Trains.com

Kansas & THE NORTHERN FLYER

14424 views
56 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    October 2006
  • 1,123 posts
Posted by HarveyK400 on Thursday, December 15, 2011 2:16 PM

Krum is a hamlet about 5 miles northwest of Denton, TX that might be a decent location for a north suburban stop for Fort Worth.  This would save travel time not going all the way downtown and closer than Gainesville.  

A Krum park & ride station would be a much better used facility if a second round trip is chosen rather than an overnight connection from Newton, KS as an extension of the current single round trip.

  • Member since
    January 2007
  • 16 posts
Posted by GoneSouth on Thursday, December 15, 2011 11:50 AM

The following is information that was posted today on one of the TV Station in Houston regarding the Heartland Extension.

http://www.khou.com/news/texas-news/Texas-on-track-for-passenger-rail-expansion-135651403.html

 

 

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • 1,123 posts
Posted by HarveyK400 on Sunday, December 11, 2011 3:37 PM

Sam reminded me that a separate daylight train is needed "east" of Newton.

 

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 7,170 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Saturday, December 10, 2011 11:48 AM

HarveyK400 wrote:

"...Capital costs are estimated to be $479.1M, $2,753 per annual passenger.  Two trains might account for about $50M; but I have no idea from the study report where the difference of around $270M would go to. Would the additional frequency require so much more capacity improvement between Oklahoma City and Fort Worth?

Overall operating costs are projected to be $8M a year for the new trains, $46 a passenger..."

HarveyK400:  MY guess  would be that quite possibly the figures might be for utilization of the Alternative Plan 3 . Requiring a pair of trains running daylight hours from KC to Newton, Wichita, OKC to Ft.Worth. 
  This would primarily be on BNSF tracks. via Wichita to Mulvane, To Winfield, Ark City,Ks to Ponca City,Ok  OKC , and down to Ft. Worth.   This route now, is of course freight only; so I would guess that the infrastructure would need to be up-graded (advanced signaling of the current signal system, Crossing Controls(gates,etc), and passing sidings.(?).  And whate ever other enhancements that AMTRAK, and BNSF would agree on. 
  Thee is also the question of the Passenger equipment. As AMTRAK has historically had problems in fielding more cars, etc for added scheduled runs.(?)  The Plan 3 routing is 606 miles vs. the Plan 1 being FT worth to OKC (405 miles) for the currrent Heartland Flyer.

The way these projects seem to eat dollars, $270 million might be a conservative start-up figure?

 

 


 

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • 1,123 posts
Posted by HarveyK400 on Tuesday, December 6, 2011 1:38 AM

samfp1943

Since there is much of this story on this Thread from the last couple of years. 

 I have elected to continue on with the latest information on the Proposed Northern Flyer extention into Kansas.

ON this date 12-05-2011 Progressive Railroading  magazines on-line website carries the following:   "Kansas DOT releases passenger-rail service development plan"

Entire story on the following linked item:  http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/Kansas-DOT-releases-passengerrail-service-development-plan--29070

FTA:'...The plan explores two options for expanded rail service: a night service between Newton, Kan., and Fort Worth, at an estimated cost of $87.5 million for infrastructure improvements; or a daytime service between Kansas City and Fort Worth at an estimated cost of $245.5 million.

The annual operating subsidy to be shared by participated states for the night service would be $4.4 million; the daytime service’s operating subsidy would be $10 million, KDOT officials said..."

Here is an active link to the website of the NorthFlyer.org website:  http://www.northflyer.org/

It offers a pretty good resource for following the rail happenings out here in Fly-over Country.

Note: As well :the NorthFlyer website is a resource that posts maps of the proposed regional systems (as well as HSR) Route OKC to Tulsa. and the Passenger rails sites for Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, and legislative events.

EDIT to add information:

Link to story in Wichita Eagle

http://www.kansas.com/2011/12/01/2124207/study-amtrak-service-from-kansas.html

"Study: Amtrak service from Kansas City to Texas would take a long time, cost a lot"By BRENT D. WISTROM Eagle Topeka bureau Pub 12/01/2011

[ Might be safe to add that according to various media sources in area, Gov. Sam Brownback of Kansas has been reported against any improvements or changes in AMTRAK service here in Kansas.  samfp1943]

