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?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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!
Dave,
Why ever would you imagine that rail passenger service can be made profitable when it has not been since about 1950?
Mac
PNWRMNM 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..
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.
AAF's prime reason for existing is real estate development - not passenger service, as they have stated from the start.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
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."
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.
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.
not trying to return to the 1950s, just exploring possibilities.
aware of the problems and the history
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
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.
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."
Johnny
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.
Why would two financially healthy, competitive businesses want to join up with USPS on anything?
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
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.
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.
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.
Oops! Look at what I did, I restarted the conversation....lol.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.