Hoosier State Going from IPH Back to Amtrak

[crescent-zephyr]

I do think Indiana should pay for daily service at good times. They are already paying for equipment and crews to deadhead correct? Can't be that much more to get daily service and that is what would really increase ridership in my opinion (the combination of daily service and better times).

 

[west point]

Thoughts

1. Cancelling Hoosier will not reduce crew costs by 4/7ths.

2. Until Trump comes up with a comprehensive plan for rail in this country any train offs might be very premature. If continual upgrades reducing enroute times occur then there may be hope yet for rider increases ? That is if Amtrak will allow schedules to be reduced ?

3. Situation will change unknowingly if Cardinal goes daily due to changes in Washington ?

4. If Cardinal goes daily and CSX will agree a Hoosier's schedule change then ridership migh double or more if enroute times are reduced ?

 

[jis]

While most of us don't usually advocate for train offs, this makes financial sense rob.

IMO the funding that IDOT is basically pouring down a rat hole could better be spent on track improvements between Chicago and Indy and applied to a Daily Cardinal with a better schedule.

I can almost bet on the hypothesis that exactly $0 of the money saved by canceling the Hoosier State will be spent on anything to do with rail transport. If it is used on transportation at all it will be on road improvements. Given the current situation that may unfortunately be the most efficient use of the money.

The same reasoning could be applied to several other routes to cancel them as things stand.

 

[west point]

Improve the route ? Thoughts.

1. $4.0M

2. At the approximately current figures for laying parallel track not over road crossings or bridges = ~#1.0M / mile. So that would be 4 miles of new MI or siding track ?

3. Oh wait PTC CP signaling reported to cost about $500K per end so a new siding or extended one would only mean 2 miles ?

4. Then again any highway crossing signals and worse any bridges increase the costs greatly.

Guess that $4.0M will not go far ?

 

[Palmetto]

History shows that once a train goes, it is very difficulty to get it back, let alone increase service. Not a good idea to cease service.

 

[jis]

History shows that once a train goes, it is very difficulty to get it back, let alone increase service. Not a good idea to cease service.

Completely agree. But some here think that they can blithely cancel trains because they do not live upto their standards and then wait until it comes back with their dome car one it, or not have it at all. Needless to say, I do not agree with their approach because of its basic impracticality under the current circumstances.

 

[Seaboard92]

History shows that once a train goes, it is very difficulty to get it back, let alone increase service. Not a good idea to cease service.

Completely agree. But some here think that they can blithely cancel trains because they do not live upto their standards and then wait until it comes back with their dome car one it, or not have it at all. Needless to say, I do not agree with their approach because of its basic impracticality under the current circumstances.

I one hundred percent support the above statement. And as I've said before most general public passengers could care less what the train has as long as it runs safely and on time.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

History shows that once a train goes, it is very difficulty to get it back, let alone increase service. Not a good idea to cease service.

Completely agree. But some here think that they can blithely cancel trains because they do not live upto their standards and then wait until it comes back with their dome car one it, or not have it at all. Needless to say, I do not agree with their approach because of its basic impracticality under the current circumstances.

From my point of view, this is a short-haul* regional train and doesn't need superlative, fancy service. It isn't the 20th Century Limited.

* Or should/could be short time wise....

 

[west point]

as I've said before most general public passengers could care less what the train has as long as it runs safely and on time.

This has a lot of merit. As much as we rail supporters want super service the general public often has no idea what the Amtrak service is like.

 

[zephyr17]

History shows that once a train goes, it is very difficulty to get it back, let alone increase service. Not a good idea to cease service.

Completely agree. But some here think that they can blithely cancel trains because they do not live upto their standards and then wait until it comes back with their dome car one it, or not have it at all. Needless to say, I do not agree with their approach because of its basic impracticality under the current circumstances.

From my point of view, this is a short-haul* regional train and doesn't need superlative, fancy service. It isn't the 20th Century Limited.

* Or should/could be short time wise....

Agree with that, but it needs more than it had under Amtrak before. You left Indy at 6 am and you could not even get a cup of coffee.

