another nutjob bash at Amtrak

[PetalumaLoco]

Opinionated Piece here.

 

[nr272]

Just do a wikipedia search for "Media Research Center". Nutjobs indeed.

 

[VentureForth]

How so? So they are conservative. Their points are absolutely valuable. May be missing some of the picture, may be ignoring all other aspects of transit, but still... Amtrak is a cash hog and has a lot of internal reasons why they're not more successful than they are. As with my opinion with regards to buying 75 Viewliners for baggage cars, I believe that this company has shown that they have some misappropriated priorities with the way they spend OUR money.

 

[Greg]

I fail to see the logic in the statement that Amtrak "loses" money as stated in the article...it is a quasi-government agency. Following that line of thinking, every federal agency "loses" money just by virtue of its existence and operation. They all provide services and there is no federal agency which is required to be profitable.

 

[Shawn]

It's opinions like that why we are at the bottom of the barrell when it comes to being a major industrialized country with a crawling passenger rail network....If you build it they will come...and it's true! Just look at how it worked for Portland's MAX system. Eventually this country will wake up!

 

[Greg]

It's opinions like that why we are at the bottom of the barrell when it comes to being a major industrialized country with a crawling passenger rail network....If you build it they will come...and it's true! Just look at how it worked for Portland's MAX system. Eventually this country will wake up!

I hope you're right Shawn and I hope we're all around to see it!!

 

[Shawn]

I doubt we will! It will still be fought over and over and over...haha

 

[Amtrak839]

An “NBC Nightly News” segment on April 11 examined the $8 billion destined for Amtrak that was included in the stimulus bill recently signed into law by President Obama.

The $8 billion is for high speed rail, not Amtrak specifically. Amtrak is getting $1.3 billion.

Amtrak loses a lot of money. As reported by Reuters, Senate Republicans claim Amtrak has received over $21 billion in federal tax dollars to cover operating and capital costs since 1971. However, Amtrak loses more than $700 million annually.

Almost all passenger rail systems lose money. The government uses our tax dollars to build and maintain roads for us to drive our cars on, and build and maintain airports for us to use. Why shouldn't they subsidize a passenger rail network for us?

 

[volkris]

What, exactly, is the "nutjob bash" here?

The article seems to make fairly sober assertions: Amtrak doesn't make money; it will cost a lot more than the $8 billion to get the system envisioned; and there are questions about mismanagement of funds previously.

Does anyone disagree with any of those statements?

And then the article suggests that the benefits might not be worth the costs. Again, that's a completely reasonable statement to make, and depending on one's personal opinion about various matters, he might decide either way.

If you ask me this article, while not the height of journalism, is fine; it's the people who get so upset and start calling names that need to take a step back.

 

[Amtrak839]

How so? So they are conservative. Their points are absolutely valuable. May be missing some of the picture, may be ignoring all other aspects of transit, but still... Amtrak is a cash hog and has a lot of internal reasons why they're not more successful than they are. As with my opinion with regards to buying 75 Viewliners for baggage cars, I believe that this company has shown that they have some misappropriated priorities with the way they spend OUR money.

What's wrong with buying new baggage cars? That's cheaper in the long run than doing the maintenance and repairs necessary to keep the fleet of 60 YO cars rolling.

 

[George Harris]

A relatively fact-free article, as usual. I usually don't even bother to read these things. Generally they all copy each other with the same selection of sources and non-facts. Just to pick one:

“High-speed trains are already common in Europe and Japan, where bullet trains do speed along at 200 miles per hour and more,” Costello said. “

For the most part maximum speeds are 280 km/h to 300 km/h (= 174 mph to 186 mph) in Japan, and for the most part in Europe as well. Some lines in Europe do go as high as 350 km/h (218 mph) but they are few.

As to pouring large sums of money into the Northeast Corridor: It is a sinkhole for money already. For passenger-minutes in train time saved this area would probably give the poorest return for money spent for the simple reason that most of the easy and cheap and a lot of the not so easy and not so cheap things that can be done to reduce run time have already been done. Much of the expenditures being talked about for the NEC are for the purpose of maintaining status quo.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Eight billion for high speed rail and 1.3 for Amtrak... total: Less than ten billion. Remind me again how much the government is spending on other places?

I take this as a good sign, really. The fact that NBC is even covering a story on this drop in the spending bucket proves to, at least me, that awareness of Amtrak is improving.

 

[VentureForth]

The reason why it is pretty much good money after bad is because they have to fundamentally redesign how Amtrak works - from reigning in the unions to maximize human resource ability and availability to producing - somehow - an exclusive passenger rail network. They must segregate the Acela from the boundaries of the NEC - at least have its own infrastructure. They must invest in the real estate they occupy by renting out office and retail space. They must create their own energy from their own energy plants and buy the rest they need and sell the extra they generate. They must generate way more ad revenue. And, they must spend money on ads.

It's extremely complex. But every public rail system that I've seen privatized (1), the whole system has improved.

 

[Upstate]

How so? So they are conservative. Their points are absolutely valuable. May be missing some of the picture, may be ignoring all other aspects of transit, but still... Amtrak is a cash hog and has a lot of internal reasons why they're not more successful than they are. As with my opinion with regards to buying 75 Viewliners for baggage cars, I believe that this company has shown that they have some misappropriated priorities with the way they spend OUR money.

What's wrong with buying new baggage cars? That's cheaper in the long run than doing the maintenance and repairs necessary to keep the fleet of 60 YO cars rolling.

Passengers don't see new baggage cars. They see their old coach with bathroom doors that don't lock or their sleeper that requires duct tape to keep the curtains shut. If they put the money into new viewliner coaches and gutted some old amfleet coaches for baggage then they would get something that the passengers can see as an improvement in service as well a replacement for 60 year old baggage cars.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

How so? So they are conservative. Their points are absolutely valuable. May be missing some of the picture, may be ignoring all other aspects of transit, but still... Amtrak is a cash hog and has a lot of internal reasons why they're not more successful than they are. As with my opinion with regards to buying 75 Viewliners for baggage cars, I believe that this company has shown that they have some misappropriated priorities with the way they spend OUR money.

What's wrong with buying new baggage cars? That's cheaper in the long run than doing the maintenance and repairs necessary to keep the fleet of 60 YO cars rolling.

Passengers don't see new baggage cars. They see their old coach with bathroom doors that don't lock or their sleeper that requires duct tape to keep the curtains shut. If they put the money into new viewliner coaches and gutted some old amfleet coaches for baggage then they would get something that the passengers can see as an improvement in service as well a replacement for 60 year old baggage cars.

And when the Amfleet dies? Let's make some logic here-- Amtrak has been refurbing, re-inventing, re-envisioning, and reusing its toys for decades now. How about we let them get their toys new and with the original wrapping once in awhile, eh?

 

[PetalumaLoco]

What, exactly, is the "nutjob bash" here?
The article seems to make fairly sober assertions: Amtrak doesn't make money; it will cost a lot more than the $8 billion to get the system envisioned; and there are questions about mismanagement of funds previously.

Does anyone disagree with any of those statements?

And then the article suggests that the benefits might not be worth the costs. Again, that's a completely reasonable statement to make, and depending on one's personal opinion about various matters, he might decide either way.

If you ask me this article, while not the height of journalism, is fine; it's the people who get so upset and start calling names that need to take a step back.

This is nutjob logic;

"While U.S. banks and automakers may be benefiting from taxpayer bailouts, they certainly haven’t escaped criticism of everything from their executive compensation and their business practices to the ethics of their leadership. Not so with another failed business model. National passenger rail service provider Amtrak continues to get a free pass."

If Amtrak is getting a free pass, so is the national highway system and airline infrastructure. He's also insinuating that Amtrak leadership has a problem with their ethics. The man is a hack.

 

[George Harris]

Like I have said quite a few times in different ways: When these people talk about Amtrak's failures in whatever way, whether it is "failed business model" "inept management" "poor service" or whatever, it is a lot like the farmer with the starving mule.

He was complaining to his neighbor about how his mule would barely move the plow. Neighbor looks at mule, sees ribs showing, legs wobbling, and says, looks like he needs better feeding. Farmers response was, until he starts pulling, he ain't gettin any more food. Neighbor just shakes his head and walks off. What can you say when faced with such irrationality?

Guess what folks, that is the major issue with Amtrak. Unless we feed the beast it can't work. A few years ago the Railway Gazette ran some data on comparative costs both in manpower and money between various passenger carrying systems. Amtrak was doing better than most, and far better than some of the one being held up as wonderful examples.

 

[PetalumaLoco]

Like I have said quite a few times in different ways: When these people talk about Amtrak's failures in whatever way, whether it is "failed business model" "inept management" "poor service" or whatever, it is a lot like the farmer with the starving mule.
He was complaining to his neighbor about how his mule would barely move the plow. Neighbor looks at mule, sees ribs showing, legs wobbling, and says, looks like he needs better feeding. Farmers response was, until he starts pulling, he ain't gettin any more food. Neighbor just shakes his head and walks off. What can you say when faced with such irrationality?

Guess what folks, that is the major issue with Amtrak. Unless we feed the beast it can't work. A few years ago the Railway Gazette ran some data on comparative costs both in manpower and money between various passenger carrying systems. Amtrak was doing better than most, and far better than some of the one being held up as wonderful examples.

Thanks George, very well put.

 

[Amtrak839]

How so? So they are conservative. Their points are absolutely valuable. May be missing some of the picture, may be ignoring all other aspects of transit, but still... Amtrak is a cash hog and has a lot of internal reasons why they're not more successful than they are. As with my opinion with regards to buying 75 Viewliners for baggage cars, I believe that this company has shown that they have some misappropriated priorities with the way they spend OUR money.

What's wrong with buying new baggage cars? That's cheaper in the long run than doing the maintenance and repairs necessary to keep the fleet of 60 YO cars rolling.

Passengers don't see new baggage cars. They see their old coach with bathroom doors that don't lock or their sleeper that requires duct tape to keep the curtains shut. If they put the money into new viewliner coaches and gutted some old amfleet coaches for baggage then they would get something that the passengers can see as an improvement in service as well a replacement for 60 year old baggage cars.

I think the curved sides of the Amcans would make it difficult to install the baggage door. It needs to get done, and we have an administration that looks favorably upon funding Amtrak. So why not just do it now, while they'll be able to get the money necessary? Passengers will see some benefits. For instance, I was riding 52 in January when we passed 98 stopped in the yard in JAX. The engines were uncoupled (which means no power) and the train ended up being delayed for a couple hours. Why? They had to set out the rickety old baggage car. Whether baggage cars are seen or not, they are a fundamental part of long distance service and need to be addressed.

 

[Upstate]

How so? So they are conservative. Their points are absolutely valuable. May be missing some of the picture, may be ignoring all other aspects of transit, but still... Amtrak is a cash hog and has a lot of internal reasons why they're not more successful than they are. As with my opinion with regards to buying 75 Viewliners for baggage cars, I believe that this company has shown that they have some misappropriated priorities with the way they spend OUR money.

What's wrong with buying new baggage cars? That's cheaper in the long run than doing the maintenance and repairs necessary to keep the fleet of 60 YO cars rolling.

Passengers don't see new baggage cars. They see their old coach with bathroom doors that don't lock or their sleeper that requires duct tape to keep the curtains shut. If they put the money into new viewliner coaches and gutted some old amfleet coaches for baggage then they would get something that the passengers can see as an improvement in service as well a replacement for 60 year old baggage cars.

And when the Amfleet dies? Let's make some logic here-- Amtrak has been refurbing, re-inventing, re-envisioning, and reusing its toys for decades now. How about we let them get their toys new and with the original wrapping once in awhile, eh?

Sleepers are toys, Coaches are toys, Diners are toys, Lounges are toys, Baggage cars are glorified box cars. Customers will not notice the difference if they are brand new. The maintainers will like them new, but they are not the ones that are footing the bill (or at least part of the bill).

 

[Amtrak839]

How so? So they are conservative. Their points are absolutely valuable. May be missing some of the picture, may be ignoring all other aspects of transit, but still... Amtrak is a cash hog and has a lot of internal reasons why they're not more successful than they are. As with my opinion with regards to buying 75 Viewliners for baggage cars, I believe that this company has shown that they have some misappropriated priorities with the way they spend OUR money.

What's wrong with buying new baggage cars? That's cheaper in the long run than doing the maintenance and repairs necessary to keep the fleet of 60 YO cars rolling.

Passengers don't see new baggage cars. They see their old coach with bathroom doors that don't lock or their sleeper that requires duct tape to keep the curtains shut. If they put the money into new viewliner coaches and gutted some old amfleet coaches for baggage then they would get something that the passengers can see as an improvement in service as well a replacement for 60 year old baggage cars.

And when the Amfleet dies? Let's make some logic here-- Amtrak has been refurbing, re-inventing, re-envisioning, and reusing its toys for decades now. How about we let them get their toys new and with the original wrapping once in awhile, eh?

Sleepers are toys, Coaches are toys, Diners are toys, Lounges are toys, Baggage cars are glorified box cars. Customers will not notice the difference if they are brand new. The maintainers will like them new, but they are not the ones that are footing the bill (or at least part of the bill).

New baggage cars will reduce overall maintenance costs, which means more money in the long run for repairing things like broken bathroom doors, and curtains that won't stay closed w/o duct tape. These heritage cars are being pushed to the limit. The Amcans are half of the age of the heritage cars. The Amfleets will be replaced eventually, but they are in much better condition than the heritage fleet right now. Amtrak deserves credit for realizing this need and making a serious attempt to address it.

 

[MattW]

Perhaps Amtrak needs to do some sort of traveling demonstration with a series of cars: baggage, sleeper, diner, cafe, and coach, single level and superliner that goes around to different cities and shows exactly what is being done with the money and explain why we need new baggage cars among other unseen stuff. I know, most places with Amtreak service have two trains per day, but I'm talking about an open walkthrough type thing. Parking would be interesting, ATL at least sits right on NS's two track main, NYP is...NYP etc.

 

[volkris]

This is nutjob logic;"While U.S. banks and automakers may be benefiting from taxpayer bailouts, they certainly haven’t escaped criticism of everything from their executive compensation and their business practices to the ethics of their leadership. Not so with another failed business model. National passenger rail service provider Amtrak continues to get a free pass."

If Amtrak is getting a free pass, so is the national highway system and airline infrastructure. He's also insinuating that Amtrak leadership has a problem with their ethics. The man is a hack.

That's not nutjob logic.

Right now for better or worse, like it or not, appropriate or no, Amtrak is a corporation and it's doing business, just like the automakers. Arguably we SHOULD change that to make it more like the government entities that oversee the interstates and other transportation infrastructure. But as of now it's not changed.

The first line of the Amtrak wikipedia article sums it up: Amtrak is a corporation doing business. It happens to be entirely owned by the US government, but it's a corporation doing business nonetheless.

So, since it's a business, why shouldn't we be able to point out that its business model is flawed? Everyone in this forum seems to be in agreement that passenger rail is not sustainable on its own, so it seems everyone in this forum agrees with the "nutjob logic" of the article: Amtrak operates on a failed business model.

I personally would like to see the farce ended, and would see Amtrak treated as the government service that it is. But until then the nutjob got it right: Amtrak is a business operating under a failed model just like the car companies.

 

[Upstate]

How so? So they are conservative. Their points are absolutely valuable. May be missing some of the picture, may be ignoring all other aspects of transit, but still... Amtrak is a cash hog and has a lot of internal reasons why they're not more successful than they are. As with my opinion with regards to buying 75 Viewliners for baggage cars, I believe that this company has shown that they have some misappropriated priorities with the way they spend OUR money.

What's wrong with buying new baggage cars? That's cheaper in the long run than doing the maintenance and repairs necessary to keep the fleet of 60 YO cars rolling.

Passengers don't see new baggage cars. They see their old coach with bathroom doors that don't lock or their sleeper that requires duct tape to keep the curtains shut. If they put the money into new viewliner coaches and gutted some old amfleet coaches for baggage then they would get something that the passengers can see as an improvement in service as well a replacement for 60 year old baggage cars.

And when the Amfleet dies? Let's make some logic here-- Amtrak has been refurbing, re-inventing, re-envisioning, and reusing its toys for decades now. How about we let them get their toys new and with the original wrapping once in awhile, eh?

Sleepers are toys, Coaches are toys, Diners are toys, Lounges are toys, Baggage cars are glorified box cars. Customers will not notice the difference if they are brand new. The maintainers will like them new, but they are not the ones that are footing the bill (or at least part of the bill).

New baggage cars will reduce overall maintenance costs, which means more money in the long run for repairing things like broken bathroom doors, and curtains that won't stay closed w/o duct tape. These heritage cars are being pushed to the limit. The Amcans are half of the age of the heritage cars. The Amfleets will be replaced eventually, but they are in much better condition than the heritage fleet right now. Amtrak deserves credit for realizing this need and making a serious attempt to address it.

ok, so in 30 years when we don't have a rail friendly government we will have coaches falling apart, but at least the baggage cars will have a smooth ride.

 

[saxman]

ok, so in 30 years when we don't have a rail friendly government we will have coaches falling apart, but at least the baggage cars will have a smooth ride.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the new Viewliners being built aren't just going to be baggage cars. Many will be a combination of sleepers and baggage and others will be diners. Plus I'm hoping in 30 years we have more rail as the status quo of transportation along with highways and air travel and not just on the back burner.

I personally would like to see the farce ended, and would see Amtrak treated as the government service that it is. But until then the nutjob got it right: Amtrak is a business operating under a failed model just like the car companies.

And while we are comparing auto companies to Amtrak, in what ways is Amtrak similar to the auto insdustry, seeing how both are "failed" business models?