Passenger Trains > Sacramento to Roseville Third Track

Here's a link to the project website:
sactoroseville3rdtrack.com

and a map of the proposed new alignment:
https://ccjpa-rail.hdrgateway.com/index.html

Jarrod DellaChiesa
Oakley, CA

That is roughly about 17 miles of new trackage.


I wonder will they also look at adding a new stop between Sacramento and Roseville?

I recall there was a stop in between these two stops. That they was experimenting with.

Jerry Martin
Los Angeles, CA
Central Coast Railroad Festival

Reminder that two onboard meetings are coming up: Wednesday July 23 on train 536, and Thursday July 24th on train 529.

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,3462181,3463343#msg-3463343

AJ

Remember this dictum by railroad industry: All track reverts to narrow gauge when passenger service ceases. Any resumption of passenger service requires many millions of dollars and new signals with passing sidings, 2nd (3rd) tracks. etc.

Ain't that the truth.

MEKoch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Remember this dictum by railroad industry: All
> track reverts to narrow gauge when passenger
> service ceases. Any resumption of passenger
> service requires many millions of dollars and new
> signals with passing sidings, 2nd (3rd) tracks.
> etc.

The penalty for an unwanted commodity that doesn't fully pay its way...

To: Billo

This is what I call the "John Mica way of looking at passenger rail"--namely it is an "unwanted commodity"; or that it doesn't pay the Freights enough. This is always the view of those (usually politicians) who are not in favor of passenger rail. I've never heard the Freight Railroads make this allegation.

Personally, I think it's smart business for the Freight Railroads to demand track upgrades to handle passenger train. It's a wonderful way to improve their physical plant; and have the Federal or State Governments pay for it.

Consider the Chicago-St.Louis project. What an achievement for the UP! It got someone else to invest $3B in upgrading THEIR tracks/signals/road crossings, etc.

In this case, I doubt the UP would call passenger rail an "unwanted commodity". This "commodity" made possible a free $3 Billion in upgrades. Most people would call this a "valuable commodity"--not the naysayer view that passenger trains are "unwanted".

So, before you think the UP is underpaid for handling passenger trains; better quickly add $3 Billion to Amtrak generated payments in Illinois.

Joe



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/14 07:29 by floridajoe2001.

Even as a strong passenger train advocate and someone who lives in Roseville and frequently uses the Capitol Corridor service (both the single daily round trip train service and the mid day Thruway bus connections) I can't see that much demand for that much additional Roseville-Sacramento service, especially with that bombastic taxpayer paid price tag on it. The existing single weekday train in both directions which serves as a commute train Auburn-Rocklin-Roseville-Sacramento-Davis-Oakland and return does very well but on weekends only about 20-30 people board the two hour later morning departure from Roseville with just a few more already on board from Auburn and Rocklin. As for the weekday 11 AM and 2:25 PM bus connections out of Roseville it's usually no more than 10 passengers at the very most, sometimes only 2 or 3. Where's the big demand for Roseville to Sacramento service?

One more additional weekday commute hour train round trip Auburn-San Jose & return would be appropriate and I'm quite sure UP could accommodate it without much problem…if they wanted to but of course they don't! A couple hundred million dollars in taxpayer supported track improvements sounds much more appealing! More frequent mid day bus connections would also be useful, a dedicated Auburn-Rocklin-Roseville-Sacramento shuttle in particular. Maybe you could even start the shuttle at Colfax and add a Citrus Heights stop to help make it pay it's way. There is a big problem with the current 11 AM Thruway bus from Reno which can frequently be late and on days when the Zephyr is extremely late be already full of would be Zephyr passengers when the bus reaches Roseville. I've seen people with web purchased Capital Corridor tickets turned away at Roseville on such days.s

It just seems like WAY too much money for a service that has not shown that much demand. Just my humble opinion…and most likely one that is about to be trashed by the "more trains at any cost" crowd! You of course are also entitled to your opinion!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/14 15:13 by johnw.

Build the infrastructure and UP can maintain that stellar 96% on time record for the Capitol Corridor trains. Best of any on Amtrak.

I live in Auburn, used to commute to Sacramento on the Cap Corridor, and now still use the CC to get to San Francisco and the South Bay. I agree with johnw's comments and observations 100%.

johnw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One more additional weekday commute hour train
> round trip Auburn-San Jose & return would be
> appropriate and I'm quite sure UP could
> accommodate it without much problem…if they
> wanted to but of course they don't! A couple
> hundred million dollars in taxpayer supported
> track improvements sounds much more appealing!

I remember back in the 1990's there was a conference or some industry meeting where a Class I representative (I think he was from Norfolk Southern) told the audience bluntly that if passenger operators wanted to operate over their tracks, they needed to pay for the capacity. I am sure that Union Pacific has the capacity NOW to run additional Sacramento-Auburn-Colfax passenger trains without adding capacity, what about 10 years from now, or maybe 20? Union Pacific shouldn't be forced to get up capacity to Amtrak just because it has extra right now. Union Pacific could easily increase traffic over the next 20 years to fill up that capacity.

On the other hand, the amounts mentioned for this third main track is massive, at least on the surface. Calculate the cost of adding one land each way on parallel I-80. The problem I see is that this extra capacity will be under for what, maybe 60 minutes each day and UP get to use it for free for the rest of the day. Should UP share in the cost, maybe? I a difficult issue. The way I look at it is this: I have a three car garage but only own two cars. Someone comes along and wants to use the third stall in that garage because I am not using it. Besides, he will only be using it for about one hour a day, I can do with it as I please the rest of the day. What happens when I get my third car?