What would it take to get one of the Class I freight companies to get back into passenger rail?

[greyhounds]

schlimm

 

 

dakotafred

-- Offering a genuine expedited service to certain favored freight customers, either for extra money or not;

 

 

I think that was what the IC was doing. greyhounds would be able to give us accurate details on that.

 

What?

I wasn't around.  It wasn't my fault.  I didn't do it.  It's news to me.  Don't blame me, it was his idea.  I told him it wouldn't work.  Etc., etc., etc.

Seriously,  take a look at the 4th photo down:

http://www.american-rails.com/well.html

The IC did handle mail in flexi-vans on passenger trains.  Mostly on the Iowa line.  The rail cars obviously had steam lines.

By the time I got to the ICG Amtrak and Metra had taken over the passenger operations and the flexi-vans were gone.

But...

I was "mentored" by a guy named Al Watkins.  Al had a club foot which kept him out of WWII.  Instead he had worked as a trainman on the North Shore Line's intermodal trains between Chicago and Milwaukee.  He then went to the Erie where he helped establish the Erie's first intermodal tariff.  After the Erie he went to the C&EI and got their intermodal service going.  He fled the C&EI after the MoP take over and wound up at the IC(G) where I met him.  Al knew more about intermodal than anyone I've ever met.  And, he understood intermodal's strengths and weaknesses better than  anyone I've ever met.

He once told me of an attempt to turn the Panama Limited into a mixed train.  The idea was to put flexi-vans on the train and offer an expidited freight service (as opposed to mail and express) between Chicago and New Orleans at a premium rate. 

They published the tariff and tried to sell the service.  According to Al, it never moved one load.  Al said that they at least established the fact that there was absolutely no market for such service between Chicago and New Orleans.

It was very common to move express and mail in containers/trailers on passenger trains.  Many TTX flatcars were equiped with a steam line to allow this use.

Toward the end of railroad company provided passenger service some railroads began to move freight on these flatcars in passenger train service.  They had just flat out given up on the passenger trains and figured as long as they were required to run such trains they might as well make the operations as useful as possible.

Most recently combined freight/passenger trains were tried by Amtrak.  The results were not good.  So, unless you have a good undestanding of why the Amtrak attempt didn't work, and you have viable solutions to solve the problems,  don't get too excited about this idea.

As I said at the beginning of this post:  "I told them it wouldn't work."

[schlimm]

dakotafred

-- Offering a genuine expedited service to certain favored freight customers, either for extra money or not;

I think that was what the IC was doing. greyhounds would be able to give us accurate details on that.

[Paul of Covington]

Electroliner 1935

I rode the southern's train with the pigs in the 70's...

   Sounds like a great line for promotion of the service.   I can see the ad:

    "RIDE  WITH  THE  PIGS!"

[dakotafred]

Electroliner 1935

I think they were doing it to add revenue for the train's bottum line.

 

In Southern's case, I think it's pretty clear they were simply saving a little money, beginning with the cost of an engine crew, by attaching the passenger accommodation to a train that was going that way anyway.

 

I doubt they were fooling themselves that this transformed their passenger accommodation into a moneymaker.

 

In some of the other cases cited in this thread, I speculate that the railroads were doing one of two things:

 

-- Offering a genuine expedited service to certain favored freight customers, either for extra money or not;

 

-- Simply keeping the hotter freight moving, and clearing a track in the yard -- maybe even occasionally saving a train -- by simply attaching it to the first thing out of town.

 

[Electroliner 1935]

I rode the southern's train with the pigs in the 70's Came out of Washinton Station with four F's and three passenger cars, picked up about 40 piggyback cars at the yard south of Alexandria. Acceleration was slow and speed dragged on the upgrades but we made track speed on the downhills. Got a ride to Ashville and found a room overnight, Took the dome bact to Salisbury where I caught the Nortbound. Running late, I was concerned about making my connection to the George Washington at Charlottesville. Condutor said "don't worry, they may taxi you you to make the connection". Turned out they took the pigs off up the line and we ran at track spped and I made the connection. Passenger trains can accelerate much faster than freight trains. You might say the Southern was running a mixed train.

I think they were doing it to add revenue for the train's bottum line.

[schlimm]

CSSHEGEWISCH

there are probably more.

The IC west to Iowa used Flexivan service behind either the Land o' Corn or Hawkeye.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Southern was hardly the only road to do this.  In the pre-Amtrak era, the "Pere Marquettes" had an early version of Roadrailers on the back end of the Chicago-Grand Rapids trains, SAL tucked piggybacks behind the "Silver Comet", C&O did the same with the "George Washington", there are probably more.

