daveklepper When you, Charlie, deny the grandfather the opportunity to visit his children and grandchildren, because he cannot fly or endure long auto trips, you not only hurt him but his family members as well.
When you, Charlie, deny the grandfather the opportunity to visit his children and grandchildren, because he cannot fly or endure long auto trips, you not only hurt him but his family members as well.
Charlie, you are a cad.
But it goes beyond the grandfather and his family members. I start sniveling at the very thought that gramps might have to stay home and visit using Skype. And this kind of sadness can build and build until it saturates our entire country and goes out into the world.
Unacceptable.
I think the grandchildren should get their little butts on a Greyhound, and go see gramps, so as to relieve the poor guy of all those travel woes.
Then I won't have to snivel anymore.
There are other benefits:
The grandkids' parents can have a week off to enjoy what it was like before having kids.
The grandfather can be reminded of how glad he was when the last kid finally moved out, and he could do what he wanted at home.
And the grandkids will surely benefit by being exposed to a form of travel that is experienced by a vast multitude who are unable to pay for more expensive travel--a true learning experience.
Ed
Let me explain fairness:
Actual story: A young man met his former teacher on a Brooklyn street. He asked the older man if he remembered him (the student). The former teacher replied, "At my age, my memory isn't perfect, and I had many students, so forgive me for not remembering your name.' The student: "You were an insiration for me, and I am studying to be a teacher, to follow in your footsteps." Teacher: "What did I do to inspire you?" Student: "I was a thief. A ckassmate got a present of a beautiful pocket watch. I didn't have a watch and needed one. So I stole it. But he found it was missing before the class ended, and complained to you. You had us all line up facing a wall with our eyes closed. Then you went through the pockets of all of us students and took the watch from my pocket, and conltinued to inspect the pockets of the other students. And then you returned the watch to its owner.
And afterward, you continued to treat me no differently than the other students."
Teacher: "Yes, that is true. I also closed my eyes while searching the pants pockets."
Not by any means a handful. Businesses would close, for one thing.
The commuter who uses the NEC uses it about 500 times a year. The small store owner in a small town uses an LDT twice a year, his vacation. Both are American Citizens paying taxes. You obviously wish the second to subsidize the first without getting a chance of getting anything in return.
I am not conerned with accounting proceedures. i am concerned with what is fair for all USA Citizens. Most USA citizens don't use Amtrak, either the NEC, State Supported Corridors, or the LDTs. But the LDTs are a step in the direction of giving people the opportunity to use Amtrak.
Again, the subsidy for the LDTs is only equivalent to a rounding error in the huge costs needed each year for the NEC. I agree the huge costs for the NET are essential for the whole USA, even whole North American, economy. The LDT subsidy is needed for fairness. So the system remains national and not the country subsidizing only a specific area or specific population.
You obviously don't understand accounting or the need for infrastructure. Those items you tick off are essential to the lives of millions. LD trains wouldn't be missed by more than a handful if they were all discontinued tomorrow. You are out of touch in both time and location.
In fact, the "sink-hole" of the LDT losses looks like just a rounding error, a small puddle, compared to the billions in the "sink-hole" of the NEC fixed costs:
The new NYCitiy Penn Station
Repair of Sandy-damaged East River and Hudson tunnels
Catenary replacement
Baltimore Tunnels repair
Partal Bridge
Shore Line Bridges
Baltimore - Washington third track
I'm sure other readers can add more.
The accounting numbers that matter are the above-the-rails (direct operating) costs and farebox revenue. Acela more than covers those direct costs and provides a subsidy to that financial black hole, aka, LD trains.
And can we be sure that anyone at Amtrak can really figiured it out? How do you apportion fixed costs of RoW and electrification to commuter authorities using the tracks, regional trains, Acela, and the few long-distance trains also using the tracks? Are the Boston - Newport News or Norfolk trains regional expresses or long-distance? It is a very complicated issue, and some subjectivity is bound to interfere with a really fair opportionment.
Flintlock76 charlie hebdo 1. Those luxury trains of old were operated by for-profit corporations. Whether they broke even or not was a decision by their executives, not a taxpayer-subsidized quasi-government operation. 2. Acela has a large surplus of farebox revenue over above-the-rails expenses. I have never seen any evidence to support the contrary. Number One, absolutely correct. Number Two? That's another one no-one seems to know for sure. A lot of people argue that point. I'm not one of them. Only Amtrak knows for sure. But if it is true, great!
charlie hebdo 1. Those luxury trains of old were operated by for-profit corporations. Whether they broke even or not was a decision by their executives, not a taxpayer-subsidized quasi-government operation. 2. Acela has a large surplus of farebox revenue over above-the-rails expenses. I have never seen any evidence to support the contrary.
1. Those luxury trains of old were operated by for-profit corporations. Whether they broke even or not was a decision by their executives, not a taxpayer-subsidized quasi-government operation.
2. Acela has a large surplus of farebox revenue over above-the-rails expenses. I have never seen any evidence to support the contrary.
Number One, absolutely correct.
Number Two? That's another one no-one seems to know for sure. A lot of people argue that point. I'm not one of them. Only Amtrak knows for sure.
But if it is true, great!
The questions about Amtrak accounting involves allocation of fixed costs, not operational data, AFAIK.
MIClipper May I suggest the Taj Boston next time you are in Boston. I have never had any complaints with my stays there.
May I suggest the Taj Boston next time you are in Boston. I have never had any complaints with my stays there.
Thanks for the recommendation. I will put it on "the list".
CSSHEGEWISCH While the ritzy passenger service was not subsidized by the taxpayers, it was subsidized by the freight shippers. Regulation under the ICC treated the railroads as public utilities which led to artificially low passenger fares with the expectation that the resultant losses would be offset by freight profits. I doubt that the extra amenities on the De Luxe, 20th Century Limited and the early Super Chief were covered all of the fares paid by the upper-class passengers that these trains were geared toward.
While the ritzy passenger service was not subsidized by the taxpayers, it was subsidized by the freight shippers. Regulation under the ICC treated the railroads as public utilities which led to artificially low passenger fares with the expectation that the resultant losses would be offset by freight profits. I doubt that the extra amenities on the De Luxe, 20th Century Limited and the early Super Chief were covered all of the fares paid by the upper-class passengers that these trains were geared toward.
Whether or not the railroads made money or not on the long distance trains is a question that will never be answered to anyone's satisfaction, not at this point. Some rail historians say "Yes, they did," others say "No, they didn't."
However, it is true that most had the philosophy of "Todays passenger could be tomorrows shipper," so they did try for the best passenger experience possible, in the "Classic Era" anyway.
It hardly matters now. Kind of like medieval monks arguing over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
Commuter service is/was another thing entirely. It's pretty much a given it was a money-loser, in the post-war era anyway.
The Union-Pearson train here in Toronto was originally marketed as a high-end train for business travelers; staff had spiffy uniforms, there was an at-seat magazine and it had an expensive one-way fare that still made people take limos. The fare was reduced to not much more than a TTC fare, the magazine was dropped, the subsidy increased and ridership exploded. Ridership is at the point of dropping the trains built for the service and using conventional GO-trains. On the good side, it may stop at more points on the way but that would only be after the whole thing is electrified.
charlie hebdo2. Acela has a large surplus of farebox revenue over above-the-rails expenses. I have never seen any evidence to support the contrary.
Is the above-the-rails surplus net of interest charges and depreciation on the equipment? (I suspect it well might be.)
I'm not suggesting that Amtrak stop funding the NEC, or that it is 'in error' for funding services that happen to be largely for the rich and powerful in that corridor. Dave's argument that off-highway transportation needs to be more attractive (literally) than other modes in an area that badly needs non-road alternatives is a good one, even though I think there is still a case to be made for improving 'general' service rather than designing-in at least the perception of a de facto class structure in Corridor services.
Your last question has been answered many times by the simple facts of the requirement for NEC passenger service to be well used to avoid grid-lock on nearby heighways. Just like commuter service for the same reason.
And amenties and possibly some elist-seeming perks may be required for the necessary growth in use.
CMStPnPcharlie hebdoTaxpayers should not be expected to subsidize such stuff now. They didn't then, either.Actually, the first 1930's era Hiawatha's were paid for with taxpayer funds under WPA of the Roosevelt Administration.
charlie hebdoTaxpayers should not be expected to subsidize such stuff now. They didn't then, either.
I think it would have been the RFC, but that's not important right now. I think what charlie was commenting about was that it was 'luxury touches' that were not primarily subsidized, not capital equipment. There is of course some 'spillover'; I'm sure the amenities in a Tip Top Tap were subsidized, but those were at least technically available to all.
The question would be whether Federal money went to purely elitist things -- and I would argue that a great deal of the subsidy for capital and operation in the Northeast Corridor could be said to be precisely this, particularly given that the "transportation" advantages of any of the Acela trains are relatively small.
The issue then becomes whether amenities that only serve to distinguish VIP travel from the hoi are things that Government money ought to support (or even enable) and I would agree with charlie that they really shouldn't be... unless they genuinely recover their capital and then marginal cost completely in real (not potentially-jiggered Amtrak accounting) dollars, as I believe has been claimed for the Acela trains. That still rules out part of the initial question being discussed here: whether luxury and finer service available to all patrons of a given train should be supported -- or, indeed, whether such service only available to Amtrak passengers should be supported by the great number of taxpayers who would never ride Amtrak or are in fact discommoded by it in some way.
Actually, the first 1930's era Hiawatha's were paid for with tax payer funds under WPA of the Roosevelt Administration.
WisDOT also paid for the primary costs of the current Amtrak station back in 1965 (former joint Milwaukee Road / C&NW station) as compensation for the Freeway system having to raze the Milwaukee Road Station.
Chicago's Midway Airport, New York Laquardia Airport, Dealy Plaza in Dallas, San Antonio Riverwalk and flood control system, Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles are also examples of infrastructure built with WPA funds.
Everyone knows millenials like hardwood floors.
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
Far too complicated and totally unnecessary.
7j43kOf course, THAT Four Seasons is gone. I imagine if we get to go back in time maybe 100 years, there were other restaurants that were pretty near perfection.
Part of the 'key' here may be to determine what made them objectively so, as opposed to magnets for exclusivity. In my somewhat Philistine opinion, many of the nouvelle cuisine gastravaganza places, with waiting lists sometimes over a year, are not really different from any other perceived-short-supply methodology of creating 'desire' (see the successful de Beers scam on metastable carbon).
What we need is a list of best DISHES that translate well to a modern-achievable kitchen, a list of best PRACTICES in setting the table and the surroundings for proper experience start-to-finish (and that includes 'olfactory programming' as has become something of a secret science in the last 15 years), and a list of best SERVICE traits that 'wow' customers without involving pandering for a tip in the usual fashions. Then see how much of that can be implemented.
As demand ramps up past 'premium' customers in sleepers or special programs (hint!) or if it appears there are meals left over, why not have a call for coach passengers, even at a rate that just ensures no stuff has to be taken back to off-train storage or commissary.
This in full parallel to some system that gives the passengers an app to order (and prepay for) food that is delivered 'just in time' at key stations enroute. Trust me when I say many restaurants will be capable of precisely this kind of timing and precisely accurate delivery, probably with better quality than a typical order to 'take out', presuming Amtrak can provide them good 'tracker' information that is responsibly predictive. Suspect the actual delivery pickup and liaison with train staff will be 'outsourced', probably to one provider in a town who will also do something like Uber Eats in the non-Amtrak part of his or her day, and who can provide much of the other amenity service or value-added presentation that would impress passengers watching for their food ... for example, bottled drinks or additional pebbled or spring beverage ice ready to go.
A key point is that the meals, the delivery cost, the additional amenities, and much of the rest of the 'experience' don't involve Amtrak cost. The marginal cost of accurate 'push' tracking will be marginally slight, as would any additional development of appropriate API for service-app vendors or portal providers to use in 'enabling' their own products and perhaps custom services for Amtrak passengers. There is a piece of your 2020 mandated cost reduction precisely as service for anyone not depending on the diner and its 'experience' reaches much wider, and perhaps much better, levels...
Overmod Ed, he's not talking about the piddly hotels, he's talking about the Four Seasons that Joe Baum had in the Seagram Building, and the experience that was created there.
Ed, he's not talking about the piddly hotels, he's talking about the Four Seasons that Joe Baum had in the Seagram Building, and the experience that was created there.
Now that you mention it..........
Of course, THAT Four Seasons is gone. I imagine if we get to go back in time maybe 100 years, there were other restaurants that were pretty near perfection.
I guess, in the olden days, the rich folks had standards.
Overmod 7j43k Gramp I realize Amtrak is mediocrity by design. I'm asking about representing the best of its kind for its time. Note that this is separate from the pretentious 'place for movers and shakers to see and be seen' aspect of the issue, in which places like Studio 54 and Elaine's and Ivy/Ivy by the Shore would rank high, but not in the experience per se. There were indeed trains that had that cachet, Repp's version of the Super Chief and perhaps the older ATSF de Luxe among them, but these aren't anything Amtrak could ever aspire to generate.
7j43k Gramp I realize Amtrak is mediocrity by design. I'm asking about representing the best of its kind for its time.
Gramp I realize Amtrak is mediocrity by design. I'm asking about representing the best of its kind for its time.
I realize Amtrak is mediocrity by design. I'm asking about representing the best of its kind for its time.
Note that this is separate from the pretentious 'place for movers and shakers to see and be seen' aspect of the issue, in which places like Studio 54 and Elaine's and Ivy/Ivy by the Shore would rank high, but not in the experience per se. There were indeed trains that had that cachet, Repp's version of the Super Chief and perhaps the older ATSF de Luxe among them, but these aren't anything Amtrak could ever aspire to generate.
Nor should it. Those deluxe trains were ridden by the movers, shakers and movie makers of the 20s to 50s, not regular folks. The 20th and Super Chief were there partly as moving advertisements to get corporate moguls to use their freight services. Today's equivalents fly in private jets.
7j43k Gramp I realize Amtrak is mediocrity by design. I'm asking about representing the best of its kind for its time. Exemplary. The Four Seasons? Unfortunately not.
Gramp I realize Amtrak is mediocrity by design. I'm asking about representing the best of its kind for its time. Exemplary. The Four Seasons?
I realize Amtrak is mediocrity by design. I'm asking about representing the best of its kind for its time. Exemplary.
The Four Seasons?
Unfortunately not.
Ed, he's not talking about the piddly hotels, he's talking about the Four Seasons that Joe Baum had in the Seagram Building, and the experience that was created there. (I would add Baum's revision of the Rainbow Room, and Windows on the World, to the list of postmodern Grand Experiences. Perhaps more useful for Amtrak purposes would be something like Tavern on the Green).
Ed, he's not talking about the piddly hotels, he's talking about the Four Seasons that Joe Baum had in the Seagram Building, and the experience that was created there. (I would add Baum's revision of the Rainbow Room, and Windows on the World, to the list of postmodern Grand Experiences).
I realize Amtrak is mediocrity by design.
I'm asking about representing the best of its kind for its time. Exemplary.
I was at the Four Seasons Boston on Sunday and the previous Tuesday. Food pretty much sucked. I'm not sure Spenser would bring Susan here anymore. Scallops were great, though. They gave us a suite with a bedroom with NO windows ("our Alcatraz suites"?). My lovely wife insisted on another room. With windows. We are likely looking for another Boston hotel, next time. Oh, yes: They seem to feel the need for a "fragrance" in the lobby. I feel the need for clean fresh air in the lobby.
On t'other hand: Four Seasons SF--very good dinner Thursday night. Server--excellent. Nice room, view of South of Market. No "fragrance".
And no tablecloths at either.
The 20th Century did out earn the Broadway.
My thinking is the Grand Central Terminal being at 42th Street was closer to the home 'turf' of the 'Movers & Shakers & Financiers' of the era and was thus more convenient for them to use the Century rather than heading down to 30th Street for Penn Station.
Convenience generally wins, in any competition all other things being near equal.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.