I rode IP's Business Class, too, and it was superb but overkill for a short-haul train. From what I've read, after March 1, it will be more of a standard Amtrak short/medium haul train with an Amcafe and Business Class, which is adequate if not great and better than the coach only train with no amenities at all that it was before.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

As I've said before, this is one route that really should be a huge success if it could be sped up, kept on time and had frequencies added.

 

[rtabern]

History shows that once a train goes, it is very difficulty to get it back, let alone increase service. Not a good idea to cease service.

If INDOT doesn't cut this train ---- then ---- at the very least ---- they should put heavy pressure on Amtrak (when the next round of contract negotiations happen later this summer for the new contract that would go into effect July 1st) -- to provide service for a heck of a lot less than $4,000,000 per year.

As much as we all love trains and train travel... and I would hate to see ANY service get cut ... I have yet to see someone on the forum actually present an argument to justify a state paying a $100-130 per passenger subsidy for train service that is: A) Just 190 miles long... B) Almost all of the route parallels an interstate highway... C) Dinks along taking 1 hour and 10 minutes to go just 30 miles from Dyer to Chicago switching between a half dozen freight railroads... D) Takes almost 2 hours longer than driving... E) Takes 1 hour and 30 minutes longer than the bus... F) Mainly provides service for people to LEAVE your state (Indiana) and spend money in another (Illinois) for a day trip... G) Doesn't really encourage tourism to your state (no one from Chicago is going to arrive in Indy at Midnight and turn around and come back at 6am the next day)... H) Operates at ungodly hours... etc, etc.

Sometimes you just have to throw in the towel when a train line really doesn't make sense and invest your money elsewhere. I think Indiana should either commit a lot of money to improving this with multiple frequencies a day and better track conditions OR just stop paying for it and let the chips fall where they are... even if it means the Hoosier goes bye-bye.

Getting back to what I first wrote --- if I were in INDOT's shoes --- I would approach Amtrak and say hey... you use this train to get your equipment down to Beech Grove -- so you get something out of it beyond any other state service -- we are going down to maybe $2.5 or $3 million... final offer, take it or leave it.

I wouldn't "poo-poo" the dome car and the nice meal service. I have rode this train around 20 times and a lot of people in business class have told me that the reason they chose to take the train vs. drive or the bus was because of the nice meal service and observation car. This was both business men/women and yes some railfans. Sure most people probably didn't care --- but if it swayed a few thousand people to try the train or take it over driving -- well, those people are going to go back to their old modes of transportation probably when Amtrak takes over. Personally, I know we won't ride the Hoosier anymore after March 1st. No reason to anymore.

In the end though -- just like the dome car and meal service was not sustainable and had to go away --- any state route that is 190 miles long and is subsidized to the tune of upto $130 per passenger when they are other, faster and more practical forms of transportation out there (bus, car, etc.), is probably not sustainable for much longer either. It's just reality of it. And for folks who are going to argue just because you support train service come hell or high water regardless of how much money it sucks up -- how about INDOT discontinue the train and give you the $130 so you can go and buy a pass to ride as much as you want at the Illinois Railroad Museum.

 

[jebr]

If I can't drive, how do I get to Crawfordsville, Rensselaer, or Dyer without taking the train? A look at Greyhound's website shows no intercity bus service to those towns, and removing the train means that people in those cities can only leave via any sort of non-personal-automobile form of transportation three days a week. Guess you better hope that your specialist's appointment in Chicago is on a Tuesday, Thursday, or Saturday, and also hope that people don't decide to cut the Cardinal as well because it's also a "waste of money."

But hey, at least they have some extra money to go buy a pass for a joy ride at the Illinois Railway Museum that they have to pay a taxi to get to/from and still doesn't get them anywhere near home.

 

[jis]

At the end of the day if the towns served by the train and the state that the train runs in, feels that money is well spent, who are we to tell them that it is not?

The problem with the Hoosier State was that someone was foolish enough to believe that a service would be cheaper to run when an additional party providing a better service would earn enough additional revenue on a short, slow, ill timed service to cover for the actual cost difference. The whole thing sounded a bit preposterous even back then if one thought a bit about it, and admittedly most of us fell for that silliness. Now to turn around and say therefore the train should be cancelled because it did not meet our unrealistic expectations is equally silly IMHO.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Old saying: "If something seems to good to be True, it is!"

 

[A Voice]

History shows that once a train goes, it is very difficulty to get it back, let alone increase service. Not a good idea to cease service.

As much as we all love trains and train travel... and I would hate to see ANY service get cut ... I have yet to see someone on the forum actually present an argument to justify a state paying a $100-130 per passenger subsidy for train service that is: A) Just 190 miles long... B) Almost all of the route parallels an interstate highway... C) Dinks along taking 1 hour and 10 minutes to go just 30 miles from Dyer to Chicago switching between a half dozen freight railroads... D) Takes almost 2 hours longer than driving... E) Takes 1 hour and 30 minutes longer than the bus... F) Mainly provides service for people to LEAVE your state (Indiana) and spend money in another (Illinois) for a day trip... G) Doesn't really encourage tourism to your state (no one from Chicago is going to arrive in Indy at Midnight and turn around and come back at 6am the next day)... H) Operates at ungodly hours... etc, etc.

Again, the state does not provide a per-passenger subsidy of $100-$130 for operation of the Hoosier State. That is not a valid metric for evaluating the finances of passenger rail; The true purpose of a (largely fictitious) per-passenger loss figure is to make the trains' financial numbers look as bad as possible. Yes, the service requires an operating subsidy, but the per-passenger numbers are virtually meaningless (in theory, you could get a better result by giving tickets away).

You arbitrarily dismiss arguments in favor of the Hoosier State while failing to provide a sound basis for your contention that it is unworkable; Respectfully, some of your arguments, A-H, are just silly. What, one might reasonably ask, would a parallel interstate have to do with anything? Most Amtrak routes - and most major highways - travel between major destinations. That's where the business is to be found.

I wouldn't "poo-poo" the dome car and the nice meal service. I have rode this train around 20 times and a lot of people in business class have told me that the reason they chose to take the train vs. drive or the bus was because of the nice meal service and observation car. This was both business men/women and yes some railfans. Sure most people probably didn't care --- but if it swayed a few thousand people to try the train or take it over driving -- well, those people are going to go back to their old modes of transportation probably when Amtrak takes over. Personally, I know we won't ride the Hoosier anymore after March 1st. No reason to anymore.

So, even if the amenities are the same, you won't ride anymore? That's telling.

how about INDOT discontinue the train and give you the $130 so you can go and buy a pass to ride as much as you want at the Illinois Railroad Museum.

You do realize, I presume, that this makes even less sense than the politicians who suggested it would be cheaper to buy Amtrak passengers an airline ticket than subsidize the train. The Hoosier State does not exist - and it is not subsidized - for the purpose of letting people take a train ride. The purpose of the train is to provide a transportation service between Indianapolis and Chicago. The Illinois Railway Museum is rather, well, a museum.

 

[rtabern]

If I can't drive, how do I get to Crawfordsville, Rensselaer, or Dyer without taking the train? A look at Greyhound's website shows no intercity bus service to those towns, and removing the train means that people in those cities can only leave via any sort of non-personal-automobile form of transportation three days a week. Guess you better hope that your specialist's appointment in Chicago is on a Tuesday, Thursday, or Saturday, and also hope that people don't decide to cut the Cardinal as well because it's also a "waste of money."

But hey, at least they have some extra money to go buy a pass for a joy ride at the Illinois Railway Museum that they have to pay a taxi to get to/from and still doesn't get them anywhere near home.

See the other side of it too... Just because one does not want to drive from Chicago to Dyer... the State of Indiana should have to be out $130?

I am not against subsidies for rail service by any means. I am just saying states with budget woes should focus on those rail routes that makes the most sense. Especially where rail is faster than driving or other modes of transportation or could be with reasonable improvements.

The Hoosier is just not worth the money. Other routes are.

The only people who would say Indiana should pay Amtrak $130 per person for everyone who wants to ride from Chicago to Dyer either works for Amtrak, is an extreme railfan, or doesnt live in the state.

 

[rtabern]

History shows that once a train goes, it is very difficulty to get it back, let alone increase service. Not a good idea to cease service.

As much as we all love trains and train travel... and I would hate to see ANY service get cut ... I have yet to see someone on the forum actually present an argument to justify a state paying a $100-130 per passenger subsidy for train service that is: A) Just 190 miles long... B) Almost all of the route parallels an interstate highway... C) Dinks along taking 1 hour and 10 minutes to go just 30 miles from Dyer to Chicago switching between a half dozen freight railroads... D) Takes almost 2 hours longer than driving... E) Takes 1 hour and 30 minutes longer than the bus... F) Mainly provides service for people to LEAVE your state (Indiana) and spend money in another (Illinois) for a day trip... G) Doesn't really encourage tourism to your state (no one from Chicago is going to arrive in Indy at Midnight and turn around and come back at 6am the next day)... H) Operates at ungodly hours... etc, etc.

Again, the state does not provide a per-passenger subsidy of $100-$130 for operation of the Hoosier State. That is not a valid metric for evaluating the finances of passenger rail; The true purpose of a (largely fictitious) per-passenger loss figure is to make the trains' financial numbers look as bad as possible. Yes, the service requires an operating subsidy, but the per-passenger numbers are virtually meaningless (in theory, you could get a better result by giving tickets away).

You arbitrarily dismiss arguments in favor of the Hoosier State while failing to provide a sound basis for your contention that it is unworkable; Respectfully, some of your arguments, A-H, are just silly. What, one might reasonably ask, would a parallel interstate have to do with anything? Most Amtrak routes - and most major highways - travel between major destinations. That's where the business is to be found.

I wouldn't "poo-poo" the dome car and the nice meal service. I have rode this train around 20 times and a lot of people in business class have told me that the reason they chose to take the train vs. drive or the bus was because of the nice meal service and observation car. This was both business men/women and yes some railfans. Sure most people probably didn't care --- but if it swayed a few thousand people to try the train or take it over driving -- well, those people are going to go back to their old modes of transportation probably when Amtrak takes over. Personally, I know we won't ride the Hoosier anymore after March 1st. No reason to anymore.

So, even if the amenities are the same, you won't ride anymore? That's telling.

how about INDOT discontinue the train and give you the $130 so you can go and buy a pass to ride as much as you want at the Illinois Railroad Museum.

You do realize, I presume, that this makes even less sense than the politicians who suggested it would be cheaper to buy Amtrak passengers an airline ticket than subsidize the train. The Hoosier State does not exist - and it is not subsidized - for the purpose of letting people take a train ride. The purpose of the train is to provide a transportation service between Indianapolis and Chicago. The Illinois Railway Museum is rather, well, a museum.

No... there is not a per person flat rate subsidy... but you can figure out the average per person subsidy.

Its really easy... Total subsidy in a year divided by total passengers in a year.

It comes out to around $100 per person depending on what ridership figures you can find.

I dont know how that is slanted to make rail travel look bad... Its simple math and the truth... Like it or not.

 

[jebr]

If I can't drive, how do I get to Crawfordsville, Rensselaer, or Dyer without taking the train? A look at Greyhound's website shows no intercity bus service to those towns, and removing the train means that people in those cities can only leave via any sort of non-personal-automobile form of transportation three days a week. Guess you better hope that your specialist's appointment in Chicago is on a Tuesday, Thursday, or Saturday, and also hope that people don't decide to cut the Cardinal as well because it's also a "waste of money."

But hey, at least they have some extra money to go buy a pass for a joy ride at the Illinois Railway Museum that they have to pay a taxi to get to/from and still doesn't get them anywhere near home.

See the other side of it too... Just because one does not want to drive from Chicago to Dyer... the State of Indiana should have to be out $130?

I am not against subsidies for rail service by any means. I am just saying states with budget woes should focus on those rail routes that makes the most sense. Especially where rail is faster than driving or other modes of transportation or could be with reasonable improvements.

The Hoosier is just not worth the money. Other routes are.

The only people who would say Indiana should pay Amtrak $130 per person for everyone who wants to ride from Chicago to Dyer either works for Amtrak, is an extreme railfan, or doesnt live in the state.

And those that can't drive? Not everyone is able to drive, and many of those towns don't even have intercity bus service to substitute in should the train be discontinued. Are they supposed to just be stranded in their town even though they've paid into the transportation system through their tax dollars but have no way to use it?

