54light15I recall the Horn and Hardart automat restuarants in New York when I was a kid. I remember that nothing in the little glass boxes looked to be worth eating. I really don't see how that would work on a train.
That was a long time ago. Many restaurants and convenience stores sell a lot of food delivered by the box truck and cooked by Chef Mic.
Just becuase it's microwaveable doesn't mean it has to be crap.
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
charlie hebdo BaltACD charlie hebdo Up the pay for engineers. On many trains conductors become redundant. Engineer only crews are so efficient when it is necessary to hand throw switches.[/sarcasm] 1. How many Amtrak trains require conductors to operate hand-thrown switches? 2. Hand-thrown switches on passenger routes, at least, are very antiquated. It's about time America's rails caught up.
BaltACD charlie hebdo Up the pay for engineers. On many trains conductors become redundant. Engineer only crews are so efficient when it is necessary to hand throw switches.[/sarcasm]
charlie hebdo Up the pay for engineers. On many trains conductors become redundant.
Engineer only crews are so efficient when it is necessary to hand throw switches.[/sarcasm]
1. How many Amtrak trains require conductors to operate hand-thrown switches?
2. Hand-thrown switches on passenger routes, at least, are very antiquated. It's about time America's rails caught up.
There is a old saying S..t Happens. And in the real world, Railroading Happens.
Present rules prevent a person at the controls of a moving train from copying a Mandatory Directive (Slow Order, TWC Authority etc.) Signal systems do fail for a variety of reasons - to pass a Control Point where the Dispatcher cannot line a signal the switches may need to be lined for the train's movement. In some other instances the power switches need to be secured in the 'Hand' position for the safe movement of the train. Defect Detectors require a need for a person to inspect - sometimes on the ground, sometimes to view inspection devices that are on each car.
Railroading is not a video game.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Long-distance train travel will be revived when Amtrak realizes LD's are as much a part of the Hospitality business as transportation, and adopts the Station Restaurant System (hotel-like kitchen, 24-hour-day, full-menue, sit-down in RR-themed decore. take-out, home-and-business delivery, and on-board train delivery) to make each trip a mini-vacation, even in coach-class. Corridor travel will also benefit.
MidlandMikeThe NEC needs $30 billion to put it in a state of good repair. Who is going to make that up in ticket revenue?
Also, one could argue with the sheer volume of trains running over the NEC already, it should already be profitable and self-sufficient. My guess as to why it is not is because first and foremost Amtrak does not own the entire route. Secondly, I still have serious doubts that Amtrak is assessing market level charges for the use of it's track by various commuter rail systems that it hosts. I suspect a number of them are free loading on the NEC.
alphasIf it was me, I'd seperate the Boston-DC corridor and offer the rights to it for free to a selected foreign operator with a good history of success. In return, they would have to commit to making all the many billions of nesessary upgrades and repairs that are needed to bring that operation up to date. They would not have to pay anything back to the Federal Government until they recouped their outlays. Once they did reach that point, they would start paying a small percentage of their annual net income back to the government. The Harrisburg to Philadelphia Amtrak owned track could also be part of the arrangement if agreeable to all parties.
What does a foreign operator with a good history of success look like? Is there one that does not get massive funding from its government, or run on state funded rails? How is that different from Amtrak? The NEC needs $30 billion to put it in a state of good repair. Who is going to make that up in ticket revenue?
alphasThe rest of Amtrak woulld still exist seperately but the states served would have to fund the routes. If a state didn't want to fund their share then either the route would be changed to avoid it if posssible or, if not possible, then the trains would not make stop in that state unless local municipalities were willing to pay for the service. All strictly intrastate service would be up to that state to pay for, with the provision states can agree to go into bordering states as long as all state involved are in agreement.
Lets look at a (multi-) state supported route that crosses a state who doesn't support it. The Downeaster runs between Massachusetts and Maine, which support it, thru New Hampshire, which does not support it. If they would have cut the NH stops, they would have lost considerable revenue, but would not have saved coat as they have to run the same mileage thru NH. The Vermonter also runs thru NH. States like Iowa and Ohio have not supported proposed state rail services, so what is the likelyhood that they would support the current LD routes that you propose they should take over? But why should only rail passenger be Balkanized? Highways receive federal subsidy. Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the states? I remember when the New York State Thruway ended at the PA border to be dumped onto old highways. PA had their Turnpike which connected to the Ohio Turnpike, so why should they accommodate NY traffic? The Interstate Highway System corrected that. Imagine trying to drive cross-country with no standard Interstate system. Imagine the trucking system problems. Same with airports and shipping.
BaltACDIf it goes bankrupt - there won't be a market for the rolling stock except for scrap and scrap prices won't fund the debts the corporation is responsible for and in all likely hood the Treasury would have to expend funds on a Amtrak bankruptcy not gain funds from its dissolution.
Defunding it would not cause bankruptcy because Amtrak is also funded by the states as well as derives revenue from sources outside passenger train operations such as building leases. So if Congress halted the funds, the first thing Amtrak would do would be to borrow money to cover the immediate shortfall of funds increasing it's debt and the amount of money the taxpayers would have to pay to liquidate (which it has done in the past when Congress underfunded it).
Secondly, Amtrak would turn to the states to fund the Long Distance trains whom in turn would apply pressure back on Congress to fund Amtrak properly and the issue would boomerang back to Congress, which would cave in under the pressure from the States.
So I have serious doubts we would ever even get to promised Labor Protection Payments which would be several Billion dollars. Now Congress could terminate Amtraks charter and then withhold funds which would be more effective but even then the States would object and cut that off at the pass.
The only way your going to get rid of the Long Distance trains is either if Amtrak becomes self sufficient and no longer requires a subsidy from Congress OR if there is some kind of bipartisan negotiation and agreement in the House. Without either one of those two options LD Trains are probably here to stay in one form or another.
If it was me, I'd seperate the Boston-DC corridor and offer the rights to it for free to a selected foreign operator with a good history of success. In return, they would have to commit to making all the many billions of nesessary upgrades and repairs that are needed to bring that operation up to date. They would not have to pay anything back to the Federal Government until they recouped their outlays. Once they did reach that point, they would start paying a small percentage of their annual net income back to the government. The Harrisburg to Philadelphia Amtrak owned track could also be part of the arrangement if agreeable to all parties.
The rest of Amtrak woulld still exist seperately but the states served would have to fund the routes. If a state didn't want to fund their share then either the route would be changed to avoid it if posssible or, if not possible, then the trains would not make stop in that state unless local municipalities were willing to pay for the service. All strictly intrastate service would be up to that state to pay for, with the provision states can agree to go into bordering states as long as all state involved are in agreement.
BEAUSABRE1) Defund it 2) When it goes bankrupt, sell the peoperty and rolling stock to anyone who wants it 3) Returns those funds to the Treasury QED
2) When it goes bankrupt, sell the peoperty and rolling stock to anyone who wants it
3) Returns those funds to the Treasury
QED
If it goes bankrupt - there won't be a market for the rolling stock except for scrap and scrap prices won't fund the debts the corporation is responsible for and in all likely hood the Treasury would have to expend funds on a Amtrak bankruptcy not gain funds from its dissolution.
1) Defund it
BTW, just a personal observation. The new 19 inch wide contoured coach seating in the Siemens coaches, down from 22 inch wide bench seating from Amfleet. Probably is going to eliminate a lot of railfans from riding Amtrak in the future for any length of time unless they lose some heft.
spsffan ontheBNSF Maybe LD trains should die off then. I don't see why an automat wouldn't work, the level of service would be the same as what they offer today. I see no problem with eliminating that feature. Bus like train designs have succeeded, Germany's railbus was very successful. Automat service would fail for the simple reason that it can't server alchoholic drinks. You need a person for that (at least in the USA). Also, since nobody has brought it up, many long distance trains provide service to locations with little or no other nondriving alternative. The fact that they include not very luxurious sleeper accomidations and food service does not make them land cruises.
ontheBNSF Maybe LD trains should die off then. I don't see why an automat wouldn't work, the level of service would be the same as what they offer today. I see no problem with eliminating that feature. Bus like train designs have succeeded, Germany's railbus was very successful.
Automat service would fail for the simple reason that it can't server alchoholic drinks. You need a person for that (at least in the USA).
Also, since nobody has brought it up, many long distance trains provide service to locations with little or no other nondriving alternative. The fact that they include not very luxurious sleeper accomidations and food service does not make them land cruises.
If there's a need to provide transportation to lower density rural areas then the government can subsidize intercity buses to provide service there. Amtrak already runs charter buses, they use bustitution to replace service in critical communities; Japan railways has proposed something similar for their low density lines that don't turn a profit. Or you can use low capacity rail vehicles like the budd rdc. But there's zero justification for maintaining failed business models and economic basket case routes. Roomettes and dining cars basically are land cruises, even if the quality is low.
Railroad to Freedom
54light15 I recall the Horn and Hardart automat restuarants in New York when I was a kid. I remember that nothing in the little glass boxes looked to be worth eating. I really don't see how that would work on a train.
I recall the Horn and Hardart automat restuarants in New York when I was a kid. I remember that nothing in the little glass boxes looked to be worth eating. I really don't see how that would work on a train.
Why do we need to subsidize this feature at all? It's a luxury not a public good.
ontheBNSFMaybe LD trains should die off then. I don't see why an automat wouldn't work, the level of service would be the same as what they offer today. I see no problem with eliminating that feature. Bus like train designs have succeeded, Germany's railbus was very successful.
The fact that you don't see why rail automats wouldn't work is irrelevant. They still failed. Not only did they fail on railroads, but they have also disappeared from land based food service. The rail bus has been discussed elsewhere on this thread.
charlie hebdoUp the pay for engineers. On many trains conductors become redundant.
Up the pay for engineers. On many trains conductors become redundant.
54light15 I've ridden a German scheinenbus- they do ride rough and are noisy. There is much better equipment running over there like the Talent railcars that are both electric and diesel powered. They have a nice comfortable ride, large windows and a drinks/snacks trolley. Quite pleasant and I think they would do well in North America.
I've ridden a German scheinenbus- they do ride rough and are noisy. There is much better equipment running over there like the Talent railcars that are both electric and diesel powered. They have a nice comfortable ride, large windows and a drinks/snacks trolley. Quite pleasant and I think they would do well in North America.
I've ridden PCC cars and they are quite nice honestly. Plus the weight to passenger ratio is good and comparable to buses.
ontheBNSF Labor efficiency - From anecdotal experience Amtrak trains are atrocious when it comes to labor efficiency. An Amtrak train will have a meal car, an engineer who drives the train and often two, three or even more conductors. The conductor spends most of his time going up and down the train, opening doors and inspecting tickets. This job is basically unncessary with modern technology. Crew sizes should be no larger than 2 people, 1 engineer for driving the train and a 2nd conductor safety purposes, such as flagging crossings. Realistically many passenger routes could be done with 1 person crews without problems. Many of these conductors could be retrain to be engineers to enable more frequent service. Having fare/ticket gates would much more economical, though would require some upfront cost. You could also probably replace the ticket offices with e-ticketing and ticket machines. This article explains the importance of labor efficiency. https://pedestrianobservations.com/2015/07/26/why-labor-efficiency-is-important/
Labor efficiency - From anecdotal experience Amtrak trains are atrocious when it comes to labor efficiency. An Amtrak train will have a meal car, an engineer who drives the train and often two, three or even more conductors. The conductor spends most of his time going up and down the train, opening doors and inspecting tickets. This job is basically unncessary with modern technology. Crew sizes should be no larger than 2 people, 1 engineer for driving the train and a 2nd conductor safety purposes, such as flagging crossings. Realistically many passenger routes could be done with 1 person crews without problems. Many of these conductors could be retrain to be engineers to enable more frequent service. Having fare/ticket gates would much more economical, though would require some upfront cost. You could also probably replace the ticket offices with e-ticketing and ticket machines.
This article explains the importance of labor efficiency.
https://pedestrianobservations.com/2015/07/26/why-labor-efficiency-is-important/
I would like to see how the contractual changes required in any change in crew sizes would be negotiated. Labor efficiency, whatever that means, is not something that will be imposed unless union busting is considered to be a valid tactic.
Yes.
I suggest you read more carefully.
charlie hebdo CMStPnP The intent of Congress was to preserve the model of the privately run passenger train as it existed in 1969-1970 not run a stripped down service with no frills and nothing but seats. I suggest you read the Wiki history of Amtrak's beginning. Bare bones at best. I rode some of their eastern LD trains in the early 70s, a pale shadow of the trains of the 60s, in scheduling, numbers and interior amenities. Here is the original act: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-84/pdf/STATUTE-84-Pg1327.pdf
CMStPnP The intent of Congress was to preserve the model of the privately run passenger train as it existed in 1969-1970 not run a stripped down service with no frills and nothing but seats.
I suggest you read the Wiki history of Amtrak's beginning. Bare bones at best. I rode some of their eastern LD trains in the early 70s, a pale shadow of the trains of the 60s, in scheduling, numbers and interior amenities.
Here is the original act:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-84/pdf/STATUTE-84-Pg1327.pdf
OK so you mention Wikipedia which is only as good as the smarts of the last person that updated it. And you provide a link that basically repeats what I said in my post on page 1329 of the linked document.
So I am confused. Are you trying to refute what I said or are you agreeing? If your attempting to refute, read page 1329 where the amenities of Long Distance trains are mentioned specifically as components to be taken into account of the basic system. To me that sounds like preserve what we had running at the time. Nowhere does it say basic transportation it says basic system or in my interpretation framework system.
Some of the trains including the Twin Cities Hiawathas were run very well until Amtrak turnover. Show me a train today with a skytop lounge and Super Dome that runs regularly. Same deal with the Super Chief and several other trains. they were not all crap in 1971. Amtrak was cash strapped at startup and even though it attempted to do so, really did not have standardized equipment with standardized interior accomodations. They did the best they could with what they inherited. Had they been properly funded in 1971 you would have seen orders for new equipment from Pullman in 1971 or 1972 vs 1978. I remember Amtrak in the early 1970's, no phone reservation system, paper and hand written tickets with carbons between. You had to call the local train depot to get tickets set aside then purchase them there or at a local travel agency.
CMStPnPThe intent of Congress was to preserve the model of the privately run passenger train as it existed in 1969-1970 not run a stripped down service with no frills and nothing but seats.
ontheBNSF MidlandMike ontheBNSF Eliminate long distance trains or make them into land cruises. A dozen private rail cruise operations have tried this since Amtrak, and all have gone out of business. ontheBNSF You can eliminate meal cars or turn them into automats SP tried this, and it was a failure. ontheBNSF Improve the weight to passenger ratio of vehicles - Modern passenger trains, not just American ones, are using a lot weight and material to move people. A PCC Car or bus can move large numbers of people while using less weight than modern passenger trains. GM created the Aerotrain using bus architecture, and it was so rough that it was unrideable. Maybe LD trains should die off then. I don't see why an automat wouldn't work, the level of service would be the same as what they offer today. I see no problem with eliminating that feature. Bus like train designs have succeeded, Germany's railbus was very successful.
MidlandMike ontheBNSF Eliminate long distance trains or make them into land cruises. A dozen private rail cruise operations have tried this since Amtrak, and all have gone out of business. ontheBNSF You can eliminate meal cars or turn them into automats SP tried this, and it was a failure. ontheBNSF Improve the weight to passenger ratio of vehicles - Modern passenger trains, not just American ones, are using a lot weight and material to move people. A PCC Car or bus can move large numbers of people while using less weight than modern passenger trains. GM created the Aerotrain using bus architecture, and it was so rough that it was unrideable.
ontheBNSF Eliminate long distance trains or make them into land cruises.
A dozen private rail cruise operations have tried this since Amtrak, and all have gone out of business.
ontheBNSF You can eliminate meal cars or turn them into automats
SP tried this, and it was a failure.
ontheBNSF Improve the weight to passenger ratio of vehicles - Modern passenger trains, not just American ones, are using a lot weight and material to move people. A PCC Car or bus can move large numbers of people while using less weight than modern passenger trains.
GM created the Aerotrain using bus architecture, and it was so rough that it was unrideable.
Maybe LD trains should die off then. I don't see why an automat wouldn't work, the level of service would be the same as what they offer today. I see no problem with eliminating that feature. Bus like train designs have succeeded, Germany's railbus was very successful.
The German Schienenbus (bustrain) was strictly for very short local trains, primarily in rural areas. It was rough running. None are used today except with museums.
charlie hebdoLand cruises are not basic transportation
The intent of Congress was to preserve the model of the privately run passenger train as it existed in 1969-1970 not run a stripped down service with no frills and nothing but seats. People want to eat on the train if the train trip is over a few hours and they want to sleep on the train if the trip takes a few days. Even the state DOT's realize this when they pay for a subsidized trains. So I have no clue where your getting that interpretation from. "Basic Transportation" does not appear anywhere in Amtraks Charter nor have I heard anyone from Congress use it when talking about Amtrak.
Amtraks idea of converting the Long Distance trains to "Experience Trains" should be tried or attempted with at least one train I think. Amtrak has never had any funds to experiment with on a LD train scale and I think it would be an intelligent use of money to see if they could bring LD train running costs down. If nothing else perhaps they pick up on some money making innovations that can be applied to the corridor trains.
SD70Dudewhat do the operators of the modern Indian Pacific and Ghan have that the American Orient Express did not?
I can answer that. American Orient Express was never a scheduled service that ran once a day. It only ran on specified dates similar to the Rocky Mountaineer.
Now then why does the Rocky Mountaineer still survive when the American Orient Express failed. For starters the American Orient Express was only one class of service, all luxury. Number 2 I would suspect is AOE never sold the packages that Rocky Mountaineer does (like a cruise ship), significantly more profitable than passage on the train if you ask me but thats just an opinion I have. Rocky Mountaineer uses pre-prepped dishes for the dining service that just require final assembly and serving. So their dining car chef is largely supervisory over the rest of the kitchen staff. AOE I believe attempted to prep and cook things entirely on board like the old streamliner passenger trains.....requiring more skilled and much higher paid dining car staff.
I rode Rocky Mountaineer twice and partook in two of their packages. Their hotel add a night was at their negotiated rate with their added markup, so they made money on that even though it was not their hotel. Their tour of icefields parkway was pretty expensive and again they used the hotel facilities for that (again probably negotiated) for the pickup, provision of box lunches, movement of baggage, etc. The price they charged for that add-on was probably three times what it cost them to provide it......plus they used their own bus fleet vs charter.....additional money to their bottom line. You would never see Amtrak take on business like that. The AOE was only interested in the train ride and hotel packages along the way and the hotel packages it provided were again one class vs offering a cheaper and expensive option. So the market for AOE was fairly narrow.
BTW, on some of the so called "land cruise trains" specifically the Cruise Ship Contracts run by Alaska Railroad. Their onboard service crews live in apartments provided by the Cruise Line so you can take it to the bank they are paid a LOT lower than Amtrak would pay it's crew. Not sure about the Alaska Passenger Service crews but it's true of the Cruise Ship part of the train. They hire their seasonal employees for the summer and pay for their flight up there to stay in their own apartments. Significantly saving on what they need to pay the person to be on the crew.
charlie hebdoAmtrak is a quasi-government, subsidized passenger operation chartered to provide transportation. Land cruises are not basic transportation. They should be private operations. If they mostly have failed, it is because not enough people are willing to pay the cost plus profit.
People aren't willing to pay land cruise prices for commuter train service.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.