Trains.com

Location, location, location

7492 views
134 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:13 AM

I  certainly hope so!  But the tone of some postings here in reply to my suggestion was that the status quo is.  The old good enough is good enough, someday things will [may] turn back around and all will be hunky doree again.  I am just saying that a downturn in business or unused inventory is an opportunity to explore new routes of income, new services, new adaptations if necessary.  And so what if it is short term?  If it is not good, then short term might be too long.  If it is good, then short term is a good breaking in period.  You don't know unless you try.

RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:09 AM

I don't follow all the minutiae of blue streak 1's post above from 7:51 PM on 02-11-2009, but I can relate to this part of it:

"Think what it is like when you are on a two lane interstate in your porsche traveling 125 and you come up and have to wait for a 2 mile long tractor trailer going 60MPH passing another 2 mile long tractor trailer going 55MP. OOPS - that slows you down for a minimum of 25 minutes not counting distance to get front to back separation." [emphasis added - PDN]

As RWM and maybe others have told us, the required length of passing sidings for trains to get around each other is horrendous.  A couple weeks ago I worked out in my head something like a 60 MPH intermodal passing a 40 MPH manifest or coal train - each 10,000 ft. long, and moving at a constant speed - and also came up with a figure in the 25-mile range.  Here's how the approximate math works:

Difference in speeds = 60 MPH - 40 MPH = 20 MPH 

20 MPH x 1.5* ft./ sec. = 30 ft. / sec. difference, that the faster train will gain on the slower one.

* 1 Mile Per Hour = 5,280 Ft. per Mile / (60 mins. per Hr. x 60 Secs. per min.) = 1.47 Ft. Sec. - use 1.5 Ft. / Sec. for simplicity.

For each 10,000 ft. (2 miles) that speed difference has to overcome, it will take:

10,000 ft. / 30 ft. / sec. = 333 secs. = 5.56 mins., say 6 mins.

When this passing maneuver starts, the intermodal train will have to be at least 1 block = 10,000 ft. behind the coal train, as the tail end of the coal train finishes moving into the 40-MPH siding and the mainline turnout (No. 20 ?) returns to the Normal = fast position for the intermodal train, for the intermodal to avoid seeing a red block signal (maybe more - RWM or someone else can tell us).  The front of the IM then has to come up even with the tail of the coal train, which is the 1st 10,000 ft.  Then the front of the IM has to progress along the length of the coal train until the locos are even, so that's another - 2nd - 10,000 ft.  Then the IM has to pull out ahead of the coal train until the tail of the IM is just even with the locos of the coal train, which is another -3rd- 10,000 ft.  Finally, the tail of the IM has to be at least another 1 block = the 4th - 10,000 ft. ahead of the coal train's locos before the coal train can return to the main where the IM just was (via another No. 20 turnout ?), so that the coal train doesn't see a red block signal then. 

So that's a total of 40,000 ft., or 7.58 miles = 8 miles practically, as a minimum distance that the IM has overcome i order to overtake and pass the coal train.  At 5.56 or 6 minutes for each 10,000 ft. increment, that's 22 to 24 minutes = 22 to 24 miles for the 60 MPH (= 1 mile per minute) intermodal train.  And if RWM or someone else tells me that no, a minimum separation of 2 blocks - of 10,000 ft. each - is needed for each train to reliably avoid seeing a red or speed-restricting yellow signal during this passing maneuver.  That would add another 20,000 ft. to overcome, or another 11 to 12 minutes and another 11 to 12 miles, for a total of 33 to 36 miles. 

Other values for these numbers could be used ("YMMV" = Your Mileage May Vary !), but the conclusions will be similar.  Practially, that has to be getting close to a 40-mile long passing siding, which may as well be effectively a another main track.  It feels like this entire maneuver would take those two trains halfway across Nebraska to consummate !

- Paul North.

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Thursday, February 12, 2009 8:46 AM

henry6

And, incidenlty, let me add that I am not just talking about passenger service...I am talking about anybody who walks into the railroad office and wants to buy: it is a perfect time for them to explore new avenues of income and find out what they might have to or want to do to get it.

Forgive me, if you feel I'm being cheeky, I'm not meaning to be.

     Right now, our company, and 1,001 of our dearest competitors are, at this very moment, exploring every new avenue of income under the sun.  To suggest that a railroad, or any other business in the country right now is just sitting on their hands and not doing this, is to suggest that you are either far removed from the business world, or terribly underestimating the spirit and strength of American business and railroading in particular.  You are wrong.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Thursday, February 12, 2009 8:11 AM

And, incidenlty, let me add that I am not just talking about passenger service...I am talking about anybody who walks into the railroad office and wants to buy: it is a perfect time for them to explore new avenues of income and find out what they might have to or want to do to get it.

RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, February 12, 2009 8:01 AM

Henry6, you have said the following above (my emphasis added):

 

“But if you have a piece of track that is unoccupied for 20 hours a day, how much money is it bringing to the bottom line?” 

  

“If the track is empty and it is costing you $X.XX per hour to have it sit empty why not work out a deal to get at least that $X.XX per hour back.”

  

“If you can get $X.XX plys [plus] $Y.YY, all the better, but don't get greedy and try to get the whole 20 empty hours back: get what you can and cut your losses.”  

  

“I am not going for the quick buck...I am going for new thinking, new planning, expanded minds, expanded business, new money, new ideas, thinking outside the boxcar, whatever you want to call it.”

