henry6 But Dwight, I am not suggesting public transport (stop thinking Amtrak) but rather private carrier. Also this is 2012, not the nineties or even earlier. Land space is at a premium, air space is either polluted or on the way of being polluted; in many areas the air can no longer take any pollutants for the safety of the population. And, while freight railroads didn't want to accept passenger trains in the past, and many still don't, there are abandoned and underused lines and rights of way which might be available, and useful, for private carriage use. We are picking up the baton of a private carrier based on the premise that there will no longer be a government Amtrak Also, it should be noted the density of traffic in the West and in the Rockies is far less than in the East, Midwest, Praries, and West Coast and through the South. Perhaps a train through the Feather River Canyon or through the Rockies isn't the kind of "service" we will be providing or is one that our reasearch says no to anyway.
But Dwight, I am not suggesting public transport (stop thinking Amtrak) but rather private carrier. Also this is 2012, not the nineties or even earlier. Land space is at a premium, air space is either polluted or on the way of being polluted; in many areas the air can no longer take any pollutants for the safety of the population. And, while freight railroads didn't want to accept passenger trains in the past, and many still don't, there are abandoned and underused lines and rights of way which might be available, and useful, for private carriage use. We are picking up the baton of a private carrier based on the premise that there will no longer be a government Amtrak Also, it should be noted the density of traffic in the West and in the Rockies is far less than in the East, Midwest, Praries, and West Coast and through the South. Perhaps a train through the Feather River Canyon or through the Rockies isn't the kind of "service" we will be providing or is one that our reasearch says no to anyway.
I am using "public transportation" in a broad sense (which I believe is correct) to include highway transportation (you in your own private car on a road), aircraft transportation, water transportation, etc, essentially any way we (the public) transport ourselves from place to place. And none of these "makes a profit" or even comes close to breaking even: highways don't make money, airports don't make money, rivers don't make money, etc. once you subtract the cost of building and maintaining them. And it seems to me that a lot of the privatization ideas for passenger rail transportation suffer from the "square peg in a round hole" problem: attempting to replicate highway and airline transport (multiple individual vehicles owned by many different individuals or companies operating on a right of way owned by someone else) in a medium in which it would present enormous problems. For example, one can get on and off the highway without telling anyone or asking anyone's permission, and even the airports can handle far more takeoffs and landings per day than even a multiple track main line can. Replicating such a system with passenger-only railroad rights of way would cost TRILLIONS.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
henry6 So, if we were to start a new passenger operating railroad here, lets get rid of government rules, regulations, and oversight and set our sights on providing rail passenger service and services and not just run trains. "Regulation" means "confirmation", someone other than the entity for whom spending on safety is a "loss" confirming that they are following safe practices and not cheating customers etc.. I don't see lack of regulation as a plus, it would be like buying viagra on the internet. We will contract with private freight railroads where and when necessary and own and operate our own tracks and trains where available. When this idea was floated during the Nineties (after "contract with America") the Republicans found out the hard way that the freight railroads don't want dozens of independent contractors using their tracks, both for competitive reasons (they don't want experiments in "open access" so that they end up having competitors for freight service on their tracks) but also it would be a logistical nightmare. Would these new companies be cutting corners on equipment, crew training, supervision, etc., trains breaking down on the main, etc.. And for what? You are likely to get a polite "no" from the freight railroads when asked, and if you try to mandate it the way that Amtrak is mandated they will tell you that they like it the way it is now, one company, one set of organizational practices, professional (union) crews, relatively new equipment, etc. When the company running the Ski-Train between Denver and Winter park (in front of my house in South Boulder Canyon at the time) pulled out, Iowa Pacific tried to take it over. The only way to do it was to ask Amtrak (which has authority to run on that line and crews for the CZ) and they were not interested either, IP intended to use old equipment including F-9s and neither Amtrak nor UP wanted any part of it. And that is WITH subsidies from the city of Denver (that owns Winter Park ski resort) and a guaranteed passenger base running full almost every trip. Now, I am sure that a freight railroad will do it for the right price, but as I am already dubious that a passenger train can earn a "profit" (that is, without some sort of tax subsidy or tax write-off) I am especially dubious that you will have enough to bribe the freight railroads and still earn a profit. WE ARE TOTALLY PRIVATE, NOT A GOVERNMENT AGENCY, NOT RELYING ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT AND MONEY, CONGRESS IS NOT OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS NOR BANKERS. Therefore, we can't think and operate in the same terms and philosophies as Amtrak, but more like IBM, GM, or even GE and not like Democrat or Republican or Souttherner or Easterner or Westerner or Northerner. We are a business owner and operator whose goal is to provide rail passenger services. As I said, I don't think the problem is "philosophies" or "lack of imiagination", I think it is that public transportation is an area where tax dollars need to be spent in order to get a reliable system, and to this point we just haven't spent the money (less for national rail transportation since 1971 than we spent on highways last year).
So, if we were to start a new passenger operating railroad here, lets get rid of government rules, regulations, and oversight and set our sights on providing rail passenger service and services and not just run trains.
"Regulation" means "confirmation", someone other than the entity for whom spending on safety is a "loss" confirming that they are following safe practices and not cheating customers etc.. I don't see lack of regulation as a plus, it would be like buying viagra on the internet.
We will contract with private freight railroads where and when necessary and own and operate our own tracks and trains where available.
When this idea was floated during the Nineties (after "contract with America") the Republicans found out the hard way that the freight railroads don't want dozens of independent contractors using their tracks, both for competitive reasons (they don't want experiments in "open access" so that they end up having competitors for freight service on their tracks) but also it would be a logistical nightmare. Would these new companies be cutting corners on equipment, crew training, supervision, etc., trains breaking down on the main, etc.. And for what? You are likely to get a polite "no" from the freight railroads when asked, and if you try to mandate it the way that Amtrak is mandated they will tell you that they like it the way it is now, one company, one set of organizational practices, professional (union) crews, relatively new equipment, etc.
When the company running the Ski-Train between Denver and Winter park (in front of my house in South Boulder Canyon at the time) pulled out, Iowa Pacific tried to take it over. The only way to do it was to ask Amtrak (which has authority to run on that line and crews for the CZ) and they were not interested either, IP intended to use old equipment including F-9s and neither Amtrak nor UP wanted any part of it. And that is WITH subsidies from the city of Denver (that owns Winter Park ski resort) and a guaranteed passenger base running full almost every trip. Now, I am sure that a freight railroad will do it for the right price, but as I am already dubious that a passenger train can earn a "profit" (that is, without some sort of tax subsidy or tax write-off) I am especially dubious that you will have enough to bribe the freight railroads and still earn a profit.
WE ARE TOTALLY PRIVATE, NOT A GOVERNMENT AGENCY, NOT RELYING ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT AND MONEY, CONGRESS IS NOT OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS NOR BANKERS. Therefore, we can't think and operate in the same terms and philosophies as Amtrak, but more like IBM, GM, or even GE and not like Democrat or Republican or Souttherner or Easterner or Westerner or Northerner. We are a business owner and operator whose goal is to provide rail passenger services.
As I said, I don't think the problem is "philosophies" or "lack of imiagination", I think it is that public transportation is an area where tax dollars need to be spent in order to get a reliable system, and to this point we just haven't spent the money (less for national rail transportation since 1971 than we spent on highways last year).
DwightBranch I just don't believe the idea that the reason Amtrak is "failing" is something intrinsic about the way in which it was formed. Start over from scratch and you will have the same problem: no system of public transportation anywhere makes money when you consider the cost of building and maintaining the right of way, and so all will need government funds in order to succeed. The problem with Amtrak is that it just has never received enough to build and operate a true national system like the interstate highways have. A truly "private" system of rail transportation, one that pays for acquiring right of way and maintaining it, and the cost of operating trains, is impossible. Any "private"system will be the privatization of operating profits with the socialization of the real money, building and maintaining the right of way. The people selling privatization are selling magic beans, no thanks.
