Trains.com

Amtrak America

12171 views
38 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Saturday, November 23, 2013 10:20 AM

Don,  

I think your remarks hit the nail on the bulls eye.  Joe Boardman has been at this business for a long time and he sure has to see the political  KISS principle.  By simplifying Amtrak's structure it will make it harder for Members of Congress to obscure the real issues and that will stay.  Also, if services are cut it will make it clearer that these services have an impact on someone and on just who those someones are.  

I think your analysis here is pretty brilliant.  

John

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Saturday, November 16, 2013 3:02 PM

dakotafred
In Sept., I had the same view of a dancing loco from the observation (lead) car of No. 27 going down the Columbia River. I have a new respect for the workout engine crews get in their line of work!

Off topic but one of the longstanding complaints of Locomotive Engineers is their seats are not designed to cushion against those shocks as are trucker seats and so some of them suffer medical problems down the line as a result.

  • Member since
    December 2009
  • 1,751 posts
Posted by dakotafred on Friday, November 15, 2013 7:13 AM

CJtrainguy

oltmannd

D.Carleton

oltmannd

D.Carleton
In another thread I had suggested rebuilding 50 of the 1500 series MHCs into baggage cars by removing and plating over the plug doors, installing two sets of conventional baggage doors and diaphragmed end doors for in-train access. In essence these would be a modern-day economy baggage car. These cars were built new in the 1980s on new GSC trucks. I believe they were cleared for 125 mph operation (unlike the 1400 series MHCs which rode on rebuilt express boxcars trucks) but will have to check my files when I catch up with them. 

That would be interesting to know....   I'm placing my bet on 90 mph.  It would be a good trick to get short cars like that to behave themselves at those speeds.

 
Both batches of MHCs were 61' long. An AEM-7 is 10' shorter and behaves well enough at 125 mph.

Whole different deal, locomotives.

Somewhere in my library I have video I shot standing in the vestibule of the first passenger car behind the locomotive on a German express train doing about 100mph. I was looking forward through the windows in the end doors at the tail end of the class 103 electric locomotive in front. What struck me in person and again watching the video was how much that locomotive danced around, the front of it moving both side to side and up and down. If the passenger cars bounced that much, it would not be a pleasant ride. And that was a German class 103, an engine built for high speed.

 

In Sept., I had the same view of a dancing loco from the observation (lead) car of No. 27 going down the Columbia River. I have a new respect for the workout engine crews get in their line of work!

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Thursday, November 14, 2013 9:10 PM

D.Carleton

Okay, how so? Amtrak intends to convert some of these into cab cars upon retirement.

The Amtrak F40PH converted cab cars retain their Locomotive suspension and have a whole lot of Concrete poured in them to sub partially for the weight of the missing Diesel.     I think they do the concrete also to improve crashworthiness but I am not sure on the latter point.

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,199 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 11:11 PM

oltmannd

D.Carleton
 
Both batches of MHCs were 61' long. An AEM-7 is 10' shorter and behaves well enough at 125 mph.
 

Whole different deal, locomotives.

Okay, how so? Amtrak intends to convert some of these into cab cars upon retirement.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    March 2013
  • 297 posts
Posted by CJtrainguy on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 9:13 PM

oltmannd

D.Carleton

oltmannd

D.Carleton
In another thread I had suggested rebuilding 50 of the 1500 series MHCs into baggage cars by removing and plating over the plug doors, installing two sets of conventional baggage doors and diaphragmed end doors for in-train access. In essence these would be a modern-day economy baggage car. These cars were built new in the 1980s on new GSC trucks. I believe they were cleared for 125 mph operation (unlike the 1400 series MHCs which rode on rebuilt express boxcars trucks) but will have to check my files when I catch up with them. 

That would be interesting to know....   I'm placing my bet on 90 mph.  It would be a good trick to get short cars like that to behave themselves at those speeds.

 
Both batches of MHCs were 61' long. An AEM-7 is 10' shorter and behaves well enough at 125 mph.

Whole different deal, locomotives.

Somewhere in my library I have video I shot standing in the vestibule of the first passenger car behind the locomotive on a German express train doing about 100mph. I was looking forward through the windows in the end doors at the tail end of the class 103 electric locomotive in front. What struck me in person and again watching the video was how much that locomotive danced around, the front of it moving both side to side and up and down. If the passenger cars bounced that much, it would not be a pleasant ride. And that was a German class 103, an engine built for high speed.