  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My response: 

When they don’t go after the lost revenue from those 20 hours per day, to you, it looks like they are not thinking out of the box.  Maybe the fact is that they are just trying to not be greedy.  You know, get what they can and cut their losses, as you say.  You seem to see their glass as half empty, but maybe it is actually half full.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Thursday, February 12, 2009 7:32 AM

Murphy Siding

henry6

I am actually surprised and appalled at the negatavism that is put forth in the arguements here.  First, if an entity comes to a railroad and wants to purchase space, or whatever you want to call it, on the railroad's track, the problem of whether or not it makes money is on the shoulders of the one operating the service and not the railroad.  But beyond that, I cannot see any business letting its plant sit idle when there is an opportunity to earn money even enough to break even.  If, as Paul and RWM say, it is now a time for the railroad to rebuild, fix the infrastructure, etc., then it probably is a good time, too, to test a given service and find its marketability.  What if the passenger train works out to be a good service and earns its way. And if it does it helps the host railroad get income to pay for infrastructure maintenance.  If I am accused of dealing in too many generalizations, then the dismissal of the idea without looking at a given situation, what could be negotiated, what could happen, is not just as much a generlization but also a major negative approach to business: we've never done it before so why should we do it now?  what if it doesn't work?  what if it is a success and we're saddled with making money?  Come on guys, give innovation, give progress, give yourself a break and think positive.  The kind of thinking, this attitude, is probably what's wrong with the thinking of railroad management today!  "Ignore it, it should go away. At least until next year after I've retired."

If American railroads were to quickly jump on passenger service in order to make some cash, knowing full well that they would have to relinquish this traffic later at great cost, they would surely be seen as going for the quick buck without any long term investment and strategy.

I am not going for the quick buck...I am going for new thinking, new planning, expanded minds, expanded business, new money, new ideas, thinking outside the boxcar, whatever you want to call it. I want to see the same old same old thinking of how a railroad was run thrown away and a new thinking of how a railroad could  or might be run now and in the future brought to the table. 

RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:09 PM

henry6

I am actually surprised and appalled at the negatavism that is put forth in the arguements here.  First, if an entity comes to a railroad and wants to purchase space, or whatever you want to call it, on the railroad's track, the problem of whether or not it makes money is on the shoulders of the one operating the service and not the railroad.  But beyond that, I cannot see any business letting its plant sit idle when there is an opportunity to earn money even enough to break even.  If, as Paul and RWM say, it is now a time for the railroad to rebuild, fix the infrastructure, etc., then it probably is a good time, too, to test a given service and find its marketability.  What if the passenger train works out to be a good service and earns its way. And if it does it helps the host railroad get income to pay for infrastructure maintenance.  If I am accused of dealing in too many generalizations, then the dismissal of the idea without looking at a given situation, what could be negotiated, what could happen, is not just as much a generlization but also a major negative approach to business: we've never done it before so why should we do it now?  what if it doesn't work?  what if it is a success and we're saddled with making money?  Come on guys, give innovation, give progress, give yourself a break and think positive.  The kind of thinking, this attitude, is probably what's wrong with the thinking of railroad management today!  "Ignore it, it should go away. At least until next year after I've retired."

If American railroads were to quickly jump on passenger service in order to make some cash, knowing full well that they would have to relinquish this traffic later at great cost, they would surely be seen as going for the quick buck without any long term investment and strategy.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:51 PM

RWM brings up important items that I feel that many of our passenger advocates seem to forget. There have been many threads that touch on how capacity of any line is affected and how its fluidity is affected. Here is a very small fractional summary.

1. One is the vertical profile of any line. The FEC is flat as a pancake so no hills to slow any train down. Contrast that to the DRG&W line out of Denver. This leads RRs to have HP to ton ratings of each line segment. Only so much drawbar pull can be applied to a train before causing a pull apart. DPU can only help so much so the train slows down on hills.

2. Curvature is another problem as if there are too many degrees of curveature the train may stringline derail. Plus curves slow down the train. Even FEC will see a train slow down on curves even though the train is at a constant throttle position.

3. HP on a train is detrmined upon its priority. Drag freights - just enough to get over the road's ruling grade. VS. high priority intermodal enough HP to get over the ruling grade at max track speed.

4. Traffic mix: If the track section has only one kind of traffic then many trains can pace each other. Example the powder river coal trains. 125 cars now, same train weight, even load distribution, DPU etc. UP's and BNSF's transcons come close as most traffic is one speed intermodal. But even FEC's track has many 70MPH intermodals but runs a lot of rock trains from MIA at a maximum of 50 MPH. Throw in on any route a dimensional or other speed limited special and things can gum up rapidly.

What does this lead to?  I would love to be able to operate my RR section with all trains at one speed. Boy can I handle a lot of trains but that is not realistic so my capacity is limited for all the above factors + maintenance windows and more restrictions not considered. If you add trains that are going twice as fast as present freight traffic you need two or three tracks to handle all the present traffic and keep them separated. Think what it is like when you are on a two lane interstate in your porsche traveling 125 and you come up and have to wait for a 2 mile long tractor trailer going 60MPH passing another 2 mile long tractor trailer going 55MP. OOPS - that slows you down for a minimum of 25 minutes not counting distance to get front to back separation.

Now throw in a new Medium Speed Passenger Rail (MSR 80 - 125 MPH my definition)(HSR above 125 MPH). Now for assumptions. Any route that will get MSR will probably be designed for daytime hourly or every other hour service. Since most of the route will probably use present ROWs except where curve straightening is required then the route is going to need a new track built to Class 7,6,or 5 standards. Where possible this track shoud be 25 ft away from the existing track to prevent slow downs due to maintenance on either track. Although I would expect the track structure to be built to 300,000# + load limits there would probably not be too much freight traffic on the new passenger tracks. (ton mile charges for freight use of the MSR rail line might be an incentative).

SIDINGS - High speed probably every 15 minutes of passenger train travel to allow passing of opposing passenger trains and the length to be in the 20,000 ft range to prevent slowing for meets. These sidings could be between the present freight tracks and new passenger tracks for dual use. FREIGHT SERVICE SIDINGS - A whole other problem. Those areas where there are industries on both sides of the ROW requiring a passenger track in the center WITH A flyover or duck under to get there and at least a freight main on one side and a service siding on the other side. Of coure there will be locations that even two tracks on the ROW may be impossible without expensive building and land purchases.

