The importance of Amtrak to Montana

[Modelcar]

.....M. Sol:

That makes more economic and reality sense than most advice and comments I've heard lately for Amtrak.

[MichaelSol]

.....M. Sol:

That makes more economic and reality sense than most advise and comments I've heard lately for Amtrak.

Well, I appreciate that. Years ago, in discussing Amtrak with one of its retired COO's -- and we talk about it from time to time even today -- we discussed the Amtrak "culture" in some detail, and how difficult it was to change the culture -- everyone was locked into a political agenda, everyone feared "change" and the effect it might have on unions and all sorts of vested interests. One way of breaking Amtrak's self-imposed "culture" was to break it up, train by train.

The Empire Builder might be a good model for that. Create "The Empire Builder, Inc." and let it run the service. It's still part of Amtrak's budgeting, but it is managed with a board that consists of Amtrak reps, representatives of each state supporting the service, and user groups -- people actually interested in that particular train service, representing sources of additional or outside funding for development.

It's all pretty political even at that, but it creates the direct "involvement" by states and communities that is lacking in the current Amtrak long distance train culture. And the best thing that board of directors could do is hire some young guy or woman, or a team of them, who want to establish a reputation and have all sorts of ideas, and the energy and intelligence to go out and do it unencumbered by the old thinking of Amtrak's version of railroad passenger train service.

Amtrak's current biggest "innovation" is its "Cross Country Cafe" on the City of New Orleans. Good idea. Did it really take 37 years for Amtrak to think of a specialty cuisine on a train identified with a city known for its unique cuisine? Yes, it did. And what did they choose for the name, with all of those wonderfully imaginative Creole names abundant in New Orleans? A name that is as unmatched to its purpose -- "Cross Country Cafe" -- as they possibly could. Sounds like a truck stop. Who does this stuff?

The fine young graduate students I deal with every day would have ten bright ideas, ready to go for the Empire Builder on Day One. Headed to Seattle? Stick an "Ivar's Fish Bar" in the lounge car at Whitefish, and keep it open late; and open early with specialty Seattle Waterfront omlets. Subcontract it to Ivars, the crew does a two day turnaround in and out of Whitefish which is a great crew terminal because there are tons of young people who would love to have a job with a two day rotation with two days off to ski or hike. Seattle itself would work just as well. Eastbound, at St. Paul it becomes a Chicago Pizza joint. Geez, have some fun with these trains. Let people enjoy themselves on the trip. Make getting there half the fun of going. People will pay for that.

Amtrak resembles nothing more than the old joke about mating elephants: it occurs at a very high level, there is a lot of noise and it takes two years to get any results. Except Amtrak takes longer to get the results.

These trains need to be loosened up and "managed" rather than "administered" -- the difference being a manager has a stake in his work product; an administrator has a stake in his pension. They need to be part of their communities, not just pass through them hoping someone gets on at the station.

 

[Dakguy201]

I've heard (from various trip reports) that Emmett Fremaux, I believe his title is V.P. Marketing, is a frequent presence on various trains.  If so, it would seem that he is trying something along the lines that Mr. Sol is suggesting, although I agree a group of graduate students would do it much more quickly.

Company grapevines being what they are, I'd bet that long before they ever board the train, the crew on a trip that includes Mr. Fremaux are very much aware of his presence and are acting accordingly. 

[VerMontanan]

Gosh, enough people comment on it; I guess you read what you want to. I ride it more than you do. Sometimes experience is more meaningful than wishful thinking.

 

That's interesting.  How do you know you ride it more than I?  Do you have access to personal travel data of Amtrak passengers?  (Just curious, since dissemination of this information is illegal).

 

 

[VerMontanan]

Indeed, even as you deny it, you state the case that the territory is so poor for business that even bus companies couldn't afford to offer service to the route. And, suggests that the historically subsidized rail passenger service acted to always keep bus service out. The route is so deficient on population that only a heavily subsidized service can survive which, ironically, naturally operates in favor of the heavily subsidized service.

Now, tell me where the surprise is there?

Always?  In 1971, at the creation of Amtrak, the only segments along the Empire Builder route between Chicago and Seattle that didn't have parallel bus service were Havre to Shelby and Cut Bank to Browning.  By 1984, as an example, the only segments without bus service along the route were Havre to Shelby, and Cut Bank to Whitefish.  The reality is that, given the vast areas of this is country without Amtrak or intercity bus service, the presence of Amtrak (or not) has little to do with the demise of intercity bus transport in America in the past 37 years.

[VerMontanan]

And to put the Empire Builder's passenger numbers in perspective. The five or six train sets carry, between Chicago and Seattle/Portland and all of the stations in between, 45 total stations on a daily basis, fewer passengers than board and deplane aircraft in a single day at Glacier International Airport in Kalispell, Montana.

Serving a market area of -- what -- thirty million people between Chicago and Seattle/Portland and the Empire Builder is bested in ridership by one single country airport every day? Yeah, against that current reality, I guess I'd be talking about the bus system in 1960 too.

And what day would that be, Michael?

According to Amtrak, 504,977 people rode the Empire Builder in FY2007.

According to the Montana Department of Transportation, Glacier Park International Airport in Kalispell (FCA), had 359,351 boardings and deplanings in 2007.  Individual day ridership is not given, but since the Amtrak number is greater, the daily usage would be greater, too.

This alone would prove that Michael is incorrect, but it's additionally important to realize the apples-and-oranges comparison here.  While Amtrak lists individual station ridership as "boardings and alightings," ridership for trains is just the single trip.  In other words, a trip from St. Paul to Minot counts as one boarding in St. Paul and one alighting in Minot for that one trip, but ridership of only one person for the train.  In contast, the Kalispell airport figure includes everyone leaving from there and arriving.  So, if one were trying to compare it to a single transportation entity, such as the Empire Builder, you would have to cut the airport figure in half, which would result in gap all the more in favor of the Empire Builder.

Mark Meyer

[VerMontanan]

I understand that your background is neither in engineering nor finance, but your carelessness with figures and continual misunderstandings and misrepresentations of what you read, does indeed add an element of tension to discussions with you. Your continuing infatuation with large displays of data, without meaningful context reinforces the perception that you often don't understand what you are posting, just posting.

Well, Michael, your lack of knowledge about Amtrak finances has been proven in this forum before.  In a previous thread about the Empire Builder, you stated, "The NEC earns more in profit than all the rest put together. The fact is, the NEC trains cannot earn enough to offset losses on trains such as the Empire Builder. If it got rid of its Empire Builder type trains, Amtrak could be profitable. It's the Empire Builders that are killing Amtrak."  

Not only is this contrary to most other rail passenger systems in the world that don't make money but contrary what Amtrak itself claims: "Most of Amtrak's expenditures are due to the immense capital needs of its infrastructure, particularly the Northeast Corridor, not long-distance trains.  These operating cost figures should be cited with caution.  Critics often refer to the "loss per passenger" of the long distance trains.  However, each long-distance train passenger is the equivalent of five short distance train passengers because of the greater distances traveled.  More importantly, these "loss per passenger" figures often include not only the "avoidable" costs of operating the long-distance trains (such as the cost of diesel fuel) but all the shared costs that Amtrak incurs for the benefit of both long-distance and corridor trains (such as the cost of mechanical facilities, Amtrak's computer systems, and stations like Los Angeles Union Station).  Including shared costs produces inflated and misleading "loss" figures, since these costs will not go away if long-distance trains are eliminated.   Eliminating all long distance trains would produce negligible cost savings in the first few years because Amtrak must pay labor protection to impacted employees.  When these payments end after five years, the savings would be minimal - about $300 million annually, or about a quarter of Amtrak's annual appropriation in recent years. "

 

 

[VerMontanan]

The problem of current or future long distance Amtrak service anywhere is structural, and I don't mean the railroad tracks, I am referring to the organization. The Empire Builder is a good example. It's a $60 million or $90 million (depending on looking at revenue or expenses) operation.

Who is in charge? Who is actually out there looking for new ideas, new services, talking to people, creating an employee morale, going to places like Missoula, conducting studies, talking it up, doing things, making Amtrak a part of its communities?  

And who's going to pay for the people that would do this?  I agree that Amtrak could do more, but it all takes money.  For instance, along the Texas Eagle route, Amtrak and local passenger train advocates have created a group called TEMPO where the advocates actually promote the train and have a say in how the accommodations on the train are priced to attempt to increase ridership and revenue.  Amtrak and the National Association of Railroad Passengers are planning to expand this service to bolster other routes.  But it's still all easier said than done without the money necessary to do it.

[VerMontanan]

Who'se in charge of the Empire Builder?

No one knows his/her name.

You might start with the Empire Builder Product Line Manager in Seattle.

Unless he has changed positions or retired, I believe the individual is Gary Erford.  If not, contact Sarah Swain in the headquarters in Oakland, California, and she would be able to direct you to whoever does occupy the position.

Mark Meyer

[VerMontanan]

Amtrak's current biggest "innovation" is its "Cross Country Cafe" on the City of New Orleans. Good idea. Did it really take 37 years for Amtrak to think of a specialty cuisine on a train identified with a city known for its unique cuisine? Yes, it did. 

No it didn't.

The Chicago-New Orleans has had a couple attempts at personalized service.  The most notable was in the early 1990s when the train received Superliner equipment, and full dining car service was reinstated.  In April 1996, the City of New Orleans dining car began serving specialties such as red beans and rice, jambalaya, crab cakes, and bread pudding.  The following year, there were also lectures on board the train (in cooperation with the National Park Service) about the Southern music culture, and jazz and blues ensembles would perform in the lounge car periodically.

 

[MichaelSol]

And to put the Empire Builder's passenger numbers in perspective. The five or six train sets carry, between Chicago and Seattle/Portland and all of the stations in between, 45 total stations on a daily basis, fewer passengers than board and deplane aircraft in a single day at Glacier International Airport in Kalispell, Montana.

Serving a market area of -- what -- thirty million people between Chicago and Seattle/Portland and the Empire Builder is bested in ridership by one single country airport every day? Yeah, against that current reality, I guess I'd be talking about the bus system in 1960 too.

And what day would that be, Michael?

According to Amtrak, 504,977 people rode the Empire Builder in FY2007.

According to the Montana Department of Transportation, Glacier Park International Airport in Kalispell (FCA), had 359,351 boardings and deplanings in 2007.  Individual day ridership is not given, but since the Amtrak number is greater, the daily usage would be greater, too.

Just about any day after June 9, 2007 when the number of flights at the airport were doubled to meet demand to increase estimated ridership to more than 1,400 persons per day [Billings Gazette, 5/6/07] which is more than the Amtrak actual average of 1,383. My understanding is that the airport ridership exceeded that expectation, but we will see the full year figures only at the conclusion of 2008.

 

[MichaelSol]

This alone would prove that Michael is incorrect ...

Actually, it only proved you weren't aware of the facts at the airport.

...but it's additionally important to realize the apples-and-oranges comparison here.  While Amtrak lists individual station ridership as "boardings and alightings," ridership for trains is just the single trip.  In other words, a trip from St. Paul to Minot counts as one boarding in St. Paul and one alighting in Minot for that one trip, but ridership of only one person for the train.  In contast, the Kalispell airport figure includes everyone leaving from there and arriving.  So, if one were trying to compare it to a single transportation entity, such as the Empire Builder, you would have to cut the airport figure in half, which would result in gap all the more in favor of the Empire Builder.

Let's see, this shows a "gap all the more in favor of the Empire Builder" serving 45 stations including Chicago, Seattle, Minneapolis, St. Paul and Portland, exceeding by your odd method the demand shown at one country airport.

Some gap.

The fact is, over 1,400 people a day use the airport. Less than that use the Empire Builder. Just as the Empire Builder does not count a rider who embarks and disembarks as two, the airport statistic likewise does not measure the passenger disembarking at Chicago from the Kalispell plane, he is not "counted twice". And a passenger emplaning at Seattle and arriving at Kalispell is only counted on arrival at Kalispell, he too, is only counted once. The measure does not "double count" anybody. This is why your data lacks "context".

This is also what I mean when I refer to these posts as "pure public relations".

 

[VerMontanan]

And to put the Empire Builder's passenger numbers in perspective. The five or six train sets carry, between Chicago and Seattle/Portland and all of the stations in between, 45 total stations on a daily basis, fewer passengers than board and deplane aircraft in a single day at Glacier International Airport in Kalispell, Montana.

Serving a market area of -- what -- thirty million people between Chicago and Seattle/Portland and the Empire Builder is bested in ridership by one single country airport every day? Yeah, against that current reality, I guess I'd be talking about the bus system in 1960 too.

And what day would that be, Michael?

According to Amtrak, 504,977 people rode the Empire Builder in FY2007.

According to the Montana Department of Transportation, Glacier Park International Airport in Kalispell (FCA), had 359,351 boardings and deplanings in 2007.  Individual day ridership is not given, but since the Amtrak number is greater, the daily usage would be greater, too.

Just about any day after June 9, 2007 when the number of flights at the airport were doubled to meet demand to increase estimated ridership to more than 1,400 persons per day [Billings Gazette, 5/6/07] which is more than the Amtrak actual average of 1,383. My understanding is that the airport ridership exceeded that expectation, but we will see the full year figures only at the conclusion of 2008.

 

Completely meaningless.  If it meant anything, the number of people using the airport would exceed the number using the Empire Builder, as is what you stated.  The increase in the number of flights still didn't get the airport usage to reguired amount at the end of the year.  (And most the increase in flights, such as Kalispell-Atlanta and Kalispell-Chicago) were only seasonal during the summer.

[al-in-chgo]

IMHO this argument is getting a little overheated if all we want to do right now is stir up resentment at how the statistics are supposed to be finessed.  Truth be told, the stats don't support an across-the-board passenger mileage dictate:  the plane has only one departure point and one point of entry (landing), but without using a clicker to count the number of passenger who get on/off at Kalispell, or Helena, whatever, no specific permanent tendencies are to be assessed** - - - although we know that boardings and disembarkings of the Builder have almost certainly got to be bigger in summer than winter, the figures we have on hand can support but not CONCLUDE with full logic any month-by-month conclusions; nor does it support averages stretched over the whole 12 months. 

     **Amtrak tickets show exact departure and arrival points, but do we have access to that specific a type of information?  Gross boarding dates of the year . . .  but again how specific?

 

Again IMO this thread is better supported at this point by asking, not only who benefits, but also who pays:  how much is the taxpayer out when a passenger takes the train, versus how much we're out if the feds are subsidizing these (comparatively speaking) puddle-jumper flights.  Most civil aviation in the MT-ID region that connects to places like Denver or (IIRC) Boise are heavily subsidized, an average, or so TV said, of $65 per flier or more. Take that, Amtrak!  If the new flight is in that catergory, is the original one too?  And doesn't that give us some idea not only at how much it costs to get people in and out by some other method than bus or jitney or bonded driver (ambulance-type without any more paramedics than the law requires) . . .  that would be key.  Maybe this is a Ron Paul-type question, but why should the feds pay so much to get people in and out of the beautiful parts -- it's more for the business of tourism than to coddle the tourist per se, isn't it??  - al smalling

 

[VerMontanan]

It is a generic service, unfortunately. It is not the "Empire Builder" of old, nor any of the other fine trains of an earlier era, when their operators took a pride in their trains. These constant data dumps always manage to confuse raw data with deeply held personal notions that have nothing to do with the service.

"Name" trains meant something under their former ownerships. They don't under Amtrak. It is a sad business reality that simply reflects what Amtrak is. I would like to see passenger service improve and attract more riders. The superimposition of nostalgic childhood memories on a business operation perhaps stands more as an obstacle to improving the record of long distance passenger train service -- because the motivation is ideological and romantic -- rather than assisting in its genuine promotion and development by recognizing deficiencies and seeking improvements rather than always repeating that "everything is fine, everything is fine".

But Michael, you were the one acting nostalgic stating, "For someone who rode the Olympian Hiawatha, the North Coast Limited, and the Empire Builder -- the real one -- I ride the train because I can still remember what it was like to ride a real passenger train, I can vicariously enjoy the trip through those memories, and imagine that this train might someday measure up."

And as for personal notions, who could forget the classic Michael Sol statement from a previous Empire Builder thread on this forum, "The lounge/dome is must better utilized on the Portland leg along the Columbia River. Insofar as that limits breakfast before arriving in Portland to things wrapped in plastic; it at least has the benefit of the majestic scenery seen from the dome. By contrast to being herded, cow like, to the 'community seating' enforced in the dining car, fed things that may have well been formerly wrapped in plastic, served by people who are obviously on the third day and last leg of a trip that they are fed up with, and going through a deeply unpleasant tunnel experience that manages to leave diesel fumes lingering in the cars for miles thereafter, the lounge car to Portland is actually the more positive of the two alternatives."

