Passenger Trains > Most recent Hoosier State article depicts a hot mess

The Lafayette Journal & Courier just posted an article in which everyone seems to be tyring to blame eveyone else for IPH's Hoosier State failure.

If you know what really happened, it's extremely entertaining .. .and confounding. 

For EEE to claim he was blindsided by the contract terms truly stretches credulity. Same goes for his apparent contention that speed and frequency of the train should have been increaed by now. Wow.

For Amtrak's Mark Magliari to paint Amtrak as the hero is disingenuous to the max.

And does the reporter have it right that the state increased its payment to IPH to $150,000 per month for January and February, vesus $30,000 per month until then?

And that Crawfordsville's Mayor expresses 'shock, shock I tell you' seems navie, at best.

But read for yourself. And enjoy:

http://www.jconline.com/story/money/business/2017/02/04/whats-next-hoosier-state-train/97340566/



Edited 11 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/17 09:22 by stuporchief.

"While Iowa Pacific often got credit for improved on-time performance, it was Amtrak's engineers and conductors on the train that made that happen."

Oh, so that's why Amtrak trains can run late - the conductors and engineers stop for coffee breaks on the way.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "While Iowa Pacific often got credit for improved
> on-time performance, it was Amtrak's engineers and
> conductors on the train that made that happen."
>
> Oh, so that's why Amtrak trains can run late - the
> conductors and engineers stop for coffee breaks on
> the way.


You're joking as usual, right? Most trains would get across the road 99% of the time without freight interference. Not so sure about your coffee stop comment given your history on here.

Ed Ellis quote from article.. "There is a clause in the contract, which is almost impossible for me to understand, but the effect was that as the on-time performance of the train improved we got more money," he said.

That's exactly opposite of what has been posted over past week. Previously reported he got less money with increased OTP. Either way, it's over for that train. Amtrak's mouthpiece, M. Magliari, sure puts out some big talk about the future for the Hoosier State. Just remember, he's paid to lie. I saw them bury the LVL section, the question is do they want to go 2 for 2?

Of course it's a joke.

I think the only thing that keeps IND-DOT interested (and never for more than $3 mil / yr) is if they don't, Amtrak will pick up their Beech Grove marbles and run to Michigan or Illinois with them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/17 11:35 by joemvcnj.

PC1974 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I saw them bury the LVL section, the
> question is do they want to go 2 for 2?

What is LVL section?

LVL section was when they called it the Kentucky Cardinal. Same train that operates today, just no longer runs between Indianapolis IND and Louisville LVL... Should have seen it in it's last days... One coach with either B/O toilets or air conditioning.. Sometimes both! Leaving end doors opened kept the coach cooler for the overnight trip, just had to breath burning dinosaur bones....

That train was, of coure, another of EEE's odd inventions.

As was the Janesville train. It did not impress the now-House Speaker, not that should it have.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/17 17:05 by joemvcnj.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As was the Janesville train. It did not impress
> the now-House Speaker, not should it have.

As I recall, both the Kentucky Cardinal and the Janesville trains were started with the almost 'sure thing' that a fair amount of LTL freight was coming there way, which failed to materialize.

PC1974 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
. . . but the effect was that as the
> on-time performance of the train improved we got
> more money,"

I feel certain this was just a case of the newspaper reporter getting it wrong.  Numerous earlier reports have all indicated the opposite which makes sense if the InDOT monthly payment was fixed and Amtrak's operating costs, including incentive payments, were paid first with whatever was left going to IPH.  Strange certainly, but I can see how would work.

Gordon

Why would you take a contract assuming you will collect incentive payments - especially for something you have no influence or control over?

Everything NRPC bills the states under 209 methodology is on a reimbursable basis. The costs they propose are estimates only. If they get paid first in effect then there goes any second contractor.

But just for grins, take a look at the NRPC T&E costs on the Hoosier State (including the additive) and convert those costs into hourly rates for the crew.

I think this needs a third party to check all of this out particularly as Federal law requires NRPC to work in combination (cooperate) with private parties to reduce federal subsidy.

I thought FRA was the third party. Did that stop being so?

Perhaps, I did get all the payments made to NRPC/Amtrak (two accounts) and IPH off the INDOT transparancy website today for the period up until 9/2016 (as far as it goes).

I will post a PDF print of the excel sheet with a nice graph but the low level of payments to IPH makes me want to at least call INDOT to get them to cofirm some things.

Thanks for doing this. I'll be interested to see what you post.

I have a nice graph showing the relative monthly payments on a monthly rolling average going back to 2013 to be posted.

I have emailed questions to the project lead to clarify. Hope to know tomorrow or Thursday before publishing.