oltmannd Sam1Hanging on to the car repair expertise may not be that difficult. Offer to move the employees, with generous allowances, including incentives to find and buy a new house, and adjust their wages to reflect the higher cost of living in the Chicago area. That works okay for the mgt. It's the agreement folk where there's a rub. I have no idea of the particulars, but I know it's anything but trivial. You can't just "give" relocation, cost of living adjustments, etc. without opening a huge can of worms.
Sam1Hanging on to the car repair expertise may not be that difficult. Offer to move the employees, with generous allowances, including incentives to find and buy a new house, and adjust their wages to reflect the higher cost of living in the Chicago area.
That works okay for the mgt. It's the agreement folk where there's a rub. I have no idea of the particulars, but I know it's anything but trivial. You can't just "give" relocation, cost of living adjustments, etc. without opening a huge can of worms.
I never worked in the rail industry, so maybe the rules (real and imagined) make it more difficult to move craft people. We did not have that problem. We moved craft people from power plants to gas plants to coal mines and back again. And half way across the state to boot. Half way across Texas is nearly the same as half way across France. We did not, however, move low skilled people, but there are not many low skilled people in electric power plants.
I sense that the biggest barrier to innovation at Amtrak is management. It seems to lack the guts to be innovative and take on the big challenges. It seems to roll over at the slightest challenge, i.e. implementing the PRIIA recommendations, assigning seats, etc.
We made it clear, especially after 1992 when competition came to the utility business in Texas, that we were a competitive business, and everyone had to be on board to achieve the corporation's objectives. The craft people, as well as professionals and managers, understood the game had changed, and most of them signed on.
schlimm n012944 schlimm I. However, if the track is so bad it allows for only 30 -40 mph running in many places, As pointed out already, track speed for passenger trains is 60mph for most of the run. Scheduled time 5:05 for 196 miles from Indy to CHI with 4 intermediate stops = 38.6 mph. So what is the train doing to take so long with a track limit of 60 mph for most of the run? Sitting in the hole for a freight meet? Traversing stretches with a 15 to 25 moh limit? If the train could sustain 50 mph most of the way, it could cut the time to 4 hours. But this isn't even close.
n012944 schlimm I. However, if the track is so bad it allows for only 30 -40 mph running in many places, As pointed out already, track speed for passenger trains is 60mph for most of the run.
schlimm I. However, if the track is so bad it allows for only 30 -40 mph running in many places,
I. However, if the track is so bad it allows for only 30 -40 mph running in many places,
As pointed out already, track speed for passenger trains is 60mph for most of the run.
As pointed out already, it is more than 196 miles. Anyway, a 10 mph connection from Crawfordsville subdivision to the Monon subdivision. a 10 mph connection from the Monon sub to the Elsdon sub, a 10 mph connection from the Elsdon sub to the Villa Grove. Someone also has said that the northbound is arrives early most of the time, proving that there is padding there.
Here is a copy of the CSX Chicago Division timetable, showing the 60 mph top speed for most of the run on the Monon
http://www.scribd.com/doc/54981535/CSX-Chicago-Division-ETT-NO-2-4-1-2008
Here is a copy of the CSX Great Lakes timetable, showing the 59 mph top speed for most of the run on the Crawfordsville sub.
http://www.multimodalways.org/docs/railroads/companies/CSX/CSX%20ETTs/CSX%20Great%20Lakes%20Div%20ETT%20%236%204-15-2011.pdf
Edit to add, Amtrak.com is showing P851 arriving in Chicago 21 minutes early on Sunday 9/8 and 23 minutes early on Tuesday 9/10. So Sunday's train that arrived in Chicago 21 minutes early had an average speed of 43.73 mph on the 207 mile run.
An "expensive model collector"
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
schlimm Perhaps much of the route could be purchased cheaply. This may be the case on other lines as well.
Perhaps much of the route could be purchased cheaply. This may be the case on other lines as well.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
40mph over all the diamonds, 20 mph in Lafayette due to it being rule 193 yard limits, 15mph around the curve in Monon....60mph most of the run.
If the train is to be saved, radical surgery is needed. The overall speed is so low, it makes me wonder who would ride it. Cutting out a stop like Rensselaer (only 2.5 boardings/alightings) might cut a little time. Perhaps there are others. However, if the track is so bad it allows for only 30 -40 mph running in many places, one wonders how many freights use the line. Perhaps much of the route could be purchased cheaply. This may be the case on other lines as well.
oltmannd schlimmApparently very few people want to spend an extra hour each direction to loaf along at 34 mph, even if it feels like being in their living room. But, what if we could give them the space of their entire house at canal barge speeds? "Saving" the Hoosier State sounds noble, but what are we saving it for? It's not very useful as transportation. Beech Grove is a decent facility, but it's in the wrong spot. It needs to be in Chicago. Might be cheaper in the long run to move Beech Grove's work to Chicago - you wouldn't need a very large facility - something along the size of major engine terminal on a Class 1 should do it. Hanging on to car repair expertise would be the trick....
schlimmApparently very few people want to spend an extra hour each direction to loaf along at 34 mph, even if it feels like being in their living room.
But, what if we could give them the space of their entire house at canal barge speeds?
"Saving" the Hoosier State sounds noble, but what are we saving it for? It's not very useful as transportation.
Beech Grove is a decent facility, but it's in the wrong spot. It needs to be in Chicago. Might be cheaper in the long run to move Beech Grove's work to Chicago - you wouldn't need a very large facility - something along the size of major engine terminal on a Class 1 should do it. Hanging on to car repair expertise would be the trick....
This is the question that I have asked myself. What is so critical about Beech Grove? Move it to Chicago as per your suggestion.
Hanging on to the car repair expertise may not be that difficult. Offer to move the employees, with generous allowances, including incentives to find and buy a new house, and adjust their wages to reflect the higher cost of living in the Chicago area.
We moved employees all the time. I was an employee. Give them the right incentives, and most people will move. For those who won't move, give them a decent severance package. No one is irreplaceable.
Bonaventure10 UM....If Amtrak has to do equipment moves to Beech Grove almost every day why does this train need a subsidy?
UM....If Amtrak has to do equipment moves to Beech Grove almost every day why does this train need a subsidy?
That is exactly the question Indiana should be asking. What does NARP say about this? They are doing Amtrak's bidding. Trying to get money for Amtrak to keep the train going - straight up lined up behind Amtrak. Hey, NARP, how about holding Amtrak's feet to the fire and staking out a position between Amtrak and the state. You might want to mention to the state that Amtrak needs this train to ferry equipment.
schlimm DeggestyI have wondered why Amtrak says that the Cardinal and the Hoosier State use CSX to Dyer and NS (where did they get that?) into Chicago, omitting CN and UP. The source I used, as opposed to what the other poster says, gives the routing as CN and UP.
DeggestyI have wondered why Amtrak says that the Cardinal and the Hoosier State use CSX to Dyer and NS (where did they get that?) into Chicago, omitting CN and UP.
The source I used, as opposed to what the other poster says, gives the routing as CN and UP.
And the source that you used is outdated and wrong. CSX took ownership of the Elsdon sub from the CN in late May.
http://www.thereporteronline.net/newsx/community/63176-
http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-csx/projects-and-partnerships/sustainable-infrastructure/elsdon-subdivision/
http://il-evergreenpark.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/152
http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/readingroom.nsf/fc695db5bc7ebe2c852572b80040c45f/41a862be6a12b84085257b0c00532bbd?OpenDocument
If the source is used is wrong on a simple thing such as line ownership, do you really trust the mileage? Also, please show me where I have said that the route from Thorton Jct to 80th St is anything but a UP/CSX joint owned property.
Even then, it omits one road.
Johnny
I have wondered why Amtrak says that the Cardinal and the Hoosier State use CSX to Dyer and NS (where did they get that?) into Chicago, omitting CN and UP.
Amtrak also errs in stating the distance that the Cardinal travels on the Buckingham Branch; westbound, it does not enter this road until it reaches Orange, using the NS from AF Tower (just south of Alexandria) to Orange.
The error in stating what roads are used in entering Chicago may be combined with the statement in the description of the routes of the Silver Service that Union officers dug the mine under Petersburg and then used dynamite to blast the Crater open. An officer ordered that non-commissioned men, mostly those with mining experience, dig the mine, and dynamite had not yet been invented.
schlimm CSX, Monon Subdivision, Indianapolis to Munster; CN Elsdon Subdivision, Munster to Thornton; UP Villa Grove Subdivision, Thornton to 81st Street; Metra SouthWest Service, 81st Street to Chicago.
CSX, Monon Subdivision, Indianapolis to Munster; CN Elsdon Subdivision, Munster to Thornton; UP Villa Grove Subdivision, Thornton to 81st Street; Metra SouthWest Service, 81st Street to Chicago.
You can believe what you like, however your information is not correct.
CSX,Crawfordsville Subdivision, Indianapolis to Ames, In
CSX, Monon Subdivision, Ames to Munster In,
CSX, Elsdon Sub, Munster to Thorton Jct.
The rest is correct.
Just as discloser, I have spent quite a bit of time dispatching the Monon sub, I am learning the Elsdon real fast, and have argued a whole lot with the dispatchers on the Crawfordsville and dispatcher 48 on the UP. I know my mileposts, but whatever, Amtrak can't even get the subdivisions correct, or even the railroads that own them, I am sure they are spot on with the miles of operation.
OK, even though the number you cited is 14 miles over the actual (in most guessing contests, if your guess goes over the actual, you are busted, just like blackjack) it is closer by 2 miles. And I believe Amtrak's published numbers are accurate, your comments notwithstanding.
As for information, top speed from Munster to Crawfordsville is 60mph. I am not sure on Crawfordsville to Indy, however most of the line is dark. That means the fastest it could be for passenger is 59mph.
schlimm Wrong. According to Amtrak, it is 196 miles from Indy to CHI = 38.6 mph, also pretty pathetic.
Wrong. According to Amtrak, it is 196 miles from Indy to CHI = 38.6 mph, also pretty pathetic.
No, I am not wrong. 196 is closer to 210 than 180.
And I still question the miles that Amtrak is using. It is 179 rail miles from Indy to Munster In. It is another 6.5 miles from Munster to Thorton Jct. It is another 11 and a half miles from Thorton Jct to the BRC at 80th st. That is 197 miles, and you are still in south Chicago. I do not know the rail mileage from 80th st to CUS, however even if it is a straight shot north to CUS, you are talking another 10 miles(8 city blocks per mile).
schlimm Dakguy201 I'm not so sure the schedule could be tightened without substantial track work. A couple of years ago, I rode the Cardinal eastbound. My memory of the Chicago/Indy portion is a lot of single track with speeds in the 30-45 mph range. Perhaps someone else has ridden it more recently and has a up to date report on the track conditions? You are correct. 180 miles, just over 5 hours = 35 mph average, which is unacceptable for a passenger train after 1920.
Dakguy201 I'm not so sure the schedule could be tightened without substantial track work. A couple of years ago, I rode the Cardinal eastbound. My memory of the Chicago/Indy portion is a lot of single track with speeds in the 30-45 mph range. Perhaps someone else has ridden it more recently and has a up to date report on the track conditions?
I'm not so sure the schedule could be tightened without substantial track work. A couple of years ago, I rode the Cardinal eastbound. My memory of the Chicago/Indy portion is a lot of single track with speeds in the 30-45 mph range. Perhaps someone else has ridden it more recently and has a up to date report on the track conditions?
You are correct. 180 miles, just over 5 hours = 35 mph average, which is unacceptable for a passenger train after 1920.
It is much closer to 210 miles for the Hoosier State.
Don't get me wrong, the speed difference can't be too much for a daytime service. But once you start getting close to automobile trip times a lot of non linear ridership gains occur. You don't have to be faster on a total time basis. Combine that with an understanding of volume building techniques and you have a pretty cheap option.
I think for the great majority of people, sitting in a train while cars are whizzing by on a parallel highway is a disincentive to repeat the experience.
Time is just one of many factors most people weigh when choosing a mode of transportation. Cost, convenience (frequency), comfort, safety, dependability, status, etc. are some of the other factors.
The auto is frequently more cost effective, especially if one needs wheels at his or her destination, and more than one person is traveling; convenient, comfortable, and perhaps cool than any mode of public transport. In Texas, at least, these are the reasons that most people choose to drive.
The Hoosier State/Cardinal currently leaves Rennselaer at 7:38, arrives CHI at 10:05, running time 2:27. The total boardings and alightings at Rennselaer in 2012 was 2,342, which is 7 people per day. If 3/4 ride between CHI and REN, that is 2-3 people each way. By highway, even in rush hour, you can cover the 83 miles in 1:22.. Apparently very few people want to spend an extra hour each direction to loaf along at 34 mph, even if it feels like being in their living room.
Passengers to/from Crawfordsville and Lafayette are almost equal to Indy, around 32-33,000 annually.
Besides the endpoint business (passengers going all the way from Indy to Chicago and vice versa) what are the passenger counts at the intermediate stations? From Rensslear, Chicago is about 3 hours travel time by train. At approximately 75 miles, that might be close enough to tip the scales in favor for a lot of people that don't want to deal with Chicago area traffic as well as all the usual inconveniences of a car in the city.
I believe the posters calling for quite significant reductions in total run time are still thinking along the total time automobile planning theory. This theory is valid only for planning between two automobile routes as the use/quality of a driver's time does not change if they take a different route, they still sit behind the same wheel in the same non-productive use of time conditions.
SO there is a good enough run time. It is probably begins at about a 50 mph average for most applications, just under 4 hours for the Indianapolis to Chicago segment. This is also a speed that is compatible with infrastructure upgrades that benefit passenger and general freight use of the line equally.
At this speed a 6:30 AM morning departure would put you in Chicago with time for work. The perception of time is what matters, if you could for example transport your living room at 50 mph your perception of time would be practically zero. If you could transport your desk at work a similar effect takes hold, if you can keep 70% of the functionality of your desk then time is transfered to decision making at a cost of the loss, 30%, roughly.
So for a lot less total cost than dedicated HSR, that is operations + infrastructure costs, you can get marked gains with just a bit of infrastructure investment. Don't get me wrong I would love to see double track HSR, but we need to see what can be done with modest improvements, and semantics is not an improvement.
The problem is even these small amounts are being argued over as not a suitable investment due to the current operational loss. Eliminating the train won't help that, as it will probably be lost forever.
If the schedule transit time could be cut in half ---
2 round trips a day could be run for the Hoosier for almost the same crew costs or actually a little more for the 4 days Cardinal doees not operate
There would still be the extra track charges. and rolling stock wear & tear.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.