quote:A grassroots organization of Oklahoma and Kansas leaders urged commissioners to pass a resolution encouraging the Kansas Legislature to support plans to establish new, more convenient passenger rail service between Kansas City and the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
quote: The key to its future in Kansas, though, is to get the state to become a funding source. Proponents estimate it will take about $5 million worth of track improvements between Newton and Oklahoma City. The rest of the track is in place and meets passenger rail standards, said Evan Stair, the Oklahoma director of the Northern Flyer Alliance
quote: Stair said the biggest problem facing passenger trains was that they were often made to wait behind freight trains. But he said if state governments started investing in improvements to railroad tracks which would still be owned by the rail companies the states would be in a position to pressure the railroads to give more preference to passenger trains.
Any chance of happening?
Posts: 30 | From: Colorado | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the states (Kansas in this case.....Oklahoma has already bought in I believe) are willing to pony up the money, then yes, there is a chance of getting something from Kansas City to Ft. Worth.
Pressuring the freight railroads about giving preference to passenger trains might be a reach but an extension of the existing Heartland Flyer is certainly not out of the question.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Stair said the biggest problem facing passenger trains was that they were often made to wait behind freight trains. But he said if state governments started investing in improvements to railroad tracks which would still be owned by the rail companies the states would be in a position to pressure the railroads to give more preference to passenger trains.
I'll go along with that; if a road has agreed to accept publicly funded improvements being made to support efficient operation of additional passenger trains, fine. Apparently, in Southern California, UP has agreed to just that with regards to Metrolink service.
But what I continue to find fault with are the advocacy groups that seem to think than an investor owned road should simply "lay down' and otherwise subordinate their own operations to the needs of Amtrak LD trains. While possibly a case could be made that "Amtrak pays its fair share' over a route in which the capacity is hardly being touched (a condition quite prevalent on A-Day), if the opportunity costs of a priority freight train that the road simply cannot run or is delayed account Amtrak operations, then Amtrak is definitely on that road at bargain basement rates.
Wisely Amtrak, even if there is some controlling language in a law granting them such, is not overly aggressive in the enforcement of any such "rights' - but it appears that there are advocacy groups out there that believe they should be otherwise.
disclaimer; author holds positions in BNI and NSC both S&P outperform CY 07 and YTD 08.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
The clear and consistant presentation of your viewpoint on this issue over the years is one that I appreciate. Yes, I advocate for 'moderate' expansion of rail passenger routes but I have avoided becoming militant about doing that......and I managed to be polite when accepting a greeting from Norm Mineta shaking his right hand while holding a picket sign with my left.
My moderation is thanks, in part, to your constant reminding that the tracks belong to UP or NS or BNSF or whomever and not to the taxpayer. Amtrak management is wise not to burn the bridges their trains must cross tomorrow.
Someday perhaps we'll go on about the definition of 'moderate' as that can be a bit subjective.
Thanks for the benefit of your experience, your viewpoint, and respect for those of us on the edge of the lunatic fringe!
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Lawrence Journal-World... the most liberal newspaper in the State of Kansas.
The Northern Flyer Alliance ( http://www.northflyer.org/ ) is encouraging the LAWRENCE CITY COMMISSION to in turn encourage the Kansas Legislature.
There was a report a month or so ago that Kansas had a shortfall in current tax receipt accounts, thanks to the subprime mess. BTW, last year KS voted an aggressive education funding plan, and year 2 bet the ranch on tax growth.
No, the only way this segment of the Texas Chief is coming back is if Amtrak sponsors it all by itself, IMO.
John a metro KC voter (MO side) since 1989
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
The Eastbound Heartland Flyer arrives at Oklahoma City at 9:39 p.m. The Eastbound Southwest Chief departs at Newton at 3:01 a.m. CST. Newton is 201 miles from Oklahoma City. This connection would require a minimum average speed of 37 mph, ignoring car coupling times.
The Westbound Southwest Chief arrives at Newton at 3:25 a.m. The Westbound Heartland departs Oklahoma City at 8:25 a.m. The minimum connecting average speed would be 40 mph, ignoring uncoupling times.
This route is reasonably flat and straight.
These speed numbers are not out of reason.
The result would be a new transcontinental route serving new long distance, high revenue markets, Chicago, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Ft. Worth. San Antonio, El Paso, Tucson, Los Angeles. It would require a new sleeper between Chicago and Ft. Worth.
If Amtrak management thought in terms of marginal costs and marginal revenue, it might have done this long ago.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The trouble with this proposed route (as the current schedule stands) is that nearly all travel will be during the night. Nobody is going to use it for local travel at 2.00am and it is all well and good to propose a through sleeper and coach for LD passengers but you would need FOUR such sets ie both ways into and out of the east- and west-bound SWCs. The logistics of de- and re-coupling at Newton might take some time!
Would a separate Denver - Texas service be a better alternative?
Posts: 395 | From: england | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Getting up in the middle of the night to change trains. I've actually done that ... as a bachelor, with minimum baggage, in Germany (where the trains do run on time), in pure Foamer mode.
I think any family of 4 with kids under 10 wanting to go from Kansas City to Oklahoma City would probably be better off flying SWA.
BTW, is there anywhere along the line now where Amtrak actually cuts passenger cars in/out of a consist? The last time I checked, switching with passengers aboard was well nigh a lost art in the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: BTW, is there anywhere along the line now where Amtrak actually cuts passenger cars in/out of a consist? The last time I checked, switching with passengers aboard was well nigh a lost art in the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.
Spokane, Washington where the Portland and Seattle sections of the Empire Builder are divided/combined. San Antonion where the Texas Eagle cars are put in /taken out of the Sunset Limited. I believe that for part of the year there is an extra coach on the Texas Eagle Chicago to St. Louis and on the Empire Builder Chicago to Minneapolis, but not sure of these.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was on the EB in November in the Portland Section Sleeper which is generaly the last car in the consist, however, a coach was the last car from Chicago to Minneapolis. When we left Minneapolis the car simply stayed.
Posts: 139 | From: myrtle creek oregon | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Mr. Harris, a coach is sometimes left in MSP overnight to go to CHI in the morning. Makes for an interesting consist, as it is tacked on after the Portland sleeper. From rear forward the order is CHI-MSP coach, PDX sleeper, PDX coach, Sightseer Lounge, and then the Seattle section.
I like Mr. Williams idea of Denver-Ft. Worth service through OKC and Wichita. Let's just make it Houston to Seattle while we're at it, and call it the Texas Pioneer. It would add a huge number of possible city pairs with reasonable connectivity (including the ever popular Cut Bank to Sanderson with a layover in Newton).
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another scenario would have the Texas Eagle, become the Texas Chief - split off the SWC at KC then onto OK City and Ft.Worth.
St. Louis has good service from Chicago now but what is lacking is decent service from the southeast to the west. Why not create the much discussed Dallas section of the Crescent routed via Meridian- Shreveport-Dallas. This 'Louisiana Eagle' would cover all the same Texas cities now handled by the Texas Eagle except Texarkana. Meridian to Dallas mileage about 540. Chicago to Dallas via current Eagle - 990, savings of 450 miles. UP would likely go for it since less route miles on them.
That savings could be used to add the missing Newton to OK City link and perhaps continue one of the Chi-St.Louis trains on to Little Rock. Or, my preference, provide additional service Chicago to KC and then on to Texas rather than split from SWC.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the federal government is not of a mind to insist upon the honoring of agreements made between Amtrak and host railroads, why would the states be in a better position to do so?
Posts: 255 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I note that there was not one mention of the word Amtrak in that article.
This investment is for the bottom line.
Disclaimer: IRA position in UNP, outperforming the S&P500 in 2007.
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: BTW, is there anywhere along the line now where Amtrak actually cuts passenger cars in/out of a consist? The last time I checked, switching with passengers aboard was well nigh a lost art in the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.
Spokane, Washington where the Portland and Seattle sections of the Empire Builder are divided/combined. San Antonion where the Texas Eagle cars are put in /taken out of the Sunset Limited. I believe that for part of the year there is an extra coach on the Texas Eagle Chicago to St. Louis and on the Empire Builder Chicago to Minneapolis, but not sure of these.
I agree with the gentleman. If you have business in Spokane, WA or Sandpoint, ID the arrival/departure times via Empire Builder are simply awful.
For that area, it's Southwest Airlines for me.
-------------------- Ham Radio Orange County, California Posts: 46 | From: Orange County, CA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anybody know how many spare full sets of trains Amtrak actually has at any one time (ie a minimum of 1 engine, 2 coach and appropriate baggage/cafe car & for LD, 1 sleeper).
To run the equivalent of eg a Heartland Flyer ie one round trip a day you can get away with one set, but for a long distance route over 24 overs in duration might need a minimum of 4 or 5.
I remember reading a suggestion of extending the CZ to Los Angeles, and that only only need one extra set, but if Amtrak doesn't have the coaches, there's no point in even speculating on where they might expand service.
Posts: 395 | From: england | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Amtrak has to go full-fare to get time on the line of the Kansas City Southern.
KCS, as I recall, had their last ICC discontinuance before the window of payments for joining Amtrak began. They are not a party to the May 1, 1971 Operating Agreement.
SFAIK, KCS is not and has never been a member railroad of Amtrak.
I think that means if Amtrak wants to use KCS trackage, their rights of passage don't apply. Amtrak will have to negotiate in good faith.
RResor, can you check me on this???
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Amtrak has the right to operate on any part of the U.S. rail network. That having been said, if Amtrak wants to operate over a railroad that has *never* carried Amtrak service (and that would include KCS), a new basic operating agreement would have to be negotiated. Again, by law Amtrak must only reimburse "avoidable" costs, but in fact for a new service, the railroad is likely to ask for capital investments of one sort or another. This happened when Amtrak began operating the "Sunset" between New Orleans and Orlando. CSX submitted a list of improvements, which IIRC included signaling at a couple of movable bridges, a new siding or two, and "self-restoring" turnouts (basically spring switches) at the ends of several sidings. You could expect that KCS and NS would make similar requests if the "Meridian Speedway" was expected to handle passenger trains.
But that's...just my opinion.
Posts: 614 | From: Merchantville, NJ. USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Resor, I realize that I am disagreeing with one who is active in the railroad industry vs. my removal from such for now 28 years, but I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Pullman on the point regarding right of access in that Amtrak could only 'tap' roads that received relief from passenger train deficits as of A-Day.
In order to resolve this point, we really need is copy of the RPSA '70 and/or the May 1, 1971 Operating Agreement. As I've noted here in the past at the Forum , I was a good "company man" to the end on Dec 17, 1981 and turned my copy in, even though I had obtained it "back channel' from Amtrak people I had met and worked with along the way.
But then 28 year memories have a way of fading.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
