Who's tired of advocating Amtrak?

[Anonymous]

They can't put the "ignore" button on this site fast enough for me.

[schlimm]

Murray

They can't put the "ignore" button" on here fast enough for me.

 

 

It's called not opening a thread you dislike or have no interest in.   But you want to disrupt the threads you object to.  You and the others never post anything on Amtrak.  Perhaps norton's mistake was putting his thread on the General Forum instead of the Passenger.

[Anonymous]

In the first place young man, I said NOTHING to you.

Secondly, you need to edit your comment to address the posters previously to me who posted in a similar vein regarding the OP.

[schlimm]

RRKen

"In a state like TN, it has been so long since most of the state has seen passenger service, most folks there have never seen one."

Are you just guessing?   Do you think they as citizens are ignorant?  Or is it you want them to  be ignorant because it is your paradigm?

 

 

Hardly.   There have been few passenger trains through TN with the exception of the City of New Orleans through Memphis in the western portion since 1971 and the Floridian 1971-79 by way of Nashville.   Of course the residents know what passenger trains are or were, but when you never see something on a reasonably frequent basis, much less have ever ridden one, it "out of sight, out of mind."

[RRKen]

schlimm

Hardly.   There have been few passenger trains through TN with the exception of the City of New Orleans through Memphis in the western portion since 1971 and the Floridian 1971-79 by way of Nashville.   Of course the residents know what passenger trains are or were, but when you never see something on a reasonably frequent basis, much less have ever ridden one, it "out of sight, out of mind."

 

 

Folks in Northern Iowa/Southern Minnesota have not seen passenger trains in as much time.  Yet plenty of Iowans supported Amtrak and were willing to expand operations in Central Iowa. 

It all depends on how you promote them and who you have to promote them.

[schlimm]

RRKen

Folks in Northern Iowa/Southern Minnesota have not seen passenger trains in as much time.  Yet plenty of Iowans supported Amtrak and were willing to expand operations in Central Iowa.  It all depends on how you promote them and who you have to promote them.

 

Certainly!!   The essence of good marketing, as former poster henry6 would say.   I'm curious. Ken.  What happened in Iowa to expanded services?   Seems like not much is happening beyond maybe some service extension beyond the Quad Cities to Iowa City.

[Norm48327]

"Hey, if you don't like a thread, go post on your Eleanor thread.  You may get away with your and the others' personal vendettas against Jim Norton now and others, like Euclid earlier, but it is noticed and will be met.   You want to continue your merry ways, but perhaps you need a dose of your own disruption?"

And that comes from the biggest forum policeman on the block.

[Angela Pusztai-Pasternak]

Please discuss railroad topics without calling each other names. 

Thanks.

[Wizlish]

schlimm

Perhaps you should add #4. You need good media contacts in order to publicize your plans and bring that vision to the public. In a state like TN, it has been so long since most of the state has seen passenger service, most folks there have never seen one.

Very good point.  And something that might be of particular interest is that Nashville does have passenger trains, and did take the time and spend the money to put the service in place.  Admittedly this isn't LD service (and note that the 5th largest conurbation in Tennessee is the Clarkville area, on the Kentucky border, which few people have actually heard of, so the effective market for rail 'commuter' and perhaps even regional traffic is somewhat limited), but does show that many people in Tennessee understand the value of railroad passenger transportation when presented.

(May I make a suggestion?  If anyone here has a complaint about a post, or a poster, make it directly TO THEM via the private message/start conversation utility, and don't clutter up the thread with ad hoc comments ... regardless of how many people subsequently 'agree' with you when you do.  I'm participating on this forum to discuss ideas, not people ... and particularly not what people think of other people on the forum.  That doesn't mean we can't have threads that discuss people: just be sure if you start one to mention in the title that it may contain judgmental comments and I'll be pleased to avoid it...)

[Euclid]

Wizlish

(May I make a suggestion?  If anyone here has a complaint about a post, or a poster, make it directly TO THEM via the private message/start conversation utility, and don't clutter up the thread with ad hoc comments ...

 

But wrecking the thread is the whole point.  Yes, the disgruntled can complain privately to the person whom they disagree with, but that person can just ignore the complaint. 

Some people claim they want a button to shut off ideas that they disagree with.  But the point is not that disgruntled posters simply disagree with some ideas.  Their real grievance is they don’t want those ideas to be read by others.  So wrecking the thread is their button. 

 

[tree68]

Euclid

Their real grievance is they don’t want those ideas to be read by others. So wrecking the thread is their button. 

I simply try to debunk what I see as erroneous information, although I can see where some folks would consider that "wrecking the thread."

Meanwhile, back on thread, Amtrak should be part of our national transportation solution.  One might wonder if those who seek to destroy it don't simply see Amtrak as siphoning off funds from their favored solution...

[Anonymous]

I am going to state for the record one time, then I am letting this thread alone.

I said nothing derogatory on this thread.  I also said nothing to warrant an attack against me by Schlimm.

Knock it off Schlimm.

[Euclid]

tree68

 

Euclid

Their real grievance is they don’t want those ideas to be read by others. So wrecking the thread is their button. 

 

 

I simply try to debunk what I see as erroneous information, although I can see where some folks would consider that "wrecking the thread."

I agree.  I don't see basic disagreement or correcting erroneous information as being capable of "wecking the thread." Usually when people disagree in a thread, they want the thread to keep going so they can come to some resolution.  So they don't want to wreck the thread.

[dehusman]

One would think that there ought to be enough ridership history that one could, using actual historical data, project the ridership of a route based on the population density through which it travels and then determine if its realistic or what subsidy would be required to maintain the service.

Just because somebody "wants" service on a particular route doesn't mean its economically viable.  If a city wants service, figure out how much it costs and then then let them pony up the bucks to make it happen.  If the proposal is between City A and City B, find a half dozen similar sized cities on existing AMTK routes and see what originating and terminating traffic there is at those cities.  That should give a rough idea on what the actual usage wil be.  Get data on the operating costs.  Then figure out between the state, the cities, AMTK and the passengers, who is going to pay what part of the operating costs. 

[schlimm]

Euclid

 

 

tree68

 

Euclid

Their real grievance is they don’t want those ideas to be read by others. So wrecking the thread is their button. 

 

 

I simply try to debunk what I see as erroneous information, although I can see where some folks would consider that "wrecking the thread."

 

 

 

I agree.  I don't see basic disagreement or correcting erroneous information as being capable of "wecking the thread." Usually when people disagree in a thread, they want the thread to keep going so they can come to some resolution.  So they don't want to wreck the thread.

 

 

Posts like this one, for example, are hardly correcting any erroneous infromation:

SALfan

 

edblysard

Make that 3 in a row....

 

 

 

 

Four.

 

 

 

 

 

[blue streak 1]

Deggesty

Concerning a Bristol-Memphis train, Wizlish mentioned funding by the state of Tennessee. However, we must remember that about 40% of the 552 miles of route is not in Tennessee, but in Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi.

Also, there is talk of extending service from Lynchburg to Roanoke and to Bristol.

I, for one, would be glad to be able to reach Bristol by rail again, so that I could get to my college reunions by rail. As it is, I rent a car at a convenient railhead and drive to and from Bristol.

 

There are  real problems all along the route.  Someone with old timetables can fill out the numbers.

1.  Bristol - Knoxville on the best SOU RR schedule was ~ 4:00 - .  Today Road miles less than 100.  The route is curvy, many streches today MAS only 30 MPH.  Johnson City is essentially 1+ miles beside the street running not even signaled, Jonesborough on the side of a hill which has been observed as MAS 20 MPH.  Once past Bulls gap - Knoxville much faster running. Many grade crossings in Morristown.

2.  Many years ago there was thru Pullman service Bristol - Nashville over the TC RR Harriman - Nashville.  When TC terminatd passenger service the Pullman was routed Bristol - Chattnooga ( SOU RR ) and NC&SL Chattanooga - nashville.  Enroute time was actually quicker by way Chattanooga.  So TC route would need I-40 type construction built straight but with heavy grades.

3.  Was told that the Roanoke - Bristol - Knoxville section during the N&W - SOU era had low patronage between those points dipping lowest at Bristol.  Possible state bias ?  Exception was Birmingham special #17 - 18 (night time ) with mostly thru passengers.

4.  Chatanooga - 30 miles west is another problem thru a very curvy steep grade double track section used by both CSX (NC&SL) & NS today.  That slows freight train possiblr interferrence today that will be very difficult remedy. + at bottom of hill CSX then has to then climb Mt. Eagle to get on  the plateau to Nashville.