paulsafety wrote: Phoebe Vet wrote: paulsafety wrote: Phoebe Vet wrote: Picture a train that started in NYC, then spent a day in Philadelphia, home of the Liberty Bell, and the original capital of the USA, then a day in the District of Columbia, where the train station is withing walking distance of the Capitol, Ford's Theater, and the mall where all the Smithsonian Museums are. A day in Richmond, the capital of the Confereracy where you can tour the Museum of the Confederacy and the Confederate White House. Then a day in Williamsburg, VA with it's "discovery of the new world" and early sellers museums. Then to Charlotte, the epicenter of NASCAR, home of the NASCAR Hall of Fame and most of the race teams. Most of their shops are open to visitors. Then to Atlanta with all it's Civil War history. Finally ending in New Orleans.They have something like that already -- charter buses for group tours. Paul:Buses go EVERYPLACE trains go. Trains are much more pleasant to ride than buses. Have you ever slept on a bus? What, exactly, is your argument.The point of my suggestion was the railroads should actively compete. Buses are slow and uncomfortable, and airlines cannot land in center city. Add to that the idiotic paranoid "security" and it is just too offensive and inconvenient to go to the airport.Trains should play to their strength. I merely cited one example, I was not suggesting abandoning transportation as a concept.I agree with others in here that scheduling is Amtrak's poorest attribute, but it doesn't seem to be under their control as long as they use other railroad's tracks.1) What is my argument (exactly)? Uh, I was just making a statement in jest, but I can explain what motivated it......a) Amtrak already does provide a more subtle variation of what you seem to be proposing -- check out their reservations site for "regional tour packages" -- if these are successful, you'll be sure to see that area expand. If not, then we won't.b) Your suggestion, while interesting, seems to mirror services already provided by another industry that has tons more experience and would probably offer a more attractive tour package than Amtrak would be able to do (the motor coach industry caters to the travel world more effectively -- better deals with casinos, tourist destination operators, etc.) For one example -- Amtrak's botched attempt to capture a slice of the casino travel trade in Atlantic City. The bus lines made better deals with the casinos, dropped passengers at the door and offered a highly competitive price (which was usually rebated in the form of coupons for drinks, meals or chips.) The net result? Millions spent on reviving R-O-W to an AC terminal that was located on the outskirts of town, and ultimately, abandonment of services *(by Amtrak) to AC. I just think that they shouldn't gamble (pun) with my tax money on tour services when they aren't that good at it (no offense, Amtrak!)c) I think Amtrak needs to focus on running it's business really, really well. This is not the same argument as "be more competitive" (ie. steal business from other transportation industry silos). There is still room for Amtrak to run a railroad operation proficiently before they need to worry about expanding into areas that they are not as competent in handling. You said... "Trains should play to their strength. I merely cited one example, I was not suggesting abandoning transportation as a concept." ... Great! We agree! All I said was that motor coaches already offer the services you mentioned. Nothing more or less.Finally, have I slept on buses? Yes. I used intercity coaches extensively during my college years (and I didn't say that I thought that sleeping on buses or trains or planes was fun or comfortable - I've done each (including sleepers) and they're all uncomfortable). Paul F.
Phoebe Vet wrote: paulsafety wrote: Phoebe Vet wrote: Picture a train that started in NYC, then spent a day in Philadelphia, home of the Liberty Bell, and the original capital of the USA, then a day in the District of Columbia, where the train station is withing walking distance of the Capitol, Ford's Theater, and the mall where all the Smithsonian Museums are. A day in Richmond, the capital of the Confereracy where you can tour the Museum of the Confederacy and the Confederate White House. Then a day in Williamsburg, VA with it's "discovery of the new world" and early sellers museums. Then to Charlotte, the epicenter of NASCAR, home of the NASCAR Hall of Fame and most of the race teams. Most of their shops are open to visitors. Then to Atlanta with all it's Civil War history. Finally ending in New Orleans.They have something like that already -- charter buses for group tours. Paul:Buses go EVERYPLACE trains go. Trains are much more pleasant to ride than buses. Have you ever slept on a bus? What, exactly, is your argument.The point of my suggestion was the railroads should actively compete. Buses are slow and uncomfortable, and airlines cannot land in center city. Add to that the idiotic paranoid "security" and it is just too offensive and inconvenient to go to the airport.Trains should play to their strength. I merely cited one example, I was not suggesting abandoning transportation as a concept.I agree with others in here that scheduling is Amtrak's poorest attribute, but it doesn't seem to be under their control as long as they use other railroad's tracks.
paulsafety wrote: Phoebe Vet wrote: Picture a train that started in NYC, then spent a day in Philadelphia, home of the Liberty Bell, and the original capital of the USA, then a day in the District of Columbia, where the train station is withing walking distance of the Capitol, Ford's Theater, and the mall where all the Smithsonian Museums are. A day in Richmond, the capital of the Confereracy where you can tour the Museum of the Confederacy and the Confederate White House. Then a day in Williamsburg, VA with it's "discovery of the new world" and early sellers museums. Then to Charlotte, the epicenter of NASCAR, home of the NASCAR Hall of Fame and most of the race teams. Most of their shops are open to visitors. Then to Atlanta with all it's Civil War history. Finally ending in New Orleans.They have something like that already -- charter buses for group tours. Paul:Buses go EVERYPLACE trains go. Trains are much more pleasant to ride than buses. Have you ever slept on a bus? What, exactly, is your argument.The point of my suggestion was the railroads should actively compete. Buses are slow and uncomfortable, and airlines cannot land in center city. Add to that the idiotic paranoid "security" and it is just too offensive and inconvenient to go to the airport.Trains should play to their strength. I merely cited one example, I was not suggesting abandoning transportation as a concept.I agree with others in here that scheduling is Amtrak's poorest attribute, but it doesn't seem to be under their control as long as they use other railroad's tracks.
Phoebe Vet wrote: Picture a train that started in NYC, then spent a day in Philadelphia, home of the Liberty Bell, and the original capital of the USA, then a day in the District of Columbia, where the train station is withing walking distance of the Capitol, Ford's Theater, and the mall where all the Smithsonian Museums are. A day in Richmond, the capital of the Confereracy where you can tour the Museum of the Confederacy and the Confederate White House. Then a day in Williamsburg, VA with it's "discovery of the new world" and early sellers museums. Then to Charlotte, the epicenter of NASCAR, home of the NASCAR Hall of Fame and most of the race teams. Most of their shops are open to visitors. Then to Atlanta with all it's Civil War history. Finally ending in New Orleans.