I do not see adding 92,500 annual riders to the existing 73,600 with  the Plan 1 extension of the Heartland Flyer from Oklahoma City, OK to Newton, KS.  Did Amtrak use the same model for both daytime and overnight trains?  It seems more logical that the additional annual ridership would be the difference, 18,900, for that $155,800M capital cost, $8,243 per annual passenger, and a $3.2 operating cost, $169 per passenger.  The Amtrak connections would seem to draw few additional riders for travel south of Newton or north from Oklahoma City, averaging 26 riders a train and may compare to double the current boardings and alightings at Newton.
Conversely, it's quite logical that 174,000 new riders would be added in Plan 3 with a new train between Kansas City, KS and Fort Worth, TX.  Almost 74,000 of that would be accounted for by the doubled service between Oklahoma City and Fort Worth, leaving 100,000 new riders, 137 a train, most of whom I would think intra-state travelers between Kansas City, Topeka, Wichita, and intermediate points and the rest inter-state between Kansas and Oklahoma and Texas.  
Capital costs are estimated to be $479.1M, $2,753 per annual passenger.  Two trains might account for about $50M; but I have no idea from the study report where the difference of around $270M would go to. Would the additional frequency require so much more capacity improvement between Oklahoma City and Fort Worth?
Overall operating costs are projected to be $8M a year for the new trains, $46 a passenger.
  • Member since
    October 2006
  • 1,123 posts
Posted by HarveyK400 on Tuesday, December 6, 2011 12:14 AM

Sam1

....

The current top speed on the TRE is 60 mph.  Whether the double tracking will permit higher speeds is problematic.  There are seven regular stations between Dallas Union Station and Fort Worth T&P Station or an average of one station every 4.7 miles.  As long as the trains serve each of those stations, which is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future, the TRE may be looking to step up the speed somewhat, but having to stop and start every 4.7 miles does not lend it self to high speed running. 

The light TRE trains should be able to reach 70 mph in 2 miles and 79 mph in about 3 miles.  This is somewhat slower than Amtrak.  TRE may reach 60 mph from start to stop in a mile between closer stations.  

Would appreciable fuel be saved by cruising at a lower speed between stations?  Would the speed, or lack of it, affect riders' perception of the service?

What restrictive curvature is encountered along the route that may limit the practical top speed?  Could restrictive curves be eased with realignment or increased cant and spirals within the row?

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 7,170 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Monday, December 5, 2011 2:06 PM

Since there is much of this story on this Thread from the last couple of years. 

 I have elected to continue on with the latest information on the Proposed Northern Flyer extention into Kansas.

ON this date 12-05-2011 Progressive Railroading  magazines on-line website carries the following:   "Kansas DOT releases passenger-rail service development plan"

Entire story on the following linked item:  http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/Kansas-DOT-releases-passengerrail-service-development-plan--29070

FTA:'...The plan explores two options for expanded rail service: a night service between Newton, Kan., and Fort Worth, at an estimated cost of $87.5 million for infrastructure improvements; or a daytime service between Kansas City and Fort Worth at an estimated cost of $245.5 million.

The annual operating subsidy to be shared by participated states for the night service would be $4.4 million; the daytime service’s operating subsidy would be $10 million, KDOT officials said..."

Here is an active link to the website of the NorthFlyer.org website:  http://www.northflyer.org/

It offers a pretty good resource for following the rail happenings out here in Fly-over Country.

Note: As well :the NorthFlyer website is a resource that posts maps of the proposed regional systems (as well as HSR) Route OKC to Tulsa. and the Passenger rails sites for Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, and legislative events.

EDIT to add information:

Link to story in Wichita Eagle

http://www.kansas.com/2011/12/01/2124207/study-amtrak-service-from-kansas.html

"Study: Amtrak service from Kansas City to Texas would take a long time, cost a lot"By BRENT D. WISTROM Eagle Topeka bureau Pub 12/01/2011

[ Might be safe to add that according to various media sources in area, Gov. Sam Brownback of Kansas has been reported against any improvements or changes in AMTRAK service here in Kansas.  samfp1943]



 

 


 

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 7,170 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Friday, September 3, 2010 11:18 AM

The Wichita Eagle reports that after a public meeting recently, the decision to move ahead with TWO alternative routings, and schedules. This will be the thrust of their continuing effort to move the Northern Flyer/North Flyer passenger service through the Wichita area.

Linked is the website for the North Flyer.org :   http://www.northflyer.org/

The website contains the schedules, and routing for the two chosen alternatives and a couple of others which were also considered.

The tow best alternatives seem to be a route that would arive from Ft. Worth,Tx in Newton,KS. about the time of the current service arrival for AMTRAK  in the early morning hours (after midnight).

