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.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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 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 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
"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 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....
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 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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.