John West Wrote:
=======================================================
> Randall Hess Wrote:
> ==================================================
> =====
> > And that is exactly why I made my "mission
> creep"
> > comment....almost anything
> > that is a true improvement will cost the
> railroad
> > more money
>
> Not necessarily true. It costs no more to run a
> train when the light is better for photographs.
> It does not cost more to have an authentic
> consist. It does not cost more to demonstrate
> equipment in the yard rather than pull it to some
> remote location. And so on. There are a bunch of
> things that good planning can do to GREATLY
> improve a trip at no incremental cost, depending
> on the trip's objective.
>
> But you are absolutely right that a lot of other
> extras do cost money, and smart planning needs to
> aggressively keep that sort of thing under
> control.
>
> JBWX
If we think back to our original "design parameters" (sorry for the lingo, I designed DoD software at one time)
(1) keep cost way down so that CATS can make money even with relatively low-priced tickets
There was a brief subthread here about leadership; I believe that behind-the-scenes management is at least as important. CATS has what it needs, but not an infinite supply. Using that management expertise to plan extras to this already extra trip would have the opportunity cost that the management expertise would be less available for other purposes, so even the seemingly simplest addition can have incremental cost.
(2) not siphon patrons from more lucretive charters
Any extra component added to this trip runs the risk that this is the straw removing one more high-paying patron from a more lucretive charter; even if that charter were completely sponsored by someone else, CATS runs the risk of reducing the number of charters by competing with them.