CMStPnP I think the solution of the Southwest Chief is pretty easy one. Feds buy the track via Raton and pay to upgrade it. Purchase rights or time on the track from Raton into Denver Union Station. Then consolidate the Empire Builder, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief into a single train Chicago to Denver, run a seperate day train Chicago to Denver over the same route, so basically two trains each day over the route. Lease the remaining capacity for freight carriers to use for expansion or detour use. Abandon the Sunset Limited completely. Split the Empire Builder at Salt Lake City to run via Pocatello, ID to Portland and Seattle. Split the Chief at Denver to run back South to Raton and onto LA. Also send the California Zephyr on it's regular route West of Denver. Heck you could even run three trains between Chicago, Kansas City and Denver if one was not enough to keep the train length short enough. Seems to me this partial consolidation of 4 trains into one between Chicago, Kansas City and Denver would largely save the subsidy of 4 seperate trains and pay for the trackwork and up keep on the Raton Pass line without additional taxpayer funds. I would also cancel the Cardinal and add a second daily frequency to the Capitol Limited. Consolidate all the Western Commissaries to Denver and close the rest, West of Chicago.
I think the solution of the Southwest Chief is pretty easy one. Feds buy the track via Raton and pay to upgrade it. Purchase rights or time on the track from Raton into Denver Union Station. Then consolidate the Empire Builder, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief into a single train Chicago to Denver, run a seperate day train Chicago to Denver over the same route, so basically two trains each day over the route. Lease the remaining capacity for freight carriers to use for expansion or detour use. Abandon the Sunset Limited completely.
Split the Empire Builder at Salt Lake City to run via Pocatello, ID to Portland and Seattle.
Split the Chief at Denver to run back South to Raton and onto LA. Also send the California Zephyr on it's regular route West of Denver.
Heck you could even run three trains between Chicago, Kansas City and Denver if one was not enough to keep the train length short enough.
Seems to me this partial consolidation of 4 trains into one between Chicago, Kansas City and Denver would largely save the subsidy of 4 seperate trains and pay for the trackwork and up keep on the Raton Pass line without additional taxpayer funds.
I would also cancel the Cardinal and add a second daily frequency to the Capitol Limited.
Consolidate all the Western Commissaries to Denver and close the rest, West of Chicago.
i don't think anyone has noted that your proposal requires the train to asend Monument Hill, the LA train twice in each direction. The numerous southbound coal trains run at about 20 MPH on their asent, wouldn't do good things for a passenger schedule.
passengerfan Having been a frequent rider of both the Desert Wind and Pioneer I find fault that there were not any intermediate riders on the Pioneer. Remember this was the only train that served Southern Idaho points and many passengers boared rode a couple of stops and disembarked. Since the Desert Wind was a more nocturnal trip this was not the case. Traffic on this train seemed to be only from Los Angeles to Las Vegas or Salt Lake City or Denver or beyond. These two discontinuances did more to discourage Western travel expansion than anything else. If they had been such losers why did they not let the UP discontinue them.
Having been a frequent rider of both the Desert Wind and Pioneer I find fault that there were not any intermediate riders on the Pioneer. Remember this was the only train that served Southern Idaho points and many passengers boared rode a couple of stops and disembarked. Since the Desert Wind was a more nocturnal trip this was not the case. Traffic on this train seemed to be only from Los Angeles to Las Vegas or Salt Lake City or Denver or beyond. These two discontinuances did more to discourage Western travel expansion than anything else. If they had been such losers why did they not let the UP discontinue them.
I rode the Desert Wind once from Ogden to Los Angeles. It was really slow, it should have flew across the Nevada Desert before Las Vegas but a good portion of the trip felt like 40-45 mph at times. Took forever to get to Vegas.
dakotafredSam1 challenges others freely, but tends to see responses in kind as "personal attacks." "You don't know anything about me," is a frequent complaint. Well, we really do, thanks to her tireless autobiographical habit. We know
And it's not like we want to know or that it matters to anyone on a random opinion board about Passenger trains on the Internet. It's an opinion board it's not like a forum for the state bar or anything.
I am still chuckling about the whole not to bother with your Senator deal....he-he-he-he.
Deggesty schlimm Since I was the poster who introduced the contentious post about another poster's jargon and murky syntax, let me just say a few more words. 1. Jargon. As a retired professor, I am well aware of jargon-riddled papers (and had to fight against using jargon recklessly myself). The rule of thumb for best practice is to avoid when possible, but limit it to journals in the specific sub-field of the academic discipline and do not use in broader outlets, such as a public forum. If such a term must be used, then define it. 2. Syntax. Bizarre constructions, clumsy word order, unclear antecedents, etc. are some examples of either laziness, lack of training in composition, a foreign-born author only superficially aware of good written English or possibly someone not very familiar with the subject (as Sam1 suggested). And the point is to write in a manner that communicates what you are trying to say clearly and with ease. To point out a poster's shortcomings in writing style does not make one some sort of grammar ogre. Schlimm, you make good points. As to jargon, we are all aware that there are words and terms that are used in the operation of railroads that have either no meaning or other meanings to people who are unfamiliar with the industry. From time to time, people who are new to the forums will ask what the meaning of such is, and we are ready and willing to explain them. When it comes to finance, I am satisfied with taking care of my personal concerns (even to filing my income tax forms without professional help), but there is much that I have great difficulty comprehending. As to writing, as you say, it is necessary to communicate clearly--whether it is in asking a question, answering a question, or simply stating information. Sentences should make sense. Spelling--some people have great difficulty in spelling, and I put up with most of the failing. But, there are three common items that I really wonder about: the use of "loose," and not "lose" for accidentally failing to keep something; the use of "it's" as the possessive of "it" (I was taught that "it's" is the contraction of "it is," and the possessive of "it" is "its"), and the placing of an apostrophe before the "s" when forming the plural of a word. Have these changes been made official in the last sixty years?
schlimm Since I was the poster who introduced the contentious post about another poster's jargon and murky syntax, let me just say a few more words. 1. Jargon. As a retired professor, I am well aware of jargon-riddled papers (and had to fight against using jargon recklessly myself). The rule of thumb for best practice is to avoid when possible, but limit it to journals in the specific sub-field of the academic discipline and do not use in broader outlets, such as a public forum. If such a term must be used, then define it. 2. Syntax. Bizarre constructions, clumsy word order, unclear antecedents, etc. are some examples of either laziness, lack of training in composition, a foreign-born author only superficially aware of good written English or possibly someone not very familiar with the subject (as Sam1 suggested). And the point is to write in a manner that communicates what you are trying to say clearly and with ease. To point out a poster's shortcomings in writing style does not make one some sort of grammar ogre.
Since I was the poster who introduced the contentious post about another poster's jargon and murky syntax, let me just say a few more words. 1. Jargon. As a retired professor, I am well aware of jargon-riddled papers (and had to fight against using jargon recklessly myself). The rule of thumb for best practice is to avoid when possible, but limit it to journals in the specific sub-field of the academic discipline and do not use in broader outlets, such as a public forum. If such a term must be used, then define it. 2. Syntax. Bizarre constructions, clumsy word order, unclear antecedents, etc. are some examples of either laziness, lack of training in composition, a foreign-born author only superficially aware of good written English or possibly someone not very familiar with the subject (as Sam1 suggested). And the point is to write in a manner that communicates what you are trying to say clearly and with ease. To point out a poster's shortcomings in writing style does not make one some sort of grammar ogre.
Schlimm, you make good points.
As to jargon, we are all aware that there are words and terms that are used in the operation of railroads that have either no meaning or other meanings to people who are unfamiliar with the industry. From time to time, people who are new to the forums will ask what the meaning of such is, and we are ready and willing to explain them.
When it comes to finance, I am satisfied with taking care of my personal concerns (even to filing my income tax forms without professional help), but there is much that I have great difficulty comprehending.
As to writing, as you say, it is necessary to communicate clearly--whether it is in asking a question, answering a question, or simply stating information. Sentences should make sense.
Spelling--some people have great difficulty in spelling, and I put up with most of the failing. But, there are three common items that I really wonder about: the use of "loose," and not "lose" for accidentally failing to keep something; the use of "it's" as the possessive of "it" (I was taught that "it's" is the contraction of "it is," and the possessive of "it" is "its"), and the placing of an apostrophe before the "s" when forming the plural of a word. Have these changes been made official in the last sixty years?
Johnny, you sure got that right. Many of those slip through spell checkers, such as "defiantly" when the person means to say "definitely." But those errors do not really impede communication, because we know what they mean to say. But when someone strings muddled sentences together, the meaning is often lost or at least unclear tothe point that reading is a tedious chore. The worst examples I am aware of in academia are the text of "deconstructionists" in literary studies. As to jargon, the biggest problem is their use in an attempt to elevate a mere opinion to the level of a coherent construct; in other words it is a reification: a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstract belief is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, truth or physical entity.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
And Sam1, again I must remind you that long distance trains do not just serve the people who ride them, but the family members who have elderly and handicapped people visiting them who would not if it were not for these trains, the businesses that depend on access to them by train, and the general American approach to them: "I may never use the train but I want it there if I need it." Can you understand this? I don't ask you to approve, but can you show some understanding beyond just the simple economics of a comptroler, CPA, or internal auditor?
Encouraging tourism, especially from overseas, in an addition.
Deggesty; no, things have not changed. My best guess is that the rise of texting and autocorrect have caused a slipping in grammar usage.
Agree, and I try to follow these rules consistantly, and have zero objections when someone points out an error, but simply try to correct it.
Returning to the topic, today's long distance passenger, those that there are, would not be well served by breaking up into short-distance corredors necessitating a change of trains for some journeys that are through or even an overnigh hotel stay. The typical passenger, and those who ride can verify on the basis of personal conversation, is not going from Albany to Buffalo, Atlanta to Richmond, Omaha to Denver, but from Hudson to Elkhart, Greensboro to Frederick, Galesburg to Glenwood Springs, etc. It should be possible to develop the corredors and still run the through trains that are appropriate and that serve corridor purposes at the same time. On a previous post I showed how to do it with the Lake Shore's route. Both markets would then be developed.
Johnny
oldyardgoat Here's another 'true-ism'. Easterners have no knowledge of anything west of the "Ol' Miss." I had a discussion with one years ago. When he got to Illinois he couldn't recall any thing beyond with my description of "Out West". When I asked if had ever heard of Wyoming or Nevada, it suddenly occurred to him what "Out West" meant. Years ago people planning a trip Out West thought they could see Yellowstone N.P. in the morning and visit the Grand Canyon that same afternoon. Another thing: early on in this discussion was the mention of trains splitting at Denver, Co. Back in 197-something or 198-something, the old commercial district northwest of DUS was cleared and replaced with a two-track freight line between the CB&Q's 38th Street yard and the two yards at 11th St (DRGW) and Rice (C&S) yards, both of which are only a memory, for access the Front Range Joint Line. At the time "they" had the opportunity to create an access loop for the ATK's CZ, but let it slip away. The CZ still has to be turned on a wye to back into DUS to be facing east toward Chi-town. Like Linda Ellerbee once said, "and so it goes." (The) Ol' Yard Goat
Here's another 'true-ism'. Easterners have no knowledge of anything west of the "Ol' Miss." I had a discussion with one years ago. When he got to Illinois he couldn't recall any thing beyond with my description of "Out West". When I asked if had ever heard of Wyoming or Nevada, it suddenly occurred to him what "Out West" meant. Years ago people planning a trip Out West thought they could see Yellowstone N.P. in the morning and visit the Grand Canyon that same afternoon.
Another thing: early on in this discussion was the mention of trains splitting at Denver, Co. Back in 197-something or 198-something, the old commercial district northwest of DUS was cleared and replaced with a two-track freight line between the CB&Q's 38th Street yard and the two yards at 11th St (DRGW) and Rice (C&S) yards, both of which are only a memory, for access the Front Range Joint Line. At the time "they" had the opportunity to create an access loop for the ATK's CZ, but let it slip away. The CZ still has to be turned on a wye to back into DUS to be facing east toward Chi-town. Like Linda Ellerbee once said, "and so it goes."
(The) Ol' Yard Goat
The op proposed a day train between Chicago and Denver, using the Santa Fe line. Considering that the fastest direct schedule between the two cities was overnight, I wonder if he realized that such would require a considerable upgrade of the track, as it is almost 1000 miles just to La Junta from Chicago. I suppose that some would call the original City of New Orleans schedule that of a daytime train--but it took about sixteen hours or more to go a little over 900 miles.
dakotafred Sam1 challenges others freely, but tends to see responses in kind as "personal attacks." "You don't know anything about me," is a frequent complaint. Well, we really do, thanks to her tireless autobiographical habit. We know, among many other things, that she is an opponent of the passenger trains she enjoys riding. What a wrestling match she must have with her accountant's soul every time she boards one of them and thinks of the taxpayer money she is costing! Not thoughtlessly, but with full awareness of what she's doing -- in cold blood, if you like. Masochism? Approach/avoidance? I'd never say so, lest I be accused of one of those personal attacks Sam1 deplores.
Sam1 challenges others freely, but tends to see responses in kind as "personal attacks."
"You don't know anything about me," is a frequent complaint.
Well, we really do, thanks to her tireless autobiographical habit. We know, among many other things, that she is an opponent of the passenger trains she enjoys riding.
What a wrestling match she must have with her accountant's soul every time she boards one of them and thinks of the taxpayer money she is costing! Not thoughtlessly, but with full awareness of what she's doing -- in cold blood, if you like.
Masochism? Approach/avoidance? I'd never say so, lest I be accused of one of those personal attacks Sam1 deplores.
Here is what I was responding to:
"Ha-ha, I think Sam ticked off most of the Congressional representatives for Texas and they put her on ignore." The comment is absurd. It is typical of the comments made by the poster.
Had you read carefully my comments over the years, you would have noticed that I am not an opponent of passenger trains. I have stated repeatedly that the role for passenger trains is in relatively short, high density corridors where the cost to expand the highways and airways is prohibitive.
Taking a train from LAX to San Diego or New York to Washington makes sense. Riding a train from LAX to Chicao makes little sense. I have never waivered in this view.
By the same token I have argued consistantly against the long distance passenger trains, which carry less than one per cent of intercity travelers, lose more than half a billion dollars per year, and only serve a spotty portion of the nation's population. Notice, these number can be verified.
Wizlish Sam1 The benchmark hurdle (interest) rate for a federally funded project, i.e. highways, waterways, etc., is the 10 Year Treasury Note or the Treasury's weighted average cost (interest) for marketable debt. The benchmark hurdle rate for a private business is its weighted average cost of capital... No one said that talking about interest rates is jargon. If you're going to criticize working engineers for using terms that some of us on the forums will look up ourselves if we find them confusing, you must not turn around and do worse in your own specialty. Especially when you then paraphrase them improperly in terms of what was intended. Not that we can't disentangle the meaning with a little reading. I myself tend to use technical terms or expressions with the understanding that if anyone doesn't understand them, they should ask. My father jokes about translating some of his explanations into English as necessary. But I think there is a line between using jargon in context and using it to 'show off' or impress folks with what you know. I don't think Mr. Payne crossed that line badly enough for you to have assailed him as you have.
Sam1 The benchmark hurdle (interest) rate for a federally funded project, i.e. highways, waterways, etc., is the 10 Year Treasury Note or the Treasury's weighted average cost (interest) for marketable debt. The benchmark hurdle rate for a private business is its weighted average cost of capital... No one said that talking about interest rates is jargon.
No one said that talking about interest rates is jargon.
If you're going to criticize working engineers for using terms that some of us on the forums will look up ourselves if we find them confusing, you must not turn around and do worse in your own specialty. Especially when you then paraphrase them improperly in terms of what was intended.
Not that we can't disentangle the meaning with a little reading. I myself tend to use technical terms or expressions with the understanding that if anyone doesn't understand them, they should ask. My father jokes about translating some of his explanations into English as necessary. But I think there is a line between using jargon in context and using it to 'show off' or impress folks with what you know. I don't think Mr. Payne crossed that line badly enough for you to have assailed him as you have.
Actually, had you paid careful attention, you would have noticed that I am not the only one who referred to Mr. Payne's use of jargon, i.e. disutility of time. He could have said that time may or not be important for people when they are selecting a transport option, i.e. rail vs. driving, rail vs. air, driving vs. air, etc.
I have challenged Payne's use of some terms. Moreover, I don't believe that many of his analysis would stand up under close scrunity, i.e. he frequently relies on data that is old or speculates about Amtrak's accouting issues, as an example, i.e. avoidable costs, when he does not have access to the company's books.
In simple terms the hurdle rate for a net present value calculation is the same as an interest rate. I tried to make that clear by placing "interest" in parathensis right behind the term hurdle rate. The hurdle rate can be more complex than a simple interest rate.
I was responding to Mr. Payne's use of the AAA bond rate for discounting purposes, and I did not want to get overly involved in a discussion of hurdle rates.
If one does not understand interest rates as the fundatmental basis for runing a present value calculation, there is no basis for discussion.
Sam1The benchmark hurdle (interest) rate for a federally funded project, i.e. highways, waterways, etc., is the 10 Year Treasury Note or the Treasury's weighted average cost (interest) for marketable debt. The benchmark hurdle rate for a private business is its weighted average cost of capital... No one said that talking about interest rates is jargon.
But it becomes so when you use terms like 'hurdle rate' (assuming you intended MARR) out of context, and combine 'benchmark hurdle rate' as if it were a term itself (you used it twice without definition other than 'interest rate', which it only resembles nominally.
ROBERT WILLISON Can't u argue some place else!!!!!
Can't u argue some place else!!!!!
If someone attacks me with a slur, I am going to push back. If participants don't want me to push back, don't make inappropriate comments, i.e. ha ha ha, Sam ......
CMStPnP Sam1 How do we know that you talked to your senator three times over the last year? Who is your senator? How did you talk with him or her, i.e. face to face, email, telephone, etc.? Where is the independent verification of your claim? Also, what legislation, if any, has your senator proposed as a result of your input? It depends on what your issue is and how many times you have contacted them in the past. I have no problem getting either Texas Senators staff to look at an issue. If your repeatedly bothering them over and over again about the same issue that they felt they have responded to in the past. Of course they are going to ignore you and move on to other constituents. Same is true of Wisconsin, when I lived there. No problem with getting help from either Senator or for that matter Rep Sensenbrenner whom I have met with more than once during his town hall sessions when I was living in Wisconsin.
Sam1 How do we know that you talked to your senator three times over the last year? Who is your senator? How did you talk with him or her, i.e. face to face, email, telephone, etc.? Where is the independent verification of your claim? Also, what legislation, if any, has your senator proposed as a result of your input?
It depends on what your issue is and how many times you have contacted them in the past. I have no problem getting either Texas Senators staff to look at an issue. If your repeatedly bothering them over and over again about the same issue that they felt they have responded to in the past. Of course they are going to ignore you and move on to other constituents.
Same is true of Wisconsin, when I lived there. No problem with getting help from either Senator or for that matter Rep Sensenbrenner whom I have met with more than once during his town hall sessions when I was living in Wisconsin.
Since you don't know me or my contact history with city, state or national officials, how did you conclude that I must have ticked-off most of the Texas Congressional Representatives?
The Texas Congressional delegation is 36 strong. I have just one representative. It would be pretty hard to tick off most of them. The only contact that I have had is with my current representative's staff.
The question was contacting a U.S. senator. Getting with the staff is another matter. So too is meeting a senator or any politician in a meet and greet session, i.e. town hall meeting, etc.
Your claims cannot be verified.
Sam1How do we know that you talked to your senator three times over the last year? Who is your senator? How did you talk with him or her, i.e. face to face, email, telephone, etc.? Where is the independent verification of your claim? Also, what legislation, if any, has your senator proposed as a result of your input?
Ha-ha, I think Sam ticked off most of the Congressional representatives for Texas and they put her on ignore.
Many cases yes, some cases no.
Quite true and the layover (in the same Pullman car that was transferred) was usually between 3 1/4 to 6 hours.
Back in the fifties, there were through cars between Washington/New York City and San Francisco/Los Angeles, so if the passengers wanted to remain in their space during the time they were in Chicago they could.
Even in the 1950's traveling from the East Coast to the West Coast westbound meant a long layover in Chicago. The Broadway Limited and 20th Century Limited arrived into Chicago in the early morning; but the Super Chief, Empire Builder and the Cities trains all left in afternoon. A six hour layover in Chicago didn't help put people in the sleepers and coaches especially when United Airlines and others could offer a convienent connection of an hour or less at Midway Airport.
Amtrak is still plagued by this problem westbound out of Chicago.
schlimm MidlandMike Many LD trains schedule their large city endpoints (and many large intermediate Points) at convenient times, and mostly small town as inconvenient times. If you run a second set of trains offset by 12 hours, most of the large towns will now be served at inconvenient times. Many of the people getting on at the now conveniently scheduled small towns, would now find themselves arriving at their destination city in the middle of the night. This second set of trains would attract few riders. They certainly would not double overall patronage. LD trains are always going to have some inconvenient stops. Great point , Mike. That is why breaking up LD routes into the relevant segments makes more sense. Trains can serve cities at times that are convenient for passengers, not for the convenience of misguided efforts to continue LD routes.
MidlandMike Many LD trains schedule their large city endpoints (and many large intermediate Points) at convenient times, and mostly small town as inconvenient times. If you run a second set of trains offset by 12 hours, most of the large towns will now be served at inconvenient times. Many of the people getting on at the now conveniently scheduled small towns, would now find themselves arriving at their destination city in the middle of the night. This second set of trains would attract few riders. They certainly would not double overall patronage. LD trains are always going to have some inconvenient stops.
Many LD trains schedule their large city endpoints (and many large intermediate Points) at convenient times, and mostly small town as inconvenient times. If you run a second set of trains offset by 12 hours, most of the large towns will now be served at inconvenient times. Many of the people getting on at the now conveniently scheduled small towns, would now find themselves arriving at their destination city in the middle of the night. This second set of trains would attract few riders. They certainly would not double overall patronage. LD trains are always going to have some inconvenient stops.
As a railfan I would like the idea of serial corridors, where I could ride during daylight, and then stay at a hotel overnight (hopefully near the depot like in Canada), and then continue the journey next morning. However, most Amtrak passengers are not railfans, and would rather continue their journey without interuption. I would like to see corridor service overlayed on appropriate LD sections, keeping both. But Congress just wants a minimal system that covers political bases, so nothing is likely to change.
PNWRMNM CSS, Anybody with an ounce of political sense knows the LD trains are there to buy votes for ATK and the NEC. That has been obvious since the begining. Mac
CSS,
Anybody with an ounce of political sense knows the LD trains are there to buy votes for ATK and the NEC. That has been obvious since the begining.
Mac
Sure. That's no reason they shouldn't be all they could be...however irrelevant that may be at the end to the day. Might just be easier to get the NEC capital they need.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.