House Subcommittee holds hearing on Intercity Passenger Rail

[BaltACD]

CMStPnP

That's interesting, I would guess Mr Ellis is correct on Amtrak not really caring about the route and not calling the host railroads on ontime performance.    Would also say he has a point of Amtrak attempting to ensure he failed as a contractor via miscommunication and dire notices to the traveling public.

OTOH, Amtrak was probably correct about Mr. Ellis equipment requiring a lot of work to bring it up to spec as well as his equipment being responsible for some train delays.    I remember reading about some of the runs in regards to malfunctioning or inoperable toilets and that stuff is the responsibility of Iowa Pacific as well as equipment inspection before the train pulls in for boarding passengers.   I said it before and I will say it again, I would feel unsafe riding any Iowa Pacific equipment on any train based on what I have read so far about the company.    I just constantly get the impression of a thinly capitalized shoe string operation.

While I agree that Ellis's operations have been thinly capitalized - none of the currently existing railroads started out as being 'fully capitalized'.  Railroads from their inception have been shoestring operations, when successful they secured enough profits to put money back into improving the physical plant.

I believe the STB has a financial standard to measure the current railroads - and not all of them are considered to be earning their own cost of capital.

[schlimm]

BaltACD

 

 

schlimm

Not exactly new - Ellis' comment is from Oct. 7, 2016

 

 

However that appears to be the newest comment that has been made.

 

And apparently the only one.  I suppose Ellis felt he had to defend himself from the previously stated criticisms about IP equipment, etc., given the dispute with Amtrak that subsequently occured and ended his Hoosier prematurely.

[CMStPnP]

schlimm

And apparently the only one.  I suppose Ellis felt he had to defend himself from the previously stated criticisms about IP equipment, etc., given the dispute with Amtrak that subsequently occured and ended his Hoosier prematurely.

No there are like 5-6 other comments on another page including one where Amtrak responds to Ed Ellis' comments.    It's a two way fight between the two......Amtrak and IP.    They are both bickering on a public website (which I might add is quite revealing to read both side by side).    Ellis seems to be warning other potential operators about Amtrak / FRA behavior and Amtrak seems to be acting in classic monopoly fashion and denying everything.

Amtraks comments in response to Mr. Ellis are on this page you have to click the Docket link at the top of the first link provided to get there.

https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FRA-2016-0023

 

[schlimm]

CMStPnP

 

 

schlimm

And apparently the only one.  I suppose Ellis felt he had to defend himself from the previously stated criticisms about IP equipment, etc., given the dispute with Amtrak that subsequently occured and ended his Hoosier prematurely.

 

 

No there are like 5-6 other comments on another page including one where Amtrak responds to Ed Ellis' comments.    It's a two way fight between the two......Amtrak and IP.    They are both bickering on a public website (which I might add is quite revealing to read both side by side).    Ellis seems to be warning other potential operators about Amtrak / FRA behavior and Amtrak seems to be acting in classic monopoly fashion and denying everything.

Amtraks comments in response to Mr. Ellis are on this page you have to click the Docket link at the top of the first link provided to get there.

https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FRA-2016-0023

 

 

Thanks!  Balt's link had only the IP comment. Frankly, I have little faith in Ed Ellis.  It seems like his operations fail, but he always blames others.