 The second consideration would be Okla.City thru Newton, and terminate in Kansas City during daylight hours.  

Apparently, KDOT has engaged the firm of Parsons, Brinkerhoff to study and come up with the Final Candidate for the AMTRAK service.   They are expected to render a decision by the Fall of 2011.

Seems as I stated early in this topic's Threads that the pace is that of a snail, but it is moving, even at a GLACIAL pace.

 

 


 

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Tuesday, March 30, 2010 8:40 PM

samfp1943

Thanks:  That is the one. Muchus Gracis

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 7,170 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Tuesday, March 30, 2010 7:03 PM

blue streak 1

samfp1943
Those connections were one of the selling/arguing/lobbying points we offerred in our presentations during hearings.  The opportunity to rail connect the following state capitals, Oklahoma City, Topeka, Jefferson City and Springfield made an impression on some legislators.

SAMFP:  I  hate to take up your time but do you have a web site for the complete Amtrak study? I read it somewhere but have been unable to find it again and am researching all the PRIIA proposals for a future thread. The Amtrak web site does not appear to now have it?

 

Blue Streak1:

Here is a link to the KDOT requested study for service in Kansas ( AKA: 'Northern Flyer')

http://www.ksdot.org/PDF_Files/FINAL-Amtrak-Study.pdf  

Hope this help, if not let me know and I'll see what else I can find.

Here is a link to a piece from Mar.12,2010 referencing the Kansas House's vote on the funding:

http://kansasreporter.org/58991.aspx

 

 


 

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Tuesday, March 30, 2010 6:47 PM

samfp1943
Those connections were one of the selling/arguing/lobbying points we offerred in our presentations during hearings.  The opportunity to rail connect the following state capitals, Oklahoma City, Topeka, Jefferson City and Springfield made an impression on some legislators.

SAMFP:  I  hate to take up your time but do you have a web site for the complete Amtrak study? I read it somewhere but have been unable to find it again and am researching all the PRIIA proposals for a future thread. The Amtrak web site does not appear to now have it?

 

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 7,170 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Tuesday, March 30, 2010 6:30 PM

Prairietype

Those connections were one of the selling/arguing/lobbying points we offerred in our presentations during hearings.  The opportunity to rail connect the following state capitals, Oklahoma City, Topeka, Jefferson City and Springfield made an impression on some legislators.

Apparently, the project is ginning up interest: linked her is a Progressive Railroading. com piece:

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=22768

and from a few days earlier a B.L.E.T. piece:  http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=29567

I guess this would be analogous, and paraphrasing the saying about Justice " The wheels grind exceedingly fine , and slow!" But at least it seams there is movement. MAYBE, Someday we can ride a train around here.

 

 


 

  • Member since
    February 2010
  • 8 posts
Posted by ruta66 on Tuesday, March 30, 2010 4:23 PM

HarveyK400


yes and hopefully now we will soon be able to see passenger service available to Kansas

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • 1,123 posts
Posted by HarveyK400 on Sunday, March 28, 2010 9:00 PM

ruta66

Gov. signs bill to add Kansas to rail compact

Comments (0)
 Recommend (0)

The Associated Press

- Gov. Mark Parkinson has signed legislation moving Kansas a step closer toward expanding passenger rail service.

The bill signed Wednesday enacts the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Compact and establishes the passenger rail service program in Kansas.

Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas are working with federal officials to expand Amtrak service between Kansas City, Mo., and Fort Worth. A study released earlier this month by the Kansas Department of Transportation proposed four potential routes through Kansas.

Parkinson said the bill was needed to help attract federal money to establish the line, including the purchase of equipment and building new track.

 

This is good news; and I wrote a comment to the Wichita Eagle.

  • Member since
    February 2010
  • 8 posts
Posted by ruta66 on Sunday, March 28, 2010 3:41 PM

Gov. signs bill to add Kansas to rail compact

Comments (0)
Recommend (0)

The Associated Press

- Gov. Mark Parkinson has signed legislation moving Kansas a step closer toward expanding passenger rail service.

The bill signed Wednesday enacts the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Compact and establishes the passenger rail service program in Kansas.

Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas are working with federal officials to expand Amtrak service between Kansas City, Mo., and Fort Worth. A study released earlier this month by the Kansas Department of Transportation proposed four potential routes through Kansas.

Parkinson said the bill was needed to help attract federal money to establish the line, including the purchase of equipment and building new track.

