We were on the SWC on Fri 10/23 eastbound. It was raining pretty much the whole trip and the signals were unreliable because of the water so the train was pretty slow. Leaving Ft. Madison it was obvious we wouldn't make our connection with the Hoosier State in Chicago. This has happened so often it is almost routine. The conductor suggested we get off at Galesburg and take the Amtrak bus to our destination of Indianapolis. We took the suggestion and waited about 2 hours at Galesburg station for the Trailways bus. Got in to IND a few minutes before the Hoosier train. The bus had stops at Peoria, Bloomington, and Champaign. Saved us from loosing a day and spending the night at a motel in the Chicago suburbs.
Galesburg Shortcut
- Thread starter rogers55
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
OlympianHiawatha
Engineer
I would have taken the motel 
I agree, I would have taken the Overnight on Amtrak's Dime in CHI instead of waiting on a Bustitution.
greatcats
Engineer
Glad it worked out for you. I would have gone for the bus also if my bigger priority was to be in Indianapolis. My friend Mr. Dylan just dislikes buses. I prefer trains, also, although some bus trips have been fairly pleasant.
OlympianHiawatha
Engineer
Good question since it was only a SUGGESTION from the Conductor. I imagine if you had gambled and gone on into Chicago you would have still been fully covered if the connection blew up.
WoodyinNYC
Conductor
The Indiana DOT paid for a study of adding one or two or more frequencies to the Hoosier State. A couple of sidings near Indianapolis and other track work could get half an hour out of the Indiana part of the route. Illinois time savings would come from the CREATE scheme, which is significantly short of funds at this point.
The study concluded the benefits to Indiana were not worth the added costs. I thought they left out benefits like the value of lives saved by people being on the train instead of on the more dangerous highway, but whatever.
The biggest flaw was that the study refused to consider any effects on the system, specifically, no consideration of how arriving in Chicago half an hour earlier, and more reliably, could improve the Cardinal's results. Not Indiana's concern at all.
Now I'm reminded that many of Amtrak's connecting trains could benefit, and it's costs of hotel rooms could be slashed, if there were an earlier and a later Hoosier State departure from Chicago.
A daily Cardinal will probably renew interest in a Hoosier State as a companion schedule, not a replacement train. So waiting, and waiting, on delivery of the Viewliner IIs and the bi-levels, discussed at length in other thread, to get enuff equipment for a daily Cardinal.
The study concluded the benefits to Indiana were not worth the added costs. I thought they left out benefits like the value of lives saved by people being on the train instead of on the more dangerous highway, but whatever.
The biggest flaw was that the study refused to consider any effects on the system, specifically, no consideration of how arriving in Chicago half an hour earlier, and more reliably, could improve the Cardinal's results. Not Indiana's concern at all.
Now I'm reminded that many of Amtrak's connecting trains could benefit, and it's costs of hotel rooms could be slashed, if there were an earlier and a later Hoosier State departure from Chicago.
A daily Cardinal will probably renew interest in a Hoosier State as a companion schedule, not a replacement train. So waiting, and waiting, on delivery of the Viewliner IIs and the bi-levels, discussed at length in other thread, to get enuff equipment for a daily Cardinal.
Philly Amtrak Fan
Engineer
I had discussed this at another post. A good portion of the Cardinal ridership is between CHI and IND. If there's a Hoosier State separate from the Cardinal and the times are more attractive then the Cardinal ridership will go down.
WoodyinNYC
Conductor
Why would the bus run 2 hours late?
Never mind.
You said delays on the Chief were almost routine. So the bus is leaves about 1 hr 15 min after the Chief is set to arrive, padding to cushion some lateness. Add 45 minutes due to wet roads and you waited 2 hours.
About half the Chief's route Galesburg-Chicago is to become the new service to the Quad Cities. Stimulus funds were to speed up this section a bit. But the train-hating Gov of Illinois suspended the work. This could kill it, if his delay pushes the project beyond the Stimulus spending deadline, mid-2017. If work resumes, time savings here could get the Chief into Chicago some minutes earlier, maybe enuff to help with connections in a few years.
WoodyinNYC
Conductor
Not likely. Additional frequencies attract riders. More trains, more passengers, simple as that.
Easy examples:
About 10 years ago, Illinois paid to add two more Lincoln Service trains to the existing two (plus the Texas Eagle).
Ridership doubled within two years. Now St Louis-Chicago is about 600,000 a year (not including the Eagle).
Illinois will add another departure when the $Billion first stage upgrades will be completed in 2017. The $Billion in infrastructure will take almost an hour out of their timetables. The new bi-level cars on the five Lincoln Service trains will have 30% more seating capacity.
An increase from 4 to 5 departures could be another 150,000, making 750,000. Adding 30% of that from the bi-levels could mean nearly 1,000,000 riders.
That's what Illinois is planning for.
btw The Eagle will get more riders than its 80,000 or so now, which will help its results. It will surely add another coach or two if a spare Superliner can be found. It has a mid-day schedule, while the Lincoln trains run more popular times, morning and afternoon/evening. But some people want to go mid-day. The Eagle will also get better reliabilty. It will save only 45 minutes or so from the upgrades, not as much as the roughly 60 minutes for the Lincolns with their all-new equipment. But if the Lincolns have a 4:40 ride, how much slower is a 4:55 ride?
In NC, a few years ago the Carolinian ran Charlotte-Raleigh-NYC, the Piedmont ran Charlotte-Raleigh. When another departure was added to the Piedmont, for a 50% increase in capacity, ridership increased 100%. Half a Billion is being spent in NC to cut 20 or 30 minutes from the route. Then in 2017 they'll add two more Piedmonts, for a 40% increase in seats. I expect to see a 100% increase in pax.
On the Cascades Seattle-Portland, a very similar thing. Investing a Billion to cut a few minutes and improve on-time performance a lot. Then add two more runs of the Talgos.
+++++
More trains on a route helps the bottom line in several ways. Convenience and choice mainly, increasing ridership and maybe allowing ticket prices to rise by $1 or $2. But also "share of mind" grows, and when people learn there's a choice of 3 or 4 trains ("There's a train?"), more people will choose one. There's earned media from stories about the new trains, the faster times, the improved stations, etc. So marketing and advertising costs per pax decline theoretically, if there's any such at all for this sad route. LOL. Other Cardinal costs will go down because they'll be shared. Operating stations is about 2% of a LD's cost according to one PRIIA study. Share that 2% burden with one or two more trains and get it under 1%. That eliminates 1% of the costs of a train, and that's a big deal. And a service like checked baggage that's not cost effective with one train might be worth it with three trains that connect to other trains in Chicago.
I know you're impatient with Amtrak's tediously slow improvement. Me too. But the results of more and faster trains in four big markets (Detroit-Chicago will save 40 or 50 minutes iirc and may also gain a frequency), plus the bi-levels and the Viewliner IIs, taken together could make a strong impact on how Amtrak and investment in passenger rail are perceived. Then we might get something going. So hold on to 2017.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
