Sam1 V.Payne Agreed... I do wonder if there is any room to negogiate on the "standards" now however. I am thinking of just asking my senator to insert language that would allow a compact of states and/or groups take over a long-distance train service if they agree to a lower (say 95%) of the existing total Federal subsidy level (or better yet 75% of the existing per-person mile subsidy level). This would be written to provide an option if the cut Amtrak group gets going in coming years. There would have to be some type of bribe, say slightly higher trackage fees or a tradeoff elsewhere for the Class I railroads. There would also need to be a large loss per passenger mile insurance fund (similar to oil pipeline spill fund) with the operator covering first dollar insurance to say $100k/incident. The assumption is you could do quite a bit without cutting wages by reducing the 40% of total costs from the train operation lines that is overhead. The main reason though... just to get some movement on improving these services through simple fixes. Unless you have a personal relationship with your senator, he or she is not likely to read your letter or take your phone call. You will be lucky if you can get your views before a staff member, who in all likelihood will respond with a form letter. And it may or may not address the issues you raise. You don't appear to have any real sense of how the political sytem in the United States works. Or any other country for that matter.
V.Payne Agreed... I do wonder if there is any room to negogiate on the "standards" now however. I am thinking of just asking my senator to insert language that would allow a compact of states and/or groups take over a long-distance train service if they agree to a lower (say 95%) of the existing total Federal subsidy level (or better yet 75% of the existing per-person mile subsidy level). This would be written to provide an option if the cut Amtrak group gets going in coming years. There would have to be some type of bribe, say slightly higher trackage fees or a tradeoff elsewhere for the Class I railroads. There would also need to be a large loss per passenger mile insurance fund (similar to oil pipeline spill fund) with the operator covering first dollar insurance to say $100k/incident. The assumption is you could do quite a bit without cutting wages by reducing the 40% of total costs from the train operation lines that is overhead. The main reason though... just to get some movement on improving these services through simple fixes.
Agreed... I do wonder if there is any room to negogiate on the "standards" now however.
I am thinking of just asking my senator to insert language that would allow a compact of states and/or groups take over a long-distance train service if they agree to a lower (say 95%) of the existing total Federal subsidy level (or better yet 75% of the existing per-person mile subsidy level). This would be written to provide an option if the cut Amtrak group gets going in coming years.
There would have to be some type of bribe, say slightly higher trackage fees or a tradeoff elsewhere for the Class I railroads. There would also need to be a large loss per passenger mile insurance fund (similar to oil pipeline spill fund) with the operator covering first dollar insurance to say $100k/incident. The assumption is you could do quite a bit without cutting wages by reducing the 40% of total costs from the train operation lines that is overhead.
The main reason though... just to get some movement on improving these services through simple fixes.
Unless you have a personal relationship with your senator, he or she is not likely to read your letter or take your phone call. You will be lucky if you can get your views before a staff member, who in all likelihood will respond with a form letter. And it may or may not address the issues you raise.
You don't appear to have any real sense of how the political sytem in the United States works. Or any other country for that matter.
Mr. Payne: Some concerns since your scheme fails to address various sticking points:
1. If a new, non-Amtrak service is started, you can bet the ranch the private freight rails are NOT going to accept the same, heavily discounted rental rate Amtrak pays, even less likely that they would accept multiple trains per day.
2. You suggest a "sweetener" funded by eliminating the 40% overhead Amtrak tacks on to each route. I imagine the states would like to see the math on that because as I said before, other than the West Coast and TX and MO, it's doubtful if any of the other states west of the Mississippi River would fund such an undertaking.
3. Bringing highways into the discussion is a non-starter.
4. Your writing: Get someone to clean up your proposal with clear syntax and zero jargon.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Real hard for a place like Redding to attract train travellers when the only Amtrak services are 2:30 am SB and 4:00 am. NB. And with no station agent on duty, one never knows real times of arrival and departure. Wanna wait outside a cold and dark station with the motor running to keep warm?
Exactly! Proves my earlier point. More travellers would make both Amtrak and the frieght railroads embarrassed. The only long term solution is obviously more trackage and high speed trains. But the congress is deaf to those thoughts.
Everywhere can't be serviced at 'convenient' times. With long distance trains what is convenient at Origin and Destination will be inconvenient at many intermediate stations. So long as long distance trains take longer than 8 to 12 hours for the run somewhere will have to have inconvenient service times.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Yikes, looks like ideas are not being discussed but the person attacked. I have spoken to my Senator three times over the last year. The paper was featured on the National Corridors website (look at the link). I was actually thinking of running it through the TRB paper process. Technical jargon is not talking about interest rates. Technical jargon is talking about psuedo-static forces from an earthquake time-history loading. The senate is discussing Amtrak funding as part of the highway bill this year (due in May).
BaltACD Everywhere can't be serviced at 'convenient' times. With long distance trains what is convenient at Origin and Destination will be inconvenient at many intermediate stations. So long as long distance trains take longer than 8 to 12 hours for the run somewhere will have to have inconvenient service times.
But that is precisely why many LD supporters suggest that, to maximize LD potential, what is needed is to have at least 2 daily trains on every route, scheduled approximately 12 hours apart. That way, nearly every stop will have at least 1 convenient daytime schedule (and many will have an even more convenient morning-and-evening service.
Dragoman BaltACD Everywhere can't be serviced at 'convenient' times. With long distance trains what is convenient at Origin and Destination will be inconvenient at many intermediate stations. So long as long distance trains take longer than 8 to 12 hours for the run somewhere will have to have inconvenient service times. But that is precisely why many LD supporters suggest that, to maximize LD potential, what is needed is to have at least 2 daily trains on every route, scheduled approximately 12 hours apart. That way, nearly every stop will have at least 1 convenient daytime schedule (and many will have an even more convenient morning-and-evening service.
A consummation devoutly to be wished. But try getting a doubled subsidy for Amtrak out of Congress; not even most Democrats would vote for it.
The serious budgetary pressure is on this kind of "discretionary" spending. (Read, the kind of spending that used to distinguish the United States and do great things like going to the the Moon.) Whereas, all the competition -- entitlement spending, interest on the debt -- has to do is show up at the pay window.
V.Payne Yikes, looks like ideas are not being discussed but the person attacked. I have spoken to my Senator three times over the last year. The paper was featured on the National Corridors website (look at the link). I was actually thinking of running it through the TRB paper process. Technical jargon is not talking about interest rates. Technical jargon is talking about psuedo-static forces from an earthquake time-history loading. The senate is discussing Amtrak funding as part of the highway bill this year (due in May).
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?
In previous posts you have use the term disutility of time or similar terminology. That's jargon. And it is just one example. A mature writer, addressing a non-technical audience, would simply have said that time is important for some travelers; not so much for others.
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.
You referenced AAA bonds. It was not clear what you meant. U.S. government debt is not uniformily rated AAA. And none of the Class 1 railroad railroad debt is rated AAA, which I attempted to show by listing the ratings for each road.
No one said that talking about interest rates is jargon.
If you need to know, face to face, socially. Don't particularly care to say more. Most governmental decisions and for that matter business decisions seem to be made that way. No legislation came from it nor did I claim it did, but we do have a representative government and they are just people, looking to represent what the voters think if possible, while making their own informed decisions.
Dis-utility of time means that trip decisions are made with time as a cost but not at a straight rate related to the clockface only (This is not Latin or something impenetrable). In other words time is not equally weighed, one might "pass the time away" at a nice resturaunt but "time drags on" in the TSA line.
It really affects transportation assumptions but fits the marketplace better, after all SUV's aren't cheaper or faster, but more comfortable. I typically provide the link to the Dr. Martland/Lu thesis paper, sometimes it is just easier to provide a link than describing it every time, hence the reason for writing a paper that includes references as you can't post 40 pages to this forum. I think I understand why people start their own blogs now.
If you want to compare road and rail to find efficiency, you have to use the same interest rate, that is the only way to convert financial values, even though our current arrangement has them at different rates. I might post some transcribed Senate hearings with the link to the original text next to illustrate the mid 90's thinking prior to CATO/Reason poisioning the debate. Things seemed so much more reasonable then.
dakotafred Dragoman BaltACD Everywhere can't be serviced at 'convenient' times. With long distance trains what is convenient at Origin and Destination will be inconvenient at many intermediate stations. So long as long distance trains take longer than 8 to 12 hours for the run somewhere will have to have inconvenient service times. But that is precisely why many LD supporters suggest that, to maximize LD potential, what is needed is to have at least 2 daily trains on every route, scheduled approximately 12 hours apart. That way, nearly every stop will have at least 1 convenient daytime schedule (and many will have an even more convenient morning-and-evening service. A consummation devoutly to be wished. But try getting a doubled subsidy for Amtrak out of Congress; not even most Democrats would vote for it. The serious budgetary pressure is on this kind of "discretionary" spending. (Read, the kind of spending that used to distinguish the United States and do great things like going to the the Moon.) Whereas, all the competition -- entitlement spending -- has to do is show up at the pay window.
The serious budgetary pressure is on this kind of "discretionary" spending. (Read, the kind of spending that used to distinguish the United States and do great things like going to the the Moon.) Whereas, all the competition -- entitlement spending -- has to do is show up at the pay window.
Fred, of course you're right.
But I think it should be pointed out that the subsidy would not be doubled to double service (since fixed costs, such as overhead, station costs, administrative costs, etc, would mostly remain the same, and just be spread over more trains/passengers). Also, if my thinking is sound, the increase in subsidy would only be temporary, since such a plan would greatly increase (more than double) the passengers, revenue, etc., covering more of the fixed costs. Ah, we can dream ...
DragomanBut I think it should be pointed out that the subsidy would not be doubled to double service
Correct, but you have it in the wrong direction. The subsidy would more than double by a considerable amount. The host roads would want capital improvements to be made whole, plus enough per train mile to make some money hosting the second train.
The current train runs because it's part of the "deal" between Amtrak and the host roads. A second train would be "business".
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd Dragoman But I think it should be pointed out that the subsidy would not be doubled to double service Correct, but you have it in the wrong direction. The subsidy would more than double by a considerable amount. The host roads would want capital improvements to be made whole, plus enough per train mile to make some money hosting the second train. The current train runs because it's part of the "deal" between Amtrak and the host roads. A second train would be "business".
Dragoman But I think it should be pointed out that the subsidy would not be doubled to double service
You may be right, but we really don't know what Amtrak might be able to negotiate with the host railroads, until they actually attempt to do so. Yes, UP was making absurd (IMHO) demands just to make the Sunset daily -- though there is no evidence that Amtrak actually entered into any negotiations after UP's initial demand. And elsewhere, such as on the Capitol Corridor in California, service has doubled and doubled again over the years, and I believe the corresponding host costs have not been linear.
Also, you do not take into account the increased (more-than-double) revenue I would predict. Of course, once again one must distinguish between capital costs (both in host RR costs and additional equipment) on one hand, and operating costs on the other.
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.
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.
Dragoman And elsewhere, such as on the Capitol Corridor in California, service has doubled and doubled again over the years, and I believe the corresponding host costs have not been linear. Also, you do not take into account the increased (more-than-double) revenue I would predict. Of course, once again one must distinguish between capital costs (both in host RR costs and additional equipment) on one hand, and operating costs on the other.
Good points. The cost to add trains to corridors seems to be reasonable. Another that comes to mind is the Richmond to Norfolk extension. The estimated cost to add additional trains is fairly low.
A few years back, IL doubled up on the Carbondale and Quincy trains. I think additional ridership was in the 50% range...far short of double. I wonder if any of that data is still floating around in the ether...
The biggest problem is that all of this is academic. Amtrak has not shown the least interest in fitting their service to the markets they serve. They are 100% consumed with running the same train today that they ran yesterday.
I believe that Amtrak has realized that the LD trains are really political creatures and that any attempt to eliminate them or adjust their schedules and consists to provide a useful service will have costs that can't be quantified.
As long as NARP and its allies insist that Amtrak maintain long-distance operations more suited to a previous era, we will never find out what might be possible and really useful.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Johnny
Quite true and the layover (in the same Pullman car that was transferred) was usually between 3 1/4 to 6 hours.
Many cases yes, some cases no.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
Can't u argue some place else!!!!!
ROBERT WILLISON 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 ......
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.