Funny joke, but i hope that isn't the rationale being used for checking tickets prior to going onto the platform.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Paul,
That's a funny story.
Seriously, It's a new world with TSA; and I think Amtrak is doing its best to cooperate to appear as security-conscious as the airlines. As a result, ID's must be checked at some point. The next step, like the airlines, could be scanning. Suburban and metropolitan rail passengers go merrily along - for now - but people are thinking of ways to do it.
HarveyK400 Paul, That's a funny story. Seriously, It's a new world with TSA; and I think Amtrak is doing its best to cooperate to appear as security-conscious as the airlines. As a result, ID's must be checked at some point. The next step, like the airlines, could be scanning. Suburban and metropolitan rail passengers go merrily along - for now - but people are thinking of ways to do it.
Is there a TSA regulation to check tickets in the station, etc.? Is it a TSA regulation to allow boarding at only one or two points controlled by train staff? I'd like to see that regulation.
schlimm Is there a TSA regulation to check tickets in the station, etc.? Is it a TSA regulation to allow boarding at only one or two points controlled by train staff? I'd like to see that regulation.
Not yet.
That story by the way was from a collection of "engineering student" jokes on a bulletin board at the "U." I think what the joke along with Amtrak policies speak to is that there is a higher likelihood of collecting the fare, and also collecting the correct fare when there are multiple stops, when you screen boarding rather than only walk down the aisles and collect tickets.
Is cheating on the fare that big a problem? With transit systems you have some degree of turnstyle jumping, and the way Metra runs 11-car trains with what, with one conductor and one trainman, you are running a bit of an honor system where people are expected to be honest citizens and pay for the fare even if they are skipped by the the conductor (Don't know about modern-day Metra, but if I remember right from in the C&NW days there were the rare occasions when the conductor didn't get to checking your ticket). Some European light rail systems (Holland?) go so far as to skimp on checking tickets, but they do spot checks with transit police, and if you are without your ticket, you are charged a fine.
So I suppose that on intercity trains, the passenger boardings are fewer and the fares are greater and it is determined to be of greater importance who is boarding the train. Even bus companies are doing this. At the Langdon Street "bus terminal" in Madison, people queue up, show their I.D., and have their names checked off a boarding manifest to get on the bus to Chicago Union Station or to Milwaukee Mitchell Field. This boarding does not appear to be a quick process either, and extra workers seem to be involved -- I was observing one boarding where the bus driver plus an assistant who was also giving curb-checks and loading bags in the rear compartment of one of the new 80-seat double deck buses got involved. I wasn't sure if that assistant was the bus conductor or if that man was the station master who stayed behind and boarded other buses.
As to the single boarding point, when the 747 Jumbo Jet first came out, there were artists depictions of a supposed need to have multiple jetways connected to multiple doors on one of those things. The only thing all those doors seem to be for these days is to satisfy the law requiring multiple emergency exit slides. The most I have seen in practice is two jetways -- coach and first class -- but I am not sure I have seen even that as everything seems to go through one door. And yes, it is inconvenient as it takes forever to board and the main reason one prefers smaller planes these days.
So, is there a control-freak major in college where you can learn how to be a transportation planner? This notion of "what do you think this is, a subway train" and the herding of passengers into boarding lines had been a trend even pre 9-11. With airlines, I think there is a long-standing requirement to know who is on the plane if we have to notify next-of-kin, and even during 9-11, the authorities pretty much knew who was on those planes, where the originated, and even what seat they were in.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
If we actually need a model for intercity boarding/disembarking procedures, we only need to look at the German (or Italian or whatever other country you wish -- I'm more familiar with the Germans) system. It runs smoothly and basically costs nothing extra. Unless of course, you think we cannot adopt any procedures used outside the US. And airplane systems are not relevant.
schlimm If we actually need a model for intercity boarding/disembarking procedures, we only need to look at the German (or Italian or whatever other country you wish -- I'm more familiar with the Germans) system. It runs smoothly and basically costs nothing extra. Unless of course, you think we cannot adopt any procedures used outside the US. And airplane systems are not relevant.
Passenger service seems to be modeled after the airlines, from reservations to boarding, although I remember having to check in and get a boarding pass at a movable desk out in the concourse of the old Union Station for the Blackhawk and Western Star. So in this sense, the airline system is relevant.
I would agree that the European model speeds boarding; but who knows what changes may be in the works. On-board bombings have occurred in the past.
Metra practices developed from the situation that a fair number of stations didn't have an agent at any time. Agents would outnumber conductors. Those stations that did have an agent from early morning to early afternoon reduced the time-consuming work on board collecting fares, making change, and issuing a receipts.
I can tell you that intermediate fares often go uncollected on Metra and the North Western before that. During the West Towns strike (1958?) I caught the same train at Maywood that my dad rode from Downtown; and the half of the days the conductor even came through the car, he refused to collect the fare. Half the time when I take the UP North from Rogers Park, my fare isn't collected, and now my senior card isn't checked (and there is no indication that it is recorded when it is).
Security check-ins, ID validation, and boarding can be tailored to meet the volume of passengers.
As little as I have heard or read, it seems that the Amtrak boarding process was offered in response to a request for proposal and accepted as a protocol to increase security. Part of this is to have a public presence in the forms of inspections and ticket check-ins for appearances sake.
I don't understand the rationale for checking ID's. Why should we care enough about identifing an individual to verify who he is? Are we merely copying airline procedures to make ourselves feel safe? Alternatively, is there a "do not train" list of individuals which Amtrak consults when selling a ticket? If this procedure is necessary for Amtrak, then why is it not necessary for various rapid transit/surburban rail operations?
Incidentially, how many of you even know what my South Dakota drivers license should look like? If I photograph it, photoshop the result so the name is now Osama bin Smith and laminate a print out, can you detect a problem?
I find it hard to believe that the door check is necessary. But even if we accept that it is, why not check passengers and then let them on the platform to await the train's arrival and then board through all doors (automatic doors or doors that only require pushing a button to open)? Since there are far fewer boarding passengers on an Amtrak train than a suburban Metra train, I do not think it is unreasonable for the conductor and trainmen to be capable of checking tickets on board. The result would be shorter dwell times.
Terminal boarding for long distance has been done by checking passengers at the gate way back in the 50's or earlier, I believe, so that is nothing to do with airlines or post 9-11 TSA security.
The number of non-paying riders on Metra is potentially much higher than Amtrak, but they continue to check tickets en route, so that seems to be a bogus argument for continuing with antiquated, inefficient boarding procedures on Amtrak.
The European model has continued even after rail bombing (Madrid).
The ID checking is useless. Even more ludicrous is having you sign on your ticket. So you scribble something that isn't checked against anything. What is that supposed to accomplish?
schlimm I find it hard to believe that the door check is necessary. But even if we accept that it is, why not check passengers and then let them on the platform to await the train's arrival and then board through all doors (automatic doors or doors that only require pushing a button to open)? Since there are far fewer boarding passengers on an Amtrak train than a suburban Metra train, I do not think it is unreasonable for the conductor and trainmen to be capable of checking tickets on board. The result would be shorter dwell times. Terminal boarding for long distance has been done by checking passengers at the gate way back in the 50's or earlier, I believe, so that is nothing to do with airlines or post 9-11 TSA security. The number of non-paying riders on Metra is potentially much higher than Amtrak, but they continue to check tickets en route, so that seems to be a bogus argument for continuing with antiquated, inefficient boarding procedures on Amtrak. The European model has continued even after rail bombing (Madrid). The ID checking is useless. Even more ludicrous is having you sign on your ticket. So you scribble something that isn't checked against anything. What is that supposed to accomplish?
For Amfleet and Horizon cars....
In stations where there are high level platforms at intermediate stops - Phila, Trenton, Wilmington, et.al. the trainmen will usually open all doors. You can do this from any vestibule on any car in the train.
Where low level platforms are the norm, the trainmen can only open one door at a time because they have to manually raise the trap (which lowers the stairs). You can't leave the trap up and and close the door (nor would you want to - you don't want people going from car to car to fall down the steps). You also don't want to open all doors - you could have people falling out the unattended doors since there's nobody there to get the trap.
This does not make the status quo the best you can do, however.
1. The trainmen could make an effort to get more doors open, opening adjacent doors one at a time, then walking the car length and getting two more.
2. The traps and stairs could be automated so that the passengers could get their own door by push button. (Lots of details to work out on this one...)
3. Amtrak could extort high level platforms from the towns with high traffic levels. They don't need to be elaborate. What PC put in (and had last for 40 year) at Metropark would suffice. Wood piles/supports, wood and asphalt platforms, wood railing and steps.
4. Have the cafe car attendant join the train crew in getting doors open.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd For Amfleet and Horizon cars.... In stations where there are high level platforms at intermediate stops - Phila, Trenton, Wilmington, et.al. the trainmen will usually open all doors. You can do this from any vestibule on any car in the train. This does not make the status quo the best you can do, however. 1. The trainmen could make an effort to get more doors open, opening adjacent doors one at a time, then walking the car length and getting two more. 4. Have the cafe car attendant join the train crew in getting doors open.
Standardize to high-level platforms. In the short-term, #'s 1 & 4 would help. All future equipment should use the interlocked door mechanism that passengers can operate.
schlimm oltmannd: For Amfleet and Horizon cars.... In stations where there are high level platforms at intermediate stops - Phila, Trenton, Wilmington, et.al. the trainmen will usually open all doors. You can do this from any vestibule on any car in the train. This does not make the status quo the best you can do, however. 1. The trainmen could make an effort to get more doors open, opening adjacent doors one at a time, then walking the car length and getting two more. 4. Have the cafe car attendant join the train crew in getting doors open. Standardize to high-level platforms. In the short-term, #'s 1 & 4 would help. All future equipment should use the interlocked door mechanism that passengers can operate.
oltmannd: For Amfleet and Horizon cars.... In stations where there are high level platforms at intermediate stops - Phila, Trenton, Wilmington, et.al. the trainmen will usually open all doors. You can do this from any vestibule on any car in the train. This does not make the status quo the best you can do, however. 1. The trainmen could make an effort to get more doors open, opening adjacent doors one at a time, then walking the car length and getting two more. 4. Have the cafe car attendant join the train crew in getting doors open.
1 & 4 would require management effort. Think Amtrak's up to the challenge?
Dakguy201 I don't understand the rationale for checking ID's. Why should we care enough about identifing an individual to verify who he is? Are we merely copying airline procedures to make ourselves feel safe? Alternatively, is there a "do not train" list of individuals which Amtrak consults when selling a ticket? If this procedure is necessary for Amtrak, then why is it not necessary for various rapid transit/surburban rail operations? Incidentially, how many of you even know what my South Dakota drivers license should look like? If I photograph it, photoshop the result so the name is now Osama bin Smith and laminate a print out, can you detect a problem?
This may be a case of go along to get along regardless of how necessary.
schlimm ...But even if we accept that it is, why not check passengers and then let them on the platform to await the train's arrival and then board through all doors....
...But even if we accept that it is, why not check passengers and then let them on the platform to await the train's arrival and then board through all doors....
That's what I've been preaching.
I pretty much agree with you on the rest.
oltmannd schlimm: oltmannd: This does not make the status quo the best you can do, however. 1. The trainmen could make an effort to get more doors open, opening adjacent doors one at a time, then walking the car length and getting two more. 4. Have the cafe car attendant join the train crew in getting doors open. Standardize to high-level platforms. In the short-term, #'s 1 & 4 would help. All future equipment should use the interlocked door mechanism that passengers can operate. 1 & 4 would require management effort. Think Amtrak's up to the challenge?
schlimm: oltmannd: This does not make the status quo the best you can do, however. 1. The trainmen could make an effort to get more doors open, opening adjacent doors one at a time, then walking the car length and getting two more. 4. Have the cafe car attendant join the train crew in getting doors open. Standardize to high-level platforms. In the short-term, #'s 1 & 4 would help. All future equipment should use the interlocked door mechanism that passengers can operate.
oltmannd: This does not make the status quo the best you can do, however. 1. The trainmen could make an effort to get more doors open, opening adjacent doors one at a time, then walking the car length and getting two more. 4. Have the cafe car attendant join the train crew in getting doors open.
If i were betting, I'd guess not. But I hope they can. I don't see why pushing a little on the labor front is such a non-starter. After all, labor makes up the bulk of Amtrak's operating expenses. Out of curiosity, and at the risk of enraging some folks, how much does the typical engineer for Amtrak get paid annually? Conductor? Trainman? How about your "typical" engineer on any of the Big Six freight lines?
oltmannd .... Where low level platforms are the norm, the trainmen can only open one door at a time because they have to manually raise the trap (which lowers the stairs). You can't leave the trap up and and close the door (nor would you want to - you don't want people going from car to car to fall down the steps). You also don't want to open all doors - you could have people falling out the unattended doors since there's nobody there to get the trap. This does not make the status quo the best you can do, however. 1. The trainmen could make an effort to get more doors open, opening adjacent doors one at a time, then walking the car length and getting two more. 2. The traps and stairs could be automated so that the passengers could get their own door by push button. (Lots of details to work out on this one...) 3. Amtrak could extort high level platforms from the towns with high traffic levels. They don't need to be elaborate. What PC put in (and had last for 40 year) at Metropark would suffice. Wood piles/supports, wood and asphalt platforms, wood railing and steps. 4. Have the cafe car attendant join the train crew in getting doors open.
....
The door trap is the problem with this type of car in the Midwest. Stations like Normal and Springfield also would need platform gauntlet tracks if the was no space for separate platform tracks as well as signaling; but then what about the Eagle? What about Saint Louis? What about utilization at Chicago Union Station? I remember the Horizon car developed off the NJT commuter coach with a remote-controlled low level door; but the higher steps makes boarding more difficult and less desirable. The most compatible solutions seem to be Talgo's for the tilting except for some gallery cars for rush hour Hiawatha's.
New bi-levels off the California design would be compatible for long-distance trains and Midwest routes; but I'm wondering if that many doors are needed where additional seating might be provided..
HarveyK400 Passenger service seems to be modeled after the airlines, from reservations to boarding, although I remember having to check in and get a boarding pass at a movable desk out in the concourse of the old Union Station for the Blackhawk and Western Star. So in this sense, the airline system is relevant.
I remember only one instance of having to show identification before boarding a train: in the spring of 2008, when we were leaving Washington on the Capitol Limited; my driver's license was sufficient. Except for this instance, in all of our travels since air travel began to be scrutinized carefully, we have never had to show who were are, except when crossing the Canadian border. Two years ago, when we had to fly to Baton Rouge and back on short notice, our experience was quite different. We hope that we never have another occasion to fly.
Johnny
Can you explain the engineering term "cant deficiency" to a non-engineer? Is it more than how much the car leans outward as it negotiates a curve.? So called centrifugal force?
Cant deficiency is the amount of (additional) superelevation you'd need so that you wouldn't feel that "leaning out (a.k.a centrifugal)" force in the curve.
HarveyK400 oltmannd: .... Where low level platforms are the norm, the trainmen can only open one door at a time because they have to manually raise the trap (which lowers the stairs). You can't leave the trap up and and close the door (nor would you want to - you don't want people going from car to car to fall down the steps). You also don't want to open all doors - you could have people falling out the unattended doors since there's nobody there to get the trap. This does not make the status quo the best you can do, however. 1. The trainmen could make an effort to get more doors open, opening adjacent doors one at a time, then walking the car length and getting two more. 2. The traps and stairs could be automated so that the passengers could get their own door by push button. (Lots of details to work out on this one...) 3. Amtrak could extort high level platforms from the towns with high traffic levels. They don't need to be elaborate. What PC put in (and had last for 40 year) at Metropark would suffice. Wood piles/supports, wood and asphalt platforms, wood railing and steps. 4. Have the cafe car attendant join the train crew in getting doors open. The door trap is the problem with this type of car in the Midwest. Stations like Normal and Springfield also would need platform gauntlet tracks if the was no space for separate platform tracks as well as signaling; but then what about the Eagle? What about Saint Louis? What about utilization at Chicago Union Station? I remember the Horizon car developed off the NJT commuter coach with a remote-controlled low level door; but the higher steps makes boarding more difficult and less desirable. The most compatible solutions seem to be Talgo's for the tilting except for some gallery cars for rush hour Hiawatha's. New bi-levels off the California design would be compatible for long-distance trains and Midwest routes; but I'm wondering if that many doors are needed where additional seating might be provided..
oltmannd: .... Where low level platforms are the norm, the trainmen can only open one door at a time because they have to manually raise the trap (which lowers the stairs). You can't leave the trap up and and close the door (nor would you want to - you don't want people going from car to car to fall down the steps). You also don't want to open all doors - you could have people falling out the unattended doors since there's nobody there to get the trap. This does not make the status quo the best you can do, however. 1. The trainmen could make an effort to get more doors open, opening adjacent doors one at a time, then walking the car length and getting two more. 2. The traps and stairs could be automated so that the passengers could get their own door by push button. (Lots of details to work out on this one...) 3. Amtrak could extort high level platforms from the towns with high traffic levels. They don't need to be elaborate. What PC put in (and had last for 40 year) at Metropark would suffice. Wood piles/supports, wood and asphalt platforms, wood railing and steps. 4. Have the cafe car attendant join the train crew in getting doors open.
That sounds sensible. The trouble area is going to be in the east. What do you do with the trains that start and finish on the NEC where the train must cope with a mix of platforms? Do you do something goofy like the SEPTA Silverliner Vs? Or, to you just work your way toward high level platforms and cope until you get there? Or, do you provide a mix? For example, Wilmington DE has two tracks with a center high level platform, but the outside platforms are low level (or, at least it used to be that way). You could flip it. Center low level and outside high.
South Shore has had to deal with two different platform heights since at least 1926. The IC station stops are all high-level, Gary is high-level, Hammond is high-level with gantlet tracks and I believe that the rest are ground level. End doors are equipped with steps and traps and center doors are high-level only. Remote door operation is done at high-level platforms but I don't think that it's possible at ground-level platforms when a trap is involved as you may have standees on the trap.
WJM2223 Can you explain the engineering term "cant deficiency" to a non-engineer? Is it more than how much the car leans outward as it negotiates a curve.? So called centrifugal force?
As Don Oltmann explained, railroad people quantify the amount of force, trying to slosh your coffee and trying to knock you off your feet into the lap of the person you are standing next to, in terms of the number of inches they would have to jack up the outside rail to cancel out that force. With the rail jacked up, called superelevation, you still feel the centrifugal force of rounding a curve, but that force is pointed downwards in the direction of your feet instead of sideways.
The deal with railroads, however, is that they use fewer inches of superelevation than needed, and the reduction measured in inches is called the cant deficiency. For example, if you went around a curve at a speed that would require 6 inches of superelevation but "they" put only 3 inches of superelevation on the track, say, because freight trains use that line and freights don't take curves that fast, that means a train passenger would feel that as if there were no superelevation and you were taking the curve at a slower speed that required 3 inches of superelevation.
Actually, that these inches of cant and cant deficiency add up is a mathematical approximation. You are assuming that if the gauge is 4'8.5" (56.5") and you jack up the rail by 3" you get a certain angle of tilt. You are assuming that if you jack up the rail by 6" that the angle of tilt is exactly twice as much -- to get the exact value you need to use your college trig, but for the small amounts 3" and 6" for a gauge of 56.5", the deviation from twice-as-much is something that is small enough to ignore.
I was thinking for the Mad City Model Railroad Show and Sale in February of building some wooden ramps representing different numbers of inches of cant deficiency that people could stand on them, comparing the tilting Talgo train with reduced cant deficiency experienced by the passenger with a conventional train. One thing I was worried about was liability, of someone tripping on those wooden platforms and getting hurt -- a remote chance but something one has to plan for. Now, the with the Talgo on hold or effectively stopped (the original motivation for this thread), this exhibit is kind of moot.
None of the problems with doors, ticket collection, platform heights. etc. seem insurmountable. A failure to proceed to correct these problems would seem to be from a lack of will, not lack of know-how.
oltmannd That sounds sensible. The trouble area is going to be in the east. What do you do with the trains that start and finish on the NEC where the train must cope with a mix of platforms? Do you do something goofy like the SEPTA Silverliner Vs? Or, to you just work your way toward high level platforms and cope until you get there? Or, do you provide a mix? For example, Wilmington DE has two tracks with a center high level platform, but the outside platforms are low level (or, at least it used to be that way). You could flip it. Center low level and outside high.
With the possible exceptions of the Lakeshore, Cardinal, and Florida trains, the Acela could be the standard platform for single-level Eastern trains. First, they tilt. Instead of a center door, one end door would be high and the other low for a non-Acela/Regional option. I don't know if the profile would allow for the bunk beds for sleeping cars which seems to be the only sticking point for a single single-level car type.
The high-low arrangement depends on whether dwell times would be affected significantly at intermediate stations, notwithstanding an allowance for deploying lifts for mobility devices.
I can't say whether the Amfleet or Horizon cars could be rebuilt economically with the suggested high-low/high-high arrangement and given active tilt suspension; but this seems to be a lower cost option and a consideration in establishing viable domestic manufacturing and re-building capability.
I'm all for KISS-ing (Keep It Simple Stupid).
Similar problem; and I suggested a similar solution when I was a planner for Northwest Indiana. Since then, high level platforms were built at Hegewisch, Hammond, and East Chicago. Gary (Broadway) is still in the works.
Paul Milenkovic I was thinking for the Mad City Model Railroad Show and Sale in February of building some wooden ramps representing different numbers of inches of cant deficiency that people could stand on them, comparing the tilting Talgo train with reduced cant deficiency experienced by the passenger with a conventional train. One thing I was worried about was liability, of someone tripping on those wooden platforms and getting hurt -- a remote chance but something one has to plan for. Now, the with the Talgo on hold or effectively stopped (the original motivation for this thread), this exhibit is kind of moot.
Wis DOT's order for two Talgo sets, covering the existing CHI-MKE Hiawatha service and replacing the existing Horizon/Amfleet equipment, is still on. Work on those sets is not affected by the shutdown of the MKE-MSN project.
The maintenance base for the Talgo equipment, however, is part of the ARRA grant for the Madison project. That facility was estimated at $52 million. If the Madison project is canceled and the ARRA funds are forfeited, Wisconsin is still on the hook for building a possibly smaller maintenance facility.
Labor makes up the bulk of Amtrak's operating expenses. Out of curiosity, and at the risk of enraging some folks, how much does the typical engineer for Amtrak get paid annually? I realize the way pay is calculated is more complicated than dollars/hour X time worked. Conductor? Trainman? How about your "typical" engineer on any of the Big Six freight lines?
Anyone able to provide info about this?
schlimm Labor makes up the bulk of Amtrak's operating expenses. Out of curiosity, and at the risk of enraging some folks, how much does the typical engineer for Amtrak get paid annually? I realize the way pay is calculated is more complicated than dollars/hour X time worked. Conductor? Trainman? How about your "typical" engineer on any of the Big Six freight lines? Anyone able to provide info about this?
I think you might be able to tease this out of the annual report or 10K. I'll have to check
My guess is that the biggest expense is the hourly rate of keeping passenger equipment in service -- amortization, interest, maintenance, and insurance. You would think that railroad equipment should be cheaper than aviation equipment, but the last time those numbers were considered on a thread around here, the maintenance worker-hours per passenger mile for a passenger railroad car worked out to some multiple of the airline industry.
According to Amtrak's 2009 Annual Report, expenses totaled ~$3.5 bil. Of that, $1.7 bil was from wages, salaries and benefits, which is 48.5%, by far the largest category. That report doesn't break that down any further, but the FY2011-2015 Appendix to Five Year Financial Plan
does. For 2011 (in $ mil.):
Salaries 273.6 Wages & Overtime 997.8 52.3% of the totalEmployee Benefits 605.3 Employee Related 30.1 Total Salaries, Wages and Benefits 1,906.9
I wonder how Amtrak's numbers compare with airlines, both union and non-union?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.