In the General section, the mgt of this place calls our attention (http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/231440.aspx) to Logical Fallacies. I'm afraid without resorting to them, we won't have anything to discuss!
I tried to cover all the bases. What did I miss?
Slippery Slope: If they kill the Sunset, they'll kill all the LD trains.
Hasty Generalization: The Crescent was an hour late today. You can never count on it being on time.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc: Giving Amtrak more money only means they will lose more money.
Genetic Fallacy: Amtrak is a government organization and therefore can't do anything right.
Begging the Claim: America doesn't need Soviet-style trains.
Circular Argument: Amtrak is a good railroad because they run nice trains.
Either/or: We can either fund Amtrak properly or give up completely on intercity passenger trains.
Ad hominem: Only liberals like Amtrak.
Ad populum: Passenger rail service in the US is a disgrace compared to Europe and China.
Red Herring: We need LD trains for those who can't fly.
Straw Man: If you don't support Amtrak, you're not a real railfan.
Moral Equivalence: In the hole for a freight, again. The frt RRs must hate Amtrak.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Yeh, so what is new?
oltmannd Post hoc ergo propter hoc: Giving Amtrak more money only means they will lose more money. Red Herring: We need LD trains for those who can't fly. Moral Equivalence: In the hole for a freight, again. The frt RRs must hate Amtrak.
OK, I picked three of the fallacious arguments.
"Give Amtrak more money, they will lose more money"
This is a tautology because we only "give Amtrak money" to make up what the fares don't cover, but if I understand a tiny bit of Latin, I think you are saying that. Obviously, if we "give Amtrak more money", Amtrak will be able to run more trains and serve more passengers.
The real question is if there is any economy of scale. Can we double the Amtrak budget and serve four times as many passenger miles? Many around here argue that Amtrak is "underfunded" -- what does that mean? You give Amtrak some money, they run trains, you give them less money, they run fewer trains. I think the argument is that Amtrak is starved for money, that if you give them a little bit more money there will be a lot more or better service. I have argued that there is evidence against that position -- the Vision Report for starters.
"We need LD trains for those who can't fly."
Actually, the "accomodation" aspect of Amtrak and especially the LD trains might make more sense than the saving oil resources or relieving highway congestion arguments in support of those trains. The LD trains actually don't make sense from those frequently advanced reasons for trains. It is actually a powerful argument -- who is against allowing people otherwise restricted in their mobility to visit loved ones, go on pleasure or business trips, etc.? But if that is the primary reason for trains, a person needs to be "up front" about it because if the primary reason for trains are the environmental and resource reasons, we would not be fighting for trains with 3 locomotives and 12 cars, a large number of them "non-revenue" baggage, lounge, crew-dorm, and dining cars along with "low density" sleeping cars.
"In the hole for a freight, again. The frt RRs must hate Amtrak."
I too am bothered by the reflexive demonization of the for-profit host railroads on this score, and I am annoyed with the "we need to sue/force/make the host railroads fill their contractual obligations" approach. But the unimpeded passage of Amtrak trains is a problem, and the manner in which Amtrak trains impede freight traffic is a problem. As railfans and as an advocacy community, I think we could work on learning more about how trains are dispatched and whether it is possible to "square the circle" of allowing Amtrak and especially Amtrak LD trains to keep schedule through better practices by both Amtrak and their host railroads. And we need to learn how we can do this in a post Staggers Act world where we realize that imposing all manners of public interest edicts on the railroads nearly bled them dry, and that the reforms that have made them viable businesses have left us with a lot less track.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
good answer
Paul Milenkovic oltmannd Post hoc ergo propter hoc: Giving Amtrak more money only means they will lose more money. Red Herring: We need LD trains for those who can't fly. Moral Equivalence: In the hole for a freight, again. The frt RRs must hate Amtrak. ... I think the argument is that Amtrak is starved for money, that if you give them a little bit more money there will be a lot more or better service. I have argued that there is evidence against that position -- the Vision Report for starters. ...
...
I think the argument is that Amtrak is starved for money, that if you give them a little bit more money there will be a lot more or better service. I have argued that there is evidence against that position -- the Vision Report for starters.
Paul --
Very logical elaboration, as always.
One question (which might be best for another thread): could you point us (me) to your assessment that the Vision Report is ecvidence against the "bit more money = lot better service" proposition?
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Very well played, Mr. Oltmann. I must confess, however, that in my younger days I may have played into one or more of these. My logic was something like, "I am a lifelong railfan. I like trains. I'm the progeny of a railroad historian. I must know what I am talking about, right?" It is amazing how perspectives can change when one starts doing this for a paycheck.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
Dragoman One question (which might be best for another thread): could you point us (me) to your assessment that the Vision Report is ecvidence against the "bit more money = lot better service" proposition?
The Vision Report proposes spending about 10 billion/year over a 50 year period (about the time Amtrak has already been in existence) to build out from passenger trains carrying .1 percent of current passenger miles to reach 1 percent of current passenger miles.
I see this is very roughly a 10-fold increase in Amtrak support to achieve a 10-fold increase in passenger miles.
The Appendices of the Vision Report come up with these numbers by evaluating the European experience, where they have a much larger passenger train network but they spend more money on it too. These data suggest to me that Amtrak is not that far from a linear curve of where you spend proportionately more money to get proportionately more train service.
Amtrak, which is a quasi-governmental corporation, gets a lot of things right. The key question, however, is whether it is as efficient and effective as it could be?
A government corporation, especially if it is a monopoly, is not compelled to be as efficient and effective as a competitive, private business. It does not have any competitors to whom dissatisfied customers can turn to. It is the only game in town.
Successful business people understand that a business should only expand capacity if there is a compelling indication that potential customers will use the increased outputs. This is why market research is a critical factor in determining whether there are likely takers for the expanded capacity.
Following WWII the nation's passenger railroads spent the equivalent of billions of dollars upgrading their passenger trains. They turned out some beautiful trains. However, by 1955 or thereabouts, it was clear that people were fleeing trains for cars and planes. And nothing the railroads could do stopped that trend. Accordingly, those who believe that the problem for trains, especially the long distance trains, is inadequate capacity are burdened with the task of showing why what did not work following WWII would work today.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.