Was Ed Ellis wrong?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Than they should expand their authority via the government. Amtrak mean American Track so that means if it is American and runs on a track than it could be done by Amtrak. I think that Amtrak should have expanded to intermodal (at least suggested it to their funders).

FOFLMAO...

You can't really believe that...

If the government decides to force Amtrak to have freight over the railroads that would constitute a taking of private property without due process of law, an event that is constitutionally prohibited by several articles of the U.S. Constitution. At the very least, the compensation the government would have to pay for this would probably be an amount equal to purchasing the entire railroad network. Why would the government do something that STUPID, when it collects plenty of good tax revenue from the private railroads now and has none of the capital at risk. Simple answer: It will never happen, because it is a dumb idea. Add it to the stack.

LC

[Junctionfan]

Oh really Limitedclear...

The idea is negotiating first but despite what you say, Amtrak (through the federal government) can force the issue with passenger service. This wouldn't cut into the railroad's profit because other than the CP Expressway, they lack the interest in providing anything but long-haul intermodal where as my idea is gear for the medium to short haul.

You seem pretty quick to criticise and slow to keep an open-mind about thease things;why is that?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Oh really Limitedclear...

The idea is negotiating first but despite what you say, Amtrak (through the federal government) can force the issue with passenger service. This wouldn't cut into the railroad's profit because other than the CP Expressway, they lack the interest in providing anything but long-haul intermodal where as my idea is gear for the medium to short haul.

You seem pretty quick to criticise and slow to keep an open-mind about thease things;why is that?

Because you have ONE answer for everything. Make the Government fix "IT", whatever it maybe. As I, Ed and others have tried to explain to you seemingly endless times, the United States is not a socialist state. So, the government doesn't just step in to fix everything. Frankly, the government stepping in is pretty much a bottom drawer option only as when they do step in it usually results in a mess dues to political realities taking precedence over economic and practical constraints.

As to Amtrak, the ONLY reason Amtrak has the right to run passenger trains over freight railroads is that the freight railroads willingly gave them that right in exchange for getting out of the unprofitable passenger business. That does not in any way extend to freight, nor does it give the government the extra-Constitutional right to just force Amtrak on the freight railroads. Perhaps a little research on the origins of Amtrak on your part would make you able to have a more informed and realistic approach to this discussion. I realize that at 25 you weren't more than an infant during much of the formation of Amtrak, but there are a number of good books on the subject.

LC

[Randy Stahl]

I can't help but think of the rural electrification program that began during the new deal. Power companys weren't about to provide electric service to customers that required lots of investment for little return. Though I completly agree that less government is better government , there seems to be times when we need it. Amtrak has been and will continue to evolve, I remember the late 70s and later the early 80s when I actually worked on the equipment that things are getting better as time goes on. Gas prices continue to rise, Amtrak WILL fill a vital role in the US as time goes on, this is a fact not lost to our representatives in Washington. As for me... I'll stick with freight RRs.
Randy

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Oh really Limitedclear...

The idea is negotiating first but despite what you say, Amtrak (through the federal government) can force the issue with passenger service. This wouldn't cut into the railroad's profit because other than the CP Expressway, they lack the interest in providing anything but long-haul intermodal where as my idea is gear for the medium to short haul.

You seem pretty quick to criticise and slow to keep an open-mind about thease things;why is that?

Because you have ONE answer for everything. Make the Government fix "IT", whatever it maybe. As I, Ed and others have tried to explain to you seemingly endless times, the United States is not a socialist state. So, the government doesn't just step in to fix everything. Frankly, the government stepping in is pretty much a bottom drawer option only as when they do step in it usually results in a mess dues to poplitical realities taking precedence over economic and practical constraints.

As to Amtrak, the ONLY reason Amtrak has the right to run passenger trains over freight railroads is that the freight railroads willingly gave them that right in exchange for getting out of the unprofitable passenger business. That does not in any way extend to freight, nor does it give the government the extra-Constitutional right to just force Amtrak on the freight railroads. Perhaps a little research on the origins of Amtrak on your part would make you able to have a more informed and realistic approach to this discussion. I realize that at 25 you weren't more than an infant during much of the formation of Amtrak, but there are a number of good books on the subject.

LC

If the government owns it, than the government should fix it..There is nothing socialist about. No railroad wants to go back into the passenger service so who do think should run it? My idea is to venture out and find other ways to lessen the financial burden of funding Amtrak by having them do other things that the railroads don't seem to have an interest in. Why should private institutions be the only ones givin the opportunity to run a business? I thought the U.S was the "land of the free" so if the private entities have the right to build a business up, than why shouldn't the voters through the government, do the same? It is a hell of a lot cheaper for the tax payers if Amtrak can find ways to make itself more profitable than just having to constantly depend on funding from the government.

You are a classic example of a nay-sayer, doom-sayer and protector of the status quo. This is the reason why Amtrak got into trouble in the first place because the government had that kind of attitude of clouded-thinking that has made Amtrak so screwed up. I maybe 25 and inexperienced in thease matters but at least I have the open-minded intelligence to find alternatives in order to preserve something that many people would like to use but are unable because it is inefficient for the moment.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Well you would have to purchase at least 50 of thease things which would likely be made by Trinity. Probably somewhere in the $200-300 thousand mark so about $15 million for the rollingstock per train. You need at least a mile and a half for the track so that about $3 million plus you need a passing siding so that's another $3 million because it includes the 2 switches (manual). You need to build a ramp so thats about $100,000 plus you will need to hire people to operate the terminal. I figure with all that, the investment for Amtrak is about $21.1 million. Here is where the ROI comes in. You charge about $1000 per truck to use this great service so per run you make $50,000. Since you operate it at least 3 times a day both ways, thats about $300,000 a day. Operate it 7 days a week and thats about $2.1 million. Multiply that by 4 weeks in a month and it is $8.4 million. Multiply that by 12 months to the year and at the end of the year, it is $96.8 million. That is the revenue not profit. Take away half of this (extreme guestamate) because of taxes, wages, fuel, maintainance, etc; and you still make about $48.4 million per train which mean the ROI is now $21.3 million.

Depending on where this would be operated, this train service would be demanded more than just 3 times a day so the profit would be greater. Even if you charged the truckers $500 dollars per way, you are still going to be making $10.65 million. Ideally, you may want to operate more than one train so multiply the cost but also the ROI by 2. I can imagine that after a few years, this service would be very cool if conjestion of cars on the highway continues to grow.

Good start. I think you're missing some things and need to refine it a bit.

Equipment: if you have 300 mile haul, you might get 1-1/2 turns per day (900 miles per day - wow!), so you need 2 sets to operated your service, and a 3rd to protect. You have a premium svc, you can't say "the train's broken today", your customers will go away - permanently.

Costs:

crew - figure $500 for each man for each one-way trip. (inlcludes fringe). Figure two man crew.

Staff/overhead - figure a dozen people per lane at $150,000 each per year (incl. fringe)

locomotive - figure $500/ unit/ day. Double it if you're going to use one of those gold-plated P42s. Once again, you're going to need power for three train sets.

Locomotive maintenance = figure $1/mile

Train maint = figure $0.10/platform/mile

fuel - figure 300 ton miles per gallon and $0.90/gallon

payment to tenant RR - figure on $9/train mile (that's what Amtrak pays for special trains)

Revenue:

Figure $1/mile for premium service (that's about what UPS pays, now)

Figure that you won't have 100% utilization - maybe 80-90% on avg, and you won't have many takers on weekend days - maybe 50% or less util on those days. This also because some times of day will be more popular than others. You may "sell out" on your evening dept, but have few takers for the 2 PM dept.

Truck driver/rig owner: these guys need to make some money, too. After all they're they have to drive to/from the ramp - and they're going to have to have some money left over - enough to make a living, if they participate in this svc.

Marketing: Shaving an hour or two of existing truck times won't get you any market share. You have to beat the one-driver trucker (who can do 500 miles in his 11 hour shift) by enough that you get there in time to make one shift or sort earlier at the destination facility - and that includes the local dray at each end. Otherwise, the load sits at the customers dock a bit longer- no added value for customer.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Oh really Limitedclear...

The idea is negotiating first but despite what you say, Amtrak (through the federal government) can force the issue with passenger service. This wouldn't cut into the railroad's profit because other than the CP Expressway, they lack the interest in providing anything but long-haul intermodal where as my idea is gear for the medium to short haul.

You seem pretty quick to criticise and slow to keep an open-mind about thease things;why is that?

Because you have ONE answer for everything. Make the Government fix "IT", whatever it maybe. As I, Ed and others have tried to explain to you seemingly endless times, the United States is not a socialist state. So, the government doesn't just step in to fix everything. Frankly, the government stepping in is pretty much a bottom drawer option only as when they do step in it usually results in a mess dues to poplitical realities taking precedence over economic and practical constraints.

As to Amtrak, the ONLY reason Amtrak has the right to run passenger trains over freight railroads is that the freight railroads willingly gave them that right in exchange for getting out of the unprofitable passenger business. That does not in any way extend to freight, nor does it give the government the extra-Constitutional right to just force Amtrak on the freight railroads. Perhaps a little research on the origins of Amtrak on your part would make you able to have a more informed and realistic approach to this discussion. I realize that at 25 you weren't more than an infant during much of the formation of Amtrak, but there are a number of good books on the subject.

LC

If the government owns it, than the government should fix it..There is nothing socialist about. No railroad wants to go back into the passenger service so who do think should run it? My idea is to venture out and find other ways to lessen the financial burden of funding Amtrak by having them do other things that the railroads don't seem to have an interest in. Why should private institutions be the only ones givin the opportunity to run a business? I thought the U.S was the "land of the free" so if the private entities have the right to build a business up, than why shouldn't the voters through the government, do the same? It is a hell of a lot cheaper for the tax payers if Amtrak can find ways to make itself more profitable than just having to constantly depend on funding from the government.

You are a classic example of a nay-sayer, doom-sayer and protector of the status quo. This is the reason why Amtrak got into trouble in the first place because the government had that kind of attitude of clouded-thinking that has made Amtrak so screwed up. I maybe 25 and inexperienced in thease matters but at least I have the open-minded intelligence to find alternatives in order to preserve something that many people would like to use but are unable because it is inefficient for the moment.

Nope, just a realist and a freedom loving American who has served his country in ways you can't even imagine.

You should heed the First Rule of Holes:: "When in one, quit digging"

As Mark Hemphill correctly points out your ideas are confiscatory, and just plain foolish and unrealsitic. Perhaps he is right, you may be more dictatorial than socialist. After all when Mussolini controlled Italy the trains ran on time...

LC

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl

I can't help but think of the rural electrification program that began during the new deal. Power companys weren't about to provide electric service to customers that required lots of investment for little return. Though I completly agree that less government is better government , there seems to be times when we need it. Amtrak has been and will continue to evolve, I remember the late 70s and later the early 80s when I actually worked on the equipment that things are getting better as time goes on. Gas prices continue to rise, Amtrak WILL fill a vital role in the US as time goes on, this is a fact not lost to our representatives in Washington. As for me... I'll stick with freight RRs.
Randy

Interesting thought! A program from a time when it seemed reasonable for the government to get involved in targeted public works for the common good. Is that era over or might it be a model for intercity passenger rail?

[Junctionfan]

O.K, let me get this right....

You are opposed to the government owning Amtrak, you are opposed in the tax payers paying for it because it isn't working, you are opposed in trying to find ways in order to make the service less of a burden to tax payers.

Even though the railroads don't want to do it, and people acknowledges that the passenger service is a demand but is not profitable for private enterprise-I am basically getting from you that Amtrak should be privatised anyways. Basically what you are telling me is meaningful and modern solutions be damned and to hell with modern thinking because it is "unconstitutional". The more I here your positions, the more I wonder what they are. You have absolutely no idea or care to have an idea, how to use more innovative ways of fixing a problem. You are quick to call me a commie if I give a logical solution to a rather simple problem. You are always quick to shoot other people down for having similar positions because it is too modern or too advanced-thinking supposedly.

I am all for freedoms but there comes a time in ones life that you must realize that you have to do better. If something isn't working than fix it. If there is a problem with the way Amtrak is working because it is using 1940's logic than fix it with 2020 or beyond logic. The "it's against the constitution" crap can only be used so often before that excuse becomes lame. I believe a constitution is to protect folk against injustice only and not to protect the selfish from taking responsible steps to prevent hardships for future generations.

