# Hoosier State goes from Amtrak to Corridor Capital



## Paulus (Jun 26, 2014)

They just barely edged out Iowa Pacific



> The Indiana Department of Transportation on June 24, 2014 selected Corridor Capital as its preferred vendor to manage and operate the current Amtrak Hoosier State route between Indianapolis and Chicago.
> 
> Indiana DOT and Corridor Capital are now in discussions towards an agreement for a changeover in operations commencing October 1, 2014.


----------



## MattW (Jun 26, 2014)

And so it begins. I think all eyes are going to be on this to see how well it works out, as well as to see what role Amtrak has, if any beyond initial rolling stock.


----------



## Anderson (Jun 26, 2014)

Wait...these are the guys with the Hi-Levels!


----------



## Agent (Jun 26, 2014)

Did the freight railroad(s) have a say in this?


----------



## Anderson (Jun 26, 2014)

One of the main factors looked at was the ability of the possible providers to work with the freight lines.


----------



## Blackwolf (Jun 26, 2014)

*grabs the popcorn*


----------



## afigg (Jun 26, 2014)

Agent said:


> Did the freight railroad(s) have a say in this?


Yes. The IN DOT RFP covered the subject of freight railroad access. But freight access agreements were: "INDOT, along with the contractor, will discuss track access arrangements with host freight railroad right of way owners after the notice to proceed is sent to the successful contractor."

If CSX and CN ask for large access fees, this deal could fall apart. Or IN DOT has already reached an informal agreement with the freight railroads. Doubt it though.

Corridor Capital has the Sante Fe hi-levels, so presumably they proposed to provide them for HS. So Amtrak will have a few more Horizon cars available. What locomotives CorrCap* will use, no idea.

What we don't know is whether CorrCap proposed to run the HS as a 4 day a week service or with options for a daily service. The bottom line is that come October 1 (or by January 2015 if there are delays in CorrCap starting up), Amtrak will not be operating the HS. Lots to find out about the award and what CorrCap proposed.

* CorrCap is my proposed abbrevation for Corridor Capital so it is not confused with the Capitol Corridor.


----------



## neroden (Jun 26, 2014)

afigg said:


> Yes. The IN DOT RFP covered the subject of freight railroad access. But freight access agreements were: "INDOT, along with the contractor, will discuss track access arrangements with host freight railroad right of way owners after the notice to proceed is sent to the successful contractor."
> 
> If CSX and CN ask for large access fees, this deal could fall apart. Or IN DOT has already reached an informal agreement with the freight railroads. Doubt it though.


Lest we forget, the current route of the Hoosier State requires agreement from CSX, CN, UP, (possibly) the Belt Railway of Chicago, (possibly) NS, Metra, and Amtrak. That's a LOT of railroads to get agreement from.

If CN gets friendly, this could be reduced to CSX, CN, and Amtrak by rerouting up the IC route to the St Charles Air Line, but that's the minimum.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jun 27, 2014)

Very interesting....


----------



## MrFSS (Jun 27, 2014)

Wonder if _*The Cardinal*_ will become the only hospital train to Beech Grove?? The HS is used most often, now.


----------



## neroden (Jun 27, 2014)

Honestly, I don't see this happening; I think Indiana DOT doesn't know what they're dealing with, and the negotiations will drag on for a couple of years and then be cancelled. If I'm wrong, it indicates an improvement in attitude on the part of the freight railroads, and so I would welcome it.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jun 27, 2014)

CorrCap first trains.

"Oh yeah grabs the popcorn adds butter"


----------



## Daniel (Jun 27, 2014)

So if this happens, would it be no longer part of Amtrak's system, i.e. it wouldn't be in Amtrak's timetables and trains wouldn't be labeled as one?


----------



## rickycourtney (Jun 27, 2014)

It will be interesting to see what level of involvement Amtrak will have. I don't know who will decide that (Corridor Capital, Indiana DOT).

Speaking of the Capitol Corridor... that's an example of a line where Amtrak has very little involvement:
The Capitol Corridor is operated by the *Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority* (a board made up of six local transit agencies in the counties where the train runs). Most of the funding is provided by the *State of California* and the equipment is owned by the *California Department of Transportation*. The CCJPA contracts with the *Bay Area Rapid Transit District* (the operators of BART) for day-to-day management of the line, commissary services for the café cars is contracted to *Gourmet Rail Services* and operations (T&E crews, LSA) ticketing and _some_ maintenance is contracted to *Amtrak*.

Since Amtrak provides ticketing, the Capitol Corridor is still included in Amtrak's timetable and is still a part of the "system."

That being said as more states move to situations like this Amtrak will have to bid aggressively to keep contracts.


----------



## SactoRailFan (Jun 27, 2014)

Rickey, you do know the Amtrak commissary in Oakland contracts directely with Gourmet Rail Services. The CCJPA does not.


----------



## Paulus (Jun 27, 2014)

Just to be clear, the Capitol Corridor JPA and Corridor Capital are two completely different and unrelated organizations.


----------



## oldtimer (Jun 27, 2014)

I think I'll add a tall cool draft to go with the hot buttered popcorn!

If they think that they can have this up and running in 3 months (even 6 months) Ill have what they are smoking.

:wacko: :help: :giggle:


----------



## seat38a (Jun 27, 2014)

rickycourtney said:


> It will be interesting to see what level of involvement Amtrak will have. I don't know who will decide that (Corridor Capital, Indiana DOT).
> 
> Speaking of the Capitol Corridor... that's an example of a line where Amtrak has very little involvement:
> 
> ...


I think the "Capitol Corridor Train" is the model to follow if they are going to move most of the operations away from Amtrak. Even though the "Capitol Corridor Train" has very minor Amtrak involvement, it is still branded as "Amtrak California" with ticket sales through Amtrak and you still earn AGR points. Any savings the state gets by giving the contract away from Amtrak would probably get eaten away by having to setup their own marketing and ticketing system.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 27, 2014)

oldtimer said:


> I think I'll add a tall cool draft to go with the hot buttered popcorn!
> 
> If they think that they can have this up and running in 3 months (even 6 months) Ill have what they are smoking.
> 
> :wacko: :help: :giggle:


Yeah, this is going to be fascinating to sit back and watch play out. I've got little to no faith in the IN government to not screw this up.


----------



## edjbox (Jun 27, 2014)

according to Trains Magazine, Amtrak engineers and conductors will still be used, new equipment (like Piedmont Service) and new maintenance. Probably will remain under Amtrak system (ticketing, rewards, etc)


----------



## Anderson (Jun 27, 2014)

Ok, deep breath...

If Corridor Capital is taking over the equipment supply and they're looking to run the Hi-Levels (which, if they're supplying equipment, is not a bad guess given that they've been trying to put those cars to good use for a while)...yeah, there are going to be a few days this fall or winter that I kill getting on that train. One thing to remember: Amtrak is probably charging something like $500k/yr for the use of those Horizons (I'm basing this guess off of what VA gets charged), and with daily operation that would likely go up. The "cost" for Corridor Capital to put the Hi-Levels into service for a hypothetical decade would likely be a steal next to that, especially if they're going to seriously look at going to twice-daily operation within a reasonable time horizon.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 27, 2014)

I too will have a Large Diet Coke ( No Pepsi)and a Super Giant Bucket of Popcorn with Real Melted Butter and sit back and watch Indiana's Crack DOT and Politicians make a Keystone Cops Mess out of this!


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jun 27, 2014)

Trains News Wire says that the service will start out with single level cars that are Amtrak certified and currently in private car service. The equipment will be similar to that used in North Carolina. Since Amtrak will apparently still be actually running the train, I'm not sure what is going to be saved by going to Corridor Capital, although some form of food service probably will be offered (and maybe some kind of parlor car/business class). It's interesting to note that several of the Corridor Capital officials are people who are long-time railfans/passenger train advocates, including some who formed the 20th Century Railroad Club back in the 1970's.


----------



## afigg (Jun 27, 2014)

edjbox said:


> according to Trains Magazine, Amtrak engineers and conductors will still be used, new equipment (like Piedmont Service) and new maintenance. Probably will remain under Amtrak system (ticketing, rewards, etc)


The Trains Magazine News Wire report provides a lot of details on what Corridor Capital role will be for the Hoosier State service with some items yet to be determined. The News Wire report is behind a paywall for subscribers only, so I'm not posting a link. CorrCap will not be providing the Sante Fe hi-levels, but 5 single level cars which are certified for Amtrak operation.

Railplan International in Baltimore "is being hired as a subcontractor to retrofit luggage towers and modular bathrooms into the cars, “to make them fit for daily intercity operation and be responsible for maintenance,” Plous says."

The deal is not finalized as the 5 communities that are providing subsidy funding to the HS will have to agree to the new arrangement. In short, this contract with CorrCap is not replacing Amtrak as the operator, but so IN DOT can dump the Horizons in favor of alternate rolling stock which will be maintained by RailPlan rather than Amtrak's Chicago facility. 

Also, "“We were selected based on our reputation and our sub-contractor’s reputation,” Plous says, “but costs are not settled yet.” Hmm.

The report ends on this note, which suggests to me that there may be a move to run the HS daily so it is completely separated from Cardinal operations.

"Of concern for both parties is the fact that as currently scheduled, the Cardinal arriving into Chicago Monday morning doesn’t leave the Windy City until Tuesday evening. This means that unless the Corridor Capital’s cars and locomotives operate in tandem with the Cardinal on those trips, they will be out of position to take the next run."


----------



## Anderson (Jun 27, 2014)

I think Indiana does, in fact, want a daily train with a separate schedule. As it stands, the times in Indianapolis are awful, and the crew situation is a disaster. Remember, Amtrak reversed the crew base situation for this train, moving the base from one end to another, and it became an expensive mess (which is one thing that could generate savings: A different schedule that reduces crew costs). Likewise, an arrival time in Indianapolis sometime before almost midnight would almost assuredly help ridership.

I will still want to be on this train now that it is likely to have better service (and better equipment). I'd be rather surprised if CC doesn't seriously pursue either food service of some kind (at a bare minimum a refreshment cart, but probably at least a partial cafe) and/or wifi.


----------



## Big Iron (Jun 27, 2014)

from the CCRAIL website

http://ccrail.com/hi-level-trains/


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2014)

afigg said:


> "Railplan International in Baltimore "is being hired as a subcontractor to retrofit luggage towers and modular bathrooms into the cars, to make them fit for daily intercity operation and be responsible for maintenance," Plous says.""
> 
> ...
> 
> Also, ""We were selected based on our reputation and our sub-contractors reputation," Plous says, "but costs are not settled yet."" Hmm.


RailPlan has a reputation alright...

A certain high-level official once told me the secret to living forever: schedule your death with RailPlan!


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Jun 28, 2014)

edjbox said:


> Probably will remain under Amtrak system (ticketing, rewards, etc)



The most important thing for passengers.


----------



## rickycourtney (Jun 28, 2014)

SactoRailFan said:


> Rickey, you do know the Amtrak commissary in Oakland contracts directely with Gourmet Rail Services. The CCJPA does not.


I didn't realize that.

My point still stands, Amtrak doesn't provide that service directly (they've sub-contracted it out.) The CCJPA and the SJJPA could *in theory* tell Amtrak that they want to handle commissary services and contract it out too. Just as in the case of the Hoosier State Corridor Capital could contract commissary services with an outside vendor if they offer food services.


----------



## edjbox (Jun 28, 2014)

I think that the new Hoosier State will still be on the same schedule as it is now, but there will be additional trains eventually at better times.


----------



## neroden (Jun 28, 2014)

OK, given that description, this seems likely to work, though I still wouldn't bet on October.

If it means daily service separate from the Cardinal, that would be good. (Maybe the Cardinal schedule can then be tightened up.) Though the schedule is still too darn slow, and there appears to still be no plan to address that. If it adds food service, that would be helpful given the excessively long runtime.


----------



## John Bobinyec (Jun 28, 2014)

Indiana DOT should contact NC DOT. NC started out the same way, with Amtrak providing everything for the Piedmonts. As time went on, NC provided it's own equipment (with Amtrak doing some of the rebuilds) and got some contractors to do the cleaning and daily maintenance. Amtrak still does the ticketing, provides the train and engine crews and the station agents. NCDOT sets the schedules.

It's totally doable.

jb


----------



## Ryan (Jun 28, 2014)

I don't doubt that it is.

I do doubt that it's doable in 3 months, and by a state DoT whose legislature just voted that counties and cities could plan and execute whatever mass transit they wanted, as long as it wasn't light rail.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Jun 28, 2014)

rickycourtney said:


> Speaking of the Capitol Corridor... that's an example of a line where Amtrak has very little involvement...
> 
> The Capitol Corridor is operated by the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority... [which] contracts... ...commissary services for the café cars... ...to *Gourmet Rail Services*... ...as more states move to situations like this Amtrak will have to bid aggressively to keep contracts.


Gourmet Rail Services food, which is also on the San Joaquins, generally puts the standard AmCafe fare served by Amtrak to shame. One has to wonder when one thinks of all the better food on state supported routes like these and the Downeaster, the Cascades, the Surfliners...


----------



## William W. (Jun 28, 2014)

Do we know yet if the state is going to pay for any significant track improvements? As it stands, the HS is way too slow (5 hours) to compete with intercity bus service (~3 hours). This is made worse because the train is often late.

To me, that should be the first priority before operations shakeups, and getting new equipment.

I'm assuming that the plan to change control of the Hoosier State means that it will run separately of the Cardinal now? Would that mean that the Cardinal would shift to a detrain/receive only format north of IND (as is the case in other areas with LD trains and SD trains using the same stops)?


----------



## Anderson (Jun 28, 2014)

William W. said:


> Do we know yet if the state is going to pay for any significant track improvements? As it stands, the HS is way too slow (5 hours) to compete with intercity bus service (~3 hours). This is made worse because the train is often late.
> 
> To me, that should be the first priority before operations shakeups, and getting new equipment.
> 
> I'm assuming that the plan to change control of the Hoosier State means that it will run separately of the Cardinal now? Would that mean that the Cardinal would shift to a detrain/receive only format north of IND (as is the case in other areas with LD trains and SD trains using the same stops)?


The Cardinal would almost assuredly not go to R/D north of Indianapolis, _possibly _save for Dyer, IN (the last stop before Chicago) unless one of two things happened:

(1) Amtrak decided that riders joining there were crowding out LD riders _or_

(2) There were a large number of state-supported or other trains over the same route.

The latter is usually the case...the LSL south of ALB has about 10-12 trains joining it. The Silvers north of DC are the same, as is the Zephyr west of Sacramento. On the other hand, the Zephyr heading east only hits this at Naperville (within Metra-land), and you've got a similar story on the Crescent's southern end. My best guess is that if Indiana asked Amtrak to do this without these conditions happening, Amtrak's response would be for them to get lost.


----------



## William W. (Jun 28, 2014)

Makes sense. Hopefully, if Indiana is able to do this successfully, it will serve as an example for surrounding states. Then again, I'm not expecting any work on the Ohio Hub to be done until Kasich leaves office. That man turned down ~400 Million in federal dollars that was to be used as a starting investment to get the Ohio Hub going. He said "sure, you can give me the money, but I won't use it on passenger rail." The Feds promptly withdrew the money and used it elsewhere. Why any governor would turn down money for his state is beyond me.

I know that we're not supposed to talk politics here, but I just don't understand why so many people on the right oppose passenger rail development. I say this as a conservative/libertarian sort of guy. The backwardness of my peers annoys me so much sometimes.

To me, having good transportation infrastructure that includes rail helps the economy by moving people and goods efficiently. There are many cases where driving and flying aren't the best options, but are the only ones available.


----------



## neroden (Jun 28, 2014)

John Bobinyec said:


> Indiana DOT should contact NC DOT. NC started out the same way, with Amtrak providing everything for the Piedmonts. As time went on, NC provided it's own equipment (with Amtrak doing some of the rebuilds) and got some contractors to do the cleaning and daily maintenance. Amtrak still does the ticketing, provides the train and engine crews and the station agents. NCDOT sets the schedules.
> 
> It's totally doable.


