# R J Corman Dies



## MrFSS (Aug 23, 2013)

Railroad owner and founder of the R J Corman Railroad died earlier today.

*STORY*



For many years his offices were in a gutted diesel engine and dome car. He also owned the Kentucky Dinner Train and ran the Kentucky Derby Train. His company did RR repair work all over the country.

Living close to his main offices, I have been able to get some nice pictures over the years.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 23, 2013)

:hi: Nice pics Tom! Hopefully the Company will continue to Operate as a Rail Company, be a Shame if this Great Equipment was Sold Off to Wealthy Private Owners by "Corporate Bottom Line" Types!


----------



## MrFSS (Aug 23, 2013)

jimhudson said:


> :hi: Nice pics Tom! Hopefully the Company will continue to Operate as a Rail Company, be a Shame if this Great Equipment was Sold Off to Wealthy Private Owners by "Corporate Bottom Line" Types!


I think his family will continue the business.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Aug 23, 2013)

Did the company haul freight? They could make some more money by buying frieght short lines, hauling their freight, and creating more tourist trains.


----------



## Railroad Bill (Aug 23, 2013)

Yes, the RJ Corman Company owns and has trackage rights over many miles of ROW in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Significant coal and ethanol traffic at Cresson and the line north to Clearview, Pa. Also freight hauling over former B&O ROW in New Philadelphia, Ohio


----------



## MrFSS (Aug 23, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Did the company haul freight? They could make some more money by buying frieght short lines, hauling their freight, and creating more tourist trains.


Their primary function is repairing/building rail track after bad wrecks, derailments, and natural disasters. They were the primary rebuilder of rail after Katrina.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Aug 24, 2013)

MrFSS said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > Did the company haul freight? They could make some more money by buying frieght short lines, hauling their freight, and creating more tourist trains.
> ...


If that's all they do, RJ Corman must not make much money at all. They should expand.


----------



## railiner (Aug 24, 2013)

Sounds like this R J Corman lived the ultimate dream life of a railfan.....make his business and hobby into one, work and live in it......what could ever be better?

May he Rest In Peace.........


----------



## MrFSS (Aug 25, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> > Swadian Hardcore said:
> ...


You have to be kidding, right. He was a billionaire, yet built hospital wings and supported many worth while charities in Kentucky.

Explore this *LINK*.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Aug 25, 2013)

MrFSS said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > MrFSS said:
> ...


So, construction and cleaning up derailments? Did he make all that money of this rail maintenence? This work must make a lot of money if you can make billions from rail maintenece.


----------



## rrdude (Aug 26, 2013)

Swadian, when your train derails, or you have anything that fouls up your main line, you *HAVE TO* get it operational again, *AS FAST AS POSSIBLE, DAMN THE COSTS.* We ran a podunk little dinner train in Southwestern Michigan, and the DT, the "Star Clipper", derailed one nite. Not bad or extensive, just in the mud, but on a hill, with little of no road access.

After removing one DT engine, and the HEP car from one end, we backed the Scenic Train (i.e. excursion train) equipment up to the derailed DT, and transferred all the guests off. Next morning, we looked at it, and called Hulcher Services. They were on property in less than twelve hours, (they have staging areas all over the USA) and had our "main line" (such as it was) back in operation in less than 24 hours, hell, once they were on property, it only took a few hours to position the rigging, move the cars, and even do a temp repair of the roadbed. Truly amazing.

