Hoosier State Discussion (both Amtrak and Iowa Pacific)

gaspeamtrak wrote: I think the last two rockets that were to supply the International Space Station "Blew up shortly after lift-off" and were built by a "private company" "NASA" was working with.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, please. But who says going private is the best alternative, sometimes it is not... Come on up here and drive on our "Privately run 407 highway and see what the toll fees are! They are some of the most expensive in the "world" Sorry about getting off subject. Enough said already...

Ding, ding! We have a winner. Someone who reads the news closely and thinks about it rather than just letting the reflected light flow through an ideological prism.

Close readers may also have noticed the quote from Mr. Ellis, to the effect of "gosh, we didn't know we had to have the right parts for our brakes!" Sure, Mr. Ellis, we can understand why you might have thought you could get away with the wrong parts ...

An honest poster might now track down an image that reads "NOT good enough for government work", and mash it up with an IP logo. This private company can't seem to do anything right at this point.

There is also this beauty:
>INDOT also still has to develop contract language the ensures accountability and consequences for compliance with Amtrak and federal safety standards, an issue that raised by the Federal Railroad Administration in March.

So the two parties clearly at fault as shown by this article - INDOT and IP. So who do some of our most prolific posters blame? Amtrak. Hard to know what to say.

Thanks, Gaspe, for bringing some clarity back to the discussion.

Messrs. Gaspe' and Ryan, I don't think the issue is whether or not which sector, public or private, represents a better operator of the Hoosier State. This is simply an issue between Local governments (state and municipalities served) who choose, because they are paying for it, to have a responsible private sector operator, rather than a Federal agency accountable to their "massahs 10000ft apart along Pennsylvania Ave in UNOWARE (and I don't mean Indy)", operate what they consider as "their" train. Whether it costs them more is a "non-issue" (ask me, it will).

The Federal agency, Amtrak (forget all that bovine plop about "it's private"), is fearful that this Indiana initiative is the "finger in the dike'. Other local jurisdictions that sponsor many more passenger trains than Indiana could follow suit - most vulnerable would be those governed by conservative factions. Since the Long Distance trains could be gone simply by US Congress' fiat, Amtrak could potentially, albeit far fetched, be looking at their "national system" comprising the Northeast Corridor. Just think how that scenario would play within the funding ring.

As I noted yesterday, I believe Iowa Pacific Holdings has been injured as a result of this charade, and I would not be surprised if they seek legal remedies within the judiciary.

A settlement would possibly fund IP's venture in Oklahoma but it sounds like there have been some sunk costs in Indiana.

If there was a different governor maybe some case could be made for Illinois to also pitch in to enhancing the service (given that many of the riders of this service will either originate or arrive there) but the one that's there is trying to swing an axe at the ones wholly in Illinois...

ryanch wrote: Close readers may also have noticed the quote from Mr. Ellis, to the effect of "gosh, we didn't know we had to have the right parts for our brakes!" Sure, Mr. Ellis, we can understand why you might have thought you could get away with the wrong parts ...

Unfortunately, this is typical of private equipment owners. I spent a couple of years working in freight car leasing, and my experience was that no expense is spared in attempting to absolve oneself of either liability or repair costs (usually both!). Regularly, this reached a point where the personnel costs of wagering such wars often exceeded the determined cash savings (i.e., spending an hour to try and save $15). It's much simpler when the operator of the equipment is also its owner and maintainer; I suspect Amtrak knows this. Someone else owns the equipment you run? Well, you can be sure they'll have a room full of bean counters (I should know - I was one) examining every piece of paperwork related to the equipment and its physical condition, an very eager to do good for their employer by cutting or "re-assigning" costs.

dowlingm wrote:A settlement would possibly fund IP's venture in Oklahoma but it sounds like there have been some sunk costs in Indiana.

If there was a different governor maybe some case could be made for Illinois to also pitch in to enhancing the service (given that many of the riders of this service will either originate or arrive there) but the one that's there is trying to swing an axe at the ones wholly in Illinois...

The last i looked Illinois is also broke & working without having a state budget passed. I doubt if there is any money left for the current Illinois Rail program with new service promised to Rockford or the Quad cities. There would be no incentive for a train AFAIK has the only stop at CUS.

ryanch wrote:Close readers may also have noticed the quote from Mr. Ellis, to the effect of "gosh, we didn't know we had to have the right parts for our brakes!" Sure, Mr. Ellis, we can understand why you might have thought you could get away with the wrong parts ...

Perhaps a casual reader of Mr Ellis' comments would make such a generalization ... but the problems Mr Ellis has reported are not major safety issues. As noted by others, they are issues that appear on IN SERVICE Amtrak equipment. Somehow a flaw is a show stopper when it exists on IP equipment but perfectly fine when on Amtrak equipment.

ryanch wrote:An honest poster might now track down an image that reads "NOT good enough for government work", and mash it up with an IP logo. This private company can't seem to do anything right at this point.

Wow ... the full insult mode is on. Calling the people you disagree with dishonest? Perhaps you do not understand the concept of "good enough for government work" - it refers to shoddy work performed by the government that is allowed to happen because it is a government job. Or in this case, Amtrak being permitted to perform a service at a "government job" level while others are held to a higher standard.

The biggest problem being that the standard that IP is expected to meet seems to be a secret ... they only find out what is wrong when something "violates" the standard. And then after correction a new list of wrongs is generated. Add in the fact that the inspectors have motivation to find failure at every turn.

Hopefully the dotting i and crossing t process will end soon ... the actual train HAS PASSED INSPECTION. It passed in early June. But I would not be surprised if Amtrak came back and said "oh, that was a June inspection ... you need to pass this July inspection with new criteria ... we'll tell you the criteria after you fail".

byte wrote:I suspect Amtrak knows this. Someone else owns the equipment you run? Well, you can be sure they'll have a room full of bean counters (I should know - I was one) examining every piece of paperwork related to the equipment and its physical condition, an very eager to do good for their employer by cutting or "re-assigning" costs.

IP is responsible for IP equipment ... if there is anything in their contract that assigns maintenance costs to Amtrak due to damage caused by Amtrak I am sure that there is a room full of bean counters at Amtrak who will work just as hard as the alleged room full of bean counters at IP to fight over the assignment.

The legal and inspection teams at Amtrak have certainly made their presence known in trying to derail the IP service.

I haven't inspected the IP cars in question, I suppose neither did you. Therefore it's difficult for us to question what the inspectors found fault with on these cars. Those fixing the faults and those paying for the fixes, will have a better understanding if the inspectors concerns were with passenger and crew safety or just making it difficult for IP and INDOT because they can. I will not be expressing an opinion either way because I don't know.

As for the Eastern Flyer operations in Oklahoma, I assume the same quality of inspection by the FRA and Amtrak will be applied. Yes, I included Amtrak because access with be needed over BNSF and possibly UP tracks to get into downtown OKC and downtown Tulsa. I'll assume the Class I railroads will require Amtrak to run the trains over their tracks. The local Class III railroad, Stillwater Central, will probably not be allowed to run passenger trains over the Class I owned tracks.

FRA obviously inspects rolling stock differently per usage, having a higher safety standard for daily operations than part-time operations; which is why the existing conditions of the rolling stock came up short for the Hoosier State according to the FRA. A daily Eastern Flyer would probably have to meet the same standards.

Therefore, IP is learning lessons that can be applied elsewhere, I hope. When they first started the inspection process, IP received no advanced standard to meet on paper from either the FRA or Amtrak It's been fix whatever the various inspectors found, tackling a punch key list of problems similar to punch key lists on construction projects. It's much easier and cheaper to pre-inspect the trains yourself, but to do so with complete accuracy one needs the standards on paper to meet.

So the process seems arbitrary, but that doesn't mean the inspectors haven't been finding unsafe items honesty that really need fixing.

electricron wrote:I haven't inspected the IP cars in question, I suppose neither did you. Therefore it's difficult for us to question what the inspectors found fault with on these cars. Those fixing the faults and those paying for the fixes, will have a better understanding if the inspectors concerns were with passenger and crew safety or just making it difficult for IP and INDOT because they can. I will not be expressing an opinion either way because I don't know.

Thank you for some measured observation.

>The Federal agency, Amtrak (forget all that bovine plop about "it's private"), is fearful that this Indiana initiative is the "finger in the dike'.

If anyone has evidence of this, they should provide it. Otherwise, the repetitive assertion that this is a driving force in inspection rings rather hollow.

This whole business is rather silly. I imagine Amtrak was retained as the operator because it already has the right to operate over the existing route (CSX-UP-BRC) and has crews qualified on the same. Furthermore, Amtrak only pays incremental cost. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but replacing Amtrak as operator would require negotiating a new contract with none of these advantages available. Indiana is trying to do this on the cheap. That won't be cheap, and it certainly won't be fast.

IPs equipment is visually superior to Horizons. Having a Big Dome as a regular on a Midwest corridor route is pretty cool. No doubt having meals available for purchase for those who want them is a good amenity for those who want them (but see all the discussions on this forum about the viability of food service). None of that changes the fact that it's a slow, neglected, circuitous route. Maybe IP can make money on that, but this isn't a dinner train. It's a corridor train that takes five hours to go a shade under 200 miles.

I'm not sure what to make of the suggestion that Indiana dump Amtrak and re-route to some other Chicago terminal. If you're trying to increase ridership then dropping easy, bookable connections to the rest of the national rail system seems counterproductive. If the new terminal is Millennium then that probably means a new deal with CN. They don't move fast and they're hostile to passenger service. This would also create the absurd situation of the Chicago-Indianapolis train serving different terminals depending on what day of the week it is. I'm sure passengers would love that.

For whatever reason Indiana won't kill the Hoosier State but won't fund it properly either. They've spent the last couple years looking for any solution other than paying Amtrak what it asks (every other state has managed to do so). They've gotten municipalities to cover costs. They tried to get a private operator (Corridor Capital) to take over altogether but that fell through. Now, they have Iowa Pacific...doing what, exactly? Providing some rolling stock and some consulting, but leaving Amtrak in place as operator? It's absurd. If I were Amtrak I'd insist on every possible inspection before agreeing to transport live passengers in someone else's equipment over someone else's railroad. No reason to imagine any big conspiracy here.

Mackensen wrote: If I were Amtrak I'd insist on every possible inspection before agreeing to transport live passengers in someone else's equipment over someone else's railroad.

DIng ding ding, we have our winner.

Mackensen wrote:Indiana is trying to do this on the cheap.

Nah, I think this is the real winner. The cool thing is that if they cheap out enough and make enough mess, no one will ride the train and they won't have to fund anything. That might not be the explicit plan, but it will meet the goal of saving money.

sipes23 wrote: Nah, I think this is the real winner. The cool thing is that if they cheap out enough and make enough mess, no one will ride the train and they won't have to fund anything. That might not be the explicit plan, but it will meet the goal of saving money.

Nah, if Indiana was trying to be really cheap, the Hoosier State service would already be discontinued, dead, and buried. Do I hear "Taps" playing in the background?

The cheapest solution would be to not fund anything. Amtrak has already collected over $3 million for the extended Hoosier State service. $3 million that could easily be saved by just saying no to funding the service. Maximum cost savings is no payment at all.

There might be a political cost ... but it does not sound like anyone's reelection is hinged on whether this train runs or not --- and for state senators and representatives from areas of the state that the Hoosier State does not serve it may be politically better NOT to support the service. The only reason I see why an elected official from anywhere this train does not serve should support the Hoosier State would be to get something for their own community ... perhaps a South Bend official might want money for NICTD or a Fort Wayne official might want money for their dream train service to Chicago. Or it may be funding for some other non-rail or non-transportation project that is given in exchange for supporting the Hoosier State. Somehow supporting the service "because it is a good idea" seems an impossible thought. "Because it is good for me" is more likely.

I also have trouble calling this a "corridor". One train daily (including the Cardinal) is barely a route - let alone a corridor. Get a couple of trains per day and we can start talking corridor. Something more like Illinois or Michigan.