Doesn't Ed Ellis's (fomer?) operation have enough equipment to cover the service without making any dents in other operations? May that is what gives them a head start, that they have the equipment on-hand and operational.
A McIntoshWith private operators bidding to run this service, I wonder if any of them have pockets deep enough to buy their own rolling stock? If your in for a penny, might as well be in for a pound. On another facet of this topic, and at the risk of flogging a dead horse, I posted a comment last fall concerning my experience riding a bus. I am sorry if I caused any offense to anyone with it. I only wanted to say that while the purpose of passenger travel is to get from point A to point B, not all modes are the same. Each has its strengths and weakness.
With private operators bidding to run this service, I wonder if any of them have pockets deep enough to buy their own rolling stock? If your in for a penny, might as well be in for a pound. On another facet of this topic, and at the risk of flogging a dead horse, I posted a comment last fall concerning my experience riding a bus. I am sorry if I caused any offense to anyone with it. I only wanted to say that while the purpose of passenger travel is to get from point A to point B, not all modes are the same. Each has its strengths and weakness.
So why has Amtrak chosen to report the Total Costs only at the route level despite the law? Further, in this example the Long-Term Variable Costs were shown to be half the Total Cost, consider the implications for the true cost recovery of the Long Distance trains.
We the people are on the hook for all the expenses with any and all transportation projects either thru direct cost or the additional cost of goods. the more cost efficient we are the better it is for everyone. Period. stop being greedy and we can all pull the load much easier when we all pull in the same direction>
Was this the article?
http://www.jconline.com/article/20131220/NEWS/312200028/hoosier-rail-INDOT-consulting?nclick_check=1
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
"The difference is the State of Indiana is not asking the areas to subsidize the right of way, which is all roads really are. "
The government pays quite a bit for accidents not covered by road users, think of Medicaid and Social Security Disability along with direct payments to hospitals, police, and fire departments. A common carrier makes the passenger whole, I have never come out whole fiancially in an auto accident even when not at fault. Roads have an operating cost not meet by the users. Those financial costs borne by the users for accidents are about twice those of governments
All told there is a historical deficit of about $0.125 per automobile mile for an interstate type facility for capital and operations (accidents and maintenance) if there is no toll. It is made up by leverage off the local system. New build interstates like I-69 are running about $0.24 automobile mile for the capital deficit alone. If the goal was to design a train service for 200 passengers a train mile it could operate at a $20/train mile deficit and be better off than historical road expenditures.
r bandr it is money in the bank to have less rubber on the road in towns and flip both freight and passengers to steel wheels!
it is money in the bank to have less rubber on the road in towns and flip both freight and passengers to steel wheels!
n012944 The difference is the State of Indiana is not asking the areas to subsidize the right of way, which is all roads really are. CSX is already subsidizing the right of way for Amtrak. The state is asking the cities to subsidize the service, much like South Bend took it apon itself to pay Frontier to fly to Denver.
The difference is the State of Indiana is not asking the areas to subsidize the right of way, which is all roads really are. CSX is already subsidizing the right of way for Amtrak. The state is asking the cities to subsidize the service, much like South Bend took it apon itself to pay Frontier to fly to Denver.
daveklepper different, but why?
different, but why?
One is made of steel, wood, and rock, the other concrete...
An "expensive model collector"
V.Payne Sure, but I know of no instance of a DOT asking a city to pay for a section of rural interstate, or any. Cities and counties pay for a majority of the local road costs but the statewide agency pays for longer distance roads. If anything it speaks to the level of local political support.
Sure, but I know of no instance of a DOT asking a city to pay for a section of rural interstate, or any. Cities and counties pay for a majority of the local road costs but the statewide agency pays for longer distance roads. If anything it speaks to the level of local political support.
What does that have to do with anything? Rails and roads are different, and should be treated as such.
V.Payne BTW, "INDOTspokesman Will Wingfield said the communities will pay more than half of the monthly payment in cash or services." When has INDOT convinced a collection of cities and counties to fund a intercity / interstate road?
BTW, "INDOTspokesman Will Wingfield said the communities will pay more than half of the monthly payment in cash or services." When has INDOT convinced a collection of cities and counties to fund a intercity / interstate road?
Cities often pony up and pay an airline to operate flights to a certain town. Pittsburg paid Delta for service to Paris, South Bend paid Frontier for service to Denver just to name two off the top of my head. Grants for service at a local lever are not that uncommon.
CJtrainguy I fail to see what's so frustrating about this thread. If we go back to looking at the overall thread, it's about the Hoosier State and its continuance or not.
I fail to see what's so frustrating about this thread. If we go back to looking at the overall thread, it's about the Hoosier State and its continuance or not.
It is frustrating because I was not talking about conversations in THIS THREAD, but convesations that I have had. If you have failed to see that from my posts, maybe that is my fault for not articulating my feelings in written word, for that I am sorry. I never said that anyone IN THIS THREAD was upset about speaking bad about train travel after they themselves have spoken bad about bus travel. I said that people have jad in GENERAL, and that THAT is what I find hypocritical. YOU jumped in, and took issue with my feelings, and spoke of your issue and past travel history, which had nothing to do with the Hoosier State or its continuance.
let us hope they can shave the time.
n012944 CJtrainguy n012944 …just don't get upset when someone points out the downside of your prefered choice. Who's upset around here? I don't see anyone upset… Sigh.......You know what, never mind.
CJtrainguy n012944 …just don't get upset when someone points out the downside of your prefered choice. Who's upset around here? I don't see anyone upset…
n012944 …just don't get upset when someone points out the downside of your prefered choice.
…just don't get upset when someone points out the downside of your prefered choice.
Who's upset around here? I don't see anyone upset…
Sigh.......You know what, never mind.
Ouch. Shouldn't bang head against wall. That could hurt.
Let's backtrack a little:
A McInstosh made a post expressing a preference for train over bus, stating some reasons that we may or may not agree with and concluding that he/she doesn't care for bus travel. That's a valid choice, just like another person may greatly prefer to travel cross country by bus.
That generated a response about how train people turn their noses up at bus travel, yet don't like airline people doing the same to train travel. Not sure how airline people got into the conversation, but it is what it is.
I entered the conversation presenting my travel preferences and the reasons why I feel that way, indicating this is a personal preference. That comment in turn generates a comment about "don't get upset" and now we're down to heads banging on the proverbial brick wall.
I fail to see what's so frustrating about this thread. If we go back to looking at the overall thread, it's about the Hoosier State and its continuance or not. For all the back and forth in this thread, the state of Indiana has spoken by making an agreement with Amtrak to continue running the train. Apparently they see benefits worth paying for… even if a bus can make the trip Indy to Chicago faster.
I look forward to seeing how the evaluation of the service plays out a year from now. Maybe the agreement that has just happened will lead to incremental service improvements and increased ridership and the eventual expansion of the service.
BTW, "INDOT spokesman Will Wingfield said the communities will pay more than half of the monthly payment in cash or services." When has INDOT convinced a collection of cities and counties to fund a intercity / interstate road?
CJtrainguy It's ultimately a matter of personal preference, isn't it? I bet you have a mode of transportation you prefer over others, given a choice
It's ultimately a matter of personal preference, isn't it? I bet you have a mode of transportation you prefer over others, given a choice
I agree it is a matter of personal choice. However, many passenger train fans get really out of shape when one points out bad things about train travel. On the other hand, those same passenger train fans have no issues doing the same about bus travel. It is pretty hypocritical if you ask me. I am not saying you can't point out the downsides of a mode of travel, each mode has its own, just don't get upset when someone points out the downside of your prefered choice.
" If the PRIIA studies were as compelling as some readers believe, how come the recommendations have not been implemented. Is it because they are not very compelling? "
The reason mostly seems to be that there was no mechanism in PRIIA to increase the budget even if the expanded service could be operated for $1 more, but yielded twice the passenger miles with that extra $1. I described a lot of ways to get the operating loss down radically at the beginning of this thread through service expansion, but there would still be a loss, just like highways and aviation.
In my humble opinion some allowance has to be made in the reauthorization for expanding services where greater efficiency per mile can be had. The problem with buses is they can't make intermediate stops as quickly as a train due to the access times off an interstate and the seat is smaller by quite a bit compared to rail. They have applications, but can't do everything.
n012944 It always amuses me when "train" people get bent out of shape when "airline" people turn up their noses towards train travel, yet they have no issues turning their noses up to bus travel.
It always amuses me when "train" people get bent out of shape when "airline" people turn up their noses towards train travel, yet they have no issues turning their noses up to bus travel.
It's ultimately a matter of personal preference, isn't it? I bet you have a mode of transportation you prefer over others, given a choice…
Personally, I have ridden long distance bus and lived to tell about it. Don't really care for it. Stuck in a seat and all.
I've driven cross-country in my car and done so when the need was there, but I really don't care for the point where I can't feel my sitter-downer any more and when I finally stop for the day, I feel like I am still driving when I close my eyes. And can't use the time for anything really productive.
I've ridden thousands of miles on trains in the US and Europe and it's my preferred mode of transportation. Being able to read a book, sleep, work on the computer, get up for a walk, eat. There's great freedom on a train.
Flying? Used to be fun and adventurous. But anymore it's a pushing and shoving match to get on and off and you are packed in like sardines with nowhere to go and definite limits on how I can use my time. A little sleep maybe sitting straight up, work on the computer if I don't mind up up under my nose. You are of course still allowed to read during landing and takeoff. Yeah, flying is not so exciting any more. And I didn't even bring up security checks.
But to each his own…
A McIntosh At the risk of sounding off topic, the bus may be cheaper and faster, but not particularly desirable. Enduring 3 or so hours of screaming kids, some moron playing the same rap garbage, or some obnoxious boor running his mouth, I will gladly spend 5 hours on a train. At least you can go into another car to get away from that. Forgive me if I sound snobbish, but I have endured 8 hours on a bus with just some of the aforementioned characters.
At the risk of sounding off topic, the bus may be cheaper and faster, but not particularly desirable. Enduring 3 or so hours of screaming kids, some moron playing the same rap garbage, or some obnoxious boor running his mouth, I will gladly spend 5 hours on a train. At least you can go into another car to get away from that. Forgive me if I sound snobbish, but I have endured 8 hours on a bus with just some of the aforementioned characters.
I leave for work daily at 6:30. With a suburban station a 6:50 call at that platform seems pretty reasonable.
I think Sam1 is correct about a 6:30 depature. But I did a lot of traveling on architectural acoustical consulting business. First choice for me from either Boston or NY was an overnight sleeper leaving anytime after 6 pm (anything before 8pm obviously meant a decent dining car) and arrival before 8:30. But often a client would not mind waiting until 10:30. Some even suggested this so they could clear their desks before themeeting started. Before the massive cutbacks in sleeper service, Ny from Boston, Washington and Richmond, Buffalo, Corning, NY, were all possible destinations with this kind of planing, and return was usually as convenient. Often when distances required flying, again, a 10:30 meeting allowed flying out in the morning instead of an overnight hotel stay, and geting up at 6:00 to catch a flight was not a problem for me. (Often the return trip would be by train, using my Rail Travel Card, with the return airline ticket turned in for refund, on the basis that efficiency allowed finishing the job earlly, and the return by train allowed me to draft or dictate the report without distractions, ready to hand to a secretary on arrival.) Based on my own business experience, an Indianapolis - Chicago train with the followiing schedule should be a success:
Lv.Indianapolis 7:00 Arr... Chicago 10:00
Lv. Chicago 17:30 Arr. Indianapolis 22:30
Assuming of course, on-time performance and decent amenities onboard.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.