[Overmod]

Since this thread seems to have drifted over to justifications of Amtrak rather than just Amtrak M&E:

It may bear restating that "Amtrak" is only a trade name. The actual name of the entity that was formed was the "National Railroad Passenger Corporation", formed as the result of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970. A brief history can be found at

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4571&sequence=3

Folks who were around at the time remember that the NRPC was touted as a 'quasi-public' company: the idea was that the passenger business would be run to make a profit, but would be responsive to public accountability (which in practice often translated into political expediency -- remember the Morgantown Turbo?) There is no "track" involved in the company's name, and certainly none in its original mission.

Where NRPC *does* own its own track -- notably the Northeast Corridor -- it's because powers-that-be decided to keep strict separation between passenger and freight operations, in part to preserve integrity and availability of the high-speed ROW, and in part for safety concerns. Seems to me they've done a pretty good job of upgrading and maintaining that track, but in part that's because what little freight runs on the Corridor is limited to a comparatively low speed.

If I recall correctly, there have been times that some part of the Government has been given the authority to mandate that certain railroads have to provide the equivalent of trackage rights for Amtrak trains. This sort of thing is imho much more popular with Democratic Congresses than with Republican ones, unfunded mandates and general 'ordering people around' being things characteristic of pre-'94 Democratic rule. As freight railroading has recovered, and increased its traffic, it's becoming more and more a problem to schedule Amtrak trains in a timely fashion, as the payments Amtrak makes to those railroads may not cover the inconvenience the train movements cause.

There have been proposals through FRA to build high-speed corridors, but co-existence with freight equipment, scheduling, etc. are extremely difficult to work around. In almost all cases I have seen, the states and not the Federal government (or Amtrak as an essentially Federal agency) are expected to shoulder a significant part of the infrastructure cost... which they have complained about doing.

I doubt that any attempt by the Government to mandate "faster" or "better" passenger service would succeed -- even if there were a slim chance that throwing money and influence at the issue would solve it. I suspect that railroaders are past masters of plausible-denial delaying tactics; I've seen UP do it to SP and KCS in recent memory. The Government could create financial incentives to railroads for faster Amtrak handling, and perhaps sweeten the pot for a couple of closely-following hotshot intermodals in so doing... but we've already discussed the relative absence of achievable business models for that. In any case, speed is much less a factor in most Amtrak service than is convenience and comfort, especially as discount airlines are on the rise again for the traffic taking more than about 6 hours point-to-point

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

O.K, let me get this right....

You are opposed to the government owning Amtrak, you are opposed in the tax payers paying for it because it isn't working, you are opposed in trying to find ways in order to make the service less of a burden to tax payers.

Even though the railroads don't want to do it, and people acknowledges that the passenger service is a demand but is not profitable for private enterprise-I am basically getting from you that Amtrak should be privatised anyways. Basically what you are telling me is meaningful and modern solutions be damned and to hell with modern thinking because it is "unconstitutional". The more I here your positions, the more I wonder what they are. You have absolutely no idea or care to have an idea, how to use more innovative ways of fixing a problem. You are quick to call me a commie if I give a logical solution to a rather simple problem. You are always quick to shoot other people down for having similar positions because it is too modern or too advanced-thinking supposedly.

I am all for freedoms but there comes a time in ones life that you must realize that you have to do better. If something isn't working than fix it. If there is a problem with the way Amtrak is working because it is using 1940's logic than fix it with 2020 or beyond logic. The "it's against the constitution" crap can only be used so often before that excuse becomes lame. I believe a constitution is to protect folk against injustice only and not to protect the selfish from taking responsible steps to prevent hardships for future generations.

Junctionfan-

Get back to work on your numbers!

I don't think you'll find the issue isn't philosophical or political or one of social justice, just economic.

Depending on your point of view, gov't spending on transportation is either "for the common good" or "a subsidy".

Amtrak needs to "stick to it's knitting" and make what is has work the best it can before taking on new projects. They REALLY need to develop better relationships with frt RRs, particularly personal ones with frt RR staff in order to get their trains over the road. If someone in Amtrak operations has a working relationship with the Piedmont chief dispatcher, and he calls and asks questions whenever the Crescent is delayed, don't you think the chief might be less likely to say "Oh, that's just Amtrak".

