I don't support the train myself as I think not that many folks go to OKC from Fort Worth and those that do are not spending a lot of money in either city so economic impact is probably not very large. I always wondered why and how they got Texas to approve the train as well as the equipment. I would rather see a train from Dallas to connect with the Southern Crescent or from Dallas to Denver (seasonally) - "Caprock Xpress" variant proposed 13 years ago. No idea how this train got funding.
Google maps says 3:07 for Dallas to Oklahoma City versus 3:57 for the Flyer. Add in the first mile - last mile time plus origin station cushion and it's easy to see the train really isn't competitive (same problem as Hoosier State - just too slow)
Add to this that the train is too slow to get more than one turn out of the equipment each day. Imagine if the running time was 2:30. You could get two turns out of the crew and equipment - at nearly the same operating cost.
This train appears to be a classic example of the "lines on the map" approach to passenger rail service expansion normally championed by NARP.
How to fix it? Service needs to be fast and frequent to be useful. Fast gets you two things. More equipment turns (low equipment cost) and more valuable service (look at how much people in the NEC pay for fast trains). A 2:30 running time would get you car-competitive door to door times. Frequent lets you penetrate a market. (Acela woudn't work if they ran 2, 60 car Acelas a day versus 20 6 car trains, for example)
Could the Flyer be fast and frequent? Probably not with spending lots of cash! To get to 2:30 running time, you'd need 110 mph track speed. That would take quite an investment! Is the market big enough to support fast, frequent rail service? Probably not. It would probably have to be expanded to include more population centers. Probably need lots of cash for this, too.
It's not likley anybody will find the $$ floating around to make any improvments, so status-quo Flyer vs no Flyer is the only real choice available.
An avg of 120 people a day, each way has nearly zero impact on congestion or air quality. It also has a nearly zero impact on ecomonic development. So, it's really hard to make a cost - benefit based case for this train.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
zkr123 Since there is talk of reducing or eliminating the Heartland Flyer, maybe it's time to seriously consider expanding service to Wichita and Kansas City. This could help if Oklahoma cannot afford as the costs that amtrak doesn't want to pay.
Since there is talk of reducing or eliminating the Heartland Flyer, maybe it's time to seriously consider expanding service to Wichita and Kansas City. This could help if Oklahoma cannot afford as the costs that amtrak doesn't want to pay.
The Heartland Flyer is a loser. In FY14 it lost $1.9 million before depreciation and interest. The loss was down from $3.6 million in FY13, thanks in large part to higher fares and lower OPEBS.
If only ticket revenues are considered, the loss on the Heartland Flyer in FY14 was $7.2 million. The difference in the loss is due to the support payments made by Oklahoma and Texas.
The number of passengers on the Flyer has been declining. Passengers carried in FY14 were 77,861, which was down from a high of 87,873 in FY12. The average load factor in FY14 was 42 per cent, down from 45.6 per cent in FY12.
The average speed for the Fly is 50 mph. It is another 350 miles from Oklahoma City to Kansas City. If the train stayed on the same schedule, so that it could still connect with the Texas Eagle, it would arrive in Kansas City in the wee hours of the morning. Not a good idea.
The best outcome for the Heartland Flyer is to junk it. It is another example of throwing good money after bad.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.