All this is for present single track lines with passing sidings. In those areas already double or triple track all the above items apply requiring another track. The only saving grace is that with three or more tracks the center track may be used for the passenger track with flyovers or duck unders to and from stations. If the traffic mix is many different speeds a middle track would need duck unders or flyovers at the locations of freight crossovers.

Examples of the afore mentioned problems and possible solutions. ( I'm not an alignment engineer so this is just observations. Charlotte - Greensboro: NCDOT has this line planned to return to all double track by the end of 2010. Not knowing NS's total traffic load I don't know if any additional sidings or third track will be needed but suspect it will. Greensboro - Raleigh. There it will definitely need another track because the present alignment already has 10 - 15 slow sections (70 MPH or lower) needing  relocation. Raleigh - Petersburg: S line another MSR track to Norlina and then just track with 15 minute passing sidings ( can start out 30 min but that assumes all on time operation.  If certain businesses want to locate on the line then probably only night time freight service would be available for them. The issue of detour traffic off the A-line will need to be addressed for both AMTRAK and CSX (and it will happen sooner or later)( maybe no more Auto train Greensboro detours.

I have doubts of running the Petersburg line through downtown and instead think it should pass west of Petersburg as one of the alternatives depicts. (would save about 10 minutes travel time). Petersburg - Richmond: The common use of the A-line  to Centralia then S-line to Main Street stationt would definitely require a third track on the A-line and a second track on into Mainstreet Station to cover for freight service to the Richmond Deepwater Terminal. Richmond - Wash: At the moment CSX is limiting VRE from more trains because of track restrictions. Each section that becomes third track allows for more VRE service. But to handle MSR (90 min Wash - Ric) a 4th track on most of the RF&P will be needed north of Fredericksburg until VRE goes onto Richmond then all the way. If the MSR follows the old C&O ROW from AM junction to somewhere near Pleasant Hill as has been proposed thereby bypassing Doswell then only 3 tracks probably needed from Plesant Hill to Richmond AM junction. The only other additions would probably a extra bridge over the Potomac (Long Bridge), with 4 tracks to Virginia Ave Junction, and maybe a second Capitol Hill tunnel to Wash Union Station.

Wash Union Station/Ivy City yard will need additional storage tracks but VRE and MARC claims there is very limited land but the storage tracks are desperately needed. AMTRAK would also need more storage to service, stage, and repair the additional equipment. North on the NE corridor additional tracks up to 4 for the route to Philidelphia including new tunnels at Baltimore. The trains south of Washington would add to the traffic count north of Washington. As it is AMTRAK has not allowed MARC to add frequencys to the NE corridor with the present track count and configurations. When the Catenary is finally upgraded on the NE corridor the added metric of higher speed ACELAs on the route (hopefully 150+ MPH) adds another different speed trafic mix. Right now during many rush hour times the MARC trains hold all train speed down because of fleeting in both directions and a MARC train late.

With a few exceptions grade crossing (rail and road), bridge upgrades to take the higher speeds, and other additional items have been left out of this post. Maybe later I will address other routes.This one is presented because of some familarity of the route and this route is somewhat along in the vetting process. .

Blue streak 1    

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:45 PM

I am actually surprised and appalled at the negatavism that is put forth in the arguements here.  First, if an entity comes to a railroad and wants to purchase space, or whatever you want to call it, on the railroad's track, the problem of whether or not it makes money is on the shoulders of the one operating the service and not the railroad.  But beyond that, I cannot see any business letting its plant sit idle when there is an opportunity to earn money even enough to break even.  If, as Paul and RWM say, it is now a time for the railroad to rebuild, fix the infrastructure, etc., then it probably is a good time, too, to test a given service and find its marketability.  What if the passenger train works out to be a good service and earns its way. And if it does it helps the host railroad get income to pay for infrastructure maintenance.  If I am accused of dealing in too many generalizations, then the dismissal of the idea without looking at a given situation, what could be negotiated, what could happen, is not just as much a generlization but also a major negative approach to business: we've never done it before so why should we do it now?  what if it doesn't work?  what if it is a success and we're saddled with making money?  Come on guys, give innovation, give progress, give yourself a break and think positive.  The kind of thinking, this attitude, is probably what's wrong with the thinking of railroad management today!  "Ignore it, it should go away. At least until next year after I've retired."

RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 11:44 AM

henry6

An interesting thought was passed on to me last night by a long time friend and even longer rail observer.   With today's downturn in freight business, would not the current operators look to passenger rail in general, Amtrak in particular, to fill in the ledgers by occupying otherwise empty tracks?

I'm not a railroad guy,  but I can see the anwer to this is a fairly straight forward no.

Passenger trains don't make money, therefore, they can't or won't pay their share of what the slots are worth.

The rail lines that have some opening are probably not the same lines that would be needed by passenger trains.

There is no excess passenger equipment to expand passenger trains.  You can't move more passengers on equipment that doesn't exist.

When freight business picks back up, the added passenger trains would have to get pitched back out of the system.  (Which, might not be as difficult as it sounds.  When the freight business rebounds, the passenger train people will still be looking for that non-exixtent equipmentMischief)

It's not going to happen, because it wouldn't help out the freight railroads.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 11:25 AM

Railway Man
[snip] Is there even one end-to-end corridor in the U.S. that Amtrak currently uses or any corridor passenger operator proposes to use, including terminal trackage on each end, that has spare capacity going begging at this time sufficient to reliably schedule a passenger train without getting in the way of freight trains? 

There's plenty of lousy secondary trackage and branch lines that might fit the bill so long as the passenger train operator is willing to terminate the train and throw everyone onto a platform on the outskirts of the suburbs.  Not too many operators are thinking of that, however.

RWM 

You know, maybe those passenger operators should think harder about that [no, I'm not being facetious], at least in some areas.  Here's why: 

We all know that our beloved and valuable freight trains are pretty inflexible in their routes - they've got to get to the docks or the power plant or the class yard or whatever, and there aren't many good routes anymore to accomplish that.  So the freight trains should have "1st dibs" on the good freight routes and time slots as a matter of necessity and economics - no question there.

However, in lots of cities - esp. here in the NorthEast - there are (were) multiple routes, built by several railroads, extending outward from each city, usually in a radial pattern.  Many of those routes are not used any more, but maybe they should be.  In other words, put the passengers on the unused routes or routes that are less-than desirable for freight, so as to minimize the passenger traffic on the good freight routes. 

The key to this is recognizing and taking advantage of the fact that commuter-type passengers essentially self-haul themselves to the nearest or most convenient train station - they have a lot of flexibility in that !  Given a choice, most commuters shouldn't really care [big assumption, I know, but bear with me here] if they drive 3 miles west or 2 miles east to the nearest station, particularly if the new or "alternate" pasenger route can be made somehow more convenient or better, like with easier or cheaper parking or a faster trip to the destination over a line dedicated to passenger trains that's not cluttered up with . . . freight trains.  Wink

For example, consider 2 of the former Reading Railroad's lines:  The one to the northwest along the Schuylkill River to Pottstown and Reading is now a NS main that is coveted for a parallel transit operation of some kind with a $1 billion price tag, if I recall correctly.  However, the outer portion of the former Bethlehem Branch to Bethlehem - which has some adverse grades, but also  used to go to NS's large modern Allentown Yard - was "taken out of service" in the early 1980s, and the tracks just removed last fall.  A plausible scenario would be to restore that line to service, and trade capacity on it to NS for some on the other line.  Or, restore other lines closer in to take up some of the needed passenger capacity, and keep the pressure off the freight mains.  Here in northern Philly, the commuters could pretty much equally well use either SEPTA's Manayunk, Chestnut Hill - East, Chestnut Hill - West, or the Norristown (also along the Schuylkill River) line, instead of the NS main.

Further, a lot of economic development / growth and jobs here in the NE is happening in the suburbs, not in the center city cores.  For example, I'm thinking of the King of Prussia - Valley Forge - Collegeville areas, which are about 15 to the north of Philadelphia here, and have many big pharma and high-tech companies located there.  That's not good for the cities, but that's the reality for contemporary urban transportation.  In view of that, throwing people onto a platform on the outskirts of the suburbs may be closer to what the market actually wants and really needs than we realize.  No need then, to clutter up the inner main lines to the Delaware River ports, for example, with those trains.

Well, just a thought, for what it's worth.

- Paul North.

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:52 AM

First, some portions of my prior post for context: 

Paul_D_North_Jr
[snipped] Second, the average daily cost for that empty track - some taxes & insurance, a little incremental maintenance (mainly weather and time-related) - is not all that much, and does not increase if the track isn't used.  A fair number is in the range of $1 per foot or $5,000 per mile per year for "plain" track - say, $5 million per year for 1,000 track-miles. 

[snips] 

It would be interesting to quantify the magnitude of the revenues that a typical freight train earns, as opposed to a passenger train.  There's enough public info to do the freight aspect pretty easily, I think.  Maybe when I have a moment I'll do that - inutitively, I believe it'll be shockingly large.  What I don't know where to find is what Amtrak typically pays per train-mile.  Anybody here have a handle on that ?

OK, here goes, from BNSF's 4th Quarter 2008 "Investor's Report", page 11 (13 of 17), at:

 http://www.bnsf.com/investors/investorreports/4Q_2008_Investors_Report.pdf

For Coal:  $14.05 per 1,000 Revenue Ton-Miles.

135 cars in a typical train at 110 tons capy. ea. = 14,850 - say, 15,000 Rev. Tons per Train.

Train Revenue per Mile = 15,000 Rev. Tons x 1 Mile x $14.05 /1,000 Rev. Ton-Miles = $210 Train Rev. per Mile.

At a typical speed of 20 MPH, that train is earning -

20 Miles / Hour x $210 / Mile = $4,200 per Hour. 

For Intermodal:  $50.06 per 1,000 rev. Ton-Miles

Say, 300 containers in a typical double-stack train of about 9,000 ft. length (60 ft. per box to include the car underneath, 2 high, at 20 tons each) = 6,000 Rev. Tons per Train.

Train Revenue per Mile = 6,000 Rev. Tons x 1 Mile x $50.06 /1,000 Rev. Ton-Miles = $300 Train Rev. per Mile.

At a typical speed of 30 MPH, that train is earning -

30 Miles / Hour x $300 / Mile = $9,000 per Hour

Simple Conclusion:

So, my hypothetical 1 mile of empty track - which might cost $5,000 per year or merely $15 per day to maintain 1 mile of track "as-is" without any traffic over it - could also support trains that would earn from $210 (coal) to $300 (intermodal) for each train that runs over that 1 mile.  And of course, if it's empty 20 hours a day, probably 20+ such train could be accomodated.  Those trains could earn the railroad from $4,200 (coal) to $9,000 (intermodal) per hour.  In view of those numbers, is it any wonder why railroads love intermodal ?  (I know, their cost structures are in nowise alike, but then again the IM is imposing something like half less gross ton-miles than the coal train.)  And, to this point, what can Amtrak put on there that will even begin to match that revenue stream ?  Why would a responsible railroad manager even risk giving up one of those trains slots for the "goose that lays the golden eggs" for a proverbial turkey like Amtrak, or any other passenger train ?  (I know, "Cheap shot !", but I couldn't resist). 

- Paul North.

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    November 2007
  • 2,989 posts
Posted by Railway Man on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:19 AM

henry6

But if you have a piece of track that is unoccupied for 20 hours a day, how much money is it bringing to the bottom line?  If Amtrak or anybody else comes along and offers to fill it for one, ten, what, hours, what is it worth to you?  If the track is empty and it is costing you $X.XX per hour to have it sit empty why not work out a deal to get at least that $X.XX per hour back.  Not 20 times $X.XX but the cost for the hour(s) used.  If you can get $X.XX plys $Y.YY, all the better, but don't get greedy and try to get the whole 20 empty hours back: get what you can and cut your losses.   Its what others do with excess inventory: get what they can so it is not a total loss! 