Also, the $130 is the highest figure that I've seen, and doesn't include any fare revenue. FY2012, which from this report (pdf) includes full subsidy figures, suggests a roughly $3M subsidy requirement after fares are accounted for. Per passenger, that's about $82.60. That's still a lot of money, don't get me wrong, but it's well below $130 per passenger.

 

[me_little_me]

History shows that once a train goes, it is very difficulty to get it back, let alone increase service. Not a good idea to cease service.

If INDOT doesn't cut this train ---- then ---- at the very least ---- they should put heavy pressure on Amtrak (when the next round of contract negotiations happen later this summer for the new contract that would go into effect July 1st) -- to provide service for a heck of a lot less than $4,000,000 per year.

If it costs Amtrak that much to provide that service plus a reasonable profit, then Indiana has no right to pressure them to lower the price. If Indiana chooses to improve the service times by investing in improving the rail, changing train times, changing the contract terms to require the potential provider to bid on a different level of service, adding more service or other means to increase ridership to the point that the cost/passenger goes down, that is up to them. But if they want to find a cheaper provider, they will need to find more bidders for the service.

 

[Ryan]

I dont know how that is slanted to make rail travel look bad... Its simple math and the truth... Like it or not.

Because it's misleading. It implies that if ridership increases, then the state will have to pay more money. The exact opposite of what will happen.

 

[Seaboard92]

The best operation would be to make the Cardinal daily and then run the Hoosier State as a single day turn to Indy and back leaving Chicago in the morning and returning in the afternoon.

And to those who won't ride a train because it's not up to "standards" ok that doesn't really help the cause. You can't be for more train service and not support new service because it isn't up to standards. I still support the Silver Star and still sell people tickets on it despite the lack luster food service. So pick a team support new service and advocate for rail. Or don't ride or advocate for trains.

 

[west point]

The best operation would be to make the Cardinal daily and then run the Hoosier State as a single day turn to Indy and back leaving Chicago in the morning and returning in the afternoon.

Imagine that most of us would think that is most productive option in the long run. But we have no idea what is going to come out of Washington.

 

[Ryan]

It's not what's going to come out of Washington, it's what is going to happen in VA, specifically with the BBRR.

 

[bretton88]

If I can't drive, how do I get to Crawfordsville, Rensselaer, or Dyer without taking the train? A look at Greyhound's website shows no intercity bus service to those towns, and removing the train means that people in those cities can only leave via any sort of non-personal-automobile form of transportation three days a week. Guess you better hope that your specialist's appointment in Chicago is on a Tuesday, Thursday, or Saturday, and also hope that people don't decide to cut the Cardinal as well because it's also a "waste of money."

But hey, at least they have some extra money to go buy a pass for a joy ride at the Illinois Railway Museum that they have to pay a taxi to get to/from and still doesn't get them anywhere near home.

See the other side of it too... Just because one does not want to drive from Chicago to Dyer... the State of Indiana should have to be out $130?
I am not against subsidies for rail service by any means. I am just saying states with budget woes should focus on those rail routes that makes the most sense. Especially where rail is faster than driving or other modes of transportation or could be with reasonable improvements.

The Hoosier is just not worth the money. Other routes are.

The only people who would say Indiana should pay Amtrak $130 per person for everyone who wants to ride from Chicago to Dyer either works for Amtrak, is an extreme railfan, or doesnt live in the state.

And those that can't drive? Not everyone is able to drive, and many of those towns don't even have intercity bus service to substitute in should the train be discontinued. Are they supposed to just be stranded in their town even though they've paid into the transportation system through their tax dollars but have no way to use it?
Also, the $130 is the highest figure that I've seen, and doesn't include any fare revenue. FY2012, which from this report (pdf) includes full subsidy figures, suggests a roughly $3M subsidy requirement after fares are accounted for. Per passenger, that's about $82.60. That's still a lot of money, don't get me wrong, but it's well below $130 per passenger.

Living in the rural state of Iowa, which is similar to Indiana, the answer is that people who can't drive are out of luck. There's generally local paratransit service, but that's all non drivers get.