I agree with you, Blue Streak, that for my suggestion to work, the loading and unloading would have to take place at the passenger stations. In crowded stations like Chhicago Union, Penn Station, NY, South Station, Boston, adding such facilities would not be practical. At New York, it would logically be at Sunnyside. But there would not be a problem at most existing Amtrak stations, such as Albany, Baltimore, New Haven, Denver, Galesburg, San Diego, etc.
In any case, return to all the IFS I posted already. It is an idea for All Aboard Florida to consider. If they have success and adopt the idea, then possibly it can be extended to a national system, hopefully run by the railroads instead of the government.
Deggesty Balt, did they arrive the same day? If so, do you know which one arrived first?
Balt, did they arrive the same day? If so, do you know which one arrived first?
Both arrived same day, however, UPS tracking gave a delivery date for the USPS delivered shipment as 1 day more.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Johnny
I ordered two articles from a company I deal with. Both were shipped from the same shipping location on the same day. One was delivered UPS direct and the other was handed off to USPS for final delivery.
Wish I could figure out what made the difference as both were comparable in size and weight.
Sam1Does not answer the question. What percentage of FedEx and UPS packages or shipments are handed off to USPS to complete the last mile? Handoffs by other companies like FedEx and UPS is not the same as FedEx and UPS. It includes all sorts of carriers. According to Courier Express and Postal Observer, approximately 31 per cent of FedEx ground shipments are delivered through USPS. While that is significant, it is a far cry from the majority of ground packages being delivered the last mile by USPS.
I reviewed the thread and the first mention of the USPS carrying a majority of UPS and FedEx packages, letter mail, etc. was yours, just now. So unless you want to argue with yourself, the point was simply that both UPS and FedEx make considerable use of USPS. However, I see no way that has anything to do with the thread title.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Some one who knows more may dispute this but. High priority intermodal would probably make street to street total times faster on regular freight. Passenger stations might not have quick loading / unloading locations. Well cars might need to be sent somewhere else to be loaded / unloaded.
Dave , I can finally agree with you. Long distance trains will never be financially self sufficient or should they be.
With that said, thier is enough public support to key them operating or they would be gone as well. The key to thier continued presence and or growth is to generate additional public awareness and support. Some of these are the reasons you have stated.
The passenger train of yesteryear is history and will remain history.
If there is ever a resurgence in passenger train operation it will be in high speed service on high density Origin Destination pair cities. As the interstates become clogged by higher density traffic and airports become clogged by higher flight densitys there will be a demand for an alternative.
I continue to disagree for reasons stated many times on this Form and not really contraticted: Toursim, backup, elderly and handicapped, fare treatment nationally. I do believe they can and should be made more effiicient, however. A reason I started this thread.
Again, it appears the average American is willing to pay ten bucks a year to have a train somewhere accesable in case he/she needs it even though he/she has no plans to use it.
This has been an interesting discussion. At the end of the day, however, I am not convinced that anything will justify the long distance passenger train. At least financially! It is a anchorism that has outlived its economic, social, and financial justification. It should be given a decent burial.
A couple of references to previous efforts of intermodal on Amtrak:
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/743/t/225620.aspx
http://www.trainsim.com/vbts/archive/index.php/t-193356.html
The short-lived WA state Roadrailers that carried perishables out of Wenatchee (mentioned in the trainsim thread) is something I witnessed years ago when our No.7 from Spokane stopped at Wenatchee to have a long string of those fruit trailers tacked onto the rear of our train. I remember holding my kids up to gaze out the rear window of the last car so we could watch those Roadrailers snaking along behind us, their rooftops being pelted by rain as we descended the west side of Stevens Pass.
CMStPnP I would have trusted the guy based on face value of this being an opinion thread, it's a lot more polite for starters. And you have 2-3 other posters saying the same thing. Anyways, the chart with percentage is in WisLishs Third link, the one you state you do not have access to but never bothered to Google the Title of the Wall Street Article itself to get access to (thats within the link). I just Googled it again to confirm everyone has access to it. Here is the chart:
I would have trusted the guy based on face value of this being an opinion thread, it's a lot more polite for starters. And you have 2-3 other posters saying the same thing.
Anyways, the chart with percentage is in WisLishs Third link, the one you state you do not have access to but never bothered to Google the Title of the Wall Street Article itself to get access to (thats within the link). I just Googled it again to confirm everyone has access to it.
Here is the chart:
CMStPnP Sam1... BTW, off topic. However the DART light rail system is now effectively dual use. I think that was a point of disagreement between us earlier with you saying there was no proof the system was built to dual use standards. Next time your downtown just East of Union Station you can see the streetcar tracks now join with the DART light rail tracks.....using the same overhead wire. I still stand by my earlier remarks that those same DART light rail tracks can also handle frieght railroad equipment.......just like the San Diego Trolley can and does in places.
Sam1...
BTW, off topic. However the DART light rail system is now effectively dual use. I think that was a point of disagreement between us earlier with you saying there was no proof the system was built to dual use standards. Next time your downtown just East of Union Station you can see the streetcar tracks now join with the DART light rail tracks.....using the same overhead wire. I still stand by my earlier remarks that those same DART light rail tracks can also handle frieght railroad equipment.......just like the San Diego Trolley can and does in places.
I don't recall saying anything about joint use of DART's light rail tracks.
The Oak Cliff trolley will be serviced at DART's Santa Fe Avenue service and maintenance facility. The vehicles will run over DART's line along South Lamar to just short of Union Station, where it will manuver through a reverse switch track to line up with the Houston Street Viaduct track.
Comparing the Houston Street trolley to running a freight train on DART's tracks also San Diego is a bit of a stretch.
As far as I know there are no freight operations on DART's track system. The Blue line to Rowlett shares a right-of-way with the Dallas, Garland and Northern Eastern Railroad. Also, the Green Line shares part of the right-of-way with the UP line that runs up to Denton, etc. It also shares part of the right-of-way with a freight line along the C.F. Hawn Freeway, but I am not sure whose line it is.
The San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway trains that operate over a short section of the San Diego Trolley tracks are a different story. The SDAER is owned by the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Authority, which operates the trolleys and buses in and around San Diego. Most of SDAER operations near south San Diego appear to operate over parallel tracks, although as you showed in a video, which was just a snap shot, some freight runs on the Blue line late at night.
In FY14 MTA revenues, as per Page 7 of the 2014 Annual Report, MTA Revenues were $321.8 million. The 2014 revenues for the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway were $1.2 million. The SDAER is so small that its numbers are blended into the MTA numbers without identification. It appears that whatever joint operations are conducted by MTA and SDAER or minor.
DART's light rail tracks probably could support some freight operations, although I am not sure that they would have sufficient clearance through the Central Expressway Tunnel. The larger question, however, is why would a freight carrier want to use DART's light rail lines?
CMStPnP He is correct both Fed Ed and UPS are increasing their package routing via USPS. You can find the chart and percentage in less time if you Google it yourself instead of posting back and forth about it. I already ran across it BUT guess what.....I'm not posting the link in this case as it is readily available within 5 min or less of a search. You can even guess what source to look at as I mentioned it eariler in three letters. If you Email me $50 via paypal I will post the link for you so you can go over the percentages and data. Since you seem to be addicted to that stuff.
He is correct both Fed Ed and UPS are increasing their package routing via USPS.
You can find the chart and percentage in less time if you Google it yourself instead of posting back and forth about it. I already ran across it BUT guess what.....I'm not posting the link in this case as it is readily available within 5 min or less of a search. You can even guess what source to look at as I mentioned it eariler in three letters. If you Email me $50 via paypal I will post the link for you so you can go over the percentages and data. Since you seem to be addicted to that stuff.
Your right! I prefer informed opinions, i.e. supported with verifable data, as opposed to off the wall slap shots.
I ran a search on per cent of FedEx and UPS packages delivered the last mile by USPS.
I got a description of FedEx's program, and I found a number of stories on USPS's efforts to expand their package delivery business. But none of them mentioned the number or percentage of packages delivered the last mile by USPS.
According to a December 2014 story in Reuters, USA, USPS hired a marketing guru from Coca-Cola in 2013 to ramp up its package delivery business. USPS needs to find other sources of revenue to offset the loss of revenue associated with first class mail.
According to ShipMatrix Inc., USPS accounted for 59.2 per cent of e-commerce deliveried in 2013. It does not define e-commerce or indicate the types of packages delivered by USPS vs. FedEx and UPS. E-commerce, for example, does not include the numereous intra and inter business items delivered by FedEx and UPS.
The USPS numbers are for the whole delivery from point of origin to point of delivery. Not a word about the percentage of FedEx and UPS packages delivered the last mile by USPS!
The reason you are not posting the link, I presume, is because you don't have one that answers my question. At this point, however, we are off subject, so I will leave it at that.
People who make or imply a claim but don't back it up with data have an opinion. And that is all they have.
My question was simple. No hidden agenda! What percentage of the packages sent by UPS and FedEx go the last mile via USPS?
Wizlish You are asserting that UPS and FedEx are taking advantage of the post office's universal daily network for last-mile delivery. It is on you to back-up the statement with data. UPS SurePost; FedEx Smart Post. Not like it's rocket science to back this up with "data". Here's one simple proof: And where would we be without a Facebook page about some of the sorts of service failures that a service like this can produce. Here is the 'official' Web page FedEx provides for the SmartPost service: http://www.fedex.com/us/smart-post/index.htm I'll even save you the fifty bucks and provide the link to one of the WSJ stories: http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-mail-does-the-trick-for-fedex-ups-1407182247
You are asserting that UPS and FedEx are taking advantage of the post office's universal daily network for last-mile delivery. It is on you to back-up the statement with data.
UPS SurePost; FedEx Smart Post. Not like it's rocket science to back this up with "data". Here's one simple proof:
And where would we be without a Facebook page about some of the sorts of service failures that a service like this can produce.
Here is the 'official' Web page FedEx provides for the SmartPost service:
http://www.fedex.com/us/smart-post/index.htm
I'll even save you the fifty bucks and provide the link to one of the WSJ stories:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-mail-does-the-trick-for-fedex-ups-1407182247
Not a single word about the percentage of FedEx and UPS packages delivered the last mile by USPS. Which as my question!
The first two links describe the program. The third link to the WSJ is only available to subscribers. I don't subscribe to the WSJ.
"Tell you what, more and more UPS and FedEx are taking advantage of the post office's universal, daily network for last-mile delivery. (You can google the news stories.)"
"You've outlined an interesting research project for yourself."
No I haven't!
It is one per cent of the packages? Two percent?
Delivering to residential addresses is a nitemare for courier companies. More often than not , nobodies home. Not surprising they hand it off to the postal service, who go by every house daily regardless.
Given we know that , if Amtrak wanted to expand thier express business, It should be possible for them to offer a station to door service, using USPS to deliver.
dakotafred Sam1 dakotafred Sam1 How does anyone know that USPS wants no part of FedEx or UPS? Maybe it is the other way around ... Why would two financially healthy, competitive businesses want to join up with USPS on anything? Tell you what, more and more UPS and FedEx are taking advantage of the post office's universal, daily network for last-mile delivery. (You can google the news stories.) As for me, give me the post office every time. Unlike UPS and FedEx, they don't just dump the parcel on your doorstep (for the convenience of birddogging thieves) and run. If they don't make money, so what? (Name me the government or quasi-government business that does.) Free them from interference by Congress in all their business decisions and they could make money, all right -- but how much would we like the reductions in service that would come with that? (Not much, based on reaction to modest proposals such as an end to Saturday service and closure of the least rural post offices.) What percentage of FedEx and UPS last mile deliveries are made by the USPS? What is your authoritative source, i.e. govermment figures, tables, etc.? Also, what percentage of USPS packages are handled part way by FedEx and UPS? You've outlined an interesting research project for yourself.
Sam1 dakotafred Sam1 How does anyone know that USPS wants no part of FedEx or UPS? Maybe it is the other way around ... Why would two financially healthy, competitive businesses want to join up with USPS on anything? Tell you what, more and more UPS and FedEx are taking advantage of the post office's universal, daily network for last-mile delivery. (You can google the news stories.) As for me, give me the post office every time. Unlike UPS and FedEx, they don't just dump the parcel on your doorstep (for the convenience of birddogging thieves) and run. If they don't make money, so what? (Name me the government or quasi-government business that does.) Free them from interference by Congress in all their business decisions and they could make money, all right -- but how much would we like the reductions in service that would come with that? (Not much, based on reaction to modest proposals such as an end to Saturday service and closure of the least rural post offices.) What percentage of FedEx and UPS last mile deliveries are made by the USPS? What is your authoritative source, i.e. govermment figures, tables, etc.? Also, what percentage of USPS packages are handled part way by FedEx and UPS?
dakotafred Sam1 How does anyone know that USPS wants no part of FedEx or UPS? Maybe it is the other way around ... Why would two financially healthy, competitive businesses want to join up with USPS on anything? Tell you what, more and more UPS and FedEx are taking advantage of the post office's universal, daily network for last-mile delivery. (You can google the news stories.) As for me, give me the post office every time. Unlike UPS and FedEx, they don't just dump the parcel on your doorstep (for the convenience of birddogging thieves) and run. If they don't make money, so what? (Name me the government or quasi-government business that does.) Free them from interference by Congress in all their business decisions and they could make money, all right -- but how much would we like the reductions in service that would come with that? (Not much, based on reaction to modest proposals such as an end to Saturday service and closure of the least rural post offices.)
Sam1 How does anyone know that USPS wants no part of FedEx or UPS? Maybe it is the other way around ... Why would two financially healthy, competitive businesses want to join up with USPS on anything?
How does anyone know that USPS wants no part of FedEx or UPS? Maybe it is the other way around ...
Why would two financially healthy, competitive businesses want to join up with USPS on anything?
You've outlined an interesting research project for yourself.
Interesting but not my cup of tea. Several points. I have also received many small packages that originated with UPS or even more with FedEx, but the final delivery was by USPS. Sam1 asked what percentage? If that is an actual question, sam should answer it. If it is a comment disguised as a question, sam should answer it. All that said, I do not see how the apparent use of USPS by competitors gives support to the proposition that there is a lucrative express, much less renewed mail business for Amtrak in conjunction with the freight rails.
ROBERT WILLISON Sam your 100% correct, money losing or not the USPS provides a higher level of service and a essential service. Maybe at some point with enough technology it can be eliminated, but for now I like my mail box outside as much as I do on my computer.
Sam your 100% correct, money losing or not the USPS provides a higher level of service and a essential service. Maybe at some point with enough technology it can be eliminated, but for now I like my mail box outside as much as I do on my computer.
Dakguy201 The last two FedEx ground shipments I received were delivered to the local post office for further delivery to my place. Despite the presence of FedEx delivery trucks in the neighborhood, they have apparently decided that it is the cheaper delivery method for non time critical items.
The last two FedEx ground shipments I received were delivered to the local post office for further delivery to my place. Despite the presence of FedEx delivery trucks in the neighborhood, they have apparently decided that it is the cheaper delivery method for non time critical items.
I just learned about that and read up on it. Theory is that the Post Office is not charging what it actually costs for the last mile delivery and both UPS and Fed Ex are using that system to save money. By USPS financial calculation they have letter and junk mail carriers already out there in the field so the WSJ theory goes that the USPS is only charging the incremental cost for the service. So the USPS is growing it's package business this way and they say they are increasing the revenues by the same method BUT is it actually going to pay for new trucks and capacity. Now one thing I read which is nice is that both UPS and FED EX via their own automation I believe is pre-sorting prior to delievery to the USPS which does save the USPS some of the handling costs.
Anyways this is not the kind of partnership I was referring to in my Email. I was speaking of more of a 50/50 partnership where each partner takes on equal risks. Not a partnership where one firm takes advantage of anothers stupidity.
ROBERT WILLISON In addition to what Sam said thier would be push back from railroads that scream that they have capacity issues. They want huge sums to up grade right of way to allow additional passenger service. I would love to see more passenger service, but it didn't work for the railroads the first time around, they paid big money to Amtrak in 1971 to join and dump thier existing trains. Don't see any interests from them today.
In addition to what Sam said thier would be push back from railroads that scream that they have capacity issues. They want huge sums to up grade right of way to allow additional passenger service. I would love to see more passenger service, but it didn't work for the railroads the first time around, they paid big money to Amtrak in 1971 to join and dump thier existing trains. Don't see any interests from them today.
Well in my remarks I didn't see Amtrak expanding passenger train frequency because the revenue increase from such service would only go towards closing PART of the Amtrak deficit not flushing out the company with so much cash they would have a new financial and passenger train empire. I am a former businessman myself.....it takes a long time to build a revenue curve upwards and one client usually isn't going to do it by themself.
Oops! Look at what I did, I restarted the conversation....lol.
Yes we know that UPS and fed ex uses the post office for some end point deliveries. A good arrangement that benefits all three carriers. It doesn't mean that either company has any interest in taking over the post office or expanding thier current relationships.
For about two years my experience has been the same as Dakguy's for routine (not time-critical) on-line purchases. When the package doesn't originate with USPS -- and it often does -- they get the final handling.
Hauling express (or Dave's latest notion, mail) in some joint venture between Amtrak and the freight lines isn't going to happen here. It does not happen in Europe, either.
How does anyone know that USPS wants no part of FedEx or UPS? Maybe it is the other way around.
