22 replies to this topic

[jphjaxfl]

I worked at the Post Office when I was going to college in the mid 1960s. We still dispatched and received mail from Railroad Post Offices which were traveling post offices. With so little first class mail now due to e-mail and electronic transactions, I don't think RPOs would be practical, however, bulk mail shipments would be.

[The Davy Crockett]

One of the many problems with bringing back mail via train is that many mail sorting facilities have been moved away from rail connections. It use to be that large post office facilities were located next to pax stations , but no longer are. CHI and WAS are just two examples of this, there are many, many more. Therefore it wold be inefficient and time consuming to try and put mail loaded into a truck onto any train other than an intermodal.

[Cho Cho Charlie]

Very true. Our large USPS Sort Facility is next to our local "international" airport. Its no where near to what use to be our train station (now abandoned and decaying, with people walking what use to be roadbeds).

[reefgeek]

Our mail these days consists mostly of Netflix and a reduced number of catalogs. And bills, but even some of those are electronic. The sad fact is that postal mail is dying. Maybe Amtrak could get some business with UPS and FedEx, which both seem to send less-than-overnight shipments at a reduced cost, and concentrate on parcels.

Coming soon: "Express (Train) Mail from Amtrak, when it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight unless there's a grade crossing incident or maybe some flooding or UP's computers go blooey, in which case it may be a few hours late."

Edited by reefgeek, 26 March 2012 - 02:29 PM.

[George Harris]

The infrastructure is gone. Not just that the sort facilities are moved. All the other parts that made the machine work are gone. The mail cranes next to the tracks are gone. The local stations that were next to them are gone. Not sure that you could find the people that would stand in an open door in all kinds of weather to kick the bag out at the right second, have the hook in position to snag the bag, grab it, have the people in the car, again with an open door so it is always too hot, too cold, too wet, standing at swaying tables and racks sorting mail so it can be bagged and the bags be kicked out as needed.

There is also the need to have mail trains everywhere you have tracks, and for many locations the tracks are also gone, so there is no possibility of restoring the trains at all.

When you were hiring guys that grew up on farms where you were out in all kinds of weather, and a lot still animal power for the machinerey, a job of this nature was not considered bad. Also, these guys were doing this with a 38 on their hip. Again, if you grew up shooting for the fun of it, carrying a piece that you know how and when to use was no big deal either.

[Oldsmoboi]

Most Amtrak routes don't have enough of a frequency to warrant it and I'd argue that UPS and FedEx already have contracts with the NS, CSX, and UP. If the USPS wants to do intermodel, Amtrak isn't the company for them to call.

[sechs]

Maybe Amtrak could get some business with UPS and FedEx, which both seem to send less-than-overnight shipments at a reduced cost, and concentrate on parcels.

A couple of times, I've seen a pallet of mail going on or off the baggage car; but, in general, I don't see the volume to start regular service via passenger train. The USPS already has a contract with FedEx, and continues to move mail on commercial air passenger flights.

UPS already uses rail for its ground packages. I've watched the tracking as packages boarded an NS train to Chicago, and then a BNSF train to San Pablo. Heck, I had a package in a derailment once!

[Swadian Hardcore]

Amtrak used to haul mail, even in the 1990s. But the system was cancelled by Davis Gunn because the mail was causing more problems than benefits.

[transit54]

As has been mentioned above, UPS uses rail freight extensively. They try and put every package going more than 500 miles (IIRC, the figure may actually be even less than that) on a train. FedEx is starting to do so for some freight shipments, but have not had any interest yet for their small package division. As fuel prices increase, I think you will see FedEx be more willing to utilize rail. I firmly believe the USPS should start utilizing rail to a greater degree, but passenger rail is not in the cards - any future involving rail is going to be trailer on flatcar or transported in containers. Utilizing Amtrak trains, with their limited capacity and frequencies, simply doesn't make sense from the point of the USPS. Devoting enough capacity on the train to make it worthwhile for the USPS doesn't make sense for Amtrak (see the mail & express era and all the problems it caused). Same thing with UPS and FedEx. This is what a UPS train looks like. Amtrak wouldn't have space for one trailer's worth of parcels in a baggage car, let alone the whole train!

[Donctor]

Amtrak should haul mail for the envoromental and conservation reasons.

Amtrak should not haul mail because that isn't Amtrak's job.

Edited by Donctor, 27 March 2012 - 11:01 AM.

[zephyr17]

Amtrak used to haul mail, even in the 1990s. But the system was cancelled by Davis Gunn because the mail was causing more problems than benefits.

Yes, and they handled mail even in the earliest days. However, this discussion hasn't so far differentiated between the RPO mail, first class mail which was sorted and handled enroute, and storage mail, which was largely 3rd class. RPOs were pulled out of service by the Post Office in 1967 with a very few exceptions, and railroads were paid very well for handling this mail, including fares for the RPO clerks. The infrastructure that other posters have pointed is the infrastructure to handle RPOs and that is all gone. RPOs are never coming back because it makes no economic sense to sort mail on the fly, even if the network was still in place. Much more efficient to use large sorting centers which can leverage technology, instead of clerks tossing mail into sorting slots in an RPO car.

Storage mail remained on the train after 1967, but were pretty much at freight rates, and the private RRs sometimes handled it on passenger trains, sometimes on fast freights. Amtrak retained this storage mail business on passenger trains, sometimes tried to grow the business, until, as pointed out, David Gunn got out of the business.

Finally, much of the bottom line of the private RRs passenger trains was supported by first class mail and express from Railway Express Agency, with something like 40% of the revenue coming from "head-end" business. When the mail went, and when REA pulled away from many trains and moved to trucks because the network had gotten so thin, that was the final blow and trains came off with the loss of that revenue. So there very much is precendent for handling express on passenger trains, and it was a key component of the economic equation of passenger trains, back in the day.

Edited by zephyr17, 27 March 2012 - 12:40 PM.

[Oldsmoboi]

As has been mentioned above, UPS uses rail freight extensively. They try and put every package going more than 500 miles (IIRC, the figure may actually be even less than that) on a train. FedEx is starting to do so for some freight shipments, but have not had any interest yet for their small package division. As fuel prices increase, I think you will see FedEx be more willing to utilize rail. I firmly believe the USPS should start utilizing rail to a greater degree, but passenger rail is not in the cards - any future involving rail is going to be trailer on flatcar or transported in containers. Utilizing Amtrak trains, with their limited capacity and frequencies, simply doesn't make sense from the point of the USPS. Devoting enough capacity on the train to make it worthwhile for the USPS doesn't make sense for Amtrak (see the mail & express era and all the problems it caused). Same thing with UPS and FedEx. This is what a UPS train looks like. Amtrak wouldn't have space for one trailer's worth of parcels in a baggage car, let alone the whole train!

Exactly.

If USPS goes rail, they'll go with trailers on intermodal cars, not with shoving a few pallets on a heritage bag. With the exception of some highly congested freight cities, the freight roads are more efficient at moving packages than Amtrak could ever hope to be simply because of the frequency of the trains they run. How many trains does the NS run between Pittsburgh and Philly each day? Several dozen. How many trains does Amtrak run? 2

[VentureForth]

True, but can you actually send ANYTHING across the country by freight rail faster than by passsenger rail - even in the most optimized of conditions?

Edited by VentureForth, 27 March 2012 - 01:13 PM.

[Oldsmoboi]

True, but can you actually send ANYTHING across the country by freight rail faster than by passsenger rail - even in the most optimized of conditions?

Yes because you aren't limited to the routes that Amtrak runs. You want to ship a package from Washington DC to Houston TX. To go via Amtrak, it is going to be routed through Chicago. There have to be more than half a dozen better freight routes that a package train could take. Want to ship something from Cumberland to Albany? You're better off walking it there yourself than shipping it Amtrak, but it is one zone for UPS which means it will be there typically in 2 days even with ground service.

[transit54]

True, but can you actually send ANYTHING across the country by freight rail faster than by passsenger rail - even in the most optimized of conditions?

Probably not, but if a high priority intermodal freight train is too slow, then likely air freight is what's desired. The fundamental problem is that Amtrak has a small number of trains with baggage service and limited cargo capacity in each baggage car. So there's a very limited market in what they can transport efficiently. Any business shipper is going to want to be able to move volume, which Amtrak can't handle.

[Oldsmoboi]

Intermodals are only 10mph slower than passenger but sustain their speed for longer periods of time (no station stops) The average end to end speed is possibly higher due to preferential dispatching.

[transit54]

Intermodals are only 10mph slower than passenger but sustain their speed for longer periods of time (no station stops) The average end to end speed is possibly higher due to preferential dispatching.

Wouldn't argue there, I was just factoring in the time required for unloading of the train and drayage in the freight example. Whereas in the passenger example, I was assuming the shipment would be immediately available upon arrival (though likely it still would need to be transported to it's final destination). But I'd agree with you, in the end, the speeds are probably neck and neck, if not the freight being faster.

[xyzzy]

Another factor is that many USPS processing centers have been relocated out of city centers to sites near airports and interstate highways. In the old days, the main PO of a city was almost always nearby the main passenger station. No longer.

[Cho Cho Charlie]

In the old days, the main PO of a city was almost always nearby the main passenger station. No longer.

Actually, our main PO is still just two blocks from the passenger station. It is just that the passenger station is abandoned and falling down, and the rails have been ripped up from the bed.