Amtrak Threatens Closing Beech Grove?

[Big Iron]

I wonder if long-term it wouldn't actually be cheaper for Amtrak to relocate since they'd either have to wait for the Cardinal, or run special trains and pay the host RRs for them for equipment moves if the Hoosier State ceases to run. I don't know what the costs would even be either way though, but surely it's more expensive to make a long special move to Chicago or D.C. than a quick move to the station then tacking the cars onto an existing train.

I think Amtrak is already running special "hospital" trains to Beech Grove. Two years ago I was riding the Cardinal that had a deadhead Horizon coach on the rear. I went in to check it out and there was an Amtrak Engineer sleeping in the last row of seats. We got to talking and he said that he was deadheading back home to Indy because there was no train needed that day to Beech Grove. He was on the extra board and said he mainly ran hospital trains back and forth from Beech Grove to CHI.

 

[ne52]

- check out the picture of a 'train' they use!)

Really, really tiny passengers!

 

[the_traveler]

I like one of the comments below the article. "Amtrak is a money pit." (Not said, but I guess airports and highways are not to that reader!)

 

[jis]

Amtrak is just a money pothole. To find a money pit you have to look at the overall roads and highways program. But hey we like and use those a lot so we will ignore that and moan incessantly about the pothole instead.

 

[Anderson]

*sighs*
This is stupid. I get Amtrak wanting to keep the Hoosier State running, but this has to be some of the worst behavior on Amtrak's part. The Hoosier State is the embodiment of a "bad train" in the system.

 

[railiner]

After reading several comments, I now think that they should divvy up Beech Grove functions three ways....Bear, De. for all single level equipment, a new facility at CHI and LAX for all bilevel equipment, built within existing properties/yards if at all possible.....

 

[PRR 60]

I don't even think Amtrak has so little business sense as to ditch a facility they own outright and spend tens of millions of dollars for new or expanded facilities elsewhere simply out of spite.

The Hoosier State is a rotten train - poor hours, unreliable, pathetically slow, four days a week. Amtrak wants Indiana to pay nearly the same as Pennsylvania will pay for the Pennsylvanian to keep it running. I don't blame Indiana for telling Amtrak to buzz off. Since the train is commonly used to ferry equipment to and from Beech Grove, Amtrak could easily make some assumptions and cut the cost to the state - a lot. They have decided to play tough guy. We'll see if they blink, because I don't think Indiana will, even with NARP doing Amtrak's dirty work - as usual.

 

[jis]

I have been wondering where Amtrak would find the money to fulfill the dreams of some here to punish Indiana in a pout. That would not be a reason that would fly with the paymasters of Amtrak. They'd probably simply say, OK you want the money, cut your two worst performing trains and there is your money or something silly like that. It is just a lose - lose proposition.

Besides, if a $100 million were to become available, would you rather use it to move Beech Grove out of spite, or would you rather get 30 additional Viewliners, just e.g..

 

[RampWidget]

One thing that should be remembered in this discussion is that the 500+ shopcraft workers at BEE would likely be entitled to labor protection payments if their work was moved by the carrier (Amtk) to another location out of commuting distance (Illinois, Michigan, etc.) and no contract provision is made to offer them positions within their current seniority district(s). Amtk could easily end up paying several hundred skilled workers to do no work.

OTOH, if the shopcrafts agreed to a move out of commuting distance, any such labor agreement will almost certainly include payments to those employees for relocation expenses. Relocating 500+ employees now working at BEE could cost over $10M, based on a very conservative estimate of $20,000 per family.

 

[Nathanael]

One thing that should be remembered in this discussion is that the 500+ shopcraft workers at BEE would likely be entitled to labor protection payments if their work was moved by the carrier (Amtk) to another location out of commuting distance (Illinois, Michigan, etc.)

People commute from Indianapolis to Chicago already (absurd though it sounds to me).

and no contract provision is made to offer them positions within their current seniority district(s). Amtk could easily end up paying several hundred skilled workers to do no work.

Will not happen. Unless Amtrak has a union contract which is completely obscene, the workers will certainly be offered the opportunity to move to the new location (Chicago or whatever).

OTOH, if the shopcrafts agreed to a move out of commuting distance,

I am pretty sure they don't have to agree. They can be forced to. The shop relocation is for legitimate and necessary business reasons.

any such labor agreement will almost certainly include payments to those employees for relocation expenses.

