Amtrk Senate Debate

[selector]

You know that scene in Romancing the Stone, or whatever it was, and they had that sloppy slide to a place below and ended up in a position that niether party entirely regretted?

Let's take a break, regroup, wipe off the sweat, have a good swig from the water bottle, and then try to approach the topic another way.  This has gone as far as it practically can, I think.

-Crandell

[TomDiehl]

Tom,

 

Your statement of 12/11 that "pre Amtrak railroads did not have completely separate facilities for maintaining passenger and freight cars" is not accurate.  In all the cases that I am aware those facilities were separate.  Think of Sunnyside Yard for example, all passenger.

 

I worked in the 'Coach Yard" in Seattle just before ATK took it over.  It was originally a joint GN/NP facility.  Did work only on passenger equipment.  Freight car repairs were done at Balmer Yard, 5 miles away.  This arrangement was typical.  Skills and supplies were very different as between freight and passenger and mechanical facilites for each were typically separate.

 

Mac McCulloch

Thank you Mac, just the kind of experienced opinion I was fishing for. The main point is your very last sentence.

Why were you fishing for it?  Nobody was ever disputing frt and passenger are different. 

Page 2 of this thread, the 6th post.

You're referring to "...the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has....."?

From the post in question:

"There's a small mountain of people in mechanical ~4000.  By comparison, NS has about 1000 and the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has.....and NS has to inspect and lace up a few hundred thousand frt cars a week, to boot."

So the "by comparison" first came from you.

Back to "Language Arts" for you!  The "by comparison" applies to the first clause (Ns's locos vs. Amtrak locos and cars).  The part after the ..... is a second independent clause. The meaning, and intention, is clear.   And, if that isn't enough, I've clarified it quite a few times since.  But, since I'm bored, I'll do it again.  This time with an analogous situation.

It's like saying "You have more recorded music than me.  By comparison, you have more CDs than I have CDs and LPs.....and you have a whole bunch of cassettes to boot"

I suppose now you're gonna think I'm comparing CDs to passenger cars.

Back to basic sentence structure for you. In the second sentence, where is the comma separating the supposedly independant clauses?

They are INDEPENDENT clauses separted by "and".  DEPENDENT clauses are a whole 'nuther animal.  A sentence is an example of an independent clause.  

So if these were supposed to be independent, what were you proposing we compare?

uh...how about the stuff in the clause that has the word "compare" in it.  Try that.  If a clause has the word "compare" in it, it ususally means it contains a comparison.  Clause without the word "compare" don't.  Not all sentences contain comparisons.

So you finally admit you are proposing we compare the number maintenance department personnel at Amtrak, which is a passenger railroad, to NS, which is a freight railroad.

That's almost as bad as thinking a passenger car is "a bunch of seats bolted to a frame."

[TomDiehl]

Number two, if you think a passenger car is "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform," you truly have no idea what is is you're riding in, and what "makes it tick."

And no, disregarding railroad affiliations going back 50 years and a pretty good academic and professional engineering background, I don't need to know the secrets of what makes a railroad passenger car "tick". There are years and years of statistics available regarding the maintenance costs of modern era, modern construction, railroad passenger car fleets. Those numbers hold all the secrets we need to know for this exercise.

It's almost surprising that with all the education and experience you claim, you still call a passenger car "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform." It makes people wonder about these claims. Unless your experience was with a tourist railroad running converted flatcars, which are pretty much "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform." I don't recall seeing anything like that on Amtrak's roster.

And with all that background, you claim not to need to know the secrets of what makes a passenger car tick. (BTW, it's no secret)

That was hyperbole.

Look it up.

Hyperbole is supposed to mean you stuck your foot in your mouth?

That's not the definition I learned.

It seems like the opposite, instead of exaggerating you dexaggerated (hey, if the President can make up new words.....)

Unfortunately, you used it at a time that just made you look foolish.

Probably the same place you learned your grammar!

Do you think it's possible to exaggerate the simplicity of something?  "So simple a caveman can do it."

Well, if that's the best Don can come up with, he's conceeded this argument.

[TomDiehl]

The only "proposition" I put forth was that there was not enough similarity in the two items to compare the maintenance costs of a passenger car to that of a diesel-electric locomotive, a point that has yet to be refuted.

Since you have offered no evidence, there is nothing to refute. There is an existing correlation in the data. The confidence level -- the statistical measure -- is high. That is evidence.

What you need to do is go through the data, and if you can show a low correlation -- it's called the "R" factor -- then you can prove your point.

Until you do it, you can't. You're just making up a pretend argument. If your statement is true, then you can offer a statistical proof which will either show it is either credible or it isn't.

 

I didn't propose such a lame comparison. There's no tangible "data" to which we can apply an "R" factor. It's up to the person who proposed the "comparison"  to prove the comparison is valid rather than try to cover it up with comments on a person's grammer.

Obviously, his argument is just as invalid as yours.

[MichaelSol]

The only "proposition" I put forth was that there was not enough similarity in the two items to compare the maintenance costs of a passenger car to that of a diesel-electric locomotive, a point that has yet to be refuted.

Since you have offered no evidence, there is nothing to refute. There is an existing correlation in the data. The confidence level -- the statistical measure -- is high. That is evidence.

What you need to do is go through the data, and if you can show a low correlation -- it's called the "R" factor -- then you can prove your point.

Until you do it, you can't. You're just making up a pretend argument. If your statement is true, then you can offer a statistical proof which will either show it is either credible or it isn't.

 

[oltmannd]

Tom,

 

Your statement of 12/11 that "pre Amtrak railroads did not have completely separate facilities for maintaining passenger and freight cars" is not accurate.  In all the cases that I am aware those facilities were separate.  Think of Sunnyside Yard for example, all passenger.

 

I worked in the 'Coach Yard" in Seattle just before ATK took it over.  It was originally a joint GN/NP facility.  Did work only on passenger equipment.  Freight car repairs were done at Balmer Yard, 5 miles away.  This arrangement was typical.  Skills and supplies were very different as between freight and passenger and mechanical facilites for each were typically separate.

 

Mac McCulloch

Thank you Mac, just the kind of experienced opinion I was fishing for. The main point is your very last sentence.

Why were you fishing for it?  Nobody was ever disputing frt and passenger are different. 

Page 2 of this thread, the 6th post.

You're referring to "...the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has....."?

From the post in question:

"There's a small mountain of people in mechanical ~4000.  By comparison, NS has about 1000 and the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has.....and NS has to inspect and lace up a few hundred thousand frt cars a week, to boot."

So the "by comparison" first came from you.

Back to "Language Arts" for you!  The "by comparison" applies to the first clause (Ns's locos vs. Amtrak locos and cars).  The part after the ..... is a second independent clause. The meaning, and intention, is clear.   And, if that isn't enough, I've clarified it quite a few times since.  But, since I'm bored, I'll do it again.  This time with an analogous situation.

It's like saying "You have more recorded music than me.  By comparison, you have more CDs than I have CDs and LPs.....and you have a whole bunch of cassettes to boot"

I suppose now you're gonna think I'm comparing CDs to passenger cars.

Back to basic sentence structure for you. In the second sentence, where is the comma separating the supposedly independant clauses?

They are INDEPENDENT clauses separted by "and".  DEPENDENT clauses are a whole 'nuther animal.  A sentence is an example of an independent clause.  

So if these were supposed to be independent, what were you proposing we compare?

uh...how about the stuff in the clause that has the word "compare" in it.  Try that.  If a clause has the word "compare" in it, it ususally means it contains a comparison.  Clause without the word "compare" don't.  Not all sentences contain comparisons.

[oltmannd]

Number two, if you think a passenger car is "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform," you truly have no idea what is is you're riding in, and what "makes it tick."

And no, disregarding railroad affiliations going back 50 years and a pretty good academic and professional engineering background, I don't need to know the secrets of what makes a railroad passenger car "tick". There are years and years of statistics available regarding the maintenance costs of modern era, modern construction, railroad passenger car fleets. Those numbers hold all the secrets we need to know for this exercise.

It's almost surprising that with all the education and experience you claim, you still call a passenger car "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform." It makes people wonder about these claims. Unless your experience was with a tourist railroad running converted flatcars, which are pretty much "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform." I don't recall seeing anything like that on Amtrak's roster.

And with all that background, you claim not to need to know the secrets of what makes a passenger car tick. (BTW, it's no secret)

That was hyperbole.

Look it up.

Hyperbole is supposed to mean you stuck your foot in your mouth?

That's not the definition I learned.

It seems like the opposite, instead of exaggerating you dexaggerated (hey, if the President can make up new words.....)

Unfortunately, you used it at a time that just made you look foolish.

Probably the same place you learned your grammar!

Do you think it's possible to exaggerate the simplicity of something?  "So simple a caveman can do it."

[TomDiehl]

Tom,

 

Your statement of 12/11 that "pre Amtrak railroads did not have completely separate facilities for maintaining passenger and freight cars" is not accurate.  In all the cases that I am aware those facilities were separate.  Think of Sunnyside Yard for example, all passenger.

 

I worked in the 'Coach Yard" in Seattle just before ATK took it over.  It was originally a joint GN/NP facility.  Did work only on passenger equipment.  Freight car repairs were done at Balmer Yard, 5 miles away.  This arrangement was typical.  Skills and supplies were very different as between freight and passenger and mechanical facilites for each were typically separate.

 

Mac McCulloch

Thank you Mac, just the kind of experienced opinion I was fishing for. The main point is your very last sentence.

Why were you fishing for it?  Nobody was ever disputing frt and passenger are different. 

Page 2 of this thread, the 6th post.

You're referring to "...the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has....."?

From the post in question:

"There's a small mountain of people in mechanical ~4000.  By comparison, NS has about 1000 and the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has.....and NS has to inspect and lace up a few hundred thousand frt cars a week, to boot."

So the "by comparison" first came from you.

Back to "Language Arts" for you!  The "by comparison" applies to the first clause (Ns's locos vs. Amtrak locos and cars).  The part after the ..... is a second independent clause. The meaning, and intention, is clear.   And, if that isn't enough, I've clarified it quite a few times since.  But, since I'm bored, I'll do it again.  This time with an analogous situation.

It's like saying "You have more recorded music than me.  By comparison, you have more CDs than I have CDs and LPs.....and you have a whole bunch of cassettes to boot"

I suppose now you're gonna think I'm comparing CDs to passenger cars.

Back to basic sentence structure for you. In the second sentence, where is the comma separating the supposedly independant clauses?

They are INDEPENDENT clauses separted by "and".  DEPENDENT clauses are a whole 'nuther animal.  A sentence is an example of an independent clause.  

So if these were supposed to be independent, what were you proposing we compare?

[TomDiehl]

Number two, if you think a passenger car is "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform," you truly have no idea what is is you're riding in, and what "makes it tick."

And no, disregarding railroad affiliations going back 50 years and a pretty good academic and professional engineering background, I don't need to know the secrets of what makes a railroad passenger car "tick". There are years and years of statistics available regarding the maintenance costs of modern era, modern construction, railroad passenger car fleets. Those numbers hold all the secrets we need to know for this exercise.

It's almost surprising that with all the education and experience you claim, you still call a passenger car "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform." It makes people wonder about these claims. Unless your experience was with a tourist railroad running converted flatcars, which are pretty much "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform." I don't recall seeing anything like that on Amtrak's roster.

And with all that background, you claim not to need to know the secrets of what makes a passenger car tick. (BTW, it's no secret)

That was hyperbole.

Look it up.

Hyperbole is supposed to mean you stuck your foot in your mouth?

That's not the definition I learned.

It seems like the opposite, instead of exaggerating you dexaggerated (hey, if the President can make up new words.....)

Unfortunately, you used it at a time that just made you look foolish.