The Amtrak freight experiment really annoyed the UP, for example. What's been done to smooth that out? I think Gunn has a shot to get Amtrak straightened out because he can "speak frt railroading" and he knows his way around DC from his transit days.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

O.K, let me get this right....

You are opposed to the government owning Amtrak, you are opposed in the tax payers paying for it because it isn't working, you are opposed in trying to find ways in order to make the service less of a burden to tax payers.

Even though the railroads don't want to do it, and people acknowledges that the passenger service is a demand but is not profitable for private enterprise-I am basically getting from you that Amtrak should be privatised anyways. Basically what you are telling me is meaningful and modern solutions be damned and to hell with modern thinking because it is "unconstitutional". The more I here your positions, the more I wonder what they are. You have absolutely no idea or care to have an idea, how to use more innovative ways of fixing a problem. You are quick to call me a commie if I give a logical solution to a rather simple problem. You are always quick to shoot other people down for having similar positions because it is too modern or too advanced-thinking supposedly.

I am all for freedoms but there comes a time in ones life that you must realize that you have to do better. If something isn't working than fix it. If there is a problem with the way Amtrak is working because it is using 1940's logic than fix it with 2020 or beyond logic. The "it's against the constitution" crap can only be used so often before that excuse becomes lame. I believe a constitution is to protect folk against injustice only and not to protect the selfish from taking responsible steps to prevent hardships for future generations.

NO. You are wrong, as usual. I would very much like to see Amtrak properly funded both on a capital and operating basis. I'd like to see it operated in a fiscally responsible way to minimize the burden on U.S. Taxpayers and ensure all stakeholders are getting value.

Conversely, you'd like to make this about what YOU want, regardless of what the laws, rules and dictates of reason require. What good are all your "great" ideas if they can't and won't ever work??! That isn't progressive thinking, that is just plain DREAMING. I live in reality, not fantasy.

If our government, through our duly elected representatives opts to make major changes to Amtrak there will be wide ranging and substantial consequences. What you suggest would require radical changes for questionable benefit. It is SO far beyond the pale as to stretch reality to think it will ever come to pass. It's nice to have plans and to discuss realistic ideas. When you repeatedly propose that extreme solutions be imposed upon private companies and individuals that would fundamentally change not just railroads but our way of life, it destroys those small shreds of credibility you have and causes me to find your ideas a complete waste of time.

LC

[Randy Stahl]

I am going to call Ed and invite HIM to rebutt some of the comments made here, I think it's only fair to hear it from Ed.
Randy

[gabe]

Oh the webs we weave . . .

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl

I am going to call Ed and invite HIM to rebutt some of the comments made here, I think it's only fair to hear it from Ed.
Randy

I think that would be interesting. Having met Ed a few times at various industry functions he seems like a nice guy and someone who actually thinks about the industry...

LC

[Overmod]

I, for one, would thoroughly welcome Ed's thoughts and experience regarding the M&E experience -- including his 'inside' ideas about how to get it to work.

[Anonymous]

Okay here....The Class 1 ran passenger trains for 4 reasons....

1.Mail and Express paid for the Passenger Trains,
When the post office dropped mail from the trains perhaps at the bequest
of GM passenger trains droped as well. The 3 Rivers(Broadway) droped its mail and now there is no justifacation for the the train according to Amtrak.
2.Passenger trains allowed the Public To see there railroads first hand and keep them in the mind of the investing public and those that shipped LTL which the railroads got out of the buisness of or in reality contracted LTL to the likes of UPS and Roadway were Labor was cheaper.
3.Commuter Trains allowed Real estate in Suberbs that were owed by the railroads to be developed and have east access too...Witness Chicago
4. Passenger Trains allowed there own workforce to get to and from remote yard and station locations before freeways which the interstate highway sysytem realy was not complete till 1971..(1951-1969)
Anymore

[Randy Stahl]

Where's my damn tylenol !!!
Randy

[Junctionfan]

LC,

To heck with what I want, it is or at least what could(COULD) be a solution to amtrak's financial burdens. Since railroad aren't operating that kind of intermodal as I stated, it isn't compeating with theirs so it shouldn't make the railroads unhappy if they aren't directly competing with them.

Rightly so that it is not a reality at the moment but the future possibilities (which my idea was a future idea (also hypothetical)). However; you can't honestly find any benefits to this? Somebody said that "reality is whatever he chooses it to be", "we make our own destiny". Future isn't a dream it is a reality. Everytime it is tomorrow, its the future and there is no telling what may happen.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree than.

[edblysard]

What?

Trains magazine dosn't have a hobo living in it's building?

He's not on the payroll?

Man, and all this time....we though he knew what he was talking about....[:D]


Ed

[Junctionfan]

What do you think of my idea Ed; does it have potential? I know it is unconventional but it seems like Amtrak may have to do something a little unconventional. I don't mean to step on people's toes about the constitution but it doesn't seem logical that the voters shouldn't try to make their company (Amtrak) more profitable and empower their board of directors (government) to use their investments (taxes) to be spent in innovative ways as too lessen their taxes (isn't that what a republic would want?). It is only a hypothetical question since what we say really doesn't have any merit outside the forum anyways, so what is the big deal if people say it is a good idea? You know the methods to my madness Ed, isn't there merit to my suggestion?

I don't feal I need to justify my integrity as it is not in question. I am just a person like anybody else here, who just has some ideas of their own on how to make Amtrak better. If some people get grumpy and snarly; oh well-I wasn't put on this earth to make everybody happy since it's impossible anyways.

[edblysard]

Well,
I was staying out of this because I didnt want to ttellyou it had been tried before...there is a reason containers and trailers are loaded and unloaded they way they are, its fast, efficent and cheap.
Short haul traile and containers cant make mony, you can drive there faster...
Amtrak was created for a reason, the Class 1 no longer needed the PR value of first class passenger trains, everyone was driving to where they wanted to be.
Our goverment can't interfer in the fashion you describe, its against our laws, the goverment isnt allowed to compete in private enterprise, their posistion as a legal enity gives them a distinct advantage, along with the limitless pocket book of the taxpayer, they would win every time.
The system we live under tis designed to promote free, private enterprise...

My opinion is Amtrak should be turned into a public utility, run by the goverment as a public service.
Then recovery of capital cost is no longer a issue...

Service becomes the entire point...
Ed

pardon the typos, I am burning dinner!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Well,
I was staying out of this because I didnt want to ttellyou it had been tried before...there is a reason containers and trailers are loaded and unloaded they way they are, its fast, efficent and cheap.
Short haul traile and containers cant make mony, you can drive there faster...
Amtrak was created for a reason, the Class 1 no longer needed the PR value of first class passenger trains, everyone was driving to where they wanted to be.
Our goverment can't interfer in the fashion you describe, its against our laws, the goverment isnt allowed to compete in private enterprise, their posistion as a legal enity gives them a distinct advantage, along with the limitless pocket book of the taxpayer, they would win every time.
The system we live under tis designed to promote free, private enterprise...

My opinion is Amtrak should be turned into a public utility, run by the goverment as a public service.
Then recovery of capital cost is no longer a issue...

Service becomes the entire point...
Ed

pardon the typos, I am burning dinner!

Ed-

I would agree, except that regulated public utilities (Ma Bell or the power company) were allowed too much protection by regulation. There needs to be some control over Amtrak to ensure it doesn't become a government make work project as that will be an expensive way to produce a poor service that will never be an efficient use of resources...

LC

[oltmannd]

Junctionfan-

Uh, I think you're thinking Ed is Ed Ellis?

BTW

What about those numbers? How about picking a lane and doing the analysis. How about Garden City LI to Harrisburg PA? Avoiding tolls and congestion would be a big selling point. Also, Amtrak owns some really fast RR almost the whole way (and is getting faster with PA's money). Harrisburg is the LTL capital of the Northeast - and a good transfer point to NS's Intermodal and Triple Crown network, to boot.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

LC,

To heck with what I want, it is or at least what could(COULD) be a solution to amtrak's financial burdens. Since railroad aren't operating that kind of intermodal as I stated, it isn't compeating with theirs so it shouldn't make the railroads unhappy if they aren't directly competing with them.

Rightly so that it is not a reality at the moment but the future possibilities (which my idea was a future idea (also hypothetical)). However; you can't honestly find any benefits to this? Somebody said that "reality is whatever he chooses it to be", "we make our own destiny". Future isn't a dream it is a reality. Everytime it is tomorrow, its the future and there is no telling what may happen.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree than.

You still don't get it...

Just because the railroads don't conduct THEIR private business in the way you think they should on their private property by running your "Ferry", you seem to think the government can just decide to take that property and use it for your "Ferry" service. I have news. That is, once again, a TAKING of property without due process of law. The government would need to get out the BIG checkbook to even hope that would happen. The legal circus would keep regiments of lawyers, accountants and consultants busy for a decade, at least.

The railroads have no obligation to allow someone else to use their infrastructure to compete with them by hauling freight in ANY manner, no matter how imaginitive...

So, Andrew, I guess its back to the drawing board for you. Oh, and for the record, you can't just get around the Constitution when it is convenient, especially if you are the Government. That is known as an unlawful act under color of authority, and it's a felony.

LC

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Well,
I was staying out of this because I didnt want to ttellyou it had been tried before...there is a reason containers and trailers are loaded and unloaded they way they are, its fast, efficent and cheap.
Short haul traile and containers cant make mony, you can drive there faster...
Amtrak was created for a reason, the Class 1 no longer needed the PR value of first class passenger trains, everyone was driving to where they wanted to be.
Our goverment can't interfer in the fashion you describe, its against our laws, the goverment isnt allowed to compete in private enterprise, their posistion as a legal enity gives them a distinct advantage, along with the limitless pocket book of the taxpayer, they would win every time.
The system we live under tis designed to promote free, private enterprise...

My opinion is Amtrak should be turned into a public utility, run by the goverment as a public service.
Then recovery of capital cost is no longer a issue...

Service becomes the entire point...
Ed

pardon the typos, I am burning dinner!

Thankyou for telling me the faults of my logic in a polite and diplomatic way. I respect you opinion on this. I too think that something like this should be run like a utility but with the government saying how it should be run.

Perhaps I am not being very articulate in explaining myself (I have a habit of this-sorry)

What I meant to say is that the government may force the class 1s into access but of course pay them for it if negotiation fails.

This is how I look at it. If there is something to be done, bring it up in a state of address and ask for the peoples opinion. Tell the voters what you think should be done and why and then ask them to vote on an E-Mail or ask them to give their answer to their representives. If the public vote in majority of your idea, than hold a summit inviting the governers of the states and their transportation secretaries and than decide how to make the railroads follow the law. After the negotiations and than agreed legislation is brought up, take it to the Senate and present your case. Tell why you need it and sell your position for a favourable result. Now you have a back-up plan (plan B). Now you have to give the railroads a chance of saying yes. Negotiate and try to hammer out a deal to do whatever. If negotiations fail, than go with you legislation.

That's how I would conduct myself if I was a politician with authority.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

Junctionfan-

Uh, I think you're thinking Ed is Ed Ellis?

BTW

What about those numbers? How about picking a lane and doing the analysis. How about Garden City LI to Harrisburg PA? Avoiding tolls and congestion would be a big selling point. Also, Amtrak owns some really fast RR almost the whole way (and is getting faster with PA's money). Harrisburg is the LTL capital of the Northeast - and a good transfer point to NS's Intermodal and Triple Crown network, to boot.

I believe I already gave an idea of what it would cost in an earlier statement.

[Overmod]

Junctionfan, he means SPECIFIC numbers, not estimates. e.g., Garden City to access into NYP via MetroNorth (third-rail), then NYP via Hudson tunnels (very low overhead clearance and AC catenary at tight clearance) and NEC (restricted speed without appropriate suspension, etc) to Philadelphia, then Keystone Line to Harrisburg, with whatever transfer service may be necessary to reach your terminal facility. Note that the worst of your 'worries' with freight railroads is utterly absent since Amtrak owns the NEC ROW, MetroNorth has the rights to Garden City AFAIK, and I believe the State of Pennsylvania has rights to the Keystone line. I doubt Class 1s are going to complain much about a few terminal moves to what is in essence a rubber-tire transfer point.