They have something like that already -- charter buses for group tours.
Paul:
Buses go EVERYPLACE trains go. Trains are much more pleasant to ride than buses. Have you ever slept on a bus? What, exactly, is your argument.
The point of my suggestion was the railroads should actively compete. Buses are slow and uncomfortable, and airlines cannot land in center city. Add to that the idiotic paranoid "security" and it is just too offensive and inconvenient to go to the airport.
Trains should play to their strength. I merely cited one example, I was not suggesting abandoning transportation as a concept.
I agree with others in here that scheduling is Amtrak's poorest attribute, but it doesn't seem to be under their control as long as they use other railroad's tracks.
1) What is my argument (exactly)? Uh, I was just making a statement in jest, but I can explain what motivated it......
a) Amtrak already does provide a more subtle variation of what you seem to be proposing -- check out their reservations site for "regional tour packages" -- if these are successful, you'll be sure to see that area expand. If not, then we won't.
b) Your suggestion, while interesting, seems to mirror services already provided by another industry that has tons more experience and would probably offer a more attractive tour package than Amtrak would be able to do (the motor coach industry caters to the travel world more effectively -- better deals with casinos, tourist destination operators, etc.) For one example -- Amtrak's botched attempt to capture a slice of the casino travel trade in Atlantic City. The bus lines made better deals with the casinos, dropped passengers at the door and offered a highly competitive price (which was usually rebated in the form of coupons for drinks, meals or chips.) The net result? Millions spent on reviving R-O-W to an AC terminal that was located on the outskirts of town, and ultimately, abandonment of services *(by Amtrak) to AC. I just think that they shouldn't gamble (pun) with my tax money on tour services when they aren't that good at it (no offense, Amtrak!)
c) I think Amtrak needs to focus on running it's business really, really well. This is not the same argument as "be more competitive" (ie. steal business from other transportation industry silos). There is still room for Amtrak to run a railroad operation proficiently before they need to worry about expanding into areas that they are not as competent in handling.
You said... "Trains should play to their strength. I merely cited one example, I was not suggesting abandoning transportation as a concept." ... Great! We agree! All I said was that motor coaches already offer the services you mentioned. Nothing more or less.
Finally, have I slept on buses? Yes. I used intercity coaches extensively during my college years (and I didn't say that I thought that sleeping on buses or trains or planes was fun or comfortable - I've done each (including sleepers) and they're all uncomfortable).
Paul F.
Given the somewhat divergent nature this topic has evolved into, I'll approach your part of the discussion.
Take a look at the following URL and see if perhaps somebody is indeed doing what you might wish to see.
http://members.shaw.ca/stampedecityrail/
Darcy
The point has been made about train service timeliness. You would still have to beat 600 mile per hour speed of an aircraft, and there isn't a train around capable of doing that. The only time trains are capable of "competing" with airliners is when people spend more time in the airport trying to get to their final destination than riding a train.
Mourning the loss of a passenger train is about as useful as mourning the loss of riverboats on the Mississippi. There was a time when the majority of freight and passenger service was by boat. I don't see any hue or cry for a return to the riverboat, or suggestions of subsidy for the Merchant Marine of the United States... which is too bad: we used to have the best Merchant Marine in the world. Just like we had the best railroads in the world.
Our best bet is to have railroads do what they do best- move freight. I can see government subsidies for improvement to Class 1's if they can prove that the railroad removes trucks from the Interstate highway system.
If fuel prices continue up, passenger service might become economically viable for some metro areas- but it will ALWAYS be mass transit, not "cruise train" accomodations. No one loves riding the Long Island Railroad, but they have to.
I wasn't criticizing, or trying to pick a fight. Just a suggestion off the top of my head. Not a plan or proposal. I think it's disgusting what we have allowed to happen to our railroads.
I would like to see passenger rail competing in the private sector, but there doesn't seem to be any interest on the part of providers.
Perhaps Richard Branson would like to expand his Virgin Train system. He seems to be making money with passenger rail.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Mr. Toy wrote: Paul, you make a lot of good points. I think the amenities argument for promoting LD rail only goes so far. LD trains need to be comfortably priced for the masses if they are to work, and too many amenities drive up the price.I really question the "rail cruise" theory, and I am uncomfortable with the comparison to the transatlantic passenger ship industry. Unlike trains, transoceanic ships can't stop en route to pick up and drop off passengers so there's no market for intermediate trips like Amtrak has. The beauty of a long distance train is that it can accommodate trips of many lengths, with multiple classes of service, in a single consist. In that context, I think speed is less important than reliability. Amtrak suffered significant ridership losses on the Starlight a year or so ago when UP delayed it 8 hours or more as a matter of routine. But ridership on the more reliable Empire Builder increased during that same period by offering consistent service and generally more reliable timekeeping. I think there's a limit to how many amenities people want or are willing to pay for. Amtrak's existing levels of service generally sell pretty well close to capacity. However, Grandluxe's experiment with high end luxury service on regularly scheduled Amtrak runs is sputtering. That may be partly due to the lack of access to Grandluxe cars at intermediate stops, but also a matter of pricing. So as far as amenities go, I think all that is needed to make train travel attractive areConvenient schedules. Reliable timekeeping.Palatable food service.A reasonably comfortable lounge.A seat or room priced within the passenger's budget.Anything more than that is probably excessive for most travelers.
Paul, you make a lot of good points. I think the amenities argument for promoting LD rail only goes so far. LD trains need to be comfortably priced for the masses if they are to work, and too many amenities drive up the price.
I really question the "rail cruise" theory, and I am uncomfortable with the comparison to the transatlantic passenger ship industry. Unlike trains, transoceanic ships can't stop en route to pick up and drop off passengers so there's no market for intermediate trips like Amtrak has. The beauty of a long distance train is that it can accommodate trips of many lengths, with multiple classes of service, in a single consist. In that context, I think speed is less important than reliability. Amtrak suffered significant ridership losses on the Starlight a year or so ago when UP delayed it 8 hours or more as a matter of routine. But ridership on the more reliable Empire Builder increased during that same period by offering consistent service and generally more reliable timekeeping.
I think there's a limit to how many amenities people want or are willing to pay for. Amtrak's existing levels of service generally sell pretty well close to capacity. However, Grandluxe's experiment with high end luxury service on regularly scheduled Amtrak runs is sputtering. That may be partly due to the lack of access to Grandluxe cars at intermediate stops, but also a matter of pricing.
So as far as amenities go, I think all that is needed to make train travel attractive are
Anything more than that is probably excessive for most travelers.
A good list. The only thing missing is "consistent, professional, courteous service"
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
paulsafety wrote: Phoebe Vet wrote: Picture a train that started in NYC, then spent a day in Philadelphia, home of the Liberty Bell, and the original capital of the USA, then a day in the District of Columbia, where the train station is withing walking distance of the Capitol, Ford's Theater, and the mall where all the Smithsonian Museums are. A day in Richmond, the capital of the Confereracy where you can tour the Museum of the Confederacy and the Confederate White House. Then a day in Williamsburg, VA with it's "discovery of the new world" and early sellers museums. Then to Charlotte, the epicenter of NASCAR, home of the NASCAR Hall of Fame and most of the race teams. Most of their shops are open to visitors. Then to Atlanta with all it's Civil War history. Finally ending in New Orleans.They have something like that already -- charter buses for group tours.
...and the AOE trains did exactly this.
alphas wrote:Altoona is something like 130 rail miles from Harrisburg
Falls Valley RR:
Altoona is something like 130 rail miles from Harrisburg. I don't consider that "close", especially given the terrain west of Harrisburg all the way to the Ohio state line. And I-81 has been booming for years. It took off with NAFTA and whenever I've driven it in this century, its had almost as many trucks as I-80 does crossing PA.
This is the corner that the passenger train advocacy community has backed itself into. If trains, especially the long-distance trains, downplay speed, or perhaps even the punctuality of service given the problems with integrating with freight trains in the post Staggers Act single-track mainline world, and play up the space and amenities, well you could do all of that if you could charge passengers the cost of providing the service and amenities. You would essentially have the "cruise train" counterpart to the cruise ship, which replaced the oceanic passenger ship as the provider of passenger service on the open seas.
The "cruise train" is a very politically incorrect term in passenger train advocacy circles, as I had discovered. The problem is that one cannot justify the subsidy levels for this kind of thing -- it would have to pay its own way, or at least pay its own way in some above-the-rails sense. Justification of the long distance passenger train and its subsidy expense is in terms of various means of accomodation -- accomodation to persons living in small towns in remote areas that happen to be along the line for not having adequate highway or air connections, accomodations to persons who chose not or cannot avail themselves of bus or air transport alternatives: the air in planes gives them sinus infections, the seats in buses or airplanes gives them deep vein thrombosis.
I have this sense that what the passenger train advocacy community is about is full-service long distance trains -- low-density coach, sleeping car, diner and lounge car -- and the part about corridor trains and relief of highway congestion and alleviation of the energy crisis is the pitch to get the rest of the non-foamer world to kick in the subsidy money to keep the thing going.
I mean it makes sense. If you are into riding trains, and there is a demographic of people into taking Amtrak trips cross country although the other 99 percent of us are resigned to using airlines for the usually suspect reasons, and not all of the habitual Amtrak riders are foamers or passenger train advocates, although all who are repeat customers what with all of the delays and such have different lifestyles than the rat-race driven rest of us, if you are into riding trains, a short hop on the Hiawatha is no big deal while a trip out West on the Empire Builder is something to savor.
It almost makes sense that the Hiawatha is not so much an antidote to the toll road construction mess on the Milwaukee-Chicago route but is mainly a feeder service to the Chicago long-distance train hub. Think about it. If you live in Chicago and want to go someplace on a long distance train, life is good. If you live in Milwaukee, your only LD train is the Empire Builder. With the frequency of the Hiawatha train, Milwaukee has pretty much the same access to long-distance trains as Chicago. Like with any other mode of transportation, mixed mode is the hardest, so if you go by train you would like to start and end your trip on a train -- think of the guy in Ohio who wanted to know how to patch into the Amtrak hub in Chicago.
If we get rid of the dining and sleeping cars on the Southwest Chief and the Texas Eagle and those other trains, what purpose does the Hiawatha then serve, especially if half its passengers are using it to connect to LD trains?
We kind of have the worst of worlds. We can't go all in and make the LD trains the sort of luxury cruise trains people talk about for a variety of political reasons, but we can't abandon the concept of full-service LD trains and replace them with all-coach day trains. The only corridor that functions like a corridor based on frequency, leaving aside speed, is the NEC and perhaps the Pacific Surfliner. We talk about how passenger trains are going to solve the congestion and energy crisis, which means we are talking about effective corridor trains in terms of trip time, punctuality, and frequency, but we bust a blood vessel when anyone talks about doing away with dining cars and sleeping cars, a fun mode of transportation but not one that is going to do much about oil dependence.
They dealt with this situation in Canada in terms of a Conservative government putting the squeeze on train subsidies, and they run the one transcontinental LD train now where 1) they use "Heritage" cars bought cheap from Amtrak and still run their F40P's, 2) they ultra-long consists to handle summer demand and to get come economy of scale, 3) they provide a high level of dining and sleeper service relative to Amtrak, judging by anecdotal reports on people who have ridden Amtrak and the Canadian train, and 4) they charge fares commeasurate with the high level of service provided.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Air travel killed transAtlantic passenger ships.
Shipping companies responded by dividing into two classes.
Freight which concentrates on the fact that airplanes cannot possibly compete on cost or capacity, and Passenger which concentrates on the fact that airplanes cannot possibly compete on luxury.
Neither one tried to compete in the area of speed, which is clearly the airplane's strength.
Railroads have adapted well on the freight side using the same model;capacity and cost, but the passenger side seems to be stuck in a rut.
Passenger railroad needs to play to their strengths. They can allow much more space per passenger. They can drag your hotel room along, allowing you to sleep on the train during overnight travel preserving your entire day for tourism or business. They can take your car with you. With only minor changes they could take a businessman's TRUCK with him/her. A company railroad office could replace many company airplanes. They have a restaurant on many trains. By charging a fee to pull someone elses business car, they could add an arcade, or movie theater, or casino, or a dance club. Imagine if a family with small children could travel on a train that had a Chuck-E-Cheeses car.
Perhaps, like passenger ships, they could run tourism trains. Sleeping on the train at night, and stopping for one day at a time in several cities, making the train trip the REASON for the travel.
