# Hoosier State tickets sales suspended for after June 30



## TylerP42 (Apr 8, 2019)

It seems like there may be an end to the Hoosier State coming. Ticket sales for after June 30th have been suspended.

More info will be added as it becomes available.

Link : https://www.ibj.com/articles/73231-amtrak-suspends-ticket-sales-for-hoosier-state-line-after-june-30


----------



## Bob Dylan (Apr 8, 2019)

TylerP42 said:


> It seems like there may be an end to the Hoosier State coming. Ticket sales for after June 30th have been suspended.
> 
> More info will be added as it becomes available.
> 
> Link : https://www.ibj.com/articles/73231-amtrak-suspends-ticket-sales-for-hoosier-state-line-after-june-30


No real Surprise, this was a crappy Train except for when Iowa Pacific ran it!

Now it's time for Amtrak to get off the pot and push for a Daily Cardinal!


----------



## seat38a (Apr 8, 2019)

Bleah, this route was on life support for so long, it needed to be put out of its misery a while back. This route is kind of like Brexit, get it done and over with already. When your threatening to jump everyday, eventually one gets to the point and say "Jump already then!"


----------



## cirdan (Apr 9, 2019)

So Anderson says we need to cannibalize the LD network to create more coridors, but he starts off by closing down a coridor.


----------



## dcwldct (Apr 9, 2019)

The announced the end of service back in April. The state of Indiana pulled funding for the route.

The congestion and low speeds North of Thornton due do a less than ideal routing have caused this route to be particularly noncompetitive with car travel. It is 5 hours one-way for a trip that takes 3 hours by car. Even if it's during rush hour you can beat the Hoosier State by driving to Gary and taking the SSL into Millennium Station. Train service doesn't inherently need to compete with cars for speed, but on a relatively short corridor route like this with a car-dependent city on the south end, it puts a dent in ridership/


----------



## Ryan (Apr 9, 2019)

cirdan said:


> So Anderson says we need to cannibalize the LD network to create more coridors, but he starts off by closing down a coridor.


Anderson didn’t shut it down, the state of Indiana did.


----------



## cirdan (Apr 9, 2019)

Ryan said:


> Anderson didn’t shut it down, the state of Indiana did.



I know

But Anderson's vision of lots of new corridors everywhere implies lots of states ponying up lots of money.

It sort of hurts his arguments seeing so far we haven't seen much of a flurry of activity as states try to get that money together, but we have seen one state that says, let's kill a corrdior we already have.


----------



## jis (Apr 9, 2019)

Notwithstanding the Indiana setback, in the last decade, the real major growth has been in short-medium corridors. So it is hard to fault someone for trying to focus on that sector.

The problem is in trying to do so while seemingly walking away from the national system. The problem is not in working on enhancing corridor service. That is a desirable thing.


----------



## cirdan (Apr 9, 2019)

jis said:


> Notwithstanding the Indiana setback, in the last decade, the real major growth has been in short-medium corridors. So it is hard to fault someone for trying to focus on that sector.
> 
> The problem is in trying to do so while seemingly walking away from the national system. The problem is not in working on enhancing corridor service. That is a desirable thing.



I agree.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that most if not all corridor services that have been started from scratch since the inception of Amtrak were started by state initiative or grass roots iniviative and that as fars as I know Amtrak didn't take a proactive role in suggesting new corridors, financing viability studies or otherwise removing barriers.

Thus Amtrak cannot really take the primary credit for such corridors. At best they can be thanked for not outright preventing them and for doing their part in operating them with other people's money.

So it seems to me that Anderson is proposing to keep doing what predecessors have done, but pretending that he's doing something new, while dismantling the LD system, which is the only part where he could actually change something for the better.


----------



## jis (Apr 9, 2019)

Actually in case of most state corridors Amtrak worked proactively with the states to make it possible. All states use Amtrak's rights to operate passenger trains on freight trackage to some extent. In the absence of Amtrak, most state corridors would most likely have failed to materialize.

Even in the case of the Hoosier State people who say IPH ran it are being inaccurate either out of ignorance or deliberately. IPH leased rolling stock for it and provided OBS under contract. But the train throughout was operated by Amtrak, even while IPH was playing those other roles through a contract.

There are very few states that operate non-commuter trains on their own with no involvement of Amtrak. All of them are Amtrak's customers, and provide significant income stream to Amtrak through the contract fees.

Now does Amtrak always do things in a friendly fashion? In my experience no. But as of present the question really boils down to who is the funding and contracting authority for each Amtrak service. The federal government effectively contracts with Amtrak to run a bunch of service and maintain a bunch of infrastructure (something foisted on Amtrak in '76 over and above its original charter) in exchange for the subsidy (contract fee) it provides and then does a p i s s poor job of governing it. Many states contract for state specific services for contract fees that they pay.

For some odd historical reason the "contract fee" from the feds is called subsidy in Amtrak accounting, whereas the state contract fees are shown as income. In reality the feds payments should be viewed similarly and the federal government should provide more requisite governance and enforcement of policies. That as it turns out, may or may not be good for the national network, since the feds are themselves schizophrenic about it, with the legislature going one way and the executive often going the other way.And unfortunately even when the executive is friendly their level of competence is often less than desirable.

But hey, that is what we have for the circus in Washington DC, and like it or not that is the source of the entire problem and possible solution, the latter not forthcoming anytime soon I am afraid.

Anderson is a pawn in the game. He could have been more helpful, but his job description does not necessarily include that as a characteristic that his immediate bosses seem to desire.

For those that lived through the '90s and Amtrak's financial fiascos, as far as Amtrak finances go, we are currently in one of the best periods of stability. Literally Amtrak could survive a government shutdown for a quarter. in the '90s they could not last a week, if that, beyond the end of a quarter for which they had received the subsidy. Subsidy is transferred to Amtrak quarterly. I am sure that the situation of the '90s would immensely please those who were cluelessly complaining about Amtrak hoarding cash a little while back.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 9, 2019)

seat38a said:


> Bleah, this route was on life support for so long, it needed to be put out of its misery a while back. This route is kind of like Brexit, get it done and over with already. When your threatening to jump everyday, eventually one gets to the point and say "Jump already then!"



How on earth did you start out with the Hoosier State route and end up at Brexit?


----------



## jis (Apr 9, 2019)

Actually it is all like a cat. Major tantrum about opening the door to go out. Door is opened. Then sit by the door blinking alternately at the outside, inside and the fellow who opened the door with no movement at all towards actually going outside


----------



## ScouseAndy (Apr 9, 2019)

jis said:


> Actually it is all like a cat. Major tantrum about opening the door to go out. Door is opened. Then sit by the door blinking alternately at the outside, inside and the fellow who opened the door with no movement at all towards actually going outside


 Enough of brexit what about the Hoosier State?


----------



## jis (Apr 9, 2019)

ScouseAndy said:


> Enough of brexit what about the Hoosier State?


Exit right as the proverbial fat lady sings?


----------



## NSC1109 (Apr 9, 2019)

Okay so we’re losing the Hoosier State. Sucks for the people in Indiana and potentially the crews of daily Cardinal doesn’t come back. Question is: how will Amtrak shuttle equipment to and from Beech Grove? Cardinal? Extra train?


----------



## jis (Apr 9, 2019)

I have seen equipment moves to Beech Grove done on the Cardinal in the past when Hoosier State was running with IP equipment. They basically formed a separate train with the equipment to be moved, with its own engine, and attached it to the front of the Hoosier State, ahead of its engine. It traveled as a combined train to Indy, where the front train was detached and went off to Beech Grove and the rear proceeded to New York.


----------



## Anthony V (Apr 9, 2019)

cirdan said:


> So Anderson says we need to cannibalize the LD network to create more coridors, but he starts off by closing down a coridor.


It's not like he wanted to. Indiana doesn't want to fund the corridor anymore, so it has to be shut down, regardless of whether Amtrak wants to run it or not.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 9, 2019)

To say that ridership on the Hoosier State was never anything to write home about is an understatement. The only other trains with even vaguely comparable ridership are the Ethan Allen (whose ridership is sandbagged by the route only getting ridership north of Albany; on the basis of the pre-2005 methodology, the train probably carries somewhere in the range of 130-150k riders/yr over its entire route, but many of them are NYP-ALB and the like) and the Heartland Flyer (which is functionally isolated from the network, though connectivity in Fort Worth, at least, is improving). Both of these have greater daily ridership.

It would be one thing if there were a serious proposal on the table to improve the route (beyond shaking out padding), but neither Amtrak nor Indiana has shown much interest over the years (with the exception of Boardman's almost passive-aggressive waltzing in when the Corridor Capital/Iowa Pacific drama was playing out). Indiana wasn't even actually party to the PRIIA 209 cost agreement, but they dissented without proposing an alternative. It seems, frankly, that Indiana doesn't have much use or utility for the train while Amtrak has no "live" plans to run a daily Cardinal (which they certainly arguably have the cash to make happen [1]...Amfleet replacement could arguably be handled via multi-year state agreements plus a RRIF loan), merely aspirational blather.

So while I regret losing this train, it had a strong case for being the worst train in the Amtrak system and I would argue that if Amtrak wanted to seriously improve the route the ship sailed on that. TBH, even the latest round of Amtrak "swooping in" with some schedule improvements had a feeling of being a botched saving throw rather than a serious effort regarding the train.

