It'd be within the realm of possibility - a direct route exists between the two major cities, and prior to 1965 the Frisco provided daily passenger rail service, called the Meteor, along that route. Today, BNSF owns the line between St Louis and Tulsa/Sapulpa (now called the Cuba and Cherokee subdivisions), and WATCO owns the remaining line between Sapulpa and OKC (the Sooner Subdivision). Before the 2008 recession, MoDOT actually completed a feasibility study to reinstate passenger service along the Cuba sub between St Louis and Springfield, but the recession killed those plans. I don't think there's any advocacy group currently lobbying for a full OKC-TUL-STL train, but if Missouri and Oklahoma worked together, they might find enough political will and public demand to make it happen.

I vaguely remember Tulsa at least was looking into that at least a decade ago, but I have not heard anything going past Tulsa for a while and even just connecting Tulsa/OKC has been pretty quiet since that test run that did not manage to get into either city's downtown station.

You mean besides Evan (@passrailok on Twitter), he tweets about it quite a lot.

I don't follow him personally but I do follow his "Passenger Rail Oklahoma" organization on Facebook... and if I'm being honest, purely from an outsider's perspective, from what I see there I'm not sure there's enough focus from that org to help in a really meaningful way. I say that because it seems like advocacy efforts switch focus on a regular basis between "State law says we need a train to Tulsa!", "We should start service to Kansas City!" (either by way of Newton or Tulsa), and the newest kick of "Expansion to Newton sucks, what we REALLY need is to bring back the old Lone Star train between Chicago, OKC, and Houston!". I don't think I've ever seen any mention of OKC-STL by way of Tulsa, except if a commenter (often, me) brings it up. These are all desirable goals but efforts seem very unfocused.

I think we need advocacy groups with a more clear purpose and focus to get stuff actually moving. The Northern Flyer Alliance seems to have done quite well in that regard with their support of the Heartland Flyer extension to Newton, though they're perhaps a bit too quiet on the public advocacy front... they seem to prefer to foster dialogue between - and to garner support from - city, county, and state leaders to advance their goals instead.

I'd personally like to see a dedicated, focused effort on supporting the current Heartland Flyer expansion plans (with the addition of baggage service and thru-car service to KC and Dallas) that is effective both on the political side and the public advocacy side, as well as a parallel, dedicated and focused effort on supporting service between OKC and St Louis by way of Tulsa and Springfield. We need a combination of effective lobbying to local and state government, and effective messaging to the public to build broader support for these proposals.

All that's fine and dandy, but in more established and quite frank, denser areas, Amtrack isn't exactly comfortable in its balance sheet. The government has to do quite a bit to keep it propped up. So that means that anything like this, really is going to be something that needs to be supported by public funding..ie "it ain't gonna pay for itself". Now if that's important to you that the service is there and you feel like subsidizing it is fine (Amtrack is a US government company after-all), well then you're probably ok with that.

But there are lot of people out there that would say an old school passenger liner like this is unnecessary spending. They would say that a newer high speed line would be a much better approach. And there's a lot of investment that's required on that too, with a long ROI. But if you can get from DAL to OKC to STL, to CHI with only stopping at the big cities (not of that Ardmore stop crap), you're going to be much more attractive and faster. If i were choosing where to pick my investments, i'd hold out for that.

Half the country lives not in the big cities and needs those stops

Going to tulsa and stl doesn't really solve amtraks problem in this part of the country. They need a n/s route to connect all their east west lines. If they extend okc to Newton, use the SW Chief line for a bit, then spur off at either Lamar or LA Junta to Denver, they could really make it more efficient.

Going to tulsa and stl doesn't really solve amtraks problem in this part of the country. They need a n/s route to connect all their east west lines. If they extend okc to Newton, use the SW Chief line for a bit, then spur off at either Lamar or LA Junta to Denver, they could really make it more efficient.

This is true, and I've heard that the Heartland Flyer's Newton expansion and the Colorado front range rail corridor are among Amtrak's top priorities as a result. These mid-continent connections between the major E-W routes will enable passenger routing that wasn't previously possible without long detours. Once both are up and running, it'll make getting to places like Denver far, far easier and quicker than it has been previously.

This is true, and I've heard that the Heartland Flyer's Newton expansion and the Colorado front range rail corridor are among Amtrak's top priorities as a result. These mid-continent connections between the major E-W routes will enable passenger routing that wasn't previously possible without long detours. Once both are up and running, it'll make getting to places like Denver far, far easier and quicker than it has been previously.

is there plans to go from La Junta to Pueblo? i thought there wouldn't be a connection between those two. because otherwise, even after this current expansion, you will still have to go all the way to like Peoria (or wherever the station is there) to get to Denver from OKC

Half the country lives not in the big cities and needs those stops

That is not accurate. And there is no efficiency in doing those stops. Thats called commuter rail, which this is not.

is there plans to go from La Junta to Pueblo? i thought there wouldn't be a connection between those two. because otherwise, even after this current expansion, you will still have to go all the way to like Peoria (or wherever the station is there) to get to Denver from OKC

It's still in the planning stages, but yes, the Front Range Passenger Rail District (https://www.frontrangepassengerrail.com) was created by the State of Colorado to study, plan, and implement passenger rail along the I-25 corridor from Pueblo to Fort Collins, via Denver. Additionally, as part of the Southwest Chief La Junta Route Restoration Program, Amtrak is also collaborating with the FRPRD to plan and implement an overlapping service between La Junta, Pueblo, and Colorado Springs that directly ties in with the Southwest Chief - and is expected to eventually also tie in with the FRPRD's planned service.

That is not accurate. And there is no efficiency in doing those stops. Thats called commuter rail, which this is not.


Was loosely going off of the numbers form this where 31% of the US population is in urban counties.

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/05/22/demographic-and-economic-trends-in-urban-suburban-and-rural-communities/

17457

That is not accurate. And there is no efficiency in doing those stops. Thats called commuter rail, which this is not.

Intercity passenger rail is not an airplane. The intermediate stops along routes are important to bring communities into the National Rail Network, and contribute to the overall ridership of the line and the health of the given service. To use the Heartland Flyer as an example, these intermediate stops are brief, lasting only as long as necessary for passengers to get on or off the train - typically only a couple of minutes. The longest intermediate stop for the Heartland Flyer is Ardmore, and even then that stop is quite short - less than 10 minutes (often barely even 5). These short stops do not add a materially significant amount of time to the total trip time, and the benefits of these stops far outweigh the drawbacks of such.

It should further be noted that the official definition for "Commuter Rail," as defined by the Code of Federal Regulations, is: “short-haul rail passenger transportation in metropolitan and suburban areas usually having reduced fare, multiple ride, and commuter tickets and morning and evening peak period operations” (49 U.S.C. 24102(3) (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title49/html/USCODE-2011-title49-subtitleV-partC-chap241-sec24102.htm)). The Heartland Flyer does not meet this definition.

It's still in the planning stages, but yes, the Front Range Passenger Rail District (https://www.frontrangepassengerrail.com) was created by the State of Colorado to study, plan, and implement passenger rail along the I-25 corridor from Pueblo to Fort Collins, via Denver. Additionally, as part of the Southwest Chief La Junta Route Restoration Program, Amtrak is also collaborating with the FRPRD to plan and implement an overlapping service between La Junta, Pueblo, and Colorado Springs that directly ties in with the Southwest Chief - and is expected to eventually also tie in with the FRPRD's planned service.

awesome! great news and thanks for the link

The other day I saw on the news here in the springs that site selection is underway for the Colorado Springs station. Like most studies they throw out 3 good choices followed by 3 terrible choices; so I bet they already have a location in mind but they need to show they looked at alternatives. It will still be a long time away; there is some significant track work to make the BNSF/UP Joint Line feasible for passenger rail. Happy to see it inch forward, but there doesn’t seem to be any urgency to the matter.

