Amtrak Heartland Flyer Discussion and Possible Extension

[John_Perkowski]

The only thing needing update with this study are the costing factors.

This was when Kansas tried to claim 79MPH was high speed rail, during the Obama billion dollar rail grants giveaway. In spite of the fact Kansas has a D governor now, I don’t see any changes politically that would bring $75M on a 1/1 cost sharing basis.

The 2010 study for Kansas to extend the Heartland Flyer to Newton.

[gokeefe]

Watch what happens if they apply for federal funding and get it.

[Rockingham Racer]

Watch what happens if they apply for federal funding and get it.

I would like to see that happen, George. But who is "they" in your statement, to clarify?

[Rockingham Racer]

The only thing needing update with this study are the costing factors.

This was when Kansas tried to claim 79MPH was high speed rail, during the Obama billion dollar rail grants giveaway. In spite of the fact Kansas has a D governor now, I don’t see any changes politically that would bring $75M on a 1/1 cost sharing basis.

The 2010 study for Kansas to extend the Heartland Flyer to Newton.

There are some erroneous statements in that study, the continuing rising cost of gasoline being one of them. I follow the BNSF quite closely, and operationally, there have been some changes. The Topeka Sub between Holliday and Ellinor is no longer DTC. CTC installation on it was completed last year.

The consulting company--and BNSF--make a big deal of running a passenger train against the flow of their freight traffic. This happens in lots of places from Maine to Washington, and most especially on BNSF's Northern Transcon between Williston, ND and Seattle where the line is single track, with passing sidings. The Hearland Flyer route is not even as busy as the Northern Transcon route, so it's hard to see how adding a passenger train is going to cause difficulty, except for a dispatcher sitting in front of a computer making a few clicks on the mouse, and planning good meets.

[Tadman]

The consulting company--and BNSF--make a big deal of running a passenger train against the flow of their freight traffic. ... it's hard to see how adding a passenger train is going to cause difficulty, except for a dispatcher sitting in front of a computer making a few clicks on the mouse, and planning good meets.

This is probably a bargaining chip, one to be given away in return for something else. You don't start boiling water at 210 degrees. And of course BNSF's consulting company is going to back BNSF up. I can't imagine an situation where the consultants came out publicly and said "yeah sure passenger trains are great, we have plenty of room for them add a few more".

Even if BNSF did have plenty of room (not saying they do or don't), it would be in their best interest to hoard it for future traffic increases.

[bretton88]

Watch what happens if they apply for federal funding and get it.

I would like to see that happen, George. But who is "they" in your statement, to clarify?

The State of Kansas and Oklahoma is who would be applying. To note, Wichita has made the HF Extension their number 1 priority and is willing to put up funding for it. So there is very real momentum for this extension.

[gokeefe]

Watch what happens if they apply for federal funding and get it.

I would like to see that happen, George. But who is "they" in your statement, to clarify?

Kansas.

[Rockingham Racer]

Kansas traditionally has been pretty sluggish over the issue of passenger rail, ie., not has considered it a high priority for spending. Perhaps the Southwest Chief situation has caused folks there to get more proactive in pursuing passenger rail and the funds to run it?

[mtuandrew]

Having a two-party-controlled system helps versus the single-party control formerly in Kansas - they have to focus on common issues rather than either side’s particular hobby horse. Also, Gov Brownback was especially hostile to rail expansion at state expense, though also opposed to the Southwest Chief being modified in any detrimental way.

[Tadman]

I've also never understood why Kansas won't pony up to extend the River Runner to Topeka. You have a number of benefits - no new equipment is needed, the railroad itself is a quiet secondary, and it services the majority of Kansas population in a short distance (including University of Kansas). It makes a lot more sense than the Flyer coming to Wichita from Oklahoma. It also would move jobs that straddle the Missouri-Kansas line firmly into Kansas, those of the car cleaning and support team in KC.

Heck, why not start a state supported train from Wichita through Topeka and Lawrence to KC instead of Wichita to OKC?

Honestly the thought of a OKC-Wichita train just makes the least sense of all possible scenarios. I was a Kansas resident for three years and nobody was itching to go to Oklahoma City, and anybody going to Dallas was going to fly.

[gokeefe]

I've also never understood why Kansas won't pony up to extend the River Runner to Topeka.

They don't believe in operating subsidies for rail.

Just because it makes sense doesn't mean it will happen ...

[bretton88]

I've also never understood why Kansas won't pony up to extend the River Runner to Topeka. You have a number of benefits - no new equipment is needed, the railroad itself is a quiet secondary, and it services the majority of Kansas population in a short distance (including University of Kansas). It makes a lot more sense than the Flyer coming to Wichita from Oklahoma. It also would move jobs that straddle the Missouri-Kansas line firmly into Kansas, those of the car cleaning and support team in KC.

Heck, why not start a state supported train from Wichita through Topeka and Lawrence to KC instead of Wichita to OKC?

Honestly the thought of a OKC-Wichita train just makes the least sense of all possible scenarios. I was a Kansas resident for three years and nobody was itching to go to Oklahoma City, and anybody going to Dallas was going to fly.

Per the study they did, it was only going to cost 87 million for an HF extension to Newton, but to go all they way to KC, BNSF wanted 450 (!!) million. That's a lot of extra cash and mostly for that supposedly quiet Newton to KC stretch.

[Rockingham Racer]

Newton to KC is hardly quiet. Where did you get that idea?

[mtuandrew]

Newton to KC is hardly quiet. Where did you get that idea?

It certainly isn’t quiet on the Transcon directly, but what about via Topeka? Kansas doesn’t have a train volume map so I can’t tell.

[Tadman]

Topeka is on the Topeka sub, which is not the Transcon. The Topeka sub runs Emporia north to Topeka, then east through Lawrence to Kansas City.

In red on this map: http://www.bnsf.com/ship-with-bnsf/maps ... ns-map.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's quiet. Real quiet. I lived in Lawrence for three years and there was maybe 4 trains a day, and Amtrak 3/4. The Newton-Emporia segment is mostly on the La Junta sub (the very quiet Chief route) and only on the transcon for ten miles maybe.

At the end of the day, It still doesn't make sense to run the Flyer to Wichita or KC. The population isn't there and that ten mile stretch on the Transcon near Emporia would be costly.

That's why I think a Topeka-Lawrence-KC (60 miles on a quiet route) really makes sense if they want a passenger train. You have population and tracks available.