Railroad Forums 

  • New Dinky to Nassau Street

  • Discussion related to New Jersey Transit rail and light rail operations.
Discussion related to New Jersey Transit rail and light rail operations.

Moderators: lensovet, Kaback9, nick11a

 #1286716  by dowlingm
 
If a public transit service doesn't need subsidy there's a pretty good chance not enough service is being run.
 #1286808  by 25Hz
 
dowlingm wrote:If a public transit service doesn't need subsidy there's a pretty good chance not enough service is being run.
Image
 #1286829  by morris&essex4ever
 
dowlingm wrote:If a public transit service doesn't need subsidy there's a pretty good chance not enough service is being run.
Well, NJT's NEC service makes money(because NJT doesn't pay for maintenance of the ROW) so does that the NEC needs more service between Trenton and NYC? :)
 #1286963  by kilroy
 
25Hz wrote:So there is a subsidy. Farebox won't be enough to cover operating costs. Public passenger transportation is a money losing paradigm. t's not meant to make money, it's meant to serve the public. Electricity costs alone will eat up farebox revenue.
If you're referring to the statement "returning $2800 per day in operating subsidy to the state" that sentence says the State will be getting back $2800 a day that is is paying to subsidize the current operation. I don't know if the statement is accurate but I can comprehend english.
 #1287317  by loufah
 
Rodney Fisk wrote:With a New Dinky meeting every train on the NEC and returning $2800 per day in operating subsidy to the state, this is a win-win for everyone concerned.
IIRC, from something earlier in this thread, the alleged subsidy is the result of NJT quoting a fictitious, high cost for electricity. So the Dinky riders could very well be subsidizing other NJT operations right now. With that revenue gone, riders on other NJT routes will be paying more. And the current Dinky crew may be out of a job. That might not be a win-win there.
 #1288259  by Rodney Fisk
 
It seems that NJ Transit included a one-time capital expenditure as "propulsion cost" last year. The yearly cost billed by Amtrak is actually $180,000; electric power for the super-efficient LRV we favor is $20,000.

The $2800 per day is based on the Dinky's total operating subsidy of just over $1 million, none of it needed for a New Dinky. And no Dinky crew member will lose a job; they will all just join the general duty roster.

The New Dinky follows a NEW paradigm: choose equipment best suited for a 3-mile shuttle, operated by a rational crew paid market wages (labor cost per crew of $75,000) rather than oversized, overpowered Arrow IIIs, operated by a traditional crew paid negotiated wages (cost per crew of $250,000). Bottom line: meet all 53 trains at the Junction--13 more than the current Dinky--with all costs covered at the farebox, with a simple fare of $2.00, yielding a modest profit. This projection has been confirmed by an accountant chosen by NJ Transit.
 #1290423  by Rodney Fisk
 
Well, it seems that we've run the course on this topic. Many thanks for all the comment and criticism. Some have changed the proposal significantly: solar power was eliminated from the scheme; the need to rebuild platforms was obviated by deciding on LRVs operating solely from high-level platforms; supercaps are no longer needed for the redesigned and enhanced project; I'm sure there are others.

Very helpful were the spontaneous reactions/critiques from all the ultracrepidarians out there. They forced me to refocus my thinking, leading to further research and analysis to confirm or modify certain elements of the plan. The formal proposal for a New Dinky will be stronger and better for this input.

Best of all was the practice in batting away dumb ideas and responding seriously to serious questions or honest misconceptions. As for those with immutable, preconceived notions, I give up. The irrational belief that rail transit somehow can't earn a profit except by cutting service or raising fares seems widespread--and firmly entrenched. More disturbing is the sense I get that it would somehow be unethical for me to profit from providing this service, especially when it's "never" been done. In this country for too many years the received wisdom has been that all rail transit should be, and remain a public responsibility, publicly subsidized forever.

If any of the numerous visitors to this topic has some encouraging input or supportive arguments--even a positive comment, now is the time to join the well-represented skeptics in a spirited debate. Argue among yourselves.
 #1477996  by Dcell
 
So NJT will make the route trackless electric buses when the Arrows are retired. Kinda a bummer.
 #1478098  by N91566
 
I will toss a little bit of useless history into this, but way back in the early 1970's NJDOT approached the Black River about operating the PJ&B. Don't think it went much beyond kicking it around on the phone between them, but it is my memory that BR&W gave it some thought.
 #1478264  by Matt Johnson
 
Dcell wrote:So NJT will make the route trackless electric buses when the Arrows are retired. Kinda a bummer.
Really? Even after building a new station? That sucks. What about the next gen EMU?
 #1478303  by andrewjw
 
Do you have any evidence to support this claim? I have heard nothing about it... NJT has tried to bustitute the line before, and the University and town have ensured they did not.
 #1478393  by MACTRAXX
 
MJ: Good Princeton Planet article...The "PJ&B" is probably some of the best T&E jobs on NJT
taking note to the veteran railroaders that regularly work the Dinky. I remember past write ups
about crew members and how well liked they are by the regular riders.

From what I remember there have been replacement schemes to replace the line in the past such
as converting to a light rail and extending the line further into Princeton Borough. Another was to
pave over the route for a busway operation. To me the best way would be to retain at least four
single unit Arrow Three cars to permanently be assigned to the Dinky operation. It would not make
any sense to attempt to run a two car push-pull train with single level or multilevel cars on this
route. This is the type of line that the current MU cars are best suited for...MACTRAXX
 #1478404  by andrewjw
 
I don't understand why a pair of bilevel MUs couldn't be run - they currently run a pair of single level MUs, which will be replaced by bilevel MUs. The reason for a pair is presumably in case of one failure. There are no low clearances - the train runs on bridges for all the major crossings.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 20