TomDiehloltmanndDeggesty CSSHEGEWISCH Historically, full service dining cars lost money even in the pre-streamliner era. However, most roads viewed them as a necessary amenity and ate the losses. I never saw a statement otherwise. It is interesting that, in most cases, when all but perhaps one sleeper were dropped from a train, the diner would be dropped also, and arrangements made for advance orders to be taken for meals to bought at certain stations. The Southern, in particular, did this.And Amtrak doesn't do this why?? Well, on the freight railroads, Amtrak's ability to stay on schedule is spotty at best. Coordinating this type service with scheduled meal times would be a "challenge."
oltmanndDeggesty CSSHEGEWISCH Historically, full service dining cars lost money even in the pre-streamliner era. However, most roads viewed them as a necessary amenity and ate the losses. I never saw a statement otherwise. It is interesting that, in most cases, when all but perhaps one sleeper were dropped from a train, the diner would be dropped also, and arrangements made for advance orders to be taken for meals to bought at certain stations. The Southern, in particular, did this.And Amtrak doesn't do this why??
Deggesty CSSHEGEWISCH Historically, full service dining cars lost money even in the pre-streamliner era. However, most roads viewed them as a necessary amenity and ate the losses. I never saw a statement otherwise. It is interesting that, in most cases, when all but perhaps one sleeper were dropped from a train, the diner would be dropped also, and arrangements made for advance orders to be taken for meals to bought at certain stations. The Southern, in particular, did this.
CSSHEGEWISCH Historically, full service dining cars lost money even in the pre-streamliner era. However, most roads viewed them as a necessary amenity and ate the losses.
Historically, full service dining cars lost money even in the pre-streamliner era. However, most roads viewed them as a necessary amenity and ate the losses.
Well, on the freight railroads, Amtrak's ability to stay on schedule is spotty at best. Coordinating this type service with scheduled meal times would be a "challenge."
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Bucyrus Here is what you get when you use a lot of recycled materials: http://tinatarnoff.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55378e88988340120a71d788a970b-800wi
http://tinatarnoff.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55378e88988340120a71d788a970b-800wi
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
DeggestyCSSHEGEWISCH Historically, full service dining cars lost money even in the pre-streamliner era. However, most roads viewed them as a necessary amenity and ate the losses.I never saw a statement otherwise. It is interesting that, in most cases, when all but perhaps one sleeper were dropped from a train, the diner would be dropped also, and arrangements made for advance orders to be taken for meals to bought at certain stations. The Southern, in particular, did this.
I recall reading somewhere (can't think of the book or article) a multi-part exchange of letters by execs from the UP, SP and C&NW concerning the type and freshness and changing of flowers in the dining cars in City of San Francisco service (prior to Oct. 1955, of course). pretty high standards of quality then.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
CSSHEGEWISCHHistorically, full service dining cars lost money even in the pre-streamliner era. However, most roads viewed them as a necessary amenity and ate the losses.
However, as Maury Klein shows in his excellent two-volume history of the Union Pacific, the western roads, at least, provided the dining service only grudgingly and when their hand was forced by the competition. The quickest way to get on the outs with your fellow rail execs in those days was to ungrade your dining service.
What is basically a long commuter trip, albeit with more comfortable coaches, is being sold with images reminiscent of the Rock Mountain Rocket. Do you add amenities like a full diner and add to the loses, or try to cover costs with services more befitting your operation?
Johnny
Iowa chops and Illinois White Fish following a local leaf lettuce salad is laughable. A roughly 220 mile run, is it really cause for a full blown diner? Am I wrong, or did the privately owned railroads run dinning cars at a hefty loss in the salad days of rail travel?
A snack bar and lounge car, perhaps.I supposed vegetable oils used to cook corn chips in the small bags may have come from ADM or Cargill in either state. Nobody is really lying.
Over embellishing a proposal may provide fodder for critics to successfully derail it.