The Trailing Twelve Month (TTM) Return on Equity (ROE) for FedEx was 15.23 per cent, and the TTM Return on Investment (ROI) was 10.53 per cent.
The TTM ROE for UPS was 52.15 per cent. The ROI is not shown.
USPS had an operating loss of nearly $5 billion in 2013, even after its annual infusion of the $3.1 billion that it gets annually from Congress for unidentified services. However, it is an improvement over 2012, when USPS lost $15.9 billion.
Since it was reorganized USPS has lost approximately $43 billion. Even Amtrak has not been able to lose that kind of money.
Quoting CMStPnP: " USPS wants no part of Fed Ed or UPS" I receive packages with this on the labels: UPS SUREPOST Ship to USP--with my zip code and street address; they travel UPS and are delived by my mail carrier. I track them through the UPS system, which has as the final entry--"out for delivery at such and such a time on such and such a date."
daveklepper My prescription for railroad operated and profitable long-distance passenger trains. Requires cooperation and interest from FedEX and/or UPS. Compact unloading facilties are in the passenger stations themselves. Passenger platform on one side of the tracks, truck driveway on the other side. While the train is unloading and loading passengers at an intermediate stop, one or more mobile overhead cranes move the containers from well cars at the rear of the train to the truck chasises and reverse. With catenary, a new design of crane is necessary, that fits under catenary, picks up a container and moves it just two feet about the platform level of the well car and truck chassis. Right now a lot of air freight travels double of even triple the distance between origin and end points because of the hub-and-spoke nature of both UPS and FedEx operations. A network of long-distance trains providing the service I have outlined could reduce shipping costs and make possiblel a long-distance passenger service that does not require subsidy. It should be railroad operated to coordinate with the regular freight business of that railroads have with these two customers. A place to try it out might be All-Abord Flordia. The final solution to the Amtrak subsidy problem would be for Amtrak to be owned by all seven or six out of the seven majors, similar to the ownership of Pullman.
My prescription for railroad operated and profitable long-distance passenger trains. Requires cooperation and interest from FedEX and/or UPS. Compact unloading facilties are in the passenger stations themselves. Passenger platform on one side of the tracks, truck driveway on the other side. While the train is unloading and loading passengers at an intermediate stop, one or more mobile overhead cranes move the containers from well cars at the rear of the train to the truck chasises and reverse. With catenary, a new design of crane is necessary, that fits under catenary, picks up a container and moves it just two feet about the platform level of the well car and truck chassis.
Right now a lot of air freight travels double of even triple the distance between origin and end points because of the hub-and-spoke nature of both UPS and FedEx operations. A network of long-distance trains providing the service I have outlined could reduce shipping costs and make possiblel a long-distance passenger service that does not require subsidy. It should be railroad operated to coordinate with the regular freight business of that railroads have with these two customers. A place to try it out might be All-Abord Flordia. The final solution to the Amtrak subsidy problem would be for Amtrak to be owned by all seven or six out of the seven majors, similar to the ownership of Pullman.
I disagree with most of the naysayers here of course and I think some part of your proposal is workable. What I think needs to happen first is FedEx or UPS or perhaps both need to open up and form a partnership with the USPS whereas the FedEx and or UPS stores can take in and ship via USPS. Maybe even take on some of their sorting abilities for first class mail.
The naysayers are wrong about Class I railroad interference. If I have a large freight customer and said customer says they want to ship a very small portion of their freight via Amtrak. The Class I systems are going to salute and say "Yes, Sir". Further if all this happened it might even improve Amtrak on time performance as now Amtrak has influence over customer satisfaction of one or two major shippers.
Now I can see the Class I's fighting against it IF a major portion of their business shifted to Amtrak but thats not going to happen given how few Amtrak trains there are and Amtrak limits on passenger and frieght combo consists. We are talking maybe 5%....worst case scenario for any single carrier. I honestly can't see any Class I bothering to defend that percentage of traffic.
It's a stretch for all this to happen though. USPS wants no part of Fed Ed or UPS, especially the USPS unions. They know full well it's going to lead to a head count reduction on the USPS side followed by a massive facilities and Post Office reduction.
From both a Taxpayer and Congressional perspective it would make our postal service probably a lot more efficient and reduce both the USPS and Amtrak deficits somewhat BUT I don't think it would completely fix either organizations deficit issues.
I think Amtrak should bring the rolling highway system into the states it would help bring revenue and would shorten the journey for medium haul truckers i.e. New York to Chicago with an intermediate stop (if shown successful) in a Cleaveland or Indianapolis.
Here are a couple examples
http://youtu.be/DbSIAvx3kYk
http://youtu.be/OPmq5zMKAIo
not trying to return to the 1950s, just exploring possibilities.
aware of the problems and the history
Exactly, by many fincianial bench marks, the 1950's was not very good for the passenger trains as well. Some would say the twenties was the beginning of the end with the automobile beginning to eat market share. Certainly doomed the interurbans.
Freight carriers are in the real estate development business - for the development of additonal freight business, their 'bread & butter'. US freight railroads divested their passenger responsibilities in the formation of Amtrak and they intend to keep it that way.
daveklepperGuess what the next step is and who has to pick up the tab? Pardon this very black thought, but it should square well with Sam1 and Schlimm.
In your desperation to return to 1950, please do not try to predict my reactions. Your notions of what I believe passenger rail service could and should be in the US is about as far removed from reality as your notions of a renaissance of mail and express trains and the major freight rails wanting to purchase Amtrak.
BTW: You and others might want to check out the difference between "loose" and "lose."
and there is nothing to prevent freight railroads from entering the real-estate business and using excellent passenger service to greatly enhance the value iof that real estate. and there is nothing to prevent a passenger service that exists to take on a package and/or container service, with or without fedex and/or ups participation, to enhance the value of the passenger service, either make it more profitable or cutting its losses.
like a gas station. also sells diesel fuel to truckers -also has vending machines to sell soft drinks and snacks. it purpose is not to sell soft drinks and snacks, but selling such does help the bottom line.
But I also see anothe scenereo. All Aboard Florida is successful. Lots of passengers. Real estate value skyrockers The whole venture tremendously profitable, with or without the container service. Then the business is split. And low and behold after the split, the passenger service is found to actually loose money, even though very successful, and just like many other passenger service, it seems the more successful it becomes the more money it looses!
But the service has now become extremely important to the community. Cutting it would bring back lots of highway and airport congestion. And, like Amtrak, lots of tax-paying businesses depend on its existance.
Guess what the next step is and who has to pick up the tab?
Pardon this very black thought, but it should square well with Sam1 and Schlimm.
AAF's prime reason for existing is real estate development - not passenger service, as they have stated from the start.
Not sure why dave keeps insisting that the aaf wants to be in the freight business. Thier business plan is higher speed passenger service and real estate development.
Short haul intermodal has been a difficult market for railroads to develop. One wonders if they would be competitive with the straight shot Florida turnpike. It is a shorter distance via the turnpike but congestion can be an issue.
Even if they would want to explore the freight option,it might be closer to how they do it on the Chunnel. Freight trains are run separate from Chunnel passenger trains not combined. Or the fec might be the freight operator. Or more likely it may remain passenger line only since on the new portion of the line thier are no established freight customers presently.
PNWRMNM Dave, Why ever would you imagine that rail passenger service can be made profitable when it has not been since about 1950? Mac
Dave,
Why ever would you imagine that rail passenger service can be made profitable when it has not been since about 1950?
Mac
It's doubtful the actual passenger services, even on the best trains, made money. When postal and express services were factored in, some rails might have shown a small profit. It appears Mr. Klepper thinks a return to those "thrilling days of yesteryear" would cause the freight lines to want to buy up Amtrak. He seems to think All Aboard Florida (AAF) could do that as a model to be emulated, but he chooses to ignore fundamental changes that have occurred in the last 50+ years..
Schlim, over and over again, I am by no means recommending this as an application for the current subsidized Amtrak operatoin with all the limitations you mention. The only place I am recommending it in the short term is for All Aboard Florida as possibly one addition to help increase profits. If ABF is really successful, then just maybe the freight railroads will take a new look at the passenger business with approaches based on ABF's success. They make the same kind of decision that NS and CSX made in buying Conrail. They still have, very fortunately, a predilection for running their own show, and mutli-railroad control of Amtrak, if it can be make profitable, would be a great step in that direction. But applying my idea to the current Amtrak. I don't recommend it any more than you do!
daveklepper The idea first presented is that containers are removed and placed while passengers are detraining and boarding in the station.
The idea first presented is that containers are removed and placed while passengers are detraining and boarding in the station.
And have you any idea of how long that would take at intermediate stops, especially those which have short platforms? Or perhaps speed doesn't matter on your Nostalgia Specials?
