Amtrak News/Updates

[PhiAlpha]

Converted to average daily ridership....

Fort Worth - 155
OKC - 121
Norman - 30
Gainesville - 14
Ardmore - 13 to 14
Pauls Valley - 6
Purcell - 3 to 4

So 20% of the daily ridership comes from stations between the two main stations. 11% being from actual small towns.

[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.

[okcrun]

So 20% of the daily ridership comes from stations between the two main stations. 11% being from actual small towns.

Or ~90% is OKC metro (OKC/Norman) and Ft Worth. Not saying that warrants necessarily cutting out the small towns entirely but they need to at least figure out a way to not stop if there are no ticketed riders at a given station. If they do add a second daily train there is really no reason it shouldn't be an express train between the two metros in both directions.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.