 

In other words, go ahead and sell short the value of the franchise to realize a tiny revenue stream, and hope when the freight traffic returns, that Amtrak will say thanks for the opportunity, and politely go away and all the politicians, political activists, and the public will be grateful and understanding.

Is there even one end-to-end corridor in the U.S. that Amtrak currently uses or any corridor passenger operator proposes to use, including terminal trackage on each end, that has spare capacity going begging at this time sufficient to reliably schedule a passenger train without getting in the way of freight trains?  There's plenty of lousy secondary trackage and branch lines that might fit the bill so long as the passenger train operator is willing to terminate the train and throw everyone onto a platform on the outskirts of the suburbs.  Not too many operators are thinking of that, however.

RWM

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 2,593 posts
Posted by PNWRMNM on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:18 AM

The biggest problem the railroads have with Amtrak is that it does not pay ANYTHING for the use of the track.  The Class I railroads are subsidizing ATK to the tune of 100s of million dollars but it is hidden so well that very few understand it.  IIRC the same thing happens to ATK on the NEC where it can not charge the commuter operators for slots.

Mac

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 9:31 AM

First, there's not much track that's empty 20 hours a day that Amtrak would want to run on.

Second, the average daily cost for that empty track - some taxes & insurance, a little incremental maintenance (mainly weather and time-related) - is not all that much, and does not increase if the track isn't used.  A fair number is in the range of $1 per foot or $5,000 per mile per year for "plain" track - say, $5 million per year for 1,000 track-miles.  What you're addressing is not an increased cost, but really the cost of a "lost opportunity" for additional revenue. 

Thirdly, that empty track opportunity will probably last only a year or two - then we're going to be right back where we were a year ago, with many lines jammed to capacity.  Then I won't want Amtrak there, but I'd be stuck with them anyway, likely forever more.  So the choice is between a few cents more income today, or many dollars of lost income in 2 -3 years.  In view of that, I'd prefer to "suck it up" today and "eat" the empty track cost for the time being.

Fourth, I doubt if any passenger operator can get set up and commit to a funding level to pay for that empty track in less thatn 3 years, and more likely 5 to 10 years.

If I were a railroad manager - and I'm track-oriented - I'd rather be inclined to be thinking about using all that available track time to do some time-consuming maintenance now, instead of waiting for when the traffic is busier, and instead of letting a passenger operation preclude my maintenance window..  Things like surfacing don't use a lot of cash expeditures - a few dollars for some extra stone is all, maybe some tie replacements (which deteriorate with weather as well as traffic), grade crossings, interlockings, but not rail - no traffic, no wear on it.

Lastly,excess inventory is a 1-time thing (hopefully) - once you liquidate it, it's gone.  But the empty track and Amtrak come back every day, this year, next year, and the year after that, too, and so on.  The present value of that lost opportunity for freight revenue is pretty big.

It would be interesting to quantify the magnitude of the revenues that a typical freight train earns, as opposed to a passenger train.  There's enough public info to do the freight aspect pretty easily, I think.  Maybe when I have a moment I'll do that - inutitively, I believe it'll be shockingly large.  What I don't know where to find is what Amtrak typically pays per train-mile.  Anybody here have a handle on that ?

- Paul North.

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 9:01 AM

But if you have a piece of track that is unoccupied for 20 hours a day, how much money is it bringing to the bottom line?  If Amtrak or anybody else comes along and offers to fill it for one, ten, what, hours, what is it worth to you?  If the track is empty and it is costing you $X.XX per hour to have it sit empty why not work out a deal to get at least that $X.XX per hour back.  Not 20 times $X.XX but the cost for the hour(s) used.  If you can get $X.XX plys $Y.YY, all the better, but don't get greedy and try to get the whole 20 empty hours back: get what you can and cut your losses.   Its what others do with excess inventory: get what they can so it is not a total loss! 

RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.

  • Member since
    November 2007
  • 2,989 posts
Posted by Railway Man on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 8:39 AM

henry6

An interesting thought was passed on to me last night by a long time friend and even longer rail observer.   With today's downturn in freight business, would not the current operators look to passenger rail in general, Amtrak in particular, to fill in the ledgers by occupying otherwise empty tracks?



I won't speak for or of any railroad's future strategy, nor make predictions.  However, what is publicly said is this:

Not unless Amtrak starts paying more than 30 cents on the dollar for the value of the slot and Amtrak is willing to bid fairly for the value of the slot when the freight traffic returns and Amtrak agrees to play nice in Washington on reregulation, on-time performance lawsuits, PTC, liability, etc., and Amtrak agrees that the slot doesn't become a permanent extension of its system.

Amtrak is not the same thing as a corridor operator, however.  That's a different game.  But I doubt railways are not going to sell short the value of their franchise again.  Railways are betting the value of the franchise will continue to increase rapidly and sustain high values for the next 100-plus years.  This is not 1971 when most railways were predicting the value of the franchise would continue to fall toward zero.

RWM

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 8:09 AM

Railway Man

Generally to put any significant quantity of passenger trains onto a freight railroad, unless it's a line with a lot more plant than trains, it will take a lot of new track.  Most of the major passenger-train additions being proposed are corridor trains, and most of those proposals will require an additional main track over some or all of the route.

RWM 

An interesting thought was passed on to me last night by a long time friend and even longer rail observer.   With today's downturn in freight business, would not the current operators look to passenger rail in general, Amtrak in particular, to fill in the ledgers by occupying otherwise empty tracks?

RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.

  • Member since
    November 2007
  • 2,989 posts
Posted by Railway Man on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:24 PM

Murphy Siding

    By  locating new passenger railroads both on top of existing corridors, are you meaning new tracks where none existed before, or tweeking the current system to provide more slots for more trains?

    Will our system increase the freight capacity by adding new lines, or by incrementally improving the existing lines-for example Abo Canyon type things?

Generally to put any significant quantity of passenger trains onto a freight railroad, unless it's a line with a lot more plant than trains, it will take a lot of new track.  Most of the major passenger-train additions being proposed are corridor trains, and most of those proposals will require an additional main track over some or all of the route.

There is almost no capability to tweak the existing infrastructure to create more slots.  In some cases new crossovers, acceleration/deceleration tracks, and the like can create more capacity by improving flexibility, and by getting trains on and off the main track faster.  Of course all that costs a lot of money.  I think you're thinking of inexpensive things to do.  There aren't any.

It is almost impossible to permit new rights-of-way -- just ask our friends in the transmission line business, who have been soundly thrashed in their efforts to build new lines.  They've encountered a perfect storm of opposition from property-rights/no-new-taxes/don't-you-dare-harm-my-property-values activists and environmental/social justice/green activists, which virtually guarantees 100% opposition from both political parties in any given district.  Absent a fundamental shift in U.S. politics, culture, and values, I can't see any major new-line construction in my lifetime.

A very substantial capacity increase has been created through operational changes, namely longer and heavier trains.  This came about through the rapid adoption of DPU, but more importantly because the volume increase has made it economical to make trains bigger.  We expect trains will continue to grow larger.  Right now 135-car coal trains are standard with 150's in the offing.  In ten years, maybe 200-car trains.  Double-stacks are into the 10,000-foot size now, and that can get bigger, too.

RWM 

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:01 PM

Railway Man

Your question has the premise that locating work ended a century ago.  Not so!  Today we are locating new passenger railroads both on top of existing corridors and in all-new high-speed corridors, and trying to figure out how we will increase the freight capacity of the nation's railroads by 50% in the next 30 years.  In some ways it is more difficult today because there are so many more actors in the play, the corridors are extremely constrained, and the costs are fantastic.  It's a slightly different flavor but the game is the same.   On the other hand we don't have to sleep in tents, trudge through the mud and snow for thousands of miles, and eat whatever we shoot.  On the other hand they didn't have e-mail and Blackberrys and cell phones demanding instant answers 24/7.

RWM (Blush)  Um, yeah,  I guess it did kind of come out that way.  To my credit, I didn't use the phrase 'good old days'.

    By  locating new passenger railroads both on top of existing corridors, are you meaning new tracks where none existed before, or tweeking the current system to provide more slots for more trains?

    Will our system increase the freight capacity by adding new lines, or by incrementally improving the existing lines-for example Abo Canyon type things?

    

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    November 2007
  • 2,989 posts
Posted by Railway Man on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 7:50 PM

Paul_D_North_Jr

More correctly, it depends on the operating plan, which should depend on the analyzed and selected market segments, and their associated projected revenues & profit margins, etc.

I think he based it on the D&RGW's "fast & frequent" operating plan, because a couple years later he wrote an article touting that:

How to run a railroad in 1972
Trains, July 1972 page 20
Why Rio Grande threw out the bible
( D&RGW, "LEMASSENA, ROBERT A.", OPERATION, TRN )

An article that succeeded in creating a "truth" that never was true.  Railfans love a good myth, and once they've latched onto one, you can't pry it even from their cold, dead fingers.  D&RGW was a drag-freight railroad dependent upon regulation to keep it in the overhead traffic game.  What railfans thought was a high horsepower-per-ton ratio was actually just enough power to trudge up the inclines, and what they thought were short trains were trains that just barely fit into the sidings. 

If the D&RGW really had been a faster railroad, it would have enjoyed the perishable traffic, of which it could capture only a tiny smidgen.  There was no need for speed for local traffic between Denver and Salt Lake City, as there was very little.  But railfans looked at D&RGW trains and UP trains and drew the wrong conclusions because they were fishing for facts to fit their preconceived notions:  UP trains were long, heavy, and had very low horsepower because its railroad was double-track and flat.  D&RGW trains were short, light, and had very high horsepower because its railroad was single-track with short sidings and steeply graded.  But when it came to over-the-road schedules -- which is all the regulated-railroad shipper cared about -- the D&RGW was not competitive with UP.*  And once deregulation occurred, the D&RGW was not cost-competitive either. 

Everybody loves an underdog.

*D&RGW was competitive on lumber traffic, however, because it was slower.  A lumber broker desiring to get a car loading on SP or WP in Oregon or Northern California to a hot market would divert to UP at Ogden or Salt Lake City.  If the market was not hot, he would divert to D&RGW and hope for a market turnaround while his car trudged over mountain and dale.

RWM


  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 7:36 PM

It was only 2 pages long, if I remember right.  Depends on how you feel about using GTM/TH (Gross Ton-Miles Per Train Hour") as the primary metric to measure and govern the operation.  See also:

Is gross ton miles per train hour valid?
Trains, April 1970 page 37
is the ratio a valid indicator of efficiency?
( ANALYSIS, "LEMASSENA, ROBERT A.", OPERATION, TRN )
 

More correctly, it depends on the operating plan, which should depend on the analyzed and selected market segments, and their associated projected revenues & profit margins, etc.

I think he based it on the D&RGW's "fast & frequent" operating plan, because a couple years later he wrote an article touting that:

How to run a railroad in 1972
Trains, July 1972 page 20
Why Rio Grande threw out the bible
( D&RGW, "LEMASSENA, ROBERT A.", OPERATION, TRN )

I understand that the 1980's French TGV was designed/ located and built using this philosophy, using grades of up to 3% to minimize the route mileage.  With the power coming from the catenary and utilizing/ taking advantage of the short-time overload ratings of the motors to run up those grades at close to full speed, the electrification negated the usual downside of doing that, while still having the shorter downhill leg to benefit from

- Paul North.

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    November 2007
  • 2,989 posts
Posted by Railway Man on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 7:14 PM

Paul_D_North_Jr

Shorter plus steeper equals faster plus cheaper
Trains, August 1970 page 44
accent is now on speed, not tonnage
( "LEMASSENA, ROBERT A.", LINE, LOCATION, TRN )

 

I need to reread that one.  I think there's a lot of people who thought it was wrong.

RWM

  • Member since
    November 2007
  • 2,989 posts
Posted by Railway Man on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 7:01 PM

A locating engineer.  Someone with extensive knowledge of economics, geography, railway engineering, railway operation, railway maintenance, agricultural and mining economics, and transportation economics. Yes, they existed.  It's what we do today, too, though our arena of play has no buffalo a-roaming through it anymore.

Not a "go-forth and deliver us an answer proposition."  A team effort taking a lot of time to study, investigate, research, reconnoiter, plan, conceptually engineer, and estimate.

Step 1:  Develop a thorough understanding of the potential and the geography.  Lots of people short-cut this stage and rationalize it by saying, "Who knows?"  In other words, they generate questions to fit an answer they already decided they were in love with.

Step 2:  Run a preliminary survey to generate a cost estimate.  A fertile field for incompetents who either are merrily oblivious to the problems or kill the project through lack of creativity and CYA mentality.

Step 3:  Review the cost estimate, P&L, and market to determine if there's a business case, and to determine the route, timing, quality of construction to obtain the best business case.  For example, the ideal route from a construction cost perspective might be up the middle of a valley, the ideal route from a land-acquisition cost perspective might be on the sterile ridgetop rather than the fertile valley lands, and the ideal route from a traffic perspective might be right on the edge of the valley.  All of those thousands of variables have to be sorted out and ranked to make an effective decision, and this is where people usually get bored, lazy, impatient, or default to preconceptions and make bad decisions.

Step 4:  If there's a business case, then the board authorizes expenditure on construction. At this point the board is often so far down the path that they rarely say no to a project they have already decided they like, or rarely say yes to a project they have already decided they dislike.  It's not a good idea to expect actual due diligence to occur at this stage of the game.

Your question has the premise that locating work ended a century ago.  Not so!  Today we are locating new passenger railroads both on top of existing corridors and in all-new high-speed corridors, and trying to figure out how we will increase the freight capacity of the nation's railroads by 50% in the next 30 years.  In some ways it is more difficult today because there are so many more actors in the play, the corridors are extremely constrained, and the costs are fantastic.  It's a slightly different flavor but the game is the same.   On the other hand we don't have to sleep in tents, trudge through the mud and snow for thousands of miles, and eat whatever we shoot.  On the other hand they didn't have e-mail and Blackberrys and cell phones demanding instant answers 24/7.

RWM

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 5:31 PM

     In the building period of railroads in North America, who was it, that did the *location* work for a rail line?  I've seen lots written about the railroad surveyors, scouting out passes, and staking the best route.  But who actually decided that building the rail line from point A to point B was a good financial investment for the company?  It would seem the BOD would be the folks approving it, but provided the plan being considered?

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 5:25 PM

To get this thread back on topic, here are some references to old article in Trains by Robert A. LeMassena that I just dug up using the "Index to Magazines" feature that's linked at the bottom of the page.  I've got to talk to the folks about Kalmbach about finding a legitimate way to post these or otherwise make them available to us - they are way too good to just let moulder away in the magazines archives.  Meanwhile, all you really need to do is read the titles and subtitles - that'll give you a pretty good idea of what they're about.  henry6, the first two are for you ! Laugh

Church of the Holy Faith (Railroad)
Trains, November 1977 page 74
turning railroads into conglomerates hasn't accomplished anything
( "LEMASSENA, ROBERT A.", OPINION, TRN )

Steam out of Scranton
Trains, September 1965 page 28
Lackawanna's steam locomotives
( DL&W, "LEMASSENA, ROBERT A.", STEAM, SYSTEM, ENGINE, LOCOMOTIVE, TRN )

Note: Despite the subtitle, I recall this was about more than just the locomotives - it was about the wiole railroad.  I also ecall that a sidebar 1-page article was entitled something like "Sights and Sounds along the DL&W".  More to the point, I think he had some commentary about the beneficial economic effect of the Lackawanna's big line relocations that we discussed earlier here.
 

Shorter plus steeper equals faster plus cheaper
Trains, August 1970 page 44
accent is now on speed, not tonnage
( "LEMASSENA, ROBERT A.", LINE, LOCATION, TRN )

Selected railroad reading: Numbers
Trains, July 1982 page 44
accuracy beyond the decimal point
( COMMENTARY, "LEMASSENA, ROBERT A.", TRN )

And many, many, others.

- Paul North.

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 5:11 PM

There are a few more differences here:

1)  Again, time frame - the commercial and railroad world now is far different from 30 to 35 years ago.  The railroad mergers of the still-ICC-regulated 1960s and 1970s were of course about more money, but mainly for the primary purpose of consolidation for survival.  Greed as in getting a lot of money out of the railroad - or the parent "Industries" company as many did - definitely happened in some cases, but not on the magnitude of today's non-railroad deals.  Today, they are more for long-term business purposes, not short-term cash-outs.  That said, I don't happen to favor any more large RR mergers, either.  I think the resulting operation will be another step up the too-large-to-manage ladder, and the same operational results can be achieved by agreements and intelligent coordination without the headaches, regulatory burdens, and public backlash against a large-scale merger.

2)  I've thought long and hard about a nice way to say this, and here's what I came up with: The subjects of the 2 non-rail businesses that henry6 mentions above are all intangibles - banks/ finance and broadcasting.  They don't make or ship anything that you can touch or lift.  As such, they are legal and commercial fictions (or figments of imagination) that those business models have decided to treat as their reality.  That's fine for them, but maybe not everyone else goes along with it.  Eventually someone decided to point out that "The Emperor has no clothes !".  We're now seeing the results of the stripping away of that fiction.  You can probably draw the appropriate contrasts with the railroad business model.

I recommend that you read Tom Clancy's fictional Jack Ryan book Debt of Honor (published circa 1994).  One of the main plot elements involves an attack on the U.S. - actually, the whole Western world's - financial system by a rogue Japanese industrialist.  Near the middle of the book, Clancy has several excellent expositions and excursions by various characters, as well as himself as a kind of Greek chorus, on the nature of our financial system - that it's all psychological, and that's mainly about our confidence in ourselves, our system, and our futures.  I don't want to trivialize what you're concerned about or saying, but it's nothing new.  Fortunately, it's not universal, either.  Don't let the shenanigans of and to a couple of mainly "smoke-and-mirrors" businesses lead you to false conclusions about the rest.

- Paul North.

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 12:21 PM

Actually there is another level of observation that I have.  That is that railroads were one of the first, and probably most familiar, businesses to enter into this merger/investment maze back in the 60's/70/s era.  So, yes, today, it is much different as they learned thier lessons of being inadequate to both themselves and their customers and are working their way out of it with plant investment and with the creation of real shortline/regional companies that work.  The others I mention are still evolving out of it. The problem being that banks/investment/money businesses got slammed by thier inattention to the future; some call it greed.  Broadcasting is still fumbling with their lot, knowing that locally is the best way for an individual property to survive but drowning in too much debt (and still besparkled by the glamour of it all) to find a life raft that will pull them up.  Assuming they want to get out of the water.   There is still a big shake down cruise coming as the likes of Clear Channel and Citadel are counting their chips by the penny rather by the thousand dollar bills they used to.  Governtment and other businesses are in the process of fixing the money business but broadcasters, and others, will have to find ways to work out of their situations.  And I really think they will; the price will be steep for them, but the public, and the advertiser, the suppliers, etc.,  will eventually be better off. I don't believe in true cycles but rather cycles that move forward.  Like putting a light on the spot on a wheel and tracing its arcs and circles as it moves across the field of vision.

 

RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:44 AM

henry6 - In a friendly way, I'd say you're partially right, and partially wrong.  I'm personally familiar with all 3 of the situations in your 3 paragraphs (although the last 2 mainly as a consumer, not as an "insider").  The intellectual mistake you're making is the fallacy of over-generalizing - understandably carrying valid observations from one - or two - or many - set(s) of circumstances over to other conditions, where they do apply in some instances, and don't in others.

Your E-L example was quite true, then - 30 or 35 years ago.  E-L or CR was in a struggle for survival, and that skews what might otherwise be rational decisions.  Large organizations make macro-level decisions that don't always make sense or work out on the micro-level, down in the weeds where most of us are, and that's not new either: "Remember, the charge of the Light Brigade was ordered by an officer who wasn't there looking at the ground." - Robert Townsend in Up the Organization ! above (again).

But in the railroad world, that was then, and this is now.  Also, the same general set of actions - cutting costs and outsourcing - might have several different causes and purposes in different organizations and times, not always consistently. That's where the short lines have stepped in to fill the voids left by the large railroads, much the same as the new local and community banks fill the voids left by the big ones when they do the things that you describe.  (Someone once said that law firms grow and split apart and then merge again like amoebas - I use the "Lava Lamp" analogy instead, which I suspect that you can relate to if you remeber the E-L from the 1970's.  Well, banks are of like kind.)  The same Robert Townsend also said (in the same book) that big organizations have no idea of what they're doing to themselves, and that we didn't have to fear the Russians (this was back in the "Cold War" days, remember): "We've perfected 'do-it-yourself' methods of self-destruction." 

You know the prayer that ends with "God grant me . . . the wisdom to know the difference." ?  May I respectfully suggest that you critically analyze each of these situations or changes, and figure out what matters, what is alike, and what is different, in each.  Then you will be in a better position to evaluate and judge what is happening.  It's certainly not all good, not even in the railroad world - but it's not all bad, either.

- Paul North.

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:30 AM

OK.  So I don't know who I am or where I am.  Am I right for the wrong reasons, wrong for the right reasons, right and wrong within in reason, or wrong and right for no reason?

 In my defense, I go back to the the 70's when fresh MBA's were brought into supervisory positions on properties like the EL and told to cut expenses. Manpower and thus services were cut to the point where the product at least wasn't the same.  For instance, you might have had to drive a truck and trailer up to 50 miles to a railhead instead of across town under the guise of "centralizationizing".  Or you'd get a switch every other day instead of one or two time a day because the train only ran one way one day and reverse the next; and if your plant didn't operate Sat., you had to wait until Mon. despite the train running Sat. which it soon no longer did because there was no business for it.  And so it went in railroading until trains were running the length of the railroad because there was no reason to stop in between.  Scarcastic, yes.  But...

The next business to get the same treatement were banks which merged and merged and elimentated branches and services until they became distant, unknown entities.  At one time a tenant of mine bounce a check...went to the bank and said "Hey Chip...so and so and so on",  to which he replied, "Its OK, we gotcha covered"!  Today, I get drilled for my name, account numbers, pin numbers, how long I've been a client of the bank, and asked how to pronouce my name and if I really do live at the address in thier computer, and then they give me a $50 charge. 

Another business I am quite familiar with is broadcasting/media.  New, big owner comes to town, merges a half dozen stations into one building then proceeds to get rid of long time employees cutting staff in half leaving half the staff to do twice the work.  Income dwindles so that all six stations are billing what two used to.  So more staff is cut, equipment gets worn out and not replaced.  And the owner goes out and buys more stations in other markets.  The listener gets a bad product to listen to and the advertiser gets a poorly produced product for a reduced size audience at a higher price.  The big owner takes the money out of town for products and services cutting local busineses out of the pruchaseing loop and thus losing them as clients.  So owner goes to sattalite feed of programs and gets rid of more employees.  If a manger complains of having to work from 5AM to midnight 6 days a week plus 10 hours on Sunday, he might be allowed to hire a high school kid to replace the 30 year veteran. Product suffers more, listener get less, audience shrinks, advertiser (if still around) gets worse commercial and smaller audience again.

So, there is my jade, my cynicism, in three short paragaphs.

RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy