Amtrk Senate Debate

[selector]

You know that scene in Romancing the Stone, or whatever it was, and they had that sloppy slide to a place below and ended up in a position that niether party entirely regretted?

Let's take a break, regroup, wipe off the sweat, have a good swig from the water bottle, and then try to approach the topic another way.  This has gone as far as it practically can, I think.

-Crandell

[TomDiehl]

Tom,

 

Your statement of 12/11 that "pre Amtrak railroads did not have completely separate facilities for maintaining passenger and freight cars" is not accurate.  In all the cases that I am aware those facilities were separate.  Think of Sunnyside Yard for example, all passenger.

 

I worked in the 'Coach Yard" in Seattle just before ATK took it over.  It was originally a joint GN/NP facility.  Did work only on passenger equipment.  Freight car repairs were done at Balmer Yard, 5 miles away.  This arrangement was typical.  Skills and supplies were very different as between freight and passenger and mechanical facilites for each were typically separate.

 

Mac McCulloch

Thank you Mac, just the kind of experienced opinion I was fishing for. The main point is your very last sentence.

Why were you fishing for it?  Nobody was ever disputing frt and passenger are different. 

Page 2 of this thread, the 6th post.

You're referring to "...the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has....."?

From the post in question:

"There's a small mountain of people in mechanical ~4000.  By comparison, NS has about 1000 and the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has.....and NS has to inspect and lace up a few hundred thousand frt cars a week, to boot."

So the "by comparison" first came from you.

Back to "Language Arts" for you!  The "by comparison" applies to the first clause (Ns's locos vs. Amtrak locos and cars).  The part after the ..... is a second independent clause. The meaning, and intention, is clear.   And, if that isn't enough, I've clarified it quite a few times since.  But, since I'm bored, I'll do it again.  This time with an analogous situation.

It's like saying "You have more recorded music than me.  By comparison, you have more CDs than I have CDs and LPs.....and you have a whole bunch of cassettes to boot"

I suppose now you're gonna think I'm comparing CDs to passenger cars.

Back to basic sentence structure for you. In the second sentence, where is the comma separating the supposedly independant clauses?

They are INDEPENDENT clauses separted by "and".  DEPENDENT clauses are a whole 'nuther animal.  A sentence is an example of an independent clause.  

So if these were supposed to be independent, what were you proposing we compare?

uh...how about the stuff in the clause that has the word "compare" in it.  Try that.  If a clause has the word "compare" in it, it ususally means it contains a comparison.  Clause without the word "compare" don't.  Not all sentences contain comparisons.

So you finally admit you are proposing we compare the number maintenance department personnel at Amtrak, which is a passenger railroad, to NS, which is a freight railroad.

That's almost as bad as thinking a passenger car is "a bunch of seats bolted to a frame."

[TomDiehl]

Number two, if you think a passenger car is "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform," you truly have no idea what is is you're riding in, and what "makes it tick."

And no, disregarding railroad affiliations going back 50 years and a pretty good academic and professional engineering background, I don't need to know the secrets of what makes a railroad passenger car "tick". There are years and years of statistics available regarding the maintenance costs of modern era, modern construction, railroad passenger car fleets. Those numbers hold all the secrets we need to know for this exercise.

It's almost surprising that with all the education and experience you claim, you still call a passenger car "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform." It makes people wonder about these claims. Unless your experience was with a tourist railroad running converted flatcars, which are pretty much "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform." I don't recall seeing anything like that on Amtrak's roster.

And with all that background, you claim not to need to know the secrets of what makes a passenger car tick. (BTW, it's no secret)

That was hyperbole.

Look it up.

Hyperbole is supposed to mean you stuck your foot in your mouth?

That's not the definition I learned.

It seems like the opposite, instead of exaggerating you dexaggerated (hey, if the President can make up new words.....)

Unfortunately, you used it at a time that just made you look foolish.

Probably the same place you learned your grammar!

Do you think it's possible to exaggerate the simplicity of something?  "So simple a caveman can do it."

Well, if that's the best Don can come up with, he's conceeded this argument.

[TomDiehl]

The only "proposition" I put forth was that there was not enough similarity in the two items to compare the maintenance costs of a passenger car to that of a diesel-electric locomotive, a point that has yet to be refuted.

Since you have offered no evidence, there is nothing to refute. There is an existing correlation in the data. The confidence level -- the statistical measure -- is high. That is evidence.

What you need to do is go through the data, and if you can show a low correlation -- it's called the "R" factor -- then you can prove your point.

Until you do it, you can't. You're just making up a pretend argument. If your statement is true, then you can offer a statistical proof which will either show it is either credible or it isn't.

 

I didn't propose such a lame comparison. There's no tangible "data" to which we can apply an "R" factor. It's up to the person who proposed the "comparison"  to prove the comparison is valid rather than try to cover it up with comments on a person's grammer.

Obviously, his argument is just as invalid as yours.

[MichaelSol]

The only "proposition" I put forth was that there was not enough similarity in the two items to compare the maintenance costs of a passenger car to that of a diesel-electric locomotive, a point that has yet to be refuted.

Since you have offered no evidence, there is nothing to refute. There is an existing correlation in the data. The confidence level -- the statistical measure -- is high. That is evidence.

What you need to do is go through the data, and if you can show a low correlation -- it's called the "R" factor -- then you can prove your point.

Until you do it, you can't. You're just making up a pretend argument. If your statement is true, then you can offer a statistical proof which will either show it is either credible or it isn't.

 

[oltmannd]

Tom,

 

Your statement of 12/11 that "pre Amtrak railroads did not have completely separate facilities for maintaining passenger and freight cars" is not accurate.  In all the cases that I am aware those facilities were separate.  Think of Sunnyside Yard for example, all passenger.

 

I worked in the 'Coach Yard" in Seattle just before ATK took it over.  It was originally a joint GN/NP facility.  Did work only on passenger equipment.  Freight car repairs were done at Balmer Yard, 5 miles away.  This arrangement was typical.  Skills and supplies were very different as between freight and passenger and mechanical facilites for each were typically separate.

 

Mac McCulloch

Thank you Mac, just the kind of experienced opinion I was fishing for. The main point is your very last sentence.

Why were you fishing for it?  Nobody was ever disputing frt and passenger are different. 

Page 2 of this thread, the 6th post.

You're referring to "...the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has....."?

From the post in question:

"There's a small mountain of people in mechanical ~4000.  By comparison, NS has about 1000 and the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has.....and NS has to inspect and lace up a few hundred thousand frt cars a week, to boot."

So the "by comparison" first came from you.

Back to "Language Arts" for you!  The "by comparison" applies to the first clause (Ns's locos vs. Amtrak locos and cars).  The part after the ..... is a second independent clause. The meaning, and intention, is clear.   And, if that isn't enough, I've clarified it quite a few times since.  But, since I'm bored, I'll do it again.  This time with an analogous situation.

It's like saying "You have more recorded music than me.  By comparison, you have more CDs than I have CDs and LPs.....and you have a whole bunch of cassettes to boot"

I suppose now you're gonna think I'm comparing CDs to passenger cars.

Back to basic sentence structure for you. In the second sentence, where is the comma separating the supposedly independant clauses?

They are INDEPENDENT clauses separted by "and".  DEPENDENT clauses are a whole 'nuther animal.  A sentence is an example of an independent clause.  

So if these were supposed to be independent, what were you proposing we compare?

uh...how about the stuff in the clause that has the word "compare" in it.  Try that.  If a clause has the word "compare" in it, it ususally means it contains a comparison.  Clause without the word "compare" don't.  Not all sentences contain comparisons.

[oltmannd]

Number two, if you think a passenger car is "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform," you truly have no idea what is is you're riding in, and what "makes it tick."

And no, disregarding railroad affiliations going back 50 years and a pretty good academic and professional engineering background, I don't need to know the secrets of what makes a railroad passenger car "tick". There are years and years of statistics available regarding the maintenance costs of modern era, modern construction, railroad passenger car fleets. Those numbers hold all the secrets we need to know for this exercise.

It's almost surprising that with all the education and experience you claim, you still call a passenger car "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform." It makes people wonder about these claims. Unless your experience was with a tourist railroad running converted flatcars, which are pretty much "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform." I don't recall seeing anything like that on Amtrak's roster.

And with all that background, you claim not to need to know the secrets of what makes a passenger car tick. (BTW, it's no secret)

That was hyperbole.

Look it up.

Hyperbole is supposed to mean you stuck your foot in your mouth?

That's not the definition I learned.

It seems like the opposite, instead of exaggerating you dexaggerated (hey, if the President can make up new words.....)

Unfortunately, you used it at a time that just made you look foolish.

Probably the same place you learned your grammar!

Do you think it's possible to exaggerate the simplicity of something?  "So simple a caveman can do it."

[TomDiehl]

Tom,

 

Your statement of 12/11 that "pre Amtrak railroads did not have completely separate facilities for maintaining passenger and freight cars" is not accurate.  In all the cases that I am aware those facilities were separate.  Think of Sunnyside Yard for example, all passenger.

 

I worked in the 'Coach Yard" in Seattle just before ATK took it over.  It was originally a joint GN/NP facility.  Did work only on passenger equipment.  Freight car repairs were done at Balmer Yard, 5 miles away.  This arrangement was typical.  Skills and supplies were very different as between freight and passenger and mechanical facilites for each were typically separate.

 

Mac McCulloch

Thank you Mac, just the kind of experienced opinion I was fishing for. The main point is your very last sentence.

Why were you fishing for it?  Nobody was ever disputing frt and passenger are different. 

Page 2 of this thread, the 6th post.

You're referring to "...the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has....."?

From the post in question:

"There's a small mountain of people in mechanical ~4000.  By comparison, NS has about 1000 and the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has.....and NS has to inspect and lace up a few hundred thousand frt cars a week, to boot."

So the "by comparison" first came from you.

Back to "Language Arts" for you!  The "by comparison" applies to the first clause (Ns's locos vs. Amtrak locos and cars).  The part after the ..... is a second independent clause. The meaning, and intention, is clear.   And, if that isn't enough, I've clarified it quite a few times since.  But, since I'm bored, I'll do it again.  This time with an analogous situation.

It's like saying "You have more recorded music than me.  By comparison, you have more CDs than I have CDs and LPs.....and you have a whole bunch of cassettes to boot"

I suppose now you're gonna think I'm comparing CDs to passenger cars.

Back to basic sentence structure for you. In the second sentence, where is the comma separating the supposedly independant clauses?

They are INDEPENDENT clauses separted by "and".  DEPENDENT clauses are a whole 'nuther animal.  A sentence is an example of an independent clause.  

So if these were supposed to be independent, what were you proposing we compare?

[TomDiehl]

Number two, if you think a passenger car is "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform," you truly have no idea what is is you're riding in, and what "makes it tick."

And no, disregarding railroad affiliations going back 50 years and a pretty good academic and professional engineering background, I don't need to know the secrets of what makes a railroad passenger car "tick". There are years and years of statistics available regarding the maintenance costs of modern era, modern construction, railroad passenger car fleets. Those numbers hold all the secrets we need to know for this exercise.

It's almost surprising that with all the education and experience you claim, you still call a passenger car "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform." It makes people wonder about these claims. Unless your experience was with a tourist railroad running converted flatcars, which are pretty much "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform." I don't recall seeing anything like that on Amtrak's roster.

And with all that background, you claim not to need to know the secrets of what makes a passenger car tick. (BTW, it's no secret)

That was hyperbole.

Look it up.

Hyperbole is supposed to mean you stuck your foot in your mouth?

That's not the definition I learned.

It seems like the opposite, instead of exaggerating you dexaggerated (hey, if the President can make up new words.....)

Unfortunately, you used it at a time that just made you look foolish.

[TomDiehl]

Number one, I didn't say one cost more or less than the other to maintain. I said there was not enough similarity between the two to make such a comparison. THAT was the point.

There is enough similarity that 20% of Amtrak maintenance has to be similar to the maintenance costs of a diesel-electric locomotive because that's exactly what Amtrak is maintaining.

But the figures quoted do not compare Amtrak's personnel maintaing the diesel-electric locomotives to the NS (or BNSF) personnel maintaining diesel-electric locomotives. You're assuming the 20%. And we all know where the word "assume" comes from.

The figures quoted was the TOTAL number of Amtrak's personnel maintaining all rolling stock to the NS (or BNSF) personnel maintaining all rolling stock. That's where the comparison loses validity.

I think you are intentionally misreading what has been posted on this thread simply to perpetuate an argument which probably had no point for you in the first place.

There is no reason why Amtrak should have to employ far more employees for its mechanical shops than Class I railways needed to employ for similar service. Given productivity increases, it should be considerably less, it isn't, and that may be one of the problems with Amtrak today.

You disagree, for reasons which are not based on any tangible experience or education, you can cite to no statistical basis for your argument, and this thread is degenerating into one of your multiple postings where you attempt to be "clever" rather than factual.

Perhaps its best simply to say you disagree since that seems to be about it.

Done.

 

The bold in your quote is mine, to point out the problem with the comparison. The point being, the services aren't similar.

"attempt to be "clever" rather than factual," you mean like your attempt to bring in a cesium beam clock when you really didn't understand what it was?

Or it's best to say your comparison is invalid due to lack of similarity.

[TomDiehl]

You didn't answer the original question of whether the maintenance costs were actually compared in the Statistics of Railways of the United States, or if you did the comparison.

12/11/2007:

I looked at the Statistics of Railways of the United States, looked to three separate years 5 years apart, compared the cost of diesel-electric locomotive maintenance to the cost of passenger car maintenance ...

The question was, did this publication actually perform such a comparison within its pages, or is the comparison made by you from two separate sets of statistics.

I said "I looked at ...". I think it's clear.

 

Yes, it's clear such a comparison wasn't made in the publication, it's strictly yours.

Yes, I said that. It shouldn't take two pages for you to reach that conclusion: it was contained in my first post on the topic. It was a question for which you already had the answer.

I relied on cost of maintenance records generated by the Class I Railways of the United States for railroad passenger cars and noted that there was a statistical correlation with cost of maintenance records for the diesel-electric fleet.

This is no doubt because equipment maintenance tends to require the same subset of costs for support: wrenches, screwdrivers, and people with appropriate mechanical skills. A standard railroad passenger car of a given age and use has a pretty well-defined maintenance cost. A standard railroad locomotive likewise follows a standard maintenance cost curve remarkably closely. As you realized after getting it backwards earlier, the passenger car fleets did not typically share facilities with other railroad operations, which lends support to the idea that Amtrak should resemble, not contradict, the experience of Class I Railways passenger operation maintenance costs.

I cannot see that you rely on any data whatsoever, nor offer any evidentiary support for your proposition.

 

The only "proposition" I put forth was that there was not enough similarity in the two items to compare the maintenance costs of a passenger car to that of a diesel-electric locomotive, a point that has yet to be refuted.

I agree that "Amtrak should resemble, not contradict, the experience of Class I Railways passenger operation maintenance costs." So why compare it to maintaining a diesel-electric locomotive? Because there is no other Class I Railway Passenger Operation to compare it to in this country.

The big difference between the two being "people with appropriate mechanical skills" would not be the same, either in skill or quantity, making such a comparison an interesting exercise in statistical methodoloy, but yielding no useful data.

[oltmannd]

Tom,

 

Your statement of 12/11 that "pre Amtrak railroads did not have completely separate facilities for maintaining passenger and freight cars" is not accurate.  In all the cases that I am aware those facilities were separate.  Think of Sunnyside Yard for example, all passenger.

 

I worked in the 'Coach Yard" in Seattle just before ATK took it over.  It was originally a joint GN/NP facility.  Did work only on passenger equipment.  Freight car repairs were done at Balmer Yard, 5 miles away.  This arrangement was typical.  Skills and supplies were very different as between freight and passenger and mechanical facilites for each were typically separate.

 

Mac McCulloch

Thank you Mac, just the kind of experienced opinion I was fishing for. The main point is your very last sentence.

Why were you fishing for it?  Nobody was ever disputing frt and passenger are different. 