Bucyrus- You've made your point. We see where you stand on this. Getting back to the reason why. Right or wrong (each of us can decide that part), the information was included by the applicants to make their plan look better to the folks that decide where the money goes. It's a fact of life- you want your application to stand out. It's probably not a lot different than a resume. Some of the information may have been polished up a bit, but you want your resume to stand out.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
schlimm Tin hats and black helicopters! I really don't think all this is as big a departure from the norm as some are suggesting. There is precedent fort this from a time long before locavores and carbon footprints. Back in the day when the name trains (CZ, Empire Builder, Capitol Ltd., Super Chief, etc.) had fine dining car service, local specialties were often featured on the menu: Rocky Mt. trout, Chesapeake Bay scallops and crab cakes, etc. in season when available. And the reason? Much higher quality. But then perhaps eating microwaved and frozen and canned food is what you are used to?
Tin hats and black helicopters!
I really don't think all this is as big a departure from the norm as some are suggesting. There is precedent fort this from a time long before locavores and carbon footprints. Back in the day when the name trains (CZ, Empire Builder, Capitol Ltd., Super Chief, etc.) had fine dining car service, local specialties were often featured on the menu: Rocky Mt. trout, Chesapeake Bay scallops and crab cakes, etc. in season when available. And the reason? Much higher quality. But then perhaps eating microwaved and frozen and canned food is what you are used to?
It is true that railroad dining car service in the past, as a quaint marketing strategy, often featured menu items obtained from the regions they passed through in the quest for the highest quality. On the surface, it may appear that this same marketing strategy is being proposed by the developers of Chicago-Quad Cities HSR when the applicants for federal funding claim they will serve locally grown produce.
However, they make this claim in the context of “green products and practices,” and the purpose of serving locally grown produce in that context is to reduce the carbon footprint of food by reducing its transportation for distribution. In that context, buying local not only applies to food, but it also applies to all products, and it is a fundamental pillar of the green / sustainability movement. There is nothing conspiratorial in noticing this. There are uncountable websites promoting it. It is everywhere in the media.
It is true that one of the claimed benefits of buying local to be green is to get better quality and freshness just as with the tradition of serving local food in railroad dining cars in the past. But that tradition was never done in the name of “green products and practices.” The concept of “green” did not exist during the railroad passenger train era. Nobody thought CO2 was a pollutant.
The green buy-local movement of today might yield better quality than non-local food in some cases, but in a larger context, it calls for sacrifice. The overriding mission is to eat food produced within 100 miles. If it is not available within 100 miles, you don’t eat it. This is entirely different than the old dining car tradition of serving local cuisine.
greyhounds Bucyrus Why would activist groups favor an objective that a public train serve locally grown produce? You're asking for a logical explination of illogical actions. Food in the US is produced where its most efficient to produce it. It's no accident that apples come from Washington State, chickens are raised in the southeast, and pork comes from Iowa. Not all, but that's the concentration. 59% of US apples are produced in Washington and last time I checked there were 15 truckloads per day that went all the way to Florida. That's done for a reason. The reason being it's more efficient to grow the apples in Washington and ship them to Florida than to do anything else. Transportation of goods is cheap and efficient these days. More than anything, the activists are looking for a crusade that will give meaning to their lives. Now some of them will have at some times a good and valid point, I'm not denying that. But generally, it's about having a crusade that will give meaning to their lives. Once they leave on a crusade facts and logic become irrelevent. That's the best I can explain the inexplicable.
Bucyrus Why would activist groups favor an objective that a public train serve locally grown produce?
Why would activist groups favor an objective that a public train serve locally grown produce?
You're asking for a logical explination of illogical actions.
Food in the US is produced where its most efficient to produce it. It's no accident that apples come from Washington State, chickens are raised in the southeast, and pork comes from Iowa. Not all, but that's the concentration. 59% of US apples are produced in Washington and last time I checked there were 15 truckloads per day that went all the way to Florida. That's done for a reason. The reason being it's more efficient to grow the apples in Washington and ship them to Florida than to do anything else. Transportation of goods is cheap and efficient these days.
More than anything, the activists are looking for a crusade that will give meaning to their lives. Now some of them will have at some times a good and valid point, I'm not denying that. But generally, it's about having a crusade that will give meaning to their lives. Once they leave on a crusade facts and logic become irrelevent.
That's the best I can explain the inexplicable.
greyhounds,
You may be right about activists looking for a crusade, but I don’t think their actions are illogical. Their logic is plain and simple. They want to reduce the transportation of food in order to reduce the emission of CO2.
I understand your food distribution model that you describe. Its purpose is to provide the widest variety of the highest quality food at the lowest price. And the key to this model is efficient transportation.
However, the buy-local-food movement has the clear and simple objective of reducing food transportation, and to accomplish this, they are willing, if necessary, to sacrifice food quality and variety, and pay a higher price. It is called the “100-mile diet,” or the “food miles campaign.” It is completely against the food production and distribution model that you describe.
Here is a very informative link that includes both sides of the issue. One researcher contends that when you consider the entire carbon footprint of food production, food transported long distances may have a lower footprint than local produce because of higher efficiencies in the production end of food transported longer distances. Others contend that the buy-local movement will destroy the export economy of Australia:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/22/2852289.htm
The basic carbon footprint reduction objective of the buy-local movement may be a bit obscure because it is sugar coated in a collection of platitudes intended to offset the sacrifice that is called for. Some of these sweeteners include the assertions that local food is fresher and tastes better. It is better for you and it provides a story to accompany your food. It supports the local economy and pushes back against the fast food industry. It builds community. It keeps your dollars nearby. It gives you satisfaction to eat food knowing that it does not have a lot of miles on it.
The simple fact is that the buy-local movement and HSR are both components of the green movement that is sweeping the world’s advanced countries. So it is not surprising to see them being combined. The strange irony is that the buy-local movement conflicts with the food transportation interest of the freight railroads, which will be hosting HSR.
BucyrusPeople who guide their food consumption by the admonition to buy locally are called “Locavores.” Good locavores will limit their menu to food produced within 100 miles of themselves. So locavores eating on a moving train might have to abruptly stop eating mid-meal if the train takes them out of their range.
schlimm As far as the locally grown produce is concerned, it may be just a marketing advantage for an Iowa train to serve Iowa produce (and meat), as opposed to stuff from Latin America or Texas or California. Or it may be for the same reason that top notch restaurants serve local produce, seafood, meats, because they are fresher and thus taste better.
Not knowing or understanding the local state issues here, I thought it was funny that this issue was coming up in 2010. The CPR was a big marketer of locally grow produce from the areas their passenger trains served from the 1880's to the 1970's. BC salmon, Alberta beef, and on eastward. Don't forget seasonal specialties.
And it was all on their own dime.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
If the underlying objective of buying local is to procure the highest quality food, why not state that? Otherwise, buying local and procuring the highest quality food do not necessarily correlate.
Some foods simply are not available locally. Some local foods will be more costly than non-local foods. Some local foods will be lower quality than non-local counterparts. So if buying local is the stated objective, it does not always lead to the highest quality, cheapest, and most available food. For example, where I live, buying local in January precludes buying any produce at all unless I want to pay a premium for produce grown indoors.
The article says that the new train will serve locally grown produce as an example of the intent to integrate “new green products and practices.” It does not say anything about the best quality or best tasting food. If you look up "green practice of buying local," it says that buying local is green because it reduces the carbon footprint of food.
The green aspect of buying local food may occasionally lead to the best quality food, but it more often calls for sacrifice by only consuming foods that are in season, so they can be bought locally. Buying local is not so much an indulgence in quality as is an obligation like losing weight. But instead of losing weight, you are shrinking your carbon footprint in service of a larger cause.
Here is a link that explains it well. Interestingly, buying local completely precludes the consumption of the little kiwi fruit because it has an unacceptably large carbon footprint:
http://green-energysaving.com/carbon-emissions/educe-carbon-footprint-buying-local/
People who guide their food consumption by the admonition to buy locally are called “Locavores.” Good locavores will limit their menu to food produced within 100 miles of themselves. So locavores eating on a moving train might have to abruptly stop eating mid-meal if the train takes them out of their range.
Deggesty greyhoundsIowa cateloupe Do they cross-breed cattle and antelope in Iowa?I'm sorry, I just could not resist this misspelling. As to the sad business of distributing money that does not exist, I'm with you.
greyhoundsIowa cateloupe
Do they cross-breed cattle and antelope in Iowa?I'm sorry, I just could not resist this misspelling.
As to the sad business of distributing money that does not exist, I'm with you.
I apologize for the spelling. It's never been one of my strong ponits.
greyhounds Bucyrus Why does Washington favor an objective that a public train serve locally grown produce? It's just a gimmick.... The local produce is a gimmick to gain support of activist groups who will then support the governors and the governors' train gimmick.
Bucyrus Why does Washington favor an objective that a public train serve locally grown produce?
Why does Washington favor an objective that a public train serve locally grown produce?
It's just a gimmick.... The local produce is a gimmick to gain support of activist groups who will then support the governors and the governors' train gimmick.
It's just a gimmick. The trains are a gimmick by two governors who have "iffy" chances at retaining their jobs. The local produce is a gimmick to gain support of activist groups who will then support the governors and the governors' train gimmick.
Locally grown fresh produce simply won't be available most of the year for these trains. Once you preserve it by freezing or canning what difference does it make? I'll gurantee you that no one is going to be able to taste the difference between a California cantaloupe and an Iowa cateloupe. And Iowa canteloupes won't be available for most of the year.
It's a bad joke on us. The trains are a bad joke. The local produce thing is a bad joke. But it fools some of the people and that's the objective. If some of the people who get fooled are those in Washington handing out money that doesn't exist it just means the joke has worked very well.
As far as the locally grown produce is concerned, it may be just a marketing advantage for an Iowa train to serve Iowa produce (and meat), as opposed to stuff from Latin America or Texas or California. Or it may be for the same reason that top notch restaurants serve local produce, seafood, meats, because they are fresher and thus taste better.
Dakguy201 Bucyrus I can understand that serving certain local produce might offer some type of price/availability advantage at times. But why should serving locally grown produce be an overarching objective in and of itself? What is the advantage? The advantage is simply improving your chances of getting your grant application by using the objectives currently in favor in Washington. If the objective of the federal government was to protect the traveling public from the menace of flying saucers, then surely the applications would contain some assertion that train travel accomplishes that.
Bucyrus I can understand that serving certain local produce might offer some type of price/availability advantage at times. But why should serving locally grown produce be an overarching objective in and of itself? What is the advantage?
The advantage is simply improving your chances of getting your grant application by using the objectives currently in favor in Washington. If the objective of the federal government was to protect the traveling public from the menace of flying saucers, then surely the applications would contain some assertion that train travel accomplishes that.
schlimmBucyrus Victrola1 "The governors said recycled materials would be used in the construction of the train, locally-grown produce served in train dining cars, and recyclable and biodegradable containers used in food service on the train." http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/2010/08/06/iowa-illinois-submit-high-speed-rail-applicationBiodegradable food containers holding local sweet corn justifies a passenger train? At what point does pandering become absurdity? Going back to the original post and getting back on topic, I would like to know the purposes of using “new green products and practices,” as the governors of Iowa and Illinois said would be done with the new train service. Surely new green products and practices has a purpose or it would not be integrated into a rail project. What is its purpose? For instance, what is the advantage of serving locally produced food and using recycled materials to construct a train? Does this reduce the cost? If it is cheaper to build a train out of recycled materials, why haven’t they done it that way all along? 1. Going Green is actually pretty popular and shouldn't be seen as objectionable. 2. Serving locally-grown produce is common in better restaurants. It isn't a political statement. 3. Lots of steel has been recycled for years, long before the term recycling was used. 4. No one claimed they were building a train to use biodegradable products, etc. No one is pandering. So why not use all of the above?
