Hoosier State derails outside Chicago 6/8

It's a statement about Indianapolis. Naptown had a full-service train (sleepers, diners, lounge), the National Ltd., that provided reasonably fast direct service to the major cities of the East Coast plus two important midwestern cities with convenient arrival and departure times and the train failed. In other words, Indianapolis did not support it. Neither did the other major intermediate stops, Columbus and Dayton.

That tells me that Indianapolis is not very receptive to train travel. Since the axing of the National Ltd., a new generation has grown up that has virtually no idea of what rail travel is about

So the city has to support "train travel" before any better service goes into it? Indianapolis supports the bus travel that goes in and out of Union Station? That's dangerous and plays into the Bush Administration's "let the states pick up the tab" mentality.

A recent post mentioned "enlightenment." Here is some: There's no truth to the whopper that the Hoosier State "is rarely on time."

If you have to make things up in order to "prove" a point, you don't have a point worth proving. Denial doesn't change that. Nor do personal insults.

Irish Chieftain wrote:

It's a statement about Indianapolis. Naptown had a full-service train (sleepers, diners, lounge), the National Ltd., that provided reasonably fast direct service to the major cities of the East Coast plus two important midwestern cities with convenient arrival and departure times and the train failed. In other words, Indianapolis did not support it. Neither did the other major intermediate stops, Columbus and Dayton.

That tells me that Indianapolis is not very receptive to train travel. Since the axing of the National Ltd., a new generation has grown up that has virtually no idea of what rail travel is about

So the city has to support "train travel" before any better service goes into it? Indianapolis supports the bus travel that goes in and out of Union Station? That's dangerous and plays into the Bush Administration's "let the states pick up the tab" mentality.

Chief -

I would argue the opposite: that insisting that rail service be provided irregardless of whether there is demand for it or whether rail can provide a meaningful alternative plays into the Bush administration. Why? Because it suggests that rail advocates are more interested in using rail to achieve social aims, e.g. job creation, political goodwill, etc., than they are in providing a service that adds value, i.e. attracts passengers, reduces congestion, etc. These are the points that the folks at Heritage, Cato, et. al. use to attack Amtrak and call for its demise. And they do have a point, because if job creation is the goal, there are more efficient ways to do it.

Regarding support at Union Station for bus service, Greyhound offers 10 departures daily from Indianapolis to Chicago (I don't know if Union Station is their terminal). They make the trip in as little as 3:10.

BTW, Union Station's restoration as an economic revitalization project has been a failure.

LI Loco wrote:insisting that rail service be provided irregardless [sic] of whether there is demand for it

And there in a nutshell is not only the central issue but also the so-called railfans' anti-Amtrak agenda: Depress demand through negative word of mouth--including, when necessary, disinformation--so that the train can be "AXED!" for lack of demand.

How to market this train? The way I market the drive-in movie theater in my neck of the woods: positive word of mouth. I send people there all the time. They love it. They go back. Even though--and this is an important point--they can see the same feature at a neighborhood theater that takes much less time to get to. Why would they pass up the close-in theater to choose the drive-in? Because they seek a different experience. And the movie is only part of it.

Our correspondent professes to support the Amtrak system. Yet we find him here clinging to the notion that train trips and car trips are the same thing. Even making things up just to keep up the bashing. Does this strike anyone else as just a little, er, loco?

speaking of "making things up just to keep up the bashing," how do we reconcile the following:

There's no truth to the whopper that the Hoosier State "is rarely on time."

If you have to make things up in order to "prove" a point, you don't have a point worth proving. Denial doesn't change that.

with the data I posted earlier? I admit it's a small sample, but of the six Hoosier State trains I checked, they were all six late. Additional data are now available: train 317 arrived in Chicago 1:30 late on 6-16. Train 318 arrived in Indianapolis 2:50 late this morning, 6-17. That's 8 out of the last 8. "Rarely on time" seems like a fair characterization. We can, of course, continue to track this train's arrivals. Perhaps the last few days represent some kind of anomaly.

The six? Only four are verifiable from that data. Three question marks means late?

Also, I suggest that OTP be thrown out as some manner of criteria. It's an underfunded single-car train that runs at the wrong times of day versus well-funded competition. That's the more relevant point.

Liloco wrote:I would argue the opposite: that insisting that rail service be provided irregardless of whether there is demand for it or whether rail can provide a meaningful alternative plays into the Bush administration. Why? Because it suggests that rail advocates are more interested in using rail to achieve social aims, e.g. job creation, political goodwill, etc., than they are in providing a service that adds value, i.e. attracts passengers, reduces congestion, etc. These are the points that the folks at Heritage, Cato, et. al. use to attack Amtrak and call for its demise. And they do have a point, because if job creation is the goal, there are more efficient ways to do it

That makes no sense. Social aims are not adding value, or are somehow different from adding value? How do you explain the glut within other transport modes, in that case, if "social aims" are not behind them? And the Cato Institute have a point? They sound more radical than anyone else I've read online.

How does providing rapid passenger rail service not attract passengers, too? Everywhere around the world that fast trains are introduced, they unilaterally attract riders. No, putting the onus on the city is exactly playing into the Bush Administration's hands.

Regarding support at Union Station for bus service, Greyhound offers 10 departures daily from Indianapolis to Chicago (I don't know if Union Station is their terminal). They make the trip in as little as 3:10

The south side of Union Station in Indianapolis is a quite busy bus terminal. That's where Greyhound leaves from. Also, that earlier comment about a generation not knowing about rail travel is without merit—the largest argument against that being the Downeaster.

BTW, Union Station's restoration as an economic revitalization project has been a failure

Describe "failure". Union Station was not restored as a rail terminal but as a hotel. There are only two tracks left in the station (down from about eighteen or so), plus one island platform without tracks. Union Station certainly isn't a failure as a bus terminal, though, is it...?

Sadly, I think it is safe to say that Indianapolis could care-a-less about rail service. Nor could the state of Indiana. If I recall correctly, one of the major downtown corporations is advocating the complete removal of the only two tracks serving Union Station. Apparently, they want to put a new station somewhere on the outskirts of town.

I have nothing against the Hoosier State, but it sure is a worthless service. I mean really, a 4+ hour schedule, frequent delays of hours or more, and no food service. How much worse can a transportation service be? I think the real reason Amtrak operates it is to maintain a means of shuttling equipment from the Grove to Lumber Street.

The solution is to make the Cardinal a daily train, and then adjust the schedule to call at Indianapolis in a slightly more reasonable time. A daily Cardinal is the most rail service that the good people of Indianapolis can ever hope to see. But I would certainly not bank on it.

I guess a 4+ hour trip, often in a Horizon coach, subject to frequent and extensive delays, with no food service available enroute and no checked baggage service, does qualify as a "different experience." But I don't think that is the type of "different experience" the traveling public is looking for.

It's not safe to say anything about any city. Was it because Portland ME by and large "cared" about rail service that got the Downeaster going? What suddenly made it "care"? How come it didn't "care" for the better part of four decades? No, leaving it up to the city will get nothing done. That's why we have groups like NARP, NNEPRA and the MWRRI. (Not to mention that I have never heard of instances where the city itself requested passenger rail service out of the blue and got it.)

Sadly, it now looks as if correspondent Rhinecliff is substituting feelings for fact. What's the backup for the claim of "frequent delays of hours or more"?

Rhinecliff wrote:I have nothing against the Hoosier State

Sure you do. Why else would you make things up to cast it in a negative light?

but it sure is a worthless service

Sadly, that's also false. The existence of the Hoosier State complements the Cardinal to make service daily along the CHI-LAF-IND corridor. Surely we don't think daily service is "worthless."

Sadly, I think we've just unmasked another so-called railfan who prefers fact-free bashing to informed discussion. And that's a shame. Really it is.

From many years ago, I can recall passenger trains all over northern
New England and some of them enjoyed a good patronage.
The Boston and Maine under McGinnis was largely responsible for their
demise in the late 1950's and early 1960's.
One thing about these cuts, the bus lines added more service to try to take the place of the passenger trains but they took a bath on this one.
The people would ride the trains but they would not ride the buses and
there was not anything that anybody could do about it. This happened on
the CV, the B& M, the MeC and some of the others too.
After the trains made their last trips, the public turned to automobiles for
the most part.
My point, people who prefer the train and are oriented toward the train may well not use other transportation but elect to drive their own car
instead.
Noel Weaver

Mr. Weaver makes a very good point about the inherant appeal of trains over motorcoaches.

Mr. Fels also makes some good points. First, "worthless" was too strong a word. I accept Mr. Fels' criticism on that point. Operating a stub train like the Hoosier State to connect Amtrak's system to a major market, such as Indianapolis, on a daily basis is, indeed, a worthy reason for operating the service -- miserable as it is.

That the train is frequently delayed by hours or more needs no support. I stand by that assertion.

I also stand by my overall point that the Hoosier State is a disgraceful service. The train offers no food service, no checked baggage, an inconvenient and slow schedule, uninspired equipment, and poor timekeeping. How much worse could it be? Yes, I am a railfan. Yes, I am bashing this service. It stinks. I expect more more Amtrak.

Then what are you doing about it?

Negative comments get construed as negative support (i.e. lack thereof). We all know what kind of money Amtrak gets every fiscal year. What's the disgrace, the lack of monetary support from Washington or the veritable miracle that this train exists at all?

The Irish Chieftan raises a valid question: What am I doing about it?

The answer, of course, is basically nothing. I ride Amtrak regularly, but because I do not live in (or travel to) Indiana, I have no reason to take up the cause of Amtrak's lousy Hoosier State service. In my opinion, that is for the people of Indiana. Being a New Yorker (unfortunately State, not City), however, I have no reservations about expressing my opinions on the patheticness of the Hoosier State service.

Call me crazy, but I believe if Amtrak wanted to provide a cafe car on this train, it could, even under its current level of funding. I also believe that if Amtrak wanted to provide checked baggage service on this train between endpoints, it could.

As I have stated on many occasions, poor Congressional oversight is not a license to be stupid or self-abusive.

If you're going to make statements like that, then perhaps you should not participate in the discussion. But if you really wish to continue (as it does not appear on the surface), then how about explaining what you would do differently if you were in Gunn's shoes? He's already twice threatened to shut down the whole system if enough funds to keep going were not allocated. Perhaps bettering the Hoosier State service is not as easy as it looks on the surface?

Rhinecliff wrote:The Irish Chieftan raises a valid question: What am I doing about it?

The answer, of course, is basically nothing. I ride Amtrak regularly, but because I do not live in (or travel to) Indiana, I have no reason to take up the cause of Amtrak's lousy Hoosier State service. In my opinion, that is for the people of Indiana. Being a New Yorker (unfortunately State, not City), however, I have no reservations about expressing my opinions on the patheticness of the Hoosier State service.

So, in other words, you'll make fun of the poor kid across the street that just fell off his bike, but you won't go over and help him up?

(Oops, I was supposed to stay out of this thread)