Intercity passenger rail is not an airplane. The intermediate stops along routes are important to bring communities into the National Rail Network, and contribute to the overall ridership of the line and the health of the given service. To use the Heartland Flyer as an example, these intermediate stops are brief, lasting only as long as necessary for passengers to get on or off the train - typically only a couple of minutes. The longest intermediate stop for the Heartland Flyer is Ardmore, and even then that stop is quite short - less than 10 minutes (often barely even 5). These short stops do not add a materially significant amount of time to the total trip time, and the benefits of these stops far outweigh the drawbacks of such.

It should further be noted that the official definition for "Commuter Rail," as defined by the Code of Federal Regulations, is: “short-haul rail passenger transportation in metropolitan and suburban areas usually having reduced fare, multiple ride, and commuter tickets and morning and evening peak period operations” (49 U.S.C. 24102(3) (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title49/html/USCODE-2011-title49-subtitleV-partC-chap241-sec24102.htm)). The Heartland Flyer does not meet this definition.

What im saying is that if you ever want high speed rail, what you're saying above, can't be part of that. You are not going to get a high speed train up to speed and then also stop at 10 stops between OKC and Ft Worth. And if we want real functioning and attractive rail service, then we need that to be high speed.

Think of this from an economic standpoint. Where do you get the most bang for your buck? A couple people that cause a LOT of fuel use with the stop and go, or a full train from a larger urban stop? And that stop is not just a few minutes because there's an expense in the extra fuel it takes to slow down, stop, and then start moving again. It's HUGELY inefficient. You'd have to show a lot of financial data to convince me that the Heartland would be much better off including these stops instead of skipping them. Cost analysis between those fuel expenses, depot charges, etc and what traffic comes on.

As i pointed out (and the data provided showed), it's not 50%. 31% is close to only 1/4 out there in rural land. They're spread out and dont have an economy of scale for this type of transport. We're not running rail as the main transport mechanism here (and this line is never going to do that). You have to stop thinking about convenience for everyone and think about how is this going to be successful long term. If it was successful now and not having to be propped up constantly, then we'd see a train with more than 2 cars too. It's a token right now and what's being discussed is not setting it up to be a long term success. Just like an airplane, it needs to be point-to-point. And you dont see an airplane stopping in Ardmore on the way to Dallas.

What im saying is that if you ever want high speed rail, what you're saying above, can't be part of that. You are not going to get a high speed train up to speed and then also stop at 10 stops between OKC and Ft Worth. And if we want real functioning and attractive rail service, then we need that to be high speed.

Think of this from an economic standpoint. Where do you get the most bang for your buck? A couple people that cause a LOT of fuel use with the stop and go, or a full train from a larger urban stop? And that stop is not just a few minutes because there's an expense in the extra fuel it takes to slow down, stop, and then start moving again. It's HUGELY inefficient. You'd have to show a lot of financial data to convince me that the Heartland would be much better off including these stops instead of skipping them. Cost analysis between those fuel expenses, depot charges, etc and what traffic comes on.

As i pointed out (and the data provided showed), it's not 50%. 31% is close to only 1/4 out there in rural land. They're spread out and dont have an economy of scale for this type of transport. We're not running rail as the main transport mechanism here (and this line is never going to do that). You have to stop thinking about convenience for everyone and think about how is this going to be successful long term. If it was successful now and not having to be propped up constantly, then we'd see a train with more than 2 cars too. It's a token right now and what's being discussed is not setting it up to be a long term success. Just like an airplane, it needs to be point-to-point. And you dont see an airplane stopping in Ardmore on the way to Dallas.

You can have the stops for regular commuting and specific express trains that don't use them

^ The ACELA D.C. to Boston is a present example of this.

What im saying is that if you ever want high speed rail, what you're saying above, can't be part of that. You are not going to get a high speed train up to speed and then also stop at 10 stops between OKC and Ft Worth. And if we want real functioning and attractive rail service, then we need that to be high speed.

Think of this from an economic standpoint. Where do you get the most bang for your buck? A couple people that cause a LOT of fuel use with the stop and go, or a full train from a larger urban stop? And that stop is not just a few minutes because there's an expense in the extra fuel it takes to slow down, stop, and then start moving again. It's HUGELY inefficient. You'd have to show a lot of financial data to convince me that the Heartland would be much better off including these stops instead of skipping them. Cost analysis between those fuel expenses, depot charges, etc and what traffic comes on.

As i pointed out (and the data provided showed), it's not 50%. 31% is close to only 1/4 out there in rural land. They're spread out and dont have an economy of scale for this type of transport. We're not running rail as the main transport mechanism here (and this line is never going to do that). You have to stop thinking about convenience for everyone and think about how is this going to be successful long term. If it was successful now and not having to be propped up constantly, then we'd see a train with more than 2 cars too. It's a token right now and what's being discussed is not setting it up to be a long term success. Just like an airplane, it needs to be point-to-point. And you dont see an airplane stopping in Ardmore on the way to Dallas.

Again, intercity passenger rail ISN'T an airplane, and it's not designed nor intended to compete with airplanes. Passenger rail is intended to compete with ground-based transportation methods like buses and personal vehicles, and service to these intermediate communities along the line is very important to both the train and the community. The most recent data I can find on boardings and alightings for the Heartland Flyer is from a 2019 fact sheet (https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3478/29.pdf), and all intermediate stops combined account for a full quarter of the train's passenger activity. The long discussed stop for Thackerville/Winstar World Casino would add even more passenger activity to the middle of the line, if ODOT ever builds it. The service would cease to exist if we cut off intermediate stops, and economic activity in these intermediate communities would be impacted as well.

A more apt comparison to planes would be high-speed rail, like the shinkansen trains that Texas Central wants to run between Dallas and Houston. Those ARE intended to compete with air travel. But as both the Texas and California HSR projects are showing, HSR is a very slow and expensive proposition to build in the US - and that isn't even taking into account the numerous legal challenges both Texas and California continue to face. OKC (and Tulsa) were designated as part of the federal South-Central High Speed Rail corridor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Central_Corridor) nearly 22 years ago, but aside from a few studies, there has been precisely zero movement on getting HSR going within this corridor. Unless there are *drastic* changes to how the US funds and builds such projects, I would not expect to see HSR in OKC anytime remotely soon - so while we should be planning for the future, it doesn't make sense to apply those same rules to what we have today, as what we have today is a completely different class of service.

Also, since you bring up the money side of things - public transportation will always be propped up by public dollars. We don't expect highways or airports (and associated infrastructure) to make a profit for the functions they serve - why is passenger rail different? The Northern Flyer Alliance's FAQ says it better than I could:

Passenger trains are just another form of mass transportation and the purpose of mass transportation is to connect people and communities for commerce and economic development. That’s it. That’s why we have them. And they’re paid for through the enrichment of society. In other words, income is generated as a result of the commerce and economic development, which generates taxes that more than pays for the highways, the airports and passenger trains. It should be noted that all three forms of transportation, highways, airports and rail require both federal and state funding.
Even certain destinations for the airlines themselves are supported by public money, like AA's service to Stillwater. The city of Stillwater, along with OSU, agreed to pay American Airlines up to $2 million per year over the next two years to subsidize the carrier's operating losses for that route - which is slightly less than Oklahoma's yearly share of all operational costs for the Heartland Flyer.

China just got a train going almost 600MPH. Factor in the time it takes to get to airports and the security process, unless planes go super/hypersonic which will happen eventually, trains are closing in on being a real competitor to airlines even long distance.

If we can build nuclear power plants to power the trains my plan is to build a HSR Maglev along every single interstate as part of the next great infrastructure plan. If we can get trains going just under the speed of sound it will be a great asset for people to move around. This also comes with ensuring every interstate is made 3 lanes each way.

China just got a train going almost 600MPH. Factor in the time it takes to get to airports and the security process, unless planes go super/hypersonic which will happen eventually, trains are closing in on being a real competitor to airlines even long distance.

