Passenger Trains > Progress Report on Hoosier State's First Year

http://wbaa.org/post/hoosier-state-line-turns-profit-after-one-year-its-future-still-uncertain

Note Mr. Ellis' comment about the addition of more trains being contingent upon siding and automatic signals being added.  I believe there is an opportunity to work with CSX and well as INDOT on this.  If CSX could be convinced to send carload freight from Chicago (and connections) that is destined to former L&N/Clinchfield destinations to Big Four Yard (instead of Willard) for classification, this could jusfify CSX's participation in investment to upgrade for former Monon and ex-PC Crawfordsville Secondary.  CSX would benefit by doing this because (a) the former C&EI above Nashville would be less congested and grain/intermodal trains would make better time and (b) the former B&O between CHI and Willard would be less congested and better able to compete with NS' Chicago Line in overall transit time.  Of course, an upgrade to the Monon/Crawfordsville from Class III ABS/manual block to Class IV CTC would improve running times for each passenger train that Mr. Ellis could put on the railroad.
Andy

There is a lot of spade work that has to be done between INDOT, the legislature and CSX on infrastructure improvement.

July's revenue was 70% above last July, so the effects of improved service are beginning to take hold.  But there is a long way to go.

I was a little annoyed about the food service issue, since food service is available at your seat in coach, and I asked our team to do a better job of communicating that...

That's great news!


With a new Amtrak leader, perhaps the scorched earth policy will be reconsidered.

Mr Boardman's engagement with the contracts at MARC, VRE etc didn't help Amtrak's credibility with Congress or local leaders.

The trend certainly looks good.

Horrible initial numbers at the beginning are hard to recapture, but with year 2 starting, the recent trend looks very positive. 

P Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The trend certainly looks good.
>
> Horrible initial numbers at the beginning are hard
> to recapture, but with year 2 starting, the recent
> trend looks very positive. 

Yes.

When Acela was brand new, Amtrak's marketing people handed out steeply discounted vouchers at LaGuardia and Newark airports to encourage people to use the service.  This is your target market, make sure they know you have a competitive product. They came back out a few times when LGA etc were fogged in or snowed in, etc.

Any idea of the skew on college employees and students? I'd think this would be a good segment of the current and potential market.

It is interesting to note that on-time performance is somehow attributed to IP, when in fact on-time performance on this route is solely due to CSX building two 10,000' sidings - one at Shelby (in NW Indiana) and one between Lafayette and Linden and CSX control of the former CN route from Munster to Thornton.  If IP was faced with the same physical plant and operational issues that Amtrak was, there would have been little or no change in OTP.

Given the current state of rail traffic, I do not see CSX making any major shift in freight traffic.  The B&O and C&EI routes have plenty of excess capacity today.  Any further improvements in the Hoosier State route will need to be funded by the State (which will not spend any significant money on rail).  Indiana has always been anti-rail - even forbidding Indianapolis from considering light rail as part of a transit study. 

 

CSX and the other host railroads are doing a great job, and that has helped a lot to improve OTP.  But the improvement in OTP is not solely due to CSX.  IPH's job was to eliminate the delays attributable to rolling stock and late departures.  And it's when trains get out of slot that you get more host-related delays because they need to run freight trains.  So leaving on time is important. 


dispr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is interesting to note that on-time performance
> is somehow attributed to IP, when in fact on-time
> performance on this route is solely due to CSX
> building two 10,000' sidings - one at Shelby (in
> NW Indiana) and one between Lafayette and Linden
> and CSX control of the former CN route from
> Munster to Thornton.  If IP was faced with the
> same physical plant and operational issues that
> Amtrak was, there would have been little or no
> change in OTP.
>
> Given the current state of rail traffic, I do not
> see CSX making any major shift in freight
> traffic.  The B&O and C&EI routes have plenty of
> excess capacity today.  Any further improvements
> in the Hoosier State route will need to be funded
> by the State (which will not spend any
> significant money on rail).  Indiana has always
> been anti-rail - even forbidding Indianapolis from
> considering light rail as part of a transit
> study. 
>
>  



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/26/16 10:47 by eee.

What about passengers from Chicago connections - is the hold policy (rule of thumb: 1 minute per 2 pasengers ?) the same now as when it was a full-Amtrak service ?

Ed:  I was heavily involved in the intercity bus business, much of it hauling college students.
We all know how Amtrak has cleaned up with the college student market.
Purdue University demand would benefit from a later departure on Fridays.
I wonder if CSX would allow you to run an extra Friday trip on a later schedule?
Also, Saturday day trips were the absolute money maker for charter bus companies.
It doesn't seem fair that the Cardinal has you locked out of that lucrative market.
 

would love to do both of those....

mp51w Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ed:  I was heavily involved in the intercity bus
> business, much of it hauling college students.
> We all know how Amtrak has cleaned up with the
> college student market.
> Purdue University demand would benefit from a
> later departure on Fridays.
> I wonder if CSX would allow you to run an extra
> Friday trip on a later schedule?
> Also, Saturday day trips were the absolute money
> maker for charter bus companies.
> It doesn't seem fair that the Cardinal has you
> locked out of that lucrative market.
>  

Personally, I would like to see the Cardinal rerouted west of Indy to St. Louis (which opens up several new opportunities for connectivity within the Amtrak system) and turn the entire CHI-IND corridor over to IPH and InDOT.

Having to consult a calendar to figure out whether the "nice train" is runninng that day is counter-productive. Being able to offer the same level of service seven days a week is key to passenger growth.

