BaltACDI am not sure what form of 'rest room' facilities that drive-in ONLY locations would have - without them they won't get the bus business from any age category.
This leads me to wonder -- ARE there customer restrooms at places like Stewart's Root Beer? I certainly don't remember there being any. A few miles from me is one of those experimental drive-through-only McDonalds on a postage-stamp plot ... they have no place for even an outside-door gas-station-style restroom arrangement.
The old White Castle in Fairview near Nungesser's was intended as a service-only place, which had a very few (I think it was three) little bar-stool-like places. It had restroom stalls ... pay stalls, the first place I remember having seen them still operational. In the early '70s they were still a nickel. Be interesting to see exactly how many nickels they'd get from a high-school busload, though -- the door would never quite click closed on an empty stall...
tree68 They may not eat in the lobby, but getting the bus through the drive-through would be an issue...
Not just buses - but anyone with a larger vehicle. Trucks, vans, dually work trucks, even my truck can be a pain in tighter areas.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
tree68 MidlandMike I live near a small city. The 2 drive-thru only restaurants I mentioned closed down, perhaps because there was not the population base to support them. Another possible factor is the restaurants being gathering places for folks, especially senior citizens, who will often get together with friends for a morning coffee klatch, or the like. This will be a bigger factor in a small town with few other options. And we can't forget busses, including school team busses, which will often stop at fast food restaurants. They may not eat in the lobby, but getting the bus through the drive-through would be an issue...
MidlandMike I live near a small city. The 2 drive-thru only restaurants I mentioned closed down, perhaps because there was not the population base to support them.
Another possible factor is the restaurants being gathering places for folks, especially senior citizens, who will often get together with friends for a morning coffee klatch, or the like. This will be a bigger factor in a small town with few other options.
And we can't forget busses, including school team busses, which will often stop at fast food restaurants. They may not eat in the lobby, but getting the bus through the drive-through would be an issue...
I am not sure what form of 'rest room' facilities that drive-in ONLY locations would have - without them they won't get the bus business from any age catagory.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
MidlandMikeI live near a small city. The 2 drive-thru only restaurants I mentioned closed down, perhaps because there was not the population base to support them.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I live near a small city. The 2 drive-thru only restaurants I mentioned closed down, perhaps because there was not the population base to support them. Nevertheless the town does support about every major fast food chain restaurant with both drive-thru and sit-down options. It does not supprise me that large population centers can support some drive-thru onlys, but how many more of those would they support if they also had sit-down options? Limiting options generally limits business, as long as there are competitors.
Overmod, I am with you on Precision Scheduled Railroading, on cutting staff to the bone as it affects safety (especially with PSR in process and not complete) as well as track speed. We should hear more from BSF, who do not claim to be implementing PSR. How saisfied are their freight customers overall as comopared with the the five or six? Should be on another tread, perhaps/
Well, that took off in a different direction...
Just in case anyone is keeping track, that was not my intention.
Been to several Checkers that are drive thru only. Some do have a walk up window as well but not all.
blhanel jeffhergert In the Des Moines and Ames is a local chain that is only drive through or walk up service that's doing good. And growing. They do have outdoor tables and benches, but nothing indoors. Their newest store in Des Moines is supposed to have an indoor dining area. B-Bops?
jeffhergert In the Des Moines and Ames is a local chain that is only drive through or walk up service that's doing good. And growing. They do have outdoor tables and benches, but nothing indoors. Their newest store in Des Moines is supposed to have an indoor dining area.
In the Des Moines and Ames is a local chain that is only drive through or walk up service that's doing good. And growing. They do have outdoor tables and benches, but nothing indoors. Their newest store in Des Moines is supposed to have an indoor dining area.
B-Bops?
Yes.
Jeff
I went to a drive-thru-only Chick Fil-A place. Never knew of such a thing. I was parked in an adjacent shopping center parking lot and walked over. Circled the place twice, looking for the door for customers to get in. A lady in a car in the line gave me the scoop; I think she was afraid I was going to get run over. That place was doing a brisk business.
Brian (IA) http://blhanel.rrpicturearchives.net.
MidlandMike tree68 If I may draw a parellel, it's rather like a burger chain deciding that if they cut out inside service, they could save the costs of duplicate soda machines, cleaning, lights, etc. Just run the drive-through. May get a little less business, but it won't have the overhead. More profits... Add Quote to your Post We had a coule of fast food restaurants in our area try the drive-thru only concept. Both are out of business, while the sit-down fast food joints are doing just fine.
tree68 If I may draw a parellel, it's rather like a burger chain deciding that if they cut out inside service, they could save the costs of duplicate soda machines, cleaning, lights, etc. Just run the drive-through. May get a little less business, but it won't have the overhead. More profits... Add Quote to your Post
We had a coule of fast food restaurants in our area try the drive-thru only concept. Both are out of business, while the sit-down fast food joints are doing just fine.
I'm afraid going away from their original model may backfire. I suppose as long as they maintain their original menu (don't try to be something they're not) and food quality, they'll be OK.
MidlandMikeWe had a couple of fast food restaurants in our area try the drive-thru only concept. Both are out of business, while the sit-down fast food joints are doing just fine.
So, if we take that full circle...
tree68If I may draw a parellel, it's rather like a burger chain deciding that if they cut out inside service, they could save the costs of duplicate soda machines, cleaning, lights, etc. Just run the drive-through. May get a little less business, but it won't have the overhead. More profits... Add Quote to your Post
Falcon48I retired from the rail industry before PSR reared its ugly head. But I would be very careful about casually buying into the knee jerk railfan reaction that PSR is nothing more than aberration cococted by bean counters just to cut costs by destroying service.
I would opine that the prevailing feeling is that the cutting by the bean counters is/was not for the purpose of destroying service. That's just a by-product. The cutting is for the purpose of putting more money into the pockets of the activist investors.
That said - I've said before that PSR brings nothing new to the railroad game in terms of handling traffic. Items like terminal dwell time and velocity have long been on the radar of the railroads. That's old news that comes to the fore every now and then as a railroad re-invents it's operating plan (again).
As for scheduled, the New York Central, ca 1963, had on the back cover of ETT #14, for the Boston and Albany Division, "Operation Sunset." The subtitle was "Protected Connections Pay Off - Let's Roll as Advertised."
There were times listed for all connections. One would presume that the emphasis was meeting those times. Not precisely "scheduled," but pretty close.
According to what I've read about the CSX implementation of PSR, many cuts were made in support areas - sales, marketing, engineering, supervision, etc. In fact, I believe there was a discussion here about the safety effects of reducing the number of supervisors.
If I may draw a parallel, it's rather like a burger chain deciding that if they cut out inside service, they could save the costs of duplicate soda machines, cleaning, lights, etc. Just run the drive-through. May get a little less business, but it won't have the overhead. More profits...
daveklepperFalcon 48, please remember that for every poster that makes comments that may annoy you, there are at least 50, probably 100, that do our best to keep our conversation as civil as possible and also deeply respect your own railroad knowledge.
Falcon 48, please remember that for every poster that makes comments that may annoy you, there are at least 50, probably 100, that do our best to keep our conversation as civil as possible and also deeply respect your own railroad knowledge.