[1] CSX may have avenues to effectively tell them no, but I was under the impression that the railroads at least have to give Amtrak a quote (sort-of like how UP gave Amtrak a "buzz off" figure for the daily Sunset 8-9 years ago).


----------



## Seaboard92 (Apr 9, 2019)

It’s funny that you mention it being the worst train in the system. That’s why I chose to model it when I was a broke middle school student because all I could afford was one engine and one coach. And at the time it was running regularly as such. 

How much equipment is Amtrak saving from this cancellation. A motor, a horizon cafe, coach(1 or 2)?


----------



## jis (Apr 9, 2019)

I don’t think Amtrak is worried about saving the equipment. I think it is the Governor of Indiana worried about saving the little money.


----------



## dlagrua (Apr 10, 2019)

IMO, the only thing that can save the Hoosier state train is from an outcry from the ridership. This leaves the only connection to CHI as the three day per week Cardinal. People living in Indianapolis should be disappointed so where is the movement to keep the train?


----------



## Bob Dylan (Apr 10, 2019)

dlagrua said:


> IMO, the only thing that can save the Hoosier state train is from an outcry from the ridership. This leaves the only connection to CHI as the three day per week Cardinal. People living in Indianapolis should be disappointed so where is the movement to keep the train?


The Hoosiers just dont care! Best example: they elected Mike Pence numerous times!


----------



## jebr (Apr 10, 2019)

Bob Dylan said:


> The Hoosiers just dont care! Best example: they elected Mike Pence numerous times!



Or it's because most of the people that live there can drive, and people in Indianapolis specifically (the largest population center) don't see it as terribly useful. On that front I can't really blame them - 6 AM departures and near-midnight arrivals are an unpleasant calling time. Add in that it's slower than the bus or driving and you really have a hard time finding a decent dedicated ridership. Lafayette is probably the strongest market - the timing is decent to Chicago, but it's still slower than the bus and hamstrung by the once-a-day schedule and possible delays from the Cardinal 3x/week.

The problem is that this corridor needs capital investment and higher frequency in order to become useful for more people, but there's not the political will to get that funding started.


----------



## bretton88 (Apr 10, 2019)

cirdan said:


> So Anderson says we need to cannibalize the LD network to create more coridors, but he starts off by closing down a coridor.


Has nothing to do with Anderson. Amtrak can not legally fund a corridor under 750 miles right now. So if Indiana won't fund it, nothing Amtrak can do. Note they are intentionally calling it "suspended" so Amtrak is keeping open the possibility of it coming back if Amtrak regains the legal option to do so.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Apr 10, 2019)

Suspended like the Sunset Limited between New Orleans and Orlando?


----------



## TylerP42 (Apr 11, 2019)

As someone who lives in Indianapolis and is a rail advocate, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The bad timings (can't even make a day trip to Chicago for "fun"), the fact that it's slower than driving or bus, and at times just as expensive or more expensive.

There is almost nothing, other than the "you're not driving" aspect to lure people in. Couple that with a city that isn't big on public transportation in the first place, and is doing alright without a lot of it, I am not sure what a saving grace would be.


----------



## IndyLions (Apr 11, 2019)

I don’t agree with the assessment you can’t make a day trip to Chicago on the Hoosier State / Cardinal. I’ve done it many times for everything from Sunday NFL football games to summer days riding my bike along Lake Michigan. 

And the schedule is terrific for a weekend in Chicago. Head out Saturday morning early, come home Sunday evening late.

I guess I’m going to be one of the few that is very disappointed in the loss of this train. Yes, there are other ways to get to Chicago that are quicker and cheaper. But the schedule is not nearly as bad as everybody thinks – and you end up right downtown in Chicago without a car as an expensive anvil around your neck every time you want to leave your hotel and go do something like see a museum or go to dinner. Has anyone seen traffic and the cost of parking in Chicago lately? I’d rather walk or take a cab, and I’ll be at the museum/restaurant before the car drivers even get their car out of the hotel parking lot from the valet.

Yes, the line needs upgrading so the speeds can be made better and the service expanded. The best case scenario would be the state of Indiana purchasing as much of the tracks as possible to keep that as a future option – but of course we know that’s not going to happen.


----------



## Pere Flyer (Apr 11, 2019)

IndyLions said:


> You end up right downtown in Chicago without a car as an expensive anvil around your neck every time you want to leave your hotel and go do something like see a museum or go to dinner. Has anyone seen traffic and the cost of parking in Chicago lately?



Have you seen the CTA, El, and Metra service lately? I’m with you in disappointment over the Hoosier State (and I’m the last person to be an apologist for car use) but it’s perfectly reasonable for a Chicago visitor to drive to the city, lock their car in a hotel garage, and walk or take public transit to restaurants, museums, and all of Chicago’s attractions—just as it is perfectly reasonable for you to take the HS to Chicago Union Station and walk/bike/take a cab wherever you please.


----------



## TylerP42 (Apr 11, 2019)

You could also drive to an outlying Metra station, park your car, and arrive downtown as well.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Apr 12, 2019)

If they could have gotten the Iowa Pacific Equipment to run daily and gotten slightly better times I think they would have possibly gotten the ridership (and fare box recovery) up a bit.


----------



## SubwayNut (Apr 12, 2019)

Indiana is funding some commuter rail. NICTD's got its Double Tracking project for the South Shore Line from Gary to Michigan City fully funded. http://www.doubletrack-nwi.com


----------



## TylerP42 (Apr 14, 2019)

There's rumblings and rumors that lawmakers want to use the Hoosier State funding for the Indianapolis Airport.


----------



## fredmcain (Apr 16, 2019)

Amtrak has stated that they have to have $3 million per year from the state to operate this train. However, one thing that might not have been brought out in this thread, doesn’t Amtrak use the Hoosier State often as a “hospital train” to pull equipment back and forth from Beach Grove? I really thought they did.

If so, that suggests that Amtrak is getting more benefit out of this train than they let on. I mean, sure, they can continue to do so by using the thrice weekly Cardinal but they are going to be losing some flexibility there. So, I wonder what the state legislature would do if Amtrak were to lower their demands for the $3 million? Would the state consider one million per year? Two million? Whatever. It’s something to think about. Has such a possibility been missed in all this rigmarole? It seems like both sides ought to be able to come together, make a deal and keep the train running.

Regards,
Fred M. Cain


----------



## keelhauled (Apr 16, 2019)

When Iowa Pacific equipment operated on the train, Amtrak used the Cardinal to shuttle equipment to and from Beech Grove. I would imagine they will do the same should July 1 come around and there is no Hoosier State.


----------



## GBNorman (Apr 17, 2019)

Looks like a possible last minute reprieve to save this loser has struck out:

https://www.jconline.com/story/news...nate-too-prospects-fade-save-line/3482102002/

Fair Use:



> LAFAYETTE, Ind. – There was no last-minute reprieve in the Indiana Senate Tuesday night to save Amtrak’s Hoosier State line, which stops four days a week in downtown Lafayette, going between Indianapolis and Chicago.
> 
> State Sen. Ron Alting, a Lafayette Republican, this week promised an amendment that would keep the passenger rail line in the next Indiana budget, as the Hoosier State got no love from Gov. Eric Holcomb or budget makers in the Indiana House and Senate in their three versions of a two-year spending plan


----------



## jis (Apr 17, 2019)

This business about requiring a train service to be running in order to transport hospital stuff is just a red herring. If there is a service then naturally that is used. If there isn't then a special move is used. Afterall the lack of passenger service to Bear DE has never stopped any equipment move to that shop.

keelhauled is right about how the Cardinal was used when IP equipment was in Hoosier State service. I was on a Cardinal that was used for a hospital move. The equipment train was a separate consist with its own engine that was hooked to the Cardinal, which was a separate consist with its own engine. At Indy they simply unhooked the two trains, the Cardinal went on its way and the equipment moved headed off to Beech Grove.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Apr 18, 2019)

The Hoosier State is a bare minimum start up. It needed more investment, more frequencies, more money put into the infrastructure so it could have better times, etc. 

They also needed to a day train to the west to Cincinnati. But all of these cost $$$ and also states working together.


----------



## Lake Country (Apr 19, 2019)

You're not wrong CrescentZephyr, this has been the issue with the HS from the onset. I have read and posted and read again the same comments on many boards about the HS. At this point I have given up hope on this train. Let it die, reallocate the meager trainset pieces to other routes, wish Indiana the best with their skeleton passenger rail. Bright side is that it also opens up an inbound and outbound slot at Chicago Union Station south concourse for additional Metra trains. From that POV I would rather see a Metra train pull in with 150 commuters than the HS Amtrak with 30 pax.


----------



## toddinde (Apr 19, 2019)

It is wrong headed thinking to let the Hoosier die. I lived in Indy for two years and used it often. After I moved, I used it to visit often. Yes, it needs improvement and investment. The problem with the rail advocacy community is small thinking like we can use the cars somewhere else. The reality is that three freaking million dollars is a rounding error in the Indiana budget. We need to stop acting like that’s a lot of money. It’s nothing. The reality is when these trains are gone, they’re gone. They’re gone for good. Quad Cities may just get a train back after 40 years! For a tiny subsidy, the Rockets could have been improved and maintained. We need, as advocates, to have a zero loss mentality. Especially on a corridor that’s been designated as part of the Midwest high speed network. Maybe you don’t ride the Hoosier. Maybe you don’t care. But then why should someone in Indy or Lafayette care about your train? They shouldn’t if you can’t support the Hoosier.