Yeah, but NCDOT was SERIOUS. They fought a court case to regain control of the tracks; they committed hundreds of millions to improve them; they rebuilt over a dozen stations; they had a speed target, a long-term plan, a medium-term plan, and a short-term plan.

If Indiana DOT (home of the light rail ban and NASCAR, consistently underfunding the South Shore Line, building gratuitous expressways) gets that serious about intercity rail, I will have to check whether I have died and gone to heaven.



William W. said:


> I know that we're not supposed to talk politics here, but I just don't understand why so many people on the right oppose passenger rail development. I say this as a conservative/libertarian sort of guy. The backwardness of my peers annoys me so much sometimes.


Well: my only attempt at explanation: There are different types of "right wing".
I'm not sure "conservative" describes a coherent set of beliefs any more, it is used to cover so many different and nearly unrelated views (from "let's all be independent people living on our own ranches with no laws" to "let's all join under the rule of the One True Church", views which are pretty close to opposites).

I'm extremely conservative in the sense that I deeply dislike change and like to conserve things, but apparently this -- the definition in the dictionary -- has nothing to do with the modern political usages of "conservative".

There is a *very particular* type of right-wing group which really hates rail. I have sometimes suspected that these are better described as the automobile/gasoline/oil lobby, which has good reason to dislike rail. Because anti-rail views really don't seem to have any philosophical link with any other "right wing" belief, but they do have links with supporting oil extraction and sales. For some reason the oil lobby has become associated with the "right wing". Why, I don't know, or care really. Probably some historical accident. There are probably periods and places when they were associated with the "left wing".

Anyway, I can sort of see why the home of the Indy 500 might see passenger rail as a threat to the "automobile-centric" attitudes which help make the Indy 500 popular. For a while, GM execs didn't want people taking trains because they thought that would mean fewer automobile sales. At least that makes sense. It's the best I can come up with.


----------



## afigg (Jun 28, 2014)

William W. said:


> Do we know yet if the state is going to pay for any significant track improvements? As it stands, the HS is way too slow (5 hours) to compete with intercity bus service (~3 hours). This is made worse because the train is often late.
> 
> To me, that should be the first priority before operations shakeups, and getting new equipment.
> 
> I'm assuming that the plan to change control of the Hoosier State means that it will run separately of the Cardinal now? Would that mean that the Cardinal would shift to a detrain/receive only format north of IND (as is the case in other areas with LD trains and SD trains using the same stops)?


No, we do not know if IN DOT and the Governor are willing to consider providing funds for capital improvements. Even if they are willing to start a small freight and passenger rail capital program - and can do so without explicit authorization from the state legislature - it would be years before any track improvement projects could get started on construction. In the meantime, there are operational improvements that can be implemented such as a better schedule for Indiana stops and Corridor Capital is offering alternate old equipment in place of the Horizons.

I think as IN DOT and the communities along the route continue to provide subsidies to the HS, interest and support will grow in having also providing capital funds to tackle low hanging improvement projects for the CSX tracks in IN. Even a modest program, say $3 to $4 million a year, which is about VA has been providing to the Buckingham Branch railroad through its Short Line Preservation program for track and signal upgrades, over a period of years would pay for an incremental series of track upgrades.

We do not know what will happen to the Hoosier State if Corridor Capital provides alternate rolling stock to replace the Horizons and begins to consult with and discuss with IN DOT options for the HS. Maybe the HS stays as a 4 day a week service for the next several years, maybe it goes to 7 days a week, or maybe the real plan of IN DOT senior managers is to make a show of trying to cut costs for the HS so they have an excuse for killing the HS service entirely. We do NOT know. We can only speculate based on what we know so far.


----------



## edjbox (Jun 30, 2014)

anyone know what locomotives will be used?


----------



## neroden (Jun 30, 2014)

Same old Amtrak locomotives will be used, probably.


----------



## PerRock (Jul 1, 2014)

Does anyone know where CC keeps their rolling stock. Their address is a office building in downtown Chicago.

Also from another forum, it sounds like the CC Hi-Levels aren't rebuilt (or even up to the 110mph limit they talk about) so they will be leasing some single level cars from someone else. CC will also be contracting out the maintenance to another contractor. Crews will be provided by Amtrak. So what exactly is CC doing, besides getting a paycheck?

peter


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 1, 2014)

Indiana needs to study how North Carolina, California and Virginia do it so well!

Quickest way to success, you have to spend money to get established and eliminate the middle man that's in it for profit! Biz School 101!!!!


----------



## sechs (Jul 12, 2014)

rickycourtney said:


> The CCJPA contracts with the *Bay Area Rapid Transit District* (the operators of BART) for day-to-day management of the line


BART is a member of the CCJPA, not a contractor. It is the _managing _member.

This is like SamTrans, which is the managing member of the PCJPA.


----------



## railiner (Jul 12, 2014)

Sorry to be late to this subject, but wondering what the deal is with Indiana taking over the running of the Hoosier State from Amtrak, and awarding it to another operator? From what I can glean so far, is that they are funding the train, and apparently are not satisfied with the way Amtrak is running it....either operationally, or cost-wise....is that the gist of it?

Without any other background info, I am wondering how Amtrak feels about this....good or bad? Are they sorry, or rather relieved to be freed from this operation?

And if they are sore about it, what if they don't support it, as in not providing equipment, locomotives, qualified T&E crews, or even the use of Chicago Union Station?

Imagine if the train had to perhaps wring a deal with Metra to use the LaSalle Street Station?

Lots of "what-ifs"........


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jul 12, 2014)

Corridor Capital will just provide equipment for the Hoosier State. Amtrak will continue to actually run the train. What difference this makes to the bottom remains to be seen. The whole scheme doesn't seem very well thought out. However, other state-supported corridors may go up for bidders that include Amtrak and big time private operators like Keolis and Herzog. In the past, the freight railroads have indicated that they would simply like to deal with just Amtrak. That may change. But we could see multiple operators for the state services in the future. Amtrak is not guaranteed to hang on to those services. They will become like the commuter operations that Amtrak has won and lost over the decades.


----------



## railiner (Jul 12, 2014)

I may be off base here, but a state awarding contracts such as this, opens up lots of possibilites for corruption...somebody's "brother-in-law" may get their pockets lined.....


----------



## afigg (Jul 24, 2014)

Capital Corridor may not get the chance to provide equipment to the HS. The city of Indianapolis has decided to not provide $300K for the HS next fiscal year: Indy pulls support for passenger rail service. This may be it for the HS, but I would not rule out last minute political deals. Excerpt:



> Passenger rail service between Chicago and Indianapolis might end before a new vendor gets the chance to take over the line and make good on its promises to dramatically improve service.
> 
> Last year, Indianapolis officials signed on for the one-year deal to subsidize the Amtrak line running between Indy and Chicago after Amtrak announced in 2012 that it would end its shorter routes, which meant Indiana’s last passenger line. Now they have announced they’re ending that subsidy.
> 
> ...


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 25, 2014)

Redneck brains. Or lack thereof.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 25, 2014)

Say Goodnight Gracie! Hope the Hoosiers that don't fly will enjoy riding the Card or the Dog to CHI and the East Coast!!!

Penny wise and pound foolish!!!


----------



## Ryan (Jul 25, 2014)

I'm just going to leave this here.



RyanS said:


> oldtimer said:
> 
> 
> > I think I'll add a tall cool draft to go with the hot buttered popcorn!
> ...


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jul 25, 2014)

Have each community pay for a train was a interesting concept. Something like try to get each state to pay for a long distance train.

What to do when a state or town refuses to pay.

A bit hard to keep the door close at the first / final stop.

Oh well it a short and interesting idea, and now my popcorn is finished, and off to real world issues I go.


----------



## Rob Creighton (Jul 25, 2014)

It's a shame... because with a couple of more trains... a couple of better arrival/departure times into Indy and a couple more options into and out of Chicago... it would work. It would've worked for me on multiple occasions to Chicago... and downtown Indy... is a really nice place to visit... and THAT would be a good short train day trip from where I lived in Lafayette. I think frequency is the key to success in this corridor. If not, I'm not sure Amtrak should do any more service than the Cardinal. (Which, in theory, wouldn't hurt service if it were a daily train. That, as a lot of know is a different kettle of fish!)


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jul 25, 2014)

Having the communities along the line contribute to the train's operation was a bad idea in the first place. But what else would you expect from Indiana.


----------



## The Whistler (Jul 25, 2014)

A separate Hoosier State train may end up benefiting the Cardinal. The Hoosier state is often coupled onto the Cardinal when it has the sleeper in rear. This puts the sleeper and the café in the middle of the train allowing coach passengers to walk through the sleeper if they want a sit down breakfast or a coffee from the café car. It breaks up the privacy of the sleeper car to a degree and has the potential to affect security. The Hoosier state couples on in IND around breakfast time when many of the sleeper passengers are having breakfast and not in their rooms.


----------



## William W. (Jul 25, 2014)

A separate Hoosier State not only helps the Cardinal, but also frees the train from having to wait for a late arriving Cardinal. That gives a lot more flexibility to the schedule, and would significantly improve OTP.

I think that the primary goal of Hoosier State service should be to allow a passenger to get into Chicago at 9-10 AM, and leave at 7-8 PM. There also needs to be a morning south bound and evening northbound train. Both without having to get on and off at inconvenient times. As it currently stands, the HS is too slow to be a truly practical way to travel if one wants to spend a single day in Chicago, or vice versa. If they can change the departure of the HS out of IND to 7AM, and its arrival time into IND to 11PM (adjust appropriately for the opposite direction trains), I think that the service would be much more viable. Of course, that requires cooperation from CSX, and would ultimately require double tracking all the way from IND to CHI. The only way that will happen is if Indiana is willing to invest in its rail infrastructure. I'd wonder though if there is more potential for CSX to cooperate here than elsewhere. The single track situation can't be ideal for them either. I don't know what things are like on the ground, but doubling tracking should also benefit them.

I don't know how worrying IND's choice to pull out is. If Indiana state government really is committed to the train, I'd think that they'd be able to provide an incentive to the city, or could potentially put some sort of pressure on it to convince the mayor to reverse his decision. Then again, if the state isn't really committed to service, then IND's decision really could be the beginning of the end.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 25, 2014)

It is the end. It's over. I was wondering when it would end. It ended now. This paves the way and provides pressure for a daily Cardinal.


----------



## Paulus (Jul 25, 2014)

Eh. I'd be a bit surprised if they weren't able to improve the bottom line by $300K.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jul 25, 2014)

Yes but why would the 2nd biggest city not have to pay anything?


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jul 25, 2014)

For the record I think have towns pay a part of the cost was and is a bad idea.

I also think the Southwest Chief plan to have a few states chip in, is also a bad idea.


----------



## CHamilton (Jul 25, 2014)

Indianapolis' refusal to fund the Hoosier State hardly comes as a surprise. Some cities might support station improvements and operations, but unless you're a city that has large tourism income — which I doubt IND does — city councils can't be expected to see the benefits of network effects. This is the expected outcome of PRIIA 209. Those of us who care for the national network, and don't live in states with the money and political will to support trains, need to push for the repeal of, or at least revisions to, PRIIA 209.


----------



## John Bobinyec (Jul 25, 2014)

Not so sure about the repeal of PRIIA 209. I do agree with a previous poster that the state of Indiana, not the individual towns along the line, should have been pushing to keep the Hoosier State.

jb


----------



## jis (Jul 25, 2014)

I am not so sure about the repeal of 209 either. I think it is a good idea for the areas served by a train to have a stake in it. And if they don't want to have anything to do with it then no one should be surprised if there is no train lacking the existence of some other reason that would cause someone else to fund such.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## neroden (Jul 26, 2014)

Asking cities to pay for capital improvements is viable; asking them to pay for operations never was.

It is worth noting that Indianapolis is actually rather tourism dependent. They made a conscious decision to depend on tourism a decade or two back. The home of the Indy 500 probably isn't thinking about tourists arriving by train, though.


----------



## jis (Jul 26, 2014)

You win some and you lose some. Remember that one of today's more successful LD trains started as an experimental train funded by New York and Ohio. OTOH, the nationally funded train between the same end points is no more. So one can never tell for sure how things will pan out over 40 years.

Even before 209, there were 403b trains that were funded by some, but not all states/communities on its path.


----------



## neroden (Jul 26, 2014)

I should probably expand on why cities will almost never fund operations of intercity rail.

(1) By definition, an intercity line leaves the city and goes to other cities.

(2) If the city is small enough that the government thinsk of this as an opportunity, the city will have too small a budget to fund operations.

(3) If the city is large enough to have the budget to fund such a line, the city government will typically think of the route as siphoning passengers away from it, not as bringing passengers to it.

(4) If the city is so large that the government knows all the passengers are coming to it (e.g. Chicago), the government typically doesn't care about attracting more passengers and treats the line as supporting the cities on the other end

(5) The only exception: if the entire city is a tourist trap, like Las Vegas.

For some reason, capital investments don't trigger the same mentality. (Perhaps because the capital investment always goes directly into the city paying for it.)

Anyway, the result for the Hoosier State is:

- Chicago doesn't care because it thinks of the line as supporting Indiana cities

- Indianapolis doesn't care because it thinks of the line as supporting Chicago and the smaller cities

- the smaller cities don't have the money

States are large enough and integrated enough that their governments can think in terms of connecting cities. Cities generally aren't. Even a line as short as NM Railrunner had to be created by the state government.


----------



## railiner (Jul 26, 2014)

jis said:


> You win some and you lose some. Remember that one of today's more successful LD trains started as an experimental train funded by New York and Ohio. OTOH, the nationally funded train between the same end points is no more. So one can never tell for sure how things will pan out over 40 years.
> 
> Even before 209, there were 403b trains that were funded by some, but not all states/communities on its path.


The case of the Lakeshore was a 'fluke'....that route never should have been discontinued.....


----------



## railiner (Jul 26, 2014)

neroden said:


> I should probably expand on why cities will almost never fund operations of intercity rail.
> 
> (1) By definition, an intercity line leaves the city and goes to other cities.
> 
> ...


Perhaps Indianapolis is correct in its assessment of who benefits, but not Chicago....

If the schedule was flipped so that the train would come into IND for the day, and then return in the evening, IND would benefit from the 'small town folks' coming in to spend their money for shopping, medical services, etc. As it stands, CHI now receives that benefit, although they don't consider it enough to be worth their support....


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jul 26, 2014)

Lots of valid ideas. However Indianapolis is just dropping out and not trying to make it a plus for them. Sure sign of poor leadership, but Indianapolis is not the only city with issues of leadership.

Had a meeting about my Post Office losing window hours. The big guy just did not care for feedback and was just going thur the motions.

Much easier to quit than come up with a plan. If it was just Indianapolis and not a bunch of smaller city to work with, they may of been a chance.

.


----------



## CHamilton (Jul 26, 2014)

neroden has laid out all of the reasons that I think 209 has the potential for significant harm to the national network. I agree that states and cities should help fund rail service, but they are not going to want to fund anything that is perceived as taking business elsewhere.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jul 26, 2014)

I agree that cities should have nothing to do with funding intercity services. States, however, should be encouraged to do so. Section 209 actually rewards the states who have boosted passenger service for a long time. States that have no interest in local services shouldn't receive them free of charge, if other states are willing to put their money where their mouths are. Indiana's attempt to extort money from the on-line cities is backwards thinking.


----------



## jis (Jul 26, 2014)

MikefromCrete said:


> I agree that cities should have nothing to do with funding intercity services. States, however, should be encouraged to do so. Section 209 actually rewards the states who have boosted passenger service for a long time. States that have no interest in local services shouldn't receive them free of charge, if other states are willing to put their money where their mouths are. Indiana's attempt to extort money from the on-line cities is backwards thinking.


Wholly agreed.
Trying to make Section 209 the devil in all this is highly misguided and counter-productive IMHO. Section 209 is not about national system. It is about regional systems. Similar mechanisms have been put in places like Germany and France too.


----------



## andersone (Jul 27, 2014)

Somebody remember why the articles of confederation didn't work?

oh yeah, no ability to get things done on a larger scale,,,,

viola - here comes the constitution,,,,,,,

follow this to it's natural end,,,,,


----------



## jis (Jul 27, 2014)

And the constitution was a federal one (as in creating a federation of states), not a monolithic one, allowing states considerable freedom in most areas of commerce, provided they followed some core rules of the game, laid down eventually in the Commerce Clause. That is the model we should be striving for, not a monolithic one. I think Section 209 actually proceeds in that direction and is enabling introduction of many regional services by providing a relatively level playing field for regional players, and incidentally forcing additional levels of transparency from the current monolith. It does not and should not detract from maintaining and enhancing a national network. Similarly Section 212, which many railfans hate too, is forcing some level of transparency on the NEC too.

Specifically as applied to passenger rail this would mean participation in a common reservation and ticketing system encompassing all passenger services (which we do not have at present). Basic passenger's bill of rights (which we do not have at present). A well defined appeals process to handle things when they go wrong (which we seem not to have an effective one at present). Governance of passenger rail related contracts and agreements, and specially enforcing of them (which we have very little of today) etc. So clearly we have work to do in setting up a framework to enable growth of passenger service. What we have in place is really neither adequate, nor sustainable with the framework that we have in place. Unfortunately, instead of pushing for these basic needs, we endlessly bicker on about relatively minor issues.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 27, 2014)

You know Railfans, Jishnu. All change is bad.


----------



## Rob Creighton (Jul 30, 2014)

Indianapolis actually generates significant income from conventions and tourism and Visit Indy, their convention and tourism bureau, actively works hard to generate tourism and conventions to Indy. That said, with an 11:50 PM arrival in Indy, how much can they promote that? While what passes for the Indy train station is more or less downtown near hotels, who wants to mess with that kind of late arrival if you've got a convention the next day, or you're just showing up for a visit? (And downtown Indy isn't really "hopping" at midnight anyway, which might make arriving there that late a little odd? At least I felt that way stepping out of my hotel at Midnight for a smoke.) 

The 5AM departure for Chicago, while a little early, makes sense, because you CAN spend the day there-- and the reality is most of the Indiana cities served on the return late afternoon trip -- while scheduled later than ideal, aren't so late that it's completely unattractive to do Chicago as a day trip. Especially if you're going to see Navy Pier, do some shopping at Water Tower or State Street, hit Lincoln Park Zoo, eat some deep dish, that sort of thing. (although, like I've said in a couple of other posts, if you're traveling to the outlying suburbs or neighborhoods--it becomes debatable if you could truly do that as a day trip.) There's certainly a benefit for the residents of Indiana to use the service to get to Chicago for pleasure or business. There's a benefit to Purdue students and University students who go to school in Indy or Chicago too. 

From an Indiana tourism viewpoint, or Indianapolis tourism viewpoint -- the train runs too late to benefit tourism.. And most towns, with the exception of Lafayette and Indianapolis... really, there isn't much to drive tourism for those cities. So if you're asking cities to pay the freight, it has to be more of an expense the city wants to put money into because it benefits their citizens, and they HAVE the money and desire to do that. In a corridor where you can go between the two cities in 4 or 41/2 hours in a car... which most people do... I'm not sure the desire is there.


----------



## neroden (Jul 30, 2014)

So the service needs to be better in order for Indianapolis to support it, but Indianapolis needs to support it for it to be better?  Other cities have made the leap of faith....


----------



## Railroad Bill (Jul 30, 2014)

We drove from our home in Ohio to Indianapolis. Did the art museums, stayed overnight, left the next morning on the Hoosier State for a ride to Chicago. Did sites of Chicago: museums, Navy Pier, riding the ELs, lunch and hopped back on the Hoosier State southbound, back to hotel in Indy that night, and drove home the next day. A weekend in Indy and Chicago and a nice train ride to boot.


----------



## andersone (Jul 30, 2014)

Indy downtown USED to be great. I remember talking to Koko Taylor in between sets for a whole evening,,, Now the 1G (big ten) lives there, and the She Who Must Be Obeyed and I frequently drove over there to watch NCAA BB tournaments,,,, downtown had taken the old train station and turned it into a wonderful place, including a (Holiday Inn? ) that had sleepers,,, but the last time we were there that was all history,,,,,

Arrival and departure times are horrible for us, so we just make the three and a half hour drive while the Cardinal leaves South Portsmouth at 10:50 pm and arrives in Indy at 5 am,,, reversed pretty much coming back. ... but twice as long as the drive,,,,,

.


----------



## MrFSS (Jul 30, 2014)

The *HI Crown Plaza* is still there. Use to have a great set of restaurants, etc in the old train station, but they are gone Plenty of other ploaces to eat within a few blocks of the current station facilities.


----------



## cirdan (Jul 30, 2014)

jis said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that cities should have nothing to do with funding intercity services. States, however, should be encouraged to do so. Section 209 actually rewards the states who have boosted passenger service for a long time. States that have no interest in local services shouldn't receive them free of charge, if other states are willing to put their money where their mouths are. Indiana's attempt to extort money from the on-line cities is backwards thinking.
> ...


Only that a train covering the distance of the Hoosier State would probably be considered LD in France or Germany. The trains the regions support are much more local.


----------



## jis (Jul 30, 2014)

That is because their regions are setup as departments, which are geographically smaller, given of course that all of France is the size of a good sized US State. That does not negate the basic nature of the organizational structure. Hoosier State in most ways is similar to a Vermonter, or an Empire Service, a Pennsylvanian/Keystone or even Virginia Service.

Having said that, of course every state has considerable freedom in how they set up their own shop. The fact that they think each individual town and village on the route should fund it appears to be just a way of doing passive pushback. Afterall that is not how they manage their state highways. The whole setup seemed to be an attempt by the DOT to get something going with close to zero support from the legislature and the governor, and it apparently just fell flat on its face.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 30, 2014)

jis said:


> . . . The whole setup seemed to be an attempt by the DOT to get something going
> 
> with close to zero support from the legislature and the governor, and it apparently
> 
> just fell flat on its face.


I read somewhere that the State of Indiana paid half the shortfall on

condition that the cities put up the other half. The cities did put up

half the money for one year, probably more than the state politicians

had expected them to do. Now Indianapolis brings down the house

of cards, no doubt greatly pleasing the haters in the state government. 

If the silly set-up had held up for another two or three years, then 

a daily _Cardinal _would have completely changed the game.

If we had any serious money coming from the feds -- ah, those were

the days, LOL -- then $200 million to extend passing sidings etc would

cut 30 minutes out of the trip time and give the _Hoosier State_ competitive

trip times, and more frequencies with better departure and arrival times.

Instead we're getting the haters' dream: a three-days-a-week long

distance train that is the second biggest loser measured loss per 

passenger paired with a state-supported (or un-supported) train 

that features slow average speeds, terrible arrival and departure times,

worn cars, sad stations. Altogether it's a perfect piece of evidence for

the haters claim that government can't do anything right.


----------



## jis (Jul 30, 2014)

And yet there are other governments around that seem to be doing quite a bit that is right in many parts of the US. Also it is not as if the private industry is doing much better yet in the arena of regularly scheduled commercial passenger rail service. Much talk relatively little action so far.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jul 30, 2014)

WoodyinNYC said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > . . . The whole setup seemed to be an attempt by the DOT to get something going
> ...


What makes you think Indiana would accept federal money for any kind of upgrade? Look at Indianapolis. No signs of any rail transit planning.


----------



## ruck (Aug 14, 2014)

The mayor of Lafayette, Tony Roswarski, mentioned the Hoosier State today in his monthly Ask The Mayor (today's program isn't up yet). Specifically he said that he's more hopeful just in the last few days with things going on. Specifically he mentioned that Indy may pay through January, obviously the problem is still there but it's better than nothing. He mentioned Corridor Capital has a contract with a local Indy deli to provide food. The root of the issue is that the local communities can't support the train for forever, and that basically they are paying for it till INDOT starts contributing.

So not great, but better than an a direct _it's shutting down in October_.


----------



## neroden (Aug 17, 2014)

There are two special ringfenced state funds set up to support rail service in Indiana; currently all of the money from both of them goes to the South Shore Line. I wonder if they could get funding from one or both of 'em.


----------



## CHamilton (Aug 20, 2014)

Indianapolis to fund Amtrak Hoosier State rail line through January




> INDIANAPOLIS (Aug. 20, 2014) – Indianapolis and several other communities will continue to fund the Amtrak Hoosier State Line through January.
> The Department of Public Works confirmed the agreement Wednesday with the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT).


----------



## Railroad Bill (Aug 20, 2014)

CHamilton said:


> Indianapolis to fund Amtrak Hoosier State rail line through January
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good news, Charlie


----------



## William W. (Aug 20, 2014)

Good news. I still think though that the only way that the HS will be viable in the long-term is if these things happen:

1. Track improvements (double tracking, elimination of speed restrictions, and replacement of jointed rail).

2. A food service car is needed.

3. The HS needs to be separated from the Cardinal. That way, it can have a much more flexible schedule, and doesn't have to wait for a late 51.

The end goal needs to be a 3.5-4 hour travel time, in both directions. It has to be able to compete with the IND-CHI intercity bus services.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Aug 20, 2014)

The Hoosier State doesn't have to wait for the Cardinal since it runs on the days the Cardinal doesn't.

Improvements to CSX tracks in Indiana and gaining a faster entrance to Chicago are key to improving the train's performance. The new entrance to Chicago is pretty easy -- stay on CN, ex-GTW, to Harvey, then north on CN, ex-IC, using the same route as CONO, Illini, Saluki. Eventually the Grand Crossing project will eliminate backup at Union Station. Improving the CSX, ex-Monon, will be costly since the line isn't even signaled. Good luck getting Indiana to do that.


----------



## William W. (Aug 20, 2014)

Technically, it does. On the days that the Cardinal runs, the HS's cars are attached to the back of the Cardinal. If the Hoosier state could become it's own train 7 days a week, that would help the situation a lot, IMO.


----------



## Daniel (Aug 20, 2014)

So with Corridor Capital taking over, would the trains not be considered "Amtrak" trains in terms of appearing in Amtrak timetables/maps and on train logos? How would this work?


----------



## William W. (Aug 20, 2014)

It would be owned and operated by INDOT/ Corridor Capital, but would still be ticketed by Amtrak, and would still technically be part of the Amtrak system (Just as Amtrak California and Cascades are).


----------



## MrFSS (Aug 21, 2014)

> Indianapolis plans to spend $3.7 million to fix pressing structural problems at _*historic Union Station*_, and architects say the building could use another $3.8 million in improvements.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Full story *HERE*:


----------



## lepearso (Aug 21, 2014)

Question: if the Cardinal / HS should get rerouted via CN on the old IC route, would it end up avoiding Dyer and instead serving Homewood, IL?


----------



## MikefromCrete (Aug 21, 2014)

lepearso said:


> Question: if the Cardinal / HS should get rerouted via CN on the old IC route, would it end up avoiding Dyer and instead serving Homewood, IL?


No, it would still serve Dyer. Homewood is south of the junction between the IC and GTW at Harvey.


----------



## neroden (Aug 21, 2014)

Indianapolis is now being completely ridiculous. Nobody wants to buy the Amtrak/Greyhound station from them. Amtrak won't. Greyhound won't. Why would anyone else?

Geez, the situation in Indiana is sad and pathetic.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Aug 21, 2014)

MikefromCrete said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...





> Railway Age
> 
> Monday, June 02, 2014 Amtrak, the Federal Railroad Administration, Norfolk Southern, and the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) have embarked on constructing the $71.4 million Indiana Gateway project, which will upgrade the right-of-way between Porter, Ind., and the Illinois state line shared by Amtrak and NS trains.


http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/passenger/intercity/amtrak-fra-ns-indot-kick-off-71-million-upgrade-project.htm


----------



## neroden (Aug 22, 2014)

There seems to be some slow progress on the long-delayed West Lake Corridor (South Shore Line to Dyer and later Lowell) as well, with a lot of local monetary commitments. (Representative Pete Visclosky has been pushing it hard for a long time.) The interesting thing about this for the Hoosier State is, of course, the route it follows.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Aug 22, 2014)

neroden said:


> There seems to be some slow progress on the long-delayed West Lake Corridor (South Shore Line to Dyer and later Lowell) as well, with a lot of local monetary commitments. (Representative Pete Visclosky has been pushing it hard for a long time.) The interesting thing about this for the Hoosier State is, of course, the route it follows.


The Hoosier State could use the South Shore's West Lake Corridor to reach Union Station via Grand Crossing or the St. Charles Air Line and would be the best choice of any alternate routes. I imagine the HS could run Chicago to Dyer in 40 minutes or less and any interference would be minimal.


----------



## VentureForth (Aug 22, 2014)

So... does this mean that the Hoosier State will no longer be available to book on Amtrak.com?


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 22, 2014)

Generally, it will be bookable as an Amtrak train, like California's Capitol Corridor (not to be confused with Corridor Capital).


----------



## VentureForth (Aug 22, 2014)

So then, why can't we get other state owned, non-Amtrak systems to get on board with Amtrak reservations? Like commuter trains?


----------



## afigg (Aug 22, 2014)

VentureForth said:


> So then, why can't we get other state owned, non-Amtrak systems to get on board with Amtrak reservations? Like commuter trains?


Because they are commuter trains run by local transit agencies with their own ticketing and price systems?


----------



## jis (Aug 22, 2014)

afigg said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > So then, why can't we get other state owned, non-Amtrak systems to get on board with Amtrak reservations? Like commuter trains?
> ...


I have heard that even if there was a desire, the cost would be enormous to achieve that, because it will take complete replacement of the Amtrak reservation system to have a single system that could issue tickets uniformly. Apparently when all the Amtrak California stations, Thruway and all, were added to the Amtrak system, it pretty much brought it to its limit. Adding something like an LIRR or even an NJT to it will cause it to pretty much crash and burn apparently. Of course, someone like Anthony may be able to give a more informed verification or refutation of it if he is able to without getting into trouble himself.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 23, 2014)

Ok, not having the Chicago-area tracks memorized...

Other than catenary, are there any obstacles to using the SSL? The lines are close enough to one another that a connecting track would seem to be simple (and probably easier than the Porter mess).

Edit: As to ticketing, without getting into _utterly _random codes, throwing in a few hundred commuter stations might be more than a three-letter code system can take.


----------



## William W. (Aug 23, 2014)

Having a unified national booking system would be convenient, but it doesn't really seem all that necessary. The point of Amtrak's booking system, just like the airlines, is to allow people to book reservations months in advance, in order to ensure that they get a ticket for a limited commodity (seats, rooms, etc). How often do you feel the need to purchase a 20 minute commuter rail ticket that far in advance? Most commuter rail systems have kiosks at every station that you can use to buy tickets on the spot. It's not like the commuter train is going to be completely sold out by the day of departure.

It's a matter of the cost way exceeding any benefit that might be gleaned from such a system. ARROW is already teetering on the brink these days; I don't think that it can take much more than it already has.


----------



## MattW (Aug 23, 2014)

William W. said:


> Having a unified national booking system would be convenient, but it doesn't really seem all that necessary. The point of Amtrak's booking system, just like the airlines, is to allow people to book reservations months in advance, in order to ensure that they get a ticket for a limited commodity (seats, rooms, etc). *How often do you feel the need to purchase a 20 minute commuter rail ticket that far in advance?* Most commuter rail systems have kiosks at every station that you can use to buy tickets on the spot. It's not like the commuter train is going to be completely sold out by the day of departure.
> 
> It's a matter of the cost way exceeding any benefit that might be gleaned from such a system. ARROW is already teetering on the brink these days; I don't think that it can take much more than it already has.