[TomDiehl]

Number one, I didn't say one cost more or less than the other to maintain. I said there was not enough similarity between the two to make such a comparison. THAT was the point.

There is enough similarity that 20% of Amtrak maintenance has to be similar to the maintenance costs of a diesel-electric locomotive because that's exactly what Amtrak is maintaining.

But the figures quoted do not compare Amtrak's personnel maintaing the diesel-electric locomotives to the NS (or BNSF) personnel maintaining diesel-electric locomotives. You're assuming the 20%. And we all know where the word "assume" comes from.

The figures quoted was the TOTAL number of Amtrak's personnel maintaining all rolling stock to the NS (or BNSF) personnel maintaining all rolling stock. That's where the comparison loses validity.

I think you are intentionally misreading what has been posted on this thread simply to perpetuate an argument which probably had no point for you in the first place.

There is no reason why Amtrak should have to employ far more employees for its mechanical shops than Class I railways needed to employ for similar service. Given productivity increases, it should be considerably less, it isn't, and that may be one of the problems with Amtrak today.

You disagree, for reasons which are not based on any tangible experience or education, you can cite to no statistical basis for your argument, and this thread is degenerating into one of your multiple postings where you attempt to be "clever" rather than factual.

Perhaps its best simply to say you disagree since that seems to be about it.

Done.

 

The bold in your quote is mine, to point out the problem with the comparison. The point being, the services aren't similar.

"attempt to be "clever" rather than factual," you mean like your attempt to bring in a cesium beam clock when you really didn't understand what it was?

Or it's best to say your comparison is invalid due to lack of similarity.

[TomDiehl]

You didn't answer the original question of whether the maintenance costs were actually compared in the Statistics of Railways of the United States, or if you did the comparison.

12/11/2007:

I looked at the Statistics of Railways of the United States, looked to three separate years 5 years apart, compared the cost of diesel-electric locomotive maintenance to the cost of passenger car maintenance ...

The question was, did this publication actually perform such a comparison within its pages, or is the comparison made by you from two separate sets of statistics.

I said "I looked at ...". I think it's clear.

 

Yes, it's clear such a comparison wasn't made in the publication, it's strictly yours.

Yes, I said that. It shouldn't take two pages for you to reach that conclusion: it was contained in my first post on the topic. It was a question for which you already had the answer.

I relied on cost of maintenance records generated by the Class I Railways of the United States for railroad passenger cars and noted that there was a statistical correlation with cost of maintenance records for the diesel-electric fleet.

This is no doubt because equipment maintenance tends to require the same subset of costs for support: wrenches, screwdrivers, and people with appropriate mechanical skills. A standard railroad passenger car of a given age and use has a pretty well-defined maintenance cost. A standard railroad locomotive likewise follows a standard maintenance cost curve remarkably closely. As you realized after getting it backwards earlier, the passenger car fleets did not typically share facilities with other railroad operations, which lends support to the idea that Amtrak should resemble, not contradict, the experience of Class I Railways passenger operation maintenance costs.

I cannot see that you rely on any data whatsoever, nor offer any evidentiary support for your proposition.

 

The only "proposition" I put forth was that there was not enough similarity in the two items to compare the maintenance costs of a passenger car to that of a diesel-electric locomotive, a point that has yet to be refuted.

I agree that "Amtrak should resemble, not contradict, the experience of Class I Railways passenger operation maintenance costs." So why compare it to maintaining a diesel-electric locomotive? Because there is no other Class I Railway Passenger Operation to compare it to in this country.

The big difference between the two being "people with appropriate mechanical skills" would not be the same, either in skill or quantity, making such a comparison an interesting exercise in statistical methodoloy, but yielding no useful data.

[oltmannd]

Tom,

 

Your statement of 12/11 that "pre Amtrak railroads did not have completely separate facilities for maintaining passenger and freight cars" is not accurate.  In all the cases that I am aware those facilities were separate.  Think of Sunnyside Yard for example, all passenger.

 

I worked in the 'Coach Yard" in Seattle just before ATK took it over.  It was originally a joint GN/NP facility.  Did work only on passenger equipment.  Freight car repairs were done at Balmer Yard, 5 miles away.  This arrangement was typical.  Skills and supplies were very different as between freight and passenger and mechanical facilites for each were typically separate.

 

Mac McCulloch

Thank you Mac, just the kind of experienced opinion I was fishing for. The main point is your very last sentence.

Why were you fishing for it?  Nobody was ever disputing frt and passenger are different. 

Page 2 of this thread, the 6th post.

You're referring to "...the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has....."?

From the post in question:

"There's a small mountain of people in mechanical ~4000.  By comparison, NS has about 1000 and the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has.....and NS has to inspect and lace up a few hundred thousand frt cars a week, to boot."

So the "by comparison" first came from you.

Back to "Language Arts" for you!  The "by comparison" applies to the first clause (Ns's locos vs. Amtrak locos and cars).  The part after the ..... is a second independent clause. The meaning, and intention, is clear.   And, if that isn't enough, I've clarified it quite a few times since.  But, since I'm bored, I'll do it again.  This time with an analogous situation.

It's like saying "You have more recorded music than me.  By comparison, you have more CDs than I have CDs and LPs.....and you have a whole bunch of cassettes to boot"

I suppose now you're gonna think I'm comparing CDs to passenger cars.

Back to basic sentence structure for you. In the second sentence, where is the comma separating the supposedly independant clauses?

They are INDEPENDENT clauses separted by "and".  DEPENDENT clauses are a whole 'nuther animal.  A sentence is an example of an independent clause.  

[oltmannd]

Number one, I didn't say one cost more or less than the other to maintain. I said there was not enough similarity between the two to make such a comparison. THAT was the point.

There is enough similarity that 20% of Amtrak maintenance has to be similar to the maintenance costs of a diesel-electric locomotive because that's exactly what Amtrak is maintaining.

But the figures quoted do not compare Amtrak's personnel maintaing the diesel-electric locomotives to the NS (or BNSF) personnel maintaining diesel-electric locomotives. You're assuming the 20%. And we all know where the word "assume" comes from.

The figures quoted was the TOTAL number of Amtrak's personnel maintaining all rolling stock to the NS (or BNSF) personnel maintaining all rolling stock. That's where the comparison loses validity.

How so?

[TomDiehl]

Tom,

 

Your statement of 12/11 that "pre Amtrak railroads did not have completely separate facilities for maintaining passenger and freight cars" is not accurate.  In all the cases that I am aware those facilities were separate.  Think of Sunnyside Yard for example, all passenger.

 

I worked in the 'Coach Yard" in Seattle just before ATK took it over.  It was originally a joint GN/NP facility.  Did work only on passenger equipment.  Freight car repairs were done at Balmer Yard, 5 miles away.  This arrangement was typical.  Skills and supplies were very different as between freight and passenger and mechanical facilites for each were typically separate.

 

Mac McCulloch

Thank you Mac, just the kind of experienced opinion I was fishing for. The main point is your very last sentence.

Why were you fishing for it?  Nobody was ever disputing frt and passenger are different. 

Page 2 of this thread, the 6th post.

You're referring to "...the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has....."?

From the post in question:

"There's a small mountain of people in mechanical ~4000.  By comparison, NS has about 1000 and the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has.....and NS has to inspect and lace up a few hundred thousand frt cars a week, to boot."

So the "by comparison" first came from you.

Back to "Language Arts" for you!  The "by comparison" applies to the first clause (Ns's locos vs. Amtrak locos and cars).  The part after the ..... is a second independent clause. The meaning, and intention, is clear.   And, if that isn't enough, I've clarified it quite a few times since.  But, since I'm bored, I'll do it again.  This time with an analogous situation.

It's like saying "You have more recorded music than me.  By comparison, you have more CDs than I have CDs and LPs.....and you have a whole bunch of cassettes to boot"

I suppose now you're gonna think I'm comparing CDs to passenger cars.

Back to basic sentence structure for you. In the second sentence, where is the comma separating the supposedly independant clauses?

[oltmannd]

Tom,

 

Your statement of 12/11 that "pre Amtrak railroads did not have completely separate facilities for maintaining passenger and freight cars" is not accurate.  In all the cases that I am aware those facilities were separate.  Think of Sunnyside Yard for example, all passenger.

 

I worked in the 'Coach Yard" in Seattle just before ATK took it over.  It was originally a joint GN/NP facility.  Did work only on passenger equipment.  Freight car repairs were done at Balmer Yard, 5 miles away.  This arrangement was typical.  Skills and supplies were very different as between freight and passenger and mechanical facilites for each were typically separate.

 

Mac McCulloch

Thank you Mac, just the kind of experienced opinion I was fishing for. The main point is your very last sentence.

Why were you fishing for it?  Nobody was ever disputing frt and passenger are different. 

Page 2 of this thread, the 6th post.

You're referring to "...the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has....."?

From the post in question:

"There's a small mountain of people in mechanical ~4000.  By comparison, NS has about 1000 and the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has.....and NS has to inspect and lace up a few hundred thousand frt cars a week, to boot."

So the "by comparison" first came from you.

Back to "Language Arts" for you!  The "by comparison" applies to the first clause (Ns's locos vs. Amtrak locos and cars).  The part after the ..... is a second independent clause. The meaning, and intention, is clear.   And, if that isn't enough, I've clarified it quite a few times since.  But, since I'm bored, I'll do it again.  This time with an analogous situation.

It's like saying "You have more recorded music than me.  By comparison, you have more CDs than I have CDs and LPs.....and you have a whole bunch of cassettes to boot"

I suppose now you're gonna think I'm comparing CDs to passenger cars.

[MichaelSol]

Number one, I didn't say one cost more or less than the other to maintain. I said there was not enough similarity between the two to make such a comparison. THAT was the point.

There is enough similarity that 20% of Amtrak maintenance has to be similar to the maintenance costs of a diesel-electric locomotive because that's exactly what Amtrak is maintaining.

But the figures quoted do not compare Amtrak's personnel maintaing the diesel-electric locomotives to the NS (or BNSF) personnel maintaining diesel-electric locomotives. You're assuming the 20%. And we all know where the word "assume" comes from.

The figures quoted was the TOTAL number of Amtrak's personnel maintaining all rolling stock to the NS (or BNSF) personnel maintaining all rolling stock. That's where the comparison loses validity.

I think you are intentionally misreading what has been posted on this thread simply to perpetuate an argument which probably had no point for you in the first place.

There is no reason why Amtrak should have to employ far more employees for its mechanical shops than Class I railways needed to employ for similar service. Given productivity increases, it should be considerably less, it isn't, and that may be one of the problems with Amtrak today.

You disagree, for reasons which are not based on any tangible experience or education, you can cite to no statistical basis for your argument, and this thread is degenerating into one of your multiple postings where you attempt to be "clever" rather than factual.

Perhaps its best simply to say you disagree since that seems to be about it.

Done.

 

[MichaelSol]

Number two, if you think a passenger car is "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform," you truly have no idea what is is you're riding in, and what "makes it tick."

And no, disregarding railroad affiliations going back 50 years and a pretty good academic and professional engineering background, I don't need to know the secrets of what makes a railroad passenger car "tick". There are years and years of statistics available regarding the maintenance costs of modern era, modern construction, railroad passenger car fleets. Those numbers hold all the secrets we need to know for this exercise.

It's almost surprising that with all the education and experience you claim, you still call a passenger car "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform." It makes people wonder about these claims. Unless your experience was with a tourist railroad running converted flatcars, which are pretty much "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform." I don't recall seeing anything like that on Amtrak's roster.

And with all that background, you claim not to need to know the secrets of what makes a passenger car tick. (BTW, it's no secret)

That was hyperbole.

Look it up.

[MichaelSol]

You didn't answer the original question of whether the maintenance costs were actually compared in the Statistics of Railways of the United States, or if you did the comparison.

12/11/2007:

I looked at the Statistics of Railways of the United States, looked to three separate years 5 years apart, compared the cost of diesel-electric locomotive maintenance to the cost of passenger car maintenance ...

The question was, did this publication actually perform such a comparison within its pages, or is the comparison made by you from two separate sets of statistics.

I said "I looked at ...". I think it's clear.

 

Yes, it's clear such a comparison wasn't made in the publication, it's strictly yours.

Yes, I said that. It shouldn't take two pages for you to reach that conclusion: it was contained in my first post on the topic. It was a question for which you already had the answer.

I relied on cost of maintenance records generated by the Class I Railways of the United States for railroad passenger cars and noted that there was a statistical correlation with cost of maintenance records for the diesel-electric fleet.

This is no doubt because equipment maintenance tends to require the same subset of costs for support: wrenches, screwdrivers, and people with appropriate mechanical skills. A standard railroad passenger car of a given age and use has a pretty well-defined maintenance cost. A standard railroad locomotive likewise follows a standard maintenance cost curve remarkably closely. As you realized after getting it backwards earlier, the passenger car fleets did not typically share facilities with other railroad operations, which lends support to the idea that Amtrak should resemble, not contradict, the experience of Class I Railways passenger operation maintenance costs.

I cannot see that you rely on any data whatsoever, nor offer any evidentiary support for your proposition.

 

[TomDiehl]

Those costs show a high degree of correlation with the costs of maintenance of the diesel-electric fleet, in proportion to a particular ratio. Unless there has been a significant change in the nature of maintenance for either fleet, you have offered no reason whatsover to believe that the statistical correlation has changed.

The question is the basis for the corerelation itself between the costs of maintaining locomotives and passenger cars. The only place I've ever seen these compared to one another is on this thread.

[TomDiehl]

Number two, if you think a passenger car is "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform," you truly have no idea what is is you're riding in, and what "makes it tick."

And no, disregarding railroad affiliations going back 50 years and a pretty good academic and professional engineering background, I don't need to know the secrets of what makes a railroad passenger car "tick". There are years and years of statistics available regarding the maintenance costs of modern era, modern construction, railroad passenger car fleets. Those numbers hold all the secrets we need to know for this exercise.

It's almost surprising that with all the education and experience you claim, you still call a passenger car "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform." It makes people wonder about these claims. Unless your experience was with a tourist railroad running converted flatcars, which are pretty much "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform." I don't recall seeing anything like that on Amtrak's roster.

And with all that background, you claim not to need to know the secrets of what makes a passenger car tick. (BTW, it's no secret)

[TomDiehl]

Number one, I didn't say one cost more or less than the other to maintain. I said there was not enough similarity between the two to make such a comparison. THAT was the point.

There is enough similarity that 20% of Amtrak maintenance has to be similar to the maintenance costs of a diesel-electric locomotive because that's exactly what Amtrak is maintaining.

But the figures quoted do not compare Amtrak's personnel maintaing the diesel-electric locomotives to the NS (or BNSF) personnel maintaining diesel-electric locomotives. You're assuming the 20%. And we all know where the word "assume" comes from.

The figures quoted was the TOTAL number of Amtrak's personnel maintaining all rolling stock to the NS (or BNSF) personnel maintaining all rolling stock. That's where the comparison loses validity.

[TomDiehl]

You didn't answer the original question of whether the maintenance costs were actually compared in the Statistics of Railways of the United States, or if you did the comparison.

12/11/2007:

I looked at the Statistics of Railways of the United States, looked to three separate years 5 years apart, compared the cost of diesel-electric locomotive maintenance to the cost of passenger car maintenance ...

The question was, did this publication actually perform such a comparison within its pages, or is the comparison made by you from two separate sets of statistics.

I said "I looked at ...". I think it's clear.

 

Yes, it's clear such a comparison wasn't made in the publication, it's strictly yours.

[TomDiehl]

Tom,

 

Your statement of 12/11 that "pre Amtrak railroads did not have completely separate facilities for maintaining passenger and freight cars" is not accurate.  In all the cases that I am aware those facilities were separate.  Think of Sunnyside Yard for example, all passenger.

 

I worked in the 'Coach Yard" in Seattle just before ATK took it over.  It was originally a joint GN/NP facility.  Did work only on passenger equipment.  Freight car repairs were done at Balmer Yard, 5 miles away.  This arrangement was typical.  Skills and supplies were very different as between freight and passenger and mechanical facilites for each were typically separate.

 

Mac McCulloch

Thank you Mac, just the kind of experienced opinion I was fishing for. The main point is your very last sentence.

Why were you fishing for it?  Nobody was ever disputing frt and passenger are different. 

Page 2 of this thread, the 6th post.

You're referring to "...the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has....."?

From the post in question:

"There's a small mountain of people in mechanical ~4000.  By comparison, NS has about 1000 and the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has.....and NS has to inspect and lace up a few hundred thousand frt cars a week, to boot."

So the "by comparison" first came from you.

[MichaelSol]

Number one, I didn't say one cost more or less than the other to maintain. I said there was not enough similarity between the two to make such a comparison. THAT was the point.

Number two, if you think a passenger car is "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform," you truly have no idea what is is you're riding in, and what "makes it tick."

There is enough similarity that 20% of Amtrak maintenance has to be similar to the maintenance costs of a diesel-electric locomotive because that's exactly what Amtrak is maintaining.

And no, disregarding railroad affiliations going back 50 years and a pretty good academic and professional engineering background, I don't need to know the secrets of what makes a railroad passenger car "tick". There are years and years of statistics available regarding the maintenance costs of modern era, modern construction, railroad passenger car fleets. Those numbers hold all the secrets we need to know for this exercise.

Those costs show a high degree of correlation with the costs of maintenance of the diesel-electric fleet, in proportion to a particular ratio. Unless there has been a significant change in the nature of maintenance for either fleet, you have offered no reason whatsover to believe that the statistical correlation has changed.

 

[MichaelSol]

You didn't answer the original question of whether the maintenance costs were actually compared in the Statistics of Railways of the United States, or if you did the comparison.

12/11/2007:

I looked at the Statistics of Railways of the United States, looked to three separate years 5 years apart, compared the cost of diesel-electric locomotive maintenance to the cost of passenger car maintenance ...

The question was, did this publication actually perform such a comparison within its pages, or is the comparison made by you from two separate sets of statistics.

I said "I looked at ...". I think it's clear.

 

[MichaelSol]

I know they're trying out an open all day/all day menu version of the diner on a couple of trains (Cardinal and City of New Orleans?)

I've always wondered if they wouldn't be better off just bidding it out to a national chain restaurant.  The one that you have to pay the least to take the bid wins - and then they can try to make as much profit as they can.  Logistics and cooking belong to the vendor.  Whether you have a grill chef or not no longer is an issue of national politics!

Interesting, I was thinking about something like this on my last trip on the Builder. I had just put up with the surliest dining car crew in my experience; they were on the third day of what must have been a very long trip. Kind of like having Nurse Ratchet, Jack Nicholson and Anthony Perkins all running the dining car. I thought, well, why not have a private contractor come on board the WB Empire Builder at Wenatchee, load a pre-loaded pantry that inserts quickly into the side of the dining car -- like airplanes do it, and serve Breakfast into Everett, layover in Everett, and handle dinner in the same fashion for the Eastbound Empire Builder. Somebody else comes on board at Libby for the EB Breakfast run, detrains at Havre. I suppose there would be a union problem with this, but there just has to be a better way on the LD trains to serve "food".

 

 

[TomDiehl]

You didn't answer the original question of whether the maintenance costs were actually compared in the Statistics of Railways of the United States, or if you did the comparison.

12/11/2007:

I looked at the Statistics of Railways of the United States, looked to three separate years 5 years apart, compared the cost of diesel-electric locomotive maintenance to the cost of passenger car maintenance ...

The question was, did this publication actually perform such a comparison within its pages, or is the comparison made by you from two separate sets of statistics.

[TomDiehl]

The point called into question is how do you define the maintenance costs of a diesel-electric locomotive to the maintenance costs of a passenger car as "companion technology" in any era?

The "point called into question" is why you believe that a heavy, complex, hard working machine with thousands of moving parts costs less to maintain than a bunch of seats bolted to a platform.

 

Number one, I didn't say one cost more or less than the other to maintain. I said there was not enough similarity between the two to make such a comparison. THAT was the point.

Number two, if you think a passenger car is "a bunch of seats bolted to a platform," you truly have no idea what is is you're riding in, and what "makes it tick."

[MichaelSol]

The point called into question is how do you define the maintenance costs of a diesel-electric locomotive to the maintenance costs of a passenger car as "companion technology" in any era?

The "point called into question" is why you believe that a heavy, complex, hard working machine with thousands of moving parts costs less to maintain than a bunch of seats bolted to a platform.

 

[MichaelSol]

You didn't answer the original question of whether the maintenance costs were actually compared in the Statistics of Railways of the United States, or if you did the comparison.

12/11/2007:

I looked at the Statistics of Railways of the United States, looked to three separate years 5 years apart, compared the cost of diesel-electric locomotive maintenance to the cost of passenger car maintenance ...

[oltmannd]

Tom,

 

Your statement of 12/11 that "pre Amtrak railroads did not have completely separate facilities for maintaining passenger and freight cars" is not accurate.  In all the cases that I am aware those facilities were separate.  Think of Sunnyside Yard for example, all passenger.

 

I worked in the 'Coach Yard" in Seattle just before ATK took it over.  It was originally a joint GN/NP facility.  Did work only on passenger equipment.  Freight car repairs were done at Balmer Yard, 5 miles away.  This arrangement was typical.  Skills and supplies were very different as between freight and passenger and mechanical facilites for each were typically separate.

 

Mac McCulloch

Thank you Mac, just the kind of experienced opinion I was fishing for. The main point is your very last sentence.

Why were you fishing for it?  Nobody was ever disputing frt and passenger are different. 

Page 2 of this thread, the 6th post.

You're referring to "...the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has....."?

[TomDiehl]

Tom,

 

Your statement of 12/11 that "pre Amtrak railroads did not have completely separate facilities for maintaining passenger and freight cars" is not accurate.  In all the cases that I am aware those facilities were separate.  Think of Sunnyside Yard for example, all passenger.

 

I worked in the 'Coach Yard" in Seattle just before ATK took it over.  It was originally a joint GN/NP facility.  Did work only on passenger equipment.  Freight car repairs were done at Balmer Yard, 5 miles away.  This arrangement was typical.  Skills and supplies were very different as between freight and passenger and mechanical facilites for each were typically separate.

 

Mac McCulloch

Thank you Mac, just the kind of experienced opinion I was fishing for. The main point is your very last sentence.

Why were you fishing for it?  Nobody was ever disputing frt and passenger are different. 

Page 2 of this thread, the 6th post.

[TomDiehl]

But we do agree on the point that we really have nothing with which to compare Amtrak in the current enviornment. Any comparison may be an interesting exercise in statistical methodology, but the accuracy of such numbers is easily called into question.

Unless railroad passenger car technology has changed dramatically, it can still be compared with its companion technology, the diesel-electric locomotive for which an established statistical relationship exists in terms of maintenance costs, and from which one can be used to assess the probable and reasonable costs of the other. In this case, we can plainly see that Amtrak is way overstaffed on mechanical forces by historical standards.

To argue otherwise, without any statistical evidence at all, is what is "easily called into question."

 

You didn't answer the original question of whether the maintenance costs were actually compared in the Statistics of Railways of the United States, or if you did the comparison.

The point called into question is how do you define the maintenance costs of a diesel-electric locomotive to the maintenance costs of a passenger car as "companion technology" in any era?

If you're going to take that view, then we should be able to compare the maintenance costs of a passenger car with the cost of growing grapes. I'm sure there's statistical data somewhere on that.

[oltmannd]

Tom,

 

Your statement of 12/11 that "pre Amtrak railroads did not have completely separate facilities for maintaining passenger and freight cars" is not accurate.  In all the cases that I am aware those facilities were separate.  Think of Sunnyside Yard for example, all passenger.

 

I worked in the 'Coach Yard" in Seattle just before ATK took it over.  It was originally a joint GN/NP facility.  Did work only on passenger equipment.  Freight car repairs were done at Balmer Yard, 5 miles away.  This arrangement was typical.  Skills and supplies were very different as between freight and passenger and mechanical facilites for each were typically separate.

 

Mac McCulloch

Thank you Mac, just the kind of experienced opinion I was fishing for. The main point is your very last sentence.

Why were you fishing for it?  Nobody was ever disputing frt and passenger are different. 

[MichaelSol]

But we do agree on the point that we really have nothing with which to compare Amtrak in the current enviornment. Any comparison may be an interesting exercise in statistical methodology, but the accuracy of such numbers is easily called into question.

Unless railroad passenger car technology has changed dramatically, it can still be compared with its companion technology, the diesel-electric locomotive for which an established statistical relationship exists in terms of maintenance costs, and from which one can be used to assess the probable and reasonable costs of the other. In this case, we can plainly see that Amtrak is way overstaffed on mechanical forces by historical standards.

To argue otherwise, without any statistical evidence at all, is what is "easily called into question."

 

[TomDiehl]

Tom,

 

Your statement of 12/11 that "pre Amtrak railroads did not have completely separate facilities for maintaining passenger and freight cars" is not accurate.  In all the cases that I am aware those facilities were separate.  Think of Sunnyside Yard for example, all passenger.

 

I worked in the 'Coach Yard" in Seattle just before ATK took it over.  It was originally a joint GN/NP facility.  Did work only on passenger equipment.  Freight car repairs were done at Balmer Yard, 5 miles away.  This arrangement was typical.  Skills and supplies were very different as between freight and passenger and mechanical facilites for each were typically separate.

 

Mac McCulloch

Thank you Mac, just the kind of experienced opinion I was fishing for. The main point is your very last sentence.

[TomDiehl]

BTW, did the "Statistics of Railways of the United States" actually compare the costs?

ICC Accounting required the reporting of cost of maintaining all passenger equipment as a separate accounting category as well as reporting the numbers of such passenger equipment. In a similar fashion, the cost of maintaining and repairing diesel-electric locomotives is reported as a separate accounting category, as is the number of units being maintained/repaired.

As of 1950, these were mature technologies and improvements in costs of maintenance and repair since that time were incremental, not transformational, and represented the same kind of productivity improvements over time that all mature technologies enjoy as small improvements occur in service and technology: better gasket materials, improved metallurgy, improvements in bearing design, improved electrical controls, etc. Experience suggests that mature technologies enjoy these productivity improvements at about the same rate.

In this fashion, similar technologies become "linked" insofar as statistical relationships that can be used to examine the known cost of one technology, and derive the unknown cost of another technology. The validity of this analysis is established by linear regression analysis and identification of a correlation which identifies the reliability of the relationship.

In this conversation, I did not, in fact, have any idea what the relative costs were. So, since it is an interesting thought, I looked at the Statistics of Railways of the United States, looked to three separate years 5 years apart, compared the cost of diesel-electric locomotive maintenance to the cost of passenger car maintenance, and saw that Don's figures were very conservative, no doubt intentionally so for the purpose of discussion, and that the consistent ratio looks to be about 3:1. I did this using MILW Road's figures which looked to be a useful representative of Amtrak in terms of combinations of heavy commuter traffic, night trains, and long distance trains.

This process is called "substitution" and uses a "surrogate" to identify the probable measure of an entity that we don't have a direct measure of. We use "surrogates" all the time. For instance, the definition of a second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom, referring to a cesium atom in its ground state at a temperature of 0 degrees Kelvin. Next time someone asks for the time, defer until you can get the results from your particle accelerator at absolute zero.

Obviously, we use motors, gears, and ratchets to create a surrogate measure of "seconds" because of the obvious difficulty of performing, or even understanding, the direct measurement, which in turn allows us to fairly accurately estimate minutes, hours, and days. The surrogate is acceptable, and in fact preferable, to attempting the direct measure.

Industries routinely use "industry average" surrogates, through publications such as Dunn & Bradstreet, to assess the effectiveness of their relative performance. Amtrak is a toughy, since there isn't anything like it. However, we do have millions of miles of similar performance, using similar equipment, on identical territory, over a number of years. We have a current class of equipment which is related in technology terms to the Amtrak class. We have a surrogate: the diesel-electric locomotive.

And that is what I measured. Don simply added a generous measure of doubt in favor of the railroad passenger car -- he said as much -- thinking that it would reasonably provide an unchallengeable measure of the problems with Amtrak's equipment maintenance and repair costs.

Well .... I think it did.

 

 

First, the easiest one. Since I've worked with Cesium (and Rubidium) oscillator clocks, these are used as a high accuracy and stability frequency reference.  Time, being the inverse of frequency, is easily derived from the output of these oscillators. To call the simpler digital or mechanical clocks a surrogate for the atomic clocks would imply the atomic ones are the older ones. It's actually the other way around. The earliest "clocks" were simple hour glasses. The decision to use one rather than the other is based on the level of accuracy required and the cost. Obviously an atomic clock costs more than a digital Timex. How this relates to statistics is a real stretch. Unless you're trying to say using a surrogate yields a much lower accuracy.

In your second and third paragraphs above, you seem to be running in circles. First you say that both passenger car and diesel locomotives are "mature technology" with incremental improvements based on past improvements. Then you talk about linking similar technologies as far as statistical relationships to derive the cost of an unknown technology. What suddenly became "unknown?"

But we do agree on the point that we really have nothing with which to compare Amtrak in the current enviornment. Any comparison may be an interesting exercise in statistical methodology, but the accuracy of such numbers is easily called into question.

[oltmannd]

I wish that the GAO would do some serious, detailed benchmarking, or better yet, Amtrak should do it.  It would take some real time and effort.  The GAO's  "get rid of the diners and sleepers" study took the simple approach that the way to cut costs was to cut services.  A good benchmarking study would help find ways to keep and exand services while cutting costs.

As a long time and reasonably frequent user of Amtrak who happens to think their food services are dismal, I have always thought that their food service should go the other way and they could make some money; develop a reputation, offer some "named" meals, and make these things real diners instead of the cookbook recipe and cattle car "community" seating used so they can minimize the hours of operation of the diner. As it is, I notice on the Empire Builder that few take advantage of the diner. The seating is frequently backed up, the community seating is purely for the convenience of the staff not the customers, and they always seem like they are in a rush to get people out. The food is merely "OK", and not worth too much effort. A first class facility with a third class attitude.

And here's a benchmark: I doubt that even as much as 20% of the passengers take advantage of breakfast or dinner on the Empire Builder because of the wait times, the short dining hours, and the awkward seating policy.

Amazingly, I have never seen a survey ...

You have a point.  There is nothing very special about the diner.

I've rarely seen many coach passengers make it past the lounge car for meals.  I think they all want to save a buck or two on meals.  Or, maybe they just snack their way along all day.  I know that's what I did on some of my all day treks from Philly to London Ont. in the past  (there was no other option!)

I know they're trying out an open all day/all day menu version of the diner on a couple of trains (Cardinal and City of New Orleans?)

I've always wondered if they wouldn't be better off just bidding it out to a national chain restaurant.  The one that you have to pay the least to take the bid wins - and then they can try to make as much profit as they can.  Logistics and cooking belong to the vendor.  Whether you have a grill chef or not no longer is an issue of national politics!

[MichaelSol]

I wish that the GAO would do some serious, detailed benchmarking, or better yet, Amtrak should do it.  It would take some real time and effort.  The GAO's  "get rid of the diners and sleepers" study took the simple approach that the way to cut costs was to cut services.  A good benchmarking study would help find ways to keep and exand services while cutting costs.

As a long time and reasonably frequent user of Amtrak who happens to think their food services are dismal, I have always thought that their food service should go the other way and they could make some money; develop a reputation, offer some "named" meals, and make these things real diners instead of the cookbook recipe and cattle car "community" seating used so they can minimize the hours of operation of the diner. As it is, I notice on the Empire Builder that few take advantage of the diner. The seating is frequently backed up, the community seating is purely for the convenience of the staff not the customers, and they always seem like they are in a rush to get people out. The food is merely "OK", and not worth too much effort. A first class facility with a third class attitude.

And here's a benchmark: I doubt that even as much as 20% of the passengers take advantage of breakfast or dinner on the Empire Builder because of the wait times, the short dining hours, and the awkward seating policy.

Amazingly, I have never seen a survey ...

 

 

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

An example in the other direction was in the mid to late 1960's when IC closed the 27th Street facility and serviced and maintained the passenger power at Homewood.

[oltmannd]

Tom,

 

Your statement of 12/11 that "pre Amtrak railroads did not have completely separate facilities for maintaining passenger and freight cars" is not accurate.  In all the cases that I am aware those facilities were separate.  Think of Sunnyside Yard for example, all passenger.

 

I worked in the 'Coach Yard" in Seattle just before ATK took it over.  It was originally a joint GN/NP facility.  Did work only on passenger equipment.  Freight car repairs were done at Balmer Yard, 5 miles away.  This arrangement was typical.  Skills and supplies were very different as between freight and passenger and mechanical facilites for each were typically separate.

 

Mac McCulloch

 If more examples are needed, there's Ivy City - all passenger.  And Harrisburg diesel terminal (all passenger) vs. Enola diesel terminal (all frt).  On the backshop side, passenger cars usually enjoyed their own shop and staffing, although cabooses were sometimes included with the passenger cars.

[oltmannd]

Any critique of Amtrak from any quarter gets some of us in the passenger-train advocacy community to circle the wagons as it were.

There was a time when the whole lot -- corridors, commuter, LD passenger -- were taken care of privately, though there too was subsidy in the form of the railroad companies carrying passengers at a loss and cross-subsidized by the freight side of the business either out of legal responsibility under ICC regs or to maintain the corporate image as in Sante Fe maintaining high standards for their Western trains.

At one time C&NW was running those Chicago commuter trains without any public subsidy and these days Metra has something like a 200 percent operating ratio, and the financing of rolling stock is off the books because they regard the provision of cars and locomotives as "gifts" provided to them by whoever funds the grant.  And I don't see evidence of "featherbedding" because as far as I can tell Metra is running longer trains with fewer crew than in the C&NW days.  But something has changed about the economics of all of that.

No one is accusing any Amtrak employee of slacking as I am sure they are dedicated and hard working and if there are issues with productivity, it is a question about how the business is run rather than the responsibility of workers low down on the chain of command.

In seeking out interesting things to do, I have been reading through stacks of old Trains from the 50's and 60's at the Wisconsin State Historical Society, which has an excellent railroads collection of books and other periodicals.  It seems that all of these same argument were made some 50 years ago when the railroads made one last generational update in locomotives (Diesel -- private railroad passenger power really only made it through first-generation Diesels, with a smattering of 2nd gen power in the SDP35-40-45's, the FP45s, U28-30CGs) and passenger cars ("lightweight" 4-axle streamliners -- the Amtrak Heritage fleet with much of it that is still running now in Canada).

Here we are 50 years later, and Amtrak is creaking along, at the brink of collapse in some people's estimation, and we are going through all of the same arguments -- what is the role for passenger trains in light of cars, buses, and airplanes, what public purpose is served by subsidy for trains, what is a reasonable rate of subsidy.  We are kind of in the 2nd Generation of the Passenger Train Crisis.

