Amtrak News/Updates

[CaptDave]

https://www.investopedia.com/article...akes-money.asp says "No country in the world operates a passenger rail system without public support."

When will this simple truth ever be grasped by more Americans? Same goes for public transit.

The rhetoric is usually something like "why should your tax dollars be spent for other people to ride a ______ when you never ride it? If only we didn't have to pay for something that doesn't make a profit, you could get a tax cut."

Except the people who are targeted by this rhetoric never actually get the tax cut.....

What happened to the America that believed in serving the greater good and fell into this "every man for himself" nonsense?? I know the answer, but this is already more political than I wish it were, but it is the truth.

[UrbanistPoke]

@Phi Alpha - selling out 2 cars on the Flyer isn't really hard to do. They dont have many seats in the first place. But that's sort of my point. It is a novelty because it's not large enough to be able to support itself with its ticket intake. A Tulsa to OKC line would be the same. There just aren't enough people that want to deal with all the mess at each end.

Now, you take that same line and run it on a trip that takes more than 2 hours, and I think you have something. Stop competing with a car, and compete with the airplane. The train will always be slower but air travel is such a horrible cluster of awful these days, you might win a lot more fans with rail. I know the line doesn't exist, but just think about OKC to Denver. Depending on the route, the rail line may not be that far off from a car (even slightly faster) but isn't going beat the plane. But when you include the 2 hours for security, the train makes up some ground. That's the kind of longer distance travel (sort of medium distance) that I think these trains have a much better chance of being successful at.

The shorter lines, they just won't be able to win. If they could, we'd see a line from Dallas to Winstar instead of the constant stream of busses and cars that NEVER end. The convenience factor of having your own vehicle for the short distance, is just a practical reality. I would argue that the statement about relaxing or working on the train is very much a 1% view compared to the overwhelming majority. I'm not saying its going to fail just because I wont use it. I'm saying it's going to fail because there won't be sufficient user base to make it profitable without us having to subsidize it.

Many people have mentioned the Flyer. And how many years out of it's operation has it been able to fully fund itself?

The airline industry has massive subsidies, they just hide it better. How many trillions have we spent on airport terminals, runway improvements, air control towers, etc. etc. Tulsa alone has something like 200 million plus going into an air control tower and a few small projects like that. 200 million would go a long way for rail in our state too. There's a lot of the small regional flights that are subsidized too (Stillwater to Dallas and many others nationally).

You make the point that is key - you can't fully compete with cars or really airlines. It's finding that middle ground of routes long enough a car is inconvenient but short enough a plane isn't the easiest that connect major population centers. Routes like between OKC/Tulsa, Dallas/Houston, Dallas/Austin, Houston/Austin, etc are actually ripe for train travel if it is done correctly. Meaning fast speed and high enough frequency and dependability. Under 70 MPH and less than 5 trips a day will never make train travel work anywhere in the US.

[mugofbeer]

The airline industry has massive subsidies, they just hide it better. How many trillions have we spent on airport terminals, runway improvements, air control towers, etc. etc. Tulsa alone has something like 200 million plus going into an air control tower and a few small projects like that. 200 million would go a long way for rail in our state too. There's a lot of the small regional flights that are subsidized too (Stillwater to Dallas and many others nationally).

You make the point that is key - you can't fully compete with cars or really airlines. It's finding that middle ground of routes long enough a car is inconvenient but short enough a plane isn't the easiest that connect major population centers. Routes like between OKC/Tulsa, Dallas/Houston, Dallas/Austin, Houston/Austin, etc are actually ripe for train travel if it is done correctly. Meaning fast speed and high enough frequency and dependability. Under 70 MPH and less than 5 trips a day will never make train travel work anywhere in the US.

^^^^
The more large cities Amtrak connects, the more it will be used. I'd be a frequent user if there was a line from Denver to OKC.

[PhiAlpha]

^^^^
The more large cities Amtrak connects, the more it will be used. I'd be a frequent user if there was a line from Denver to OKC.

Same here. Would beat the hell out of that drive and would be cheaper than flying.

[PhiAlpha]

Yeah with flying you pay a premium for the convenience as you do with owning a vehicles…that’s why those industries are profitable. Not everyone can afford that and it doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be other options…even if slower right now.

[jedicurt]

i mean this thread is just more and more of the "well i don't personally see a use for me....so it must not be useful for anyone" argument.

[bombermwc]

i mean this thread is just more and more of the "well i don't personally see a use for me....so it must not be useful for anyone" argument.

