Have fun with your trains
Go here for my rail shots! http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=9296
Building the CPR Kootenay division in N scale, blog here: http://kootenaymodelrailway.wordpress.com/
Originally posted by Limitedclear There has been speculation in the press that issues may have arisen with the Amtrak union for the onboard crews who have lost their jobs when Amtrak cut food service on the Renssalaer based crews. Presumably objections have been raised to non-union Subway employees providing food service on those trains. See this article from the Albany Times Union for example: http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=15037 LC As someone who has no intentions of ever riding Amtrak again after so many experiences with terrible "service" let me ask this question: Were Amtrak kitchen employees ever put out by having to operate can openers in order to serve the Franco American spaghetti slop that they supposedly cooked onboard the train??? Food for thought (NO pun intended). Some of the worst food I've ver eaten was consumed on Amtrak. Seems to me that Subway would be a big step up from the culinary garbagr normally served by Amtrak. MoW employee Reply RudyRockvilleMD Member sinceSeptember 2001 From: US 1,015 posts Posted by RudyRockvilleMD on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 8:52 PM I understand there is a new firm that will provide in-flight food service. it's called "ELEVATED". I couldn't resist that one. As I am typing this i noticed an ad for buying a "Subway: Franchise on-line. Is Amtrak interested? Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 9:03 PM PigFarmer-I also find that the food is much better on my jet, my luxury bus and my private rail car. On the other hand, I can't say much about food service on commercial jets and Greyhound buses. When was spaghetti on the Amtrak menu? LC - Entirely possible that the non-union labor is an issue, but I note that Amtrak's PR guy had no comment on that question. The article you cited was the same one posted on the UTU site. A Google search at this time did not turn up anything more on the subject.. From personal experience in commercial food preparation and service (NOT McDonalds), I know that it is *** hard work, even when the facility is fixed on solid ground. I have no objection to pilot projects such as this to determine the feasibility of a less expensive method of providing food service on trains, but I submit that it may not be as easy as some may think. I will await some explanation from the principals. Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply Mookie Member sinceJune 2001 From: US 13,488 posts Posted by Mookie on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 6:20 AM Ah Jay - you hit a spot close to my heart. Any restaurant work - if done right - is very hard work and stressful. But Subway seems a good solution (excluding unions and former employees argument) - from the standpoint - our Subway's are in gas stations. So when you think about it - they need a small warming oven - think alto-sham. They would need refrigeration and a small oven to bake the bread. Same as in a gas station. They can set up their kitchen buffet style, just like now and don't need a cash register. The space needed is quite small and would fit the needs. A week isn't enough time to decide if it would work or not, so I don't think no interest is the problem. I think it is a good idea - and if not Subway - any deli style would have worked. And there is usually a can opener on hand, somewhere. How about a microwave and a boxed dinner? Or don't they allow microwaves on trains? Mookie She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 7:35 AM I'll bet the labor issue is pretty big. Gunn had said that part of the problem with Amtrak was that "skilled" and "unskilled" labor both had high pay. He elaborated that a guy serving sandwiches in the cafe got the roughly the same pay as an electician and he thought that was unfair. Have read elsewhere that there was likely some threats against the Subway workers both at thier work place and at home. Bad behavior like this is what helps give unions a bad name. A little self-policing might help. Amtrak HAS to become more labor dollar productive if they want to have any chance of keeping the national network together. It's a shame that the union help has priced themselves out of the market. The average train traveller doesn't care about the division of labor between crafts. When they go to a hotel and need more towels after hours, the front desk will provide even though it isn't their official duty. If they're any good, they'll deliver them to the room. It's just good business. When they're at Target and the checkout lines get long, they pull immediately from all over the store to open other lanes. When UPS has to deliver all those Christmas packages, they pull from office staff to man the package cars and sorting centers. It's never "not their job". To the travelling public, everyone is just an Amtrak employee. An elderly traveller who needs his bed put down and asks the trainman for help shouldn't be told call for the car attendant. If the line is long in the cafe car and the conductor is just hanging out waiting for the next stop, he should lend a hand. So, why can't the trainman or conductor help out in the diner? Or help make up beds? Or carry a passenger's bags? Or do a little cleaning up in the cafe car? Why can't the onboard staff help the train crew at a heavily patronized stop? Why are tickets on reserved trains collected onboard? Why is the onboard staff on 24x7 but the train crew is replaced every district? Maybe if you modified the work rules and rotated the staff every district, you could reduce the total onboard crew from 12 to 6 on most LD trains, be able to drop the crew dorm car and give the LD trains a fighting chance. How great a deal are those "free" breakfasts at motels these days? They have popped up all over the place. They are terriffic when you're travelling with family - save you $20 it would cost for the same meal at fast food. They usually have one person running the show and they can feed the entire motel full of people in a fairly small place. Why couldn't Amtrak do something like that? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Dutchrailnut Member sinceMarch 2005 From: Brewster, NY 648 posts Posted by Dutchrailnut on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 8:19 AM One can blame Union all they want, its Amtrak breaking the Labor contract. If you got a labor contract that is valid for X amount of years it can not be broken by bringing in outside sources. The Railway labor act specificaly states no changes in contract and no section six notices till 6 months before contract expires. If no new contract is signed a status quo holds the old contract as governing document. Amtrak was about to be getting a rude awakening, not by union workers but by courts for having managers with no brains. See: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode45/usc_sup_01_45_10_8_20_I.html Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 8:43 AM Union work rules have long been a barrier to productivity improvements in railroads as well as other unionized industries. There have been some improvments at Amtrak and there have been reductions in crew sizes on Amtrak trains. The dining cars have 5 person crews, 2 kitchen and 3 serving. As I watch these crews work, I do not believe that the "full service" diner could be run with less people and still have a reasonable level of service. The lounge cars offer just about what you might find in convenience stores: Beverages, snack items, cold sandwhiches and hot sandwhiches, soup, pizza and some other microwaveable items. One person runs this service. Beside prep and serving, that person is manager, stocker, cashier and clean-up person. The lounge attendant (and dining crew) will report to work an hour or two before train departure. Enroute the lounge will open at 6am and close at midnight and is closed for short periods while the attendant takes meal breaks. The dining crew, lounge and car attendants are not subject to the hours of service laws, and work a train from initial terminal to final destination. I don't know what the pay rates are, but I guarantee you that the minimum wage is NOT going to attract people who are willing to work the hours and have the away from home schedule required by these jobs. By the way, it occured to me that an additional possible reason for stopping of the pilot project may be the terms of the contract with the outside company that runs the commissary service for Amtrak. It has been criticized as a bad deal for Amtrak. Question not answered: Does this contract grant the outside company the exclusive Amtrak system wide right to do the food, beverage and supply acquisition and storage function? Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 10:56 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Dutchrailnut One can blame Union all they want, its Amtrak breaking the Labor contract. If you got a labor contract that is valid for X amount of years it can not be broken by bringing in outside sources. The Railway labor act specificaly states no changes in contract and no section six notices till 6 months before contract expires. If no new contract is signed a status quo holds the old contract as governing document. Amtrak was about to be getting a rude awakening, not by union workers but by courts for having managers with no brains. See: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode45/usc_sup_01_45_10_8_20_I.html So, both labor and mgt could safely sit in the deck chairs as the Titanic sinks and smuggly claim "Not MY fault!" Maybe it's time to allow "self help" and let a PEB sort things out. I wonder how friendly a PEB would be to Amtrak. hmmmm. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 11:25 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Union work rules have long been a barrier to productivity improvements in railroads as well as other unionized industries. There have been some improvments at Amtrak and there have been reductions in crew sizes on Amtrak trains. The dining cars have 5 person crews, 2 kitchen and 3 serving. As I watch these crews work, I do not believe that the "full service" diner could be run with less people and still have a reasonable level of service. The lounge cars offer just about what you might find in convenience stores: Beverages, snack items, cold sandwhiches and hot sandwhiches, soup, pizza and some other microwaveable items. One person runs this service. Beside prep and serving, that person is manager, stocker, cashier and clean-up person. The lounge attendant (and dining crew) will report to work an hour or two before train departure. Enroute the lounge will open at 6am and close at midnight and is closed for short periods while the attendant takes meal breaks. The dining crew, lounge and car attendants are not subject to the hours of service laws, and work a train from initial terminal to final destination. I don't know what the pay rates are, but I guarantee you that the minimum wage is NOT going to attract people who are willing to work the hours and have the away from home schedule required by these jobs. By the way, it occured to me that an additional possible reason for stopping of the pilot project may be the terms of the contract with the outside company that runs the commissary service for Amtrak. It has been criticized as a bad deal for Amtrak. Question not answered: Does this contract grant the outside company the exclusive Amtrak system wide right to do the food, beverage and supply acquisition and storage function? Jay Just some thoughts: Why is there cooking and serving in diners? What if you could do the job 90% as well for 1/2 the cost by delivering food to the train enroute? You might even be able to greatly expand the variety food offered by contracting with various national chains - Outback, Red Lobster, Applebees, etc. Or, you could contract with some good local restaurants and keep some local flavor. No reason orders couldn't be called in a few hours ahead. Why are there servers on the train 24x7 when they are only active to serve 3 meals? Why are there servers at all? I can carry a burger, soda and chips through 5 cars back to my coach seat, but I can't carry a meal tray 30 ft to my table? In a conv. store, I get my own stuff and take it to a cashier. Why does the cafe car attendant get paid, and paid a lot more than a conv. store clerk, for turning around, opening a door and handing me a bag of chips? Or handing me a can of soda? A vending maching can do that. Why can't a car attendant stand in for the lounge car attendant during his meal breaks? Why can't the car attendant and the dining car servers be the same people? Why do the attendants work terminal to terminal? The pool of willing workers might be greater if they worked crew districts (or similar). The place to start looking for business models for sleepers and diners is the motel and restaurant industry. Benchmark against those guys. Find the best practices. And forget about 1950. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 12:35 PM Don Your ideas are worthy of consideration, and it is likly that many have been considered. I wouldn't automaticly dismiss the idea that educated, trained and experienced motel, hotel and restaurant industry people have been involved in decision making process for Amtrak's food and sleeper service. I will suggest a couple of things for your consideration. Hotels, motels and restaurants don't move. Vending machines were tried many years ago by the SP. They didn't work. If you want to set up districts so Amtrak onboard service personnel don't work through, you have to deal with away from home layovers and the possibility of a crew member not being available at a district point. I'll bet that Amtrak would actually prefer to have T&E employees work through. I have seen lounge, dining and car attendants do at least a little work exchange. One small example is the delivery of dining car meals to sleeping car passengers at their rooms as worked performed by other than the dining car servers. You may be able to handle a tray of food on a train moving at 80MPH on less than top grade track, but that is not something everybody can do. "Oh gee, I am really sorry about dumping my supper in your lap." "Not to worry, I expect that to happen when I ride on trains." Service from a restaurant next to the depot? Guess how this announcement files. "Due to the delay caused by the BNSF frieght train dinner will be served when we arrive at Timbucto at 11pm. Thankyou for your patience." By the way, Gunn acknowledged that there were problems with the commisary contract that he inherited, and would have probably moved to make it more favorable to Amtrak. Furthermore, food service has been reduced or eliminated where it appeared that the cost did not seem to be justified by the impact it would have on ridership. Sad to say (for me), I think that Amtrak will now move to take off more of the dining service. Could be an excellent businees oppurtunity for someone. A cheap fixed facility if you don't count the cost of handicap access equipment. Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 12:56 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd If the line is long in the cafe car and the conductor is just hanging out waiting for the next stop, he should lend a hand. Unfortunately, this one point, suggested by others in this string, wouldn't be workable. There are regulations in most states defining how a "food handling employee" has to be dressed, trained, and properly hygenic. Think about it: would you want a Conductor that was just working on the brake hoses between the cars serving food in the same clothes he was wearing then, even if he washed his hands? Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 1:31 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Don Your ideas are worthy of consideration, and it is likly that many have been considered. I wouldn't automaticly dismiss the idea that educated, trained and experienced motel, hotel and restaurant industry people have been involved in decision making process for Amtrak's food and sleeper service. I will suggest a couple of things for your consideration. Hotels, motels and restaurants don't move. Vending machines were tried many years ago by the SP. They didn't work. If you want to set up districts so Amtrak onboard service personnel don't work through, you have to deal with away from home layovers and the possibility of a crew member not being available at a district point. I'll bet that Amtrak would actually prefer to have T&E employees work through. I have seen lounge, dining and car attendants do at least a little work exchange. One small example is the delivery of dining car meals to sleeping car passengers at their rooms as worked performed by other than the dining car servers. You may be able to handle a tray of food on a train moving at 80MPH on less than top grade track, but that is not something everybody can do. "Oh gee, I am really sorry about dumping my supper in your lap." "Not to worry, I expect that to happen when I ride on trains." Service from a restaurant next to the depot? Guess how this announcement files. "Due to the delay caused by the BNSF frieght train dinner will be served when we arrive at Timbucto at 11pm. Thankyou for your patience." By the way, Gunn acknowledged that there were problems with the commisary contract that he inherited, and would have probably moved to make it more favorable to Amtrak. Furthermore, food service has been reduced or eliminated where it appeared that the cost did not seem to be justified by the impact it would have on ridership. Sad to say (for me), I think that Amtrak will now move to take off more of the dining service. Could be an excellent businees oppurtunity for someone. A cheap fixed facility if you don't count the cost of handicap access equipment. Jay I'll play counterpoint: Amtrak COULD have done some benchmarking or have some expertise in-house, but, then maybe not. I don't know, but, it sure looks like they are benchmarking against 1950s streamliners, not modern restaurants, though. If they were, then why the need to sub out to Subway? What is the relevance of moving vs. non moving? What can't I do in a train that I can do in a hotel because I am moving? Everybody has to carry their own food away from the lounge car. Why not the diner, too? I could design a tray that is easy to handle and package so it won't spill - and I'm not particularly gifted at that sort of thing. You COULD have someone carry the food for those who want help. That would take less staff than carrying everyone's food. Where and from whom you order would have to be somewhat flexible to fit timekeeping. If you're running late, you order from vendors a stop or two earlier in the schedule. Or the vendor drives to where the trains is - or will be shortly. Keeping food hot and/or reheating is not trivial, but is doable. Even with the current lousy timekeeping, there are ways to make this work if you want to. SP tried vending machines in the 1960s - they "didn't work". Why not? No reason to think 1970 marked the high water mark for vending machine technology. Even if you don't use machines, you could make cafes more - or - less self serve - like a convenience store. Messing with air hoses is probably more sanitary than going to the bathroom - but we let food service employees do that. Soap, water and a smock and the trainman is good to go in the cafe car. Besides, how often does an Amtrak conductor have to mess with the undercar equipment? Training? McDonalds serves food. How hard can the training be? ...and your announcement should be a UP frt train[:D] -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 3:40 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Messing with air hoses is probably more sanitary than going to the bathroom - but we let food service employees do that. Soap, water and a smock and the trainman is good to go in the cafe car. Besides, how often does an Amtrak conductor have to mess with the undercar equipment? Training? McDonalds serves food. How hard can the training be? "How difficult" doesn't really matter if it's required by law to be "certified." The air hoses was just an example that is within a Conductor's job description. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 3:52 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by PigFarmer1 Originally posted by Limitedclear There has been speculation in the press that issues may have arisen with the Amtrak union for the onboard crews who have lost their jobs when Amtrak cut food service on the Renssalaer based crews. Presumably objections have been raised to non-union Subway employees providing food service on those trains. See this article from the Albany Times Union for example: http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=15037 LC As someone who has no intentions of ever riding Amtrak again after so many experiences with terrible "service" let me ask this question: Were Amtrak kitchen employees ever put out by having to operate can openers in order to serve the Franco American spaghetti slop that they supposedly cooked onboard the train??? Food for thought (NO pun intended). Some of the worst food I've ver eaten was consumed on Amtrak. Seems to me that Subway would be a big step up from the culinary garbagr normally served by Amtrak. Unfortunately the link here is word-for-word of the one in the original post, although different sources. Pigfarmer, I don't know what Amtrak trains you have eaten on, but in my experience (August of this year), the food in the Dining Car on a long distance train can easily rival the best restaurants. The food is prepared on board, unlike an airline where you get a newer version of a TV dinner. And usually not as good as the Swanson version. The Subway contract was to place a rudimentary food service on the shorter distance trains. New York City to Albany is about 2-1/2 hours. I believe that Amtrak had recently dropped the Cafe car (still better than airline food) on these routes and wanted something to replace it for the convenience of the passengers without the financial loss to the company. I believe there's still more to the story. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 4:26 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Dutchrailnut One can blame Union all they want, its Amtrak breaking the Labor contract. If you got a labor contract that is valid for X amount of years it can not be broken by bringing in outside sources. The Railway labor act specificaly states no changes in contract and no section six notices till 6 months before contract expires. If no new contract is signed a status quo holds the old contract as governing document. Amtrak was about to be getting a rude awakening, not by union workers but by courts for having managers with no brains. See: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode45/usc_sup_01_45_10_8_20_I.html At the risk of sounding lawyerly...lol... The Railway labor Act does not provide for a six month period for notices it actually provides for only "at least thirty days written notice". Here is the full text of the section known as "Section 6", which is actually Section 156 of the Act: <<< § 156. Procedure in changing rates of pay, rules, and working conditions Release date: 2005-03-01 Carriers and representatives of the employees shall give at least thirty days’ written notice of an intended change in agreements affecting rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, and the time and place for the beginning of conference between the representatives of the parties interested in such intended changes shall be agreed upon within ten days after the receipt of said notice, and said time shall be within the thirty days provided in the notice. In every case where such notice of intended change has been given, or conferences are being held with reference thereto, or the services of the Mediation Board have been requested by either party, or said Board has proffered its services, rates of pay, rules, or working conditions shall not be altered by the carrier until the controversy has been finally acted upon, as required by section 155 of this title, by the Mediation Board, unless a period of ten days has elapsed after termination of conferences without request for or proffer of the services of the Mediation Board. >>> If in fact the Amtrak union agreements call for six months notice this might be contained in the agreement itself, but not in the Railway labor Act. LC Reply Edit Randy Stahl Member sinceJune 2004 From: roundhouse 2,747 posts Posted by Randy Stahl on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 5:07 PM I'll bet if Hooters was in the mix there would be very little opposition . If not subway ......HOOTERS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 9:24 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl I'll bet if Hooters was in the mix there would be very little opposition . If not subway ......HOOTERS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now that would be real reform....EMAIL AMTRAK CHAIRMAN LANEY!!!! "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 9:40 PM Here's the rest of the union story. Union opposes Subway food service on trains (The following article by eric Anderson was posted on the Albany Times Union website on November 30.) RENSSELAER, N.Y. -- A leafleting campaign by unionized Amtrak workers apparently brought a quick end to an effort by Subway to offer onboard food service. Subway stopped providing food on trains running exclusively between Rensselaer and New York City last week, six days into a four-month pilot project. On Tuesday, one of the Subway franchisees providing the service, Bob Hurley, said he'd like to resume food service on the trains. But a union official, Gary Maslanka, said his members remain opposed to the project. Amtrak ended its own food service on trains originating or terminating in Rensselaer last July. An Amtrak spokesman at the time said the move would save $1 million a year. Sixteen unionized members were affected, but most were offered other positions within Amtrak. Union officials argued their members had qualifications -- training in safety and security issues -- that went beyond food service, and they were there to help out in an emergency. "There is no comparison between well-paid, well-trained" Amtrak employees and the Subway workers who replaced them, said Maslanka, chairman of the Amtrak Service Workers Council and director of the railroad division for the Transport Workers Union. "We are definitely opposed to Subway workers providing service that our members have provided for years. "It's a step in the wrong direction," he added. Amtrak announced the pilot program earlier this month as a way to restore some food service while at the same time not incurring additional losses for the railroad. Subway's Hurley declined to talk about the specific reasons his franchise ended its service on the trains. He said, however, that he was happy with the reception received from passengers. "We're just trying to work through things," he said. "We went in hoping this would be a long-term commitment." Under the Amtrak deal, Subway paid the passenger railroad a portion of its proceeds. Subway used Amtrak's cafe cars, and a worker went through the coaches delivering food to travelers. One Los Angeles resident, who e-mailed the Times Union saying he was aboard a northbound train last week when the leafleting took place, said he was charged $2 for a bottle of water, even though he was in business class, where beverages previously had been free. He also said passengers received two leaflets, one that said the Subway service was taking away union jobs, and the other saying the service was creating a safety issue for passengers. From BLET Site Reply Edit RudyRockvilleMD Member sinceSeptember 2001 From: US 1,015 posts Posted by RudyRockvilleMD on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 9:45 PM I personally experienced the food vending machine on the SP's Daylight in the 1960's. The vending machine was located in a lounge car. The passenger was supposed to be able to deposit money in the vending machine, and get the meal. But the machine didn't work so you had to give the attendant money, and he unlocked the machine to allow you t get the meal. Why would a short trip like New York - Albany need a cafe car?. A refreshment cart or trolley would be all that would be needed. They use refreshment carts frequently on trains with short runs in Great Britain and Europe. Granted the cart may not have as great a variety in food or sandwiches as you might find in a cafe car. I agree with Randy Stahl !!!!! Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 11:37 PM I am not surprised that the Union would be opposed to out sourcing. There doesn't seem to have been a certain threat of job action, but I don't think the that the union has to inform the public if such action is on their mind. Could be that the union informed management that a strike would be on the table, but I wonder if that is actually the governing issue. Amtrak Chairman Laney's comment to Trains Magazine Bob Johnston that the project is under review sure doesn't say much. As I said when I started this topic, REFORM doesn't come easy. If there is a person at Amtrak who thought this pilot project could go with out ANY protest by the Union, we can say for certain that we have found someone that fell off the turnip truck just yesterday. Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 11:45 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by RudyRockvilleMD I personally experienced the food vending machine on the SP's Daylight in the 1960's. The vending machine was located in a lounge car. The passenger was supposed to be able to deposit money in the vending machine, and get the meal. But the machine didn't work so you had to give the attendant money, and he unlocked the machine to allow you t get the meal. Why would a short trip like New York - Albany need a cafe car?. A refreshment cart or trolley would be all that would be needed. They use refreshment carts frequently on trains with short runs in Great Britain and Europe. Granted the cart may not have as great a variety in food or sandwiches as you might find in a cafe car. I agree with Randy Stahl !!!!! I think that Amtrak's decision to pull the lounge car service on these trains is fairly indicative that the service had little or no impact on ridership. If such is the case, why even bother with a cart. Riders can easily do what commuters will do. Grab something to go. On the other hand, if Subway or anybody else can make a profit providing a service on a short run train like this, well go for it. As I've said, it is just not going to be as easy as one might think. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, December 1, 2005 6:24 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton QUOTE: Originally posted by RudyRockvilleMD I personally experienced the food vending machine on the SP's Daylight in the 1960's. The vending machine was located in a lounge car. The passenger was supposed to be able to deposit money in the vending machine, and get the meal. But the machine didn't work so you had to give the attendant money, and he unlocked the machine to allow you t get the meal. Why would a short trip like New York - Albany need a cafe car?. A refreshment cart or trolley would be all that would be needed. They use refreshment carts frequently on trains with short runs in Great Britain and Europe. Granted the cart may not have as great a variety in food or sandwiches as you might find in a cafe car. I agree with Randy Stahl !!!!! I think that Amtrak's decision to pull the lounge car service on these trains is fairly indicative that the service had little or no impact on ridership. If such is the case, why even bother with a cart. Riders can easily do what commuters will do. Grab something to go. On the other hand, if Subway or anybody else can make a profit providing a service on a short run train like this, well go for it. As I've said, it is just not going to be as easy as one might think. Not just that, but there's always reports that food service on the trains costs more than it makes. Subway was supposed to return a percentage of the receipts to Amtrak for the use of the train facilities. It may have been a small amount, but at least it would be on the positive side of the equation. The main union fear is that this will be a "foot in the door" for contracting out the food (and other) services on more of the trains. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, December 1, 2005 7:32 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton QUOTE: Originally posted by RudyRockvilleMD I personally experienced the food vending machine on the SP's Daylight in the 1960's. The vending machine was located in a lounge car. The passenger was supposed to be able to deposit money in the vending machine, and get the meal. But the machine didn't work so you had to give the attendant money, and he unlocked the machine to allow you t get the meal. Why would a short trip like New York - Albany need a cafe car?. A refreshment cart or trolley would be all that would be needed. They use refreshment carts frequently on trains with short runs in Great Britain and Europe. Granted the cart may not have as great a variety in food or sandwiches as you might find in a cafe car. I agree with Randy Stahl !!!!! I think that Amtrak's decision to pull the lounge car service on these trains is fairly indicative that the service had little or no impact on ridership. If such is the case, why even bother with a cart. Riders can easily do what commuters will do. Grab something to go. On the other hand, if Subway or anybody else can make a profit providing a service on a short run train like this, well go for it. As I've said, it is just not going to be as easy as one might think. I agree it won't be easy - or simple - or painless. But, Amtrak HAS to greatly improve labor productivity if there is going to be a chance of saving the LD trains with sleeper and food service. You simply can't have a 10 car LD train with 150 passengers on board at any one time and a crew of 12. That just won't work. The status-quo is a non-starter. Amtrak's labor productivity is horrendous. They HAVE reduced payroll by 5000 (about 20%) in the past couple of years w/o cutting service 20% - in fact, they are carrying MORE passengers. So, what was the "value added" of those 5000? But, the payroll is still 2/3 of what NS's is when NS runs 5x more trains per day and maintains 10x more locomtives and 1000x more track miles than Amtrak. I can't think of a single basic industry that hasn't greatly increased labor productivity (or gone away) since the 1960s. So, how about figuring out how to run the LD trains with a crew of 6, for starters. Engineer, Conductor, one or two trainmen, and...... -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, December 1, 2005 9:48 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd But, the payroll is still 2/3 of what NS's is when NS runs 5x more trains per day and maintains 10x more locomtives and 1000x more track miles than Amtrak. I can't think of a single basic industry that hasn't greatly increased labor productivity (or gone away) since the 1960s. So, how about figuring out how to run the LD trains with a crew of 6, for starters. Engineer, Conductor, one or two trainmen, and...... That might be a valid comparison and work if the passengers didn't mind being packed into a boxcar with no food, bathrooms, or even windows. The 60's would be a bad point of reference, at that point in history, most railroads had cut back services on passenger trains in an effort to kill them off. I'm not sure how big the actual train crew is on an Amtrak train, but I doubt if it's more than 6 people. I've only ever seen the engineer and conductor. Most are the "hotel staff" type jobs. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply edbenton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Back home on the Chi to KC racetrack 2,011 posts Posted by edbenton on Thursday, December 1, 2005 10:13 AM When I drove truck I lost 7 hours waiting for a Laborer to move a drum out of the way so I could get loaded. It was empty so I could have moved it I went to move it out of the way and the fork lift driver goes not your job to move it. I asked him to move it he goes not my job. So I waited and waited the person was paged ime and time agin finally he showed up I asked him were he had been he goes on my break. I lost it I said you have been on a F###### break for 7 hours, he goes no I also had to go to the bathroom I called his supervisor over and went well I hope your company enjoys that 4 grand in detiontion time and the fact he just shut the plant down at the other end for 4 hours and the fine they will give you. The supervisor fird the guy on the spot and then his union rep comes up and said I am filing a grevience agansit the company to get his job back. I had to testify at it and needless to say the laborer lost his job. I alone got 2 grand of the detition time pay. The company was fined 75 grand for shutting down the plant and 4 grand in detition time all because I was not allowed to move a empty drum. Always at war with those that think OTR trucking is EASY. Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, December 1, 2005 11:45 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd But, the payroll is still 2/3 of what NS's is when NS runs 5x more trains per day and maintains 10x more locomtives and 1000x more track miles than Amtrak. I can't think of a single basic industry that hasn't greatly increased labor productivity (or gone away) since the 1960s. So, how about figuring out how to run the LD trains with a crew of 6, for starters. Engineer, Conductor, one or two trainmen, and...... That might be a valid comparison and work if the passengers didn't mind being packed into a boxcar with no food, bathrooms, or even windows. The 60's would be a bad point of reference, at that point in history, most railroads had cut back services on passenger trains in an effort to kill them off. I'm not sure how big the actual train crew is on an Amtrak train, but I doubt if it's more than 6 people. I've only ever seen the engineer and conductor. Most are the "hotel staff" type jobs. By "crew" I meant all the Amtrak employees incl. car attendants, etc. I think your typical 10 car LD train will have an engineer, conductor, one or two trainmen, 3-5 dining car staff, one lounge car attendant, one attendant per sleeper and one attendant for every two coaches. For the Crescent, that would yield a count of 11 or 12. And, I'll allow my comparison between NS and Amtrak isn't entirely fair, but 19,000 employees to run a measly 300 trains a day! And, my comparison isn't as far out as it seems. Amtrak is a $2B company, NS is a $7B company. A locomotive is a locomotive. Amtrak's do about double the mileage per year per loco as NS, but HP-hrs are the same. NS has about 200,000 frt cars on line at any point in time to take car of. Amtrak has about 2000 pass cars. Even if a pass car requires the same maint as a locomotive, NS still has more locos than Amtrak has locos + cars. NS has about 30,000 miles of track to take car of vs. 1500 or so for Amtrak. Amtrak has resevations and ticketing, but NS has customer service, waybilling and revenue accouting. Call it a wash. Both have puchasing, but NS buys more stuff. Both have all the other regular G&A depts, Law, Accounting, etc. - call it a wash. NS puts a two man crew on each of it's trains. Amtrak may have 3 or 4. But far, far, fewer trains. If NS were run the way frt RRs were run in the 1960s, they'd have 50-60,000 employees, not the <30,000 on the payroll today. Amtrak has never had the incentive to get more productive. So, running trains 1971-style is still "in". As you point out, the RRs did little in the 1960s with passenger service, so what you really have is 1950's style railroading. The "cures" for this put out by the Fed DOT are really pretty silly, but the point being made isn't completely invalid. There are a couple of nice articles in Railway age about Amtrak. this month, but they're not available on line. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, December 1, 2005 12:06 PM You might as well compare trucks to busses. They haul a totally different type of payload. If you're comparing train crews, the ones that are specific to the passenger operation have no equivalent on a freight train, therefore, no basis for comparison. True, a locomotive is a locomotive, and requires periodic service and repair regardless of the horsepower. A 500 HP diesel will require the same number of oil changes, lubrications, inspections, etc, as a 5000 HP one will. Amtrak is a $2 Billion company compared to a $7 Billion company doing completely different jobs. The only similarity is they both run on rails. Under Gunn, the rules were changing for the better, and he did have an incentive to get more productive. The protective rules he had to work against greatly slowed the progress on this front. Since Amtrak IS passenger railroading in the US, there really isn't anything else to compare it to. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Thursday, December 1, 2005 2:37 PM Don If you want you can go on from now until the end of time, but you are still comparing apples to oranges, or in this case, freight cars to passenger cars. You are also making some very grand assumptions using total head count of a freight railroad to a passenger railroad. About the only thing they have in common if 4' 8 1/2" . I might point out that the short distance trains run with a total of three crew, 4 if there is food and beverage service. If you want to call a long distance service without diner, sleepers, check baggage, and lounge efficient, be my guest. If you think all of the cost reduction will automaticly transmit to the bottom line, just hang on for a few years and see how it works out. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Thursday, December 1, 2005 2:55 PM When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, December 1, 2005 8:23 PM Mongollian BBQ - you get in line, scoop/fork/ladle your own prefered collectoin of meats/veggies/condiments into your bowl, then take it to the chef(s) to be stir-fried. The staff is for the most part stationary, it is the customers who walk from table to buffet and back to table. Or basically any kind of buffet would work for passenger rail. Those who choose not to self serve or who cannot due to physical limitations can have the cortege serve them. Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, December 1, 2005 10:00 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Mongollian BBQ - you get in line, scoop/fork/ladle your own prefered collectoin of meats/veggies/condiments into your bowl, then take it to the chef(s) to be stir-fried. You mean like the one barbarian in the Capitol One commercial? LMAO Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply greyhounds Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Antioch, IL 4,371 posts Posted by greyhounds on Thursday, December 1, 2005 10:06 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Just don't expect other people to pay for your long distance train travel. "By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that. Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 2, 2005 5:57 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Just don't expect other people to pay for your long distance train travel. ....any more than they pay for your long distance air travel. We don't need no stinkin' air traffic controllers or airports. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 2, 2005 6:29 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl You might as well compare trucks to busses. They haul a totally different type of payload. If you're comparing train crews, the ones that are specific to the passenger operation have no equivalent on a freight train, therefore, no basis for comparison. True, a locomotive is a locomotive, and requires periodic service and repair regardless of the horsepower. A 500 HP diesel will require the same number of oil changes, lubrications, inspections, etc, as a 5000 HP one will. Amtrak is a $2 Billion company compared to a $7 Billion company doing completely different jobs. The only similarity is they both run on rails. Under Gunn, the rules were changing for the better, and he did have an incentive to get more productive. The protective rules he had to work against greatly slowed the progress on this front. Since Amtrak IS passenger railroading in the US, there really isn't anything else to compare it to. Passenger and frt RRing are not as much "apples" and "oranges" as you might think! Track is track. Signals are signals (even when you spec out and build your one-of-a-kind, totally bizzare ARES system). Locomotives are locomotives. Engineers are engineers. Conductors are conductors (in uniform or not). 79 mph really isn't much different from 60 or 70 mph. The main difference is that passenger cars are not freight cars. Passengers require climate control. Only some frt does (think reefers). Climate control equipment is less expensive and complicated than propulsion equipment on a locomotive. Passengers are less tolerant of vibration, shock and noise, so cars require more elaborate suspension - very much like a locomotive. And, they need water and "sewer". So, for the sake of arguement, we'll assume passenger cars are locomotives. (so Amtrak has 2500 "locomotives" versus 3000 locomotives and 200,000 frt cars for NS) The $7B vs $2B is EXACTLY the point! If it takes 19,000 employees to gather in $2B in "revenue" (in Amtrak's case its &1.5B revenue + $0.5B subsidy) versus 30,000 to gather in $7B on NS, then somethings amiss at Amtrak. That's only $80,000 per employee for Amtrak. A 500 HP high speed diesel engine and a 4000 HP med. speed diesel engine much more dissimilar that a P42 and a C44-9 - which are darn near the same locomotive in many, many respects. The duty isn't even all that terribly different. You have to do trucks and wheels on the P42s about twice as often, but the HP-hrs are about the same, so maint costs and overhaul costs are very similar. (I'll trade you the HEP for the two traction motors) But, passengers make their own connections (by foot) and do the "last mile" pick up and delivery by themselves. No pesky hump yards to pay for or expensive locals to operate for Amtrak. At least you admit there is room to go on the productivity front - the barriers being institutional, not physical or technological. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 2, 2005 8:49 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd The $7B vs $2B is EXACTLY the point! If it takes 19,000 employees to gather in $2B in "revenue" (in Amtrak's case its &1.5B revenue + $0.5B subsidy) versus 30,000 to gather in $7B on NS, then somethings amiss at Amtrak. That's only $80,000 per employee for Amtrak. To take this to a ridiculous conclusion, all industry that has a low return on investment should go out of business. Railroads probably have the worst. Freight and passenger railroads are different like passenger and cargo airlines are different. How many stewardesses are on a FedEx plane? Does the cabin need to be climate controlled, or even pressurized? Try making that distinction an option on passenger flights. Sorry, still not convinced that you're not comparing apples to oranges. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 2, 2005 9:01 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Passenger and frt RRing are not as much "apples" and "oranges" as you might think! Track is track. Signals are signals (even when you spec out and build your one-of-a-kind, totally bizzare ARES system). Locomotives are locomotives. Engineers are engineers. Conductors are conductors (in uniform or not). 79 mph really isn't much different from 60 or 70 mph. The main difference is that passenger cars are not freight cars. Passengers require climate control. Only some frt does (think reefers). Climate control equipment is less expensive and complicated than propulsion equipment on a locomotive. Passengers are less tolerant of vibration, shock and noise, so cars require more elaborate suspension - very much like a locomotive. And, they need water and "sewer". So, for the sake of arguement, we'll assume passenger cars are locomotives. (so Amtrak has 2500 "locomotives" versus 3000 locomotives and 200,000 frt cars for NS) The $7B vs $2B is EXACTLY the point! If it takes 19,000 employees to gather in $2B in "revenue" (in Amtrak's case its &1.5B revenue + $0.5B subsidy) versus 30,000 to gather in $7B on NS, then somethings amiss at Amtrak. That's only $80,000 per employee for Amtrak. A 500 HP high speed diesel engine and a 4000 HP med. speed diesel engine much more dissimilar that a P42 and a C44-9 - which are darn near the same locomotive in many, many respects. The duty isn't even all that terribly different. You have to do trucks and wheels on the P42s about twice as often, but the HP-hrs are about the same, so maint costs and overhaul costs are very similar. (I'll trade you the HEP for the two traction motors) But, passengers make their own connections (by foot) and do the "last mile" pick up and delivery by themselves. No pesky hump yards to pay for or expensive locals to operate for Amtrak. At least you admit there is room to go on the productivity front - the barriers being institutional, not physical or technological. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Without breaking out the costs and personnel for maintenance and operation of locomotives, rail operation crews (te equivalent of freight trains, not dedicated to passenger operation), track maintenance and rental fees, and the cost of the passenger related crews and cars, the comparison is still apples to oranges. For example, it costs more to ship a ton of frozen food than it does to ship a ton of coal. Why? Car costs are cheaper. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply edbenton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Back home on the Chi to KC racetrack 2,011 posts Posted by edbenton on Friday, December 2, 2005 9:55 AM Also coal does not care if it gets wet a load of frozen food god help you if it does. Always at war with those that think OTR trucking is EASY. Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 2, 2005 10:43 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Don If you want you can go on from now until the end of time, but you are still comparing apples to oranges, or in this case, freight cars to passenger cars. You are also making some very grand assumptions using total head count of a freight railroad to a passenger railroad. About the only thing they have in common if 4' 8 1/2" . I might point out that the short distance trains run with a total of three crew, 4 if there is food and beverage service. If you want to call a long distance service without diner, sleepers, check baggage, and lounge efficient, be my guest. If you think all of the cost reduction will automaticly transmit to the bottom line, just hang on for a few years and see how it works out. I'm not saying "just do it". I'm saying "consider it and all other options". Amtrak is doing hte same things the same way things were done in 1950. The rest of the world has moved on. It's time for Amtrak to catch up. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply tree68 Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Northern New York 25,015 posts Posted by tree68 on Friday, December 2, 2005 10:49 AM Sounds to me like Amtrak is trying to catch up, but some people keep getting in the way... 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... Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Friday, December 2, 2005 10:53 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Just don't expect other people to pay for your long distance train travel. ....any more than they pay for your long distance air travel. We don't need no stinkin' air traffic controllers or airports. The airports and FAA argument doesn't fly ...so to speak. Airports are primarly local or regional concerns, benefitting the customer the local user.....and paid for by them through bond issues and such. FAA and ATC is nothing more than roads and traffic lights for planes. Road are paid for by taxes....so are the ones in the air.....and even if you don't fly....if you get mail...you are a customer of ATC, FEDEX, DHL....yep, UPS...sometimes...A whole host of items fly as cargo that you might not think of. Gov't support of Amtrak vs. infrastructure support to airlines is a non-argument.... I'd say In-N -Out should replace Subway...that would really improve ridership...shorter lines on the train than the local drive thru's.... Reply tree68 Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Northern New York 25,015 posts Posted by tree68 on Friday, December 2, 2005 10:55 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon I'd say In-N -Out should replace Subway...that would really improve ridership...shorter lines on the train than the local drive thru's.... Build the drive-throughs next to the tracks, have customers call in orders, then stop pick them up? [:p] 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... Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Friday, December 2, 2005 10:57 AM I would say if not Subway, How about Tommys burger. But then they might have to add bathroom capacity.[:D] Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Friday, December 2, 2005 10:57 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68 QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon I'd say In-N -Out should replace Subway...that would really improve ridership...shorter lines on the train than the local drive thru's.... Build the drive-throughs next to the tracks, have customers call in orders, then stop pick them up? [:p] Better yet....use train order hoops to hold the bags and have them grab them on the fly.....might be hard on the shakes though..............[:0] Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 2, 2005 11:17 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd The $7B vs $2B is EXACTLY the point! If it takes 19,000 employees to gather in $2B in "revenue" (in Amtrak's case its &1.5B revenue + $0.5B subsidy) versus 30,000 to gather in $7B on NS, then somethings amiss at Amtrak. That's only $80,000 per employee for Amtrak. To take this to a ridiculous conclusion, all industry that has a low return on investment should go out of business. Railroads probably have the worst. Freight and passenger railroads are different like passenger and cargo airlines are different. How many stewardesses are on a FedEx plane? Does the cabin need to be climate controlled, or even pressurized? Try making that distinction an option on passenger flights. Sorry, still not convinced that you're not comparing apples to oranges. All industry with a low return on EQUITY, over the long term, does go out of business. Have you seen Pan Am, TWA or Eastern around lately? Packard? WebVan? Univac? ALCo? Sometimes, we subsidize things to skew the market to achieve agreed upon goals. Amtrak is an example of this, although I'd argue we never agreed upon any goals or mission. I think you are missing my point, though. If Amtrak's numbers were somewhat out of line with the frt carriers, you could explain it away with "that's the difference between pass and frt". But , they are WAY, WAY, WAY out of line. Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 2, 2005 11:28 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. dd Your expectations might not be realistic. You could expect to have trans-Atlantic steamship service at 3x airfare, too, but there is none. Have you ever ridden a dinner train were the food was delivered from a local restaurant (like on the Strassburg RR)? Why not something similar on Amtrak? If the alternative was 5x airfare and have a car attendant or 3x airfare with no attendant or stay home or fly or drive, which would you choose? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 2, 2005 11:34 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Passenger and frt RRing are not as much "apples" and "oranges" as you might think! Track is track. Signals are signals (even when you spec out and build your one-of-a-kind, totally bizzare ARES system). Locomotives are locomotives. Engineers are engineers. Conductors are conductors (in uniform or not). 79 mph really isn't much different from 60 or 70 mph. The main difference is that passenger cars are not freight cars. Passengers require climate control. Only some frt does (think reefers). Climate control equipment is less expensive and complicated than propulsion equipment on a locomotive. Passengers are less tolerant of vibration, shock and noise, so cars require more elaborate suspension - very much like a locomotive. And, they need water and "sewer". So, for the sake of arguement, we'll assume passenger cars are locomotives. (so Amtrak has 2500 "locomotives" versus 3000 locomotives and 200,000 frt cars for NS) The $7B vs $2B is EXACTLY the point! If it takes 19,000 employees to gather in $2B in "revenue" (in Amtrak's case its &1.5B revenue + $0.5B subsidy) versus 30,000 to gather in $7B on NS, then somethings amiss at Amtrak. That's only $80,000 per employee for Amtrak. A 500 HP high speed diesel engine and a 4000 HP med. speed diesel engine much more dissimilar that a P42 and a C44-9 - which are darn near the same locomotive in many, many respects. The duty isn't even all that terribly different. You have to do trucks and wheels on the P42s about twice as often, but the HP-hrs are about the same, so maint costs and overhaul costs are very similar. (I'll trade you the HEP for the two traction motors) But, passengers make their own connections (by foot) and do the "last mile" pick up and delivery by themselves. No pesky hump yards to pay for or expensive locals to operate for Amtrak. At least you admit there is room to go on the productivity front - the barriers being institutional, not physical or technological. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Without breaking out the costs and personnel for maintenance and operation of locomotives, rail operation crews (te equivalent of freight trains, not dedicated to passenger operation), track maintenance and rental fees, and the cost of the passenger related crews and cars, the comparison is still apples to oranges. For example, it costs more to ship a ton of frozen food than it does to ship a ton of coal. Why? Car costs are cheaper. Not apples and oranges. More like oranges and tangerines. It doesn't cost a whole lot more to ship the frozen food than the coal - we are still talking the same order of magnitude. Amtrak is a whole order of magnitude out. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Friday, December 2, 2005 12:08 PM Don There is obviously the other side of the income statement and that is revenue. The FY 2006 budget plan indicates that the operating loss will be about $450 million. That comes to about $18 per passenger boarding. It would be nice if an $18 surcharge could be added to each ticket, but I am sure you realize that that is not a realistic strategy, especially fot the short haul trains. A half million passengers boarded the Chicago-Milwaukee Hiawatha service at $24 a ticket or $48 for the round trip. I'd have to think that an $84 round trip ticket for that trip would put most of the passengers back in their cars. Having said that, and continuing to pu***he numbers, it seems to me that a combination of a couple of million more boardings and some bump in ticket prices could make a nice difference in the operating deficit. Continuing to look at the pricing side, keep in mind that the jump in demand for frieght railroad services, which is a result of higher costs for competing services, has given the freight railroads greater pricing power. Amtrak does not have that luxury. Going back to the cost side and looking at equipment maintenance, in 2004 the NS reported that 17.3% of revenue was spent on mechanical. For Amtrak, the FY 2005 percent of revenue spent on Mechanical was 20.6. If Amtrak were able to pull in $450 additional revenue their Mechanical ratio would be 16.6% As I have said before, many things are easier said than done. Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 2, 2005 12:16 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Don Going back to the cost side and looking at equipment maintenance, in 2004 the NS reported that 17.3% of revenue was spent on mechanical. For Amtrak, the FY 2005 percent of revenue spent on Mechanical was 20.6. If Amtrak were able to pull in $450 additional revenue their Mechanical ratio would be 16.6% Jay Gee, and I thought you said they were "apples and oranges"![;)] -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 2, 2005 12:30 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Don Continuing to look at the pricing side, keep in mind that the jump in demand for frieght railroad services, which is a result of higher costs for competing services, has given the freight railroads greater pricing power. Amtrak does not have that luxury. Jay You are correct that the market sets the price. The problem is the cost side of things. And, I'd agure there isn't a old-line, industrial era company in the US that hasn't agressively addressed costs vis-a-vis worker productivity since the 1950s that' s managed to hang around 'till now. Amtrak has had little real pressure put on them - and there is no reward within Amtrak - other than top-down budget constraints - for reducing costs and improving productivity. Amtrak SHOULD have some pricing power since the cost of driving and flying have increased with fuel costs going up - at least in some markets. But, part of the problem is the service offerings. They are either not in the market (limited route structure) or don't offer the frequencies and trip times needed. A lot of this can be traced back to insufficient investment, I think. Improved trip times and increased freqencies can help with the unit costs, too, as equipment and crew cycle times are decreased. That's why I was kinda excited by the Lott-Laugtenburg bill that would give more capital to Amtrak in exchange for reduced operating subsidies later. A very realistic way to go about things..... -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply samfp1943 Member sinceJune 2003 From: South Central,Ks 7,170 posts Posted by samfp1943 on Friday, December 2, 2005 12:46 PM You can bet if this food service is to survive in any form at all they will all be singing, " Look for the Union Label....". Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 2, 2005 12:54 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Just don't expect other people to pay for your long distance train travel. ....any more than they pay for your long distance air travel. We don't need no stinkin' air traffic controllers or airports. The airports and FAA argument doesn't fly ...so to speak. Airports are primarly local or regional concerns, benefitting the customer the local user.....and paid for by them through bond issues and such. FAA and ATC is nothing more than roads and traffic lights for planes. Road are paid for by taxes....so are the ones in the air.....and even if you don't fly....if you get mail...you are a customer of ATC, FEDEX, DHL....yep, UPS...sometimes...A whole host of items fly as cargo that you might not think of. Gov't support of Amtrak vs. infrastructure support to airlines is a non-argument.... I'd say In-N -Out should replace Subway...that would really improve ridership...shorter lines on the train than the local drive thru's.... In your first paragraph, you say the argument DOESN'T fly. And in the second and third, you prove that it does. Maybe you need to research how "bond issues and such" are repaid. ???????????????? Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 2, 2005 12:56 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 2, 2005 1:02 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 2, 2005 1:04 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Don If you want you can go on from now until the end of time, but you are still comparing apples to oranges, or in this case, freight cars to passenger cars. You are also making some very grand assumptions using total head count of a freight railroad to a passenger railroad. About the only thing they have in common if 4' 8 1/2" . I might point out that the short distance trains run with a total of three crew, 4 if there is food and beverage service. If you want to call a long distance service without diner, sleepers, check baggage, and lounge efficient, be my guest. If you think all of the cost reduction will automaticly transmit to the bottom line, just hang on for a few years and see how it works out. I'm not saying "just do it". I'm saying "consider it and all other options". Amtrak is doing hte same things the same way things were done in 1950. The rest of the world has moved on. It's time for Amtrak to catch up. If you want to oversimplify it that much, freight railroads are doing the same thing they did in the 50's, moving freight. There have been new loco designs on both freight and passenger lines, new car designs for more efficient and reliable operation. It still boils down to a BIG difference between a car you can toss some freight into and haul somewhere, and a car that passengers will get into and go somewhere. The options have been considered, the contracting out of former union jobs is the point that was overlooked in this pilot program. A more accurate comparison would be to compare passenger railroads in Europe (for example) to Amtrak operations. And the passenger trains were losing money in the 50's, which is why the railroads were more than happy to dump that on the government. In the foreign countries, the rail passenger service is subsidized because it's more efficient than the subsidies paid for air or other land transport of the same numer of people to the same places. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 2, 2005 1:05 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Just don't expect other people to pay for your long distance train travel. ....any more than they pay for your long distance air travel. We don't need no stinkin' air traffic controllers or airports. The airports and FAA argument doesn't fly ...so to speak. Airports are primarly local or regional concerns, benefitting the customer the local user.....and paid for by them through bond issues and such. FAA and ATC is nothing more than roads and traffic lights for planes. Road are paid for by taxes....so are the ones in the air.....and even if you don't fly....if you get mail...you are a customer of ATC, FEDEX, DHL....yep, UPS...sometimes...A whole host of items fly as cargo that you might not think of. Gov't support of Amtrak vs. infrastructure support to airlines is a non-argument.... I'd say In-N -Out should replace Subway...that would really improve ridership...shorter lines on the train than the local drive thru's.... In your first paragraph, you say the argument DOESN'T fly. And in the second and third, you prove that it does. Maybe you need to research how "bond issues and such" are repaid. ???????????????? I agree. The mechanism and rationale for the "tax" collection is irrelevant. All tax money comes from us, no matter how collected or disbursed. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 2, 2005 1:10 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd The $7B vs $2B is EXACTLY the point! If it takes 19,000 employees to gather in $2B in "revenue" (in Amtrak's case its &1.5B revenue + $0.5B subsidy) versus 30,000 to gather in $7B on NS, then somethings amiss at Amtrak. That's only $80,000 per employee for Amtrak. To take this to a ridiculous conclusion, all industry that has a low return on investment should go out of business. Railroads probably have the worst. Freight and passenger railroads are different like passenger and cargo airlines are different. How many stewardesses are on a FedEx plane? Does the cabin need to be climate controlled, or even pressurized? Try making that distinction an option on passenger flights. Sorry, still not convinced that you're not comparing apples to oranges. All industry with a low return on EQUITY, over the long term, does go out of business. Have you seen Pan Am, TWA or Eastern around lately? Packard? WebVan? Univac? ALCo? Sometimes, we subsidize things to skew the market to achieve agreed upon goals. Amtrak is an example of this, although I'd argue we never agreed upon any goals or mission. I think you are missing my point, though. If Amtrak's numbers were somewhat out of line with the frt carriers, you could explain it away with "that's the difference between pass and frt". But , they are WAY, WAY, WAY out of line. Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. Amtrak's numbers are out of line with the freight railroads because they haul PASSENGERS not freight. We could shove 50 or 60 people into the trailer of an 18-wheeler without seats, bathrooms, or windows, and haul them a lot cheaper than on a bus. But unless you're doing something illegal, the passengers would never go for that. Busses and trucks have about as much in common as freight and passenger railroads, they run on the same type right-or-way. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 2, 2005 1:22 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. dd Your expectations might not be realistic. You could expect to have trans-Atlantic steamship service at 3x airfare, too, but there is none. Have you ever ridden a dinner train were the food was delivered from a local restaurant (like on the Strassburg RR)? Why not something similar on Amtrak? If the alternative was 5x airfare and have a car attendant or 3x airfare with no attendant or stay home or fly or drive, which would you choose? There's a bit of difference between the 5 mile long Strasburg Railroad, which is in the middle of an established tourist area, and a nationwide system that travels through urban to wilderness areas over several thousand miles of track. The logistics would be a nightmare doing this on Amtrak (not always on schedule thanks in part to the host railroad) as compared to a catering truck driving a few miles from one end of the line to the other. I had the car attendant on my trip in August, and it beat the heck out of flying, driving, or not having them. Well worth the money, but I think your savings figure comparing with (5x) and without (3x) the car attendant is a bit exagerated. Coach rail travel is equivalent to bus or airplane. Sleeping car travel is more first class with private sleeping compartments (bedroom or roomette) and you pay extra for this service. On most trains, these bedrooms sell out early, showing they could probably add sleeping car capacity and sell more of the premium tickets. For an example of this, see how far into the future you need to go to get a Bedroom on the Sunset Limited. I went to August of next year and gave up. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 2, 2005 1:31 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 2, 2005 2:45 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 2, 2005 3:02 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. dd Your expectations might not be realistic. You could expect to have trans-Atlantic steamship service at 3x airfare, too, but there is none. Have you ever ridden a dinner train were the food was delivered from a local restaurant (like on the Strassburg RR)? Why not something similar on Amtrak? If the alternative was 5x airfare and have a car attendant or 3x airfare with no attendant or stay home or fly or drive, which would you choose? There's a bit of difference between the 5 mile long Strasburg Railroad, which is in the middle of an established tourist area, and a nationwide system that travels through urban to wilderness areas over several thousand miles of track. The logistics would be a nightmare doing this on Amtrak (not always on schedule thanks in part to the host railroad) as compared to a catering truck driving a few miles from one end of the line to the other. I had the car attendant on my trip in August, and it beat the heck out of flying, driving, or not having them. Well worth the money, but I think your savings figure comparing with (5x) and without (3x) the car attendant is a bit exagerated. Coach rail travel is equivalent to bus or airplane. Sleeping car travel is more first class with private sleeping compartments (bedroom or roomette) and you pay extra for this service. On most trains, these bedrooms sell out early, showing they could probably add sleeping car capacity and sell more of the premium tickets. For an example of this, see how far into the future you need to go to get a Bedroom on the Sunset Limited. I went to August of next year and gave up. I've ridden many thousands of miles in Amtrak sleepers and loved every minute of it. I would really like it if they'd stay around! But, there if there is any truth to the arguement that we're subsidizing discretionary travel in sleepers, then, it's awfully hard to defend. If it can be shown that they earn more than their incremental cost, then, we're home free. But, why are they there in the first place? If it's considered a basic part of LD train service, then you have the case for a subsidy in any event. If they are considered a luxury (more to your definition - calling them 1st class), then how can you justify any subsidy? A luxury "common good"? What is that? So far, NOBODY in Congress, the DOT or Amtrak has tried to define their roll except by inferrence or sound byte. So, we can either sit here and watch the status quo crumble, or demand a defined mission and some real funding for Amtrak -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 2, 2005 3:11 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 2, 2005 3:17 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. dd Your expectations might not be realistic. You could expect to have trans-Atlantic steamship service at 3x airfare, too, but there is none. Have you ever ridden a dinner train were the food was delivered from a local restaurant (like on the Strassburg RR)? Why not something similar on Amtrak? If the alternative was 5x airfare and have a car attendant or 3x airfare with no attendant or stay home or fly or drive, which would you choose? There's a bit of difference between the 5 mile long Strasburg Railroad, which is in the middle of an established tourist area, and a nationwide system that travels through urban to wilderness areas over several thousand miles of track. The logistics would be a nightmare doing this on Amtrak (not always on schedule thanks in part to the host railroad) as compared to a catering truck driving a few miles from one end of the line to the other. I had the car attendant on my trip in August, and it beat the heck out of flying, driving, or not having them. Well worth the money, but I think your savings figure comparing with (5x) and without (3x) the car attendant is a bit exagerated. Coach rail travel is equivalent to bus or airplane. Sleeping car travel is more first class with private sleeping compartments (bedroom or roomette) and you pay extra for this service. On most trains, these bedrooms sell out early, showing they could probably add sleeping car capacity and sell more of the premium tickets. For an example of this, see how far into the future you need to go to get a Bedroom on the Sunset Limited. I went to August of next year and gave up. I've ridden many thousands of miles in Amtrak sleepers and loved every minute of it. I would really like it if they'd stay around! But, there if there is any truth to the arguement that we're subsidizing discretionary travel in sleepers, then, it's awfully hard to defend. If it can be shown that they earn more than their incremental cost, then, we're home free. But, why are they there in the first place? If it's considered a basic part of LD train service, then you have the case for a subsidy in any event. If they are considered a luxury (more to your definition - calling them 1st class), then how can you justify any subsidy? A luxury "common good"? What is that? So far, NOBODY in Congress, the DOT or Amtrak has tried to define their roll except by inferrence or sound byte. So, we can either sit here and watch the status quo crumble, or demand a defined mission and some real funding for Amtrak There's two "unfortunates" in the above post. Unfortunately, the critics of Amtrak have chosen NOT to break out how much money is lost or made in the sleeping car services. Kind of begs the answer to this question. Unfortunately #2, noone has even PROPOSED defining the role of Amtrak in any place that was empowered to establi***hat policy. That was one of Gunn's complaints, and it was what led to them limping along year to year on the federal subsidy. The fact that the subsidy is considered a loss is pretty much due to the fact that there is no guideline of what Amtrak's mission is supposed to be. Without that type guidance, the limping along will continue. I guess we can't really expect the people in government to make a decision or anything. Hard to get a sound byte or news story out of that. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Friday, December 2, 2005 3:48 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Just don't expect other people to pay for your long distance train travel. ....any more than they pay for your long distance air travel. We don't need no stinkin' air traffic controllers or airports. The airports and FAA argument doesn't fly ...so to speak. Airports are primarly local or regional concerns, benefitting the customer the local user.....and paid for by them through bond issues and such. FAA and ATC is nothing more than roads and traffic lights for planes. Road are paid for by taxes....so are the ones in the air.....and even if you don't fly....if you get mail...you are a customer of ATC, FEDEX, DHL....yep, UPS...sometimes...A whole host of items fly as cargo that you might not think of. Gov't support of Amtrak vs. infrastructure support to airlines is a non-argument.... I'd say In-N -Out should replace Subway...that would really improve ridership...shorter lines on the train than the local drive thru's.... In your first paragraph, you say the argument DOESN'T fly. And in the second and third, you prove that it does. Maybe you need to research how "bond issues and such" are repaid. ???????????????? Tom, I quite familiar how bond issues and repayment works. The idea that Amtrak should be subsized because the airlines receive subsidies is not valid. The Federal government subsidizing Amtrak is not the same as a LOCAL/REGIONAL government subsizing or financing an airport .....through bonds payed back by taxes.....yes I know Tom.......an airport that serves it's region...not someone from Montana subsidizing transportaion for Massachussetts. Much the same way your streets and street lights and enforcement of the rules on your local streets are payed for. Amtrak is not a public good which serves an great number of the population. I can't think of anything I get from Amtrak. Mail...no. Express...no....... But even if I don't fly, I derive benefit from an ATC system, same with the highways. And the railroads themselves...the PRIVATE owners of the ROWs, received incentives and breaks to get where they did. The point is, the continual comparison of Amtrak and airlines is not valid....more like Amtrak and Princess Cruise Line, that's a valid comparison. Dan Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Friday, December 2, 2005 3:52 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. Since we're going to play the "you need to do a little more research" game....you need to do a little more research. It is quite neccessary to pressurize and heat the cargo comparment of aircraft. Fluid containers and sealed pressurized items tend not to react well to pressure changes and if you honsetly think temperature isn't an issue also, you are very wrong. If they were not, you would not be able to take any liquids in your luggage with risk of having them all over your clothes. Dan PS...I'm not going to argue with you about munition......but I am a pilot by trade. Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 2, 2005 5:10 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Just don't expect other people to pay for your long distance train travel. ....any more than they pay for your long distance air travel. We don't need no stinkin' air traffic controllers or airports. The airports and FAA argument doesn't fly ...so to speak. Airports are primarly local or regional concerns, benefitting the customer the local user.....and paid for by them through bond issues and such. FAA and ATC is nothing more than roads and traffic lights for planes. Road are paid for by taxes....so are the ones in the air.....and even if you don't fly....if you get mail...you are a customer of ATC, FEDEX, DHL....yep, UPS...sometimes...A whole host of items fly as cargo that you might not think of. Gov't support of Amtrak vs. infrastructure support to airlines is a non-argument.... I'd say In-N -Out should replace Subway...that would really improve ridership...shorter lines on the train than the local drive thru's.... In your first paragraph, you say the argument DOESN'T fly. And in the second and third, you prove that it does. Maybe you need to research how "bond issues and such" are repaid. ???????????????? Tom, I quite familiar how bond issues and repayment works. The idea that Amtrak should be subsized because the airlines receive subsidies is not valid. The Federal government subsidizing Amtrak is not the same as a LOCAL/REGIONAL government subsizing or financing an airport .....through bonds payed back by taxes.....yes I know Tom.......an airport that serves it's region...not someone from Montana subsidizing transportaion for Massachussetts. Much the same way your streets and street lights and enforcement of the rules on your local streets are payed for. Amtrak is not a public good which serves an great number of the population. I can't think of anything I get from Amtrak. Mail...no. Express...no....... But even if I don't fly, I derive benefit from an ATC system, same with the highways. And the railroads themselves...the PRIVATE owners of the ROWs, received incentives and breaks to get where they did. The point is, the continual comparison of Amtrak and airlines is not valid....more like Amtrak and Princess Cruise Line, that's a valid comparison. Dan And continued comparison of freight and passenger haulers, simply because they both run on rails, is just as invalid Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Friday, December 2, 2005 5:25 PM OK-Here is my deal. If "for hire" passenger airlines are compelled to pay their full share of the costs of all the government services they receive, air traffic control, airports, runways and whatever, then Amtrak can be cut off the government dole. Of course general aviation ought to be required to kick in their share, but I guess that is something akin to private vehicles on public roads. Meanwhile, the FY 2006 grant to Amtrak carries the provision that Amtrak must actually show a reduction in the food and sleeper deficit, and that if that is not accomplished, (no benchmarks are provided), no grant funds may be used for such services after July, 2006. Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Friday, December 2, 2005 5:26 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Just don't expect other people to pay for your long distance train travel. ....any more than they pay for your long distance air travel. We don't need no stinkin' air traffic controllers or airports. The airports and FAA argument doesn't fly ...so to speak. Airports are primarly local or regional concerns, benefitting the customer the local user.....and paid for by them through bond issues and such. FAA and ATC is nothing more than roads and traffic lights for planes. Road are paid for by taxes....so are the ones in the air.....and even if you don't fly....if you get mail...you are a customer of ATC, FEDEX, DHL....yep, UPS...sometimes...A whole host of items fly as cargo that you might not think of. Gov't support of Amtrak vs. infrastructure support to airlines is a non-argument.... I'd say In-N -Out should replace Subway...that would really improve ridership...shorter lines on the train than the local drive thru's.... In your first paragraph, you say the argument DOESN'T fly. And in the second and third, you prove that it does. Maybe you need to research how "bond issues and such" are repaid. ???????????????? Tom, I quite familiar how bond issues and repayment works. The idea that Amtrak should be subsized because the airlines receive subsidies is not valid. The Federal government subsidizing Amtrak is not the same as a LOCAL/REGIONAL government subsizing or financing an airport .....through bonds payed back by taxes.....yes I know Tom.......an airport that serves it's region...not someone from Montana subsidizing transportaion for Massachussetts. Much the same way your streets and street lights and enforcement of the rules on your local streets are payed for. Amtrak is not a public good which serves an great number of the population. I can't think of anything I get from Amtrak. Mail...no. Express...no....... But even if I don't fly, I derive benefit from an ATC system, same with the highways. And the railroads themselves...the PRIVATE owners of the ROWs, received incentives and breaks to get where they did. The point is, the continual comparison of Amtrak and airlines is not valid....more like Amtrak and Princess Cruise Line, that's a valid comparison. Dan And continued comparison of freight and passenger haulers, simply because they both run on rails, is just as invalid I can agree to that. Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Friday, December 2, 2005 5:33 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton OK-Here is my deal. If "for hire" passenger airlines are compelled to pay their full share of the costs of all the government services they receive, air traffic control, airports, runways and whatever, then Amtrak can be cut off the government dole. Of course general aviation ought to be required to kick in their share, but I guess that is something akin to private vehicles on public roads. Meanwhile, the FY 2006 grant to Amtrak carries the provision that Amtrak must actually show a reduction in the food and sleeper deficit, and that if that is not accomplished, (no benchmarks are provided), no grant funds may be used for such services after July, 2006. Jay What government services does Amtrak receive...other than ca***o operate? It doesn't use a system of public highways, it doesn't utilize a national traffic management system. Other than the NEC, Amtrak travels over private ROW. So what you're saying is that Amtrak is entitled to an equal playing field by handicapping the other modes of transportation, which are utilized by far more people and have a significantly greater role in the national economy. Using that logic we should make container ships pay mileage for transoceanic route to subsidize the cruise lines. Dan Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 2, 2005 5:43 PM Hopefully, Amtraks demise will be quick in coming. Then all the rhetoric and nonsense will end and so will the problem of finding a sandwich on the train, as there will be no train! Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Friday, December 2, 2005 6:53 PM Dan That is nonsense and you know it. It doesn't make any difference whether the government provides a private entity (airlines) services for less than the full cost or a private entity (Amtrak) cash. Both situations require dollars from taxpayers. And if you complaint is that a government expenditure in one place must take funds away from another place, you are talking to the wrong guy. I happen to believe that the US has the resources to have the best military, education system, health care, transportation system and quite a few of the other things that are supported by our tax dollars. In fact, I don't think we have to live with second best for anything. It just takes a little more will and a little less personal greed. Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 2, 2005 9:27 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. Since we're going to play the "you need to do a little more research" game....you need to do a little more research. It is quite neccessary to pressurize and heat the cargo comparment of aircraft. Fluid containers and sealed pressurized items tend not to react well to pressure changes and if you honsetly think temperature isn't an issue also, you are very wrong. If they were not, you would not be able to take any liquids in your luggage with risk of having them all over your clothes. Dan PS...I'm not going to argue with you about munition......but I am a pilot by trade. My involvment with munitions is recent, only the last 4 years. Before that I was an avionics technician in the Air Force and a technician in an Army TMDE lab. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply amtrakjackson Member sinceJanuary 2002 From: Michigan 87 posts Posted by amtrakjackson on Saturday, December 3, 2005 6:01 AM Interesting that most everyone concentrates on Amtrak's union issues, and cutting the front line to "save money". But what about Amtrak's bloated management? Sure, they no longer have 80 some-odd vice presidents, but the hundreds of former "on-board chiefs" were given *lifetime* management positions as a condition of the elimination of OBS chiefs. They're now "Operations Supervisors" (with no operations experience), or other nonsensical positions. Once given a management position at Amtrak, you're virtually guaranteed a job for life, and if it looks like the ax may fall, they'll reshuffle and accomodate you accordingly so that no one notices. In Chicago alone, there are close to 100 "managers" in and near the Chicago Terminal. All micro-managing the front-line employees and trying their best to keep their positions in the face of cuts. None ever get demoted, and, in fact, more are hired each year. Michigan alone has two road foremen, and an "operations supervisor" to directly cover roughly 30 employees. Not including the Chicago managers that come out. How many managers are there at NS's huge Elkhart Yard, in relationship the number of employees? Amtrak ought to take a look east 100 miles to see how to get things done. I think Chicago's ratio is somewhere around one manager for every seven employees. Yes, cuts need to be made. As we used to say as children, at Amtrak there are too many Chiefs and not enough Indians. (Play on words not intentional.) They unstaff stations and leave passengers out in the cold all over the country, yet have managers tripping over themselves. That's where the problem lies. Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, December 5, 2005 8:28 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by amtrakjackson Interesting that most everyone concentrates on Amtrak's union issues, and cutting the front line to "save money". But what about Amtrak's bloated management? Sure, they no longer have 80 some-odd vice presidents, but the hundreds of former "on-board chiefs" were given *lifetime* management positions as a condition of the elimination of OBS chiefs. They're now "Operations Supervisors" (with no operations experience), or other nonsensical positions. Once given a management position at Amtrak, you're virtually guaranteed a job for life, and if it looks like the ax may fall, they'll reshuffle and accomodate you accordingly so that no one notices. In Chicago alone, there are close to 100 "managers" in and near the Chicago Terminal. All micro-managing the front-line employees and trying their best to keep their positions in the face of cuts. None ever get demoted, and, in fact, more are hired each year. Michigan alone has two road foremen, and an "operations supervisor" to directly cover roughly 30 employees. Not including the Chicago managers that come out. How many managers are there at NS's huge Elkhart Yard, in relationship the number of employees? Amtrak ought to take a look east 100 miles to see how to get things done. I think Chicago's ratio is somewhere around one manager for every seven employees. Yes, cuts need to be made. As we used to say as children, at Amtrak there are too many Chiefs and not enough Indians. (Play on words not intentional.) They unstaff stations and leave passengers out in the cold all over the country, yet have managers tripping over themselves. That's where the problem lies. I don't doubt there are way too many "chiefs", but there are too many "indians", too! Amtrak has never had any real incentive improve the situation. That Gunn very easily got rid of a bunch of VP jobs at the start is an interesting story in itself. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, December 5, 2005 10:00 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Monday, December 5, 2005 1:39 PM Just a reminder: All highway transportation is subsidized because it does not pay real estate taxes on the land it uses while all private frieght railroads do and handle their traffic on a per ton or per passenger mile basis on one quarter the land or less as compared with highways for equivalent traffic. The elderly and handicapped have no other way to access most of the USA other than Amtrak, with some elderly and handicapped requiring sleeper space. Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Monday, December 5, 2005 3:46 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... So you're saying that a 1/4 inch thick aluminum skin riveted to an inside framework can 1.4 million pounds of force? Impressive if the vessel was large enough, but the strength of materials book will give you ratings in pounds per SQUARE INCH, the same as the measurement of air pressure. And I fail to see how the floor, reinforced to support the weight of the cargo or passengers would be weaker than the outside fuselage of the aircraft. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply conrailman Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NS Main Line at MP12 Blairsville,Pa 830 posts Posted by conrailman on Monday, December 5, 2005 4:13 PM TGI Fridays would Great Choice, or Olive Garden? Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, December 5, 2005 4:44 PM The latest salvo from the Union... LC Letter to the Editor - Albany Times Union Amtrak's service contract with Subway is shortsighted and dangerous First published: Friday, December 2, 2005 An article appeared in your Nov. 20 business section headed, "Amtrak starts with food." I would strongly disagree with the premise. Amtrak should start with a safe and secure trip. The decision to end food and beverage service provided by professional service workers and to contract with Subway franchisees is shortsighted and dangerous. The Empire Corridor trains no longer include service workers who, like flight attendants on the airlines, are responsible for the safety and security of passengers as well as food service. These rail workers received training in emergency protocols to handle bomb threats, evacuation procedures, fire suppression, risk avoidance of communicable diseases and blood borne pathogens, as well as FDA regulations in food handling. There have been more than 181 terrorist attacks against major rail networks, including those in London, Madrid, Paris, Moscow and Tokyo, since 1998. To eliminate on-board service and contract it out to sandwich vendors removes an important level of security on America's passenger trains. On-board service employees have acted heroically in emergency situations helping to evacuate trains and administer first aid. Three years ago, when Amtrak's autotrain derailed in Crescent City, Fla., on-board attendants rescued trapped passengers by opening windows and pulling them to safety. When the California Zephyr derailed in 2001, one on-board attendant rescued 80 passengers despite his own injuries Now, Amtrak has contracted with Subway in a pilot program where Subway employees will hawk sandwiches in the aisles. Amtrak has put itself on record that these workers are to be treated like passengers in case of emergency. Instead of being first responders, they will be first out the door. Trading safety for a sandwich is irresponsible. GARY MASLANKA Chair, Amtrak Service Workers Council Railroad Division Director Transport Workers Union of America New York City Reply Edit dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Monday, December 5, 2005 8:25 PM So they need hero sandwiches, not just the standard fare to meet the security aspect. Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Monday, December 5, 2005 9:06 PM One thing we know for sure, Subway won't be selling their products to any passengers in the cargo holds of commercial airplanes. Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Monday, December 5, 2005 9:10 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton One thing we know for sure, Subway won't be selling their products to any passengers in the cargo holds of commercial airplanes. Jay Well, considering how the airlines are doing now........ Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Monday, December 5, 2005 10:01 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton One thing we know for sure, Subway won't be selling their products to any passengers in the cargo holds of commercial airplanes. Jay Only on the white FEMA 747s with shackles in the cargo hold..[:0] Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, December 6, 2005 7:21 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... So you're saying that a 1/4 inch thick aluminum skin riveted to an inside framework can 1.4 million pounds of force? Impressive if the vessel was large enough, but the strength of materials book will give you ratings in pounds per SQUARE INCH, the same as the measurement of air pressure. And I fail to see how the floor, reinforced to support the weight of the cargo or passengers would be weaker than the outside fuselage of the aircraft. You are confusing the engineering discipline "strength of materials" with "materials science". Material Science deals with the properties of the materials. Strength of Materials is all about how to calculate stress and strain in various objects - like cylinders, beams, floors, columns, etc. Getting out my Singer "Stength of Materials" book. Looking on p 20 to see how to calculate stress in a thin walled cylinder. If the cylinder was made of 1/4" thick aluminum, the hoop stress is only 2300 psi. Aluminum is good for better than 30,000 psi Working backward, you only need 0.019" thick aluminum to carry the hoop stresses from a 10 psi internal pressure. You COULD build an airplane where the area under the floor is not pressurized and the area above is, but you'd have to add so much structure to support the floor and distribute the load to the fuselage skin, that you'd significantly cut into your payload capacity. It's MUCH simpler, lighter and cheaper to just pressurize the whole cylinder - which is why airplanes are built that way! You COULD just take the word of a degreed Mechanical Engineer [:D] -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, December 6, 2005 7:54 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear The latest salvo from the Union... LC Letter to the Editor - Albany Times Union Amtrak's service contract with Subway is shortsighted and dangerous First published: Friday, December 2, 2005 An article appeared in your Nov. 20 business section headed, "Amtrak starts with food." I would strongly disagree with the premise. Amtrak should start with a safe and secure trip. The decision to end food and beverage service provided by professional service workers and to contract with Subway franchisees is shortsighted and dangerous. The Empire Corridor trains no longer include service workers who, like flight attendants on the airlines, are responsible for the safety and security of passengers as well as food service. These rail workers received training in emergency protocols to handle bomb threats, evacuation procedures, fire suppression, risk avoidance of communicable diseases and blood borne pathogens, as well as FDA regulations in food handling. There have been more than 181 terrorist attacks against major rail networks, including those in London, Madrid, Paris, Moscow and Tokyo, since 1998. To eliminate on-board service and contract it out to sandwich vendors removes an important level of security on America's passenger trains. On-board service employees have acted heroically in emergency situations helping to evacuate trains and administer first aid. Three years ago, when Amtrak's autotrain derailed in Crescent City, Fla., on-board attendants rescued trapped passengers by opening windows and pulling them to safety. When the California Zephyr derailed in 2001, one on-board attendant rescued 80 passengers despite his own injuries Now, Amtrak has contracted with Subway in a pilot program where Subway employees will hawk sandwiches in the aisles. Amtrak has put itself on record that these workers are to be treated like passengers in case of emergency. Instead of being first responders, they will be first out the door. Trading safety for a sandwich is irresponsible. GARY MASLANKA Chair, Amtrak Service Workers Council Railroad Division Director Transport Workers Union of America New York City An empty arguement. -the Empire Svc trains in question didn't have any Amtrak food svc employees on them prior to Subway starting. So, how is safety compromised by the added presence of Subway workers. -the on-board svcs employees are not responsible for safety - that job belongs to the conductor and his crew. It is an added benefit if they are trained in safety in case an accident, but it is not mandated anywhere. -thousands of passenger trains a day run safely without any on-board service personnel -this sounds similar to the smoke the UTU was blowing years ago. During an interview, discussing crew size (before 2 man frt crews were common), the UTU guy said there should NEVER be only one man in the cab of a passenger train - it would be unsafe. He was unaware that PC and Amtrak had been running one man in Metroliners for about 10 years at that point. When the interviewer pointed that out, the UTU guy replied something to the effect of, "Well, I'd never ride one - it's unsafe." All he accomplished was making himself look stupid. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Tuesday, December 6, 2005 9:12 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... So you're saying that a 1/4 inch thick aluminum skin riveted to an inside framework can 1.4 million pounds of force? Impressive if the vessel was large enough, but the strength of materials book will give you ratings in pounds per SQUARE INCH, the same as the measurement of air pressure. And I fail to see how the floor, reinforced to support the weight of the cargo or passengers would be weaker than the outside fuselage of the aircraft. You are confusing the engineering discipline "strength of materials" with "materials science". Material Science deals with the properties of the materials. Strength of Materials is all about how to calculate stress and strain in various objects - like cylinders, beams, floors, columns, etc. Getting out my Singer "Stength of Materials" book. Looking on p 20 to see how to calculate stress in a thin walled cylinder. If the cylinder was made of 1/4" thick aluminum, the hoop stress is only 2300 psi. Aluminum is good for better than 30,000 psi Working backward, you only need 0.019" thick aluminum to carry the hoop stresses from a 10 psi internal pressure. You COULD build an airplane where the area under the floor is not pressurized and the area above is, but you'd have to add so much structure to support the floor and distribute the load to the fuselage skin, that you'd significantly cut into your payload capacity. It's MUCH simpler, lighter and cheaper to just pressurize the whole cylinder - which is why airplanes are built that way! You COULD just take the word of a degreed Mechanical Engineer [:D] But of what value is it? As many times as I've been in the cockpit of an aircraft, I don't recall ever seeing a gauge marked "Hoop Pressure." Is this more of the info "never used outside the school?" Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Tuesday, December 6, 2005 11:14 PM Tom, It's cheaper, lighter and ultimately stronger to pressurize the entire cabin, not to mention to ease maintainance. I suppose if you really wanted to make the floor a pressurized bulkhead you could...but instead of the weight of whatever is on the deck being supported by the floor and structural members, it's being supported by the pressure bulkhead, which means it has to be strengthen to accomodate the additional stresses. You couldn't access anything outside the main deck in flight, and any maintenance action which required opening or cutting a hole in the floor would require a pressure check. Some of the military transport aircraft, such as the C130 can pressurize the cockpit separately I believe, in order to conduct high altitude drops and such, but will repressurize the cabin after buttoning up. But even the C130's floor as low as it is, is raised above the outer hull. But for civilian applications the need isn't there to justify the expense. Dan Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, December 7, 2005 8:19 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... So you're saying that a 1/4 inch thick aluminum skin riveted to an inside framework can 1.4 million pounds of force? Impressive if the vessel was large enough, but the strength of materials book will give you ratings in pounds per SQUARE INCH, the same as the measurement of air pressure. And I fail to see how the floor, reinforced to support the weight of the cargo or passengers would be weaker than the outside fuselage of the aircraft. You are confusing the engineering discipline "strength of materials" with "materials science". Material Science deals with the properties of the materials. Strength of Materials is all about how to calculate stress and strain in various objects - like cylinders, beams, floors, columns, etc. Getting out my Singer "Stength of Materials" book. Looking on p 20 to see how to calculate stress in a thin walled cylinder. If the cylinder was made of 1/4" thick aluminum, the hoop stress is only 2300 psi. Aluminum is good for better than 30,000 psi Working backward, you only need 0.019" thick aluminum to carry the hoop stresses from a 10 psi internal pressure. You COULD build an airplane where the area under the floor is not pressurized and the area above is, but you'd have to add so much structure to support the floor and distribute the load to the fuselage skin, that you'd significantly cut into your payload capacity. It's MUCH simpler, lighter and cheaper to just pressurize the whole cylinder - which is why airplanes are built that way! You COULD just take the word of a degreed Mechanical Engineer [:D] But of what value is it? As many times as I've been in the cockpit of an aircraft, I don't recall ever seeing a gauge marked "Hoop Pressure." Is this more of the info "never used outside the school?" Wrong again, reindeer breath! (with appolgies to Johny Carson) Why in the world would anyone measure the hoop, or circumfrential STRESS (not pressure - although the units are the same) in an aircraft fuselage? You DESIGN for it based on the internal pressure. This is really, really basic simple engineering - several hundred years old. It is used ALL OVER THE PLACE outside of "the school". Everything from the water pipes in your house to the brake pipe on a frt car use this stress calculation. It's often called "hoop" stress because of it's application in barrel making. You are either impossibly dense or just rattling my cage.... I feel like I'm stuck in the Bob and Ray "Komodo Dragon" radio play.[:)] http://www.mindspring.com/~biohaz/komodo.txt -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Wednesday, December 7, 2005 4:06 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... So you're saying that a 1/4 inch thick aluminum skin riveted to an inside framework can 1.4 million pounds of force? Impressive if the vessel was large enough, but the strength of materials book will give you ratings in pounds per SQUARE INCH, the same as the measurement of air pressure. And I fail to see how the floor, reinforced to support the weight of the cargo or passengers would be weaker than the outside fuselage of the aircraft. You are confusing the engineering discipline "strength of materials" with "materials science". Material Science deals with the properties of the materials. Strength of Materials is all about how to calculate stress and strain in various objects - like cylinders, beams, floors, columns, etc. Getting out my Singer "Stength of Materials" book. Looking on p 20 to see how to calculate stress in a thin walled cylinder. If the cylinder was made of 1/4" thick aluminum, the hoop stress is only 2300 psi. Aluminum is good for better than 30,000 psi Working backward, you only need 0.019" thick aluminum to carry the hoop stresses from a 10 psi internal pressure. You COULD build an airplane where the area under the floor is not pressurized and the area above is, but you'd have to add so much structure to support the floor and distribute the load to the fuselage skin, that you'd significantly cut into your payload capacity. It's MUCH simpler, lighter and cheaper to just pressurize the whole cylinder - which is why airplanes are built that way! You COULD just take the word of a degreed Mechanical Engineer [:D] But of what value is it? As many times as I've been in the cockpit of an aircraft, I don't recall ever seeing a gauge marked "Hoop Pressure." Is this more of the info "never used outside the school?" Wrong again, reindeer breath! (with appolgies to Johny Carson) Why in the world would anyone measure the hoop, or circumfrential STRESS (not pressure - although the units are the same) in an aircraft fuselage? You DESIGN for it based on the internal pressure. This is really, really basic simple engineering - several hundred years old. It is used ALL OVER THE PLACE outside of "the school". Everything from the water pipes in your house to the brake pipe on a frt car use this stress calculation. It's often called "hoop" stress because of it's application in barrel making. You are either impossibly dense or just rattling my cage.... I feel like I'm stuck in the Bob and Ray "Komodo Dragon" radio play.[:)] http://www.mindspring.com/~biohaz/komodo.txt You seem to be impossibly inept at reading a question. What is the value of the 1.4 million pounds of force other than a exercise in mathmatics? Or trying to impress someone with insignificant numbers? Reference your quote: "10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load." Exactly how would the floor be taking that large of a load, which is far above the cargo capacity of most aircraft, even if it were a pressure bulkhead? A small puncture in the fuselage would cause the plane to explode with that much force inside. Something already disproven on "Mythbusters." Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, December 8, 2005 11:38 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... So you're saying that a 1/4 inch thick aluminum skin riveted to an inside framework can 1.4 million pounds of force? Impressive if the vessel was large enough, but the strength of materials book will give you ratings in pounds per SQUARE INCH, the same as the measurement of air pressure. And I fail to see how the floor, reinforced to support the weight of the cargo or passengers would be weaker than the outside fuselage of the aircraft. You are confusing the engineering discipline "strength of materials" with "materials science". Material Science deals with the properties of the materials. Strength of Materials is all about how to calculate stress and strain in various objects - like cylinders, beams, floors, columns, etc. Getting out my Singer "Stength of Materials" book. Looking on p 20 to see how to calculate stress in a thin walled cylinder. If the cylinder was made of 1/4" thick aluminum, the hoop stress is only 2300 psi. Aluminum is good for better than 30,000 psi Working backward, you only need 0.019" thick aluminum to carry the hoop stresses from a 10 psi internal pressure. You COULD build an airplane where the area under the floor is not pressurized and the area above is, but you'd have to add so much structure to support the floor and distribute the load to the fuselage skin, that you'd significantly cut into your payload capacity. It's MUCH simpler, lighter and cheaper to just pressurize the whole cylinder - which is why airplanes are built that way! You COULD just take the word of a degreed Mechanical Engineer [:D] But of what value is it? As many times as I've been in the cockpit of an aircraft, I don't recall ever seeing a gauge marked "Hoop Pressure." Is this more of the info "never used outside the school?" Wrong again, reindeer breath! (with appolgies to Johny Carson) Why in the world would anyone measure the hoop, or circumfrential STRESS (not pressure - although the units are the same) in an aircraft fuselage? You DESIGN for it based on the internal pressure. This is really, really basic simple engineering - several hundred years old. It is used ALL OVER THE PLACE outside of "the school". Everything from the water pipes in your house to the brake pipe on a frt car use this stress calculation. It's often called "hoop" stress because of it's application in barrel making. You are either impossibly dense or just rattling my cage.... I feel like I'm stuck in the Bob and Ray "Komodo Dragon" radio play.[:)] http://www.mindspring.com/~biohaz/komodo.txt You seem to be impossibly inept at reading a question. What is the value of the 1.4 million pounds of force other than a exercise in mathmatics? Or trying to impress someone with insignificant numbers? Reference your quote: "10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load." Exactly how would the floor be taking that large of a load, which is far above the cargo capacity of most aircraft, even if it were a pressure bulkhead? A small puncture in the fuselage would cause the plane to explode with that much force inside. Something already disproven on "Mythbusters." Did ever take any Physics anywhere? Even in High School? How about math? Algebra in 9th grade? What part of 10psi x 10' x100' x 144sqin/sqft = 1.4M# is so hard to grasp? (# is shorthand for "pounds of force") That's the load on the FLOOR! Do you think that the 10 psi might act on other surfaces of the fueslage? Which ones? What direction would that force act? How does that compare to the force on the floor? You need to know this stuff if you're going to be able to get your Webelos "Scientist" badge at next month's pack meeting[;)] http://www.usscouts.org/advance/cubscout/technology.html#Scientist Why aren't propane tanks square? Wouldn't it they be more space efficient? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, December 8, 2005 2:45 PM Sorry, but juvenile name calling and other insults lead me to believe that I'm reading a large measure of the BS factor rather than pertinent facts and figures. Taking math or physics in school was NOT the question, hence my statement that you can't read. I'm not disputing your mathmatics. The question WAS "what is the significance of the 1.4 million pound figure?" The pressure bulkhead, be it the fuselage or the floor, has to hold back 10 PSI of pressure differential between the inner and outer surfaces. Pulling a formula out of a physics book that yields a huge number might impress some, but I've seen the federal deficit, so "not impressed." The most juvenile remarks have been yours. I guess an intellegent, mature question is beyond your grasp. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, December 8, 2005 2:55 PM OK, I'll admit a cheap shot with the Cub Scout stuff! I'm not the only one who told you that passenger airliners are completely pressurized. You don't believe them either? Maybe I'm the only one stupid enough to argue with a fence post! (another cheap shot, I suppose, but at whom?) -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, December 8, 2005 3:53 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd OK, I'll admit a cheap shot with the Cub Scout stuff! I'm not the only one who told you that passenger airliners are completely pressurized. You don't believe them either? Maybe I'm the only one stupid enough to argue with a fence post! (another cheap shot, I suppose, but at whom?) And again you didn't read the question. I hope by the time you're old enough to take your SAT's you'll acquire that skill or the only career phrase you'll need is "Ya want fries with that?" I never said they weren't pressurized, I said it WASN'T NECESSARY to pressurize or heat them. The question was (now read this S-L-O-W-L-Y) "What is the significance of the 1.4 million pound figure that keep bringing up?" A pressure bulkhead, be it the floor or the fuselage walls, will have to hold back the pressure differential, no matter what the number is you wi***o assign to it. It's like me asking "What's two plus two?" and you keep answering "fish." Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, December 8, 2005 4:15 PM What I still don't understand is why anyone would ever name a level of Boy Scouting anything remotely sounding like "We Blow"??? Is there even a merit badge involving RRs anymore? LC Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, December 8, 2005 4:34 PM So what is is? Are aircraft cargo holds pressurized or not? Heated or not? If they are not and there is a great possibility that my wifes little "kick dog," will pari***hen count me in! I want to know which airline has the worst record of live freight arriving safely so I can purchase a ticket and send the peeing, biting, barking little sucker on a one way trip to his little maker. Bye Bye Bennie! Hehehehe Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, December 8, 2005 4:45 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear What I still don't understand is why anyone would ever name a level of Boy Scouting anything remotely sounding like "We Blow"??? Is there even a merit badge involving RRs anymore? LC Webelo (sp?) is a name for a sort of post-Cub Scout, pre-Boy Scout, a contraction of the words "We belong." Scouting does still have a Railroading merit badge. Steamtown runs a program to qualify Scouts for it. Check with a local RR club or museum to see if they offer a similar program. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, December 8, 2005 6:04 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear What I still don't understand is why anyone would ever name a level of Boy Scouting anything remotely sounding like "We Blow"??? Is there even a merit badge involving RRs anymore? LC Webelo (sp?) is a name for a sort of post-Cub Scout, pre-Boy Scout, a contraction of the words "We belong." Scouting does still have a Railroading merit badge. Steamtown runs a program to qualify Scouts for it. Check with a local RR club or museum to see if they offer a similar program. Tom - Thanks. Although its been a few decades I understand what a Webelos scout is. I even was one a long time ago... I still think it is a lousy name. As for the Merit badge, it's good to know they still offer it. LC Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Thursday, December 8, 2005 7:21 PM Speaking of Badges-and Awards. I have decided to ask Bergie to establish a Trains.com "Forum Topic Hijacking Award". Two members immediately come to mind as the first recipients. Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, December 8, 2005 9:21 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Speaking of Badges-and Awards. I have decided to ask Bergie to establish a Trains.com "Forum Topic Hijacking Award". Two members immediately come to mind as the first recipients. Jay Only TWO????? Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 9, 2005 8:14 AM How 'bout those Phillies! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 9, 2005 8:20 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd OK, I'll admit a cheap shot with the Cub Scout stuff! I'm not the only one who told you that passenger airliners are completely pressurized. You don't believe them either? Maybe I'm the only one stupid enough to argue with a fence post! (another cheap shot, I suppose, but at whom?) And again you didn't read the question. I hope by the time you're old enough to take your SAT's you'll acquire that skill or the only career phrase you'll need is "Ya want fries with that?" I never said they weren't pressurized, I said it WASN'T NECESSARY to pressurize or heat them. The question was (now read this S-L-O-W-L-Y) "What is the significance of the 1.4 million pound figure that keep bringing up?" A pressure bulkhead, be it the floor or the fuselage walls, will have to hold back the pressure differential, no matter what the number is you wi***o assign to it. It's like me asking "What's two plus two?" and you keep answering "fish." The 1.4M# figure is the load you'd have to design the floor for if you want it to be a pressurized bulkhead. There are NO commercial passenger airliners that have their floor as a pressurized bulkhead. If there are no planes with floor that can act as a pressurized bulkhead, then it is ALWAYS necessary to pressurize the cargo area. You COULD build a car with 7 wheels, too, but why would you? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 9, 2005 8:37 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear What I still don't understand is why anyone would ever name a level of Boy Scouting anything remotely sounding like "We Blow"??? Is there even a merit badge involving RRs anymore? LC Webelo (sp?) is a name for a sort of post-Cub Scout, pre-Boy Scout, a contraction of the words "We belong." Scouting does still have a Railroading merit badge. Steamtown runs a program to qualify Scouts for it. Check with a local RR club or museum to see if they offer a similar program. My Webelos book says "WE'll BE LOyal Scouts". It's the last 1-1/2 years of Cub Scouting. My 5th grader "graduates" this January - I can finally stop being a Den Mother! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 9, 2005 10:09 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd OK, I'll admit a cheap shot with the Cub Scout stuff! I'm not the only one who told you that passenger airliners are completely pressurized. You don't believe them either? Maybe I'm the only one stupid enough to argue with a fence post! (another cheap shot, I suppose, but at whom?) And again you didn't read the question. I hope by the time you're old enough to take your SAT's you'll acquire that skill or the only career phrase you'll need is "Ya want fries with that?" I never said they weren't pressurized, I said it WASN'T NECESSARY to pressurize or heat them. The question was (now read this S-L-O-W-L-Y) "What is the significance of the 1.4 million pound figure that keep bringing up?" A pressure bulkhead, be it the floor or the fuselage walls, will have to hold back the pressure differential, no matter what the number is you wi***o assign to it. It's like me asking "What's two plus two?" and you keep answering "fish." The 1.4M# figure is the load you'd have to design the floor for if you want it to be a pressurized bulkhead. There are NO commercial passenger airliners that have their floor as a pressurized bulkhead. If there are no planes with floor that can act as a pressurized bulkhead, then it is ALWAYS necessary to pressurize the cargo area. You COULD build a car with 7 wheels, too, but why would you? So back to the original question, why is the 1.4 million pound figure appliede to the floor when it's a pressurized bulkhead, and not applied to the fuselage walls when they are the pressurized bulkhead. The "necessity" I'm refering to is based on the contents of the compartment. Cargo doesn't need heat or pressurization any more than most boxcars or enclosed trailers need it. When you're hauling passengers, the need changes. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 9, 2005 10:13 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear What I still don't understand is why anyone would ever name a level of Boy Scouting anything remotely sounding like "We Blow"??? Is there even a merit badge involving RRs anymore? LC Webelo (sp?) is a name for a sort of post-Cub Scout, pre-Boy Scout, a contraction of the words "We belong." Scouting does still have a Railroading merit badge. Steamtown runs a program to qualify Scouts for it. Check with a local RR club or museum to see if they offer a similar program. My Webelos book says "WE'll BE LOyal Scouts". It's the last 1-1/2 years of Cub Scouting. My 5th grader "graduates" this January - I can finally stop being a Den Mother! I was doing that from memory. It's been a LOOONNNGGG time since my son was that age (he's 28 now). Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Friday, December 9, 2005 10:23 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd OK, I'll admit a cheap shot with the Cub Scout stuff! I'm not the only one who told you that passenger airliners are completely pressurized. You don't believe them either? Maybe I'm the only one stupid enough to argue with a fence post! (another cheap shot, I suppose, but at whom?) And again you didn't read the question. I hope by the time you're old enough to take your SAT's you'll acquire that skill or the only career phrase you'll need is "Ya want fries with that?" I never said they weren't pressurized, I said it WASN'T NECESSARY to pressurize or heat them. The question was (now read this S-L-O-W-L-Y) "What is the significance of the 1.4 million pound figure that keep bringing up?" A pressure bulkhead, be it the floor or the fuselage walls, will have to hold back the pressure differential, no matter what the number is you wi***o assign to it. It's like me asking "What's two plus two?" and you keep answering "fish." The 1.4M# figure is the load you'd have to design the floor for if you want it to be a pressurized bulkhead. There are NO commercial passenger airliners that have their floor as a pressurized bulkhead. If there are no planes with floor that can act as a pressurized bulkhead, then it is ALWAYS necessary to pressurize the cargo area. You COULD build a car with 7 wheels, too, but why would you? So back to the original question, why is the 1.4 million pound figure appliede to the floor when it's a pressurized bulkhead, and not applied to the fuselage walls when they are the pressurized bulkhead. The "necessity" I'm refering to is based on the contents of the compartment. Cargo doesn't need heat or pressurization any more than most boxcars or enclosed trailers need it. When you're hauling passengers, the need changes. Not really. What's the most a train or truck is going to see...sea level to maybe 6000 ft. Goods packaged under pressure..for example...air tight bags, plastic bottles, etc...will expand or contract with the altitude changes. I have seen potato chip bags burst at 6000' of cabin altitude. Add a rapid 60 degree temperature change (if it's not heated either), and we get more damage. Particularly liquids. Unless all you are hauling is books..you are going to have unhappy customers. And coming back down is equally destructive.....had a rapid loss of cabin pressuriztion at around FL180 in a descent. Never knew I had an abcess under a filling until in blew the filling and top of tooth off about two seconds after the pressure dipped. Dan So...I can not eat a Subway sandwich on a train, and on Tom's cold airline I would refrain, but not in Spain, nor in the rain, or to add to Jay's pain.... unless a merit badge I could attain. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 9, 2005 10:26 AM So, does this thread name change indicate that the Cub Scouts will now be serving the Subway sandwiches on Amtrak??? Perhaps we can pressurize a few planes with all this hot air?? How 'bout that Southwest crash at Midway? Ouch. Some bad driving there.... LC Reply Edit chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Friday, December 9, 2005 10:41 AM Or will the cub scouts be subsidizing pressurized Subway sandwiches on Amtrak?[:D] Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 9, 2005 11:04 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd OK, I'll admit a cheap shot with the Cub Scout stuff! I'm not the only one who told you that passenger airliners are completely pressurized. You don't believe them either? Maybe I'm the only one stupid enough to argue with a fence post! (another cheap shot, I suppose, but at whom?) And again you didn't read the question. I hope by the time you're old enough to take your SAT's you'll acquire that skill or the only career phrase you'll need is "Ya want fries with that?" I never said they weren't pressurized, I said it WASN'T NECESSARY to pressurize or heat them. The question was (now read this S-L-O-W-L-Y) "What is the significance of the 1.4 million pound figure that keep bringing up?" A pressure bulkhead, be it the floor or the fuselage walls, will have to hold back the pressure differential, no matter what the number is you wi***o assign to it. It's like me asking "What's two plus two?" and you keep answering "fish." The 1.4M# figure is the load you'd have to design the floor for if you want it to be a pressurized bulkhead. There are NO commercial passenger airliners that have their floor as a pressurized bulkhead. If there are no planes with floor that can act as a pressurized bulkhead, then it is ALWAYS necessary to pressurize the cargo area. You COULD build a car with 7 wheels, too, but why would you? So back to the original question, why is the 1.4 million pound figure appliede to the floor when it's a pressurized bulkhead, and not applied to the fuselage walls when they are the pressurized bulkhead. The "necessity" I'm refering to is based on the contents of the compartment. Cargo doesn't need heat or pressurization any more than most boxcars or enclosed trailers need it. When you're hauling passengers, the need changes. You DO have a large load on all the pressurized fuselage surfaces. The direction in which those forces act and how the forces are carried in the structure are the key. A cylinder is a very efficient design to pressurize. A rectangle is not. It's why all pressure vessels are cylindrical or spherical. It's not that they COULDN'T be other shapes. It's just the cost and structural complexity aren't justified. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply tree68 Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Northern New York 25,015 posts Posted by tree68 on Friday, December 9, 2005 11:05 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas Or will the cub scouts be subsidizing pressurized Subway sandwiches on Amtrak?[:D] How about if the Cub Scouts sell the Subway sandwiches on the trains...[:D] 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... Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Friday, December 9, 2005 11:08 AM BEERGIEEEE!!! NOW HARMON IS CHANNELING SEUSS!!! "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 9, 2005 11:10 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear So, does this thread name change indicate that the Cub Scouts will now be serving the Subway sandwiches on Amtrak??? Perhaps we can pressurize a few planes with all this hot air?? How 'bout that Southwest crash at Midway? Ouch. Some bad driving there.... LC I think it's the Cub Scouts that are pressurized, but I'm no longer sure. I think that SW flight missed the arresting wire. Midway is a scary place to fly in and out of in good weather. It's shoehorned into a residential area - a big square with the runways on the diagonals. I think it was built for DC3s with runways just barely long enough for small jets. A few more feet an the plane might have been in someone's living room (non pressurized, of course) Now, did you know that there were some early attempts to propel subway cars using air pressure (pneumatic tubes)? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 9, 2005 11:33 AM Now THAT'S how to hijack a post. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 9, 2005 11:37 AM Could you pressurize a plane? Could you pressurize a train? Have you pressurized my brain? Or stress relieved this sad refrain? Subway food just isn't safe. It makes the union collar chafe. You need us, 'case the terrorists strafe and with no job, a homeless waif. If they serve you at your seat, They won't ask you "white or wheat" and they'll have to store it in the heat. 'Coz if it's frozen, that ain't sweet. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Mookie Member sinceJune 2001 From: US 13,488 posts Posted by Mookie on Friday, December 9, 2005 12:44 PM Dan - since we are hijacking topics - is San Diego still a thrill to fly into? Over the parking garage? Moo She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Friday, December 9, 2005 12:53 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie Dan - since we are hijacking topics - is San Diego still a thrill to fly into? Over the parking garage? Moo Yeah baby! Nothing like peeping into the condo bedroom windows on final.......The big thing now is that the county wants the Marines to give up Miramar or allow it for joint civil / military use.....which doesn't work real well. What they proponents won't say is that ..yeah they want the airport, but they really want the upteen thousand acres of undeveloped government property surrounding it....which gives the locals an unrealistic sense of how quiet it is.....to exploit. It's the California way...I'm too stupid to do it right from the beginning..so I'm going to take what someone else has. I'm beginning to feel a little pressurization in my caboose from the Subway sandwich I just ate....I may need to step outside before Weeblow Dan Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 9, 2005 4:31 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie Dan - since we are hijacking topics - is San Diego still a thrill to fly into? Over the parking garage? Moo Yeah baby! Nothing like peeping into the condo bedroom windows on final.......The big thing now is that the county wants the Marines to give up Miramar or allow it for joint civil / military use.....which doesn't work real well. What they proponents won't say is that ..yeah they want the airport, but they really want the upteen thousand acres of undeveloped government property surrounding it....which gives the locals an unrealistic sense of how quiet it is.....to exploit. It's the California way...I'm too stupid to do it right from the beginning..so I'm going to take what someone else has. I'm beginning to feel a little pressurization in my caboose from the Subway sandwich I just ate....I may need to step outside before Weeblow Dan Brutha, Ahhh feeel YO pain... LC Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 9, 2005 11:13 PM Well, whoever changed the title of the post, I think you just took away all the people's qualifications for the "Post Hijacking" merit badge. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Friday, December 9, 2005 11:17 PM Say Tom...... For our departed friend from Idaho.....couldn't we make a new scout rank....the coveted SABeloh? Dan Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 9, 2005 11:49 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon Say Tom...... For our departed friend from Idaho.....couldn't we make a new scout rank....the coveted SABeloh? Dan What's the Boy Scout Headquarters address? Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply 12345 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by Dutchrailnut One can blame Union all they want, its Amtrak breaking the Labor contract. If you got a labor contract that is valid for X amount of years it can not be broken by bringing in outside sources. The Railway labor act specificaly states no changes in contract and no section six notices till 6 months before contract expires. If no new contract is signed a status quo holds the old contract as governing document. Amtrak was about to be getting a rude awakening, not by union workers but by courts for having managers with no brains. See: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode45/usc_sup_01_45_10_8_20_I.html
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Union work rules have long been a barrier to productivity improvements in railroads as well as other unionized industries. There have been some improvments at Amtrak and there have been reductions in crew sizes on Amtrak trains. The dining cars have 5 person crews, 2 kitchen and 3 serving. As I watch these crews work, I do not believe that the "full service" diner could be run with less people and still have a reasonable level of service. The lounge cars offer just about what you might find in convenience stores: Beverages, snack items, cold sandwhiches and hot sandwhiches, soup, pizza and some other microwaveable items. One person runs this service. Beside prep and serving, that person is manager, stocker, cashier and clean-up person. The lounge attendant (and dining crew) will report to work an hour or two before train departure. Enroute the lounge will open at 6am and close at midnight and is closed for short periods while the attendant takes meal breaks. The dining crew, lounge and car attendants are not subject to the hours of service laws, and work a train from initial terminal to final destination. I don't know what the pay rates are, but I guarantee you that the minimum wage is NOT going to attract people who are willing to work the hours and have the away from home schedule required by these jobs. By the way, it occured to me that an additional possible reason for stopping of the pilot project may be the terms of the contract with the outside company that runs the commissary service for Amtrak. It has been criticized as a bad deal for Amtrak. Question not answered: Does this contract grant the outside company the exclusive Amtrak system wide right to do the food, beverage and supply acquisition and storage function? Jay
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd If the line is long in the cafe car and the conductor is just hanging out waiting for the next stop, he should lend a hand.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Don Your ideas are worthy of consideration, and it is likly that many have been considered. I wouldn't automaticly dismiss the idea that educated, trained and experienced motel, hotel and restaurant industry people have been involved in decision making process for Amtrak's food and sleeper service. I will suggest a couple of things for your consideration. Hotels, motels and restaurants don't move. Vending machines were tried many years ago by the SP. They didn't work. If you want to set up districts so Amtrak onboard service personnel don't work through, you have to deal with away from home layovers and the possibility of a crew member not being available at a district point. I'll bet that Amtrak would actually prefer to have T&E employees work through. I have seen lounge, dining and car attendants do at least a little work exchange. One small example is the delivery of dining car meals to sleeping car passengers at their rooms as worked performed by other than the dining car servers. You may be able to handle a tray of food on a train moving at 80MPH on less than top grade track, but that is not something everybody can do. "Oh gee, I am really sorry about dumping my supper in your lap." "Not to worry, I expect that to happen when I ride on trains." Service from a restaurant next to the depot? Guess how this announcement files. "Due to the delay caused by the BNSF frieght train dinner will be served when we arrive at Timbucto at 11pm. Thankyou for your patience." By the way, Gunn acknowledged that there were problems with the commisary contract that he inherited, and would have probably moved to make it more favorable to Amtrak. Furthermore, food service has been reduced or eliminated where it appeared that the cost did not seem to be justified by the impact it would have on ridership. Sad to say (for me), I think that Amtrak will now move to take off more of the dining service. Could be an excellent businees oppurtunity for someone. A cheap fixed facility if you don't count the cost of handicap access equipment. Jay
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Messing with air hoses is probably more sanitary than going to the bathroom - but we let food service employees do that. Soap, water and a smock and the trainman is good to go in the cafe car. Besides, how often does an Amtrak conductor have to mess with the undercar equipment? Training? McDonalds serves food. How hard can the training be?
QUOTE: Originally posted by PigFarmer1 Originally posted by Limitedclear There has been speculation in the press that issues may have arisen with the Amtrak union for the onboard crews who have lost their jobs when Amtrak cut food service on the Renssalaer based crews. Presumably objections have been raised to non-union Subway employees providing food service on those trains. See this article from the Albany Times Union for example: http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=15037 LC As someone who has no intentions of ever riding Amtrak again after so many experiences with terrible "service" let me ask this question: Were Amtrak kitchen employees ever put out by having to operate can openers in order to serve the Franco American spaghetti slop that they supposedly cooked onboard the train??? Food for thought (NO pun intended). Some of the worst food I've ver eaten was consumed on Amtrak. Seems to me that Subway would be a big step up from the culinary garbagr normally served by Amtrak. Unfortunately the link here is word-for-word of the one in the original post, although different sources. Pigfarmer, I don't know what Amtrak trains you have eaten on, but in my experience (August of this year), the food in the Dining Car on a long distance train can easily rival the best restaurants. The food is prepared on board, unlike an airline where you get a newer version of a TV dinner. And usually not as good as the Swanson version. The Subway contract was to place a rudimentary food service on the shorter distance trains. New York City to Albany is about 2-1/2 hours. I believe that Amtrak had recently dropped the Cafe car (still better than airline food) on these routes and wanted something to replace it for the convenience of the passengers without the financial loss to the company. I believe there's still more to the story. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 4:26 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Dutchrailnut One can blame Union all they want, its Amtrak breaking the Labor contract. If you got a labor contract that is valid for X amount of years it can not be broken by bringing in outside sources. The Railway labor act specificaly states no changes in contract and no section six notices till 6 months before contract expires. If no new contract is signed a status quo holds the old contract as governing document. Amtrak was about to be getting a rude awakening, not by union workers but by courts for having managers with no brains. See: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode45/usc_sup_01_45_10_8_20_I.html At the risk of sounding lawyerly...lol... The Railway labor Act does not provide for a six month period for notices it actually provides for only "at least thirty days written notice". Here is the full text of the section known as "Section 6", which is actually Section 156 of the Act: <<< § 156. Procedure in changing rates of pay, rules, and working conditions Release date: 2005-03-01 Carriers and representatives of the employees shall give at least thirty days’ written notice of an intended change in agreements affecting rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, and the time and place for the beginning of conference between the representatives of the parties interested in such intended changes shall be agreed upon within ten days after the receipt of said notice, and said time shall be within the thirty days provided in the notice. In every case where such notice of intended change has been given, or conferences are being held with reference thereto, or the services of the Mediation Board have been requested by either party, or said Board has proffered its services, rates of pay, rules, or working conditions shall not be altered by the carrier until the controversy has been finally acted upon, as required by section 155 of this title, by the Mediation Board, unless a period of ten days has elapsed after termination of conferences without request for or proffer of the services of the Mediation Board. >>> If in fact the Amtrak union agreements call for six months notice this might be contained in the agreement itself, but not in the Railway labor Act. LC Reply Edit Randy Stahl Member sinceJune 2004 From: roundhouse 2,747 posts Posted by Randy Stahl on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 5:07 PM I'll bet if Hooters was in the mix there would be very little opposition . If not subway ......HOOTERS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 9:24 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl I'll bet if Hooters was in the mix there would be very little opposition . If not subway ......HOOTERS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now that would be real reform....EMAIL AMTRAK CHAIRMAN LANEY!!!! "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 9:40 PM Here's the rest of the union story. Union opposes Subway food service on trains (The following article by eric Anderson was posted on the Albany Times Union website on November 30.) RENSSELAER, N.Y. -- A leafleting campaign by unionized Amtrak workers apparently brought a quick end to an effort by Subway to offer onboard food service. Subway stopped providing food on trains running exclusively between Rensselaer and New York City last week, six days into a four-month pilot project. On Tuesday, one of the Subway franchisees providing the service, Bob Hurley, said he'd like to resume food service on the trains. But a union official, Gary Maslanka, said his members remain opposed to the project. Amtrak ended its own food service on trains originating or terminating in Rensselaer last July. An Amtrak spokesman at the time said the move would save $1 million a year. Sixteen unionized members were affected, but most were offered other positions within Amtrak. Union officials argued their members had qualifications -- training in safety and security issues -- that went beyond food service, and they were there to help out in an emergency. "There is no comparison between well-paid, well-trained" Amtrak employees and the Subway workers who replaced them, said Maslanka, chairman of the Amtrak Service Workers Council and director of the railroad division for the Transport Workers Union. "We are definitely opposed to Subway workers providing service that our members have provided for years. "It's a step in the wrong direction," he added. Amtrak announced the pilot program earlier this month as a way to restore some food service while at the same time not incurring additional losses for the railroad. Subway's Hurley declined to talk about the specific reasons his franchise ended its service on the trains. He said, however, that he was happy with the reception received from passengers. "We're just trying to work through things," he said. "We went in hoping this would be a long-term commitment." Under the Amtrak deal, Subway paid the passenger railroad a portion of its proceeds. Subway used Amtrak's cafe cars, and a worker went through the coaches delivering food to travelers. One Los Angeles resident, who e-mailed the Times Union saying he was aboard a northbound train last week when the leafleting took place, said he was charged $2 for a bottle of water, even though he was in business class, where beverages previously had been free. He also said passengers received two leaflets, one that said the Subway service was taking away union jobs, and the other saying the service was creating a safety issue for passengers. From BLET Site Reply Edit RudyRockvilleMD Member sinceSeptember 2001 From: US 1,015 posts Posted by RudyRockvilleMD on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 9:45 PM I personally experienced the food vending machine on the SP's Daylight in the 1960's. The vending machine was located in a lounge car. The passenger was supposed to be able to deposit money in the vending machine, and get the meal. But the machine didn't work so you had to give the attendant money, and he unlocked the machine to allow you t get the meal. Why would a short trip like New York - Albany need a cafe car?. A refreshment cart or trolley would be all that would be needed. They use refreshment carts frequently on trains with short runs in Great Britain and Europe. Granted the cart may not have as great a variety in food or sandwiches as you might find in a cafe car. I agree with Randy Stahl !!!!! Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 11:37 PM I am not surprised that the Union would be opposed to out sourcing. There doesn't seem to have been a certain threat of job action, but I don't think the that the union has to inform the public if such action is on their mind. Could be that the union informed management that a strike would be on the table, but I wonder if that is actually the governing issue. Amtrak Chairman Laney's comment to Trains Magazine Bob Johnston that the project is under review sure doesn't say much. As I said when I started this topic, REFORM doesn't come easy. If there is a person at Amtrak who thought this pilot project could go with out ANY protest by the Union, we can say for certain that we have found someone that fell off the turnip truck just yesterday. Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 11:45 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by RudyRockvilleMD I personally experienced the food vending machine on the SP's Daylight in the 1960's. The vending machine was located in a lounge car. The passenger was supposed to be able to deposit money in the vending machine, and get the meal. But the machine didn't work so you had to give the attendant money, and he unlocked the machine to allow you t get the meal. Why would a short trip like New York - Albany need a cafe car?. A refreshment cart or trolley would be all that would be needed. They use refreshment carts frequently on trains with short runs in Great Britain and Europe. Granted the cart may not have as great a variety in food or sandwiches as you might find in a cafe car. I agree with Randy Stahl !!!!! I think that Amtrak's decision to pull the lounge car service on these trains is fairly indicative that the service had little or no impact on ridership. If such is the case, why even bother with a cart. Riders can easily do what commuters will do. Grab something to go. On the other hand, if Subway or anybody else can make a profit providing a service on a short run train like this, well go for it. As I've said, it is just not going to be as easy as one might think. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, December 1, 2005 6:24 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton QUOTE: Originally posted by RudyRockvilleMD I personally experienced the food vending machine on the SP's Daylight in the 1960's. The vending machine was located in a lounge car. The passenger was supposed to be able to deposit money in the vending machine, and get the meal. But the machine didn't work so you had to give the attendant money, and he unlocked the machine to allow you t get the meal. Why would a short trip like New York - Albany need a cafe car?. A refreshment cart or trolley would be all that would be needed. They use refreshment carts frequently on trains with short runs in Great Britain and Europe. Granted the cart may not have as great a variety in food or sandwiches as you might find in a cafe car. I agree with Randy Stahl !!!!! I think that Amtrak's decision to pull the lounge car service on these trains is fairly indicative that the service had little or no impact on ridership. If such is the case, why even bother with a cart. Riders can easily do what commuters will do. Grab something to go. On the other hand, if Subway or anybody else can make a profit providing a service on a short run train like this, well go for it. As I've said, it is just not going to be as easy as one might think. Not just that, but there's always reports that food service on the trains costs more than it makes. Subway was supposed to return a percentage of the receipts to Amtrak for the use of the train facilities. It may have been a small amount, but at least it would be on the positive side of the equation. The main union fear is that this will be a "foot in the door" for contracting out the food (and other) services on more of the trains. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, December 1, 2005 7:32 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton QUOTE: Originally posted by RudyRockvilleMD I personally experienced the food vending machine on the SP's Daylight in the 1960's. The vending machine was located in a lounge car. The passenger was supposed to be able to deposit money in the vending machine, and get the meal. But the machine didn't work so you had to give the attendant money, and he unlocked the machine to allow you t get the meal. Why would a short trip like New York - Albany need a cafe car?. A refreshment cart or trolley would be all that would be needed. They use refreshment carts frequently on trains with short runs in Great Britain and Europe. Granted the cart may not have as great a variety in food or sandwiches as you might find in a cafe car. I agree with Randy Stahl !!!!! I think that Amtrak's decision to pull the lounge car service on these trains is fairly indicative that the service had little or no impact on ridership. If such is the case, why even bother with a cart. Riders can easily do what commuters will do. Grab something to go. On the other hand, if Subway or anybody else can make a profit providing a service on a short run train like this, well go for it. As I've said, it is just not going to be as easy as one might think. I agree it won't be easy - or simple - or painless. But, Amtrak HAS to greatly improve labor productivity if there is going to be a chance of saving the LD trains with sleeper and food service. You simply can't have a 10 car LD train with 150 passengers on board at any one time and a crew of 12. That just won't work. The status-quo is a non-starter. Amtrak's labor productivity is horrendous. They HAVE reduced payroll by 5000 (about 20%) in the past couple of years w/o cutting service 20% - in fact, they are carrying MORE passengers. So, what was the "value added" of those 5000? But, the payroll is still 2/3 of what NS's is when NS runs 5x more trains per day and maintains 10x more locomtives and 1000x more track miles than Amtrak. I can't think of a single basic industry that hasn't greatly increased labor productivity (or gone away) since the 1960s. So, how about figuring out how to run the LD trains with a crew of 6, for starters. Engineer, Conductor, one or two trainmen, and...... -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, December 1, 2005 9:48 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd But, the payroll is still 2/3 of what NS's is when NS runs 5x more trains per day and maintains 10x more locomtives and 1000x more track miles than Amtrak. I can't think of a single basic industry that hasn't greatly increased labor productivity (or gone away) since the 1960s. So, how about figuring out how to run the LD trains with a crew of 6, for starters. Engineer, Conductor, one or two trainmen, and...... That might be a valid comparison and work if the passengers didn't mind being packed into a boxcar with no food, bathrooms, or even windows. The 60's would be a bad point of reference, at that point in history, most railroads had cut back services on passenger trains in an effort to kill them off. I'm not sure how big the actual train crew is on an Amtrak train, but I doubt if it's more than 6 people. I've only ever seen the engineer and conductor. Most are the "hotel staff" type jobs. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply edbenton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Back home on the Chi to KC racetrack 2,011 posts Posted by edbenton on Thursday, December 1, 2005 10:13 AM When I drove truck I lost 7 hours waiting for a Laborer to move a drum out of the way so I could get loaded. It was empty so I could have moved it I went to move it out of the way and the fork lift driver goes not your job to move it. I asked him to move it he goes not my job. So I waited and waited the person was paged ime and time agin finally he showed up I asked him were he had been he goes on my break. I lost it I said you have been on a F###### break for 7 hours, he goes no I also had to go to the bathroom I called his supervisor over and went well I hope your company enjoys that 4 grand in detiontion time and the fact he just shut the plant down at the other end for 4 hours and the fine they will give you. The supervisor fird the guy on the spot and then his union rep comes up and said I am filing a grevience agansit the company to get his job back. I had to testify at it and needless to say the laborer lost his job. I alone got 2 grand of the detition time pay. The company was fined 75 grand for shutting down the plant and 4 grand in detition time all because I was not allowed to move a empty drum. Always at war with those that think OTR trucking is EASY. Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, December 1, 2005 11:45 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd But, the payroll is still 2/3 of what NS's is when NS runs 5x more trains per day and maintains 10x more locomtives and 1000x more track miles than Amtrak. I can't think of a single basic industry that hasn't greatly increased labor productivity (or gone away) since the 1960s. So, how about figuring out how to run the LD trains with a crew of 6, for starters. Engineer, Conductor, one or two trainmen, and...... That might be a valid comparison and work if the passengers didn't mind being packed into a boxcar with no food, bathrooms, or even windows. The 60's would be a bad point of reference, at that point in history, most railroads had cut back services on passenger trains in an effort to kill them off. I'm not sure how big the actual train crew is on an Amtrak train, but I doubt if it's more than 6 people. I've only ever seen the engineer and conductor. Most are the "hotel staff" type jobs. By "crew" I meant all the Amtrak employees incl. car attendants, etc. I think your typical 10 car LD train will have an engineer, conductor, one or two trainmen, 3-5 dining car staff, one lounge car attendant, one attendant per sleeper and one attendant for every two coaches. For the Crescent, that would yield a count of 11 or 12. And, I'll allow my comparison between NS and Amtrak isn't entirely fair, but 19,000 employees to run a measly 300 trains a day! And, my comparison isn't as far out as it seems. Amtrak is a $2B company, NS is a $7B company. A locomotive is a locomotive. Amtrak's do about double the mileage per year per loco as NS, but HP-hrs are the same. NS has about 200,000 frt cars on line at any point in time to take car of. Amtrak has about 2000 pass cars. Even if a pass car requires the same maint as a locomotive, NS still has more locos than Amtrak has locos + cars. NS has about 30,000 miles of track to take car of vs. 1500 or so for Amtrak. Amtrak has resevations and ticketing, but NS has customer service, waybilling and revenue accouting. Call it a wash. Both have puchasing, but NS buys more stuff. Both have all the other regular G&A depts, Law, Accounting, etc. - call it a wash. NS puts a two man crew on each of it's trains. Amtrak may have 3 or 4. But far, far, fewer trains. If NS were run the way frt RRs were run in the 1960s, they'd have 50-60,000 employees, not the <30,000 on the payroll today. Amtrak has never had the incentive to get more productive. So, running trains 1971-style is still "in". As you point out, the RRs did little in the 1960s with passenger service, so what you really have is 1950's style railroading. The "cures" for this put out by the Fed DOT are really pretty silly, but the point being made isn't completely invalid. There are a couple of nice articles in Railway age about Amtrak. this month, but they're not available on line. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, December 1, 2005 12:06 PM You might as well compare trucks to busses. They haul a totally different type of payload. If you're comparing train crews, the ones that are specific to the passenger operation have no equivalent on a freight train, therefore, no basis for comparison. True, a locomotive is a locomotive, and requires periodic service and repair regardless of the horsepower. A 500 HP diesel will require the same number of oil changes, lubrications, inspections, etc, as a 5000 HP one will. Amtrak is a $2 Billion company compared to a $7 Billion company doing completely different jobs. The only similarity is they both run on rails. Under Gunn, the rules were changing for the better, and he did have an incentive to get more productive. The protective rules he had to work against greatly slowed the progress on this front. Since Amtrak IS passenger railroading in the US, there really isn't anything else to compare it to. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Thursday, December 1, 2005 2:37 PM Don If you want you can go on from now until the end of time, but you are still comparing apples to oranges, or in this case, freight cars to passenger cars. You are also making some very grand assumptions using total head count of a freight railroad to a passenger railroad. About the only thing they have in common if 4' 8 1/2" . I might point out that the short distance trains run with a total of three crew, 4 if there is food and beverage service. If you want to call a long distance service without diner, sleepers, check baggage, and lounge efficient, be my guest. If you think all of the cost reduction will automaticly transmit to the bottom line, just hang on for a few years and see how it works out. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Thursday, December 1, 2005 2:55 PM When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, December 1, 2005 8:23 PM Mongollian BBQ - you get in line, scoop/fork/ladle your own prefered collectoin of meats/veggies/condiments into your bowl, then take it to the chef(s) to be stir-fried. The staff is for the most part stationary, it is the customers who walk from table to buffet and back to table. Or basically any kind of buffet would work for passenger rail. Those who choose not to self serve or who cannot due to physical limitations can have the cortege serve them. Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, December 1, 2005 10:00 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Mongollian BBQ - you get in line, scoop/fork/ladle your own prefered collectoin of meats/veggies/condiments into your bowl, then take it to the chef(s) to be stir-fried. You mean like the one barbarian in the Capitol One commercial? LMAO Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply greyhounds Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Antioch, IL 4,371 posts Posted by greyhounds on Thursday, December 1, 2005 10:06 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Just don't expect other people to pay for your long distance train travel. "By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that. Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 2, 2005 5:57 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Just don't expect other people to pay for your long distance train travel. ....any more than they pay for your long distance air travel. We don't need no stinkin' air traffic controllers or airports. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 2, 2005 6:29 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl You might as well compare trucks to busses. They haul a totally different type of payload. If you're comparing train crews, the ones that are specific to the passenger operation have no equivalent on a freight train, therefore, no basis for comparison. True, a locomotive is a locomotive, and requires periodic service and repair regardless of the horsepower. A 500 HP diesel will require the same number of oil changes, lubrications, inspections, etc, as a 5000 HP one will. Amtrak is a $2 Billion company compared to a $7 Billion company doing completely different jobs. The only similarity is they both run on rails. Under Gunn, the rules were changing for the better, and he did have an incentive to get more productive. The protective rules he had to work against greatly slowed the progress on this front. Since Amtrak IS passenger railroading in the US, there really isn't anything else to compare it to. Passenger and frt RRing are not as much "apples" and "oranges" as you might think! Track is track. Signals are signals (even when you spec out and build your one-of-a-kind, totally bizzare ARES system). Locomotives are locomotives. Engineers are engineers. Conductors are conductors (in uniform or not). 79 mph really isn't much different from 60 or 70 mph. The main difference is that passenger cars are not freight cars. Passengers require climate control. Only some frt does (think reefers). Climate control equipment is less expensive and complicated than propulsion equipment on a locomotive. Passengers are less tolerant of vibration, shock and noise, so cars require more elaborate suspension - very much like a locomotive. And, they need water and "sewer". So, for the sake of arguement, we'll assume passenger cars are locomotives. (so Amtrak has 2500 "locomotives" versus 3000 locomotives and 200,000 frt cars for NS) The $7B vs $2B is EXACTLY the point! If it takes 19,000 employees to gather in $2B in "revenue" (in Amtrak's case its &1.5B revenue + $0.5B subsidy) versus 30,000 to gather in $7B on NS, then somethings amiss at Amtrak. That's only $80,000 per employee for Amtrak. A 500 HP high speed diesel engine and a 4000 HP med. speed diesel engine much more dissimilar that a P42 and a C44-9 - which are darn near the same locomotive in many, many respects. The duty isn't even all that terribly different. You have to do trucks and wheels on the P42s about twice as often, but the HP-hrs are about the same, so maint costs and overhaul costs are very similar. (I'll trade you the HEP for the two traction motors) But, passengers make their own connections (by foot) and do the "last mile" pick up and delivery by themselves. No pesky hump yards to pay for or expensive locals to operate for Amtrak. At least you admit there is room to go on the productivity front - the barriers being institutional, not physical or technological. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 2, 2005 8:49 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd The $7B vs $2B is EXACTLY the point! If it takes 19,000 employees to gather in $2B in "revenue" (in Amtrak's case its &1.5B revenue + $0.5B subsidy) versus 30,000 to gather in $7B on NS, then somethings amiss at Amtrak. That's only $80,000 per employee for Amtrak. To take this to a ridiculous conclusion, all industry that has a low return on investment should go out of business. Railroads probably have the worst. Freight and passenger railroads are different like passenger and cargo airlines are different. How many stewardesses are on a FedEx plane? Does the cabin need to be climate controlled, or even pressurized? Try making that distinction an option on passenger flights. Sorry, still not convinced that you're not comparing apples to oranges. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 2, 2005 9:01 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Passenger and frt RRing are not as much "apples" and "oranges" as you might think! Track is track. Signals are signals (even when you spec out and build your one-of-a-kind, totally bizzare ARES system). Locomotives are locomotives. Engineers are engineers. Conductors are conductors (in uniform or not). 79 mph really isn't much different from 60 or 70 mph. The main difference is that passenger cars are not freight cars. Passengers require climate control. Only some frt does (think reefers). Climate control equipment is less expensive and complicated than propulsion equipment on a locomotive. Passengers are less tolerant of vibration, shock and noise, so cars require more elaborate suspension - very much like a locomotive. And, they need water and "sewer". So, for the sake of arguement, we'll assume passenger cars are locomotives. (so Amtrak has 2500 "locomotives" versus 3000 locomotives and 200,000 frt cars for NS) The $7B vs $2B is EXACTLY the point! If it takes 19,000 employees to gather in $2B in "revenue" (in Amtrak's case its &1.5B revenue + $0.5B subsidy) versus 30,000 to gather in $7B on NS, then somethings amiss at Amtrak. That's only $80,000 per employee for Amtrak. A 500 HP high speed diesel engine and a 4000 HP med. speed diesel engine much more dissimilar that a P42 and a C44-9 - which are darn near the same locomotive in many, many respects. The duty isn't even all that terribly different. You have to do trucks and wheels on the P42s about twice as often, but the HP-hrs are about the same, so maint costs and overhaul costs are very similar. (I'll trade you the HEP for the two traction motors) But, passengers make their own connections (by foot) and do the "last mile" pick up and delivery by themselves. No pesky hump yards to pay for or expensive locals to operate for Amtrak. At least you admit there is room to go on the productivity front - the barriers being institutional, not physical or technological. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Without breaking out the costs and personnel for maintenance and operation of locomotives, rail operation crews (te equivalent of freight trains, not dedicated to passenger operation), track maintenance and rental fees, and the cost of the passenger related crews and cars, the comparison is still apples to oranges. For example, it costs more to ship a ton of frozen food than it does to ship a ton of coal. Why? Car costs are cheaper. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply edbenton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Back home on the Chi to KC racetrack 2,011 posts Posted by edbenton on Friday, December 2, 2005 9:55 AM Also coal does not care if it gets wet a load of frozen food god help you if it does. Always at war with those that think OTR trucking is EASY. Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 2, 2005 10:43 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Don If you want you can go on from now until the end of time, but you are still comparing apples to oranges, or in this case, freight cars to passenger cars. You are also making some very grand assumptions using total head count of a freight railroad to a passenger railroad. About the only thing they have in common if 4' 8 1/2" . I might point out that the short distance trains run with a total of three crew, 4 if there is food and beverage service. If you want to call a long distance service without diner, sleepers, check baggage, and lounge efficient, be my guest. If you think all of the cost reduction will automaticly transmit to the bottom line, just hang on for a few years and see how it works out. I'm not saying "just do it". I'm saying "consider it and all other options". Amtrak is doing hte same things the same way things were done in 1950. The rest of the world has moved on. It's time for Amtrak to catch up. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply tree68 Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Northern New York 25,015 posts Posted by tree68 on Friday, December 2, 2005 10:49 AM Sounds to me like Amtrak is trying to catch up, but some people keep getting in the way... 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... Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Friday, December 2, 2005 10:53 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Just don't expect other people to pay for your long distance train travel. ....any more than they pay for your long distance air travel. We don't need no stinkin' air traffic controllers or airports. The airports and FAA argument doesn't fly ...so to speak. Airports are primarly local or regional concerns, benefitting the customer the local user.....and paid for by them through bond issues and such. FAA and ATC is nothing more than roads and traffic lights for planes. Road are paid for by taxes....so are the ones in the air.....and even if you don't fly....if you get mail...you are a customer of ATC, FEDEX, DHL....yep, UPS...sometimes...A whole host of items fly as cargo that you might not think of. Gov't support of Amtrak vs. infrastructure support to airlines is a non-argument.... I'd say In-N -Out should replace Subway...that would really improve ridership...shorter lines on the train than the local drive thru's.... Reply tree68 Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Northern New York 25,015 posts Posted by tree68 on Friday, December 2, 2005 10:55 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon I'd say In-N -Out should replace Subway...that would really improve ridership...shorter lines on the train than the local drive thru's.... Build the drive-throughs next to the tracks, have customers call in orders, then stop pick them up? [:p] 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... Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Friday, December 2, 2005 10:57 AM I would say if not Subway, How about Tommys burger. But then they might have to add bathroom capacity.[:D] Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Friday, December 2, 2005 10:57 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68 QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon I'd say In-N -Out should replace Subway...that would really improve ridership...shorter lines on the train than the local drive thru's.... Build the drive-throughs next to the tracks, have customers call in orders, then stop pick them up? [:p] Better yet....use train order hoops to hold the bags and have them grab them on the fly.....might be hard on the shakes though..............[:0] Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 2, 2005 11:17 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd The $7B vs $2B is EXACTLY the point! If it takes 19,000 employees to gather in $2B in "revenue" (in Amtrak's case its &1.5B revenue + $0.5B subsidy) versus 30,000 to gather in $7B on NS, then somethings amiss at Amtrak. That's only $80,000 per employee for Amtrak. To take this to a ridiculous conclusion, all industry that has a low return on investment should go out of business. Railroads probably have the worst. Freight and passenger railroads are different like passenger and cargo airlines are different. How many stewardesses are on a FedEx plane? Does the cabin need to be climate controlled, or even pressurized? Try making that distinction an option on passenger flights. Sorry, still not convinced that you're not comparing apples to oranges. All industry with a low return on EQUITY, over the long term, does go out of business. Have you seen Pan Am, TWA or Eastern around lately? Packard? WebVan? Univac? ALCo? Sometimes, we subsidize things to skew the market to achieve agreed upon goals. Amtrak is an example of this, although I'd argue we never agreed upon any goals or mission. I think you are missing my point, though. If Amtrak's numbers were somewhat out of line with the frt carriers, you could explain it away with "that's the difference between pass and frt". But , they are WAY, WAY, WAY out of line. Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 2, 2005 11:28 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. dd Your expectations might not be realistic. You could expect to have trans-Atlantic steamship service at 3x airfare, too, but there is none. Have you ever ridden a dinner train were the food was delivered from a local restaurant (like on the Strassburg RR)? Why not something similar on Amtrak? If the alternative was 5x airfare and have a car attendant or 3x airfare with no attendant or stay home or fly or drive, which would you choose? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 2, 2005 11:34 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Passenger and frt RRing are not as much "apples" and "oranges" as you might think! Track is track. Signals are signals (even when you spec out and build your one-of-a-kind, totally bizzare ARES system). Locomotives are locomotives. Engineers are engineers. Conductors are conductors (in uniform or not). 79 mph really isn't much different from 60 or 70 mph. The main difference is that passenger cars are not freight cars. Passengers require climate control. Only some frt does (think reefers). Climate control equipment is less expensive and complicated than propulsion equipment on a locomotive. Passengers are less tolerant of vibration, shock and noise, so cars require more elaborate suspension - very much like a locomotive. And, they need water and "sewer". So, for the sake of arguement, we'll assume passenger cars are locomotives. (so Amtrak has 2500 "locomotives" versus 3000 locomotives and 200,000 frt cars for NS) The $7B vs $2B is EXACTLY the point! If it takes 19,000 employees to gather in $2B in "revenue" (in Amtrak's case its &1.5B revenue + $0.5B subsidy) versus 30,000 to gather in $7B on NS, then somethings amiss at Amtrak. That's only $80,000 per employee for Amtrak. A 500 HP high speed diesel engine and a 4000 HP med. speed diesel engine much more dissimilar that a P42 and a C44-9 - which are darn near the same locomotive in many, many respects. The duty isn't even all that terribly different. You have to do trucks and wheels on the P42s about twice as often, but the HP-hrs are about the same, so maint costs and overhaul costs are very similar. (I'll trade you the HEP for the two traction motors) But, passengers make their own connections (by foot) and do the "last mile" pick up and delivery by themselves. No pesky hump yards to pay for or expensive locals to operate for Amtrak. At least you admit there is room to go on the productivity front - the barriers being institutional, not physical or technological. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Without breaking out the costs and personnel for maintenance and operation of locomotives, rail operation crews (te equivalent of freight trains, not dedicated to passenger operation), track maintenance and rental fees, and the cost of the passenger related crews and cars, the comparison is still apples to oranges. For example, it costs more to ship a ton of frozen food than it does to ship a ton of coal. Why? Car costs are cheaper. Not apples and oranges. More like oranges and tangerines. It doesn't cost a whole lot more to ship the frozen food than the coal - we are still talking the same order of magnitude. Amtrak is a whole order of magnitude out. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Friday, December 2, 2005 12:08 PM Don There is obviously the other side of the income statement and that is revenue. The FY 2006 budget plan indicates that the operating loss will be about $450 million. That comes to about $18 per passenger boarding. It would be nice if an $18 surcharge could be added to each ticket, but I am sure you realize that that is not a realistic strategy, especially fot the short haul trains. A half million passengers boarded the Chicago-Milwaukee Hiawatha service at $24 a ticket or $48 for the round trip. I'd have to think that an $84 round trip ticket for that trip would put most of the passengers back in their cars. Having said that, and continuing to pu***he numbers, it seems to me that a combination of a couple of million more boardings and some bump in ticket prices could make a nice difference in the operating deficit. Continuing to look at the pricing side, keep in mind that the jump in demand for frieght railroad services, which is a result of higher costs for competing services, has given the freight railroads greater pricing power. Amtrak does not have that luxury. Going back to the cost side and looking at equipment maintenance, in 2004 the NS reported that 17.3% of revenue was spent on mechanical. For Amtrak, the FY 2005 percent of revenue spent on Mechanical was 20.6. If Amtrak were able to pull in $450 additional revenue their Mechanical ratio would be 16.6% As I have said before, many things are easier said than done. Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 2, 2005 12:16 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Don Going back to the cost side and looking at equipment maintenance, in 2004 the NS reported that 17.3% of revenue was spent on mechanical. For Amtrak, the FY 2005 percent of revenue spent on Mechanical was 20.6. If Amtrak were able to pull in $450 additional revenue their Mechanical ratio would be 16.6% Jay Gee, and I thought you said they were "apples and oranges"![;)] -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 2, 2005 12:30 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Don Continuing to look at the pricing side, keep in mind that the jump in demand for frieght railroad services, which is a result of higher costs for competing services, has given the freight railroads greater pricing power. Amtrak does not have that luxury. Jay You are correct that the market sets the price. The problem is the cost side of things. And, I'd agure there isn't a old-line, industrial era company in the US that hasn't agressively addressed costs vis-a-vis worker productivity since the 1950s that' s managed to hang around 'till now. Amtrak has had little real pressure put on them - and there is no reward within Amtrak - other than top-down budget constraints - for reducing costs and improving productivity. Amtrak SHOULD have some pricing power since the cost of driving and flying have increased with fuel costs going up - at least in some markets. But, part of the problem is the service offerings. They are either not in the market (limited route structure) or don't offer the frequencies and trip times needed. A lot of this can be traced back to insufficient investment, I think. Improved trip times and increased freqencies can help with the unit costs, too, as equipment and crew cycle times are decreased. That's why I was kinda excited by the Lott-Laugtenburg bill that would give more capital to Amtrak in exchange for reduced operating subsidies later. A very realistic way to go about things..... -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply samfp1943 Member sinceJune 2003 From: South Central,Ks 7,170 posts Posted by samfp1943 on Friday, December 2, 2005 12:46 PM You can bet if this food service is to survive in any form at all they will all be singing, " Look for the Union Label....". Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 2, 2005 12:54 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Just don't expect other people to pay for your long distance train travel. ....any more than they pay for your long distance air travel. We don't need no stinkin' air traffic controllers or airports. The airports and FAA argument doesn't fly ...so to speak. Airports are primarly local or regional concerns, benefitting the customer the local user.....and paid for by them through bond issues and such. FAA and ATC is nothing more than roads and traffic lights for planes. Road are paid for by taxes....so are the ones in the air.....and even if you don't fly....if you get mail...you are a customer of ATC, FEDEX, DHL....yep, UPS...sometimes...A whole host of items fly as cargo that you might not think of. Gov't support of Amtrak vs. infrastructure support to airlines is a non-argument.... I'd say In-N -Out should replace Subway...that would really improve ridership...shorter lines on the train than the local drive thru's.... In your first paragraph, you say the argument DOESN'T fly. And in the second and third, you prove that it does. Maybe you need to research how "bond issues and such" are repaid. ???????????????? Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 2, 2005 12:56 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 2, 2005 1:02 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 2, 2005 1:04 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Don If you want you can go on from now until the end of time, but you are still comparing apples to oranges, or in this case, freight cars to passenger cars. You are also making some very grand assumptions using total head count of a freight railroad to a passenger railroad. About the only thing they have in common if 4' 8 1/2" . I might point out that the short distance trains run with a total of three crew, 4 if there is food and beverage service. If you want to call a long distance service without diner, sleepers, check baggage, and lounge efficient, be my guest. If you think all of the cost reduction will automaticly transmit to the bottom line, just hang on for a few years and see how it works out. I'm not saying "just do it". I'm saying "consider it and all other options". Amtrak is doing hte same things the same way things were done in 1950. The rest of the world has moved on. It's time for Amtrak to catch up. If you want to oversimplify it that much, freight railroads are doing the same thing they did in the 50's, moving freight. There have been new loco designs on both freight and passenger lines, new car designs for more efficient and reliable operation. It still boils down to a BIG difference between a car you can toss some freight into and haul somewhere, and a car that passengers will get into and go somewhere. The options have been considered, the contracting out of former union jobs is the point that was overlooked in this pilot program. A more accurate comparison would be to compare passenger railroads in Europe (for example) to Amtrak operations. And the passenger trains were losing money in the 50's, which is why the railroads were more than happy to dump that on the government. In the foreign countries, the rail passenger service is subsidized because it's more efficient than the subsidies paid for air or other land transport of the same numer of people to the same places. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 2, 2005 1:05 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Just don't expect other people to pay for your long distance train travel. ....any more than they pay for your long distance air travel. We don't need no stinkin' air traffic controllers or airports. The airports and FAA argument doesn't fly ...so to speak. Airports are primarly local or regional concerns, benefitting the customer the local user.....and paid for by them through bond issues and such. FAA and ATC is nothing more than roads and traffic lights for planes. Road are paid for by taxes....so are the ones in the air.....and even if you don't fly....if you get mail...you are a customer of ATC, FEDEX, DHL....yep, UPS...sometimes...A whole host of items fly as cargo that you might not think of. Gov't support of Amtrak vs. infrastructure support to airlines is a non-argument.... I'd say In-N -Out should replace Subway...that would really improve ridership...shorter lines on the train than the local drive thru's.... In your first paragraph, you say the argument DOESN'T fly. And in the second and third, you prove that it does. Maybe you need to research how "bond issues and such" are repaid. ???????????????? I agree. The mechanism and rationale for the "tax" collection is irrelevant. All tax money comes from us, no matter how collected or disbursed. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 2, 2005 1:10 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd The $7B vs $2B is EXACTLY the point! If it takes 19,000 employees to gather in $2B in "revenue" (in Amtrak's case its &1.5B revenue + $0.5B subsidy) versus 30,000 to gather in $7B on NS, then somethings amiss at Amtrak. That's only $80,000 per employee for Amtrak. To take this to a ridiculous conclusion, all industry that has a low return on investment should go out of business. Railroads probably have the worst. Freight and passenger railroads are different like passenger and cargo airlines are different. How many stewardesses are on a FedEx plane? Does the cabin need to be climate controlled, or even pressurized? Try making that distinction an option on passenger flights. Sorry, still not convinced that you're not comparing apples to oranges. All industry with a low return on EQUITY, over the long term, does go out of business. Have you seen Pan Am, TWA or Eastern around lately? Packard? WebVan? Univac? ALCo? Sometimes, we subsidize things to skew the market to achieve agreed upon goals. Amtrak is an example of this, although I'd argue we never agreed upon any goals or mission. I think you are missing my point, though. If Amtrak's numbers were somewhat out of line with the frt carriers, you could explain it away with "that's the difference between pass and frt". But , they are WAY, WAY, WAY out of line. Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. Amtrak's numbers are out of line with the freight railroads because they haul PASSENGERS not freight. We could shove 50 or 60 people into the trailer of an 18-wheeler without seats, bathrooms, or windows, and haul them a lot cheaper than on a bus. But unless you're doing something illegal, the passengers would never go for that. Busses and trucks have about as much in common as freight and passenger railroads, they run on the same type right-or-way. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 2, 2005 1:22 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. dd Your expectations might not be realistic. You could expect to have trans-Atlantic steamship service at 3x airfare, too, but there is none. Have you ever ridden a dinner train were the food was delivered from a local restaurant (like on the Strassburg RR)? Why not something similar on Amtrak? If the alternative was 5x airfare and have a car attendant or 3x airfare with no attendant or stay home or fly or drive, which would you choose? There's a bit of difference between the 5 mile long Strasburg Railroad, which is in the middle of an established tourist area, and a nationwide system that travels through urban to wilderness areas over several thousand miles of track. The logistics would be a nightmare doing this on Amtrak (not always on schedule thanks in part to the host railroad) as compared to a catering truck driving a few miles from one end of the line to the other. I had the car attendant on my trip in August, and it beat the heck out of flying, driving, or not having them. Well worth the money, but I think your savings figure comparing with (5x) and without (3x) the car attendant is a bit exagerated. Coach rail travel is equivalent to bus or airplane. Sleeping car travel is more first class with private sleeping compartments (bedroom or roomette) and you pay extra for this service. On most trains, these bedrooms sell out early, showing they could probably add sleeping car capacity and sell more of the premium tickets. For an example of this, see how far into the future you need to go to get a Bedroom on the Sunset Limited. I went to August of next year and gave up. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 2, 2005 1:31 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 2, 2005 2:45 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 2, 2005 3:02 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. dd Your expectations might not be realistic. You could expect to have trans-Atlantic steamship service at 3x airfare, too, but there is none. Have you ever ridden a dinner train were the food was delivered from a local restaurant (like on the Strassburg RR)? Why not something similar on Amtrak? If the alternative was 5x airfare and have a car attendant or 3x airfare with no attendant or stay home or fly or drive, which would you choose? There's a bit of difference between the 5 mile long Strasburg Railroad, which is in the middle of an established tourist area, and a nationwide system that travels through urban to wilderness areas over several thousand miles of track. The logistics would be a nightmare doing this on Amtrak (not always on schedule thanks in part to the host railroad) as compared to a catering truck driving a few miles from one end of the line to the other. I had the car attendant on my trip in August, and it beat the heck out of flying, driving, or not having them. Well worth the money, but I think your savings figure comparing with (5x) and without (3x) the car attendant is a bit exagerated. Coach rail travel is equivalent to bus or airplane. Sleeping car travel is more first class with private sleeping compartments (bedroom or roomette) and you pay extra for this service. On most trains, these bedrooms sell out early, showing they could probably add sleeping car capacity and sell more of the premium tickets. For an example of this, see how far into the future you need to go to get a Bedroom on the Sunset Limited. I went to August of next year and gave up. I've ridden many thousands of miles in Amtrak sleepers and loved every minute of it. I would really like it if they'd stay around! But, there if there is any truth to the arguement that we're subsidizing discretionary travel in sleepers, then, it's awfully hard to defend. If it can be shown that they earn more than their incremental cost, then, we're home free. But, why are they there in the first place? If it's considered a basic part of LD train service, then you have the case for a subsidy in any event. If they are considered a luxury (more to your definition - calling them 1st class), then how can you justify any subsidy? A luxury "common good"? What is that? So far, NOBODY in Congress, the DOT or Amtrak has tried to define their roll except by inferrence or sound byte. So, we can either sit here and watch the status quo crumble, or demand a defined mission and some real funding for Amtrak -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 2, 2005 3:11 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 2, 2005 3:17 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. dd Your expectations might not be realistic. You could expect to have trans-Atlantic steamship service at 3x airfare, too, but there is none. Have you ever ridden a dinner train were the food was delivered from a local restaurant (like on the Strassburg RR)? Why not something similar on Amtrak? If the alternative was 5x airfare and have a car attendant or 3x airfare with no attendant or stay home or fly or drive, which would you choose? There's a bit of difference between the 5 mile long Strasburg Railroad, which is in the middle of an established tourist area, and a nationwide system that travels through urban to wilderness areas over several thousand miles of track. The logistics would be a nightmare doing this on Amtrak (not always on schedule thanks in part to the host railroad) as compared to a catering truck driving a few miles from one end of the line to the other. I had the car attendant on my trip in August, and it beat the heck out of flying, driving, or not having them. Well worth the money, but I think your savings figure comparing with (5x) and without (3x) the car attendant is a bit exagerated. Coach rail travel is equivalent to bus or airplane. Sleeping car travel is more first class with private sleeping compartments (bedroom or roomette) and you pay extra for this service. On most trains, these bedrooms sell out early, showing they could probably add sleeping car capacity and sell more of the premium tickets. For an example of this, see how far into the future you need to go to get a Bedroom on the Sunset Limited. I went to August of next year and gave up. I've ridden many thousands of miles in Amtrak sleepers and loved every minute of it. I would really like it if they'd stay around! But, there if there is any truth to the arguement that we're subsidizing discretionary travel in sleepers, then, it's awfully hard to defend. If it can be shown that they earn more than their incremental cost, then, we're home free. But, why are they there in the first place? If it's considered a basic part of LD train service, then you have the case for a subsidy in any event. If they are considered a luxury (more to your definition - calling them 1st class), then how can you justify any subsidy? A luxury "common good"? What is that? So far, NOBODY in Congress, the DOT or Amtrak has tried to define their roll except by inferrence or sound byte. So, we can either sit here and watch the status quo crumble, or demand a defined mission and some real funding for Amtrak There's two "unfortunates" in the above post. Unfortunately, the critics of Amtrak have chosen NOT to break out how much money is lost or made in the sleeping car services. Kind of begs the answer to this question. Unfortunately #2, noone has even PROPOSED defining the role of Amtrak in any place that was empowered to establi***hat policy. That was one of Gunn's complaints, and it was what led to them limping along year to year on the federal subsidy. The fact that the subsidy is considered a loss is pretty much due to the fact that there is no guideline of what Amtrak's mission is supposed to be. Without that type guidance, the limping along will continue. I guess we can't really expect the people in government to make a decision or anything. Hard to get a sound byte or news story out of that. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Friday, December 2, 2005 3:48 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Just don't expect other people to pay for your long distance train travel. ....any more than they pay for your long distance air travel. We don't need no stinkin' air traffic controllers or airports. The airports and FAA argument doesn't fly ...so to speak. Airports are primarly local or regional concerns, benefitting the customer the local user.....and paid for by them through bond issues and such. FAA and ATC is nothing more than roads and traffic lights for planes. Road are paid for by taxes....so are the ones in the air.....and even if you don't fly....if you get mail...you are a customer of ATC, FEDEX, DHL....yep, UPS...sometimes...A whole host of items fly as cargo that you might not think of. Gov't support of Amtrak vs. infrastructure support to airlines is a non-argument.... I'd say In-N -Out should replace Subway...that would really improve ridership...shorter lines on the train than the local drive thru's.... In your first paragraph, you say the argument DOESN'T fly. And in the second and third, you prove that it does. Maybe you need to research how "bond issues and such" are repaid. ???????????????? Tom, I quite familiar how bond issues and repayment works. The idea that Amtrak should be subsized because the airlines receive subsidies is not valid. The Federal government subsidizing Amtrak is not the same as a LOCAL/REGIONAL government subsizing or financing an airport .....through bonds payed back by taxes.....yes I know Tom.......an airport that serves it's region...not someone from Montana subsidizing transportaion for Massachussetts. Much the same way your streets and street lights and enforcement of the rules on your local streets are payed for. Amtrak is not a public good which serves an great number of the population. I can't think of anything I get from Amtrak. Mail...no. Express...no....... But even if I don't fly, I derive benefit from an ATC system, same with the highways. And the railroads themselves...the PRIVATE owners of the ROWs, received incentives and breaks to get where they did. The point is, the continual comparison of Amtrak and airlines is not valid....more like Amtrak and Princess Cruise Line, that's a valid comparison. Dan Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Friday, December 2, 2005 3:52 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. Since we're going to play the "you need to do a little more research" game....you need to do a little more research. It is quite neccessary to pressurize and heat the cargo comparment of aircraft. Fluid containers and sealed pressurized items tend not to react well to pressure changes and if you honsetly think temperature isn't an issue also, you are very wrong. If they were not, you would not be able to take any liquids in your luggage with risk of having them all over your clothes. Dan PS...I'm not going to argue with you about munition......but I am a pilot by trade. Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 2, 2005 5:10 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Just don't expect other people to pay for your long distance train travel. ....any more than they pay for your long distance air travel. We don't need no stinkin' air traffic controllers or airports. The airports and FAA argument doesn't fly ...so to speak. Airports are primarly local or regional concerns, benefitting the customer the local user.....and paid for by them through bond issues and such. FAA and ATC is nothing more than roads and traffic lights for planes. Road are paid for by taxes....so are the ones in the air.....and even if you don't fly....if you get mail...you are a customer of ATC, FEDEX, DHL....yep, UPS...sometimes...A whole host of items fly as cargo that you might not think of. Gov't support of Amtrak vs. infrastructure support to airlines is a non-argument.... I'd say In-N -Out should replace Subway...that would really improve ridership...shorter lines on the train than the local drive thru's.... In your first paragraph, you say the argument DOESN'T fly. And in the second and third, you prove that it does. Maybe you need to research how "bond issues and such" are repaid. ???????????????? Tom, I quite familiar how bond issues and repayment works. The idea that Amtrak should be subsized because the airlines receive subsidies is not valid. The Federal government subsidizing Amtrak is not the same as a LOCAL/REGIONAL government subsizing or financing an airport .....through bonds payed back by taxes.....yes I know Tom.......an airport that serves it's region...not someone from Montana subsidizing transportaion for Massachussetts. Much the same way your streets and street lights and enforcement of the rules on your local streets are payed for. Amtrak is not a public good which serves an great number of the population. I can't think of anything I get from Amtrak. Mail...no. Express...no....... But even if I don't fly, I derive benefit from an ATC system, same with the highways. And the railroads themselves...the PRIVATE owners of the ROWs, received incentives and breaks to get where they did. The point is, the continual comparison of Amtrak and airlines is not valid....more like Amtrak and Princess Cruise Line, that's a valid comparison. Dan And continued comparison of freight and passenger haulers, simply because they both run on rails, is just as invalid Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Friday, December 2, 2005 5:25 PM OK-Here is my deal. If "for hire" passenger airlines are compelled to pay their full share of the costs of all the government services they receive, air traffic control, airports, runways and whatever, then Amtrak can be cut off the government dole. Of course general aviation ought to be required to kick in their share, but I guess that is something akin to private vehicles on public roads. Meanwhile, the FY 2006 grant to Amtrak carries the provision that Amtrak must actually show a reduction in the food and sleeper deficit, and that if that is not accomplished, (no benchmarks are provided), no grant funds may be used for such services after July, 2006. Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Friday, December 2, 2005 5:26 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Just don't expect other people to pay for your long distance train travel. ....any more than they pay for your long distance air travel. We don't need no stinkin' air traffic controllers or airports. The airports and FAA argument doesn't fly ...so to speak. Airports are primarly local or regional concerns, benefitting the customer the local user.....and paid for by them through bond issues and such. FAA and ATC is nothing more than roads and traffic lights for planes. Road are paid for by taxes....so are the ones in the air.....and even if you don't fly....if you get mail...you are a customer of ATC, FEDEX, DHL....yep, UPS...sometimes...A whole host of items fly as cargo that you might not think of. Gov't support of Amtrak vs. infrastructure support to airlines is a non-argument.... I'd say In-N -Out should replace Subway...that would really improve ridership...shorter lines on the train than the local drive thru's.... In your first paragraph, you say the argument DOESN'T fly. And in the second and third, you prove that it does. Maybe you need to research how "bond issues and such" are repaid. ???????????????? Tom, I quite familiar how bond issues and repayment works. The idea that Amtrak should be subsized because the airlines receive subsidies is not valid. The Federal government subsidizing Amtrak is not the same as a LOCAL/REGIONAL government subsizing or financing an airport .....through bonds payed back by taxes.....yes I know Tom.......an airport that serves it's region...not someone from Montana subsidizing transportaion for Massachussetts. Much the same way your streets and street lights and enforcement of the rules on your local streets are payed for. Amtrak is not a public good which serves an great number of the population. I can't think of anything I get from Amtrak. Mail...no. Express...no....... But even if I don't fly, I derive benefit from an ATC system, same with the highways. And the railroads themselves...the PRIVATE owners of the ROWs, received incentives and breaks to get where they did. The point is, the continual comparison of Amtrak and airlines is not valid....more like Amtrak and Princess Cruise Line, that's a valid comparison. Dan And continued comparison of freight and passenger haulers, simply because they both run on rails, is just as invalid I can agree to that. Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Friday, December 2, 2005 5:33 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton OK-Here is my deal. If "for hire" passenger airlines are compelled to pay their full share of the costs of all the government services they receive, air traffic control, airports, runways and whatever, then Amtrak can be cut off the government dole. Of course general aviation ought to be required to kick in their share, but I guess that is something akin to private vehicles on public roads. Meanwhile, the FY 2006 grant to Amtrak carries the provision that Amtrak must actually show a reduction in the food and sleeper deficit, and that if that is not accomplished, (no benchmarks are provided), no grant funds may be used for such services after July, 2006. Jay What government services does Amtrak receive...other than ca***o operate? It doesn't use a system of public highways, it doesn't utilize a national traffic management system. Other than the NEC, Amtrak travels over private ROW. So what you're saying is that Amtrak is entitled to an equal playing field by handicapping the other modes of transportation, which are utilized by far more people and have a significantly greater role in the national economy. Using that logic we should make container ships pay mileage for transoceanic route to subsidize the cruise lines. Dan Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 2, 2005 5:43 PM Hopefully, Amtraks demise will be quick in coming. Then all the rhetoric and nonsense will end and so will the problem of finding a sandwich on the train, as there will be no train! Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Friday, December 2, 2005 6:53 PM Dan That is nonsense and you know it. It doesn't make any difference whether the government provides a private entity (airlines) services for less than the full cost or a private entity (Amtrak) cash. Both situations require dollars from taxpayers. And if you complaint is that a government expenditure in one place must take funds away from another place, you are talking to the wrong guy. I happen to believe that the US has the resources to have the best military, education system, health care, transportation system and quite a few of the other things that are supported by our tax dollars. In fact, I don't think we have to live with second best for anything. It just takes a little more will and a little less personal greed. Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 2, 2005 9:27 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. Since we're going to play the "you need to do a little more research" game....you need to do a little more research. It is quite neccessary to pressurize and heat the cargo comparment of aircraft. Fluid containers and sealed pressurized items tend not to react well to pressure changes and if you honsetly think temperature isn't an issue also, you are very wrong. If they were not, you would not be able to take any liquids in your luggage with risk of having them all over your clothes. Dan PS...I'm not going to argue with you about munition......but I am a pilot by trade. My involvment with munitions is recent, only the last 4 years. Before that I was an avionics technician in the Air Force and a technician in an Army TMDE lab. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply amtrakjackson Member sinceJanuary 2002 From: Michigan 87 posts Posted by amtrakjackson on Saturday, December 3, 2005 6:01 AM Interesting that most everyone concentrates on Amtrak's union issues, and cutting the front line to "save money". But what about Amtrak's bloated management? Sure, they no longer have 80 some-odd vice presidents, but the hundreds of former "on-board chiefs" were given *lifetime* management positions as a condition of the elimination of OBS chiefs. They're now "Operations Supervisors" (with no operations experience), or other nonsensical positions. Once given a management position at Amtrak, you're virtually guaranteed a job for life, and if it looks like the ax may fall, they'll reshuffle and accomodate you accordingly so that no one notices. In Chicago alone, there are close to 100 "managers" in and near the Chicago Terminal. All micro-managing the front-line employees and trying their best to keep their positions in the face of cuts. None ever get demoted, and, in fact, more are hired each year. Michigan alone has two road foremen, and an "operations supervisor" to directly cover roughly 30 employees. Not including the Chicago managers that come out. How many managers are there at NS's huge Elkhart Yard, in relationship the number of employees? Amtrak ought to take a look east 100 miles to see how to get things done. I think Chicago's ratio is somewhere around one manager for every seven employees. Yes, cuts need to be made. As we used to say as children, at Amtrak there are too many Chiefs and not enough Indians. (Play on words not intentional.) They unstaff stations and leave passengers out in the cold all over the country, yet have managers tripping over themselves. That's where the problem lies. Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, December 5, 2005 8:28 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by amtrakjackson Interesting that most everyone concentrates on Amtrak's union issues, and cutting the front line to "save money". But what about Amtrak's bloated management? Sure, they no longer have 80 some-odd vice presidents, but the hundreds of former "on-board chiefs" were given *lifetime* management positions as a condition of the elimination of OBS chiefs. They're now "Operations Supervisors" (with no operations experience), or other nonsensical positions. Once given a management position at Amtrak, you're virtually guaranteed a job for life, and if it looks like the ax may fall, they'll reshuffle and accomodate you accordingly so that no one notices. In Chicago alone, there are close to 100 "managers" in and near the Chicago Terminal. All micro-managing the front-line employees and trying their best to keep their positions in the face of cuts. None ever get demoted, and, in fact, more are hired each year. Michigan alone has two road foremen, and an "operations supervisor" to directly cover roughly 30 employees. Not including the Chicago managers that come out. How many managers are there at NS's huge Elkhart Yard, in relationship the number of employees? Amtrak ought to take a look east 100 miles to see how to get things done. I think Chicago's ratio is somewhere around one manager for every seven employees. Yes, cuts need to be made. As we used to say as children, at Amtrak there are too many Chiefs and not enough Indians. (Play on words not intentional.) They unstaff stations and leave passengers out in the cold all over the country, yet have managers tripping over themselves. That's where the problem lies. I don't doubt there are way too many "chiefs", but there are too many "indians", too! Amtrak has never had any real incentive improve the situation. That Gunn very easily got rid of a bunch of VP jobs at the start is an interesting story in itself. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, December 5, 2005 10:00 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Monday, December 5, 2005 1:39 PM Just a reminder: All highway transportation is subsidized because it does not pay real estate taxes on the land it uses while all private frieght railroads do and handle their traffic on a per ton or per passenger mile basis on one quarter the land or less as compared with highways for equivalent traffic. The elderly and handicapped have no other way to access most of the USA other than Amtrak, with some elderly and handicapped requiring sleeper space. Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Monday, December 5, 2005 3:46 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... So you're saying that a 1/4 inch thick aluminum skin riveted to an inside framework can 1.4 million pounds of force? Impressive if the vessel was large enough, but the strength of materials book will give you ratings in pounds per SQUARE INCH, the same as the measurement of air pressure. And I fail to see how the floor, reinforced to support the weight of the cargo or passengers would be weaker than the outside fuselage of the aircraft. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply conrailman Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NS Main Line at MP12 Blairsville,Pa 830 posts Posted by conrailman on Monday, December 5, 2005 4:13 PM TGI Fridays would Great Choice, or Olive Garden? Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, December 5, 2005 4:44 PM The latest salvo from the Union... LC Letter to the Editor - Albany Times Union Amtrak's service contract with Subway is shortsighted and dangerous First published: Friday, December 2, 2005 An article appeared in your Nov. 20 business section headed, "Amtrak starts with food." I would strongly disagree with the premise. Amtrak should start with a safe and secure trip. The decision to end food and beverage service provided by professional service workers and to contract with Subway franchisees is shortsighted and dangerous. The Empire Corridor trains no longer include service workers who, like flight attendants on the airlines, are responsible for the safety and security of passengers as well as food service. These rail workers received training in emergency protocols to handle bomb threats, evacuation procedures, fire suppression, risk avoidance of communicable diseases and blood borne pathogens, as well as FDA regulations in food handling. There have been more than 181 terrorist attacks against major rail networks, including those in London, Madrid, Paris, Moscow and Tokyo, since 1998. To eliminate on-board service and contract it out to sandwich vendors removes an important level of security on America's passenger trains. On-board service employees have acted heroically in emergency situations helping to evacuate trains and administer first aid. Three years ago, when Amtrak's autotrain derailed in Crescent City, Fla., on-board attendants rescued trapped passengers by opening windows and pulling them to safety. When the California Zephyr derailed in 2001, one on-board attendant rescued 80 passengers despite his own injuries Now, Amtrak has contracted with Subway in a pilot program where Subway employees will hawk sandwiches in the aisles. Amtrak has put itself on record that these workers are to be treated like passengers in case of emergency. Instead of being first responders, they will be first out the door. Trading safety for a sandwich is irresponsible. GARY MASLANKA Chair, Amtrak Service Workers Council Railroad Division Director Transport Workers Union of America New York City Reply Edit dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Monday, December 5, 2005 8:25 PM So they need hero sandwiches, not just the standard fare to meet the security aspect. Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Monday, December 5, 2005 9:06 PM One thing we know for sure, Subway won't be selling their products to any passengers in the cargo holds of commercial airplanes. Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Monday, December 5, 2005 9:10 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton One thing we know for sure, Subway won't be selling their products to any passengers in the cargo holds of commercial airplanes. Jay Well, considering how the airlines are doing now........ Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Monday, December 5, 2005 10:01 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton One thing we know for sure, Subway won't be selling their products to any passengers in the cargo holds of commercial airplanes. Jay Only on the white FEMA 747s with shackles in the cargo hold..[:0] Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, December 6, 2005 7:21 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... So you're saying that a 1/4 inch thick aluminum skin riveted to an inside framework can 1.4 million pounds of force? Impressive if the vessel was large enough, but the strength of materials book will give you ratings in pounds per SQUARE INCH, the same as the measurement of air pressure. And I fail to see how the floor, reinforced to support the weight of the cargo or passengers would be weaker than the outside fuselage of the aircraft. You are confusing the engineering discipline "strength of materials" with "materials science". Material Science deals with the properties of the materials. Strength of Materials is all about how to calculate stress and strain in various objects - like cylinders, beams, floors, columns, etc. Getting out my Singer "Stength of Materials" book. Looking on p 20 to see how to calculate stress in a thin walled cylinder. If the cylinder was made of 1/4" thick aluminum, the hoop stress is only 2300 psi. Aluminum is good for better than 30,000 psi Working backward, you only need 0.019" thick aluminum to carry the hoop stresses from a 10 psi internal pressure. You COULD build an airplane where the area under the floor is not pressurized and the area above is, but you'd have to add so much structure to support the floor and distribute the load to the fuselage skin, that you'd significantly cut into your payload capacity. It's MUCH simpler, lighter and cheaper to just pressurize the whole cylinder - which is why airplanes are built that way! You COULD just take the word of a degreed Mechanical Engineer [:D] -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, December 6, 2005 7:54 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear The latest salvo from the Union... LC Letter to the Editor - Albany Times Union Amtrak's service contract with Subway is shortsighted and dangerous First published: Friday, December 2, 2005 An article appeared in your Nov. 20 business section headed, "Amtrak starts with food." I would strongly disagree with the premise. Amtrak should start with a safe and secure trip. The decision to end food and beverage service provided by professional service workers and to contract with Subway franchisees is shortsighted and dangerous. The Empire Corridor trains no longer include service workers who, like flight attendants on the airlines, are responsible for the safety and security of passengers as well as food service. These rail workers received training in emergency protocols to handle bomb threats, evacuation procedures, fire suppression, risk avoidance of communicable diseases and blood borne pathogens, as well as FDA regulations in food handling. There have been more than 181 terrorist attacks against major rail networks, including those in London, Madrid, Paris, Moscow and Tokyo, since 1998. To eliminate on-board service and contract it out to sandwich vendors removes an important level of security on America's passenger trains. On-board service employees have acted heroically in emergency situations helping to evacuate trains and administer first aid. Three years ago, when Amtrak's autotrain derailed in Crescent City, Fla., on-board attendants rescued trapped passengers by opening windows and pulling them to safety. When the California Zephyr derailed in 2001, one on-board attendant rescued 80 passengers despite his own injuries Now, Amtrak has contracted with Subway in a pilot program where Subway employees will hawk sandwiches in the aisles. Amtrak has put itself on record that these workers are to be treated like passengers in case of emergency. Instead of being first responders, they will be first out the door. Trading safety for a sandwich is irresponsible. GARY MASLANKA Chair, Amtrak Service Workers Council Railroad Division Director Transport Workers Union of America New York City An empty arguement. -the Empire Svc trains in question didn't have any Amtrak food svc employees on them prior to Subway starting. So, how is safety compromised by the added presence of Subway workers. -the on-board svcs employees are not responsible for safety - that job belongs to the conductor and his crew. It is an added benefit if they are trained in safety in case an accident, but it is not mandated anywhere. -thousands of passenger trains a day run safely without any on-board service personnel -this sounds similar to the smoke the UTU was blowing years ago. During an interview, discussing crew size (before 2 man frt crews were common), the UTU guy said there should NEVER be only one man in the cab of a passenger train - it would be unsafe. He was unaware that PC and Amtrak had been running one man in Metroliners for about 10 years at that point. When the interviewer pointed that out, the UTU guy replied something to the effect of, "Well, I'd never ride one - it's unsafe." All he accomplished was making himself look stupid. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Tuesday, December 6, 2005 9:12 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... So you're saying that a 1/4 inch thick aluminum skin riveted to an inside framework can 1.4 million pounds of force? Impressive if the vessel was large enough, but the strength of materials book will give you ratings in pounds per SQUARE INCH, the same as the measurement of air pressure. And I fail to see how the floor, reinforced to support the weight of the cargo or passengers would be weaker than the outside fuselage of the aircraft. You are confusing the engineering discipline "strength of materials" with "materials science". Material Science deals with the properties of the materials. Strength of Materials is all about how to calculate stress and strain in various objects - like cylinders, beams, floors, columns, etc. Getting out my Singer "Stength of Materials" book. Looking on p 20 to see how to calculate stress in a thin walled cylinder. If the cylinder was made of 1/4" thick aluminum, the hoop stress is only 2300 psi. Aluminum is good for better than 30,000 psi Working backward, you only need 0.019" thick aluminum to carry the hoop stresses from a 10 psi internal pressure. You COULD build an airplane where the area under the floor is not pressurized and the area above is, but you'd have to add so much structure to support the floor and distribute the load to the fuselage skin, that you'd significantly cut into your payload capacity. It's MUCH simpler, lighter and cheaper to just pressurize the whole cylinder - which is why airplanes are built that way! You COULD just take the word of a degreed Mechanical Engineer [:D] But of what value is it? As many times as I've been in the cockpit of an aircraft, I don't recall ever seeing a gauge marked "Hoop Pressure." Is this more of the info "never used outside the school?" Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Tuesday, December 6, 2005 11:14 PM Tom, It's cheaper, lighter and ultimately stronger to pressurize the entire cabin, not to mention to ease maintainance. I suppose if you really wanted to make the floor a pressurized bulkhead you could...but instead of the weight of whatever is on the deck being supported by the floor and structural members, it's being supported by the pressure bulkhead, which means it has to be strengthen to accomodate the additional stresses. You couldn't access anything outside the main deck in flight, and any maintenance action which required opening or cutting a hole in the floor would require a pressure check. Some of the military transport aircraft, such as the C130 can pressurize the cockpit separately I believe, in order to conduct high altitude drops and such, but will repressurize the cabin after buttoning up. But even the C130's floor as low as it is, is raised above the outer hull. But for civilian applications the need isn't there to justify the expense. Dan Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, December 7, 2005 8:19 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... So you're saying that a 1/4 inch thick aluminum skin riveted to an inside framework can 1.4 million pounds of force? Impressive if the vessel was large enough, but the strength of materials book will give you ratings in pounds per SQUARE INCH, the same as the measurement of air pressure. And I fail to see how the floor, reinforced to support the weight of the cargo or passengers would be weaker than the outside fuselage of the aircraft. You are confusing the engineering discipline "strength of materials" with "materials science". Material Science deals with the properties of the materials. Strength of Materials is all about how to calculate stress and strain in various objects - like cylinders, beams, floors, columns, etc. Getting out my Singer "Stength of Materials" book. Looking on p 20 to see how to calculate stress in a thin walled cylinder. If the cylinder was made of 1/4" thick aluminum, the hoop stress is only 2300 psi. Aluminum is good for better than 30,000 psi Working backward, you only need 0.019" thick aluminum to carry the hoop stresses from a 10 psi internal pressure. You COULD build an airplane where the area under the floor is not pressurized and the area above is, but you'd have to add so much structure to support the floor and distribute the load to the fuselage skin, that you'd significantly cut into your payload capacity. It's MUCH simpler, lighter and cheaper to just pressurize the whole cylinder - which is why airplanes are built that way! You COULD just take the word of a degreed Mechanical Engineer [:D] But of what value is it? As many times as I've been in the cockpit of an aircraft, I don't recall ever seeing a gauge marked "Hoop Pressure." Is this more of the info "never used outside the school?" Wrong again, reindeer breath! (with appolgies to Johny Carson) Why in the world would anyone measure the hoop, or circumfrential STRESS (not pressure - although the units are the same) in an aircraft fuselage? You DESIGN for it based on the internal pressure. This is really, really basic simple engineering - several hundred years old. It is used ALL OVER THE PLACE outside of "the school". Everything from the water pipes in your house to the brake pipe on a frt car use this stress calculation. It's often called "hoop" stress because of it's application in barrel making. You are either impossibly dense or just rattling my cage.... I feel like I'm stuck in the Bob and Ray "Komodo Dragon" radio play.[:)] http://www.mindspring.com/~biohaz/komodo.txt -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Wednesday, December 7, 2005 4:06 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... So you're saying that a 1/4 inch thick aluminum skin riveted to an inside framework can 1.4 million pounds of force? Impressive if the vessel was large enough, but the strength of materials book will give you ratings in pounds per SQUARE INCH, the same as the measurement of air pressure. And I fail to see how the floor, reinforced to support the weight of the cargo or passengers would be weaker than the outside fuselage of the aircraft. You are confusing the engineering discipline "strength of materials" with "materials science". Material Science deals with the properties of the materials. Strength of Materials is all about how to calculate stress and strain in various objects - like cylinders, beams, floors, columns, etc. Getting out my Singer "Stength of Materials" book. Looking on p 20 to see how to calculate stress in a thin walled cylinder. If the cylinder was made of 1/4" thick aluminum, the hoop stress is only 2300 psi. Aluminum is good for better than 30,000 psi Working backward, you only need 0.019" thick aluminum to carry the hoop stresses from a 10 psi internal pressure. You COULD build an airplane where the area under the floor is not pressurized and the area above is, but you'd have to add so much structure to support the floor and distribute the load to the fuselage skin, that you'd significantly cut into your payload capacity. It's MUCH simpler, lighter and cheaper to just pressurize the whole cylinder - which is why airplanes are built that way! You COULD just take the word of a degreed Mechanical Engineer [:D] But of what value is it? As many times as I've been in the cockpit of an aircraft, I don't recall ever seeing a gauge marked "Hoop Pressure." Is this more of the info "never used outside the school?" Wrong again, reindeer breath! (with appolgies to Johny Carson) Why in the world would anyone measure the hoop, or circumfrential STRESS (not pressure - although the units are the same) in an aircraft fuselage? You DESIGN for it based on the internal pressure. This is really, really basic simple engineering - several hundred years old. It is used ALL OVER THE PLACE outside of "the school". Everything from the water pipes in your house to the brake pipe on a frt car use this stress calculation. It's often called "hoop" stress because of it's application in barrel making. You are either impossibly dense or just rattling my cage.... I feel like I'm stuck in the Bob and Ray "Komodo Dragon" radio play.[:)] http://www.mindspring.com/~biohaz/komodo.txt You seem to be impossibly inept at reading a question. What is the value of the 1.4 million pounds of force other than a exercise in mathmatics? Or trying to impress someone with insignificant numbers? Reference your quote: "10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load." Exactly how would the floor be taking that large of a load, which is far above the cargo capacity of most aircraft, even if it were a pressure bulkhead? A small puncture in the fuselage would cause the plane to explode with that much force inside. Something already disproven on "Mythbusters." Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, December 8, 2005 11:38 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... So you're saying that a 1/4 inch thick aluminum skin riveted to an inside framework can 1.4 million pounds of force? Impressive if the vessel was large enough, but the strength of materials book will give you ratings in pounds per SQUARE INCH, the same as the measurement of air pressure. And I fail to see how the floor, reinforced to support the weight of the cargo or passengers would be weaker than the outside fuselage of the aircraft. You are confusing the engineering discipline "strength of materials" with "materials science". Material Science deals with the properties of the materials. Strength of Materials is all about how to calculate stress and strain in various objects - like cylinders, beams, floors, columns, etc. Getting out my Singer "Stength of Materials" book. Looking on p 20 to see how to calculate stress in a thin walled cylinder. If the cylinder was made of 1/4" thick aluminum, the hoop stress is only 2300 psi. Aluminum is good for better than 30,000 psi Working backward, you only need 0.019" thick aluminum to carry the hoop stresses from a 10 psi internal pressure. You COULD build an airplane where the area under the floor is not pressurized and the area above is, but you'd have to add so much structure to support the floor and distribute the load to the fuselage skin, that you'd significantly cut into your payload capacity. It's MUCH simpler, lighter and cheaper to just pressurize the whole cylinder - which is why airplanes are built that way! You COULD just take the word of a degreed Mechanical Engineer [:D] But of what value is it? As many times as I've been in the cockpit of an aircraft, I don't recall ever seeing a gauge marked "Hoop Pressure." Is this more of the info "never used outside the school?" Wrong again, reindeer breath! (with appolgies to Johny Carson) Why in the world would anyone measure the hoop, or circumfrential STRESS (not pressure - although the units are the same) in an aircraft fuselage? You DESIGN for it based on the internal pressure. This is really, really basic simple engineering - several hundred years old. It is used ALL OVER THE PLACE outside of "the school". Everything from the water pipes in your house to the brake pipe on a frt car use this stress calculation. It's often called "hoop" stress because of it's application in barrel making. You are either impossibly dense or just rattling my cage.... I feel like I'm stuck in the Bob and Ray "Komodo Dragon" radio play.[:)] http://www.mindspring.com/~biohaz/komodo.txt You seem to be impossibly inept at reading a question. What is the value of the 1.4 million pounds of force other than a exercise in mathmatics? Or trying to impress someone with insignificant numbers? Reference your quote: "10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load." Exactly how would the floor be taking that large of a load, which is far above the cargo capacity of most aircraft, even if it were a pressure bulkhead? A small puncture in the fuselage would cause the plane to explode with that much force inside. Something already disproven on "Mythbusters." Did ever take any Physics anywhere? Even in High School? How about math? Algebra in 9th grade? What part of 10psi x 10' x100' x 144sqin/sqft = 1.4M# is so hard to grasp? (# is shorthand for "pounds of force") That's the load on the FLOOR! Do you think that the 10 psi might act on other surfaces of the fueslage? Which ones? What direction would that force act? How does that compare to the force on the floor? You need to know this stuff if you're going to be able to get your Webelos "Scientist" badge at next month's pack meeting[;)] http://www.usscouts.org/advance/cubscout/technology.html#Scientist Why aren't propane tanks square? Wouldn't it they be more space efficient? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, December 8, 2005 2:45 PM Sorry, but juvenile name calling and other insults lead me to believe that I'm reading a large measure of the BS factor rather than pertinent facts and figures. Taking math or physics in school was NOT the question, hence my statement that you can't read. I'm not disputing your mathmatics. The question WAS "what is the significance of the 1.4 million pound figure?" The pressure bulkhead, be it the fuselage or the floor, has to hold back 10 PSI of pressure differential between the inner and outer surfaces. Pulling a formula out of a physics book that yields a huge number might impress some, but I've seen the federal deficit, so "not impressed." The most juvenile remarks have been yours. I guess an intellegent, mature question is beyond your grasp. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, December 8, 2005 2:55 PM OK, I'll admit a cheap shot with the Cub Scout stuff! I'm not the only one who told you that passenger airliners are completely pressurized. You don't believe them either? Maybe I'm the only one stupid enough to argue with a fence post! (another cheap shot, I suppose, but at whom?) -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, December 8, 2005 3:53 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd OK, I'll admit a cheap shot with the Cub Scout stuff! I'm not the only one who told you that passenger airliners are completely pressurized. You don't believe them either? Maybe I'm the only one stupid enough to argue with a fence post! (another cheap shot, I suppose, but at whom?) And again you didn't read the question. I hope by the time you're old enough to take your SAT's you'll acquire that skill or the only career phrase you'll need is "Ya want fries with that?" I never said they weren't pressurized, I said it WASN'T NECESSARY to pressurize or heat them. The question was (now read this S-L-O-W-L-Y) "What is the significance of the 1.4 million pound figure that keep bringing up?" A pressure bulkhead, be it the floor or the fuselage walls, will have to hold back the pressure differential, no matter what the number is you wi***o assign to it. It's like me asking "What's two plus two?" and you keep answering "fish." Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, December 8, 2005 4:15 PM What I still don't understand is why anyone would ever name a level of Boy Scouting anything remotely sounding like "We Blow"??? Is there even a merit badge involving RRs anymore? LC Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, December 8, 2005 4:34 PM So what is is? Are aircraft cargo holds pressurized or not? Heated or not? If they are not and there is a great possibility that my wifes little "kick dog," will pari***hen count me in! I want to know which airline has the worst record of live freight arriving safely so I can purchase a ticket and send the peeing, biting, barking little sucker on a one way trip to his little maker. Bye Bye Bennie! Hehehehe Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, December 8, 2005 4:45 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear What I still don't understand is why anyone would ever name a level of Boy Scouting anything remotely sounding like "We Blow"??? Is there even a merit badge involving RRs anymore? LC Webelo (sp?) is a name for a sort of post-Cub Scout, pre-Boy Scout, a contraction of the words "We belong." Scouting does still have a Railroading merit badge. Steamtown runs a program to qualify Scouts for it. Check with a local RR club or museum to see if they offer a similar program. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, December 8, 2005 6:04 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear What I still don't understand is why anyone would ever name a level of Boy Scouting anything remotely sounding like "We Blow"??? Is there even a merit badge involving RRs anymore? LC Webelo (sp?) is a name for a sort of post-Cub Scout, pre-Boy Scout, a contraction of the words "We belong." Scouting does still have a Railroading merit badge. Steamtown runs a program to qualify Scouts for it. Check with a local RR club or museum to see if they offer a similar program. Tom - Thanks. Although its been a few decades I understand what a Webelos scout is. I even was one a long time ago... I still think it is a lousy name. As for the Merit badge, it's good to know they still offer it. LC Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Thursday, December 8, 2005 7:21 PM Speaking of Badges-and Awards. I have decided to ask Bergie to establish a Trains.com "Forum Topic Hijacking Award". Two members immediately come to mind as the first recipients. Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, December 8, 2005 9:21 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Speaking of Badges-and Awards. I have decided to ask Bergie to establish a Trains.com "Forum Topic Hijacking Award". Two members immediately come to mind as the first recipients. Jay Only TWO????? Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 9, 2005 8:14 AM How 'bout those Phillies! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 9, 2005 8:20 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd OK, I'll admit a cheap shot with the Cub Scout stuff! I'm not the only one who told you that passenger airliners are completely pressurized. You don't believe them either? Maybe I'm the only one stupid enough to argue with a fence post! (another cheap shot, I suppose, but at whom?) And again you didn't read the question. I hope by the time you're old enough to take your SAT's you'll acquire that skill or the only career phrase you'll need is "Ya want fries with that?" I never said they weren't pressurized, I said it WASN'T NECESSARY to pressurize or heat them. The question was (now read this S-L-O-W-L-Y) "What is the significance of the 1.4 million pound figure that keep bringing up?" A pressure bulkhead, be it the floor or the fuselage walls, will have to hold back the pressure differential, no matter what the number is you wi***o assign to it. It's like me asking "What's two plus two?" and you keep answering "fish." The 1.4M# figure is the load you'd have to design the floor for if you want it to be a pressurized bulkhead. There are NO commercial passenger airliners that have their floor as a pressurized bulkhead. If there are no planes with floor that can act as a pressurized bulkhead, then it is ALWAYS necessary to pressurize the cargo area. You COULD build a car with 7 wheels, too, but why would you? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 9, 2005 8:37 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear What I still don't understand is why anyone would ever name a level of Boy Scouting anything remotely sounding like "We Blow"??? Is there even a merit badge involving RRs anymore? LC Webelo (sp?) is a name for a sort of post-Cub Scout, pre-Boy Scout, a contraction of the words "We belong." Scouting does still have a Railroading merit badge. Steamtown runs a program to qualify Scouts for it. Check with a local RR club or museum to see if they offer a similar program. My Webelos book says "WE'll BE LOyal Scouts". It's the last 1-1/2 years of Cub Scouting. My 5th grader "graduates" this January - I can finally stop being a Den Mother! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 9, 2005 10:09 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd OK, I'll admit a cheap shot with the Cub Scout stuff! I'm not the only one who told you that passenger airliners are completely pressurized. You don't believe them either? Maybe I'm the only one stupid enough to argue with a fence post! (another cheap shot, I suppose, but at whom?) And again you didn't read the question. I hope by the time you're old enough to take your SAT's you'll acquire that skill or the only career phrase you'll need is "Ya want fries with that?" I never said they weren't pressurized, I said it WASN'T NECESSARY to pressurize or heat them. The question was (now read this S-L-O-W-L-Y) "What is the significance of the 1.4 million pound figure that keep bringing up?" A pressure bulkhead, be it the floor or the fuselage walls, will have to hold back the pressure differential, no matter what the number is you wi***o assign to it. It's like me asking "What's two plus two?" and you keep answering "fish." The 1.4M# figure is the load you'd have to design the floor for if you want it to be a pressurized bulkhead. There are NO commercial passenger airliners that have their floor as a pressurized bulkhead. If there are no planes with floor that can act as a pressurized bulkhead, then it is ALWAYS necessary to pressurize the cargo area. You COULD build a car with 7 wheels, too, but why would you? So back to the original question, why is the 1.4 million pound figure appliede to the floor when it's a pressurized bulkhead, and not applied to the fuselage walls when they are the pressurized bulkhead. The "necessity" I'm refering to is based on the contents of the compartment. Cargo doesn't need heat or pressurization any more than most boxcars or enclosed trailers need it. When you're hauling passengers, the need changes. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 9, 2005 10:13 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear What I still don't understand is why anyone would ever name a level of Boy Scouting anything remotely sounding like "We Blow"??? Is there even a merit badge involving RRs anymore? LC Webelo (sp?) is a name for a sort of post-Cub Scout, pre-Boy Scout, a contraction of the words "We belong." Scouting does still have a Railroading merit badge. Steamtown runs a program to qualify Scouts for it. Check with a local RR club or museum to see if they offer a similar program. My Webelos book says "WE'll BE LOyal Scouts". It's the last 1-1/2 years of Cub Scouting. My 5th grader "graduates" this January - I can finally stop being a Den Mother! I was doing that from memory. It's been a LOOONNNGGG time since my son was that age (he's 28 now). Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Friday, December 9, 2005 10:23 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd OK, I'll admit a cheap shot with the Cub Scout stuff! I'm not the only one who told you that passenger airliners are completely pressurized. You don't believe them either? Maybe I'm the only one stupid enough to argue with a fence post! (another cheap shot, I suppose, but at whom?) And again you didn't read the question. I hope by the time you're old enough to take your SAT's you'll acquire that skill or the only career phrase you'll need is "Ya want fries with that?" I never said they weren't pressurized, I said it WASN'T NECESSARY to pressurize or heat them. The question was (now read this S-L-O-W-L-Y) "What is the significance of the 1.4 million pound figure that keep bringing up?" A pressure bulkhead, be it the floor or the fuselage walls, will have to hold back the pressure differential, no matter what the number is you wi***o assign to it. It's like me asking "What's two plus two?" and you keep answering "fish." The 1.4M# figure is the load you'd have to design the floor for if you want it to be a pressurized bulkhead. There are NO commercial passenger airliners that have their floor as a pressurized bulkhead. If there are no planes with floor that can act as a pressurized bulkhead, then it is ALWAYS necessary to pressurize the cargo area. You COULD build a car with 7 wheels, too, but why would you? So back to the original question, why is the 1.4 million pound figure appliede to the floor when it's a pressurized bulkhead, and not applied to the fuselage walls when they are the pressurized bulkhead. The "necessity" I'm refering to is based on the contents of the compartment. Cargo doesn't need heat or pressurization any more than most boxcars or enclosed trailers need it. When you're hauling passengers, the need changes. Not really. What's the most a train or truck is going to see...sea level to maybe 6000 ft. Goods packaged under pressure..for example...air tight bags, plastic bottles, etc...will expand or contract with the altitude changes. I have seen potato chip bags burst at 6000' of cabin altitude. Add a rapid 60 degree temperature change (if it's not heated either), and we get more damage. Particularly liquids. Unless all you are hauling is books..you are going to have unhappy customers. And coming back down is equally destructive.....had a rapid loss of cabin pressuriztion at around FL180 in a descent. Never knew I had an abcess under a filling until in blew the filling and top of tooth off about two seconds after the pressure dipped. Dan So...I can not eat a Subway sandwich on a train, and on Tom's cold airline I would refrain, but not in Spain, nor in the rain, or to add to Jay's pain.... unless a merit badge I could attain. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 9, 2005 10:26 AM So, does this thread name change indicate that the Cub Scouts will now be serving the Subway sandwiches on Amtrak??? Perhaps we can pressurize a few planes with all this hot air?? How 'bout that Southwest crash at Midway? Ouch. Some bad driving there.... LC Reply Edit chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Friday, December 9, 2005 10:41 AM Or will the cub scouts be subsidizing pressurized Subway sandwiches on Amtrak?[:D] Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 9, 2005 11:04 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd OK, I'll admit a cheap shot with the Cub Scout stuff! I'm not the only one who told you that passenger airliners are completely pressurized. You don't believe them either? Maybe I'm the only one stupid enough to argue with a fence post! (another cheap shot, I suppose, but at whom?) And again you didn't read the question. I hope by the time you're old enough to take your SAT's you'll acquire that skill or the only career phrase you'll need is "Ya want fries with that?" I never said they weren't pressurized, I said it WASN'T NECESSARY to pressurize or heat them. The question was (now read this S-L-O-W-L-Y) "What is the significance of the 1.4 million pound figure that keep bringing up?" A pressure bulkhead, be it the floor or the fuselage walls, will have to hold back the pressure differential, no matter what the number is you wi***o assign to it. It's like me asking "What's two plus two?" and you keep answering "fish." The 1.4M# figure is the load you'd have to design the floor for if you want it to be a pressurized bulkhead. There are NO commercial passenger airliners that have their floor as a pressurized bulkhead. If there are no planes with floor that can act as a pressurized bulkhead, then it is ALWAYS necessary to pressurize the cargo area. You COULD build a car with 7 wheels, too, but why would you? So back to the original question, why is the 1.4 million pound figure appliede to the floor when it's a pressurized bulkhead, and not applied to the fuselage walls when they are the pressurized bulkhead. The "necessity" I'm refering to is based on the contents of the compartment. Cargo doesn't need heat or pressurization any more than most boxcars or enclosed trailers need it. When you're hauling passengers, the need changes. You DO have a large load on all the pressurized fuselage surfaces. The direction in which those forces act and how the forces are carried in the structure are the key. A cylinder is a very efficient design to pressurize. A rectangle is not. It's why all pressure vessels are cylindrical or spherical. It's not that they COULDN'T be other shapes. It's just the cost and structural complexity aren't justified. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply tree68 Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Northern New York 25,015 posts Posted by tree68 on Friday, December 9, 2005 11:05 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas Or will the cub scouts be subsidizing pressurized Subway sandwiches on Amtrak?[:D] How about if the Cub Scouts sell the Subway sandwiches on the trains...[:D] 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... Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Friday, December 9, 2005 11:08 AM BEERGIEEEE!!! NOW HARMON IS CHANNELING SEUSS!!! "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 9, 2005 11:10 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear So, does this thread name change indicate that the Cub Scouts will now be serving the Subway sandwiches on Amtrak??? Perhaps we can pressurize a few planes with all this hot air?? How 'bout that Southwest crash at Midway? Ouch. Some bad driving there.... LC I think it's the Cub Scouts that are pressurized, but I'm no longer sure. I think that SW flight missed the arresting wire. Midway is a scary place to fly in and out of in good weather. It's shoehorned into a residential area - a big square with the runways on the diagonals. I think it was built for DC3s with runways just barely long enough for small jets. A few more feet an the plane might have been in someone's living room (non pressurized, of course) Now, did you know that there were some early attempts to propel subway cars using air pressure (pneumatic tubes)? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 9, 2005 11:33 AM Now THAT'S how to hijack a post. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 9, 2005 11:37 AM Could you pressurize a plane? Could you pressurize a train? Have you pressurized my brain? Or stress relieved this sad refrain? Subway food just isn't safe. It makes the union collar chafe. You need us, 'case the terrorists strafe and with no job, a homeless waif. If they serve you at your seat, They won't ask you "white or wheat" and they'll have to store it in the heat. 'Coz if it's frozen, that ain't sweet. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Mookie Member sinceJune 2001 From: US 13,488 posts Posted by Mookie on Friday, December 9, 2005 12:44 PM Dan - since we are hijacking topics - is San Diego still a thrill to fly into? Over the parking garage? Moo She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Friday, December 9, 2005 12:53 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie Dan - since we are hijacking topics - is San Diego still a thrill to fly into? Over the parking garage? Moo Yeah baby! Nothing like peeping into the condo bedroom windows on final.......The big thing now is that the county wants the Marines to give up Miramar or allow it for joint civil / military use.....which doesn't work real well. What they proponents won't say is that ..yeah they want the airport, but they really want the upteen thousand acres of undeveloped government property surrounding it....which gives the locals an unrealistic sense of how quiet it is.....to exploit. It's the California way...I'm too stupid to do it right from the beginning..so I'm going to take what someone else has. I'm beginning to feel a little pressurization in my caboose from the Subway sandwich I just ate....I may need to step outside before Weeblow Dan Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 9, 2005 4:31 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie Dan - since we are hijacking topics - is San Diego still a thrill to fly into? Over the parking garage? Moo Yeah baby! Nothing like peeping into the condo bedroom windows on final.......The big thing now is that the county wants the Marines to give up Miramar or allow it for joint civil / military use.....which doesn't work real well. What they proponents won't say is that ..yeah they want the airport, but they really want the upteen thousand acres of undeveloped government property surrounding it....which gives the locals an unrealistic sense of how quiet it is.....to exploit. It's the California way...I'm too stupid to do it right from the beginning..so I'm going to take what someone else has. I'm beginning to feel a little pressurization in my caboose from the Subway sandwich I just ate....I may need to step outside before Weeblow Dan Brutha, Ahhh feeel YO pain... LC Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 9, 2005 11:13 PM Well, whoever changed the title of the post, I think you just took away all the people's qualifications for the "Post Hijacking" merit badge. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Friday, December 9, 2005 11:17 PM Say Tom...... For our departed friend from Idaho.....couldn't we make a new scout rank....the coveted SABeloh? Dan Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, December 9, 2005 11:49 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon Say Tom...... For our departed friend from Idaho.....couldn't we make a new scout rank....the coveted SABeloh? Dan What's the Boy Scout Headquarters address? Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply 12345 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by Limitedclear There has been speculation in the press that issues may have arisen with the Amtrak union for the onboard crews who have lost their jobs when Amtrak cut food service on the Renssalaer based crews. Presumably objections have been raised to non-union Subway employees providing food service on those trains. See this article from the Albany Times Union for example: http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=15037 LC As someone who has no intentions of ever riding Amtrak again after so many experiences with terrible "service" let me ask this question: Were Amtrak kitchen employees ever put out by having to operate can openers in order to serve the Franco American spaghetti slop that they supposedly cooked onboard the train??? Food for thought (NO pun intended). Some of the worst food I've ver eaten was consumed on Amtrak. Seems to me that Subway would be a big step up from the culinary garbagr normally served by Amtrak.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl I'll bet if Hooters was in the mix there would be very little opposition . If not subway ......HOOTERS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
QUOTE: Originally posted by RudyRockvilleMD I personally experienced the food vending machine on the SP's Daylight in the 1960's. The vending machine was located in a lounge car. The passenger was supposed to be able to deposit money in the vending machine, and get the meal. But the machine didn't work so you had to give the attendant money, and he unlocked the machine to allow you t get the meal. Why would a short trip like New York - Albany need a cafe car?. A refreshment cart or trolley would be all that would be needed. They use refreshment carts frequently on trains with short runs in Great Britain and Europe. Granted the cart may not have as great a variety in food or sandwiches as you might find in a cafe car. I agree with Randy Stahl !!!!!
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton QUOTE: Originally posted by RudyRockvilleMD I personally experienced the food vending machine on the SP's Daylight in the 1960's. The vending machine was located in a lounge car. The passenger was supposed to be able to deposit money in the vending machine, and get the meal. But the machine didn't work so you had to give the attendant money, and he unlocked the machine to allow you t get the meal. Why would a short trip like New York - Albany need a cafe car?. A refreshment cart or trolley would be all that would be needed. They use refreshment carts frequently on trains with short runs in Great Britain and Europe. Granted the cart may not have as great a variety in food or sandwiches as you might find in a cafe car. I agree with Randy Stahl !!!!! I think that Amtrak's decision to pull the lounge car service on these trains is fairly indicative that the service had little or no impact on ridership. If such is the case, why even bother with a cart. Riders can easily do what commuters will do. Grab something to go. On the other hand, if Subway or anybody else can make a profit providing a service on a short run train like this, well go for it. As I've said, it is just not going to be as easy as one might think.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd But, the payroll is still 2/3 of what NS's is when NS runs 5x more trains per day and maintains 10x more locomtives and 1000x more track miles than Amtrak. I can't think of a single basic industry that hasn't greatly increased labor productivity (or gone away) since the 1960s. So, how about figuring out how to run the LD trains with a crew of 6, for starters. Engineer, Conductor, one or two trainmen, and......
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd But, the payroll is still 2/3 of what NS's is when NS runs 5x more trains per day and maintains 10x more locomtives and 1000x more track miles than Amtrak. I can't think of a single basic industry that hasn't greatly increased labor productivity (or gone away) since the 1960s. So, how about figuring out how to run the LD trains with a crew of 6, for starters. Engineer, Conductor, one or two trainmen, and...... That might be a valid comparison and work if the passengers didn't mind being packed into a boxcar with no food, bathrooms, or even windows. The 60's would be a bad point of reference, at that point in history, most railroads had cut back services on passenger trains in an effort to kill them off. I'm not sure how big the actual train crew is on an Amtrak train, but I doubt if it's more than 6 people. I've only ever seen the engineer and conductor. Most are the "hotel staff" type jobs.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Mongollian BBQ - you get in line, scoop/fork/ladle your own prefered collectoin of meats/veggies/condiments into your bowl, then take it to the chef(s) to be stir-fried.
QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Just don't expect other people to pay for your long distance train travel.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl You might as well compare trucks to busses. They haul a totally different type of payload. If you're comparing train crews, the ones that are specific to the passenger operation have no equivalent on a freight train, therefore, no basis for comparison. True, a locomotive is a locomotive, and requires periodic service and repair regardless of the horsepower. A 500 HP diesel will require the same number of oil changes, lubrications, inspections, etc, as a 5000 HP one will. Amtrak is a $2 Billion company compared to a $7 Billion company doing completely different jobs. The only similarity is they both run on rails. Under Gunn, the rules were changing for the better, and he did have an incentive to get more productive. The protective rules he had to work against greatly slowed the progress on this front. Since Amtrak IS passenger railroading in the US, there really isn't anything else to compare it to.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd The $7B vs $2B is EXACTLY the point! If it takes 19,000 employees to gather in $2B in "revenue" (in Amtrak's case its &1.5B revenue + $0.5B subsidy) versus 30,000 to gather in $7B on NS, then somethings amiss at Amtrak. That's only $80,000 per employee for Amtrak.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Passenger and frt RRing are not as much "apples" and "oranges" as you might think! Track is track. Signals are signals (even when you spec out and build your one-of-a-kind, totally bizzare ARES system). Locomotives are locomotives. Engineers are engineers. Conductors are conductors (in uniform or not). 79 mph really isn't much different from 60 or 70 mph. The main difference is that passenger cars are not freight cars. Passengers require climate control. Only some frt does (think reefers). Climate control equipment is less expensive and complicated than propulsion equipment on a locomotive. Passengers are less tolerant of vibration, shock and noise, so cars require more elaborate suspension - very much like a locomotive. And, they need water and "sewer". So, for the sake of arguement, we'll assume passenger cars are locomotives. (so Amtrak has 2500 "locomotives" versus 3000 locomotives and 200,000 frt cars for NS) The $7B vs $2B is EXACTLY the point! If it takes 19,000 employees to gather in $2B in "revenue" (in Amtrak's case its &1.5B revenue + $0.5B subsidy) versus 30,000 to gather in $7B on NS, then somethings amiss at Amtrak. That's only $80,000 per employee for Amtrak. A 500 HP high speed diesel engine and a 4000 HP med. speed diesel engine much more dissimilar that a P42 and a C44-9 - which are darn near the same locomotive in many, many respects. The duty isn't even all that terribly different. You have to do trucks and wheels on the P42s about twice as often, but the HP-hrs are about the same, so maint costs and overhaul costs are very similar. (I'll trade you the HEP for the two traction motors) But, passengers make their own connections (by foot) and do the "last mile" pick up and delivery by themselves. No pesky hump yards to pay for or expensive locals to operate for Amtrak. At least you admit there is room to go on the productivity front - the barriers being institutional, not physical or technological. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Don If you want you can go on from now until the end of time, but you are still comparing apples to oranges, or in this case, freight cars to passenger cars. You are also making some very grand assumptions using total head count of a freight railroad to a passenger railroad. About the only thing they have in common if 4' 8 1/2" . I might point out that the short distance trains run with a total of three crew, 4 if there is food and beverage service. If you want to call a long distance service without diner, sleepers, check baggage, and lounge efficient, be my guest. If you think all of the cost reduction will automaticly transmit to the bottom line, just hang on for a few years and see how it works out.
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...
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Just don't expect other people to pay for your long distance train travel. ....any more than they pay for your long distance air travel. We don't need no stinkin' air traffic controllers or airports.
QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon I'd say In-N -Out should replace Subway...that would really improve ridership...shorter lines on the train than the local drive thru's....
QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68 QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon I'd say In-N -Out should replace Subway...that would really improve ridership...shorter lines on the train than the local drive thru's.... Build the drive-throughs next to the tracks, have customers call in orders, then stop pick them up? [:p]
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd The $7B vs $2B is EXACTLY the point! If it takes 19,000 employees to gather in $2B in "revenue" (in Amtrak's case its &1.5B revenue + $0.5B subsidy) versus 30,000 to gather in $7B on NS, then somethings amiss at Amtrak. That's only $80,000 per employee for Amtrak. To take this to a ridiculous conclusion, all industry that has a low return on investment should go out of business. Railroads probably have the worst. Freight and passenger railroads are different like passenger and cargo airlines are different. How many stewardesses are on a FedEx plane? Does the cabin need to be climate controlled, or even pressurized? Try making that distinction an option on passenger flights. Sorry, still not convinced that you're not comparing apples to oranges.
QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. dd
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Passenger and frt RRing are not as much "apples" and "oranges" as you might think! Track is track. Signals are signals (even when you spec out and build your one-of-a-kind, totally bizzare ARES system). Locomotives are locomotives. Engineers are engineers. Conductors are conductors (in uniform or not). 79 mph really isn't much different from 60 or 70 mph. The main difference is that passenger cars are not freight cars. Passengers require climate control. Only some frt does (think reefers). Climate control equipment is less expensive and complicated than propulsion equipment on a locomotive. Passengers are less tolerant of vibration, shock and noise, so cars require more elaborate suspension - very much like a locomotive. And, they need water and "sewer". So, for the sake of arguement, we'll assume passenger cars are locomotives. (so Amtrak has 2500 "locomotives" versus 3000 locomotives and 200,000 frt cars for NS) The $7B vs $2B is EXACTLY the point! If it takes 19,000 employees to gather in $2B in "revenue" (in Amtrak's case its &1.5B revenue + $0.5B subsidy) versus 30,000 to gather in $7B on NS, then somethings amiss at Amtrak. That's only $80,000 per employee for Amtrak. A 500 HP high speed diesel engine and a 4000 HP med. speed diesel engine much more dissimilar that a P42 and a C44-9 - which are darn near the same locomotive in many, many respects. The duty isn't even all that terribly different. You have to do trucks and wheels on the P42s about twice as often, but the HP-hrs are about the same, so maint costs and overhaul costs are very similar. (I'll trade you the HEP for the two traction motors) But, passengers make their own connections (by foot) and do the "last mile" pick up and delivery by themselves. No pesky hump yards to pay for or expensive locals to operate for Amtrak. At least you admit there is room to go on the productivity front - the barriers being institutional, not physical or technological. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Without breaking out the costs and personnel for maintenance and operation of locomotives, rail operation crews (te equivalent of freight trains, not dedicated to passenger operation), track maintenance and rental fees, and the cost of the passenger related crews and cars, the comparison is still apples to oranges. For example, it costs more to ship a ton of frozen food than it does to ship a ton of coal. Why? Car costs are cheaper.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Don Going back to the cost side and looking at equipment maintenance, in 2004 the NS reported that 17.3% of revenue was spent on mechanical. For Amtrak, the FY 2005 percent of revenue spent on Mechanical was 20.6. If Amtrak were able to pull in $450 additional revenue their Mechanical ratio would be 16.6% Jay
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Don Continuing to look at the pricing side, keep in mind that the jump in demand for frieght railroad services, which is a result of higher costs for competing services, has given the freight railroads greater pricing power. Amtrak does not have that luxury. Jay
QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Just don't expect other people to pay for your long distance train travel. ....any more than they pay for your long distance air travel. We don't need no stinkin' air traffic controllers or airports. The airports and FAA argument doesn't fly ...so to speak. Airports are primarly local or regional concerns, benefitting the customer the local user.....and paid for by them through bond issues and such. FAA and ATC is nothing more than roads and traffic lights for planes. Road are paid for by taxes....so are the ones in the air.....and even if you don't fly....if you get mail...you are a customer of ATC, FEDEX, DHL....yep, UPS...sometimes...A whole host of items fly as cargo that you might not think of. Gov't support of Amtrak vs. infrastructure support to airlines is a non-argument.... I'd say In-N -Out should replace Subway...that would really improve ridership...shorter lines on the train than the local drive thru's....
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Don If you want you can go on from now until the end of time, but you are still comparing apples to oranges, or in this case, freight cars to passenger cars. You are also making some very grand assumptions using total head count of a freight railroad to a passenger railroad. About the only thing they have in common if 4' 8 1/2" . I might point out that the short distance trains run with a total of three crew, 4 if there is food and beverage service. If you want to call a long distance service without diner, sleepers, check baggage, and lounge efficient, be my guest. If you think all of the cost reduction will automaticly transmit to the bottom line, just hang on for a few years and see how it works out. I'm not saying "just do it". I'm saying "consider it and all other options". Amtrak is doing hte same things the same way things were done in 1950. The rest of the world has moved on. It's time for Amtrak to catch up.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Just don't expect other people to pay for your long distance train travel. ....any more than they pay for your long distance air travel. We don't need no stinkin' air traffic controllers or airports. The airports and FAA argument doesn't fly ...so to speak. Airports are primarly local or regional concerns, benefitting the customer the local user.....and paid for by them through bond issues and such. FAA and ATC is nothing more than roads and traffic lights for planes. Road are paid for by taxes....so are the ones in the air.....and even if you don't fly....if you get mail...you are a customer of ATC, FEDEX, DHL....yep, UPS...sometimes...A whole host of items fly as cargo that you might not think of. Gov't support of Amtrak vs. infrastructure support to airlines is a non-argument.... I'd say In-N -Out should replace Subway...that would really improve ridership...shorter lines on the train than the local drive thru's.... In your first paragraph, you say the argument DOESN'T fly. And in the second and third, you prove that it does. Maybe you need to research how "bond issues and such" are repaid. ????????????????
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd The $7B vs $2B is EXACTLY the point! If it takes 19,000 employees to gather in $2B in "revenue" (in Amtrak's case its &1.5B revenue + $0.5B subsidy) versus 30,000 to gather in $7B on NS, then somethings amiss at Amtrak. That's only $80,000 per employee for Amtrak. To take this to a ridiculous conclusion, all industry that has a low return on investment should go out of business. Railroads probably have the worst. Freight and passenger railroads are different like passenger and cargo airlines are different. How many stewardesses are on a FedEx plane? Does the cabin need to be climate controlled, or even pressurized? Try making that distinction an option on passenger flights. Sorry, still not convinced that you're not comparing apples to oranges. All industry with a low return on EQUITY, over the long term, does go out of business. Have you seen Pan Am, TWA or Eastern around lately? Packard? WebVan? Univac? ALCo? Sometimes, we subsidize things to skew the market to achieve agreed upon goals. Amtrak is an example of this, although I'd argue we never agreed upon any goals or mission. I think you are missing my point, though. If Amtrak's numbers were somewhat out of line with the frt carriers, you could explain it away with "that's the difference between pass and frt". But , they are WAY, WAY, WAY out of line. Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. dd Your expectations might not be realistic. You could expect to have trans-Atlantic steamship service at 3x airfare, too, but there is none. Have you ever ridden a dinner train were the food was delivered from a local restaurant (like on the Strassburg RR)? Why not something similar on Amtrak? If the alternative was 5x airfare and have a car attendant or 3x airfare with no attendant or stay home or fly or drive, which would you choose?
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. dd Your expectations might not be realistic. You could expect to have trans-Atlantic steamship service at 3x airfare, too, but there is none. Have you ever ridden a dinner train were the food was delivered from a local restaurant (like on the Strassburg RR)? Why not something similar on Amtrak? If the alternative was 5x airfare and have a car attendant or 3x airfare with no attendant or stay home or fly or drive, which would you choose? There's a bit of difference between the 5 mile long Strasburg Railroad, which is in the middle of an established tourist area, and a nationwide system that travels through urban to wilderness areas over several thousand miles of track. The logistics would be a nightmare doing this on Amtrak (not always on schedule thanks in part to the host railroad) as compared to a catering truck driving a few miles from one end of the line to the other. I had the car attendant on my trip in August, and it beat the heck out of flying, driving, or not having them. Well worth the money, but I think your savings figure comparing with (5x) and without (3x) the car attendant is a bit exagerated. Coach rail travel is equivalent to bus or airplane. Sleeping car travel is more first class with private sleeping compartments (bedroom or roomette) and you pay extra for this service. On most trains, these bedrooms sell out early, showing they could probably add sleeping car capacity and sell more of the premium tickets. For an example of this, see how far into the future you need to go to get a Bedroom on the Sunset Limited. I went to August of next year and gave up.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. dd Your expectations might not be realistic. You could expect to have trans-Atlantic steamship service at 3x airfare, too, but there is none. Have you ever ridden a dinner train were the food was delivered from a local restaurant (like on the Strassburg RR)? Why not something similar on Amtrak? If the alternative was 5x airfare and have a car attendant or 3x airfare with no attendant or stay home or fly or drive, which would you choose? There's a bit of difference between the 5 mile long Strasburg Railroad, which is in the middle of an established tourist area, and a nationwide system that travels through urban to wilderness areas over several thousand miles of track. The logistics would be a nightmare doing this on Amtrak (not always on schedule thanks in part to the host railroad) as compared to a catering truck driving a few miles from one end of the line to the other. I had the car attendant on my trip in August, and it beat the heck out of flying, driving, or not having them. Well worth the money, but I think your savings figure comparing with (5x) and without (3x) the car attendant is a bit exagerated. Coach rail travel is equivalent to bus or airplane. Sleeping car travel is more first class with private sleeping compartments (bedroom or roomette) and you pay extra for this service. On most trains, these bedrooms sell out early, showing they could probably add sleeping car capacity and sell more of the premium tickets. For an example of this, see how far into the future you need to go to get a Bedroom on the Sunset Limited. I went to August of next year and gave up. I've ridden many thousands of miles in Amtrak sleepers and loved every minute of it. I would really like it if they'd stay around! But, there if there is any truth to the arguement that we're subsidizing discretionary travel in sleepers, then, it's awfully hard to defend. If it can be shown that they earn more than their incremental cost, then, we're home free. But, why are they there in the first place? If it's considered a basic part of LD train service, then you have the case for a subsidy in any event. If they are considered a luxury (more to your definition - calling them 1st class), then how can you justify any subsidy? A luxury "common good"? What is that? So far, NOBODY in Congress, the DOT or Amtrak has tried to define their roll except by inferrence or sound byte. So, we can either sit here and watch the status quo crumble, or demand a defined mission and some real funding for Amtrak
QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Just don't expect other people to pay for your long distance train travel. ....any more than they pay for your long distance air travel. We don't need no stinkin' air traffic controllers or airports. The airports and FAA argument doesn't fly ...so to speak. Airports are primarly local or regional concerns, benefitting the customer the local user.....and paid for by them through bond issues and such. FAA and ATC is nothing more than roads and traffic lights for planes. Road are paid for by taxes....so are the ones in the air.....and even if you don't fly....if you get mail...you are a customer of ATC, FEDEX, DHL....yep, UPS...sometimes...A whole host of items fly as cargo that you might not think of. Gov't support of Amtrak vs. infrastructure support to airlines is a non-argument.... I'd say In-N -Out should replace Subway...that would really improve ridership...shorter lines on the train than the local drive thru's.... In your first paragraph, you say the argument DOESN'T fly. And in the second and third, you prove that it does. Maybe you need to research how "bond issues and such" are repaid. ???????????????? Tom, I quite familiar how bond issues and repayment works. The idea that Amtrak should be subsized because the airlines receive subsidies is not valid. The Federal government subsidizing Amtrak is not the same as a LOCAL/REGIONAL government subsizing or financing an airport .....through bonds payed back by taxes.....yes I know Tom.......an airport that serves it's region...not someone from Montana subsidizing transportaion for Massachussetts. Much the same way your streets and street lights and enforcement of the rules on your local streets are payed for. Amtrak is not a public good which serves an great number of the population. I can't think of anything I get from Amtrak. Mail...no. Express...no....... But even if I don't fly, I derive benefit from an ATC system, same with the highways. And the railroads themselves...the PRIVATE owners of the ROWs, received incentives and breaks to get where they did. The point is, the continual comparison of Amtrak and airlines is not valid....more like Amtrak and Princess Cruise Line, that's a valid comparison. Dan
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance When I travel long-distance by train, I expect a sleeper and a car attendant. I expect dining service (not a sandwich of a trolley). And I expect to pay about 3X the airline fares for the same distance. If I wanted to be packed into a narrow seat with 150 other passengers, eating a stale sandwich off a trolley - I would go by AIR and save money. I know that Amtrak is not the Super Chief - but it is all I have today. And on shorter distances, I would rather have a fresh Subway sandwich than the premade thing I got on my last short Amtrak trip. dd Just don't expect other people to pay for your long distance train travel. ....any more than they pay for your long distance air travel. We don't need no stinkin' air traffic controllers or airports. The airports and FAA argument doesn't fly ...so to speak. Airports are primarly local or regional concerns, benefitting the customer the local user.....and paid for by them through bond issues and such. FAA and ATC is nothing more than roads and traffic lights for planes. Road are paid for by taxes....so are the ones in the air.....and even if you don't fly....if you get mail...you are a customer of ATC, FEDEX, DHL....yep, UPS...sometimes...A whole host of items fly as cargo that you might not think of. Gov't support of Amtrak vs. infrastructure support to airlines is a non-argument.... I'd say In-N -Out should replace Subway...that would really improve ridership...shorter lines on the train than the local drive thru's.... In your first paragraph, you say the argument DOESN'T fly. And in the second and third, you prove that it does. Maybe you need to research how "bond issues and such" are repaid. ???????????????? Tom, I quite familiar how bond issues and repayment works. The idea that Amtrak should be subsized because the airlines receive subsidies is not valid. The Federal government subsidizing Amtrak is not the same as a LOCAL/REGIONAL government subsizing or financing an airport .....through bonds payed back by taxes.....yes I know Tom.......an airport that serves it's region...not someone from Montana subsidizing transportaion for Massachussetts. Much the same way your streets and street lights and enforcement of the rules on your local streets are payed for. Amtrak is not a public good which serves an great number of the population. I can't think of anything I get from Amtrak. Mail...no. Express...no....... But even if I don't fly, I derive benefit from an ATC system, same with the highways. And the railroads themselves...the PRIVATE owners of the ROWs, received incentives and breaks to get where they did. The point is, the continual comparison of Amtrak and airlines is not valid....more like Amtrak and Princess Cruise Line, that's a valid comparison. Dan And continued comparison of freight and passenger haulers, simply because they both run on rails, is just as invalid
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton OK-Here is my deal. If "for hire" passenger airlines are compelled to pay their full share of the costs of all the government services they receive, air traffic control, airports, runways and whatever, then Amtrak can be cut off the government dole. Of course general aviation ought to be required to kick in their share, but I guess that is something akin to private vehicles on public roads. Meanwhile, the FY 2006 grant to Amtrak carries the provision that Amtrak must actually show a reduction in the food and sleeper deficit, and that if that is not accomplished, (no benchmarks are provided), no grant funds may be used for such services after July, 2006. Jay
QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. Since we're going to play the "you need to do a little more research" game....you need to do a little more research. It is quite neccessary to pressurize and heat the cargo comparment of aircraft. Fluid containers and sealed pressurized items tend not to react well to pressure changes and if you honsetly think temperature isn't an issue also, you are very wrong. If they were not, you would not be able to take any liquids in your luggage with risk of having them all over your clothes. Dan PS...I'm not going to argue with you about munition......but I am a pilot by trade.
QUOTE: Originally posted by amtrakjackson Interesting that most everyone concentrates on Amtrak's union issues, and cutting the front line to "save money". But what about Amtrak's bloated management? Sure, they no longer have 80 some-odd vice presidents, but the hundreds of former "on-board chiefs" were given *lifetime* management positions as a condition of the elimination of OBS chiefs. They're now "Operations Supervisors" (with no operations experience), or other nonsensical positions. Once given a management position at Amtrak, you're virtually guaranteed a job for life, and if it looks like the ax may fall, they'll reshuffle and accomodate you accordingly so that no one notices. In Chicago alone, there are close to 100 "managers" in and near the Chicago Terminal. All micro-managing the front-line employees and trying their best to keep their positions in the face of cuts. None ever get demoted, and, in fact, more are hired each year. Michigan alone has two road foremen, and an "operations supervisor" to directly cover roughly 30 employees. Not including the Chicago managers that come out. How many managers are there at NS's huge Elkhart Yard, in relationship the number of employees? Amtrak ought to take a look east 100 miles to see how to get things done. I think Chicago's ratio is somewhere around one manager for every seven employees. Yes, cuts need to be made. As we used to say as children, at Amtrak there are too many Chiefs and not enough Indians. (Play on words not intentional.) They unstaff stations and leave passengers out in the cold all over the country, yet have managers tripping over themselves. That's where the problem lies.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book.....
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton One thing we know for sure, Subway won't be selling their products to any passengers in the cargo holds of commercial airplanes. Jay
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... So you're saying that a 1/4 inch thick aluminum skin riveted to an inside framework can 1.4 million pounds of force? Impressive if the vessel was large enough, but the strength of materials book will give you ratings in pounds per SQUARE INCH, the same as the measurement of air pressure. And I fail to see how the floor, reinforced to support the weight of the cargo or passengers would be weaker than the outside fuselage of the aircraft.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear The latest salvo from the Union... LC Letter to the Editor - Albany Times Union Amtrak's service contract with Subway is shortsighted and dangerous First published: Friday, December 2, 2005 An article appeared in your Nov. 20 business section headed, "Amtrak starts with food." I would strongly disagree with the premise. Amtrak should start with a safe and secure trip. The decision to end food and beverage service provided by professional service workers and to contract with Subway franchisees is shortsighted and dangerous. The Empire Corridor trains no longer include service workers who, like flight attendants on the airlines, are responsible for the safety and security of passengers as well as food service. These rail workers received training in emergency protocols to handle bomb threats, evacuation procedures, fire suppression, risk avoidance of communicable diseases and blood borne pathogens, as well as FDA regulations in food handling. There have been more than 181 terrorist attacks against major rail networks, including those in London, Madrid, Paris, Moscow and Tokyo, since 1998. To eliminate on-board service and contract it out to sandwich vendors removes an important level of security on America's passenger trains. On-board service employees have acted heroically in emergency situations helping to evacuate trains and administer first aid. Three years ago, when Amtrak's autotrain derailed in Crescent City, Fla., on-board attendants rescued trapped passengers by opening windows and pulling them to safety. When the California Zephyr derailed in 2001, one on-board attendant rescued 80 passengers despite his own injuries Now, Amtrak has contracted with Subway in a pilot program where Subway employees will hawk sandwiches in the aisles. Amtrak has put itself on record that these workers are to be treated like passengers in case of emergency. Instead of being first responders, they will be first out the door. Trading safety for a sandwich is irresponsible. GARY MASLANKA Chair, Amtrak Service Workers Council Railroad Division Director Transport Workers Union of America New York City
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... So you're saying that a 1/4 inch thick aluminum skin riveted to an inside framework can 1.4 million pounds of force? Impressive if the vessel was large enough, but the strength of materials book will give you ratings in pounds per SQUARE INCH, the same as the measurement of air pressure. And I fail to see how the floor, reinforced to support the weight of the cargo or passengers would be weaker than the outside fuselage of the aircraft. You are confusing the engineering discipline "strength of materials" with "materials science". Material Science deals with the properties of the materials. Strength of Materials is all about how to calculate stress and strain in various objects - like cylinders, beams, floors, columns, etc. Getting out my Singer "Stength of Materials" book. Looking on p 20 to see how to calculate stress in a thin walled cylinder. If the cylinder was made of 1/4" thick aluminum, the hoop stress is only 2300 psi. Aluminum is good for better than 30,000 psi Working backward, you only need 0.019" thick aluminum to carry the hoop stresses from a 10 psi internal pressure. You COULD build an airplane where the area under the floor is not pressurized and the area above is, but you'd have to add so much structure to support the floor and distribute the load to the fuselage skin, that you'd significantly cut into your payload capacity. It's MUCH simpler, lighter and cheaper to just pressurize the whole cylinder - which is why airplanes are built that way! You COULD just take the word of a degreed Mechanical Engineer [:D]
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... So you're saying that a 1/4 inch thick aluminum skin riveted to an inside framework can 1.4 million pounds of force? Impressive if the vessel was large enough, but the strength of materials book will give you ratings in pounds per SQUARE INCH, the same as the measurement of air pressure. And I fail to see how the floor, reinforced to support the weight of the cargo or passengers would be weaker than the outside fuselage of the aircraft. You are confusing the engineering discipline "strength of materials" with "materials science". Material Science deals with the properties of the materials. Strength of Materials is all about how to calculate stress and strain in various objects - like cylinders, beams, floors, columns, etc. Getting out my Singer "Stength of Materials" book. Looking on p 20 to see how to calculate stress in a thin walled cylinder. If the cylinder was made of 1/4" thick aluminum, the hoop stress is only 2300 psi. Aluminum is good for better than 30,000 psi Working backward, you only need 0.019" thick aluminum to carry the hoop stresses from a 10 psi internal pressure. You COULD build an airplane where the area under the floor is not pressurized and the area above is, but you'd have to add so much structure to support the floor and distribute the load to the fuselage skin, that you'd significantly cut into your payload capacity. It's MUCH simpler, lighter and cheaper to just pressurize the whole cylinder - which is why airplanes are built that way! You COULD just take the word of a degreed Mechanical Engineer [:D] But of what value is it? As many times as I've been in the cockpit of an aircraft, I don't recall ever seeing a gauge marked "Hoop Pressure." Is this more of the info "never used outside the school?"
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... So you're saying that a 1/4 inch thick aluminum skin riveted to an inside framework can 1.4 million pounds of force? Impressive if the vessel was large enough, but the strength of materials book will give you ratings in pounds per SQUARE INCH, the same as the measurement of air pressure. And I fail to see how the floor, reinforced to support the weight of the cargo or passengers would be weaker than the outside fuselage of the aircraft. You are confusing the engineering discipline "strength of materials" with "materials science". Material Science deals with the properties of the materials. Strength of Materials is all about how to calculate stress and strain in various objects - like cylinders, beams, floors, columns, etc. Getting out my Singer "Stength of Materials" book. Looking on p 20 to see how to calculate stress in a thin walled cylinder. If the cylinder was made of 1/4" thick aluminum, the hoop stress is only 2300 psi. Aluminum is good for better than 30,000 psi Working backward, you only need 0.019" thick aluminum to carry the hoop stresses from a 10 psi internal pressure. You COULD build an airplane where the area under the floor is not pressurized and the area above is, but you'd have to add so much structure to support the floor and distribute the load to the fuselage skin, that you'd significantly cut into your payload capacity. It's MUCH simpler, lighter and cheaper to just pressurize the whole cylinder - which is why airplanes are built that way! You COULD just take the word of a degreed Mechanical Engineer [:D] But of what value is it? As many times as I've been in the cockpit of an aircraft, I don't recall ever seeing a gauge marked "Hoop Pressure." Is this more of the info "never used outside the school?" Wrong again, reindeer breath! (with appolgies to Johny Carson) Why in the world would anyone measure the hoop, or circumfrential STRESS (not pressure - although the units are the same) in an aircraft fuselage? You DESIGN for it based on the internal pressure. This is really, really basic simple engineering - several hundred years old. It is used ALL OVER THE PLACE outside of "the school". Everything from the water pipes in your house to the brake pipe on a frt car use this stress calculation. It's often called "hoop" stress because of it's application in barrel making. You are either impossibly dense or just rattling my cage.... I feel like I'm stuck in the Bob and Ray "Komodo Dragon" radio play.[:)] http://www.mindspring.com/~biohaz/komodo.txt
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... So you're saying that a 1/4 inch thick aluminum skin riveted to an inside framework can 1.4 million pounds of force? Impressive if the vessel was large enough, but the strength of materials book will give you ratings in pounds per SQUARE INCH, the same as the measurement of air pressure. And I fail to see how the floor, reinforced to support the weight of the cargo or passengers would be weaker than the outside fuselage of the aircraft. You are confusing the engineering discipline "strength of materials" with "materials science". Material Science deals with the properties of the materials. Strength of Materials is all about how to calculate stress and strain in various objects - like cylinders, beams, floors, columns, etc. Getting out my Singer "Stength of Materials" book. Looking on p 20 to see how to calculate stress in a thin walled cylinder. If the cylinder was made of 1/4" thick aluminum, the hoop stress is only 2300 psi. Aluminum is good for better than 30,000 psi Working backward, you only need 0.019" thick aluminum to carry the hoop stresses from a 10 psi internal pressure. You COULD build an airplane where the area under the floor is not pressurized and the area above is, but you'd have to add so much structure to support the floor and distribute the load to the fuselage skin, that you'd significantly cut into your payload capacity. It's MUCH simpler, lighter and cheaper to just pressurize the whole cylinder - which is why airplanes are built that way! You COULD just take the word of a degreed Mechanical Engineer [:D] But of what value is it? As many times as I've been in the cockpit of an aircraft, I don't recall ever seeing a gauge marked "Hoop Pressure." Is this more of the info "never used outside the school?" Wrong again, reindeer breath! (with appolgies to Johny Carson) Why in the world would anyone measure the hoop, or circumfrential STRESS (not pressure - although the units are the same) in an aircraft fuselage? You DESIGN for it based on the internal pressure. This is really, really basic simple engineering - several hundred years old. It is used ALL OVER THE PLACE outside of "the school". Everything from the water pipes in your house to the brake pipe on a frt car use this stress calculation. It's often called "hoop" stress because of it's application in barrel making. You are either impossibly dense or just rattling my cage.... I feel like I'm stuck in the Bob and Ray "Komodo Dragon" radio play.[:)] http://www.mindspring.com/~biohaz/komodo.txt You seem to be impossibly inept at reading a question. What is the value of the 1.4 million pounds of force other than a exercise in mathmatics? Or trying to impress someone with insignificant numbers? Reference your quote: "10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load." Exactly how would the floor be taking that large of a load, which is far above the cargo capacity of most aircraft, even if it were a pressure bulkhead? A small puncture in the fuselage would cause the plane to explode with that much force inside. Something already disproven on "Mythbusters."
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd OK, I'll admit a cheap shot with the Cub Scout stuff! I'm not the only one who told you that passenger airliners are completely pressurized. You don't believe them either? Maybe I'm the only one stupid enough to argue with a fence post! (another cheap shot, I suppose, but at whom?)
QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear What I still don't understand is why anyone would ever name a level of Boy Scouting anything remotely sounding like "We Blow"??? Is there even a merit badge involving RRs anymore? LC
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear What I still don't understand is why anyone would ever name a level of Boy Scouting anything remotely sounding like "We Blow"??? Is there even a merit badge involving RRs anymore? LC Webelo (sp?) is a name for a sort of post-Cub Scout, pre-Boy Scout, a contraction of the words "We belong." Scouting does still have a Railroading merit badge. Steamtown runs a program to qualify Scouts for it. Check with a local RR club or museum to see if they offer a similar program.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Speaking of Badges-and Awards. I have decided to ask Bergie to establish a Trains.com "Forum Topic Hijacking Award". Two members immediately come to mind as the first recipients. Jay
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd OK, I'll admit a cheap shot with the Cub Scout stuff! I'm not the only one who told you that passenger airliners are completely pressurized. You don't believe them either? Maybe I'm the only one stupid enough to argue with a fence post! (another cheap shot, I suppose, but at whom?) And again you didn't read the question. I hope by the time you're old enough to take your SAT's you'll acquire that skill or the only career phrase you'll need is "Ya want fries with that?" I never said they weren't pressurized, I said it WASN'T NECESSARY to pressurize or heat them. The question was (now read this S-L-O-W-L-Y) "What is the significance of the 1.4 million pound figure that keep bringing up?" A pressure bulkhead, be it the floor or the fuselage walls, will have to hold back the pressure differential, no matter what the number is you wi***o assign to it. It's like me asking "What's two plus two?" and you keep answering "fish."
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd OK, I'll admit a cheap shot with the Cub Scout stuff! I'm not the only one who told you that passenger airliners are completely pressurized. You don't believe them either? Maybe I'm the only one stupid enough to argue with a fence post! (another cheap shot, I suppose, but at whom?) And again you didn't read the question. I hope by the time you're old enough to take your SAT's you'll acquire that skill or the only career phrase you'll need is "Ya want fries with that?" I never said they weren't pressurized, I said it WASN'T NECESSARY to pressurize or heat them. The question was (now read this S-L-O-W-L-Y) "What is the significance of the 1.4 million pound figure that keep bringing up?" A pressure bulkhead, be it the floor or the fuselage walls, will have to hold back the pressure differential, no matter what the number is you wi***o assign to it. It's like me asking "What's two plus two?" and you keep answering "fish." The 1.4M# figure is the load you'd have to design the floor for if you want it to be a pressurized bulkhead. There are NO commercial passenger airliners that have their floor as a pressurized bulkhead. If there are no planes with floor that can act as a pressurized bulkhead, then it is ALWAYS necessary to pressurize the cargo area. You COULD build a car with 7 wheels, too, but why would you?
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear What I still don't understand is why anyone would ever name a level of Boy Scouting anything remotely sounding like "We Blow"??? Is there even a merit badge involving RRs anymore? LC Webelo (sp?) is a name for a sort of post-Cub Scout, pre-Boy Scout, a contraction of the words "We belong." Scouting does still have a Railroading merit badge. Steamtown runs a program to qualify Scouts for it. Check with a local RR club or museum to see if they offer a similar program. My Webelos book says "WE'll BE LOyal Scouts". It's the last 1-1/2 years of Cub Scouting. My 5th grader "graduates" this January - I can finally stop being a Den Mother!
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd OK, I'll admit a cheap shot with the Cub Scout stuff! I'm not the only one who told you that passenger airliners are completely pressurized. You don't believe them either? Maybe I'm the only one stupid enough to argue with a fence post! (another cheap shot, I suppose, but at whom?) And again you didn't read the question. I hope by the time you're old enough to take your SAT's you'll acquire that skill or the only career phrase you'll need is "Ya want fries with that?" I never said they weren't pressurized, I said it WASN'T NECESSARY to pressurize or heat them. The question was (now read this S-L-O-W-L-Y) "What is the significance of the 1.4 million pound figure that keep bringing up?" A pressure bulkhead, be it the floor or the fuselage walls, will have to hold back the pressure differential, no matter what the number is you wi***o assign to it. It's like me asking "What's two plus two?" and you keep answering "fish." The 1.4M# figure is the load you'd have to design the floor for if you want it to be a pressurized bulkhead. There are NO commercial passenger airliners that have their floor as a pressurized bulkhead. If there are no planes with floor that can act as a pressurized bulkhead, then it is ALWAYS necessary to pressurize the cargo area. You COULD build a car with 7 wheels, too, but why would you? So back to the original question, why is the 1.4 million pound figure appliede to the floor when it's a pressurized bulkhead, and not applied to the fuselage walls when they are the pressurized bulkhead. The "necessity" I'm refering to is based on the contents of the compartment. Cargo doesn't need heat or pressurization any more than most boxcars or enclosed trailers need it. When you're hauling passengers, the need changes.
QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas Or will the cub scouts be subsidizing pressurized Subway sandwiches on Amtrak?[:D]
QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear So, does this thread name change indicate that the Cub Scouts will now be serving the Subway sandwiches on Amtrak??? Perhaps we can pressurize a few planes with all this hot air?? How 'bout that Southwest crash at Midway? Ouch. Some bad driving there.... LC
QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie Dan - since we are hijacking topics - is San Diego still a thrill to fly into? Over the parking garage? Moo
QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie Dan - since we are hijacking topics - is San Diego still a thrill to fly into? Over the parking garage? Moo Yeah baby! Nothing like peeping into the condo bedroom windows on final.......The big thing now is that the county wants the Marines to give up Miramar or allow it for joint civil / military use.....which doesn't work real well. What they proponents won't say is that ..yeah they want the airport, but they really want the upteen thousand acres of undeveloped government property surrounding it....which gives the locals an unrealistic sense of how quiet it is.....to exploit. It's the California way...I'm too stupid to do it right from the beginning..so I'm going to take what someone else has. I'm beginning to feel a little pressurization in my caboose from the Subway sandwich I just ate....I may need to step outside before Weeblow Dan
QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon Say Tom...... For our departed friend from Idaho.....couldn't we make a new scout rank....the coveted SABeloh? Dan
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.