Amtrak and Indianapolis

Here is a link to a 2019 INDOT study INDOT study of Indy-Chicago.

This is really a great report, with itemized cost estimates and time savings for most of the sidings and other improvements envisioned. I wish I knew where to find such reports for Chgo-St. Louis and Chgo-Carbondale.

The authors were asked to look into needs for 2/day Hoosier State service along with continuation of existing Cardinal service at 3x/week. They only looked at Munster-Indy, leaving the exit from Chicago out of scope.

Basically, It looks like CSX would want $73 million in sidings to allow that level of service. Presumably these sidings would also improve reliability. Another $18 million in improvements at slow points would allow 6 minutes to be shaved.

The big gains would come from increasing top speed to 79 mph, which would cut another 32 minutes for $316 million (beyond the $91 million mentioned above.) This would pay for PTC and automatic gates at all crossings.

As a 4th potential element, they outline a new station at Indy airport for $16 million.

I'm intrigued by the speed profile charts on p. 50-53.

Tadman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 11:24 am
I believe NYC passenger trains ran north from Kankakee on the IC to Central station, it's the Kanakee-Indy part of the line that needs a lot of love. And why? You now have a route that misses the substantial I-65 corridor in favor of not much other than rustbelt Kankakee. And it would require Indiana to pony up for a lot of track work in Illinois.

I don't see this route being politically expedient.

Tad, if there’s one thing I know about you, it’s your sensing of Illinois and Chicago politics. If you believe this potential routing isn’t worth the political capital of Illinois senators and Chicago area Congresscritters, then I don’t see it happening.

My next question: is not Indiana now a mostly red state? Will its Congresscritters support the money needs?

Finally, who owns the railroad? If it’s not an Amtrak predecessor, what will the bill be?

Just so I know what the conversation is - when you ask about Indy politicians, etc., are you asking about Kankakee? Or about the existing Indy-Chicago route that most public planning is focused on?

ryanwc wrote: ↑Sat Dec 09, 2023 11:20 amThis is a relevant line from the Trains article on Chicago Hub improvements:
>Additionally, the Cardinal could potentially ditch its circuitously problematic Chicago exit and entrance by utilizing a future CSX connection at Dyer, Ind., with the South Shore’s West Lake Corridor Project now under construction

Someone commented here in the last week on the pointlessness of Indy service that continued to wind around on slow track. Would this Dyer connection resolve big parts of what you were pointing to?

I'm not sure why people think they can simply dump Amtrak trains on the NICTD lines. NICTD's 21 train schedule will become a 35 train schedule in May 2024 and a 45 train schedule in May 2025 when the Monon Branch trains start running.

While people like to complain about the multiple railroads between Dyer and CUS the real speed problem is between Dyer and Indianapolis. CSX managed to restore some of the time lost on this stretch but a lot more improvement is needed to provide a viable "Hoosier State" service. Including a commitment to multiple trains per day (daily Cardinal plus two Hoosier State trains).

ryanwc wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 7:58 amI can certainly see the attraction of the CHIP vision - a handoff to South Shore and then an Amtrak-dispatched route on the Lakefront and Airline.

So CN handing over their lines to Amtrak for dispatching (Kensington to CUS)?
CSX to NICTD to CN-IC/Airline to Amtrak CUS with current ownership vs CSX to UP to BRC to METRA to NS to Amtrak CUS.

There is a CREATE project to rebuild the BRC part of that link ... UP will connect to the current METRA SWS track. SWS will move to the Rock Island so the track north of UP will be opened up. The NS stack connection from the NS Chicago District (not to be confused with the NS Chicago Line) will remain. The issues that would be "resolved" by using NICTD are going to be less of an issue after that CREATE project.

CSX to UP to NS to Amtrak CUS. The same number of railroads that one would have using a NICTD connection but far less commuter trains to interfere with / be interfered with. As noted, the bigger issues are downstate.

ryanwc wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 2:06 pm Just so I know what the conversation is - when you ask about Indy politicians, etc., are you asking about Kankakee? Or about the existing Indy-Chicago route that most public planning is focused on?

I am talking about both. Is there enough “what’s in it for me” in Chicagoland to entice Congresscritters and the Illinois Senators?

What are the politics on the Indiana side? Are politicians even willing to support passenger rail service?

I don’t think a Kankakee routing has any backing anywhere. But both IN Senators signed onto a letter supporting CHIP. I was surprised. None of the CHIP projects take place in IN. They do offer both the prospect of better Amtrak service in IN and of potential synergies with the South Shore. Or maybe there was horse-trading involved?

And INDOT is the lead agency on the Indy-Chgo planning grant that relaunched this thread. That seems to imply the GOP governor is willing to consider how to move forward.

But Tadman likely knows IN politics better than I do.

John_Perkowski wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 5:34 pmWhat are the politics on the Indiana side? Are politicians even willing to support passenger rail service?

Indiana will support responsible rail projects. The State of Indiana continues to support NICTD including the two expansion projects in progress. They have also funded LocalTrax projects (not specifically passenger rail) around the state. Good projects with a good return on investment.

Indiana will not support irresponsible rail projects. Amtrak's pricing for running the Hoosier State did not provide an adequate return on investment. Some people read that as failure to support passenger rail ... but it is just being fiscally responsible.

Provide reasonable service at a reasonable price and Indiana will support it.

BTW: The Indiana Constitution requires that the state pass a balanced budget. The State cannot spend more than it takes in. That makes the State more sensitive to how they are spending taxpayer's money.

Some have said Beech Grove Shops is the only reason for the Hoosier State. Bear is also off the National Network and requires trackage rights.

Both Grandma Julia and incumbent Grandson Andre (D-IN7) have been "very nice-nice" to Amtrak. They'd better be, as the 7th was "conveniently gerrymandered" to include Beech Grove.

The location of that facility gives some "rai·son d'ê·tre" to keep The Cardinal alive, for otherwise that bird would appear to be the first candidate to be on the chopping block.

R36 Combine Coach wrote:Some have said Beech Grove Shops is the only reason for the Hoosier State. Bear is also off the National Network and requires trackage rights.

That's not a good enough reason. It would be cheaper to deadhead equipment once or twice a week from Chicago or even Champaign using trackage rights or to pay CSX to move it piece by piece as needed.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

It would require a mountain of money to restore that Riley routing through the current Lafayette rail and road geometry.

P.S. It was the Nickel Plate Route through Lafayette with Big Four trackage rights.

R36 Combine Coach wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 1:07 amSome have said Beech Grove Shops is the only reason for the Hoosier State. Bear is also off the National Network and requires trackage rights.

It was until Amtrak was required to charge the State of Indiana for the service.

In the initial proposals Amtrak outlined the costs of operating the Hoosier State passenger service and included credits for carrying dead head equipment. Once the Hoosier State became state funded the dead head equipment moved to the Cardinal - removing the credits from the equation.

The Iowa Pacific Hoosier State became the most inspected train per operating mile of any Amtrak and Amtrak often found defects that were not corroborated by later inspections. The operating agreement punished Iowa Pacific for delays and rewarded Amtrak for on time performance, regardless of the actual at fault party. Even after the train returned to Amtrak equipment the dead head equipment and credits stayed with the Cardinal.

Dead heads on the Hoosier State made a lot of sense ... the train is going to Beech Grove at the Indianapolis end of every trip. Using the Cardinal required an extra engine to ferry the cars from downtown to Beach Grove (the line to Cincinnati is not the track to Beach Grove).

justalurker66 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 11:16 pm
Indiana will support responsible rail projects. The State of Indiana continues to support NICTD including the two expansion projects in progress. They have also funded LocalTrax projects (not specifically passenger rail) around the state. Good projects with a good return on investment.

Indiana will not support irresponsible rail projects. Amtrak's pricing for running the Hoosier State did not provide an adequate return on investment. Some people read that as failure to support passenger rail ... but it is just being fiscally responsible.

This is very well said. I have a lot of respect for NICTD management. They're not perfect but they show what a mission-focused local group can do. It's also the reason I push so hard for strong local management teams for non-NEC corridors. The neighboring Michigan trains are a stark contrast - absentee management yields results like the Detroit station.

I realize this falls into the “easier said than done” bucket, but if Beech Grove continues to be the tail wagging the operational dog, and Indiana won’t invest in Amtrak service beyond what “prudently balanced budgets” dictate, then Amtrak should be similarly prudent and begin migrating the workflows (and employment/economic activities) of Beech Grove to a yard in a State which sees a bigger picture and invests accordingly.