Picture a train that started in NYC, then spent a day in Philadelphia, home of the Liberty Bell, and the original capital of the USA, then a day in the District of Columbia, where the train station is withing walking distance of the Capitol, Ford's Theater, and the mall where all the Smithsonian Museums are. A day in Richmond, the capital of the Confereracy where you can tour the Museum of the Confederacy and the Confederate White House. Then a day in Williamsburg, VA with it's "discovery of the new world" and early sellers museums. Then to Charlotte, the epicenter of NASCAR, home of the NASCAR Hall of Fame and most of the race teams. Most of their shops are open to visitors. Then to Atlanta with all it's Civil War history. Finally ending in New Orleans.
Picture what a fiasco it would be trying to do that tour by air. You would spend probably around 40 hours in airports alone.
oltmannd wrote: alphas wrote:Isn't it somewhat ironic that NS ends its I-81 presentation with a picture of NS on Horseshoe Curve? Well, maybe. The clearance project thru Pennsylvania was a public/private partnership that involved mucho tax dollars.....
alphas wrote:Isn't it somewhat ironic that NS ends its I-81 presentation with a picture of NS on Horseshoe Curve?
Well, maybe. The clearance project thru Pennsylvania was a public/private partnership that involved mucho tax dollars.....
That I-81 drops you very close to that area. It is a great little interstate that has been suffering these last 10 years. Large parts of it used to be nothing but crickets and birds but now has been built up.
oltmannd wrote: al-in-chgo wrote: oltmannd wrote: al-in-chgo wrote: oltmannd wrote: You need to take a look at NS's Shenendoah/I-81 corridor proposal in more detail. I'll see if I can't dig up a good link. Not great, but a start http://transportation.northwestern.edu/programs/bac/BAC1007/sources/Martinez_presentation.pdfAlthough not directly related to this, NS is a lot more passenger friendly than you might ever guess.IMHO the proposals coming out of the Commonwealth of Virginia are pure "pie in the sky." Amtrak has never served the (Lynchburg) - Roanoke - Bristol corridor; the last train on that line ran the day before they took over. I know because I grew up alongside that line and rode the train the Saturday before Takeover. How on earth is Virginia going to pay for an HST when the route in question is mostly one-tracked, comewhat curvy, and goes thru some very mountainous area? There would be much more to cheer about if Virginia were really planning to make corridors out of Richmond - D.C. (the VRE already runs as far south as Fredericksburg) and Charlottesville - D.C. C'ville and Richmond have more than one train a day each way, although the one besides the Crescent, the Cardinal, runs thru C'ville only three times a week. And there is no service other than bus between C'ville and Richmond . . . . - a. s. There's a couple of things going on in VA. NS's Crescent Corridor is primarily a freight project that will eliminate or at least greatly delay VA's need to spend $2B to add a lane to I-81. The only passenger part I'm aware of is that it would free up some capacity for VRE to provide commuter service west from Manassas toward Front Royal.The quasi-high speed passenger project would be in partnership with NC and would provide improvements on the RF&P, rebuilding the direct route from Richmond to Raleigh, and continued improvements from Raleigh to Charlotte. NC is also very interested in reinstating service from Charlotte to Asheville, but this is more of a back-burner item now, with most money being spent on the NCRR between Charlotte and Raleigh.I haven't heard anything about additional service between Lynchburg and DC, but I'm sure NS would be willing as the ex-SOU main is not nearly at capacity.Well, I hope Virginia can make use of its resources to carry more people around the state safely, but I am not holding my breath. I would in fact cite North Carolina as one state where nobody sat around waiting for a conclusion to come to them, or tons of extra money for that matter. They basically have chartered The Piedmont and The Carolinian, regional semi-commuter trains that are immensely popular and keep people off the Interstates, especially the north-south ones. Funding is a mixture of federal help (such as it is), state help and farebox. The trains themselves have to be operated by Amtrak, of course. This was a tough sell in the beginning, worse than California in some ways. Those who can, do. Those who can't, expostulate about "quasi-HST" trains that don't yet exist. "Nothing but the best, or nothing at all" is a mug's game when politicians play it. - a. s.NC is not done yet. They are actively improving the speed and service on the Charlotte to Raleigh corridor. It helps that the state actually owns the ROW - and they just re-did their deal with NS for another 20 years a few years back. They are headed for what I'd call "quasi high speed" That is 90-110 mph max with conventional equipment primarily along existing routes. It's practical on this corridor because the curves are generally 2 deg to less.
al-in-chgo wrote: oltmannd wrote: al-in-chgo wrote: oltmannd wrote: You need to take a look at NS's Shenendoah/I-81 corridor proposal in more detail. I'll see if I can't dig up a good link. Not great, but a start http://transportation.northwestern.edu/programs/bac/BAC1007/sources/Martinez_presentation.pdfAlthough not directly related to this, NS is a lot more passenger friendly than you might ever guess.IMHO the proposals coming out of the Commonwealth of Virginia are pure "pie in the sky." Amtrak has never served the (Lynchburg) - Roanoke - Bristol corridor; the last train on that line ran the day before they took over. I know because I grew up alongside that line and rode the train the Saturday before Takeover. How on earth is Virginia going to pay for an HST when the route in question is mostly one-tracked, comewhat curvy, and goes thru some very mountainous area? There would be much more to cheer about if Virginia were really planning to make corridors out of Richmond - D.C. (the VRE already runs as far south as Fredericksburg) and Charlottesville - D.C. C'ville and Richmond have more than one train a day each way, although the one besides the Crescent, the Cardinal, runs thru C'ville only three times a week. And there is no service other than bus between C'ville and Richmond . . . . - a. s. There's a couple of things going on in VA. NS's Crescent Corridor is primarily a freight project that will eliminate or at least greatly delay VA's need to spend $2B to add a lane to I-81. The only passenger part I'm aware of is that it would free up some capacity for VRE to provide commuter service west from Manassas toward Front Royal.The quasi-high speed passenger project would be in partnership with NC and would provide improvements on the RF&P, rebuilding the direct route from Richmond to Raleigh, and continued improvements from Raleigh to Charlotte. NC is also very interested in reinstating service from Charlotte to Asheville, but this is more of a back-burner item now, with most money being spent on the NCRR between Charlotte and Raleigh.I haven't heard anything about additional service between Lynchburg and DC, but I'm sure NS would be willing as the ex-SOU main is not nearly at capacity.Well, I hope Virginia can make use of its resources to carry more people around the state safely, but I am not holding my breath. I would in fact cite North Carolina as one state where nobody sat around waiting for a conclusion to come to them, or tons of extra money for that matter. They basically have chartered The Piedmont and The Carolinian, regional semi-commuter trains that are immensely popular and keep people off the Interstates, especially the north-south ones. Funding is a mixture of federal help (such as it is), state help and farebox. The trains themselves have to be operated by Amtrak, of course. This was a tough sell in the beginning, worse than California in some ways. Those who can, do. Those who can't, expostulate about "quasi-HST" trains that don't yet exist. "Nothing but the best, or nothing at all" is a mug's game when politicians play it. - a. s.
oltmannd wrote: al-in-chgo wrote: oltmannd wrote: You need to take a look at NS's Shenendoah/I-81 corridor proposal in more detail. I'll see if I can't dig up a good link. Not great, but a start http://transportation.northwestern.edu/programs/bac/BAC1007/sources/Martinez_presentation.pdfAlthough not directly related to this, NS is a lot more passenger friendly than you might ever guess.IMHO the proposals coming out of the Commonwealth of Virginia are pure "pie in the sky." Amtrak has never served the (Lynchburg) - Roanoke - Bristol corridor; the last train on that line ran the day before they took over. I know because I grew up alongside that line and rode the train the Saturday before Takeover. How on earth is Virginia going to pay for an HST when the route in question is mostly one-tracked, comewhat curvy, and goes thru some very mountainous area? There would be much more to cheer about if Virginia were really planning to make corridors out of Richmond - D.C. (the VRE already runs as far south as Fredericksburg) and Charlottesville - D.C. C'ville and Richmond have more than one train a day each way, although the one besides the Crescent, the Cardinal, runs thru C'ville only three times a week. And there is no service other than bus between C'ville and Richmond . . . . - a. s. There's a couple of things going on in VA. NS's Crescent Corridor is primarily a freight project that will eliminate or at least greatly delay VA's need to spend $2B to add a lane to I-81. The only passenger part I'm aware of is that it would free up some capacity for VRE to provide commuter service west from Manassas toward Front Royal.The quasi-high speed passenger project would be in partnership with NC and would provide improvements on the RF&P, rebuilding the direct route from Richmond to Raleigh, and continued improvements from Raleigh to Charlotte. NC is also very interested in reinstating service from Charlotte to Asheville, but this is more of a back-burner item now, with most money being spent on the NCRR between Charlotte and Raleigh.I haven't heard anything about additional service between Lynchburg and DC, but I'm sure NS would be willing as the ex-SOU main is not nearly at capacity.
al-in-chgo wrote: oltmannd wrote: You need to take a look at NS's Shenendoah/I-81 corridor proposal in more detail. I'll see if I can't dig up a good link. Not great, but a start http://transportation.northwestern.edu/programs/bac/BAC1007/sources/Martinez_presentation.pdfAlthough not directly related to this, NS is a lot more passenger friendly than you might ever guess.IMHO the proposals coming out of the Commonwealth of Virginia are pure "pie in the sky." Amtrak has never served the (Lynchburg) - Roanoke - Bristol corridor; the last train on that line ran the day before they took over. I know because I grew up alongside that line and rode the train the Saturday before Takeover. How on earth is Virginia going to pay for an HST when the route in question is mostly one-tracked, comewhat curvy, and goes thru some very mountainous area? There would be much more to cheer about if Virginia were really planning to make corridors out of Richmond - D.C. (the VRE already runs as far south as Fredericksburg) and Charlottesville - D.C. C'ville and Richmond have more than one train a day each way, although the one besides the Crescent, the Cardinal, runs thru C'ville only three times a week. And there is no service other than bus between C'ville and Richmond . . . . - a. s.
oltmannd wrote: You need to take a look at NS's Shenendoah/I-81 corridor proposal in more detail. I'll see if I can't dig up a good link. Not great, but a start http://transportation.northwestern.edu/programs/bac/BAC1007/sources/Martinez_presentation.pdfAlthough not directly related to this, NS is a lot more passenger friendly than you might ever guess.
You need to take a look at NS's Shenendoah/I-81 corridor proposal in more detail. I'll see if I can't dig up a good link.
Not great, but a start http://transportation.northwestern.edu/programs/bac/BAC1007/sources/Martinez_presentation.pdf
Although not directly related to this, NS is a lot more passenger friendly than you might ever guess.
IMHO the proposals coming out of the Commonwealth of Virginia are pure "pie in the sky." Amtrak has never served the (Lynchburg) - Roanoke - Bristol corridor; the last train on that line ran the day before they took over. I know because I grew up alongside that line and rode the train the Saturday before Takeover.
How on earth is Virginia going to pay for an HST when the route in question is mostly one-tracked, comewhat curvy, and goes thru some very mountainous area?
There would be much more to cheer about if Virginia were really planning to make corridors out of Richmond - D.C. (the VRE already runs as far south as Fredericksburg) and Charlottesville - D.C. C'ville and Richmond have more than one train a day each way, although the one besides the Crescent, the Cardinal, runs thru C'ville only three times a week.
And there is no service other than bus between C'ville and Richmond . . . . - a. s.
There's a couple of things going on in VA. NS's Crescent Corridor is primarily a freight project that will eliminate or at least greatly delay VA's need to spend $2B to add a lane to I-81. The only passenger part I'm aware of is that it would free up some capacity for VRE to provide commuter service west from Manassas toward Front Royal.
The quasi-high speed passenger project would be in partnership with NC and would provide improvements on the RF&P, rebuilding the direct route from Richmond to Raleigh, and continued improvements from Raleigh to Charlotte. NC is also very interested in reinstating service from Charlotte to Asheville, but this is more of a back-burner item now, with most money being spent on the NCRR between Charlotte and Raleigh.
I haven't heard anything about additional service between Lynchburg and DC, but I'm sure NS would be willing as the ex-SOU main is not nearly at capacity.
Well, I hope Virginia can make use of its resources to carry more people around the state safely, but I am not holding my breath. I would in fact cite North Carolina as one state where nobody sat around waiting for a conclusion to come to them, or tons of extra money for that matter. They basically have chartered The Piedmont and The Carolinian, regional semi-commuter trains that are immensely popular and keep people off the Interstates, especially the north-south ones. Funding is a mixture of federal help (such as it is), state help and farebox. The trains themselves have to be operated by Amtrak, of course. This was a tough sell in the beginning, worse than California in some ways.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, expostulate about "quasi-HST" trains that don't yet exist. "Nothing but the best, or nothing at all" is a mug's game when politicians play it. - a. s.
NC is not done yet. They are actively improving the speed and service on the Charlotte to Raleigh corridor. It helps that the state actually owns the ROW - and they just re-did their deal with NS for another 20 years a few years back. They are headed for what I'd call "quasi high speed" That is 90-110 mph max with conventional equipment primarily along existing routes. It's practical on this corridor because the curves are generally 2 deg to less.
They are doing a couple of things down there that, if not completely innovative, are innovative for the region. I think that the Piedmont and Carolinian even offer 6- and 10-ride discounts, and have passenger reps on the ground in places like Salisbury, which makes a good deal of sense -- people down there are basically having to learn how to take the train. The Silvers and the Crescents come thru in the middle of the night and are not of great utility for North or South Carolinians.
Me? I love to take the train and will if possible go out of my way to do it for the experience. Most people aren't like that, though. They will politically support corridor-style train travel because they're all for getting their neighbor off the road to reduce crowding on their own drive! But the main thing is that NC is a growing and relatively affluent state, and cash for rail is now part of the equation. I salute them. Would that Virginia had been doing the same. - a. s.
PS: A question that aligns with the above has entered my head, not for the first time. If "regional rail" is a separate and distinct category of passenger service, generally longer than commuter and shorter than Intercity, it is right for Amtrak to maintain its monopoly on operating such trains? I am going to post a separate thread in this "Passenger" section to sample opinions and ideas. - al
Paul Milenkovic wrote: I know that "quasi high-speed" requires improved signaling such as positive train stop or perhaps some kind of cab signals. Perhaps the best thing FRA or AAR or whoever could do to contribute to the health of both passenger and freight rail is the development of standards for improved signals, perhaps based on GPS as has been in testing.But what is the story on grade crossings? Does the 80-110 MPH service require full grade separation? Are barrier crossing gates OK? Does this kind of speed require "armoring" the ends of push-pull trains in the style of the FRA giving the Pacific Cascades Talgo a waiver provided that they have a locomotive or a cabbage-converted locomotive at each end of the train? Is it plausible to run Colorado Railcars DMU's at those speeds or would they have to be "up armored" to deal with grade crossing collisions at speed?
I know that "quasi high-speed" requires improved signaling such as positive train stop or perhaps some kind of cab signals. Perhaps the best thing FRA or AAR or whoever could do to contribute to the health of both passenger and freight rail is the development of standards for improved signals, perhaps based on GPS as has been in testing.
But what is the story on grade crossings? Does the 80-110 MPH service require full grade separation? Are barrier crossing gates OK? Does this kind of speed require "armoring" the ends of push-pull trains in the style of the FRA giving the Pacific Cascades Talgo a waiver provided that they have a locomotive or a cabbage-converted locomotive at each end of the train? Is it plausible to run Colorado Railcars DMU's at those speeds or would they have to be "up armored" to deal with grade crossing collisions at speed?
It would be nice if the industry could come up with a PTS standard.... Don't hold your breath. The gov't could help if they'd toss in some more $$ for developement, testing, and trial applications.
I think that four quardant grade crossing gates would do the trick for road Xings. There are a few places they're being tried out. It wasn't all that long ago that Amtrak ran Metroliner MU cars at 120 mph over rural road Xings.
But this then makes me wonder why our government digs way deep into the crock-pot, for that crock of a space program, for which the public pays billions for an "endeavor" of "discovery", or, orbiting "atlantis" so to speak, and along the way have killed more than a dozen astronauts and lost 20% of the shuttle fleet. Well, this is America and the enterprise of columbia is all about the challenge. I don't see much debate about NASA's profitability, and I think it's a real crock of an agency, and should have been eliminated at the beginning of Bush 43's first term. So let's just continue to weaken our expanding and stressed highway and airline infrastructure, and pour salt and sand into and onto the interstates, oil in the gutters, and of course a lot of blood and guts on the pavement. It's a very positive future and economically it's going to get better not worse, right?
So let's just continue to weaken our expanding and stressed highway and airline infrastructure, and pour salt and sand into and onto the interstates, oil in the gutters, and of course a lot of blood and guts on the pavement. It's a very positive future and economically it's going to get better not worse, right?
Just as we are having our debates about Amtrak and where-to-go-from-here-with-passenger-rail, the future of NASA and the future of space is hotly debated on other Web forums by "space foamers." There is huge debate about shutting NASA down -- you really need stay inside more and surf the space-geek Web sites.
Here is the nub of where the passenger-rail advocacy community and NARP get hung up: the long-distance trains. Yes, traffic congestion is a terrible problem. I took a day trip to a social event at the IIT campus on the near South Side of Chicago on a Friday -- it took me three hours inbound, but it took me five hours to get home, fighting traffic the whole way to the Wisconsin border outbound. I should have parked somewhere and taken Metra and then taken the El train that has a stop right on the IIT campus, but I thought I could arrive and leave at the right times to finess the traffic problem, and I had heard all manners of stories about how the near South Side of Chicago is a rough place to be standing on transit platforms.
Stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic on the Kennedy, I got to see the Empire Builder inbound on the old Milwaukee Road line, with its Genesis Diesels and Superliner cars. Fat lot of good the Empire Builder would do me as an alternative to the Toll Road mess. I should have made some kind of trip plan that involved Metra.
But guess what. Metra gets adequate funding. Metra is popular with both suburban Republicans and city Democrats. Unlike Amtrak, Metra gets to tap into auto gas tax money. Metra provides an alternative to expressway and tollroad congestion in a way that the Empire Builder never will.
So back to the long-distance trains. As far as I can tell, it takes about a dollar in subsidy money for each dollar from the farebox to run Amtrak, Metra, as well as the California intercity trains. Suppose someone well-heeled enough to live in Park Ridge pays a few bucks in fare to commute to downtown Chicago and taxpayers kick in another few bucks in subsidy money. No big deal -- one less motorist not on the Kennedy, helps with the vitality of the downtown Loop business district, and so on. That same well-heeled denizen of Park Ridge takes Metra downtown, takes a cab from Ogilvie Center to Union Station, and occupies a sleeping car room on the Empire Builder out to Glacier National Park. It is an expensive fare to be sure, but based on the operating ratios, Uncle Sam is kicking in hundreds of dollars towards that trip. I don't hear Senator John Sununu from New Hampshire complaining about the money going to Metra, but he has something to talk about with regards to the trip on the Empire Builder.
But we don't say, "Every person with enough money and enough time for a vacation should take the train trip out to Glacier National Park, and the hundreds of dollars in subsidy money per trip is something we owe our working citizens and retired seniors, just like Medicare and the prescription drug benefit." No, we say that the long distance trains provide lifeline service to all of the small towns up and down the route. So someone in government says, "fine, let's run the train like to lifeline transportation service it is supposed to be, and let's take off the second locomotive, those high cost sleeping and dining cars, and their attendant crews" and we scream bloody murder.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: The idiotic notion that a passenger rail system can be self supporting is a fable that's been coming out of Washington for several decades now. They need to wake up to reality.That sentiment is a recurrent theme in the passenger train advocacy community and language like "idiotic", "fable", and "need to wake up to reality" applied to opponents of Amtrak funding or perhaps those who are on the fence; in my opinion, this is why passenger train advocacy has been fighting a losing political battle these past 30 years.My question is whether the social goodness of passenger trains is so self-evident that the funding level of Amtrak should be whatever it takes to get the service, or if the passenger rail advocacy community would accept some metric, any metric, of what fractional percentage of Amtrak costs ought to be recovered from fares.Now I know we have rules around here for getting off the topic of trains and into the realm of politics, but I need to speak my peace on this: I have heard about the public expenditure on the Iraq War as a data point with which to compare the miniscule spending on Amtrak, and I have heard this argument repeated both among the virtual-world and the brick-and-morter world passenger rail communities with which I associate. Let's just say for sake of argument that leaving out the cost in lives of our young men and women at arms that the expenditure on the Iraq War is somehow justified in terms of securing the Middle East oil supply, not just for ourselves but for our trading partners and everyone else. Let's say the Iraq War is costing 150 billion/year -- yes, I know there are higher and lower estimates, but bear with me on an "order of magnitude" analysis.Airline travel is 100:1 over Amtrak and auto travel is 500:1 over Amtrak. Let's say we increased the Amtrak subsidy 100-fold to get a 100 fold increase in train travel as a substitution for 15 percent of air and auto travel. NARP tells us that Amtrak train travel is 30 percent more energy-efficient than auto or air. That means that a 150 billion per year Iraq-War sized expenditure on Amtrak would save 5 percent on transportation oil usage and perhaps 3 percent on total national oil usage. Three percent savings is not going to get the level of energy independence that would make what happens in the Middle East moot. Now I know what people are going to say -- the Iraq War has actually increased the price of oil, if we spent 150 billion/year on Amtrak (about 4 times the highway budget by the way and without the benefit of the gas tax cost recovery), the trains would all be electrified or there would be research money for energy-efficient train designs, and so on. And before someone tells me that spending Iraq War levels of money on trains is a straw-man argument and that nowhere near that amount of money would be needed to get really good trains, I have seen numbers that the Japanese expenditure on the Shinkansen network has been of that size in order-of-magnitude terms -- yes, they have a really good train system for that money, but they still need to import oil from the Middle East.There are men and women of good will who believe that the Iraq War was a terrible mistake, and there are other men and women of good will who believe that the Iraq War is a terrible price to be paid for something that needs to be done, but I would like to retire, once and for all, mention of the Iraq War in connection with an appropriate level of Amtrak funding. The country is badly divided on the Iraq War -- supporting the Iraq War is not a winning political path, but opposing the Iraq War is not a strong majority position either, and the Lautenberg-Lott 19 billion over 6 years for Amtrak Senate bill passed with a veto-proof 70 votes. We need to get people on both sides of the Iraq War divide to support trains.
The idiotic notion that a passenger rail system can be self supporting is a fable that's been coming out of Washington for several decades now. They need to wake up to reality.
That sentiment is a recurrent theme in the passenger train advocacy community and language like "idiotic", "fable", and "need to wake up to reality" applied to opponents of Amtrak funding or perhaps those who are on the fence; in my opinion, this is why passenger train advocacy has been fighting a losing political battle these past 30 years.
My question is whether the social goodness of passenger trains is so self-evident that the funding level of Amtrak should be whatever it takes to get the service, or if the passenger rail advocacy community would accept some metric, any metric, of what fractional percentage of Amtrak costs ought to be recovered from fares.
Now I know we have rules around here for getting off the topic of trains and into the realm of politics, but I need to speak my peace on this: I have heard about the public expenditure on the Iraq War as a data point with which to compare the miniscule spending on Amtrak, and I have heard this argument repeated both among the virtual-world and the brick-and-morter world passenger rail communities with which I associate.
Let's just say for sake of argument that leaving out the cost in lives of our young men and women at arms that the expenditure on the Iraq War is somehow justified in terms of securing the Middle East oil supply, not just for ourselves but for our trading partners and everyone else. Let's say the Iraq War is costing 150 billion/year -- yes, I know there are higher and lower estimates, but bear with me on an "order of magnitude" analysis.
Airline travel is 100:1 over Amtrak and auto travel is 500:1 over Amtrak. Let's say we increased the Amtrak subsidy 100-fold to get a 100 fold increase in train travel as a substitution for 15 percent of air and auto travel. NARP tells us that Amtrak train travel is 30 percent more energy-efficient than auto or air. That means that a 150 billion per year Iraq-War sized expenditure on Amtrak would save 5 percent on transportation oil usage and perhaps 3 percent on total national oil usage. Three percent savings is not going to get the level of energy independence that would make what happens in the Middle East moot.
Now I know what people are going to say -- the Iraq War has actually increased the price of oil, if we spent 150 billion/year on Amtrak (about 4 times the highway budget by the way and without the benefit of the gas tax cost recovery), the trains would all be electrified or there would be research money for energy-efficient train designs, and so on. And before someone tells me that spending Iraq War levels of money on trains is a straw-man argument and that nowhere near that amount of money would be needed to get really good trains, I have seen numbers that the Japanese expenditure on the Shinkansen network has been of that size in order-of-magnitude terms -- yes, they have a really good train system for that money, but they still need to import oil from the Middle East.
There are men and women of good will who believe that the Iraq War was a terrible mistake, and there are other men and women of good will who believe that the Iraq War is a terrible price to be paid for something that needs to be done, but I would like to retire, once and for all, mention of the Iraq War in connection with an appropriate level of Amtrak funding. The country is badly divided on the Iraq War -- supporting the Iraq War is not a winning political path, but opposing the Iraq War is not a strong majority position either, and the Lautenberg-Lott 19 billion over 6 years for Amtrak Senate bill passed with a veto-proof 70 votes. We need to get people on both sides of the Iraq War divide to support trains.
I think that Paul and some others contributing to this topic are making some good points, and some of the points are important to consider about Amtrak, and public expenditure on certain government programs. Comparisons to the War in Iraq are probably not good. What our naton faces as a direct threat must, of course, supercede anything which touches on social goodness. And I do mean this with sincerity.
But this then makes me wonder why our government digs way deep into the crock-pot, for that crock of a space program, for which the public pays billions for an "endeavor" of "discovery", or, orbiting "atlantis" so to speak, and along the way have killed more than a dozen astronauts and lost 20% of the shuttle fleet. Well, this is America and the enterprise of columbia is all about the challenge. I don't see much debate about NASA's profitability, and I think it's a real crock of an agency, and should have been eliminated at the beginning of Bush 43's first term.
oltmannd wrote: Paul Milenkovic wrote: The idiotic notion that a passenger rail system can be self supporting is a fable that's been coming out of Washington for several decades now. They need to wake up to reality.That sentiment is a recurrent theme in the passenger train advocacy community and language like "idiotic", "fable", and "need to wake up to reality" applied to opponents of Amtrak funding or perhaps those who are on the fence; in my opinion, this is why passenger train advocacy has been fighting a losing political battle these past 30 years.My question is whether the social goodness of passenger trains is so self-evident that the funding level of Amtrak should be whatever it takes to get the service, or if the passenger rail advocacy community would accept some metric, any metric, of what fractional percentage of Amtrak costs ought to be recovered from fares.Now I know we have rules around here for getting off the topic of trains and into the realm of politics, but I need to speak my peace on this: I have heard about the public expenditure on the Iraq War as a data point with which to compare the miniscule spending on Amtrak, and I have heard this argument repeated both among the virtual-world and the brick-and-morter world passenger rail communities with which I associate. Let's just say for sake of argument that leaving out the cost in lives of our young men and women at arms that the expenditure on the Iraq War is somehow justified in terms of securing the Middle East oil supply, not just for ourselves but for our trading partners and everyone else. Let's say the Iraq War is costing 150 billion/year -- yes, I know there are higher and lower estimates, but bear with me on an "order of magnitude" analysis.Airline travel is 100:1 over Amtrak and auto travel is 500:1 over Amtrak. Let's say we increased the Amtrak subsidy 100-fold to get a 100 fold increase in train travel as a substitution for 15 percent of air and auto travel. NARP tells us that Amtrak train travel is 30 percent more energy-efficient than auto or air. That means that a 150 billion per year Iraq-War sized expenditure on Amtrak would save 5 percent on transportation oil usage and perhaps 3 percent on total national oil usage. Three percent savings is not going to get the level of energy independence that would make what happens in the Middle East moot. Now I know what people are going to say -- the Iraq War has actually increased the price of oil, if we spent 150 billion/year on Amtrak (about 4 times the highway budget by the way and without the benefit of the gas tax cost recovery), the trains would all be electrified or there would be research money for energy-efficient train designs, and so on. And before someone tells me that spending Iraq War levels of money on trains is a straw-man argument and that nowhere near that amount of money would be needed to get really good trains, I have seen numbers that the Japanese expenditure on the Shinkansen network has been of that size in order-of-magnitude terms -- yes, they have a really good train system for that money, but they still need to import oil from the Middle East.There are men and women of good will who believe that the Iraq War was a terrible mistake, and there are other men and women of good will who believe that the Iraq War is a terrible price to be paid for something that needs to be done, but I would like to retire, once and for all, mention of the Iraq War in connection with an appropriate level of Amtrak funding. The country is badly divided on the Iraq War -- supporting the Iraq War is not a winning political path, but opposing the Iraq War is not a strong majority position either, and the Lautenberg-Lott 19 billion over 6 years for Amtrak Senate bill passed with a veto-proof 70 votes. We need to get people on both sides of the Iraq War divide to support trains.The Iraq vs. Amtrak argument is a red herring.Because I spend $1000 on heat and hot water a year, that makes toothpaste @$10 a tube a good deal?
The Iraq vs. Amtrak argument is a red herring.
Because I spend $1000 on heat and hot water a year, that makes toothpaste @$10 a tube a good deal?
Yes, I noticed that the only thing he could offer was a "red herring" argument, but never mentioned how the rail passenger service could be "profitable." He managed to ignore that this was the "idiotic notion" and "fable being refered to in the original post.
He also ignores that highway transportation in the major metropolitan areas is at "gridlock' or even "parking lot," the airways in the same areas is nearing or at the same condition. But he still doesn't see rail passenger service as anything but a "social goodness" antique.
Exactly my point. Unless the project serves the public good and provides obvious benefits for the non-railfan (yeah I know I'll get yelled at for this) then in a true capitalistic sense it shouldn't involve public funds. As you mentioned above, though, perhaps if the railroads took a more open-minded approach to PPP models then some of the passenger routes could benefit by default. It would mean the railroad would have to develop a business case for public investment in its activities that would provide economic benefit to the population at large, not just rail enthusiasts.
The public-private-partnership works very well, but only when both sides see an obvious positive in their favor. Unfortunately, most of the taxpaying public couldn't give a rip about Amtrak/Via and, while I personally wish it did matter to everybody, you can't argue with the desire to see tax dollars headed toward education, health care etc. instead of subsidizing what is perceived by the majority to be an unecessary mode of transportation.
Unfortunately I can't see the class 1's ever seeing the value of passenger rail. Even in its heyday it flourished only as an advertising and promotional medium, not because it was a profitable venture. Mail contracts merely eased the pain. Making passenger rail profitable would only happen with avery radical approach, and most class 1's are so deeply entrenched in their thinking that they will never be fully capable of thinking outside the box. Heck, they're so far inside the box they can't see the sides.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.