Iowa Pacific "Eastern Flyer" Passenger Rail

Official website:
https://easternflyer.com/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some further reading/news links:
http://narprail.org/news/narp-blog/2510 ... n-to-tulsa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.newson6.com/story/24674451/a ... ice-begins" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.news9.com/story/24787939/eas ... in-service" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As of now regularly scheduled service is set to begin by Memorial Day Weekend between Midwest City and Sapulpa with extensions to Tulsa by next year and OK City at a later date.

I have linked to this thread in the Amtrak forum in the new Amtrak & New Private Operators thread.

Does anyone have a sense of whether or not ODOT is interested in a passenger service agreement with Iowa Pacific?

gokeefe wrote:I have linked to this thread in the Amtrak forum in the new Amtrak & New Private Operators thread.

Does anyone have a sense of whether or not ODOT is interested in a passenger service agreement with Iowa Pacific?

I don't think ODOT likes the Iowa Pacific proposal, although there's no dislike of Iowa Pacific personally. The proposal on the table presently means no improvements to the tracks which have been maintained at Class III standards, max speeds for passenger trains being 60 mph and less than that for freight trains. It's 106 highway miles between OKC and Tulsa, it'll take a train nearly 2 hours to make the trip at those speeds. Significant time savings can be made with just slight improvements to the tracks, just a few calculations relative to higher class speeds.
106 / 60 = 106 minutes , 106 / 79 = 80.5 minutes , 106 / 90 = 70.67 minutes, 106 / 110 = 57.8 minutes , 106 / 125 = 50.9 minutes
Note: there's almost a half hour elapse time savings just by improving the tracks to Class IV standards.

I really believe ODOT would prefer to see the third party passenger train operator improve the tracks along with providing rail services. The freight operator today is happy with Class III speeds. Passengers in ODOT thought processes will surely appreciate half hour quicker trips with very little capital invested into the corridor.

The Iowa Pacific proposal as is doesn't really get the passenger trains into either city's downtown. The answer to where to terminate the train will surely stir up a hornet's nest. Having terminus stations on the wrong side of the rivers isn't the answer ODOT will prefer. That may be okay for a weekend excursion ride service, but not politically for a multiple daily or daily service.

I really believe ODOT would like to see a better proposal.

Are you using maximum speeds to calculate journey time? A Class IV set up is going to get you something like 50mph timetabled journey speed.

dowlingm wrote:Are you using maximum speeds to calculate journey time? A Class IV set up is going to get you something like 50mph timetabled journey speed.

You might be right, but there really aren't that many freight trains on this corridor to slow the passenger trains down. My calculations show potential time savings that may be obtained. I wasn't suggesting that these would be the actual schedules. What I was really trying to show is how much time savings could be achieved cheaply, without spending a huge fortune building very fast high speed rail.

electricron wrote:

gokeefe wrote:I have linked to this thread in the Amtrak forum in the new Amtrak & New Private Operators thread.

Does anyone have a sense of whether or not ODOT is interested in a passenger service agreement with Iowa Pacific?

I don't think ODOT likes the Iowa Pacific proposal, although there's no dislike of Iowa Pacific personally. The proposal on the table presently means no improvements to the tracks which have been maintained at Class III standards, max speeds for passenger trains being 60 mph and less than that for freight trains. It's 106 highway miles between OKC and Tulsa, it'll take a train nearly 2 hours to make the trip at those speeds. Significant time savings can be made with just slight improvements to the tracks, just a few calculations relative to higher class speeds.
106 / 60 = 106 minutes , 106 / 79 = 80.5 minutes , 106 / 90 = 70.67 minutes, 106 / 110 = 57.8 minutes , 106 / 125 = 50.9 minutes
Note: there's almost a half hour elapse time savings just by improving the tracks to Class IV standards.

I really believe ODOT would prefer to see the third party passenger train operator improve the tracks along with providing rail services. The freight operator today is happy with Class III speeds. Passengers in ODOT thought processes will surely appreciate half hour quicker trips with very little capital invested into the corridor.

The Iowa Pacific proposal as is doesn't really get the passenger trains into either city's downtown. The answer to where to terminate the train will surely stir up a hornet's nest. Having terminus stations on the wrong side of the rivers isn't the answer ODOT will prefer. That may be okay for a weekend excursion ride service, but not politically for a multiple daily or daily service.

I really believe ODOT would like to see a better proposal.

I'm not entirely certain ODOT is in a position to try and leverage infrastructure improvements in exchange for a passenger service concession. In fact if anything Iowa Pacific has created their own leverage by taking the initiative to prove service viability and at their own expense. Politics are conservative enough in Oklahoma that people might have a problem with excluding an ostensible free market operator from public infrastructure simply for the sake of negotiating capital improvement payments.

gokeefe wrote:I'm not entirely certain ODOT is in a position to try and leverage infrastructure improvements in exchange for a passenger service concession. In fact if anything Iowa Pacific has created their own leverage by taking the initiative to prove service viability and at their own expense. Politics are conservative enough in Oklahoma that people might have a problem with excluding an ostensible free market operator from public infrastructure simply for the sake of negotiating capital improvement payments.