Bucyrus Victrola1 "The governors said recycled materials would be used in the construction of the train, locally-grown produce served in train dining cars, and recyclable and biodegradable containers used in food service on the train." http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/2010/08/06/iowa-illinois-submit-high-speed-rail-applicationBiodegradable food containers holding local sweet corn justifies a passenger train? At what point does pandering become absurdity? Going back to the original post and getting back on topic, I would like to know the purposes of using “new green products and practices,” as the governors of Iowa and Illinois said would be done with the new train service. Surely new green products and practices has a purpose or it would not be integrated into a rail project. What is its purpose? For instance, what is the advantage of serving locally produced food and using recycled materials to construct a train? Does this reduce the cost? If it is cheaper to build a train out of recycled materials, why haven’t they done it that way all along?
Victrola1 "The governors said recycled materials would be used in the construction of the train, locally-grown produce served in train dining cars, and recyclable and biodegradable containers used in food service on the train." http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/2010/08/06/iowa-illinois-submit-high-speed-rail-applicationBiodegradable food containers holding local sweet corn justifies a passenger train? At what point does pandering become absurdity?
"The governors said recycled materials would be used in the construction of the train, locally-grown produce served in train dining cars, and recyclable and biodegradable containers used in food service on the train."
http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/2010/08/06/iowa-illinois-submit-high-speed-rail-applicationBiodegradable food containers holding local sweet corn justifies a passenger train? At what point does pandering become absurdity?
1. Going Green is actually pretty popular and shouldn't be seen as objectionable.
2. Serving locally-grown produce is common in better restaurants. It isn't a political statement.
3. Lots of steel has been recycled for years, long before the term recycling was used.
4. No one claimed they were building a train to use biodegradable products, etc. No one is pandering. So why not use all of the above?
I am not offering any opinion as to whether or not going green is objectionable. I am only asking what the point of it is. I know a lot of people say they are going green by following a set of beliefs and practices. The governors of Iowa and Illinois refer to it as “new green products and practices.” So I assume that going green is something new and using recycled materials in the construction of a train does not simply refer to the recycled aspect of steel-making, as you mention.
I can understand that serving certain local produce might offer some type of price/availability advantage at times. But why should serving locally grown produce be an overarching objective in and of itself? What is the advantage?
BucyrusVictrola1 "The governors said recycled materials would be used in the construction of the train, locally-grown produce served in train dining cars, and recyclable and biodegradable containers used in food service on the train." http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/2010/08/06/iowa-illinois-submit-high-speed-rail-applicationBiodegradable food containers holding local sweet corn justifies a passenger train? At what point does pandering become absurdity? Going back to the original post and getting back on topic, I would like to know the purposes of using “new green products and practices,” as the governors of Iowa and Illinois said would be done with the new train service. Surely new green products and practices has a purpose or it would not be integrated into a rail project. What is its purpose? For instance, what is the advantage of serving locally produced food and using recycled materials to construct a train? Does this reduce the cost? If it is cheaper to build a train out of recycled materials, why haven’t they done it that way all along?
Murphy SidingDoesn't "rich, corinthian leather" sound more appealing than just leather?
Bucyrus Going back to the original post and getting back on topic, I would like to know the purposes of using “new green products and practices,” as the governors of Iowa and Illinois said would be done with the new train service. Surely new green products and practices has a purpose or it would not be integrated into a rail project. What is its purpose? For instance, what is the advantage of serving locally produced food and using recycled materials to construct a train? Does this reduce the cost? If it is cheaper to build a train out of recycled materials, why haven’t they done it that way all along?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.