----------



## Lake Country (Apr 19, 2019)

toddinde - I might have given the wrong impression, I am just frustrated with the hand wringing on the HS. I definitely want it to survive and agree that when it is gone it will be hard to bring it back. I agree the equipment reallocation is peanuts, the $3 mil is a blip. It is not up to me - it is up to the Indiana reps and gov. As far as I can tell the anti rail sentiment is part of a political skew which is embedded in the current brand of the gop.
For those interested-Sign the petition here https://www.midwesthsr.org/indiana . tell your friends and family in indiana. 
For me- i have given up and dont expect a change of course.


----------



## bretton88 (Apr 19, 2019)

I'm going to note Amtrak is doing the right response here. If Indiana does cut funding for the train, Amtrak is going to treat it as a "suspension." In that way they can keep the train slot available in case of future need versus a cancellation in which Amtrak would lose that access.


----------



## neroden (Apr 19, 2019)

cirdan said:


> I agree.
> 
> Please correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that most if not all corridor services that have been started from scratch since the inception of Amtrak were started by state initiative or grass roots iniviative and that as fars as I know Amtrak didn't take a proactive role in suggesting new corridors, financing viability studies or otherwise removing barriers.



Not only that, many corridors were started on routes which already had national network service. (This includes all the Northeast Regional extensions in Virginia prior to Roanoke, and all the Pacific Surfliner/San Diegan services, and all the Capitol Corridor services, and the Cascades service, and the Carbondale service, and the St. Louis service.) Some were started when national network service on the same route was threatened (Vermonter). Others exist only because they can connect to national network service (Heartland Flyer, Missouri River Runner). It's hard to come up with a corridor service which doesn't depend on the national network services (maybe the Downeaster; it mostly depends on Boston's MBTA). 

Corridor services are only possible, politically, where national network service exists nearby. Is anyone talking about new Amtrak service in Amarillo? No? Why not? Because there's no service anywhere near there and so awareness is nonexistent. Same with Brownsville and McAllen.



> Thus Amtrak cannot really take the primary credit for such corridors. At best they can be thanked for not outright preventing them and for doing their part in operating them with other people's money.
> 
> So it seems to me that Anderson is proposing to keep doing what predecessors have done, but pretending that he's doing something new, while dismantling the LD system, which is the only part where he could actually change something for the better.


----------



## neroden (Apr 19, 2019)

If Amtrak had forward-thinking management (rather than idiots who don't seem to understand how broken their accounting system is), they'd replace the Hoosier State with a daily Cardinal pretty much ASAP. Or at *least* get a quote from CSX.

The Cardinal would have much better financials if daily, and it's already more or less breaking even before phony overhead allocations. It's gotta be possible to scrape up the equipment one way or another. Support could be obtained from the Ohio cities along the route (we know this for a fact), and possibly from the WV cities.

The painfully slow part of the Hoosier State route is scheduled to have NICTD's West Lake Corridor built. Amtrak oughhta talk to them.

I miss the guys who wrote the PIPs and got the Texas Eagle moved to the TRE corridor. I don't know their names, but they're the ones I want in management. They understood passenger railroading.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 19, 2019)

neroden said:


> If Amtrak had forward-thinking management (rather than idiots who don't seem to understand how broken their accounting system is), they'd replace the Hoosier State with a daily Cardinal pretty much ASAP. Or at *least* get a quote from CSX.
> 
> The Cardinal would have much better financials if daily, and it's already more or less breaking even before phony overhead allocations. It's gotta be possible to scrape up the equipment one way or another. Support could be obtained from the Ohio cities along the route (we know this for a fact)



You mean city (assuming you are talking about the current stops only and not including Oxford or any other potential new stops). And if I'm Cincinnati, why would I throw money into a train for graveyard shift service? They want my money, they better make the train suit my needs more.


----------



## looshi (Apr 19, 2019)

Cincinnati City Council supports a daily Cardinal as a precursor to a Chicago corridor train, even at the current times. That is why the Cardinal conference a couple of years back was held in Cincinnati. The city also offered to help pay to keep the station staffed but was rebuffed by Amtrak.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Apr 20, 2019)

I wonder what Amtrak's upper management thinks of this development. If they thought states would just take over sections of the long distance service with a little seed money, this has to bring them back to reality.


----------



## jis (Apr 20, 2019)

Thirdrail7 said:


> I wonder what Amtrak's upper management thinks of this development. If they thought states would just take over sections of the long distance service with a little seed money, this has to bring them back to reality.


It is very hard to tell whether they have a rational chain of thinking where each step in the thought process bears any causal or logical relationship to the previous step. In a sidebar conversation Boardman used the word "transactional" to describe the modus operandi of the current Amtrak management. They react with a dictum to one particular stimulus with little consideration for anything else and little due diligence on the possible unintended consequences, and it shows. But such intentional incompetence is very much in fashion these days, unfortunately.

In this specific case of "corridorization" I have never heard them say or provide in writing anything giving an explanation of how that scheme is going to get funded federally without undoing a very significant part of PRIIA 2008. Maybe that is what they think they will do in the new reauthorization. Who knows? I don't think anyone has seen a draft of Title 7 of the new Transportation Reauthorization Act yet.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Apr 21, 2019)

The Wiki page for Hoosier State claims that under Iowa Pacific the Hoosier state ridership was up and revenue was up by like 30% (business class)... is that true? Seems the state would have done well to find someone who could provide Iowa Pacific level service. I know the Downeaster trains staff and stock their own cafe cars... could the state have leased the Amtrak Dome Car (or just purchased their own premium car that could be used for business class) and staffed it on their own?


----------



## seat38a (Apr 21, 2019)

crescent-zephyr said:


> The Wiki page for Hoosier State claims that under Iowa Pacific the Hoosier state ridership was up and revenue was up by like 30% (business class)... is that true? Seems the state would have done well to find someone who could provide Iowa Pacific level service. I know the Downeaster trains staff and stock their own cafe cars... could the state have leased the Amtrak Dome Car (or just purchased their own premium car that could be used for business class) and staffed it on their own?



But how does that solve the issue of Indiana not wanting to fund the train? Revenue might have been up 30% but I'm pretty sure it didn't turn a profit or break even. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Apr 21, 2019)

I wasn’t saying it did turn a profit, but if simply providing a nicer service brought ridership and revenue up, one would think decreasing trip times and increasing frequency would bring many more riders.


----------



## Trogdor (Apr 21, 2019)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I wasn’t saying it did turn a profit, but if simply providing a nicer service brought ridership and revenue up, one would think decreasing trip times and increasing frequency would bring many more riders.



That was never in question.

What is (and always has been) in question is Indiana’s willingness to pay for the service. As we see now, there really isn’t much of any.

That better frequency and faster times attracts more riders is fairly obvious. But in order to do so, you have to spend even more money to increase the capacity and condition of the line. There has never been any indication whatsoever that Indiana was interested in paying for that (with costs that would likely reach into the nine-figure level, if not more), even if such a move would potentially decrease the annual subsidy requirement (and even then, it’s not guaranteed that it would; subsidy per passenger could decrease, but total subsidy could still increase).


----------



## bretton88 (Apr 21, 2019)

neroden said:


> If Amtrak had forward-thinking management (rather than idiots who don't seem to understand how broken their accounting system is), they'd replace the Hoosier State with a daily Cardinal pretty much ASAP. Or at *least* get a quote from CSX.
> 
> The Cardinal would have much better financials if daily, and it's already more or less breaking even before phony overhead allocations. It's gotta be possible to scrape up the equipment one way or another. Support could be obtained from the Ohio cities along the route (we know this for a fact), and possibly from the WV cities.
> 
> ...


Amtrak did get a quote from CSX. They also where told no daily Cardinal without significant double tracking of the Buckingham Branch, some Virginia is working on, but slowly.


----------



## jis (Apr 21, 2019)

The problem about decreasing trip time that is necessary to make it a competitive and viable corridor is that the cost of doing so is extremely non-trivial, and an outfit that has difficulty finding around $5 million per year is unlikely to look kindly at finding the necessary funds. Given the situation it is lunacy to try to convince CSX to take any of this seriously. The only real fix is to buy out the trackage and fix it, something like what SEHSR is attempting to do in Virginia and North Carolina. And Indiana is unlikely to fund even a reasonable proportion of such a venture, unless perhaps it can be tacked onto the current proposed investment in NICTD. I suspect even that will take a significant change in the mindset of the backward looking government of Indiana.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 21, 2019)

If you spend 50% more to get a 30% increase, you're not really gaining anything.


----------



## jis (Apr 21, 2019)

Ryan said:


> If you spend 50% more to get a 30% increase, you're not really gaining anything.


We used to call such revenue "bad revenue" and get rid of the project to save some money to apply it to a more promising project.


----------



## seat38a (Apr 21, 2019)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I wasn’t saying it did turn a profit, but if simply providing a nicer service brought ridership and revenue up, one would think decreasing trip times and increasing frequency would bring many more riders.



And again, how does that solve the issue of Indiana not wanting to fork over any amount of cash for the train? Unless I'm wrong, Indiana does not use increase in ridership numbers as a measure of "success" as California does, and maybe Oregon/Washington.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Apr 22, 2019)

It doesn’t solve that problem, I never said it did. 

I was more just commenting on how the Hoosier state was headed in the right direction with Iowa pacific equipment and service bringing new riders and revenue. And if they had continued that trend, we could have had increased funding, better ridership etc. 

I would think any State supported train would see increased riders as success... why else fund the train, if you don’t want people to ride it? I’m not sure how else a state would measure success ha.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 22, 2019)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I was more just commenting on how the Hoosier state was headed in the right direction with Iowa pacific equipment and service



By the fact that IP was unable to sustain that level of service, it's a safe bet that it wasn't headed in the right direction. You have to look at the costs incurred to get that increase and see if it is worth it.


----------



## Amtrak706 (Apr 22, 2019)

Ryan said:


> By the fact that IP was unable to sustain that level of service, it's a safe bet that it wasn't headed in the right direction. You have to look at the costs incurred to get that increase and see if it is worth it.


It’s not quite that simple though. Allegedly Amtrak did not want to see them succeed and charged astronomical rates for crews and OBS. I think if the state was interested in passenger rail, their best bet would have been to stay as far away from Amtrak as possible and figure out how to contract someone like IP directly. Of course, the current situation of IP in general puts them into question as an organization, but I wouldn’t write off the business model that was attempted on the Hoosier State.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 22, 2019)

Good luck negotiating track access with CSX directly. 



Amtrak706 said:


> Allegedly Amtrak did not want to see them succeed and charged astronomical rates for crews and OBS.



Source?


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Apr 22, 2019)

Amtrak706 said:


> Allegedly Amtrak did not want to see them succeed and charged astronomical rates for crews and OBS.



They were "allegedly" charged what they would have paid under normal wages if they worked for Amtrak, instead of the reduced "market rate for the area" that the company wanted to pay. 

This is common although annoying to those who want to pay a local, prevailing wage and benefit. The option is to furnish your own forces, like the OBS service on the Downeaster. They can pay them $10 dollars an hour based upon the local prevailing wage since they are not Amtrak employees.


----------



## Amtrak706 (Apr 22, 2019)

Ryan said:


> Good luck negotiating track access with CSX directly.
> 
> 
> 
> Source?



It would be quite a paradigm shift if Amtrak’s legislation was modified to allow companies reasonable competitive bids on different routes like the UK does. They have their own problems, but I would argue overall their system beats ours.

Your source is below.



Thirdrail7 said:


> They were "allegedly" charged what they would have paid under normal wages if they worked for Amtrak, instead of the reduced "market rate for the area" that the company wanted to pay.
> 
> This is common although annoying to those who want to pay a local, prevailing wage and benefit. The option is to furnish your own forces, like the OBS service on the Downeaster. They can pay them $10 dollars an hour based upon the local prevailing wage since they are not Amtrak employees.



I think this plus Iowa Pacific being the company involved doomed the experiment from the start unfortunately.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 22, 2019)

"normal wages if they worked for Amtrak" is not "astronomical rates".


----------



## MisterUptempo (Apr 22, 2019)

The Hoosier State did precisely what the State of Indiana wanted it to do - fail.

It failed spectacularly. It failed constantly. And, most importantly, it failed in such a way that all those paying attention could witness its failure.

The death of the Hoosier State will be gleefully held up as an object lesson by opponents of state-supported rail across the nation to prove the foolhardiness of any transportation project that isn't built out of asphalt. I feel badly for the advocates of Chicago/Fort Wayne/Columbus service, as well as daily Cincinnati service, as their missions have become exponentially more difficult.

And before anyone wants to point out the funding given to NICTD/South Shore improvements contradicts my argument, the South Shore serves a different purpose - to provide Indiana residents access to one of the largest CBDs in the nation, with jobs that NWI cannot itself provide. The Indiana state government also hopes it aids in the state's campaign of poaching Chicago residents and businesses.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Apr 22, 2019)

But who in the world would want to leave Chicago for Indiana???


----------



## MisterUptempo (Apr 22, 2019)

Bob Dylan said:


> But who in the world would want to leave Chicago for Indiana???


I'm not saying they'll be successful, but they are trying-





A series of these ads constantly pop up while I browse on my laptop and phone.


----------



## PVD (Apr 22, 2019)

If the key to a service or businesses' success is the ability to undermine wages, benefits and conditions maybe their failure is a blessing to society at large.


----------



## jebr (Apr 22, 2019)

PVD said:


> If the key to a service or businesses' success is the ability to undermine wages, benefits and conditions maybe their failure is a blessing to society at large.



Certainly, but if Amtrak has a staffing structure that relies on labor from Chicago, especially for OBS, there's almost certainly some savings to be found by hiring workers from Indianapolis where cost of living is lower. As long as they're still paying a livable wage for the area that they're hiring from and expecting people to report to, I don't see any particular harm in staffing from a lower-COL area.


----------



## Amtrak706 (Apr 22, 2019)

Ryan said:


> "normal wages if they worked for Amtrak" is not "astronomical rates".


Why is it always you that feels the need to correct some aspect of what I’ve said? My point about your assessment of IP’s failing being simplistic still stands regardless of the magnitude of Amtrak’s gouging, and you know it. Please stop with this stuff.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 22, 2019)

Dude, stop taking everything so personally. This isn’t about you.

Paying the same wages as every other Amtrak employee isn’t gouging. You made a claim of “astronomical rates”. Asking for you to back that up with a source isn’t uncalled for.

I’m not even sure what you’re talking about when you talk about my “assessment” of IP’s failing, as I’ve made so such assessment. The two points I’ve made in this thread were to point out that you can’t sold look at revenue increases without also accounting for the cost you incur to being in that revenue and to ask you for sourcing on a still-unsupported claim.

If you want to drop the petty bickering and have a substantive conversation, I’m all ears.


----------



## jis (Apr 22, 2019)

I believe IP failed simply because they signed a contract, one in which they could never succeed no matter what, without carefully reading it. They took on a lot of cost without making sure that any financial largess resulting from better financial performance flows in proportion their way. It took them a long time to understand what they had signed, and once they did, they bailed. It took the arrival of an incentive payment from INDOT for them to see how that was apportioned between them and Amtrak per the contract they signed, to figure out what they had signed. Meanwhile there was other stuff going on with them too, which had made them otherwise non-viable too, and were basically gasping for air. Bottom line is IP needed a more competent accountant and legal support in order to better protect their interests, if they wanted any hope of succeeding.

At the beginning Amtrak did not make it easy for them at startup, by playing the game of "work to rule" regarding the equipment etc., but that is really par for the course in business when one is elbowing into what another thinks is their territory, and Amtrak has been known to be pretty nasty when it comes to that.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Apr 22, 2019)

The whole Iowa Pacific deal is really a shame. One of the trips I took on the Hoosier State, Ed Ellis was in the dome and he was wanting to expand the Hoosier State operation daily, and also to have it continue to serve other cities so they would get more mileage out of the equipment / staff expenses. 

Just my guess but I think they signed the contract in order to show Indiana (and other states) what they could do, thinking that their future expansion would cover any short term losses on the Hoosier State. Unfortunately, the opposite happened and when other parts of their business began to suffer... they couldn't continue losing money with the Hoosier State.


----------



## jis (Apr 22, 2019)

They never had a viable business model as merely what amounted to an equipment and OBS subcontractor to Amtrak, with very minimal, if any, performance incentive payment flowback. In short they were smoking something. They were nothing like the deliberate and considered outfit like Brightline.


----------



## NSC1109 (Apr 22, 2019)

MisterUptempo said:


> The Hoosier State did precisely what the State of Indiana wanted it to do - fail.
> 
> It failed spectacularly. It failed constantly. And, most importantly, it failed in such a way that all those paying attention could witness its failure.
> 
> ...



It’s funny...all Indiana residents and opponents of passenger rail have to do is look at their cousin to the north to see the exact opposite. 

The Michigan Services are wildly popular with the public and ridership has been growing for the last several years. OTP has been an issue but a large part of it is outside of Amtrak’s control. More often than not, there are two places where I commonly see delays for the Wolverines: between Chicago and Porter, normally around CP 502 and that insufferable drawbridge, and between Pontiac and Townline. 

As for the Blue Water, it isn’t uncommon to see them sit for an hour or more literally just after leaving PTH. It hasn’t been as bad recently, however. 

The reason for success, if it had to be nailed down to one thing, would be that the state saw the importance of passenger service and helped Amtrak cultivate it. The state helped Amtrak take care of NS and their ridiculous slow orders east of Kalamazoo by buying up the line. The state is helping to pay for new cars to be used throughout the Chicago Hub. 

Indianians should feel ashamed of their government. If they actually tried, they could probably develop corridors like the Michigan Line. Instead they chose to starve their services and finally kill it off.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Apr 22, 2019)

jis said:


> They never had a viable business model as merely what amounted to an equipment and OBS subcontractor to Amtrak, with very minimal, if any, performance incentive payment flowback. In short they were smoking something. They were nothing like the deliberate and considered outfit like Brightline.



