Heartland Flyer Speed

[Lamar]

I just returned from my second trip on the Heartland Flyer, FTW-OKC round-trip. It was a fantastic trip, and I think the HF serves as a great model for the kind of corridor service needed elsewhere, especially here in Texas.

I do have to wonder, though, why the top speed allowed on the Texas portion is only 59 mph (I think). Shaving 20 or so minutes off the schedule would make this train even more popular. We didn't encounter any freight traffic of any kind north of Krum, all the way to Gainesville. Can anyone shed any light on this? I'm sorry if it's been addressed before and I just can't find it.

 

[Ryan]

Because everything is slower in Texas.

Serious answer - 59 MPH makes it sounds like the train runs through territory without block signals, but I'm not familliar with the route.

 

[stntylr]

Yes, it is the signaling which slows it down. Texas received HSR money in the stimulus but a problem with coordinating with Oklahoma has prevented the start of any work.

 

[George Harris]

No it is not signaling. In the pre-Amtrak past, or passibly pre demise of Lone Star past, the speed limit was 79 mph throughout. Based on the BNSF employee timetable of 2004, the passenger train speed limit is 79 mph in Oklahoma and 55 mph in Texas. The line is signaled and CTC throughout.

 

[afigg]

No it is not signaling. In the pre-Amtrak past, or passibly pre demise of Lone Star past, the speed limit was 79 mph throughout. Based on the BNSF employee timetable of 2004, the passenger train speed limit is 79 mph in Oklahoma and 55 mph in Texas. The line is signaled and CTC throughout.

Whatever the exact improvements are, they are not very expensive to implment. The stimulus grant to TX DOT was $3.75 million. The project titled "Crossing Signal Timing, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Fort Worth Sub" which is described as "Final design and construction of signal timing improvements at grade crossings between Fort Worth and the TX/OK border to increase the operating speed of Amtrak's Heartland Flyer." So it is just a matter of upgrading and modifying the signal timing for the grade crossings?

The other HSIPR grant to TX for a design and construction project is a $7.19 million FY09 grant titled "Valley View Double Track Project IV" which is described as "Addition of a second track between existing double track sections on the Texas Railway Express passenger corridor at MP 629.50 to MP630.9, including the construction of a new 200-foot bridge and elimination of one grade crossing." Don't know if this is relevant to the Heartland Flyer or not.

Neither of these projects show up on the FRA HSIPR obligated project list, so they are still probably in negotiation and details of the agreements wrangling phase between the FRA, freight railroad, and the states.

 

[stntylr]

No it is not signaling. In the pre-Amtrak past, or passibly pre demise of Lone Star past, the speed limit was 79 mph throughout. Based on the BNSF employee timetable of 2004, the passenger train speed limit is 79 mph in Oklahoma and 55 mph in Texas. The line is signaled and CTC throughout.

Whatever the exact improvements are, they are not very expensive to implment. The stimulus grant to TX DOT was $3.75 million. The project titled "Crossing Signal Timing, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Fort Worth Sub" which is described as "Final design and construction of signal timing improvements at grade crossings between Fort Worth and the TX/OK border to increase the operating speed of Amtrak's Heartland Flyer." So it is just a matter of upgrading and modifying the signal timing for the grade crossings?

The other HSIPR grant to TX for a design and construction project is a $7.19 million FY09 grant titled "Valley View Double Track Project IV" which is described as "Addition of a second track between existing double track sections on the Texas Railway Express passenger corridor at MP 629.50 to MP630.9, including the construction of a new 200-foot bridge and elimination of one grade crossing." Don't know if this is relevant to the Heartland Flyer or not.

Neither of these projects show up on the FRA HSIPR obligated project list, so they are still probably in negotiation and details of the agreements wrangling phase between the FRA, freight railroad, and the states.

I suppose the Trinity Railway Express project could be relevant to the Heartland Flyer since it travels on the TRE route twice a year during TX-OU weekend.

I recently read an article from the Austin-American Statesman dated last October that said the grant money had not yet been given to the state because of an issue with Texas and Oklahoma but the writer did not specify what the issue was.

I rode on the TRE route two weeks ago and I could see they had not started on the double tracking project.

 

[cirdan]

No it is not signaling. In the pre-Amtrak past, or passibly pre demise of Lone Star past, the speed limit was 79 mph throughout. Based on the BNSF employee timetable of 2004, the passenger train speed limit is 79 mph in Oklahoma and 55 mph in Texas. The line is signaled and CTC throughout.

Whatever the exact improvements are, they are not very expensive to implment. The stimulus grant to TX DOT was $3.75 million. The project titled "Crossing Signal Timing, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Fort Worth Sub" which is described as "Final design and construction of signal timing improvements at grade crossings between Fort Worth and the TX/OK border to increase the operating speed of Amtrak's Heartland Flyer." So it is just a matter of upgrading and modifying the signal timing for the grade crossings?

Though I guess 3.75 million to tinker with crossing gate timers is a lot of money for very little effect.

 

[VentureForth]

Hmmm... The Vermonter received $78 million to improve the tracks in Vermont to reduce the travel time by 30 minutes. That portion of the Vermonter not served by any other train line sees almost the exact same number of passengers that the Heartland Flyer sees on a yearly basis. Yet, the Heartland Flyer is a State Sponsored train, and the Vermonter isn't? Maybe I'm wrong, but if not, why should the Vermonter get that much more in Federal Aid and yet seemingly not have to provide as much state sponsorship as the Heartland Flyer?

 

[George Harris]

Hmmm... The Vermonter received $78 million to improve the tracks in Vermont to reduce the travel time by 30 minutes. That portion of the Vermonter not served by any other train line sees almost the exact same number of passengers that the Heartland Flyer sees on a yearly basis. Yet, the Heartland Flyer is a State Sponsored train, and the Vermonter isn't? Maybe I'm wrong, but if not, why should the Vermonter get that much more in Federal Aid and yet seemingly not have to provide as much state sponsorship as the Heartland Flyer?

The Vermonter is a state supproted train.

According to Wikipedia, 245 passenger per day average. No statement of how many of those are north of Springfield, Mass.

In addition to this $78 million, the line got $50 million from the feds for new rail north of the Massachusetts state line. Accroding to a L B Foster press release, this got them 28,500 tons of new 115 lb/yd rail, which works out to 141 track miles of new rail. Since St. Albans to the Massachusetts state line is 192 miles, that represents new rail for 73% of the entire route within the state.

The two grants together total $128 million, or over $500,000 per daily passenger. How about this much per passenger on the Albuquerque to Kansas City portion of the Southwest Chief route. It could get the whole thing up to a smooth riding 90 mph, or even go for 110 mph. How much time would that take out of a schedule that has true national significance?

 

[afigg]

... received $78 million to improve the tracks in Vermont to reduce the travel time by 30 minutes. That portion of the Vermonter not served by any other train line sees almost the exact same number of passengers that the Heartland Flyer sees on a yearly basis. Yet, the Heartland Flyer is a State Sponsored train, and the Vermonter isn't? Maybe I'm wrong, but if not, why should the Vermonter get that much more in Federal Aid and yet seemingly not have to provide as much state sponsorship as the Heartland Flyer?

As noted, the Vermonter is a state supported train. The $72.8 million in that article is going to the state of Massachusetts to rebuild the CT River line running up the middle of the state from Springfield to East Northfield and build 2 new stations. That line is down to 10 mph freight speeds. VT got $50 million to upgrade the Vermonter route through the eastern side of VT. Those 2 projects are supposed to reduce Springfield to St Albans travel time by at least 55 minutes. CT received $190 million to match some $280 million of CT bond funding for upgrading and restoring double tracking to the New Haven to Springfield corridor (which is owned by Amtrak).

The funding to MA and VT is for far more than just speeding up the current Vermonter service. This is the so-called Knowledge Corridor project which is a part of a larger New England Rail plan to considerably improve and expand passenger rail service to inland New England. There is a brief Vision document that was put out in 2009 which can be found at http://www.mass.gov/Agov3/docs/PR071309.pdf

The VT plan is to add a second daily train to at least as far at White River Jct. VT also wants to restore service to Montreal, so one of 2 daily trains will likely become a restored Montrealer.

MA plans are for up to 6 additional daily trains to Greenfield MA which are likely to be expansion and extensions of the current New Haven - Springfield shuttle. The old Springfield station is to be restored as a pretty fancy intermodal center. MA is also interested in a Boston to Montreal train. Since NH is not a serious player in the New England rail plan at this point, a Boston to Montreal train might go through Worcester & Springfield MA and then north. MA also wants to run intercity service between Springfield and Boston and is also looking long term at running some scheduled Regionals over the Inland Route via Springfield and Worcester. But the Springfield to Boston corridor will require restoration of double tracking and upgrades to allow this which is the subject of a current study and future MA funding HSIPR applications.

CT's interest is in commuter level service on the New Haven - Hartford - Springfield corridor with improved Amtrak service and connection options. There is a website for that project at http://www.nhhsrail.com/.

So this is what the FRA was looking at when they were deciding which applications to fund. TX and OK could do the same and may eventually do so, since they did get some HSIPR planning funding.

 

[George Harris]

So this is what the FRA was looking at when they were deciding which applications to fund. TX and OK could do the same and may eventually do so, since they did get some HSIPR planning funding.

And who voted for who in the last election might have a bit to do with it also.

 

[afigg]

So this is what the FRA was looking at when they were deciding which applications to fund. TX and OK could do the same and may eventually do so, since they did get some HSIPR planning funding.

And who voted for who in the last election might have a bit to do with it also.

There is a political aspect to the grants, but don't over weigh it. The large grants went to the states that had plans and studies in place. The states that didn't have studies in the past decade or only the flimsiest of plans mostly ended up getting the planning study grants and some small grants for specific projects that did have enough engineering studies and some basis for cost figures to back them up to spread the funding around a bit. TX and OK have a lot of catching up to do on planning and in getting broad political support for passenger rail.

The New England states, because they have the NEC to Boston, the Downeaster in ME, the Vermonter, an extensive MBTA commuter system in Boston have a much more supportive political environment for passenger rail. The outlier is NH, but nothing new there. That the New Haven to St Albans corridor runs through 3 states (well, 4, but again NH is not going to put a dime towards it with the current makeup of the state legislature.) with 6 Senators does not hurt, but it wouldn't be a major factor. At the presidential level, CT, VT, and even MA are not swing states, although Romney might put MA into play.

 

[Ryan]

So this is what the FRA was looking at when they were deciding which applications to fund. TX and OK could do the same and may eventually do so, since they did get some HSIPR planning funding.

And who voted for who in the last election might have a bit to do with it also.

That reminds me of one of my favorite comics.

 

[AlanB]

So this is what the FRA was looking at when they were deciding which applications to fund. TX and OK could do the same and may eventually do so, since they did get some HSIPR planning funding.

And who voted for who in the last election might have a bit to do with it also.

There is a political aspect to the grants, but don't over weigh it. The large grants went to the states that had plans and studies in place. The states that didn't have studies in the past decade or only the flimsiest of plans mostly ended up getting the planning study grants and some small grants for specific projects that did have enough engineering studies and some basis for cost figures to back them up to spread the funding around a bit. TX and OK have a lot of catching up to do on planning and in getting broad political support for passenger rail.

Keep in mind that Vermont also had a few more applications for funds into the Fed that they didn't get approval for, including one that would have restored train service between Burlington and Rutland, allowing the Ethan Allen to turn north and serve Burlington.

The point being that while they may have gotten more than Texas, they also didn't get everything that they wanted.

And as a point of reference, the Vermonter saw boardings/detrainments of about 97,000 IIRC within the State of Vermont last year, a 16% increase from the prior year. But with the faster run times and the new route through Mass, ridership on the Vermonter should see a major jump once this work is done. And there will be a major benefit to freight in that corridor too.