Seriously, why are we even considering the idea of taking mail business away from the efficient truck and airplane business model now used, in order to cross-subsidize an outdated business model (Amtrak), that is using valuble track time aquired at below market rates, that cost host freight railroads money? The reason the mail came off trains, was because a more efficient way was found to haul and sort mail. Why not mandate that members of Congress and their staff be required to ride Amtrak instead of taking airliners?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
carnej1By law, only the United States Postal service is allowed to offer First Class Mail service in the US. UPS,Fed-Ex etc. are legally barred from competing.
So the Postal Express statute is still in effect. Things change so fast today I was wondering if it was repealed or amended.
Of course the problem -- and it is a big problem -- is that e mail has done an end run around the Postal Express statute. Much of what used to go out in first class mail (such as bills and payments) is now done by e mail and the USPS is eliminated.
henry6Personal or residential mail is burdensome and expensive to operate so the private companies really don't want to get involved.
It's the same old story, Henry. The private companies are happy to take over the business when it is profitable but when the public needs them to do the job they ain't interested.
Megabus will take you from New York to Boston and by buying your ticket early you can get it for a buck.
But what if you need to go from Bridgeport to Westerly? Then Megabus is nowhere to be found.
So we take all of the high profit routes and give them to the private sector. The government picks up the rest because the public needs it. And then people complain because we must subsidize the government operations.
John
Murphy SidingSeriously, why are we even considering the idea of taking mail business away from the efficient truck and airplane business model
Seriously, Murphy, you have a great idea. The trucking company's business model includes using public roads while paying only a fraction of their actual cost. So lets adopt the same model for Amtrak. The government will buy and maintain all railroad tracks. Freight railroads and Amtrak will pay that same fraction of costs trucking companies pay. Then both will share the same business model.
It isn't only Email that has taken volume away from USPS. Instead of mailing out catalogs, most merchandising companies now have websites you get onto to buy stuff. The IRS and companies which make machines no longer send out printed instruction booklets or spare parts catalogs, they maintain websites. When I started with the Federal gov't in 1979 and for years thereafter, when we issued a solicitation for bids everyone was drafted to assemble the packets, stuff them in envelopes, attach address labels, and carry them to the mailroom in stacks for the mail clerk to take to USPS. Now you download the package to a website, and the website sends emails to the contractors who have registered for alerts for various types of work. There were some times we mailed out close to 100 copies of a 50-page solicitation, and that was just one solicitation of hundreds leaving one of thousands of offices. When USDA opened its consolidated payment facility in New Orleans in the 1980's, the mail was delivered in 18-wheelers - many of them every day.
John WR Murphy SidingSeriously, why are we even considering the idea of taking mail business away from the efficient truck and airplane business model Seriously, Murphy, you have a great idea. The trucking company's business model includes using public roads while paying only a fraction of their actual cost. So lets adopt the same model for Amtrak. The government will buy and maintain all railroad tracks. Freight railroads and Amtrak will pay that same fraction of costs trucking companies pay. Then both will share the same business model. John
John,
No need to do that for ATK. They are already paying far less than market rates for the capacity they consume.
Mac
PNWRMNMNo need to do that for ATK. They are already paying far less than market rates for the capacity they consume.
Actually, Mac, what I suggest has nothing to do with Amtrak. Where Amtrak owns its right of way it does begin to be on par with trucks. Of course, it must pay for its own maintenance which trucks pay only a fraction of road maintenance.
However, what if the government were to own the freight rail right of ways. Freight railroads would then pay the same fraction of the cost of maintaining them as the trucking companies pay. That I what I propose.
John WR However, what if the government were to own the freight rail right of ways. Freight railroads would then pay the same fraction of the cost of maintaining them as the trucking companies pay. That I what I propose. John
When the government owns the roads suitable for rubber tired vehicles, Murphy, is that socialism?
When it comes to the use of the roads all I suggest is that freight railroads should get the same benefits that trucking companies get. No more and no less.
/ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
Knowledge is more than a line or two from a dictionary. The relevant history is essential. Governments built, owned and maintained roads long before Marx, Proudhon or any other socialists wrote their theories. Many railroads were built n the 19th century by royal governments (Prussia, Saxony, to name two) which nobody would label "socialist."
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I understand what your're saying. However, if the government were to take over, and run the railroad system (by force, as that's the only way I see it happening) in America today, it would pretty much be defined as socialism. Whether that is correct or not, is not for me to say. That's how it would be perceived. Anyway, since this is not going to happen in a million years, I'm going to just quietly back away from this thread.
schlimm Knowledge is more than a line or two from a dictionary. The relevant history is essential. Governments built, owned and maintained roads long before Marx, Proudhon or any other socialists wrote their theories. Many railroads were built n the 19th century by royal governments (Prussia, Saxony, to name two) which nobody would label "socialist."
