UINTA BASIN RAILWAY PROJECT
REVISED COMMENT
December 12, 2024
Rather than a purpose-built 90-mile line having limited use otherwise and some likelihood of near-term obsolescence (due to depletion of the resources given as the sole basis for its purpose and need) a more generally useful option might be appropriate. The proposal below lacks the spiral tunneling and curve-connected switchbacks of the Preferred Option, and has a top-of-rail summit about a thousand feet lower. It would also avoid extended running next to the Colorado River and the resulting high risk to waster resources. While it does cross property on which pipelines are present it might be the restriction in question is a little overly restrictive. It also passes close to two reservoirs.
The proposal described here envisions passenger traffic passing over an existing freight railroad. (the UP, for 40 miles east of Ogden) The UP right-of-way in the area concerned, despite the mountainous terrain, appears well suited for additional tracks, or to have actually had four-tracks in places at some point. The oft-repeated-in-EIS-documents assertion about forty-foot-high reinforced concrete walls running the length of mixed-use trackage - required together with extreme track spacing - seems excessively restrictive as well: given that mixed use was the traditional norm, and formerly significant risks are not present today owing to technical advancements, or wouldn't be, given the necessary precautions.
Passenger trains can be reinforced at the ends as a precaution in case of runaway freight trains and head-on collisions. The FRA and big engineering firms have walked back their assertions - if not regulations in the CFR - used to achieve the routing of their choice in Texas, Florida and California. The closed nature of public planning, and the tendency of the FRA and others to micro-manage, has resulted in planned and existing alignments of notably constrained utility and expanded length in all three states, with the initial segment in California now pushed-back to 2030, and expected to be at least six miles longer than the parallel UP tracks built in the 1870s, which are 105 miles long, using the same termini as the new line. The old right-of-way in California also has the advantage of a 50-mile level tangent perfect for high-speed. But the correct alternative was deliberately avoided.
Naturally, normal and legally required precautions including maintenance of rolling stock and tracks, as well as closely spaced and carefully maintained fault detection (still not legally required, strangely) should apply for mixed use, and railroads are responsible for the condition of their properties. UP has been well known for high standards in the condition of their roads, though they are perhaps a little NIMBY-ish with regard to passenger trains. My hope is, that with private, state or federally sponsored passenger service, the carrier could be made an offer in the way of upgrades for passenger service that would be so desirable they couldn't refuse, and all would benefit. However, that has never to my knowledge been tried in the US.
TO DUCHESNE, ROOSEVELT AND VERNAL
by way of the
PROVO RIVER VALLEY
and
COBBLE CREEK PASS
With Two Tunnels 3.95 Miles
and 1 Mile Long
PINE VALLEY ROUTE
(suggest a name-correction)
The proposed mixed-use alignment consists of three segments beginning with the initial leg out of Ogden over tracks of the Union Pacific - 39 miles - with proposed stations at Riverdale, Uintah, Mountain Green, Morgan and Henefer. The proposed alignment then exits the UP Main Line near the big curve at Echo, beginning its second leg - 12.8 miles - passing over a believed-serviceable grade-separated connection that crosses Route 80 on a curved single-track bridge. I have sketched a connection for the other direction of travel relative to the main line, which is almost a mile long, and would have a short tunnel or cut. The disused 12.8-mile segment has been painstakingly grade-separated - probably sometime after all the trains were gone - and would serve proposed stops at Coalville and Wanship.
At Wanship, the proposed mixed use line would diverge from the existing railroad grade to an approximately-79-mile (as fully half the curves haven't been drawn) proposed alignment. The disused alignment continues through Wanship to the major ski resort Winter Park, and offers the possibility of passenger service to Winter Park over an about-40-mile run from Ogden. The grade separation on this disused line is not so consistent starting at Wanship, notably, and advent of Winter Park service would put considerable strain on capacity along the entire shared route given realization of the proposal described here. A high-capacity fixed guideway solution on a smaller scale, and about ten miles shorter, might be best for service to Winter Park, originating at the proposed Rio Grande passenger station in Salt Lake City.