ODOT can leverage anything they desire, after all, they are the ones who own the corridor. I'll admit I don't know if this rumor is true or not, but I've read ODOT is looking for a buyer so they can sell the corridor, and the rumor I've heard is that BNSF might be interested in buying it back, so they will not have to provide free access to IP in Tulsa or OKC.
The deal IP propose wants free access to ODOT corridor, something SLWC doesn't get shipping freight on it.

electricron wrote:The deal IP propose wants free access to ODOT corridor, something SLWC doesn't get shipping freight on it.

As worded IP seemed to claim that having a passenger operator designated was something contemplated in their current operating agreeements. While ODOT certainly is of course the owner of record they are very much subject to the will of the Governor and to the prescriptions of the Legislature. That being the case I don't think the political calculations are against IP at this time. If anything they are in favor of it because they are proposing passenger service at no direct cost to the taxpayer.

I think that Oklahoma should only allow this to proceed on the following basis:

1. Iowa Pacific pays track charges commensurate with any other operator
2. The track charges go to the maintenance of the corridor to offset the current cost to the State
3. The State pays IP an offsetting subsidy to the entire amount received from IP in track charges, with contractual penalties if either side fails to make payments on time.

You can't say something is happening "at no cost to the taxpayer" if there is a hidden subsidy being paid by way of free track access.

dowlingm wrote:I think that Oklahoma should only allow this to proceed on the following basis:

1. Iowa Pacific pays track charges commensurate with any other operator
2. The track charges go to the maintenance of the corridor to offset the current cost to the State
3. The State pays IP an offsetting subsidy to the entire amount received from IP in track charges, with contractual penalties if either side fails to make payments on time.

You can't say something is happening "at no cost to the taxpayer" if there is a hidden subsidy being paid by way of free track access.

I think one of Iowa Pacific's main points here is that they are asking to be designated as the passenger operator as described in ODOT's operating agreement. Nothing more and nothing less. I think they should be able to do so in accordance with that contract. It could be, as you note, that ODOT didn't structure the passenger concession provision as carefully as they should have. I just have a problem with the idea that Iowa Pacific could be denied the opportunity to operate passenger service simply because ODOT finds their own provisions for such inconvenient.

NH2060 wrote:Official website:
https://easternflyer.com/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some further reading/news links:
http://narprail.org/news/narp-blog/2510 ... n-to-tulsa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.newson6.com/story/24674451/a ... ice-begins" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.news9.com/story/24787939/eas ... in-service" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As of now regularly scheduled service is set to begin by Memorial Day Weekend between Midwest City and Sapulpa with extensions to Tulsa by next year and OK City at a later date.

So downtown to downtown requires 2 changes, at least initially. After the railfans ride it, I'm not too hopeful for initial numbers, and low ridership will champion the cause for "it's not worth it". Is there some urgent need here to establish service this year? Or, could it wait until next year when--if the reports are correct--the service will go to the downtowns?

"Passenger Rail Happy Hour" draws huge crowds:
http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/P ... X6auA.cspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brief fair use quote:

“We need to have a good meaningful, alternative for of transportation,” Rick Westcott, a member of the Tulsa Rail Advisory Committee said. He said the line is not an expense to ODOT right now. He said the leasing company pays ODOT more than half a million dollars a year to maintain and use it.

ODOT tweeted around 5 pm Aug 4 that Stillwater Central has closed on ownership of the Sooner Sub.

Steve R wrote:ODOT tweeted around 5 pm Aug 4 that Stillwater Central has closed on ownership of the Sooner Sub.

Which may be great news for an Eastern Flyer train.

From
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/p ... ine--40337

SLWC issued a $75 million proposal and promised additional financial commitments for enhanced rail access to energy infrastructure in Cushing, track improvements from Class 2 to Class 3 standards within the next seven years and the development of a six-month trial passenger-rail service within five years, ODOT officials said. The railroad expects to complete the sale contract by July, they said.

Some personal observations.
That's less than $1 million/mile, the Sonner Sub is over 97 miles in length. Just about everywhere else the freight railroads are asking at least twice that for an abandoned rail corridor. This rail corridor isn't abandoned quite yet.
The promise for upgrades to Class III means maximum passenger train speeds of 60 mph. Any passenger train service will be slow - even compared to the 79 mph speeds of the Heartland Flyer. Hopefully they can get a passenger train schedule down to less than two hours between OKC and Tulsa. Many high speed rail enthusiasts were hoping for less than an hour.
I wonder with whom Stillwater Central will contract passenger train services? Will it be Iowa Pacific? I wonder what rolling stock they will use? I believe it's safe to assume the ex-Wisconsin Talgo train sets will be overkill for 60 mph max speeds tracks, although their present livery would match well with a Sooner theme.

I think any rail project should shoot for "is it faster than Google Maps driving directions" :D It looks like a very curvy alignment though - could one hope for progressive construction of sections of bypass track along the Turner Turnpike median to cut some track mileage out, if the alternative is longer and slower passing track in the existing ROW?