Trains.com

Actually Long Distance Trains should be the Focus

5744 views
38 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Monday, May 6, 2013 12:07 PM

Overmod
Argue the points, on the facts (even if you're having to do it all over again for the nth time, and you more than suspect the party in question is not completely listening).  Don't just do that birth-certificate thing and wave your hands, call it stupid, and expect that will prove your opinion is correct.

Well, since I've tried the "argue on points" approach more than a few times, even to the point of asking simple questions to try to start a discussion based on his statements, I decided to try cage rattling.  I doubt it will work any better.  

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 333 posts
Posted by ontheBNSF on Monday, May 6, 2013 12:04 PM

oltmannd

Overmod
What BNSF is saying is that there's a place for Federal 'development money' to subsidize massive capital improvement, or vastly expensive new spine construction, and research into new equipment design, and probably provision of "better" equipment and support.

That's not what he's saying.  Read some of the older threads of his.  I've "butted" and rebutted again and again.  There is no two-way communication.  His world view of passenger trains remains unswayed by facts. 

That is what I am saying.

Railroad to Freedom

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Monday, May 6, 2013 12:02 PM

Overmod
What BNSF is saying is that there's a place for Federal 'development money' to subsidize massive capital improvement, or vastly expensive new spine construction, and research into new equipment design, and probably provision of "better" equipment and support.

That's not what he's saying.  Read some of the older threads of his.  I've "butted" and rebutted again and again.  There is no two-way communication.  His world view of passenger trains remains unswayed by facts. 

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Monday, May 6, 2013 11:57 AM

Overmod
What is so funny about what he said?  It's an opinion; you can disagree with it if you want, but that's no cause to mock it.

You have to consider his body of work as a whole.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 333 posts
Posted by ontheBNSF on Monday, May 6, 2013 10:55 AM

A quantum leap solution would be a nationwide Maglev or a nationwide rail system. In my view the government could spend R&D money towards maglev tech and gradually implement it. The R&D could be done by the military since it has defense value.

Railroad to Freedom

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, May 6, 2013 10:39 AM

oltmannd

ontheBNSF

The consensus I keep hearing from people is that corridors are what is important. In my view both corridors and long distance trains should be part of the plan. LD trains continue because they cross multiple states and thus many states want them. Federal funding for corridors is limited because it would only benefit a small number of states. In my view focus should be on both and effort towards a quantum leap system of some sorts should be done which in my view would get far more support.

Oh, I get it!  April Fools, right?!?  May the 6th?  Really?

What is so funny about what he said?  It's an opinion; you can disagree with it if you want, but that's no cause to mock it.

1)  LD trains that cross, and implicitly serve, multiple states are best Federally funded (and where necessary, subsidized from Federal-level funds).  In part Congress has its authority for this under the commerce clause.

2)  We have already seen that strictly-intrastate service -- corridor trains or otherwise -- is something that devolves on the state involved to finance, whether or not 'Amtrak' operates the trains, coordinates operation, etc.  There is some implicit subsidy when Amtrak provides equipment to run those trains that has not been pro rata compensated by the state, or state revenues, but that is a matter to be dealt with between the state agencies and Amtrak, or 'fought out' between state and Federal politicians.

3)  Corridor services, explicitly including the Northeast Corridor, that span multiple states can be disproportionately subsidized by the states that most benefit from them.  What BNSF is saying is that there's a place for Federal 'development money' to subsidize massive capital improvement, or vastly expensive new spine construction, and research into new equipment design, and probably provision of "better" equipment and support.

I'll grant you that 'quantum leap system of some sorts' is a bit vague, but I think it's pretty clear in context what he means, and why it would justify some (perhaps major) Federal-level participation in upgrading a service that is nominally regional.  It is fine to argue with that, as you already have done in other places.  Perhaps it would be ultimately unworkable, politically or equitably.  But ...

Argue the points, on the facts (even if you're having to do it all over again for the nth time, and you more than suspect the party in question is not completely listening).  Don't just do that birth-certificate thing and wave your hands, call it stupid, and expect that will prove your opinion is correct.

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Monday, May 6, 2013 10:22 AM

ontheBNSF

The consensus I keep hearing from people is that corridors are what is important. In my view both corridors and long distance trains should be part of the plan. LD trains continue because they cross multiple states and thus many states want them. Federal funding for corridors is limited because it would only benefit a small number of states. In my view focus should be on both and effort towards a quantum leap system of some sorts should be done which in my view would get far more support.

Oh, I get it!  April Fools, right?!?  May the 6th?  Really?

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Monday, May 6, 2013 9:50 AM

Amtrak...or any passenger or freight railroad...should not be running trains but should be providing service.

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.

  • Member since
    September 2007
  • From: Charlotte, NC
  • 6,099 posts
Posted by Phoebe Vet on Monday, May 6, 2013 8:57 AM

If Amtrak was fast, frequent, and on time, in the areas it serves then other areas would desire the service.

One train a day is not useful transportation.  79 mph or even slower is too slow for distances much over 100 miles.

Dave

Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 333 posts
Actually Long Distance Trains should be the Focus
Posted by ontheBNSF on Monday, May 6, 2013 2:47 AM

The consensus I keep hearing from people is that corridors are what is important. In my view both corridors and long distance trains should be part of the plan. LD trains continue because they cross multiple states and thus many states want them. Federal funding for corridors is limited because it would only benefit a small number of states. In my view focus should be on both and effort towards a quantum leap system of some sorts should be done which in my view would get far more support.

Railroad to Freedom

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy