Join the discussion on the following article:
‘Heartland Flyer’ faces funding shortfall
Just like the situation in Illinois. Conservative Republicans at work on their version of how things should be.
The number of Heartland Flyer riders declined 4.3 per cent from FY13 to FY14 and 4.8 per cent between FY10 and FY14. The average load factor has ranged from 43.6 per cent in FY10 to 42 per cent in FY14.
Revenues increased 37.7 per cent between FY10 and FY14, indicating that the average revenue dollar per ticket improved significantly. Costs before Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEBS) increased 21.3 per cent, and OPEBS declined 66.7 per cent. Total operating loss before depreciation, interest, and state operating subsidies declined 22.5 per cent between FY10 and FY14.
The total operating loss in 2014 was $1,900,000 before depreciation, interest, and state subsidies. My estimated loss after depreciation and interest was $2,070,138. How this translates into the numbers shown in the article is a mystery.
The numbers from my spreadsheet - I keep track of the financial and the operating information for Amtrak’s trains in Texas - are taken from Amtrak’s September 2014 Monthly Operating Report. The numbers are yet to be audited, but I would be surprised if they change significantly.
I have observed the Heartland Flyer in Fort Worth on numerous occasions. The number of passengers on the weekends appears to be significantly larger than the number of passengers getting off and on the train on weekdays. Running a Thruway connection during the week or on those days when the load factor tends to be below average may be a better option. Actually, discontinuing the train and providing connections via a Thruway service might be the best outcome.
Mr. Haws, you probably mean Indiana. They are actively negotiating with Iowa Pacific Holdings to take over the Hoosier State; IPH would provide the equipment and on board staff, while Amtrak crews would continue to operate the train (thus satisfying CSX’s liability concerns, something OK should look at).
Mr. Smith, how about if they dropped the Tuesday and Thursday trips of the Flyer? (Would that actually save any money, or would there be non-obvious crew costs involved?)
If the Heartland Flyer did not run on Tuesdays and Thursdays, Amtrak (Texas and Oklahoma) would save some money, i.e. fuel, variable maintenance, food and beverage deficit, and rent to BNSF.
I don’t know about employee savings. Fort Worth is the only station served by the Flyer that is staffed. The train crew consists of an engineer, conductor, assistant conductor, and food service attendant.
Based on my observations, the loads on Wednesday are nothing to write home about. They probably could discontinue Wednesday if the decision was to cut Tuesday and Wednesday.
During 2014 an average of 107 riders rode the Heartland Flyer (north and south) daily. Seventy-one or 67 per cent got on or off the train in Oklahoma City. I suspect that most of them were going to or coming from Fort Worth. Some of them would be connecting to or from the Texas Eagle, and some would be going to or from one of the intermediate stations, but the numbers for the intermediate stations are pretty low.
Does Amtrak’s calculation of the “loss” deduct any connecting revenue for the Texas Eagle? In other words, if they discontinue the Heartland Flyer, will Amtrak’s losses drop by $6.4 million or will this be partially offset by revenue lost by the Texas Eagle? If the latter, perhaps Amtrak should reduce their subsidy request by this amount. The system will perform most cost-effectively with maximum interconnectivity.
Of course it would be nice if the Heartland Flyer could be extended to Houston and Chicago. Then it would be a long-distance train and not Oklahoma’s responsibility.
The financial impact of discontinuing the Heartland Flyer or scaling back the number of days it runs probably would have an impact on the Texas Eagle’s ridership and revenues. However, without access to Amtrak’s books, it is impossible to know. It would depend on how many Flyer passengers transfer to the Eagle or vice versa.
If the Flyer were discontinued, some people in the communities served by it might drive or take a bus to Fort Worth to catch the Eagle. For those who don’t want to drive or cannot drive to Fort Worth, Amtrak’s Thruway service could be a better deal, especially if there were more than one bus per day.
If the Flyer were discontinued, most if not all of the avoidable costs would result in a savings to Oklahoma and Texas taxpayers. The subsidies required to cover the losses generated by the state supported trains are being shifted to the states. The shift is upping the financial consequences of the Heartland’s losses for Oklahoma and Texas.
Unfortunately, Amtrak likes to include the state-level subsidies in their train revenue numbers. According to the initial (still unaudited) year-end 2014 figures, the train only pulled in $1,965,642 in ticket revenue (with fares set at $0.15/mile), but cost about $9.2 million to operate.
The Heartland Flyer is already a pretty short train, but it might be possible to shorten it more and see if that helps costs. They’re probably only carrying enough passengers per train to justify two Superliners most of the time, and they could probably get rid of one locomotive (it typically has two – one on each end). There should be plenty of time to turn the train around in the five-hour midday layover in Fort Worth and the overnight layover in Oklahoma City. (There could be a reliability issue, though – I wish Amtrak had some dual-engined locomotives that could at least let a train limp along if there was a problem.)
The train would almost certainly do better if it ran more often – a second one roughly mirroring the current schedule but originating in Fort Worth would be a good idea. Ideally there would probably be 4 or more round-trips per day. It could use a bit of a speed boost, since it’s only about 52 mph average right now, but that won’t do much good unless it’s running more often.
An extension to Dallas would be a good idea (though would probably need that 2nd locomotive again since the train would need to run “backwards”), or if the train could just run about 20 minutes faster than it currently does – the morning trip just misses a TRE commuter train departure by about 7 minutes. Advertising the service more would definitely help. Cutting it to fewer days per week would just send it on a downward spiral.
The difference between total revenue and ticket revenue shows the amount of state support. At the end of the day, total revenue that is the most important number. But it is not the only important one.
Another key number is the number of riders, which is a pretty good indicator of the demand for the train. It has been declining substantially. Although Amtrak’s FY15 and FY16 budgets project an increased in ridership, they don’t tell us how they arrived at those numbers. Wishful thinking?
As noted previously, the average daily load on the Flyer in FY14 was approximately 107 passengers. Based on my observations, the load is heavier on the weekends than during the week.
If the train could run with one locomotive - it works for the Texas Eagle - the cost of the second locomotive could be avoided.
To turn the train in Fort Worth, it would have to run through the Tower 55 junction, back onto the UP (T&P) east/west line, and then run back into the station area. Whether the labor agreement would allow Amtrak to use the regular crew to turn the train is unknown. If a second crew were required to turn the train, the cost might be higher than the avoided cost of dropping the second locomotive. Moreover, I don’t know what turning the locomotive in Oklahoma City would involve.
Another option would be to run the train as a push-pull operation. But Amtrak (Oklahoma and Texas) would have to find a cab-control car. Or rebuild one of the current coaches with a cab function.
The best outcome for the Heartland Flyer would be to kill it and provide a Thruway bus connection for the Texas Eagle.
Running a once a day train makes no sense. Trains only make sense in relatively short, high density corridors where the cost to expand the highways and airways is prohibitive.
Maybe different equipment would be helpful, dmu trainsets?
It’s amazing how stingy state governments can be with regard to rail expenditures. $3.9 million would be a tiny fraction of what is spent on highway construction and maintenance.
It would be interesting to see what extension to Dallas could do for revenue. Better yet, go on to Houston, via Dallas. I would really like to see it become a Houston section of the Southwest Chief. As a long distance train, it no longer require a state subsidy. If the southbound Flyer met the southbound Eagle between Ft Worth and Dallas (same for northbound trains), Kansas City - San Antonio passengers could connect at Ft Worth and St Louis - Houston passengers could connect at Dallas. Increased interconnectivity would improve revenue for both trains.
The Flyer consists of only 1 trainset now, with SB service from OKC to FTW in the morning, and the return trip in the evening.
Mr. Vanwormer, the 107 passengers per train is a tiny fraction of the total number of people who drive between Ft. Worth and Oklahoma City. The subsidy per person is probably much higher on the “Flyer”.
In the various comments made by Paul Smith Jr, a recurring theme is his self-described “best outcome” for the Heartland Flyer: its outright discontinuance.
As a token, Smith suggests replacement bus service for those connecting with the Texas Eagle at Fort Worth. Unfortunately, based upon his opinion that the “only” area where passenger train services “make sense” is “in relatively short, high density corridors,” the Texas Eagle is simply another example of an operation which lacks proper justification; therefore, any real purpose his proposed bus connection might have would be short-lived.
Apparently, our autocentric society has deemed conventional intercity passenger trains to be abject failures, possessing no viable transport function. Even the simple advocacy of rail-based travel alternatives tends to undermine the automobile’s rule - and if there’s one thing motor vehicles demand, it’s absolute allegiance at all costs.
If that unquestioned devotion occasionally requires us to bludgeon trains to death, so be it.
NEITHER OF THESE STATES ARE POOR. IF JUST 10% OF THE TAX BREAK THAT THE STATE GIVES TO THE OIL INDUSTRY WOULD BE APPLIED TO MASS TRANSIT, THE HEARTLAND FLIER WOULD BE SOLVENT AND MAYBE THEY ALSO COULD REPAIR THEIR DETERIORATING ROADS.
Both states probably need the money to pay debts on their crumbling toll roads. Last time I drove through OK I thought I was going to lose my teeth. but oh, yes, there’s plenty of money to spend to get those new roads built to the caSINos.