JPS1Does wrong motivation mean that Amtrak's as well as its supporter's motivation is wrong regarding how to configure and extend the Heartland Flyer, or does it mean that the interpretation of Amtrak's motivation - strategic planning - is wrong?
Both, in fact I would say your analysis is problematic because your looking at the train in isolation of everything else not part of a larger plan. First lets look at why the costs are increasing..........which had you reviewed your own states DOT notes on the train you would have spotted.....why you didn't do that with a State supported train is a mystery to me, the state is paying for the costs of the train, why ignore it's rationale?:
"effective with FY 2014 (October 2013), there were changes in cost methodology. PRIIA mandated that states bear a higher percentage of operating costs for passenger rail routes of less than 750 miles. This resulted in a substantial increase in costs for operating the Heartland Flyer"
As for the decreasing ridership........it's one frequency, with a currently crappy schedule between Fort Worth and OKC, the schedule would make more sense if the train was converted to an overnight train to KC Union Station. However looking at declining ridership just for the past few years neglects the increasing ridership trend before. In fact the ridership only declined 4.2% between 2015 and 2016.........which is hardly a crises and when you look at the declines in other Amtrak short distance routes..........is probably related to falling gas prices. Further the ridership was steadily increasing before gas prices declined. So your analysis presumes gas prices will continue to fall or remain low. Not sure I agree with that presumption. Not just the Heartland Flyer with a small decline in ridership.........check out the stats for the entire country. Yup declines in the price of gas have this effect.
https://media.amtrak.com/2016/11/amtrak-delivers-strong-fy-2016-financial-results/
From the TxDOT 2016 Rail Plan which you probably never read or included in your comments and this is just TX, highly encourage you to check out OK and KS as well both of which add a lot more color to the train and why they are enthusiastic about it. They are paying large sums of money for the train (most of which you excluded from your analysis), which indicates perhaps they have better vision or are better at analysis? What about station upgrades? Rail upgrades? and don't those benefits.....benefit the community well beyond Amtrak service?
"While the requirements of the freight railroads over which the train operates limit the operating crew to Amtrak, several other states have reduced their operating costs by purchasing their own equipment. A capital grant would be required, but there is often more flexibility in obtaining one-time capital grants compared to yearly operating grants. California and Washington purchased new equipment, while North Carolina has had great success with used equipment rebuilt to its specifications. Indiana leases equipment from a private rail operator who also maintains the equipment. Equipment owned by Washington State and North Carolina are maintained by private-sector contractors. Maine and Indiana have reduced costs for on-board food and beverage service by contracting with the private sector for on-board service. Equipment owned by Oklahoma and Texas could also create some potential synergy between the Heartland Flyer and TRE. With another set of rebuilt or new equipment the Heartland Flyer could be extended to Dallas and maintained at the TRE maintenance facility. Between Fort Worth and Dallas the Heartland Flyer would be operated with TRE crews, honor TRE tickets and operate as a limited stop TRE Express between the two cities."
Another item mentioned is the Heartland Flyer is on a year by year contract with Amtrak which is also more costly than a multi-year contract.
San Antonio - Monterrey, MX service (this actually surprised me it was still being looked at):
"This segment is proposed to serve the growing market between Texas and Mexico. This leg is part of the overall Oklahoma City to San Antonio I-35 study. Currently, TxDOT is considering the possibility of coordinating with the Mexican government to provide passenger rail service between the two countries. Two Oklahoma City – San Antonio route alternatives (S4 and S6) have the option of being extended to Monterrey. One of the challenges is the lack of protocols for trans- border rail passenger service. "
Texas-Oklahoma Rail Study:
http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/statewide/texas-oklahoma-rail.html
So bottom line, your analysis is too narrow and misses reasons for both the increased costs and declining ridership. I don't think either issue is a permanent upward or downward trend and it would be very shortsighted to forecast or plan presumming they are a permanent trend.
JPS1TEMPO was created by Amtrak at the request of the Texas Eagle Mayors’ Coalition, to establish a mechanism for local input to Amtrak on issues affecting the Eagle.”
Poor choice of words since the core of the group existed before the group was formed. All Amtrak did was provide a meeting place and issue invites and attend the meeting. Very loosely that is organizing. I would give more credit to the Mayors Coalition that pushed the issue than I would to Amtrak. Further no real active recruitment of new members by Amtrak.
What is this test train for? Was Amtrak restoring service to a certain area?
ATSFGuy What is this test train for? Was Amtrak restoring service to a certain area?
Yes, they wanted to restore service along the OKC to Kansas City or OKC to Newton, KS route of the former Lone Star passenger train. The main reason for the test train was to assess the condition of the track and review locations that BNSF stated they would need signals upgraded or a rail siding added. Secondary reason was to assess current traffic levels. Third reason was to gauge and build public support along the route.
In one of the videos above it a DOT official stated that it looked like Amtraks or BNSF's estimates were overblown and that they might be able to get the train running for a lot cheaper than what was stated............also interesting.
Personally, I don't care if they restore the train or not. I find it interesting they are even still considering it given the poor shape OK and KS are in budget wise.
Just found this out.
Hate to throw cold water on Kansas putting up funds but --------
In the last two years Kansas has had over 1M acres burned due to wildfires. But they only have 4 full time state fire fighters. Result fires run out of control for lack of co-ordination. So how can we expect any help from Kansas for an extension of the Heartland Flyer ?
EDIT: Source PBS radio "Wildfires"
CMStPnP JPS1 Not so good from the looks of things. There is no direct track from Austin to Houston. The Austin and Western owns the line as far east as Giddings, but it only operates it to Elgin, where it interchanges with the UP. The line from Elgin to Giddings has been quarantined. There is no direct line from Giddings to Hempstead. There is a line from Hempstead to Houston, and there is a line from Houston to Galveston. Getting from Austin to Houston on the current rails would be a roundabout exercise. TXDOT has identified Austin to Houston as a potential passenger rail corridor, but developing it probably would require a large sum of money. Turning the corridor into a viable passenger train corridor appears to be a long way off.
JPS1
Not so good from the looks of things. There is no direct track from Austin to Houston. The Austin and Western owns the line as far east as Giddings, but it only operates it to Elgin, where it interchanges with the UP. The line from Elgin to Giddings has been quarantined. There is no direct line from Giddings to Hempstead. There is a line from Hempstead to Houston, and there is a line from Houston to Galveston. Getting from Austin to Houston on the current rails would be a roundabout exercise. TXDOT has identified Austin to Houston as a potential passenger rail corridor, but developing it probably would require a large sum of money. Turning the corridor into a viable passenger train corridor appears to be a long way off.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
[quote user="CMStPnP"]
.......In one of the videos above it a DOT official stated that it looked like Amtraks or BNSF's estimates were overblown and that they might be able to get the train running for a lot cheaper than what was stated............also interesting. /quote]
There may be a more recent study, but I have not been able to find it.
JPS1 ... According to Feasibility Report of Proposed Amtrak Service Kansas City, Missouri – Oklahoma City, Oklahoma to Fort Worth, Texas, KDOT, 2010, a team from BNSF and KDOT estimated that extending the Heartland Flyer from Oklahoma City to Newton would require 26.6 miles of new track and cost $106 million. Extending the train on to Kansas City would require an additional 40.1 miles of new track and would cost an additional $160 million. Adjusted for inflation the amounts would be roughly $118.5 million and $178 million in 2016 dollars. There may be a more recent study, but I have not been able to find it.
...
Did the study say they would need 40 miles of new track from Newton to KC? The Chief already runs along that route.
MidlandMike Did the study say they would need 40 miles of new track from Newton to KC? The Chief already runs along that route.
Newton to Walton - 6.5 miles of double track - and Peabody to Strong City - 33.6 miles of double track.
The study was predicated on Amtrak's requirement that the train have a high percent of on-time arrival at its end points. If Amtrak or the sponsoring states are willing to have a lower on-time performance objective, presumably that could have an impact on what infrastructure work would be required.
These are just the numbers for the track work. Approximately $8 million would be required for grade crossing improvements. More monies would be required for additional equipment, crew employment and training, etc.
The problem with the Newton/Wichita area is that they are in an area where the Transcon splits into two single tracks in a paired trackage arrangement. It sounds like BNSF would like ATK to build one of the lines into double track.
Amtrak's direction has not been what you are seeking for decades now. Quite a few trains have disappeared from the timetables, but few have been added, and by that I mean long distance trains of any consequence. Not much on the planning boards for adding trains either.
Tad critical of an inspection train?
I'd like to see the state of Texas consider taking the Flyer south to Houston with cars from Chicago to Houston included. The Longview Thruway bus is doing a decent business. The Houston section of the Eagle has been a politcal tennis ball for quite a number of years.
Here is the link for the 2010 KSdot feasibility report
https://www.ksdot.org/PDF_Files/FINAL-Amtrak-Study.pdf
In November 2011 Parsons Brinckerhoff made a "Kansas City-Wichita-Oklahoma City-Fort Worth Corridor Passenger Rail Service Development Plan" for KSdot. BNSF had already spent time on the feasibility report and was too busy for this plan, but gave them a stringline chart on freight movement. From this they were able to reduce costs by reducing the amount of double track and passing sidings. There is a lot of info in this plan, but different timing of a passenger train could give different results, not to mention changes in the stringline chart today.
http://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/PDF_Files/PDF-Passenger-Rail-SDP.pdf
Personally I think that Dallas should be the end point of what amounts to two corridors. The Brookings Institute did a study of about 20 years of Amtrak's history and found that most of Amtrak's growth came in corridors similar to Oklahoma City -Dallas, Oklahoma City - Kansas City with at least a morning and evening train from each endpoint.
