
years of construction related congestion
A single track has more than twice the passenger
carrying capacity of a single lane of highway

RAIL IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO ALLEVIATE
I-70 CONGESTION AND PROVIDE CAPACITY
FOR THE FUTURE

A Final Note…
California high-speed rail plan back on
track for 700-mile route
Harrison Sheppard and Sue Doyle, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writers. Wednesday, April 11,2007

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a $40 billion highspeed rail line in California are revitalizing their
decade-long battle for a 700-mile route...

The plan for the transit corridor has languished for
years, unable to overcome weak political support
and strong criticism of its hefty pricetag.

…[A] record-breaking run by a French TGV train …has
revived interest …[to] whisk passengers between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours.
"I think this is the future for California,'' said
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, …one of
several state lawmakers who … witness[ed] the speed
record.
"I think people are sick and tired of long commutes, tired of
not knowing whether their plane is going to come in on time,
tired of the high cost of gas and airline tickets,'' Ma said….

Still, the plan faces significant challenges.

"I think it's a ridiculous boondoggle,'' said Robert Poole,
director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation in Los
Angeles….. “Californians prefer driving their cars regardless
of traffic, and airlines already offer quick north-south routes at a
reasonable price”
[Norm] King [director of the Leonard Transportation Center at Cal
State San Bernardino] said money would be better invested in
highway projects because roads would create more
congestion relief…
The road ahead for the I-70 Coalition is not easy – it must
stay focused and on track. (Pun intended.)