Trains.com

Idea to save the Heartland Flyer

6498 views
63 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,014 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, March 24, 2015 9:52 AM

If maintenance is concentrated on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, what do you do with the employees involved on Mondays and Fridays?

  • Member since
    February 2004
  • 42 posts
Posted by K4s_PRR on Tuesday, March 24, 2015 2:09 PM

Several writers have cited cost and commuter use.  As I remember, the Flyer was designed to be used mostly for tourists just visiting Fort Worth.  People I talk to like the train.  They cite the comfort and service.  In addition Oklahoma it trying out a train between Oklahoma City and Tulsa.  The main problem with expanding the service is that the route is a freight route and the track is not good for passenger trains.  Also, remember that the Flyer is one of the top revenue producers in the Amtrak system.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Tuesday, March 24, 2015 5:53 PM

K4s_PRR
Also, remember that the Flyer is one of the top revenue producers in the Amtrak system.

Hardly.  I would suggest you make the effort to look at the Amtrak Monthly Report.   The latest for Jan. 2015, shows the "Flyer" is the 2nd worst revenue producer in the Amtrak system, with revenue of only $116,138, and declining compared to Jan. 2014.  Only the 3-day per week Hoosier State was worse, with $48,628.

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/223/904/Amtrak-Monthly-Performance-Report-January%202015.pdf    Page A 3.3

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    September 2014
  • 10 posts
Posted by A D SIMMONS on Tuesday, March 24, 2015 9:18 PM

schlimm

 Sorry.  First time I ever posted a reply, and thought I did include the original text, even though it was fairly long and I was focusing on one word.  Maybe I got it right this time.

 
A D SIMMONS

@Sam1: I have arrived at the point where I automatically discount as meaningful any criticism of passenger rail by someone who uses the term "choo-choo" to describe any train.  While you make some valid points worthy of consideration and discussion in the larger context of transportation funding overall, the dismissive use of a childish term suggests that you start with an anti-train bias which brings your observations into serious question.

 

 

 
When one refers to another member and refers to a term they have used ("choo-choo") it is customary and polite to include the post above yours so that the reader can put it in context.   I may have missed it, but I did not see sam1's use of that term in either a pejorative or affectionate sense anywhere on this thread.
 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy