Passenger Trains > Indiana to seek bids for Hoosier State operator

State to seek competitive proposals on improving Hoosier State rail service
Journal and Courier (Lafayette, IN)
Dec. 20, 2013

> Opening the door to competition from private operators is the route
> Indiana will take in finding ways to improve the Hoosier State
> passenger rail service between Indianapolis and Chicago.

> The state announced Friday that it has hired R.L. Banks & Associates
> Inc. to develop a request for proposals from companies interested in
> operating, marketing or improving services on the line to increase
> ridership and decrease operating expenses for taxpayers. Indiana,
> Lafayette, West Lafayette, Tippecanoe County and other communities
> served by the line agreed in October to pick up the $2.7 million
> annual cost of running the four-day-a-week train after the federal
> government stopped funding Amtrak routes shorter than 750 miles.
> Combined with Amtrak’s three-day-a-week, long-distance Cardinal, the
> trains provide daily passenger rail service along the 196-mile
> corridor.

> State and local leaders settled on a one-year cost-sharing agreement,
> based on the stipulation that all parties involved would spend 12 to
> 15 months finding ways to run trains at times that would draw more
> riders, and generate more revenue.
>
> The state has benefited when contractors competed on other projects,
> such as ramp construction at Interstate 65 and Indiana 267, said Will
> Wingfield, Indiana Department of Transportation spokesman.
>
> “It reduced the length of time the ramps were closed, and it reduced
> our overall costs,” Wingfield said.
>
> “We have seen competition benefit taxpayers and users when
> contractors come up with creative ideas and innovations.”
>
> “We are looking to see if competition improves the options for
> taxpayers and riders on the Hoosier State,” Wingfield added.
>
> Local elected leaders learned about the plan to seek proposals during
> a conference call with INDOT Tuesday, said Lafayette Mayor Tony
> Roswarski and Tippecanoe County Commissioner Tom Murtaugh.



Link:

State to seek competitive proposals on improving Hoosier State rail service



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/13 14:55 by GenePoon.

Normally, I oppose "private" operators taking over Amtrak's trains; but in this case, the Hosier State is such a slow train, it might be a blessing for someone else to get the blame.

Since the only fast rail route from Ind. to Chicago was ripped up years ago (NYC-IC); there is not much opportunity to improve things much. Amtrak would probably be better off without it. Of course, any so-called "private" operator will demand heavy subsidies, you can be sure of this.
If Indiana wants to do this--fine.

I only hope that Boardman insists on signing an iron-clad contract for 99 years with this "operator" to insure that Amtrak will not be gouged for moving cars to Beach Grove. This "private" operator will be looking for all subsidies he can get.

Joe

PS: my vote for the "Private" operator would be the Iowa Pacific. They have all those beautiful IC cars; and maybe Ed Ellis (X-Amtrak man) could strike a deal to maintain them at Beach Grove.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/13 15:49 by floridajoe2001.

As a Hoosier I don't see how it can be faster, more convenient, and cheaper. CSX and all the congestion on the route precludes this.

floridajoe2001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Normally, I oppose "private" operators taking over
> Amtrak's trains...

======================================================

It is no longer Amtrak's train. They abdicated last October.

It is INDIANA's train.

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> floridajoe2001 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Normally, I oppose "private" operators taking
> over
> > Amtrak's trains...
>
> ==================================================
> ====
>
> It is no longer Amtrak's train. They abdicated
> last October.
>
> It is INDIANA's train.

Does that mean all state-operated trains are no longer Amtrak trains? Why then does Amtrak provide crews, on board services, etc., if these are not their trains. Or is it different in Indiana?

It'll be interesting to see what, if anything, the private sector actually comes up with. The drinking of privatization Kool-Aid seems to assume that the private sector can do things cheaper, but in a heavily unionized industry like railroading, the opportunity to cut personnel costs may not be as strong as they think, and a private operator surely is going to want to build in some profit for itself.

Ptolemy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Does that mean all state-operated trains are no
> longer Amtrak trains? Why then does Amtrak
> provide crews, on board services, etc., if these
> are not their trains. Or is it different in
> Indiana?

==============================================

Amtrak is now only the contract operator, running the train to Indiana's specifications.
The contract with Indiana is for a year. At the end of the contract, Indiana can have
anybody else run the train (remember how close they came to there being NO train).

Indiana holds the purse strings.

Amtrak is free to submit a bid. I suggest they figure their cost of paying someone else
to move equipment to/from Beech (note the spelling) Grove when submitting their proposal, or
else expect to move it all on the Cardinal.

Indiana is only the first. Other states are considering similar actions, representative of
the undercurrent of resistance and a focus on competitive bidding, a reaction to Amtrak
and its PRIIA Section 209 snake oil.

Ptolemy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does that mean all state-operated trains are no
> longer Amtrak trains? Why then does Amtrak
> provide crews, on board services, etc., if these
> are not their trains. Or is it different in
> Indiana?

That's correct.
Since the states provide the funding for these routes they "own" them and they can choose who operates it.
Each state has, in essence, contracted with Amtrak to run these routes. Indiana is the first state to openly ask for bids from other operating contractors.

Problem is that most* states don't own the equipment used on their routes. If Indiana decides to contract with a new operator, they'd also have to procure passenger cars and HEP-equipped locomotives.

*California, North Carolina, Oregon and Washington own some of the equipment used on their routes.

Ricky Courtney
Seattle, WA

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Indiana is only the first. Other states are
> considering similar actions, representative of
> the undercurrent of resistance and a focus on
> competitive bidding, a reaction to Amtrak
> and its PRIIA Section 209 snake oil.

Gene-
Any word on which specific states are considering asking for bids?

The only other rumblings I had heard were from Oregon and Washington (who now own enough Talgo trainsets to not need the Amtrak owned equipment.)

Ricky Courtney
Seattle, WA



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/13 16:50 by rickycourtney.

Personally, I was surprised when Indiana (reluctantly) agreed to partially fund the Hosier State at the higher funding rates. This State is not all that friendly to passenger rail.

As I recall, Indiana has threatened many times, over the years, to stop funding their portion of the South Shore Line commuter service, in a long running battle with Illinois; so I'm surprised the Hosier State has survived this long.

So many problems are involved with a "stranger" taking over Amtrak operations (especially if the train is inter-state in nature). For example:
. Will the train remain in Amtrak's computer system and E-ticketing process

. The CSX will have to approve any change to the trains operation (not so easy if the new guy wants to change speeds or frequencies, etc.).

. Ind. may find a private operator won't save them any money (I'm at a loss to see where "savings" will come from).

. Trains like Acela might be of interest; but what "private"motive is there for taking over a slow, low volume, train like the Hosier State?

. The train uses Chi.Union Sta.; Amtrak might begin to think of CUS as a "profit center" and charge the new operator a hefty fee to use the Station.

Even with a "new" operator; Amtrak will still be involved (reservation system; stations; maybe cars and locos; maintenance work, etc.; And, don't forget; Federal dollars are still involved in the Hosier State-just not as much as before.

So, I'm not overly concerned; I think the chance of a "private" operator is slim. The real threat is Indiana deciding not to fund the train at all next year; this will plunge us back into the wonderful world of politics.

Joe



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/13 18:55 by floridajoe2001.

floridajoe2001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Normally, I oppose "private" operators taking over
> Amtrak's trains; but in this case, the Hosier
> State is such a slow train, it might be a blessing
> for someone else to get the blame.
>
> Since the only fast rail route from Ind. to
> Chicago was ripped up years ago (NYC-IC); there is
> not much opportunity to improve things much.
> Amtrak would probably be better off without it.
> Of course, any so-called "private" operator will
> demand heavy subsidies, you can be sure of this.
> If Indiana wants to do this--fine.
>
> I only hope that Boardman insists on signing an
> iron-clad contract for 99 years with this
> "operator" to insure that Amtrak will not be
> gouged for moving cars to Beach Grove. This
> "private" operator will be looking for all
> subsidies he can get.
>
> Joe
>
> PS: my vote for the "Private" operator would be
> the Iowa Pacific. They have all those beautiful
> IC cars; and maybe Ed Ellis (X-Amtrak man) could
> strike a deal to maintain them at Beach Grove.


There's no subsidy in the normal sense. A private operator, if available, would name its price, and the state could keep all the fares, or charge nothing if it chose.

Likely, the thinking is that an operator other than Amtrak would be more innovative and responsive to state concerns...and more open to improving the service.

reindeerflame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Likely, the thinking is that an operator other
> than Amtrak would be more innovative and
> responsive to state concerns...and more open to
> improving the service.

Amtrak often bids on contracts to provide operations on commuter rail trains.

Metrolink contracted with Amtrak for train operations between 1992 and 2005. They lost the contract to Veolia Transport in 2005. The devastating 2008 Chatsworth crash soured relations between Veolia and Metrolink. At the end of the 5 year contract Amtrak won the bid over train operations again.

