Convicted One I think that a good first step would be to familiarize yourself with the intimacies of why those "beautiful passenger trains" are no longer serving your town. A couple semesters of economics and a couple more of US history focused on the 20th century ought to bring you up to speed. In a nutshell, you're going to have to prove a viable business model to people who have money, and convince them that your idea is the best use of their money. If passenger rail could be profitable, investors would be knocking down the doors looking to find projects to fund. Spoiler alert, the first and last sentances of my reply really say the same thing.
I think that a good first step would be to familiarize yourself with the intimacies of why those "beautiful passenger trains" are no longer serving your town. A couple semesters of economics and a couple more of US history focused on the 20th century ought to bring you up to speed.
In a nutshell, you're going to have to prove a viable business model to people who have money, and convince them that your idea is the best use of their money.
If passenger rail could be profitable, investors would be knocking down the doors looking to find projects to fund.
Spoiler alert, the first and last sentances of my reply really say the same thing.
The four larger cities I would like to see reconnected via passenger rail do have bad traffic, in some cases very bad traffic. One of the cities is a fast growing metropolitan area. So, to accomodate traffic, the interstate through it is being expanded to six lanes. Despite going from four to six lanes, traffic jams miles long are still a reality. Hopefully, that metropolitan area's traffic congestion can be nipped in the bud by rail service.
Dickey Delta coming from the airlines understands that SERVICE departed from the airlines the same time they started charging their exhorbitant baggage fees which have only increased over the year. Now, if you are lucky you get a 4 oz. cup of beverage with 3 oz. of ice and a bag of pretzels as 'refreshments'. The airlines have become cattle haulers - cash the money and move the beef in ever shrinking seats. Dickey Delta is trying emulate his airline experience at ground level.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Morgan LeFayThe four larger cities I would like to see reconnected via passenger rail do have bad traffic, in some cases very bad traffic. One of the cities is a fast growing metropolitan area. So, to accomodate traffic, the interstate through it is being expanded to six lanes. Despite going from four to six lanes, traffic jams miles long are still a reality. Hopefully, that metropolitan area's traffic congestion can be nipped in the bud by rail service.
Morgan, I admire your optimism, and mitigating congestion is certainly a worthwhile marketing tool to acquire customers (ridership).
But, the battle you are going to have to win first, is to convince your source of funding that bankrolling your dream is a better investment for them, offering a higher yield than if they put their money in a conventional investment opportunity. A task that is far easier said than done.
Additionally, getting freight railroads to share their right of way with you, will not be a cake walk.
Fred Frailey wrote an excellent piece in the November issue of Trains magazine that makes a frank assessment of the negative impact that Amtrak's "Empire Builder" has upon it's host railroads.
Talking a class 1 into accepting a new relationship such as that, which otherwise does not benefit them in any way,......well I doubt it could be done.
Good luck though, you'll need it.
I just returned from Italy and Switzerland, where passenger trains really work. Keep in mind this is based on a 3-week stay; European members feel free to jump in and comment on what it's like to actually live there.
We traveled hundreds of miles with thousands of people at a fair speed, price and comfort. But it seemed to me that have four things the United States does not - support of the government, support of the people (via higher taxes), fairly dedicated right-of-way (saw very few freights) and an ingrained sense that cars are mainly for short distance intracity hops rather than longer city-to-city drives. Many of our trains paralleled nice highways, but they were not crowded like American ones, though the trains were. In most cities there were streetcars and buses immediately outside the train station for that "last mile" solution, though people didn't seem adverse to walking a mile or so when necessary.
We have more money and at least as much tech savvy as the Europeans - those aren't issues. I think it's more of a mindset - we've become completely addicted to a door-to-door (or driveway-to-parking lot) lifestyle.
The caveat is that much of the US is waaaaaay larger and spread out than Europe. There, almost every trip is a "corridor".
Sean
HO Scale CSX Modeler
Anderson'a idea for the Super Chief.
Colorado_Macfairly dedicated right-of-way (saw very few freights)
It appears that way if all you do is ride a passenger train and then leave the mainline to go and do what you want. However, if you railfan the mainline or live next to it, you will see that a lot of lines have a good portion of freight trains on them. As I said in another post back in the mid-1980's I was stationed with 2nd AD (FWD) in Garlstedt, Germany which is just a few miles from Osterholz-Sharmbeck, Germany halfway up the Bremen Germany to Bremerhaven Germany. I initially thought the line was solely passenger until one spare Saturday I stayed at the Depot and watched the trains go by. I was absolutely surprised at the before then invisible freights on the line.
Turns out that DB was scheduling the passenger trains to run with absolute priority and the frieghts would only run in windows around the passenger trains but not at the same time. That line handled at least two ore trains a day back then a number of TOFC frieghts and of course mixed manifest trains. What really impressed me was the ore trains looked similar to what you see on DM&IR but the ore jennies were decades newer and the trains would fly by at least doing 70-80 mph. Can you imagine a DM&IR train of ore jennies going that fast and not flying apart bolt by bolt? I can't.
The Germans had no qualms about running freight trains through towns, villages and small cities at 70-80 mph. Typically they would elevate the line in larger populated areas so it didn't have grade crossings. Usually could only find grade crossings in medium sized towns or smaller.
The other thing about German TOFC trains is the TOFC was well beyond just box cargo trailers. Trailers of Liquified Gas, Covered loose material trailers, etc were on the TOFC trains. United States we seem to have just the box cargo dominate to the exclusion of everything else (not sure why that is).
Anyhow, thats what I obeserved while stationed there. Oh and one more thing, they didn't use the cheap wooden gates at crossings in the city, they had a tubular Iron beam descend across the entire road with a collapsable steel net unfold underneath (I guess to stop skidding cyclists from sliding under the gate). There wasn't any of this driving around the gates nonsense nor the oops! lets pretend the RR crossing doesn't exist by drivers. The RR crossing was respected.
The other off topic item is back then (1984-1985), Germans were mandated by law I believe to shut off thier engines if stopped for a train instead of letting the car idle. On the late model Mercedes they sell now in the U.S. the feature is automatic and you can turn it off but if not when you come to a stop the engine shuts off automatically then when you press the gas it restarts and shifts into gear.....that used to be manual in the 1980's and Europe is where that feature came from.
Convicted One Talking a class 1 into accepting a new relationship such as that, which otherwise does not benefit them in any way,......well I doubt it could be done.
I think I have an offer the freight railroads could not refuse: The railroad infrastructure (except for their dispatch center(s) would be upgraded and maintained by the passenger rail company if the passenger rail company were allowed to use it for free.
I found four (4) paragraphs at the end of Bob Johnston's fine article on VIA in the November Trains Magazine (page 33), which I believe bear repeating for those wondering "How" Amtrak might improve:
"Fortunately, all VIA presidents have stayed the course on a common goal over the past 40 years despite budget slashes, equipment shortages, and indifference from CN dispatchers.
"We're not in the 'running trains' business", he says, "we're in the hospitality business. We make people feel welcome and well treated. We put that pride in the work we do, whether here in the maintenance center, getting trains ready, on-board, in our call centers, or in our stations. If we live that emotion, we see results; that's what makes us different, and the key piece is focusing on our people."
"The concept and clear mission influences friendly and energetic employees, the quality of the meals they serve, and even the thickness of blankets and smoothness of sheets and towels in the sleeping cars. This unwavering commitment has helped counteract delays, often-cramped space, few departures, and the lack of lower fares that would make VIA more relevant in the intercity passenger market. If you can't achieve speed and punctuality, at least dial up the comfort and attention.
"Although rejected at Amtrak by current top management's limited "what's possible" perspective and unwillingness to break out of the comfort zone with which it is familiar, the value of good customer service for a transportation organization facing so many constraints cannot be understated. VIA Rail Canada has consistently played that card well in the past, and the future remains bright if it continues to do so."
Thus concludes one of the best analyses of ANY transportation business--at least in my opinion. Amtrak would do well to at least "consider" much of what's been said in those four paragraphs. I realize there are only so many things within the control of management, but the continued treating Amtrak like a political football or a toy MUST STOP!!!
How about the suggestions of "commitment", "service", and "comfort"? How about treating passengers as "guests" and "customers" rather than cattle and a nuisance? How about improving the food service, as railroads were previously renowned, instead of eliminating it or turning it into a modified "fast food to go" zoo? (With apologies to the many well run zoos.) How about trying to work WITH others rather than imposing your will through the "It's my way, or the highway" attitude?
Obviously, many things could use improvement, and only a few are actually under Amtrak's ability to control. However, the latest "demands" for the improvements to the route for the Southwest Chief leave everyone involved wondering if there truly is an interest in running a railroad, or at least that particular route. When the various parties made a concerted effort to come up with funding for the necessary improvements, the "outrageous demand" by Amtrak's CEO for ALL the financing to be in place before contributing ANY money is another political grandstanding move that falls on deaf ears!
I'm now somewhere between suggesting "Dickie Delta" be tarred and feathered, and having him run out of town on the proverbial "rail" (and NOT on an Amtrak rail). It's obvious he's either forgotten how to work with others, or never knew it in the first place.
Miningman Anderson'a idea for the Super Chief.
Anderson acutally HAS an "Idea"???
When you think about it logically the market for train travel is basically unlimited. In many cases the airlines are not faster and the negatives of flying have become overwhelming. The idea of driving from point A to point B is also hopeless. Have you tried the traffic on I 95 in Connecticut or in Virginia! It is only a question of supply. The demand is at an all time high. Its about supply and Amtrak is not up to that challenge.
Colorado_MacMany of our trains paralleled nice highways, but they were not crowded like American ones, though the trains were.
European Driving compared to United States:
1. Gas priced per Litre and a gallon in Germany was approx twice the cost per gallon as the United States, if not more.
2. Insurance Costs much more in Europe. Cummulatively you pay more in tolls as well.
3. Parking meters not everywhere but you had to carry a paper parking meter in your car and set it visible on your dash when you parked so the meter maid could see when you parked your car and how long it had been sitting there, steep fine if you kept running out to adjust the paper meter and got caught. Timed parking everywhere, you don't pay for it if you use a paper meter obviously but still a pain.
4. Parking in intermediate to large cities for cars is scarce.
5. I seem to remember that membership in auto clubs resembling AAA was either mandatory or heavily encouraged.
6. Drivers License exam in Germany is much tougher than the show up and pass United States system. I passed the first time but had to study to pass. The failure rate runs almost 40% for Americans taking the test that have American Licenses already (you need to pass a German test to drive any kind of military vehicle on German streets....Germans won't accept the lower American standard if your in the military or NATO, they will if your a tourist though).
7. Very narrow streets and tiny parking spots encourage the use of smaller cars not to mention other costs like fuel and insurance.
8. One nice item when I lived there was Octane levels of German gas were higher than U.S. levels and you could tell the difference between performance of a German Mercedes in Germany vs American Mercedes in the United States in acceleration and engine performance.
So there are a few reasons why you saw less cars on the freeways and more people on the train in Europe.
CMStPnP Colorado_Mac Many of our trains paralleled nice highways, but they were not crowded like American ones, though the trains were. European Driving compared to United States: 1. Gas priced per Litre and a gallon in Germany was approx twice the cost per gallon as the United States, if not more. 2. Insurance Costs much more in Europe. Cummulatively you pay more in tolls as well. 3. Parking meters not everywhere but you had to carry a paper parking meter in your car and set it visible on your dash when you parked so the meter maid could see when you parked your car and how long it had been sitting there, steep fine if you kept running out to adjust the paper meter and got caught. Timed parking everywhere, you don't pay for it if you use a paper meter obviously but still a pain. 4. Parking in intermediate to large cities for cars is scarce. 5. I seem to remember that membership in auto clubs resembling AAA was either mandatory or heavily encouraged. 6. Drivers License exam in Germany is much tougher than the show up and pass United States system. I passed the first time but had to study to pass. The failure rate runs almost 40% for Americans taking the test that have American Licenses already (you need to pass a German test to drive any kind of military vehicle on German streets....Germans won't accept the lower American standard if your in the military or NATO, they will if your a tourist though). 7. Very narrow streets and tiny parking spots encourage the use of smaller cars not to mention other costs like fuel and insurance. 8. One nice item when I lived there was Octane levels of German gas were higher than U.S. levels and you could tell the difference between performance of a German Mercedes in Germany vs American Mercedes in the United States in acceleration and engine performance. So there are a few reasons why you saw less cars on the freeways and more people on the train in Europe.
Colorado_Mac Many of our trains paralleled nice highways, but they were not crowded like American ones, though the trains were.
Although much of what you observed is still true, all of those observations are 30 years old and much has changed, obviously. One example, auto/truck traffic is often very bad on many Autobahn stretches.
The huge advantage that the Brightline service in Florida has is that it owns the tracks (the same corporate umbrella) and huge parcels of developable land at the station sites. It is more of a real estate project, with a sexy train service thrown in, than just a 'train service'. In your case, Mr. LeFay, you are proposing an outsider service to come in on another company's rail infrastructure and with no developable assets to assure a steady cash flow, as well as potential new customer base. Your only hope is to come up with a viable project plan (profitable) to present to the railroads that own the line, and convince them to build/operate the service. (but good luck with that!)
cudjoebobThe huge advantage that the Brightline service in Florida has is that it owns the tracks (the same corporate umbrella)
As I recall the FEC (track owner) was bought by Grupo Mexico.
MidlandMike cudjoebob The huge advantage that the Brightline service in Florida has is that it owns the tracks (the same corporate umbrella) As I recall the FEC (track owner) was bought by Grupo Mexico.
cudjoebob The huge advantage that the Brightline service in Florida has is that it owns the tracks (the same corporate umbrella)
Brightline was started as a FEC project. What the real corporate relationships are today, for outsiders, is a murky mess with the various financial deals of ownership that have taken place since the inception of the Brightline project.
Today's corporations take great delight in hiding the real linkages of the money flow.
Morgan LeFay No Class-One freight railroad in North America would turn over maintenance of an important corridor to another organization if it could possibly be avoided. And considering all that has been posted, the only way you could possibly be seccessful is to do the nedessary research and detailed analysis to prove to the railroad that the railroad itself could make money re-entering the passenger business on a specific route. And to do that, you would need access to costs of particular jobs on the railroad, and this will require an existing close relationship. onvicted Otne Talkinong a class 1 into accepting a new relationship such as that, which otherwise does not benefit them in any way,......well I doubt it could be done. I think I have an offer the freight railroads could not refuse: The railroad infrastructure (except for their dispatch center(s) would be upgraded and maintained by the passenger rail company if the passenger rail company were allowed to use it for free.
Talkinong a class 1 into accepting a new relationship such as that, which otherwise does not benefit them in any way,......well I doubt it could be done.
daveklepperI think I have an offer the freight railroads could not refuse: The railroad infrastructure (except for their dispatch center(s) would be upgraded and maintained by the passenger rail company if the passenger rail company were allowed to use it for free.
Problems I see coming:
1) You would presumably still have the existing problem with passenger-train priority; the passenger rail company would also have to pay something for inconvenience/delay of freight operations ... and I suspect some freight railroads would carefully find reasons why any particular train's operation caused 'actionable' inconvenience or delay.
2) The maintenance requirement is open-ended and potentially very, very expen$ive. Even the case where HAL-capable Class 8 or 9 slab track is built by one of the modern track-building machines, and then presumably stays in line and surface cf. the Pueblo tests, is probably going to involve additional effort over what a passenger rail company would incur in a separate build suited to its particular equipment. (And we have just seen a meaningful cautionary tale about slab track in the week-long recovery after the train fire in Germany...)
3) The amount of legal exposure would be enormous, and the underwriting costs presumably equally large. That is especially true when Amtrak's statutory limitation on damages doesn't apply, as I presume would be the case for any 'other' passenger-rail operator. Witness the recent CP 'last minute' insurance-coverage demand that shut down the idea of 765 touring to Steamtown. Any sensible railroad would insist on the enforceable equivalent of 'hold harmless' (since deep-pockets provisions would surely be applied to the host railroad when the passenger rail company, surprise surprise, turned out to have insufficient assets or coverage at judgment time) whether or not contributory liability on the part of the host railroad could be demonstrated. (And if that were not possible, then 'no ships go'.)
4) If the passenger rail operator is anticipating on making its money through real estate, and the RE development is contingent upon full operation of both the passenger service and the regional and local improvements associated with it, where is the interim money to first upgrade and then maintain the infrastructure in the meantime? Presumably with the present misconcentration on earnings calls and quarterly 'what have you done for me lately' analysis...
It would be fun to put this together, get funding commitments or guarantees from the logical partners (like banks or funds specializing in RE transactions and Japanese train makers), and see if any railroad would bite. But I suspect simple considerations of investment opportunity cost would make it very, very difficult to close.
charlie hebdo CMStPnP Colorado_Mac Many of our trains paralleled nice highways, but they were not crowded like American ones, though the trains were. European Driving compared to United States: 1. Gas priced per Litre and a gallon in Germany was approx twice the cost per gallon as the United States, if not more. 2. Insurance Costs much more in Europe. Cummulatively you pay more in tolls as well. 3. Parking meters not everywhere but you had to carry a paper parking meter in your car and set it visible on your dash when you parked so the meter maid could see when you parked your car and how long it had been sitting there, steep fine if you kept running out to adjust the paper meter and got caught. Timed parking everywhere, you don't pay for it if you use a paper meter obviously but still a pain. 4. Parking in intermediate to large cities for cars is scarce. 5. I seem to remember that membership in auto clubs resembling AAA was either mandatory or heavily encouraged. 6. Drivers License exam in Germany is much tougher than the show up and pass United States system. I passed the first time but had to study to pass. The failure rate runs almost 40% for Americans taking the test that have American Licenses already (you need to pass a German test to drive any kind of military vehicle on German streets....Germans won't accept the lower American standard if your in the military or NATO, they will if your a tourist though). 7. Very narrow streets and tiny parking spots encourage the use of smaller cars not to mention other costs like fuel and insurance. 8. One nice item when I lived there was Octane levels of German gas were higher than U.S. levels and you could tell the difference between performance of a German Mercedes in Germany vs American Mercedes in the United States in acceleration and engine performance. So there are a few reasons why you saw less cars on the freeways and more people on the train in Europe. Although much of what you observed is still true, all of those observations are 30 years old and much has changed, obviously. One example, auto/truck traffic is often very bad on many Autobahn stretches.
A few comments about driving in Germany.
1) Gasoline (95 Octane) costs $5.25 per gallon today
2) Yes insurance costs might be higher, e.g. $365 per year for a Toyota RAV4 with $115 flat coverage for personal injury and property damage.
3) The parking disk allows to park free for a limited time to avoid long-term parking. It is cheaper to overrun the time than to adjust the disk.
5) there is no requirement for auto club membership. Many people are members because of the benefits like free breakdown and towing service.
7) Street width depends on use and traffic density. Next year about one third of new cars will be SUVs. So there doesn't seem to be a problemwith small street. You need to get used to it. In small streets there almost always a sidewalk on can use to pass. Parking spots are getting a problem on parking decks. Here rules need to get adjusted to wider cars.
Charlie Hebdo is right about traffic. Here some photos of congestion on German highways: https://www.rundschau-online.de/image/22777868/2x1/940/470/b21c73f80eb6b4023ec734f35c36c4f2/SN/148604001021c796-jpg2.jpghttps://p5.focus.de/img/fotos/origs7369864/7668512644-w630-h472-o-q75-p5/urn-newsml-dpa-com-20090101-170718-99-291423-large-4-3.jpghttps://aisrtl-a.akamaihd.net/masters/1071102/800x450/lebensader-unfallschwerpunkt-die-a2-soll-sicherer-werden.jpg
I drive regularly from Essen to Stuttgart, 433 km (270 miles) by car. I get seldom below 5 hours while the fastest ICE-train needs 3:06 hours. So I changed to the train.
I said in another thread: Compared to the NEC (457 miles) the relation Hamburg to Munich (about 450 miles by train) is a corridor train, not a LD train. So we have more or less corridor service in Germany.
I don't know how far this applies to other European countries.Regards, Volker
There is a problem of HrSR on freight lines/ 286,000# freight cars with a certain number with flat wheeels . Compare that to passenger train cars except locos only weighing 160,000 #. The wear on freight tracks are much greater ! That may be one reason most European HSR tracks are passenger only.
Overmod3) The amount of legal exposure would be enormous, and the underwriting costs presumably equally large. That is especially true when Amtrak's statutory limitation on damages doesn't apply, as I presume would be the case for any 'other' passenger-rail operator. Witness the recent CP 'last minute' insurance-coverage demand that shut down the idea of 765 touring to Steamtown. Any sensible railroad would insist on the enforceable equivalent of 'hold harmless' (since deep-pockets provisions would surely be applied to the host railroad when the passenger rail company, surprise surprise, turned out to have insufficient assets or coverage at judgment time) whether or not contributory liability on the part of the host railroad could be demonstrated. (And if that were not possible, then 'no ships go'.)
Relevant to this: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/15/us/amtrak-pays-millions-for-others-fatal-errors.html
Well it was largely in place at one time with dedicated passenger tracks with 4 track mains and 2 track mains and should have been built on from there. At some point between then and now Government could / should have mandated in a big way for this to remain and provide the trains if need be. A partial nationalization of those dedicated rails and the business of dedicated passenger tracks and service. If done right it could be sold off and privatized as a successful and profitable means of travel today. World leader!
Only way now is a benevolent, railfan, dictator. Iron fists and iron rails.
blue streak 1There is a problem of HrSR on freight lines/ 286,000# freight cars with a certain number with flat wheeels . Compare that to passenger train cars except locos only weighing 160,000 #. The wear on freight tracks are much greater ! That may be one reason most European HSR tracks are passenger only.
And even where passenger and freight share a line - the loading of the freight is near the same weight as the passenger so all trains have near the same loading stress upon the track.
MiningmanWell it was largely in place at one time with dedicated passenger tracks with 4 track mains and 2 track mains and should have been built on from there.
Except that none of it was even to 125mph standard end-to-end 'in the day' and most of the reason for four-track mains with separate passenger lines evaporated half a century or more ago. (Look at all the NYC passenger wrecks involving parallel freight mishaps, and the need on all those double-track railroads for fancy red Mars lights to tell facing traffic to stop if a train went into emergency).
Perhaps if we had more Progressives in 1919-1920, we'd still have Federal control, perhaps a la CN a few years later... oh wait, there are sure a lot of dedicated passenger mains north of the border? I thought it had developed decidedly otherwise... and I hate to think what would have become of a Federally administered system in the '50s and '60s.
All valid points, however I did qualify by stating that it's to build on. The tricky part would be finding the right people and then a hands off, let 'em get it done approach. At least of lot of dedicated track could be saved. It may be relocated and changed in the future. Even elevated to above, why not? American can do and know how applied right may have been able to pull it off. Cripes you went to the moon, you would think this is on perhaps the same scale. I think it would require a societal change in thinking such as higher gas taxes, less subsidies to airports and such and so on. Easy does it, small and medium steps.
CNR did yeoman service post war but blossomed in the early 60's and was the only one carrying a bright torch up to the Tempo days. Once VIA arrived it all went to heck slowly. Government had politically correct control and it became the plaything of individual Members of Parliment, Quebec appeasement, favours here, cuts there, forget it.
The CNR, CN, and VIA are vastly different fishbarrels. I would have held CP's feet to the fire and made them live up to their charter commitments. It would not bankrupt them and its a cost to keeping a country and a company.
Wishful thinking all around but certainly doable.
A couple of problems with the OP.
1. It seems like he wants to bring passenger service back to a smaller town, not one of the cities around it. That seems backwards.
2. Until he tells us where he's actually from, we can't give any concrete suggestions.
Morgan LeFayDecades ago, my town was served by beautiful passenger trains. It has two active freight lines, but they are not extremely active as they see about 1 train each per hour. There are four cities in each cardinal direction (north, east, south, and west) that I think would be awesome to reestablish passenger rail service between. So, how would someone go about doing that?
What beautiful passenger trains served your town? Between your not extremely active freight lines at a train per hour per line - that is 48 freight trains per day (by the way, with today's 10-15K feet long freight trains, that is a whole lot of freight).
Backshop A couple of problems with the OP. 1. It seems like he wants to bring passenger service back to a smaller town, not one of the cities around it. That seems backwards. 2. Until he tells us where he's actually from, we can't give any concrete suggestions.
1. She.
2. How is providing passenger service to small towns backward.
3. I want to connect Kansas City, Missouri to Fayetteville or Fort Smith, Arkansas.
I also want to connect Tulsa, Oklahoma to Springfield, Missouri.
BaltACD What beautiful passenger trains served your town? Between your not extremely active freight lines at a train per hour per line - that is 48 freight trains per day (by the way, with today's 10-15K feet long freight trains, that is a whole lot of freight).
I think it would be better if I could show you instead of telling you, but I don't have a specific book. If I did, I don't know how to get the images from the book to the website.
Morgan LeFayI think it would be better if I could show you instead of telling you, but I don't have a specific book. If I did, I don't know how to get the images from the book to the website.
Relatively simple: post, over on the Classic Trains forum, what the railroads, train names, destination pairs and years involved are. (Ask it as one of the 'quiz' questions if you like.)
If there are Internet resources, they'll be found in short order. Then you can use the images in those posts as a 'source' to get them in a post here.
The alternative for books is to scan the image to something like a .jpg file, then post this to one of the online photo services that allows 'hotlinking'. This assigns the picture the necessary Internet "URL" that allows it to be displayed here. I believe precedent has established that posting limited amounts of book content for demonstrably non-profit purposes counts as 'fair use' under current copyright practice, so I wouldn't hesitate in asking that anyone who does have a book determined to be a reference here either scan and post here or provide you via e-mail with scanned .jpgs as attachments that you can upload and then link.
Morgan LeFay Backshop A couple of problems with the OP. 1. It seems like he wants to bring passenger service back to a smaller town, not one of the cities around it. That seems backwards. 2. Until he tells us where he's actually from, we can't give any concrete suggestions. 1. She. 2. How is providing passenger service to small towns backward. 3. I want to connect Kansas City, Missouri to Fayetteville or Fort Smith, Arkansas. I also want to connect Tulsa, Oklahoma to Springfield, Missouri.
The 'idea' being passenger service is for profit. To realistaclly chase a profit, service must be betwee large population Origin-Destination pairs. Large population centers have more potential passengers than do small population centers.
Kansas City and Tulsa would be the 'large' population centers and Fayetteville, Fort Smith and Springfield are not even on a direct highway linkage between KC & Tulsa. Any service that would link KC and your other cities with Tulsa would be very circuitious and not attract sufficient business between KC & Tulsa and I doubt traffic to your other cities would be sufficient to make up the difference. That presumes that there is sufficient business to link KC & Tulsa in the first place.
While we all know Amtrak does not operate at a profit, operating at a higher level of loss is not in the cards.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.