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • 1,123 posts
Posted by HarveyK400 on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 5:31 PM

blue streak 1

CMStPnP

 Interesting Study on this, just read it today.......check it out:

  http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=22768 

 

Activated

 

Actually, this is the same information as posted on Trains Newswire that I carried further.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 4:55 PM

CMStPnP

 Interesting Study on this, just read it today.......check it out:

  http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=22768 

 

Activated

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 12:07 PM

 Interesting Study on this, just read it today.......check it out:

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=22768

 

 

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • 1,123 posts
Posted by HarveyK400 on Monday, March 15, 2010 10:12 PM
I took Amtrak data from the Trains Newswire to compute this table.  Annual Cost per Rider is the average operating expense per passenger; and Annualized Cost over 24 Years adds the prorated start-up costs.  These are costs and expenses. not the losses or subsidy needed, before revenues,  On a per mile basis, Alternative 3, the daytime Fort Worth - Kansas City Northern Flyer is the winner.




Annual Cost Annualized Route Expense Annualized



per Rider Cost over Miles per Rider Cost




24 years
per Mile per Mile








Extend Heartland Oklahoma City, OK Newton, KS $34.59 $69.50 199 $0.17 $0.35
Extend Heartland Oklahoma City, OK Kansas City, MO $43.99 $110.69 395 $0.11 $0.28
Daytime Fort Worth, TX Kansas City, MO $45.98 $113.98 600 $0.08 $0.19
Daytime Oklahoma City, OK Kansas City, MO $97.12 $194.11 395 $0.25 $0.49
 
  • Member since
    October 2006
  • 1,123 posts
Posted by HarveyK400 on Monday, March 15, 2010 11:37 AM

Prairietype

Those connections were one of the selling/arguing/lobbying points we offerred in our presentations during hearings.  The opportunity to rail connect the following state capitals, Oklahoma City, Topeka, Jefferson City and Springfield made an impression on some legislators.

Dang!  Thought I was the only genius.  Needless to say you seem to be on the right track.

  • Member since
    June 2007
  • 323 posts
Posted by Prairietype on Monday, March 15, 2010 7:30 AM

Those connections were one of the selling/arguing/lobbying points we offerred in our presentations during hearings.  The opportunity to rail connect the following state capitals, Oklahoma City, Topeka, Jefferson City and Springfield made an impression on some legislators.

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • 1,123 posts
Posted by HarveyK400 on Sunday, March 14, 2010 11:04 PM

Scenario 3 is what seemed most reasonable to me. 

This would lay the groundwork for a Wichita - Topeka - Jefferson City - Springfield (IL) - Chicago or Wichita - Topeka - Des Moines - Saint Paul train, each reaching three state capitols.  Either would provide additional connections for the Southwest Limited; the latter would connect with the Empire Builder; and both save a day's travel.

State legislation for this service is encouraging news.

  • Member since
    June 2007
  • 323 posts
Posted by Prairietype on Sunday, March 14, 2010 10:29 AM

It has been a while since I posted on this board.  I would like to share some information about the campaign to return passenger rail service between Kansas City and Fort Worth.

I serve on the board of the Northern Flyer Alliance.

The NFA began as a grass routes advocacy that has morphed into a community alliance involving well over 60 city councils and community organizations,located either adjacent to or along the route. The rail fan community has been largely uninvolved and uncommitted in any meaningful way in this organization.

As the Alliance grew, a concensus emerged among the business leaders and councils that their support and effort would be directed towards daytime passenger service with a preference for morning departures from Kansas City and Fort Worth. The current Heartland Flyer schedule would remain as is.

As evidence of this support the communities heavily petitioned the Governor's office and more or less harangued the department of transportation to study the route. KDOT held a meeting two years ago on March 14, 2008 to get the recommendations of stakeholders.  The result was 4 route scenarios, for study purposes only. Scenario 3 is the concept described above.

The alliance also grew its individal membership. These citizens sent thousands of letters to the Governor which were passed on to the KDOT for reply. More recently, legislators began receiving letters, by the hundreds from citizens in their districts. 

In an earlier message, someone mentioned movers and shakers in Wichita. Although a few board members live there, the real movers and shakers are advocats in the region.  The leadership of the board operate as lobbyists, and the Alliance does in fact have a registered lobbyist in Topeka.

One of the board members developed a resolution in 2009 which passed in the senate 36-3, but was too late for action in the house. This board member drafted a formal bill (SB 409) for a passenger rail service program and had it introduced by a Kansas state senator.  It received overwhelming support in committee and then on the floor. In the House it was entusiastically sent to the floor and passed 115-5 on Thursday. Being veto proof it will go to the governor and become law next Monday.

This bill and another (HR 2552) that passed in the House will make Kansas more eligibel for federal funding which it was largely not qualified to get in the intial round of the ARRA. Still, the state received enough grant money for a Service Development Plan which is a major federal funding requirement.

This week, Amtrak released its feasibility study for the corridor with cost figures for each scenario. The major capital costs involve the BNSF requirement to double track some 15% of the route. The three states involved must seek federal funding as a group in order to secure the $500 million in capital funds required.

Leaders, community organizers, DOT officials from Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas and legislators have met monthly since summer. As planning continues on this incredibly complex effort, more effort will be placed on planning and development to enable all three states a share in the Federal-State partnership grants for corridor development and state supported service.

The current structure of Amtrak with its routes and timetables may likely be modified drastically to integrate new service on a schedule that works. It is a work in progress. The feasibility study schedules are by no means written in stone. They were proposed for study and cost analysis only.

 

 

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • 1,123 posts
Posted by HarveyK400 on Monday, March 1, 2010 5:55 PM

Farther down the road, service from Tulsa to Houston would be a nice addition to the Heartland Corridor.

Tilting equipment and Illinois' 110 mph running might make a daytime Chicago-St Louis-Tulsa-Oklahoma City train feasible.  Not exactly the Heartland; but it would offer a second round trip between Tulsa and Oklahoma City.

  • Member since
    February 2010
  • 8 posts
Posted by ruta66 on Monday, March 1, 2010 4:52 PM

 Yeah I suppose that's another good way of looking at it, and well I just hope something does get done since I think this is a route that could so much potential with overlapping travel like you mentioned and connecting services and it has to have been at least since 2006 that I've heard they want to connect Oklahoma City with Kansas City and I've yet to hear anyone complain about it so I think most people could agree that this would be a good idea.

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • 1,123 posts
Posted by HarveyK400 on Friday, February 26, 2010 5:32 PM

Another way of looking at it is that a corridor, take OKY-FTW, can have a lot of overlapping travel.  This also is true with NEC service extending into Virginia and as far as Florida and New Orleans.

  • Member since
    February 2010
  • 8 posts
Posted by ruta66 on Friday, February 26, 2010 5:03 PM

HarveyK400

Well, you got a hat for your effort.  I generally don't wear the things - makes you grow bald.

Seriously, any extension to either Houston or Austin and San Antonio would need a three hour reduction in time for the 603 miles between Kansas City and Fort Worth.  Based on a former Lone Star 12:20 hour schedule that averaged 49 mph, taking out 2:30 hours would result in a more respectable 61 mph average and facilitate an arrival before midnight at Kansas City and Houston. 

The point isn't to focus on Kansas City-Houston, few would go the entire distance.  Rather, the ridership from Kansas to Oklahoma and Fort Worth would overlap ridership from Oklahoma to Houston.




Haha yeah I'm not a big fan of hats either so I gave the Amtrak one to my dad I'm not sure what he did with it though. Yeah I agree the point wouldn't be to focus on Kansas City-Houston as a whole but more the smaller distances in between, Kansas City-Oklahoma, Oklahoma-Ft Worth, Ft Worth-Houston
  • Member since
    October 2006
  • 1,123 posts
Posted by HarveyK400 on Friday, February 26, 2010 11:24 AM

Well, you got a hat for your effort.  I generally don't wear the things - makes you grow bald.

Seriously, any extension to either Houston or Austin and San Antonio would need a three hour reduction in time for the 603 miles between Kansas City and Fort Worth.  Based on a former Lone Star 12:20 hour schedule that averaged 49 mph, taking out 2:30 hours would result in a more respectable 61 mph average and facilitate an arrival before midnight at Kansas City and Houston. 

The point isn't to focus on Kansas City-Houston, few would go the entire distance.  Rather, the ridership from Kansas to Oklahoma and Fort Worth would overlap ridership from Oklahoma to Houston.

  • Member since
    February 2010
  • 8 posts
Posted by ruta66 on Thursday, February 25, 2010 1:49 PM

 I think it would be nice having passenger service here in Wichita period however I do agree that it probably would be best if it could be during the daytime instead of in the early morning as is the case with Newton. I actually just recently wrote a letter to Amtrak about this and also about expanding service from Ft. Worth to Houston and here is the reply they sent me

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