This thread was started in response to Senate debate and then passage of Lautenberg-Lott by a thumping 70-30 vote.  Senator John Sununu was castigated on this thread for "playing politics" with Amtrak for opening up the issue of the high rates of per passenger subsidy attributed to Western LD trains, but I guess his point of view didn't carry the day.  The House has to yet vote, and the President needs to sign, and while the President has a general anti-Amtrak stance, the final outcome will probably depend on whether votes are strong enough to sustain veto overrides along with how the legislation is bundled and the general horse-trading that is politics.

Given the balance of loyalties in Washington and given the high price of oil and everything, we are probably as close to getting Lautenberg-Lott as we have been in a long while and getting a not-enormous but significant capital infusion (which the advocacy community endorses) along with some formulaic oversight and "accountability" (which the advocacy community looks upon with a jaundiced eye).  If this money goes through, this may prove Amtrak's swan song as it were. 

This is it people -- the 18 billion over 6 years or whatever amount of money it is or gets whittled down to.  The combination of the high oil prices with the political votes with the much-needed capital spending is what Amtrak is going to get to do its stuff and make an impression on people.  The train advocacy community deeply believes in the inherent goodness of trains but the average person out there needs convincing by real-life experience.  If Amtrak doesn't achieve enough "bang-for-the-buck", after 6 years, I don't think there will be third and fourth chances.

I guess it is the nature of the politics that NARP and others wind up being apologists for Amtrak and totally eschew the watchdog role.  That's too bad.  I think there is room for them to be both. 

I think that you may be right that this big chunk of change coming Amtrak's way might be their best, last chance to "get it right".

I did notice in the language of the bill that it is recommended that Amtrak put some sort of performance bonus plan in place.  I think that could help a lot.  Over it's history, Amtrak seems to make significant changes only when their back is too the wall.  Once the scare is over, they go back to busness as usual.  The latest round of threats have seen them cut employment from 22,000 or so down to 17,000.  While they have done this, they have grown their business modestly.  My, "back of the envelope" benchmarking makes me think they still have a ways to go.  A bonus plan that rewards all for overall efficiency improvements would help Amtrak keep moving in the right direction with positive "heat" applied within instead of the occasional outside threat.  No doubt there are many within Amtrak with good and honorable intentions, but it's not reasonable to think that many will go out of their way to "gore their own ox" or make their life more difficult w/o some pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

I wish that the GAO would do some serious, detailed benchmarking, or better yet, Amtrak should do it.  It would take some real time and effort.  The GAO's  "get rid of the diners and sleepers" study took the simple approach that the way to cut costs was to cut services.  A good benchmarking study would help find ways to keep and exand services while cutting costs.

..one can hope.

[PNWRMNM]

Tom,

 

Your statement of 12/11 that "pre Amtrak railroads did not have completely separate facilities for maintaining passenger and freight cars" is not accurate.  In all the cases that I am aware those facilities were separate.  Think of Sunnyside Yard for example, all passenger.

 

I worked in the 'Coach Yard" in Seattle just before ATK took it over.  It was originally a joint GN/NP facility.  Did work only on passenger equipment.  Freight car repairs were done at Balmer Yard, 5 miles away.  This arrangement was typical.  Skills and supplies were very different as between freight and passenger and mechanical facilites for each were typically separate.

 

Mac McCulloch

[MichaelSol]

BTW, did the "Statistics of Railways of the United States" actually compare the costs?

ICC Accounting required the reporting of cost of maintaining all passenger equipment as a separate accounting category as well as reporting the numbers of such passenger equipment. In a similar fashion, the cost of maintaining and repairing diesel-electric locomotives is reported as a separate accounting category, as is the number of units being maintained/repaired.

As of 1950, these were mature technologies and improvements in costs of maintenance and repair since that time were incremental, not transformational, and represented the same kind of productivity improvements over time that all mature technologies enjoy as small improvements occur in service and technology: better gasket materials, improved metallurgy, improvements in bearing design, improved electrical controls, etc. Experience suggests that mature technologies enjoy these productivity improvements at about the same rate.

In this fashion, similar technologies become "linked" insofar as statistical relationships that can be used to examine the known cost of one technology, and derive the unknown cost of another technology. The validity of this analysis is established by linear regression analysis and identification of a correlation which identifies the reliability of the relationship.

In this conversation, I did not, in fact, have any idea what the relative costs were. So, since it is an interesting thought, I looked at the Statistics of Railways of the United States, looked to three separate years 5 years apart, compared the cost of diesel-electric locomotive maintenance to the cost of passenger car maintenance, and saw that Don's figures were very conservative, no doubt intentionally so for the purpose of discussion, and that the consistent ratio looks to be about 3:1. I did this using MILW Road's figures which looked to be a useful representative of Amtrak in terms of combinations of heavy commuter traffic, night trains, and long distance trains.

This process is called "substitution" and uses a "surrogate" to identify the probable measure of an entity that we don't have a direct measure of. We use "surrogates" all the time. For instance, the definition of a second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom, referring to a cesium atom in its ground state at a temperature of 0 degrees Kelvin. Next time someone asks for the time, defer until you can get the results from your particle accelerator at absolute zero.

Obviously, we use motors, gears, and ratchets to create a surrogate measure of "seconds" because of the obvious difficulty of performing, or even understanding, the direct measurement, which in turn allows us to fairly accurately estimate minutes, hours, and days. The surrogate is acceptable, and in fact preferable, to attempting the direct measure.

Industries routinely use "industry average" surrogates, through publications such as Dunn & Bradstreet, to assess the effectiveness of their relative performance. Amtrak is a toughy, since there isn't anything like it. However, we do have millions of miles of similar performance, using similar equipment, on identical territory, over a number of years. We have a current class of equipment which is related in technology terms to the Amtrak class. We have a surrogate: the diesel-electric locomotive.

And that is what I measured. Don simply added a generous measure of doubt in favor of the railroad passenger car -- he said as much -- thinking that it would reasonably provide an unchallengeable measure of the problems with Amtrak's equipment maintenance and repair costs.

Well .... I think it did.

 

 

[TomDiehl]

So my figure of 27 to 1 is just a valid as your figure of 3 to 1 because we both pulled them out of our butts.

Whoa. Don took a careful, conservative approach, equating the maintenance costs of a diesel-electric locomotive with that of a railroad passenger car. He knows its better than that, but for the sake of argument, it has to be hard to say that a railroad passenger costs more than an operating power unit for all sorts of practical reasons, and so he went with 1:1.

I derived the 3-1 ratio, and I derived it from the Statistics of Railway of the United States. These are large bound volumes of data generated by the ICC, using ICC accounting, based on annual ICC reports of the railroads of the United States. Due to their size, I cannot fit the Statistics of Railways of the United States anywhere but on the bookshelf and so they were "pulled" from no other location.

 

Don's original statement (comparing the raw figures of cars vs. number of maintenance personnel) was anything but "careful" or "conservative." It was simply meant to belittle the job Amtrak is doing. His outlandish comparison made it easy to call him on that one. Then changing it to locomotives vs. passenger cars was just as bad. Funny, if you read the post above yours, He seems to be taking credit for the 3 to 1 figure.

Comparing historical data has several flaws of its own, making separation of figures difficult, especially for the reporting railroads:

1. Pre-Amtrak, the railroads didn't have completely separate facilities for maintaining freight and passenger cars.

2. Due to their similarity, the locomotives were definately maintained in the same facilities.

But comparing the cost of maintaining a locomotive to that of a passenger car is so far out in left field it's laughable. The similarity ends at the flanged wheels and couplers.

BTW, did the "Statistics of Railways of the United States" actually compare the costs?

[MichaelSol]

So my figure of 27 to 1 is just a valid as your figure of 3 to 1 because we both pulled them out of our butts.

Whoa. Don took a careful, conservative approach, equating the maintenance costs of a diesel-electric locomotive with that of a railroad passenger car. He knows its better than that, but for the sake of argument, it has to be hard to say that a railroad passenger car unit costs more than an operating power unit for all sorts of practical reasons, and so he went with 1:1.

I derived the 3-1 ratio, and I derived it from the Statistics of Railway of the United States. These are large bound volumes of data generated by the ICC, using ICC accounting, based on annual ICC reports of the railroads of the United States. Due to their size, I cannot fit the Statistics of Railways of the United States anywhere but on the bookshelf and so they were "pulled" from no other location.

 

[TomDiehl]

And, so, I made a comparison between Amtrak and NS's Mechanical Dept staffing and Michael made one with BN's, which we believe to be valid.

You disagree with the comparison, but offer no opinion one way or the other on the conclusion.

cest la vie.

No, obviously you're reading what you want to see.

To repeat:

I guess you're trying to tell us that the work and personnel required to maintain a freight car is the same as required to maintain a passenger car.

After I pointed out this part of the discussion, Michael didn't dispute it.

My whole point was based on a comparison between a locomotive and passenger car.  Michaels's numbers put the equivalent at 3 passenger cars = 1 locomotive, so my comparsion was more than valid (if that can be).  That NS had any workers left over to do any frt car work was "gravy", or "whipped cream and an cherry" or whatever you'd like add to the top.

A freight car is not like a passenger car.  You can quote me.  Happy now?  I am.

 

You're right, your comparison isn't valid. Nice to see you have your doubts.

And comparing the maintenance on locomotives to passenger cars? Since we're pulling numbers out of our butts, how about 27:1?

No doubts.  Real sources.  Real experience.  Real education.

But not based on science or statistical methodology.

Oh, yes it is.

And what would that be?

All the above!

So my figure of 27 to 1 is just a valid as your figure of 3 to 1 because we both pulled them out of our butts.

[oltmannd]

And, so, I made a comparison between Amtrak and NS's Mechanical Dept staffing and Michael made one with BN's, which we believe to be valid.

You disagree with the comparison, but offer no opinion one way or the other on the conclusion.

cest la vie.

No, obviously you're reading what you want to see.

To repeat:

I guess you're trying to tell us that the work and personnel required to maintain a freight car is the same as required to maintain a passenger car.

After I pointed out this part of the discussion, Michael didn't dispute it.

My whole point was based on a comparison between a locomotive and passenger car.  Michaels's numbers put the equivalent at 3 passenger cars = 1 locomotive, so my comparsion was more than valid (if that can be).  That NS had any workers left over to do any frt car work was "gravy", or "whipped cream and an cherry" or whatever you'd like add to the top.

A freight car is not like a passenger car.  You can quote me.  Happy now?  I am.

 

You're right, your comparison isn't valid. Nice to see you have your doubts.

And comparing the maintenance on locomotives to passenger cars? Since we're pulling numbers out of our butts, how about 27:1?

No doubts.  Real sources.  Real experience.  Real education.

But not based on science or statistical methodology.

Oh, yes it is.

And what would that be?

All the above!

[TomDiehl]

And, so, I made a comparison between Amtrak and NS's Mechanical Dept staffing and Michael made one with BN's, which we believe to be valid.

You disagree with the comparison, but offer no opinion one way or the other on the conclusion.

cest la vie.

No, obviously you're reading what you want to see.

To repeat:

I guess you're trying to tell us that the work and personnel required to maintain a freight car is the same as required to maintain a passenger car.

After I pointed out this part of the discussion, Michael didn't dispute it.

My whole point was based on a comparison between a locomotive and passenger car.  Michaels's numbers put the equivalent at 3 passenger cars = 1 locomotive, so my comparsion was more than valid (if that can be).  That NS had any workers left over to do any frt car work was "gravy", or "whipped cream and an cherry" or whatever you'd like add to the top.

A freight car is not like a passenger car.  You can quote me.  Happy now?  I am.

 

You're right, your comparison isn't valid. Nice to see you have your doubts.

And comparing the maintenance on locomotives to passenger cars? Since we're pulling numbers out of our butts, how about 27:1?

No doubts.  Real sources.  Real experience.  Real education.

But not based on science or statistical methodology.

Oh, yes it is.

And what would that be?

[oltmannd]

And, so, I made a comparison between Amtrak and NS's Mechanical Dept staffing and Michael made one with BN's, which we believe to be valid.

You disagree with the comparison, but offer no opinion one way or the other on the conclusion.

cest la vie.

No, obviously you're reading what you want to see.

To repeat:

I guess you're trying to tell us that the work and personnel required to maintain a freight car is the same as required to maintain a passenger car.

After I pointed out this part of the discussion, Michael didn't dispute it.

My whole point was based on a comparison between a locomotive and passenger car.  Michaels's numbers put the equivalent at 3 passenger cars = 1 locomotive, so my comparsion was more than valid (if that can be).  That NS had any workers left over to do any frt car work was "gravy", or "whipped cream and an cherry" or whatever you'd like add to the top.

A freight car is not like a passenger car.  You can quote me.  Happy now?  I am.

 

You're right, your comparison isn't valid. Nice to see you have your doubts.

And comparing the maintenance on locomotives to passenger cars? Since we're pulling numbers out of our butts, how about 27:1?

No doubts.  Real sources.  Real experience.  Real education.

But not based on science or statistical methodology.

Oh, yes it is.

[TomDiehl]

And, so, I made a comparison between Amtrak and NS's Mechanical Dept staffing and Michael made one with BN's, which we believe to be valid.

You disagree with the comparison, but offer no opinion one way or the other on the conclusion.

cest la vie.

No, obviously you're reading what you want to see.

To repeat:

I guess you're trying to tell us that the work and personnel required to maintain a freight car is the same as required to maintain a passenger car.

After I pointed out this part of the discussion, Michael didn't dispute it.

My whole point was based on a comparison between a locomotive and passenger car.  Michaels's numbers put the equivalent at 3 passenger cars = 1 locomotive, so my comparsion was more than valid (if that can be).  That NS had any workers left over to do any frt car work was "gravy", or "whipped cream and an cherry" or whatever you'd like add to the top.

A freight car is not like a passenger car.  You can quote me.  Happy now?  I am.

 

You're right, your comparison isn't valid. Nice to see you have your doubts.

And comparing the maintenance on locomotives to passenger cars? Since we're pulling numbers out of our butts, how about 27:1?

No doubts.  Real sources.  Real experience.  Real education.

But not based on science or statistical methodology.

[Paul Milenkovic]

Any critique of Amtrak from any quarter gets some of us in the passenger-train advocacy community to circle the wagons as it were.

There was a time when the whole lot -- corridors, commuter, LD passenger -- were taken care of privately, though there too was subsidy in the form of the railroad companies carrying passengers at a loss and cross-subsidized by the freight side of the business either out of legal responsibility under ICC regs or to maintain the corporate image as in Sante Fe maintaining high standards for their Western trains.

At one time C&NW was running those Chicago commuter trains without any public subsidy and these days Metra has something like a 200 percent operating ratio, and the financing of rolling stock is off the books because they regard the provision of cars and locomotives as "gifts" provided to them by whoever funds the grant.  And I don't see evidence of "featherbedding" because as far as I can tell Metra is running longer trains with fewer crew than in the C&NW days.  But something has changed about the economics of all of that.

No one is accusing any Amtrak employee of slacking as I am sure they are dedicated and hard working and if there are issues with productivity, it is a question about how the business is run rather than the responsibility of workers low down on the chain of command.

In seeking out interesting things to do, I have been reading through stacks of old Trains from the 50's and 60's at the Wisconsin State Historical Society, which has an excellent railroads collection of books and other periodicals.  It seems that all of these same argument were made some 50 years ago when the railroads made one last generational update in locomotives (Diesel -- private railroad passenger power really only made it through first-generation Diesels, with a smattering of 2nd gen power in the SDP35-40-45's, the FP45s, U28-30CGs) and passenger cars ("lightweight" 4-axle streamliners -- the Amtrak Heritage fleet with much of it that is still running now in Canada).

Here we are 50 years later, and Amtrak is creaking along, at the brink of collapse in some people's estimation, and we are going through all of the same arguments -- what is the role for passenger trains in light of cars, buses, and airplanes, what public purpose is served by subsidy for trains, what is a reasonable rate of subsidy.  We are kind of in the 2nd Generation of the Passenger Train Crisis.

This thread was started in response to Senate debate and then passage of Lautenberg-Lott by a thumping 70-30 vote.  Senator John Sununu was castigated on this thread for "playing politics" with Amtrak for opening up the issue of the high rates of per passenger subsidy attributed to Western LD trains, but I guess his point of view didn't carry the day.  The House has to yet vote, and the President needs to sign, and while the President has a general anti-Amtrak stance, the final outcome will probably depend on whether votes are strong enough to sustain veto overrides along with how the legislation is bundled and the general horse-trading that is politics.

Given the balance of loyalties in Washington and given the high price of oil and everything, we are probably as close to getting Lautenberg-Lott as we have been in a long while and getting a not-enormous but significant capital infusion (which the advocacy community endorses) along with some formulaic oversight and "accountability" (which the advocacy community looks upon with a jaundiced eye).  If this money goes through, this may prove Amtrak's swan song as it were. 

This is it people -- the 18 billion over 6 years or whatever amount of money it is or gets whittled down to.  The combination of the high oil prices with the political votes with the much-needed capital spending is what Amtrak is going to get to do its stuff and make an impression on people.  The train advocacy community deeply believes in the inherent goodness of trains but the average person out there needs convincing by real-life experience.  If Amtrak doesn't achieve enough "bang-for-the-buck", after 6 years, I don't think there will be third and fourth chances.

[oltmannd]

And, so, I made a comparison between Amtrak and NS's Mechanical Dept staffing and Michael made one with BN's, which we believe to be valid.

You disagree with the comparison, but offer no opinion one way or the other on the conclusion.

cest la vie.

No, obviously you're reading what you want to see.

To repeat:

I guess you're trying to tell us that the work and personnel required to maintain a freight car is the same as required to maintain a passenger car.

After I pointed out this part of the discussion, Michael didn't dispute it.

My whole point was based on a comparison between a locomotive and passenger car.  Michaels's numbers put the equivalent at 3 passenger cars = 1 locomotive, so my comparsion was more than valid (if that can be).  That NS had any workers left over to do any frt car work was "gravy", or "whipped cream and an cherry" or whatever you'd like add to the top.

A freight car is not like a passenger car.  You can quote me.  Happy now?  I am.

 

You're right, your comparison isn't valid. Nice to see you have your doubts.

And comparing the maintenance on locomotives to passenger cars? Since we're pulling numbers out of our butts, how about 27:1?

No doubts.  Real sources.  Real experience.  Real education.

[TomDiehl]

And, so, I made a comparison between Amtrak and NS's Mechanical Dept staffing and Michael made one with BN's, which we believe to be valid.

You disagree with the comparison, but offer no opinion one way or the other on the conclusion.

cest la vie.

No, obviously you're reading what you want to see.

To repeat:

I guess you're trying to tell us that the work and personnel required to maintain a freight car is the same as required to maintain a passenger car.

After I pointed out this part of the discussion, Michael didn't dispute it.

My whole point was based on a comparison between a locomotive and passenger car.  Michaels's numbers put the equivalent at 3 passenger cars = 1 locomotive, so my comparsion was more than valid (if that can be).  That NS had any workers left over to do any frt car work was "gravy", or "whipped cream and an cherry" or whatever you'd like add to the top.

A freight car is not like a passenger car.  You can quote me.  Happy now?  I am.

 

You're right, your comparison isn't valid. Nice to see you have your doubts.

And comparing the maintenance on locomotives to passenger cars? Since we're pulling numbers out of our butts, how about 27:1?

[oltmannd]

And, so, I made a comparison between Amtrak and NS's Mechanical Dept staffing and Michael made one with BN's, which we believe to be valid.

You disagree with the comparison, but offer no opinion one way or the other on the conclusion.

cest la vie.

No, obviously you're reading what you want to see.

To repeat:

I guess you're trying to tell us that the work and personnel required to maintain a freight car is the same as required to maintain a passenger car.

After I pointed out this part of the discussion, Michael didn't dispute it.

My whole point was based on a comparison between a locomotive and passenger car.  Michaels's numbers put the equivalent at 3 passenger cars = 1 locomotive, so my comparsion was more than valid (if that can be).  That NS had any workers left over to do any frt car work was "gravy", or "whipped cream and an cherry" or whatever you'd like add to the top.

A freight car is not like a passenger car.  You can quote me.  Happy now?  I am.

 

[TomDiehl]

And, so, I made a comparison between Amtrak and NS's Mechanical Dept staffing and Michael made one with BN's, which we believe to be valid.

You disagree with the comparison, but offer no opinion one way or the other on the conclusion.

cest la vie.

No, obviously you're reading what you want to see.

To repeat:

I guess you're trying to tell us that the work and personnel required to maintain a freight car is the same as required to maintain a passenger car.

After I pointed out this part of the discussion, Michael didn't dispute it.

[oltmannd]

And, so, I made a comparison between Amtrak and NS's Mechanical Dept staffing and Michael made one with BN's, which we believe to be valid.

You disagree with the comparison, but offer no opinion one way or the other on the conclusion.

cest la vie.

[TomDiehl]

As I also said above, no doubt the cost of maintaining passenger equipment is higher than that of freight equipment. Of much less doubt is that a freight diesel-electric locomotive has any significantly different maintenance requirements than a diesel-electric passenger locomotive.

Exactly what I was saying. However, trying to compare the the number of maintenance people that work for a freight railroad to the number that work for a passenger railroad is not valid because the jobs they do and the parts that need to be maintained are too different.

The locomotives for either type railroad are fairly similar, but the numbers Oltmand was quoting did not break down loco and car maintenance personnel numbers.

Then you can project the numbers another step: if the number of trains that either one operated was to double, would the number of maintenance people also double? Is the current numbers because of the different jobs they need to do, the number of locations they need to support with maintenance, or the quantity of cars and locos they have to maintain? His comparison was based strictly on the quantity part of the question.

So, what all those Amtrak Mechanical folk are doing is "not much" but you believe it's all about economy of scale and craft division of labor?

Economy of scale and labor constraints as the cause of horrible productivity are both the responsibility of Amtrak management.  What incentive has Amtrak management had to improve either?  Almost none, so Amtrak remains a mess.  Lousy productivity is lousy productivity regardless of the cause.

You still don't get it.

It's about your flawed comparison of a freight railroad to a passenger railroad and the maintenance requirements of each.

I never said that I thought Amtrak's maintenance Department was properly staffed, over staffed, or understaffed. I simply stated the comparison of the job the two have to do is so different, any comparison of that type is invalid.

OK, if that's what you want to believe. 

I'm sure my use of the English language is a bit different than yours, so I'm sure we can't communicate at all. 

When people use the term "in comparison," the reader is led to believe that they are comparing one thing to another.

[oltmannd]

As I also said above, no doubt the cost of maintaining passenger equipment is higher than that of freight equipment. Of much less doubt is that a freight diesel-electric locomotive has any significantly different maintenance requirements than a diesel-electric passenger locomotive.

Exactly what I was saying. However, trying to compare the the number of maintenance people that work for a freight railroad to the number that work for a passenger railroad is not valid because the jobs they do and the parts that need to be maintained are too different.

The locomotives for either type railroad are fairly similar, but the numbers Oltmand was quoting did not break down loco and car maintenance personnel numbers.

Then you can project the numbers another step: if the number of trains that either one operated was to double, would the number of maintenance people also double? Is the current numbers because of the different jobs they need to do, the number of locations they need to support with maintenance, or the quantity of cars and locos they have to maintain? His comparison was based strictly on the quantity part of the question.

So, what all those Amtrak Mechanical folk are doing is "not much" but you believe it's all about economy of scale and craft division of labor?

Economy of scale and labor constraints as the cause of horrible productivity are both the responsibility of Amtrak management.  What incentive has Amtrak management had to improve either?  Almost none, so Amtrak remains a mess.  Lousy productivity is lousy productivity regardless of the cause.

You still don't get it.

It's about your flawed comparison of a freight railroad to a passenger railroad and the maintenance requirements of each.

I never said that I thought Amtrak's maintenance Department was properly staffed, over staffed, or understaffed. I simply stated the comparison of the job the two have to do is so different, any comparison of that type is invalid.

OK, if that's what you want to believe. 

I'm sure my use of the English language is a bit different than yours, so I'm sure we can't communicate at all. 

[TomDiehl]

As I also said above, no doubt the cost of maintaining passenger equipment is higher than that of freight equipment. Of much less doubt is that a freight diesel-electric locomotive has any significantly different maintenance requirements than a diesel-electric passenger locomotive.

Exactly what I was saying. However, trying to compare the the number of maintenance people that work for a freight railroad to the number that work for a passenger railroad is not valid because the jobs they do and the parts that need to be maintained are too different.

The locomotives for either type railroad are fairly similar, but the numbers Oltmand was quoting did not break down loco and car maintenance personnel numbers.

Then you can project the numbers another step: if the number of trains that either one operated was to double, would the number of maintenance people also double? Is the current numbers because of the different jobs they need to do, the number of locations they need to support with maintenance, or the quantity of cars and locos they have to maintain? His comparison was based strictly on the quantity part of the question.

So, what all those Amtrak Mechanical folk are doing is "not much" but you believe it's all about economy of scale and craft division of labor?

Economy of scale and labor constraints as the cause of horrible productivity are both the responsibility of Amtrak management.  What incentive has Amtrak management had to improve either?  Almost none, so Amtrak remains a mess.  Lousy productivity is lousy productivity regardless of the cause.

You still don't get it.

It's about your flawed comparison of a freight railroad to a passenger railroad and the maintenance requirements of each.

I never said that I thought Amtrak's maintenance Department was properly staffed, over staffed, or understaffed. I simply stated the comparison of the job the two have to do is so different, any comparison of that type is invalid.

[oltmannd]

As I also said above, no doubt the cost of maintaining passenger equipment is higher than that of freight equipment. Of much less doubt is that a freight diesel-electric locomotive has any significantly different maintenance requirements than a diesel-electric passenger locomotive.

Exactly what I was saying. However, trying to compare the the number of maintenance people that work for a freight railroad to the number that work for a passenger railroad is not valid because the jobs they do and the parts that need to be maintained are too different.

The locomotives for either type railroad are fairly similar, but the numbers Oltmand was quoting did not break down loco and car maintenance personnel numbers.

Then you can project the numbers another step: if the number of trains that either one operated was to double, would the number of maintenance people also double? Is the current numbers because of the different jobs they need to do, the number of locations they need to support with maintenance, or the quantity of cars and locos they have to maintain? His comparison was based strictly on the quantity part of the question.

So, what all those Amtrak Mechanical folk are doing is "not much" but you believe it's all about economy of scale and craft division of labor?

Economy of scale and labor constraints as the cause of horrible productivity are both the responsibility of Amtrak management.  What incentive has Amtrak management had to improve either?  Almost none, so Amtrak remains a mess.  Lousy productivity is lousy productivity regardless of the cause.

[TomDiehl]

As I also said above, no doubt the cost of maintaining passenger equipment is higher than that of freight equipment. Of much less doubt is that a freight diesel-electric locomotive has any significantly different maintenance requirements than a diesel-electric passenger locomotive.

Exactly what I was saying. However, trying to compare the the number of maintenance people that work for a freight railroad to the number that work for a passenger railroad is not valid because the jobs they do and the parts that need to be maintained are too different.

The locomotives for either type railroad are fairly similar, but the numbers Oltmand was quoting did not break down loco and car maintenance personnel numbers.

Then you can project the numbers another step: if the number of trains that either one operated was to double, would the number of maintenance people also double? Is the current numbers because of the different jobs they need to do, the number of locations they need to support with maintenance, or the quantity of cars and locos they have to maintain? His comparison was based strictly on the quantity part of the question.

[MichaelSol]

So you're saying that the number of personnel needed to maintain and prepare a passenger car should be the same as the number needed to do the same with a freight car?

(from your earlier post) Compare Amtrak to BN,

No. I am saying what I said I said: 18x the number sounds high.

You're still trying to compare a freight railroad to a passenger railroad, which is still invalid whether your talking about BNSF or NS or D-L.

Which was also the original discussion.

Actually we are talking about maintenance of equipment. And, as my earlier post points out, we have plenty of data available because the freight railroads were also passenger railroads, and provided detailed data under ICC accounting for both absolute and relative costs of maintaining different types of equipment.

As I also said above, no doubt the cost of maintaining passenger equipment is higher than that of freight equipment. Of much less doubt is that a freight diesel-electric locomotive has any significantly different maintenance requirements than a diesel-electric passenger locomotive.

A passenger car costs money to maintain. So does a diesel-electric locomotive. Historically, a relatively new diesel-electric locomotive costs about three times as much annually in maintenance and repairs as the average older railway passenger car. I am taking this from a point in time when the primary cost involved was labor. The cost of maintaining a freight car is a pittance by comparison to a passenger car, but we can eliminate any consideration of the freight car, as Don Oltmann attempted to do for you above, by specifically comparing a more complex machine -- the diesel electric locomotive -- which 1) is shared by both the passenger and freight railroads, and 2) for which we have a lengthy record of absolute and relative maintenance costs to compare with passenger car maintenance, and which therefore provides a useful surrogate.

Based on that rule of thumb, and eliminating entirely any comparison with modern freight car equipment, if BN can maintain a locomotive fleet of 6,300 locomotives with 7,300 employees, Amtrak should be able to maintain its 475 locomotives and 2,100 passenger cars with 1,362 employees.

That's still high, but it provides a coarse estimate.

 

[TomDiehl]

So you're saying that the number of personnel needed to maintain and prepare a passenger car should be the same as the number needed to do the same with a freight car?

(from your earlier post) Compare Amtrak to BN,

No. I am saying what I said I said: 18x the number sounds high.

You're still trying to compare a freight railroad to a passenger railroad, which is still invalid whether your talking about BNSF or NS or D-L.

Which was also the original discussion.

[MichaelSol]

So you're saying that the number of personnel needed to maintain and prepare a passenger car should be the same as the number needed to do the same with a freight car?

No. I am saying what I said I said: 18x the number sounds high.

[TomDiehl]

No, but taking one sentence out of context can be misinterpreted. It was part of a statement pointing out that a comparison between a freight railroad, serving only a fraction of the country is not a valid comparison to a passenger railroad serving most of the country and mostly on trackage it does not own.

Whoa, "serving most of the country" is a broad generality without any particular economic meaning.

90% of Amtrak's service is limited to just seven relatively small North Eastern states. It has two heavy repair facilities in that region, and one in Indiana. It needs 4,000 employees to service a total of 2,566 locomotives and cars in those three facilities. It is, in fact, highly centralized because the vast bulk of its services cover a relatively small geographical area. You might presume efficiency from the high degree of centralization.

Compare Amtrak to BN, BN is spread all over. It covers over 20 states to obtain 90% of its revenue. They are mostly big states with lots of heavy territory. BN uses 7,341 employees to service nearly 90,000 locomotives and rail transportation equipment in 8 heavy repair facilities and 46 car repair and locomotive running repair facilities. It is highly decentralized. You might presume a degree of inefficiency by duplication in so many facilities. The average BN locomotive is 15 years old. Notwithstanding the nice paint jobs, those are not spring chickens pulling those heavy trains. They require maintenance. BN has 6,300 of these hard working veteran locomotives alone, that's 15 times the number of Amtrak locomotives and three times the entire equipment fleet of Amtrak, cars and locomotives combined.

The average rolling stock at BN is close to 20 years old, used heavily in an abusive environment. At 81,000 units, that is 38 times the number of units that Amtrak uses to produce its revenue.

On a weighted average basis, the BN statistically is a far larger operation geographically than Amtrak. In addition, BN operates 32,000 route miles with 1,500 trains a day. Amtrak operates 22,000 route miles with 265 trains per day.

On a per unit of production basis, Amtrak requires 18 times the number of employees for equipment maintenance as BN.

That's high. 

 

So you're saying that the number of personnel needed to maintain and prepare a passenger car should be the same as the number needed to do the same with a freight car?

[MichaelSol]

I agree that a comparison between BN and Amtrak might give one a better picture. However, I still don't think we are getting a complete picture.  Perhaps someone's suggestion about comparing what we would like to see from Amtrak to European counterparts is really valid.  There seem to be many key differences between the freight operations and the passenger ones, which perhaps we haven't clearly identified.

We do have a very good basis for comparison: U.S. Railroads.

Prior to 1970, when railroads were attributing everything they could to passenger service expense to justify abandonment, a good tightly run passenger operation like CNW's could generate a 99% operating ratio, a  more general mixed long distance carrier like Milwaukee Road, with a commuter mix, long distance, and night train operations resembling that of Amtrak's, around 130%. A very poorly situated passenger operation, like Great Northern's, would soar up to 200%.

What those numbers show is that, by and large, it cost twice as much to operate a passenger service as a freight service, and that represents a combination of higher maintenance costs for the equipment, higher overhead for personnel in general, and general operating costs not present in a freight operations, food, menus and doillies and things like that.

Amtrak's 22,000 employees, supporting the operation of a mere 2,566 pieces of equipment distributed among 265 trains per day suggests the scope of the problem. From an economic perspective, U.S. Passenger Rail Service is less efficient now than it was 40 years ago, even as U.S. Freight Railroads have become far more efficient.

 

[MichaelSol]

---

A general question.  Do Amtrak's employment figures someone quoted earlier in the discussion include the CSR side of things (ticket agents, baggage handlers, etc)?

Amtrak, operating 265 trains a day, has 22,000 total employees. BN, operating 1,500 trains a day, has 40,000 employees.

[AmtrakRider]

robscaboose,

Let me see if I understand you clearly.  You are saying that at the turnaround point for each train Amtrak runs, they need at least 12 persons to maintain the engine and an additional 10 to 12 persons for the rest of the maintainance and the preparation for the outbound service.  This is the minumum Amtrak can realistically work with to have the train ready in a reasonable amount of time.  And this number can be higher depending on the state of individual train sets.

---

A general question.  Do Amtrak's employment figures someone quoted earlier in the discussion include the CSR side of things (ticket agents, baggage handlers, etc)?

[Paul Milenkovic]

Does Amtrak actually uncouple the locomotive as part of the process of turning trains?  I guess they may do that for the Empire Builder, but I was under the impression that the push-pull Hiawatha train stayed with its locomotive in the manner of a Metra commuter train.

I have been told that fixed consists are the rule with the corridor trains as the coach yards have been sold to real estate developers and that adding or subtracting cars from a consist to reflect demand is too labor intensive.  Hence while varying the length of a passenger consist is considered a selling point of conventional railroading in meeting varying demand, Amtrak operates corridor trains as if they were semi-permanently coupled Talgo sets.

From Model Railroader ads and articles about commuter gallery bi-level models, I got the impression that Metra does some switching -- they have the locomotive facing the outbound direction from Olgivie Center or Union Station, and they put a cab car midway in the consist that they can uncouple the tail cars of the train to come up with a shortened consist for off-peak operation -- do they just leave the string of cars in the station or do they have a switch engine to take those cars to a yard some place?  So I guess Metra varies their consists to meet varying demand, but Amtrak doesn't have that option on trains requiring a cabbage car at the terminal end unless they would do more switching.

While commuter seats are flip-over and Amtrak coach seats could be turned by the crews, I understand that the Amtrak corridor push-pulls have half the seats oriented in each direction, so on a full train, half the passengers are riding backwards.  Some passengers are OK with that and many prefer to ride facing forward -- I remember riding CTA El trains in backward-facing seats, and there is this somewhat disconcerting visual illusion when the train stops that the view outside the window is still moving -- this may produce motion sickness symptoms in some people.

In addition to turning the locomotives, do they turn LD consists, not only that the seats are facing forward but that the baggage car is up front and that the sleepers, diner, lounge, and coaches are in the order they want?  I guess sleepers at the end of the train is a long tradition where first-class passengers have to walk less and coach passengers get to see more of the train when boarding.  Where do they turn passenger equipment in Chicago -- is there a wye track somewhere?  Is that wye track viewable from a safe and legal place as a railfan experience?

[AmtrakRider]

Michael,

I agree that a comparison between BN and Amtrak might give one a better picture. However, I still don't think we are getting a complete picture.  Perhaps someone's suggestion about comparing what we would like to see from Amtrak to European counterparts is really valid.  There seem to be many key differences between the freight operations and the passenger ones, which perhaps we haven't clearly identified.

[robscaboose]

Interesting reading so far.

How many people does it take to get a train ready and what are their responsibility's.

While I'm not saying Amtrak is efficient, these are some educated guesses from my observations in the tower in Chicago on getting a train ready. 

When a train arrives at it's final destination, the train is taken to the yard for inspection - 2 or 3 people (engineer/hostler, brakemen and or flag on the rear of train)  The engine is cut off for it's own inspection & maintenance so any additional moving of cars in the yard requires a yard engine & crew.

Engine - electrical & mechanical inspection & repair, (different crafts = 2-3 people minimum)

• Engine is washed, fueled, sand, holding tank emptied, water added, cab cleaned, ice & drinking water provided (2-3+ people)
• Any light repairs made 2-3+ people.  Presently Amtrak is a tight on power & cars, so trains are usually on a tight turn around schedule.  Because of that they want sufficient number of people to make the repairs and get the unit back out in service.  (plus railroad stuff is big & heavy. you try picking coil spring or piece of brake rigging by yourself)

Servicing of cars -

• Inspection  2+ (mechanical & electrical crafts)
• Light repairs (multiple crafts - Depending on the season - more problems occur in the winter under a car than summer, plus if a problem is due to ice or snow build up, it needs to be thawed out before repairs can be made
• Cleaning (4+ for a 8- 10 train / 4-5 hrs max per train)
• Restocking of supplies (2- 3 people)

 Rebuilding of the train

         Switch engine (engineer/hostler) 1-2 brakemen to

• Rebuild the train
• Inspect train
• Conduct a terminal brake test
• Add road engine & back train down to the platform

 

Beech Grove & Delaware are the two major rebuild facilities for Amtrak  They do in all the heavy repairs on the cars & engines, including rebuilds from wrecks.  Heavy repairs require that the engine or car is basically gutted & then rebuilt.  I was lucky enough to get a tour of Beach Grove several yrs ago & was quite impressed.  Every x number of years they gut each engine and car and rebuild it from the wheels up.  With the high percentage of the fleet being used on a daily basis, the backlog of deferred maintance & the fact that no new passenger cars have been purchased in a long time, you see why they are labor intensive.  It takes alot more work on a daily basis to put a 30+ yr old passenger in service than a 30+ yr old box car.

Rob

PS  It doesn't take as many people to service the relatively new fleet of RR locomotives being used these days.  

[MichaelSol]

No, but taking one sentence out of context can be misinterpreted. It was part of a statement pointing out that a comparison between a freight railroad, serving only a fraction of the country is not a valid comparison to a passenger railroad serving most of the country and mostly on trackage it does not own.

Whoa, "serving most of the country" is a broad generality without any particular economic meaning.

90% of Amtrak's service is limited to just seven relatively small North Eastern states. It has two heavy repair facilities in that region, and one in Indiana. It needs 4,000 employees to service a total of 2,566 locomotives and cars in those three facilities. It is, in fact, highly centralized because the vast bulk of its services cover a relatively small geographical area. You might presume efficiency from the high degree of centralization.

Compare Amtrak to BN, BN is spread all over. It covers over 20 states to obtain 90% of its revenue. They are mostly big states with lots of heavy territory. BN uses 7,341 employees to service nearly 90,000 locomotives and rail transportation equipment in 8 heavy repair facilities and 46 car repair and locomotive running repair facilities. It is highly decentralized. You might presume a degree of inefficiency by duplication in so many facilities. The average BN locomotive is 15 years old. Notwithstanding the nice paint jobs, those are not spring chickens pulling those heavy trains. They require maintenance. BN has 6,300 of these hard working veteran locomotives alone, that's 15 times the number of Amtrak locomotives and three times the entire equipment fleet of Amtrak, cars and locomotives combined.

The average rolling stock at BN is close to 20 years old, used heavily in an abusive environment. At 81,000 units, that is 38 times the number of units that Amtrak uses to produce its revenue.

On a weighted average basis, the BN statistically is a far larger operation geographically than Amtrak. In addition, BN operates 32,000 route miles with 1,500 trains a day. Amtrak operates 22,000 route miles with 265 trains per day.

On a per unit of production basis, Amtrak requires 18 times the number of employees for equipment maintenance as BN.

That's high. 

At Milwaukee Road, passenger required about 6 times the number of maintenance workers as the freight side, per unit of operation.

[TomDiehl]

Only Amtrak's heavy maintenance facility is centralized. Inspection and maintenance crews need to be available all over the national system.

So what you are saying is that the nature of the product requires a massive reduplication of skills across the country not required for other transportation modes.

In essence, then, the only way for Amtrak to make it is to develop the "corridor" approach people have talked about here before, with, if possible, a hefty increase in fees for LD trains since they would now become "tourist" trains.

No, but taking one sentence out of context can be misinterpreted. It was part of a statement pointing out that a comparison between a freight railroad, serving only a fraction of the country is not a valid comparison to a passenger railroad serving most of the country and mostly on trackage it does not own.

[AmtrakRider]

Only Amtrak's heavy maintenance facility is centralized. Inspection and maintenance crews need to be available all over the national system.

So what you are saying is that the nature of the product requires a massive reduplication of skills across the country not required for other transportation modes.

In essence, then, the only way for Amtrak to make it is to develop the "corridor" approach people have talked about here before, with, if possible, a hefty increase in fees for LD trains since they would now become "tourist" trains.

[AmtrakRider]

Amtrak has 18,500 employees (8700 employed on trains or in stations)

Assuming that is correct, it really bothers me.  Sure, people are needed for repairs in the shops, train cleaning in the yards, and MOW on the relatively short portion of the tracks owned by Amtrak.  But what is it that those 10,000 people are doing?

Does anyone have a more detailed analysis of the headcount by function?   

I don't know if anyone else has asked this, but I'd also like to know how many of the additional 10,000 workers are "full time" as opposed to part time workers.  How much of the work they do is centralized, as opposed to spread out?

[oltmannd]

I am disturbed also by the comparison (in part because of the long history of featherbedding within the railroad industry that Amtrak inherited), but I agree most of us do not have nearly enough data to make a decision regarding the validity of the comparison.  The problem here is that we all know a passenger car would require more maintenance than, say, a coal gondola, but we have nothing to measure the extent.

If anyone had any numbers regarding the maintenance employees of one of the big commuter operations that might serve as an additional point of reference in this matter.

A further complication is the extent to which a private railroad such as NS has contracted out some portion of the maintenance work as compared to Amtrak. 

NS does not contract out any locomotive maintenance and does all of their own backshop work - same as Amtrak.

I would be very interested in finding out the number of employees need to maintain equipment at VRE or Trinity.  I would suspect a "legacy" commuter agency like NJT, MN or SEPTA is contaminated with the same disease as Amtrak - in fact, I've seen it first hand....

[oltmannd]

Here are some high (low?) lights.

There's a small mountain of people in mechanical ~4000.  By comparison, NS has about 1000 and the number or locomotives and cars Amtrak has is less than the number of locomotives NS has.....and NS has to inspect and lace up a few hundred thousand frt cars a week, to boot.

 

Unfortunately, you forget what you're comparing. How many of those NS freight cars have heating and air conditioning? Just to name an obvious difference.

A boxcar load of washing machines or a hopper full of coal doesn't require climate control, lighting, food, etc. that the human "cargo" requires.

Did you miss the part where I mentioned that NS has more LOCOMOTIVES than Amtrak has locomotive and cars combined!  So, unless you believe taking care of a passenger car is 4x more labor intensive than keeping after a locomotive, what, exactly are those 4000 guys doing all day long?

I didn't miss anything, in fact it was even quoted above. The mechanical maintenance crews required for maintaining freight cars would only cover the shell of a passenger car. What I did say is maintaining a passenger car is more than four times more involved than maintaining a freight car. Add to that the NS doesn't cover the whole country, so they can centralize more easily. Only Amtrak's heavy maintenance facility is centralized. Inspection and maintenance crews need to be available all over the national system.

In addition to the points I mentioned above, the furnishings need to be maintained, linens need to be removed and washed, supplies need to be replenished. A car load of washing machines isn't going to complain about a door that rattles or is drafty, or a torn or stained carpet.

Forget the freight cars.

Lets just compare a locomotive to a passenger car since NS has more of them than Amtrak has cars plus locos. 

If you assume that the mechanical maintenance of a locomotive = that of a passenger car, then you 're still left with an additional 3000 people who's sole job is to clean 1000 coaches  and do the laundry for a couple hundred rooms every day. 

 Come on.  Just give me something remotely plausible....

So you failed to make the point that a passenger car and a freight car have comparable amounts of maintenance to be done to them.

Your argument has gone from incomplete to ridiculous. Comparing locomotives to any type of car is nowhere near "plausible." The only similarity of one to the other is they both have flanged wheels spaced 56.5 inches apart and couplers to hold them together. Locomotives have 2 to 4 seats, passenger cars have a lot more than that. Locomotives have diesel engines and generators, cars consume power. Freight cars only consume it to be pulled, passenger cars need to be pulled AND provided with electrical power, but you've alread conceeded the freight/passenger car argument. Do I need to go on?

You seem to be the only one interpreting that statment to mean that they have 3000 car cleaners and laundry people. You choose to completely ignore the fact that there's a lot more to maintaining the interior of a passenger car than there is a freight car. More work and jobs to do=more people to do it.

So, you think Amtrak's 4000 person Mechanical Dept is reasonably staffed?  You're the only one so far.  I, for the life of me, can't figure out what all those guys are doing.

 BTW, I do have a good bit of professional experience in locomotive and passenger car design and maintenance.....

A locomotive may be an apple and a passenger car an orange, but they're both 1/4 lb and hae 200 calories....

Reasonable staffing size is not the point you were making in your first statement, quoted above. You were comparing the number of maintenance section personnel for a freight railroad, confined to the south and central eastern part of the US, to a passenger railroad that covers the entire US.

Your comparison of the two was the major flaw, and you conceeded the point that passenger cars have more work to be done to them than freight cars.

To pick out another flaw in your comparison, you also didn't compare average age of the fleet, cars to cars or locos to locos.

And most passenger cars weigh more than freight cars, so it would be more "apples to watermellons."

Is this the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?

That would depend on how many flaws in your comparison I need to point out.

You've yet to find one, or even an ally. 

&

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)