Ricky Courtney
Seattle, WA

rickycourtney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Problem is that most states don't own the
> equipment used on their routes. If Indiana decides
> to contract with a new operator, they'd also have
> to procure passenger cars and HEP-equipped
> locomotives.

AND a facility where the maintenance will be performed. That was one of the un-answered questions about the "Train X" to Las Vegas.

The devil is in the details. When you factor in all those costs, Amtrak doesn't look so bad.

I wonder how much a different operator could improve service, given the current route of the Hoosier State out of Chicago. I think that the schedule is now slower than when the Monon was running trains. I'm not sure that's the fault of Amtrak.

Indiana state officials dither when it comes to rail service but rush to back some ill-considered projects like the proposed Illiana Expressway. They say that it will be financed by private investment, but it could end up costing taxpayers up to $1 billion if it does not generate anticipated revenue. Meanwhile there seems to be little support for improved rail service in the northwest Indiana counties, despite evidence that extension of the South Shore to Lowell and/or to Valparaiso would be beneficial.

As an example of the benefits of privatization, let's look at a coal gasification plant that is being built in Indiana. Utilities must purchase gas from this private company and the ratepayers will end up being charged more if the gas from the plant costs more than natural gas available from other sources. Did I mention that the folks building the plant have some connections to the political party currently in power?

rickycourtney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ptolemy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Does that mean all state-operated trains are no
> > longer Amtrak trains? Why then does Amtrak
> > provide crews, on board services, etc., if
> these
> > are not their trains. Or is it different in
> > Indiana?
>
> That's correct.
> Since the states provide the funding for these
> routes they "own" them and they can choose who
> operates it.

Not really. The states don't own the right of access to the tracks, most of the stations, the equipment, the maintenance shops, the heavy repair backshops, the reservation system, the revenue accounting systems, the operations control systems, and many other facets of the operation.

> Each state has, in essence, contracted with Amtrak
> to run these routes. Indiana is the first state to
> openly ask for bids from other operating
> contractors.

You have it backwards. Amtrak has contracted with the states to retain the routes. Indiana is going to quickly discover this fact.

> Problem is that most* states don't own the
> equipment used on their routes. If Indiana decides
> to contract with a new operator, they'd also have
> to procure passenger cars and HEP-equipped
> locomotives.

Indiana would need to negotiate access to the route with CSX, UP, NS and Amtrak. They'd need to pay Amtrak for continued services Amtrak is providing in order to retain the functional utility of the Hoosier State in the national system. They'd need to negotiate access to the stations along the route. They'd need to provide liability insurance.

If you want examples of truly independent regional rail systems, look at the New Mexico Rail Runner, the Utah FrontRunner, the Minnesota NorthStar, the Seattle Sounder and other recent systems, and look at the costs and negotiations required to set them up.

What Indiana really seems to want is all the benefits of access to Amtrak's behind the scenes support with complete control over operations and equipment at a fantasy cost of providing the service.

reindeerflame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Likely, the thinking is that an operator other
> than Amtrak would be more innovative and
> responsive to state concerns...and more open to
> improving the service.

Likely the thinking is that somehow a private company is going to do more for less. Maybe with a magic wand. What Indiana really wants is more service for less money without paying for any needed improvements to make that happen.

Amtrak is perfectly willing to be innovative and offer new types and classes of service if someone picks up the costs for doing it. See the Downeaster, Cascades, etc. When politicians say Amtrak isn't doing what they want, what they really mean is that Amtrak is not doing what they want for free, or rolling over and paying for their fantasies, or acting as if there are no costs involved

I think many of these privatization folks missed their moment about 5-10 years ago, when many of the freight railroads were expressing an interest in becoming the operator of their Amtrak trains in order to gain access to government funded capital improvements and maybe use passenger trains for expedited freight movement again. I don't hear anything about that now, and it seems like we've moved in the opposite direction instead. Look at CSX, it exited its role with MARC, dumped the Hudson line on Amtrak and NYSDOT, the Worcester line on MASSDOT and sold the A-Line to Sunrail, as an example. The only freight railroad that still seems actively interested in partnerships like this is BNSF, as BNSF continues to pursue behind the scenes a possible takeover of Amtrak California and Amtrak Cascades and seems very happy with the deals it cut with Sounder and Northstar as well as running the Burlington line for Metra.

So the TRACK is the problem. Not Amtrak!!!!