That's not what we're saying at all. We're saying that when you invest like this, you need to invest in a way that makes sense and in a way that stands a chance of being successful. You dont shove millions of public dollars at something like this in hopes and dreams of bringing rail back to an area. A lot of what is being pushed, just does not make sense.

As okcrun said, part of my own frustration is the addition of all of the stops along the way. It's inefficient for the engine to stop and go like that (bad fuel economy) and the cost of the stop and go isn't recouped by the 1 person that might get on in podunk america. These need to be point to point express lines and the routes need to make sense. Pushing rural rail that isn't going to be attractive to rural america, is pointless. When your stop is halfway to the destination already, then you've lost that customer before you started. It's WAAAAY faster and a million times more convenient for that person to just drive.

I'm all for rail. But the way we've been trying to do it (and on the cheap mind you) just isn't the way that's going to make it successful in the long run without all of us paying to keep it afloat. And is that really the best thing?

[bombermwc]

i mean this thread is just more and more of the "well i don't personally see a use for me....so it must not be useful for anyone" argument.

That's not what we're saying at all. We're saying that when you invest like this, you need to invest in a way that makes sense and in a way that stands a chance of being successful. You dont shove millions of public dollars at something like this in hopes and dreams of bringing rail back to an area. A lot of what is being pushed, just does not make sense.

As okcrun said, part of my own frustration is the addition of all of the stops along the way. It's inefficient for the engine to stop and go like that (bad fuel economy) and the cost of the stop and go isn't recouped by the 1 person that might get on in podunk america. These need to be point to point express lines and the routes need to make sense. Pushing rural rail that isn't going to be attractive to rural america, is pointless. When your stop is halfway to the destination already, then you've lost that customer before you started. It's WAAAAY faster and a million times more convenient for that person to just drive.

I'm all for rail. But the way we've been trying to do it (and on the cheap mind you) just isn't the way that's going to make it successful in the long run without all of us paying to keep it afloat. And is that really the best thing?

[CaptDave]

I'm all for rail. But the way we've been trying to do it (and on the cheap mind you) just isn't the way that's going to make it successful in the long run without all of us paying to keep it afloat. And is that really the best thing?

I agree with this. So now the question is how do we get past trying to do it on the cheap????

It is going to require more public funding to make it viable in the manner described by many here. It will not be a revenue generator for the US government no matter how we go about restoring passenger rail to viability, so we need to remove that argument from consideration. And it will be the national government that will develop and operate any viable national rail network. That is how it is done in every developed nation that has such a system as a national asset.

Removing the outsized influence of entities with a vested interest in keeping as many vehicles on highways as possible will be the difficult part.

[scottk]

Removing the outsized influence of entities with a vested interest in keeping as many vehicles on highways as possible will be the difficult part.

You are correct.

Trying to reduce 70+ years of infrastructure built on the automobile is going to be hard. Gas stations, businesses, hotels, etc and in some places an entire city's tax base built upon what is built along the interstate and frontage roads.

If you build an efficient train system that took people from populated point A to B and bypassed these stops, there would be outcry from communities. Just look at the power of turnpike placement in Oklahoma.

Lucky enough for the auto industry, trains over long distances (especially west of the Mississippi) are not efficient compared to other methods. Most railroad tracks follow alignments from 100+ years ago, stop often in sparsely populated places far too often along the way, and can get expensive (just like airlines) when you have to pay for multiple tickets/seats, versus the automobile essentially costs the same on a trip versus one person or a family of four and can take you right where you need to go.

How much time would the Heartland Flyer save if it didn't stop in Ardmore, Pauls Valley, Purcell, Gainesville on its four hour journey to Fort Worth? Right now it averages around 50 miles an hour on its four hour journey. Would it be essentially the same as driving?

The trade-off for airlines is speed versus the costs involved. You are paying to be in Los Angeles or New York in around three hours departing from OKC. A train can't match that speed.

A few post back someone mentioned a train that could theoretically go from OKC to Denver. However, using existing infrastructure, you would go north through Newton, and then west towards Colorado, with about 15-20 stops along the way. Where maybe Wichita would see sizable detrainments and entrainments?

[PhiAlpha]

You are correct.

Trying to reduce 70+ years of infrastructure built on the automobile is going to be hard. Gas stations, businesses, hotels, etc and in some places an entire city's tax base built upon what is built along the interstate and frontage roads.

If you build an efficient train system that took people from populated point A to B and bypassed these stops, there would be outcry from communities. Just look at the power of turnpike placement in Oklahoma.

Lucky enough for the auto industry, trains over long distances (especially west of the Mississippi) are not efficient compared to other methods. Most railroad tracks follow alignments from 100+ years ago, stop often in sparsely populated places far too often along the way, and can get expensive (just like airlines) when you have to pay for multiple tickets/seats, versus the automobile essentially costs the same on a trip versus one person or a family of four and can take you right where you need to go.

How much time would the Heartland Flyer save if it didn't stop in Ardmore, Pauls Valley, Purcell, Gainesville on its four hour journey to Fort Worth? Right now it averages around 50 miles an hour on its four hour journey. Would it be essentially the same as driving?

The trade-off for airlines is speed versus the costs involved. You are paying to be in Los Angeles or New York in around three hours departing from OKC. A train can't match that speed.

A few post back someone mentioned a train that could theoretically go from OKC to Denver. However, using existing infrastructure, you would go north through Newton, and then west towards Colorado, with about 15-20 stops along the way. Where maybe Wichita would see sizable detrainments and entrainments?

Someone alluded to the lack of people getting on at small town stops...I feel like a good number of people get on the Flyer in small cities. Especially Ardmore.

[CaptDave]

^^

That is a huge part of not doing it "on the cheap". In order for HSR to take the place of, or provide another alternative to, mid-range flights of 500 miles or less, entirely new rights of way are needed to straighten out the connections from population centers. The Texas HSR project is encountering all kinds of opposition even in rural areas where the plan is to elevate the tracks over agricultural areas to maintain access to areas divided by the line.

[UrbanistPoke]

^^

That is a huge part of not doing it "on the cheap". In order for HSR to take the place of, or provide another alternative to, mid-range flights of 500 miles or less, entirely new rights of way are needed to straighten out the connections from population centers. The Texas HSR project is encountering all kinds of opposition even in rural areas where the plan is to elevate the tracks over agricultural areas to maintain access to areas divided by the line.

This is why HSR needs to be coupled with freight rail expansion. Many of the national freight lines are over capacity especially when being forced into major hubs like Chicago. Freight companies can do pretty much anything they want and this would allow for cheaper, faster, and easier right of way acquisition. Then double or triple track and electrify the lines to share between high speed passenger service and freight.

The only way to get around doing things 'cheap' is to get the airline lobby to back off and get the federal government to fund rail investment. That's where partnering with freight rail would be invaluable because they have a very effective lobby group and could go toe to toe with regional airlines for DOT funds.

Brightline is the future of passenger rail. They have adopted the Japanese investment model somewhat. Japan Rail (JR) makes most of their profit off real estate. Mixed-use development on top, inside, and around stations is where the $$$ is at and is the purpose of infrastructure in the first place. Brightline build several high-rises above the Miami station and made a ton of money off of that which helped go towards expanding services. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't have a similar model in mind for Vegas. This could be replicated everywhere in the US.

[Jake]

“No one uses X.”

*evidence of people using X*

“Not that many people use X.”

[bombermwc]

Guys, you're right, there are some people, but it's NOT many people. Less than 300 people on one train a day is NOT many people. That is not a sustainable profitable venture. That's one crappy regional jet leg to DFW.

Doing this the right way is at least tripling that on multiple trips a day on a HSR. Hell, have that thing stop at DFW and you've really got something. But otherwise, this is just a nifty little thing for enthusiasts. 300 people a day....it's laughable. Watch I-35 just going south from OK to TX for 30 minutes and you'll be several times over that.

I'm not going to argue that some people don't get on at the small towns. It's just not efficient and isn't any good for services. It's a VERY old-school method of thinking of rail like a local taxi. Fine, if you want it to be that, then you're going to have to be ok with it being slow, stop often, and not ever be funding sufficient. You're going to be paying for that through some sort of tax forever. If you're ok with that, fine, done. But I dont think we need to go back to the 1800's. My vision of rail is to get that mid-range regional jet traffic. You can turn those in to a longer distance trip just like you would with an airplane. But the local stuff? No, it's just not going to be logical or useful to any MEANINGFUL number of poeple. Again, not talking a 2 or 3 car train. I'm talking 10 cars. 3 cars is "oh look at that cute little heartland flyer that just went by. you dont get to see that often". We need it to be often enough and large enough that people ignore it like an AWACS in MWC because its so common, it's not "special".

[HOT ROD]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there's a plan for 3 round trips OKC-FTW and one round trip OKC-NTN per day. That if implemented would be the best solution, particularly if it followed a morning FTW-OKC-ICT-NTN for train 1 with evening return, a morning NTN-ICT-OKC-FTW for train 2 with evening return, and an OKC-FTW express say mid-day with a quick turn back for train 3. Train 1 and 2 would stop every town UNLESS there's no pax/mail or we could pick cities that are essential stops (like say Wichita, Norman, Ardmore) along with the OKC and FTW nodes while the train 3 would just be OKC-FTW. I'd like to see the OKC RTA solve the OKC-Norman situation with commuter rail and not have the express train 3 do that.

My point is, we don't cut out the small towns off routes (except express) but also we don't stop everytime just because there's a stop is along the route, this isn't a long distance train (it's a "Flyer") so Amtrak should be more prudent with stopping at the small towns unless theres a reason for the stops (pax, mail, dwell time, emergency, maintenance), and even if there's pax or mail it shouldn't be a long stop.

[HOT ROD]

Definitely not advocating hsr from OKC to DFW, that would KILL 'will rogers' and never make it into the Oklahoma City International Airport we're all hoping and desiring for. Can you imagine if you could get to DFW in (say) 90 min on HSR and then take a flight to just about anywhere you want? WHY would Oklahoma do that to its largest city?

,,,,,,,,

I think we need to always consider an OKC First type of mentality on these things - yes we want OKC to be connected (to DFW, Tulsa, and Wichita/Newton) but we want OKC to be the node and/or get the most benefit and not just kill ourselves for the sake of convenience, speed, or usage. If we're going to add a second train, make it start at FTW in the morning to feed Oklahoma City with Texans this time. Let's get OKC the benefitting city, rather than just the feeding city to TX.

[baralheia]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there's a plan for 3 round trips OKC-FTW and one round trip OKC-NTN per day.

That if implemented would be the best solution, particularly if it followed a morning FTW-OKC-ICT-NTN for train 1 with evening return, a morning NTN-ICT-OKC-FTW for train 2 with evening return, and an OKC-FTW express say mid-day with a quick turn back for train 3. Train 1 and 2 would stop every town UNLESS there's no pax/mail or we could pick cities that are essential stops (like say Wichita, Norman, Ardmore) along with the OKC and FTW nodes while the train 3 would just be OKC-FTW. I'd like to see the OKC RTA solve the OKC-Norman situation with commuter rail and not have the express train 3 do that.

My point is, we don't cut out the small towns off routes (except express) but also we don't stop everytime just because there's a stop is along the route, this isn't a long distance train (it's a "Flyer") so Amtrak should be more prudent with stopping at the small towns unless theres a reason for the stops (pax, mail, dwell time, emergency, maintenance), and even if there's pax or mail it shouldn't be a long stop.

That is Amtrak's goal, yes. As of right now, only the 1x/daily extension from OKC to WIC/NEW has received planning funding, but they want to add 2 additional round trips between OKC-FTW. Because the extension to NEW is primarily intended to be a mid-continent connector between the Southwest Chief and the Texas Eagle, the schedule for this train will largely remain the same as today's train and thruway bus. In the Corridor ID grant application paperwork for the expansion to NEW, the proposed rough schedule was described as follows: Depart NEW southbound at 4:20am, arrive OKC at 8:15am, depart OKC at 8:25am, arrive FTW at 12:25pm - then depart FTW northbound at 5:25pm, arrive OKC at 9:39pm, depart OKC at 9:49pm, arrive NEW 1:46am.

If/when additional OKC-FTW frequencies are studied, my best guess is that they'll space them out throughout the day. I am just a nerd with zero insider information, but I'm imagining something along the lines of adding a morning train departing FTW northbound somewhere around 8:30am which would arrive in OKC around 12:30pm; after a quick turnaround in OKC it'd depart southbound around 1pm and arrive back in FTW around 5pm - then an afternoon train departing FTW northbound around 1pm which would arrive in OKC around 5pm; after a quick turnaround in OKC it'd depart southbound around 5:30pm and arrive back in FTW around 9:30pm.

My point is, we don't cut out the small towns off routes (except express) but also we don't stop everytime just because there's a stop is along the route, this isn't a long distance train (it's a "Flyer") so Amtrak should be more prudent with stopping at the small towns unless theres a reason for the stops (pax, mail, dwell time, emergency, maintenance), and even if there's pax or mail it shouldn't be a long stop.

Everyone gets so hung up on the intermediate stops... but as someone who's ridden the Heartland Flyer pretty regularly, those stops really aren't a big deal and don't significantly add to the overall travel time. It should be noted that currently the only station along the route with a scheduled dwell time for trash removal and smoke break is Ardmore, and that dwell is usually 5 minutes or less. At all other stations, the train stops only just long enough to alight and board passengers - generally only a minute or two. Amtrak's on board crew does know whether or not they should expect to board or alight passengers at any given stop, but at least in my experience it's rare that they have a stop without anyone getting on or off. The one time I can remember it happened, we pulled up to the platform and stopped, a conductor quickly verified the platform was empty, and then we continued on - all in like 10-15 seconds. The duration of a stop is directly proportional to the number of passengers boarding or alighting, but even so they're almost always very quick. This situation may change if the additional frequencies end up significantly increasing ridership to/from these intermediate stations, but right now it's really not an issue and the intermediate station stops add *maybe* 15 minutes to the overall travel time - if that.

[bombermwc]

I'll concede that to you baralheia. My question for some of the new plans is how that's compounded if we have a line that has 10 stops. Simply because those add up. So I question the efficiency (and fuel efficiency) of stop and go traffic like that vs a long-haul non-stop. Thinking of the line from Tulsa to DFW in the proposals. If you stop at say McAlister, ok. But if you stop at 10 small towns along the way, then each one of those can start to add up over the longer-haul.

But i'll also concede that in my mind, i'm thinking the really only way for these to be successful long term, is to treat them like regional jet airlines. Medium range point to point connections. You wouldn't make the regional jet airport hop for the same reason. Yeah, that's not exactly apples to apples, i know. But at the 10k foot (pun) level, it's sort of the same idea.

[baralheia]

I'll concede that to you baralheia. My question for some of the new plans is how that's compounded if we have a line that has 10 stops. Simply because those add up. So I question the efficiency (and fuel efficiency) of stop and go traffic like that vs a long-haul non-stop. Thinking of the line from Tulsa to DFW in the proposals. If you stop at say McAlister, ok. But if you stop at 10 small towns along the way, then each one of those can start to add up over the longer-haul.

But i'll also concede that in my mind, i'm thinking the really only way for these to be successful long term, is to treat them like regional jet airlines. Medium range point to point connections. You wouldn't make the regional jet airport hop for the same reason. Yeah, that's not exactly apples to apples, i know. But at the 10k foot (pun) level, it's sort of the same idea.

In truth, your comparison is apt - that's not unlike how Amtrak envisions it's future as well. Although they still recognize the importance of long-distance routes, their primary focus for network expansion is in what they call "corridor services" - state supported routes under 750mi in length. This focus is also why money from the infrastructure bill is already flowing to states through the Corridor ID program to kickstart service development plans for these routes, and why the long distance routes we've been discussing (such as the proposed routes that would serve Tulsa) are still only in the early conceptual phase. But part of what Amtrak is intended to do is not just serve the major cities at the endpoints of a route, but also the communities the train passes through. In many cases, Amtrak is the only carrier that serves some of these places, like Purcell or Pauls Valley, providing essential transportation services that they wouldn't otherwise have. And because they're already along the route, it's trivial from a time and efficiency standpoint to have the train stop there - unlike, say, a regional jet. But you're right, if there are too many stops along a given corridor, it can start to negatively impact the overall travel time so that must be balanced with the actual community need and potential ridership of any given stop. As long as the stops are carefully chosen, it's my opinion that intermediate stops along a corridor are a net positive to the train - and in the case of the Heartland Flyer, I think they've done a good job of choosing appropriate stops.

In the case of a potential train to Tulsa via OKC, I think the only intermediate stops that make sense at first blush (without being privy to any studies) would be in Stroud, Bristow, and Sapulpa, with Chandler being a strong "maybe". The only one of these that has facilities that could serve a passenger train *today* is Bristow.

[Rover]

I'll concede that to you baralheia. My question for some of the new plans is how that's compounded if we have a line that has 10 stops. Simply because those add up. So I question the efficiency (and fuel efficiency) of stop and go traffic like that vs a long-haul non-stop. Thinking of the line from Tulsa to DFW in the proposals. If you stop at say McAlister, ok. But if you stop at 10 small towns along the way, then each one of those can start to add up over the longer-haul.

But i'll also concede that in my mind, i'm thinking the really only way for these to be successful long term, is to treat them like regional jet airlines. Medium range point to point connections. You wouldn't make the regional jet airport hop for the same reason. Yeah, that's not exactly apples to apples, i know. But at the 10k foot (pun) level, it's sort of the same idea.

Most successful rail systems have local and express routes.

[mugofbeer]

And 100,000,000 people along the routes.