Subway sandwiches on Amtrak, pressurized airplanes and Cub Scouts

[edbenton]

When I drove truck I lost 7 hours waiting for a Laborer to move a drum out of the way so I could get loaded. It was empty so I could have moved it I went to move it out of the way and the fork lift driver goes not your job to move it. I asked him to move it he goes not my job. So I waited and waited the person was paged ime and time agin finally he showed up I asked him were he had been he goes on my break. I lost it I said you have been on a F###### break for 7 hours, he goes no I also had to go to the bathroom I called his supervisor over and went well I hope your company enjoys that 4 grand in detiontion time and the fact he just shut the plant down at the other end for 4 hours and the fine they will give you. The supervisor fird the guy on the spot and then his union rep comes up and said I am filing a grevience agansit the company to get his job back. I had to testify at it and needless to say the laborer lost his job. I alone got 2 grand of the detition time pay. The company was fined 75 grand for shutting down the plant and 4 grand in detition time all because I was not allowed to move a empty drum.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
But, the payroll is still 2/3 of what NS's is when NS runs 5x more trains per day and maintains 10x more locomtives and 1000x more track miles than Amtrak. I can't think of a single basic industry that hasn't greatly increased labor productivity (or gone away) since the 1960s.

So, how about figuring out how to run the LD trains with a crew of 6, for starters. Engineer, Conductor, one or two trainmen, and......

That might be a valid comparison and work if the passengers didn't mind being packed into a boxcar with no food, bathrooms, or even windows.

The 60's would be a bad point of reference, at that point in history, most railroads had cut back services on passenger trains in an effort to kill them off.

I'm not sure how big the actual train crew is on an Amtrak train, but I doubt if it's more than 6 people. I've only ever seen the engineer and conductor. Most are the "hotel staff" type jobs.

By "crew" I meant all the Amtrak employees incl. car attendants, etc. I think your typical 10 car LD train will have an engineer, conductor, one or two trainmen, 3-5 dining car staff, one lounge car attendant, one attendant per sleeper and one attendant for every two coaches. For the Crescent, that would yield a count of 11 or 12.

And, I'll allow my comparison between NS and Amtrak isn't entirely fair, but 19,000 employees to run a measly 300 trains a day!

And, my comparison isn't as far out as it seems. Amtrak is a $2B company, NS is a $7B company.

A locomotive is a locomotive. Amtrak's do about double the mileage per year per loco as NS, but HP-hrs are the same.

NS has about 200,000 frt cars on line at any point in time to take car of. Amtrak has about 2000 pass cars. Even if a pass car requires the same maint as a locomotive, NS still has more locos than Amtrak has locos + cars.

NS has about 30,000 miles of track to take car of vs. 1500 or so for Amtrak.

Amtrak has resevations and ticketing, but NS has customer service, waybilling and revenue accouting. Call it a wash.

Both have puchasing, but NS buys more stuff.

Both have all the other regular G&A depts, Law, Accounting, etc. - call it a wash.

NS puts a two man crew on each of it's trains. Amtrak may have 3 or 4. But far, far, fewer trains.

If NS were run the way frt RRs were run in the 1960s, they'd have 50-60,000 employees, not the <30,000 on the payroll today.

Amtrak has never had the incentive to get more productive. So, running trains 1971-style is still "in". As you point out, the RRs did little in the 1960s with passenger service, so what you really have is 1950's style railroading.

The "cures" for this put out by the Fed DOT are really pretty silly, but the point being made isn't completely invalid. There are a couple of nice articles in Railway age about Amtrak. this month, but they're not available on line.

[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.

[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.

[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

[Anonymous]

Mongollian BBQ - you get in line, scoop/fork/ladle your own prefered collectoin of meats/veggies/condiments into your bowl, then take it to the chef(s) to be stir-fried. The staff is for the most part stationary, it is the customers who walk from table to buffet and back to table.

Or basically any kind of buffet would work for passenger rail. Those who choose not to self serve or who cannot due to physical limitations can have the cortege serve them.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Mongollian BBQ - you get in line, scoop/fork/ladle your own prefered collectoin of meats/veggies/condiments into your bowl, then take it to the chef(s) to be stir-fried.

You mean like the one barbarian in the Capitol One commercial?

LMAO

[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.

[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.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

You might as well compare trucks to busses. They haul a totally different type of payload.

If you're comparing train crews, the ones that are specific to the passenger operation have no equivalent on a freight train, therefore, no basis for comparison.

True, a locomotive is a locomotive, and requires periodic service and repair regardless of the horsepower. A 500 HP diesel will require the same number of oil changes, lubrications, inspections, etc, as a 5000 HP one will.

Amtrak is a $2 Billion company compared to a $7 Billion company doing completely different jobs. The only similarity is they both run on rails.

Under Gunn, the rules were changing for the better, and he did have an incentive to get more productive. The protective rules he had to work against greatly slowed the progress on this front.

Since Amtrak IS passenger railroading in the US, there really isn't anything else to compare it to.

Passenger and frt RRing are not as much "apples" and "oranges" as you might think!

Track is track. Signals are signals (even when you spec out and build your one-of-a-kind, totally bizzare ARES system). Locomotives are locomotives. Engineers are engineers. Conductors are conductors (in uniform or not). 79 mph really isn't much different from 60 or 70 mph.

The main difference is that passenger cars are not freight cars. Passengers require climate control. Only some frt does (think reefers). Climate control equipment is less expensive and complicated than propulsion equipment on a locomotive. Passengers are less tolerant of vibration, shock and noise, so cars require more elaborate suspension - very much like a locomotive. And, they need water and "sewer". So, for the sake of arguement, we'll assume passenger cars are locomotives. (so Amtrak has 2500 "locomotives" versus 3000 locomotives and 200,000 frt cars for NS)

The $7B vs $2B is EXACTLY the point! If it takes 19,000 employees to gather in $2B in "revenue" (in Amtrak's case its &1.5B revenue + $0.5B subsidy) versus 30,000 to gather in $7B on NS, then somethings amiss at Amtrak. That's only $80,000 per employee for Amtrak.

A 500 HP high speed diesel engine and a 4000 HP med. speed diesel engine much more dissimilar that a P42 and a C44-9 - which are darn near the same locomotive in many, many respects. The duty isn't even all that terribly different. You have to do trucks and wheels on the P42s about twice as often, but the HP-hrs are about the same, so maint costs and overhaul costs are very similar. (I'll trade you the HEP for the two traction motors)

But, passengers make their own connections (by foot) and do the "last mile" pick up and delivery by themselves. No pesky hump yards to pay for or expensive locals to operate for Amtrak.

At least you admit there is room to go on the productivity front - the barriers being institutional, not physical or technological.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

[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.

[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.

[edbenton]

Also coal does not care if it gets wet a load of frozen food god help you if it does.

[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.

[tree68]

Sounds to me like Amtrak is trying to catch up, but some people keep getting in the way...

[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....

[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]

[chad thomas]

I would say if not Subway, How about Tommys burger. But then they might have to add bathroom capacity.[:D]

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon
I'd say In-N -Out should replace Subway...that would really improve ridership...shorter lines on the train than the local drive thru's....

Build the drive-throughs next to the tracks, have customers call in orders, then stop pick them up? [:p]

Better yet....use train order hoops to hold the bags and have them grab them on the fly.....might be hard on the shakes though..............[:0]

[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.

[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?

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

Passenger and frt RRing are not as much "apples" and "oranges" as you might think!

Track is track. Signals are signals (even when you spec out and build your one-of-a-kind, totally bizzare ARES system). Locomotives are locomotives. Engineers are engineers. Conductors are conductors (in uniform or not). 79 mph really isn't much different from 60 or 70 mph.

The main difference is that passenger cars are not freight cars. Passengers require climate control. Only some frt does (think reefers). Climate control equipment is less expensive and complicated than propulsion equipment on a locomotive. Passengers are less tolerant of vibration, shock and noise, so cars require more elaborate suspension - very much like a locomotive. And, they need water and "sewer". So, for the sake of arguement, we'll assume passenger cars are locomotives. (so Amtrak has 2500 "locomotives" versus 3000 locomotives and 200,000 frt cars for NS)

The $7B vs $2B is EXACTLY the point! If it takes 19,000 employees to gather in $2B in "revenue" (in Amtrak's case its &1.5B revenue + $0.5B subsidy) versus 30,000 to gather in $7B on NS, then somethings amiss at Amtrak. That's only $80,000 per employee for Amtrak.

A 500 HP high speed diesel engine and a 4000 HP med. speed diesel engine much more dissimilar that a P42 and a C44-9 - which are darn near the same locomotive in many, many respects. The duty isn't even all that terribly different. You have to do trucks and wheels on the P42s about twice as often, but the HP-hrs are about the same, so maint costs and overhaul costs are very similar. (I'll trade you the HEP for the two traction motors)

But, passengers make their own connections (by foot) and do the "last mile" pick up and delivery by themselves. No pesky hump yards to pay for or expensive locals to operate for Amtrak.

At least you admit there is room to go on the productivity front - the barriers being institutional, not physical or technological.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

Without breaking out the costs and personnel for maintenance and operation of locomotives, rail operation crews (te equivalent of freight trains, not dedicated to passenger operation), track maintenance and rental fees, and the cost of the passenger related crews and cars, the comparison is still apples to oranges. For example, it costs more to ship a ton of frozen food than it does to ship a ton of coal. Why? Car costs are cheaper.