Well, we would call those governments controlling and they did result in a much lower standard of living than the US. People left those places in droves to get economic opportunity here.
Oh bleed.
The concept of divorcing train operations and track ownership has been discussed, analyzed, studied and even tried in other countries.
It just doesn't work very well. The idea being presented here consists of subsidizing freight railroads. That's bad economics. It will make the country less well off. I don't know where the money would come from. Maybe the the Federal money fairy? Anyway, it's not a good idea to divorce costs from benifits, which is what a subsidy would do. The US (and Canadian) freight railroads are the best in the world. Just leave them alone. And get over the nutty idea that government funny money is the solution to all problems, real or imagined.
It is important to understand the frankly unusual economics of railroading. Railroads have the cost structure of a "Natural Monopoly". But they can't be a monopoly. When people think of rail competition they tend to only think of route competition. But railroads also face market competition.
Many people fail to understand that and they propose worn out, disproven, ideas such as divorcing track ownership from train operations. No solvent railroad in its right mind would turn important routes over the the politicians. That would be giving up control of their operations to unqualified hacks who will be largely unaffected by the outcome of bad decisions.
If you want to get the rail carriers in equivalent position to motor carriers in terms of capital cost of the fixed plant the simple way to do it is figure out what the now hidden truck subsidy is per revenue ton mile and then have the feds write a check to the railroads each month.
It would be much cheaper to eliminate the ATK trains that the freight carriers are subsidizing by the huge spread between marginal cost and market value of the capacity they consume.
I do not expect either of these common sense reforms to be implemented
The concepts of the way the United States POST OFFICE operated and the way the United States POSTAL SERVICE operates are entirely different. Using rails as in the RPO sense would not be as good as was simply because there aren't the routes there were back then...doesn't mean it can't nor shouldn't or couldn't be tried, just that it would not be as universal, would have to be rationalized and planned carefully...and maybe with an expanded HPO system to make it work. If it were to be tried at all.
The idea of hub and spoke operation of the POSTAL SERVICE came about because of the introduction of zip codes with machine readers eliminating manual labor and with the advent of the expanded Eisenhower Highway System which made truck hauling easier from hub to hub with smaller trucking companies handling the spokes. This did not really eliminate labor then, did it? But we were told it would. The concept of bagging mail first for direction then by specific destinations and doing so enroute was dismissed as inefficient and thrown away. And we all rejoiced. Railroads rejoiced, too, because they were able to lop off costly unused passenger trains and even rip up non producing branch lines. Note the railroads did not remove the trains causing the mail to be removed but did so after the mail contracts ran out and were not renewed. Concrete, asphalt, gasoline, and the over the road trucks ruled commerce and people's imaginations. And yes, airplanes were already handling coast to coast first class mail without premium charges by then, too.
I've often told how in 1961 my mother would leave a letter in the home mail box to be picked up by the route carrier by 3PM in the afternoon. It then went to Denvillle, NJ POST OFFICE and bagged for Dover, put on a local E-L MU train to Dover around 6PM, bagged for EL #5 (by that time, former DL&WRR#7) and put aboard @9PM, sorted and bagged enroute for the HPO connection at BIngahmton, NY around midnight, then sorted on the HPO to Ithaca and was in my mailbox at 8AM in the morning. 15 hours point to point. With zip code the letter went from the mailbox by 3PM, to the POSTAL SERVICE office and bagged to the Paterson sorting center by 9PM, sorted there by midnight for the sorting center in Syracuse by 6AM, sorted for Ithaca by 9AM, moved to Ithaca by 6PM, sorted and put in my mail box by 8AM the next day. 39 hours point to point. Better service?
But does that mean we have to, or even can, go back to RPO's and the POST OFFICE service? NO. But it doesn't mean there can't be improvements in time by the possible adoption of enroute sorting in some areas either aboard trains or HPO's. It could in fact be an attempt of two government agencies working together to save money for one, and pay for (i.e. subsidize) the other. If it comes out as a wash, then, so what?
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.
PNWRMNM It would be much cheaper to eliminate the ATK trains that the freight carriers are subsidizing by the huge spread between marginal cost and market value of the capacity they consume. I do not expect either of these common sense reforms to be implemented
Mac,
I do appreciate your point at freight railroads now subsidize Amtrak because the Federal Government requires they allow Amtrak to use there rails at no profit and to that extent denies them profitable use of thier rails for carrying freight.