It still seems there is conflation with the differing operating principles of the MHC vs. Boxcars/Roadrailers. The MHC mail and express seemed to be good finacially.
The pass through HEP electric cables allowed the MHC operation (which is no different that a baggage car) to follow the consist into the station and did not have the delays associated with the later non-HEP cars.
If you want to create a container operation there probably needs to be a thought given to how rapidly you can cut the cars and station operations.
That because the mail is loaded and handled while the passengers are boarding and off loading. You don't see the passenger boarding then taxi away and loading cargo. You may notice that ups and fed have freighter not passenger hauling thier freight not passenger planes. When you overnite a package on ups it either goes on one of thier trucks or on thier planes. Your comparing apples to oranges .
It would be interesting to see how much cargo a typical jet liner can carry.
So I guess you just may see a passenger plane being followed by a fed ex plane. Something to ponder the next time your at your local air port.
Packages co exist on some Amtrak trains now as we all know. This service can certainly be expanded but not at the expense of the high priority passenger as Amtrak tried but did not succeed with its roadrunners.
ROBERT WILLISON Actually they were using 1990' ideas in the 1990's. The NYC would never have combined any of its named trains in the 1950's with a string of freight cars at the expense or inconveinence of its passengers. Amtrak tried to have it both ways and it failed. If Amtrak wants to haul high priority mail, freight or packages, then run a second section of the train, instead of downgrading its primary passenger services by essentially turning thier thier trains into mixed trains. If not then limited their head end business to what can be handled in a baggage car. This is not being closed minded or old fashsion but as what Amtrak has already found out practical.
Actually they were using 1990' ideas in the 1990's. The NYC would never have combined any of its named trains in the 1950's with a string of freight cars at the expense or inconveinence of its passengers.
Amtrak tried to have it both ways and it failed. If Amtrak wants to haul high priority mail, freight or packages, then run a second section of the train, instead of downgrading its primary passenger services by essentially turning thier thier trains into mixed trains. If not then limited their head end business to what can be handled in a baggage car. This is not being closed minded or old fashsion but as what Amtrak has already found out practical.
....And yet high priority packages and mail flys and coexists with passengers on Commercial Airline flights in the cargo hold. I don't see a second plane flying behind my commercial airliner with just mail.
V.Payne"Amtrak's first attempt at mail was a disaster. It burdened its passengers and wasted precious capital and effort." The original MHC (at the head end with HEP), using pallet loading with forklifts, were ordered about 1986 (Claytor) and served to the 2003 IRC, following a derailment investigation report, were generally succesful. The FRA derailment report referenced MHC dynamics, however TOFC/Autorack cars would not perform better (Pg 30) so it was the track... note how the handling of the pallets was performed away from platforms, pallet jack to door, then forklift.
If at first you don't succeed. Yeah I will agree that was a disaster. You know they were using a 1940's or 1950's idea and trying to apply it to the 1990's. I think the issue at hand needs a lot more thinking and designing than that.
Oops
Those trips cost me ad much as 800 bucks in a roomette. I feel I should be a higher priority than mail or a package. Other than that the trips were great.
Hey its not an issue of confusion, I have stated in my post that the freight railroads are where they want to be hauling freight on intermodal trains. What the article stated was the inspector general of the po suggested more mail could be handled by rail. The post office officials are more skeptical of it. I think intermodal trains will continue to gain market share from truckers. Thier is on going shortage of truck drivers and fuel prices are bound to rise again.
My personal experience with the road runners was poor. On a typical trip from Albany to Chicago, we left Albany between 45 minutes to an hour late solely because of the yard crew cutting the cars on to the rear of the train. The lake shore would then stop about 3 miles from union station and the cars would be removed further delaying the train. I could rarely count on the lake shore to be on time west bound. Eastbound the same sad story would occur, 3 miles out the train was stopped to cut the cars back in. I always felt sorry for the thru passengers east of Albany, because again the cars would be cut off and time lost in Albany. This was not a one time issue, it happened to me on about 10 round trips on the lake shore
Those trips cost me 800 bucks. I feel that the 300 passengers on board should be a higher priority than freight.
"Amtrak's first attempt at mail was a disaster. It burdened its passengers and wasted precious capital and effort."
The original MHC (at the head end with HEP), using pallet loading with forklifts, were ordered about 1986 (Claytor) and served to the 2003 IRC, following a derailment investigation report, were generally succesful. The NTSB derailment report referenced MHC dynamics, however TOFC/Autorack cars would not perform better (Pg 30) so it was the track... note how the handling of the pallets was performed away from platforms, pallet jack to door, then forklift.
The non-HEP Boxcar and Roadrailer end of train operation seemed to suffer from an under capitalized operation, leading to the terminal delays mentioned, where they could have been put between the power with Locotrol. It probably could have been worked out better with time.
Well I like the Fed Ex model myself and I ship a lot by Fed Ex. Sat in one of their distribution centers for about two hours waiting on a package that was on a delivery truck. They are extremely efficient. Do you know they have one person running the customer service counter after business hours from 5 p.m. until 9 p.m. it is pretty impressive to sit and watch him/her work. Give it a try some night when you have a lot of spare time on your hands. Trully amazing how much productivity they squeeze out of that one person with a bar code scanner, hand trucks, etc. I was amazed in the two hours of me siitting there that clerk handled almost a full semi-trailer of packages flowing into the place after hours from small and medium businesses. Do you think the USPS could do that with one person? Yeah right
daveklepperInstead of dropping RPO, the PO could have installed well-designed automation equipment in the RPO cars to increase the productivity of each mail clerk by a factor of 10 or 20.
Considering the USPS (at least around here) has been moving all sorting duties to larger regional centers (and away from local post offices), it seems to be taking a major step backwards to try to sort in a RPO.
Let's just let the people trains move people.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Instead of dropping RPO, the PO could have installed well-designed automation equipment in the RPO cars to increase the productivity of each mail clerk by a factor of 10 or 20.
When I was an undergraduate at MIT, LPs had just come on the market, and I was quite a hifi nut, which is what got me into acoustics. My phono player had the best cartridge available at the time, a Pickering, whose factory was in Long Island City. The early Pickerings had a soft suspension that could dry out and the sound would suffer. I would pack the cartridge in the original small box, with original cotton, address it and stamp it for 1st class mail, bike or use what is now the Red Line to South Station, and hand it to the mail clerk of an RPO on The Federal at around 10pm, with complete assurance it would be at the Pickering factory the next morning. Three days later I was able to listen to my record collection again, and eventually Pickering did solve the problem with a different material.
Also, look at the difference between Fed Ex and the USPS. Fed Ex has "Delivery Manager" on which I can login and reroute a package once it is shipped to another destination. USPS has nothing like that and even a hold mail request done via their USPS website takes a full day prior to properly execute. So I am pretty sure there are huge opportunities on the USPS side for improvement.
daveklepper So a smart freight railroad could buy up some museum RPO cars, modernize them for compatibility with intermodal trainis, and offer to sort small UPS packages on one long route, such as Chicago - LA, SF, or Seattle, see how profitable the service is, and then possibly purchase new equipment to provide a UPS-sorting car to each important West Coast destination. The clerks would be railroad employees under UPS supervision at terminals, and would work a standard seven hour day, with clerks changing off at division points and allowed to work up to ten hours ini case of train delays. Seems like a good idea, does not relate to passenger service, just making intermodal service more profitable. But, if the AAF experiment works, and railroads then become interested in taking over Amtrak, this service would then probably be shifted to the passenger trains. More big ifs.
So a smart freight railroad could buy up some museum RPO cars, modernize them for compatibility with intermodal trainis, and offer to sort small UPS packages on one long route, such as Chicago - LA, SF, or Seattle, see how profitable the service is, and then possibly purchase new equipment to provide a UPS-sorting car to each important West Coast destination. The clerks would be railroad employees under UPS supervision at terminals, and would work a standard seven hour day, with clerks changing off at division points and allowed to work up to ten hours ini case of train delays. Seems like a good idea, does not relate to passenger service, just making intermodal service more profitable.
But, if the AAF experiment works, and railroads then become interested in taking over Amtrak, this service would then probably be shifted to the passenger trains. More big ifs.
Ha! Doesn't necessarily mean bringing back the RPO. This is NOT NEW and the USPS has made a proposal like this before and a vendor has stepped up to the plate. Look at EDS and the Postal Buddy Corp of a decade or more ago created to sell stamps and other merchandise via kiosks (Google Postal Buddy and read up on it). EDS provides the software, postal buddy provided the hardware. It rolled out to the public and then flopped for various reasons. It does illustrate this kind of proposal has been made before by the USPS and responded to by outside vendors and partnerships. They reached into the USPS and took over internal USPS procedures and attempted to automate them......then market them back to the public. Very innovative, IMO.
Railroads would be smart to look at areas they could take over from the USPS at their terminals and speed shipments of mail faster to make the USPS more competitive on speed. I think that is where the sweet spot is here. Certainly they can sit on their butts and say..... "we are happy with what we got". That would not be very businessness like, IMHO.
ROBERT WILLISON I may be wrong but I have the article in front of me ( p 6 march 2015 trains magazine ). No where in the article does it mention moving mail on Amtrak. No where does it mention rpo's. It does reference an office of inspector general for the postal service September 2014 report stating it could save 10.8 million annually by moving more mail by rail much like its private sector competition fed ex and ups has embraced the intermodal options. Although my reading comprehension may be poor, I understand this to be trailers on flat cars on freight trains. Trains even provided two nice pictures of intermodal trains in the article. Nor do I see any mention of a private enterprise concern trying to partner with Amtrak to provide premium package delivery services. Oddly enough the post office is skeptical if intermodal service could meet thier service standards.
I may be wrong but I have the article in front of me ( p 6 march 2015 trains magazine ). No where in the article does it mention moving mail on Amtrak. No where does it mention rpo's. It does reference an office of inspector general for the postal service September 2014 report stating it could save 10.8 million annually by moving more mail by rail much like its private sector competition fed ex and ups has embraced the intermodal options. Although my reading comprehension may be poor, I understand this to be trailers on flat cars on freight trains. Trains even provided two nice pictures of intermodal trains in the article.
Nor do I see any mention of a private enterprise concern trying to partner with Amtrak to provide premium package delivery services.
Oddly enough the post office is skeptical if intermodal service could meet thier service standards.
Your getting all mixed up and there is no reason to get upset here. The proposals were made in this forum to which the railfan community largely poo-poohed the ideas and stated the status quo was just fine. Very clearly in the trains article the USPS said they would be willing to look at shifting more mail to rail if they saw a new proposal beyond the status quo service. Some people picked up on that line (me for one) and saw opportunity. Others just would rather stay in their comfort zone of the status quo.
All I am saying is give innovation and invention a chance here at potentially boosting traffic.......as it has in the past.
ROBERT WILLISON Amtrak has a package service although limited in scope it is tailored to the trains and stations that are equipped to handle the service. I Amtrak has tried handling mail in the past. It made a substantial investment in mail cars and terminal imorovements. The service was flawed from the beginning with the equipment having bad trucks. Even after those issues were resolved, The service was eventually discontinued and investment wasted. I highly doubt if either the post office or Amtrak will try mail any time soon. As far as premium package service, Amtrak lacks the infrastructure, equipment, human resources and train frequency to compete with ups,fed ex,or even the post office. It would require a substantial amount of capital which would be better served being directed to other capital straved projects and defer maintainence. I believe the railroads prefer to be the middle man in the package business, hauling premium priced containers and trailers for package company. Amtrak was primarily established to relieve the burdens of passenger service from the railroad. Mail, express and auto services are a secondary objective. Amtrak's first attempt at mail was a disaster. It burdened its passengers and wasted precious capital and effort. Let Amtrak focus on running passenger trains. Like it was said before,long distance trains will never turn a profit. Move on.
Amtrak has a package service although limited in scope it is tailored to the trains and stations that are equipped to handle the service. I
Amtrak has tried handling mail in the past. It made a substantial investment in mail cars and terminal imorovements. The service was flawed from the beginning with the equipment having bad trucks. Even after those issues were resolved, The service was eventually discontinued and investment wasted. I highly doubt if either the post office or Amtrak will try mail any time soon.
As far as premium package service, Amtrak lacks the infrastructure, equipment, human resources and train frequency to compete with ups,fed ex,or even the post office. It would require a substantial amount of capital which would be better served being directed to other capital straved projects and defer maintainence.
I believe the railroads prefer to be the middle man in the package business, hauling premium priced containers and trailers for package company.
Amtrak was primarily established to relieve the burdens of passenger service from the railroad. Mail, express and auto services are a secondary objective. Amtrak's first attempt at mail was a disaster. It burdened its passengers and wasted precious capital and effort.
Let Amtrak focus on running passenger trains. Like it was said before,long distance trains will never turn a profit. Move on.
Except that the proposal on the table was not Amtrak going it alone but attempting a cooperative service with one of the package carriers.
Problem is Amtrak only has so much control as a transporter. As the USPS stated in the Trains article it would use MORE RAIL if RAIL was able to help the USPS in it's mission of delivering the mail more beyond mere transport. I think the Trains article made this very clear.
Freight railroads are only providing currently a means to move from point A to point B. Railfans in this Forum are thinking along the same rigid lines. Significant time savings could be achieved via containerization of mail by destination, sorting of mail while in transit (as was done on a RPO) and other means of helping to automate the process more while the mail is in transit vs attempting to do it all at a terminal point. So the USPS put the offer on the table in the trains article (for those of you without a reading comprehension issue). I read it clearly and it said basically "Help us with our mail delivery responsibilities enroute and we will shift more to rail" BUT "without any change, we are happy at the mix right now between rail and truck".
I read that as a challenge not as another opportunity to give up without even trying.
zugmann Or, we as a country, could realize that passenger rail is a service and will not make a profit. So fund it with that expectation, and we won't have to toy around with ideas of "express service" which would still be slower than plane or truck.
Or, we as a country, could realize that passenger rail is a service and will not make a profit.
So fund it with that expectation, and we won't have to toy around with ideas of "express service" which would still be slower than plane or truck.
Exactly!!
NRPC is still chartered to provide Mail and Express... CFR 49 USC
(a) Acquisition and Operation of Equipment and Facilities.—(1) Amtrak may acquire, operate, maintain, and make contracts for the operation and maintenance of equipment and facilities necessary for intercity and commuter rail passenger transportation, the transportation of mail and express, and auto-ferry transportation.
(c) Miscellaneous Authority.—Amtrak may—
(1) make and carry out appropriate agreements;
(2) transport mail and express and shall use all feasible methods to obtain the bulk mail business of the United States Postal Service;
(a) Actions To Increase Revenues.—Amtrak shall take necessary action to increase its revenues from the transportation of mail and express. To increase its revenues, Amtrak may provide auto-ferry transportation as part of the basic passenger transportation authorized by this part.
Also, want to point out another difference here. There is a difference in structure and operation between Fed Ex Ground and regular Fed Ex. So lets say that Schlimm wants to buy a Fed Ex Ground Franchise, pretty easy for him to plunk down the $800k to do that and become a railroad intermodal shipper. Fed Ex Ground is franchised out to private owners. Fed Ex regular with the red "Ex" is not and is a single company. Which trailers do you see predominantly on the railroad intermodal trains. Is it the green "Ex" or the red "Ex"?
Proves my point that the railroads have not necessarily captured back the express package business. They only have a slower market segment of it.
zugmann I don't think the freight railroads are going to stand by as Amtrak (or whomever) takes away some of their premium customers (UPS and FedEx)? Plus you have a lot of hurdles: it takes time to load, unload, and inspect freight cars, you have to modify station areas to get the packers in there (those things are big), movement and managing of the intermodal cars, and not to mention speed and oeprating restrictions that may come from hauling said frieght equipment.
I don't think the freight railroads are going to stand by as Amtrak (or whomever) takes away some of their premium customers (UPS and FedEx)?
Plus you have a lot of hurdles: it takes time to load, unload, and inspect freight cars, you have to modify station areas to get the packers in there (those things are big), movement and managing of the intermodal cars, and not to mention speed and oeprating restrictions that may come from hauling said frieght equipment.
This might be railfan conventional wisdom but I think it is not necessarily true....
If the package express is a new market segment they do not currently serve and they cannot serve well by themselves. I honestly do not think they would care.
Right now the railroads cannot serve the premium express market and only serve the slower ground options for FED EX and UPS. An intelligent operator could take advantage of that and the proximity of the Post Offices to rail passenger stations........many with elevators or elevator shafts still extending to the track level........could use Amtrak in some cases to implement overnight or second day service between a lot of cities in the United States.
If they wanted to sweeten the pot, they could offer a cut of the profit to the common carrier for getting the passenger train to the terminals on time. Even better offer up management of the company as a joint effort between USPS, Fed Ex and UPS. With all three involved in management and feeding high priority packages along with potentially a joint share in the profits. Really do not see the railroad industry complaining.
The railroad industry does need this type of think outside the box approach if it is going to continue to expand market share and thrive, IMO. Fast Frieght handling and Fast Freight movement the rail industry in the United States has attempted to handle with UPS and the failed experiment with three day coast to coast intermodal service. They shouldn't just give up and throw in the towel on the idea. They should try it again with overnight service between city pairs and with that...........they could potentially blend it in with Amtrak service.
ROBERT WILLISONAmtrak could do a Much better job of marketing its existing package service and palletized services. These trains have the existing equipment and stop at stations that are equipped to handle this kind of shipments.
Given the job they do marketing and providing LD service to passengers, I wouldn't get my hopes up.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Makes sense and won't add any costs to the trains.
I think they will market it better, once the new baggage cars are in service.
That is what I was suggesting, Amtrak improves its current service, and markets it better. No more than a baggage car load or 2 per train.
Except that Amtrak is by its charter a passenger railroad and not legally authorized to be a freight railroad.
Do you really thinking in today's world that Amtrak could be a viable option to ups or fed ex which both offer door to door or store to door service. Can't imagine having to drive down town to drop a package off at my friendly Amtrak station which happens to be only open in the wee hours of the morning. The infrastructure no longer exist to support that kind of service. The days of the old red and green rea trucks are gone. The private railroads had their chance to compete and declined. Let it go.
Amtrak could do a Much better job of marketing its existing package service and palletized services. These trains have the existing equipment and stop at stations that are equipped to handle this kind of shipments.
I think Amtrak had a overnite post train from Springfield to Washington, maybe up till 10 years ago. wether it could be classed as high speed , I don't know.
As far as dwell times go , I would imagine heavy service only offered to terminals, and intermediate stations that already have a dwell time over 15 minutes. I would also say that palletization of baggage, as well as parcels , and some way of quickly lifting them into the baggage car would speed up all stops. a cage such as this one,
http://finditemstosell.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/8WSK_post_office_file.jpg
My response is that AAF may want to expand its business to include anything that will maximize the bottom line. Especially if UPS and/or FedEx are interested, they may wish to provide the service, since it would bring in extra income without materially increasing expenses. Consider it a useful and profitable byproduct to the main business.
ROBERT WILLISON What makes you think all aboard Florida wants to be in the package delivery business. High speed rail is all about getting from point a to point b. Any kind of head end business would add to station dwell time. Making high speed rail low speed and making their trains less competitive with cars and planes.
What makes you think all aboard Florida wants to be in the package delivery business. High speed rail is all about getting from point a to point b. Any kind of head end business would add to station dwell time. Making high speed rail low speed and making their trains less competitive with cars and planes.
I would cetainly agree that there is no indication that AAF has any interest in package and express. If anything, as others have commented, the real "play" appears to be real estate (like so many rail projects in history!). Though it should be noted that the controlling FEC RR is a freight carrier ...
More interesting are the comments about dwell time. While true, there is a compromise possibility -- baggage and express service only between the endpoints. I know of at least one historical precedent (though I'm sure there are others) -- when Southern Pacific instituted the original Daylight (later the Coast Daylight) on a much hotter schedule than its predecessors, checked baggage was only handled at the endpoints, San Francisco and Los Angeles.
What makes you think all aboard Florida wants to be in the package delivery business. High speed rail is all about getting from point a to point b as fast as possible. Any kind of head end business would add to station dwell time. Making high speed rail low speed and making their trains less competitive with cars and planes.
And why would any one think the big 7 railroads would want to own Amtrak " jointly " like they owned Pullman? We all know how that ended, with Pullman being dissolved by the railroads that owned it.
And lastly why would ups or fed ex want to move thier packages by passenger train. They have a profitable business model now with out risking billions of dollar in questionable scenario involving passenger trains.
This would also go for the freight rail roads, which had to pay to join Amtrak at its conception. Why would they want to spend billions of thier shareholders money to re enter a money losing business to haul freight on passenger trains which they already move on thier most profitable freight trains.
Just don't think moving freight on Amtrak is a viable option.
schlimm daveklepper I AGREE Again, the only way that Amtrak could offer the service would be if Amtrak is owned by the railroads, and this would be possible only if All Aboard Florida is successful AND if its lessons are applicable elsewhere. And that All Aboard Florida does develop the idea. Three big ifs. Schlimm, I am not sure either. We will just have to see how much of a success ABF becomes. As I recall, an important component in the AAF plan is land development, as well as a federal loan. Not sure how well that translates to other non-corridor areas.
daveklepper I AGREE Again, the only way that Amtrak could offer the service would be if Amtrak is owned by the railroads, and this would be possible only if All Aboard Florida is successful AND if its lessons are applicable elsewhere. And that All Aboard Florida does develop the idea. Three big ifs. Schlimm, I am not sure either. We will just have to see how much of a success ABF becomes.
I AGREE Again, the only way that Amtrak could offer the service would be if Amtrak is owned by the railroads, and this would be possible only if All Aboard Florida is successful AND if its lessons are applicable elsewhere. And that All Aboard Florida does develop the idea. Three big ifs.
Schlimm, I am not sure either. We will just have to see how much of a success ABF becomes.
As I recall, an important component in the AAF plan is land development, as well as a federal loan. Not sure how well that translates to other non-corridor areas.
I have seem Amtrak load and unload pallets in Cleveland oh,Albany NY, and stations in Florida.
Deggesty PNWRMNM Solar, Where and with what equipment is ATK operating "pallet load express"? I did not find it mentioned on ATK's web site, which proves nothing. I did find they have only 64 baggage cars and zero express or freight cars. If they are offering this service on the NEC of course the freight carriers would not object, that is ATK's railroad and they can do anything they please on it. The freight carrier's problem with the original proposal is; they have less than zero desire to get back into the tar pit of passenger service, and they do not want their physical capacity used by ATK to compete with their freight service. Mac McCulloch Information concerning pallet-load shipments by AMtrak is found on page 134 of the Summer-Fall 2014 timetable, and at http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241267371736 It took me a little searching to find the web address.
PNWRMNM Solar, Where and with what equipment is ATK operating "pallet load express"? I did not find it mentioned on ATK's web site, which proves nothing. I did find they have only 64 baggage cars and zero express or freight cars. If they are offering this service on the NEC of course the freight carriers would not object, that is ATK's railroad and they can do anything they please on it. The freight carrier's problem with the original proposal is; they have less than zero desire to get back into the tar pit of passenger service, and they do not want their physical capacity used by ATK to compete with their freight service. Mac McCulloch
Solar,
Where and with what equipment is ATK operating "pallet load express"?
I did not find it mentioned on ATK's web site, which proves nothing. I did find they have only 64 baggage cars and zero express or freight cars.
If they are offering this service on the NEC of course the freight carriers would not object, that is ATK's railroad and they can do anything they please on it.
The freight carrier's problem with the original proposal is; they have less than zero desire to get back into the tar pit of passenger service, and they do not want their physical capacity used by ATK to compete with their freight service.
Mac McCulloch
Information concerning pallet-load shipments by AMtrak is found on page 134 of the Summer-Fall 2014 timetable, and at http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241267371736
It took me a little searching to find the web address.
And just how much revenue does Amtrak derive from this service?
solarThe pallet load express is handled in the baggage cars. It is only carried between Stations that have A "heavy express" classification. Pretty much major terminals , or major station with forklifts
Has anyone actually seen Amtrak load or unload a pallet?
Thank you Johnny.
This is a small package service between 100 stations, obviously beyond NEC. It seems consistent with historical express service and looks to involve less than a baggage car per train, two reasons the freight carriers do not care.
It is very different than the original proposal.
daveklepper I AGREE Again, the only way that Amtrak could offer the service would be if Amtrak is owned by the railroads, and this would be possible only if All Aboard Florida is successful AND if its lessons are applicable elsewhere. And that All Aboard Florida does develop the idea. Three big ifs.
Mac: Thanks for the refreshing words of reality.
Again, I must stress I am not suggesting this program for Amtrak. I have suggested it to All Aboard Florida and notified them where to find this Forum thread. If they are intersted, they will pursue the idea in their own way. Then, if they ae successful, and if the lessons they apply can be applied to the national passenger network, Amtrak may end up owned by the railroads and not by the Government. With or without the program I have suggested. A lot of ifs!
Can't see baggage cars on NEC trains, most have very short dwell time at stations. Even during the height of private passenger operations most mail and express was handled on secondary or dedicated mail trains. You did not see much head end business with an exception of RPO on the premier trains. At the end neither what was left of the mail contracts or the rea saved the day.
If the post office goes back to mail on trains it will be some form of intermodal service with the freight carriers.
Let Amtrak concentrate on people not freight. In the end it will not affect the bottom line much
Dixie FlyerSince the federal government is not going to put capital into passenger service I think you have to look to outside sources if the long distance service is going to survive. I like the concept pasted above to make Amtrak be a clearing house to run passenger service and let the details be bid on by private companies. That opens the doors to express services, sleeper services, auto carriers, tour operators etc. Nothing I have not said in posts before.
Not so sure the federal government as currently elected is going to want to subsidize operations either. Most running of LD passenger and many shorter corridor trains is not an attractive, profit-making enterprise. It requires a subsidy, whether direct or indirect, such as AAF with land developments.
Perhaps the way to go about LD train in general is for Amtrak to become the middle man between the frt RRs and some contract operators. Amtrak provides the route, schedule slot, and maybe has locomotives and some equipment available. Operators bid on the rest. Bids might "negative", that is, smallest subsidy wins.
I appreciate Dave getting the conversation going. Since the federal government is not going to put capital into passenger service I think you have to look to outside sources if the long distance service is going to survive. I like the concept pasted above to make Amtrak be a clearing house to run passenger service and let the details be bid on by private companies. That opens the doors to express services, sleeper services, auto carriers, tour operators etc. Nothing I have not said in posts before.
i have no quarrel with the previous several posts, but am hoping, admittadly just a hope, that in Americans' priorities, advanced technology, crowded highways, flying hassles, and good managemen can make All Aboard Florida a success. My idea might contribute to that success. Its success might, again just a hope, lead to interest by the Big Six or Seven.
solarPallet load is not competing with the railroads either.
Yes, it does compete with the railroads' freight operations. The railroads do handle a whole lot of small shipments that have been consolidated by organizations such as UPS, FedEx, ABF, YRC, etc.
Doing that was the way I started out in civilian transportation. Working on a freight dock as an intern in Chicago.
I think pallet load express in the new baggage cars would be worthwhile. especially if it pays for forklifts etc to speed up the loading of baggage as well. There was talk of a pallet load of Express been add to the Southwest Chief, i would think it has been put off till the introduction of the new baggage cars. Pallet load is not competing with the railroads either.
daveklepper I am not about to hire a lobyist. It is an alternative. There were ways of getting of getting extremely fast package delivery service in the days of RPO cars, such as handing the 1st-class stamped package directly to the car's mail clerk, that cannot be duplicated today, even with the best the FedEx and UPS offer. It is an idea, an alternative, and might best be tried out on All Aboard Florida. If it helps their for-profit passenger service really work, then possibly the freight railroads might want to consider it. And the last paragraph of the previous post is possibly the best technology, with the FedEx and/or UPS office at the railroad station, and the truck delivering directly from train-side to the receivers.
I am not about to hire a lobyist. It is an alternative. There were ways of getting of getting extremely fast package delivery service in the days of RPO cars, such as handing the 1st-class stamped package directly to the car's mail clerk, that cannot be duplicated today, even with the best the FedEx and UPS offer. It is an idea, an alternative, and might best be tried out on All Aboard Florida. If it helps their for-profit passenger service really work, then possibly the freight railroads might want to consider it.
And the last paragraph of the previous post is possibly the best technology, with the FedEx and/or UPS office at the railroad station, and the truck delivering directly from train-side to the receivers.
Sounds like you are trying to recreate the Railway Express Agency (jointly owned with offices at the station). That organization didn't fare well at the end. Why would this be different?
daveklepper In the days of RPO cars plus many storage mail routes, if one subtracted the commuter trains and runs obviously kept on as social services, probably overall the passenger trains broke even. What slight losses there were could be tolerated for the good public rellations value of meeting people first hand. When the P.O. stopped using rail, only then did the massive train-offs of the best trainis begin as losses multiplied. So perhaps free enterprise can help rehabilitate what I truly do believe is a most valuable part of North American civilization. I think with the right technoilogy, it can be done.
In the days of RPO cars plus many storage mail routes, if one subtracted the commuter trains and runs obviously kept on as social services, probably overall the passenger trains broke even. What slight losses there were could be tolerated for the good public rellations value of meeting people first hand. When the P.O. stopped using rail, only then did the massive train-offs of the best trainis begin as losses multiplied. So perhaps free enterprise can help rehabilitate what I truly do believe is a most valuable part of North American civilization. I think with the right technoilogy, it can be done.
On another thread we could see how Wm. Vanderbilt of the NYC in 1882 told how even his limiteds lost money, and that was back when the rails had a monopoly on passenger services. If you think "free enterprise" is going to support money-losing passenger services now, think again. The only way you can get some sort of passenger service is through the government, and that looks like a forlorn prospect for the foreseeable future.
RPO's and HYPO's were discontinued because they were obsolete in an era of mechanized mail sorting. Storage mail was moved into trailers or containers and was moved on intermodal freight trains. This left the passenger service standing on its own, and the losses skyrocketed. With that past, I don't see any of the existing freight carriers reinstating passenger service on their own dime and attaching it to priority intermodal runs.
daveklepper Certainly seems that lots of people comment without reading the thread through. Again, my proposal is that the freight railroads run this service, and if it is Amtrak, then it is Amtrak owned by the six or seven major railroads.
Certainly seems that lots of people comment without reading the thread through. Again, my proposal is that the freight railroads run this service, and if it is Amtrak, then it is Amtrak owned by the six or seven major railroads.
"It should be railroad operated to coordinate with the regular freight business of that railroads have with these two customers", is what you said.
People frequently don't read for comprehension what is put before them. Moreover, because of their prejudices - we all have them, they draw conclusions about the message without taking the time to evaluate and try to understand it.
"Have to be careful putting light-weight intermodal cars between 2 engines, though. There's a risk of popping them off the rail." I went back and did some resisting moment calculations. For a 1000' radius curve, the lateral force is less than 6% of the buff/draft force. With one unit on the point pulling, the starting tractive force would be about 120kips, 7.2 kips lateral. With a standard draft/buff height of 34.5" and a lightweight articulated container only car, I figured the overturning moment would only be 33% of the restraining moment, so safe.
One of the design differences that forced the Roadrailer trailers to the rear (and prevented shoving from the rear or excessive backing speed) was the relatively high buff/draft height of 42-45" or so above TOR (exact figure would be great), so it's tendency to overturn was about 30% higher relative to a standard buff/draft height. I could see custon built container cars being a relatively efficient means to move a domestic container a long distance.
-In the marketplace, the question still is how are overhead costs for the transloading operation covered?
The container car could be configured so that it was in essence something like a self-container MiJack Thruport/Pathfinder Flipping Station portal, where the drayage truck pulls up alongside the container car, then the load is lifted similar to the portal idea, with a twist that it is shifted over to the railcar. Plenty of examples of this side transfer scheme occure in the patent records, but recent gains in automation have made it possible.
But a side track would have to be dedicated for this work and ultimately there would have to be a switcher involved or the road crew/origination hostler would have to pick up the cuts from a remote location. At the way points (intermediate stations) the road crew could set out the cuts from the front end into a side track, as many stations are on embankment or generally innacessible to trucks immediately adjacent to the rails. However, as long as the cut is between engines you have the ability for the power (now double ended) and intermodal freight to be worked separately, then come to the station to attach to the passenger cars at the origination terminal as was done in the old days when head end freight was so handled.
May I suggest that all might be better served if containers are to be used if the loading was done by crane at the existing dedicated intermodal terminals and a switcher brought a cut of cars, pre-blocked for various way point cut-off locations that are not served in the Origin-Destination matrix of conventional intermodal offerings from the Class-1 railroads as there is not enough volume. In this way the service would augment the existing book of business by offering missed cutoff makeup service and additional way points to get around driver shortages, for the utility of the existing base intermodal customers, with mail and express serving as the backbone of the volume.
Obviously, at most this arrangement might be able to set out cuts of cars at the quarter-points and mid-point of the route, or maybe every 300 miles or so. If you are talking about every station work (back to true express that will never be offered, without major market condition changes, by Class-1's), then some type of pallet system is needed. May I suggest that cutting out the transloading time for a container by using pallet systems is the way to make the product move faster, however, there could be a market for container (truck size) movements as long as they are longer hauls, that serve some midpoints the Class-1's don't catch as Amtrak is stopping there anyway.
#1 I doubt if many of the daily mail and express trains ran end to end faster then the named limiteds, especially making many stops.
#2 The is nothing legally that prevents the freight rails from running night express trains right now, except small matters like interfering with profitable freight services (which do run at night), higher costs and making a profit.
There is money to be made in the express business. Whole trains of mail and express with a few passenger cars tacked on the rear used to be common. These trains were not given illustration and glowing commentary in the passenger timetables.
Many of these were numerous stops locals. It took more time to work the packages than passengers. Some mail trains with a coach as an afterthought ran faster end to end than the promoted luxury limiteds.
Different trains were geared to cover express and passengers.
True high speed rail may help cover its cost carrying time sensitive shipments at a high fare. If that happens, look for separate trains providing the service at night when passenger traffic is light. Those trains would likely run between major end points. If such trains stop to work freight at all,those stops will be fewer than stops for passengers.
Well, I have read your proposal. You are basically calling for the repeal of the legislation (NRPA) and substituting a plan in which freight railroads would own an Amtrak v 2.0 (how? coercion? mandated by fiat?) and then would happily run an expanded passenger rail network. Sounds like Fantasyland to me, but if you think it could happen, I suggest you hire a lobbyist.
Freight railroads running passenger has been a non-starter since the formation of Amtrak. Bad premise to start with.
The freight carriers absorbed huge oerating losses for many years but the government would not let them pull the trains off.
Now they are subsidizing congress's trains to the tune of a few hundred million per year due to noncompensatory rates for "hosting" ATK. ATK admits to losses of about $1B per year, even after the freight subsidy.
The freight carriers want ATK gone. Period. Why ever would they want to get back into to obviously loosing business of passenger service? That is a less reasonable idea than your proposal to return to mixed train service.
I agree the railroads are not going to give Amtrak any of thier high dollar freight business and why should they. When Amtrak did run those mail cars it created logistics and on time performence issue at major terminals. It did not enhance its primary mission of serving its customers.
But if you had a dome seat you would not mind containers behind. Anyway, the well cars have to be rebuilt for high-speed operation anyway, so addition of HEP cable and passenger car braking and couplers is a natural complement.
The way I envision it, FedEx and UPS would be able to give same-day delivary in areas where they cannot today. With the correct specialized mobile crane equipment, transfers should not require any more time than the typical hand unloading and loading of mail, baggage, and express took for a streamliner with RPO and baggage cars.
V.PayneThis could be replicated by operating non-HEP container cars between a pair of engines, with GE Locotrol (a reduced wire count MU control), at the front end.
Have to be careful putting light-weight intermodal cars between 2 engines, though. There's a risk of popping them off the rail.
In the late 1990's 42% of the Southwest Chief operating revenue came from mail and express (per Senate testimony during the changeover to GOP control - will post link in another thread I am composing). However, the main difference was that it was in HEP cable supplied MHC's at the front end that caused essentially no delay either to the yard operations or the over the road schedule.
This could be replicated by operating non-HEP container cars between a pair of engines, with GE Locotrol (a reduced wire count MU control), at the front end. However, may I submitt that the loading of the container is going to take some time, so for mail and express you might be better off just having a MHC-II, with either automated pallet loading (friction drive) or plain old forklifts.
Not to say containers are a no go for any reason, but the main issue is economy of scale for any transloading operation.
Victrola1 The TOFC Rocket. In the waning days of its passenger service to Omaha, the Rock Island would run trailers on flat cars ahead of passenger cars. This probably had more to do with stemming the loss incurred running passenger trains than a service inovation.
The TOFC Rocket.
In the waning days of its passenger service to Omaha, the Rock Island would run trailers on flat cars ahead of passenger cars. This probably had more to do with stemming the loss incurred running passenger trains than a service inovation.
I had left Iowa by the time the Rock Island started doing this, and wonder if the railroad actually mitigated passenger losses with this service or was simply getting a good TOFC customer on his way, since it had a train going that way anyway, instead of waiting for the next freight train to fill out?
I don't like seeing anything other than the track behind the train I'm on.
I do not think passengers will in any way resent seeing containers behind or before the passenger equipment, if the technology available is employed so that transfer of the containers is speedy enough, and the passenger service is excellent. Indeed, a fair proportion of LD passengers also own cars and drive. Thus the P:R benefit of how railroads remove trucks from the highways.
I've stated many times why I believe LDs are important for NA's civilization, both USA and Canada, and I don't need to review that once more.
The IC included Flexi-vans tacked on the rear of the Hawkeye.
daveklepperThe final solution to the Amtrak subsidy problem would be for Amtrak to be owned by all seven or six out of the seven majors, similar to the ownership of Pullman.
Sounds like someone wants to step back in time about 45 years (or more). Nostalgia makes for nice coffee table books, but it is far removed from reality.
There is nothing that is going to turn off a passenger more than seeing containers at the end of their train. In Europe passenger trains have increased ridership. The last time I visited England; there wasn't a passenger train I rode that wasn't crowded. Just before I visited the Severn Valley Railway Museum, I watched a freight come through Kidderminster. The consist was all containers and the train was short and fast.
I once saw the Rock Island's Plainsman enter St Paul hauling more TOFC than passenger coaches in 1968; it even had a caboose. Passenger Trains and containers should be run in separate consists. It is about image as much as anything else.
daveklepper The final solution to the Amtrak subsidy problem would be for Amtrak to be owned by all seven or six out of the seven majors, similar to the ownership of Pullman.
The final solution to the Amtrak subsidy problem would be for Amtrak to be owned by all seven or six out of the seven majors, similar to the ownership of Pullman.
For a while, Amtrak did move containerized mail in baggage cars. It was a roll on/roll off system, direct to truck.
Amtrak also offered their own package express business for a while.
The old NYC Flexi-van system would work pretty well with passenger trains. You could probably spin a few boxes on and off in the time it takes for Amtrak to get up and into the train through the single door they open at most stops.
There probably exist niche markets for moving some freight on passenger trains, but they are pretty small. The lanes where passenger trains run, the frt RRs have pretty competitive products. (e.g. Amtrak isn't that much faster than NS from Chicago to NJ or CSX from NJ to Orlando)
Most of the barriers to doing are institutional rather than structural. (e.g. Amtrak doesn't really care. Frt RRs would object.)
The great risk that the passengers will wind up being the secondary part of the business. There were a couple cases of the tail wagging the dog during Amtrak's forray into freight service.
I remember reading that Amtrak's mail and express operation during the Warrington presidency covered its additional costs but made only a minimal positive contribution to the bottom line. When you factor in the delays and slower schedules on the passenger operation, it became more bother than it was worth.
daveklepper1. i THOUGHT I MADE IT CLEAR THIS WAS TO BE A RAILROAD OWNED OPERATION. THAT IF IT WAS AMTRAK, IT WOULD BE AFTER THE SIX OR SEVEN BIGGIES TOOK OVER AMTRAK FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
If the freight railroads wanted to operate passenger trains - there would be no amtrak already. But they don't, so there is.
And how much friehgt would you have to haul to offset new freight cars and a completely new service/system? Not to mention making enough profit to actually assist in passenger operations?
1. i THOUGHT I MADE IT CLEAR THIS WAS TO BE A RAILROAD OWNED OPERATION. THAT IF IT WAS AMTRAK, IT WOULD BE AFTER THE SIX OR SEVEN BIGGIES TOOK OVER AMTRAK FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
2. I THOUGHT I MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE FREIGHT OPERATION WOULD BE COORDINATED WITH EXISTING INTERMODAL OPERATIONS AND NOT IN COMPETITION WITH THEM.
3. SINCE THIS IS A NEW CONCEPT ALL PAST METHODS CAN BE DISCARDED, AND THE CONTAINERS AND TRANSFER MECHANCISMS CAN BE DESIGNED FOR RAPID TRANSFER TRUCK TO TRAIN AND TRAIN TO TRUCK.
4. IT IS A CONCEPT, AND THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF IMPLEMENTING IT. BUT THE WELL FLATCARS USED FOR THE CONTAINERS WOULD EITHER BE NEW OR REBUILT FOR HIGH-SPEED OPERATION.
zugmann I don't think the freight railroads are going to stand by as Amtrak (or whomever) takes away some of their premium customers (UPS and FedEx)? Plus you have a lot of hurdles: it takes time to load, unload, and inspect freight cars, you have to modify station areas to get the packers in there (those things are big), movement and managing of the intermodal cars, and not to mention speed and operating restrictions that may come from hauling said freight equipment.
Plus you have a lot of hurdles: it takes time to load, unload, and inspect freight cars, you have to modify station areas to get the packers in there (those things are big), movement and managing of the intermodal cars, and not to mention speed and operating restrictions that may come from hauling said freight equipment.
I'm with Zugmann. David Gunn realized mail and express compromised the already-shaky reliability of the passenger service that is Amtrak's mission -- and ditched them. They weren't worth it for what they brought to the bottom line.
It's true that, in the final pre-Amtrak days, some premier trains carried a lot of mail and express, but only because they were the only schedules left. Their running times suffered accordingly. Especially on its once-a-day LD routes, Amtrak doesn't need this.
What the original poster may be thinking of is a small container similar to the cargo containers for the baggage hold of wide body passeng airliners, though something made for a passenger train could be rectangular rather part semicircle. This would require a slightly modified baggage car, possibly with floor roller to facilitate the moving of containers inside the car.
I'm wondering if this would be the killer app for HSR, being able to schedule same-day delivery from LA to SF could be worth something.
- Erik
ATK is not authorized to haul freight by its authorizing legislation IIRC. The railroads did not make an issue of it when ATK tried their "express" gambit because it was small potatoes AND express historically travelled by passenger train.
Count on it, the freight carriers will not go along with subsidizing ATK any further than they already are by diverting premium intermodal to passenger trains.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.