Jump to content




Help Support AmtrakTrains.com by donating using the link above or becoming a Supporting Member.

Photo

Amtrak Mail and Express future


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_RPC_*

Guest_RPC_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 January 2015 - 01:12 PM

Certainly not the point of this thread, but the reason USPS loses money is that it is the only organization in the US that is required by law to fully fund its pension plan. (If you look at the pension liabilities vs. assets for other businesses you can see why this is a big deal.)



#22 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,175 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 21 January 2015 - 01:33 PM

But there are certain other businesses, although not required by law, still manage to fund their pension fully, after of course having discontinued it for all new employees and substituting a defined contribution plan. :)  Of course, apparently USPS does not have that freedom to adjust retirement benefits either.



#23 neroden

neroden

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,215 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Ithaca, NY
  • Interests:Please feel free to moderate my posts

Posted 21 January 2015 - 01:59 PM

The USPS is supposed to fund its pension plan 50 years in advance for employees who haven't even been *hired* yet.

This is blatantly ridiculous and is not the way "fully funded" is interpreted in any other pension. This was just a Republican poison pill intended to kill off USPS.
--Nathanael--

Please feel free to moderate my posts.

#24 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,175 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 21 January 2015 - 04:49 PM

The USPS is supposed to fund its pension plan 50 years in advance for employees who haven't even been *hired* yet.

This is blatantly ridiculous and is not the way "fully funded" is interpreted in any other pension. This was just a Republican poison pill intended to kill off USPS.

Yup. This part of the Republican plan to first undermine something legislatively, and then say see? It does not work. Sort of similar to the technique used by the freight railroads to get rid of passenger service. A confluence of that with the Democratic plan to save pensions of everyone at unsupportable levels in perpetuity, a well meaning but misguided plan, leads to this double whammy completely crippling the USPS

Edited by jis, 21 January 2015 - 05:29 PM.


#25 neroden

neroden

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,215 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Ithaca, NY
  • Interests:Please feel free to moderate my posts

Posted 21 January 2015 - 10:26 PM

In fact, the USPS has simply been refusing to make the "pension" payments. Probably the only sane move.

Edited by neroden, 21 January 2015 - 10:27 PM.

--Nathanael--

Please feel free to moderate my posts.

#26 CCC1007

CCC1007

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,553 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 August 2016 - 06:05 PM

With a new president coming to Amtrak, and with the USPS and Amtrak both being pushed to be more businesslike, would it be advantageous for mail and express cars to make a comeback?

If so, how many cars would be needed to cover the network? How many would need to be ordered? Would roadrailers make sense again to give non-rail service to more mail distribution centers? What about trailer on flatcar or container on flat car service on the tail end of passenger trains?

If not, why not? What would make it a better option for the USPS than trucks?

#27 neroden

neroden

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,215 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Ithaca, NY
  • Interests:Please feel free to moderate my posts

Posted 11 August 2016 - 07:57 PM

Mail's not operated the same way any more. It makes too much sense for the Postal Service to follow the lead of UPS and FedEx and put containers of mail on container trains run by freight railroads. This doesn't require Amtrak.
--Nathanael--

Please feel free to moderate my posts.

#28 norfolkwesternhenry

norfolkwesternhenry

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 463 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN
  • Interests:Trains, Boating, Trains, Mountain Biking, Trains, Having Fun, Trains, working on my bikes, Trains, planning my next trip, PV, trains, planning trips for family

Posted 11 August 2016 - 08:14 PM

would adding many mail cars to the back if heavy trains (esp Superliners) put a motive power strain on Amtrak? Also, would they need to worry about fitting into NYP/B&P tunnels?

Empire Builder MSP-CHI (2) CHI-MSP (2) MSP-PDX (1) MSP-CBS (5.5 H late) (1) MKE-MSP (1) MSP-SEA (1) Coast Starlate PDX-EMY (1.5H late) (1) California Zephyr DEN-SLC (1H late) (1) Hiawatha CHI-MKE (1) NE Regional WAS-BAL (1) WAS-NYP (1) Acela Express BAL-WAS (1) BOS-WAS (1) Late Shore (Limited service) CHI-BOS (On Time) (1) Capitol Limited WAS-CHI (1) Texas Eagle SAS-CHI (1.5 HR late, 1 HR late) (2) CHI-SAS (1) (55 min early) Wolverine DET-DER-ARB-CHI (35 Min late) (1) Cascades SEA-VAC (1)
Non-Amtrak: VIA: Corridor Service Q.C.-Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto-Windsor (1) Canadian: VAC-Winnipeg 4.5 H late (1) D. C. metro, Montreal Metro, Toronto subway, Portland streetcars, BART, Metra, NYC subway, Boston subway, Twin cities Blue/Green line


#29 CCC1007

CCC1007

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,553 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 August 2016 - 09:43 PM

would adding many mail cars to the back if heavy trains (esp Superliners) put a motive power strain on Amtrak? Also, would they need to worry about fitting into NYP/B&P tunnels?

Have you ever seen the videos of the southwest chief during the last five years of m&e? They ran with four locomotives. NYP wasn't a problem as the cars were built to Amtrak specifications and took the limited clearance into account.

#30 jebr

jebr

    Engineer

  • Forum Manager
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"The Last Great City of the East," St. Paul, MN

Posted 11 August 2016 - 10:32 PM

With the way the USPS and shipping companies in general run these days, it simply doesn't make a lot of sense to go through Amtrak.

 

Most mail these days goes from local post office - regional sorting center - whatever intermediate sorting centers are required - regional sorting center - local post office. There wouldn't be enough volume to transfer over to Amtrak from local post offices to the regional sorting centers to make it worth the hassle (the trucks would likely have to run nearby anyways to pick up mail in cities that Amtrak doesn't serve, and now you have to find a way to get the mail from the post office to the Amtrak station and back on both ends.)

 

It's possible that a regional sorting center to regional sorting center shipment could work on Amtrak, but it'd have to be a market that doesn't have enough mail to justify a full truck. Anything that would be a full truck load couldn't be carried in the baggage cars, and why would any company want to deal with the additional hassle of hitching a car onto Amtrak when the stations aren't their origin or destination points? There's not many, if any, regional sorting centers within switching distance of an Amtrak station during a layover, which means that someone else would have to be involved for that last mile delivery. It makes far more sense (and would almost certainly cost less) to simply use existing intermodal facilities designed for shipping items instead of trying to hitch large shipments onto a carrier which is focused on transporting people. Even on those less than truck load shipments, there's still the last mile problem mixed with Amtrak not being a shipping company.

 

There's not many places that Amtrak could come in that wouldn't be better served by existing offerings, either by truck, plane, or freight railroad, and I doubt it'd be profitable enough to justify the dilution in focus. After all, Amtrak is focused on transporting people first, and cargo only incidentally (customer's luggage) or in a minor way (Amtrak Express shipments, which aren't terribly well advertised and only work for certain situations, so it's not popular enough to justify additional investment on its own.) Having Amtrak put a stronger focus on freight will almost certainly dilute the passenger experience, so unless there's enough profit to make it a large net win, the passenger experience would almost certainly suffer if Amtrak got into freight or mail service in any major way.



#31 jphjaxfl

jphjaxfl

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,249 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Jacksonville, FL
  • Interests:Rail passenger advocate for modern, reliable passenger trains that will allow for business or leasure travel. I have been riding trains for over 60 years, but I am not advocating going back to what we once had, rather an updated system similar to Europe, Japan, China, India and other nations with great passenger train systems.

Posted 12 August 2016 - 06:46 AM

When the Private Railroads carried mail, most of the mail was carried on slower trains so that did not disrupt passengers as much.  Trains like the Broadway Limited and 20th Century Limited did include Railway Post Office cars which carried overnight mail which Post Office charged a premium for much as FedEX or UPS does now.  On Pennsylvannia Railroad's New York-Chicago Route in the early 1960s, the Broadway Limited and the General carried very little mail, however the Pennsylvania Limited, Manhattan Limited and Admiral carried mail and made more stops.  The Ft. Pitt was a local Pittsburgh-Chicago train that carried more mail and made more stops.  With Amtrak's usually having 1 train per route, that train would have to carry the mail which would make it much more inconvenient to the traveling public.



#32 cirdan

cirdan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,956 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 August 2016 - 07:09 AM

Where I do see some synergy is in the effect this could have on railroad thinking.

 

As has alraedy been said, the likes of UPS and Fedex already send stuff by train (I'm not sure how much in terms of percentage of total volume, but guess there is still room to increase this if the railroads could offer attarctive deals and OTP and speed) 

 

There are also other shippers who will pay extra for faster delivery. 

 

We often hear that if Amtrak is not always loved by the freight railroads, one reason for this is the difference in speeds and the disruption this causes for freight trains.

 

Now if the railroads started making more money with faster freight trains and running more of them, maybe even going up to Amtrak-speed for selected premium quality trains using passener quality equipment, this would change the way railroad management and dispatchers think about fast trains and thus Amtrak would be less of an oddball.

 

Another component here is the shrinking of the coal business. With the slowest moving of all freights becoming rarer, this could well be an opportunity to see overall average speeds rise.


Edited by cirdan, 12 August 2016 - 07:10 AM.


#33 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,175 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 12 August 2016 - 08:11 AM

UPS and Fedex use rail for their Ground service where speed is not of paramount importance. For speed they charge extra and send it by air. They own their own pretty large air fleet to do so.



#34 Ryan

Ryan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,556 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:OTN
  • Interests:a fact checker combined with a ferret

Posted 12 August 2016 - 08:43 AM

Agreed. Amazon is even getting into the act, building their own air fleet to move their goods around without having to go through the likes of UPS/FedEx.

The mail handling system has evolved past the use of trains, trying to Internet Engineer a way of shoehorning it back in is a waste of effort. It isn't going to happen, and Amtrak is better for it. Their focus should be on transporting passengers, not wasting time and money on ancillary stuff like hauling cargo.
Posted Image

Disclaimer: Any images or links you see in my post may in fact be invasive advertising or even fraudulent phishing attacks silently injected into my post by our spam based hosting service. If anything looks suspicious or inappropriate or you have any doubt whatsoever then do not click any links (particularly those appearing in green and/or with a double underline) or interact with the spam in any way. You may also want to consider using ad-blocking plugins such as Adblock Plus and/or Ghostery)to help reduce the number and severity of advertising scams directed at you.

#35 Palmetto

Palmetto

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,383 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Across the Rio Grande from Matamoros, MX

Posted 12 August 2016 - 01:56 PM

Mail's not operated the same way any more. It makes too much sense for the Postal Service to follow the lead of UPS and FedEx and put containers of mail on container trains run by freight railroads. This doesn't require Amtrak.

But the USPS did have a proposal floating around to again use Amtrak to move the mail, when it made sense to do so.  I went looking for it online, but could not locate it.



#36 Carolina Special

Carolina Special

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 323 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 12 August 2016 - 06:23 PM

There was a report issued in 2012 by the USPS Inspector General that said that intermodal rail was a "sensible option" compared to trucks. But the intermodal is the freight lines, not Amtrak.

#37 railiner

railiner

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,237 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queens, NY
  • Interests:All public transportation....land, sea, and air

Posted 12 August 2016 - 10:00 PM

I think that Amtrak should not attempt a repeat of the "Roadrailer" program it tried a few years ago. I believe it had a negative impact in on-time performance, as well as annoy the freight railroads over whose tracks Amtrak operated...in a sense, supporting their own competition...
metroblue?

okay on the blue!

#38 Anderson

Anderson

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 30 August 2016 - 01:03 AM

If we still had multiple-delivery in places like New York and/or Washington there might be a case for running "hot-shot" same-day mail delivery on the NEC (using Regionals, not the Acelas, of course).  We do not live in that world anymore.  Likewise, there are a few one-off pairs where shipping via Amtrak makes sense (let's face it, if you have more than two checked bags on an airline and you can spare the time, shipping via Amtrak is cheaper than paying excess luggage fees, and Amtrak doesn't break guitars;-)).

 

Truth be told, I Amtrak Expressed my luggage home from Worldcon: I was stuck on a JetBlue flight and decided that I really did not want to haul my bags from the Drake to O'Hare, and then from baggage at JFK to NYP.  It was worth the extra cost not to have to futz with that, and I was truly glad to give the money to Amtrak instead of JetBlue.  My bags and I got to RVR at the same time, too!

Edit: What would make more sense is if Amtrak made a point of advertising next-day delivery of packages at a fixed cost.  At least on the East Coast, FedEx Standard Overnight versus Amtrak?  No question on cost there...Amtrak wins.  I sincerely don't think a second baggage car on a train would be the end of the world, but this is also a far cry from the Mail-and-Express business they once did (and low-level competition with UPS/FedEx is not the same as what was attempted back in the 90s).


Edited by Anderson, 30 August 2016 - 01:10 AM.

Capitol Limited (7), CA Zephyr (4) Lake Shore Limited (1), Acela (2), NE Regional (2), Sliver Meteor (4)

Upcoming: Silver Meteor (1), Lake Shore Limited (1), SW Chief (2), MO River Runner (1), Texas Eagle (1)

Possibly Upcoming: Either Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (2) or Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (1)

#39 neroden

neroden

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,215 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Ithaca, NY
  • Interests:Please feel free to moderate my posts

Posted 30 August 2016 - 12:56 PM

Yeah, I don't know why Amtrak doesn't properly advertise Amtrak Express.  For the city-pairs where it is already operating (and which pairs are those?  And why isn't that advertised?) I think they could get a lot more business than they already do.


--Nathanael--

Please feel free to moderate my posts.

#40 CCC1007

CCC1007

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,553 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 August 2016 - 01:04 PM

Yeah, I don't know why Amtrak doesn't properly advertise Amtrak Express.  For the city-pairs where it is already operating (and which pairs are those?  And why isn't that advertised?) I think they could get a lot more business than they already do.

My understanding is that any station that handles checked baggage can originate and terminate express shipments up to the size that the onsite equipment can handle safely. The only exception I've ever heard of is NYP which is not allowed to be the origin point of a shipment.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users