However, over the long haul I don't see that freight railroads are really worse off. It it true that if they have so much freight Amtrak restricts their ability to haul some that would reduce there profit somewhat. However, it also provides a lot of people with a first hand view of what they do and how important freight railroads are. I think they are better off because of it. Of course this cannot be reduced to a dollars and sense calculation. However, it is well known that private railroad companies did often run passenger service because they thought it was good publicity.
henry6But does that mean we have to, or even can, go back to RPO's and the POST OFFICE service? NO. But it doesn't mean there can't be improvements in time by the possible adoption of enroute sorting in some areas either aboard trains or HPO's. It could in fact be an attempt of two government agencies working together to save money for one, and pay for (i.e. subsidize) the other. If it comes out as a wash, then, so what?
Henry,
I absolutely agree that the US Postal Service and Amtrak should try to work together to mutual advantage. However, I doubt the USPS is going to divert some mail from its central sorting centers. They are just too culturally entrenched in that way of doing things.
But there is another argument to support your position. We do have a history of poisonous materials being put in the mail and in Ewing, New Jersey a central sorting center was closed for many weeks because of that. One way of dealing with terrortist threats such as this is to spread out our facilities so that there is no one large one that will be vulnerable. After the World Trade Center bombing some companies moved out to suburban locations for exactly that reason.
Mac, I do appreciate your point at freight railroads now subsidize Amtrak because the Federal Government requires they allow Amtrak to use there rails at no profit and to that extent denies them profitable use of thier rails for carrying freight. However, over the long haul I don't see that freight railroads are really worse off. It it true that if they have so much freight Amtrak restricts their ability to haul some that would reduce there profit somewhat. However, it also provides a lot of people with a first hand view of what they do and how important freight railroads are. I think they are better off because of it. Of course this cannot be reduced to a dollars and sense calculation. However, it is well known that private railroad companies did often run passenger service because they thought it was good publicity. John
Lets try this think exercise. You own a four bedroom home, and your two kids have moved out. The government forces you to take in two welfare recipients and will pay you your marginal costs and call it fair compensation.
What are your marginal costs? Does it include prorata portion of the mortagage? No. That is a fixed cost. How about utilities? Hard to prove. Assume that they government says $20.
What is your economic loss? Obviously the spread between what you could have rented the rooms for on the open market, say $400 for the two. You are damaged $380 per month. Oh, by the way the tenants have first dibs on the kitchen. You can use it when they are not.
What is your benefit? The welfare class sees you to be a nice guy, a benefactor, a friend of the downtrodden? Not likely. You are a rich SOB and you are damned lucky that the government lets you keep the house.
Now what happens if one of the kids needs to move back in? No problem, you can build a new room for them!
That is the relation of the railroads, ATK, and the Federal Government.
Jeff:My computer also went out and I found a Toshiba with Windows7 and snapped it up. The price quoted on the phone went up by $200 by the time I was in to purchase it. I didnt argue.
There is a book called Moving Mail and Express by Rail by Edward M. DeRouin which is a fascinating look at the subject. The book is a combination of photos, written history, and about 100 pages of tables showing movements in 1963 by railroads and by specific routes. For instance, ATSF train #1, San Francisco Chief had four mail cars:
B70 as needed between Chicago and Richmond Ca, B70/35 between Kansas City and Amarillo, B70/35 between KC and Clovis and B60/25 between KC and Topeka (handled on rear of train).
Take a look at the Official Guides of the 1950's/early 60's and you will see countless unnamed trains. The equipment listed for these trains typically consisted of "coaches" with no sleepers, dining facilities or other amenities. For years I couldnt understand why these trains ran, stopping at all the small towns...who would want to travel at night? Then the light went on...mail trains.
I occasionally hear a CSX intermodal train, the Q010 referred to as the "Mail Train". Of course it's "mail" today is UPS trailers, soon to be UPS containers, but that train does roll. It is enjoyable to listen to the dispatcher, ROW supervisors, and other trains discuss conditions allowing the mail train to run.
Ed
PNWRMNMLets try this think exercise. You own a four bedroom home, and your two kids have moved out. The government forces you to take in two welfare recipients and will pay you your marginal costs and call it fair compensation.
Well yes, Mac. But suppose -- just suppose -- I have a 6 bedroom home and my wife an I use only one. I have rented out 3 but the other two are vacant. Now the government tenant moves into one and the government pays only the marginal costs. With one empty room left I still am better off than I was. And of course, I am not totally without power here. To a degree I can negotiate with the government although I cannot evict the tenant. For example, I need a new roof. I negotiate with the government to pay part of the cost and I do the measuring myself. Having worked for the government I have learned that you rarely make a mistake by assuming government inspectors are lazy and won't do any more than they are absolutely required to. So I ingratiate myself and wind up getting the government to pay for a substantial chunk of the new new roof.
One thing about the government; it is always rigid. Usually it is possible to turn that to your advantage by being flexible. Dealing with the government does not always have to be bad.
You have NO ability to negotiate with the Government. You are getting paid marginal cost. Period. No new roof, just yahoos in the kitchen.
Well, Mac, since I have "NO ability to negotiate with the government" but I still live in my house I have do deal with that. Now there is a serious leak in the roof and when it rains water pours into the room the government has taken. I put buckets in there. But the people living there still have a big mold problem. The floor is soundbut the carpet squishy and their bed is rain soaked. But I have no funds to repair it. Finally living conditions forced them to leave. But, being the people they are, they didn't bother to tell the government agent about it and he believes they are still here. I promptly put a tarp on the roof, repaired the floor and rented the room. It is now occupied and the government cannot move new people into it.
The only remaining issue is the government checks that keep arriving every month. At the outset I opened a special bank account for them as the government will only send them direct deposit. That means the government cannot get into my personal account. The checks go into that account and there they lie. When the government notifies me I will respond.
But the people are gone. I now get a regular rent. And all is well.
PS. You are right. I cannot negotiate with the government. But I did find my Member of Congress very helpful in dealing with the government. As long as government records show the person they put in my house is there I have no problem. Since the person did not notify the government upon moving out officially the government still has my room and cannot put someone else in it. I have no duty to notify the government as that would be an invasion of the government tenant's privacy. Some day I assume the government will learn what is going on but that can take many months or years. At that time the residency will cease. A large part of the government rent will be mine as government pays based on what is on their records rather than what actually happens. And my Member of Congress will assist me with this.
Steve Hanson past volunteer, Austin & Texas Central Railroad
When George Warrington was President Amtrak operated express service.
shanson2Amtrak had a Mail and Express service in the early 2000's which did not involve any on board sorting. I know the Texas Eagle carried a special boxcar for this purpose. The extra car created some switching issues and really spoiled the appearance of the consists. It was canceled after a few years, but I can't recall the exact reason.
The Amtrak Express service in the Warrington era was an attempt to generate enough revenue to put Amtrak "on a glidepath to self-sustainability", or something like that. It led to some really odd-looking consists and a few obvious mail-and-express runs, such as the "Pennsylvanian" between Chicago and Philadelphia. It also played havoc with some of the other long-haul schedules. After all was said and done, the additional expenses incurred ate up most of the additional revenue.
And don't confuse Amtrak's Express service with REX, Greyhound/Trailways Express or USPO services. It was much more restrictive and became virtually useless as stations were closed and there was no manpower to handle the product. Amtrak did inherit some bulk trains from Conrail, for instance, when Amtrak bought the Corridor, and a few others around...but bulk mail was just a freight like move by assembling loaded cars and delivering them to a similar terminal.
PNWRMNM If you want to get the rail carriers in equivalent position to motor carriers in terms of capital cost of the fixed plant the simple way to do it is figure out what the now hidden truck subsidy is per revenue ton mile and then have the feds write a check to the railroads each month. It would be much cheaper to eliminate the ATK trains that the freight carriers are subsidizing by the huge spread between marginal cost and market value of the capacity they consume. I do not expect either of these common sense reforms to be implemented
Ever since the Jackson administration various government units have taxed railroads while subsidizing roads and their users. We both agree that to get the government to turn around its long entrenched policy here is just not going to happen, now now or any time in the foreseeable further. Ever since the 1830's governmental units have been at best neutral toward railroads or downright hostile to them while at the same time subsidizing other kinds of transportation.
You see Amtrak as one aspect of government hostility. Since Amtrak does limit what railroads can do with their own private property there is truth in what you say. But every Amtrak rider sees first hand the results of various government anti railroad stances. And every Amtrak rider is a potential advocate for freight railroads. I think freight railroads would well serve their own interests if they accept Amtrak use of their tracks and even seek to encourage Amtrak riders to understand what railroading is all about.
While you and I will probably never agree on the narrow issue of requiring freight railroads to grant Amtrak access to their tracks I think we can agree on the far broader issue that a level playing field for freight railroads and roads would be a hugh benefit to the public in that almost all of our goods would cost less to ship which would result in lower consumer prices.
But...You could deduct the postal expense to the IRS in the next year's tax return!
Choo-choo Pete
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.