Amtrak Heartland Flyer Discussion and Possible Extension

[sullysullinburg]

Well you might get part of this plan. Heard a story that there was a special inspection trip from Oklahoma City to Newton, KS. No telling if it would pan out, but personally, I would like to see it happen.

[electricron]

Ron: I'm not sure I see your point in re: the Heartland Flyer.

My point was that it would take two trainsets to extend the Heartland Flyer to Newton vs the just one it needs today.
Here's some details.
FW to OKC is 206 rail miles, which according to the schedule takes 4 hours. That's 51 rail miles every hour. There's a 5 hour layover in FW and a 11 hour layover in OKC every day. 8 hours of movement with 16 hours of layover.
It's 186 highway miles between OKC and Newton, at the same 51 miles traveled per hour, requires an additional hours to travel both ways. (186/51 x 2 = 7.3 .hours). That turns 8 hours of movement in a day into 15.3 hours of movement every day, and turns 16 hours of layover into 8.7 hours of layover. You turn a train requiring a minimum crew into a train requiring two crews, and a train requiring two trainsets too.

Additionally, That will easily double the subsidies needed to tun the train which barely gets enough subsidy for one train set with one crew. There isn't enough political support to do so from Texas, Oklahoma, or Kansas. Maybe Kansas will pitch in the majority of the funds needed, maybe Oklahoma will increase its subsidy, but I doubt Texas would.

[John_Perkowski]

Additionally, That will easily double the subsidies needed to tun the train which barely gets enough subsidy for one train set with one crew. There isn't enough political support to do so from Texas, Oklahoma, or Kansas. Maybe Kansas will pitch in the majority of the funds needed, maybe Oklahoma will increase its subsidy, but I doubt Texas would.

Considering who is running for Governor in Kansas to replace Sam Brownback (Chris Kobach), considering Kansas just had to raise taxes to make ends meet, considering Kansas is on the hook for $250M a year in added K-12 funding, I doubt my next door neighbor state is going to be in position to subsidize anything anytime soon.

[east point]

It may be that if Heartland Flyer is extended to Newton that the additional passengers might have enough revenue for there would be no additional operational subsidy. Or it might even take less subsidy ? That of course only if enough equipment is available for the additional passengers including the SWC. That is another reason that more rolling stock needs ordering and not the N-S fiasco. The ridership cited for the Texas Chief & Lone star certainly does have merit for this extension. The ability to connect both east and SW at FTW on the Eagles has much merit

Does FTW station have good space and close by facilities for connecting passengers that wish to wander ?

[electricron]

Does FTW station have good space and close by facilities for connecting passengers that wish to wander ?

Fort Worth's ITC has plenty of seating for transferring passengers. But it is surrounded by tracks and parking lots. FYI. about a quarter mile away to the southwest is the Water Gardens, where one could easily waste away hours if you like water fountains. Sundance Square is just as far away to the northwest. Both activities would be long walks considering you'll have to walk both directions during the layover.

[Anthony]

I see extending the Heartland Flyer to Newton as a start in a much larger regional plan for improved service in the region. I see this being done over time through four steps as equipment and funding become available for each of them. The first step would be to extend the HF to Newton for a SWC connection. The second step would be the further extend the HF to Chicago via thru-cars on the Southwest Chief. Third, extend the HF south to San Antonio via the current Texas Eagle route between FTW and SAS. (This would be done in conjunction with a TE reroute west from Fort Worth to El Paso via Abilene and Midland-Odessa, TX). Fourth, restore the Houston section of the TE to restore Chicago-Houston service.

[mtuandrew]

Good thoughts, Anthony. Next step is to talk with the Kansas and Oklahoma state legislatures and convince them to reallocate money and raise their taxes enough to afford this extension.

Otherwise, there's the option of the Flyer going to Tulsa, then north via EDIT: BNSF to Joplin and KCS to Kansas City. Mostly skips Kansas if they don't want to pay for a train.

[Anthony]

The Tulsa-Kansas City route would go via Joplin, not Branson

[mtuandrew]

Yup, I see that now - edited my post to correct it.

[electricron]

The problem with extending the Heartland Flyer to either Kansas City n is there are no spare Superliners around to add a second train set to this train. It runs today normally with just one set of 3 to 4 Superliner cars.
The existing set round trip lasts 13 hours over a total distance of 412 rail miles. There's 11 hours remaining within 24 hours idle in Oklahoma City. The highway distance between Oklahoma City and Newton is 186.5 miles, a round trip would be at least 373 rail miles - most likely more as the tracks take a longer route than I-35. It's only 39 total miles shorter. In its favor is that the Heartland Flyer lays over in Fort Worth for 5 hours, so there's plenty of padding in the schedule.
Assuming it takes just as long to reach Newton as it does to reach Fort Worth, which is 4 hours, the Flyer would be arriving in Newton around 1:30 am. To be back in Oklahoma City at the time it is now scheduled to depart, it would have to leave Newton around 4:30 am. So it could have a 3 hour layover in Newton.
As a reminder, the Heartland Flyer would be in Newton between 1:30 am to 4:30 am, in the wee late night hours. The Southwest Chief is scheduled today to be in Newton at 2:45 am westbound and 2:59 am eastbound. Which is basically in the middle of that 3 hour window for the Heartland Flyer. Which brings up the question, is there enough tracks and platforms in Newton to handle all three trains at once?

Kansas City is another 200 rail miles from Newton, 400 rail miles per round trip; so extending the Heartland Flyer to Kansas City will require an additional train set. The same answer applies for extending the Heartland Flyer to San Antonio, which is 283 rail miles away from Fort Worth, 566 rail miles per round trip. If Amtrak was to extend the Flyer to Newton or San Antonio, you'll be expected to change trains in Newton just like you do or will do in Fort Worth today.

Oklahoma and Texas revenues have taken a hit with the fall of oil and natural gas prices. Neither state is in a position to double down on subsidizing inter city trains. So what may be physically possible isn't fiscally possible right now.

[Tadman]

I travel to Fort Worth frequently. Today, sitting the station waiting to get on 22 to Chicago, I was curious: why does the Flyer terminate in Fort Worth? Dallas is about 4 times bigger, wouldn't that have a material effect on sales?

[jp1822]

Dallas and Fort Worth are connected via regional rail aren't they? When did the regional rail startup? If already in operation when Heartland Flyer was setup, perhaps the State felt they didn't want the redundancy? Or can Fort Worth be a crew base for both the Flyer and Eagle?

[Bob Roberts]

I don't believe there is a decent place to store / service / turn the set around Dallas Union Station. I would guess Texas was too cheap to pay for one so Ft Worth became the next best option.

Perhaps this situation could change if the Houston HSR service gets off the ground?

[Backshophoss]

Believe Dallas Union is hemmed in by I-35E and the river and is a major jct point for UP.
You can connect to Dallas light rail at Dallas Union as well as TRE to Ft Worth.
Ft Worth is an Amtrak Crew base and has a small yard that Amtrak uses.
Trains 21 and 22 cycle equipment to /from the Flyer to Chicago/Beech Grove.

[mtuandrew]

Is there demand to run OKC-FTW-DAL, back to FTW for storage, and back to DAL the next morning for DAL-FTW-OKC? (Perhaps as a TRE train for the morning and evening deadheads?) Also, is there an extra 2-3 hours in the schedule to allow for such?