M8 barcars

Trainer wrote:It's not about the number of seats, or revenue, or operational efficiency - it's about investing in positive service experiences that tranlsate as the railroad gives a damn about making customers happy. It's the kind of thing that keeps you going when the bad publicity hits about other incidents. It's why the plane I just got off from Hawaii provided good meals, free wine and pleasant service. It didn't have to - some don't - but it justifies my decision to support them with my business.

The airline you flew on likely is not government subsidized and funded by taxpayer dollars. That makes a huge difference when factored in. Using taxpayer money to buy/retrofit a few cars that the 1% predominately use makes for a VERY bad public image and is breeding ground for a field day for the media. Now if a group of wealthy commuters all wanted to chip in to fully cover the expense of buying/using bar cars on select trains that would be another story. However the likelihood of MNR and ConnDOT approving such a *hypothetical* proposal is yet another matter altogether.

It's not just about cattle car transportation when you're fighting for every dollar. The railroad had to learn the hard way recently that public sentiment does matter when meeting performance standards. It's all part of the mix.

No, it's not. It's about getting the job done right and SAFELY. The commuting public are not "sheeple". They know boloney when they see it and smell it. If anything the fact that the traveling public for the most part doesn't understand the mechanics, etc. of running a railroad leads many (including Jim Cameron) to have a number of misconceptions about how Metro-North works and -therefore- think they're seeing and smelling too much of said baloney. All they want is for the trains to run, run on time, and be clean. The bar car will make little to no difference whatsoever on persuading commuters to take the train over the car/bus. Traffic in the NYC area at rush hour takes care of that in spades.

As Dutch said they can buy their drinks from the carts @ GCT.

The lesson of the airline and trucking industries is to subsidise the stuff that doesn't move, so then people think no subsidy goes to the "private" stuff that does.

NH2060 wrote:

Trainer wrote:It's not about the number of seats, or revenue, or operational efficiency - it's about investing in positive service experiences that tranlsate as the railroad gives a damn about making customers happy. It's the kind of thing that keeps you going when the bad publicity hits about other incidents. It's why the plane I just got off from Hawaii provided good meals, free wine and pleasant service. It didn't have to - some don't - but it justifies my decision to support them with my business.

The airline you flew on likely is not government subsidized and funded by taxpayer dollars. That makes a huge difference when factored in. Using taxpayer money to buy/retrofit a few cars that the 1% predominately use makes for a VERY bad public image and is breeding ground for a field day for the media. Now if a group of wealthy commuters all wanted to chip in to fully cover the expense of buying/using bar cars on select trains that would be another story. However the likelihood of MNR and ConnDOT approving such a *hypothetical* proposal is yet another matter altogether.

Back when the M2's were coming online in the early 1970's said wealthy commuters attempted to do just that-- outfit an M2 to replace equipment like the heavyweight Pullman used as the Southport commuter club (the "VIX GBC"); they were shot down by the State.

Besides, given where this railroad runs, "the 1%" make up a lot more than 1% of ridership. Bridgeport is the only town in Fairfield County directly served by the electrics that does not have a median family income in the top 25%. Hard for me to believe Greenwich Time, the Stamford Advocate or The Hour are going to go in w. guns-a-blazin' about public waste if CDOT decides to shell out for the bar cars. More likely story line is going to be "the tradition returns!"

I'm with Dutch on this one, though. I'll believe it when I see an M8 bar car in the consist.

Ridgefielder wrote:Back when the M2's were coming online in the early 1970's said wealthy commuters attempted to do just that-- outfit an M2 to replace equipment like the heavyweight Pullman used as the Southport commuter club (the "VIX GBC");

Just as a matter of historical interest, may I respectfully point out that "V:xi-GBC" and "Southport Club" were two different cars ----- X:XI-GBC wasa bar car, not a private car That misconception is commonly believed

Ridgefielder wrote:Besides, given where this railroad runs, "the 1%" make up a lot more than 1% of ridership. Bridgeport is the only town in Fairfield County directly served by the electrics that does not have a median family income in the top 25%. Hard for me to believe Greenwich Time, the Stamford Advocate or The Hour are going to go in w. guns-a-blazin' about public waste if CDOT decides to shell out for the bar cars. More likely story line is going to be "the tradition returns!"

Well no those three papers -as well as the online Patch in Greenwich, Westport, Fairfield, etc.- would likely not view it with scrutiny as 1) they are towns served by the railroad and 2) the wealthy patrons do board/detrain at those stops, among others.

However, publications such as the Register and the Courant might not see it the same way as their main demographic is residents of CT north, northwest, and east of New Haven. And if the words "CT taxpayer dollars paid for bar cars used by wealthy commuters" or something along those lines are used don't think that someone's feathers couldn't be ruffled. Now if it's phrased as "bar cars used by commuters who like to take the edge off after a long day at work" that sounds less "elitist", but let's face it if the very wealthy are pushing for new bar cars and that gets out to the press it won't look good in the eyes of those who don't want their tax dollars paying for something that they get to use.

Remember 40 years ago ridership was not nearly as high as it is now so the 20 M-2 bar cars were never going to eat into seating capacity, especially when there were 222 "coach" MUs.

FWIW I wouldn't be surprised if a number of wealthy commuters when asked would say that they would rather see more coach cars than bar cars and have a seat to sit in into and out of the city than a place to guy a cold one.

DutchRailnut wrote:seeing is believing, but don't hold your breath..

Ditto. In my opinion, Connecticut is going to wait a year and hope everyone forgets about it and just scrap the whole idea completely.

-otto-

There is no money for this project!!! CDOT is spending every cent getting their tracks back up to normal speeds and now they're saddled with replacing the drawbridges. Retrofitting M8 coaches into bar cars is (or should be) way down on their list of projects.

http://www.lohud.com/story/news/transit ... /14917537/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mod note: added brief quote. -nomis

Connecticut's transportation commissioner, James Redeker, recently told the Connecticut Metro-North Commuter Council that his agency was looking for companies that might retrofit the M-8 cars on the New Haven Line to accommodate bar cars, according to Terri Cronin, head of the council.

When last we heard, Connecticut had spent $1.1 million commissioning a design for a cafe car in the M-8 trains. But Kawasaki, the makers of the M-8s, had not told Connecticut how much it would cost to produce them.

just a Note ? read the article real carefully, its not released by CDOT but basically a wish by one Commuter council members.

IIRC, and M8 costs about $3,000,000 and has an average of 105 seats, vs 40 seats for a bar car?

Heres a real back of the envelope analysis. Assume a bar car costs the same as a regular coach. Assume operation on the New Haven line...

M8 M8 bar theoretical
cost per seat: $28,571 $75,000
cost per seat over 20 years: $1,429 $3,750
cost per seat per day: $3.91 $10.27
assuming 4 round trips/day: $0.98 $2.57
assume 35% load factor: $2.80 $7.34

Obviously doesn't include costs of maintenance, fare collection (gotta be inefficient on a crowded bar car), electricity, capacity limits on number of cars per platform, engineer, lower efficiency of non-uniform fleet, borrowing costs. I would think the load factor for a bar car would be higher than the coach. I assume the cost of personnel swamps the cost of the carriages, and that the bartender/food breaks even or turns a profit. * I pulled the 35% load factor out of....the air.

$2.80 is about 16% of the $16 - $21 fare, less than I expected. $7.34 is 41% - uncomfortably high. Figure a way to charge a premium fare for the bar car, or if the bar turns a profit.

or bar car, sponsored by Budweiser!

BandA wrote:or bar car, sponsored by Budweiser!

Private or corporate sponsorship would possibly provide the funds needed to convert the designated M8 cars into bar cars. But that may open up a whole other can of worms.

Clean Cab wrote:Private or corporate sponsorship would possibly provide the funds needed to convert the designated M8 cars into bar cars. But that may open up a whole other can of worms.

Trying to open a can of beer, much tastier than worms. Problem is children might be exposed to the advertising/sponsorship since it is public transit.

can we all just stick to facts, and not fantasy scenario's, for now the bar cars are gone, if there is other news we report it.
If you have any Idea for bar cars write them to CDOT division of rail, I am sure they can use a good laugh.

BandA wrote:

Clean Cab wrote:Private or corporate sponsorship would possibly provide the funds needed to convert the designated M8 cars into bar cars. But that may open up a whole other can of worms.

Trying to open a can of beer, much tastier than worms. Problem is children might be exposed to the advertising/sponsorship since it is public transit.

I rode Metro-North more times than I could count when I was younger and saw advertising FAR MORE inappropriate. Not on the train, but at the station. There were at least a couple of ads that had/implied nudity of some form. A poster, etc. advertising alcohol is not going to corrupt or harm children. They wouldn't think anything of it to begin with. Now if it was an ad for toys or ice cream or the next Pixar film that would have a much better chance of getting their attention.

And as a side note, can we please get off the bar car train already??