[dakotafred]

Thanks for the pics, NorthWest; new info to me. I was interested to see that No. 5 appeared to still have mail. With its FP7, No. 18 neatly illustrated the requirement to get juice and heat to the passengers.

[Deggesty]

No, the Southern did not do this before Amtrak; both of the pictures were taken in 1972. At that time, 17 & 18 were Washington-Lynchburg trains on the Southern; 5& 6 were day trains between Charlotte and Atlanta.

I was in Salisbury in August of 1972, having ridden down from Asheville and about to go back up to Asheville, but I do not remember seeing #5, which was due in before #7 left for Asheville.

[NorthWest]

ROBERT WILLISON

Northwest, are you saying that the southern ran its passenger trains combined with piggyback trains to reduce costs?

Yes, and they did it even before Amtrak. The Crescent as the Southern flagship remained a full streamliner, but most of the other trains that Southern had were combined with freight trains for at least some of their routes.

A couple pictures (not mine).

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=738801

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=741824

[dakotafred]

I must say I never heard of that. Southern ran its "Crescent" as a classic -- which was fairly easy for them to do, as it was the only train they had left at Amtrak time. Like Rock Island and Rio Grande, Southern stayed out of Amtrak because it was the cheaper course -- period. (Can't blame them for trying to make a public-relations virtue out of necessity, I suppose.)

[ROBERT WILLISON]

Northwest, are you saying that the southern ran its passenger trains combined with  piggyback trains to reduce costs?

[dakotafred]

f45gnbn

to add to the question why can't passenger service be put in with fast freight like intermodal or piggy back service and then you wouldn't need separate amtrak trains?

 

There are plenty of physical and mechanical objections, I am sure, beginning with dragging freight trains through big-city passenger stations. Beyond that, "fast freights" rarely achieve even Amtrak speeds end to end, so the attractiveness to passengers is hard to find.

[NorthWest]

Southern did that to avoid joining Amtrak. Problem is, it isn't profitable.

[f45gnbn]

to add to the question why can't passenger service be put in with fast freight like intermodal or piggy back service and then you wouldn't need separate amtrak trains?

[Paul of Covington]

   I was going to say more, but I can see the moderator with the key approaching the lock.

[schlimm]

CMStP&P:   I wish to respectfully you read some scholarly US history?   Many of your remarks reflect a fundamental lack of awareness of it.

[CMStPnP]

ACY

 

CMStP&P ---

"Fundamental disagreement" is right.

If a Corporation is free to do whatever it wants merely because it was incorporated, then why would the Society bother to grant it a charter with rights, privileges, obligations, and limitations?  I know regulation is a dirty word in some quarters, but part of my fundamental disagreement with you is my belief that there is a role for regulation.  Maybe I'm in the minority.  That's one of my rights.

Tom

I never said free to do whatever it wants.  I stated free to do under the same laws as a individual falls under.   There are some additional laws that apply to a Corporations but they are to prevent an individual or group of individuals from seeking charter to get around laws that are in place against the individual citizen, it is to keep the playing field level.    For example:  I can use my individual 401k and appoint myself as trustee to buy stock in a Corporation I own as an investment, However I cannot personally benefit from such a transaction by drawing the funds directly into my personal bank account.   The rules of 401k plans that hold for an individual still apply....even though the 401k funds are now invested in a Corporation that I own.    I can only draw out money from the Corporation if the Corporation makes a profit or to reimburse myself for expenses incurred on behalf of the Corporation.     So those rules keep me on the same level playing field that an individual has to abide by in regards to 401k plans.    Thats just one example and you'll find that most regulations against Corporations are to prevent the entity from being abused for a specific end-run around laws that apply to the individual.

The whole reason for the legal entity of a Corporation is to facilitate business in that the organization shields the individuals or group of individuals from liability.   So that the entity can go bankrupt and no claim can be made on the individuals or group of individuals assets.    Unfortunately and most recently the law has been encroaching on the limited liability advantage of a Corporation because it is now legal for a potential creditor to also ask for a personal guarantee by an officer of the Corporation.....which once again places their personal assets in play or at risk if the Corporation goes bankrupt........then they can seek your assets unless you yourself declare Chapter 7.    Recent development in the law which I am not sure is going to be around forever but was put in place to prevent folks from setting up shell Corporations, incurring debt, declarining bankruptcy then moving onto the next shell Corporation..........again leveling the playing field with the laws that apply to individuals.

The reason a Corporate structure is needed for business is many.   Overriding reason is simplification in business to business transactions.

Having been first a LLC and then a Corporation I feel the law is very fair when dealing with Corporations and keeping them honest and following some of the same laws that Citizens do.    One thing that was kind of a revelation to me owning my own Corporation is people think if you have a Corporation your wealthy and they think it is OK to steal from you because you can afford it.    I could not believe the sheer volume of folks attempting to steal from me that I caught in the process.  Everything from suppliers, to employees, to customers, etc.    You really have to be vigilant if you run a Corporation because everyone wants to put their hands into your wallet illicitly.......because they feel your wealthy and they think they are robin hood of some sort.    Another misperception of our society that needs to get fixed and fixed soon I hope.

Another eye-opener as I was a liberal when it came to unemployment insurance, 4 out of my 10 employees has tried to commit fraud with their unemployment compensation claims so far.   In Texas they ask the employer what happened when an individual files for unemployment.   If you the employer is found to be hiring and firing people in ridiculous amounts or for stupid reasons, the state makes you pay via a charge back to the unemployment fund what they are paying out to the individual.

BTW, the whole discussion on "Common Carrier" and what that means falls outside this one and I have no clue on "Common Carrier" provisions.    Only commenting on a Corporation because I run one.

[ACY Tom]

 

CMStP&P ---

"Fundamental disagreement" is right.

If a Corporation is free to do whatever it wants merely because it was incorporated, then why would the Society bother to grant it a charter with rights, privileges, obligations, and limitations?  I know regulation is a dirty word in some quarters, but part of my fundamental disagreement with you is my belief that there is a role for regulation.  Maybe I'm in the minority.  That's one of my rights.

Tom

[schlimm]

CMStPnP

 

 

Paul of Covington

Life should be a continuing process of learning and re-learning.   There are many things I was taught in school that have turned out to be wrong.   I remember a mechanical engineering instructor stating as an absolute fact that diesel engines were two-stroke.

 

 

Thats true but not on this issue.    Especially if you look at that the law applies to everyone regardless of political idealogy (it applies to Labor Unions and Non-Profit Special Interest groups as well) whereas before the ruling there was an ever increasing legal encroachment on the rights by those attempting to cherry pick and filter out some speech in favor of other speech in an attempt to filter who gets heard and who doesn't.    Which is wrong and why the Supreme Court took the case in the first place.

 

It is currently the law but stop expounding as though it were a simple, settled matter.   Neither of us is a constitutional authority.  The four dissenting justices thought C-U was an overreach.   Conservatives like to appeal to originalism and strict construction, yet corporations were very limited in scope (one line of commerce) and lifespan (20-30 years) by state charter in the early republic and are never referred to in our Constitution.  Most states in the early days of the nation had laws on the books that made any political contribution by corporations a criminal offense.

Now back to the original topic.

[paulcap]

 What about a UPS train, passenger cars and trailers on flat cars. Paint it brown with gold stripping. Run it Chicago/L.A. non stop on BNSF.

[Bayfield Transfer Railway]

"The passenger train is like the male teat.  It is neither functional nor ornamental." -- James J. Hill

Passenger trains have never been liked by the railroad companies.  They have never, ever been profitable.

 

[CMStPnP]

Paul of Covington

Life should be a continuing process of learning and re-learning.   There are many things I was taught in school that have turned out to be wrong.   I remember a mechanical engineering instructor stating as an absolute fact that diesel engines were two-stroke.

Thats true but not on this issue.    Especially if you look at that the law applies to everyone regardless of political idealogy (it applies to Labor Unions and Non-Profit Special Interest groups as well) whereas before the ruling there was an ever increasing legal encroachment on the rights by those attempting to cherry pick and filter out some speech in favor of other speech in an attempt to filter who gets heard and who doesn't.    Which is wrong and why the Supreme Court took the case in the first place.

[blue streak 1]

Malcom Kenton in train's   Observation tower Blog had an interesting paragraph. Seen in pink.

"One final point worth mentioning: as Justice Kennedy recognized, Congress created Amtrak in 1970 to relieve the private railroads of their obligation as common carriers to offer passenger service, and granted Amtrak statutory dispatching priority over freight transportation in 1973. Neither the Supreme Court ruling nor the next DC Circuit ruling will change these two facts. It is also reasonable to conclude that, should Amtrak go out of business or be significantly altered or abolished for whatever reason, the common carrier obligation to provide passenger service would remain in place and would either revert to the private railroads or be vested by Congress in a different entity."

Since this poster has no legal knowledge can someone who understandes the Amtrak legislation and revisions jump in.  If Amtrak is shut down would the RRs have to return to the same service before the Amtrak act of 1970?.  Was justice Kennedy hinting ? 

