Kansas flirts with Amtrak service

[Amtrak Ohio]

Kansas Department of Transportation met with Amtrak representatives on Friday to request the feasibility of extending the Heartland Flyer from Oklahoma City to Kansas City. Anyways here's the link: Link

Anybody got comments on the issue? How's the ridership of the Heartland Flyer from Oklahoma City to the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex?

 

[Kramerica]

Kansas Department of Transportation met with Amtrak representatives on Friday to request the feasibility of extending the Heartland Flyer from Oklahoma City to Kansas City. Anyways here's the link: Link
Anybody got comments on the issue? How's the ridership of the Heartland Flyer from Oklahoma City to the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex?

I don't have any knowledge of the Heartland Flyer except what I see on the map, so take my comments with a grain of salt. (or maybe a whole shaker full)

I think that would be a great extension. That would be a start to a corridor that I think is missing from the National network. I think the Heartland Flyer should aspire to be a LD train from Minneapolis to San Antonio/Houston. Texas is important, with lots of businesses and people, as do the plains cities of Denver, Omaha, Lincoln, Des Moines, Kansas City, and Minneapolis. This corridor would link them all together without having to go to Chicago. The line from KC to MSP would either go through Omaha or Des Moines. There are just so many major/mid-major cities in America's midsection near the I-35 and I-29 corridor that it makes a lot of sense economically to link them via passenger rail.

 

[monorailfan]

From a KC perspective, this would be a great add. I can take routes east, west, and north east to Chicago, but going mid-south (OK, TX) and southeast is not practical and I always fly when going in that direction. And there are a LOT of folks here in the KC metro with ties to OK, TX.

I think this makes a lot of sense. Too bad AMTRAK cannot do a pilot - advertise and run the route for 6 months to see what the marketplace response is.

 

[sechs]

Really, it's the people of Oklahoma who have the most to gain from this... but they can't and won't do it without Kansas.

 

[RailFanLNK]

I was at a NARP meeting (National Association of Railroad Passengers) in Omaha NE on Saturday and this was a big topic that was being discussed. There was a guy with a ProRail group from OK that was there and has been pleasently surprised on how very conservative states are starting to look at rail in so much of a more favorable way. The bottom line is money but with state/federal support this could happen. This guy (and the group he is with) is the "meat" behind this extension and has used the typical "we need trains" mantra for 25 years to have doors slammed in his face. He finally realized that with the "green" thinking that is going on with CO2, with highways costing around $9 million per square mile for building, fuel prices soaring, widening, upkeep, mowing around the right-a-way, with towns dying (economically) with the arrival of big box stores and the loss of manufacturing, that having a Amtrak stop at your newly built (by the town or city) or renovated train station, that its a huge shot in the arm for the town financially. Also he tied in that 9 of the Big XII schools could have very easy access to rail for students, sports teams, fans, alumni, administration thus cutting down the reliance on chartering buses, planes, rental cars for one to get back and forth. Wichita KS is really getting in on this and so is Texas. Why Texas? Cuz people could travel from LNK, OMA, KS, OK and then TX on this route. They want to tie it in with the CZ, SWC and TE and SL.

 

[OlympianHiawatha]

Let us hope the HF extension to Kansas City does become a reality; it has been talk since day one of Flyer service and now is time to act. It will be interesting to see how they schedule the "new" trainsets to give reasonable connections with the Texas Eagle and the Southwest Chief, plus give Kansas daytime or evening train service both directions.

New consist for the HF? Currently, she runs P42, 3 Superliner Coaches (lower level snackbar on Coach 2) and Cabbage. I can see the extended sets being a prime candidate for CCC and some kind of Superliner Business Class. Being a day train, Sleepers would not be needed.

 

[RailFanLNK]

I was a little overwhelmed at the NARP meeting on Saturday. It was 6 hours of talking about trains. Not that its bad, I just couldn't soak it all in. But this guy who spoke about the HF knew his stuff. He lives in Norman OK and had the numbers to back up his talk. He also talked about "daytime" trains instead of night and how much more accomdating that could be. I also was the head of a committee for a large St. Patricks Party at my church that late afternoon/evening and my mind was in about 100 other places than that room I was in that day. I really enjoyed the meeting. Also met Jim Brezinski with Amtrak. He's just under Brian Rosenwald at Amtrak. He was a joy to talk to and was very excited about my church singles group booking 30 seats for our inaugural "Chicago On A Shoestring" trip.

 

[monorailfan]

"people could travel from LNK, OMA, KS, OK and then TX on this route."

I'm confused. NFA has this going only as far as KCY. http://www.northflyer.org/proposal.shtml

Where does LNK and OMA come into the picture?

 

[RailFanLNK]

They want to extend it northward past Omaha along the I-29 corridor. Then folks would be able to make connections via the CZ. The person talking from Norman OK says then that would help tie in 9 of the 12 Big XII schools with rail travel in there cities or very close to their cities.

 

[DaveKCMO]

the official proposal is for daytime Fort Worth to KC service via Wichita and OKC, funded by a coalition of three states (TX, OK, KS). anything beyond that is not on any legislative agenda, except for some additional thruway services that aren't currently offered (even still those would likely run only between points in KS and OK).

prorail nebraska needs to determine which route they will seek initial state assistance with, and it's unlikely that KC-Omaha would be at the top of the list.

ridership is up on the flyer for 2007.

 

[rtabern]

I don't know how practical it would be time-wise and everything, but instead of extending the Heartland Flyer, maybe they could add some coaches/a sleeper to the Southwest Chief... have those cars switch off at KC... and go down to Fort Worth via Oklahoma City.

Maybe it could even connect up with the Texas Eagle at FTW?

I dunno... I saw the Heartland Flyer while in FTW earlier this month... and it would seem to be a long trip from FTW to KC with just some coach cars.

Maybe they should consider a sleeper too?

 

[sechs]

I don't know how practical it would be time-wise and everything, but instead of extending the Heartland Flyer, maybe they could add some coaches/a sleeper to the Southwest Chief... have those cars switch off at KC... and go down to Fort Worth via Oklahoma City.

An show up in Oklahoma City at 4:00AM? Not exactly great timing for picking-up passengers en-route.

The daylight route is important. A lot of folks in eastern Kansas don't know that there is a passenger train that runs through Kansas, because it comes through after 10:00 at night.

 

[RailFanLNK]

The gentleman that was talking about the HF steers away from talking about "dining cars" and "sleeper cars". Seems like every politico thinks that is "extravagance" so he has backed off and never uses those "terms" when talking about extending the HF. Those were some of the terms he said he used for 25 years and it never went anywhere and now with a different take on things, the cost of fuel, green effect, etc that folks aren't slamming the door in his face but actually contacting him about the HF.

 

[Rafi]

The gentleman that was talking about the HF steers away from talking about "dining cars" and "sleeper cars". Seems like every politico thinks that is "extravagance" so he has backed off and never uses those "terms" when talking about extending the HF. Those were some of the terms he said he used for 25 years and it never went anywhere and now with a different take on things, the cost of fuel, green effect, etc that folks aren't slamming the door in his face but actually contacting him about the HF.

Frankly, I have to wonder if maybe he's on the right track to keep it simple for now. It's easier for people to get excited about "the train could be extended to serve your town" rather than hear that, plus, "and we'd like to put a diner and sleeper on that too." Some mayors may get worried about what that means in terms of cost to them. I may change my mind after thinking about the topic further, but at first glance, I see nothing wrong with his approach, and then having Amtrak quietly put the CCC and sleeper on there without too much fanfare. It seems to me that the sleeper and diner will encourage ridership once people start actually looking at the schedule and not necessarily beforehand. Again, I may be totally off.

Rafi

 

[sechs]

Honestly, if you can get people to ride the train, demand for amenities arises.

If you can get government to buy into service, eventually someone is going to start having a growling stomach on the train.

 

[user 1215]

The nice thing about this potential route is that both directions of the SWC meet within 40 minutes (scheduled) of each other at Newton. It would seem to me that just extending up to Newton would be enough for connections going either way. No need to take it all the way to KCY. My personally developed hypothetical schedule would be to run the Northbound Heartland Flyer on its regular schedule and then add Edmond, Guthrie, Perry, Ponca City, Arkansas City, Winfield, Mulvane, Wichita and Newton. You would have a Newton arrival of 2:01 AM and that would be just about the right amount of buffer to catch the SWF going in either direction.

The return would start in Newton at 5:00 AM, displacing the current SB schedule by about 13 minutes, allowing for an arrival into Ft Worth at 12:52 PM allowing over an hour of buffer to connect with the Texas Eagle in either direction.

This timing was determined using an average total speed (including stops) of 52 MPH and using google map distances between towns. Speeds could be faster, and distances could be shorter, and a stop in Mulvane may not be necessary. I would say the same for Pnca City and Arkansas City, too, but I think they are petitioning hard for service. Hate to leave anyone out who wants to be a part. Anyway, that taken into consideration could improve the turnaround time at Newton.

This could be done with one trainset and an additional OBS crew swapping out at OKC in both directions and op crew as needed. Now, it doesn't allow for much in the event of delays or equipment breakdown, but we're all used to that sort of thing anyway, aren't we??

