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
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 Mookie 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
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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
"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
QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas Or will the cub scouts be subsidizing pressurized Subway sandwiches on Amtrak?[: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...
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 PigFarmer1 Member sinceFebruary 2005 From: Nebraska 253 posts Posted by PigFarmer1 on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 6:57 PM 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 Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 6:47 PM 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 Reply Edit trainboyH16-44 Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: Mile 7.5 Laggan Sub., Great White North 4,201 posts Posted by trainboyH16-44 on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 6:41 PM Not the way I get them to make them [:p] 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/ Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 6:27 PM According to the BUSH people Amtrak is all fat and Subway is low fat!!!! [:D] Reply Edit chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 4:39 PM They probably decided they wanted nothing to do with Amtrak and don't want there name tarnished by an association with them. Reply vsmith Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Smoggy L.A. 10,743 posts Posted by vsmith on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 4:32 PM Mineta claimed his sandwich was cold when he got and fired them, none of his Yes men bothered to tell him deli sandwiches are made that way. Seriously, I wonder if their were logistical issues or if it was as simple as sales being no where near what they expected during that 1st week so they cut and run before really getting hosed. Have fun with your trains 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 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 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 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 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
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 Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 6:47 PM 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 Reply Edit trainboyH16-44 Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: Mile 7.5 Laggan Sub., Great White North 4,201 posts Posted by trainboyH16-44 on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 6:41 PM Not the way I get them to make them [:p] 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/ Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 6:27 PM According to the BUSH people Amtrak is all fat and Subway is low fat!!!! [:D] Reply Edit chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 4:39 PM They probably decided they wanted nothing to do with Amtrak and don't want there name tarnished by an association with them. Reply vsmith Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Smoggy L.A. 10,743 posts Posted by vsmith on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 4:32 PM Mineta claimed his sandwich was cold when he got and fired them, none of his Yes men bothered to tell him deli sandwiches are made that way. Seriously, I wonder if their were logistical issues or if it was as simple as sales being no where near what they expected during that 1st week so they cut and run before really getting hosed. Have fun with your trains 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
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/
Have fun with your trains
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.