A Look Back at Mail & Express: What might have been.

For several years I have been a fairly venomous opponent of Amtrak's mail and express program due simply to the delays it caused trains. I think Amtrak long-distance trains need to be faster and more reliable if they are to be anything more than "land cruises." Nothing wrong with land cruises, but I see no reason to federally subsidize them. Although freight train interference statistically accounts for the largest percentage of long-distance delays, I always felt that Amtrak needed to get its own house in order before complaining about other railroads' time-keeping problems . . . it is hard to take advice advice from a 300 pound doctor advising one to lose weight. Besides, the old phrase that "late trains get later" still seems to apply; a train that is held up due to m/e delays at its originating terminal can miss its "window" on the host railroad. Sometimes I wonder how many of Amtrak's "freight" delays are actually due to this phenomenon.

Still, now that M/E is an Amtrak memory, it's worth asking: Was this a bad idea from the start or was it just poorly executed?

Question one: Could the switching have been in a more efficient manner that wouldn't have slowed down the schedules? Perhaps a more limited, traditional m/e program similar to the ones formerly run by all the old RR's would have required less or no switching, achieving the same results. Could HEP cables have been added, allowing M/E to go to the front end of the train and enabling trains leave directly from terminals like Chicago instead of stopping in the yard? Note, we're talking about SCHEDULED delays here, not unscheduled.

Question two: Why were there so many unscheduled delays with these cars, and could they have been avoided? Were the sticking brakes I encountered on a shocking number of trips caused by bad design, bad maintenence, age, or just awful luck? Were unscheduled switching delays caused by untrained, inexperienced, or indifferent crews? Was there simply insufficient infrastructure at switching points?

Simply put: Could this have worked?

JPS

The problem I see with M&E, in retrospect, is placing it on the once daily long haul trains. Indeed, the passengers took delay for the freight.

Before Amtrak, the railroads ran their own M&E operations. The important point is that these trains ran at a slower pace than the Limiteds, but still were faster than the freights.

Just to bring three railroads and trains to the table:

UP, on the Overland Route, ran a daily LA-Chicago.

SP, on the Coast Route, ran a daily overnight SF-LA.

ATSF, in the later days, used the Grand Canyon as its M*E train.

The issue Amtrak has on its runs is the once daily frequency. A second section, consisting of the M&E and a rider coach, might have made more sense, and may have covered costs better (get away with a single rider coach and 3 crew).

The mainline trains probably could handle M&E, but Amtrak needed to plan set-outs ... car is loaded/sealed in Kansas City, just gets coupled to the back of the train, hang the lights, and off it runs to Albuquerque (as one example).

What I saw of M&E was that many cars were WORKED at the various M&E halts.

My thoughts.

John Perkowski

The terminal problem was probably a major negative factor in Amtrak Mail & Express operations. Prior to Amtrak, major terminals had specific locations where mail and express operations were conducted. Sometimes solid trains left from the terminals. In other instances the equipment was loaded at the Mail & Express facility and a car or string of cars was then moved to the passenger station and coupled into a passenger train. Even medium sized cities had station tracks where mail and express cars could be worked while other traffic passed them by.
Of the older stations that survive, NYP, South Station Boston, Chicago Union, most of the satellite structures used for M & E loading are gone. Many of the NEC terminals are far more commuter oriented than long haul and are less than satisfactory for any users. There is not much access for trucking which is how much of this arrives at the terminal. Newer Amtrak stations when designed probably did not give much thought to these types of items.

Amtrak should have used "freight only" runs-trains carrying M&E freight only, no passengers, to avoid having freight carried on passenger runs.

Other than on NEC it would not be possible for Amtrak to run M/E only trains, contract forbids to direct compete wth railroads its running on.

I would of done at specific places and put those cars up in front like in the olden days of Rail Travel. I think it was a bad idea from the get go because it delayed trains, made plenty of never again customers and made the Passenger Car Fleet strave. But I think hauling Mail was a good idea but not express.

AmtrakFan

The comments made above by Messrs 7 Train, Railnut, and AmFan, are of interest insomuch as no Class One has attempted to emulate the Express business since Amtrak's withdrawal from same.

Possibly the business model was more flawed than anybody, especially those "hawking" the plan at 60 Mass, realized.

7 Train wrote:Amtrak should have used "freight only" runs-trains carrying M&E freight only, no passengers, to avoid having freight carried on passenger runs.

no, sorry, that is why we have FREIGHT railroads...

the government should NOT be in the business of hauling freight in competition with private companies...

Two major problems, IMHO, with Amtrak's approach to M&E.

1 - Failure to partner with freight railroads to market the service. Amtrak could have provided the line-haul with the freights moving cars to customers siding or other off-lading points.

2 - Not enough capacity. Train lengths were restricted. If 30 cars was maximum consist permitted and a typical LD had eight Superliners, only 22 cars of express could be hauled. Better approach to operate multiple sections, i.e. departures, with a single coach, sleeper and food service/lounge car. Two frequencies a day would have let Amtrak haul 54 cars of express. There still would have been capacity for 240 passengers in each direction and patronage might have improved due to the added convenience of multiple departure times.

In my estimation, the two biggest problems with M&E were the enroute switching, and the lack of multiple frequencies of the trains. Although my experience with M&E on trains is exclusively east of the Mississippi, I suspect the same held true in the west.

For starters, the trains should have had the M&E cars all hooked up and ready to go when the passengers boarded at the trains’ origination station (CHI, for example). That would, of necessity, put the M&E in the front of the train, rather than the rear, lest the passengers walk 15-20 (freight) car lengths to get to the first (rearmost) passenger car in the train. Unfortunately, that would necessitate having HEP in all the cars and having perhaps a 2 hour earlier ‘cutoff’ for the cars to be loaded and ready to go, which would introduce operational & shipper limitations. My frustration level and blood pressure rose to ‘dangerous’ level every time we stopped just outside of Chicago station to add or drop cars. More than once I heard on the scanner of problems with couplers not working, HEP problems, etc, while trying to add the freight at the rear.

I also had elevated blood pressure due to intermediate switching enroute, such as at Toledo and especially at Albany…I never did figure out why those two cities, in particular, never had a switcher in a pocket track somewhere, less than 60 seconds from being able to couple onto the end of the train once we stopped. I can only cite the 15 minute or less splits/joins done day after day after day in New Haven as an example. It was a well-orchestrated, well-planned “ballet” of equipment and motive power at NHV (no M&E there, by the way). If it were my choice, there would have been NO enroute switching of cars. Yes, 40-50 years ago there was enroute switching, ‘through’ cars between trains, etc. But that was 40-50 years ago. To eliminate switching at Toledo, for example, I would have initiated separate trains, whose endpoint was Toledo, or else forgo Toledo as a M&E location.

I think the other major M&E failure was that of not having multiple frequencies on each M&E route. Having only a single train a day sometimes required that the passenger train wait for the M&E to be ready. Sometimes, as mentioned above, mechanical failures in the freight cars or road-railers would cause delays in getting everything put together and the train on its way. This comes back to my first statement, having the train completely put together and ready to go upon terminal departure. What having a 2nd or 3rd departure between cities would do is provide an ‘out’ for late equipment or equipment not ready.


Bottom line, we’re all being Monday morning quarterbacks here. I doubt any of us witnessed every day the comings and goings and trials and tribulations of M&E. It’s easy to pontificate on how we would have done it, or what we would do differently. But none of us truly has (had) the front-line knowledge to needed to really make a go of it.

at the end of the day , Amtrak went for low value express . was never going to pay enough to cover the costs , plus provide the sort of revenue the expansion plan needed . especially if train lenghts delays were to be kept reasonable .
In my view , amtrak needs ot concentrate on the express service it has now , that is lcl loads genrated by its own stations / agents . there is value here , and it also helps pay for the costs of having checked baggage service. what money it gets from the sale of express cars needs to be spent on loading equipment , and new fast loading baggage cars , and these need to look like passenger cars , not freight cars . it then needs to capitalise on its strenghts in this market , and i would say that would be its access to the centres of big cities . on the nec it has fast multiple service and city center stations . it needs to use this to build up a courier style service . access to these stations may be a problem , that could slowly be improved as business grows .
Outside the nec , it serves many towns that dont have airports . sure its not going to beat the Dhl's etc , but theres a lot more business apart form the urgent stuff . perhaps a deal with an established courier company , or even the post service may be a good thing . combinig post offices and railroad staions would share costs , and if some mail ws directly loaded on trains , then that would save handling etc .

David Benton wrote:Outside the nec , it serves many towns that dont have airports . sure its not going to beat the Dhl's etc , but theres a lot more business apart form the urgent stuff . perhaps a deal with an established courier company , or even the post service may be a good thing . combinig post offices and railroad staions would share costs , and if some mail ws directly loaded on trains , then that would save handling etc .

So, in other words, instead of carrying bulk mail (which they just discontinued), go to "priority" mail or something to that effect?

Instead of pondering what could have been let's ponder what had been. Amtrak was hauling mail long before the "Mail & Express" experiment. To that end came the 1400 & 1500 series MHC's with pass through HEP and trainlines. To the best of my reckoning there was little to no impact on schedules. Then came the M&E component of the "glide path to self-sufficiency." Then came regurgitated boxcars, custom made Roadrailers, delayed trains and finally the end of mail and express haulage. Is this just another case of biting off more that one can chew?

I remember riding the old Broadway Limited in the early '90s with a whole bunch of front end mail cars. Didn't impact the schedule in the least. Apparently, Gunn didn't think we could simply go back to that . . .

JPS

x-press wrote:I remember riding the old Broadway Limited in the early '90s with a whole bunch of front end mail cars. Didn't impact the schedule in the least. Apparently, Gunn didn't think we could simply go back to that . . .

JPS

In order to do that, Amtrak would either have to
1) buy new M&E cars (the only HEP-equipped cars were the embargoed MHCs), or
2) spend lots of money retrofitting existing M&E equipment for HEP.