Okay, I'm done preachnig to the choir. Bring on the nay-sayers and all the reasons it "can't be done"!!

NZ

Issues I see (and I don't know anything about the trackage to St Louis):

• Amtrak would then have to route their Beech Grove equipment via St Louis, which will be a 100MPH+ line, including some partial cripples that are not in the best of shape. They'd have to be placed on the rear of the Eagle.
• They could of course contract with IPH to do the haulage instead. 
• Cardinal passengers headed to Chicago and beyond  would have to tranfer to the IPH train or a Thruway Bus. Those conencting to the Chief and Eagle could be sent via St Louis and KC. Zephyr passengers could be bused to Galesburg.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/26/16 16:07 by joemvcnj.

The cost and time to complete an upgrade of this line to permit:

1. 3 hour running time Chicago - Indy
2. 3 daily round trips (minimum)

Anyone want to hazard a guess? 

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They could of course contract with IPH to do the haulage instead. 

That would almost certainly be cheaper than all the circuity, if a proper cost analysis was done.  Without going off-topic too far, the recurring theme of the Beech Grove "Hospital Train" being a stumbling block to various ideas to improve service on this line reflects the unalterable fact that Beech Grove Shops are in the wrong place relative to the Amtrak network.  Perhaps enough money has been invested there and enough political problems would arise that moving it is impossible, but the shop needs to be closer to Chicago, if not actually in it.  You could keep it in Indiana if that would help assuage hurt feelings, but it needs to be in Hammond or Gary, not Indy.  There are plenty of abandoned industrial sites in Lake County that could be re-used, and some good union jobs would be most welcome there.

 

stuporchief Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The cost and time to complete an upgrade of this
> line to permit:
>
> 1. 3 hour running time Chicago - Indy
> 2. 3 daily round trips (minimum)
>
> Anyone want to hazard a guess? 

​3 hours?  Why?    A reliable 4 hour transit time -downtown to downtown - with multiple trips per day would be well patronized.    In any case, the reduction in transit time would have to be accomplished by Chicago area improvements.  The train moves along well south of there. 

P Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> stuporchief Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The cost and time to complete an upgrade of
> this
> > line to permit:
> >
> > 1. 3 hour running time Chicago - Indy
> > 2. 3 daily round trips (minimum)
> >
> > Anyone want to hazard a guess? 
>
> ​3 hours?  Why?    A reliable 4 hour transit
> time -downtown to downtown - with multiple trips
> per day would be well patronized.    In any
> case, the reduction in transit time would have to
> be accomplished by Chicago area improvements. 
> The train moves along well south of there. 

Have it your way. 4 hour running time and 3 daily frequencies minimum.

What will it cost and how long will it take?

No one outside of TO will care where the improvements are made. Passengers only care about the results.

Posted from iPhone

P Wrote:
-----------------------------------------
> ​3 hours?  Why?    A reliable 4 hour transit time -downtown to downtown - with multiple trips per day would be well patronized.

Three hours happens to be the drive time between Chicago and Indianapolis, at least in light traffic.  But I agree with the frequency first, speed later argument.  If you can get reliability up along with frequency, the 20-minute last-lap schedule pad could be reduced some.  Or maybe, if the Hoosier State schedule diverges from that of the Cardinal (they are identical now), you could reduce the pad straightaway. 

> In any case, the reduction in transit time would have to be accomplished by Chicago area improvements. 
> The train moves along well south of there.

Chicago area improvements are very expensive.  It might be cheaper to upgrade the track south of Dyer, IN instead.  I'm sure competent civil engineers have looked at the situation - at least one ex-railroad Chief Engineer works for Amtrak and they can do a quick estimate (rail, ties, ballast and surfacing) from a hy-rail trip over the line and a review of basic engineering documents.  No need to have an expensive consultant's "study" done, though legally-mandated State expenditures of federal funds for planning activities might cover the cost (it would, of course, likely produce a much higher work estimate into the bargain).  With PTC coming, you could look at Class V or VI track, too, with attendant grade crossing warning device and fencing work.  But that may exceed Indiana's appetite for spending.

One other thing to consider is the retrenchment going on at CSX as we move deeper into the "railroads after coal" scenario - they (and NS, too) are downgrading secondary mainlines to FRA Class II (30/25) speeds.  If that happens here, Indiana may have to buy this Monon/P&E/PRR trackage from CSX like Michigan had to buy the Michigan Central east of Kalamazoo from NS.

< but the shop needs to be closer to Chicago, if not actually in it.>

Chicago is so dysfunctional and corrupt, that is the last place they should be. The Chicago terminal malaise will spread like the measles to their new overhaul shop and nothing will get done.

Better locale might be Milwaukee, Kalamazoo, Battle Creek or Flint.

P Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> stuporchief Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The cost and time to complete an upgrade of
> this
> > line to permit:
> >
> > 1. 3 hour running time Chicago - Indy
> > 2. 3 daily round trips (minimum)
> >
> > Anyone want to hazard a guess? 
>
> ​3 hours?  Why?    A reliable 4 hour transit
> time -downtown to downtown - with multiple trips
> per day would be well patronized.    In any
> case, the reduction in transit time would have to
> be accomplished by Chicago area improvements. 
> The train moves along well south of there. 

​Because it's part of the core route [125 MPH] Midwest High Speed Rail plan, isn't it?  Seems like a good enough reason for me.  But who's even talking about that plan these days?  I do agree:  frequency builds ridership much more signifcantly than does speed.

Today(Saturday) would have been a good day for the Hoosier State to run.
The Cardinal is over 3 hours late!  Ed's equipment should be on stand by
in these situations.