Between waxing nostalgic on the one hand, and fabrication on the other, it's difficult to know where this guy is coming from, not that I care.

The Empire Builder is a generic service, even though it has amenities not available on most other long distance trains.  But to say that these "name" trains don't mean anything, is highly subjective.  I know many Amtrak employees along the Empire Builder route, and to them, this would be an insult much like the "served by people who are obviously on the third day and last leg of a trip that they are fed up with" comment: Unprovable and unsustatiated.  

That the legacy of the train means something (still) is probably true with all long distance Amtrak trains, but more so with the Empire Builder, which has always been lifeline to the residents along its route.  Amtrak employees along the route understand this.  People along the route, whether the thousands that turned out to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the train in 2004, or those who witnessed the Montana governor's tour to support the train and the on-line celebrations to commemorate the refurbished equipment in 2005, do also.  That's why it's easy to look at equipment and call it "generic."  But any passenger train, be it 50 years ago or today is about people, and not about equipment.  Getting back to the original topic of this thread, it was the newspaper article indicating the people support the train.  And that's one of the things that gives it its value, in spite of the cost.

Could things be better?  Absolutely.  Just because one sees value in something doesn't mean "everything is fine."  To the contrary, those who see value in the current service probably wish to see it improve and flourish moreso than the nitpickers who conveniently forget (if they even knew in the first place) the trials and tribulations of rail passenger service in this country over the past four decades.

[MichaelSol]

I understand that your background is neither in engineering nor finance, but your carelessness with figures and continual misunderstandings and misrepresentations of what you read, does indeed add an element of tension to discussions with you. Your continuing infatuation with large displays of data, without meaningful context reinforces the perception that you often don't understand what you are posting, just posting.

Well, Michael, your lack of knowledge about Amtrak finances has been proven in this forum before.  In a previous thread about the Empire Builder, you stated, "The NEC earns more in profit than all the rest put together. The fact is, the NEC trains cannot earn enough to offset losses on trains such as the Empire Builder. If it got rid of its Empire Builder type trains, Amtrak could be profitable. It's the Empire Builders that are killing Amtrak."  

Not only is this contrary to most other rail passenger systems in the world that don't make money but contrary what Amtrak itself claims: "Most of Amtrak's expenditures are due to the immense capital needs of its infrastructure, particularly the Northeast Corridor, not long-distance trains. 

Well, let's talk about your "apples and oranges" briefly, and how your sleight of hand attempts here to mix them.

I did not say that Amtrak didn't spend a lot of money on its Northeast Corridor. So what my comments might be "contrary" to is simply another fabrication attempting to distort what I said by reference to something I didn't say, which is pretty standard practice with you, repeated on forum after forum.

This is no exception.

The NEC costs a lot. It carries over 10 million people per year, compared to just over 500,000 for the Empire Builder. All the long distance trains put together carry just under 4 million passengers.

I would expect the NEC to generate more operating costs and, since it operates its own rail system, more capital cost as well. Who said it didn't?

There is enough controversy over the concept of Amtrak accounting and "shared costs" to render any discussion unintelligble with one of your classic data dumps to obscure any reasonable conclusions, but there are elements that are clear.

The NEC earned $845 million 2007. It's direct operating expense was $306.4 million. Even after adding in "shared costs" bring the total costs to $613 million -- there is a 72% operating ratio. Given that for railroads that operate their own track facilities in general a 72% would be pretty good, I cannot see a basis for concluding that the NEC isn't paying for its operating expenses and capital improvments.

The Empire Builder took in $58 million and incurred $67.5 million in direct operating expenses (avoidable costs). That's a negative operating ratio. Add in the shared costs brings the total to $93 million. Doesn't really matter which expense figure you look at. Obviously, there is no basis for concluding that the Empire Builder is paying for its operating costs and capital improvements. It can't be.

The total of operating expenses, avoidable and shared, results in the NEC generating $258 million in operating profit, the short distance trains a loss of $128 million, and the Long Distance trains including the the Empire Builder an operating loss of $440 million. Of the 16 LD trains, the Empire Builder is in the top five that lose money using total attributed costs, and in the top eight using avoidable costs.

It is not a profitable train. Far from it. Of the Long Distance trains operated by Amtrak, it generates 13.9% of the revenue of all LD trains, but incurs 18.8% of the direct expense of operating all LD trains. Of the operating revenue of Amtrak, the Empire Builder generates 3.2%, but represents 4.4% of the total attributed costs. Of the system contribution, the Empire Builder represents 11.2% of the combined operating loss of the entire system.

Repeated efforts to prove that the Empire Builder is something else is a mystery to me. It loses money. Why someone would want to take the time and energy, as you have once again on this thread, to prove "something" different about the Empire Builder, is a mystery, particularly by the means you employ which, as in the section posted above, seems like an effort to suggest by innuendo that the Empire Builder is profitable, and the NEC is not. And I happen to think that the premise is just pure baloney. It's insupportable.

 

[MichaelSol]

And as for personal notions, who could forget the classic Michael Sol statement from a previous Empire Builder thread on this forum, "The lounge/dome is must better utilized on the Portland leg along the Columbia River. Insofar as that limits breakfast before arriving in Portland to things wrapped in plastic; it at least has the benefit of the majestic scenery seen from the dome. By contrast to being herded, cow like, to the 'community seating' enforced in the dining car, fed things that may have well been formerly wrapped in plastic, served by people who are obviously on the third day and last leg of a trip that they are fed up with, and going through a deeply unpleasant tunnel experience that manages to leave diesel fumes lingering in the cars for miles thereafter, the lounge car to Portland is actually the more positive of the two alternatives."

Between waxing nostalgic on the one hand, and fabrication on the other, it's difficult to know where this guy is coming from, not that I care.

What on earth this comment means, I have no idea.

To the extent that this conversation started out personal -- your infatuation with the Empire Builder -- it could go no where else. Why, I have no idea. The train loses money. Just about all of the LD trains do. There are no surprises there, except your odd desire to prove otherwise contrary to every actual published source of data.

 

[VerMontanan]

I have a question, however, about frequency of bus service.  Were not bus lines regulated, similar to the railroads, as being common carriers, in that they could not just drop a route (or frequency of travel on a route) without government approval?

The reason for the question lies in a suspicion that the thrice daily routes mentioned didnt really address load factors...there could have been 3 buses a day with few riders, which may have contributed to some bus line failures.  Just a passing thought, not meant to minimize the value of the information presented.

I can't speak for the situation in the 1960s and 1970s, but for the most part, during those years there were lots of small bus lines and they seemed for the most part to continue right into the 1980s.  I do know in the past couple of years Greyhound has slashed its route structure nationwide, and needed no specific approval by a government entity in Montana.  This was applicable in Montana when Greyhound ended service between Billings and Fargo, and Rimrock Trailways stepped in to provide the service (but only 1 trip per day each way).  Rimrock Trailways has similarly cut back its own routes within Montana in the past couple of years.

I still think that the demise of package express in favor of shipping via FedEx and UPS had most to do with discontinuing bus routes.  I can recall 20 to 30 years ago riding Greyhound in Central Wisconsin (on a route with no service whatsoever anymore) and while there were some passengers on the bus, most of the work at each stop was opening up the cargo compartment to load and unload packages.  Saskatchewan Transportation Company experimented with running vans (due to the light passenger load) for awhile that towed a trailer behind to accommodate freight.  If you ride an intercity bus today, there will be personal luggage, but that's about it.  Bus lines used to advertise in the Official Bus Guide the locations where there was pick up and delivery service meeting their buses.  This was a desirable service back then, as it allowed for delivery to the door; but this is standard and expected today with UPS and FedEx.

[MichaelSol]

And what day would that be, Michael?.

Just about any day after June 9, 2007 when the number of flights at the airport were doubled to meet demand to increase estimated ridership to more than 1,400 persons per day [Billings Gazette, 5/6/07] which is more than the Amtrak actual average of 1,383.

Completely meaningless.  If it meant anything, the number of people using the airport would exceed the number using the Empire Builder, as is what you stated.  The increase in the number of flights still didn't get the airport usage to reguired amount at the end of the year. 

Well, this is getting pretty childish. You asked "what day would that be," I directly answered the question -- because there actually happened to be a reasonably specific answer based on a specific service change -- and you revert back to an annual average because you didn't like the answer and didn't know the airport had expanded. No one accused you of knowing what was going on at the airport. You are looking for something here besides either answers or an honest discussion. 

 

[VerMontanan]

Repeated efforts to prove that the Empire Builder is something else is a mystery to me. It loses money. Why someone would want to take the time and energy, as you have once again on this thread, to prove "something" different about the Empire Builder, is a mystery, particularly by the means you employ which, as in the section posted above, seems like an effort to suggest by innuendo that the Empire Builder is profitable, and the NEC is not. And I happen to think that the premise is just pure baloney. It's insupportable.

I have never said the Amtrak Empire Builder is profitable.  If I recall correctly, it was none other than you who chastized me for stating (on a previous Empire Builder thread on December 19, 2007) that all Amtrak trains lose money.  All would include the Empire Builder.  It is hardly an effort to show that the train makes money (even by "innuendo"), but rather to show the value of the service, regardless of its shortcomings, and it definitely has some.  It's only baloney because you disagree with something I didn't say.

As for the why of taking the time and energy to post?  Entertainment: that's what these forums are about aren't they?  Thanks for providing me with some today.

[al-in-chgo]

Repeated efforts to prove that the Empire Builder is something else is a mystery to me. It loses money. Why someone would want to take the time and energy, as you have once again on this thread, to prove "something" different about the Empire Builder, is a mystery, particularly by the means you employ which, as in the section posted above, seems like an effort to suggest by innuendo that the Empire Builder is profitable, and the NEC is not. And I happen to think that the premise is just pure baloney. It's insupportable.

I have never said the Amtrak Empire Builder is profitable.  If I recall correctly, it was none other than you who chastized me for stating (on a previous Empire Builder thread on December 19, 2007) that all Amtrak trains lose money.  All would include the Empire Builder.  It is hardly an effort to show that the train makes money (even by "innuendo"), but rather to show the value of the service, regardless of its shortcomings, and it definitely has some.  It's only baloney because you disagree with something I didn't say.

As for the why of taking the time and energy to post?  Entertainment: that's what these forums are about aren't they?  Thanks for providing me with some today.

Although it is probably meant to be jocular, I'm not sure the increasingly personal and hostile tones this thread is taking are supportive of the topic.  Is it not possible for some of this back-and-forthing to take place via PM's?  Not that I'm gonna turn you in, but it's well known these days that we have a new "grey eminence" monitoring these boards and driving topics away or underground if they but sound on the surface to be as hostile as the last half-dozen or so exhanges here do.

Entertainment, yes: put put another way doesn't that mean some people are enjoying themselves at the expense of others, myself included, who had hoped to learn and contribute?  - a. s.

[VerMontanan]

Well, this is getting pretty childish. You asked "what day would that be," I directly answered the question -- because there actually happened to be a reasonably specific answer based on a specific service change -- and you revert back to an annual average because you didn't like the answer and didn't know the airport had expanded. No one accused you of knowing what was going on at the airport. You are looking for something here besides either answers or an honest discussion. 

Well, the only childish thing was the premise that Kalispell's airport handled more passengers in a day than does the Empire Builder.  But the ridership figures don't support that over the course of the year does it?  The newspaper article only gives the number of seats available that day, but that does not equate to the number of passengers that used the facility, and it most certainly does not tell you how many were on the Empire Builder that day.

As for me not knowing the airport had expanded...that's kind of like your unsupportable suggestion that you ride the Empire Builder more than I.  I am well aware of the new seasonal services to Atlanta and Chicago from Kalispell, the coming and going of America West airlines, and that (referring to the expansion) where the airport spent several million dollars a couple of years ago to build a second jetport (because before they had only one, used by Delta) to lure Northwest Airlines with the larger planes.  So what happened next? Delta dumped their service in lieu of regional carrier Skywest that uses the smaller regional jets that wouldn't need a jetport.  Even Northwest has used the smaller jets on occasion.  Now, if they would just quit gouging customers by not offering unlimited mileage for rental cars (like they do in Great Falls and Helena), maybe even more people would use the place.  Just tidbits about the expanded services at the Kalispell airport.....

[MichaelSol]

Repeated efforts to prove that the Empire Builder is something else is a mystery to me. It loses money. Why someone would want to take the time and energy, as you have once again on this thread, to prove "something" different about the Empire Builder, is a mystery, particularly by the means you employ which, as in the section posted above, seems like an effort to suggest by innuendo that the Empire Builder is profitable, and the NEC is not. And I happen to think that the premise is just pure baloney. It's insupportable.

I have never said the Amtrak Empire Builder is profitable.  If I recall correctly, it was none other than you who chastized me for stating (on a previous Empire Builder thread on December 19, 2007) that all Amtrak trains lose money.  All would include the Empire Builder. 

And rightfully deserved to be chastised for misrepresenting that "all" Amtrak trains lose money, since you have zero evidence for that. But, since the Empire Builder is included in "all" trains, that's actually what you meant, huh?

The logic is impenetrable.

[VerMontanan]

Although it is probably meant to be jocular, I'm not sure the increasingly personal and hostile tones this thread is taking are supportive of the topic.  Is it not possible for some of this back-and-forthing to take place via PM's?  Not that I'm gonna turn you in, but it's well known these days that we have a new "grey eminence" monitoring these boards and driving topics away or underground if they but sound on the surface to be as hostile as the last half-dozen or so exhanges here do.

Entertainment, yes: put put another way doesn't that mean some people are enjoying themselves at the expense of others, myself included, who had hoped to learn and contribute?  - a. s.

Al,

Sorry you see it this way, but just my way of saying I don't take this personally, and I don't think anyone else should either.  If they do, it's really a waste of time, because blogs and these forums really don't reach many people or change any minds.  If you really don't consider it entertainment, why do it?

Mark Meyer

[MichaelSol]

Well, the only childish thing was the premise that Kalispell's airport handled more passengers in a day than does the Empire Builder.  But the ridership figures don't support that over the course of the year does it? 

This is a joke. You asked "which day, Michael"?

Well, on the basis of averages, the answer is: any number of them after June 9, 2007.

And what is particularly "childish about the premise" that happens on particular days to be true, and will become generally true shortly if not already?

No, the answer doesn't support something you didn't ask; nor was it relevant to something you didn't ask; nor was the past relevant to the present.  But, it is the same continuing discourse as represented by the contention that since all Amtrak trains include the Empire Builder, all Amtrak trains lose money. These conversations become uniformly bizarre.

 

[chad thomas]

[al-in-chgo]

Although it is probably meant to be jocular, I'm not sure the increasingly personal and hostile tones this thread is taking are supportive of the topic.  Is it not possible for some of this back-and-forthing to take place via PM's?  Not that I'm gonna turn you in, but it's well known these days that we have a new "grey eminence" monitoring these boards and driving topics away or underground if they but sound on the surface to be as hostile as the last half-dozen or so exhanges here do.

Entertainment, yes: put put another way doesn't that mean some people are enjoying themselves at the expense of others, myself included, who had hoped to learn and contribute?  - a. s.

Al,

Sorry you see it this way, but just my way of saying I don't take this personally, and I don't think anyone else should either.  If they do, it's really a waste of time, because blogs and these forums really don't reach many people or change any minds.  If you really don't consider it entertainment, why do it?

Mark Meyer

An excellent point, Mark.  All I can say is that an irony has developed here that I've observed more than a couple of times in other posts by other people heretofore:  that a really hot topic draws in people like me whose needs are perhaps more elemental and simple than the thread has currently become -- I don't mind subject mutation much and there's nothing officially for me to complain about when the topic goes mano a mano.  At least I hope you'll humor me if I say this thread is operating at too sophisticated a level, bearing in mind that there are multiple meanings to the word "sophisticated."  But absolutely you're right; my line of inquiry doesn't belong here anymore.  - a.s.

[alphas]

The one thought that keeps occurring to me is if this passenger service is so important to Montana, why doesn't the state help out more financially to operate it?

[MichaelSol]

That the legacy of the train means something (still) is probably true with all long distance Amtrak trains, but more so with the Empire Builder, which has always been lifeline to the residents along its route. 

The route of the EB is one of the last routes that, to this day, does not have an interstate highway alongside of it -- the old GN route just never had the people or industries to justify an Interstate routing -- with the result that the people who do live there are more dependent than most on the rail service. Always have been.

Since my comment is just about exactly matching of yours, I can assume that your inclusion of various derogatory and irrelevant comments about the Milwaukee Road, comments from other threads, and misrepresentations of my remarks on this thread really weren't because of the thread topic, or that we disagree at all on it, but rather your personal ongoing vendetta, pursued on many forums over the years, which you now describe as "entertainment".

Moderators, I think you have a pretty good exhibit on this thread as to why problems erupt here.

 

[chad thomas]

Way to make friends Michael.