Jim200Personally I think that Dallas should be the end point of what amounts to two corridors. The Brookings Institute did a study of about 20 years of Amtrak's history and found that most of Amtrak's growth came in corridors similar to Oklahoma City -Dallas, Oklahoma City - Kansas City with at least a morning and evening train from each endpoint.
TxDOT is trying to find a way to extend the Heartland Flyer to Dallas. Right now they are limited by the current schedule and that they do not own the trainset. I believe they want KS-OK to form a compact or seek Federal money for purchasing a trainset to lower the operating costs of the train.
TxDOT could then do trainset and locomotive maintenance at it's TRE Facility and save the Amtrak pass through.
Additionally at one point and I am not certain if they still are but OK was also looking at OKC to Tulsa Rail service.
JOHN L CLARK I'd like to see the state of Texas consider taking the Flyer south to Houston with cars from Chicago to Houston included. The Longview Thruway bus is doing a decent business. The Houston section of the Eagle has been a politcal tennis ball for quite a number of years.
I don't think that will ever happen as long as there is a HSR proposal on the table for the same Dallas to Houston route.
CMStPnP Jim200 Personally I think that Dallas should be the end point of what amounts to two corridors. The Brookings Institute did a study of about 20 years of Amtrak's history and found that most of Amtrak's growth came in corridors similar to Oklahoma City -Dallas, Oklahoma City - Kansas City with at least a morning and evening train from each endpoint. TxDOT is trying to find a way to extend the Heartland Flyer to Dallas. Right now they are limited by the current schedule and that they do not own the trainset. I believe they want KS-OK to form a compact or seek Federal money for purchasing a trainset to lower the operating costs of the train. TxDOT could then do trainset and locomotive maintenance at it's TRE Facility and save the Amtrak pass through. Additionally at one point and I am not certain if they still are but OK was also looking at OKC to Tulsa Rail service.
Jim200 Personally I think that Dallas should be the end point of what amounts to two corridors. The Brookings Institute did a study of about 20 years of Amtrak's history and found that most of Amtrak's growth came in corridors similar to Oklahoma City -Dallas, Oklahoma City - Kansas City with at least a morning and evening train from each endpoint.
Having an Oklahoma City - Tulsa - Kansas City corridor with a Branson stop/bus would be interesting. One problem is that the track is in worse condition and there isn't a federal agency that is devoted to fixing track for passenger rail. Instead we have something like $9 billion buckaroos in rail infrastructure improvements that are asked of limited TIGER and other funds.
Running the Texas Eagle over the Trinity Railway Express (TRE) tracks between Dallas and Fort Worth is costing the "T" $1.07 million per year in additional insurance premiums. Whether adding the Heartland Flyer to the mix would increase the premium is unknown, but it is a possibility.
One suggestion is to sell through tickets on the TRE to or from Dallas with an across the platform transfer to or from the Heartland Flyer in Fort Worth. The TRE has frequent service between Dallas and Fort Worth. The schedule for the southbound Heartland Flyer could be tweaked to better coordinate the transfer in Fort Worth.
There is no TRE service on Sunday. Amtrak could charter a bus to provide the connecting service on Sunday. It has a frequently used arrangement with a good charter bus company in Fort Worth.
Jim200I don't see how TxDOT is limited by the current schedule. The Heartland Flyer arrives in Fort Worth at 12:27 PM, and even with a stop at DFW airport, would arrive at Dallas Union Station probably before 1:27 PM. An evening departure from Dallas at 5:30 PM would result in an arrival in Oklahoma City around 10:30 PM, which is still a reasonable hour. In between there is four hours to get the trainset ready for the evening departure.
I don't see how the current schedule limits it either but the TxDOT statement on the subject implied that running over TRE tracks to Dallas was only considered an option if the equipment was owned in part by TxDOT or a party other than Amtrak and I think they were also calculating in reduction in maintenence costs because running to Dallas would allow them to maintain at the TRE maintenence facility as well.
So if I had to guess.......Amtrak has a restriction on the use of the Heartland Flyer equipment that makes extension to Dallas on the current schedule impossible or something to do with Amtrak ownership impacts the liability insurance premium.......Just a guess.
Herzog operates the TRE and also coincidently was going to be an active bidder on the Heartland Flyer run when they considered opening the route to bidding by third parties...........not sure if they ever did that. Obviously TxDOT would like to maintain the trainset as it thinks it can do a better job with cheaper costs than Amtrak can. Interesting that Seattle just signed an agreement with Amtrak to use a non-Amtrak facility to maintain Amtrak equipment and become another maintenence base for Amtrak. Perhaps that is in the future for the TRE shops in Irving as well.
BTW, Oklahoma does not like the current Heartland flyer schedule and says it is structured entirely for visits to Dallas-Fort Worth. So there might be a future compromise with it at some point or maybe a second round trip frequency?
I have only read Oklahoma interested in the short Oklahoma City to Tulsa route and it ending there. I think it was originally an Ed Ellis proposal that would require the state to bring the tracks up to par. So it probably will not happen.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.