Almost as if it's been set up to fail.

It's because air is what all cities push for travel between them. Rail is not looked on with a positive light in the US. It works inside the larger cities that have the density for it, but we're just not seeing the ask for it. It's the convenience factor that's at play here.

Just like flying to DFW, if i take my own car, i can get there in the same amount of time it would have taken me to go through security/wait/fly/disembark, walk to the uber/etc. But now i get to come and go on my schedule instead the airline and have my own car to get around town. The same would be true for a Tulsa train. And it would have to be Uber because public transit in OKC/Tulsa is a joke. The only way this would work is for longer haul trips and only if it's cheaper and not a great deal slower than air. And that friends, is the slow death that rail has been experiencing. Without the helper money, the Heartland flyer, with it's stupid schedule, would already be dead. And what do we actually get out of it? It's nostalgia more than practicality.

Now, you want to build a bullet train, that might work. Go between LA and SF, and you've got yourself a competitor to air. Dallas to Houston, Chicago to Indy, etc. But what's the bullet train need from OKC? It's not anything within a 6 hour drive. So where does it go?

Im not sure I agree that public transit in OKC is a joke. I was just there recently and saw PLENTY of busses in the city not just downtown (nothing amazing but still - there was plenty of transit more than ever and people were using it).

https://twitter.com/PassRailOK/status/1382839800965648387


Oklahoma House Approves HCR1003 for
@Amtrak
#HeartlandFlyer extension, OKC-Newton, Kansas and second frequency Ft. Worth-OKC-Wichita-Kansas City. On to senate next. Resolutions voices support for extension with no funding commitment.

https://twitter.com/PassRailOK/status/1382839800965648387

That action is as worthless as House leadership. Consistent though.

Amtrak is finally bringing back some of the long distance traditional dining services. I am excited for this as I plan an LAUS to Santa Fe Station(OKC) trip soon.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2021/06/03/amtrak-dining-car-service/

i think if Amtrak had a purpose dining experience it could be a revenue win and game changer for the service. Imagine during the current 4-hour train ride from FT Worth to OKC that you could also dine fine dining? Wasn;t there a dinner train a few years ago in Oklahoma?

I'd imagine as we break out of the pandemic, dining options will explode as people now far more appreciate the experience. And if the dining experience is good then it will market itself. ...

Amtrak will spend 7 billion on new train cars. I wonder if the Heartland Flyer will see any.

https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/railroads/561910-amtrak-spending-7b-on-new-passenger-train-cars-locomotives

with triple the frequency you'd think we'd have to, unless we get everyone else's old cars instead...

Amtrak will spend 7 billion on new train cars. I wonder if the Heartland Flyer will see any.

https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/railroads/561910-amtrak-spending-7b-on-new-passenger-train-cars-locomotives

This trainset order is for single-level cars, so I don't believe the Heartland Flyer or its extension would use these. We'd do well with more two-level trainsets since we don't have any height issues.

I prefer two level trains.

I prefer two level trains.

So do I. The Superliners are really showing their age - the oldest cars of the type are about 42 years old at this point - but I still find the ride and view to be superior to any of the single-level equipment I've experienced (Amfleet and Viewliner). The only thing I'm not a fan of on the Superliners are the bathrooms... they desperately need an overhaul to modern standards, *especially* on the Superliner coaches. While Amtrak is sending all of their Superliners through a much-needed refresh program to clean and make repairs, as well as replace seats and carpet, they really need to consider a third Superliner order - especially with the aggressive expansion plans that Amtrak wants to make happen.

If I had to guess, the most likely changes we'll see to the Heartland Flyer equipment within the next few years will probably be replacement of the notoriously unreliable GE Genesis locomotives with the new Siemens Charger ALC-42 locomotives that are starting to be delivered. I wouldn't be surprised if Amtrak uses this opportunity to de-power a bunch of the GE's and turn them into Non-Powered Control Units (NPCUs), allowing them to finally retire the last handful of F40PH-based NPCUs still roaming around the system. Amtrak's order of ALC-42s are all expected to be delivered by the end of 2024, so if they do this I think it'll likely happen within the next year or three.

Looks like a Dallas to Atlanta route along I-20 could be a reality soon: https://www.ktbs.com/news/i-20-passenger-rail-corridor-would-connect-dallas-to-atlanta/article_a3999d60-282f-11ee-b11e-57293ed3c613.html

I would use that a lot to get to Mississippi. Amtrak might not be interested in using it for various reasons, notably the Mississippi River potentially flooding it, but it would be awesome to see the Old Depot in downtown Vicksburg used as a passenger station again. A man can dream, I suppose.

^^^ I think a lot of passenger rail will make a comeback in the future so it probably isn’t a long stretch. Long distance rail in California particularly between LA and SF is a joke right now.

https://www.railwayage.com/regulatory/fra-announces-fed-state-national-program-corridor-id-selections/

nice to see, and with KS being the sponsor of the Heartland Flyer extension - I think this extension will be fully accomplished (thereby eliminating likely pushback from Tulsa and unserved rural OK communities).

Lots of chatter this past week about the FRA Long-Distance rail study. Finally connects OKC to Tulsa with through connections to KC and St Louis. Also shows the long-discussed connection to Wichita/Newton.

https://railfan.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/rfr-nationalnetwork-800.png

Lots of chatter this past week about the FRA Long-Distance rail study. Finally connects OKC to Tulsa with through connections to KC and St Louis. Also shows the long-discussed connection to Wichita/Newton.

https://railfan.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/rfr-nationalnetwork-800.png

Feels like every few years a new map like this comes out and then nothing ever comes from it.

Feels like every few years a new map like this comes out and then nothing ever comes from it.

Yeah, I'm 58, and I doubt I see all of these new OKC and Wichita/Newton happening in my lifetime.

Feels like every few years a new map like this comes out and then nothing ever comes from it.

The only thing that ever comes from these is municipalities and states spending millions of dollars for "studies" that usually don't end moving the needle or moving forward progress. How many studies have been done on the OKC to Newton line? I think I've lost count...

Lots of chatter this past week about the FRA Long-Distance rail study. Finally connects OKC to Tulsa with through connections to KC and St Louis. Also shows the long-discussed connection to Wichita/Newton.

https://railfan.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/rfr-nationalnetwork-800.png

Given how many green routes west of OKC would potentially serve the lowest densely populated areas of the country, thus are dubious if viable, it hurts the credibility the green routes in more populated areas of eastern half of US seriously happening.

Given how many green routes west of OKC would potentially serve the lowest densely populated areas of the country, thus are dubious if viable, it hurts the credibility the green routes in more populated areas of eastern half of US seriously happening.

All you need to know about this map: "CONCEPTUAL" "FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION".

Lots of chatter this past week about the FRA Long-Distance rail study. Finally connects OKC to Tulsa with through connections to KC and St Louis. Also shows the long-discussed connection to Wichita/Newton.

https://railfan.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/rfr-nationalnetwork-800.png

Lot of redundancies in those green lines. No need for Fort Worth to Tulsa if OKC to Tulsa is built. Same goes for Tulsa to KC if Tulsa to STL is built. MSP to KC via Omaha and Sioux Falls looks like nothing more than a sop to South Dakota since anyone going from MSP to KC would go via Des Moines.

Lot of redundancies in those green lines. No need for Fort Worth to Tulsa if OKC to Tulsa is built. Same goes for Tulsa to KC if Tulsa to STL is built. MSP to KC via Omaha and Sioux Falls looks like nothing more than a sop to South Dakota since anyone going from MSP to KC would go via Des Moines.

So it's important to remember that there are two separate but related efforts underway to expand the National Passenger Rail Network - the Corridor ID program (for shorter, state-supported routes under 750 miles in length) and the FRA Long-Distance Service Study (aka LDSS - for longer, federally-supported routes over 750 miles in length). This map is from the LDSS, and shows all of the potential segments that could be included in new or revived long distance routes, including segments already identified for potential state-supported service under the Corridor ID program - which is why it looks like there's a lot of redundancy. Not all of the green lines will actually progress past the conceptual planning phase. A more informative map to look at in the context of new long distance services would be the Proposed Network of Preferred Routes from the same presentation:

https://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=18665&d=1709072046

This map makes it more clear as to why there appears to be a lot of redundancies for places like Tulsa - it's because the FRA is considering recommending two new long-distance routes to Congress that would have stops there: Dallas/Fort Worth to NYC (via OKC, Tulsa, St Louis, Indiannapolis, Columbus, Pittsburg, and Philadelphia) and San Antonio to Minneapolis/St. Paul (via DFW, Tulsa, Kansas City, and Des Moines). This is early in the planning process, and as noted by the red callout box, further analysis would be needed to move any of these proposed routes into the project planning or development phases before any of them could become reality - and there's no guarantee that any of them will.

It's a LONG read, but I'd recommend checking out the Overview Presentation from Meeting Series 3 for more detailed information: https://fralongdistancerailstudy.org/meeting-materials/

Here's some more info from that presentation on the two proposed routes that would serve stops in Oklahoma:
https://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=18674&d=1709075275
https://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=18675&d=1709075279
https://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=18676&d=1709075283
https://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=18670&d=1709075176
https://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=18671&d=1709075176
https://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=18672&d=1709075176

It is interesting that the N/S route did not even show a secondary option to evaluate going through both OKC and Tulsa, similar to the NYC to Dallas line options for Tulsa and OKC. Since that probably does not change the distance/time much, may reduce operating costs, cuts out probably the largest potential stop not already on route whichever skip, and having more frequent train times along the Tulsa - OKC - Dallas segment can make it more viable for passengers to take in general.

I didn't screenshot it, but it's addressed in the full meeting presentation that these route preferences were chosen based on a number of criteria, not just the connection of major city pairs; enabling more rural communities to have access to the national rail network, especially in tribal or disadvantaged areas, is one of the priorities of this plan. They don't say it exactly, but based on how the preferred San Antonio - Minneapolis/St Paul route above is depicted, I think they are routing from Fort Worth to Tulsa via UP's Choctaw, Cherokee, and Tulsa Subdivisions, then Tulsa to KCMO via the BNSF Cherokee Sub, the UP Wagoner and Coffeyville Subdivisions, then the BNSF Fort Scott Sub. If my guess is correct, then that means that the SAS-MSP line could serve Eastern Oklahoma communities that don't currently enjoy passenger rail service, such as Durant, McAlester, Muskogee, Tulsa, Claremore, and maybe Nowata. If instead they routed over the South Kansas and Oklahoma Railroad (SKOL) from Tulsa and met up with the UP Coffeyville Sub in Independence, KS, then that would enable a stop in Bartlesville instead of Claremore and Nowata. Amtrak usually tends to avoid shortlines due to typically lower standards of maintenance, but since SKOL is owned by the same parent company that also owns the Stillwater Central Railroad between OKC and Tulsa (needed for the proposed DFW-NYC route), I could maybe see the potential of them trying to work together here.

All that said, my interpretation of their routing is only a guess.

You seem very clued into rail happenings and I appreciate your insights.

The sad things to me in all of this is that it IS mostly using existing lines. So none of this is going to be anything close to high speed. Rather, it will be quite the opposite. Especially with all of those rural stops. It's extremely inefficient to make those stops as compared to a point-to-point high speed line.

So i guess we've decided to go the cheap route. Honestly folks, i dont see how this is going to work financially without a LOT of subsidizing. And with the level its going to take, is it even worth it? It's one thing to call them "potential" travelers. It's a whole other thing to see them actually make the trips. I'd say the Heartland Flyer is a good example of how sad things still are with rail. It's slow and only has what 2 cars, and can't fill that. Not to mention how much has gone in to keeping it floating over the years. It's not exactly the poster child for a successful re-introduction of a line.

It's cool to see this stuff, but like others have said, until they decide to build their own dedicated rail, I have 0% faith that this will work. It's going to be plagued with the same issues they have now sharing with the freight RR's. I'm a train guy so I'd love for this to be real, and maybe some of it is, which would still be a net positive.

The sad things to me in all of this is that it IS mostly using existing lines. So none of this is going to be anything close to high speed. Rather, it will be quite the opposite. Especially with all of those rural stops. It's extremely inefficient to make those stops as compared to a point-to-point high speed line.

So i guess we've decided to go the cheap route. Honestly folks, i dont see how this is going to work financially without a LOT of subsidizing. And with the level its going to take, is it even worth it? It's one thing to call them "potential" travelers. It's a whole other thing to see them actually make the trips. I'd say the Heartland Flyer is a good example of how sad things still are with rail. It's slow and only has what 2 cars, and can't fill that. Not to mention how much has gone in to keeping it floating over the years. It's not exactly the poster child for a successful re-introduction of a line.

Correct; this study was a requirement included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021- Biden's bipartisan infrastructure bill - and is intended to evaluate the restoration of daily intercity passenger rail service along any Amtrak long-distance routes that were either reduced to a less-than-daily frequency, or discontinued altogether. It also allows the FRA to consider potential new routes, specifically including routes that Amtrak inherited in 1971 but chose not to continue at that time. Slide 10 in the overview presentation for Meeting #3 (https://fralongdistancerailstudy.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/FRA_LDSS_Presentation_for_Web_Meeting3_Optimized.p df) (the same presentation I pulled information from earlier in this thread) notes this. I know the slide deck is pretty huge at 163 pages but I'd really recommend at least reading up to Slide 21 to get a good idea of what this study is intended to do and why. If you don't have time for that, here's some of the primary bullet points:

https://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=18681&d=1709227005

It's worth reminding everyone that $66 Billion of additional funding has been dedicated to rail projects (https://railroads.dot.gov/BIL) thanks to the IIJA - and the overwhelming majority of that has been earmarked for passenger rail ($22B to Amtrak, $36B to the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail). Like many things that serve a public interest and need, yes passenger rail often requires subsidy - and that's fine, actually. But the point of all of this planning for expansion is to reinvigorate passenger rail and make it a valid travel option for as many as possible - not just adding additional destinations, but enabling additional routing options through the network that can significantly reduce travel times and even make trips possible that were not feasible before. And since you bring it up - the Heartland Flyer is not slow. It's time competitive with driving, topping out at 79mph, and honestly is not *that* much slower than flying when you take into account how early you need to be at the airport to check in and make it through security, plus parking and traffic and all that. I've taken that trip aboard the Heartland Flyer many times now and it's usually pretty full... in fact, the train was completely sold out on my last two trips. They have been running a 2-car consist fairly often lately, that's true - but equipment shortages across Amtrak's network is a big part of the reason why; Amtrak's fleet is aging, and it doesn't help that a combination of mechanical defects and derailments have caused cars to be taken off the active roster. They've announced that they are focused on returning 63 cars back to service by September of this year (https://railfan.com/in-effort-to-resolve-equipment-shortages-amtrak-to-rebuild-63-cars/), which is when Amtrak's fiscal year ends. This is in addition to their efforts toward renewing and augmenting their current fleet (https://www.amtrak.com/fleet-projects). Even *with* the equipment shortages, demand for Amtrak continues to increase, with ridership up 24% in FY23 (https://media.amtrak.com/2023/11/amtrak-fiscal-year-2023-ridership-exceeds-expectations-as-demand-for-passenger-rail-soars/).

With how absolutely eye-watering costs are for high speed rail projects in this country, personally I'm completely fine with sticking with conventional passenger rail while working toward meaningful expansion of the national passenger rail network. I'm sure you'll be pleased to know, however, that HSR is not being ignored either - funding from the Corridor ID program to kickstart the service development plans for state-supported routes has already been awarded to seven high-speed rail projects (https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2023-12/FY22%20CID%20Project%20Summaries-Map-r1.pdf): two variations of the Texas Central corridor (Dallas to Houston), the Brightline West corridor (east LA to Vegas), the California HSR corridor (SF to LA), the Cascadia corridor (Vancouver to Seattle and Portland), the North Carolina-Georgia corridor (Charlotte to Atlanta), and the California High Desert corridor (Palmdale to Victor Valley).

Passenger rail expansion across the United States is being approached from multiple angles, and the long distance routes I initially posted about are only one piece of the puzzle.

You seem very clued into rail happenings and I appreciate your insights.

I'm just a nerd with adhd that really likes trains haha :) But I'm happy to share what I've learned!

I'm just a nerd with adhd that really likes trains haha :) But I'm happy to share what I've learned!

I'll second the appreciation, you seem not just a railfan, but a railFAN, thanks for all your info. It was nice when I lived in Downers Grove, IL and worked in both the Loop and the suburbs. Walking through (and under in the tunnels for Union and Northwestern (or whatever it's called now)) the Loop was pretty cool for casual train fans like myself.

I'll second the appreciation, you seem not just a railfan, but a railFAN, thanks for all your info.

Haha, I'd say that's a pretty fair assessment. I wouldn't consider myself a "foamer" - I don't go and stand by the railroad tracks and record random trains as they pass through, and I couldn't identify most locomotives on sight alone - but I'm definitely a BIG fan of rail-based transportation to the point where I legit enjoy playing games like Train Sim World, and when traveling, I prefer to take Amtrak whenever possible. Even though I know that not all of the possible routes being discussed and studied (both long distance and short corridor routes) will come to fruition, I've never been more excited about the future of Amtrak and the national passenger rail network! Some of the long distance routes identified in the Long-Distance Service Study would enable me to to take the train from OKC to destinations that simply weren't previously feasible - places like Tulsa, Denver, Atlanta, or Omaha. More routes means more routing options to get from point A to point B across the network, which improves access and equity for all! And I'm glad that my ADHD hyperfocus can actually be useful for once... LOL


It was nice when I lived in Downers Grove, IL and worked in both the Loop and the suburbs. Walking through (and under in the tunnels for Union and Northwestern (or whatever it's called now)) the Loop was pretty cool for casual train fans like myself.

Ah that's cool! My husband is from Wheeling and he's told me how commuter systems like Metra and the CTA made getting around the Chicagoland area so much easier than it would have otherwise. I never got to live in a place like that for any significant amount of time, but when I was a kid, I did live in the DFW metro when DART opened the Red Line from downtown Dallas to Park Lane. My parents and I rode it into downtown and back the day it opened for service! We ended up moving to Houston later that same year, unfortunately.

The sad things to me in all of this is that it IS mostly using existing lines. So none of this is going to be anything close to high speed. Rather, it will be quite the opposite. Especially with all of those rural stops. It's extremely inefficient to make those stops as compared to a point-to-point high speed line.

So i guess we've decided to go the cheap route. Honestly folks, i dont see how this is going to work financially without a LOT of subsidizing. And with the level its going to take, is it even worth it? It's one thing to call them "potential" travelers. It's a whole other thing to see them actually make the trips. I'd say the Heartland Flyer is a good example of how sad things still are with rail. It's slow and only has what 2 cars, and can't fill that. Not to mention how much has gone in to keeping it floating over the years. It's not exactly the poster child for a successful re-introduction of a line.

Imagine if we required roads to be profitable be we even considered building them. I also wonder what percentage of current roads are at maximum use and making money?

The ridership levels are what they are despite the low level of service not because there is low demand for non-automobile transportation.

...
Ah that's cool! My husband is from Wheeling and he's told me how commuter systems like Metra and the CTA made getting around the Chicagoland area so much easier than it would have otherwise. I never got to live in a place like that for any significant amount of time, but when I was a kid, I did live in the DFW metro when DART opened the Red Line from downtown Dallas to Park Lane. My parents and I rode it into downtown and back the day it opened for service! We ended up moving to Houston later that same year, unfortunately.

Oh yeah, the L was great - took it from work up to the north side to hit Reckless Records and others during lunch breaks, or around the Loop to hit Tower, and we'd come in to Chicago at Union and then get on the L to go to clubs or restaurants around the city. And Downers Grove was on the BNSF Metra line, which had 3 lines, so there were expresses and locals and freight and Amtrak all flying through there at once, it was crazy at times. When I lived here before we moved up there, I used to beat the train at Western/Britton many times, could see the headlight waaaaaay down the tracks and knew it was slow enough that I could do that (young and stupid). After being up there for a few weeks, never ever ever ever again did I try *anything* when the gates were down and the lights flashing, not with 3 tracks and 60 MPH trains (or more tracks than that in Hammond, IN), or at any crossing anywhere up there, whole different ballgame.

https://www.oklahoman.com/gcdn/authoring/authoring-images/2024/03/08/NOKL/72901431007-amtrak-route-2024-b.jpg?width=300&height=854&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp

Amtrak is looking at a nationwide expansion of its long-distance routes that would, if implemented, reconnect Oklahoma City and Tulsa with cities nationwide.

The study underway by the Federal Railroad Administration coincides with ongoing efforts led by Kansas transportation officials to extend the Heartland Flyer north from Oklahoma City, where it currently ends, to Newton, Kansas.

Imagine if we required roads to be profitable be we even considered building them. I also wonder what percentage of current roads are at maximum use and making money?

The ridership levels are what they are despite the low level of service not because there is low demand for non-automobile transportation.

So, the idea is to persuade people to NOT use highways. If it takes 2 hours to drive to Tulsa by car but 4 1/2 hours by rail, few will use thec rail. The l-44 route should be used to build new straight rail with maybe 1 stop at Stroud.

So, the idea is to persuade people to NOT use highways. If it takes 2 hours to drive to Tulsa by car but 4 1/2 hours by rail, few will use thec rail. The l-44 route should be used to build new straight rail with maybe 1 stop at Stroud.

I probably would if it was 3 hours. I’m so tired of driving back and forth on I-44 that it would be worth the extra time to relax instead of drive

So, the idea is to persuade people to NOT use highways. If it takes 2 hours to drive to Tulsa by car but 4 1/2 hours by rail, few will use thec rail. The l-44 route should be used to build new straight rail with maybe 1 stop at Stroud.

A better route that for the life of me has never been looked into is connecting Tulsa and Oklahoma City through Stillwater. There seems to be an obsession with the DOT and transportation officials and Tulsa/OKC officials for the I-44 route with never studying any alternatives. Just because that the 'straight-line' or as the bird fly's route.

The current freight lines are so curvy, go through so many towns, it's highly forested, the terrain is way more difficult, etc. that it is cost prohibitive to get to a legitimate speed to make it worth not driving. The Turner now has very limited right of way which makes it even less desirable of a corridor for high speed rail or even moderate speed rail given there's little option to save on right of way costs that'd be needed to builder a straighter route to allow for high speed trains.

Connecting through Stillwater would add only 30 miles from downtown to downtown of OKC & Tulsa (if you can get much faster speed this route is would be a matter of maybe 10 minutes or less in additional time). You would also connect the university on game days to both markets plus would then connect Tulsa to Wichita via rail too. The only issue would be extending the rail line that now terminates in Stillwater over to I-35 to the Newtown corridor track that the north Heartland Flyer will use. That would be cheaper than upgrading the I-44 corridor that the biggest city it'd connect is Stroud to OKC & Tulsa. Economically, that would be so much better for the state connecting another major research institution within 30-45 minutes of both urban cores.

Tulsa - Stroud - OKC is about a 110 mile route via current freight lines
Tulsa - Mannford/Pawnee - Stillwater - Guthrie/Edmond - OKC is about 140 miles * which could be lessened by 10 miles if they utilized the Cimarron right of way from Hallet to the Y to reconnect back into the freight line. Would require 20 miles of brand new track to get from Stillwater to the I-35 connection to the Heartland Flyer north corridor.

Upgrade these corridors to allow 125 mph trains and you could get from Wichita to Tulsa in about 90 minutes, OKC to Tulsa via in about 60 minutes, OKC to Wichita in about 75 minutes, OKC to Stillwater in about 35 minutes, Tulsa to Stillwater in about 40-45 minutes. Then keep extending east on the new I-42 corridor and another 40 miles from downtown Tulsa you're at MidAmerica (less than 30 additional minutes) and 100 miles you'd be in Springdale. OKC to NWA in about 2 hours via Stillwater/Tulsa.

So, the idea is to persuade people to NOT use highways. If it takes 2 hours to drive to Tulsa by car but 4 1/2 hours by rail, few will use thec rail. The l-44 route should be used to build new straight rail with maybe 1 stop at Stroud.

4.5 hours is quicker than the current options for taking passenger rail to Tulsa. That doesn’t mean 4.5 hours is what anyone should be content with, but it seems those (generally speaking - no one in particular) that focus largely on the speed aspect overlook how many people value convenience. That doesn’t mean that speed isn’t important, speed plays into convenience, but if there’s a viable alternative it’s usually not difficult to get people to adjust their mentality.

In an ideal world, there could be an express service that goes directly from Okla City to Tulsa at higher speeds or at least makes no more than one stop, probably Stroud like you said, and a separate local route that stops at various towns along the route to service the local population. I suspect it’ll be a long time before we will have to seriously entertain such a conversation, though.

Edit: or an express route via Stillwater, like UrbanistPoke suggested. That’s an interesting thought I haven’t considered.

yes, the Stillwater route makes a lot of sense and checks a lot of boxes.

Let's get the word out so this can be considered, I agree it would be the best option while keeping costs as low as possible. Certainly doesn't have to follow the road or 'back-road' to conenct the two metros, and connecting both to the 2nd largest university is the cherry on the top.

A better route that for the life of me has never been looked into is connecting Tulsa and Oklahoma City through Stillwater. There seems to be an obsession with the DOT and transportation officials and Tulsa/OKC officials for the I-44 route with never studying any alternatives. Just because that the 'straight-line' or as the bird fly's route.

The current freight lines are so curvy, go through so many towns, it's highly forested, the terrain is way more difficult, etc. that it is cost prohibitive to get to a legitimate speed to make it worth not driving. The Turner now has very limited right of way which makes it even less desirable of a corridor for high speed rail or even moderate speed rail given there's little option to save on right of way costs that'd be needed to builder a straighter route to allow for high speed trains.

Connecting through Stillwater would add only 30 miles from downtown to downtown of OKC & Tulsa (if you can get much faster speed this route is would be a matter of maybe 10 minutes or less in additional time). You would also connect the university on game days to both markets plus would then connect Tulsa to Wichita via rail too. The only issue would be extending the rail line that now terminates in Stillwater over to I-35 to the Newtown corridor track that the north Heartland Flyer will use. That would be cheaper than upgrading the I-44 corridor that the biggest city it'd connect is Stroud to OKC & Tulsa. Economically, that would be so much better for the state connecting another major research institution within 30-45 minutes of both urban cores.

Tulsa - Stroud - OKC is about a 110 mile route via current freight lines
Tulsa - Mannford/Pawnee - Stillwater - Guthrie/Edmond - OKC is about 140 miles * which could be lessened by 10 miles if they utilized the Cimarron right of way from Hallet to the Y to reconnect back into the freight line. Would require 20 miles of brand new track to get from Stillwater to the I-35 connection to the Heartland Flyer north corridor.

Upgrade these corridors to allow 125 mph trains and you could get from Wichita to Tulsa in about 90 minutes, OKC to Tulsa via in about 60 minutes, OKC to Wichita in about 75 minutes, OKC to Stillwater in about 35 minutes, Tulsa to Stillwater in about 40-45 minutes. Then keep extending east on the new I-42 corridor and another 40 miles from downtown Tulsa you're at MidAmerica (less than 30 additional minutes) and 100 miles you'd be in Springdale. OKC to NWA in about 2 hours via Stillwater/Tulsa.

It's not a bad idea - but it has problems... the biggest of which is there is no rail route through Stillwater right now. An OKC-TUL train could definitely use the BNSF Red Rock sub north out of OKC, then turn eastbound on the Avard sub at a point called Black Bear (NW of Perry), which would take you all the way into Tulsa. To get to Stillwater, a passenger train would need to switch to a spur that's owned by the Stillwater Central Railroad (SLWC) in Pawnee and then back down ~22 miles of track into the city. From what I understand, the Pawnee-Stillwater spur has not been maintained well and I don't even think SLWC has run freight out there in a year or three, so getting a passenger train there would not be easy or cheap. That entire segment of track would likely need to be fully rebuilt to support higher-speed passenger operations. If you wanted to build some new rail south of Stillwater to connect back to the Red Rock Sub, it could be done but I don't think it'd be cheap either. This connection once existed, but was abandoned in the late 50's per the Abandoned Rails site (https://www.abandonedrails.com/stillwater-district); the old route took advantage of the flat terrain along the Cimarron River to connect back to the Red Rock sub just north of Guthrie at a point known as E.O. Junction. This probably could be shortened somewhat if rebuilt, but we're still talking about needing to build/rebuild at least 40 miles worth of track... and I'm not certain how feasible or cost effective that would really be.

One other option could be a connection between Stillwater and Davenport; SLWC has talked about rebuilding a former line between Davenport and Cushing. If that were done, it could be extended to reconnect with the line in Stillwater, enabling a routing via the Sooner Sub from OKC to Davenport, Davenport to Stillwater to Pawnee, Pawnee to Tulsa. That said, Davenport to Cushing is looking less and less likely as time goes on; it's been in discussion for about a decade now.

I assure you an OKC - Tulsa connection using existing rail would not take 4 hours. The Flyer currently gets to Fort Worth within that time frame.

I assure you an OKC - Tulsa connection using existing rail would not take 4 hours. The Flyer currently gets to Fort Worth within that time frame.

It would, unfortunately, take longer than you might think using the current rail infrastructure. It's important to note that the Heartland Flyer can make it to FTW in 4 hours largely because it can operate at 79mph for the majority of it's route due to the good condition of the track and few curves requiring speed restrictions. On the other hand, the Sooner subdivision line that goes between OKC and Sapulpa would need a fair amount of upgrades to support higher passenger speeds - but even then speeds would still be limited in many areas due to how curvy the track is. There's about 130 curves along that line - many of which have permanent speed restrictions on them, per someone who used to run trains over the line (https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/topic/eastern-flyer?reply=38314881087936318#38314881087936318). It wouldn't take 4 hours - but without some significant investment in track straightening, it would still struggle to compete with driving time-wise. You can see what I mean if you look at the official Oklahoma State Railroad Map (https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/odot/rail/Rail%20Map%202021-2023.pdf) (caution: large download) - the purple line marked SLWC between OKC and Sapulpa is the Sooner Sub. All of those little wiggles back and forth in the line illustrate how curvy the route is. Back when the line was still used for passenger service, the Frisco's quickest train between downtown OKC and downtown Tulsa - the Meteor - took 2½ hours to complete the trip, including stops in Sapulpa, Bristow, and Chandler. And that was when the track was still in good condition with superelevation through the curves. The Eastern Flyer demonstration trains added an hour to that, and only ran between Midwest City and Sapulpa instead of downtown to downtown. Without significant investment in the line to improve track condition, straighten curves where possible, and add superelevation where curves can't be avoided, I would not expect passenger service to be competitive here. I really wish I could say otherwise because I badly want a train between here and Tulsa!

I assure you an OKC - Tulsa connection using existing rail would not take 4 hours. The Flyer currently gets to Fort Worth within that time frame.

It sure as h**l would on the existing tracks. Follow their winding route on google earth or a map. If you read the post it's why l said new tracks should be built generally along the l-44 route.

It's not a bad idea - but it has problems... the biggest of which is there is no rail route through Stillwater right now. An OKC-TUL train could definitely use the BNSF Red Rock sub north out of OKC, then turn eastbound on the Avard sub at a point called Black Bear (NW of Perry), which would take you all the way into Tulsa. To get to Stillwater, a passenger train would need to switch to a spur that's owned by the Stillwater Central Railroad (SLWC) in Pawnee and then back down ~22 miles of track into the city. From what I understand, the Pawnee-Stillwater spur has not been maintained well and I don't even think SLWC has run freight out there in a year or three, so getting a passenger train there would not be easy or cheap. That entire segment of track would likely need to be fully rebuilt to support higher-speed passenger operations. If you wanted to build some new rail south of Stillwater to connect back to the Red Rock Sub, it could be done but I don't think it'd be cheap either. This connection once existed, but was abandoned in the late 50's per the Abandoned Rails site (https://www.abandonedrails.com/stillwater-district); the old route took advantage of the flat terrain along the Cimarron River to connect back to the Red Rock sub just north of Guthrie at a point known as E.O. Junction. This probably could be shortened somewhat if rebuilt, but we're still talking about needing to build/rebuild at least 40 miles worth of track... and I'm not certain how feasible or cost effective that would really be.

One other option could be a connection between Stillwater and Davenport; SLWC has talked about rebuilding a former line between Davenport and Cushing. If that were done, it could be extended to reconnect with the line in Stillwater, enabling a routing via the Sooner Sub from OKC to Davenport, Davenport to Stillwater to Pawnee, Pawnee to Tulsa. That said, Davenport to Cushing is looking less and less likely as time goes on; it's been in discussion for about a decade now.

I did mention that there is no rail route through Stillwater that would connect to the line that'd take you into OKC. I do however think that it would likely be cheaper to build new track to make that connection and fix up the line between Stillwater and Tulsa than it would be to build along the I-44 route whether it was to straighten the track or acquire additional right of way along the Turner. It would likely be better as I had mentioned to cut the Pawnee section out of that existing line and once you hit 412 past Mannford just use that right of way to go west to Stillwater, would cut at least 10 miles off the route that way too. The benefits of investing in the Stillwater route is that it's nearly halfway between OKC/Wichita which means that not only would you connect Tulsa with OKC you could connect to Wichita as well while an I-44 route would not be able to serve double duty. You'd also be connecting a major secondary market that has strong travel patterns even on non game days between both OKC & Tulsa versus connecting Stroud.

The terrain along US 412/Cimarron is far less challenging than I-44 too so if you're upgrading track to serve at least 75 mph than 412 is the superior corridor for that. Plus the demand for gamedays too would be a nice revenue boost too for any passenger rail service. Imagine being able to take a train, tailgate all day go to a game and just sober up or nap on the ride back after a game. For both OU or OSU football, basketball, etc.

I would think the turnpike authority could be interested if you pitched it as a chance to finish the Y spur - instead of having it dead end at 177, extend it all the way to I-35 and sign it as I-242 or something once I-42 is established with rail running down the center right of way. Could serve as an additional freight route between all the major cities too if you double track it. There is also no east/west freight route out of NWA so if you long term are thinking connections between all these areas and do a partnership between turnpike authority, a freight rail company, and Amtrak or someone like Brightline, etc. for passenger rail it make sense at least to me and feel far more viable than the I-44 corridor in terms of economic benefits and potential demand for freight and passengers operations.

It sure as h**l would on the existing tracks. Follow their winding route on google earth or a map. If you read the post it's why l said new tracks should be built generally along the l-44 route.

100% accurate... the line as is has a 40mph speed limit due to condition of current track. Also, even if upgraded to a higher weight limit and continuous welded rail, there are still too many curves in this line to allow anything above 60mph. That's not going to compete with Turner.

Of note, Amtrak on the Heartland Flyer route in Oklahoma, is 70mph, while in Texas, it is only 55mph and because it is BNSF, freight gets priority over Amtrak. Be thankful the time to Ft. Worth is only 4.5 hours on average cause it could be worse!

I did mention that there is no rail route through Stillwater that would connect to the line that'd take you into OKC. I do however think that it would likely be cheaper to build new track to make that connection and fix up the line between Stillwater and Tulsa than it would be to build along the I-44 route whether it was to straighten the track or acquire additional right of way along the Turner. It would likely be better as I had mentioned to cut the Pawnee section out of that existing line and once you hit 412 past Mannford just use that right of way to go west to Stillwater, would cut at least 10 miles off the route that way too. The benefits of investing in the Stillwater route is that it's nearly halfway between OKC/Wichita which means that not only would you connect Tulsa with OKC you could connect to Wichita as well while an I-44 route would not be able to serve double duty. You'd also be connecting a major secondary market that has strong travel patterns even on non game days between both OKC & Tulsa versus connecting Stroud.

The terrain along US 412/Cimarron is far less challenging than I-44 too so if you're upgrading track to serve at least 75 mph than 412 is the superior corridor for that. Plus the demand for gamedays too would be a nice revenue boost too for any passenger rail service. Imagine being able to take a train, tailgate all day go to a game and just sober up or nap on the ride back after a game. For both OU or OSU football, basketball, etc.

I would think the turnpike authority could be interested if you pitched it as a chance to finish the Y spur - instead of having it dead end at 177, extend it all the way to I-35 and sign it as I-242 or something once I-42 is established with rail running down the center right of way. Could serve as an additional freight route between all the major cities too if you double track it. There is also no east/west freight route out of NWA so if you long term are thinking connections between all these areas and do a partnership between turnpike authority, a freight rail company, and Amtrak or someone like Brightline, etc. for passenger rail it make sense at least to me and feel far more viable than the I-44 corridor in terms of economic benefits and potential demand for freight and passengers operations.

By far the easiest and most realistic option is to rework the track on the current line as they were proposing to a few years ago for the Eastern Flyer which would’ve cut the travel time down fairly substantially. I don’t think any option involving laying new rails down a new right of way is going to be realistic for a long time. Hopefully some of these long haul routes will have enough funding to allow for something like that if approved but I have a feeling they’ll try to rework old rail right of ways before laying something along the turnpike or anywhere else. Either way, I don’t think there is any way that going through stillwater would be a viable option chosen as part of one of these national routes. Just too far out of the way for it to make sense on either of them.

How was Stillwater serviced by rail back in the day? I know a number of rail routes were abandoned in the area. I think rr right of way should stay in place for future use. Now how to recover some of this is the question.

How was Stillwater serviced by rail back in the day? I know a number of rail routes were abandoned in the area. I think rr right of way should stay in place for future use. Now how to recover some of this is the question.

Unfortunately Stillwater never had any type of rail connection west or really even directly east. It had connections east toward Tulsa via the Pawnee line that still exists and southeast to Cushing which I think that line is abandoned now/does not have right of way that exists anymore. https://www.american-rails.com/ok.html#gallery[pageGallery]/1/

Any type of rail connection through Stillwater would have to be new build. The best way to make that happen in the current funding environment would be to do some sort of partnership with a freight rail company like maybe BNSF or someone similar that could take over the route and expand it and pay for a portion of the costs. Partner with OTA and say a train ticket between OKC and Stillwater or Tulsa and Stillwater would cost $25 then pay OTA the $5 toll cost as part of that per passenger so they still get their 'toll' per person and then let the rail companies utilize the 412 right of way owned by OTA. Get OTA to partner on the extension from Stillwater to I-35. Stillwater needs a faster car connection to I-35 too than Highway 51 and it's always been dumbfounding to me why the Y stops at 177 versus going all the way to I-35.

By far the easiest and most realistic option is to rework the track on the current line as they were proposing to a few years ago for the Eastern Flyer which would’ve cut the travel time down fairly substantially. I don’t think any option involving laying new rails down a new right of way is going to be realistic for a long time. Hopefully some of these long haul routes will have enough funding to allow for something like that if approved but I have a feeling they’ll try to rework old rail right of ways before laying something along the turnpike or anywhere else. Either way, I don’t think there is any way that going through stillwater would be a viable option chosen as part of one of these national routes. Just too far out of the way for it to make sense on either of them.

No doubt it's the most realistic/easiest. However, it will be VERY expensive to ever get that corridor where you could facilitate trains faster than 75 mph. Frankly, I don't see how it would be very worthwhile to have train service between the two if it's only averaging 40-45 mph or so. The idea is to build rail that is viable for commuters/travelers that can ease longterm congestion in this region. In 25 years when OKC is pushing 2 million or over and Tulsa is pushing 1.5-7 million and NWA is over 1 million the traffic along I-44/412 is going to be awful. I'd rather not have to 8-10 lane the Turner, etc. and spend some of that money building legit regional train travel that can then longterm connect into the Texas HSR system and up to the St. Louis/Chicago HSR corridors that are being planned too.

No doubt it's the most realistic/easiest. However, it will be VERY expensive to ever get that corridor where you could facilitate trains faster than 75 mph. Frankly, I don't see how it would be very worthwhile to have train service between the two if it's only averaging 40-45 mph or so. The idea is to build rail that is viable for commuters/travelers that can ease longterm congestion in this region. In 25 years when OKC is pushing 2 million or over and Tulsa is pushing 1.5-7 million and NWA is over 1 million the traffic along I-44/412 is going to be awful. I'd rather not have to 8-10 lane the Turner, etc. and spend some of that money building legit regional train travel that can then longterm connect into the Texas HSR system and up to the St. Louis/Chicago HSR corridors that are being planned too.

The new upgraded Turner should have been built with space in the median for high speed rail. OTA would get a cut of every ticket and at 200+ MPH you could travel the entire turnpike route in under 26 minutes. Downtown to downtown in probably under 45 minutes.

If the state were forward thinking.

... Stillwater needs a faster car connection to I-35 too than Highway 51 and it's always been dumbfounding to me why the Y stops at 177 versus going all the way to I-35.

When they built the turnpike spur, there was way less west of Western road, so the stoplights would not be there yet and speed probably was higher further into town. So would be easy to for OTA to look at that kind of situation and expect a low percentage of people would take the option of a tolled route if it were present.

No doubt it's the most realistic/easiest. However, it will be VERY expensive to ever get that corridor where you could facilitate trains faster than 75 mph. Frankly, I don't see how it would be very worthwhile to have train service between the two if it's only averaging 40-45 mph or so. The idea is to build rail that is viable for commuters/travelers that can ease longterm congestion in this region. In 25 years when OKC is pushing 2 million or over and Tulsa is pushing 1.5-7 million and NWA is over 1 million the traffic along I-44/412 is going to be awful. I'd rather not have to 8-10 lane the Turner, etc. and spend some of that money building legit regional train travel that can then longterm connect into the Texas HSR system and up to the St. Louis/Chicago HSR corridors that are being planned too.

Back in the day the travel time was 3 hours even to go 117.2 miles with 11 stops between OKC and Tulsa that was an average speed of 30 MPH (with time stops included). (Link 1)

The Eastern Flyer travel time between Sapulpa and Midwest city was supposed to be 2 hours and 50 minutes without any upgrades to the tract (Speed limit of 40-45 mph) and that was with 4 stops in between (comes out to an average of 34.4 mph with the stop time included). Tack on probably 10 more minutes to OKC and 10-20 more to Tulsa if access to the BNSF/UP lines was granted. (Link 2)

The plan was to realign a few sections, add signals and a few other upgrades that would bring the Sooner Sub up to Class III which would've allowed speeds up to 60 MPH and the cost on that was only $2.35 million.(Link 3) According to ODOT and WATCO, those upgrades were made in 2016 and passenger train speeds of 60 MPH are now possible(Link 4)

If they were able to spend $2.35 Million to upgrade from 40-60 mph, then conceivably it should be possible and not overly cost prohibitive (especially compared to laying 100-120 miles of new track) to get it up to turnpike speeds (70-80 mph) which has been the opinion of OK rail advocates who are way more knowledgeable on it than I am (Link 5).

All of that to say, if conventional rail is all that's on the table, it would make a ton more sense to do it along the current line. The class III upgrade should make it significantly faster than the 3+ hour trip that was initially proposed (it should be somewhere between just under 2 hours and 2 hours, 20 minutes) and express trains and/or additional track upgrades would make it faster. I also don't think it makes sense to completely bypass every town between the two city centers if it's just conventional rail and infrastructure is already in place. Now if they were going to go for high speed rail eventually, laying new straight track along the turnpike with a few stops on the line would be a better plan but for standard conventional rail, the cost of using the current track and ROW and upgrading where necessary wouldn't be in the same stratosphere as adding a new line along I-44, would accomplish the same thing and likely serve more people between the two cities. No point in hunting deer with a howitzer.

1. https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=5928514250520991&set=pcb.5928514310520985
2. https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=725662990806169&set=a.660219357350533
3. http://chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.odot.org/SoonerSub/03-SLWC%20Offer.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0FR6ysE6LFQt7h0R5st8Tv mLLprilFOS45pRB-PET9lH4W0QYlBZDxeds
4. https://www.facebook.com/friendsofpassengerrail/posts/pfbid0uhZvHHaKYeA1nRi6xjsW3adLhN4C3sQ46MUywyd8eB8Y nEnZTqzFvLzjdpw831zPl
5. https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/what-happened-to-passenger-rail-service-between-tulsa-and-okc

Maybe they could get the Chinese to build us a fantastic elevated high speed line......

Maybe they could get the Chinese to build us a fantastic elevated high speed line......

https://media2.giphy.com/media/xT5LMPqrh7mcpYCdGM/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952143icek9p0rdc9wg270szlrhy7mv khlwzglpftco&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g

Maybe they could get the Chinese to build us a fantastic elevated high speed line......

In 1977 the town of Vulcan, WV, asked the Soviet Union to build them a new bridge after they were refused by the state and federal government: https://www.wvencyclopedia.org/print/Article/2433

Back in the day the travel time was 3 hours even to go 117.2 miles with 11 stops between OKC and Tulsa that was an average speed of 30 MPH (with time stops included). (Link 1)

The Eastern Flyer travel time between Sapulpa and Midwest city was supposed to be 2 hours and 50 minutes without any upgrades to the tract (Speed limit of 40-45 mph) and that was with 4 stops in between (comes out to an average of 34.4 mph with the stop time included). Tack on probably 10 more minutes to OKC and 10-20 more to Tulsa if access to the BNSF/UP lines was granted. (Link 2)

The plan was to realign a few sections, add signals and a few other upgrades that would bring the Sooner Sub up to Class III which would've allowed speeds up to 60 MPH and the cost on that was only $2.35 million.(Link 3) According to ODOT and WATCO, those upgrades were made in 2016 and passenger train speeds of 60 MPH are now possible(Link 4)

If they were able to spend $2.35 Million to upgrade from 40-60 mph, then conceivably it should be possible and not overly cost prohibitive (especially compared to laying 100-120 miles of new track) to get it up to turnpike speeds (70-80 mph) which has been the opinion of OK rail advocates who are way more knowledgeable on it than I am (Link 5).

All of that to say, if conventional rail is all that's on the table, it would make a ton more sense to do it along the current line. The class III upgrade should make it significantly faster than the 3+ hour trip that was initially proposed (it should be somewhere between just under 2 hours and 2 hours, 20 minutes) and express trains and/or additional track upgrades would make it faster. I also don't think it makes sense to completely bypass every town between the two city centers if it's just conventional rail and infrastructure is already in place. Now if they were going to go for high speed rail eventually, laying new straight track along the turnpike with a few stops on the line would be a better plan but for standard conventional rail, the cost of using the current track and ROW and upgrading where necessary wouldn't be in the same stratosphere as adding a new line along I-44, would accomplish the same thing and likely serve more people between the two cities. No point in hunting deer with a howitzer.

1. https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=5928514250520991&set=pcb.5928514310520985
2. https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=725662990806169&set=a.660219357350533
3. http://chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.odot.org/SoonerSub/03-SLWC%20Offer.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0FR6ysE6LFQt7h0R5st8Tv mLLprilFOS45pRB-PET9lH4W0QYlBZDxeds
4. https://www.facebook.com/friendsofpassengerrail/posts/pfbid0uhZvHHaKYeA1nRi6xjsW3adLhN4C3sQ46MUywyd8eB8Y nEnZTqzFvLzjdpw831zPl
5. https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/what-happened-to-passenger-rail-service-between-tulsa-and-okc

So what's the plan for how they get around on either end once they get there? Both cities have crap public transit that doesn't go to a LOT of the city. Do they just have to rely on an Uber once they get there? It works very well for airlines, so i'm not saying it wouldn't work here. But point to point is only part of the conversation. If you dont have start to destination worked out too, then it's all for not.

I still would argue that the vast majority of people won't use this unless it beats a car in terms of speed and convenience. Long distance is one thing where a flight definitely does that so I'm not driving. But if the train is going to go slower than my car, stop 4 times along the way, take twice as long as my car, and then I have to figure out transport once I get there.....well you're really not winning over customers. There are only so many people that would do that just to purposely make the point that it can be done. It has to be easy and flow smoothly for it to work for the broad public. If you're grandma can't do it on her own, then you're not doing it right. I would also say that you're going to have to fill more than 2 train cars to each way to make it profitable too. What I would prefer that we NOT do, is open something like this up and then have to subsidize it to keep it going with empty cars running back and forth.

We're not built like Europe folks and a lot of the benefits of trains, as much as we all like them, were lost decades ago to other forms of transit. Passenger rail especially. A lot of freight moves this way, but that's a much different story to passenger rail.

So what's the plan for how they get around on either end once they get there? Both cities have crap public transit that doesn't go to a LOT of the city. Do they just have to rely on an Uber once they get there? It works very well for airlines, so i'm not saying it wouldn't work here. But point to point is only part of the conversation. If you dont have start to destination worked out too, then it's all for not.

I still would argue that the vast majority of people won't use this unless it beats a car in terms of speed and convenience. Long distance is one thing where a flight definitely does that so I'm not driving. But if the train is going to go slower than my car, stop 4 times along the way, take twice as long as my car, and then I have to figure out transport once I get there.....well you're really not winning over customers. There are only so many people that would do that just to purposely make the point that it can be done. It has to be easy and flow smoothly for it to work for the broad public. If you're grandma can't do it on her own, then you're not doing it right. I would also say that you're going to have to fill more than 2 train cars to each way to make it profitable too. What I would prefer that we NOT do, is open something like this up and then have to subsidize it to keep it going with empty cars running back and forth.

We're not built like Europe folks and a lot of the benefits of trains, as much as we all like them, were lost decades ago to other forms of transit. Passenger rail especially. A lot of freight moves this way, but that's a much different story to passenger rail.

Yeah I mean probably Uber, lime scooters, etc just like most people I know do if they live downtown in either city, are going out and will be drinking, are going out in somewhere that has decent transit like Denver but the light rail doesn’t make it all the way to their destination, and when visiting another city in general. You, your circle of friends and possibly your generation (I don’t know how old you are so sorry if assuming) might not do this much, but that type of thing is extremely common. Additionally Fort Worth’s train station has an enterprise rental car facility onsite as well as several other companies a short walk or Uber from the train station. I used to utilize that all the time if traveling for business last minute when flights to DFW or love were insanely expensive when I needed to go. Sitting on a train for 30 minutes to an hour longer than the drive but being able to relax or work during that time was great and if I only needed to go to Fort Worth it was often comparable in total travel time to flying.

For one, now that the tracks have been upgraded…it would not take double the driving time even with 4 stops, it should at most be just under an 2.5 hours but more likely closer to 2 hours even.. As long as the train ran from downtown to downtown, has a schedule that works and can travel at 60 mph (as it can now), I think it could work. If additionally, you ran some express trains, it would only be about 10-20 minutes longer than the drive…which for most people I know that commute frequently between OKC and Tulsa…the trade off of being able to relax, work or whatever and not have to drive the damn turnpike all the time would be worth it most of the time even at an 40 minutes longer. Especially if just going to Thunder games or events in either direction. If you’re going to either city for something that involves travel way outside of downtown and are on a tight schedule…it would probably be easier to drive but I would guess that the final destinations for people traveling to both cities decrease the farther you get from the cores.

That said, realistically I think it needs to be upgraded to run at 70-85 mph to be adopted as an option on a wide scale which should be possible.