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.
You still haven't told me why the airports or air traffic system could not be modified to handle larger aircraft in the NEC or numerous other locations around the country.
If I remember correctly, LGA was originally built to handle DC3s. I don't recall that the runways extended out over the water. The extensions were add ons. And if they could be added to once they can be added to again.
It does not matter how much total fuel is consumed by an airplane, except that it needs enough fuel to get to its designation. The key figure is the cost per seat mile and the price necessary to recover that cost whilst adding a return for the shareholders.
If Qantas has been successful using 767s between Melbourne and Sydney, admittedly a greater distance than New York to Washington, why should I believe that future technologies may not make larger airplanes viable in the NEC? I don't. Advocates who believe that air and highway technology is static,and only rail technology will move forward are making a mistake. What is the best option going forward. I happen to believe that it is rail in relatively short, high density corridors, but I am not unmindful of alternatives, including the expansion of the existing rail and highway system.
I flew professionally for several years. It bored me to tears, and I went on to a far more intellectually challenging career in business. But it gave me some chilling moments and some great insights into the art of flying. I had my own plane or ownership in a plane for many years.
YoHo1975 Is it a tourist service? It provides essential connections to the national network and if you look at their boarding times, they aren't all tourist friendly, https://www.sncrr.com/trips.html The pricing is certainly on par with most regular corridor services. I'll grant you they serve a tourist AREA, but they aren't in and of themselves a "tourist line" though most of Iowa PAcific's holdings are.
Is it a tourist service? It provides essential connections to the national network and if you look at their boarding times, they aren't all tourist friendly,
https://www.sncrr.com/trips.html
The pricing is certainly on par with most regular corridor services.
I'll grant you they serve a tourist AREA, but they aren't in and of themselves a "tourist line" though most of Iowa PAcific's holdings are.
Yes, it is a tourist oriented service. Similar to Maine Eastern and probably the Grand Canyon RR.. All are good examples of types of service and application. If they make money for the company, then good. I doubt not too many non tourists would ride the trains. But I bet there are a hundred more places such a service is viable. For the sake of arguement, lets say we don't involve our company in commuter services. Let's find more applications like this and find regional and intercity opportunities, too.
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.
Sam1 . How many hours as pilot in command have you logged? And on what type of aircraft under what conditions?
YoHo1975 http://www.transportation.northwestern.edu/docs/2012/Iowa%20Pacific%20Sandhouse%20Gang%20presentation.pdf I can't provide anything more than that link, because that's all I know.
http://www.transportation.northwestern.edu/docs/2012/Iowa%20Pacific%20Sandhouse%20Gang%20presentation.pdf
I can't provide anything more than that link, because that's all I know.
Ok. it is a plan. It is dealing with a tourist line and special applications. Does it have a plan for intercity or regional services...not running trains but providing a passenger rail service that is both useful and useable and not just lip service by running trains. I've looked on the idea of riding the Saratoga train as proposed here...but I'd have to drive to the northern terminus, stay over night, ride the next day, stay a second night and drive home on the third day. So this is designed as a tourist service rather than a public point to point service. In fact it brings up a question we've not discussed yet: identify the kinds of trains and services and applications then define each one.
I am not putting the Iowa program down because it is a great start with a lot of the right ideas needed for such a company. It's is what happens next that will tell the tale of being on the right track(s) or not.
schlimm sam1: First let me say I'm not entirely clear about the concept, but I believe there might be some advantages to having passenger rail run by a private nonprofit corporation that could address your concerns. These come to mind: 1. The route structure for services could be more removed from politicians' desires for pork and local favors. 2. Any Federal monies sought would have to come from grant applications to the DOT, not direct appropriations from Congress. As those of us who have sought grants know, it is a rigorous process. The nonprofit could raise capital from bond sales, as well. 3. If Congress wished to have routes similar in concept to those of the current the air EAS program (serving remote and poorly populated communities with routes where there is no chance to cover the expense), they would have to contract with the nonprofit for these. Thus truly subsidized routes, for whatever social reason, would have a "bright line" of demarcation from the rest of the rail structure. Depending on merits of the need, Congress could appropriate the funding or decline to do so, but the decision couldn't be "hidden" in the Amtrak budget as it is now.
sam1: First let me say I'm not entirely clear about the concept, but I believe there might be some advantages to having passenger rail run by a private nonprofit corporation that could address your concerns. These come to mind:
1. The route structure for services could be more removed from politicians' desires for pork and local favors.
2. Any Federal monies sought would have to come from grant applications to the DOT, not direct appropriations from Congress. As those of us who have sought grants know, it is a rigorous process. The nonprofit could raise capital from bond sales, as well.
3. If Congress wished to have routes similar in concept to those of the current the air EAS program (serving remote and poorly populated communities with routes where there is no chance to cover the expense), they would have to contract with the nonprofit for these. Thus truly subsidized routes, for whatever social reason, would have a "bright line" of demarcation from the rest of the rail structure. Depending on merits of the need, Congress could appropriate the funding or decline to do so, but the decision couldn't be "hidden" in the Amtrak budget as it is now.
Yes, this is what I was saying before as well.
Sam1 0 0 1 625 3564 Retired 29 8 4181 14.0 Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE According to Amtrak’s September 2010 Monthly Operating Report, which includes the financial results for FY10, the average cost to carry a passenger in the NEC was $83.78 compared to $58.46 for the State Supported and Other Short Distance Corridor Trains (Corridor) and $263.67 for the long distance trains. These numbers represent average costs before depreciation, interest, and other expenses. FY11 segment numbers have not been provided. Amtrak is re-working its accounting system. Amongst other things it will be able to allocate depreciation, interest, and other expenses by segment and route. Why Amtrak ceased segment reporting before the new accounting system is ready for prime time is a mystery. 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. Assuming 80% of the depreciation, interest and other expenses is allocable to the NEC, with 10% being allocable equally to the other two segments, the average loss per passenger after considering these items was $48.67 for the NEC compared to $21.68 for the corridor trains and $144.15 for the long distance trains. Even if 100% of the depreciation, interest, and other expenses were charged to the NEC, which would be inappropriate accounting, the long distance trains would still lose considerably more money per passenger than the NEC and the corridor trains.
0 0 1 625 3564 Retired 29 8 4181 14.0 Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE
I wanted to back up to this earlier post by Sam1.
According to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_Air_Service
EAS sees an average subsidy, meaning an average loss per passenger excluding Alaska of $74 with a Max of $801 in 2009. So roughly half on average the loss of an intercity passenger train assuming your numbers are reasonable.
this might suggest on it's face that EAS is a more effective means of providing this service, but of course we don't have the same amount of insight into the accounting for EAS on this forum nor have we aggregated the costs of the program with any other subsidies being provided by state and local governments to the airports in question.
My point being that as I said before, Intercity passenger trains are not the only transportation service being directly subsidized for the good of the nation. They are a more expensive service apparently, but given the scope of Amtrak vs. EAS, that is perhaps not surprising.
So, Here's a theory, what if the Government created an Essential Rail Services fund? Something like this has been proposed.
Also, just to make one comment on the Iowa pacific position. Their system works where they own the tracks. It is unclear to me how such a system could work where the track owners themselves aren't providing the service.
The example in the Southwest chief thread is the LA Junta sub.
Certainly somebody could buy the La Junta sub. BNSF wants out, but would the communities online support a service? Albuquerque would and...?
It might make more sense to keep the Southwest chief on La Junta then and find a carrier that would provide a runt service on the transcon which would then link up with the Southwest chief, but who provides that? BNSF? how do the financials change? Would the government force the acceptance of a passenger operator on these tracks if BNSF doesn't want to provide the service?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Sam1 henry6: I sense some faulty reasoning here. A larger plane needs a larger runway or airport and therefor puts more financial burden on local governements who own and operate the airports. A larger plane is costlier to operate which might lead to fewer flights, less service or abandonment of service and giving over to much smaller aircraft. These problems could even happen between larger market airports, especially the fewer flights. Not always! Take a look at the engineering performance curves for a Boeing 737-700 compared to a B737-300. The 700 carries 189 passengers when it is configured for Southwest whilst the 300 carries fewer passengers. It is one of the reasons Southwest is phasing out the earlier models. 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. Now there is no need to operate heavies between any city pairs in the United States. But if we get to a point where airport capacity and airways capacity is an issue, the aircraft and the airways capacity can be expanded. Moreover, by the time we get there the aircraft industry is likely to come up with a variety of larger, more fuel efficient birds that will be able to meet the traffic demands. Whether larger planes are costlier to operate depends on numerous variables. It is not a given. The seat mile cost of a Boeing 737-800 is considerably less than the seat mile cost of a 737-300, which is a smaller airplane. 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.
henry6: I sense some faulty reasoning here. A larger plane needs a larger runway or airport and therefor puts more financial burden on local governements who own and operate the airports. A larger plane is costlier to operate which might lead to fewer flights, less service or abandonment of service and giving over to much smaller aircraft. These problems could even happen between larger market airports, especially the fewer flights.
I sense some faulty reasoning here. A larger plane needs a larger runway or airport and therefor puts more financial burden on local governements who own and operate the airports. A larger plane is costlier to operate which might lead to fewer flights, less service or abandonment of service and giving over to much smaller aircraft. These problems could even happen between larger market airports, especially the fewer flights.
Not always! Take a look at the engineering performance curves for a Boeing 737-700 compared to a B737-300. The 700 carries 189 passengers when it is configured for Southwest whilst the 300 carries fewer passengers. It is one of the reasons Southwest is phasing out the earlier models.
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.
Now there is no need to operate heavies between any city pairs in the United States. But if we get to a point where airport capacity and airways capacity is an issue, the aircraft and the airways capacity can be expanded. Moreover, by the time we get there the aircraft industry is likely to come up with a variety of larger, more fuel efficient birds that will be able to meet the traffic demands.
Whether larger planes are costlier to operate depends on numerous variables. It is not a given. The seat mile cost of a Boeing 737-800 is considerably less than the seat mile cost of a 737-300, which is a smaller airplane.
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.
OK. I live in the area of Binghamton, NY, about 200 miles from NY, Buffalo. Philadlephia and Pittsburg about 150 from Rochester and ALbany, and 50 from Syracuse, Elmira, Ithaca and Scranton. No airline is going to get a big bus on and off the ground several times between a coastal city and a Great Lakes city so the will fly NY or Phila to Buffalo and or Syracuse leaving the airports in between with lesser services...smaller planes, airport hops and round about routes. I am not talking what will happen. I am talking what has happened. Another round of bigger planes will be a repeat of the past.
A real planned intermodal and or bi modal transportation system would be quite different...and in all honesty it has been laughed off to oblivion several times in the past. A single western NY an single central NY airport or a combined western upstate airport for international service and full size planes with [high speed] rail loops or spokes from the airport(s) to and from the above named cities. But this is thinking without being paid by any lobby group, so it won't happen.
[quote user="Sir Madog"]
if you read between the lines, you´ll detect the pride those railroad men and women had in doing their duty. It was way more than just a job. Now transfer that to today´s Amtrak staff. How can you develop pride if you are constantly being told you contribute to the national debt?
quote]
Point taken. But that was yesterday,too, a day of one employer per lifetime,dedicated empoloyer and employee to the job at hand. Today's working world is different for both employer and employee. And Amtrak has nothing to do with our new company. We are outside of Amtrak, As if Amtrak doesn't or never existed. We are private enterprise; maybe a non profit, maybe a for profit. We are still in the talking stages.
How do you quantify EAS and state and local funding for Air services, the Highway fund and every other aspect of government transportation funding into that assertion that Intercity rail service isn't competing on a level playing field?
schlimm Sam1: henry6: Sam, you are assuming it will be a heavily subsidized non profit but it probably won't be. I did not say anything about non-profits as far as I can remember. In fact, one page earlier you said: "What is it about intercity passenger rail that suggests that it should be a ward of the state, i.e. a government agency or a heavily subsidized non-profit?"
Sam1: henry6: Sam, you are assuming it will be a heavily subsidized non profit but it probably won't be. I did not say anything about non-profits as far as I can remember.
henry6: Sam, you are assuming it will be a heavily subsidized non profit but it probably won't be.
Sam, you are assuming it will be a heavily subsidized non profit but it probably won't be.
I did not say anything about non-profits as far as I can remember.
In fact, one page earlier you said: "What is it about intercity passenger rail that suggests that it should be a ward of the state, i.e. a government agency or a heavily subsidized non-profit?"
