Passenger Trains > Last night's Hoosier State woes

Monday night, October 5, the Chicago-Indianapolis Hoosier State
operated for the first time in a week. It wasn't a routine
trip, with a three-hour delay between Rensselaer and Lafayette.

The train arrived Indianapolis 2 hours, 52 minutes late.

The cause of the delay was mechanical.

On the northbound trip, the HEP was inoperative on both
units, but that didn't matter as that was a deadhead run on
the rear end of the regularly scheduled Cardinal. But on the
southbound, revenue trip, the lead engine, supplying traction,
quit. CSX had to give the train clearance to reverse to Monon
where it was turned to put the trail unit in the lead. More HEP
and air issues put the delay at the three-hour mark.

The good news:  this morning, the Hoosier State ran relatively flawlessly:

* Train 851 of 10/06/2015.
* Hoosier State
* +---------------- Station Code
* | +----------- Schedule Arrival Day
* | | +-------- Schedule Arrival Time
* | | | +----- Schedule Departure Day
* | | | | +-- Schedule Departure Time
* | | | | | +------------- Actual Arrival Time
* | | | | | | +------- Actual Departure Time

* IND * * 1 600A * 609A Departed: 9 minutes late.
* CRF * * 1 658A * 718A Departed: 20 minutes late.
* LAF * * 1 736A * 756A Departed: 20 minutes late.
* REN * * 1 740A * 758A Departed: 18 minutes late.
* DYE * * 1 829A * 847A Departed: 18 minutes late.
* CHI 1 1005A * * 951A * Arrived: 14 minutes early.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/15 15:14 by GenePoon.

Wanting to do it right, and doing it right, are apparently two entirely different things.

Re: Hoosier State update
Author: eee
Date: 2 days ago
Forum: Passenger Trains 

As I have said on other threads, we want to do it right.  



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/15 14:08 by stuporchief.

One can never excape the consequences of a bad decision unless one is willing to acknowledge its existance, confront its implications and make the necessary changes - at whatever the cost - to remedy the situation.  These hurricane-damaged units are no good - they needed to be scrapped, or competely overhauled.  When they failed on a serial basis over a week ago, one or more suitable, reliable replacement units should have been procured, insuring uninterrupted train service.  Instead, the decision was made to "double-down" on the original decision, and attempt to fix the units so as to vindicate the original bad decision.  The result?  No trains for a week, and a train last night that delivered Lafayette and Indianapolis passengers some three hours late to their destinations.

The Hoosier State started its life as a state-supported train with two strikes against it.  Now, what was the worst train in the country has plummetted to new depths of horror. 

This is the opposite of how to start and develop a successful corridor train service.

 

Admittedly, I am just a West Coast observer to this Hoosier State story. But it seems like there has been much hand wringing on TO for a pax railroad other than Amtrak to spin up its operations. And now that one is doing that, albeit with some bumps along the way, it seems that Iowa Pacific is already catching a lot of flack here.

Is the criticism fair, or is it that some TO members are incapable of being pleased? 

ColdRainAndSnow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Admittedly, I am just a West Coast observer to
> this Hoosier State story. But it seems like there
> has been much hand wringing on TO for a pax
> railroad other than Amtrak to spin up its
> operations. And now that one is doing that, albeit
> with some bumps along the way, it seems that Iowa
> Pacific is already catching a lot of flack here.
>
> Is the criticism fair, or is it that some TO
> members are incapable of being pleased? 

being unbiased here even tho i'm an ex Amtrak employee ans supporter i'll just say this ...

NO SERVICE IS NO SERVICE ... and for a whole week ... so be it as it may, the criticism in my opinion would be indeed fair ...

I would have to say that the criticism is fair.  When you start up a new operation, reliability has to be your Number 1 priority.  This has not been the case for the IP.  The Hoosier State has been treated more than fairly on this website.  A bus is a poor substitute for a beautifully operated train, even if the bus is faster.  I know these units all passed inspection; what did they miss that caused all these problems?  The fact that all three of these engines have failed is telling.  It sounds like they should have checked into their history a little bit better.  Of course, hindsight is 20/20.  Maybe, it's time to consider getting rid of these units and acquiring different engines.  I hope this all ends well for the train, but I'm not holding my breath.

So far the in-service failures have caused a significant amount of inconvenience for those on board, I'm sure.

In about two months, when temperatures can be dropping well below freezing, lack of heat and light in the middle of an Indiana night will have consequences that are potentially much worse.

Something our friends in California might not think about!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/15 15:24 by stuporchief.

I appreciate the answers and am asking the question with all sincerity. I don't understand railroading operations well enough to know what type of adversity allowance a railroad should get when they start a new service.

stuporchief Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wanting to do it right, and doing it right, are
> apparently two entirely different things.
>
> Re: Hoosier State update
> Author: eee
> Date: 2 days ago
> Forum: Passenger Trains 
>
> As I have said on other threads, we want to do it
> right.  

I have seen and experienced enough Stupid Stuff on the part of the Class 1 railroads (the Gold Standard for a lot of folks) to make IPH's problems seem insignificant.

I believe that they are trying to do it right. I don't think it is easy and I assume that there is a lot of opposition making it harder.

I'm a kook who pushed the development of commuter trains in Seattle and the Washington State passenger program expansion.

The uh...experts, yeah, that's what they are (I compete for business with some of them, that's what they must be) insisted that nobody would ever ride the trains, that running time for a restored Vancouver BC service would be a minimum of 5h30m so don't bother, and that passenger trains that I was helping to promote would result in

• the closure of all of the Washington ports
• the loss of BN's important chemical business, then  other traffic, then  bankruptcy of the railroad

They insisted that BN was just fine with no capital investment, so passenger trains were a problem offering a solution to a problem that didn't exist.

I could write a very long article about that last one, not only from the point of view of a train dispatcher and asst. chief dispatcher, but also from the point of developing system wide service design.

Yup...kook, idiot, PITA, and all that. I just added that to the previous titles I achieved such as unreasonable during an argument over application of the rules when it was inconvenient and delayed trains.

Looking at what you post and post about, you give the appearance of having a grudge against eee, IPH, or both. I've watched your entertaining show about IPH failures. I've notice an absence of comment about other folks' service failures.

In a way, you remind me of the many managers I had to deal with as night chief. There would be a derailment. The line would be closed. The guys were out there struggling in rain, snow, heat, or gloom of nigh...oops, different folks..to get the railroad open. One official after another would call me and tell me to call and ask how they were doing. It was monumental absurdity. Remembering a Supt. I worked for who was almost killed by a car turning over as they tried to pull it back on - because he was distracted by a call asking how they were doing, I finally had enough and started telling all of them, including a VPO and a GM, that they knew what I knew. I knew what the folks at the wreck knew. Nothing was happening because I kept calling them to ask what was happening and I wasn't going to do that any more. Since I was never threatened with being fired for insubordination (over other things, yeah, but not that) I assume that the officials knew I was right.

I've assumed that we knew what IPH knew. eee said they were waiting for parts; right here for all to see and know. If that's what they knew, that's what they knew.

Having been the idiot who promoted startup services that became a success (interesting that in the idiot stage, the person who came up with it and nursed it along is associated with the stupidity, but when it becomes a success, it's somebody else's idea - I have a long list of those) I think IPH has the right idea. Was it a big bite to chew off? Yes it was. Was it dumb to do it? Not if they were sure of what they were doing. I've been hired to help writing proposals for such endeavors. There is a lot of detailed effort goes into it. I would be surprised if IPH didn't do the homework the way we did in proposals I helped develop.

It's a big gamble to make on a whim. The gamble isn't just 850-851. That's a starting point. First, attract passengers to an orphan service, then justify improvements based on the initial improvement in ridership. That's what we did in Washington, but hey, being a kook, idiot, and unreasonable, I sure didn't know that it didn't work. Nope; the gamble is demonstrating to the industry that you can't do it and killing future opportunity. I'm sure that everyone at IPH is aware of that.

Some here proclaim that, in their expert opinion, the Hoosier State service should be a bus. I was told the same thing by the experts when I was one of the founding kooks of Sounder and Amtrak Cascades.

You said that you hope they are being paid. When the MILW was sinking, a lot of us did stuff for free in hopes of saving it. If that's what IPH folks are doing in order to get this started right, I can't have a problem with it.

I don't know eee. I've never met him. I agreed with his AMTK express service. I didn't agree with the implementation. I would have done it differently. I haven't paid a lot of attention to his other endeavors, but it appears that he trying to be successful by doing things right. I have to admire that since it is my approach.

More time than has passed will tell if the Hoosier State arrangement was as well thought out as they thought it was.

TAW

The back cover of the October Railpace Magazine has a picture of a Saratoga & North Creek train with a pair of good looking ex Amtrak F40PH engines. Seems like they would be a better choice of engines for this train!

Posted from Android

TAW:

You've made it clear you don't care for my point of view. I accept that.

Now let's move on

Posted from iPhone



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/15 16:44 by stuporchief.

eee's statements show he understands what is needed for corridor development. Unfortunately IPH seems to be treating this like a scenic railway.

If they didn't have the resources to operate they shouldn't have signed the contract. It's a low mileage service with lots of downtime for maintenance so no excuse for this level of mechanical failure.

Unfortunately this plays into Boardman's view and those Indiana politicians who would love to pull the plug. And will make it that more difficult for state supported corridor development elsewhere. So it does seem serious.

Posted from iPhone

For jamescoston, what is your connection with Corridor Capital, the ousted first choice in operating the Hoosier State? I seem to recall you may be a senior manager there?
If so you have a conflict of interest you need to disclose before posting. TAW did before his thought provoking post.
And as far as Corridor Capital goes. I read over their plans and can't see how they would be any better than IPH. In fact, IPH seems to have much more experience than your company does. How many cars, locomotives, and railroads are you currently operating?
IPH is having a very rough start up and may or may not be the correct choice of operator but what is not needed is a disgruntled competitor stirring the pot without even disclosing their motivation.

What's missing from this thread are more cries to bring in the E Unit's from down south... I will now retreat to the sofa to snack on some Salt Water Taffy....

Disgruntled competitor?  Really?

Hardly.  I've known and done business with Ed Ellis for decades, and consider him a friend whose accomplishments I respect. Corridor Capital won the right to negotiate a contract with INDOT because we put forth the most comprehensive plan to make the investment and build a strong corridor service in Indiana.  When the key man at INDOT fell ill and had to leave, things immediately went into disarray with the Hoosier State procurement.  Finally, we met with the now former Indiana Transportation Commissioner.  He made two things clear:  1.  He had zero understanding of and even less interest in passenger trains.  2.  He had no interest in having Indiana make any investment in this service, and told us in words of one syllable that he wanted to use IPH because they were cheaper. Once we heard this, we had realized that this state initiative had become fatally flawed.

Corridor rejected those locomotives when they were offered because we checked on them and discovered they were no good.  So, when I offer my commentary on what objectively must be characterized as a complete service breakdown, I am speaking with first-
hand knowledge of the facts.  if my purpose were to take a cheap shot, I would have posted under a pseudonym.  Instead, I used my full name.





 

jamescoston Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One can never excape the consequences of a bad
> decision unless one is willing to acknowledge its
> existance, confront its implications and make the
> necessary changes - at whatever the cost - to
> remedy the situation.  These hurricane-damaged
> units are no good - they needed to be scrapped, or
> competely overhauled.  When they failed on a
> serial basis over a week ago, one or more
> suitable, reliable replacement units should
> have been procured, insuring uninterrupted train
> service.  Instead, the decision was made to
> "double-down" on the original decision, and
> attempt to fix the units so as to vindicate the
> original bad decision.  The result?  No trains
> for a week, and a train last night that delivered
> Lafayette and Indianapolis passengers some three
> hours late to their destinations.
>
> The Hoosier State started its life as a
> state-supported train with two strikes against
> it.  Now, what was the worst train in the country
> has plummetted to new depths of horror. 
>
> This is the opposite of how to start and develop a
> successful corridor train service.
>
>  

Agreed.  If there's another way to provide the service with other power, and I think there was, that should have been done.  That's doing it right.​

What else could IPH have done differently? 

All the money in the world would not have changed anything because there's a chronic shortage of passenger locomotives in North America.  Ed Ellis had very few options to secure locomotives that were both mainline worthy and acceptable by Amtrak standards.  The only alternatives would have been other older, high-mileage, used locomotives which could suffer the same fate at any moment.  Honest mechanics will tell you it's literally impossible to predict many types of locomotive or automotive failures.  I don't know if these locomotives were well-maintained in their previous life, but IPH had practically no alternatives to choose from.  All the evidence over the last several months points to IPH trying very hard to make their locomotives ready for service, something that Amtrak doesn't even do. 

The last time you spent lots of money and made an honest effort to overhaul an older automobile that soonafter suffered a catastrophic engine or transmission failure, did you blame yourself for failing to predict the problem?  Probably not.  Given the circumstances, I'm not sure it's fair to blame IPH unless problems keep reappearing with no end in sight. 

All of us who favor ( love?) passenger rail should give Ed Ellis and his IPH operation every break possible as he has done more than anyone else to bring some creativity and private sector savvy to an industry that otherwise has little to none. And he's done this while taking some very huge ( relative to IPH's resources) financial risks not to mention his personal standing.

 The repeated mechanical locomotive failures certainly point to a poor job done in vetting those machines and I would hope that Ed and those on his team that he trusted with that task have learned a valuable lesson ( you always get what you paid for......you buy cheap....you get cheap ? ) and that they can recover and go on to provide exemplary service going forward.

  There's little doubt in my mind that this can be a successful pilot program that will showcase the benefits of a good public/private partnership and wish IPH every success towards that end.

   Ross Rowland

Thank you for the response Mr Coston.

The issue is not what you have to say but the fact you are not making a disclosure of what connection you have with another potential operator.

I noted that you did not address my question regarding disclosure or what kind of operations your company is currently involved in.

I do completely agree with you on Indiana politics. They do not believe in supporting anything that costs money except maybe a Ten Commandments monument. They truly are a cheap bunch to do business with, as numerous companies have found out and there are numerous companies that will not do business with the state for fear of what happened to many companies before them.

According to his online bio, among other things, Mr. Coston is the former vice chairman of the Amtrak Reform Council and has been in the railcar leasing business for many years. He is well respected in the upper levels of the railroad industry.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/15 18:44 by johnpage.