Here are some of my ideas, and others', on expanding the Heartland Flyer in combination with reconfiguring the Texas Eagle.
This isn't to hurt the Eagle; rather, to realign it, playing on its strengths (CHI-Dallas) and expanding to Houston, Austin and San Antonio via direct, non circuitous routes.
This would all take some work on Amtrak - and rail advocates' - parts, along with state DOTs. Since Amtrak doesn't have any money, perhaps the states could invest in equipment and have Amtrak run the train. The buildup in ridership, which would help the HF, would help make the train a system, instead of state-funded train.
http://www.trainweb.org/moksrail/advoca ... routes.htm
http://www.trainweb.org/moksrail/advoca ... /eagle.htm
-Heartland Flyer expands to Newton, merging with the Southwest Chief, with through sleeper, coach and dining cars,
and south to San Antonio and (later) Houston. The train would split at FTW, going to Dallas and Houston, similar to the early 1990s Eagle which used to run Dallas-HOU.
Unfortunately, according to Dan Monaghan, congestion and limited capacity would prevent the reverse move the Eagle used to require to split the train to HOU.
This HF extension solves that, providing a cross-platform connection in Dallas.
-Eagle ends at Fort Worth, with cross-platform (or a through car) to the Heartland Flyer, which continues south of Fort Worth to San Antonio. Having the HF go on to SAS would save 1:30 travel time over the Eagle from CHI-SAS.
-Eagle splits into 2 sections at Longview.
One goes on to FTW.
The other heads to HOU, which would have substantial ridership, perhaps higher than the Eagle's earlier HOU section since it would be a more direct route. The HF FTW-HOU would provide Dallas travelers access to HOU and thus avoid the circuitity of the earlier Eagle CHI-HOU routing.
-In the future, the Eagle could continue beyond FTW to El Paso and California with a second frequency.
-Another section could head to Austin and San Antonio. That would make it to SAS much earlier than the current Eagle, probably by as much as six hours. I haven't looked at my Official Guide yet on either the HOU and SAS sections.
-Wichita gets decent departure hours, of 6:00 a.m. southbound and 10-11 p.m. northbound.
This might ease some of the "We won't fund a middle-of-the-night train" arguments Kansas always puts up. Later, a KC-FTW daylight train could run, perhaps in connection with the planned Crescent Star Meridian extension, could run giving the region needed daylight service.
- Southbound station times at Little Rock would be improved, moved to 6:30 a.m. v. the abysmall "Salt Lake City" timing of 4:30 a.m. Plus a later CHI departure could allow for Empire Builder connecting traffic.
----
OTHER OPTIONS:
1) Leave Eagle as it is and extend the HF to Houston (via Dallas), running through cars with the Southwest Chief. This would give needed Kansas City-Dallas service, and connect Dallas with HOU.
2) Run the current HF (ending at FTW) north to Newton with through cars. That would require a smaller equipment investment.
3) Run the HF north to Newton with only cross-platform connection with the SW chief.
No. 3 would be the least expensive idea. HOwever, it wouldn't be as attractive to travelers as the first two ideas.
----
These are merely ideas. If nothing happens, the stub-ended HF won't be as successful as it could be. Many Oklahoma advocates, by the way, aren't satisfied either with the status quo. The train needs to be expanded.
All these ideas would require money, for the additional trainsets, of course, but this is something advocates need to consider for the future viability and improved performance and ridership of trains in the Southwest.
-Doug Ohlemeier, NARP member, VP- MOKSRail
This isn't to hurt the Eagle; rather, to realign it, playing on its strengths (CHI-Dallas) and expanding to Houston, Austin and San Antonio via direct, non circuitous routes.
This would all take some work on Amtrak - and rail advocates' - parts, along with state DOTs. Since Amtrak doesn't have any money, perhaps the states could invest in equipment and have Amtrak run the train. The buildup in ridership, which would help the HF, would help make the train a system, instead of state-funded train.
http://www.trainweb.org/moksrail/advoca ... routes.htm
http://www.trainweb.org/moksrail/advoca ... /eagle.htm
-Heartland Flyer expands to Newton, merging with the Southwest Chief, with through sleeper, coach and dining cars,
and south to San Antonio and (later) Houston. The train would split at FTW, going to Dallas and Houston, similar to the early 1990s Eagle which used to run Dallas-HOU.
Unfortunately, according to Dan Monaghan, congestion and limited capacity would prevent the reverse move the Eagle used to require to split the train to HOU.
This HF extension solves that, providing a cross-platform connection in Dallas.
-Eagle ends at Fort Worth, with cross-platform (or a through car) to the Heartland Flyer, which continues south of Fort Worth to San Antonio. Having the HF go on to SAS would save 1:30 travel time over the Eagle from CHI-SAS.
-Eagle splits into 2 sections at Longview.
One goes on to FTW.
The other heads to HOU, which would have substantial ridership, perhaps higher than the Eagle's earlier HOU section since it would be a more direct route. The HF FTW-HOU would provide Dallas travelers access to HOU and thus avoid the circuitity of the earlier Eagle CHI-HOU routing.
-In the future, the Eagle could continue beyond FTW to El Paso and California with a second frequency.
-Another section could head to Austin and San Antonio. That would make it to SAS much earlier than the current Eagle, probably by as much as six hours. I haven't looked at my Official Guide yet on either the HOU and SAS sections.
-Wichita gets decent departure hours, of 6:00 a.m. southbound and 10-11 p.m. northbound.
This might ease some of the "We won't fund a middle-of-the-night train" arguments Kansas always puts up. Later, a KC-FTW daylight train could run, perhaps in connection with the planned Crescent Star Meridian extension, could run giving the region needed daylight service.
- Southbound station times at Little Rock would be improved, moved to 6:30 a.m. v. the abysmall "Salt Lake City" timing of 4:30 a.m. Plus a later CHI departure could allow for Empire Builder connecting traffic.
----
OTHER OPTIONS:
1) Leave Eagle as it is and extend the HF to Houston (via Dallas), running through cars with the Southwest Chief. This would give needed Kansas City-Dallas service, and connect Dallas with HOU.
2) Run the current HF (ending at FTW) north to Newton with through cars. That would require a smaller equipment investment.
3) Run the HF north to Newton with only cross-platform connection with the SW chief.
No. 3 would be the least expensive idea. HOwever, it wouldn't be as attractive to travelers as the first two ideas.
----
These are merely ideas. If nothing happens, the stub-ended HF won't be as successful as it could be. Many Oklahoma advocates, by the way, aren't satisfied either with the status quo. The train needs to be expanded.
All these ideas would require money, for the additional trainsets, of course, but this is something advocates need to consider for the future viability and improved performance and ridership of trains in the Southwest.
-Doug Ohlemeier, NARP member, VP- MOKSRail
Last edited by ohle on Wed Mar 31, 2004 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