Maybe the RRs need to remember that old saw "  Be careful of what you wish you might get it "  Of course it would take RRs 10+ years to get enough rolling stock and infrastructure.  Maybe 10% a year ?

 

 

 

[Paul of Covington]

CMStPnP

<sigh> going back once again to Business Law from the University of Wisconsin years of the late 1980's.

   Life should be a continuing process of learning and re-learning.   There are many things I was taught in school that have turned out to be wrong.   I remember a mechanical engineering instructor stating as an absolute fact that diesel engines were two-stroke.

[CMStPnP]

I think your still missing it.   A Corporation by it's legal definition IS one or a group of citizens pooling capital resources to run a business or organization.    It is not an alien entity that lands from the moon that needs to earn it's rights to operate.    Fundamental disagreement there as well.    

A Corporation has the rights (indeed almost the same rights as a individual at birth) at formation to operate and operate as it pleases within the laws of the country just as citizens have the same right at birth.     To say you can encumber or exporpriate the rights of a group of citizens because they form a Corporation is nonsense.

[ACY Tom]

Can we get this discussion back "on track", as it were?

I mentioned, in passing, that I disagree with the C-U decision.  I never intended to redirect this thread into an argument over the merits of that decision.

My point was that rights are always accompanied by duties and responsibilities.  A Corporation, by virtue of its legal charter, has the right to conduct business because Society, in issuing that charter, acknowledges that the Corporation's legal activities provide a benefit to that Society.  I said that Society has the right to expect the Corporation to do some things in the public good, as a condition of being permitted to exist and profit.  Some duties are simply a part of good citizenship, and should be expected.

As for being tricked by left wing sleight (not "slight") of hand, I don't need your condescension.

Tom

[CMStPnP]

schlimm

Get off your right wing high horse!  C-U was a 5-4 decision, hardly a slam dunk either way.   Many constitutional lawyers, as well as the four highly-trained justices  (not just a business law course from UW)  thought the majority opinion was an unwarranted stretch of legal precedent.

Regardless of what they say publicly for political points it was indeed a REAFFIRMATION of existing rights.    Otherwise you need to outline to me what the difference is between a Billionaire and a Billion Dollar Company as far as ability to advertise or float political advertisements.     Really none and amazingly we have had Billionaires in the Senate including Herb Kohl of Wisconsin.....a Democrat no less.    So really the challenge was an attempt to restrict free speech.

This country benefits from free speech no matter it's source.   It's why we allow news outlets like UNIVISION, Al-Jezzera, and RT.     We need to keep free speech unencumbered regardless of how opposed people are to it in political campaigns.

If you have a concern that Americans are exceedingly stupid and can't sort through political propaganda, well then improve the education system and make critical thinking a pre high school graduation course.    Equip Americans with the tools to wade through it and make their own decisions.    Blocking free speech is not an answer to any issue in this country.

Sorry, emotional issue for me as I have been in countries without free speech rights and without much choice in elections....courtesy of your Army.   It's NOT a fun environment to be in.

[schlimm]

CMStPnP

 

 

ACY

I might add that the Supreme Court, in Citizens United, has said that Corporations have some of the rights of citizens.  I happen to disagree with that decision; but whether you agree or disagree, doesn't it seem inconsistent that they should have rights in our society, but not have responsibilities to that society?

 

 

 

<sigh> going back once again to Business Law from the University of Wisconsin years of the late 1980's.

You were tricked by the Left Wing slight of hand use of the English language.   Citizens United REAFFIRMED that right it did not grant or extend it.   I was taught Corporations had these rights in 1980's and they more or less evolved with the Corporation as a legal and taxable entity.    Most internet sources have it wrong as well.    Speak with a knowledgeable and unbiased Business Lawyer on the topic and they will set you straight again.    This is the reason the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shook his head NO when Obama misled the entire country during his State of the Union speech on the topic a few years ago.   He either is tremendously stupid as a Constitutional Scholar that it is alleged he is OR he lied to the country for political points.     Draw your own conclusion there as I am not going to wade into that.

Long established BEFORE Citizens United that Corporations had similar speech rights to individuals.    We unfortunately have a vested political interest in this country that wants to stifle free speech and restrict it for politcal agenda purposes and thats why this ruling was widely misrepresented.

 

Get off your right wing high horse!  C-U was a 5-4 decision, hardly a slam dunk either way.   Many constitutional lawyers, as well as the four highly-trained justices  (not just a business law course from UW)  thought the majority opinion was an unwarranted stretch of legal precedent.