Proof-of-Payment (POP) vs. Traditional Ticket Collection

lensovet wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2024 12:37 am NYS law only affects freight, but Part 218 indeed affects everyone with some carveouts that are irrelevant in this context: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/s ... on-218.123

Note that e.g. even Caltrain runs with two-person crews. Are there any "non dinosaur" commuter passenger operations that run with 1?

Isn't PATH a 1 person FRA operation?

scratchyX1 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2024 10:58 am Isn't PATH a 1 person FRA operation?

Interesting read without getting into specifics
https://www.alexblock.net/blog/2015/10/ ... service%29.
The only rapid transit system under FRA regulation is the PATH system connecting New York and New Jersey.
Because PATH previously shared a short section of track with the Pennsylvania Railroad, it was also considered a railroad. And while it remains under FRA jurisdiction, it only operates as a rapid transit system under several waivers that grandfather the system from FRA regulations aimed at mainline freight and passenger railroads.
FRA regulations PATH must follow are basically limited to
1)Before each run, PATH workers must test a train’s air brakes, signals and acceleration. When a train gets to its terminus, workers repeat the test.
2)In addition, every 90 days all of PATH’s rail cars undergo a three-day inspection at a facility in Harrison, New Jersey. Brakes, lights, communications, heating and air conditioning, signals and odometers are all checked.

So, while falling under the FRA administration, PATH mainly follows FTA regulations because it has many exemptions. Additionally, imho, since PATH no longer shares tracks with Amtrak or NJT, it probably should no longer be under the FRA rules at all.

lensovet wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 9:31 pmI’m really fascinated by how someone who has never worked on a railroad somehow becomes an “authoritative expert” on it. How does that work exactly? Does someone become an authoritative expert in medicine without ever practicing it? Perhaps there are authoritative experts in the field of civil engineering who have never worked on a bridge, highway, etc?

This is just nonsense. Apparently engineers are all frauds since they don't actually build the stuff they design. And analysts don't know anything since they don't actually do the thing they analyze.

eolesen wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 10:55 pm 1) NY State Law requires two man crew.

https://www.progressiverailroading.com/ ... ill--70864

That clearly says for freight trains carrying hazardous materials. If someone has really bad gas and gets on an LIRR train, is that considered hazardous materials?

2) 49 CFR {art 218, Subpart G, which went into effect in May 2024, mandates two man crews for FRA covered operations. There are some exceptions for tourist railroads and closed systems, but MNRR and LIRR don't fall under the intent of those exemptions.

Interesting, that's relatively new. That would appear to apply to the LIRR as it is currently written, although there is a process to petition for an exemption. That's definitely a setback to OPTO on short passenger trains, although there would still be massive cost savings and ability to add new services by moving to POP and reducing trains crew sizes significantly.

Good luck with that. Politicians stay in office because of "those clowns" and their power and/or campaign donations. And it's pretty clear Democrats are loath to overtly bite the hand that feeds them.

It's more than partisan politics, and more than one party. The greater NYC area is full of institutionalized corruption.

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2024 8:50 pm

lensovet wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 9:31 pmI’m really fascinated by how someone who has never worked on a railroad somehow becomes an “authoritative expert” on it. How does that work exactly? Does someone become an authoritative expert in medicine without ever practicing it? Perhaps there are authoritative experts in the field of civil engineering who have never worked on a bridge, highway, etc?

This is just nonsense. Apparently engineers are all frauds since they don't actually build the stuff they design. And analysts don't know anything since they don't actually do the thing they analyze.

I think we can find plenty of "analysts" who indeed know little about what they are analyzing precisely because they have never done anything with it.

And I have never met an engineer who has called themselves an authoritative expert on something just because they happen to engineer something for it. Do the engineers who work on designing Venture cars call themselves "authoritative experts" on American passenger rail systems? Nope.

lensovet wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 12:05 amI think we can find plenty of "analysts" who indeed know little about what they are analyzing precisely because they have never done anything with it.

And I have never met an engineer who has called themselves an authoritative expert on something just because they happen to engineer something for it. Do the engineers who work on designing Venture cars call themselves "authoritative experts" on American passenger rail systems? Nope.

What's so crazy about this argument is that at work I fight in include real-world input from the mechanics, operators, etc, who actually build stuff, and not just engineers as is often the case. But you're so far on the other extreme that you just ignore expertise where it exists.

You've already been shown that one-man crews aren't happening, yet you are still barking up this tree. Talk about ignoring things.

San Diego was apparently using "POP" and didn't even have a fine for evasion; you just paid the fare if caught. Now, it's a PALTRY $25.

https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local ... 6abf2ac783

MTS approves $25 fine for San Diego trolley fare violations


SAN DIEGO — Early next year, riders on Metropolitan Transit System trolleys caught without a valid fare will be issued a citation then and there, according to changes the MTS board approved Thursday.

The policy differs from the current system, where MTS Security officers can offer someone caught without a valid fare the chance to buy a trolley fare for $2.50 or validate one. The change will go into effect Feb. 1, 2025.

Between May 2022 and July 2024, an analysis of MTS' fare collection estimated the agency lost between $17 million and $23 million in fare revenue due to evasion. This total comes from an estimated 57,000 monthly riders not paying fares unless expressly checked by MTS officers.

According to MTS, riders in violation will be issued a fine as low as $25 if cleared through the transit agency's diversion program-- or up to a 192 fine or more in traffic court if not cleared within 120 days.
...

lensovet wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 3:22 pmYou've already been shown that one-man crews aren't happening, yet you are still barking up this tree. Talk about ignoring things.

If they can't get a waiver for OPTO on 6-car trains (LIRR minimum), that would eliminate some of the benefits of POP for adding low-ridership off-peak services, but it would not eliminate most of the benefits of the cost savings and still lower cost to add service with two-person train crews. OPTO is NOT a prerequisite for POP, nor is it required to gain most of the savings (but not quite all). OPTO is only viable anyway on relatively low-ridership trains operating with the required minimum 6 cars, likely not using all of them.

The only real difference with OPTO or not is being able to add some more very low ridership trains at lower cost. They should go forward with POP and battle out OPTO with the FRA later, if they lose on OPTO they'd still be way ahead with POP and two-person crews.

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 8:28 amSan Diego was apparently using "POP" and didn't even have a fine for evasion; you just paid the fare if caught. Now, it's a PALTRY $25.

That's a joke. If you're catching 10% of the offenders, the fine has to be 10x. If it's less then the fine needs to be higher. If it's high enough eventually you'll drive the fare evasion rate to be very low.

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 4:34 pm

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 8:28 amSan Diego was apparently using "POP" and didn't even have a fine for evasion; you just paid the fare if caught. Now, it's a PALTRY $25.

That's a joke. If you're catching 10% of the offenders, the fine has to be 10x. If it's less then the fine needs to be higher. If it's high enough eventually you'll drive the fare evasion rate to be very low.

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, not only is $25 the 10x max fare rate which you've been recommending, but since the likelihood of a passenger having their fare inspected is only 5% on that particular system, it is logically less expensive to take the risk of paying the 10x fare fine than it is to pay for a ticket ever.

Since you state that fining fare evaders at the 10x fare you recommend is "a joke" does mean that maybe the rest of your argument is also a joke?

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 4:34 pm

lensovet wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 3:22 pmYou've already been shown that one-man crews aren't happening, yet you are still barking up this tree. Talk about ignoring things.

If they can't get a waiver for OPTO on 6-car trains (LIRR minimum)

I linked to the regulations for a reason. They are very short. I challenge you to find how, exactly, LIRR could even attempt to get a waiver.

RandallW wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 5:45 pmAs was pointed out earlier in this thread, not only is $25 the 10x max fare rate which you've been recommending, but since the likelihood of a passenger having their fare inspected is only 5% on that particular system, it is logically less expensive to take the risk of paying the 10x fare fine than it is to pay for a ticket ever.

Since you state that fining fare evaders at the 10x fare you recommend is "a joke" does mean that maybe the rest of your argument is also a joke?

I didn't realize the fare was $2.50. If you're not either breaking even on the fare evaders (minus enforcement cost), or driving the fare evasion rate to a very low level, then your fines and enforcement rates are out of balance.

But to bring it to a logical extreme, the worst case for high enforcement costs are essentially turning it into ticket collection, anything short of that you'll be better off than the 19th century ticket collection system in use on many Northeastern railroads today.

lensovet wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 11:18 pmI linked to the regulations for a reason. They are very short. I challenge you to find how, exactly, LIRR could even attempt to get a waiver.

They could apply for a waiver. At the same time, while a lack of OPTO does limit some of the low ridership train expansion or make it more expensive, it fundamentally doesn't undermine the value of modernizing the fare collection system to POP.

May I through a curveball at you. I am making an assumption that along with one operator trains you would also lower the consist of trains to 1 or 2 cars?
In your calculations have you remembered the money needed to adjust braking dynamics of the signal systems and the reworking of the crossings to shunt with less axels per train? Also breaking and adding cars to the set costs money too. With logistics on where to store these extra cars?
I would guess it will be cheaper to just run full sets with 2 person crews just closing down everything but 1 or 2 cars like the MBTA does.

Red Wing wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2024 8:03 am May I through a curveball at you. I am making an assumption that along with one operator trains you would also lower the consist of trains to 1 or 2 cars?
In your calculations have you remembered the money needed to adjust braking dynamics of the signal systems and the reworking of the crossings to shunt with less axels per train? Also breaking and adding cars to the set costs money too. With logistics on where to store these extra cars?
I would guess it will be cheaper to just run full sets with 2 person crews just closing down everything but 1 or 2 cars like the MBTA does.

Wait, so that CYWYND SEPTA dinky has 2 person crews?

Red Wing wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2024 8:03 amMay I through a curveball at you. I am making an assumption that along with one operator trains you would also lower the consist of trains to 1 or 2 cars?

I was referring to LIRR EMU operation, which is a 6 car minimum train length due to third rail gaps.

I would guess it will be cheaper to just run full sets with 2 person crews just closing down everything but 1 or 2 cars like the MBTA does.

I likely wouldn't have more than 3 or 4 cars open at most. 1-2 would probably be fine for these relatively lower ridership trains. I don't know equipment wise what other railroads can do. SLE or an electrified Hartford Line should be fine with a 2-car set, although that leaves you with no redundancy if it craps out or gaps out. At least with a 4-car set, you have two pairs, if one fails, you can drag it somewhere with the other one.

There are examples of single-car EMU trains like Bala Cynwyd and Princeton Dinky, so the idea isn't that crazy if you have the right type of equipment. Pairs are way more space efficient, as you only need a cab at each end, and only one ADA-compliant restroom, so likely the practical minimum for EMU service would be 2 cars.

For low ridership DMU/HMU lines, I could easily see a single car operating, kind of like a modern day Budd RDC operation.

EDIT: MN to GCT is going to have a similar minimum due to third rail, although I'm not sure if it's actually 6 cars or 4 cars.