T
the Duck
Guest
Hey its awful quiet out there! Lets stir the pot and get something going. Quack! Quack! What are the odds reroute takes place before contract ends (Dec.31, 2015)? What are odds that reroute takes place in 2014?
Well Duck, if it's that important to you then pick any date you want. I could really care less.The question is not where reroute, But WHEN.
You're new here so you're not familiar with Henry's "analysis". He pores over Amtrak documents to try and pull out numbers, then fills in the gaps with some truthy-feeling guesstimates that lo and behold produce results that back up his pet theory of the month.Is someone making up numbers?
It's really he just doesn't like me or my opinions which differ from his substantially. So he chases me around on here attacking my character, reliability and rationality. In other words he is the supreme pompous 'know it all' and a j---a--. The monitor on here lets him get away with it so I have to put up with it.You're new here so you're not familiar with Henry's "analysis". He pores over Amtrak documents to try and pull out numbers, then fills in the gaps with some truthy-feeling guesstimates that lo and behold produce results that back up his pet theory of the month.Is someone making up numbers?
Of course when pressed on the details or the actual spreadsheets, we get as complete an explanation as we do the "bloated overhead" question (that is to say, nothing at all).
It's quite entertaining.
I think that is a fair sumnation of the whole issue.The SWC situation seems to highlight the friction between two of the stated goals of Amtrak: to serve rural towns without other forms of transportation, and to break-even/achieve a net gain financially. If Amtrak's focus is the former, then the route should stay as is. If the latter goal is paramount, the train should be routed through the areas where it would be able to serve more passengers, and in turn generate more revenue. Since Amtrak is under increasing pressure to show better financial results, I'd think that the smartest thing to do is reroute the train. In addition to the theoretical increase in revenue, OTP and reliability would improve. Yes, people will suffer from the loss of service, but how many more would suffer if the entire route were to be eliminated? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few in this case, IMO.
I think this is a false dichotomy. But then, I live in a rural town with unpleasant airline service, no train service at all, and larger population than the towns on the SWC line...Is someone making up numbers?
The SWC situation seems to highlight the friction between two of the stated goals of Amtrak: to serve rural towns without other forms of transportation, and to break-even/achieve a net gain financially.
I wouldn't call I-135 an "unlighted, rural highway."I may be Eastern, and I may be sophisticated, but I live in a place where I have to drive EVERYWHERE, henryj. I'd still prefer a train station which was closer to me and didn't require driving down unlighted rural highways for long distances, and I'm sure the good people of Wichita feel the same way.
Actually, BNSF would be fine if the Southwest Chief just evaporated. They're a freight company, and Amtrak takes up space on their railroad.... Four the past 4 years BNSF has been trying to shove this reroute down Amtraks throat. I dunno what you are smoking but it's potent.
I'd imagine that they'd run into federal government opposition if they tried to do something like that. I don't think that the railroads are allowed to just revoke Amtrak's use of their rails.Actually, BNSF would be fine if the Southwest Chief just evaporated. They're a freight company, and Amtrak takes up space on their railroad.... Four the past 4 years BNSF has been trying to shove this reroute down Amtraks throat. I dunno what you are smoking but it's potent.
BNSF could drop maintenance on the La Junta Subdivision, and tell Amtrak to eat crap and die. However, they're being a good corporate citizen by offering the reroute.
They wouldn't be. They'd just be continually downgrading the tracks until the trains would be running at a crawl.I'd imagine that they'd run into federal government opposition if they tried to do something like that. I don't think that the railroads are allowed to just revoke Amtrak's use of their rails.
Go emote up a tree. And take the bill of goods you are trying to sell with you.Actually, BNSF would be fine if the Southwest Chief just evaporated. They're a freight company, and Amtrak takes up space on their railroad.... Four the past 4 years BNSF has been trying to shove this reroute down Amtraks throat. I dunno what you are smoking but it's potent.
BNSF could drop maintenance on the La Junta Subdivision, and tell Amtrak to eat crap and die. However, they're being a good corporate citizen by offering the reroute.
Enter your email address to join: