I've got a 3 day meeting coming up in Indy in October at the downtown conference center adjacent to Union Station there. Hotel there, also. Will be 8,000 people there. Would be just right for rail trip from Milwaukee airport station to Chi. to Indy and back. No other intermediate transportation mode required. Alas, no suitable rail schedule is available. Milw-Chi-Indy...280 miles. Milw-2mil. pop., Chi-9mil., Indy-2mil. Why not put scarce passenger rail resources where real opportunity exists? Such foolishness.
There is quite a gathering of Iowa Pacific equipment gathered in Beech Grove and the location just outside of Beech Grove where IP worked on the cars and got the Hoosier State ready for its runs. Quite a bit of what I saw was in Illinois Central colors including three full length domes (inside Beech Grove shop property). I saw perhaps 12 cars in IC paint.
Side Note: The two Talgo sets are still at Beech Grove and they still look good on the exterior. One of the original Viewliner sleepers is at the shops as well and has been "tagged". It is in the Amtrak 3-stripe scheme.
The Train and Engine portion of the Hoosier State costs and really most of the shorter corridors is an issue. Unless you can turn the crew quickly and use most of the 8 hour minimum moving a train in revenue service, the costs are high, around $20/trainmile in this instance.
The most recent improvement was made at Crawfordsville, IN, by totally redoing the "Ames" interlocking and doing away with the diamond and the so-called connecting track from the ex-Conrail line to the ex-Monon line and raising the speed there from 10 mph to 25 mph, with elevation in the curve. By the way the name Ames has gone away.
V.Payne I had heard of some incremental improvements made to CSX. What is the Indiana forum that has more details?
I had heard of some incremental improvements made to CSX.
What is the Indiana forum that has more details?
Regarding the use of "Heritage" equipment on the Hoosier State, I have had the good fortune to ride both on the Budd Equipment of VIA Rail at 90 MPH and on other well maintained equipment of similar age in Australia. I have also ridden on refurbished 30 plus year old HST trains in the United Kingdom. In no way am I advocating wholesale use of "Heritage" equipment systemwide. I think it's a "Horses for Courses" situation. For example the replacement of Amtrak baggage cars and heritage diners and heritage sleepers makes perfectly good sense. Whilst they maybe Budd cars, the reallity is they came from a host of different railroads and there would have been and probably still are/were ongoing legacy and maintenance issues beacuse each of the car types would have been slightly different given each of the original owners specific requirements.
The VIA Rail Budd cars used on the corridor are effectively all the same. Lots of commonality, well maintained etc, etc. I only just recently travelled at 125 MPH on a 32 year old refurbished 125 MPH train travelling in superb comfort with great service with the train performing exactly as it did when it was brand new.
For something like the hoosier State, sadly it was doomed from trhe start given the contract payment and sharing arrangements that have been made public. The route and its condition hardly give it any reasonable chance of of being even mildy competive.
If we take similar distance corridors in Victoria, Australia utilizing 35 year old locos, hauling a mix of 36 to 60 year old cars, we have trains providing competitive service in terms of journey time and travel cost compared to road. The services provide 2 to 3 round trips 7 days per weeek. These services are contracted to operate within 9 minutes and 59 seconds of schedule and achieve a level of punctuallity between 80% to 90%.
Yes we are anxiously waiting new replacement trains but we may have to do so so for a few years longer. Perhaps on a different route where there were not so many roadblocks working against delivering rail service the Iowa Pacific/Amtrak model might have worked much better. Very sadly for all the wrong reasons this "experiment" will be used as a benchmark for NOT TRYING TO INTRODUCE INNOVATION to grow ridership!!!
Dakguy201 If my math is right, the eastbound Cardinal is scheduled to take 70 minutes between Chicago and Dyer. However, the westbound is scheduled for 96 minutes.
If my math is right, the eastbound Cardinal is scheduled to take 70 minutes between Chicago and Dyer. However, the westbound is scheduled for 96 minutes.
That 96-70 = 26 minutes. Have seen as much as 41 minutes and many time 35 minutes early of Hoosier arriving CHI. As well many unconfirmed reports of westbound Hoosier and sometimes Cardinal of having to wait at stations for "time"
Dakguy201If my math is right, the eastbound Cardinal is scheduled to take 70 minutes between Chicago and Dyer. However, the westbound is scheduled for 96 minutes. The difference is the padding typically found at the end of an Amtrak run -- a PR gimmick to give them better "on time" performance.
Everybody pads schedules - there are NO schedules that are set at minimum running time. Every form of transportation does it, railroads, airlines, busses, you name it.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
If my math is right, the eastbound Cardinal is scheduled to take 70 minutes between Chicago and Dyer. However, the westbound is scheduled for 96 minutes. The difference is the padding typically found at the end of an Amtrak run -- a PR gimmick to give them better "on time" performance.
n012944 As a result, IP went to the state of Indiana and Amtrak looking to tighen the schedule. The state was supposedly all for it, however since the train shares the schedule with the Cardinal, Amtrak would have to OK it. They would not agree to it. If this is true, then yes, Amtrak is partially to blame for the slow schedule.
That's really bad. Do you know how much might have been cut from the schedule?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
ROBERT WILLISON What really needs to happen is the train needs to run independent of the cardinal. Which the state would not pay for. And the track needs to be upgraded, another expense Indiana does not want to do. So don't blame Amtrak, it's in the hands of the state of Indiana.
What really needs to happen is the train needs to run independent of the cardinal. Which the state would not pay for. And the track needs to be upgraded, another expense Indiana does not want to do. So don't blame Amtrak, it's in the hands of the state of Indiana.
It is being reported on the Indiana forum that the route had its best ontime performance ever in 2016. CSX has dropped a ton of money into the route, new sidings, ties and rail. They have updated the signal system in a couple of key spots, and even more than doubled the max speed in at least one place. As a result the train has done very well with timekeeping, and is having to wait for time at stations. From what was said, it is not uncommon for the train to have to wait up to 10 minutes at certain stations because it is so far advanced. As a result, IP went to the state of Indiana and Amtrak looking to tighen the schedule. The state was supposedly all for it, however since the train shares the schedule with the Cardinal, Amtrak would have to OK it. They would not agree to it.
If this is true, then yes, Amtrak is partially to blame for the slow schedule.
An "expensive model collector"
CSX is in the midst of track and signalling upgrade and has been for over a year now. Now has one large passing siding just outside of Lafayette on the south side of town and more are planned. There is going to be new intermodal traffic between Louisville and Chicago. Amtrak's speeds are going up.
ROBERT WILLISON The ideal Amtrak equipment for the run would be super liner cars. A coach and lounge would be a much better than what Iowa pacific was providing.
The ideal Amtrak equipment for the run would be super liner cars. A coach and lounge would be a much better than what Iowa pacific was providing.
The problem with that argument is you won't see superliners on the run. You will see Horizon cars. Those cars are not better than what IP was providing, in fact they are far worse.
I never said I wanted to run an Acela train set as a substitute for heritage cars. I said or meant is that there are more up date equipment that can do the job much more effectively.
The ideal Amtrak equipment for the run would be super liner cars. A coach and lounge would be a much better than what Iowa pacific was providing. If the state of Indiana wanted some form of business class or dining service it would need to pay for it on its own.
ROBERT WILLISON I think mine and schimm point is being taken to literally. It's not the comparing trains to planes. It the point that planes like rail cars have changed tremendous Thur the years. It makes no sense trying to keep heritage cars or planes operating when their are modern, more efficient and cost effective product's available. I'll take an Amtrak Acela train set over a Budd coach or parlor car. Yeah I miss the diner, but I enjoy first class on the train on every trip.
I think mine and schimm point is being taken to literally. It's not the comparing trains to planes. It the point that planes like rail cars have changed tremendous Thur the years. It makes no sense trying to keep heritage cars or planes operating when their are modern, more efficient and cost effective product's available. I'll take an Amtrak Acela train set over a Budd coach or parlor car. Yeah I miss the diner, but I enjoy first class on the train on every trip.
Thank you for the clear explanation of our analogies. Apparently some folks are very literal. We could have made the same argument using 1950s passenger autos.
As to Heritage equipment and other old, 50-60 year-old cars. They are often far noisier, with many body noises (creeking joints, metal on metal screeches) that make riding them a less pleasant experience than modern cars. IMO, they should be retired from regular revenue service and if not scrapped or put in a museum, used by some tourist line or land cruise folks like Ellis. Speaking of Ellis, looks like both his ventures (CNO and then IDOT) were failures.
ROBERT WILLISONIt makes no sense trying to keep heritage cars or planes operating when there are modern, more efficient and cost-effective products available.
Yes, but the argument here is that organizations that already have the 'heritage' equipment in operable condition and know how to work on it may have upward of five orders of magnitude head start on 'cost effectiveness' for services that don't require full modern amenities at full modern build cost. Not to mention the anticipated draw of "likely" customers for rail service who value old-time style and amenity level of the sort that Ed Ellis tried to provide...
The other half of the argument is whether the Hoosier State is expected to reach or sustain the kind of speed that is inappropriate for heritage equipment. I find this rather unlikely, even to the extent that modern low-unsprung-mass trucks could not be substituted under older shells if deemed useful.
Consider what would happen if your Acela train set were modified to run Hoosier service (and this might not be as sarcastically far-fetched as it sounds if Amtrak withdraws the original sets from NEC service when their 'replacements' in high-speed traffic are available). Do you think the amenities of the Acela set would be valuable enough to justify all the cost to provide them ... assuming now it is no more modified than to allow top-and-tailed Genesis locomotives to run it, and to have "internal" power for activated tilt ... relative to legacy cars?
Something I would like to see is a list of modifications to a Budd stainless shell to provide modern electrics and amenities, without removing all the expensive "legacy" wiring and ducting that a tube-out, full abatement, etc. would involve. There is so much less tinkering involved in, say, a combination of powerline modulation and some kind of Canbus for the connectivity and power than would be needed to formally rewire and then maintain all the stuff in a car...
n012944 ... when someone uses [arguments about historic aircraft size or amenities] as a reason railroads should not be operating equipment built in the 1950s, it needs to be pointed out why that is a bad comparison.
I completely agree, but it needs to be done concisely and "on topic" regarding, in this case, the relative space available within first the loading gage, and then within whatever a given method of railcar construction and suspension would permit. In this case, the available width for seating does not, to me, appear 'that much' more different in 1950s equipment than in the latest developments, nor is there anything distinctive about seat tracking in older cars that would preclude installation of more modern seat systems, amenities, 'angled seating' for seat-sleeper arrangements, etc.
Perhaps an argument that better establishes the point might have been something like the B-52, which is a remarkably different aircraft in most respects from the '50s original ... but has interior volume and packaging that corresponds to it.
Now, the argument gets different when talking about hi-level cars, or full duplex arrangements with 'low floors' and so forth. But even there, I see very little parallel between "modern" airliner packaging, which doesn't involve multiple levels until you get to very substantial size (and equally dramatic required passenger loading per segment) and railcar dimensional size. Aircraft go to multiple rows and widebody fuselage arrangements, which unless someone revives 'the case for the double-track train' or dusts off the Breitspurbahn detail drawings isn't likely to work for any Amtrak service, regional or otherwise.
Now, I think schlimm's point is not related to this -- in part, the recent history of 'heritage' equipment in Amtrak service demonstrates that in a great many ways, maintaining older equipment (even older equipment that has been expensively brought up to current "Amtrak" standards) gets more and more expensive, and the parts harder and harder to find. If it had been cheaper for Amtrak to 'tube' and re-truck heritage cars, baggage cars in particular, there would be less perceived need to tolerate the CAF shenanigans over the past several years. And in a couple of fairly well-known situations, efforts to 'tube out' and refurbish older equipment for modern trains have not exactly met with shining success.
RME Somebody explain to me why engine efficiency, more modern construction, or increased airframe cycles have ANY relevance to interior dimensions, seat-track setting, or other aspects of passenger packaging? That is the only 'apples to other fruit' comparison even remotely relevant in this discussion. And people give Euclid flak for the number of seconds between a detected emergency and a subsequent physical collision?
Somebody explain to me why engine efficiency, more modern construction, or increased airframe cycles have ANY relevance to interior dimensions, seat-track setting, or other aspects of passenger packaging? That is the only 'apples to other fruit' comparison even remotely relevant in this discussion.
And people give Euclid flak for the number of seconds between a detected emergency and a subsequent physical collision?
You are correct. However when someone uses this argument,
schlimm I wonder how many of the antique rail car supporters prefer flying on 60 year old DC-7s? As opposed to fairly modern jetliners, obviously.
As opposed to fairly modern jetliners, obviously.
or this,
schlimm Show me a domestic airline flying a 737-100 built in the late 60s. There are none. About 99 737-200s are still flying but only with 2nd and 3rd tier airlines (freight) or in LDCs.
as a reason railroads should not be operating equipment built in the 1950s, it needs to be pointed out why that is a bad comparision. At the end of the day, a 1960s era 737 could have an interior that is comparable to the latest and greatest being built by Boeing today. Outside of the louder engines, most passengers would not notice the difference. If not for the economic and safety regulations, it no doubt would have been done. It would be the equivalent of the IP cars vs a Horizon or Viewliner coach used today.
So a horrible comparison, that should never have brought up.
ROBERT WILLISON n012944 oranges Pretty much an orange to Orange comparison.
n012944 oranges
Pretty much an orange to Orange comparison.
Sigh. Economically a 737-100 can not compete with a 737MAX, due to the fact it carries its own propulsion. The 737MAX has engines hung on its wings that are at least 4 generations past the original 737. Doing some quick math from a technical site, the Leap 1B that will be on the 737MAX is around 30% more efficient than the original JT8Ds on the 737-100. This is something that does not affect a railroad passenger car.
This is also not even getting into the fact the 737-100, with its JT8Ds hung on its wings, would be banned from many airports around the world for noise regulations.
"One of the most significant improvements in the powerplant has been to the noise levels. The original JT8D-9 engines in 1967 produced 75 decibel levels, enough to disrupt normal conversation indoors, within a noise contour that extended 12 miles along the take-off flight path. Since 1997 with the introduction of the 737-700’s CFM56-7B engines, the 75-decibel noise contour is now only 3.5 miles long."
http://www.b737.org.uk/powerplant.htm
That noise level should go down again with the new engines on the latest 737MAX, and its new Leap engines. Again, something that would not affect a railroad passenger car.
Now lets look at cycle limits that aircraft have. Each takeoff and landing is considered one cycle, and they add up quickly on short haul aircraft. A 737-100 has a limit of 34000 cycles. The FAA forbids an aircraft to be flown once it has reached its limit. I have no knowledge of a similar requirment from the FRA on a passenger car.
So, apples to oranges.
A link to information on airplane cycle limits
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2012_q4/pdfs/AERO_2012q4_article2.pdf
matthewsaggie Well the seats are smaller and more tightly packed.
Well the seats are smaller and more tightly packed.
Smaller? Not really. The latest 737 that is being built has the same width in the fuselage as the 1st one built in the 60s. The majority of the 737s built since the begining have had the standard 3x3 seating in coach. While the amount of legroom between the seats may have been reduced over time, the width of the seats really has not changed.
ROBERT WILLISON n012944 Pretty much an orange to Orange comparison.
n012944
I first flew a 737 in 1970 - it in no way compared the the most recent 737 I flew in 2008 - and lord only knows what the current 737 are compared the verison I flew in 2008.
n012944oranges
schlimm oltmannd schlimm D.Carleton schlimm I wonder how many of the antique rail car supporters prefer flying on 60 year old DC-7s? As opposed to...? As opposed to fairly modern jetliners, obviously. Boeing is still making 737s. Updated in many ways, but still a 737 that they started making over 40 years ago. Old designs are fine. Economics determines when designs are obsolete, not a calendar. Other than the name and some parts of the basic design, the 737s made in the last 10+ years are quite different animals. Show me a domestic airline flying a 737-100 built in the late 60s. There are none. About 99 737-200s are still flying but only with 2nd and 3rd tier airlines (freight) or in LDCs.
oltmannd schlimm D.Carleton schlimm I wonder how many of the antique rail car supporters prefer flying on 60 year old DC-7s? As opposed to...? As opposed to fairly modern jetliners, obviously. Boeing is still making 737s. Updated in many ways, but still a 737 that they started making over 40 years ago. Old designs are fine. Economics determines when designs are obsolete, not a calendar.
schlimm D.Carleton schlimm I wonder how many of the antique rail car supporters prefer flying on 60 year old DC-7s? As opposed to...? As opposed to fairly modern jetliners, obviously.
D.Carleton schlimm I wonder how many of the antique rail car supporters prefer flying on 60 year old DC-7s? As opposed to...?
schlimm I wonder how many of the antique rail car supporters prefer flying on 60 year old DC-7s?
As opposed to...?
Boeing is still making 737s. Updated in many ways, but still a 737 that they started making over 40 years ago.
Old designs are fine. Economics determines when designs are obsolete, not a calendar.
Other than the name and some parts of the basic design, the 737s made in the last 10+ years are quite different animals. Show me a domestic airline flying a 737-100 built in the late 60s. There are none. About 99 737-200s are still flying but only with 2nd and 3rd tier airlines (freight) or in LDCs.
Again apples to oranges. Something that carries its own form of propulsion will age far faster economically than something that does not.
CMStPnPIf you watch a few YouTube videos and see the interiors of the Iowa Pacific Cars.............not as well maintained or as refurbished as the Budds on VIA Rail North of the Border. Ellis took the cheap way out, whenever he could.
I just took a look. They look decent enough, but yeah, definately dated. Just kind of oldish without being classic. Maybe it is better in person? Then there were people in the superdome laying down with their stanky shoes up on the seats. Manners are in short supply.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.