If we can build nuclear power plants to power the trains my plan is to build a HSR Maglev along every single interstate as part of the next great infrastructure plan. If we can get trains going just under the speed of sound it will be a great asset for people to move around. This also comes with ensuring every interstate is made 3 lanes each way.

I think this was actually 600kph which is about 375mph. It's still faster than l want to go on land.

If Oklahoma was serious about HSR the Turner reconstruction would have included space for a rail line down the median. But it doesn't. The state cares nothing about HSR or any rail to Tulsa at all.

I think this was actually 600kph which is about 375mph. It's still faster than l want to go on land.
Check this out: https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-04-25/What-s-behind-China-s-new-high-speed-rail-closing-speed-record--19wGmN5FTjy/index.html

If Oklahoma was serious about HSR the Turner reconstruction would have included space for a rail line down the median. But it doesn't. The state cares nothing about HSR or any rail to Tulsa at all.
This is true. Really a train running at just 110MPH would be a great asset. This should be included in the Turner reconstruction.

If Oklahoma was serious about HSR the Turner reconstruction would have included space for a rail line down the median. But it doesn't. The state cares nothing about HSR or any rail to Tulsa at all.

Having it in the middle of a freeway is hardly ideal, often it is just cheaper than building a better route, especially where you may not have a good existing line/corridor in and out of the major cities it stops.

Having it in the middle of a freeway is hardly ideal, often it is just cheaper than building a better route, especially where you may not have a good existing line/corridor in and out of the major cities it stops.

But in this case the turnpike is a straight shot between the cities with good rail access close at both ends of the turnpike.

Again, intercity passenger rail ISN'T an airplane, and it's not designed nor intended to compete with airplanes. Passenger rail is intended to compete with ground-based transportation methods like buses and personal vehicles, and service to these intermediate communities along the line is very important to both the train and the community. The most recent data I can find on boardings and alightings for the Heartland Flyer is from a 2019 fact sheet (https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3478/29.pdf), and all intermediate stops combined account for a full quarter of the train's passenger activity. The long discussed stop for Thackerville/Winstar World Casino would add even more passenger activity to the middle of the line, if ODOT ever builds it. The service would cease to exist if we cut off intermediate stops, and economic activity in these intermediate communities would be impacted as well.

A more apt comparison to planes would be high-speed rail, like the shinkansen trains that Texas Central wants to run between Dallas and Houston. Those ARE intended to compete with air travel. But as both the Texas and California HSR projects are showing, HSR is a very slow and expensive proposition to build in the US - and that isn't even taking into account the numerous legal challenges both Texas and California continue to face. OKC (and Tulsa) were designated as part of the federal South-Central High Speed Rail corridor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Central_Corridor) nearly 22 years ago, but aside from a few studies, there has been precisely zero movement on getting HSR going within this corridor. Unless there are *drastic* changes to how the US funds and builds such projects, I would not expect to see HSR in OKC anytime remotely soon - so while we should be planning for the future, it doesn't make sense to apply those same rules to what we have today, as what we have today is a completely different class of service.

Also, since you bring up the money side of things - public transportation will always be propped up by public dollars. We don't expect highways or airports (and associated infrastructure) to make a profit for the functions they serve - why is passenger rail different? The Northern Flyer Alliance's FAQ says it better than I could:

Even certain destinations for the airlines themselves are supported by public money, like AA's service to Stillwater. The city of Stillwater, along with OSU, agreed to pay American Airlines up to $2 million per year over the next two years to subsidize the carrier's operating losses for that route - which is slightly less than Oklahoma's yearly share of all operational costs for the Heartland Flyer.

I know you said this to counter my argument, but to me i think you made it for me actually. "Almost a full quarter".....well I think the difference in fuel efficiency and time would more than replace that, not to mention the speed attracting more customers. And the "possible" to Winstar, well that's just that and is a function between Dallas and Thackerville, not OKC. I still contend that replacing the Heartland with high speed to more destinations is more economically viable and sustainable.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm glad to see you're passionate about it though. Good to have counterpoints.

I know you said this to counter my argument, but to me i think you made it for me actually. "Almost a full quarter".....well I think the difference in fuel efficiency and time would more than replace that, not to mention the speed attracting more customers. And the "possible" to Winstar, well that's just that and is a function between Dallas and Thackerville, not OKC. I still contend that replacing the Heartland with high speed to more destinations is more economically viable and sustainable.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm glad to see you're passionate about it though. Good to have counterpoints.

It seems doubtful both higher speed and more destinations would come in the same train.

I know you said this to counter my argument, but to me i think you made it for me actually. "Almost a full quarter".....well I think the difference in fuel efficiency and time would more than replace that, not to mention the speed attracting more customers. And the "possible" to Winstar, well that's just that and is a function between Dallas and Thackerville, not OKC.
No, not at all. Eliminating the intermediate stops on the Heartland Flyer service as it exists today would not shave off any materially significant amount of travel time along the current route 4 hour route and would result in the loss of 25% of ticket revenue. The train already spends the majority of it's route traveling at the maximum permissible speed for the line that it's on - 79mph - and the elimination of the intermediate stops would save maybe 30 minutes of travel time, maximum. That small of a time savings is not materially significant with respect to it's current travel time, and would not contribute to any significant increase in ridership from OKC or DFW, as the train's travel time would still remain roughly the same as driving. Losing those intermediate stops would be an absolute disaster for the train and lead to it's discontinuance.


I still contend that replacing the Heartland with high speed to more destinations is more economically viable and sustainable.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm glad to see you're passionate about it though. Good to have counterpoints.
Replacing the Heartland Flyer with true high-speed rail would drastically reduce the travel time between OKC and Dallas/Fort Worth to somewhere around an hour and 15 minutes - but it would lead to fewer destinations, not more. A good comparison for such a service is the Texas Central Railway's bullet train project between Dallas and Houston; their proposed route is only slightly longer than the current Heartland Flyer route. Keep in mind that HSR routes require a new, dedicated rail corridor to be built that can actually handle the rigors of 200mph operation without interference from grade crossings or local freight traffic, and doing so in the United States is proving to be eye-wateringly expensive; Texas Central is expecting to spend $16 billion just to construct their line, and they are only dealing with (relatively) flat land - such a line in Oklahoma would have to contend with the Arbuckle Mountains or detour around them, which would increase construction costs. When you consider that the current state budget in it's entirety is just under $9 billion, it becomes inescapably obvious that unless a private company with very deep pockets comes along to build the line, replacing the Heartland Flyer service with HSR is not a viable option now and won't be for some time to come. And I say that as someone who's strongly in favor of HSR.

For High Speed Rail, i'm considering the additions being having the line connect back up to Chicago and the major cities along the path (Tulsa, St Louis, etc).

To be honest, i think rail in the US is really long past for passenger service outside of commuter lines. It's never going to be like it is in Europe because we just dont have the buy-in (too many cars). It's all pipe dreams, im just expressing what i think would be the better choice opposed to the token system we have now that's heavily subsidizes just to keep it afloat.

Out of morbid curiosity, what is with the fixation on Newton for the expansion of the Heartland Flyer? It seems to me it would make more sense to go DFW > OKC > Tulsa > Joplin > KC > Omaha. Sure it'd be a bit farther, but you'd add in Tulsa to the Amtrak network, you could go to both STL and Chicago from KC, and you would also gain access to the California Zephyr from Omaha.

What you're describing is pretty zig-zaggy. (edit, strike that, I thought you had STL in your list)

The thing you need to keep in mind is the funding sources. Presently, it's my understanding that the HF is 100% funded by OK and TX, no fed funds at this time. Maybe that changes with the expansion, but to do what you're describing would mean getting Missouri and Nebraska to chip in funding, which might actually be harder to do than getting federal funding for the routes that have been proposed.

It’s the easiest path forward in a state hell-bent on not expanding rail service and barely supporting the current train.

