Search results

Well, not exactly. The idea for an urban freight rail bypass actually comes from a TxDOT report on the feasibility of operating passenger rail in the corridor begun in the early 2000s and updated in 2008. The bypass line's primary purpose, then and now, is to free up capacity on the existing...

Sorry if I seem a bit difficult, but I actually work in the railroad industry (and have for 25+ years), in the Austin-San Antonio region. So I know just a little about the situation. The grade is in the 1.5% range, and helpers are added and cut on either side of the river as needed. I agree...

Actually, the territory in the vicinity of the Colorado River in Austin has the ruling grade for the surrounding territory, and trains often need helper engines.

The route through Texas is *the* main north-south route for NAFTA trade. UP is not going to risk jeopardizing that business - NAFTA trade grew by 13.8% from December 2009 to December 2010 (USDOT), an amazing amount in a 'down' economy. The Capitol Corridor route and Cascades route are...

Good luck with that. The UP has been very clear, in the not too distant past, that they are not interested in running more Amtrak trains. Amtrak could, of course, under the legislation, force UP's hand, but that will be a bad result for everyone. The only solution that works is one that...

You mistake running "a hundred trains a day" (which I would like to see some actual statistics on...I've not seen that), with running "a hundred trains a day" on time. Mixed freight and passenger operation at those volumes is supremely unreliable for the passenger service. Freight can afford...

So you believe that the line could be configured to support upwards of 80 trains per day? And "cheaper", at that? I'd be interested to hear how you think that might be accomplished without a freight bypass. Also, keep in mind that the bypass is intended not only to free up capacity on the...

Again, the urban freight bypass line is NOT for Amtrak, it's to support running upwards of 15 to 20 round trips per day for the LSTAR intercity regional rail service. There's no way to simply add a few sidings to support that in addition to the 30+ UPRR freights per day plus one Amtrak round...

The purpose of the urban freight rail bypass line is to free up capacity for the LSTAR service. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Amtrak, although Amtrak trains will benefit both directly and indirectly by moving approximately 30 through freight trains per day off the Austin Sub, and the...

There's nothing "short sighted and uncoordinated" about it at all. State Highway 130 does not go where the urban freight bypass line would need to go to make the necessary connections to UP on the north and south. That doesn't mean that it couldn't be used someday for a rail alignment, but...

Not all of 130 was built for that purpose, unfortunately; there are pieces that are not suitable. Plus, it doesn't go where the urban freight bypass line needs to go, which is generally a northeasterly alignment from Seguin to Taylor. The bypass would not be put in place to support running...

Unfortunately, not true. 130 was not built for the bypass. The bypass route will be located somewhere east of 130 and west of the county lines to the east. The alternatives analysis to determine the route just kicked off last month.

The UP didn't require the bypass; it was adjudged necessary in the Feasibility Study that was done over 8 years ago that in order to have enough capacity to run the LSTAR trains, the Lone Star Rail project would have to build an urban freight bypass line for the UP through freight. Local...

Actually, the planned deployment speed for the Lone Star Rail District's LSTAR service is 90 MPH.