oltmannd CMStPnPNot really because Amtrak can use the freight carriers to move the cars. Ooh... Not a great idea on several levels. ...and not cheap, either. Passenger cars take special handling in freight service - and possibly some abuse. It's not single line service from Amtrak - Chicago to Beech Grove, plus there'd be some handling on both ends of the trip. The cars would also have to be made secure against unwanted "passengers" as well as watched 24/7 to stop vandalism. The ten bucks a train mile (or so) that Amtrak pays for running their train on someone else's track is a pretty good deal (it's the hidden subsidy the frt RRs afford Amtrak)
CMStPnPNot really because Amtrak can use the freight carriers to move the cars.
Ooh... Not a great idea on several levels. ...and not cheap, either. Passenger cars take special handling in freight service - and possibly some abuse. It's not single line service from Amtrak - Chicago to Beech Grove, plus there'd be some handling on both ends of the trip. The cars would also have to be made secure against unwanted "passengers" as well as watched 24/7 to stop vandalism.
The ten bucks a train mile (or so) that Amtrak pays for running their train on someone else's track is a pretty good deal (it's the hidden subsidy the frt RRs afford Amtrak)
OK, well the other alternative is to move the shop or contract out the work that Beech Grove does to others. BNSF still has the Topeka Shops Passenger Car operation to maintain their business train. They also have Northern Rail Car in Milwaukee still I believe. From what I understand Beech Grove has a negative reputation for slop work among private car owners (most of whom won't let Amtrak Car Repair near their cars). Amtrak might be better off without the shop and just contract repairs across the country.
Speaking of which. I still think Amtrak should close it's 12 food Commissaries and go with LSG Sky Chiefs for food service. Stop the charade with the Chef in the lower level of the Diner and train the servers how to heat the LSG Sky Chiefs meals (which will be far better than the crap they serve now). Heck LSG Sky Chiefs even advertises that they service long distance passenger trains on their U.S. website. I would even add experimenting with POS terminals at each table so that passengers can enter and pay for their order without having to involve the service challenged servers. Minimize the job of the server to heat the meals and deliver them only. They screw up the Dining Car paperwork on most Amtrak LD rides I have been on.
CMStPnP From what I understand Beech Grove has a negative reputation for slop work among private car owners (most of whom won't let Amtrak Car Repair near their cars)
Conrail had Beech Grove build their track geometry car back in the mid 1980s. They did a good job of it - but that was a while ago.
CMStPnP I still think Amtrak should close it's 12 food Commissaries and go with LSG Sky Chiefs for food service. Stop the charade with the Chef in the lower level of the Diner and train the servers how to heat the LSG Sky Chiefs meals (which will be far better than the crap they serve now).
How about going one step further and contract out the whole business of food service, including the selling and serving. Here's the heart of the RFP: "How much do I have to pay you to provide food service on my trains. You figure out what to sell, how to price it, how to source it, logistics, etc. You keep the revenue." If food service is not one of those things you excel at - it's that's been pretty well paraded around in public lately - then why not hire someone who is?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmanndHow about going one step further and contract out the whole business of food service, including the selling and serving. Here's the heart of the RFP: "How much do I have to pay you to provide food service on my trains. You figure out what to sell, how to price it, how to source it, logistics, etc. You keep the revenue." If food service is not one of those things you excel at - it's that's been pretty well paraded around in public lately - then why not hire someone who is?
I think you could get LSG Sky Chefs to bid on supplying the meals but if they staffed the cars it would be a huge issue with Amtraks unions as they would opt to staff the dining car with someone at one half or one third the pay rate more than likely. Private companies match the skill with the pay. Amtrak does not. Exhibit A: How many Amtrak Car Attendants or Dining Car servers do you see that are fit and trim.
Further I don't think LSG would want to step into that fracas. So I think you could get them to supply the meals, I doubt they would be interested in staffing the dining cars. It would be a good idea but I don't think the CEO of LSG would go for it.
oltmannd CMStPnP From what I understand Beech Grove has a negative reputation for slop work among private car owners (most of whom won't let Amtrak Car Repair near their cars) Conrail had Beech Grove build their track geometry car back in the mid 1980s. They did a good job of it - but that was a while ago. CMStPnP I still think Amtrak should close it's 12 food Commissaries and go with LSG Sky Chiefs for food service. Stop the charade with the Chef in the lower level of the Diner and train the servers how to heat the LSG Sky Chiefs meals (which will be far better than the crap they serve now). How about going one step further and contract out the whole business of food service, including the selling and serving. Here's the heart of the RFP: "How much do I have to pay you to provide food service on my trains. You figure out what to sell, how to price it, how to source it, logistics, etc. You keep the revenue." If food service is not one of those things you excel at - it's that's been pretty well paraded around in public lately - then why not hire someone who is?
A competitive business would identify first its core competencies. It would outsource its non-core activities to competitive bidders. Food service is not one of Amtrak's core competencies.
Soliciting bids from just one potential service provider is not likely to result in the best outcome. Bids should be solicited from a variety of potential vendors.
Unfortunately, Amtrak is not a competitive business. It is a government monopoly with little incentive to do things better, faster, cheaper, with the operative word being better.
Outsourcing of various functions, such as shop work, food service, etc. may be restricted by union contracts. The IAM blew the whistle on BN some years ago for attempting such a practice in violation of union contracts with the "power-by-the-hour" leasing and maintenance contracts of the Oakway SD60's.
Sam1 oltmannd CMStPnP From what I understand Beech Grove has a negative reputation for slop work among private car owners (most of whom won't let Amtrak Car Repair near their cars) Conrail had Beech Grove build their track geometry car back in the mid 1980s. They did a good job of it - but that was a while ago. CMStPnP I still think Amtrak should close it's 12 food Commissaries and go with LSG Sky Chiefs for food service. Stop the charade with the Chef in the lower level of the Diner and train the servers how to heat the LSG Sky Chiefs meals (which will be far better than the crap they serve now). How about going one step further and contract out the whole business of food service, including the selling and serving. Here's the heart of the RFP: "How much do I have to pay you to provide food service on my trains. You figure out what to sell, how to price it, how to source it, logistics, etc. You keep the revenue." If food service is not one of those things you excel at - it's that's been pretty well paraded around in public lately - then why not hire someone who is? A competitive business would identify first its core competencies. It would outsource its non-core activities to competitive bidders. Food service is not one of Amtrak's core competencies. Soliciting bids from just one potential service provider is not likely to result in the best outcome. Bids should be solicited from a variety of potential vendors. Unfortunately, Amtrak is not a competitive business. It is a government monopoly with little incentive to do things better, faster, cheaper, with the operative word being better.
All too true, but it can be reformed with the right sort of pressure (lobbying). That does not appear to be done very well by the NARP. But newer groups like the Midwest HSR group and the TX group may be on the right track [sorry!].
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmAll too true, but it can be reformed with the right sort of pressure (lobbying). That does not appear to be done very well by the NARP. But newer groups like the Midwest HSR group and the TX group may be on the right track [sorry!].
That's right where you stick it back to Mr. Mica. "Yes. We suck. But we are a railroad not a restaurant. We would like to hire some real restaurant professionals, but...."
BTW, interesting developments South of Indianapolis, perhaps one day Amtrak could again try an extension to Louisville, KY with a more competitive timetable.
http://www.anacostia.com/pdfs/LIRC-CSX062013.pdf
Always interesting... the competitive position seems very close to a draw right now on the freight side on the eastern domestic length of hauls. IF the policy was to recover costs from large trucks how many more privately funded upgrades would we be seeing? I take it with this Louisville to Indianapolis move then some intermodal traffic will be operating over the Indianapolis to Chicago route of the Hoosier State?
V.Payne I take it with this Louisville to Indianapolis move then some intermodal traffic will be operating over the Indianapolis to Chicago route of the Hoosier State?
I take it with this Louisville to Indianapolis move then some intermodal traffic will be operating over the Indianapolis to Chicago route of the Hoosier State?
As of right now, no. The plan is send all the intermodal traffic to the Northwest Ohio intermodal center.
An "expensive model collector"
Looks like the Hoosier State is saved.
The link doesn't work for me, it sends me to a log in page for Outlook....
Here is a link for a story on the same subject from an Indy newspaper.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20131015/NEWS/310150046/Amtrak-service-between-Indianapolis-Chicago-continue?odyssey=mod
In FY12 the Hoosier State carried 36,669 passengers. Assuming most of them were round trip riders, the Hoosier State carried approximately 18,000 customers during FY12. The average number of passengers per train was approximately 50.
The average government direct subsidy in FY12 before depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges was $74.08 per passenger. Assuming the same ridership in FY14 as in FY12, the subsidy will drop to $73.63. This compares to an average Amtrak system subsidy per passenger in FY12 of $39.67.
Megabus offers seven trips a day from Indianapolis to Chicago. The fares range from $5 to $37 for an October 31st. booking. A reservation made closer to a departure date would attract a higher fare.
Greyhound has seven trips per day from Indianapolis to Chicago and four trips per day, as an example, between Lafayette and Chicago.The advance purchase fare for Indianapolis to Chicago on Greyhound is $14, whereas the advance purchase fare from Lafayette is $20. Good example of the benefits of competition, i.e. serious competition from Indianapolis to Chicago. Not so much from Lafayette to Chicago!
The average time on Megabus from Indianapolis to Chicago is 3 hrs. 15 min. Greyhound is a bit longer because most of its buses stop in Lafayette. The scheduled time for the Hoosier State is 5 hrs, 5 min. The coach fare on the Hoosier State is $24 before the subsidy.
The Hoosier State is an important element in the potential development of improved Indianapolis to Chicago passenger rail service as claimed by some of its supporters? Other than throwing good money after bad, what would it do commercially and technically that the Cardinal, which is another example of throwing good money after bad, could not do?
For starters, provide daily common carrier service to the three other communities that would loose service where none is provided by buses.
But the real arguement that this post started out with is the degree to which this service coud be radically improved at low cost. Greater cost for sure but more revenue as well and more passenger miles. Sander's book talks about a 4:15 runtime on this route back after some small line upgrades were made. Greyhound, offers 3:10 to 3:45 (with one stop) run times to downtown Chicago.
I have a hard time believing that 4:00 even couldn't happen once the Chicago upgrades are done and with some minimal upgrades elsewhere. That would give you a 6:30 departure from Indianapolis for a 9:30 arrival into Chicago, perfect for business. Add a suburban Indianapolis stop, make the train 7 coaches and a cafe and watch the ridership triple at little additional operating cost. The operating loss would drop to less than the financial cost to governments of automobile accidents, which is where the rides would come from mostly.
At the risk of sounding off topic, the bus may be cheaper and faster, but not particularly desirable. Enduring 3 or so hours of screaming kids, some moron playing the same rap garbage, or some obnoxious boor running his mouth, I will gladly spend 5 hours on a train. At least you can go into another car to get away from that. Forgive me if I sound snobbish, but I have endured 8 hours on a bus with just some of the aforementioned characters.
V.Payne For starters, provide daily common carrier service to the three other communities that would loose service where none is provided by buses. But the real arguement that this post started out with is the degree to which this service coud be radically improved at low cost. Greater cost for sure but more revenue as well and more passenger miles. Sander's book talks about a 4:15 runtime on this route back after some small line upgrades were made. Greyhound, offers 3:10 to 3:45 (with one stop) run times to downtown Chicago. I have a hard time believing that 4:00 even couldn't happen once the Chicago upgrades are done and with some minimal upgrades elsewhere. That would give you a 6:30 departure from Indianapolis for a 9:30 arrival into Chicago, perfect for business. Add a suburban Indianapolis stop, make the train 7 coaches and a cafe and watch the ridership triple at little additional operating cost. The operating loss would drop to less than the financial cost to governments of automobile accidents, which is where the rides would come from mostly.
The numbers you presented from the PRIIA study, which are now more than four years old, show an average loss per passenger mile of 29.3 cents for a daily Cardinal/Hoosier State. This compares to a FY12 average loss of 9.3 cents per passenger mile for the State Supported and Other Short Distance Corridor Trains.
In FY12 four of the State Supported and Other Short Distance Corridor Trains carried fewer than 100,000 passengers. They were the Heartland Flyer, Vermonter, Ethan Allen Express, and the Hoosier State. All four trains should be dropped; buses would be a better alternative. In fact, as noted, the average Hoosier State passenger load could be fitted quite nicely on a couple of buses.
The FY12 numbers, which are before any depreciation and interest, are audited. The numbers presented in the PRIIA studies, which were generated by Amtrak and, as far as I can tell, were not independently audited, are untested forecasts. If the PRIIA studies were as compelling as some readers believe, how come the recommendations have not been implemented. Is it because they are not very compelling?