Continuing from Wanship, the proposed mixed-use line would include stops at Rockport Station (a made-up name) Kamas, Woodland, Lookout (another made-up name) Hanna, Tabiona Sta. (made up) and Duchesne. Two additional segments would be needed to reach Roosevelt and an eventual terminus at Vernal. Both would require extensive tunneling. It's not inconceivable that a connection through Jenson to Antlers - located along the Moffat Tunnel Route in Colorado - could be built. The approximately-130-mile alignment would include one tunnel over twenty miles long. In some circumstances though, tunneling requires less expense than negotiating space for right-of-way on the surface, given current technical advances. In any case, in order to allow expansion in populous areas like Jenson, Antlers and Dinosaur, it's important to have a feasible proposal in hand first, in order to secure the necessary property.
It is believed the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition would find easy access to serve their needs along the line shown exiting Duchesne to the east. (above)
COBBLE CREEK TUNNEL 3.95 MILES
The tunnel is shown with a flat-plane elevation throughout of 8325'. The curves at either end (west: R=1750'; east: R=2500') are necessary to avoid cuts that would be greater than 250'. While the grade on the west is consistent and gentle throughout (the grade shown works out to about 1.5% with this being the steepest on the western tunnel approach) the eastern grade encountered on exiting the tunnel is rather more problematic. At about thirteen miles of inclined plane any attempt to develop its length has resulted in extreme heroics of difference from the terrain so as to be impossible. As it is, relatively undeveloped, there are some fancy high bridges and embankments, some of which might be considered intrusive by residents along the grade's lower reaches, west of the red marker. The original layout as conceived was manipulated with an aim towards protecting the track from falling objects, which resulted in significant shortening of it's length also. The figures shown work out to a grade of 2.148%. But the crucial factor with this segment is to come up with some way of protecting the line from rockfalls and slides consuming it from above. This issue is therefore the test of the entire line's feasibility, absent some treatment or variation of the eastern summit grade that your commenter - who lacks proper experience or expertise in these things - has not yet explored.
DUCHESNE
Duchesne does not lend itself well to building railroads through it and this is an extreme case. While a railroad built along the river a hundred years ago might still be fine today, the intrusiveness involved in building one there now would present a complete non-starter - from standpoints of both the resulting crummy physical interface with conflicts and demolitions necessary to achieve it, and the impossible contortions of railroad geometry required to make that happen. The present alignment was arrived at after CONSIDERABLE thought and experimentation, and your commenter remembers being pleased with the relative cheapness anticipated for construction of the almost-exactly-one-mile-tunnel alignment - envisioned at the time several months ago - though could not say now exactly what revelation of believed economy led to this.
Desirable conditions of convenience and physical form seem to demand two stations. The one at the top, with the marker set in the proposed parking area across the road (part of an erstwhile real estate development that fell on hard times according to one picture I located which is newer than the 2013 imagery found here.) could be made to have a pleasing entrance passing under the road, leading - perhaps with complete protection from the elements - to a number of administrative offices and a public gathering place of the town and county currently present on the location there. (good for pols with NIMBY aspirations to nip them in the bud) The other station, labelled MAIN STATION, is set on a 3250'-radius curve, which thus would be straight enough for any reasonable number of station tracks using standard-length 85' cars. I believe this station would enable for Duchesne and the surrounding area a tourist attraction of extraordinary effectiveness.
DUCHESNE-ROOSEVELT 25.7 MILES
The distance to Mylon is less -16.8 - if immediate implementation without getting to Roosevelt is determined desirable for providing access to the mining material sites required by the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition. Roosevelt is considerably more amenable to rail access than Duchesne, and the route traverses a largely tangent detour to avoid the airport while hardly adding any distance, with at-grade access to a convenient central location in Roosevelt for its station there.
ROOSEVELT-VERNAL 29.9 MILES
A final ambitious extension save some connection on the other end to Grand Junction, this segment requires a short section of below-grade separation in Roosevelt, but could coexist with the road it parallels (given a four-lane upgrade conceived with it in mind, and visa-versa) requiring very little in terms of extreme difference in grade from that of the road that would require lateral separation from it.
If you want your comment to appear on Facebook, click the box next to "Also post on Facebook" at lower left. (It doesn't show up till you click or enter text in the text box.)