Page 2 of this thread, the 6th post.

You're referring to "...the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has....."?

From the post in question:

"There's a small mountain of people in mechanical ~4000.  By comparison, NS has about 1000 and the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has.....and NS has to inspect and lace up a few hundred thousand frt cars a week, to boot."

So the "by comparison" first came from you.

Back to "Language Arts" for you!  The "by comparison" applies to the first clause (Ns's locos vs. Amtrak locos and cars).  The part after the ..... is a second independent clause. The meaning, and intention, is clear.   And, if that isn't enough, I've clarified it quite a few times since.  But, since I'm bored, I'll do it again.  This time with an analogous situation.

It's like saying "You have more recorded music than me.  By comparison, you have more CDs than I have CDs and LPs.....and you have a whole bunch of cassettes to boot"

I suppose now you're gonna think I'm comparing CDs to passenger cars.

Back to basic sentence structure for you. In the second sentence, where is the comma separating the supposedly independant clauses?

They are INDEPENDENT clauses separted by "and".  DEPENDENT clauses are a whole 'nuther animal.  A sentence is an example of an independent clause.  

[oltmannd]

Number one, I didn't say one cost more or less than the other to maintain. I said there was not enough similarity between the two to make such a comparison. THAT was the point.

There is enough similarity that 20% of Amtrak maintenance has to be similar to the maintenance costs of a diesel-electric locomotive because that's exactly what Amtrak is maintaining.

But the figures quoted do not compare Amtrak's personnel maintaing the diesel-electric locomotives to the NS (or BNSF) personnel maintaining diesel-electric locomotives. You're assuming the 20%. And we all know where the word "assume" comes from.

The figures quoted was the TOTAL number of Amtrak's personnel maintaining all rolling stock to the NS (or BNSF) personnel maintaining all rolling stock. That's where the comparison loses validity.

How so?

[TomDiehl]

Tom,

 

Your statement of 12/11 that "pre Amtrak railroads did not have completely separate facilities for maintaining passenger and freight cars" is not accurate.  In all the cases that I am aware those facilities were separate.  Think of Sunnyside Yard for example, all passenger.

 

I worked in the 'Coach Yard" in Seattle just before ATK took it over.  It was originally a joint GN/NP facility.  Did work only on passenger equipment.  Freight car repairs were done at Balmer Yard, 5 miles away.  This arrangement was typical.  Skills and supplies were very different as between freight and passenger and mechanical facilites for each were typically separate.

 

Mac McCulloch

Thank you Mac, just the kind of experienced opinion I was fishing for. The main point is your very last sentence.

Why were you fishing for it?  Nobody was ever disputing frt and passenger are different. 

Page 2 of this thread, the 6th post.

You're referring to "...the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has....."?

From the post in question:

"There's a small mountain of people in mechanical ~4000.  By comparison, NS has about 1000 and the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has.....and NS has to inspect and lace up a few hundred thousand frt cars a week, to boot."

So the "by comparison" first came from you.

Back to "Language Arts" for you!  The "by comparison" applies to the first clause (Ns's locos vs. Amtrak locos and cars).  The part after the ..... is a second independent clause. The meaning, and intention, is clear.   And, if that isn't enough, I've clarified it quite a few times since.  But, since I'm bored, I'll do it again.  This time with an analogous situation.

It's like saying "You have more recorded music than me.  By comparison, you have more CDs than I have CDs and LPs.....and you have a whole bunch of cassettes to boot"

I suppose now you're gonna think I'm comparing CDs to passenger cars.

Back to basic sentence structure for you. In the second sentence, where is the comma separating the supposedly independant clauses?

[oltmannd]

Tom,

 

Your statement of 12/11 that "pre Amtrak railroads did not have completely separate facilities for maintaining passenger and freight cars" is not accurate.  In all the cases that I am aware those facilities were separate.  Think of Sunnyside Yard for example, all passenger.

 

I worked in the 'Coach Yard" in Seattle just before ATK took it over.  It was originally a joint GN/NP facility.  Did work only on passenger equipment.  Freight car repairs were done at Balmer Yard, 5 miles away.  This arrangement was typical.  Skills and supplies were very different as between freight and passenger and mechanical facilites for each were typically separate.

 

Mac McCulloch

Thank you Mac, just the kind of experienced opinion I was fishing for. The main point is your very last sentence.

Why were you fishing for it?  Nobody was ever disputing frt and passenger are different. 

Page 2 of this thread, the 6th post.

You're referring to "...the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has....."?

From the post in question:

"There's a small mountain of people in mechanical ~4000.  By comparison, NS has about 1000 and the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has.....and NS has to inspect and lace up a few hundred thousand frt cars a week, to boot."

So the "by comparison" first came from you.

Back to "Language Arts" for you!  The "by comparison" applies to the first clause (Ns's locos vs. Amtrak locos and cars).  The part after the ..... is a second independent clause. The meaning, and intention, is clear.   And, if that isn't enough, I've clarified it quite a few times since.  But, since I'm bored, I'll do it again.  This time with an analogous situation.

It's like saying "You have more recorded music than me.  By comparison, you have more CDs than I have CDs and LPs.....and you have a whole bunch of cassettes to boot"

I suppose now you're gonna think I'm comparing CDs to passenger cars.

[MichaelSol]

Number one, I didn't say one cost more or less than the other to maintain. I said there was not enough similarity between the two to make such a comparison. THAT was the point.

There is enough similarity that 20% of Amtrak maintenance has to be similar to the maintenance costs of a diesel-electric locomotive because that's exactly what Amtrak is maintaining.

But the figures quoted do not compare Amtrak's personnel maintaing the diesel-electric locomotives to the NS (or BNSF) personnel maintaining diesel-electric locomotives. You're assuming the 20%. And we all know where the word "assume" comes from.

The figures quoted was the TOTAL number of Amtrak's personnel maintaining all rolling stock to the NS (or BNSF) personnel maintaining all rolling stock. That's where the comparison loses validity.

I think you are intentionally misreading what has been posted on this thread simply to perpetuate an argument which probably had no point for you in the first place.

There is no reason why Amtrak should have to employ far more employees for its mechanical shops than Class I railways needed to employ for similar service. Given productivity increases, it should be considerably less, it isn't, and that may be one of the problems with Amtrak today.

You disagree, for reasons which are not based on any tangible experience or education, you can cite to no statistical basis for your argument, and this thread is degenerating into one of your multiple postings where you attempt to be "clever" rather than factual.

Perhaps its best simply to say you disagree since that seems to be about it.

Done.

 

[MichaelSol]

Number two, if you think a passenger car is "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform," you truly have no idea what is is you're riding in, and what "makes it tick."

And no, disregarding railroad affiliations going back 50 years and a pretty good academic and professional engineering background, I don't need to know the secrets of what makes a railroad passenger car "tick". There are years and years of statistics available regarding the maintenance costs of modern era, modern construction, railroad passenger car fleets. Those numbers hold all the secrets we need to know for this exercise.

It's almost surprising that with all the education and experience you claim, you still call a passenger car "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform." It makes people wonder about these claims. Unless your experience was with a tourist railroad running converted flatcars, which are pretty much "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform." I don't recall seeing anything like that on Amtrak's roster.

And with all that background, you claim not to need to know the secrets of what makes a passenger car tick. (BTW, it's no secret)

That was hyperbole.

Look it up.

[MichaelSol]

You didn't answer the original question of whether the maintenance costs were actually compared in the Statistics of Railways of the United States, or if you did the comparison.

12/11/2007:

I looked at the Statistics of Railways of the United States, looked to three separate years 5 years apart, compared the cost of diesel-electric locomotive maintenance to the cost of passenger car maintenance ...

The question was, did this publication actually perform such a comparison within its pages, or is the comparison made by you from two separate sets of statistics.

I said "I looked at ...". I think it's clear.

 

Yes, it's clear such a comparison wasn't made in the publication, it's strictly yours.

Yes, I said that. It shouldn't take two pages for you to reach that conclusion: it was contained in my first post on the topic. It was a question for which you already had the answer.

I relied on cost of maintenance records generated by the Class I Railways of the United States for railroad passenger cars and noted that there was a statistical correlation with cost of maintenance records for the diesel-electric fleet.

This is no doubt because equipment maintenance tends to require the same subset of costs for support: wrenches, screwdrivers, and people with appropriate mechanical skills. A standard railroad passenger car of a given age and use has a pretty well-defined maintenance cost. A standard railroad locomotive likewise follows a standard maintenance cost curve remarkably closely. As you realized after getting it backwards earlier, the passenger car fleets did not typically share facilities with other railroad operations, which lends support to the idea that Amtrak should resemble, not contradict, the experience of Class I Railways passenger operation maintenance costs.

I cannot see that you rely on any data whatsoever, nor offer any evidentiary support for your proposition.

 

[TomDiehl]

Those costs show a high degree of correlation with the costs of maintenance of the diesel-electric fleet, in proportion to a particular ratio. Unless there has been a significant change in the nature of maintenance for either fleet, you have offered no reason whatsover to believe that the statistical correlation has changed.

The question is the basis for the corerelation itself between the costs of maintaining locomotives and passenger cars. The only place I've ever seen these compared to one another is on this thread.

[TomDiehl]

Number two, if you think a passenger car is "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform," you truly have no idea what is is you're riding in, and what "makes it tick."

And no, disregarding railroad affiliations going back 50 years and a pretty good academic and professional engineering background, I don't need to know the secrets of what makes a railroad passenger car "tick". There are years and years of statistics available regarding the maintenance costs of modern era, modern construction, railroad passenger car fleets. Those numbers hold all the secrets we need to know for this exercise.

It's almost surprising that with all the education and experience you claim, you still call a passenger car "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform." It makes people wonder about these claims. Unless your experience was with a tourist railroad running converted flatcars, which are pretty much "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform." I don't recall seeing anything like that on Amtrak's roster.

And with all that background, you claim not to need to know the secrets of what makes a passenger car tick. (BTW, it's no secret)

[TomDiehl]

Number one, I didn't say one cost more or less than the other to maintain. I said there was not enough similarity between the two to make such a comparison. THAT was the point.

There is enough similarity that 20% of Amtrak maintenance has to be similar to the maintenance costs of a diesel-electric locomotive because that's exactly what Amtrak is maintaining.

But the figures quoted do not compare Amtrak's personnel maintaing the diesel-electric locomotives to the NS (or BNSF) personnel maintaining diesel-electric locomotives. You're assuming the 20%. And we all know where the word "assume" comes from.

The figures quoted was the TOTAL number of Amtrak's personnel maintaining all rolling stock to the NS (or BNSF) personnel maintaining all rolling stock. That's where the comparison loses validity.

[TomDiehl]

You didn't answer the original question of whether the maintenance costs were actually compared in the Statistics of Railways of the United States, or if you did the comparison.

12/11/2007:

I looked at the Statistics of Railways of the United States, looked to three separate years 5 years apart, compared the cost of diesel-electric locomotive maintenance to the cost of passenger car maintenance ...

The question was, did this publication actually perform such a comparison within its pages, or is the comparison made by you from two separate sets of statistics.

I said "I looked at ...". I think it's clear.

 

Yes, it's clear such a comparison wasn't made in the publication, it's strictly yours.

[TomDiehl]

Tom,

 

Your statement of 12/11 that "pre Amtrak railroads did not have completely separate facilities for maintaining passenger and freight cars" is not accurate.  In all the cases that I am aware those facilities were separate.  Think of Sunnyside Yard for example, all passenger.

 

I worked in the 'Coach Yard" in Seattle just before ATK took it over.  It was originally a joint GN/NP facility.  Did work only on passenger equipment.  Freight car repairs were done at Balmer Yard, 5 miles away.  This arrangement was typical.  Skills and supplies were very different as between freight and passenger and mechanical facilites for each were typically separate.

 

Mac McCulloch

Thank you Mac, just the kind of experienced opinion I was fishing for. The main point is your very last sentence.

Why were you fishing for it?  Nobody was ever disputing frt and passenger are different. 

Page 2 of this thread, the 6th post.

You're referring to "...the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has....."?

From the post in question:

"There's a small mountain of people in mechanical ~4000.  By comparison, NS has about 1000 and the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has.....and NS has to inspect and lace up a few hundred thousand frt cars a week, to boot."

So the "by comparison" first came from you.

[MichaelSol]

Number one, I didn't say one cost more or less than the other to maintain. I said there was not enough similarity between the two to make such a comparison. THAT was the point.

Number two, if you think a passenger car is "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform," you truly have no idea what is is you're riding in, and what "makes it tick."

There is enough similarity that 20% of Amtrak maintenance has to be similar to the maintenance costs of a diesel-electric locomotive because that's exactly what Amtrak is maintaining.

And no, disregarding railroad affiliations going back 50 years and a pretty good academic and professional engineering background, I don't need to know the secrets of what makes a railroad passenger car "tick". There are years and years of statistics available regarding the maintenance costs of modern era, modern construction, railroad passenger car fleets. Those numbers hold all the secrets we need to know for this exercise.

Those costs show a high degree of correlation with the costs of maintenance of the diesel-electric fleet, in proportion to a particular ratio. Unless there has been a significant change in the nature of maintenance for either fleet, you have offered no reason whatsover to believe that the statistical correlation has changed.

 

[MichaelSol]

You didn't answer the original question of whether the maintenance costs were actually compared in the Statistics of Railways of the United States, or if you did the comparison.

12/11/2007:

I looked at the Statistics of Railways of the United States, looked to three separate years 5 years apart, compared the cost of diesel-electric locomotive maintenance to the cost of passenger car maintenance ...

The question was, did this publication actually perform such a comparison within its pages, or is the comparison made by you from two separate sets of statistics.

I said "I looked at ...". I think it's clear.

 

[MichaelSol]

I know they're trying out an open all day/all day menu version of the diner on a couple of trains (Cardinal and City of New Orleans?)

I've always wondered if they wouldn't be better off just bidding it out to a national chain restaurant.  The one that you have to pay the least to take the bid wins - and then they can try to make as much profit as they can.  Logistics and cooking belong to the vendor.  Whether you have a grill chef or not no longer is an issue of national politics!

Interesting, I was thinking about something like this on my last trip on the Builder. I had just put up with the surliest dining car crew in my experience; they were on the third day of what must have been a very long trip. Kind of like having Nurse Ratchet, Jack Nicholson and Anthony Perkins all running the dining car. I thought, well, why not have a private contractor come on board the WB Empire Builder at Wenatchee, load a pre-loaded pantry that inserts quickly into the side of the dining car -- like airplanes do it, and serve Breakfast into Everett, layover in Everett, and handle dinner in the same fashion for the Eastbound Empire Builder. Somebody else comes on board at Libby for the EB Breakfast run, detrains at Havre. I suppose there would be a union problem with this, but there just has to be a better way on the LD trains to serve "food".

 

 

[TomDiehl]

You didn't answer the original question of whether the maintenance costs were actually compared in the Statistics of Railways of the United States, or if you did the comparison.

12/11/2007:

I looked at the Statistics of Railways of the United States, looked to three separate years 5 years apart, compared the cost of diesel-electric locomotive maintenance to the cost of passenger car maintenance ...

The question was, did this publication actually perform such a comparison within its pages, or is the comparison made by you from two separate sets of statistics.

[TomDiehl]

The point called into question is how do you define the maintenance costs of a diesel-electric locomotive to the maintenance costs of a passenger car as "companion technology" in any era?

The "point called into question" is why you believe that a heavy, complex, hard working machine with thousands of moving parts costs less to maintain than a bunch of seats bolted to a platform.

 

Number one, I didn't say one cost more or less than the other to maintain. I said there was not enough similarity between the two to make such a comparison. THAT was the point.

Number two, if you think a passenger car is "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform," you truly have no idea what is is you're riding in, and what "makes it tick."

[MichaelSol]

The point called into question is how do you define the maintenance costs of a diesel-electric locomotive to the maintenance costs of a passenger car as "companion technology" in any era?

The "point called into question" is why you believe that a heavy, complex, hard working machine with thousands of moving parts costs less to maintain than a bunch of seats bolted to a platform.