Good catch! I'll revise the question. What is it about intercity passenger rail that suggests it should be a ward of the state or not be required to compete on a level playing field with alternate modes of at least commercial transport?
henry6 YoHo1975: Well, if that's the only Narrow topic of this thread, then wouldn't it be more profitable to start with Iowa Pacific's position and expand from that since they are proposing exactly that? I mean, I'm not trying to say we can't come up with our own theories, just that that is an existing, real and operating passenger rail organization to base this discussion on. If this is what you have in mind as a model for a rail passenger service operator, tell us more about it and how it is set up and works. We are narrow only by what we know and so that's what we put in...this is the first we've heard of Iowa Pacific' but we don't know what it is. It is up to you to tell us and explain it to us. Don't accuse us of something when we are ignorant of its existance. It might be just the model we should be looking at or it might be something based on the past and needs some changes...don't know until we know. .
YoHo1975: Well, if that's the only Narrow topic of this thread, then wouldn't it be more profitable to start with Iowa Pacific's position and expand from that since they are proposing exactly that? I mean, I'm not trying to say we can't come up with our own theories, just that that is an existing, real and operating passenger rail organization to base this discussion on.
Well, if that's the only Narrow topic of this thread, then wouldn't it be more profitable to start with Iowa Pacific's position and expand from that since they are proposing exactly that?
I mean, I'm not trying to say we can't come up with our own theories, just that that is an existing, real and operating passenger rail organization to base this discussion on.
If this is what you have in mind as a model for a rail passenger service operator, tell us more about it and how it is set up and works. We are narrow only by what we know and so that's what we put in...this is the first we've heard of Iowa Pacific' but we don't know what it is. It is up to you to tell us and explain it to us. Don't accuse us of something when we are ignorant of its existance. It might be just the model we should be looking at or it might be something based on the past and needs some changes...don't know until we know.
I posted the link on page 8 of this thread. It apparently was missed. It is also in the La Junta Sub thread in the general forum. I'll post the link to the power point again.
henry6 I sense some faulty reasoning here. A larger plane needs a larger runway or airport and therefor puts more financial burden on local governements who own and operate the airports. A larger plane is costlier to operate which might lead to fewer flights, less service or abandonment of service and giving over to much smaller aircraft. These problems could even happen between larger market airports, especially the fewer flights.
henry6 Sir Madog: I have been following this thread with great interest and a lot of disbelief in what I had to read here. I won´t comment on individual contributions, instead I ´d like to suggest to watch this little video and understand the message in there. Wheels of Steel I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, Sir Madog. This video is about the PRR which hasn't been around for almost 50 years. We are not working on what has transpired in the past but on a new thing based on 21st Century philosophies, procedures. and needs, redifining rail passenger services and trains from one railroad private carrier like the PRR to all railroads, all markets, all needs. We've gotta throw out everything we used to do and figure out what we've got to do to make it germain to today's needs and politics. I don't know what you mean by reading in disbelief here because it is all speculative working from the ground up on a new company or plan to do a job nobody seems to be able to do or want to do at present. Forget the past, look to the future by thinking anew today.
Sir Madog: I have been following this thread with great interest and a lot of disbelief in what I had to read here. I won´t comment on individual contributions, instead I ´d like to suggest to watch this little video and understand the message in there. Wheels of Steel
I have been following this thread with great interest and a lot of disbelief in what I had to read here. I won´t comment on individual contributions, instead I ´d like to suggest to watch this little video and understand the message in there.
Wheels of Steel
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, Sir Madog. This video is about the PRR which hasn't been around for almost 50 years. We are not working on what has transpired in the past but on a new thing based on 21st Century philosophies, procedures. and needs, redifining rail passenger services and trains from one railroad private carrier like the PRR to all railroads, all markets, all needs. We've gotta throw out everything we used to do and figure out what we've got to do to make it germain to today's needs and politics. I don't know what you mean by reading in disbelief here because it is all speculative working from the ground up on a new company or plan to do a job nobody seems to be able to do or want to do at present. Forget the past, look to the future by thinking anew today.
henry6,
Privatization may or may not be the answer. It is a question of what kind of rail service the nation needs now and in the future. When that question is answered, than you can start to think about how to finance it. IMHO, you need people with a vision to give the answer, not just a bunch of controllers (of which I am one by profession) who look at short term returns.
YoHo1975 Well, if that's the only Narrow topic of this thread, then wouldn't it be more profitable to start with Iowa Pacific's position and expand from that since they are proposing exactly that? I mean, I'm not trying to say we can't come up with our own theories, just that that is an existing, real and operating passenger rail organization to base this discussion on.
blue streak 1 Sam1: Speaking of airports, many people assume that the only way to increase air capacity is to build more airports. Not necessarily! One can increase the size of the airplanes. For example, there is no reason why a Boeing 747-400 could not be used on the shuttle between New York and Washington SAM1: NOT SO. 1. A 747-400 cannot operate at LGA because it is too heavy for the runway portions that are on the bridges over the bay both RW 22 & RW 13 . 2. A 747-400 cannot operate at DCA due to runway loading conditions. Heaviest plane allowed is B-767 3. use of a B747-400 would require additional separsation for take off and landing of twice the distance of a B737 so no passenger capacity is gained. 4. Try talking the Secret Service into allowing a B747 flying along the river at DCA. . It would greatly increase the lift capability without requiring an increase in airport and air traffic capability, other than to increase the gate capacity at the New York and Washington airports and separations during bad weather. This is exactly what the Australians did between Sydney and Melbourne. Qantas uses Boeing 767s and 747s on this run, although the 747s are run throughs. Again operations are limited at both airports but not at the above airports.. . EDIT: One additionaL problem is airspace. Last I knew airplanes between DCA and LGA are limited to 16,000 and 17,000 ft. B747 fuel useage per seat is much higher at those altitudes than a B737. Why do you think airlines do not like to fly at low altitudes?
Sam1: Speaking of airports, many people assume that the only way to increase air capacity is to build more airports. Not necessarily! One can increase the size of the airplanes. For example, there is no reason why a Boeing 747-400 could not be used on the shuttle between New York and Washington SAM1: NOT SO. 1. A 747-400 cannot operate at LGA because it is too heavy for the runway portions that are on the bridges over the bay both RW 22 & RW 13 . 2. A 747-400 cannot operate at DCA due to runway loading conditions. Heaviest plane allowed is B-767 3. use of a B747-400 would require additional separsation for take off and landing of twice the distance of a B737 so no passenger capacity is gained. 4. Try talking the Secret Service into allowing a B747 flying along the river at DCA. . It would greatly increase the lift capability without requiring an increase in airport and air traffic capability, other than to increase the gate capacity at the New York and Washington airports and separations during bad weather. This is exactly what the Australians did between Sydney and Melbourne. Qantas uses Boeing 767s and 747s on this run, although the 747s are run throughs. Again operations are limited at both airports but not at the above airports.. .
Speaking of airports, many people assume that the only way to increase air capacity is to build more airports. Not necessarily! One can increase the size of the airplanes. For example, there is no reason why a Boeing 747-400 could not be used on the shuttle between New York and Washington SAM1: NOT SO. 1. A 747-400 cannot operate at LGA because it is too heavy for the runway portions that are on the bridges over the bay both RW 22 & RW 13 . 2. A 747-400 cannot operate at DCA due to runway loading conditions. Heaviest plane allowed is B-767 3. use of a B747-400 would require additional separsation for take off and landing of twice the distance of a B737 so no passenger capacity is gained. 4. Try talking the Secret Service into allowing a B747 flying along the river at DCA. . It would greatly increase the lift capability without requiring an increase in airport and air traffic capability, other than to increase the gate capacity at the New York and Washington airports and separations during bad weather. This is exactly what the Australians did between Sydney and Melbourne. Qantas uses Boeing 767s and 747s on this run, although the 747s are run throughs. Again operations are limited at both airports but not at the above airports..
Speaking of airports, many people assume that the only way to increase air capacity is to build more airports. Not necessarily! One can increase the size of the airplanes. For example, there is no reason why a Boeing 747-400 could not be used on the shuttle between New York and Washington
SAM1: NOT SO.
1. A 747-400 cannot operate at LGA because it is too heavy for the runway portions that are on the bridges over the bay both RW 22 & RW 13 .
2. A 747-400 cannot operate at DCA due to runway loading conditions. Heaviest plane allowed is B-767
3. use of a B747-400 would require additional separsation for take off and landing of twice the distance of a B737 so no passenger capacity is gained.
4. Try talking the Secret Service into allowing a B747 flying along the river at DCA.
. It would greatly increase the lift capability without requiring an increase in airport and air traffic capability, other than to increase the gate capacity at the New York and Washington airports and separations during bad weather. This is exactly what the Australians did between Sydney and Melbourne. Qantas uses Boeing 767s and 747s on this run, although the 747s are run throughs.
Again operations are limited at both airports but not at the above airports..
EDIT: One additionaL problem is airspace. Last I knew airplanes between DCA and LGA are limited to 16,000 and 17,000 ft. B747 fuel useage per seat is much higher at those altitudes than a B737. Why do you think airlines do not like to fly at low altitudes?
This 4,000 plus hour pilot who holds every license (ground and air) the FAA issues knows that everyone of the points you raise could be addressed and resolved. If nothing else the shuttle could be switched from LGA to Kennedy and Dulles or other area airports or a combination thereof. The key question is whether it would be cost effective to do so or whether investment in better ground technology would be the better investment.
Melbourne had the same load problems with the B747. The airport managers strengthened the runways. The cost of doing so, amortized over the expected life of the runways, was minimal.
Sam1 henry6: Sam, you are assuming it will be a heavily subsidized non profit but it probably won't be. I did not say anything about non-profits as far as I can remember.
Sir Madog I have been following this thread with great interest and a lot of disbelief in what I had to read here. I won´t comment on individual contributions, instead I ´d like to suggest to watch this little video and understand the message in there. Wheels of Steel
We are not talking replacing Amtrak. We are talking setting up a company, be it for profit or not for profit, to provide rail passenger service either by contract or by outright ownership of equipment and service. We are talking instead of Amtrak...Amtrak has nothing to do with this company in any way whatsoever. That does not mean it wouldn't contract with Amtrak if Amtrak were to be around and/or need its service. This company is focused on providing railpassenger service and not just run trains. It was suggested that it might be not for profit. Doesn't matter when it comes to contracting with railroads or governments to do the job; it might or might not own the equipment or rails for that matter.
schlimm If a nonprofit hospital runs operates at a loss, they will need to cut costs or increase revenue, same as any for-profit venture. They cannot look to the government to cover a shortfall the way a quasi-government corporation like ATK routinely does. Big difference among several. They do not pay federal or state income tax, and usually (but not always) are exempt from property and sales taxes. They also generally reinvest any surplus into services and facilities and equipment, rather than paying it out to investors. They can issue bonds to raise capital, and these bonds may offer investors tax-exempt interest, which results in lower interest rates, thus saving the nonprofit interest expense.
If a nonprofit hospital runs operates at a loss, they will need to cut costs or increase revenue, same as any for-profit venture. They cannot look to the government to cover a shortfall the way a quasi-government corporation like ATK routinely does. Big difference among several. They do not pay federal or state income tax, and usually (but not always) are exempt from property and sales taxes. They also generally reinvest any surplus into services and facilities and equipment, rather than paying it out to investors. They can issue bonds to raise capital, and these bonds may offer investors tax-exempt interest, which results in lower interest rates, thus saving the nonprofit interest expense.
Even given that they wouldn't go to the government to cover the shortfall, they could receive "grants" from the government to support certain "programs." Many not-profits and for-profits do this, not just quasi-independent government agencies.
I'd imagine in these scenario the federal government might provide grants for specific routes. (presumably the NewPass company would specify how much a route would cost and that would hopefully define the grant.
Also, the notion that we could just switch over to "Heavys" for all our air transportation needs is ridiculous. Though I'm sure the contractors that get the bid to expand all the runnways in the country would love for more 777s, 747s and A380s and there are a bunch of Oil executives that are wetting their pants in anticipation of the added fuel costs.
Sam1 every community in the United States with a population of more than 25,00, which is admittedly an arbitrary number, should have long distance passenger trains.
every community in the United States with a population of more than 25,00, which is admittedly an arbitrary number, should have long distance passenger trains.
I agree, every community of 25,000 or more should have access to the national transportation network through whatever is the most effective means for that area. In the case of Towns not located near a viable route. That may mean EAS.
henry6 Subsidy and contract service are two different things. With a contract service one agrees to provide a service at an agreed to or contracted price. Period. A subsidy is where one who is providing the service receives additional funding to cover losses for instance. A contracted service should pay the cost of the service plus a small amount more; once contracted, that's the price; if contract price isn't enough then no contract, no service. This non profit is not going to provide a service then ask for subsidies. It will either provide the service and recoup from the fare box or contract to provide the service for an agency or railroad for that matter.
Subsidy and contract service are two different things. With a contract service one agrees to provide a service at an agreed to or contracted price. Period. A subsidy is where one who is providing the service receives additional funding to cover losses for instance. A contracted service should pay the cost of the service plus a small amount more; once contracted, that's the price; if contract price isn't enough then no contract, no service. This non profit is not going to provide a service then ask for subsidies. It will either provide the service and recoup from the fare box or contract to provide the service for an agency or railroad for that matter.
First let me reiterate that I am all for exploring a non-profit model for Amtrak to see if it will help its viability. However it seems we're stuck on the semantics of money. In either case above we are talking about support from the gov't for costs not covered by the farebox or incidentals (has ATK started charging for baggage yet?) The gov't contracts out many billions $s for goods and services, and still has oversight (ever heard of cost overruns). My questions are how will the non-profit manage that oversight better than ATK, and what form of institutional governance will the non-profit itself have.
Sam1 Speaking of airports, many people assume that the only way to increase air capacity is to build more airports. Not necessarily! One can increase the size of the airplanes. For example, there is no reason why a Boeing 747-400 could not be used on the shuttle between New York and Washington SAM1: NOT SO. 1. A 747-400 cannot operate at LGA because it is too heavy for the runway portions that are on the bridges over the bay both RW 22 & RW 13 . 2. A 747-400 cannot operate at DCA due to runway loading conditions. Heaviest plane allowed is B-767 3. use of a B747-400 would require additional separsation for take off and landing of twice the distance of a B737 so no passenger capacity is gained. 4. Try talking the Secret Service into allowing a B747 flying along the river at DCA. . It would greatly increase the lift capability without requiring an increase in airport and air traffic capability, other than to increase the gate capacity at the New York and Washington airports and separations during bad weather. This is exactly what the Australians did between Sydney and Melbourne. Qantas uses Boeing 767s and 747s on this run, although the 747s are run throughs. Again operations are limited at both airports but not at the above airports.. .
Sam1 Speaking of airports, many people assume that the only way to increase air capacity is to build more airports. Not necessarily! One can increase the size of the airplanes. For example, there is no reason why a Boeing 747-400 could not be used on the shuttle between New York and Washington. It would greatly increase the lift capability without requiring an increase in airport and air traffic capability, other than to increase the gate capacity at the New York and Washington airports and separations during bad weather. This is exactly what the Australians did between Sydney and Melbourne. Qantas uses Boeing 767s and 747s on this run, although the 747s are run throughs. .
Speaking of airports, many people assume that the only way to increase air capacity is to build more airports. Not necessarily! One can increase the size of the airplanes. For example, there is no reason why a Boeing 747-400 could not be used on the shuttle between New York and Washington. It would greatly increase the lift capability without requiring an increase in airport and air traffic capability, other than to increase the gate capacity at the New York and Washington airports and separations during bad weather. This is exactly what the Australians did between Sydney and Melbourne. Qantas uses Boeing 767s and 747s on this run, although the 747s are run throughs.
daveklepper The problems Amtrak corrdor intercity trains solve are hihgway and airport congestion and the inability to expand highways and airports without very disruptive landtaking that would result in continiued expense much greater than the rail subsidies. The problems the long distance trains solve are access to most of the USA for hadicapped, wounded , and elderly, tieing th ecorridors into a national system, standby and emergency operation for disasters and airline shutdowns, providing for internal and overseas tourists.
The problems Amtrak corrdor intercity trains solve are hihgway and airport congestion and the inability to expand highways and airports without very disruptive landtaking that would result in continiued expense much greater than the rail subsidies.
The problems the long distance trains solve are access to most of the USA for hadicapped, wounded , and elderly, tieing th ecorridors into a national system, standby and emergency operation for disasters and airline shutdowns, providing for internal and overseas tourists.
There are a few areas in the United States where the cost of expanding the airways and highways is cost prohibitive. This is where passenger trains make sense.
Speaking of airports, many people assume that the only way to increase air capacity is to build more airports. Not necessarily! One can increase the size of the airplanes. For example, there is no reason why a Boeing 747-400 could not be used on the shuttle between New York and Washington. It would greatly increase the lift capability without requiring an increase in airport and air traffic capability, other than to increase the gate capacity in New York and Washington as well as ops separations during bad weather. This is what the Australians did between Sydney and Melbourne. Qantas uses Boeing 767s and 747s on this run, although the 747s are run throughs.
If the justification for the long distances trains is as you state, then every community in the United States with a population of more than 25,00, which is admittedly an arbitrary number, should have long distance passenger trains. Or having equipment standing by in case of an emergency or shutdown of the air system. Of course, given the cost constraints, this is out of the question.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.