Was Ed Ellis wrong?

[Junctionfan]

There is a reason why I took half of the over $90 million for costs (taxes, wages, etc) and left the profit at half (extreme guesstamate)
Unless I am wrong, Amtrak isn't using the F-40s so use them-replace them with P-42s as required.

Unless I have all the access of information like the government or business person has, there is no way for average joe me to get an accurate figure without some kind of reasonable guess. Thease are just approximate figures you have to understand.

[PNWRMNM]

Junction,

Thank God you are not in any office. I think you should confine your attempted thefts of other people's property to your native Canada. They seem more receptive to that kind of thing up North.

Mac

[Overmod]

Junctionfan, you're not going through the Hudson tunnels with any F-40... or any P42 either, even a P32 with third-rail shoes unless Amtrak or NJT puts third rail all the way back out to Allied Junction, which would be fun but won't happen for fundamental political and turf reasons. In brief: you need something with a pantograph on it to go through the Manhattan complex... a running combustion engine will NOT be legal on Manhattan even if it didn't pose a significant hazard in both the Hudson and East River tunnels you'll have to negotiate en route.

You are substantially mistaken in your claim that 'average joes' cannot obtain specific detailed information to get a reasonable first cut on a project like this. Naturally, you won't be able to get specific numbers for some of the factor costs without issuing bids -- but who cares? Even professionals can't predict the future that carefully. The point is to show 'due diligence' in accounting for all the costs and assigning a sensible (often historically-derived) value or order of magnitude to them.

All the information you require to get an initial cost... or Bekenstein bound or initial feasibility estimate, for heaven's sake! ... is either available on the Internet or from sources you can contact based on information there, including perhaps people on this forum if you approach them politely and correctly. What you can NOT do is mix known costs with WAGs, and then ignore other, perhaps more important, costs and issues, in reaching a conclusion. All you really need is discipline and some directed knowledge of project management... you can start by developing critical paths and implementation timelines. Check pmi.org if you need approaches and tools to start; there are a variety of groups that discuss agile project management, inherent quality analysis, etc. that will be almost sickeningly eager to help you do quality planning!

But you better act quickly, as Greenspan is about to start raising the discount rate, and the great age of cheap money for guaranteed EBITDA above, say, 5% per annum will start to come to a close...

[Junctionfan]

Than use one of the electric ones they have hanging about for that.

I would say to PNWRMNM that if you had bothered to read what I said and not what you want it to read, you would have seen that I went through all democratic channels which could turn down my proposal in the first place.

[PNWRMNM]

Junction

You are talking about a business plan. What has democratic proposals got to do with it?

Mac

[Junctionfan]

I was talking as if I was in office-that's what democratic proposals have to do with it.

[jeffhergert]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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.

It seems to me the voters have spoken on this issue. Not just with their votes, but in the method of travel they choose. Most have automobiles. For long distances, if they don't want to drive, they seem to prefer air travel.
In the local news media there is always talk or complaints of not having a low-fare airline serving the Des Moines airport. They say getting a low-fare airline is vital to get new businesses to locate in Des Moines/Central Iowa.
Highway projects are always portrayed as vital to economic growth. Everyone it seems, wants a 4-lane highway. These projects along with airport impovements are touted as investments in public infrastructure, not subsidized transportation.
Rail passenger projects? Nice if someone else pays for them. There is that midwest regional rail project that will probably never happen, at least in Iowa. The state of Iowa is certainly not going to SUBSIDIZE a passenger train. They have more important INVESTMENTS in public transportation infrastructure (highways/airports).
In Des Moines, I-235 is undergoing a massive reconstruction through the center of the city. There was talk about using commuter trains during the mess to relieve traffic congestion. Problem was, The locals would have to pay most, if not all of the costs out of their own local funds. Besides, there wasn't too much real interest shown. Letters to the editor didn't exactly overflow with positive comments for a train.
But almost everyone wants good roads or cheap airfares.
Jeff

[Junctionfan]

Thankyou for sticking to the subject and not getting into a political argument over idealogies which I was trying to avoid. It is amazing how much people react when I give an honest and innocent idea like truck ferry and all of a sudden it comes down to me being a dictator-socialist or a dumb 25 year old or some retarded excuse to attack me for giving a wrong opinion; something like that.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Thankyou for sticking to the subject and not getting into a political argument over idealogies which I was trying to avoid. It is amazing how much people react when I give an honest and innocent idea like truck ferry and all of a sudden it comes down to me being a dictator-socialist or a dumb 25 year old or some retarded excuse to attack me for giving a wrong opinion; something like that.

Nothing innocent about an idea that proposes the government grab private property. Your opinions are not well thought out to need to rely upon a crutch like government intervention. Your discussions about NYC and electric locomotives simply proves the point as there are no electric locomotives simply waiting to pull your trains. Those in service are in either Amtrak longer haul service or NJT commuter service. Better add a cost of buying/building more if you want your idea to work. Oh, and just in case you think my idealogical ideas are "retarded", just wait until I decide to poke a few holes in your business plan. You can't bail fast enough to keep this thing from sinking...

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Than use one of the electric ones they have hanging about for that.

I would say to PNWRMNM that if you had bothered to read what I said and not what you want it to read, you would have seen that I went through all democratic channels which could turn down my proposal in the first place.

No electrics just "hanging about" waiting for you to show up...

LC

[Overmod]

On the other hand, I can get him a bunch of E60s that would be as perfect as anything for this service -- he might have to re-truck them, but that's a comparatively small part of the locomotive expense, and I believe substantially all the required route-mileage for the lane in question is electrified, either under cat or via third rail.

The problem with this truck ferry discussion isn't the technology, or the business plan that would justify implementing it -- it's the fundamental assumption, made at the start, that AMTRAK M&E WOULD BE THE ENTITY TO RUN IT. In my opinion, that's substantially flawed, for a wide range of reasons that I won't recap here.

The entities involved in this service are somewhat interesting, because none of them is a Class 1 that has any hope of providing effective competing service in the lane in question. Presumably the leg from Garden City to the NEC would be provided via New York & Atlantic (or whoever MetroNorth uses for freight operations over their ROWs now). NEC through the tunnels down to Philadelphia is Amtrak, Philadelphia to Harrisburg can fall under State of Pennsylvania -- FOR TRUCK FERRY UNIT TRAINS.

One can easily see that the Port Authority would be interested in something that removes meaningful truck traffic, and its attendant pollution, road damage, congestion, and collision risks, etc., from the Hudson and East River road crossings. They might, in fact, be willing to underwrite the cost of additional 'ferry' sets running, say, from intermodal 'ferry dock' facilities in one of the old northern New Jersey yard areas through to facilities in Connecticut or Long Island, using the Manhattan tunnels and the Hell Gate Bridge, as a dramatically lower-cost and flexible solution than increasing highway capacity. What's important is that the *Government agency* makes a case on behalf of the public, and the other players are compensated at least fairly for their cooperation, and the public itself is either not put at risk (by unsafe trains causing accidents to passenger trains or lineside things) or actually benefited. There is utterly no need to threaten the American Constitution, anger private railroads, etc. etc. by getting NRPC to shoulder the entire responsibility, when NRPC's mandate from Congress involves passenger service rather than freight or terminal activity. Where Amtrak gets involved is probably where Ed Ellis wanted them involved -- as high-speed-capable providers of transportation capacity for other entities specializing in express services. To make an analogy, Amtrak would provide backbone services to people in the ISP business, or longlines blocks to people in the telecommunications business, and wouldn't try to compete in the marketplace with those people.

All these things ought to be elements of your business plan... if, indeed, it is a practical business plan. I haven't seen any objective reason why this couldn't be done, or promoted to appropriate people. One thing, though -- you need to promote it to the APPROPRIATE people, not just ram it down collective throats because you disagree with the way our Founding Fathers set up the Government. Ever hear the old saying "you'll win more bees with honey than with vinegar"? I suggest you think about getting the hive a-drippin' instead of lashing out at soi-disant fools comprising most of your targeted industry...

Oh, yes: be aware that one of your early competitors is likely to be NS Triple Crown service, unless your system can handle a few RoadRailers after the ferry sets...

[Junctionfan]

If this is in demand and people really want it, what happens then if the class 1s don't want to have anything to do with it? Who runs it for the customers?

[Overmod]

Answer: If the voice of the customer is strong enough, and meaningful enough, it will have an impact.

If disempowered customers are numerous and strong enough, they can get ombudsman groups or individuals to attempt to have an impact.

If disempowered people get carried away, they can invoke political change to force an impact -- but Aristotle called that 'ochlocracy' and rightly despised it.

The people who have a 'say' in how shipping is done are shippers. Nobody else. Unless the chosen approach is 'illegal' in some absolute sense... it discriminates against some shippers arbitrarily, for example, or violates some provision of applicable antitrust legislation (e.g., secret rebates). The benefits for 'general consumers' have to be passed along, or not as the case may be, as the result of "better" (usually meaning lower-overall-cost) shipping, or better overall customer service... by shippers.

Government can only legitimately get involved when there is a POSITIVE public good, for large numbers of constituents. In the present example, that might be reduced congestion, lower pollution, greater road safety, lower state costs for road maintenance, etc. -- things that either address welfare or reduce Government cost, and are within the relevant Government's funded mandates.

There have been experiments in the United States where railroads were supposedly "run for the customers". I cannot think offhand of one such that actually succeeded in getting railroads to run effectively, and a couple that had ghastly long-term results... consider the ICC, for example (although some seem to make a case that ICC regulation was actually done at the behest of the railroads or their stockholders, even as the same railroads began to exhibit a remarkable lack of recognizable revenues!)

Seems to me, likewise, that any 'nationalized' scheme to run freight for the 'benefit' of interest groups has been a rather pathetic failure. CN, for example, only pulled itself out of loony-bin status by rejecting the concept rather conclusively under Tellier. They recognize, for instance, that in the modern world shippers have a choice in their transportation options, and will act accordingly, and are ultimately responsible to *their* customers and will succeed or fail accordingly as well.

I would be VERY surprised to find that real high-volume 'customers' -- like UPS -- lack effective power or authority to determine levels of service. Witness the past couple of years' activity on BNSF and UP if you have any questions about that. Are you going to claim that UPS customers should have a greater right to influence how entire railroads are run than UPS management itself?

[Junctionfan]

Trying to think American and not Canadian,

There is one other way of making the railroads do what you want them to do and that is gather up all of the targeted railroads customers and ask them to boycot against the railroad until they get a clue on what is exceptable and what is not.

I don't really like this idea though because it causes a major problem as strikes do. I prefer to avoid mass individuals rebelling against each other by keeping the peace and not give them a reason to get sore at each other in the first place.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

If this is in demand and people really want it, what happens then if the class 1s don't want to have anything to do with it? Who runs it for the customers?

Usually, if it has a good chance of making money the Class 1s will take it on, so long as it does not interfere with their existing business. Capacity is becoming quite strained on some lines so adding another train may not be feasible.

If the Class 1s don't want it, it won't happen. That usually means it won't make money or will interfere with their other operations or plans. Of course shippers can attempt to influence these decisions through the government or by paying increased rates for special services, but I wouldn't hold my breath...

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Trying to think American and not Canadian,

There is one other way of making the railroads do what you want them to do and that is gather up all of the targeted railroads customers and ask them to boycot against the railroad until they get a clue on what is exceptable and what is not.

I don't really like this idea though because it causes a major problem as strikes do. I prefer to avoid mass individuals rebelling against each other by keeping the peace and not give them a reason to get sore at each other in the first place.

This type of action by shippers has been tried before and seldom accomplishes anything except higher rates. There are simply too many customers who rely upon rail such as utilities, the steel industry, agriculture and the chemical industry and can't afford the damage a boycott would cause them through plant shutdowns and/or increased alternative costs for trucking or even air freight.

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Junction,

Thank God you are not in any office. I think you should confine your attempted thefts of other people's property to your native Canada. They seem more receptive to that kind of thing up North.

Mac

Amen, brother...

LC

[Anonymous]

Overmod-

Last I heard the E60s had been cut up. Also, I would question whether retrucking them would be economically viable. Amtrak would be unlikely to use them or allow their use in the tunnels in any event given the E60s poor record.

LC

[Anonymous]

One other thing. Amtrak has a bunch of the P40s up for sale now. Bids were due last week. I don't think they have or will have a lot of extra power around to handle any additional traffic.

LC

[Overmod]

I didn't realize the E60s had actually been torched -- thought they, or enough of them for the contemplated rebuilding, were still with us.

I hadn't anticipated being able to use existing Amtrak power, or crews, as such for this service. I concur completely that they would not have 'sufficient power' in the necessary catenary-equipped fleet for running ferry trains, even if by some slim chance there was a future in engine changes anywhere between the Harrison area and west of Philadelphia.

If there are engines for this service, they would have to be provided, and maintained, as a distinct fleet. I think most, perhaps all, of Amtrak's objections to E60s would involve the trucks and suspension; as a working hypothesis I'd substitute steerable trucks either from GE (Generation 2?) or EMD.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Trying to think American and not Canadian,

There is one other way of making the railroads do what you want them to do and that is gather up all of the targeted railroads customers and ask them to boycot against the railroad until they get a clue on what is exceptable and what is not.

I don't really like this idea though because it causes a major problem as strikes do. I prefer to avoid mass individuals rebelling against each other by keeping the peace and not give them a reason to get sore at each other in the first place.

This type of action by shippers has been tried before and seldom accomplishes anything except higher rates. There are simply too many customers who rely upon rail such as utilities, the steel industry, agriculture and the chemical industry and can't afford the damage a boycott would cause them through plant shutdowns and/or increased alternative costs for trucking or even air freight.

LC

Than what kind of piece-of-mind does the customer have when dealing with the railroads? Is it any wonder why they prefer trucks to rail?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Trying to think American and not Canadian,

There is one other way of making the railroads do what you want them to do and that is gather up all of the targeted railroads customers and ask them to boycot against the railroad until they get a clue on what is exceptable and what is not.

I don't really like this idea though because it causes a major problem as strikes do. I prefer to avoid mass individuals rebelling against each other by keeping the peace and not give them a reason to get sore at each other in the first place.

This type of action by shippers has been tried before and seldom accomplishes anything except higher rates. There are simply too many customers who rely upon rail such as utilities, the steel industry, agriculture and the chemical industry and can't afford the damage a boycott would cause them through plant shutdowns and/or increased alternative costs for trucking or even air freight.

LC

Than what kind of piece-of-mind does the customer have when dealing with the railroads? Is it any wonder why they prefer trucks to rail?

Welcome to the real world of business where unlike north of the border its a dog eat dog environment and all assets must be used to the fullest. We don't get three months off down here to clog up the Florida trailer parks, nor is there free health care or other perks for the semi permanently unemployed. We do however enjoy our cherished freedoms and it is still possible to make a decent living as taxes remain low compared not only to Canada, but western europe as well.

By the way there are two kinds of peace. There is the "peace of mind" and the "piece of cake" (insert choice of piece, if different). I think you need to check your usage. At 25 I know I knew better...lol...

As to shippers, most prefer trucks due to reliability issues rather than service offerings. Railroads by the nature of the business have a harder time being predictable on transit times which impacts on the customers ability to maintain commodity flow in a just in time environment.

LC

[Overmod]

LC, is that why you just gave him a piece of your mind? ;-}