DENVER — Colorado residents can now vote to name the train for the Fort Collins-Pueblo rail passenger service planned by the Front Range Passenger Rail District.
Name-the-train voting will be held through March 23 at this page of the Front Range Passenger Rail website, and can choose from four finalists selected by the district:
- Colorado Connector (“CoCo”)
- Colorado Ranger
- Front Range Express Destinations (“FRED”)
- RangeLink
The news site The Colorado Sun reports those options were chosen from about 100 possibilities, after vetting for trademark and other conflicts.
“Front Range Passenger Rail will connect communities across the Front Range, increase transportation options for Coloradans and visitors, reduce traffic and pollution, and save us time and money,” Colorado Gov. Jared Polis said in a press release. “Coloradans have been wanting for more transportation options to get where we need to go quickly and easily, and now Coloradans have a chance to pick the name that we will see on the rails for years to come.”
In addition to Fort Collins and Pueblo, plans call for stations in Loveland, Longmont, Boulder, Louisville, Broomfield, Westminster, Denver, Littleton, Douglas County, Colorado Springs, and Trinidad.
The district is still determining whether it will move this year to add a ballot measure in November to fund the project through a half-cent sales tax in the district area, which covers all or part of 13 counties.
Service is currently projected to launch in 2029; two winners will be selected at random from the voters to ride on the service’s inaugural train.
More on the planned service is available at the district website, ridethefrontrange.com.
— To report news or errors, contact trainsnewswire@firecrown.com.
There’s nothing more important than a naming contest for a project that will never fly. In the meantime the rail travel chaos going on in Scotland goes unmentioned.
Trainy McRailFace didn’t make it? Bummer, dude.
“El Bustivo” might be a better name. The Bustang bus service has been loved by those who use it, but historically, over many years now, there have been too few of them for it to be anhwhere near financially viable. There is little likelihood ridership of Front Range Passenger Rail will fare any better.
Sounds like both of you just woke up on the wrong side of the bed. But Charles is, as usual, talking about things he doesn’t understand.
You sure are cranky.
You know, Michael, a few things:
(1) I can make pointed remarks. When I cross the line people say so in no uncertain terms. But in this one case today, you swung and missed. (2) I generally post on passenger, not freight, ’cause I know passenger better (3) I sometimes agree with you and never hesitate to say so (4) along with other people who post on these pages, with one prominent exception, I try my very best to refrain from ad hominem posts.
Mike, your opinions are welcome, I always read them and respect them and as I said I sometimes agree. Try to avoid the ad hominem remarks. You will feel better. There’s a whole world of railroading out there for you to focus your knowledge and opinions.
1. The proposed names are uniformly ugly and unappealing.
2. It would seem Colorado has put the cart before the horse. It might help to have negotiated a right of way and obtained all the necessary funds to start and continue service.
Wake us up when the service is finalized. Then we can name it.
Agree with James (above). There are so many beautiful logos and liveries on trains around the world. Here in North America we have that hideous ALTO in Canada and the Colorado names as above. For trains that aren’t running and likely never will.