Not apples and oranges. More like oranges and tangerines. It doesn't cost a whole lot more to ship the frozen food than the coal - we are still talking the same order of magnitude. Amtrak is a whole order of magnitude out.

[jeaton]

Don

There is obviously the other side of the income statement and that is revenue. The FY 2006 budget plan indicates that the operating loss will be about $450 million. That comes to about $18 per passenger boarding. It would be nice if an $18 surcharge could be added to each ticket, but I am sure you realize that that is not a realistic strategy, especially fot the short haul trains. A half million passengers boarded the Chicago-Milwaukee Hiawatha service at $24 a ticket or $48 for the round trip. I'd have to think that an $84 round trip ticket for that trip would put most of the passengers back in their cars. Having said that, and continuing to pu***he numbers, it seems to me that a combination of a couple of million more boardings and some bump in ticket prices could make a nice difference in the operating deficit.

Continuing to look at the pricing side, keep in mind that the jump in demand for frieght railroad services, which is a result of higher costs for competing services, has given the freight railroads greater pricing power. Amtrak does not have that luxury.

Going back to the cost side and looking at equipment maintenance, in 2004 the NS reported that 17.3% of revenue was spent on mechanical. For Amtrak, the FY 2005 percent of revenue spent on Mechanical was 20.6. If Amtrak were able to pull in $450
additional revenue their Mechanical ratio would be 16.6%

As I have said before, many things are easier said than done.

Jay

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Don



Going back to the cost side and looking at equipment maintenance, in 2004 the NS reported that 17.3% of revenue was spent on mechanical. For Amtrak, the FY 2005 percent of revenue spent on Mechanical was 20.6. If Amtrak were able to pull in $450
additional revenue their Mechanical ratio would be 16.6%


Jay

Gee, and I thought you said they were "apples and oranges"![;)]

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Don


Continuing to look at the pricing side, keep in mind that the jump in demand for frieght railroad services, which is a result of higher costs for competing services, has given the freight railroads greater pricing power. Amtrak does not have that luxury.
Jay

You are correct that the market sets the price. The problem is the cost side of things. And, I'd agure there isn't a old-line, industrial era company in the US that hasn't agressively addressed costs vis-a-vis worker productivity since the 1950s that' s managed to hang around 'till now. Amtrak has had little real pressure put on them - and there is no reward within Amtrak - other than top-down budget constraints - for reducing costs and improving productivity.

Amtrak SHOULD have some pricing power since the cost of driving and flying have increased with fuel costs going up - at least in some markets. But, part of the problem is the service offerings. They are either not in the market (limited route structure) or don't offer the frequencies and trip times needed. A lot of this can be traced back to insufficient investment, I think.

Improved trip times and increased freqencies can help with the unit costs, too, as equipment and crew cycle times are decreased.

That's why I was kinda excited by the Lott-Laugtenburg bill that would give more capital to Amtrak in exchange for reduced operating subsidies later. A very realistic way to go about things.....

[samfp1943]

You can bet if this food service is to survive in any form at all they will all be singing,
" Look for the Union Label....".

[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.

????????????????

[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.

[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.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Don

If you want you can go on from now until the end of time, but you are still comparing apples to oranges, or in this case, freight cars to passenger cars.

You are also making some very grand assumptions using total head count of a freight railroad to a passenger railroad. About the only thing they have in common if 4' 8 1/2" . I might point out that the short distance trains run with a total of three crew, 4 if there is food and beverage service. If you want to call a long distance service without diner, sleepers, check baggage, and lounge efficient, be my guest. If you think all of the cost reduction will automaticly transmit to the bottom line, just hang on for a few years and see how it works out.

I'm not saying "just do it". I'm saying "consider it and all other options". Amtrak is doing hte same things the same way things were done in 1950. The rest of the world has moved on. It's time for Amtrak to catch up.

If you want to oversimplify it that much, freight railroads are doing the same thing they did in the 50's, moving freight. There have been new loco designs on both freight and passenger lines, new car designs for more efficient and reliable operation. It still boils down to a BIG difference between a car you can toss some freight into and haul somewhere, and a car that passengers will get into and go somewhere.

The options have been considered, the contracting out of former union jobs is the point that was overlooked in this pilot program. A more accurate comparison would be to compare passenger railroads in Europe (for example) to Amtrak operations.

And the passenger trains were losing money in the 50's, which is why the railroads were more than happy to dump that on the government. In the foreign countries, the rail passenger service is subsidized because it's more efficient than the subsidies paid for air or other land transport of the same numer of people to the same places.