Hoosier State Discussion (both Amtrak and Iowa Pacific)

[Tadman]

They would indeed need to find trackage rights if run under NICTD. My point about NICTD is that, all other things equal, NICTD would do this better than Amtrak. Either party has a bum route into Indy right now.

As for the timing issue, I take the “slower than driving” argument with a grain of salt. If the drive time is four hours, that’s four hours I spend behind the wheel doing a menial task (not running off the road) rather than real work I’m paid to do. If the train takes six, that’s six work hours versus four driving hours in my book.

Obviously this math only works to some extent. If the train only runs once a day at odd time, it doesn’t work as well for being productive. If the train takes twice the time as driving, it doesn’t work as well for being productive.

[John_Perkowski]

Tadman nails a point.

Transportation between A and B has to provide a combination of speed, timeliness, and productivity support.

There are parts of the historic ATSF where I cannot get data or phone service.

There are times the train runs late.

Using the train kills a workday enroute, meaning for a noon Tuesday meeting, I have to leave Monday.

Tad nails a weakness of Amtrak. It’s not looked at city pairs that matter. It’s reasonable for Indy to be well tied into Chicago, or to rely on other modes than rail. Vitamin service (1 a day) just doesn’t cut it.

[mtuandrew]

Then how should Amtrak sell its services to the Great State of Indiana? I know it isn’t a position One Mass finds itself in, having to promote itself when other states are beating down its doors, but both Indiana and Amtrak could stand to gain a lot by committing to 3/day service. Might even be valuable at the same slow speed as today, but preferably faster.

[justalurker66]

Three per day would be a good service. But what would Amtrak charge?

Michigan is running five trains per day. Over 2,800 miles (from Chicago) every day seven days per week - Just over one million miles per year. The state owns the Michigan line east of Kalamazoo. How much are they paying Amtrak to run these trains?

Indiana is running eight subsidized trains per week. 1,568 miles per week or 81,536 miles per year. About $43 per mile ($3.5 million per year). Is Michigan paying $43 million dollars per year?

Jumping from 8 trains per week to 36 subsidized trains (with the Cardinal completing the three per day schedule). Would Amtrak be able to reduce that $43 per mile rate or would Indiana need to pay $16 million per year?

I can see Michigan's "per mile" rate being lower since they own some of the track ... they are investing in Amtrak service more than just the operating subsidy. Is Indiana paying for the Hoosier State train set seven days per week even though it only makes eight runs? Would that cost be able to be spread out across more runs?

If the service was better would the state be more willing to support it? Or have we found the chicken and the egg?


As far as marketing, how much marketing has Amtrak done to the state? If they want to run the train I'd expect them to be actively pushing for better service. They need to market their service to the legislature as well as the constituents. Other than sending the state a bill with no sales pitch (Want trains? Here is the bill. Don't want them? Ok.) and selling tickets, has Amtrak marketed the train?

[Tadman]

That's a valid question and one I attempted to explore a few pages back in a different way. Instead of comparing to Michigan, I compared the HS to NICTD. The HS annual subsidy is $3m. The entire NICTD subsidy is $12m/year.

To put this in chart format:

NICTD_______________Hoosier
$12m________________$3m
40 trains/day_________1 train/day
3.4 mil riders annual___ 27,000 riders annual
30 single track miles___no track
50 double track miles__no track
85 EMU cars__________3-4 cars
2 diesels_____________1-2 diesels
12 stations___________no stations
1 yard_______________no yard
1 full shop____________no full shop
8 bridges_____________no bridges
3 miles street run______no track

Given that math, it's no wonder Indiana has no interest. A 4x subsidy for NICTD gets them an entire operation for 3,400,000 riders. Virtually nothing on that chart is a 4x increase, most things are exponential increases. The math doesn't add up. It would be interesting to do this same comparison to service Michigan.

This is a big part of why I suggest to shift this service over to NICTD. They already have a shops and yard with a workforce that probably doesn't need to be increased at all to include an additional six coaches and a few diesels. They already have a small downtown Chicago station that has extra capacity. I bet a part of the Amtrak nut is paying "fair share" for an apportioned part of CUS, 14th street, and Beech Grove, all very large and expensive facilities. If the state could get ahold of those ex-MARC Sumitomo cars, they wouldn't even have to stock another parts inventory. Same trucks, doors, HVAC, etc... Buy ten, put four on each train, two are in Michigan City for scheduled maintenance at all times.

[Arborwayfan]

Those eight Hoosier State trains a week probably really do cost a lot more per mile than all those South Shore Line trains. We can argue about whether Amtrak is asking too much, but at some point I think we'd all agree that a line with fewer trains costs more per train mile than a line with more trains. That's what I see in you're comparison, Tadman. The NICTD's fixed costs for the South Shore tracks and stations are spread over many more trains; the operating costs are spread over more passengers per train. The fixed costs of the station in Indy and of some slice of CUS are being spread over fewer trains. The equipment utilization is weird, with those long deadhead moves attached to the Cardinal; that can't be good for costs yet it is undeniably part of the cost of the Hoosier State. Amtrak has to keep a reasonable number of crews qualified: I don't know enough about operations and crew scheduling to know whether the HS makes that easier or harder or makes no difference compared to just having the Cardinal. Maybe the NICTD could do a better job than Amtrak, or get cheaper food service, or save money by using shop and Chicago station capacity it already has -- all good ideas -- but the NICTD's costs to run to Indy would probably be a lot more per mile than their costs to run on the South Shore Line

Maybe Amtrak doesn't really want the Hoosier State, and maybe there's no particular reason they should want such a little operation. Maybe the 8 trains a week schedule messes up their coach utilization out of Chicago. Maybe running a train that's so slow and so often late seems like a good way to drive away potential passengers -- I could totally see the Hoosier State's performance and schedule turning so many people off to Amtrak than ridership on other trains in the region went down.

[justalurker66]

Maybe Amtrak doesn't really want the Hoosier State, ...

That is the #1 answer, in my opinion.

Is Amtrak deadheading the Hoosier State equipment? I know they had to do that when it was Iowa Pacific equipment stored in Indy. But for an Amtrak owned train, couldn't they just build a train in Chicago, run it to Indy and return it to Chicago the next morning? The Cardinal train set should be in Chicago - so the cars would be available.

Other than the train set, what are the fixed costs? Amtrak is not maintaining the rail between Indy and 21st St. The stations need to be there for the Cardinal, so cancelling the Hoosier State will raise those "per train" costs. That would be one area where three time per day service would not raise costs. But three a day service would require three sets unless they were timed to allow one set to go N-S-N and the other to go S-N-S and allow time for the turn and recovering from service delays.

[Arborwayfan]

I was basically thinking of Amtrak's fixed costs: management, the people who schedule and call the crews, the two Amtrak-owned stations on the route, making whatever training materials are used to get crews qualified, printing public timetables, signage, communicating with the host railroads and with the state of Indiana at various levels (upper management through dispatchers), keeping various legal agreements up to date -- various stuff that has to be done once regardless of the number of trains. Adding a whole new location or task to an organization adds a certain amount of complexity and work. Maybe Amtrak is assigning more overhead to the Hoosier State than actually belongs there, but I'm sure that there are some parts of running a particular route that are more per mile when there are fewer trains.

Or maybe the difference in per-mile subsidy comes more from the type of train (commuter trains hold more people per car and per train) and the type of passengers/travel (driving in and out of Chicago every day at rush hour is a lot more unpleasant than driving from Indy or intermediate stop up to Chicago every once in a while, with the ability to avoid the worst of rush hour). Moreover, someone who goes to the same job in the same building five days a week can figure out the train times and the walking routes and the ticketing systems and make that whole process at least as easy as driving. Maybe the market just allows a better farebox ratio for the South Shore line. Which is not too different from Tadman's argument that the NICTD service makes more sense.

If they don't have to deadhead with their own equipment that makes me feel better, but I still wonder if having non-daily trains in the mix is a little irritant to operating the coach yard in Chicago.

[mtuandrew]

Three/day was a suggestion which includes either a daily Cardinal or an off-day mixed equipment drag filling the midday slot. The morning and evening Hoosier would be a dedicated pair of sets, I’m not convinced you could get a third turn with the current railroad conditions. (That could change if NICTD runs the service on their own/Metra rails Chicago Millennium-Dyer, or Amtrak operates over CN or NICTD/Metra from Grand Crossing to Munster or Dyer.)

I would be interested in seeing Virgin bid this corridor. They could buy out CN between the St Charles Air Line and Kensington and operate to their choice of Chicago facilities - they could rebuild Dearborn if they chose! and use any number of railroads or highway rights-of-way to reach the lucrative Indy business market. It’s a little longer than MIA-ORL with much less population between, but there’s a lot of development possibility and a state government that is big on private enterprise.

[Tadman]

Those eight Hoosier State trains a week probably really do cost a lot more per mile than all those South Shore Line trains. We can argue about whether Amtrak is asking too much, but at some point I think we'd all agree that a line with fewer trains costs more per train mile than a line with more trains. That's what I see in you're comparison, Tadman. The NICTD's fixed costs for the South Shore tracks and stations are spread over many more trains; the operating costs are spread over more passengers per train. The fixed costs of the station in Indy and of some slice of CUS are being spread over fewer trains.

.

I totally agree that the fixed costs should be more per train if there’s only a few trains. But there’s an entire fleet of CSX freight that share that route. If I recall, thats part of the reason the train takes so long to get over the road is freight congestion on a single track 60mph jointed railway. Contrast that with the double track welded rail 79mph constant tension catenary line.

It’s no secret that Amtrak cooks the books with state corridor trains.

[mtuandrew]

It’s no secret that Amtrak cooks the books with state corridor trains.

Strong assertion. Can you back it up with source material?

[Tadman]

There’s been a lot of buzz about this recently. Amtrak doesn’t use GAAP to my knowledge. Here is a big article by Bob Johnston on their accounting irregularities. I think there are a few more out there as well. It’s certainly worth doing some searching and reading, as more than one party is upset about this, so it’s not someone with an ax to grind or an iron in the fire.

trn.trains.com/bonus/amtrak

[Gilbert B Norman]

Mr. Dunville, Amtrak DOES keep its books in accordance with GAAP, and an independent "Final Four" CPA firm expresses an opinion of such.

The issue the LD advocacy community has is with the allocation of the fixed expense that they contend Amtrak allocates a disproportionate amountnof that expense against the LD. As such. Amtrak accunting is "fraudulent".

GBN, CPA

[eolesen]

I know I've seen the "snow removal at Miami" line a few times.

That lack of transparency is exactly why Amtrak did everything they could to hamstring IPH's operation. It's too bad they haven't been able to make a reasonable attempt at other corridor services.

Better yet would be allowing BNSF, UP, CSX and NS to bid to operate state corridors that move on their tracks. You'd probably see performance improvements as well as cost savings...

[mtuandrew]

Amtrak operates every interstate corridor and most in-state corridors, it even supplies crews for NCDOT if I’m not mistaken.

Also, any railroad or operating company could bid on in-state or interstate operations. The RPSA signatories’ only limitation is that they can’t operate scheduled interstate passenger trains on their own (aka without a government or private sponsor.)