I just don't believe the idea that the reason Amtrak is "failing" is something intrinsic about the way in which it was formed. Start over from scratch and you will have the same problem: no system of public transportation anywhere makes money when you consider the cost of building and maintaining the right of way, and so all will need government funds in order to succeed. The problem with Amtrak is that it just has never received enough to build and operate a true national system like the interstate highways have. A truly "private" system of rail transportation, one that pays for acquiring right of way and maintaining it, and the cost of operating trains, is impossible. Any "private"system will be the privatization of operating profits with the socialization of the real money, building and maintaining the right of way. The people selling privatization are selling magic beans, no thanks.
Amtrak is not failing in its initial goal: to insulate private industry, freight railroads from having to run passenger trains. Some say the goal went so far as to believe that the passenger train would have been abolished, along with Amtrak, within a few years. Amtrak is failing to live up to the romantic American concept of passenger trains and transportation service. It was designed to run trains and not provide service, in fact.
So, if we were to start a new passenger operating railroad here, lets get rid of government rules, regulations, and oversight and set our sights on providing rail passenger service and services and not just run trains. We will contract with private freight railroads where and when necessary and own and operate our own tracks and trains where available. WE ARE TOTALLY PRIVATE, NOT A GOVERNMENT AGENCY, NOT RELYING ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT AND MONEY, CONGRESS IS NOT OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS NOR BANKERS. Therefore, we can't think and operate in the same terms and philosophies as Amtrak, but more like IBM, GM, or even GE and not like Democrat or Republican or Souttherner or Easterner or Westerner or Northerner. We are a business owner and operator whose goal is to provide rail passenger services.
A. McIntosh I wonder how much revenue the Federal Gov. gets from leases and royalties that oil companies pay to extract oil from offshore and from federal lands? Could some of these monies be applied to Amtrak?
I wonder how much revenue the Federal Gov. gets from leases and royalties that oil companies pay to
extract oil from offshore and from federal lands? Could some of these monies be applied to Amtrak?
At the risk of getting off topic, offshore oil leasing, rents, and royalties is a complex subject. A Department of Interior study explaining the dynamics of offshore revenues runs more than 70 pages. Having said that, from 1954 to 2004 it is estimated that the federal government realized $64 billion in bonuses, $3 billion in rentals, $89 billion in royalties, and $3 billion take-in kind in lieu of royalties. For that period the average take for the federal government is $3.18 billion per year. However, averages can be deceptive. My guess is the take has been greater since the 90s and 00s. Moreover, to get a better picture, one would need to know the take from 2004 through 2011.
Also, in 2011 the U.S. Department of the Interior realized $3.1 billion from onshore oil and natural gas activities. The budget for these items in 2013 is $3.0 billion.
Some of the monies are dedicated to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, and some of them go to the states. I don't know the transfers to the general fund, but any money going to the general fund can be used for general purposes.
dakotafred DwightBranch: Should Obama win a second term you can expect increased funding for Amtrak, including hopefully a guaranteed revenue source, perhaps derived from that part of fuel tax revenue paid by the railroads. As an Amtrak on-board rep pointed out to me once, the administrations that turned out to be hardest on Amtrak -- those on whose watch route miles were ruthlessly cut -- were Democratic, not Republican ... Carter's and Clinton's. So don't count on re-election of Obama to pull your chestnuts out of the fire. To me, the enemy of amenities such as Amtrak -- not to mention the heroic enterprises that used to characterize America, such as space exploration -- are the resources-gobbling entitlements whose best friend is DwightBranch's preferred party.
DwightBranch: Should Obama win a second term you can expect increased funding for Amtrak, including hopefully a guaranteed revenue source, perhaps derived from that part of fuel tax revenue paid by the railroads.
Should Obama win a second term you can expect increased funding for Amtrak, including hopefully a guaranteed revenue source, perhaps derived from that part of fuel tax revenue paid by the railroads.
As an Amtrak on-board rep pointed out to me once, the administrations that turned out to be hardest on Amtrak -- those on whose watch route miles were ruthlessly cut -- were Democratic, not Republican ... Carter's and Clinton's. So don't count on re-election of Obama to pull your chestnuts out of the fire.
To me, the enemy of amenities such as Amtrak -- not to mention the heroic enterprises that used to characterize America, such as space exploration -- are the resources-gobbling entitlements whose best friend is DwightBranch's preferred party.
I support neither party, though as Bill Maher once said, the Democrats are what the Republicans used to be in the 50s and 60s, and the Republicans have run into the ditch of crazy world. Obama is essentially a Rockefeller Republican in terms of his policies. Or as (I think) Paul Krugman said, this election is essentially between Mitt Romney and his father George Romney (also a Rockefeller Republican). At any rate, I think you will either see the poorly funded zombie continue under Romney or, finally, quite a bit more funding under Obama.
henry6 But my point is that if you want to privatize Amtrak, then you should forget what Amtrak is and start over. Amtrak is a government creation born to relieve big business private railroads of operating passenger trains. A non governement entity would not have either burdon and be able to think an operate in thousands of different ways and not have to pay attention to what Amtrak was, is, and isn't. One of the problems is that there is a whole generation out there who only know passenger trains as being Amtrak, Another is there is a whole generation who remember what a passenger train was before Amtrak. And still another that doesn't know what a passenger train is or should be!
But my point is that if you want to privatize Amtrak, then you should forget what Amtrak is and start over. Amtrak is a government creation born to relieve big business private railroads of operating passenger trains. A non governement entity would not have either burdon and be able to think an operate in thousands of different ways and not have to pay attention to what Amtrak was, is, and isn't. One of the problems is that there is a whole generation out there who only know passenger trains as being Amtrak, Another is there is a whole generation who remember what a passenger train was before Amtrak. And still another that doesn't know what a passenger train is or should be!
DwightBranch Should Obama win a second term you can expect increased funding for Amtrak, including hopefully a guaranteed revenue source, perhaps derived from that part of fuel tax revenue paid by the railroads.
Uhhhhh, no. That's my point exactly, henry6. In the USA Amtrak = passenger trains. Passenger trains = Amtrak. Anything else is pure conjecture.
There are actually two questions everyone sees as one: Question 1 is should we discuss saving Amtrak. Question 2 is should we discuss and save passenger trains. They really are two different questions and should be dealt with seperately.
NKP guy Is this what you guys really want? With "friends" such as Amtrak has here, I fear for passenger trains. And when there are no passenger trains (except commuters), how much will anyone care about trains at all?
Is this what you guys really want? With "friends" such as Amtrak has here, I fear for passenger trains. And when there are no passenger trains (except commuters), how much will anyone care about trains at all?
This board is the opposite of a place where the friends of passenger trains congregate; for whatever reason there is a far higher percentage of conservative/libertarian types here, far more than in the general population, and so fear not for the passenger train. Should Obama win a second term you can expect increased funding for Amtrak, including hopefully a guaranteed revenue source, perhaps derived from that part of fuel tax revenue paid by the railroads. And I doubt that Romney would be able to end it either. The fuel tax already is too low to pay for highway maintenance (because people are driving less as the overall price went up and taxes remained roughly the same) and will need to be raised anyway, and a portion of that can be earmarked for Amtrak. And that is the problem with Amtrak: insufficient funding and lack of a network (and the economies of scale that comes with it) discourages people form riding. And were they to quadruple funding on national rail passenger transportation it would still be a fraction of what we spend on highways (roughly $91 billion throughout the US). BTW I am with you, trying to kill the national network and keep the NEC, or give it to the states (who acted like it was a dead raccoon when offered it by Bush II, why would they sign on to hundreds of billions in repairs?) is a dead end, a feint meant to kill all national public rail transportation, which they object to for ideological reasons, not due to its practicality of efficiency.
oltmannd Lehigh Valley 2089: After looking at what Amtrak has gone through with the national government, would it really be a good idea to privitize the passenger railroad? It worked with Conrail, so why not Amtrak? It would take a lot off of the goverments shoulders, and allow Amtrak to not worry about funding. So, what do you think about this possibility? Do you think that it could really help the system, or just send it into turmoil? It didn't work with Conrail until they changed the game (Staggers Act). It won't work with Amtrak unless they change the game there, too. But the change would have to be really drastic. REALLY drastic. Amtrak loses nearly 50 cents on the dollar. Conrail was much closer to breaking even, even before Staggers. You could privatize in the sense that you bid out the operation in parts with the guy who needed the least subsidy winning. But that's not really privatizing....
Lehigh Valley 2089: After looking at what Amtrak has gone through with the national government, would it really be a good idea to privitize the passenger railroad? It worked with Conrail, so why not Amtrak? It would take a lot off of the goverments shoulders, and allow Amtrak to not worry about funding. So, what do you think about this possibility? Do you think that it could really help the system, or just send it into turmoil?
After looking at what Amtrak has gone through with the national government, would it really be a good idea to privitize the passenger railroad? It worked with Conrail, so why not Amtrak? It would take a lot off of the goverments shoulders, and allow Amtrak to not worry about funding.
So, what do you think about this possibility? Do you think that it could really help the system, or just send it into turmoil?
It didn't work with Conrail until they changed the game (Staggers Act). It won't work with Amtrak unless they change the game there, too. But the change would have to be really drastic. REALLY drastic. Amtrak loses nearly 50 cents on the dollar. Conrail was much closer to breaking even, even before Staggers.
You could privatize in the sense that you bid out the operation in parts with the guy who needed the least subsidy winning. But that's not really privatizing....
There might be a different set of rules for passenger railroads, but I still feel it might be possible for Amtrak to make it should it be privitized (though I'm not counting on it one bit).
The Lehigh Valley Railroad, the Route of the Black Diamond Express, John Wilkes and Maple Leaf.
-Jake, modeling the Barclay, Towanda & Susquehanna.
Amtrak is 100% politcal. The arguements are whether it should take a dump or get out of the potty room, and there never is any agreement. Even when other alternatives are put forth, the arguement falls back to the politics of Amtrak. But no one really seems to have any clear vision of what should be done, too much of what shoulda been done, though.
NKP,
I got your point perfectly and my suggestion is not satire. The NEC is the one bit of ATK that comes close to making sense, but even it it far from generating enough cash to pay for capital projects, that is normal "maintenance of the business" capital, lt alone improvements.
Give it to the states involved and let them figure it out. The NEC is a regional asset, not a national one. Let the people who know the area, and should care what happens there, deal with it.
The rest of ATK is a joke, a black hole, a tar baby, a money pit, an employment project, welfare for the rich, and a drain on the freight railroad network. Kill the Beast!
Mac
Mac, you either write the drollest satire or I didn't make my point well.
My point: Don't shut Amtrak down. Give it MORE money and expand the system. Increase taxes on millionaires and me (I'm proudly part of the 99%) to pay for it.
People in Ohio don't give a hoot about the NEC, but if Amtrak had more frequent, more convenient service, we'd ride it. And support it more.
NKP
You are right of course. I say shut the thing down and give the NEC to a consortium of the states and let them figure out what to do with it. Ohio, Nebraska and Montana dont know, dont care.
Mac McCulloch
I'm going to keep saying this until they chloroform me: Amtrak will not survive if any pieces, especially long-distance trains, which this room full of "railfans" hates, are eliminated. There will be no political support. No Congressman whose state would become train-less would vote any more monies for a rump Amtrak. Period.
Amtrak is a political creature as much as anything else.
There will be no NEC without support from Congressmen from places like Ohio, Nebraska, Montana, etc. So anyone here who proposes a trimmed, privatized Amtrak is simply joining the chorus of those who would kill it. There will be no new Amtrak and no passenger trains other than commuter trains.
gabeusmc EMD#1: I say privatize the trains, train service employees and ticket agents. Let Amtrak stay in place as the owner of the Northeast Corridor tracks, keep up with the maintenance and provide dispatching. Another suggestion would be to do away with long distance service and instead offer corridor service where private passenger train companies negotiate trackage rights with private freight train companies. Who knows...maybe a private freight train company might offer passenger service if federal, state and local governments would be willing to pay for trainsets, stations and upgrades to mainlines to high speed standards. By doing away with the non-competitive bureaucratic government run Amtrak, service would greatly improve and the US could catch up with the rest of the world in passenger train service. Ditto. It makes sense.
EMD#1: I say privatize the trains, train service employees and ticket agents. Let Amtrak stay in place as the owner of the Northeast Corridor tracks, keep up with the maintenance and provide dispatching. Another suggestion would be to do away with long distance service and instead offer corridor service where private passenger train companies negotiate trackage rights with private freight train companies. Who knows...maybe a private freight train company might offer passenger service if federal, state and local governments would be willing to pay for trainsets, stations and upgrades to mainlines to high speed standards. By doing away with the non-competitive bureaucratic government run Amtrak, service would greatly improve and the US could catch up with the rest of the world in passenger train service.
I say privatize the trains, train service employees and ticket agents. Let Amtrak stay in place as the owner of the Northeast Corridor tracks, keep up with the maintenance and provide dispatching.
Another suggestion would be to do away with long distance service and instead offer corridor service where private passenger train companies negotiate trackage rights with private freight train companies. Who knows...maybe a private freight train company might offer passenger service if federal, state and local governments would be willing to pay for trainsets, stations and upgrades to mainlines to high speed standards.
By doing away with the non-competitive bureaucratic government run Amtrak, service would greatly improve and the US could catch up with the rest of the world in passenger train service.
Ditto. It makes sense.
That is one of the many reasons I think that Amtrak should be privitized. Amtrak would be able to just focus on the high speed corridors rather than worry about government funding and severe budget cuts that could severly damage the system.
blue streak 1 Sam1: . How many hours as pilot in command have you logged? And on what type of aircraft under what conditions? 4 times as many as your total time and over 3000 just on the shuttle. Aircraft L-188, DC-9, B727, A-300, L-1011 , CV-440 Winter and Summer all over NE. Swwitchig to Dulles and JFK then makes Amtrak less time than flying. A B737 with 2 CFM-56s consumes 3200 # / hr / engine. A B-747 with CF6-80C2s consumes 8000# / hr / engine . This is crusing at 17,000 ft. A real fuel hog.
Sam1: . How many hours as pilot in command have you logged? And on what type of aircraft under what conditions?
.
How many hours as pilot in command have you logged? And on what type of aircraft under what conditions?
4 times as many as your total time and over 3000 just on the shuttle. Aircraft L-188, DC-9, B727, A-300, L-1011 , CV-440 Winter and Summer all over NE.
Swwitchig to Dulles and JFK then makes Amtrak less time than flying. A B737 with 2 CFM-56s consumes 3200 # / hr / engine. A B-747 with CF6-80C2s consumes 8000# / hr / engine . This is crusing at 17,000 ft. A real fuel hog.
Please show me where a 747 spends anytime crusing at 17,000 ft.....
From my notes for a 747-200:
For the 1st hour of cruise plan around 28,000lbs of fuel per hour, or 7000 lbs per engine.
As the plane gets lighter, at the end of cruise, fuel burn will reduce to around 23,000lbs per hour, or around 5800 lbs per engine.
Both of these figures are for cruise above 32,000, ft.
These are numbers for an aircraft that is over 20 years old, the 747-400, which is also no longer built gets better fuel burn numbers. The 747-8 which is Boeings newest 747 model and just now coming into service, should get even better numbers.
Disclaimer....I have my airline dispatcher license from Lewis University and was certified by the FAA, and worked as a dispatcher for a airline until the early 2000's.
An "expensive model collector"
sam1: Those numbers will be interesting. ,However, as you point out, the NEC is still the only component of ATK that shows net positives (even better for Acela) while the LD routes show enormous losses while serving far fewer passengers. The numbers clearly show what should be done; the tough part will be setting up a system that is rational.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
MidlandMike YoHo1975: Sam1: The FY10 average net operating results per passenger, which are a function of revenues minus costs before depreciation, interest, and other expenses, were $4.96 for the NEC, due in large part to the positive operating results for the Acela offset by losses for the regional and the special trains, compared to a $16.67 loss for the corridor trains and $128.61 loss for the long distance trains. The inference that I have gotten from some of the posts in this thread is that since the long distance train's cost are 6 times more per passenger than corridor trains, then they are that much more wasteful of taxpayers dollars. However, there does not seem to be any passenger-miles component in the figures. Since many LD routes are 6 times longer than corridor routes, if you look at costs per passenger mile they may possibly be comparable. Do we know the average passenger trip length on the different types of service?
YoHo1975: Sam1: The FY10 average net operating results per passenger, which are a function of revenues minus costs before depreciation, interest, and other expenses, were $4.96 for the NEC, due in large part to the positive operating results for the Acela offset by losses for the regional and the special trains, compared to a $16.67 loss for the corridor trains and $128.61 loss for the long distance trains.
Sam1: The FY10 average net operating results per passenger, which are a function of revenues minus costs before depreciation, interest, and other expenses, were $4.96 for the NEC, due in large part to the positive operating results for the Acela offset by losses for the regional and the special trains, compared to a $16.67 loss for the corridor trains and $128.61 loss for the long distance trains.
The FY10 average net operating results per passenger, which are a function of revenues minus costs before depreciation, interest, and other expenses, were $4.96 for the NEC, due in large part to the positive operating results for the Acela offset by losses for the regional and the special trains, compared to a $16.67 loss for the corridor trains and $128.61 loss for the long distance trains.
The inference that I have gotten from some of the posts in this thread is that since the long distance train's cost are 6 times more per passenger than corridor trains, then they are that much more wasteful of taxpayers dollars. However, there does not seem to be any passenger-miles component in the figures. Since many LD routes are 6 times longer than corridor routes, if you look at costs per passenger mile they may possibly be comparable. Do we know the average passenger trip length on the different types of service?
I am working up the numbers, but it will take me a couple of days. I have other things on my to do list. On a per mile basis I believe the long distance trains numbers look better. Unfortunately, Amtrak does not show how much depreciation, interest, and other expenses are assigned to the long distance trains, so I have to iterate it.
schlimm There was no personal attack intended. just pointing out what was said. As to your experiences, you have recited them over and over on threads on this forum. Since you say you are retired, you were in the utility industry with a Fortune 500 company for many (30? 40?) years, when you say you left professional flying for business, it would seem reasonable to conclude that you've been out of whatever professional flying you were doing for 35-45 years. I don't know what you were flying, as you don't tell us that in the same way as Bluestreak reveals his with clarity. The reason I even mentioned your background was clearly stated in my post. You are the one who mentioned your flight experience as a way of challenging his credentials inquisitorily: "How many hours as a pilot in command have you logged? And on what type of aircraft under what conditions?" And then when called on it, you play your victim card.
There was no personal attack intended. just pointing out what was said. As to your experiences, you have recited them over and over on threads on this forum. Since you say you are retired, you were in the utility industry with a Fortune 500 company for many (30? 40?) years, when you say you left professional flying for business, it would seem reasonable to conclude that you've been out of whatever professional flying you were doing for 35-45 years. I don't know what you were flying, as you don't tell us that in the same way as Bluestreak reveals his with clarity. The reason I even mentioned your background was clearly stated in my post. You are the one who mentioned your flight experience as a way of challenging his credentials inquisitorily: "How many hours as a pilot in command have you logged? And on what type of aircraft under what conditions?" And then when called on it, you play your victim card.
My reference to my aviation experience and licenses was posted, I believe, before Bluestreak listed his experience as a commercial airline pilot. It was shown only to establish the fact that I know a little bit about aviation, including the potential to expand airports and the air traffic control system. This was in response to the assertion that one of the justifications for Amtrak or intercity passenger rail is that the highways and airways in select areas of the country, i.e. NEC, etc., could not be expanded, or it would be costly to do so.
Every assumption that you have made about me has been essentially incorrect. I suggest that you stick to what I say about Trains and competing modes of transport and leave the personal stuff alone.
This is a bit off-topic, but I'd like to see how anybody could shoehorn a widebody into Midway, even with a reduced fuel load. I have seen 757's use Midway on a regular basis in the past (ATA and National), but about all I see now is 737's, A320's and MD80's at the large end plus some regional airliners.
Sam1 Take off and climb to altitude are a function of numerous variables. The thrust to weight ratio is a major factor. If a "heavy" (767, 777, etc.) is going oversea, i.e. LAX to Sydney, it needs a lot more runway because it is taking off with a maximum fuel load. On the other hand, if a heavy was being used between relatively close in cities, i.e. LAX to SFO or LGA to National, it could operate with a fraction of its normal fuel load, thereby reducing the amount of runway required to take-off and land, not to mention the load bearing capability of the runways.
Take off and climb to altitude are a function of numerous variables. The thrust to weight ratio is a major factor. If a "heavy" (767, 777, etc.) is going oversea, i.e. LAX to Sydney, it needs a lot more runway because it is taking off with a maximum fuel load. On the other hand, if a heavy was being used between relatively close in cities, i.e. LAX to SFO or LGA to National, it could operate with a fraction of its normal fuel load, thereby reducing the amount of runway required to take-off and land, not to mention the load bearing capability of the runways.
Decreasing the weight of the aircraft also reduces take-off and landing speeds, with the former leading to a further reduction in take-off roll.
One of the weaknesses of the passenger train advocacy group is an implied assumption that the technologies of competing modes of transport are locked and will not advance. As I have said repeatedly, I would not count on it.
I wouldn't be surprised to see electric short haul airliners developed in my lifetime. I would think the batteries would be in underwing pods that could be swapped out at the terminal, thus allowing off-peak charging.
- Erik
YoHo1975 Sam1: The FY10 average net operating results per passenger, which are a function of revenues minus costs before depreciation, interest, and other expenses, were $4.96 for the NEC, due in large part to the positive operating results for the Acela offset by losses for the regional and the special trains, compared to a $16.67 loss for the corridor trains and $128.61 loss for the long distance trains.
schlimm I'm sorry, but the idea that someone who had experience flying planes years ago and then some more flying private planes can speak with as much authority about the various requirements of commercial jets as a (former) pilot of them is, on the face of it, utterly ridiculous. But then sam1 seems to be our resident polymath: accountancy, economics, finance, government, rail transportation, pilot, et al.
I'm sorry, but the idea that someone who had experience flying planes years ago and then some more flying private planes can speak with as much authority about the various requirements of commercial jets as a (former) pilot of them is, on the face of it, utterly ridiculous. But then sam1 seems to be our resident polymath: accountancy, economics, finance, government, rail transportation, pilot, et al.
How do you know when I flew? How do you know what airplanes I flew? How do you know what environment I flew in? What do you know about my licenses? What do you know about the differences of flying a private airplane into the New York TCA and flying a DC-9 into the same environment? What do you know about my business experiences? What do you know about me other than what I say about passenger rail in these forums?
What do your comments have to do with my point that air technology is evolving and one of the elements rolling forward would be the potential to add capacity to the existing system by increasing the capacity of the airplanes?
Bluestreak has more time than I have. So what? I was simply trying to show that I am not unfamiliar with commercial aviation and have some feel for whether the current system can be expanded without a massive expansion of the facilities. By the way, although I will leave it to Bluestreak to respond, it sounds to me like he was with Eastern Airlines. If that is true, he has been out of the cockpit for a long time unless he or she transitioned to another carrier.
Why do you feel compelled to resort to personal attacks?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.