Heartland Flyer

[gjl]

I mean does anyone still ride this little 3 care tourist trip? I see more people in one train on the Chicago El at any given hour of the day than the Heartland sees in its entire day's load.

If it actually WENT somewhere, then we'd be looking at something cool. But who's holding their breathe that the expansion is going to happen....and have the dollars to do it? Give me a Heartland that i can ride to Chicago, well then we've got a deal.

My family rode the train from OKC to Chicago and back many times in the early 60's. As a 8-10 year old kid it was a fun trip. Walking from car to car, riding in the observation car with the glass windows on top.

[shawnw]

Those are almost always built in place of rail corridors that are no longer used - but unfortunately there really isn't any old rail corridor that could be used for that purpose between OKC and DFW. The only thing that comes close is the former Kansas, Oklahoma, & Gulf line between Baxter Springs, Kansas and Denton, TX - but that line was legally abandoned so ownership of the property reverted back to landowners along the route. The only other realistic option would be to co-locate such a trail along current or former highway or public utility right-of-way that the State owns or has some influence over... but building an interstate hiking/biking trail along a highway wouldn't capture much of the magic that makes other long-distance trails popular, I fear. It'd still be a neat thing to boast, though.

Yeah... I get it... the new river-to-Katy trail being built goes along I-40 and the car noise is not great (I've been exploring the accessible sections). Wondering if trees will be added to help with this a little.

[dankrutka]

I don’t own a car and visit OKC all the time from DFW via the Heartland Flyer.

I can’t explain how big a difference it would make to even have two train options a day instead of one.

[HOT ROD]

it's coming!!!

[PhiAlpha]

I don’t own a car and visit OKC all the time from DFW via the Heartland Flyer.

I can’t explain how big a difference it would make to even have two train options a day instead of one.

Agree 100%. I used to use it for last minute business travel (to avoid expensive last minute flights) to ftw or Dallas if didn’t feel like driving. Leaving at 8AM is great but that doesn’t put you in town until noonish. If I wanted to schedule meetings for the morning, I would have to leave a full day in advance. If there was an evening option, you could get there at 10, check into your hotel and be ready to rock the next morning.

One great thing for business travel (or travel in general) is that there’s an enterprise rent a car on site at the train station as well as most other rental car companies within a few blocks (or at least under a mile) of the station. I would always rent a car if I had to go to Dallas or Uber/walk if I was just staying around Fort Worth.

[BG918]

I wish there was more political will in Missouri to extend Amtrak from St Louis to Springfield/Joplin and in Oklahoma to extend to Tulsa connecting OKC to St Louis/Chicago.

[stlokc]

I wish there was more political will in Missouri to extend Amtrak from St Louis to Springfield/Joplin and in Oklahoma to extend to Tulsa connecting OKC to St Louis/Chicago.

Hear! Hear! I would love to use such a route!

[johnnyhooper]

A popular railfan YouTuber recently covered the Heartland Flyer on his channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1kicdwUQ7c

[baralheia]

I wish there was more political will in Missouri to extend Amtrak from St Louis to Springfield/Joplin and in Oklahoma to extend to Tulsa connecting OKC to St Louis/Chicago.

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.

[shawnw]

I don't think there's any advocacy group currently lobbying for a full OKC-TUL-STL train

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

[Snowman]

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.

[baralheia]

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.

[bombermwc]

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.

[shawnw]

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

[Richard at Remax]

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.

[baralheia]

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.

[jedicurt]

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

[bombermwc]

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.

[baralheia]

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 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.

[shawnw]

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-t...l-communities/

[baralheia]

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)). The Heartland Flyer does not meet this definition.

[jedicurt]

It's still in the planning stages, but yes, the Front Range Passenger Rail District 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

[catch22]

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.

[bombermwc]

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)). 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.

[3nglnd]

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