Passenger Trains > IP taking over Hoosier State on Sunday

http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2015/07/iowa-pacific-launches-hoosier-state-on-aug-2

Apparently it's finally happening, folks. Congrats to eee and IP! 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/15 17:31 by Amfleeter.

This ought to be interesting. A new approach but with Amtrak employees.

Need to be a Trains subscriber to read the article.  So which of the On-Board Staff will be Amtrak employees and which, if any, will be IP employees?  If all Amtrak staff to start with will IP replace them eventually?

and who disciplines the Amtrak employees for IP company infractions ??? ... who's safety rules supercedes who's ??? ... do the Amtrak employees follow Amtrak safety rules or new IP company rules ??? ... this is a totally different type of situation then when Amtrak as a company is contracted as a vendor for service because Amtrak employees still follow Amtrak safety rules but in this unique situation there's a group.of Amtrak employees working outside the company umbrella as a contracting vendor ...

prech786 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Need to be a Trains subscriber to read the
> article.  So which of the On-Board Staff will be
> Amtrak employees and which, if any, will be IP
> employees?  If all Amtrak staff to start with
> will IP replace them eventually?


All on-board service employees will be Iowa Pacific.  None will be Amtrak...but then, right now, both on-board service itself and the employees providing it under Amtrak are...ZERO.

Operating crew...engineers and conductors...will be Amtrak.

This is extremely interesting developments that have come to fruition. I am glad that IP got the contract to operate this service as Amtrak was just running it in the ground. But how many contracts like these (commuter too) has Amtrak lost under Boardman's leadership? If I was an Amtrak Board member I'd be asking Boardman some serious questions about how this all occurred.

IP is saddled with "Chicago access" costs that I am sure it has to pay - and perhaps similiarly at other stations like Indianapolis. IP is also likely paying Amtrak for reservation convenience. But if they had the choice to hire their own engineers and conductors (perhaps from the freight RR's - would they have done so?  IP has made an important step here.  

why?

prech786 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Need to be a Trains subscriber to read the article. . .

Here's an article from the Lafayette, IN Journal & Courier that you can read:

Iowa Pacific Hoosier State Service Agreements Pending

The "pending" part has to do with completion of the connecting track from CSX rails to IP's Beech Grove layover facility.
Amtrak's official "nothing has changed" position on the Hoosier State operation is quite curious.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/15 21:19 by illini73.

Here we go again  .  .  .

>But how many contracts like these (commuter too) has Amtrak lost under Boardman's leadership?

Overly simplistic buzzwords and second guessing. When Atk lost the Metrolink contract, the issue was over SCRRA's insistence that Atk hold them harmless, completely harmless, with regards to liability, which Atk wouldn't do. Essentially, Atk walked away from the deal, and I don't blame it at all. This was never really made clear by the media at the time.

>But if they had the choice to hire their own engineers and conductors (perhaps from the freight RR's - would they have done so? 

If a service is already being operated by Atk, and Atk loses the contract to run it, then whoever wins the contract must offer the employees who are already operating the service, those Atk T&E employees, first right of refusal to work for the new company before it can offer employment to others, either from a freight RR or off the street. The same union agreement and pay rates will apply, unless both parties agree to make changes to them. If this new contractor subsequently loses the contrac to another, Atk or otherwise, the same process applies all over again. This is in Federal law.
 

how many  employees you talking bout?