(Bolding mine) any time I've booked the rail trip months in advance and need to get to my final destination via commuter rail.


----------



## William W. (Aug 23, 2014)

Again though, when you go to take the commuter train, it doesn't seem that hard to stop at a kiosk to buy a ticket. I use VRE all the time to connect from Amtrak trains, and it isn't a huge burden. The point I was trying to make is that it would be more convenient, but the overall gain from the amount of resources needed to accomplish such a goal would be minor. It certainly wouldn't result in enough of a revenue gain to justify the millions spent in creating a new booking system.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Aug 23, 2014)

MattW said:


> William W. said:
> 
> 
> > Having a unified national booking system would be convenient, but it doesn't really seem all that necessary. The point of Amtrak's booking system, just like the airlines, is to allow people to book reservations months in advance, in order to ensure that they get a ticket for a limited commodity (seats, rooms, etc). *How often do you feel the need to purchase a 20 minute commuter rail ticket that far in advance?* Most commuter rail systems have kiosks at every station that you can use to buy tickets on the spot. It's not like the commuter train is going to be completely sold out by the day of departure.
> ...


And on the NEC, you want to book at least 15 days out to get the discounted price, and I believe there is a limited # sold at the discounted price, so you want to book even earlier if you know your plans.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 23, 2014)

Well, they're able to sell MARC (but not VRE) tickets from the quick-trak machines, though I don't think you can buy a MARC ticket from the quick-trak machine in, say, NYP, or RVR, which would be a nice convenience. And while buying a separate commuter ticket isn't that difficult, it is an extra step and an inconvenience, and could be confusing to infrequent travelers not familiar with the layout of the station.

In any event, I have always thought that a business enterprise should be about making it easy as possible for the customer to spend his/her money on the business's products, not be some sort of aptitude test of the customer's skills at figuring our the business's arcane practices. If we want more people to use interconnected rail systems, it's probably a good idea to make them as easy as possible to use. Otherwise they ight say, the hell with it and go back to their cars.


----------



## afigg (Aug 23, 2014)

MattW said:


> (Bolding mine) any time I've booked the rail trip months in advance and need to get to my final destination via commuter rail.


Ok, let's say you book LIRR tickets through the Amtrak reservation system. Do you get rush hour tickets or off-peak tickets for LIRR? Is the LIRR conductor supposed to have a scanner than can read your Amtrak eTicket?
Also, what do you mean by commuter rail? LIRR, MNRR, NJT, yea, ok. But what about PATH or the NYC subway? People use those to commute. Or the CTA L? What about DC Metro which is a transit/commuter system hybrid? In the east, SEPTA doesn't even have ticket vending machines for the Regional rail system, but zone tickets. SEPTA is upgrading to a NPT, but their Regional rail is probably a couple of years away for NPT and smartcards.

Is Amtrak supposed to have a reservation system that works with CalTrain, BART?, Metrolink, Metra, DART, SEPTA, MTA, etc? All of which are at different points in fare payment technology upgrade cycles with different fare systems. Some are in the process of upgrading to systems that will accept direct payments from smartphones or RFID equipped credit cards. Regular users of the commuter or transit system will mostly get system smartcards for preloaded amounts or multi-day/monthly passes. But visitors will be able to pay directly with their credit card with the correct fare.

Why bother seriously complicating the Amtrak reservation system to even attempt to work with the many different commuter and transit agencies in the US? When I was connecting to LIRR at NYP for periodic business trips a few years ago, I went to a LIRR ticket vending machine at NYP and brought the ticket I needed. To take SEPTA, MNRR, the T, the CTA, for example, I have either brought tickets or a card at the station. Not that difficult.


----------



## MattW (Aug 24, 2014)

afigg said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> > (Bolding mine) any time I've booked the rail trip months in advance and need to get to my final destination via commuter rail.
> ...


I guess that depends on the train you select. While ideally in the future we'll have unified ticketing media across all transit systems, for now, if you're far enough out, the proper fare media could be mailed to you, or possibly picked up at the station. Just give your name or reservation number, and it's handed over, or printed out. Perhaps for now it would only speed things by <15 seconds per transaction, but that number could grow in the future.


> Also, what do you mean by commuter rail? LIRR, MNRR, NJT, yea, ok. But what about PATH or the NYC subway? People use those to commute. Or the CTA L? What about DC Metro which is a transit/commuter system hybrid? In the east, SEPTA doesn't even have ticket vending machines for the Regional rail system, but zone tickets. SEPTA is upgrading to a NPT, but their Regional rail is probably a couple of years away for NPT and smartcards.
> 
> Is Amtrak supposed to have a reservation system that works with CalTrain, BART?, Metrolink, Metra, DART, SEPTA, MTA, etc? All of which are at different points in fare payment technology upgrade cycles with different fare systems. Some are in the process of upgrading to systems that will accept direct payments from smartphones or RFID equipped credit cards. Regular users of the commuter or transit system will mostly get system smartcards for preloaded amounts or multi-day/monthly passes. But visitors will be able to pay directly with their credit card with the correct fare.


Again, ideally, all public transit systems, bus, ferry, commuter rail, Amtrak, etc. would share the same fare media. I could even see value bringing the airlines in on it actually so one ticket puts you on the bus to the train station, then the train to the airport, then the plane to the arrival airport, then the train from it, then the bus to your final destination.


> Why bother seriously complicating the Amtrak reservation system to even attempt to work with the many different commuter and transit agencies in the US? When I was connecting to LIRR at NYP for periodic business trips a few years ago, I went to a LIRR ticket vending machine at NYP and brought the ticket I needed. To take SEPTA, MNRR, the T, the CTA, for example, I have either brought tickets or a card at the station. Not that difficult.


It's not so much complicating Amtrak's reservation system, as creating a national ticketing system across all modes and systems. I'm afraid though, SEPTA, Metro North, Metrolink, Metra or anyone else has no reason to initiate this, except for the Northeastern systems, they're isolated domains, and even SEPTA and NJT cleanly interface in exactly two locations. So it would have to be Amtrak's doing, or from higher up in the DOT, as no one else has any reason to initiate any project of this scope.


----------



## neroden (Aug 24, 2014)

As with everyone else, the reason I've heard is that ARROW is antiquated. When Amtrak replaces its reservations system, the new one may be able to handle the complicated problem of selling MBTA, Metro-North, LIRR, NYC Subway, NJT, SEPTA, MARC, Baltimore MetroRail, WMATA, VRE, SunRail, Tampa TECO, TriRail, Miami Metro, Metra, CTA, South Shore Line, Twin Cities Metro, Denver RTD, UTA Trax & Frontrunner, DART, St Louis Metrolink, TRE, NM RailRunner, Tucson SunLink, Sound Transit Sounder & Link, TriMet, Sacramento LRT, BART, SF Muni, VTA, LA Metro, LA Metrolink, Coaster, Sprinter, and San Diego Trolley tickets.

Or at least more of them than it currently handles.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 24, 2014)

What's the other place Septa cleanly interfaces with NJT??


----------



## jis (Aug 24, 2014)

Other than Trenton and Philly 30th St? None that I am aware of.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 24, 2014)

They cleanly (at least by NJT standards) interface at Trenton. They occupy the same vague location at 30th street. I wouldn't call that interfacing.


----------



## grover5995 (Sep 1, 2014)

neroden said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. The IN DOT RFP covered the subject of freight railroad access. But freight access agreements were: "INDOT, along with the contractor, will discuss track access arrangements with host freight railroad right of way owners after the notice to proceed is sent to the successful contractor."
> ...


Once the dedicated passenger tracks are in place between CUS and IN, these trains could be routed over the former PA line through Valparaiso and Wanatah. That would speed up the schedule quite a bit.


----------



## Eric S (Sep 1, 2014)

Dedicated tracks - I assume this refers to the South of the Lake Route currently being studied, right? Keep in mind this project is largely unfunded at this point, so any reroute is a long, long time from taking place.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Sep 2, 2014)

Eric S said:


> Dedicated tracks - I assume this refers to the South of the Lake Route currently being studied, right? Keep in mind this project is largely unfunded at this point, so any reroute is a long, long time from taking place.





Eric S said:


> Dedicated tracks - I assume this refers to the South of the Lake Route currently being studied, right? Keep in mind this project is largely unfunded at this point, so any reroute is a long, long time from taking place.


South of the Lake reroute has nothing to do with the Cardinal/Hoosier State. It would affect the CL, LSL and Michigan trains. The former PRR mainline though Valpo and Fort Wayne is now a 20 mph short line. It would be very expensive to put it back into shape for passenger trains.


----------



## cirdan (Sep 2, 2014)

jis said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > VentureForth said:
> ...


I can believe that.

But the question is, is that a good enough reason. Software doesn't tend to have a very long lifetime. So next time it comes up for replacement, would it be worthwhile building something that has the power and capability to integrate commuter systems, rather than just replacing like for like.

I can see there might be certain limitations, for example on the commuter systems that require machine-readable tickets, and different incompatible standards presently being in use. But shouldn't in the long term all systems be interested in a unified and across the board offering able to sell any station to any station journeys? It may be a long journey of many intermediate steps to get there. But as they say, it's the job that's never begun that takes the longest to complete.


----------



## cirdan (Sep 2, 2014)

William W. said:


> Again though, *when you go to take the commuter train, it doesn't seem that hard to stop at a kiosk to buy a ticket*. I use VRE all the time to connect from Amtrak trains, and it isn't a huge burden. The point I was trying to make is that it would be more convenient, but the overall gain from the amount of resources needed to accomplish such a goal would be minor. It certainly wouldn't result in enough of a revenue gain to justify the millions spent in creating a new booking system.



This is because you understand the topology and geography of the system. You know where amtrak connects to the commuter system and how best to interchange.

In the NEC for example, the commuter rail system and Amtrak do not connect at a single location (as as is the case for example in Dallas) but connect in multiple locations. If you are local or know the geography, you know which of those makes sense for you and which doesn't. If you aren't local, it's a lot of bother to work it out and a door to door journey planner would make things simpler for you without forcing you to study the geography and schedules.

And then the ticket sales system should be integrated with the journey planner as forcing the cutomer to punch all that information in a second time is not user friendly.

I can even see an argument for there being a small surcharge for a seamless ticket versus having to buy tickets separately. The reason being that if Amtrak is late (or the commter line is late) and you miss your connection, that is no longer only your problem and your fault.


----------



## cirdan (Sep 2, 2014)

Anderson said:


> Ok, not having the Chicago-area tracks memorized...
> 
> Other than catenary, are there any obstacles to using the SSL? The lines are close enough to one another that a connecting track would seem to be simple (and probably easier than the Porter mess).
> 
> Edit: As to ticketing, without getting into _utterly _random codes, throwing in a few hundred commuter stations might be more than a three-letter code system can take.


Aren't the three letter codes in reailty just a throwback to the old times when booking agents had to punch cryptic strings into command line interfaces on arcane terminals?

With today's IT systems that really isn't necessary as you can start typing the place and the computer will fill in the rest or offer you a choice if could be ambiguous.

Having things spelt out is always more user friendly than having a code.

I guess the codes do have a real value for the handling of checked baggage as the handler needs to see where the bag is going at a glance and without stopping to think. But commuter rail systems are not going to start handling baggage any time sonn, so they wouldn't need those codes.

But if the codes really do matter, how about a system where Amtrak gets to keep all the three letter codes and commuter systems get, say, five or six letter codes consisting of the Amtrak code plus a location identifier?


----------



## andersone (Sep 2, 2014)

not to be the grammar police

but I think spelt is wheat

but your suggestion about layered codes is excellent


----------



## jis (Sep 2, 2014)

Lets put it this way. The three letter code is really a non-problem when you are talking about replacing a reservation system with a newer one. Nothing says that the new codes have to be three letter, and all the old codes can be retained as is even with additional aliases thrown in (making good use of the much larger storage and much more capable processors available today). The real problem facing this excellent idea is finding the funding for said overall replacement of the system and the setting up the requisite governance system that all stake holders agree to abide by and use, and body for running the integrated system, plus the associated tarrif and cross charging agreements.

But as is not unusual, us techies are prone to focus on some trivial technical detail while ignoring the real problems until they hit us in our collective face.


----------



## Eric S (Sep 2, 2014)

MikefromCrete said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> > Dedicated tracks - I assume this refers to the South of the Lake Route currently being studied, right? Keep in mind this project is largely unfunded at this point, so any reroute is a long, long time from taking place.
> ...


Eh, I should have quoted the post to which I was responding.

At any rate, I assumed the reference to dedicated tracks referred to using the South of the Lake Route (which I believe refers to the entire Chicago Union Station - Porter, IN segment) at least in part, probably only the section nearest CUS and then the talked of rerouting through the Grand Crossing connection.


----------



## jis (Sep 3, 2014)

MikefromCrete said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> > Dedicated tracks - I assume this refers to the South of the Lake Route currently being studied, right? Keep in mind this project is largely unfunded at this point, so any reroute is a long, long time from taking place.
> ...


There is also the minor matter of that track connection to the old PRR tracks to Union Station having been severed in Gary, in order to avoid fixing a decrepit, dilapidated moving bridge. There is no simple way to get to the Ft. Wayne line from the Engelwood - Porter Line at present even at 5mph.


----------



## MrFSS (Oct 1, 2014)

And the plot thickens:

_*A little-used, delay-plagued passenger rail line from Indianapolis to Chicago has become a battleground, as Amtrak tries to fend off competition invited by the Indiana Department of Transportation.

Amtrak CEO Joe Boardman was at Indianapolis Union Station Wednesday morning to announce that Wi-Fi would be added that day to the Hoosier State line, which also will get light food and beverage service and business-class seating. Boardman departed Indianapolis on the Hoosier State with plans to meet with officials along the route.*_

*FULL STORY*


----------



## fairviewroad (Oct 1, 2014)

Indeed, you can book a business class seat for this evening's 850 departing CHI to IND. It will cost you an extra $38....in other words, more than double the price of your coach ticket. Woo hoo.


----------



## William W. (Oct 1, 2014)

Are they going to run a business class car on the days that the Cardinal runs?


----------



## jis (Oct 1, 2014)

So if what seems to be the net net reading the article..... INDOT got upset with the cost of $2.7 million and went out and accepted a bid of $2.8 million, without verifying that the actual guys who were slated to run the trains were willing to do so within the bid amount. And now it is Amtrak's fault that they did not agree with Corridor Capitals wet dreams? Sheesh! One now wonders what kind of idiots manage the RFP process in INDOT. They sure come across like a bunch of Keystone Kops if this is really true. Interesting too that they did not even select the lowest bidder, and yet forgot to verify that the selected party is actually able to provide the service that they bid for! Amazing! Afterall they were just hiring a "Consultant"! Riiiiight!


----------



## Bob Dylan (Oct 1, 2014)

Is this really what the CEO of Amtrak should be doing ( it really is a PR Dog and Pony Show) when the LD Trains are in a Cluster Flub???

This is the first time I've questioned Boardmans competency as a Manager!!Let them eat Amstew is Not competent Management!

Where's Amtrak's plan Joe????


----------



## fairviewroad (Oct 1, 2014)

William W. said:


> Are they going to run a business class car on the days that the Cardinal runs?


No, but people can always purchase sleeper space if available. I don't think there are any trains in the

Amtrak system that offer both sleeping cars and a BC car. (It's been proposed on the Coast Starlight,

but never implemented)

Other than the schedule, the two trains (Hoosier/Card) are completely different entities.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 1, 2014)

jimhudson said:


> Is this really what the CEO of Amtrak should be doing ( it really is a PR Dog and Pony Show)


Working to keep the business and show InDOT that Amtrak can deliver a quality product? Sounds like a good use of his time to me.


----------



## John Bobinyec (Oct 1, 2014)

RyanS said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > Is this really what the CEO of Amtrak should be doing ( it really is a PR Dog and Pony Show)
> ...


Not only InDOT, but Washington, Oregon, etc..., as well.

jb


----------



## Bob Dylan (Oct 1, 2014)

My question pertains to why he isn't on top of his " Team" so they will do something about the mess into/out of CHI! He's perfectly able to do PR work but the Hoosier could go away forever and the revenue lost wont equal what its costing Amtrak now with this cluster flub!!!!!

Where's the plan, and as others are asking,when will Amtrak post info and notify customers of this fiasco????!!!

Thousands of customers want to know!!!!


----------



## greatcats (Oct 1, 2014)

Well spoken, Mr Hudson!


----------



## rickycourtney (Oct 1, 2014)

This is clearly Amtrak on the offensive, making a desperate move to keep the contract to operate the Hoosier State.

As John eluded to earlier, I suspect all the states that support an Amtrak route would be watching this private operator experiment closely.

Amtrak's just not worried about losing Indiana... they're worried about losing California, Virginia, Washington/Oregon or the Midwestern states.

If this experiment with Corridor Capitol succeeds in Indiana, it would embolden the other states to leave Amtrak.


----------



## jis (Oct 1, 2014)

The odd thing though is that the experiment with Corridor Capital cannot succeed without Amtrak's full cooperation well above and beyond what is required of it by PRIIA.


----------



## William W. (Oct 1, 2014)

I don't really see Virginia ever going away from Amtrak. Unlike the corridor trains in other states, the Virginia trains continue north along the NEC, and I don't see the hassle of a crew change (among other potential issues) between Amtrak and another company being worth it.


----------



## PerRock (Oct 1, 2014)

Can Amtrak not play ball with CC if they want? Such as not providing them equipment & crews. Or even charging them exorbitant fees to use CUS? Seems like a fairly easy way for Amtrak to make themselves look pretty viable.

It should also be noted that CC has been playing hard ball as well. Their exploits in MI prove that, complaining to the State that the RFP for equipment wasn't fair because it didn't allow them to bid to run the trains.

peter


----------



## Paulus (Oct 1, 2014)

Amtrak is part of the CC bid, playing hardball would make no sense.


----------



## afigg (Oct 2, 2014)

Paulus said:


> Amtrak is part of the CC bid, playing hardball would make no sense.


No, Amtrak is not part of CC's bid. Read the Indianapolis Business Journal article link posted this morning. CC proposal was that CC would provide the rolling stock, support, maintenance and Amtrak would provide the crews to operate the HS. But CC submitted their proposal WITHOUT having either talked to Amtrak (according to Boardman) or any sort of agreement with Amtrak. Based on the article, INDOT does not know what they are doing. They selected the higher priced Capitol Corridor over the lower price Iowa Pacific bid and Iowa Pacific does have rolling stock.

Amtrak has multiple reasons to play hardball here. If other states are paying attention, INDOT and CC are making Amtrak look good.


----------



## afigg (Oct 2, 2014)

Amtrak issued a news release on their sudden addition of improved service for the HS at the start of the 4 month contract extension: Amtrak Hoosier State Trains Now Offer Free Wi-Fi, Refreshments and Business Class Seating. A cynical person might point that Amtrak could have done this 6 months ago when INDOT posted requests for bid. I wonder once Boardman and the state corridor service managers saw how poorly thought out INDOT's selection was, they realized there was an opportunity to keep the HS contract, so take the shot by adding a cafe-BC car to the consist which would also would provide Wi-Fi.

Excerpt from the news release:



> INDIANAPOLIS -- Amtrak is improving service for Hoosier State passengers who travel between Indianapolis and Chicago with the addition of complimentary on-board Wi-Fi, light food and beverages and Business Class seating, Amtrak President and CEO Joe Boardman announced at a series of events on the route in Indiana today.
> 
> The addition of the amenities is effective immediately. Amtrak is demonstrating its capabilities while it continues to operate this service under an Indiana Department of Transportation contract extension through Jan. 31, 2015.
> 
> ...


I do like the not subtle at all mention of the attendance of some of the *775* employees who live in Indiana and/or work at Beech Grove. A move worthy of a defense contractor or any large government contractor for that matter.


----------



## Anderson (Oct 2, 2014)

The term "FUBAR" comes to mind here. On the one hand, to all appearances Indiana clearly picked a deficient bid...though I am inclined to chalk that off to this basically being their first time out (and possibly to Corridor Capital overpromising in their bid; it is entirely possible that they made it look like Amtrak was contacted, and notably Amtrak did not bid for the route). Hanlon's Razor applies hear IMHO. On the other hand, Amtrak seems to have done an _awful_ job in trying to keep the line until now; to my knowledge they didn't really try to keep the route, and the Business Class/Wifi effort is something they should have done _long_ ago.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Oct 2, 2014)

So if this a state support train. Did the state get a bill for the improved features? If your adding service to state contract then the state has to be involved. Right?

We folks in New York would like our cafe cars to be stock and open on the NYC to Albany trains, and of course not have to pay more for it.

I smell a rat. Did Mr Boardman lie during the townhall meeting when he stated he was going to comply with the Law.

I agree with the new service, but how do you explain it to another state?


----------



## cirdan (Oct 2, 2014)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> So if this a state support train. Did the state get a bill for the improved features? If your adding service to state contract then the state has to be involved. Right?
> 
> We folks in New York would like our cafe cars to be stock and open on the NYC to Albany trains, and of course not have to pay more for it.
> 
> ...


One lesson other states are going to be taking home is that if you're nasty to Amtrak you get a better deal than when you're nice. That's not a development I welcome.


----------



## jis (Oct 2, 2014)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> So if this a state support train. Did the state get a bill for the improved features? If your adding service to state contract then the state has to be involved. Right?
> 
> We folks in New York would like our cafe cars to be stock and open on the NYC to Albany trains, and of course not have to pay more for it.
> 
> ...


Not really. Amtrak can choose to provide more service than contracted for on its own, and I doubt any state would complain about such. Secondly, we do not know what the terms for the interim contract between Amtrak and InDOT for running the service through January are. Furthermore, it has been quite evident that what happens in one state contract has little to do with others as long as the minimum bars are met according to PRIIA. Nothing new here as far as that goes. Of course New York could use this information in their negotiations for the next contract.
From what I understand NY State and Amtrak are sort of in a forced deadly embrace. NY State does not currently have the resources to throw at upstate service to actually have it run by someone else and both the state and Amtrak know it. So that plays into the way things are negotiated at this point.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Oct 2, 2014)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> So if this a state support train. Did the state get a bill for the improved features? ...
> 
> ...
> 
> I agree with the new service, but how do you explain it to another state?


I recall an announcement that ALL corridor trains had free Wi-Fi.

ALL except the _Hoosier State_ -- until now? How was it explained

that every other state had Wi-Fi?

OK, Business Class. Does that mean an added car, or merely

a different car? Doesn't sound like a big cost for that upgrade.

OK, light refreshments. Can Amtrak keep costs low and sell

enuff stuff to break even? Because Boardman promised Mica

and the gang of haters that Amtrak will eliminate losses on

food & beverage service. Then if they can break even on food

& beverages on the _Hoosier State_, then lessons learned can

be applied elsewhere too.


----------



## R30A (Oct 2, 2014)

My impression is neither added nor different. I suspect that such simply means that the club-lounge normally included on the train will be opened. 
However, this probably brings to an end the ability to use the Cardinal's consist on an offday which they have been doing on occasion.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Oct 2, 2014)

WoodyinNYC said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> > So if this a state support train. Did the state get a bill for the improved features? ...
> ...


1. It wasn't explained, there was just no wi-fi.

2. A cafe/business class car has been added.

3. Amtrak claims that cafe cars either make money or break even, depending on the train. It's LD dining cars that are big money losers.


----------



## fairviewroad (Oct 2, 2014)

WoodyinNYC said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> > So if this a state support train. Did the state get a bill for the improved features? ...
> ...


I'm not sure I'd consider the Hoosier State a "corridor train."


----------



## Anderson (Oct 3, 2014)

fairviewroad said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> > Just-Thinking-51 said:
> ...


It is by technicality. "Corridor trains" usually means non-LD trains (generally off of the NEC).


----------



## MrFSS (Oct 3, 2014)

*HERE* is the latest wish list.


----------



## PerRock (Oct 3, 2014)

Quite the wishlist. Sounds like IN will be getting Chargers at some point as well (locomotives to be built by Cummins, which is who is helping build the Chargers). It'll be interesting to see if CC can really make any of that happen.

peter


----------



## Palmland (Oct 3, 2014)

Interesting that the 'wish list' mentions nothing about an improved routing into Chicago. To me, that seems the biggest roadblock to improved rspeed and reliability which would be a big factor in better ridership.


----------



## jis (Oct 3, 2014)

MrFSS said:


> *HERE* is the latest wish list.


Last time I looked they had not legalized any Schedule 1 drugs in Indiana yet, had they? Someone has a potent private stash I see. :help:

BTW, just came across this on the Trains website:

http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/observation-tower/archive/2014/10/03/lessons-from-indiana-s-experiment-with-intercity-passenger-train-competition.aspx


----------



## afigg (Oct 3, 2014)

jis said:


> Last time I looked they had not legalized any Schedule 1 drugs in Indiana yet, had they? Someone has a potent private stash I see. :help:


That is generally my reaction to the wish list as well to the list after Phases 1, !-A, and 2. Besides no mention of an improved routing into Chicago (which is not really something under CC's control anyway), there is no mention of funding for capital improvements for the tracks between CHI-IND, IND-CIN or to Louisville. So they are going to run slow daytime service trains without track upgrades for better passenger service?

Page 4 with "Beyond Daytime Corridor Trains" for a CHI - WAS train suggest CC is taking something really potent.

If CC or Amtrak, with subsidies from IN, were to implement Phase 1-A with a daily HS with earlier departure times from IND and CHI, that would allow Amtrak to shift the Cardinal schedule for a little later departure from CHI allowing more connections to be made.


----------



## Metra Electric Guest (Oct 3, 2014)

The problems I see with their proposal, or the big problem, really, is that, despite congestion on I-65 (and in winter, the stretch around Lafayette is prone to ice storms, shutting the highway down), it's still an hour faster to drive - I did it in two and a half once - and the arrival times aren't great for a days business or visit. There is a certainly a market from Indy for weekend trips to Chicago - they used to advertize musicals playing in Chicago more in Indy than in Chicago, so there needs to be an after work train to Chicago! And to really compete, the train needs to compete with the bus price and time-wise. I like their plan for connections to Ohio, Kentucky and Missouri.

I didn't realize that Cummins was leaving Columbus, Indiana...


----------



## neroden (Oct 3, 2014)

Nice wishlist, but it's going to founder on the problem of getting agreements with the host railroads.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Oct 3, 2014)

In the late 60s and early 70s. there was a good passenger train usage between Indianapolis and Chicago. The James Whitcomb Riley left Indianapolis in mid morning and arrived at Chicago Central Station at 12:50pm. It returned leaving Chicago around 5:00pm. Even after Amtrak started, the patronage was good until about 1973 when the tracks from Kankakee to Indianapolis deteriorated. The train was rerouted several times and for a while used an ex C&O route that by passed Indianapolis. If the state of Indiana had bought the former New York Central, Big Four routing from Kankakee through Indianapolis to Cincinnati, it would have been perfect for a higher speed rail route. It was flat and straight and back in the 1950s the faster trains like the Riley used to fly . Sadly the route was abandoned and is no more


----------



## MikefromCrete (Oct 3, 2014)

Unfortunately, far too many rail lines in Indiana, especially north-south ones were abandoned in the Penn Central/Conrail era. Indiana is not exactly a forward-looking place, so these routes are probably lost forever.


----------



## PerRock (Oct 3, 2014)

What is news to me, I was told in another forum, that INDOT hasn't actually picked CC to be the provider. They just said that CC is their preferred provider. I thought CC had been picked already; can anyone confirm or deny this?

peter


----------



## keelhauled (Oct 3, 2014)

MrFSS said:


> *HERE* is the latest wish list.


It sounds like a railfan's wish list, not something that a business would come up with. I am truly baffled that they could publicly present that without at least mentioning in passing the fact that no money exists to start any of it.


----------



## William W. (Oct 3, 2014)

keelhauled said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> > *HERE* is the latest wish list.
> ...


Service to Louisville will never happen, unfortunately. The track condition is deplorable between IND and LOU. I'd love to see Cincinnati service, but that would require Ohio and Cincinnati to play ball. Kasich is rabidly anti-rail, and it took Cincy 10 years just to agree to build a small streetcar route, so I also don't see that being likely either.

The other points seem realistic though. The big thing will be whether the state agrees to fund track improvements between IND and CHI. Without them, any improvements in service frequency and reliability are unlikely to happen.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 3, 2014)

Wow. I can't believe these people think they're going to be taken seriously.



> • Current Hoosier State annual revenues are $908,000. This money automatically goes to Amtrak in Washington; under Corridor Capital that money will stay in Indiana.
> 
> • Indiana pays Amtrak an annual subsidy of $2,900,000 for operations and equipment maintenance, all of which goes to Amtrak in Washington; under Corridor Capital that money will stay in Indiana.
> 
> • Indiana pays Amtrak an annual cost of $429,000 for equipment capital charges, all of which goes to Amtrak in Washington; under Corridor Capital that money will stay in Indiana. Together, these three items total $4,237,000, all of which leaves the state, and in the future will remain in the state.


Amtrak has no employees in the state of Indiana? None? I hardly think so.



> Ridership is expected to grow dramatically; currently Amtrak does no marketing in Indiana for the Hoosier State or its Cardinal long distance service.


I find this nearly impossible to believe.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Oct 3, 2014)

As I recall, the Cardinal filled up between IND & CHI last year on my trip to the gathering.


----------



## Anderson (Oct 4, 2014)

I did enjoy the mention of "an Indian-based marketing campaign". Something tells me that's going to end up with too many Chiefs and not enough passengers...

Joking aside, the basic concept of their plan isn't a bad one...Chicago, Louisville, and Cincinnati are all good destinations from Indianapolis on paper, and the point about better times spiking ridership is a valid one. Frankly, a daily train with better timing should be able to at least double ridership over the present 4x daily operation.

Once you get into practical details, however, things break down...and I think this is a case of a bunch of clueless people looking at the top line and not checking the details (i.e. making sure that CC had, you know, talked with Amtrak about their plans and was willing to cooperate). I'm going to put a lot of blame on CC for this one, though in all fairness I'm also going to spare a dirty look for Amtrak (which could probably have found a way to soak CC on the operating contract for a train that it has clearly not wanted to operate for quite a while).

All of that being said, even adding in the business class and food service is likely going to help a _lot_ in terms of ridership simply by making a humane riding experience available...right now, the Hoosier State feels like a presentation of the worst performance SP put on back in the 60s: Slow operation, mediocre-at-best OTP, no food service, no upgraded seats available (and probably a fair share of frozen toilets in the winter to boot). Wifi should also help...at the very least, these improvements should allow the train to grab some more connecting passengers out of Chicago.

One other thing: At least to me, the takeaway from this isn't about Amtrak rewarding states for treating it badly. The takeaway is that Amtrak and Indiana had a relationship that was horridly broken both ways for quite a while...Indiana didn't care about the Hoosier State and Amtrak never even made a passing attempt to make the train work better. State politics aside, I can't blame Indiana for looking for another operator at all...Indiana and Amtrak treated one another badly for a long, long time and this is simply that relationship playing out naturally.


----------



## iggy (Oct 6, 2014)

When I did a round trip on Hoosier State last Fall - ridership numbers seemed comparable to other routes I have ridden. Business class and Cafe are long overdue and as far as I'm aware have been requested for some time. Amtrak can't do much about on-time performance do to congestion coming into and leaving Chicago - not sure how a new operator could get around such a problem.

Leaving Chicago I had a very long wait until train got signal to proceed. In video on my website - Hoosier State conductor clearly states we could arrive in Chicago early because this was possible on Sundays.

Thank you for riding the Mighty Hoosier State - time marker 9:36

Search engine my name with train name should get you to content.


----------



## afigg (Oct 10, 2014)

Boardman has written a letter to Indiana and INDOT which was published in the Lafayette Journal and Courier: Amtrak CEO: Decide what you want in Hoosier State. He is basically telling INDOT, get a clue as to how to run a passenger railroad service.

Excerpt:



> I believe there have been inaccuracies and misinformation regarding Amtrak’s operation of the Hoosier State train service under a contract with the Indiana Department of Transportation.
> 
> This was brought to focus most recently when Amtrak hosted community leaders and elected officials on an inspection tour of the route. I learned a lot during the tour about community desires for this service, and I believe the community representatives gained some valuable insights into the challenges and complexities of operating a safe and efficient passenger rail service. I’d like to more broadly share these issues with your readers.
> 
> ...


What the heck is CC claiming about their equipment?



> The leasing company designated as Indiana’s vendor claims to have “indestructible” railcars that are “available now,” but it was unable to meet the Oct. 1 deadline to assume the service. Instead, Amtrak and Indiana have extended the Amtrak contract until the end of January.


Unless the railcar is made out of a Puppeteer hull, it is not indestructible. h34r:


----------



## Ryan (Oct 10, 2014)

Wow, strong words there.

Interesting that he leads off with the "VRE Model", since Amtrak's loss of the operating contract for VRE was considered a major blow to Amtrak when it happened.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Oct 10, 2014)

What New Mexico train operator is Boardman talking about?

"Recently, a private operator providing trains in New Mexico lasted only four months before failing on a route much shorter and less complicated than the Hoosier State."


----------



## Paulus (Oct 10, 2014)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> What New Mexico train operator is Boardman talking about?
> 
> "Recently, a private operator providing trains in New Mexico lasted only four months before failing on a route much shorter and less complicated than the Hoosier State."


X-Train was running some nonsense thing down there.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Oct 10, 2014)

So a pie in the sky failure is a reason that Amtrak is the right selection for the Hoosier state.

Sorry too much BS flying around this topic.

Is this how ever state contract is reward? Fancy words, and loose facts.


----------



## PRR 60 (Oct 10, 2014)

A tourist railroad is used by Boardman as an example of intercity rail? If Boardman points to the X-Train Santa Fe - Lamy tourist train failure as an example of a bad non-Amtrak operator, then perhaps he should also point to the Strasburg Railroad as an example of an intercity success. Lame.

Amtrak is smarting from losing the Hoosier State. Suddenly, Boardman shows up on a special train in his private car on a "whistle stop" tour along the Hoosier State line to tout Amtrak. Suddenly, amenities that Amtrak refused to provide for years are provided at no extra charge. This sounds like the VRE all over again. Lose with work, then have a hissy-fit.

Memo to New York and Pennsylvania DOT's. Since Amtrak can provide food service and business class to Indiana for free, ask for the same. Better yet, bid out the service, select someone not named Amtrak, and see what happens.


----------



## neroden (Oct 10, 2014)

X-Train was attempting to revive the tourist & freight ops of the Santa Fe Southern. The Santa Fe Southern succeeded for over a decade; X-Train didn't last four months. (Sigh.) It is a pretty irrelevant point, but Corridor Capital has no proven record in any of the areas it's advertising itself in. Not in traincar refurbishment, not in leasing, not in OBS operation. Boardman basically said, "Tell us what you want to contract for and we'll do it, but you have to know what you're talking about."


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Oct 10, 2014)

PRR 60 said:


> Memo to New York and Pennsylvania DOT's. Since Amtrak can provide food service and business class to Indiana for free, ask for the same. Better yet, bid out the service, select someone not named Amtrak, and see what happens.


As someone who lives in New York, lets do it.



neroden said:


> Boardman basically said, "Tell us what you want to contract for and we'll do it, but you have to know what you're talking about."


One thinks the whole request was about finding what service are out there. Maybe Boardman should try send a list of improvement to the state government and the cost. This way they know what they can have and how much it would cost them.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Oct 10, 2014)

It seem Amtrak had a cost increase of 3% to run the train a few extra months, and this why or how the improvement are payed for.

Still for 3% New York can get coffee and snack by cart from Amtrak on the Albany to NYC service.

Seem like a good price. Of course we have a better equipment turn around then the Hooiser, so for us it should be a 1.5% increase.

Can we have someone call Amtrak out on this?


----------



## neroden (Oct 11, 2014)

I don't have the time or energy for it right now. But the first thing to do is to find the person in NYSDOT who's responsible for contact with Amtrak. Then you call them up on the phone, explaining that you're a rail advocate representing a group of advocates, and you want to get cart food service on the NY-Albany like Indiana got. Follow up with a letter.

It is a little bit easier to be a rail advocate representing a group of rail advocates if you call ESPA or some such group and get them to back your phone call.

The most annoying part of this is probably figuring out who the person in NYSDOT is who's actually responsible. It isn't obvious.


----------



## MrFSS (Oct 24, 2014)

And the plot thickens:

*LINK*


----------



## Ryan (Oct 24, 2014)




----------



## Anderson (Oct 24, 2014)

I'm seriously wondering if there might not be grounds for a lawsuit, if not outright fraud charges, against Corridor Crapital.


----------



## OBS (Oct 25, 2014)

Nah, They are probably politically connected in some way, shape or form...


----------



## neroden (Oct 26, 2014)

I tend to believe that the Indiana Governor is trying to kill the train service, and as such they would deliberately choose the least competent bid.


----------



## jis (Oct 26, 2014)

neroden said:


> I tend to believe that the Indiana Governor is trying to kill the train service, and as such they would deliberately choose the least competent bid.


Frankly, I've been thinking the same way.


----------



## afigg (Oct 26, 2014)

neroden said:


> I tend to believe that the Indiana Governor is trying to kill the train service, and as such they would deliberately choose the least competent bid.


You may be right. On the other hand, rather than a thought out plan or conspiracy, the simpler explanation is to attribute the present situation to a mundane combination of incompetence, ignorance, and indifference at INDOT. A variant of Occam's razor if you will.


----------



## neroden (Oct 27, 2014)

It's called Hanlon's Razor. Assume incompetence rather than malice.

However, we already know that the Indiana legislature and the governor's office are actively hostile to train service by their earlier actions, which kind of makes me think differently.

(Examples. Legislature: the ban on local rail in Indianapolis, the refusal to fund the Hoosier State. Governor's Office: after every other state agreed on the new PRIIA cost allocation rules, this office wrote a "we refuse to agree with the cost allocation rules but we also refuse to suggest any changes" letter, which required an STB hearing to establish the rules -- this is just deliberate troublemaking.)


----------



## Paulus (Nov 8, 2014)

Indiana ends negotiations with Corridor Capital, in talks with Amtrak for maintaining service.


----------



## Blackwolf (Nov 8, 2014)

> “INDOT is requesting pricing from Amtrak to continue as operator after January 31, *minus certain elements of the existing service that Amtrak is providing, such as rolling stock, onboard services and marketing*,”


Emphasis is mine.

That line sounds rather ominous in relation to the recent "upgrades" that the HS received. Back to the former status-quo?



> “The good news is that contrary to all the rumors, INDOT is very interested in passenger rail,” West Lafayette Mayor John Dennis said.


Well, that's reassuring. :unsure: :help:


----------



## rickycourtney (Nov 9, 2014)

Blackwolf said:


> > “INDOT is requesting pricing from Amtrak to continue as operator after January 31, *minus certain elements of the existing service that Amtrak is providing, such as rolling stock, onboard services and marketing*,”
> 
> 
> Emphasis is mine.
> That line sounds rather ominous in relation to the recent "upgrades" that the HS received. Back to the former status-quo?


Or it means that INDOT wants the new services to stay... but they don't want to pay for them. 

As I read the article... the contract with Corridor Capital was for operations, rolling stock, onboard services and marketing. INDOT only plans to contract with Amtrak to provide operations. Apparently INDOT is still looking a "rail service provider that has available passenger cars", which comes as a surprise to me.

Come to think of it, is there any rail service provider that has available passenger cars???

There are some old commuter cars up for sale, but nothing really suited for intercity service. I mean a few months ago, Talgo would be the obvious answer... but those are accounted for. Corridor Capital has a fleet of old ex-Santa Fe Hi-Levels... but are they even ready for service?

Heck the market is so bad right now California resorted to refurbishing Comet cars, but that project took years.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 9, 2014)

rickycourtney said:


> Blackwolf said:
> 
> 
> > > “INDOT is requesting pricing from Amtrak to continue as operator after January 31, *minus certain elements of the existing service that Amtrak is providing, such as rolling stock, onboard services and marketing*,”
> ...





rickycourtney said:


> Blackwolf said:
> 
> 
> > > “INDOT is requesting pricing from Amtrak to continue as operator after January 31, *minus certain elements of the existing service that Amtrak is providing, such as rolling stock, onboard services and marketing*,”
> ...


Iowa Pacific...or, in this context, better described as "the guys who put in the lower bid and have experience running passenger trains". My understanding is that Corridor Capital probably outdid IP on future plans while IP came in cheaper and...well, probably more realistically.


----------



## MrFSS (Nov 9, 2014)

> The Indiana Department of Transportation has ended contract negotiations with Corridor Capital LLC to provide passenger rail cars, marketing and other services for the Hoosier State line between Indianapolis and Chicago, said INDOT spokesman Will Wingfield.
> 
> Wingfield did not comment as to why negotiations were terminated.


*LINK*


----------



## rickycourtney (Nov 9, 2014)

Anderson said:


> Iowa Pacific...or, in this context, better described as "the guys who put in the lower bid and have experience running passenger trains". My understanding is that Corridor Capital probably outdid IP on future plans while IP came in cheaper and...well, probably more realistically.


Riiiight, I totally forgot about Iowa Pacific. So we could see Amtrak crews operating trains with Iowa Pacific equipment. Wasn't that Iowa Pacific's proposal all along?


----------



## afigg (Nov 9, 2014)

Anderson said:


> Iowa Pacific...or, in this context, better described as "the guys who put in the lower bid and have experience running passenger trains". My understanding is that Corridor Capital probably outdid IP on future plans while IP came in cheaper and...well, probably more realistically.


Does Iowa Pacific have coach cars ready to go that are fully ADA compliant, cleared for passenger service and meet Amtrak equipment requirements?
So INDOT is now looking to have Amtrak keep running the trains, but with rolling stock provided by someone else, AND get this done by February 1. Ok, sure, no problem. If INDOT really wants to keep the 4 day a week HS but with leased equipment, they will probably ask Amtrak for a contract extension pass February 1 to provide the Horizon cars until the replacement leased equipment is ready for revenue service.

In all of this, I still don't see any mention of the state setting up a capital funding program to pay for track improvements to improve OTP and start to reduce to trip times. Or established plans for a 7 day a week HS on its own schedule. Still, if the Hoosier State survives along with all of the other state corridor trains, the gamble in the 2008 PRIIA act requiring the states to step up and provide subsidies will have been pretty successful.


----------



## richm49 (Nov 9, 2014)

If I read the links correctly regarding this issue, Amtrak is currently operating the Hoosier State service on a four month extension until Jan. 31,2015. If nothing gets done between now and then and this extension period lapses does that mean the end of the Hoosier State service? And if that happens, would Amtrak continue to operate the Cardinal service 3/days/week over that same route?


----------



## TinCan782 (Nov 9, 2014)

rickycourtney said:


> Blackwolf said:
> 
> 
> > > “INDOT is requesting pricing from Amtrak to continue as operator after January 31, *minus certain elements of the existing service that Amtrak is providing, such as rolling stock, onboard services and marketing*,”
> ...


Perhaps they could get a good deal on "X-Train" rolling stock. LOL!


----------



## Anderson (Nov 9, 2014)

afigg said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Iowa Pacific...or, in this context, better described as "the guys who put in the lower bid and have experience running passenger trains". My understanding is that Corridor Capital probably outdid IP on future plans while IP came in cheaper and...well, probably more realistically.
> ...


My understanding is that they do. There would be issues with low platforms/high level cars, but that's nothing new and it's the same as everywhere else in the system that Amtrak is running single-level cars without a high-level platform.


----------



## afigg (Nov 9, 2014)

richm49 said:


> If I read the links correctly regarding this issue, Amtrak is currently operating the Hoosier State service on a four month extension until Jan. 31,2015. If nothing gets done between now and then and this extension period lapses does that mean the end of the Hoosier State service? And if that happens, would Amtrak continue to operate the Cardinal service 3/days/week over that same route?


Yes, the Cardinal would keep running because it is a federally supported service. If the HS goes away, that will provide Amtrak with an incentive to expand the Cardinal to daily service, but that is a complex topic in its own right.


----------



## afigg (Nov 9, 2014)

The Plot continues to thicken. INDOT is NOT looking all that competent in handling the bids, the contract award, and the contracts.

Capital Corridor's response posted on their website (saw excerpt on trainorders but not the source): Unexpected changes in Indiana and the Hoosier State.



> Corridor Capital LLC learned Saturday evening, November 8, 2014 through a news story in the Lafayette, Indiana Journal & Courier that “negotiations have ended with Corridor Capital” for the reinvention and operation of the Hoosier State to have begun February 1, 2015.
> 
> On June 24, 2014, Corridor Capital’s proposal for the operations, marketing and management, as well as providing rolling stock and locomotives for the Hoosier State was accepted by the Indiana Department of Transportation when Corridor Capital was named the preferred vendor. Since June, Corridor has had modern, Amtrak certified equipment ready for retrofit and deployment to the Hoosier State. At all times since receiving the award in a competitive bid procurement, Corridor has been ready, willing and able to meet all deadlines for successful re-introduction of the Hoosier State.
> 
> ...


----------



## Anderson (Nov 9, 2014)

Why do I get a feeling this is going to end in some sort of lawsuit?

For what it's worth (and for some humor), when I read the bit about the negotiations being terminated, I misread it as "did not comment on why Wingfield was terminated" (as if INDOT had also gone on a firing spree over this). Someone really should lose their job over botching this...it's been spectacular. My guess is that Amtrak's contract will get another re-extension, followed by some form of transfer (maybe Iowa Pacific will come back into the picture?).


----------



## Dedrik (Nov 9, 2014)

My computer now shows Amtrak Hoosier State coach inventory for sale after January 2015.


----------



## afigg (Nov 10, 2014)

Anderson said:


> Why do I get a feeling this is going to end in some sort of lawsuit?


Capitol Corridor may indeed have a basis for filing a lawsuit. Getting compensation or a settlement is another matter. Neither INDOT nor Capitol Corridor have come off looking like they know what they are doing.

Behind the scenes, Amtrak upper management should be smiling about how badly INDOT has handled the bidding, selection, and contract award process. The HS is the corridor service Amtrak can most afford to lose given its small ridership. This is the first serious (or visibly serious) effort by a state DOT to have a different vendor run the service instead of Amtrak. With INDOT botching the process, leaving Amtrak to look like the professionals here, it should slow down other state DOTs from seeking to award service contracts to other vendors, giving Amtrak more time to improve their position to keep running the corridor service.


----------



## William W. (Nov 10, 2014)

Dedrik said:


> My computer now shows Amtrak Hoosier State coach inventory for sale after January 2015.


Did it not previously?


----------



## Anderson (Nov 10, 2014)

afigg said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Why do I get a feeling this is going to end in some sort of lawsuit?
> ...


Agreed. There are a few places where a slow transition seems to be underway (mostly on the west coast...I believe that WA/OR and CA do want to transition to a lot more "inside handling" of their services than they have now, albeit while retaining enough sense to want to keep Amtrak's access agreements intact), but this should slow anything else down for a while.