Now, this is true. Obviously Amtrak would have to offer them relocation expenses.

Relocating 500+ employees now working at BEE could cost over $10M, based on a very conservative estimate of $20,000 per family.

Which is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of running special trains on CSX to ferry stuff to Beech Grove. Unfortunately. I'm sure someone at Amtrak has actually added up the cost of ferrying stuff to Beech Grove, which is monumental.

 

[Guest]

I have been wondering where Amtrak would find the money to fulfill the dreams of some here to punish Indiana in a pout. That would not be a reason that would fly with the paymasters of Amtrak. They'd probably simply say, OK you want the money, cut your two worst performing trains and there is your money or something silly like that. It is just a lose - lose proposition.

Besides, if a $100 million were to become available, would you rather use it to move Beech Grove out of spite, or would you rather get 30 additional Viewliners, just e.g..

It's not a matter of "punishing Indiana". It's simple practicality. The Beech Grove location is a poorly located site with obsolete equipment. It's not quite as bad as owning shops in Columbus, Ohio or in Alaska, but it's pretty close. If Amtrak were a private railroad, it would have relocated Beech Grove to a sensible location 20-30 years ago.

As for where the money comes from? Many states offer bribes to move factories and other high-employment facilities to their states. If Amtrak lets it be known that they're looking, watch for the states to start offering.

 

[jis]

They ought to know what the cost is for running hospital trains, since notwithstanding the existence of the Hoosier State, I am told that they still do run separate hospital trains to the Grove from time to time. It is not really as monumental as it is being made out to be by the way. If it really was an issue Amtrak would figure out a low token charge for Indiana to pay so that they can continue to run the Hoosier State. The fact that they are not suggests that it is a non-issue.

 

[cirdan]

Besides, if a $100 million were to become available, would you rather use it to move Beech Grove out of spite, or would you rather get 30 additional Viewliners, just e.g..

I wouldn't reduce it to acting out of spite.

A modern facility permits costs to be saved in a way that a legacy facility can't.

You just need to look at the way train maintenance is organized in Japan for example.

You need to look at the way parts and material flows and ways of pipelining standard and repetitive tasks.

That leads to fewer errors, higher controllability, less need for re-work, higher reliability.

So at some point Amtrak will face the question of, do you want to flatten Beech Grove nad put something modern on that site, or do you want to take the same money and put that something modern on a different site.

 

[RampWidget]

One thing that should be remembered in this discussion is that the 500+ shopcraft workers at BEE would likely be entitled to labor protection payments if their work was moved by the carrier (Amtk) to another location out of commuting distance (Illinois, Michigan, etc.)

People commute from Indianapolis to Chicago already (absurd though it sounds to me).

and no contract provision is made to offer them positions within their current seniority district(s). Amtk could easily end up paying several hundred skilled workers to do no work.

Will not happen. Unless Amtrak has a union contract which is completely obscene, the workers will certainly be offered the opportunity to move to the new location (Chicago or whatever).

OTOH, if the shopcrafts agreed to a move out of commuting distance,

I am pretty sure they don't have to agree. They can be forced to. The shop relocation is for legitimate and necessary business reasons.

any such labor agreement will almost certainly include payments to those employees for relocation expenses.

Now, this is true. Obviously Amtrak would have to offer them relocation expenses.

Relocating 500+ employees now working at BEE could cost over $10M, based on a very conservative estimate of $20,000 per family.

Which is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of running special trains on CSX to ferry stuff to Beech Grove. Unfortunately. I'm sure someone at Amtrak has actually added up the cost of ferrying stuff to Beech Grove, which is monumental.

I think you may not be familiar with union agreements under the Railway Labor Act. Under provisions dating back over a hundred years ago in a case referred to as the New York Dock decision, workers covered under the RLA that have their work moved away or given to another craft or location are either entitled to equivalent positions within their existing seniority district, or they must be compensated (made whole) at their then-current rate of pay. You may not like it, but that's the facts under existing labor law. As for "commuting," that means the existing IRS definition of commuting distance, not whether or not people actually commute from Indy to Chgo.

 

[Guest]

I think you may not be familiar with union agreements under the Railway Labor Act. Under provisions dating back over a hundred years ago in a case referred to as the New York Dock decision, workers covered under the RLA that have their work moved away or given to another craft or location are either entitled to equivalent positions within their existing seniority district,

But *what's the defintion of seniority district*?

I know that the Class Is have shut down entire lines and entire shops, and they are most certainly not paying the former workers on those lines to do nothing.

 

[Nathanael]

Please note that the RLA covers airline employees too, and they have had entire operational sites shut down, too.

 

[Nathanael]

Yep, I just checked. Here's a statement by a law professor:

"To collect New York Dock benefits, you must:

- Follow your work (including relocation if necessary)..."

 

[Nathanael]

http://www.blet602.org/Documents/ny_dock_euma.pdf

 

[jis]

Besides, if a $100 million were to become available, would you rather use it to move Beech Grove out of spite, or would you rather get 30 additional Viewliners, just e.g..

I wouldn't reduce it to acting out of spite.

A modern facility permits costs to be saved in a way that a legacy facility can't.

You just need to look at the way train maintenance is organized in Japan for example.

You need to look at the way parts and material flows and ways of pipelining standard and repetitive tasks.

That leads to fewer errors, higher controllability, less need for re-work, higher reliability.

So at some point Amtrak will face the question of, do you want to flatten Beech Grove nad put something modern on that site, or do you want to take the same money and put that something modern on a different site.

True. But all indications from Amtrak's behavior and utterances so far is that such a time has not come. Yes, there is some amount of negotiation posturing going on, but that is about it for now. At the end of it things will remain just the way they are for the time being is my guess.

 

[RampWidget]

I think you may not be familiar with union agreements under the Railway Labor Act. Under provisions dating back over a hundred years ago in a case referred to as the New York Dock decision, workers covered under the RLA that have their work moved away or given to another craft or location are either entitled to equivalent positions within their existing seniority district,

But *what's the defintion of seniority district*?

I know that the Class Is have shut down entire lines and entire shops, and they are most certainly not paying the former workers on those lines to do nothing.

Seniority districts are defined within the union agreement in effect at a given time. For example, hypothetically, the seniority district for Norfolk Southern electricians at Atlanta probably includes any work performed by that craft within a fifty-mile radius. An electrician working at Industry Yard in East Point could bid to an electrician's position at the shop at Inman Yard at Atlanta or the Atlanta rail welding plant, etc.

In the case of line abandonments, that is indeed where New York Dock protection came from - an abandonment. The affected workers were guaranteed a minimum wage amount per pay period, whether they performed service or not. A similar situation happened when the ACL and SAL railroads merged in 1967. Under the new combined labor agreement, there was a provision that no worker would be permanently without a job, although they could be temporarily furloughed on a seasonal basis when traffic levels dropped. SCL workers covered under this agreement were essentially guaranteed a job for as long as they worked, even if a line on which they worked was abandoned, such as the late 1980's abandonment of the former SAL main line between Petersburg, Va. and Norlina, N.C. That work was based out of Raleigh, N.C., and runs between Richmond, Va. and Hamlet, N.C. still belonged to Raleigh trainmen & engineers despite the fact that their run now bypassed Raleigh entirely.

 

[RampWidget]

Yep, I just checked. Here's a statement by a law professor:

"To collect New York Dock benefits, you must:

- Follow your work (including relocation if necessary)..."

And that description of that part of New York Dock is accurate. However, most labor agreements in the industry contain provisions more favorable than those in New York Dock - note the mention in your link of the SCL "Orange Book" agreement - and the fact that those carriers that centralized dispatching operations in the 1980s-1990s did indeed pay relocation allowances that were provided for in their respective agreements. NYD also requires the payment of a year's wages to any employee that chooses not to follow the work. NYD provisions are complex and confusing, and I can't summarize them in a paragraph any more than you can with a sentence and a link.

 

[MrFSS]

News Report from a local IND TV Station.

INDIANAPOLIS - The state of Indiana is expected to decide this week whether to fund the Hoosier State Line train that runs from Chicago to Indianapolis.

The passenger train also delivers work to Amtrak in Beech Grove.

It sounds simple enough. Is it cost effective for the state to continue to invest in the Hoosier State Line from Chicago to Indianapolis? But in reality, the question is much bigger than that. It includes the City of Beech Grove, the City of Indianapolis and the entire state of Indiana.

 

[Nathanael]

True. But all indications from Amtrak's behavior and utterances so far is that such a time has not come. Yes, there is some amount of negotiation posturing going on, but that is about it for now. At the end of it things will remain just the way they are for the time being is my guess.

Relocating Beech Grove would be a multi-year operation in any case; there's no way a new site could be set up in less than 5 years.

It would likely not happen prior to the expiration of current labor agreements.

It's worth thinking about how hostile Indiana has been to passenger rail. When Amtrak started up in 1971, Indianapolis probably seemed like a extremely logical, central location for railway shops. It had three daily routes running through it, going in five directions!

Now, over the course of 43 years, the state of Indiana has let that all vanish. It no longer makes sense to locate the shops in Beech Grove. Amtrak has been extremely conservative about making the move, but after 43 years, eventually you have to recognize that it's going to be time to move soon.

 

[jis]

I agree with all the arguments presented in favor of moving out of Beech Grove. However, I don;t see any indication that it is imminent, notwithstanding what has been presented here.

Here is a blurb from NARP on this matter: http://narprail.org/news/narp-blog/2378-hoosier-beechgrove

They seem to say clearly that Amtrak has indicated that Beech Grove stays put irrespective of what happens to the Hoosier State. Frankly, I don't think Amtrak at this point really has a choice. Threatening Indiana with a status change for Beech Grove is not going to help the cause of Hoosier State one bit given the politics of that state, or so my disgusted friends from Indiana tell me.

Now, what Amtrak can do is sweeten the pill for Indiana bit by giving them a discount from the money that they save by using the Hoosier State as a hospital trains as opposed to running a separate hospital train.

Interesting question..... if Indiana were to come around to take on the full loss of running the Hoosier State, could they then demand that Amtrak not run any hospital stuff attached to that train? Afterall under 209 it pretty much becomes a train run for Indiana under contract by Amtrak, and hence removes the freedom from Amtrak to attache whatever they like to it, no? If they do, where does that leave Amtrak? Back to the negotiating table to figure out what mileage charge must be paid to Indiana to use the Hoosier State as a hospital train? Seems to get pretty complicated pretty soon. I will admit I have no idea what the answer is to my questions.

 

[RampWidget]

I agree with all the arguments presented in favor of moving out of Beech Grove. However, I don;t see any indication that it is imminent, notwithstanding what has been presented here.

Here is a blurb from NARP on this matter: http://narprail.org/news/narp-blog/2378-hoosier-beechgrove

They seem to say clearly that Amtrak has indicated that Beech Grove stays put irrespective of what happens to the Hoosier State. Frankly, I don't think Amtrak at this point really has a choice. Threatening Indiana with a status change for Beech Grove is not going to help the cause of Hoosier State one bit given the politics of that state, or so my disgusted friends from Indiana tell me.

Now, what Amtrak can do is sweeten the pill for Indiana bit by giving them a discount from the money that they save by using the Hoosier State as a hospital trains as opposed to running a separate hospital train.

Interesting question..... if Indiana were to come around to take on the full loss of running the Hoosier State, could they then demand that Amtrak not run any hospital stuff attached to that train? Afterall under 209 it pretty much becomes a train run for Indiana under contract by Amtrak, and hence removes the freedom from Amtrak to attache whatever they like to it, no? If they do, where does that leave Amtrak? Back to the negotiating table to figure out what mileage charge must be paid to Indiana to use the Hoosier State as a hospital train? Seems to get pretty complicated pretty soon. I will admit I have no idea what the answer is to my questions.

IIRC, since this is an already-established Amtrak route, they can obtain permission from the contracting RRs to operate special train service between points on that route. Amtrak does so often to reposition locomotives and cars between the maintenance facilities in Sanford and Hialeah.

They are billed, of course, but it's an already agreed-upon rate that is far less that what CSX or NS would charge a freight customer who requested special train service to expedite a shipment or move an excessive-dimension shipment. After all, an Amtrak extra would be operated by Amtrak crews, using Amtrak equipment, pulled by Amtrak locomotives burning Amtrak's fuel.

The additional cost to the host RR (and likely to Amtrak) is minimal, and surely less than the cost of running a fully staffed Hoosier State. (Don't get me wrong, I'm an Indy native and support the continuance of the Hoosier State's operation.)