PNWRMNM Northtowne, All of the discussion so far has been at a micro level. The macro decision was made just before a line was built. Grade and curviture will control the maximum speed physically attainable. In non-mountain territory curviture is typically the limiting factor. Then comes traffic issues. How fast does the line need to operate and why? If it is a busy main line you may see 70 or 60 MPH freight train speeds because time counts for at least some of the traffic. If it is a 50 mile long branch line with one local a day, then 25 MPH is sufficient. These economic decisions drive the standard of maintenance. The FRA track standards are simply a codification of railroad practice at the time they were written made legally enforceable. Yes, the length of the track circuit at a grade crossing signal may impose a speed limit, but that circuit length was based on the intended speed at the time. If there is an economic need to increase speed, and no nearby speed limiting curves, lengthing the circuit is relatively cheap and easy to do. The point is that in relatively flat country the limiting factor is usually the sharpness of curves, and fixing 'too sharp' curves is very expensive. Mac McCulloch
Northtowne,
All of the discussion so far has been at a micro level. The macro decision was made just before a line was built. Grade and curviture will control the maximum speed physically attainable. In non-mountain territory curviture is typically the limiting factor.
Then comes traffic issues. How fast does the line need to operate and why? If it is a busy main line you may see 70 or 60 MPH freight train speeds because time counts for at least some of the traffic. If it is a 50 mile long branch line with one local a day, then 25 MPH is sufficient. These economic decisions drive the standard of maintenance. The FRA track standards are simply a codification of railroad practice at the time they were written made legally enforceable.
Yes, the length of the track circuit at a grade crossing signal may impose a speed limit, but that circuit length was based on the intended speed at the time. If there is an economic need to increase speed, and no nearby speed limiting curves, lengthing the circuit is relatively cheap and easy to do.
The point is that in relatively flat country the limiting factor is usually the sharpness of curves, and fixing 'too sharp' curves is very expensive.
Mac McCulloch
I retired from the rail industry before PSR reared its ugly head. But I would be very careful about casually buying into the knee jerk railfan reaction that PSR is nothing more than aberration cococted by bean counters just to cut costs by destroying service.
Sitting at home contemplating my navel in my doddering old age, it seems to me that one of the key objectives of PSR is to keep cars moving rather than to have them sitting in classification yards. Classification yards are a necessary evil in railroading, but they usually add significant transit time delays to shipments. For example, every time a car must go through a classification yard (usually a hump yard at high volume locations) you can assume that it will add roughly 1 day to the transit time (a truck can go nearly halfway across the country in that amount of time). Spread over thousands of cars, that's a lot of non-productive delay which degrades service and requires additional assets (cars) to move a given volume of traffic.
Anything that reduces the need for cars to be switched at classification yards will reduce transit time (thus improving service and reliability) and reduce the amount of assets (like cars) needed to move a given amount of traffic. In other words, once the bugs are worked out (in the rail industry, it usually takes a few years to fully work the bugs out of a major new operating plan), PSR should improve service and decrease costs. We'll see how this will actually play out as PSR matures. But I'm not willing to simply assume that PSR is a degradation of service in pursuit of profit. Railfans usually don't like "new", but "new" isn't necesarily bad - keep an open mind.
Duplicate post deleted (my legendary lack of computer skills at work),
Thanks for the replies; what I think I found out from this is that the track super is the last word and cannot be overruled, and aside from some FRA, and other rules, the setting of the track speed is largely subjective.
You know, I am a neophite in all this, but it seems that much of railroading is subjective (people and their experience and dedication) and PSR is moving railroading in the opposite direction.
Nothtowne
BaltACD Falcon48 BaltACD Falcon48 Overmod You've got the definitions precisely reversed as notated: Maximum speed for passenger is denominated at 59mph because the rule is "60mph or greater" and the unit of measurement is quantized in whole mph. The limit for any signal system that does not contain explicit ATS ls likewise "80mph or above" (and has been by statute since the early 1920s, purposely confirmed and left unchanged by the ICC Order of 1947). I know all this is what you meant, but it's not what your sentence said. Here is the actual rule (49 CFR 236.0(c)(ii)(D)(2)): "On and after January 17, 2012, where a passenger train is permitted to operate at a speed of 60 or more miles per hour, or a freight train is permitted to operate at a speed of 50 or more miles per hour, a block signal system complying with the provisions of this part [ed 49 CR Part 236] shall be installed unless an FRA approved PTC system meeting the requirements of this part for the subject speed and other operating conditions is installed." Less than 80 is not 80. Less than 60 is not 60. Less than 50 is not 50. In the nearest whole MPH that is 79, 59 and 49. Why is this an issue? We are saying essentially the same thing. I'm just quoting the actual rule text, which is what it is. A passenger train operating at 59.5 mph on unsignalled track would be exceeding 59 mph, but not be violating the rule. Granted, a half mile per hour increment would be difficult for an engineer to maintain, and he would probably end up exceeding the > 60 mph limit. But, if he didn't, it wouldn't be a violation. Essentially is not the same. Rule books that the railroad's operate their properties under specify 79 - 59 - 49. I have yet to see a rule in a Rule Book state that the maximum speed is a speed not greater than 80. Your argument makes you seem like a lawyer trying to create a 'gotcha'. Lawyer can argue essentially, railroaders don't.
Falcon48 BaltACD Falcon48 Overmod You've got the definitions precisely reversed as notated: Maximum speed for passenger is denominated at 59mph because the rule is "60mph or greater" and the unit of measurement is quantized in whole mph. The limit for any signal system that does not contain explicit ATS ls likewise "80mph or above" (and has been by statute since the early 1920s, purposely confirmed and left unchanged by the ICC Order of 1947). I know all this is what you meant, but it's not what your sentence said. Here is the actual rule (49 CFR 236.0(c)(ii)(D)(2)): "On and after January 17, 2012, where a passenger train is permitted to operate at a speed of 60 or more miles per hour, or a freight train is permitted to operate at a speed of 50 or more miles per hour, a block signal system complying with the provisions of this part [ed 49 CR Part 236] shall be installed unless an FRA approved PTC system meeting the requirements of this part for the subject speed and other operating conditions is installed." Less than 80 is not 80. Less than 60 is not 60. Less than 50 is not 50. In the nearest whole MPH that is 79, 59 and 49. Why is this an issue? We are saying essentially the same thing. I'm just quoting the actual rule text, which is what it is. A passenger train operating at 59.5 mph on unsignalled track would be exceeding 59 mph, but not be violating the rule. Granted, a half mile per hour increment would be difficult for an engineer to maintain, and he would probably end up exceeding the > 60 mph limit. But, if he didn't, it wouldn't be a violation.
BaltACD Falcon48 Overmod You've got the definitions precisely reversed as notated: Maximum speed for passenger is denominated at 59mph because the rule is "60mph or greater" and the unit of measurement is quantized in whole mph. The limit for any signal system that does not contain explicit ATS ls likewise "80mph or above" (and has been by statute since the early 1920s, purposely confirmed and left unchanged by the ICC Order of 1947). I know all this is what you meant, but it's not what your sentence said. Here is the actual rule (49 CFR 236.0(c)(ii)(D)(2)): "On and after January 17, 2012, where a passenger train is permitted to operate at a speed of 60 or more miles per hour, or a freight train is permitted to operate at a speed of 50 or more miles per hour, a block signal system complying with the provisions of this part [ed 49 CR Part 236] shall be installed unless an FRA approved PTC system meeting the requirements of this part for the subject speed and other operating conditions is installed." Less than 80 is not 80. Less than 60 is not 60. Less than 50 is not 50. In the nearest whole MPH that is 79, 59 and 49.
Falcon48 Overmod You've got the definitions precisely reversed as notated: Maximum speed for passenger is denominated at 59mph because the rule is "60mph or greater" and the unit of measurement is quantized in whole mph. The limit for any signal system that does not contain explicit ATS ls likewise "80mph or above" (and has been by statute since the early 1920s, purposely confirmed and left unchanged by the ICC Order of 1947). I know all this is what you meant, but it's not what your sentence said. Here is the actual rule (49 CFR 236.0(c)(ii)(D)(2)): "On and after January 17, 2012, where a passenger train is permitted to operate at a speed of 60 or more miles per hour, or a freight train is permitted to operate at a speed of 50 or more miles per hour, a block signal system complying with the provisions of this part [ed 49 CR Part 236] shall be installed unless an FRA approved PTC system meeting the requirements of this part for the subject speed and other operating conditions is installed."
Overmod You've got the definitions precisely reversed as notated: Maximum speed for passenger is denominated at 59mph because the rule is "60mph or greater" and the unit of measurement is quantized in whole mph. The limit for any signal system that does not contain explicit ATS ls likewise "80mph or above" (and has been by statute since the early 1920s, purposely confirmed and left unchanged by the ICC Order of 1947). I know all this is what you meant, but it's not what your sentence said.
You've got the definitions precisely reversed as notated:
Maximum speed for passenger is denominated at 59mph because the rule is "60mph or greater" and the unit of measurement is quantized in whole mph. The limit for any signal system that does not contain explicit ATS ls likewise "80mph or above" (and has been by statute since the early 1920s, purposely confirmed and left unchanged by the ICC Order of 1947).
I know all this is what you meant, but it's not what your sentence said.
Here is the actual rule (49 CFR 236.0(c)(ii)(D)(2)):
"On and after January 17, 2012, where a passenger train is permitted to operate at a speed of 60 or more miles per hour, or a freight train is permitted to operate at a speed of 50 or more miles per hour, a block signal system complying with the provisions of this part [ed 49 CR Part 236] shall be installed unless an FRA approved PTC system meeting the requirements of this part for the subject speed and other operating conditions is installed."
Less than 80 is not 80. Less than 60 is not 60. Less than 50 is not 50. In the nearest whole MPH that is 79, 59 and 49.
Why is this an issue? We are saying essentially the same thing. I'm just quoting the actual rule text, which is what it is. A passenger train operating at 59.5 mph on unsignalled track would be exceeding 59 mph, but not be violating the rule. Granted, a half mile per hour increment would be difficult for an engineer to maintain, and he would probably end up exceeding the > 60 mph limit. But, if he didn't, it wouldn't be a violation.
Essentially is not the same. Rule books that the railroad's operate their properties under specify 79 - 59 - 49. I have yet to see a rule in a Rule Book state that the maximum speed is a speed not greater than 80.
Your argument makes you seem like a lawyer trying to create a 'gotcha'.
Lawyer can argue essentially, railroaders don't.
Sometimes I wonder why I even bother to post things to this forum. Even the most innocuous comments seem to provoke snide remarks and name calling (as here). I spent my entire working career in the rail industry and I'm interested in railroad matters. But I have absolutely no interest in flamethrowing contests with posters who can't deal civily with other forum participants.
Erik_Mag mudchicken A well trained trackman with a sharp eye and institutional memory is priceless. I have no doubt about that - related to why the military has senior enlisted officers. Unfortunately it seems that HR types often have no clue about the value of institutional memory. Also makes sense as to why the mud holes get special attention.
mudchicken A well trained trackman with a sharp eye and institutional memory is priceless.
A well trained trackman with a sharp eye and institutional memory is priceless.
I have no doubt about that - related to why the military has senior enlisted officers. Unfortunately it seems that HR types often have no clue about the value of institutional memory.
Also makes sense as to why the mud holes get special attention.
cx500 Speed can also be limited by existing crossing warning circuits. Go too fast and the lights, bell, etc. will not be operating for the mandatory minimum period before the train occupies the crossing. Perhaps more of an issue with older installations that depend entirely on insulated joints and basic DC track circuits. John
Speed can also be limited by existing crossing warning circuits. Go too fast and the lights, bell, etc. will not be operating for the mandatory minimum period before the train occupies the crossing. Perhaps more of an issue with older installations that depend entirely on insulated joints and basic DC track circuits.
John
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.