Passenger Trains > Amtrak T&E Charges to States – Worked Example

In looking into the billings by Amtrak to the state to operate the Hoosier State, this author noticed that the last quoted public billings for Train and Engine crews went up from the previous contract for the 4 round trips a week state operation and that the overall quotes seemed higher than possible. As far as the revenue operations, this train should be crewed by an engineer and two conductors as it is scheduled under 6 hours.


Section 209 Quoted Costs by Amtrak to INDOT


T&E Cost (State) = $1,573,000 (Direct) + $478,192 (T&E 30% Additives) = $2,051,192/year


Other ways to express this:
T&E Cost (State) = $25.17/TM over 81,536 Train-miles or $616/Crew-Hour assuming 8 hours and 416 trips a year.


However, the schedule is just such that a full rest cannot be had such that a turn can be made, so the held away from terminal payments are presumably inflating the number but it would seem nearly impossible to be that high in reality.


Now, think what size crew base these quoted costs would imply for the full schedule. To back check, ratio the state cost by (7/4) to find the implied T&E costs for the combined Hoosier State/Cardinal schedule.


T&E Cost (Full Route) = (7/4) x $2,051,192 = $3,589,586


Assuming every day there is a crew in Chicago held away from terminal the lodging cost and meals would only be about $165k. The Road Foreman, crew office, (2) sedans and supplies might be $285k. At even $390k per 3 person crew-year for a one engineer, two conductor crew, with the 42% additive for pension and health, the quoted Amtrak cost is equal to more than (8) crews in the base to operate the IND –CHI segment daily.


So the quoted costs imply (8) crews in the base for IND-CHI daily service, but about (5) crews seems to be the largest size base needed to turn even with the costly to the carrier held away from terminal situation and rest period at home. Anybody know the true size of the base?


Are the quoted T&E costs to the state inflated?


Solutions -
1. Why couldn’t the crews work to say Dyer, IN, from Indianapolis, head to a hotel right at Dyer, for a full 8+ hour rest and restart, and then work back the same day to home? This would require a final terminal crew to take a 30 minute crew taxi from CUS against the flow of traffic to Dyer before bringing the train into the city the last 1 ½ hours into CUS from Dyer, where yard jobs could be worked for the remainder of the shift. As speeds improve eventually that job could be dropped and the Indianapolis crews just work a split shift, with an interim release in Chicago. (3) crews could supply that arrangement, or (3) engineers and (5) conductors in Indianapolis, with about the equivalent of (1) crew's worth of cost to work part of a shift out of CUS for the Dyer to CUS segement.

Total cost to the state train would be about $970k versus $2,051k, saving $1,081k a year to the state.

2. Why couldn’t Amtrak just run a long distance van, or put the crew on a intercity bus (better) and get them back in time to rest at home and restart their duty clock the next day if need be or have the day off? Even with deadhead travel to duty counted as hours this gets the crew there and back in 9 hours as long as they are starting at Indianapolis and not Beech Groove.
 



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/17 18:48 by District.

You must hate labor  I know right where you can put that van talk 

Hmm... don't know about that, I was trying to devise a way to get the crew back to sleeping in their own bed at night with their family. 

In Solution 1, which is really the better one till runing times improve, if ever, all the van travel that is needed is a 30 minute trip counter flow to road traffic from CUS. There might even be people in the CUS pool who live closer to Dyer, so the van could be eliminated by agreement and everybody is happier.

I hope it can be understood this might all just go away without a more economical arrangement.

 



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/17 19:12 by District.

That work belongs to Indianapolis, so there's the first issue, and I'm sure the crews don't mind the hotel stay. Don't forget it wasn't that long ago that an attempt was made to eliminate held away and NO ONE was happy 

As operated this train probably should "go away."  I think I saw a daily passenger count of something like 85, that's terrible and doesn't justify the service.  Unless the funds can be allocated to bring this trip to something under 4 hours and frequency to 5 or 6 per day there's no point.  This could be a very successful route, but not with a toonerville trolley type operation, like it has today.  Rail passenger service doesn't need to be "high speed," but it does need to be reasonably quick and convenient.  In 1933 Monon managed to get trains from Chicago to Indy in 4:15, the Hoosier State takes 5 hours.  Every other form of transport has dramatically improved over that time, only rail has gone backward.  Fix that and people will ride, 

Keep in mind that the worked cost example concedes that held away is a part of the additional cost, but it still cannot explain the full level of costs charged to the state.

If I recall the issue with taking held away was when there would be no compensation, not something like this that would allow for 12 hours in a day and sleeping in your bed.



 

I glanced at it quickly, but perhaps benefit factor is added in (railroad retirement taxes, healthcare, overtime, etc).

Posted from iPhone

District Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Keep in mind that the worked cost example concedes
> that held away is a part of the additional cost,
> but it still cannot explain the full level of
> costs charged to the state.
>
> If I recall the issue with taking held away was
> when there would be no compensation, not something
> like this that would allow for 12 hours in a day
> and sleeping in your bed.
>
>
>
>  

Trust me, the hotel stay is worth it. Nobody involved wants to experience 65 in a van ever again. Posting this under the guise of "trying to get the crews in their own beds" is bs. If you want what's good for someone, you ask them, not come up with what you think they want.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/17 07:26 by 1976.

Interesting ideas. The first soluntion would seem workable for all parties.

A persons dislike for a long van trip shouldn't be the reason for discounting an idea that saves a considerable amount of money. If a crewmemeber doesn't like the arrangement they can bid to hold a different route if their seniority allows. The goal is to make this lightly used train as economical to operate as possible so State continues to fund it and possibly fund improvements in the future.

Posted from iPhone

1. A 30" cab ride from 14th St. might get you as far as Englewood.  On I-94 the flow is normally
heavy both ways.  I would allow 2 hours to make sure the northbound train was not delayed at Dyer.

2. Don't count on getting much work from that yard crew other than the cab ride, bringing the northbound
train in and yarding it.  That is the way 14th St. works from personal experience.

Englewood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1. A 30" cab ride from 14th St. might get you as
> far as Englewood.  On I-94 the flow is normally
> heavy both ways.  I would allow 2 hours to make
> sure the northbound train was not delayed at
> Dyer.
>
> 2. Don't count on getting much work from that
> yard crew other than the cab ride, bringing the
> northbound
> train in and yarding it.  That is the way 14th
> St. works from personal experience.

You're talking to somebody who obviously works in an office for a living.

howeld Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting ideas. The first soluntion would
> seem workable for all parties.
>
> A persons dislike for a long van trip shouldn't be
> the reason for discounting an idea that saves a
> considerable amount of money. If a crewmemeber
> doesn't like the arrangement they can bid to hold
> a different route if their seniority allows. The
> goal is to make this lightly used train as
> economical to operate as possible so State
> continues to fund it and possibly fund
> improvements in the future.
>
> Posted from iPhone

You sound like a manager as well. Screw what labor wants. IIRC, the state specifically requested for the arrangements using vans to cease when they took over funding. But hey, you guys both work in some cubicle counting beans so you must know what is needed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/17 07:19 by 1976.

Does Indiana intend to contribute anything to the Hoosier State going forward, after the current contract expires?  I can't imagine they're thrilled with 85 passengers a day, trending down over time.

They might be better off contracting for two or three buses, and leaving it at that level.  If the buses draw local passengers off the Cardinal, that could create a reason to eliminate that train entirely. 

I am not there, so don't know the politics of what is going on, but I see the Hoosier State having a 50/50 chance of survival beyond July 1. Then the "Daily Cardinal" advocates will start up again, but will continue to have no impact. If EHH decides to get ruthless with the Cardinal route west of West Virginia, all bets are off.

The van experiment was tried for nearly two years and it never worked. Interstate 65 is too unreliable to get crews where they are needed when they are needed. Many times the train waited for a recrew. You have to realize that from Amtrak's point of view the Hoosier State is a vehicle to service Beech Grove shops. Amtrak is price gauging the state of Indiana for the service they are providing. The crews also do yard work on both ends and the state is paying for it.

Why the heck would a train that has a scheduled 196 mile run require 2 crews? That's insane!

District Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> In Solution 1, which is really the better one till
> runing times improve, if ever, all the van travel
> that is needed is a 30 minute trip counter flow to
> road traffic from CUS. There might even be people
> in the CUS pool who live closer to Dyer, so the
> van could be eliminated by agreement and everybody
> is happier.

In theory, until you realize that "8+" hours of rest doesn't mean 8+ hours of sleep.  Figuring in travel time from off duty point to hotel, lead call time (usually 1.5 to 2 hours), and time for meals, that "8+" hours is really 3 to 4 hours of sleep, tops.  Back when we had "6 for 8" (8 hours rest with a 2 hour call) on the freight side, it was common to only get a couple hours of sleep before a full shift.  That's no exactly conducive to having properly rested and safe crews.
  

Amtrak's crews go on duty at Indy Union Station and are taxied to the IPH "yard" to bring the westbound train into the station. The reverse is done eastbound. INDOT is charged for that. That is 1-2 hours of work.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/17 11:01 by TWC.

So Solution 1 requires a very short van ride to deal with the slowest and shortest segment of the route from Dyer to CUS, while allowing the Indianapolis crew to turn back the same day and get paid for (2) two, (8) eight hour starts at straight time in one 48 hour time period along with meals and lodging in Dyer, gradually this would be changed to an Interim Release at CUS once running timed improve, with the financial savings counted as savings to justify improvement spending. This is nothing like using an I-65 van to re-crew mid-route
.
Most mapping software that accounts for congestion, suggest 35-55 minutes CUS to Dyer, it is 32 miles by I-94, call that 4 hours total for the crew to make the roundtrip, half a day. But again surely somebody out of the CUS pool domiciles closer to Dyer than CUS, so in theory the van ride then would be replaced with an alternate report location and a commuter trip back from CUS to Dyer on one leg. The Indinapolis crew woudl arrive in Dyer at 9:30 AM EST and head to rest for 9+ hours then restart at 7:30 PM EST.

But even with an Indianapolis crew getting paid for two starts in a day (16) sixteen hours in 48 hours total, again this is not an anti-labor concept, I got at most that the 7 day operation would cost Amtrak $1,792k or $1,024k for the Hoosier State portion against the Amtrak quoted amount of $2,051k a year. This poor engineer works in heavy industry.
 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/17 10:59 by District.

You're still paying the same in working hours to the Indianapolis crews per week. Not to mention the labor you're paying the Chicago crew. If they lived in or near Dyer, they take release in Chicago and you're either A: Still paying for a hotel and two shifts of 8 hours; or B: They take hours of service only and remain on the clock from 8am to 7pm. How are you saving money by using a second crew?

And if you use a van to get a Chicago crew to Dyer, there's another added cost.

There's got to be a reason it is the way it is. I'm still not certain what your beef is here or why you're taking such an interest in destroying something that works.