Real-estate availability in Garden City and Harrisburg can be obtained from appropriate sources, as can construction costs and estimates for the facilities you need. Constraints above will determine the specific design of your equipment (as the various clearances and requirements will really test out the cost-effective state of the art in freight equipment design!) Finally, the crew cost, training, rule requirements, etc. are not difficult to determine, as are the 'best' times to make the various moves.

Heck, you might even be able to implement mail-trailer drop transfers via those old vertical lifts, if they haven't been removed in the remodeling of the Farley post-office building into New Penn Station...

Be an interesting test to see how well you can structure a project analysis with appropriate knowledge, slack, and critical-path recognitions... I, for one, am looking forward to see your precise analysis.

Heck, if this works out you can consider running COFC (which is a hell of a lot easier in principle through the Hudson tunnels) through to Bay Ridge, or for that matter to any of the appropriate feeders to the New England freight network. You might be able to pick up substantial 'ferry across NYC' traffic for trucks coming up I-95, I-81/80, I78 and 280, etc. that would otherwise have to clog up the Cross Bronx and Sheridan Expressways, not to mention the truck-capable crossings to Lon Guyland (sorry, I couldn't resist).

Of course, all this is a bit contingent on whether a tongue was in a cheek with regard to the stated lane endpoints... ;-}

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

Junctionfan-

Uh, I think you're thinking Ed is Ed Ellis?

BTW

What about those numbers? How about picking a lane and doing the analysis. How about Garden City LI to Harrisburg PA? Avoiding tolls and congestion would be a big selling point. Also, Amtrak owns some really fast RR almost the whole way (and is getting faster with PA's money). Harrisburg is the LTL capital of the Northeast - and a good transfer point to NS's Intermodal and Triple Crown network, to boot.

I believe I already gave an idea of what it would cost in an earlier statement.

Yeah, but I gave you some better numbers to plug in. Your cost and revenue numbers were off. If you really believe in your idea, do some work and show us! Otherwise, your just a guy who likes to argue.....

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod

Junctionfan, he means SPECIFIC numbers, not estimates. e.g., Garden City to access into NYP via MetroNorth (third-rail), then NYP via Hudson tunnels (very low overhead clearance and AC catenary at tight clearance) and NEC (restricted speed without appropriate suspension, etc) to Philadelphia, then Keystone Line to Harrisburg, with whatever transfer service may be necessary to reach your terminal facility. Note that the worst of your 'worries' with freight railroads is utterly absent since Amtrak owns the NEC ROW, MetroNorth has the rights to Garden City AFAIK, and I believe the State of Pennsylvania has rights to the Keystone line. I doubt Class 1s are going to complain much about a few terminal moves to what is in essence a rubber-tire transfer point.

Real-estate availability in Garden City and Harrisburg can be obtained from appropriate sources, as can construction costs and estimates for the facilities you need. Constraints above will determine the specific design of your equipment (as the various clearances and requirements will really test out the cost-effective state of the art in freight equipment design!) Finally, the crew cost, training, rule requirements, etc. are not difficult to determine, as are the 'best' times to make the various moves.

Heck, you might even be able to implement mail-trailer drop transfers via those old vertical lifts, if they haven't been removed in the remodeling of the Farley post-office building into New Penn Station...

Be an interesting test to see how well you can structure a project analysis with appropriate knowledge, slack, and critical-path recognitions... I, for one, am looking forward to see your precise analysis.

Heck, if this works out you can consider running COFC (which is a hell of a lot easier in principle through the Hudson tunnels) through to Bay Ridge, or for that matter to any of the appropriate feeders to the New England freight network. You might be able to pick up substantial 'ferry across NYC' traffic for trucks coming up I-95, I-81/80, I78 and 280, etc. that would otherwise have to clog up the Cross Bronx and Sheridan Expressways, not to mention the truck-capable crossings to Lon Guyland (sorry, I couldn't resist).

Of course, all this is a bit contingent on whether a tongue was in a cheek with regard to the stated lane endpoints... ;-}

Not at all. In fact, if a truck ferry is going to work anywhere, it's to LI! I'd just like to see a 1-1/2 significant digit of cost and revenue. I still wonder about the economics of letting the tractor ride along vs. the cost to own and operate a couple of packers, plus paying something for the truck driver's time.