I was going to say that the buffer into OKC could be used as a service/smoke stop (totally necessary on a 9-hour run?), but on time performance on the HF seems to be taking a bad hit lately.

 

[user 1215]

I would also have to respectfully disagree with sechs on a few points -

First, I think that connections are MUCH more important than daylight when determining routes. And I would almost say especially in the Midwest where there isn't a whole lot of scenery to 'sell' the train.

Now, if they wanted to run a daylight commuter that just went between Wichita and OKC and OKC and Ft Worth without consideration to connections, that would be a fine addition to a connecting train.

Also, since both directions of the SWC arrive in Newton between 3 and 4 AM, there's no way they could get to OKC by 4 AM. I estimate an 8:38 AM arrival into OKC. That being said, the car switch would work, but that would add more time to the SWC timetable. Also, you'd be talking about removing a loco that was used between CHI and NEW, but on the SWC the engines are needed West of there. The advantage with a switch would be that it would cycle equipment on and off the HF without disrupting service making it easier to get cars to maintenance. It would also be advantageous for people Southwest of Dallas to get to West Illinois and Missouri. The disadvantage, as mentioned, would be a minimum of a 35 minute layover to make the switch. It would also snowball any delay in the system.

Now, sechs, where I DO agree with you is that there would need to be some additions to the consist. A CCC at the minimum would be a must. I don't think a sleeper for a 9-hour run would be necessary. Heck, the Palmetto runs 15 hours without one (though many would argue that it would be nice).

 

[saxman]

Thinking even farther ahead, I think a second frequency on the DFW to San Antonio route is a must. A continuation of the Flyer is probably the easiest way to do this. Of course schedules would have to be adjusted again so as not make it too close to the Texas Eagle times. Having it end up running from FTW to SAS in the morning would be ideal. And an afternoon northbound from SAS. Of course this messes up what everyone else talks about, that the Flyer would be at OKC and Wichita in the middle of the night again. They should of course have daylight times too, if we are talking about corridor service.

 

[sechs]

I would also have to respectfully disagree with sechs on a few points -
First, I think that connections are MUCH more important than daylight when determining routes. And I would almost say especially in the Midwest where there isn't a whole lot of scenery to 'sell' the train.

Your reasoning doesn't make a lot of sense, and that's why you're coming to a different conclusion. You just don't understand the market.

I don't see an absolute necessity to connect to the Southwest Chief going both ways. Most traffic on the train is not expected to be connecting; it's people actually going to destinations on the route. The route should still connect with the Texas Eagle, and, perhaps, other trains at Kansas City, a station which can handle connecting passengers and equipment lay-over.

No one wants to catch a train at 2:00a, let alone get off of one and wait for another. I've been in Newton at 2:00a, and they aren't attracting the kind of passengers that the Heartland Flyer is after. No one will care whether the scenery is there or not, because they're not going to get up to catch the train!

First things first: Once you have passengers, you can add frequencies and other connections.

 

[DaveKCMO]

technically, KDOT requested that amtrak study "a connection between the Southwest Chief and an extended Heartland Flyer at Newton; a further extension of the Heartland Flyer to Kansas City; or some other new service." however, the group doing the lobbying is only pushing a daylight train originating in KC and terminating in Fort Worth, via Newton, based on the political and economic climate along the route (which will ultimately win out over a 3 AM connection).

 

[OlympianHiawatha]

It will be interesting to see what recommendations are made, as to provide Kansas with reasonable hour service will mean breaking connections with the Texas Eagle in FTW, as both north and southbound Eagles arrive there about 2pm. If both a north and south bound Heartland Flyer departed FTW and Kansas City in the morning, that would give mostly daytime service along the entire route and allow reasonable connections with the Southwest Chief in KC.

And of course, the BNSF will have a big say so in this as far as "slotting" in a passenger train north of OKC.

Personally, I would prefer priority given to SWC connections, as that would allow faster connections to the West as well as Chicago and the East.

 

[user 1215]

Your reasoning doesn't make a lot of sense, and that's why you're coming to a different conclusion. You just don't understand the market.
I don't see an absolute necessity to connect to the Southwest Chief going both ways. Most traffic on the train is not expected to be connecting; it's people actually going to destinations on the route. The route should still connect with the Texas Eagle, and, perhaps, other trains at Kansas City, a station which can handle connecting passengers and equipment lay-over.

No one wants to catch a train at 2:00a, let alone get off of one and wait for another. I've been in Newton at 2:00a, and they aren't attracting the kind of passengers that the Heartland Flyer is after. No one will care whether the scenery is there or not, because they're not going to get up to catch the train!

First things first: Once you have passengers, you can add frequencies and other connections.

Regrettably, with ANY long distance service, you're going to have stops in the middle of the night. The flip side on most long distance routes is that if you board during the day, you'll likely get off in the middle of the night. On some routes, there is no way to avoid it. With my proposed schedule, the HF traffic that exists won't change but by a few minutes on the SB. The folks that are on it now are on it.

Connections are everything. It helps that both termnii have schedules that are condusive to a perfect match. Eastbound AND Westbound trains are both available for folks travelling to either Newton or Ft Worth. That's significant. Someone in Topeka wants to go to El Paso, and Wham! They're on. Someone in Longview wants to go to Albuquerque, now they don't have to go through Chicago or LA.

This was a suggestion to keep the current schedule as unaffected as possible and without adding a trainset. Add another trainset and that opens up a whole new world. Now you can have either opposing runs with departures from Ft Worth at 4 AM getting to OKC at the beginning of the business day and on to Newton by noon.

So we may have differing views. 6 or 1/2 dozen - more trains resulting in more passengers is always a good thing.

Personally, I would prefer priority given to SWC connections, as that would allow faster connections to the West...

And daily, too.

 

[jis]

Suffice it to say that any extension of HF that is expected to be a daytime trip between FTW and NEW, would of necessity break the connection between the Eagle and the HF at FTW too.

Using the schedule of the old Lone Star just as a rough guide, a train leaving KCY at 6am could make it to FTW at around 7pm, and roughly the same vice-versa. This is likely a good yardstick since the scheduled running time of the HF between FTW and OKC is not that different from that of the Lone Star. BTW, the Lone Star used to make the same stops between FTW and OKC as the HF.

Just to give you all a short recap of the Lone Star, between OKC and KCY it used to stop at: Guthrie, Perry and Ponca City in OK and Arkansas City, Wichita, Newton, Emporia, Topeka and Lawrence in KS. It used to leave KCY southbound at 2:20am pass through OKC at 8:20am and arrive in FTW at 12:50pm, from where it continued on to HOU arriving at 7:55pm. In the reverse direction it departed HOU at 7:40am, FTW at 2:30pm, OKC at 6:45pm and then on to KCY at 2:55am. Southbound it passed NEW at 4:15am, northbound at 11:15pm. It was a train that was more convenient for Oklahomans (Ponca City at 6:35am southbound and 8:45pm northbound) and Texans and not that convenient for Kansans and Missourians.

If HF were merely extended keeping its current schedule then the northbound would not be a convenient train even for the north end of OK. If the old Lone Star schedule were used then it would be more convenient to the north end of OK. Due to the reality of time keeping or lack thereof by the Eagle, the FTW departure would of necessity have to be shifted by at least to two hours later than the Lone Star schedule, which will make it arrive into Ponca at 10:45pm, not too bad, but NEW would then be at 1:15am. Potentially this makes it feasible to need only one consist for the service, but cutting it close at both ends, so realistically it will still need two consists. Going to KCY will in all cases need a second consist, no matter which schedule one uses.

The flip side of this is that if the Eagle connection is broken then a future extension to HOU becomes unfeasible. In all cases an extension to HOU requires an additional consist.

So the bottom line then is, if KS is shelling out the money then the full daytime schedule would probably take precedence breaking all connections. OTOH if TX is chipping in more the Lone Star-like schedule would make more sense. No matter what you do there will be some winners and some losers. OK seems to be a winner no matter what

 

[OlympianHiawatha]

Using the schedule of the old Lone Star just as a rough guide, a train leaving KCY at 6am could make it to FTW at around 7pm, and roughly the same vice-versa. This is likely a good yardstick since the scheduled running time of the HF between FTW and OKC is not that different from that of the Lone Star. BTW, the Lone Star used to make the same stops between FTW and OKC as the HF.

The Lone Star

Now that was a great train until a certain ex Congressman from Oklahoma saw that it was cancelled, despite decent ridership. Not only did it carry ex Santa Fe High Level coaches, but often carried the famous Burlington Silver Solarium Dome Observation car as well.

 

[user 1215]

The Lone Star
Now that was a great train until a certain ex Congressman from Oklahoma saw that it was cancelled, despite decent ridership. Not only did it carry ex Santa Fe High Level coaches, but often carried the famous Burlington Silver Solarium Dome Observation car as well.

Hmmm... Last time I rode the Lone Star was back in 1972. I was about 6 months old. My dad said that practically the only riders on board were employees or ex-employees enjoying freebie rides...