I'm pretty sure they had a very viable business model, they just weren't able to survive the growing pains. Which is common in any new business. 

I'm also pretty certain that Brightline has already lost 2 or 3 times (if not more) the amount that Iowa Pacific did... there's no way those trains aren't losing a crazy amount of money right now. But their parent company has deeper pockets than Ed Ellis and will hopefully see success in time that the whole thing doesn't become another "remember when" like the Hoosier State with Dome Cars.


----------



## seat38a (Apr 23, 2019)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I'm pretty sure they had a very viable business model, they just weren't able to survive the growing pains. Which is common in any new business.
> 
> I'm also pretty certain that Brightline has already lost 2 or 3 times (if not more) the amount that Iowa Pacific did... there's no way those trains aren't losing a crazy amount of money right now. But their parent company has deeper pockets than Ed Ellis and will hopefully see success in time that the whole thing doesn't become another "remember when" like the Hoosier State with Dome Cars.



I only took basic economics and accounting just as electives in college but from what I remember, having enough capital is part of what makes a business model viable or not. Uber and Lyft don't make any money but they are viable business models because they have access to capital to get through their projected growing pains. Regardless if it comes from the bank, tax payers, shareholders, selling adjacent real estate or venture capital you got to line up the money. Based on what jis wrote in his posts above, their business model was dead on arrival when IP decided to use "Legal Zoom" instead of some good lawyers and accountants to tell them it was a bad deal.


----------



## seat38a (Apr 23, 2019)

NSC1109 said:


> Indianians should feel ashamed of their government. If they actually tried, they could probably develop corridors like the Michigan Line. Instead they chose to starve their services and finally kill it off.


The people of Indiana decided what they wanted for themselves through their elections. Regardless of what non Indianan's think, if the majority of Indianan's do not want to fund something with their tax dollars, its their prerogative. I'm sure Indiana would gladly accept and keep the train running if the tax payers of Michigan gave an annual donation.


----------



## NSC1109 (Apr 23, 2019)

seat38a said:


> The people of Indiana decided what they wanted for themselves through their elections. Regardless of what non Indianan's think, if the majority of Indianan's do not want to fund something with their tax dollars, its their prerogative. I'm sure Indiana would gladly accept and keep the train running if the tax payers of Michigan gave an annual donation.



Of course they didn’t want to fund it. Why fund a train that was frequently late, didn’t have daily service, and had almost no amenities? 

What I’m saying is that the Indiana government doesn’t appear to have even tried to work with Amtrak and CSX to solve the problems and develop the corridor. They just let the thing die. To the residents of Indiana who don’t have the knowledge that we do, it looked like the train was the perfect example of all that was wrong with passenger rail and an absolute failure.


----------



## jis (Apr 23, 2019)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I'm pretty sure they had a very viable business model, they just weren't able to survive the growing pains. Which is common in any new business.
> 
> I'm also pretty certain that Brightline has already lost 2 or 3 times (if not more) the amount that Iowa Pacific did... there's no way those trains aren't losing a crazy amount of money right now. But their parent company has deeper pockets than Ed Ellis and will hopefully see success in time that the whole thing doesn't become another "remember when" like the Hoosier State with Dome Cars.


Anyone who has cared to read Brightline's financial plan knows that they do not plan to turn a profit until three years after service starts to Orlando. That is at least six years away, and they have an outline plan for financing the whole thing for that period, both operations and capital construction, and are currently ahead of that plan. And they have a pile of real estate income to cover the gap in the interim. A lot of the real estate along the route belongs to a subsidiary of Brightline.

IP never had a plan that had a prayer of getting adequately funded by anyone, long or short term apparently, and they were an incredibly under-capitalized operation depending on an unreliable state DOT and a hostile partner which held all the critical cards. Even where IP had much greater control, like at Saratoga and North Creek, they really did not have the financial side of it worked out. The results were predictable.

Actually Brightline and Hoosier State with IP are so different from each other that one does not really provide a model for the other. One was a subcontractor operation, with no control over scheduling and dispatching and quality of track, while the other is a soup to nuts trackbed to stations and attached real estate operation on either owned or long time leased property, with full control of dispatching, through 50% ownership of the company that is responsible for dispatching. And yes, with deep pockets, though Fortress is unlikely to endlessly fund an operation that cannot stand on its own and provide them net income. They are an investment company, not a charity.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Apr 23, 2019)

jis said:


> IP never had a plan that had a prayer of getting adequately funded by anyone, long or short term apparently, and they were an incredibly under-capitalized operation depending on an unreliable state DOT and a hostile partner which held all the critical cards. Even where IP had much greater control, like at Saratoga and North Creek, they really did not have the finacial side of it worked out. The results were predictable.



I agree with that. The comparison with Brightline and IP was just that they are both start-ups in passenger rail trying to do something new and different, not proven, and they are hoping they can make it work. Obviously there is no apples to apples comparison.


----------



## Amtrak706 (Apr 23, 2019)

Ryan said:


> Dude, stop taking everything so personally. This isn’t about you.


 What did I claim was about me?



> Paying the same wages as every other Amtrak employee isn’t gouging. You made a claim of “astronomical rates”. Asking for you to back that up with a source isn’t uncalled for.


You are absolutely correct. Assuming you trust Thirdrail’s information as I do then you have your source.



> I’m not even sure what you’re talking about when you talk about my “assessment” of IP’s failing, as I’ve made so such assessment. The two points I’ve made in this thread were to point out that you can’t sold look at revenue increases without also accounting for the cost you incur to being in that revenue and to ask you for sourcing on a still-unsupported claim.


I am referring to this:


Ryan said:


> By the fact that IP was unable to sustain that level of service, it's a safe bet that it wasn't headed in the right direction. You have to look at the costs incurred to get that increase and see if it is worth it.






> If you want to drop the petty bickering and have a substantive conversation, I’m all ears.


Glad to see we agree on this. I’m sure you intend to uphold this sentiment in your future posts as well.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 23, 2019)

Once more I will request that you drop the petty BS. I’m not sure why you have an attitude, but it isn’t conducive to reasonable discussion. 



Amtrak706 said:


> You are absolutely correct. Assuming you trust Thirdrail’s information as I do then you have your source.



No, I don’t. You claimed “astronomical rates”. Thirdrails’s post (which came after yours) called out rates paid to other Amtrak employees, which are not astronomical. 

So, we’re back at the place where we’re in need of a citation for your claim that Amtrak gouged IP with “astronomical rates”.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 23, 2019)

For the record, this is the part where you made it personal, and there are plenty of your posts that I don’t respond to. 



Amtrak706 said:


> Why is it always you that feels the need to correct some aspect of what I’ve said?



Quit complaining and just engage in good faith discussion. It’s not hard.


----------



## jebr (Apr 23, 2019)

Let's bring things back on topic. There's no further need to debate the exact styles of different posters, nor to argue about things unrelated to the topic at hand (the Hoosier State.)


----------



## seat38a (Apr 23, 2019)

NSC1109 said:


> What I’m saying is that the Indiana government doesn’t appear to have even tried to work with Amtrak and CSX to solve the problems and develop the corridor. They just let the thing die.


And more trackage rights or track improvements are not going to cost State of Indiana tax dollars? Pretty sure Amtrak wasn't going to foot the bill for the extra cost for the rails or even allowed to and obviously CSX hasn't maintained it so far its a very good chance they are not going to without cold hard cash from the tax payers.

Lets just say I highly doubt Indiana is prepared to fork over hundreds of millions (billions?) to improve the corridor.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Apr 23, 2019)

seat38a said:


> And more trackage rights or track improvements were not going to cost State of Indiana tax dollars? Pretty sure Amtrak wasn't going to foot the bill for the extra cost for the rails or even allowed to and obviously CSX hasn't maintained it so far its a very good chance they are not going to without cold hard cash from the tax payers.
> 
> Lets just say I highly doubt Indiana is prepared to fork over hundreds of millions (billions?) to improve the corridor.



That’s never been in question. Of course it would cost money. Money that other states (north Carolina, Michigan, etc.) have invested and can show what they have gotten for their investments.


----------



## seat38a (Apr 23, 2019)

crescent-zephyr said:


> That’s never been in question. Of course it would cost money. Money that other states (north Carolina, Michigan, etc.) have invested and can show what they have gotten for their investments.


My point is Indiana doesn't want to invest in it like the other states do and its up to the voters of Indiana to decide for themselves. NSC1109 make a post above that Indianan's should feel ashamed of their State government and my point is its up to Indianan's to decide how and what they want to do in their state and not for people from Michigan, California etc to point fingers and shame them.


----------



## TylerP42 (Apr 23, 2019)

Again, as someone who lives in Indianapolis, it is almost _impossible_ to advocate for the Hoosier State. Even as a foamer, as a railfan, whatever you want to call me, I simply look at the numbers, look at it's effectiveness, and look at it's revenue, and A. Do not see many options to advocate saving it, and B. Realize that Indiana does not want it, and will never want it.

The people of Indiana and Indianapolis in general (aside from the Chicago Metropolitan area/along South Shore Line) do not use much public transportation, nor do they use rail transportation. We don't have light rail, we barely used our heavy rail (Amtrak).

To argue that people depend on the train is hard to believe, considering its awful schedule, delays, and timings to places.

While college towns may suffer _a bit_, it won't be as drastic as we think. The train was bare bones, offered nothing more than "not driving". It was slower, more inconveniencing, and some may argue less pleasant than just driving to Chicago.

Cost wise, you can drive for about the same price of taking the Train.

I was quoted about 140 dollars round trip for my little brother and I to go to Chicago last week, Tuesday to Wednesday.

I drove there for 30 dollars (gas), 15 dollar meal on the way, and parking was free (hotel) but for kicks, let's say parking was 30 for the overnight. That's 65 dollars to drive to Chicago. Another 40 for four one day Ventra cards (one for Tuesday, one for Wednesday) and it's 105 in total. I'd still have to buy Ventra if I took the train in.

That's 35 dollars cheaper to drive. 35 dollars that can be used for a museum admission, a meal, whatever.

It may be hard to see it go, but I don't see a good reason for it to stay, either.

Please excuse my devil's advocacy.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Apr 23, 2019)

TylerP42 said:


> Realize that Indiana does not want it, and will never want it.



So you have a working crystal ball?


----------



## NSC1109 (Apr 23, 2019)

seat38a said:


> My point is Indiana doesn't want to invest in it like the other states do and its up to the voters of Indiana to decide for themselves. NSC1109 make a post above that Indianan's should feel ashamed of their State government and my point is its up to Indianan's to decide how and what they want to do in their state and not for people from Michigan, California etc to point fingers and shame them.



I'm not blaming the Indiana voters. Like I said before, they had every reason to dump it because it was just not a good service. OTP was down the crapper, almost no amenities, and only 4x a week, switching off with the Cardinal. By all accounts, it just wasn't doing what it needed to do. 

But: my point is that the State of Indiana, who provided the money for this train, appears to have made no attempt to better their return on investment. NS didn't maintain the Michigan Line east of Kalamazoo after they pulled out during the recession. It took a bit, but the State of Michigan got involved because it was having a serious effect on the service. They made the effort to better their ROI and it's paying off now with higher ridership levels and (soon) new equipment. Indiana could have done the same thing by either negotiating with CSX and Amtrak to better maintain the line or perhaps using federal or other grants to outright purchase the line at let CSX retain trackage rights, much in the same way Michigan did. Now, I do not know the financial situation of the State of Indiana, but from what I understand of the situation and my education on the AMTK/MI/NS deal, they could've had options that possibly could have gone a long way to improving ridership and reliability.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Apr 23, 2019)

TylerP42 said:


> Again, as someone who lives in Indianapolis, it is almost _impossible_ to advocate for the Hoosier State. Even as a foamer, as a railfan, whatever you want to call me, I simply look at the numbers, look at it's effectiveness, and look at it's revenue, and A. Do not see many options to advocate saving it, and B. Realize that Indiana does not want it, and will never want it.
> 
> The people of Indiana and Indianapolis in general (aside from the Chicago Metropolitan area/along South Shore Line) do not use much public transportation, nor do they use rail transportation. We don't have light rail, we barely used our heavy rail (Amtrak).
> 
> ...




And if I-65 was maintained by INDOT in the same manner in which they "maintained" the Hoosier State, you probably wouldn't drive to Chicago, either. Not without a blown out tire or two or some frame damage to your car, anyway.

Indiana decided long ago that intercity rail wasn't going to be something they wanted to invest any real resources on, so they chose to make the Hoosier State their stalking horse. And considering that Lafayette and Crawfordsville and Rensselaer coughed up a share of the money themselves, it was a cheap scheme for them to hatch.

So, they ran what could have been a promising service into the ground, said, "we tried", and picked up their participation trophy.

Obviously they succeeded, if you are advocating for the route's demise without at least understanding why it performed so poorly and why the State of Indiana wanted it to do just that.

ETA - anyone have a proposal to bore a tunnel under Lake Michigan to connect Illinois to Michigan by rail while by-passing Indiana?


----------



## TylerP42 (Apr 23, 2019)

MisterUptempo said:


> And if I-65 was maintained by INDOT in the same manner in which they "maintained" the Hoosier State, you probably wouldn't drive to Chicago, either. Not without a blown out tire or two or some frame damage to your car, anyway.
> 
> Indiana decided long ago that intercity rail wasn't going to be something they wanted to invest any real resources on, so they chose to make the Hoosier State their stalking horse. And considering that Lafayette and Crawfordsville and Rensselaer coughed up a share of the money themselves, it was a cheap scheme for them to hatch.
> 
> ...


I drove I-65 to Chicago from Indy. I didn't run into much issues.

The only issues I had was some of the highways in Chicago, and the scenic tour I took of Gary on accident.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Apr 23, 2019)

MisterUptempo said:


> So, they ran what could have been a promising service into the ground, said, "we tried", and picked up their participation trophy.



The reason I keep bringing up Iowa Pacific is because somebody at the state did care. Somebody said "we are paying this much and only getting a single coach? Aren't there other options to make this train a nicer experience?" - not only did the nicer service attract more riders, it also increased revenue. 

That's why I was saying it's such a shame the IP thing didn't work out... things were moving in a good direction.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Apr 23, 2019)

One thing a lot of people tend to forget when they mention North Carolina paying NS for track and capacity improvements is that the State of North Carolina officially owns the line. From 1871 to when it was leased to the predecessor of the Southern Railway (Richmond & Danville) to 1999 it was leased from the state to the railroad. 

Since 2000 however Norfolk Southern hasn’t had an actual lease they have exclusive Trackage Rights that first expired in 2014 and are now good till 2044. While the state owns the physical right of way and contracts with NS to maintain it. So in the case of North Carolina the state holds all of the cards because NS cant afford to lose that line. The Charlotte-Greensboro section forms a key segment of their Crescent Corridor. With no viable reroutes. 

Indiana has never owned the physical right of way so in their situation CSX holds all of the cards. And with Indiana if you remember in the 70s the Cardinal orbits successor ran multiple different routes to dodge bad Penn Central Indiana track. Moral of the story if you want things own the right of way. It’s not the only mainline NS doesn’t own actually. The rathole from Cincinnati south is owned by the city of Cincinnati.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Apr 23, 2019)

TylerP42 said:


> I drove I-65 to Chicago from Indy. I didn't run into much issues.
> 
> The only issues I had was some of the highways in Chicago, and the scenic tour I took of Gary on accident.



Yes. It's obvious you didn't read my my post thoroughly enough...



MisterUptempo said:


> And if I-65 was maintained by INDOT in the same manner in which they "maintained" the Hoosier State, you probably wouldn't drive to Chicago, either. Not without a blown out tire or two or some frame damage to your car, anyway.



You see, the point is that Indiana_ doesn't and never has _dedicated any real resources to the Hoosier State, while it lavishes massive funding to maintain I-65. If the state treated I-65 in the same manner in which it treats the Hoosier State, that road would be an absolute disaster. 

And considering that Indiana takes a disproportionate share of federal dollars relative to what it puts into the US Treasury, they should be able to afford even a modest attempt at improving the route.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Apr 23, 2019)

crescent-zephyr said:


> The reason I keep bringing up Iowa Pacific is because somebody at the state did care. Somebody said "we are paying this much and only getting a single coach? Aren't there other options to make this train a nicer experience?" - not only did the nicer service attract more riders, it also increased revenue.
> 
> That's why I was saying it's such a shame the IP thing didn't work out... things were moving in a good direction.


I have no doubt that there have been individual players in this drama who have had good intentions. Just that the overall arc of the government's involvement has been one in which "crash and burn" was the design all along.


----------



## PVD (Apr 23, 2019)

The level of amenities provided is based on what the State and Amtrak agree upon. Want more, pay for it. They don't want to. Which would be preferable, a more commuter like service with better calling/running times, or what was attempted? At some point, though it is saddens me a bit to see it happening, you can't keep trying to drive the square peg into the round hole.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Apr 23, 2019)

Well what was attempted with up increased ridership and revenue.... so it wasn’t a terrible decision. 

I agree more frequency and better times would have been great. Also, getting out of the bus station and into something that felt even slightly charming would have helped as well.


----------



## SarahZ (Apr 23, 2019)

MisterUptempo said:


> ETA - anyone have a proposal to bore a tunnel under Lake Michigan to connect Illinois to Michigan by rail while by-passing Indiana?


Don't tease me like that.

This is what Facebook does whenever I travel from Kalamazoo to Chicago, so really... it needs to happen.


----------



## seat38a (Apr 24, 2019)

NSC1109 said:


> I'm not blaming the Indiana voters. Like I said before, they had every reason to dump it because it was just not a good service. OTP was down the crapper, almost no amenities, and only 4x a week, switching off with the Cardinal. By all accounts, it just wasn't doing what it needed to do.
> 
> But: my point is that the State of Indiana, who provided the money for this train, appears to have made no attempt to better their return on investment. NS didn't maintain the Michigan Line east of Kalamazoo after they pulled out during the recession. It took a bit, but the State of Michigan got involved because it was having a serious effect on the service. They made the effort to better their ROI and it's paying off now with higher ridership levels and (soon) new equipment. Indiana could have done the same thing by either negotiating with CSX and Amtrak to better maintain the line or perhaps using federal or other grants to outright purchase the line at let CSX retain trackage rights, much in the same way Michigan did. Now, I do not know the financial situation of the State of Indiana, but from what I understand of the situation and my education on the AMTK/MI/NS deal, they could've had options that possibly could have gone a long way to improving ridership and reliability.



I'm confused why you seem to keep decoupling the State of Indiana with the voters of Indiana? Is there a dictatorship in Indiana that I don't know about? If the people of Indiana cared about public transportation don't you think that would be reflected in their government? Mind you, Indiana is a State that has a ban on light rail for goodness sakes. Regardless of how knowledgeable Indianan's are about rail or not, that's for the citizens of Indiana to rise up and educate their fellow citizens and advocate for it themselves and then vote the right people in. Things seem to be moving in the right direction through: https://www.wishtv.com/news/indiana...ants-light-rail-ban-lifted-in-2019/1620067488

Regarding Federal Grants, you obviously haven't kept up with the latest TIGER grant amounts and what they've been approved for lately. PS it involves asphalt and not steel.


----------



## NSC1109 (Apr 24, 2019)

seat38a said:


> I'm confused why you seem to keep decoupling the State of Indiana with the voters of Indiana? Is there a dictatorship in Indiana that I don't know about? If the people of Indiana cared about public transportation don't you think that would be reflected in their government? Mind you, Indiana is a State that has a ban on light rail for goodness sakes. Regardless of how knowledgeable Indianan's are about rail or not, that's for the citizens of Indiana to rise up and educate their fellow citizens and advocate for it themselves and then vote the right people in. Things seem to be moving in the right direction through: https://www.wishtv.com/news/indiana...ants-light-rail-ban-lifted-in-2019/1620067488
> 
> Regarding Federal Grants, you obviously haven't kept up with the latest TIGER grant amounts and what they've been approved for lately. PS it involves asphalt and not steel.



Because the State of Indiana and the general public are two separate things. I’m talking about the state government, not everyone in the state. Michigan didn’t vote on buying up the AML, MDOT just went and “did it” (granted it wasn’t quite that simple but it was NEVER put in the hand so of the public). The state government went to NS, bought it to improve services, and gave it to Amtrak to fix up and operate. Indiana could have at least tried to do the same thing but they didn’t. They don’t appear to have made any attempts to actually fix the problems after the failed IP thing. No money? Okay. CSX unwilling to cooperate? Okay. Those are legit reasons and at least the state would have tried to help with improvements. But they didn’t, and that’s what I think is so shameful about this.


----------



## jis (Apr 24, 2019)

I think the difference between IN and MI is that the way appropriations and budgeting is done is subtly different.

MIDOT has a separate title in their budget for passenger rail with a significant amount of money for spending at the discretion of MIDOT within broad guidelines which recognizes passenger rail as a good thing to have. That is what the legislature did and that is where public participation was involved. MIDOT then used their discretion to spend it on acquisition. As I seem to recall there still was shortfall, and they went back to the legislature to seal the deal. So even in the purchase, the public was involved through the legislature.

INDOT apparently does have a rail title too but with minimal amount of money assigned to it specifically targeted for NICTD and Hoosier State, and the latter is going to zero. That is what the legislature is doing and hence is where the people are involved. INDOT cannot spend the money that it does not have, and the legislature of IN apparently does not currently believe that passenger rail forms an important component of their transportation network, except for NICTD. The bottom line is INDOT cannot spend the money that it does not have due to what was appropriated with what guidelines by the legislature and the Governor. It is also the case that INDOT at times has spent significant energy trying to get the legislature to allocate more funds but to no avail.

The two states' legislative and governance priorities are distinct and different when it comes to passenger rail, and the public is indirectly involved in both decisions.


----------



## NSC1109 (Apr 25, 2019)

A new chapter of the Hoosier State saga:

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v...58t_1clDDY6Xj1Ujjcx4h9l00Ph7ivg4cIIvqlp4ZQ&e=


----------



## Bob Dylan (Apr 25, 2019)

NSC1109 said:


> A new chapter of the Hoosier State saga:
> 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v...58t_1clDDY6Xj1Ujjcx4h9l00Ph7ivg4cIIvqlp4ZQ&e=


Wonder how many of the Indiana Politicians know this???? 

A Daily Cardinal is the practical answer to this Situation!!!


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Apr 25, 2019)

What a tactic. Now, they are suddenly concerned about 500 jobs at Beech Grove. Isn't this the same group that killed that many jobs in Riverside? 

Indiana should call their alligator tears and tell them to run a daily Cardinal.


----------



## fredmcain (Apr 26, 2019)

Thirdrail7 said:


> What a tactic. Now, they are suddenly concerned about 500 jobs at Beech Grove. Isn't this the same group that killed that many jobs in Riverside?
> 
> Indiana should call their alligator tears and tell them to run a daily Cardinal.



Well, I would most certainly support a daily Cardinal *IF* Amtrak has enough sleeping car and dining car equipment. Only thing is, to service Indy and the other towns alone, the train originates in the Northeast so it is more likely to run late westbound. However, I have boarded it a number of times at Lafayette and it was usually ontime or close to ontime.

Regards,
Fred M. Cain


----------



## fredmcain (Apr 26, 2019)

You know, one thing I really believe that may have been lost in all this controversy over state funding, is that some of this could very well be Amtrak’s fault.

A few years ago there was an experiment whereby Iowa Pacific (I.P.) became involved and provided the equipment and some onboard services. But Amtrak evidently remained involved with T & E crews.

The experiment actually went fairly well. The public responded to the older, nostalgic and somewhat hoaky equipment and onboard services. In fact, it went so well that I.P. began to consider considering an expansion southward to Louisville over some rebuilt CSX tracks.

But Amtrak demanded so much money for the T&E crews that there was simply nothing left for I.P. So, sadly, I.P. ended up walking away from the deal and it reverted entirely to Amtrak. It was then, if I’m not mistaken, that patronage began declining. Isn’t that right?

It would be so nice if Amtrak and passenger trains in general were not so hog tied with so many Congressional and state mandates and regulations. What if I.P. could’ve used their own T & E crews and negotiated labor agreements with them? Unfortunately I don’t think there is any expedient way to do that right now.

Regards,
Fred M. Cain


----------



## PVD (Apr 26, 2019)

When a company decides to respond to an RFP or bid on something, it is incumbent on them to exercise due diligence and have their lawyers and financial people scrutinize the terms. If the terms of the deal didn't allow them to make money, they should have figured that out before they signed the dotted line. If there was something sneaky or illicit in the process, they would have gone to court to seek damages, instead of walking away.


----------



## seat38a (Apr 26, 2019)

All this alleged Amtrak gouging, does Amtrak just make rates up as they go or do they have a pricing list thats open to the public?


----------



## jis (Apr 26, 2019)

The numbers were well known when the deal was put together. It is not like one fine morning Amtrak presented an arbitrary bill to IP. The base charges and how incentive payments were going to be apportioned were all spelled out when everyone signed on the dotted line. 

Now one could argue that the numbers should have been different, but if that was the case and IP felt strongly about it they should not have signed onto the deal.

For the life of me I could not figure out what exactly was INDOT expecting in terms of the financial viability of the service, without making any material changes to the basic schedule and average speed, or any investment whatsoever in significatly improving the ROW. It seemed like a random, not very well thought out, shot in the dark, with a good dose of prayers and happy feelings to back it up.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 26, 2019)

fredmcain said:


> But Amtrak demanded so much money for the T&E crews that there was simply nothing left for I.P. So, sadly, I.P. ended up walking away from the deal and it reverted entirely to Amtrak. It was then, if I’m not mistaken, that patronage began declining. Isn’t that right?



As discussed previously in the thread, this is not factually accurate. Amtrak "demanded" that the T&E crews be paid the same rate as their other T&E crews. None of this was a secret to IP when they signed the contract.

While there was a ridership increase, the failure of IP points to the likelihood that the increased costs to provide that service did not raise sufficient revenue to support the increased costs incurred (which are entirely separate from the T&E costs remaining unchanged between the sole-Amtrak operated service and the IP experiment).


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Apr 26, 2019)

Ryan said:


> While there was a ridership increase, the failure of IP points to the likelihood that the increased costs to provide that service did not raise sufficient revenue to support the increased costs incurred



There was a ridership and revenue increase. The failure on IP was on IP themselves, the state was going to continue paying them, so one could dangerously assume, that the state felt good about their decision. 

I personally believe that IP knew it was a bad contract when they signed it, but they signed it so they could get the contract and show Indiana, and other states what service they could provide. In their mind, they would get other contracts and make money on those. 

Clearly IP didn’t make the best business decisions, but it can make sense what they were going for.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 26, 2019)

It can absolutely make sense.

If they can provide a service that increases ridership and revenue for a cost that allows them to stay in business.

In this case, they didn't, and they failed.


----------



## seat38a (Apr 26, 2019)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I personally believe that IP knew it was a bad contract when they signed it, but they signed it so they could get the contract and show Indiana, and other states what service they could provide. In their mind, they would get other contracts and make money on those.
> 
> Clearly IP didn’t make the best business decisions, but it can make sense what they were going for.



Then IP isn't only bad with legal and finances but also with politics. Not sure how things work out in the midwest but "showing government" doesn't get you brownie points out here. It's about who you know in government and who's palms were greased through campaign contributions.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Apr 27, 2019)

"Showing other states what service they could provide" means just that. Hoosier State showed a 32% increase in revenue under IP. Maybe Michigan sees those numbers and would want to hire IP to provide staff and food services for their corridor trains. And then Illinois decides to use IP staff and equipment for the Quincy trains as a trial etc. A couple of those long term contracts and IP could have been in a great place. 

source - https://web.archive.org/web/2016092...-Monthly-Performance-Report-July-2016-rev.pdf


----------



## seat38a (Apr 27, 2019)

crescent-zephyr said:


> "Showing other states what service they could provide" means just that. Hoosier State showed a 32% increase in revenue under IP. Maybe Michigan sees those numbers and would want to hire IP to provide staff and food services for their corridor trains. And then Illinois decides to use IP staff and equipment for the Quincy trains as a trial etc. A couple of those long term contracts and IP could have been in a great place.
> 
> source - https://web.archive.org/web/2016092...-Monthly-Performance-Report-July-2016-rev.pdf



So you think a state like Illinois which ranks somewhere in the top 5, (depending on different sources) for corruption, and the state where Rod Blagojevich was Governor and home to Chicago-Style Politics, would be so impressed by those numbers and just hand over the State supported routes to IP without some sort of palm greasing?


----------



## NSC1109 (Apr 27, 2019)

crescent-zephyr said:


> "Showing other states what service they could provide" means just that. Hoosier State showed a 32% increase in revenue under IP. Maybe Michigan sees those numbers and would want to hire IP to provide staff and food services for their corridor trains. And then Illinois decides to use IP staff and equipment for the Quincy trains as a trial etc. A couple of those long term contracts and IP could have been in a great place.
> 
> source - https://web.archive.org/web/2016092...-Monthly-Performance-Report-July-2016-rev.pdf




With the amount of money Michigan has spent working with Amtrak, I doubt they’re going to replace them. Maybe add them as a service provider but definitely wouldn’t replace Amtrak.


Edit: I should clarify as an ADDITION to current Amtrak service. The state has been wanting to expand the service offerings for a while now...


----------



## MikefromCrete (Apr 27, 2019)

The folks that run Iowa Pacific may be great railfans, but they are lousy business people. A lot of their other business operations are in financial trouble or have just stopped operating.


----------



## IndyLions (Apr 28, 2019)

I’m going to chime in here again as a relatively frequent rider of the Hoosier State.

1. One thing that the Iowa Pacific experiment proved is that if you improve amenities and/or equipment, that can grow ridership on its own.
2. Whoever is responsible for the maintenance / debacle that is the condition of the Indianapolis Amtrak station probably killed as much ridership as any other single factor. Who wants to board the train in a homeless shelter? I know I don’t. I quit using the station years ago.
3. Whoever is responsible for the Crawfordsville Amshack (I’m guessing Amtrak) is totally incompetent. I boarded the train in OCTOBER the morning after one of the large windows had been shattered by a vandal with a projectile. It is APRIL and it is still not fixed or even boarded up. Passengers (and there are many who use that station) had to endure a winter with no window. So they don’t have the money to fix a window, but they do have the money to pay an electric heating bill that probably tripled through the winter?
4. The train generally has a terrific crew. Friendly, good service (based on what they can offer with substandard equipment), problem solvers. Whatever poisonous burrito of mismanagement and neglect is dooming the Hoosier State, crew apathy is not among the ingredients.


----------



## Paul CHI (Apr 30, 2019)

I've driven Route 65 to/from Indy several times, and have wondered whether Indiana is intentionally making it difficult for its citizens to get to Chicago. The majority of traffic on that highway appears to be heavy truck traffic, and that 3-4 hours is roughly equivalent to a root canal. I recognize that they do keep NICTD running fairly well and there has been discussion of even extending the route farther south.


----------



## fredmcain (May 1, 2019)

One thing I’ve wondered about, although the five hours of running time from Indy to Chicago might stretch the patience of a lot of potential riders, it seems like much of that time gets soaked up on CNR tracks between Chicago and Dyer, IN. Once you’re south of Dyer, the train rolls pretty good.

I have ridden the train a number of times and it seems we got stabbed a lot on CNR tracks. One time we were delayed for over an hour at what used to be the diamond with the EJ&E (now also part of CNR).

If CNR could give Amtrak nothing but green boards through there they could probably shave another 15-30 minutes off the overall running times.

But! I have never ridden over the Crawfordsville – Indianapolis portion. That might be really slow through there, I’m not sure.

I agree with Paul CHI about the trucks. There are too many awful trucks on not just I-65 but on a lot of our highways. They are both dangerous and are hard on the roads. The problem is that much of the freight that they are carrying is regarded as either unprofitable by the railroads or simply marginally profitable at best – so, they’re not interested in it.

I have wondered for years about putting tolls on the Interstates – especially on big trucks. What that would do is force truckers to charge higher rates and thus make some of that traffic more profitable for railroads. It would kill two birds with one stone. The tolls would be a great source of revenue for INDOT and at the same time by shifting more freight to rail it would reduce maintenance costs.

Unfortunately, tolls are extremely unpopular with both the public at large and their politicians. So are higher fuel taxes or any other kind of “user fees”. It seems that _EVERYONE_ wants good roads until they have to pay for them. Sadly, there may be no free lunch.

Regards,
Fred M Cain,
Topeka, IN


----------



## Lake Country (May 1, 2019)

I have driven the I-65 route too many times. The truck traffic is maddening. Trucks wander into the left lane to pass each other. One truck at 59mph and another at 60mph. It takes 10 miles to complete the pass. And the road surface is beatup. As a business traveller Chi-Ind, I would gladly pay a business class premium on a reliable train with multiple daily options. Indy should work with NICTD on the Dyer to CHi improvement since NICTD is planning a Westlake extension on the same ROW that Amtrak uses. Unfortunately Indy gop wants to kill HS and soon the headline will read: The HS is DEAD! .


----------



## NSC1109 (May 1, 2019)

Lake Country said:


> I have driven the I-65 route too many times. The truck traffic is maddening. Trucks wander into the left lane to pass each other. One truck at 59mph and another at 60mph. It takes 10 miles to complete the pass. And the road surface is beatup. As a business traveller Chi-Ind, I would gladly pay a business class premium on a reliable train with multiple daily options. Indy should work with NICTD on the Dyer to CHi improvement since NICTD is planning a Westlake extension on the same ROW that Amtrak uses. Unfortunately Indy gop wants to kill HS and soon the headline will read: The HS is DEAD! .



I-94 is the same. Mainly two lanes each direction (four total) between Chicago and Detroit. Truck traffic is ridiculous. Many people steadfastly refuse to drive the highway, especially in the winter with constant pileups. I’ve always thought that a lot of that traffic could’ve been cleared up in NS ran a few mixed freights between Chicago and Detroit via the AML, but that was over ten years ago and before I knew better, haha. 

That being said, it’s not difficult to see why the train is so popular in Michigan. You avoid the tolls and traffic and also avoid shelling out mega millions of dollars to fly. 

Take that same philosophy and put it towards the “Lake Cities” idea of running between DET and Traverse City...at 110 it would be quicker than the highway for a lot of people and give great access to a beautiful area.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (May 1, 2019)

seat38a said:


> All this alleged Amtrak gouging, does Amtrak just make rates up as they go or do they have a pricing list thats open to the public?



It is well known to agencies or entities that request Amtrak services. It is not a surprise.


----------



## TylerP42 (May 2, 2019)

And here it is:

https://cbs4indy.com/2019/05/01/amt...nd-chicago-to-cease-operations-after-june-30/


----------



## Anderson (May 2, 2019)

I think it is fair to say that while Amtrak doesn't _entirely _"make rates up as they go", there's a lot of questionable black box nature to the numbers regarding overhead allocations and the like. Amtrak has a lot of room to perform alchemy on some of the figures, and this has been a sore point for some time.

Probably the best-documented example of this can be found in the history of the expenses of the Pacific Surfliners, which IIRC saw its operating costs triple in the space of about three years in the 1990s due to an overhead shift (this was, not coincidentally, right as the Desert Wind/Pioneer were getting cut and so on).


----------



## jis (May 2, 2019)

Both New York and Pennsylvania had extended arm wrestling with Amtrak with New York at one point going so far as to threaten to discontinue Empire Service completely. And this happened while New Yorker Boardman was at the helm of Amtrak AFAIR.

But by the time IP signed on the numbers were fixed. They did not change out from under IP's feet. There some question as to whether IP actually knew what it was signing on for, since they were apparently astounded when all of the incentive payment for OTP did not flow their way, or something like that.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (May 2, 2019)

Anderson said:


> I think it is fair to say that while Amtrak doesn't _entirely _"make rates up as they go", there's a lot of questionable black box nature to the numbers regarding overhead allocations and the like. Amtrak has a lot of room to perform alchemy on some of the figures, and this has been a sore point for some time.
> 
> Probably the best-documented example of this can be found in the history of the expenses of the Pacific Surfliners, which IIRC saw its operating costs triple in the space of about three years in the 1990s due to an overhead shift (this was, not coincidentally, right as the Desert Wind/Pioneer were getting cut and so on).



That was prior to PRIIA. Once of the purposes of PRIIA is to allow for uniformity. As JIS stated, it was in place by the time IP signed on.


----------

