The ridership of both trains is pathetic. But not surprising. Examining the Hoosier State, which could be a heavily used corridor, who in their right mind would ride a train that averaged 35 mph over a 5 hr, 5 minute ride from CHI, leaving at 5:45pm, getting to IND at 11:50pm? Or leave Indy at 6:00am to get here at 10:05, and pay $24.00 for the privilege? As you say, about 95 each way, including intermediate stops. Those stops include two college towns, Purdue, with many students from the Chicago area and little Wabash College. It could be a real market if the trains could move at a competitive speed, as they did 60 years ago. But generally, outside the NEC, passenger train speeds are substantially slower today. Real progress!!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
John WR I did some net surfing. It seems a lot of people want to save the Hoosier State. Unfortunately, INDOT Chief of Staff Troy Woodruff is not among them. It is hard to understand since he is supposed to have an unbiased commitment to all forms of transportation. But I guess it is what it is. Good luck in your grass roots efforts to keep the Hoosier State.
I did some net surfing. It seems a lot of people want to save the Hoosier State. Unfortunately, INDOT Chief of Staff Troy Woodruff is not among them. It is hard to understand since he is supposed to have an unbiased commitment to all forms of transportation. But I guess it is what it is. Good luck in your grass roots efforts to keep the Hoosier State.
There may be a lot of people who want to save the Hoosier State but there sure are few that want to ride it. If I've massaged the numbers correctly, the average passengers/trip is between 85-90. IMHO the Hoosier State should be Amtrak's number one candidate for discontinuance followed closely by the Cardinal. I dare say there are fewer than 20 passengers that board in Indianapolis at 4:57 am for a 6+ hour trip to Chicago on a train that doesn't even have food service.
In terms of distance and population the Chicago - Indianapolis route has the potential for being a viable corridor route. At least 2 to 2-1/2 hours would have to be cut from the Hoosier State's current schedule to make this even marginally possible and might lead IDOT to rethink subsidizing it. Given the conditions on the rail routes between the two cities, such a reduction in run time is not just unlikely but is impossible.
Mark
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.
The Megabus fare was for any of the buses running this Wednesday. If we are talking potential customers, both bus and train are going to serve folks mostly downtown to downtown. Folks leaving from many Chicago suburbs can use a suburban commuter line to get from and back to their home, but probably not in Indy, and in any case, they will probably drive if the destination in Indy is outside the central city, whether on business or pleasure. Some businessmen may fly. But few customers want to spend an extra one to two hours traveling by train, extra space notwithstanding. Cutting the time to 3 hours should be the goal to be at all competitive, since it is only 180 miles. Even then that is only an average of 60 mph. Double the average speed, with 6 or more trains each direction and you could leave I 65 to the many trucks. That is modern passenger service!!
Few are riding for curiosity or nostalgia, particularly with no food service. I think the consumer model of least time is not correct, it is dis-utility of time upon which consumers make choices. Pure time savings is only valid when comparing routes taken by the same mode, say two routes in your same automobile.
Ok, so running a train a certain distance is needed to bring the costs down, more than 600 miles ideally, so is running a train with a density of greater than 150 passengers a train mile, 200 ideally. My point is that a longer overall route will get you there as an extension of a short corridor and at less cost due to the greater number of origin and destination pairs.
I have used Megabus before, their fares vary from $19 to $37 on this corridor, so not always cheaper. I can see these drawbacks to a large scale implementation: they only cover the larger cities, no stops between Chicago and Indianapolis for example, they have NO waiting areas and schlep off the public stations in Chicago which consumers value in a cold climate, they are running "investment mileage" per their financial reports and using their existing government contract haulage (transit) to cover overhead, so they might not go on forever, particularly once workers ask for more or move on post recession.
Now if Indianapolis to Chicago was 4 hours on Amtrak with the near future improvements, that timing with a standard train seat and total interior area about twice the size of the motorcoach and a station area could deliver pricing power to the train even if it is still slightly slower and might only be running twice a day a direction at most in the near future. This is due to consumers perception of the quality of the same time, a dis-utility of time model accounts for this.
As usual though automobiles are the real competition not buses.
Maybe it is time to tighten the schedule. Most days that 851 operates it is arriving CHI 30 - 35 minutes earls. Of coourse the Cardinal is anotheer matter.
Of course the loss per passenger mile is higher on a shorter run as it currently is But if you had a 2X daily, faster train between CHI-IND (Eventually to CIN) and carefully marketed. you would not need full service, certainly not sleepers. I think you would find the new train would come much closer to covering above rail expenses.
June 2013 YTD numbers for both are terrible. Amtrak says the Hoosier State has tough competition from Megabus [seven buses each way throughout the day, daily, 3 hours, 15 min., $19.00. The Hoosier State by comparison is one train at 5:45 pm, 5 hours, 5 min., $24.00. Not even in the same league.
Hoosier State ($2.9) contribution total (69.0) contribution per PM.
Cardinal ($13.3) contribution total (37.7) contribution per PM.
So unless Amtrak can provide a real, competitive service, why would anyone ride it from CHI-IND except for curiosity or nostalgia?
It's the other way around, per the chart.
Hoosier State $0.75 with no food service
Cardinal $0.42 full service three days a week
Daily Cardinal $0.21 full service.
There are improvements that could improve both corridor and long distance portions well below that.
D/Cing the Cardinal should be job #1. it has low ridership and a large operating loss per PM. If equipment needs to be ferried, send up to Chicago on ta new improved, daily Hoosier State service, and then on to wherever.
blue streak 1 So Amtrak will have to ferry equipment several times a week.? The cost of ferrying that equipment is a cost that should be deducted from the cost to Indianna. Those costs ? Average number of days a year equipment is ferried. A factor of that number as Amtrak's and other agencies receive equipment and more will have to be ferried. ( mainly locos & pass cars ). Cost of engineer and conductor ( no attendant ) On the other side Indianna needs to market the route and press for quicker trsvel times there by reducing crew costs.
Amtrak may try to limit payments to incremental costs, but they would have to pay full costs for equipment ambulance runs, if INDOT did not pick up the train on non-Cardinal days.
A corridor train between Chicago and Indianapolis, perhaps going as far as Cincinnati, could be viable by running on decently quick schedules and coaches only to reduce crew costs.
MidlandMike It was pointed out in the new issue of Trains (October) p.25, Amtrak uses the Hoosier State to ferry equipment to and from Beech Grove shops near Indy. It seems INDOT should have some leverage to get ATK to carry some more of the costs.
It was pointed out in the new issue of Trains (October) p.25, Amtrak uses the Hoosier State to ferry equipment to and from Beech Grove shops near Indy. It seems INDOT should have some leverage to get ATK to carry some more of the costs.
As many of you are aware, there was a local meeting to discuss the upcoming requirement that Indiana’s DOT start paying $3 million a year to run the Hoosier State, a corridor train in two states, as PRIIA set out. Since this schedule is in essence a corridor only fill-in for the other days that the Cardinal does not run, the PRIIA reports provide an interesting look into the relative financial performance of Corridors trains versus Interconnected Corridor/Long Distance trains. Let’s set up the discussion with this helpful comment from the State’s representative to the meeting.
“Still, Troy Woodruff, INDOT Chief of Staff, was willing to be the actual wet blanket during the Amtrak summit. He blistered the federal mandate passed in 2008, calling Amtrak’s business model a loser and repeatedly indicated his unwillingness to touch an annual payment of $80 for every one of the 36,669 passengers who rode the Hoosier State during the most recent fiscal year. (Ed. PRIIA said a $0.75/PSGM Direct loss on Hoosier State, so sounds accurate)
Did you catch that? So If Intercity Rail is not a Federal responsibility, some States are going to try to say that it should be a partial City responsibility, despite the fact that the statewide Transportation agency exists to subsidize/invest in everything else intercity travel wise in the state, often with significant Federal funds. I would suggest this is the default political position that now exists in several places, even toward corridor routes. Honestly, it is a consistent position if you believe it is an inferior good we are talking about, but is that so?
After all, other than the very realistic possibility of dropping an hour off the run time from Indianapolis to Chicago, as has been discussed with route changes in the near term and with CREATE, the Hoosier State is an ideal corridor schedule, into a large MSA in the morning from a midsized MSA with a return in the evening. Why is the loss so high?
To be fair INDOT has had a long history of being shorted by Amtrak and advocating for trains through Federal subsidies. But, this is also the same department that, going the other way from Indianapolis, is building the I-69 new alignment corridor in much cheaper conditions against at best a divided public opinion. I haven’t been able to get their FHWA Financial Management Plan that is supposed to be public, but from the information to date it looks like the non-user subsidy of I-69 will be about $0.25-0.30 per Automobile mile (my calculations, not sure of AADT), using Aaa Corporate Bond rates for this particular route (new build today is more expensive than the original 1960's Interstate due to inflation accounting in hyper 1970's and higher diesel and design standards). Well you say, the incremental cost is more than I thought for I-69 but still less than the train, so case closed unless congestion into Chicago justifies it.
But improvements have been suggested to the loss per passenger mile numbers in the PRIIA reports so it would be best to evaluate these to see what could be. To be fair there is also a state consultant study being done on the Hoosier State train and there is also recognition by the State that improvements to the corridor train route can significantly drop the per mile numbers which will be fleshed out further below. But the headline statement by the State was… this is a waste.
How do you get around that sentiment when such a public statement is made by the State DOT? I would suggest that the joint PRIIA report for the Cardinal and Hoosier State has some clues on the answer.
Make it a daily, Interconnected-Corridor / Long Distance train. The Direct Loss (close to Short-Term Avoidable) goes down significantly if this route is a daily LD train, from $0.42 to $0.21 (Chart had a math error)/ PSGM and it is now fully elligible to be Federally funded even though the portion in question has the same congested corridor function as before.
These numbers above include the somewhat inflated numbers from the NEC and also keep the very small 3.7 (dorm use subtracted) revenue car train as the base. Some of the improvement is from ending crew scheduling inefficiency in the 3 day a week schedules, but that would apply only to the LD portion as the Hoosier State segment is already daily. I would suggest if a goal to get operations to 200 passengers per train mile is set, the numbers would radically improve. Consider that the T&E Crew alone is costing $10.3/Trainmile, which is a lot of fixed cost that does not change with volume.
Maybe I am just crazy, but I don’t see why the (6) Cardinal cars are not just attached to the end of a NEC Regional in Washington instead of being run as a separate train. They could also be added to the Carolinian. Apparently, Amtrak won’t even let you board in Alexandria, you have to board in Manassas and out going north. A joint train would represent a huge drop in Direct Costs over 20% of the route miles. According to the breakdown above they are charging this train around $15.7/Trainmile ($1.1M/ 70,220 NEC TM) on the NEC just for track access with electric power extra, about twice a comparable EU area open access rate.
But while you are on that thought, how about conceptualizing a branch from Charlottesville, VA to Richmond, VA to replace the motorcoach? It would show as a branch in the timetable, but probably the extended daytime NEC Regional that will serve Roanoke or the 2nd Lynchburg train frequency in the near future would be on a schedule that would allow a through car arrangement at Charlottesville from NYC, so it would actually be a perpendicular crossing of routes. Practically speaking this route is two 600 mile corridors stacked on end giving the unique “U” shape.
Or if you add only one additional sleeper to the daily train case, assuming the attendant can cover the half the existing car (crew dorm uses the rest) and the new car, similar to the Crescent PRIIA recommendation. The Long-Term Avoidable costs are $2.62/carmile by my model with capital included, or $2.2 million a year. I figure about 15 Million extra passenger miles and $5.1 million in revenue (net of food and assuming existing staff can handle this), a net of $2.9 million. Add about $0.8 in cost if extra member of crew was added. So now the loss improves to ($21.6-$2.9)/ (103.9+ 15) = $0.16/PSGM instead of $0.21/PSGM, just from the addition of one sleeper while conservatively allowing the assumptions in the NEC route. Of course prior to the Heritage fleet retirement in 1995 this route did have a lot more revenue car capacity. It seems like Amtrak keeps dropping capacity in a never ending cycle. I suppose they will continue to do so until they can articulate a declining cost curve.
For FY 2012 the Cardinal is actually earning $8.4 against $6.0 in the PRIIA report (partially a Great Dome effect?), ratio that by the PRIIA revenue under the daily train assumption and you would have an extra $4 million or so of revenue, which would get you to $0.12/PSGM, about $0.15 subsidy per automobile mile equivalent. If you could/would operate the eastern end as through cars on the back of a NEC regional as suggested above, costs would decrease even more, maybe by about $6 million, yielding about a $0.09 subsidy per automobile mile equivalent, a bit more with equipment capital to make it is Long-Term Avoidable cost number.
But even this level would only be at 140 passengers a trainmile instead of the 200 target I suggest is a good number for efficiency. I didn’t spend the time to evaluate the coach revenue from trip time improvements on the corridor route into Chicago, but it couldn’t hurt, and might exclipse the sleeper. You could also add/drop two commuter coaches in Indianapolis for greater passenger mile density on the corridor segment. So you are creating a Long Distance bridge between two congested corridor type operations. It is also interesting to contrast the stance of VDOT and INDOT within their respective corridor portions.
But let’s see, back to public perception, we were comparing this to…. in INDOT’s context of public acceptability, the new build I-69 at $0.25 to $0.30/VM. There is your argument to the State and there is also room to justify infrastructure improvements on the corridor type ends of the route. Maybe such a case will be made in the upcoming improvement studies, but the State certainly waited till the last minute.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.