----------



## Paulus (Nov 10, 2014)

Anderson said:


> Agreed. There are a few places where a slow transition seems to be underway (mostly on the west coast...I believe that WA/OR and CA do want to transition to a lot more "inside handling" of their services than they have now, albeit while retaining enough sense to want to keep Amtrak's access agreements intact), but this should slow anything else down for a while.


The access agreements probably aren't super relevant for most of the West Coast operations anyhow; the vast majority of slots are probably already state owned and I doubt that the railroads are going to ask for some exorbitant sum for a handful of slots that are already in use.


----------



## Dedrik (Nov 10, 2014)

William W. said:


> Dedrik said:
> 
> 
> > My computer now shows Amtrak Hoosier State coach inventory for sale after January 2015.
> ...


On HS days they were selling only the Greyhound bus and the Trailways bus connection over BNL.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 10, 2014)

I'm going to stand by my comment from earlier in the summer.



RyanS said:


> Yeah, this is going to be fascinating to sit back and watch play out. I've got little to no faith in the IN government to not screw this up.


----------



## neroden (Nov 11, 2014)

Paulus said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed. There are a few places where a slow transition seems to be underway (mostly on the west coast...I believe that WA/OR and CA do want to transition to a lot more "inside handling" of their services than they have now, albeit while retaining enough sense to want to keep Amtrak's access agreements intact), but this should slow anything else down for a while.
> ...


I'd expect the exact opposite. BNSF is known for asking gold-plated prices for extra slots; while UP is known for refusing to even negotiate, and even being unable to return phone calls (the San Diego Trolley Renewal Project was delayed for about a year due to inability to get UP to talk to them about a few incidental pieces of property which were needed for substations -- this is not even on a UP line!). The access agreements are probably *very* relevant to the West Coast operations, at least where they haven't bought the lines outright. Amtrak's general access rights are less relevant to East Coast operations, really... but NEC access is relevant to the East Coast operations!


----------



## jis (Nov 11, 2014)

OTOH, Gene Skorpowski managed to negotiate a relatively favorable deal with UP after basically throwing out the Amtrak book of negotiations and the Amtrak access rights, which makes the Capitol Corridor as it exists today possible. It is hard to generalize the behavior of these railroad companies. Gene succeeds where others fail because he is not doctrinaire. He's a pragmatist who figures out what rocks his adversary's boat in a particular situation and then proceeds to exploit any opening that comes up, armed with the information about underlying imperatives, and strikes a deal. This is exactly what he is doing in Florida with AAF now, and is succeeding in deflecting quite a bit of the NIBMY and BANANA carping that is going on in various communities en route.

Bottom line is that the original Amtrak access agreements are relevant on some routes but not on all routes. There are many rail routes that have been developed, particularly by commuter agencies, without making any use of Amtrak access rights, through direct negotiations with the railroad companies. Being doctrinaire and carrying chip on ones shoulder into these negotiations is no formula for success. The worst exhibit of such was the Sunset fiasco, where a deal ready for closure was blown by some pointless bickering just before closing the deal, and we are still stuck with thrice a week.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 11, 2014)

Yeah...CSX is another case of this. They have dubious relations with a lot of states (witness the Camden Line situation), but they get on well with Virginia. In some cases, I think you do get particularly good relations with a state, agency, etc. that smooths a lot of stuff over. Of course, I think there's probably an element of "CSX, you knew what you were getting into when you bought the RF&P..." at work here.


----------



## jis (Nov 11, 2014)

Anderson said:


> Yeah...CSX is another case of this. They have dubious relations with a lot of states (witness the Camden Line situation), but they get on well with Virginia. In some cases, I think you do get particularly good relations with a state, agency, etc. that smooths a lot of stuff over. Of course, I think there's probably an element of "CSX, you knew what you were getting into when you bought the RF&P..." at work here.


CSX also has a long love - hate relationship with New York State, which is sometimes hard to fathom!


----------



## Anderson (Nov 11, 2014)

jis said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah...CSX is another case of this. They have dubious relations with a lot of states (witness the Camden Line situation), but they get on well with Virginia. In some cases, I think you do get particularly good relations with a state, agency, etc. that smooths a lot of stuff over. Of course, I think there's probably an element of "CSX, you knew what you were getting into when you bought the RF&P..." at work here.
> ...


That's the other state that jumped to mind. New York and VA seem inclined to do about the same things in terms of their lines, but somehow NY and CSX don't get on while VA and CSX do.


----------



## jis (Nov 11, 2014)

Anderson said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


Well, NY and CSX seem to get along fine as long as NY State does not want to run trains west of Albany faster than 90mph  Afterall CSX did lease their Water Level Route east of Hoffmans to NY State/Amtrak allowing both completion of the double tracking and speed increments to whatever please NY State and Amtrak. But there is going to be a test of wills on the Empire Corridor improvement project for which a DEIS is floating around.


----------



## oldtimer (Nov 12, 2014)

I think Corridor Capital was smoking some really good stuff, as I said almost 5 months ago!



oldtimer said:


> I think I'll add a tall cool draft to go with the hot buttered popcorn!
> 
> If they think that they can have this up and running in 3 months (even 6 months) Ill have what they are smoking.
> 
> :wacko: :help: :giggle:


----------



## cirdan (Nov 12, 2014)

Anderson said:


> Yeah...CSX is another case of this. They have dubious relations with a lot of states (witness the Camden Line situation), but they get on well with Virginia. In some cases, I think you do get particularly good relations with a state, agency, etc. that smooths a lot of stuff over. Of course, I think there's probably an element of "CSX, you knew what you were getting into when you bought the RF&P..." at work here.


Corporations aren't (really) people and corporations often don't have a character or an attitude either. Even if there are directives that come from the top, local managers have a lot of leeway in interpreting them. Statements such as "Corporation X doesn't like ..." are often based on oversimplification. What response you get in reality can often also depend on who you are negotiating with. Maybe the folks UPRR has in California are just of a different mindset than those looking after the Sunset route. Wait a couple of years and you may find a more amenable person in that office.


----------



## jis (Nov 12, 2014)

Based on what I have heard from usually reliable sources, the problem was more the Amtrak negotiator at the end of the process than anything that UP did. It is after the almost completed negotiations was blown that UP trotted out the three quarter of a billion dollar deal. I would treat this information as hearsay and not an established fact though.

Yes, it is probably true that the individuals involved back then will probably not help much in doing a deal so a deal might have to wait until they have gone elsewhere. The Amtrak person is already gone. Don't know about the UP people involved. But then again, who knows what is the mood these days in Amtrak's LD BU?


----------



## MrFSS (Nov 14, 2014)

On another rail forum I read that is also discussing the Hoosier State situation, this was just posted. Thought it was an interesting thought process:



> Today was bid opening on normal monthly bid packages for INDOT - total of 50 projects bid. awarded. This is a fairly normal month. Out of 50 project, 5 are LESS than the $250,000 they'll spend on Amtrak this month:
> 
> Sign Modernization, Town of Homecroft - $85,000
> Tree Clearing, SR 26, Jay County - $153,000
> ...


----------



## neroden (Nov 15, 2014)

jis said:


> Well, NY and CSX seem to get along fine as long as NY State does not want to run trains west of Albany faster than 90mph


CSX seems afraid that trains faster than 90 mph will turn the milk in their tanker cars sour through black magic, or something. At some point you have to expect that they will simply get over it. The thing to do is to prepare the lines geometrically for faster service, and worry about getting permission for faster service later.
CSX acts like they want to hang onto the Conrail ROW without actually putting tracks on it, which really isn't going to fly, so they'll give in on that eventually.

Everyone in NY wants (at least) two freight tracks and two passenger tracks with minimal crossings. I have to suspect that the argument is really about who will pay for the grade separations and resignallings. CSX made some seriously boneheaded decisions to put signal poles in the middle of the grade; they probably realize now that this was a mistake, but they also probably don't want to pay to redo it immediately.


----------



## Paulus (Nov 18, 2014)

Corridor Capital looks worse and worse

Brief summary: Wanted Indiana to pay Corridor Capital's own startup costs, wanted them to pay before operations began, the hi-levels were not going to be used, and they were going to use rehabbed single level cars that no information had been provided about and lacked a locomotive.


----------



## jebr (Nov 18, 2014)

How much popcorn does Corridor Capital and/or INDOT think we have?


----------



## afigg (Nov 18, 2014)

Paulus said:


> Corridor Capital looks worse and worse
> 
> Brief summary: Wanted Indiana to pay Corridor Capital's own startup costs, wanted them to pay before operations began, the hi-levels were not going to be used, and they were going to use rehabbed single level cars that no information had been provided about and lacked a locomotive.


So Corridor Capital LLC is the not ready for prime time player in this mess. As for INDOT, why the heck did they select CC in the first place? A little bit of due diligence would have saved them some embarrassment.


----------



## jis (Nov 19, 2014)

afigg said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > Corridor Capital looks worse and worse
> ...


Follow the money and people involved, and I am sure the answer will come out. Perhaps just a case of friends in right places for all you know. Idle speculation on my part. Don't have any specific knowledge.
In any case they sure are looking like completely incompetent nincompoops at this time. If some heads do not roll at INDOT it will be indicative of how inconsequential they consider this whole affair to be.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 19, 2014)

Based on the story, it sounds like Iowa Pacific is back in the hunt, which is a good thing. My guess is that there will be a contract extension with Amtrak while this mess gets dealt with.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Nov 19, 2014)

jebr said:


> How much popcorn does Corridor Capital and/or INDOT think we have?


We need a popcorn emoticon. I've seen one on another forum.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 19, 2014)




----------



## AmtrakBlue (Nov 19, 2014)

Ryan, I knew you'd come up with some gifs.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Nov 19, 2014)

I'm still not sure how any of this actually improves the Hoosier State. Replacing Horizon cars with Iowa Pacific's somewhat exotic supply of classic cars might provoke some railfan ridership, but the key to making the Hoosier State a viable corridor is improving the actual route to make it competitive with driving. That means finding a better way to get into Chicago and generally remaking the old Monon from a secondary line into an actual signaled, higher speed line. That will cost money, which Indiana doesn't want to spend.

Now, Indiana could put up some money to allow Iowa Pacific to actually purchase - and operate - the route. That would be an improvement. But those tight-pocket conservatives who run Indiana aren't going to do that.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 19, 2014)

I aim to please.


----------



## fulham (Nov 19, 2014)

In the article, Corridor Capitol quotes they were going to use single level cars, and that they need to secure a "locomotive". I wonder what single-level cars they are talking about? In looking at their website, they talk of all these big plans of expanding service throughout the Indiana and Ohio area with Indy as the hub. It sounds very impressive, but talk about a company that really doesn't understand how to put words into action.... Also, the people at INDOT that signed off on this without asking the right questions...the blind leading the blind.

Bottom line is, Indy - Chicago could and should be an important corridor in the Midwest. But, it doesn't matter what type of equipment or amenities are offered...you need to have the infrastructure in place to make it happen. Given the lack of suitable current routes between Chicago and Indy today, if Indiana wants convenient rail service between the two cities, they are going to have to step up and pay for major route upgrades. Sadly I don't see this happening anytime soon.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Nov 19, 2014)

MikefromCrete said:


> ... the key to making the Hoosier State a viable corridor is improving the actual route to make it competitive with driving. That means finding a better way to get into Chicago and generally remaking the old Monon from a secondary line into an actual signaled, higher speed line. That will cost money, which Indiana doesn't want to spend.
> 
> …


Consultants for the Indiana DOT worked up a proposal to upgrade

just the Indiana part of the route for about $200 million. That would

save half an hour out of the trip. And they looked at adding a second

frequency or two, doubling or tripling the ridership, but still costing

$10 million a year or so for operations on top of the capital cost.

New bypasses and most other costs looked to be at the Indianapolis

end. Fine, because the South of the Lake project to get the Michigan

trains thru Illinois and northwestern Indiana at good speeds includes

bringing the _Cardinal_ and _Hoosier State _down to Gary before turning

south east of there toward Indy.

http://www.in.gov/indot/files/Amtrak_CostBenefitAnalysis_2013.pdf

I thought the study could have been more friendly. For instance, it

gave* zero *value to highway collision deaths avoided by switching

drivers to the safer train, and other little things that can add up.

Most of all, it gave *zero* value to the notion (did not analyze or give

a wild guess or even mention) that the _Cardinal_'s results would

surely improve nicely if it were part of a 3-daily-train corridor with

a faster trip time.

Maybe once that black man is out of the White House, then the

un-Reconstructed ex-Confederates and their ex-Copperhead allies

will not feel compelled to oppose absolutely everything that he

favored. Then we might get a few Billion a year to support RR

infrastructure, like the next phase of St Louis-Chicago, South of

the Lake, a Cleveland-Chicago corridor, more trains Twin Cities-

Chicago, next phase of Cascades, new Potomac Long Bridge

and upgrades D.C.-Richmond, getting started on the Richmond-

Raleigh shortcut, and smaller things like some millions to help

upgrade the Indy-Chicago corridor. Even $3 Billion a year on

these projects would be transformative. (Don't think they'd go for

$4 Billion actually; that black man proposed $4 Billion. LOL.)


----------



## Ryan (Nov 20, 2014)

The plot thickens:

http://www.jconline.com/story/news/2014/11/18/indot-amtrak-whistle-blower/19248481/



> But a former executive of Corridor Capital LLC, the company INDOT was negotiating with to manage the service after the state’s contract with Amtrak expires, said INDOT ignored warning signals.
> 
> The contractor lacked financing, experience and didn’t have rail cars ready to go, said Mark Singer, who from February until September was Corridor Capital’s vice president of strategic planning and brand management.
> 
> ...


I think we've move past popcorn and into full on Yakety Sax:


----------



## Metra Electric Guest (Nov 20, 2014)

MrFSS said:


> On another rail forum I read that is also discussing the Hoosier State situation, this was just posted. Thought it was an interesting thought process:
> 
> 
> 
> > *Just these 5 biking related projects this month that would pay for better than a year and a half of the Hoosier State deal.*


I guess bicycle advocates have done a better job presenting their case!

Maybe this is just a plot by the Hoosier Popcorn Association to keep us entertained? Though I would think Orville Redenbacher would have been a train guy...


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Nov 20, 2014)

Metra Electric Guest said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> > On another rail forum I read that is also discussing the Hoosier State situation, this was just posted. Thought it was an interesting thought process:
> ...


The train advocates don't have the courage to follow the money?

Bike projects are peanuts. Consider real money, like the $1 Billion

interchange -- yes, ONE BILLION DOLLAR interchange rebuild

proposed for Milwaukee. For one billion less spent on highway

interchanges you could take half an hour out of the trip Indianapolis-

Chicago ($200 million) and subsidize the Hoosier State for 40 years

($20 million a year including capital costs). Oops, double counted the

capital cost. So, upgrade the train route, subsidize two trains a day

for 40 years, and still have enuff money to build a bike route from

Green Bay to Terre Haute. LOL.

Anyway, I have the impression that bike advocates are supporters of

passenger rail. Why attack our allies instead of our opponents?


----------



## rickycourtney (Nov 21, 2014)

I don't think anyone was "attacking" bike advocates... they just seem to be doing a better job lobbying than passenger rail advocates.

But that's not limited to just Indiana...


----------



## Anderson (Nov 21, 2014)

WoodyinNYC said:


> Metra Electric Guest said:
> 
> 
> > MrFSS said:
> ...


The dynamic tends to be a bit more complicated than that (witness some of those rail trail fights, such as some of the stuff surrounding the Purple Line). Generally, though, what seems to happen is that the bike folks get used as handy cover for an anti-rail effort at one time or another...the bike stuff isn't really material to the anti-rail effort except as a handy excuse.


----------



## Paulus (Nov 21, 2014)

I've seen it pointed out that there's tends to be about two different types of cycling folks and advocates: The more recreational sort, who would be the type to use those trails, and the commuters, who are much more concerned about on-street improvements and the like.


----------



## Paulus (Nov 27, 2014)

Corridor Capital responds.



> Mr. Singer was aware of all actual facts associated with the Hoosier State start-up mobilization. He had zero experience in mobilizing a train service transition,


Did anyone?


----------



## PerRock (Nov 27, 2014)

> If they had, Amtrak would have learned what the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) learned on September 4th, when a large team from the FRA, INDOT staff and virtually the entire Corridor team met at INDOT in the morning and inspected equipment at Columbus in the afternoon: The three coaches and business-class cafe car Corridor arranged to lease for the _Hoosier State_ had operated many times in Amtrak trains carrying charter groups and the cars had passed inspection by the Amtrak Mechanical Department and were certified for operation in Amtrak at speeds up to 110 mph.



So what passenger cars are stored in Columbus (I presume Ohio)?

peter


----------



## Anderson (Nov 27, 2014)

*sighs*
Let the finger-pointing commence!


----------



## MikefromCrete (Nov 27, 2014)

PerRock said:


> > If they had, Amtrak would have learned what the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) learned on September 4th, when a large team from the FRA, INDOT staff and virtually the entire Corridor team met at INDOT in the morning and inspected equipment at Columbus in the afternoon: The three coaches and business-class cafe car Corridor arranged to lease for the _Hoosier State_ had operated many times in Amtrak trains carrying charter groups and the cars had passed inspection by the Amtrak Mechanical Department and were certified for operation in Amtrak at speeds up to 110 mph.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Could be Columbus, IN., which is just south of Indy, but I've never heard of passenger rail cars being kept at either location.


----------



## oldtimer (Nov 27, 2014)

Paulus said:


> Corridor Capital responds.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I understand that most of the CC people were the ones that founded the Twentieth Century Railroad Club that ran excursions.


----------



## jis (Nov 28, 2014)

That may be part of the problem. Too many people seem to think that running a regular commercial passenger rail service is just like running many one time excursions back to back. They don't appear to understand or acknowledge the fundamental differences between the two, and inevitably find themselves in a mess and then the blame game begins.


----------



## TVRM610 (Dec 1, 2014)

Someone recently posted information on this topic, but the thread was locked. Can threads please be merged? Or at the very least moderators who lock threads should provide a link so we can find more info.

Further... this thread is about Hoosier State in general.. and was started way before the current Corridor Capital issues, I think the current issues could have it's own thread, I don't like how threads get locked for no reason. Lock threads if there is an issue... if something is talked about twice... reference it and leave it alone.


----------



## PerRock (Dec 1, 2014)

TVRM610 said:


> Someone recently posted information on this topic, but the thread was locked. Can threads please be merged? Or at the very least moderators who lock threads should provide a link so we can find more info.
> 
> Further... this thread is about Hoosier State in general.. and was started way before the current Corridor Capital issues, I think the current issues could have it's own thread, I don't like how threads get locked for no reason. Lock threads if there is an issue... if something is talked about twice... reference it and leave it alone.



The information posted in the other thread can be found at the bottom of page 12, quoted below (it's in the link fyi).



Paulus said:


> Corridor Capital responds.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This thread is for the Corridor Capitol take over of the Hoosier State, not the Hoosier State in general, since the cancellation of the take over is still about the takeover and so still relevant.

peter


----------



## dlagrua (Dec 1, 2014)

Something better be agreed to, and signed by the end of January 2015 or there might not be a Hoosier state or a successor to it.


----------



## ruck (Dec 3, 2014)

dlagrua said:


> Something better be agreed to, and signed by the end of January 2015 or there might not be a Hoosier state or a successor to it.



That seems to be exactly the case



> “There is encouragement on the end of INDOT for us to be a participant in the continuation of this service,” West Lafayette Mayor John Dennis said. “We’re looking at another private contractor to possibly take over that route, and that’s where we are currently in that negotiation.”
> 
> Dennis said the city will not continue to pay $16,000 a month to support the line come Feb. 1.


http://wlfi.com/2014/12/02/negotiations-continue-to-save-hoosier-state-line/


----------



## TVRM610 (Dec 3, 2014)

ruck said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > Something better be agreed to, and signed by the end of January 2015 or there might not be a Hoosier state or a successor to it.
> ...


Well someone has to pay for the line? Do they think that bill goes away if "fill in the blank" is running the train vs. Amtrak?


----------



## jis (Dec 3, 2014)

What makes these guys think that just using a private contractor to contract out the running to Amtrak will reduce the overall cost completely beats me. There must be something special in the water that people drink in Indiana.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 3, 2014)

jis said:


> What makes these guys think that just using a private contractor to contract put the running to Amtrak will reduce the overall cost completely beats me. There must be something special in the water that people drink in Indiana.


It's the right wing mantra jis! Private for profit companies can always do a better job than government, especially when the government subsidizes them!
Check out the political lineup in Indiana, no Thomas Jeffersons or Ben Franklins in office there!


----------



## ruck (Dec 4, 2014)

jimhudson said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > What makes these guys think that just using a private contractor to contract put the running to Amtrak will reduce the overall cost completely beats me. There must be something special in the water that people drink in Indiana.
> ...



Jim as a resident of Indiana you pretty much nailed it. The state would rather pay more to a private company than pay less to Amtrak, it's a kindergarten philosophy of all things government are bad.


----------



## VentureForth (Dec 4, 2014)




----------



## gaspeamtrak (Dec 4, 2014)

Just check out the UK with it being privatised it's costing them a whole lot more now....


----------



## Paulus (Dec 4, 2014)

gaspeamtrak said:


> Just check out the UK with it being privatised it's costing them a whole lot more now....


Well yes, costs do go up when you massively increase service and investments in new equipment and track improvements.


----------



## jis (Dec 4, 2014)

Yes, in my experience the folks in UK are at least getting massively increased service and new equipment all around for the money. That in my books is a good thing. Now I don't know whether there was a less expensive way of achieving the same thing. But sometimes you just have to go with the flow of political realities or get nothing. However, I hasten to add that the nonsense going on in Indiana does not even remotely resemble what happened in the UK, even with all its warts and all. Indiana is sheer idiocy by incompetent and clueless people playing games IMHO.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 4, 2014)

Always and forever:

Cost of providing service < Cost of providing service + profit for private company

No way around it.


----------



## dlagrua (Dec 4, 2014)

The fairest way to run the Hoosier state is either for government to continue to run it or for a private contractor that takes no government subsidies. Private industry should be able to stand on its own two feet without being a parasite on our tax money. Otherwise its no longer private industry nor is it free enterprise but in the USA its a different story. Banks get our tax money, insurance companies get our tax money, our taxes support the military industrial complex, foreign dictators are on the payroll, and lets not forget the airlines and the auto industry. No wonder they say that there is no money for Amtrak!!!!


----------



## neroden (Dec 4, 2014)

RyanS said:


> Always and forever:
> 
> Cost of providing service < Cost of providing service + profit for private company
> 
> No way around it.


To be blunt, I've seen a couple of rare exceptions; they seem to relate to Cost of providing service + graft > Cost of providing service + profit. Most government operations, including Amtrak, are pretty well operated with minimal graft, but I can't say the same for the LIRR based on what I've read.

Worst of all is cost of providing service + profit + graft, which seems to be the common thing in *US* "privatization" deals.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 5, 2014)

The question of "cost" isn't exactly straightforward here. Let's say that the Hoosier State currently costs the state/Amtrak $5m/yr net of ticket revenues to run: It costs $6m/yr, but there's $1m in ticket revenue. Company X puts in a bid for $4.5m/yr to run the service, on the assumption that they can generate $2.5m/yr in ticket revenue plus OBS revenue. It will cost them $6.5m to run, but the combined subsidy and revenue increase puts their bid below the current Amtrak cost. Well, the company netted half a million in additional profits while the state saved half a million even though the service cost half a million more to run.

I do think there's a fair case to be made for talking with third-party operators here for a host of reasons. Amtrak should have been able to submit a bid and should have done so, but I think the case for letting someone else try to work with the service is actually pretty strong considering what this particular route has been in the past. Indiana botched the job, but the idea was reasonable.


----------



## jis (Dec 5, 2014)

I guess the graft part mentioned by neorden also needs to be added to the equation to get realistic numbers, no? 

I do agree with your example, but in reality it is just a little bit more complicated than just cost of running and recovery from tickets, unless the graft part is implicitly included in the cost of running.  OTOH that also holds true for Amtrak or government run setups, but at least theoretically they can be audited more thoroughly if one wanted.

The bigger problem in the US unlike in the UK is that we don't have a good regulatory framework for doling out train operations piecemeal to private outfits. For example we have no regulatory requirement that all operators must abide by and be able to operate with tickets that are interchangeable, that there is a exchange in place to handle interline operations seamlessly for customers, at least to the extent that it is available in the airline industry (which in and of itself is not brilliant, but at least it is there). Schedule planning would be another area where there should be some kind of outside input mechanism with some commitment by the operators to behave as part of a network to some extent instead of just going off on their own.

So there are several issues that need addressing before we can let the admittedly potentially desirable distribution of operating authorities. Of course the operating authority on private rail tracks is also one of such issues involved.


----------



## TVRM610 (Dec 5, 2014)

Can anyone provide a link showing the financial information for the state routes? As in how much ticket money comes in, and how much it actually costs to run the trains? I found the fiscal report all the way up to 2014, it shows the ridership numbers and ticket revenue per trains, but it does not show how much the trains actually cost to operate.


----------



## neroden (Dec 5, 2014)

For some reason, Amtrak only reports "fully allocated" costs on a regular basis -- in other words, with loads and loads of overhead attached. It is therefore rather hard to tell how much it *actually* costs (incremental or avoidable costs) to run any one of the trains. Paulus may be able to tell you the last year when avoidable costs were broken out routinely -- 2007, I think...


----------



## Ryan (Dec 5, 2014)

Anderson said:


> The question of "cost" isn't exactly straightforward here. Let's say that the Hoosier State currently costs the state/Amtrak $5m/yr net of ticket revenues to run: It costs $6m/yr, but there's $1m in ticket revenue. Company X puts in a bid for $4.5m/yr to run the service, on the assumption that they can generate $2.5m/yr in ticket revenue plus OBS revenue. It will cost them $6.5m to run, but the combined subsidy and revenue increase puts their bid below the current Amtrak cost. Well, the company netted half a million in additional profits while the state saved half a million even though the service cost half a million more to run.


There's no reason that Amtrak can't do the same thing. Then, rather than the million getting split between the state and the private operator, the state can save the full million.


----------



## jis (Dec 5, 2014)

That is where socio-political realities come back to haunt us in both Amtrak-only and public-private partnership scenatios. Usually the problem boils down to who will bell the cat, and how, for whichever one you choose.


----------



## TVRM610 (Dec 5, 2014)

neroden said:


> For some reason, Amtrak only reports "fully allocated" costs on a regular basis -- in other words, with loads and loads of overhead attached. It is therefore rather hard to tell how much it *actually* costs (incremental or avoidable costs) to run any one of the trains. Paulus may be able to tell you the last year when avoidable costs were broken out routinely -- 2007, I think...


That's unfortunate. Anyone remember seeing individual states publish how much they pay amtrak per year? It seems it would be published somewhere... I'll keep digging and maybe I can find something.


----------



## TVRM610 (Dec 5, 2014)

So far I have found this... http://www.in.gov/indot/files/Amtrak_Agreement_2013.pdf

It states $244,916 per month for operating costs

It also states $35,700 per month will be credited back to the state if they use non-amtrak equipment. I'm not sure if the $35,700 is included in the larger number or not. Let's say it's not.... That's a little over 3.3 million a year. Ticket Revenue was 802,000 in year 14.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 5, 2014)

RyanS said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > The question of "cost" isn't exactly straightforward here. Let's say that the Hoosier State currently costs the state/Amtrak $5m/yr net of ticket revenues to run: It costs $6m/yr, but there's $1m in ticket revenue. Company X puts in a bid for $4.5m/yr to run the service, on the assumption that they can generate $2.5m/yr in ticket revenue plus OBS revenue. It will cost them $6.5m to run, but the combined subsidy and revenue increase puts their bid below the current Amtrak cost. Well, the company netted half a million in additional profits while the state saved half a million even though the service cost half a million more to run.
> ...


I agree in theory; however, Amtrak has to load a lot of costs (capital charges, prevailing union agreements, stuff loaded into the uniform cost allocation formula, etc.) onto their "bid". In some ways, that's where you _do_ have room for private-sector involvement: Maybe they can take less of a charge for their equipment (for example, an old 10-6 sleeper might be bought and rehabbed for $1 million whereas Amtrak might pay $2.5 million for a new 11-3 Viewliner; even if the Viewliner lasts twice as long on the current build, the old 10-6 is still coming out half a million ahead on straight-line depreciation), maybe they have different/more favorable terms with their employees, maybe they simply have less in the way of pension and other expenses to deal with.


----------



## Paulus (Dec 5, 2014)

neroden said:


> For some reason, Amtrak only reports "fully allocated" costs on a regular basis -- in other words, with loads and loads of overhead attached. It is therefore rather hard to tell how much it *actually* costs (incremental or avoidable costs) to run any one of the trains. Paulus may be able to tell you the last year when avoidable costs were broken out routinely -- 2007, I think...


FY2009 was the last year it did it into FRA defined costs, other direct costs, and non-direct costs. Some of the reports from the 1980s use short term avoidable costs and fully allocated costs. Amtrak should be reporting the short and long term cost recovery by route to the FRA soonish; I'm hoping we'll see the first report in April with it: it's dependent on the avoidable costing methodology being completed which I hope will be the case when they start including capital charges in October (or so I've been led to believe).


----------



## neroden (Dec 7, 2014)

TVRM610 said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > For some reason, Amtrak only reports "fully allocated" costs on a regular basis -- in other words, with loads and loads of overhead attached. It is therefore rather hard to tell how much it *actually* costs (incremental or avoidable costs) to run any one of the trains. Paulus may be able to tell you the last year when avoidable costs were broken out routinely -- 2007, I think...
> ...


The states are, in fact, paying an allocated portion of overhead as well. There was a long argument over how much they should pay for overhead, and it was *eventually* settled by a set of rules approved by the Surface Transportation Board.

----

For a private operator, they might have a lower pay scale, they might have cheaper equipment.... but the trouble is that they are bound to have roughly the same overhead for stuff like maintenance, ticketing, stations, insurance, legal matters, etc. The same overhead... spread over fewer trains. This makes it unlikely that they can make a good offer.

Unless they're already a large operator. This is why most contract passenger rail services are going to one of a few large multinational companies which already contract to run lots of other services.


----------



## gmo1515 (Jul 10, 2016)

Hello group,

Due to some recent news developments in my home state of Alabama, I decided to research this message board to see if Corridor Capital had done any service (or attempted to) elsewhere. Turns out I wasn't dissapointed to find out information. As it turns out, it appears that Corridor Capital has been attempting to get their foot in the door down here in the south as well. Here is a recent news report:

WSFA story from June 10th:

http://www.wsfa.com/...er-train-system

And not 5 days later the Southern Rail Commission issues a responseregarding Corridor Capital's statements:

http://www.southernr...er-rail-service

Interesting that the proposal called for trains running as soon as 18 months. Places like Huntsville, Decatur, Cullman, and Montgomery all have depots but all have been re-purposed for other uses. Mobile's old Amtrak station was flooded out during Katrina and was later demolished. Not to mention, as far as anyone knows those ex-Santa Fe Hi-levels are still unrebuilt. i like the concept, but this looks like maybe more of Corridor Capital's vaporware?

-Jason


----------



## jis (Jul 10, 2016)

They have apparently not really run anything for anyone yet.


----------

