Hoosier State derails outside Chicago 6/8

Mr. Fels -

We still await your thoughts on how you would market the Hoosier State, a train that:

1. takes five hours to make a trip that can be driven in three hours.
2. is rarely on time, even with the ample schedule.
3. has inconvenient arrival and departure times at its southern terminus, Indianapolis.
4. offers no amenities
5. serves a populace that apparently has limited in rail travel; Amtrak killed Indianapolis' other train, the National Limited, which ran to New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Columbus, St. Louis and Kansas City (with through sleeping car to Los Angeles), in 1979.

We still await your thoughts on how you would market the Hoosier State

Argumentative. Asked and answered.

Let's see the backup for this claim:

is rarely on time

It will take more than a single data point. And gossip doesn't count.

And haven't we addressed, and dismissed,the other questions? We have.
Except for #5, which is a red herring. The cancellation of

• an east-west train
• on which IND was a midpoint
• some twenty-five years ago

proves what exactly? (About Amtrak, that is.)

Dear me, we seem have to come up against a familiar impasse: when "what we believe" is in conflict with "what we know." Hmm, how would a "honest" person resolve this?

I would like to add a little to this, my first point is NO TRAIN IS MISERABLE
and I feel strong about that. Even a train with just one car and no extras
is far superior to a bus for comfort.
It is clearly evident that this train might not be working out very well in the
present setup.
I believe the State of Indiana needs to get off its rear end and help support a viable passenger service for its people. To start with, pick the
best route that serves the most viable intermediate points, spend some
funds to fix the tracks up and improve the signals and capacity and then
run enough trains so that if you want to leave Indy in the morning, mid-
day, afternoon or early evening, you can.
Impossible, not really, Richmond - Washington, Albany - New York and
California are just some cases where service can be up-graded.
It seems to me that this route should be a natural for much better
passenger train service.
A lot of money to spend?, not really, much less than adding more capacity
to present highways.
California has proved that when the trains are put on, people WILL ride
them.
Noel Weaver

Following up on Mr. Weaver's excellent post, one reason that New York and California have fast, frequent Amtrak service is that these states have stepped up and provided money in one form or another for train service. Mr. Fels frequently exhorts us to write our Congresscritters. He's right. In the case of the Hoosier State, it would also be helpful if Indiana residents would write their legislators. After all, the complaints about this train are that it's too slow and it has no amenities. More speed requires infrastructure upgrades and amenities means additional rolling stock. These improvements can't be provided without money, which Amtrak doesn't have.

Let's see the backup for this claim:

is rarely on time

It will take more than a single data point. And gossip doesn't count.

Only a few days are available on the Amtrak website, so the number of data points is small. But it's not gossip. All figures are for the end points.

Train 317:
0:35 late on 6-15
1:08 late on 6-13
2:48 late on 6-11

Train 318:
1:08 late on 6-15
???? on 6-14
5:22 late on 6-12

On 6-14, no arrival time is given, but the following note appears: "Estimated arrival: 1 hour and 10 minutes late. As of the last report at 2:31 AM, between Crawfordsville, IN and Indianapolis, IN, it was running 2 hours and 51 minutes late." Apparently the actual arrival time was never entered into the computer system.

Post withdrawn per Mr Fels' more knowledgable thoughts.

Thanks, Matt

John

JoeG wrote:[O]ne reason that New York and California have fast, frequent Amtrak service is that these states have stepped up and provided money in one form or another for train service.

Not exactly.

1. New York State provides money to support the Adirondack, but not Empire Service. The Adirondack is neither fast not frequent. In fact, it's carded at 9 hr 50 min over a 381-mile route. Its average speed, endpoint to endpoint, is 38.7 mph. Why that's . . . wait for it . . . slower than the Hoosier State!
2. Some of the California service isn't all that fast. As posted earlier, Capitols run at an average endpoint-to-endpoint speed equal to the Hoosier State's. Frequent yes, fast no.

To clarify another point: No, the Hoosier State isn't state-supported. National Timetable, page 69.

UPDATE According to Amtrak's monthly performance report for April, the Hoosier State arrived at its endpoints on time 60.6% of the time in April. Its record since Oct. 1 is 58.6% on time into the endpoints. The table is on page 114.

So much for that piece of, er, wishful thinking that the Hoosier State is "rarely" on time. If you have to make things up to "prove" your point, you don't have a point worth proving.

Why wasn't this figure higher? Jump back to page 108: 74% of the delays to the train are host-related. If you settle for half the story, you get only the half that someone wants to tell you. Insist on the full story.

Maybe there are brighter days ahead.

http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/ ... 0a48da.txt

New York State has provided money for trackwork on the Empire Corridor, and for rehab of some turbos. I believe there is other money provided also. I was thinking more of the Empire Corridor (ex-NYC Water Level Route) than the Adirondack.

If New York State is allocating money for trackwork, isn't that simply a case of giving with one hand while taking with the other?

not realy Matt since the Tax issue was resolved two years ago.

Signed into law on January 2003. Summary here. But that's going forward. Any money that the state spends on track work is a kind of retroactive restitution, however partial, for prior years' tax policy.

Mr. Fels,
Your presentation of a tax reduction as restitution is certainly novel. But I'd like to point out that making the track north of Poughkeepsie capable of 110 MPH running, and rehabbing passenger equipment, benefits Amtrak but not the taxpayer of that piece of railroad, CSX.

JoeG wrote:[P]resentation of a tax reduction as restitution is certainly novel.

I would tend to agree, but I made no such claim. Direct quote, emphasis added: "Any money that the state spends on track work is a kind of retroactive restitution, however partial, for prior years' tax policy."

Further, is it really accurate to claim that 110 mph running is of NO benefit to a freight railroad? Higher speeds mean that passenger trains take less time to traverse a given stretch of right of way. In other words, they get outta the way faster--which means that they interfere less with freight operations. Also, at least one way to attain 110 mph running is to straighten curves. That kind of improvement benefits all users at any speed. Curves bad. Straightaways good.

mattfels wrote:

We still await your thoughts on how you would market the Hoosier State

Argumentative. Asked and answered.

No you haven't. You've just provided more of the kind of double-speak we've learned to expect from Texans, having put up with the Texan-in-Chief for the past 3 1/2 years

Let me rephrase the question: How would you persuade Mr. & Mrs. Hoosier to ride this train? Please refrain from insulting our intelligence. If you don't have a good answer, admit it and move on.

Let's see the backup for this claim: Quote:
is rarely on time
It will take more than a single data point. And gossip doesn't count.

Amtrak counts anything that's within 30 minutes of schedule as "on time." Additionally, from the passenger's perspective what matter's is the on time performance of the DAILY train from Indianapolis to Chicago. Three days a week that's the Cardinal. According to data compiled by Gene Poon, a San Francisco travel agent who is a knowledgable and unbiased source of information on Amtrak, for May the Cardinal's OT rate was 33% and the Hoosier was OT 48%.
http://www.on-track-on-line.com/forums/ ... afa396fd25
Admittedly, that may not equate to "rarely on time," but I wouldn't be too proud about bringing a "33" or a "48" on my report card home to Momma.

And haven't we addressed, and dismissed,the other questions? We have.

They're facts; they are part of reality. They can't be dismissed and they can't be ignored in developing a marketing plan. It would akin to marketing a drug and ignoring the possible unintented consequence, i.e. side effects.

Except for #5, which is a red herring. The cancellation of
an east-west train
on which IND was a midpoint
some twenty-five years ago
proves what exactly? (About Amtrak, that is.)

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.

But we don't need to fear for the sake of the Hoosier State. Matt Fels can market snow to eskimos. We look forward to his enlightening us on how he would sell this "miserable little train."