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.
I doubt any of it would be for sale. The UP/CSX’s Villa Grove is the line that handles the railroads UPS traffic from the south, not going anywhere. CSX’s Monon sub and Crawfordsville sub have only three trains or so a day right now,. However traffic is due to rise in the next couple of years. There is a major ore processing plant being constructed in Reynolds, In that will get unit trains of ore off the BNSF in Chicago. The finished iron ore products will then move in unit train service from Reynolds to AK steel’s plant in Ohio. There are also plans to run coal trains from a mine in southern Indiana to NIPSCO’s Chesterton, In Bailly plant.
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.
All of those things… Intermodal trains on the flat , double track NYC “water level route” have a hard time averaging 40 mph WITHOUT scheduled stops.
It typically costs an Amtrak train 2 minutes to crossover from one track to another through at 45 mph (from 79 mph), and a single, small 25 mph slow order also costs about 2 min on the schedule. If there is something every 10 miles that costs you two minutes on a 200 mile route, that’s 40 minutes of delay. That, alone, drops the speed from 60 mph down to 50 mph. Now, add station stops and schedule padding…rinse and repeat.
As pointed out already, it is more than 196 miles.[banghead] 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.
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.
If the route of the Hoosier State is as you say, 210 miles, with numerous slow stretches and delays, that is a good deal longer than by Interstate = 185 miles. Perhaps a different route is needed if Amtrak is serious about passenger service. Otherwise cut the losses and drop it and the Cardinal.
Of course it is longer than the interstate. Look at a map. The line goes west out of Indy to Crawfordsville, then north to Lafayette, while I65 goes in a straight line between Indy and Lafayette.
Please tell us this different rfdail route that exists between Indy and Chicago. This is starting to get like on of Trains famous “ya but” threads…
No i don’t want that type of discussion, either. Tell me, there seems to be a straight rail line that parallels I- 65 and goes through Lebanon. Do you know what it is?
Schlimm, there is no longer a through route between Indianapolis and Chicago that goes through Lebanon. Both the PRR and Big Four went through there, but both routes have been broken. It might be possible to use the former PRR through Lebanon to Frankfort, and then use the former Lake Erie and Western to Lafayette and connect with the current Lafayette-Chicago line. However, I doubt that this would be any better than the current PRR-P&E-Monon route (the P&E has been abandoned east of Clermont, and the trains run over the former PRR from Indianapolis to Clermont).
Thanks, Johnny. I guess there are many former lines like that. Too bad we didn’t have a national or state policy of acquiring the best and railbanking them for the future. i know some lines were, but there are many others that could be useful as dedicated passenger routes in days to come that are now plowed under.
July Amtrak performance report had ridership from 3.8K to 4.1K = +9%. But revenue up 21.5% which indicates more passengers are traveling longer distances on this route in contrast to the overall Amtrak stats.
The numbers for FY13 through July are not so rosy. Ridership is up a scant .9 per cent, and revenues are up 5.0 per cent. Because of a low statistical base compared to the other trains in this category, any movement in the Hooser State numbers is likely to magnified.
Amtrak’s load factors tend to be higher during the summer months. The average system load factor was 58.2 per cent for July 2013, but only 52.2 per cent for the year to date. This trend probably will be reflected in the Hooser State numbers for the year. This is one of the reasons that I only pay attention to twelve month numbers and preferably over a period of three to five years. Numbers can jump in one month only to decline equally or more so in the next month.
Sam1: you are correct on the stats side. I must have not made it clear 2012 avg fare per passenger was ~$21.40. For 2013 avg fare was ~~ $24.40. Now the budget fare IND – Chi is $24.00. Closer Other stations are of course less. It would appear that most passengers are IND – CHI ? The new fare structure that just showed on the Amtrak reservations site will take some getting used to.
As well the average # of passengers per trip is ~103 up from ~~ 94 per trip… More to the point overall Amtrak revenue for the July month is dwn per average passenger but up on Hoosier.
Once Englewood, – 47 st, yard & 51st yards are complete and Grand is hopefully completed then arrivals at CHI can be guaranteede earlier and Cardinal / Hoosier departures from CHI can be 6PM ( 1800 ) or later. Even now many days Hoosier arrives 25 - 28 minutes early and very rarely so does the Cardinal.
I believe the real question is still how much improvement could be made to the CSX/CN line (outside of the Chicago CREATE upgrades) for some minimal amount. $40 million say on this route could probably produce dramatic improvements in run time from what I understand of it, which isn’t much as I am not local.
I am curious to hear what the intermodal run times are on this route, maybe 7 hours or so? Since the freight marketplace is not functioning due to the highway freight cross-subsidy, speculation on CSX/CN self funding these improvements is probably not well founded, even though better run times would benefit them financially, just not enough to pay for themselves alone.
The state should be considering how improvements to the infrastructure can benefit both passengers and freight at a lower financial cost compared to roadways. However, they are getting no help on this as even the Federal government’s new freight plan requirement under MAP-21 excludes considering freight rail for political reasons, so instead it will focus on highway bottlenecks, and the General fund monies will flow after this “planning”.
So here we are pinning for a higher speed corridor line where one could obviously exist based on population and distance, when we cannot even get the political will to address small problems at the State and Federal level. Once again we are looking at loosing what little there is and will blame it on outmoded practice instead of discussing the financial disincentives. But the bus that doesn’t even stop at the intermediate cities will replace it right, so nothing to worry about… Well until the existing interstates get too crowded but if you don’t make the policy argument now you will loose it then as well as that was “already tried and found not to work”.
There are no intermodal trains that run on this route.
Not really because Amtrak can use the freight carriers to move the cars. It’s not saving Amtrak any real money to tack them onto a money losing Passenger Train vs having them in a freight train.
CMSTPNP: Do you know if any of the old Milwaukee Road line to Terre Haute exists today?
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)
I am not sure. I think the Indiana Railroad owns most of it now based on this item: