Amtrk Senate Debate

[oltmannd]

Friend of mine is a long-time Amtrak employee.   Based on what he tells me, I have the impression that Amtrak has been slower to modernize, including labor, than the freight railways the last 35 years.   Trying to hold Amtrak's feet to the fire sounds good in theory but past experience has been that when push comes to shove or even one of the Amtrak labor unions objects to something, nothing changes.

During the same time period, and dealing with the same unions, the frt RRs have moderinzed a great deal and managed some pretty impressive productivity gains.

It may be hard, but, it's not hopeless.

[alphas]

You're forgetting the one major difference: with the freight railroads the unions don't have government to run to and politicians who are receiving their financial and "get out the vote contributions" to step in and put pressure on managment to cave.   And Amtrak has no stockholders exerting pressure not to cave.

[Anonymous]

Amtrak has no stockholders exerting pressure not to cave.

Actually, Amtrak DOES have stockholders. Amtrak stock was provided as compensation to the Class Is when Amtrak acquired their passenger equipment in 1971. Some of this stock has been bought and sold over the years. The majority shareholder is American Financial Group. The second largest shareholder is BNSF.

The issue of stockholder rights came into play a couple years ago when the Laney board proposed spinning off the NEC, as described in this article.  

[Anonymous]

The Amtrak Monthly Performance Report provides detailed head count information.  It can be found on the Amtrak web site.

[oltmannd]

The Amtrak Monthly Performance Report provides detailed head count information.  It can be found on the Amtrak web site.

There's lots of good info in those reports.  That's where I got some of my facts for my earlier post.  What's interesting to me is that not a single person can even give a semi-plausible reason for Amtrak's bloated head count.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

You're forgetting the one major difference: with the freight railroads the unions don't have government to run to and politicians who are receiving their financial and "get out the vote contributions" to step in and put pressure on managment to cave.   And Amtrak has no stockholders exerting pressure not to cave.

I'm not sure but almost anytime a railroad labor dispute results in a strike, it usually requires an Act Of Congress (literally) to settle the dispute.

Much of the reduction in force on the freight Class 1's was accomplished by buyouts.  I'm not sure that Amtrak is in a position to ask Congress to provide funding to do the same.

[oltmannd]

You're forgetting the one major difference: with the freight railroads the unions don't have government to run to and politicians who are receiving their financial and "get out the vote contributions" to step in and put pressure on managment to cave.   And Amtrak has no stockholders exerting pressure not to cave.

I'm not sure but almost anytime a railroad labor dispute results in a strike, it usually requires an Act Of Congress (literally) to settle the dispute.

Much of the reduction in force on the freight Class 1's was accomplished by buyouts.  I'm not sure that Amtrak is in a position to ask Congress to provide funding to do the same.

For the non-agreement jobs, you can just cut and provide severence per corp policy.  Amtrak did exactly this when they whacked the express business. CSX has done this many times in the recent past.  Buyouts come when companies can use off-books pension funds to pay for the buyout.  If the pension fund isn't overfunded, you're out of luck.

For the agreement jobs, you just cut off the jobs and let seniority determine who falls out the bottom.  This is what's currently done at all the class ones.  You can wind up paying somebody to stay home ala NY Dock, depending on who and how the cuts effect.  I believe this arguement was used by Gunn - even total shutdown will still cost a good chunk of change.

Rather than cuts, I'd perfer to see more service......

[JT22CW]

Great bill for Amtrak over 6 Years about 19 Billion Dollars

Where did you get that figure from? I count between $1.6 billion and $1.9 billion over six years, which works out to $10.8 billion over the six years, when I look at the text of the bill.

We get much, much, much more for our tax dollar subsidy to air passenger and highway travel

How so? For $862,310.56 per route-mile every year, the interstates are not cheap, nor can they keep up with the costs of serving their captive audience—note all the ongoing moves to privatize not only toll roads, but also highways that are presently un-tolled. Even if this bill passes the House and the President signs it, Amtrak's going to get a tenth of that per route-mile, in current route miles, and they'll still be getting 12 percent of what commuter railroads get on average, per route-mile.

There's a small mountain of people in mechanical, (approximately) 4000. By comparison, NS has about 1000

Source for that NS figure?

(FTR, Amtrak's figure for the mechanical headcount is 3,863, which is 52 fewer than authorized. If you don't like the figure, then you're going to have to ask Congress as to why they authorized so many, not to mention find out what they're paid out of that $1.2 billion per year subsidy. I'm not excusing it-I find it very curious, myself-but the question still remains as to why such a number was authorized and how much of that small "pie" they are consuming.)

The number of people in mechanical is an important insight into the cost-competitiveness of trains relative to airlines

Actually, no. It is, however, an insight into the corruption in Washington DC and their attempts to make rail travel look far more expensive than air travel. States are quite complicit—consider the example of NJ Transit's "River Line" light rail, which cost $29 million per mile to construct (close to double the cost per mile of the LGV Sud-Est), and this along an already-operating freight line, and another NJ Transit project, Access To The Region's Core, which is going to cost three to four times what the Pennsylvania Railroad spent to build not only New York Penn Station but also all of the tunnels leading to that station (with modern technology assisting, to boot). Further note Alexander Kummant's claim that it would cost some $7 billion to upgrade the Northeast Corridor merely to allow Acela Express to achieve a 96-mph average speed between New York and Washington DC—that's an unheard of $31 million per mile, which hasn't even been spent on dedicated high-speed rail alignments anywhere in the world that I know of, and if so, then only so that they may traverse the most difficult terrain in earthquake-prone environments. Bought-and-paid-for politicians are not going to give you a true picture of rail costs-you're going to have to look overseas and see what they're doing there.

During the same time period, and dealing with the same unions, the frt RRs have moderinzed a great deal and managed some pretty impressive productivity gains

They're still losing market share to trucks, though, and we continue to lose track miles. When "Productivity gains" means more money for the bosses alone, then that's no gain. Remember how the salaries of CEOs have risen beyond the bounds of the reasonable—between 300 and 500 times the average employee salary nowadays, whereas twenty years ago the highest was 20 times the average employee salary. Greed is out of control.

[oltmannd]

Great bill for Amtrak over 6 Years about 19 Billion Dollars

Where did you get that figure from? I count between $1.6 billion and $1.9 billion over six years, which works out to $10.8 billion over the six years, when I look at the text of the bill.

We get much, much, much more for our tax dollar subsidy to air passenger and highway travel

How so? For $862,310.56 per route-mile every year, the interstates are not cheap, nor can they keep up with the costs of serving their captive audience—note all the ongoing moves to privatize not only toll roads, but also highways that are presently un-tolled. Even if this bill passes the House and the President signs it, Amtrak's going to get a tenth of that per route-mile, in current route miles, and they'll still be getting 12 percent of what commuter railroads get on average, per route-mile.

There's a small mountain of people in mechanical, (approximately) 4000. By comparison, NS has about 1000

Source for that NS figure?

(FTR, Amtrak's figure for the mechanical headcount is 3,863, which is 52 fewer than authorized. If you don't like the figure, then you're going to have to ask Congress as to why they authorized so many, not to mention find out what they're paid out of that $1.2 billion per year subsidy. I'm not excusing it-I find it very curious, myself-but the question still remains as to why such a number was authorized and how much of that small "pie" they are consuming.)

The number of people in mechanical is an important insight into the cost-competitiveness of trains relative to airlines

Actually, no. It is, however, an insight into the corruption in Washington DC and their attempts to make rail travel look far more expensive than air travel. States are quite complicit—consider the example of NJ Transit's "River Line" light rail, which cost $29 million per mile to construct (close to double the cost per mile of the LGV Sud-Est), and this along an already-operating freight line, and another NJ Transit project, Access To The Region's Core, which is going to cost three to four times what the Pennsylvania Railroad spent to build not only New York Penn Station but also all of the tunnels leading to that station (with modern technology assisting, to boot). Further note Alexander Kummant's claim that it would cost some $7 billion to upgrade the Northeast Corridor merely to allow Acela Express to achieve a 96-mph average speed between New York and Washington DC—that's an unheard of $31 million per mile, which hasn't even been spent on dedicated high-speed rail alignments anywhere in the world that I know of, and if so, then only so that they may traverse the most difficult terrain in earthquake-prone environments. Bought-and-paid-for politicians are not going to give you a true picture of rail costs-you're going to have to look overseas and see what they're doing there.

During the same time period, and dealing with the same unions, the frt RRs have moderinzed a great deal and managed some pretty impressive productivity gains

They're still losing market share to trucks, though, and we continue to lose track miles. When "Productivity gains" means more money for the bosses alone, then that's no gain. Remember how the salaries of CEOs have risen beyond the bounds of the reasonable—between 300 and 500 times the average employee salary nowadays, whereas twenty years ago the highest was 20 times the average employee salary. Greed is out of control.

Re: Subsidy

Let's try it on a per passenger mile basis, and back out direct use taxes....  Route miles mean nothing.  It's what moves on those routes that counts.  Amtrak's route mile subsidy would look really good if they'd just stop running trains

But, having said that, I do believe that no matter how hard you try to figure out the subsidy game between modes, you always wind up with apples and oranges.  So, I don't think direct comparisons are all that useful.  However, Amtrak's subsidy per passenger mile is SO far out of whack that any attempts to justify it ring very hollow.

Re: NS Mechanical Dept man count

It has been between 1000 and 1100 for the past couple of years - and that includes staff.  How do I know that?  Check my profile.  How does Amtrak justify having 4000?  What are all these people doing all day long? 

Re: cost to upgrade NEC

The NEC uniformly runs through the most expensive real estate in the country.  Are you suggesting that a new alignment could be had at the same price as French farmland?

Re: RR productivity

At least you're not denying that the productivity gains are real!  Where are Amtrak's productivity gains?  Although I would agree that CEO compensation is out of whack  (NS's CEO has opined similarly), the productivity gains, in part, have rescued the industry from a slow, but certain death to a postion of having a chance at being going concern.  I've spent the past 29 years watching it happen from the inside.

RR market share vs truck is as misleading as comparing pipeline market share vs. truck.  You have to compare the niches where there is direct competition.  In the past decade or two, train miles, ton miles and shipments on the RRs have all continued to grow faster than the rate of economic growth.  The slight decrease in route miles is the last of the obsolete 19th century branch lines giving up the ghost as the last few dollars are squeezed out of the physical plant and the de-industrialization of the US is nearly complete.

Re:  The institution and culture of Amtrak.

Amtrak is a fat, sloppy, inefficient, low productivity outfit.  You can look at their numbers.  You can listen to anecdotes and stories.  The pattern is clear.   But, it's not their fault.  They've never been given any incentive to be anything but.  

I just think it's time we got more for our money.  Amtrak as a starting point for intercity train travel may be justifiable.  Amtrak status-quo is not.  Fix it or kill it.  I vote for "fix it".

[TomDiehl]

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.

[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?

[TomDiehl]

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.

[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....

[TomDiehl]

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.

[Paul Milenkovic]

I believe that Don Oltmann's original observation is that there are "4000 Amtrak people in Mechanical" compared with "1000 people at Norfolk Southern."  None  here on this forum have a roster of Amtrak's mechanical department and what everyone's job description and assigned duties are.

On the other hand, one of the kind of due-dilligence for people who own stocks in companies or for financial and pension managers who invest other people's money in the market is to read annual reports and other kinds of disclosures regarding how the business is run.  As Amtrak is a taxpayer supported corporate entity, the American people are business partners as it were, and it is the business of all of us as to where all the money at Amtrak goes.

No, Tom, or Don, or Paul, or anyone else on this forum without inside information doesn't know if we are talking about pipe fitters or car cleaners or any other kind of job description.  And no, one cannot compare the maintenance required to operate a freight car with a passenger car, but perhaps a locomotive is indeed a fair comparison if we are talking about mechanical work.  While a passenger car obviously has many more seats, and it has mechanical systems such as lighting, HVAC, doors, retention toilets, and so on along with side-motion trucks, a locomotive has HEP, prime mover, traction electrical system, traction alternator, motors, and cooling blowers, radiator, along with similar side-motion trucks to a passenger car with some modifications, to talk about a locomotive as a point of comparison with maintenance of a passenger car is a reasonable starting point.

But in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the comparison between Amtrak and NS is something to think about that.  Forget the comparison between a freight car and a passenger car.  How about the comparison between a passenger car and a jet airliner.  The numbers suggest that a railroad passenger car has maintenance requirements, per passenger mile, some multiple of a jet airliner, which we think of as being a maintenance-intensive conveyance.

There is this sentiment I am encountering in the passenger-train advocacy community that everything is the way it should in the business of passenger trains because it is tried and tested and all of the new-fangled ways are something people will get over after bitter experience with them (I had someone tell me the Budd RDC car was a "failure" in the context of interest in the Colorado Railcars DMU).  There is a sense that anyone who says anything critical of Amtrak has crossed over to the other side of those with the long budget-cutting knives who are eyeing it up.

Part of the idea behind passenger trains is that putting people in steel tubes on top of rollers running on ribbons of steel on the ground is a way of transporting more people in greater comfort and safety and with less cost and expenditure of fuel than putting people into pressurized aluminum tubes supported by the force of the wind against aluminum barn doors, held up in the sky by burning kerosene at high temperatures and pressures to get a tornado-force wind to come out the back.  If the first way is turning out to be only marginally more effective in fuel but some multiple of the cost of the second way, we need to reexamine our thinking on this.

If there is something intrinsically expensive about a passenger car compared to even a locomotive because of the large number of seats in a passenger car, well then the game is up as far as passenger trains as transportation instead of as a form of entertainment for people who enjoy that sort of thing.

[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....

[Railway Man]

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....

Seems also to me to be a darn good question to ask.  But what do I know; I've only been in this business for 30 years.

RWM

[TomDiehl]

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."

[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?

[TomDiehl]

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.

[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. 

"Reasonable staffing size is not the point you were making in your first statement,"  See my 10-30-07 post in this thread.  It is EXACTLY the point I'm trying to make.   You're trying to tell me the point I'm trying to make isn't the point I'm trying to make? 

As Paul M pointed out, if there's something intrinsic about passenger cars that make them more than 4x more labor intensive

[Dakguy201]

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. 

 

[TomDiehl]

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. 

"Reasonable staffing size is not the point you were making in your first statement,"  See my 10-30-07 post in this thread.  It is EXACTLY the point I'm trying to make.   You're trying to tell me the

Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown