“Amtrak’s first attempt at mail was a disaster. It burdened its passengers and wasted precious capital and effort.”
The original MHC (at the head end with HEP), using pallet loading with forklifts, were ordered about 1986 (Claytor) and served to the 2003 IRC, following a derailment investigation report, were generally succesful. The NTSB derailment report referenced MHC dynamics, however TOFC/Autorack cars would not perform better (Pg 30) so it was the track… note how the handling of the pallets was performed away from platforms, pallet jack to door, then forklift.
The non-HEP Boxcar and Roadrailer end of train operation seemed to suffer from an under capitalized operation, leading to the terminal delays mentioned, where they could have been put between the power with Locotrol. It probably could have been worked out better with time.
Hey its not an issue of confusion, I have stated in my post that the freight railroads are where they want to be hauling freight on intermodal trains. What the article stated was the inspector general of the po suggested more mail could be handled by rail. The post office officials are more skeptical of it. I think intermodal trains will continue to gain market share from truckers. Thier is on going shortage of truck drivers and fuel prices are bound to rise again.
My personal experience with the road runners was poor. On a typical trip from Albany to Chicago, we left Albany between 45 minutes to an hour late solely because of the yard crew cutting the cars on to the rear of the train. The lake shore would then stop about 3 miles from union station and the cars would be removed further delaying the train. I could rarely count on the lake shore to be on time west bound. Eastbound the same sad story would occur, 3 miles out the train was stopped to cut the cars back in. I always felt sorry for the thru passengers east of Albany, because again the cars would be cut off and time lost in Albany. This was not a one time issue, it happened to me on about 10 round trips on the lake shore
Those trips cost me 800 bucks. I feel that the 300 passengers on board should be a higher priority than freight.
Those trips cost me ad much as 800 bucks in a roomette. I feel I should be a higher priority than mail or a package. Other than that the trips were great.
If at first you don’t succeed. Yeah I will agree that was a disaster. You know they were using a 1940’s or 1950’s idea and trying to apply it to the 1990’s. I think the issue at hand needs a lot more thinking and designing than that.
Actually they were using 1990’ ideas in the 1990’s. The NYC would never have combined any of its named trains in the 1950’s with a string of freight cars at the expense or inconveinence of its passengers.
Amtrak tried to have it both ways and it failed. If Amtrak wants to haul high priority mail, freight or packages, then run a second section of the train, instead of downgrading its primary passenger services by essentially turning thier thier trains into mixed trains. If not then limited their head end business to what can be handled in a baggage car. This is not being closed minded or old fashsion but as what Amtrak has already found out practical.
…And yet high priority packages and mail flys and coexists with passengers on Commercial Airline flights in the cargo hold. I don’t see a second plane flying behind my commercial airliner with just mail.
That because the mail is loaded and handled while the passengers are boarding and off loading. You don’t see the passenger boarding then taxi away and loading cargo. You may notice that ups and fed have freighter not passenger hauling thier freight not passenger planes. When you overnite a package on ups it either goes on one of thier trucks or on thier planes. Your comparing apples to oranges .
It would be interesting to see how much cargo a typical jet liner can carry.
So I guess you just may see a passenger plane being followed by a fed ex plane. Something to ponder the next time your at your local air port.
Packages co exist on some Amtrak trains now as we all know. This service can certainly be expanded but not at the expense of the high priority passenger as Amtrak tried but did not succeed with its roadrunners.
It still seems there is conflation with the differing operating principles of the MHC vs. Boxcars/Roadrailers. The MHC mail and express seemed to be good finacially.
The pass through HEP electric cables allowed the MHC operation (which is no different that a baggage car) to follow the consist into the station and did not have the delays associated with the later non-HEP cars.
If you want to create a container operation there probably needs to be a thought given to how rapidly you can cut the cars and station operations.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