Did I say at the start of this post, "*DAMN THE COSTS*" ? You get the idea, really, really, _good money to be made_ in derailment services......like any disaster-relief structured company.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Aug 26, 2013)

rrdude said:


> Swadian, when your train derails, or you have anything that fouls up your main line, you *HAVE TO* get it operational again, *AS FAST AS POSSIBLE, DAMN THE COSTS.* We ran a podunk little dinner train in Southwestern Michigan, and the DT, the "Star Clipper", derailed one nite. Not bad or extensive, just in the mud, but on a hill, with little of no road access.
> After removing one DT engine, and the HEP car from one end, we backed the Scenic Train (i.e. excursion train) equipment up to the derailed DT, and transferred all the guests off. Next morning, we looked at it, and called Hulcher Services. They were on property in less than twelve hours, (they have staging areas all over the USA) and had our "main line" (such as it was) back in operation in less than 24 hours, hell, once they were on property, it only took a few hours to position the rigging, move the cars, and even do a temp repair of the roadbed. Truly amazing.
> 
> Did I say at the start of this post, "*DAMN THE COSTS*" ? You get the idea, really, really, _good money to be made_ in derailment services......like any disaster-relief structured company.


Man, guess it wasn't such a bad idea to build the Interstate. At least you don't have to fix it up yourself, the goverment will have patched it up fast with taxpayer money so that regular operations can be restored.


----------



## rrdude (Aug 26, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> rrdude said:
> 
> 
> > Swadian, when your train derails, or you have anything that fouls up your main line, you *HAVE TO* get it operational again, *AS FAST AS POSSIBLE, DAMN THE COSTS.* We ran a podunk little dinner train in Southwestern Michigan, and the DT, the "Star Clipper", derailed one nite. Not bad or extensive, just in the mud, but on a hill, with little of no road access.
> ...


Maybe that's why Interstate bridges are crumbling/falling down, and many of the highways are as rough as the Oregon Trail. That, and the fact that commercial motor-coaches and trucking companies don't even come close to paying taxes or fees to actually cover the cost of building and maintenance said Interstates.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Aug 26, 2013)

rrdude said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > rrdude said:
> ...


Actually, intercity buses cover almost all of the costs for road maintainence with their own paid money as tax revenue. Intercity buses require very, very little indirect subsides from the goverment to maintain the roadways since intercity buses are very rarely driven on the roads compared to cars and commericial trucks. They also require no direct subisdes.

It the government privatized everything, including all the Interstates, Greyhound would still have lower operating costs per-pasenger-mile than Amtrak. Rail is only efficient at moving heavy loads, and heavy loads are very rare in the United States outside the most major corridors.

Plus, US railroads aren't maintained much better than the Interstates. Don't think that private companies can do a good job on that, either.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 26, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Actually, intercity buses cover almost all of the costs for road maintainence with their own paid money as tax revenue. Intercity buses require very, very little indirect subsides from the goverment to maintain the roadways since intercity buses are very rarely driven on the roads compared to cars and commericial trucks. They also require no direct subisdes.


No they don't! Combined, buses, trucks, and cars in 2010 only managed to cover 42% of the costs of the highways. And while both trucks & intercity buses pay more in direct taxes than car drivers pay, they also cause more damage to the roads & highways.



Swadian Hardcore said:


> It the government privatized everything, including all the Interstates, Greyhound would still have lower operating costs per-pasenger-mile than Amtrak. Rail is only efficient at moving heavy loads, and heavy loads are very rare in the United States outside the most major corridors.


If that is indeed true, and no one really knows since the bus companies don't report their costs, then it is only due to the fact that Amtrak offers so much more in the way of amenities than an intercity bus does. That is food service and sleeper service. They may also be hurt a bit by the long distance trains during off peak times. But in general, trains have a much lower operating cost.

Many love to tout BRT as the cheaper alternative to LRT. BRT is supposed to run faster and carry more people conventional city buses. And therefore it should have a lower cost per passenger mile. Only it doesn't! In 2011 according to the National Transit Database, regular buses had an operating cost of 90 cents per passenger mile. BRT buses came in at 90 cents per passenger mile. Light rail comes in at 60 cents. Heavy rail & commuter both came in at 40 cents.

Now, I do strongly suspect that Intercity buses do better than BRT, but I rather doubt that they do some much better that they beat commuter rail. And if one takes away the amenities, Amtrak to some extent becomes commuter rail.


----------



## rrdude (Aug 26, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> rrdude said:
> 
> 
> > Swadian Hardcore said:
> ...


These statements are not only false, they are ridiculous. Granted, there are thousands of miles of secondary or branch lines that won't get you where you are going fast.... However, the private railroads n the USA do a pretty bang up job of keeping their main lines in top shape, or freight service....it ony makes business sense to do so


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Aug 27, 2013)

Then how do you explain this? http://www.buses.org/files/Foundation/Motorcoach-Amtrak-Comparison.pdf

Again, intercity buses are so rare on the freeways that very little maintainence costs are actually for the bus. And why is Amtrak always supposedly so efficient when it emits so much Nitrogen Oxides and Carbon Dioxide?


----------



## George Harris (Aug 27, 2013)

This thread has gotten a very long way from its initial purpose of acknowledging and giving some recognition to an outstanding person, businessman, railroader, and all around high quality individual who died way too young.


----------



## MrFSS (Aug 27, 2013)

George Harris said:


> This thread has gotten a very long way from its initial purpose of acknowledging and giving some recognition to an outstanding person, businessman, railroader, and all around high quality individual who died way too young.


His funeral was yesterday and he was buried on the property where the home office of his company is, just outside Lexington, KY.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 27, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Then how do you explain this? http://www.buses.org/files/Foundation/Motorcoach-Amtrak-Comparison.pdf
> Again, intercity buses are so rare on the freeways that very little maintainence costs are actually for the bus. And why is Amtrak always supposedly so efficient when it emits so much Nitrogen Oxides and Carbon Dioxide?


First, you said subsidy per passenger mile. They never listed that in that study, only subsidy per passenger; so I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that subsidy per passenger mile was lower. One does not have to follow the other.

Second, go look at who the study was prepared for. The ABA (American Bus Association) whose job it is to promote bus service any way they can. The Reason Foundation, they oppose anything rail. One cannot find even one rail project that Reason supports.


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 27, 2013)

I agree that this has gone way past the original intent of the post.

But I just want to add something to Swadian's claim that buses pay their costs. Do they pay enough taxes for several millions of $$$ for every mile the run buses on? :huh: That's the true cost of the roads, including building, maintaining it, snow plowing, etc ..., not just paying the toll on the highway.

Just like the airline's claim that they made $xxx billion. If they had to pay to build the airport, had to pay the full cost of ATC, the full cost of the FAA, etc ... I doubt that claim would be made!


----------



## George Harris (Aug 27, 2013)

AlanB said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > Then how do you explain this? http://www.buses.org/files/Foundation/Motorcoach-Amtrak-Comparison.pdf
> ...


Swadian: Be careful of your source of data for the passenger train emissions. you can find that many of these go back to the time that the thought was that Amtrak could become profitable by hauling high priority freight on the back of the trains. Thus, if you took emissions and divided them by passengers you would get a high number because a lot of the power requirement and associated emissions related to hauling tonnage that was not there to haul people.

What Alan said about the bus association statistics. Figures don't lie, but liars figure. You can prove just about anything by careful selection of data.

The "Reason Foundation" So far as I am concerned these people give the politically conservative a bad name. A lot of their stances appear to be more to speak favorably of their source of money instead of providing reasonable backing for a particular political perspective. Their name should be a hint. They are reasonable in the same sense that these countries that call themselves "Democratic People's Republics" are anything but the exact opposite thereof. The more their name claims to be something the more likely they are to be the opposite thereof. Think George Orwell type naming.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Aug 28, 2013)

Since NARP-supported studies would use the same "selective data" as the ABA-supported studies, let's just leave this argument alone.


----------



## Greener Pastures (Aug 29, 2013)

Today's private railroads (infrastructure) are, for the most part, constructed and maintained in much the same fashion as they were almost 100 years ago. While track technology in other parts of the world has evolved, it has stagnated in the U.S. Today, the costs associated with derailments and the associated service interuptions are much higher than the savings of deferring maintenance and opting for legacy track designs.

Unfortunately, it will be another couple of generations before the Class 1 railroads here realize the errs of their ways. In the meantime, companies such as RJ Corman and others who attend to derailments stand to make millions of dollars.

I find it remarkable that the railroad industry in the U.S. if so far behind the rest of the world, while America leads the world in virtually every other industry!

Rail programs are propping up in universities all over the country these days and my hope is that the industry will begin to make progress towards implementing a system comparable to the systems that have been widely used in other parts of the world since just after the end of WWII.


----------



## Greener Pastures (Aug 29, 2013)

And, frankly, anyone who believes that buses represent a more efficient mode (operating and maintenance costs) of mass transportation than rail is really misguided. I refuse to participate in the discussions that even entertain this as an option.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 29, 2013)

So it's cool when you drag the thread off topic giving a dead man unsolicited and incorrect business advice, but when the topic turns anti-bus, you cry foul?


----------



## rrdude (Aug 29, 2013)

I for one am GLAD that te admins have NOT jumped in and censored / locked thread. It takes two to Tango. This thread was about a 20th century shortline RR Pioneer, who did just about everything "right", and built a profitable RR business, DT, Railcar Repair, Locomotive rebuilding, etc, etc. How this topic got switched over to motorcoaches, hmmmmmm, me thinks you doth protest too much!


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Aug 29, 2013)

Hey now, don't you accuse me crying foul! All I don't want is another thread to turn into "Discontinue the Auto Train."

But if you insist to continue the debate, then if 42% of highway maintainence are really covered with direct revenue, then I'm sure a lot more will be covered with more tolls roads.

And the bus is not that inefficient, a MCI 102DL3 gets 5.5 mpg with a max load of 51 passengers. A P42DC burns about 170 gallons of diesel per-hour at 70% power with HEP, which is probably nessasary to keep a 800,000 pound consist running at 79 mph. That would mean about 0.45 mpg. An 800,000-pound consist should be able to carry around 300-350 passengers. So I still don't understand why the train is touted as very efficient unless it crusies at less than 70% power.

My previous post was in response to people saying that this thread has gotten too much off-topic. So first you guys tell me to stop arguing OT then you ridicule me for crying foul, eh?

Next thing I know, I'm gonna get a PM from an Admin or Monderator telling me to stop causing trouble. It's not really my fault because after all, it's true that Interstate get paid for with taxpayer money, so you might as well take advantage. Sure, their bridges fall down and stuff, but Interstates are still pretty safe and pricate operators don't have to pay for them directly.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 30, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Since NARP-supported studies would use the same "selective data" as the ABA-supported studies, let's just leave this argument alone.


Where did I cite anything from a NARP study?

The only stats that I provided in this topic came from the National Transit Database (NTD). They have no affiliation with NARP, nor do they accept funding from NARP or any other private entity. The NTD is Federally funded and their job is to collect, compile, and if need be audit the data from any public transit agency in the US.

And while I didn't cite any energy data, the US Department of Energy puts out the Energy Handbook that shows the energy efficiency of all modes of travel, except for the Intercity buses. They don't provide any data to the DOE.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Aug 31, 2013)

AlanB said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > Since NARP-supported studies would use the same "selective data" as the ABA-supported studies, let's just leave this argument alone.
> ...


I didn't say you did, I meant that the NARP is basically the train equivelent to the ABA. Or maybe the NARP is more like the AIBRA, I'm not sure.

I can only base any fuel-efifciency argument on what I know. I know that a 'DL3 gets 5.5 mpg, according to drivers, even though MCI touts its 45-foot buses as "up to 8 mpg." I have the figures for how much fuel a P42DC uses at each power setiing, but I'm not sure what exact power setting is needed to run a typical load at 79 mph. Until someone provides that info, I can't make an accurate assesment for train efficiency. Possibly George Harris or the engineer himself that provided the info could enlighten me.

Another important factor to consider is how much loads the different vehicles are actually carrying in service. Out in the deserts around here, Amtrak often runs less than half empty, while Greyhound has decent loads around 60-80%. Greyhound has very few passengers getting off at the stops in the desert, so it's very easy to get the data just by assessing loads at the origin of the bus.

The electric trains on the NEC obviously pollute much less than anything else, but they indirectly pollute through the power stations, most of which still burn coal.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 1, 2013)

During the weekend, I thought of a new way to calculate the efficiency. We'll just compare it a car. It won't be very accurate, but reasonable enough. So I looked up the average sedan fuel cosumption here: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byclass/Midsize_Cars2012.shtml. According to that site, the average sedan gets about 23 mpg and I know they sually have 5 seats. I know a 102DL3 gets 5.5 mpg with 51 seats.

Thus, a car can get _up to_ 115 passenger-miles per gallon. And the 'DL3 can get _up to_ 280.5 passenger-miles per gallon. Of course both of these are rarely filled, but we'll have to calculate based on maximum capacity. Based on the above info, a 102DL3 is about 2.44 times more efficient than the average sedan. And the 'DL3 can surely be considered the average intercity bus, since its use is widespread everywhere in the US and Canada.

So, if you take the DOE Energy Handbook info for efficiency of the automobile and times it by 2.44, then you should get the efficiency of the average intercity bus. Unfortunately, I could not find the efficiency tables in the DOE Energy Handbook, so I had to rely on this: http://www.amtrak.com/whistle-stop/energy-efficiency-rail-travel-uses-less-fuel-than-cars-planes.

According to Amtrak itself, a train uses 2,435 BTUs per passenger-mile and cars use 3,538. Since the bus is about 2.44 time more efficient than the car, it uses only 1,450 BTUs per passenger-mile.

Another release shows that buses use 4,235 BTUs per passenger-mile. However, it is virtually impossible for a bus to be less efficient than a car (3,538). So I find these figure to be unbelievable.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Sep 1, 2013)

Swadian, why don't you start a new topic to discuss this rather than continue the conversation here?


----------



## Ryan (Sep 1, 2013)

That's some henryj-esque "analysis" there.


----------



## rrdude (Sep 1, 2013)

Look, I freely admit, I SUCK at statistics: reading them, using them, or generating them.(I had to take stats class twice in college to pass)

.

But even an idiot like me has read enuff of them to know that rail transportation, by it's very nature, is without a doubt more fuel-efficient than rubber-tire-on-road transportation......Wait

.

What was the topic here......?

.

Oh yeah, R.J. Corman. RIP


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 1, 2013)

Ryan said:


> That's some henryj-esque "analysis" there.


What's wrong with Henry J? He's a very experienced railfan and should deserve some respect to his conclusions, even if he's wrong.

And the last time I tried to stop this current discussion, I got called out for crying foul, so I am obliged, but not forced, to continue the argument even though I know it's going to be a dead-end fight since this _is_ a train forum.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 1, 2013)

OK, ok, my own explanation for the bus being seemingly more efficient than the train is probably because train seats are usually a lot bigger. This dosen't apply in many other countries, but in the US, Amtrak seats take up a lot more floor space than Greyhound seats. The hard part is due to Amtrak having so many different Coach seats and Sleeper rooms. So I will just use Amtrak's LD Coach seats for this comparison, since the Sleeper rooms take up more space per-passenger, and the Regional Coach seats take up less space per-passenger.

An Amtrak Long-Distance Coach seat have a pitch of about 50" and a width of about 22", using a total floor space of 1100 sq. inches. Greyhound 102DL3 seats have a pitch of 34" and a width of 17", using a total floor space of 578 sq. inches. This means an Amtrak LD seat takes up about twice the floor space of a Greyhound 'DL3 seat. So the BTU figures for the train should be divided by 2 to make a fair comparison with the bus.

That means if the train had the same seats as the bus, it would use about 1218 BTUs per passenger-miles. The bus uses about 1460. So the train _is _more efficient than the bus, but not by much. The plane, OTOH, has smaller seats than the bus, yet uses much more BTUs, so it's terribly inefficient.


----------



## AlanB (Sep 1, 2013)

Swadian,

Page #14:

http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb32/Edition32_Chapter02.pdf


----------



## Ryan (Sep 1, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > That's some henryj-esque "analysis" there.
> ...


They both have in common the "I have a conclusion, how can I make up the numbers to prove that conclusion is true" factor going for them.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 2, 2013)

AlanB said:


> Swadian,
> Page #14:
> 
> http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb32/Edition32_Chapter02.pdf


Apparently there's no data available for intercity buses except total energy use.

*Transit *buses use 4,240 BTUs per-passenger mile, but that's even higher than cars! The only way that would be true is because transit buses often run near empty. Note that intercity buses are often much fuller than transit buses.


----------



## AlanB (Sep 2, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Apparently there's no data available for intercity buses except total energy use.


Yes, the bus companies don't provide that info. Makes one wonder what they want to hide.



Swadian Hardcore said:


> *Transit *buses use 4,240 BTUs per-passenger mile, but that's even higher than cars! The only way that would be true is because transit buses often run near empty. Note that intercity buses are often much fuller than transit buses.


Yes, transit buses do lose efficiency as they near the outer end of their runs and late a night. On the other hand, I also wouldn't expect too much variance in the number despite intercity buses running with more seats sold. The reason, intercity buses have fewer seats to sell. And they never sell standing room. So a jam packed transit bus during rush hour helps to negate the empty transit buses where and when they occur. And that helps to counterbalance the fact that an intercity bus runs largely full.

If anything helps an intercity bus, it's going to be the fact that the bulk of their run is on open highways and not stuck in stop & go traffic with lots of traffic lights.


----------



## Slasharoo (Sep 2, 2013)

RIP Mr. Corman


----------



## jebr (Sep 3, 2013)

AlanB said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > *Transit *buses use 4,240 BTUs per-passenger mile, but that's even higher than cars! The only way that would be true is because transit buses often run near empty. Note that intercity buses are often much fuller than transit buses.
> ...


Does transit buses include demand/response service? If so, I can imagine that skewing the results quite a bit...a lot of rural areas have demand/response service that is more for social welfare than to preserve the environment.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 3, 2013)

jebr said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Swadian Hardcore said:
> ...


Not sure about this, but transit buses often run very empty so obviously they are inefficient. In fact, in another transport anaysis I saw (forgot the link), transit buses were rated as most inefficient because they burn lots of fuel while having an average load of only 8.8 passengers. Greyhound and other intercity buses obviously have a lot more loads because they run for profits.

For example, if you start seeing a Greyhound route with less than 15 passengers regularly, then it's probably going to get axed soon.

*Until someone explains why the transit buses appear to use more BTUs than cars, then the DOE figures must be taken with a big grain of salt. In all fairness, how can a bus be less efficient than a car?*

And I don't know where my other post went unless it got deleted.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Sep 3, 2013)

Swadian, you're the best thread hijacker since D.B. Copper.


----------



## George Harris (Sep 3, 2013)

MikefromCrete said:


> Swadian, you're the best thread hijacker since D.B. Copper.


You're showing your age. How many people here do you think have any idea who D B Cooper is?


----------



## JayPea (Sep 3, 2013)

Ah, yes! DB Cooper! Perpetrator of the only unsolved hijacking in US history! Dan Cooper's (DB is a misnomer) name is ressurected again!


----------



## Ryan (Sep 4, 2013)

George Harris said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> > Swadian, you're the best thread hijacker since D.B. Copper.
> ...


I'm 33 and I do...


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 4, 2013)

I know DB Cooper and I'm the about the same age as Ryan. But DB Cooper is no excuse for weird BTU figures.

Might as well go OT all over the place, since those Rhodoks need some lessons.....


----------

