posted
As many know, the Hoosier operation was put out for bids earlier this year. The intent was to have someone other than Amtrak operate it in order to improve the service and, I assume, justify Indiana's funding for its continued operation.
The contract was awarded to the Corridor Capital group who intended to provide on board services and marketing but let Amtrak T&E operate the train.
According to an article in one of the Trains.com blogs, looks like Amtrak may continue to run it.
Excerpts from that blog: *********** The main hurdles these firms face in competing with Amtrak are access and liability. Amtrak enjoys a right to access host railroads’ tracks while paying the host only enough to cover the avoidable cost of accommodating passenger trains, rather than these trains’ fully-allocated portion of all the host’s costs. This right extends from the freight railroads’ prior obligation to provide passenger service as common carriers, an obligation they agreed in 1970 to turn over to Amtrak. The national passenger carrier also benefits from a statutory cap on its liability for damages resulting from accidents involving its trains on freight railroads’ tracks that other operators, including existing commuter rail operators, do not enjoy.........
The firm’s proposal stated that it would use Amtrak as a subcontractor to provide the locomotives and train & engine crews that would carry CC’s cars, as a way to take advantage of Amtrak’s access rights and liability protection. But CC had never approached Amtrak about this, and it is clear, based on Wednesday’s news, that Amtrak would have rejected this approach......
But hopefully it will serve as a cautionary lesson to other states so that they will undertake more thorough competitive bidding processes that also involve the host railroads and Amtrak, to the extent that its equipment, personnel, facilities and access and liability benefits are required. *********
Apparently Amtrak never agreed, until last week, to even talk with CC about the transition and the issues listed above. Appears CC did not do their due diligence. Now it may be too late.
But at least it did stir the dinosaur. Last week Amtrak announced they "would immediately be adding on-board WiFi, Business Class seating, and food & beverage service (via a snack cart) to the Hoosier State"
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As of a few moments ago, the website reports that Business Class is offered tonight on 850, Hoosier State.
There is no mention regarding Food and Beverage, however I would think if they plan to offer such, they may as well have a Snack Bar. Reason simple; Club cars with 2-1 seating have the Cafe facility as is, and if there is to be F&B there will be an Attendant. May as well offer the whole deal (but let's not give 'em ideas to rope off about 12 seats in a Horizon and put up a sign saying BC).
But the addition of BC isn't about to change "me and I-65". My friends there reside near Geist Reservoir and I stay at a Hampton in Cassleton. The schedule? Not for me!!
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Richard, as Mr. Palmland noted (and who BTW I know face to face and will vouch for his credibility), Corridor Capital did not exactly do anything that could be called 'due diligence" before they entered into an Agreement with the State.
It reminds me when I was in practice, of a Not for Profit agency I handled that was guilty of "chasing funding". They had an aggressive Board who "brought the $$$ in" - and now the agency had to decide what do with these funds, which caused them to hastily create a program for which there was minimal public need and hire staff that almost doubled their head count overnight. Their very hidebound management was simply "not ready"; I think all can guess "the rest of the story". You can also guess my counsel was "not exactly" sought.
Another analogy is the movie "The Candidate" where after winning the "election" Robert Redford (actor) Mc Cay (character) simply said "now how do I govern?".
That outfit had political connections; they had no expertise in how to operate a passenger train. Therefore, Amtrak still holds the contract, and put the "burnt offering" of Business Class and F&B on the table. As Mr. Palmland noted, somebody nudged the sleeping giant.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, let it be noted that the material linked by Mr.Palmland is a Guest Editorial, and as such is Opinion, as distinct from news reporting.
Now if Mr. Boardman was quoted in proper context, I have to concur the remark stating "why worry Amtrak is there". This could really alienate the conservative powers that be in Indiana.
Finally Richard, with the entire Class I system approaching a condition that could be called a meltdown, it is no time to think of additional trains. I would not be surprised if something is embargoed.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to agree it is way to early to think about an increase over 4x/week. None-the-less, what changes will be seen with the Hoosier?
Just to be a little bit sensitive to Mr. Boardman's situation, I have to wonder if anyone would want to President and CEO of Amtrak, right now? With the NEC wanting to hold on to their profits, the future of the LD train uncertain, the SW Chief, etc. Not a job with great upside potential. If the Republicans (in a some cases, conservatives) win heavy this Nov. and in the 2016 elections, one wonders what Amtrak funding will be like in ensuing years.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
IIRC the route of the Hoosier (and Cardinal) between Dyer and some point north of Indy does require a couple of sidings either added or upgraded before any additional service can be run. It really is a "one diesel in oil"* route for long sections. The suggested CN re-route, along the CoNO's route, is also likely to help significantly.
* - Might be an Anglo thing. Basically means only one train at a time. The older version was "one engine in steam".
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is another article about the Hoosier saga. This is from the Lafayette newspaper. Apparently Mr. Boardman is the author.
I find it incredible that these issues were never brought forth by Amtrak until now. Surely Amtrak, the state DOT and, later, the contractor must have had discussions about this long before now. That's just good business practice. If not, all are at fault.
Boardman's response in the Lafayette Journal Courier linked above by Mr. Palmland seems a bit more level headed than does this Corridor Capital "dream".
Here is more on the Mom & Pop (honest: read the bios) law firm at which he practices.
posted
Coston... I knew I had heard that name somewhere. Turns out he is a railfan turned attorney turned entrepreneur and who has political connections. He was guiding light of the 20th Century Railroad Club that did operate excursions during the 70's - and about which I had never heard anything negative. I can recall during '73, they sponsored a railfan banquet held at the Union League Club of Chicago....WOW. Sure told me that this young kid had a family with political connections - I've never set foot in there since. Also I'd guess it was "sport' when the various "colorful character" railfans of the day made the scene in there.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is better than a soap opera. This is from Trains.com a couple days ago:
"Although INDOT has not confirmed it is now in talks with runner-up bidder Iowa Pacific Holdings Inc., company spokesman Michael Hicks tells Trains News Wire, “We believe there are opportunities to work with Amtrak and the state of Indiana to make substantial improvements in Hoosier State service over the next year, and we are engaged in discussions with INDOT.”
Why INDOT even considered Corridor Capital is beyond me. At least IP has a proven track record of providing passenger services, owns Amtrak certified equipment, and has a working relationship with Amtrak.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And Iowa Pacific owns a new pair of E-units.
To reiterate what others have said, at the very least the Hoosier State needs to operate daily (or daily except one) as a separate train and not as a plug run on the days the Cardinal does not operate.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
"Gov. Mike Pence’s spending recommendation contains language similar to Truitt’s bill, but goes one step further. In addition to funding the service, Pence’s plan authorizes INDOT to purchase rail equipment."
But the fundamental problem remains: The Hoosier State/Cardinal takes about 5 hours to go the 196 miles at an average speed of 39mph. 60 years ago NYC's James Whitcomb Riley took 3.5 hours averaging about 55 mph. Google says you can drive it in 3 hours. Given the traffic problems, I'll take the Riley, but not the Hoosier State.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by palmland: But the fundamental problem remains: The Hoosier State/Cardinal takes about 5 hours to go the 196 miles at an average speed of 39mph. 60 years ago NYC's James Whitcomb Riley took 3.5 hours averaging about 55 mph. Google says you can drive it in 3 hours. Given the traffic problems, I'll take the Riley, but not the Hoosier State.
But most of the track used by the Riley is either no more or low speed branch line in condition.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This development is a no-brainer. Anyone with basic knowledge of passenger rail affairs could have foreseen the outcome.
Corridor Capital simply was not a responsible bidding party.
But I guess this whole sorry charade generated what politicians want - headlines.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Railfan rumor has it that Iowa Pacific is close to a deal with the state to provide all on board services and equipment. Amtrak will continue to provide the train crew (and right of access to the involved railroads).
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The press release can be presumed factual. Anything else is railfan rumor.
Believe it when or if I see it. Why would this situation be any different so far as labor is concerned than when Amtrak contracted out F&B on certain Empire Service trains to a Subway franchisee? That F&B on the Hoosier State was abolished on the eve of contracting with another party with non-Agreement employees hardly helps the Employer's position.
Ellis and Coston are sort of birds of a feather; at least Ellis ostensibly has roadworthy cars to run.
Even though I make about four trips a year to Indianapolis, the existing schedule is useless to me. Red Lex and I-65 are a better deal for me, even if more costly.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Note the comment (italics added) : "..extra time will allow the parties to complete long-term contract negotiations for Amtrak to continue operating Hoosier State, with portions of service being provided by different contractors".
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will it mean the Hoosier State could, eventually, run 7 days/week?
There are plans, afoot, for a connecting route, in Illinois, from Danville to the Quad Cities. Also mentioned is the possibility of an extension, east, to Indianapolis:
posted
The Hoosier State will be terminated April 1 according to this Indiana Dept. of Transportation press release.
An excerpt giving the cause:
" The decision to terminate Hoosier State service followed the Federal Railroad Administration imposing new requirements for the state of Indiana to serve as a railroad, even though it owns no track or trains.
“Passenger rail providers and the host railroads are already required to comply with FRA rules,” said Indiana Department of Transportation Commissioner Karl Browning. “Requiring a redundant layer of bureaucracy would not create improvements in passenger rail service or safety, it would only increase taxpayer costs.”
Under new rules that the FRA is testing with Indiana, all states that support passenger rail services would be considered railroad carriers. This burdensome interpretation exposes states to significant increases in cost, paperwork and liability, including (1) Liability for the actions of passenger rail providers up to $200 million for each occurrence of injury, death or property damage, (2) Hiring new staff to monitor plans and programs in compliance with federal rules, and (3) Interpretation that state employees are rail employees, subject to retirement and employer liability rules and limits."
Our federal government continues to amaze me. Save us from ourselves.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doth anyone really think this soap opera has come to an end, or otherwise, will the Adios drumhead come out of storage?
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can see why Amtrak wouldn't want to be considered the railroad carrier in this case. Amtrak is providing the T & E crews and is contracting with the host railroads for access, but Iowa Pacific is providing the rolling stock and rolling stock maintenance. So who will assume ultimate responsibility for the safe operation of the train? In this instance, Amtrak does not control the maintenance program and Iowa Pacific does not control the safe operation of the equipment. So, who has the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the Hoosier State is operated safely at all time? I guess that has to be INDOT.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those of you following the ongoing saga of the 'improved' Hoosier State are no doubt amazed, as am I, at the latest turn of events. As reported earlier the FRA decided that all states that operated passenger trains had to be considered railroads for purposes of FRA oversight regarding safety and liability issues. Since this would create a nightmare of new rules, regulations, and expenses for the state, Indiana balked and announced the trains termination April 1.
Now Trains magazine columnist, Fred Frailey, blogged this:
"Indiana and the Federal Railroad Administration are reported to have smoked the peace pipe, as to the Chicago-Indianapolis Hoosier State. At issue was whether Indiana had to become a railroad under FRA’s supervision to insure that safety rules are obeyed. As I understand it, the two parties agreed to draw up a memorandum of understanding, thus ending a standoff that threatened to end the life of this state-supported passenger train."
Meanwhile, Ed Ellis stated on Train Orders that he is continuing to work on getting his equipment certified by all involved parties. This included building a new inspection pit since Amtrak told Indiana they were too busy to let the train be inspected in Chicago. That equipment will be two refurbished coaches and a full length dome lounge. He will also provide two locomotives for power.
Somehow April 1 seemed an appropriate date for the train's termination.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So who is currently performing all the safety checks and making sure that all the state supported trains are in compliance with Federal regulations? It must be Amtrak. But is Amtrak refusing to work with the company that will be supplying the train coaches or is it the FRA that is causing the problems?
I wonder how compliance issues are handled in Seattle with the trainset maintenance being done by Talgo and the engines maintained by Amtrak. Does Amtrak oversee Talgo or does the FRA accept Talgo as a qualified "railroad authority" or will WSDOT and ODOT have to become qualified?
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unless and until there is some serious work to get speeds up this whole thing is primarily an exercise in futility. When the James Whitcomb Riley was making its 3.5 hour run there was no interstate highway system and no or very few air conditioned cars. There were quite a few people in the cities served, but then urban areas were less sprawled and people more train oriented. Also, this area has grown little compared to the "Sunbelt" (Have some of these cities grown at all?)
A thought: Get both Cincinnati and Louisville involved, with track upgrades, of course and run a train out of Chicago that splits at Indy half to each place. Well, if we are going to dream/hallucinate, why not go for a better one?
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did somebody rewrite the playbook for this down to the wire cliffhanger charade?
As of a few moments ago, the Amtrak website is taking reservations for Wednesday April 22 Hoosier State.
Doesn't the script usually read "service will end (in this case April 1) UNLESS.."?
Prediction: the train will continue to run "business as usual". Iowa Pacific will not hold a contract for anything (Beyond giving themselves more exposure as a passenger train operator, their equipment will be tied up continuously yet earning revenue only four days a week). I also think it will continue to operate without Local funding; something like the Daily handling of cars to Beech Grove is necessary to support 100% Federally funded Long Distance trains.
How does that last one sound for a weasel?
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Vincent, this is similar to the present NC Piedmont operation. The FRA tried to impose similar regulations a while ago and NC sued. FRA backed off.
The host railroads are clearly FRA compliant and so is both Iowa Pacific and Amtrak. How many layers of oversight do you need?
George, that is always a fun game when you don't have to deal with reality. I wonder if any of the old NYC track is still in place. Getting over to Kankakee to use IC into Chicago beats the current convoluted routing. And surely NYC was the best route between Indianapolis and Cincinnati. Louisville would have to be PRR/CIND from Indianapolis. Supposedly that track is being upgraded with an assist from CSX. So, if you're dreaming, maybe Indiana DOT will be so happy with the success of the Hoosier they will fund service on that route. Who knows, maybe Indiana has visions of being like California!
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: As of a few moments ago, the Amtrak website is taking reservations for Wednesday April 22 Hoosier State.
Doesn't the script usually read "service will end (in this case April 1) UNLESS.."?
IIRC this happened last time - service due to end October 1st (2013?) but they continued to sell tickets beyond this date.
Frankly it's amazing tickets are even being bought given the on-off-on-off nature of this service - or at least the news pertaining to it. The cynical me says that maybe that is the strategy: keep the train in the news to build awareness.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
"Thursday March 19 Iowa Pacific hosted inspection of rolling stock selected for the Hoosier State. Approximately 30 people in total attended, including representatives of Amtrak, FRA, Indiana Department of Transportation, the City of Lafayette, Trains Magazine and of course Iowa Pacific. FRA provided feedback as the inspection went along, and will provide a written report. The Amtrak representatives told us they were unable to provide feedback. Hopefully they will provide INDOT with a report. Amtrak did inform us that they have inspection standards for this rolling stock that are different from private car standards. INDOT has asked Amtrak to provide the standards, but it appears that whatever standards Amtrak inspected to on Thursday have not yet been provided to the State, let alone the results of the inspection."
Regarding this last item, Ellis quoted the FRA regulation that states one car per train must be ADA accessible:
"A question was raised about ADA accessibility. This consist has one accessible car, which is set up with wheelchair stanchions and an ADA restroom."
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
From this subscription content appearing at TRAINS Newswire, IP definitely intends to offer an enhanced on-board experience.
It would appear that their Business Class will offer amenities not found elsewhere. Now all I can hope is that when the foaming crowd shows up en-mass to ride is that they remember what soap is, that the T Shirts proclaiming whatever stay at home, and that they do not turn the Dome into some kind of recording studio.
The cited article certainly suggests that for the five hour journey that can safely be driven in 3.5, they intend to offer something that is not presently there.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As of a few moments ago, the Amtrak website shows the Hoosier State accepting reservations indefinitely.
Amtrak has circulated a press release stating they are agreeable to a "month to month" extension of the existing service, but that means somebody has to "pony up".
There have been no reports that the FRA is relenting from their position that the State has to be recognized as a Rail operator.
So absent any acceptance by INDOT of the Amtrak offer, it certainly appears that 850(1) will have the Adios drumhead.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still not clear on what the FRA is trying to accomplish by making each state a "rail operator". If safety is the ultimate goal, how will creating up to 50 different state rail operators help to create a uniform system of safety enforcement. Because many trains cross state lines, it seems that rail safety should be a federal responsibility with a uniform policy of enforcement. Devolving the responsibility of rail safety enforcement to the various states--most of which have very little expertise in the area of rail safety--doesn't seem like a good method of ensuring that interstate passenger rail will be safe and secure.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Vincent, I doubt if anyone does. I think that the action is simply a little "roadblock" being placed in the way of any jurisdiction that is choosing an operator other than Amtrak for locally funded trains.
If a jurisdiction such as the State of Washington with a large locally funded passenger rail system needs to add, oh say, three positions at, again let's say, about $400K total cost of such, that's just a rounding error in the State's rail transportation budget. But this will hardly be the case in a state such as Indiana - and made even more pronounced in that conservative Republicans have essentially captured and are promulgating their philosophies to all levels of government (hardly the case with all residents there; just ask my long standing friends, he an educator; she Executive Dir of an adoption agency about that one).
It would appear that the Federal Executive Branch views this initiative by an "opposition" state to, in a sense, "kick out the Federal government" and replace such with a private sector operator as a public slap. These FRA regulations (lest we forget who is ultimate boss of the FRA and for all intent and purpose Amtrak) are simply a way to slow down any initiatives on the part of states.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is the first recognized media confirmation - or at least the first Mr. Google located for me - that a 30 day extension of existing service was agreed to amongst the parties:
Therefore A-Day44 is the new doomsday. "Business as usual" so far as the website is concerned.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guess this mean FRA has backed off (excerpt from Trains.com): ****** INDIANAPOLIS – The Indiana Department of Transportation and the Federal Railroad Administration have reached an understanding of the clear lines of accountability for passenger rail safety and accessibility between Indianapolis and Chicago, allowing Indiana to implement long-term improvements to the daily service.
Under the proposed service, Amtrak would serve as the primary operator, working with host railroads, providing train and engine crews, and managing reservation and ticketing. Iowa Pacific would provide the train equipment, train maintenance, on-board services, and marketing. ***************** Not sure what has changed, but sounds like they smoked the peace pipe.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