The BNSF mainline into Kansas is a well maintained, modern route capable of 60-70 mph timetable speeds. The current rail line to Tulsa is a 25-30mph line that is in rough shape and needs significant technology upgrades in regards to signaling. The price tag to get to Tulsa may be too much to stomach for an already skeptical legislative body and executive branch.

Newton can theoretically get started tomorrow if there was a train ready to go. All that really needs to be done is final coordination and negotiation with BNSF (which honestly is a battle in its own, but not foreign territory as Amtrak already runs on BNSF all over the western countryside) as well as investing in stations and sidings along the way.

It’s the easiest path forward in a state hell-bent on not expanding rail service and barely supporting the current train.

The BNSF mainline into Kansas is a well maintained, modern route capable of 60-70 mph timetable speeds. The current rail line to Tulsa is a 25-30mph line that is in rough shape and needs significant technology upgrades in regards to signaling. The price tag to get to Tulsa may be too much to stomach for an already skeptical legislative body and executive branch.

Newton can theoretically get started tomorrow if there was a train ready to go. All that really needs to be done is final coordination and negotiation with BNSF (which honestly is a battle in its own, but not foreign territory as Amtrak already runs on BNSF all over the western countryside) as well as investing in stations and sidings along the way.

And this obviously isn't just about what is best for Oklahoma City. Kansas has a big interest in having Wichita included.

It’s the easiest path forward in a state hell-bent on not expanding rail service and barely supporting the current train.

The BNSF mainline into Kansas is a well maintained, modern route capable of 60-70 mph timetable speeds. The current rail line to Tulsa is a 25-30mph line that is in rough shape and needs significant technology upgrades in regards to signaling. The price tag to get to Tulsa may be too much to stomach for an already skeptical legislative body and executive branch.

Newton can theoretically get started tomorrow if there was a train ready to go. All that really needs to be done is final coordination and negotiation with BNSF (which honestly is a battle in its own, but not foreign territory as Amtrak already runs on BNSF all over the western countryside) as well as investing in stations and sidings along the way.

Basically, this. Amtrak wants this expansion badly enough that they're willing to use federal infrastructure money to pay for the startup costs and the extra operational costs for a few years; it's important to Amtrak because the expanded train's schedule will perfectly slot in with scheduled stops in Newton for the Southwest Chief and in Fort Worth for the Texas Eagle, enabling connecting traffic without requiring an extreme detour. Also, as unfundedrick mentioned, it brings Wichita, KS back into the national passenger rail network, which various parties in Kansas have been working towards for years - they lost passenger service in 1979 when Amtrak discontinued the Lone Star. It's been estimated that this service extension could more than double the Heartland Flyer's pre-pandemic yearly ridership. And as catch22 mentioned, BNSF maintains the line that the expanded service will use to a high state of repair; if my memory serves me correctly, with some exceptions in Kansas, much of the planned route is currently maintained to Class 4 standards. That should allow for a maximum permissible speed of 79mph for passenger traffic, so aside from perhaps some capacity improvements (new or lengthened sidings) hopefully it shouldn't be a huge lift to get the service going.

The line to Tulsa, on the other hand - known as the Sooner Sub - is maintained only to Class 3 standards (60mph max), and also contains many curves, both of which require trains to operate more slowly. This isn't an outright roadblock to service - the line once hosted 2 different passenger trains from OKC to St Louis when it was owned by the Frisco (aka the St Louis-San Francisco Railroad) - but it may mean that such a service today might not meet modern expectations. A Frisco timetable from 1959 shows that at best, the Meteor - an express service with only 2 intermediate stops in Bristow and Chandler - could make the trip in as little as 2 hours 20 minutes; on the other hand, the Will Rogers - a local service along the same route that served 13 intermediate stops - took just about 3 hours. Today, driving from downtown to downtown via I-44 takes approximately 1 hour 30 minutes. Because of that speed limitation and the resulting longer travel times that could potentially impact regular ridership, the route just isn't as sure a bet as the extension to Newton.

Some slight changes to pricing options: https://oklahoma.gov/odot/citizen/newsroom/2023/amtrak--in-partnership-with-odot-launch-new-pricing-options-for-.html