In 2012 the Cardinal had an operating loss of 36.1 cents per passenger mile whilst the Hoosier State lost 67.5 cents per passenger mile in 2012. These numbers are before depreciation and interest. The Cardinal was the second worst financial performer amongst the long distance trains, and the Hoosier State was the worst of the worst in its class.
To catch a 6:30 a.m. train, unless one lives close to the station, means getting up between 4:30 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. Moreover, coming back on the current train schedule means an 11:50 p.m. arrival in Indianapolis. I spent 40 years with Fortune 250 corporations. I don't know many serious business people who would buy into this arrangement.
If the Hoosier State was discontinued, those with a strong desire to take the train could still ride the Cardinal.
I think Sam1 is correct about a 6:30 depature. But I did a lot of traveling on architectural acoustical consulting business. First choice for me from either Boston or NY was an overnight sleeper leaving anytime after 6 pm (anything before 8pm obviously meant a decent dining car) and arrival before 8:30. But often a client would not mind waiting until 10:30. Some even suggested this so they could clear their desks before themeeting started. Before the massive cutbacks in sleeper service, Ny from Boston, Washington and Richmond, Buffalo, Corning, NY, were all possible destinations with this kind of planing, and return was usually as convenient. Often when distances required flying, again, a 10:30 meeting allowed flying out in the morning instead of an overnight hotel stay, and geting up at 6:00 to catch a flight was not a problem for me. (Often the return trip would be by train, using my Rail Travel Card, with the return airline ticket turned in for refund, on the basis that efficiency allowed finishing the job earlly, and the return by train allowed me to draft or dictate the report without distractions, ready to hand to a secretary on arrival.) Based on my own business experience, an Indianapolis - Chicago train with the followiing schedule should be a success:
Lv.Indianapolis 7:00 Arr... Chicago 10:00
Lv. Chicago 17:30 Arr. Indianapolis 22:30
Assuming of course, on-time performance and decent amenities onboard.
I leave for work daily at 6:30. With a suburban station a 6:50 call at that platform seems pretty reasonable.
A McIntosh At the risk of sounding off topic, the bus may be cheaper and faster, but not particularly desirable. Enduring 3 or so hours of screaming kids, some moron playing the same rap garbage, or some obnoxious boor running his mouth, I will gladly spend 5 hours on a train. At least you can go into another car to get away from that. Forgive me if I sound snobbish, but I have endured 8 hours on a bus with just some of the aforementioned characters.
It always amuses me when "train" people get bent out of shape when "airline" people turn up their noses towards train travel, yet they have no issues turning their noses up to bus travel.
n012944 It always amuses me when "train" people get bent out of shape when "airline" people turn up their noses towards train travel, yet they have no issues turning their noses up to bus travel.
It's ultimately a matter of personal preference, isn't it? I bet you have a mode of transportation you prefer over others, given a choice…
Personally, I have ridden long distance bus and lived to tell about it. Don't really care for it. Stuck in a seat and all.
I've driven cross-country in my car and done so when the need was there, but I really don't care for the point where I can't feel my sitter-downer any more and when I finally stop for the day, I feel like I am still driving when I close my eyes. And can't use the time for anything really productive.
I've ridden thousands of miles on trains in the US and Europe and it's my preferred mode of transportation. Being able to read a book, sleep, work on the computer, get up for a walk, eat. There's great freedom on a train.
Flying? Used to be fun and adventurous. But anymore it's a pushing and shoving match to get on and off and you are packed in like sardines with nowhere to go and definite limits on how I can use my time. A little sleep maybe sitting straight up, work on the computer if I don't mind up up under my nose. You are of course still allowed to read during landing and takeoff. Yeah, flying is not so exciting any more. And I didn't even bring up security checks.
But to each his own…
" If the PRIIA studies were as compelling as some readers believe, how come the recommendations have not been implemented. Is it because they are not very compelling? "
The reason mostly seems to be that there was no mechanism in PRIIA to increase the budget even if the expanded service could be operated for $1 more, but yielded twice the passenger miles with that extra $1. I described a lot of ways to get the operating loss down radically at the beginning of this thread through service expansion, but there would still be a loss, just like highways and aviation.
In my humble opinion some allowance has to be made in the reauthorization for expanding services where greater efficiency per mile can be had. The problem with buses is they can't make intermediate stops as quickly as a train due to the access times off an interstate and the seat is smaller by quite a bit compared to rail. They have applications, but can't do everything.
CJtrainguy It's ultimately a matter of personal preference, isn't it? I bet you have a mode of transportation you prefer over others, given a choice
It's ultimately a matter of personal preference, isn't it? I bet you have a mode of transportation you prefer over others, given a choice
I agree it is a matter of personal choice. However, many passenger train fans get really out of shape when one points out bad things about train travel. On the other hand, those same passenger train fans have no issues doing the same about bus travel. It is pretty hypocritical if you ask me. I am not saying you can't point out the downsides of a mode of travel, each mode has its own, just don't get upset when someone points out the downside of your prefered choice.
BTW, "INDOT spokesman Will Wingfield said the communities will pay more than half of the monthly payment in cash or services." When has INDOT convinced a collection of cities and counties to fund a intercity / interstate road?
n012944 …just don't get upset when someone points out the downside of your prefered choice.
…just don't get upset when someone points out the downside of your prefered choice.
Who's upset around here? I don't see anyone upset…
CJtrainguy n012944 …just don't get upset when someone points out the downside of your prefered choice. Who's upset around here? I don't see anyone upset…
Sigh.......You know what, never mind.
n012944 CJtrainguy n012944 …just don't get upset when someone points out the downside of your prefered choice. Who's upset around here? I don't see anyone upset… Sigh.......You know what, never mind.
Ouch. Shouldn't bang head against wall. That could hurt.
Let's backtrack a little:
A McInstosh made a post expressing a preference for train over bus, stating some reasons that we may or may not agree with and concluding that he/she doesn't care for bus travel. That's a valid choice, just like another person may greatly prefer to travel cross country by bus.
That generated a response about how train people turn their noses up at bus travel, yet don't like airline people doing the same to train travel. Not sure how airline people got into the conversation, but it is what it is.
I entered the conversation presenting my travel preferences and the reasons why I feel that way, indicating this is a personal preference. That comment in turn generates a comment about "don't get upset" and now we're down to heads banging on the proverbial brick wall.
I fail to see what's so frustrating about this thread. If we go back to looking at the overall thread, it's about the Hoosier State and its continuance or not. For all the back and forth in this thread, the state of Indiana has spoken by making an agreement with Amtrak to continue running the train. Apparently they see benefits worth paying for… even if a bus can make the trip Indy to Chicago faster.
I look forward to seeing how the evaluation of the service plays out a year from now. Maybe the agreement that has just happened will lead to incremental service improvements and increased ridership and the eventual expansion of the service.
let us hope they can shave the time.
CJtrainguy I fail to see what's so frustrating about this thread. If we go back to looking at the overall thread, it's about the Hoosier State and its continuance or not.
I fail to see what's so frustrating about this thread. If we go back to looking at the overall thread, it's about the Hoosier State and its continuance or not.
It is frustrating because I was not talking about conversations in THIS THREAD, but convesations that I have had. If you have failed to see that from my posts, maybe that is my fault for not articulating my feelings in written word, for that I am sorry. I never said that anyone IN THIS THREAD was upset about speaking bad about train travel after they themselves have spoken bad about bus travel. I said that people have jad in GENERAL, and that THAT is what I find hypocritical. YOU jumped in, and took issue with my feelings, and spoke of your issue and past travel history, which had nothing to do with the Hoosier State or its continuance.
V.Payne BTW, "INDOTspokesman Will Wingfield said the communities will pay more than half of the monthly payment in cash or services." When has INDOT convinced a collection of cities and counties to fund a intercity / interstate road?
BTW, "INDOTspokesman Will Wingfield said the communities will pay more than half of the monthly payment in cash or services." When has INDOT convinced a collection of cities and counties to fund a intercity / interstate road?
Cities often pony up and pay an airline to operate flights to a certain town. Pittsburg paid Delta for service to Paris, South Bend paid Frontier for service to Denver just to name two off the top of my head. Grants for service at a local lever are not that uncommon.
Sure, but I know of no instance of a DOT asking a city to pay for a section of rural interstate, or any. Cities and counties pay for a majority of the local road costs but the statewide agency pays for longer distance roads. If anything it speaks to the level of local political support.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.