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 8:56 PM

D.Carleton

oltmannd

D.Carleton
In another thread I had suggested rebuilding 50 of the 1500 series MHCs into baggage cars by removing and plating over the plug doors, installing two sets of conventional baggage doors and diaphragmed end doors for in-train access. In essence these would be a modern-day economy baggage car. These cars were built new in the 1980s on new GSC trucks. I believe they were cleared for 125 mph operation (unlike the 1400 series MHCs which rode on rebuilt express boxcars trucks) but will have to check my files when I catch up with them. 

That would be interesting to know....   I'm placing my bet on 90 mph.  It would be a good trick to get short cars like that to behave themselves at those speeds.

 
Both batches of MHCs were 61' long. An AEM-7 is 10' shorter and behaves well enough at 125 mph.

Whole different deal, locomotives.

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

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,199 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 4:33 PM

oltmannd

D.Carleton
In another thread I had suggested rebuilding 50 of the 1500 series MHCs into baggage cars by removing and plating over the plug doors, installing two sets of conventional baggage doors and diaphragmed end doors for in-train access. In essence these would be a modern-day economy baggage car. These cars were built new in the 1980s on new GSC trucks. I believe they were cleared for 125 mph operation (unlike the 1400 series MHCs which rode on rebuilt express boxcars trucks) but will have to check my files when I catch up with them. 

That would be interesting to know....   I'm placing my bet on 90 mph.  It would be a good trick to get short cars like that to behave themselves at those speeds.

 
Both batches of MHCs were 61' long. An AEM-7 is 10' shorter and behaves well enough at 125 mph.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 11:19 AM

D.Carleton
In another thread I had suggested rebuilding 50 of the 1500 series MHCs into baggage cars by removing and plating over the plug doors, installing two sets of conventional baggage doors and diaphragmed end doors for in-train access. In essence these would be a modern-day economy baggage car. These cars were built new in the 1980s on new GSC trucks. I believe they were cleared for 125 mph operation (unlike the 1400 series MHCs which rode on rebuilt express boxcars trucks) but will have to check my files when I catch up with them. 

That would be interesting to know....   I'm placing my bet on 90 mph.  It would be a good trick to get short cars like that to behave themselves at those speeds.

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

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,199 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 9:53 PM

CJtrainguy

D.Carleton

I still agree with the original premise, the Viewliner platform did not need to be utilized for baggage cars. Maybe an updated version of this: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/pictures/44584/aSP%20x6772-1971b%20baggage%20car.jpg

At least we'll have some pretty baggage cars for a while.

Since new baggage cars are a given — what platform should they be built on?

The Viewliner is in production. Using that platform allows for sharing many components, with just some additional expense for modifications needed for a baggage car, as detailed elsewhere in this thread. Seems a cost effective way to do it.

Or as you suggest, dust off some old plans from a bygone era, update them for today's standards and produce what amounts to a limited run series, no larger than the number of baggage cars in this order. I am guessing the per each price would be correspondingly higher.

I think I see why the new baggage cars are Viewliner style.

In another thread I had suggested rebuilding 50 of the 1500 series MHCs into baggage cars by removing and plating over the plug doors, installing two sets of conventional baggage doors and diaphragmed end doors for in-train access. In essence these would be a modern-day economy baggage car. These cars were built new in the 1980s on new GSC trucks. I believe they were cleared for 125 mph operation (unlike the 1400 series MHCs which rode on rebuilt express boxcars trucks) but will have to check my files when I catch up with them. They had comm lines but not MU lines so they too would have to be added. These and all of Amtrak's Mail & Express boxcars became "persona non grata" on the railroads when that program imploded so it's probably a moot point. Imagine if they had been able to repurpose existing vehicles into baggage cars. Add the cost of the conversion plus the price difference between a new baggage and a new sleeper minus the cost of 50 new baggage cars. Instead of 50 new baggage cars we could have had a smaller amount, maybe 35 or 40, of revenue cars added to what's already being delivered.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    March 2013
  • 297 posts
Posted by CJtrainguy on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 8:03 PM

D.Carleton

I still agree with the original premise, the Viewliner platform did not need to be utilized for baggage cars. Maybe an updated version of this: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/pictures/44584/aSP%20x6772-1971b%20baggage%20car.jpg

At least we'll have some pretty baggage cars for a while.

Since new baggage cars are a given — what platform should they be built on?

The Viewliner is in production. Using that platform allows for sharing many components, with just some additional expense for modifications needed for a baggage car, as detailed elsewhere in this thread. Seems a cost effective way to do it.

Or as you suggest, dust off some old plans from a bygone era, update them for today's standards and produce what amounts to a limited run series, no larger than the number of baggage cars in this order. I am guessing the per each price would be correspondingly higher.

I think I see why the new baggage cars are Viewliner style.

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,199 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Monday, November 11, 2013 8:16 PM

oltmannd

Did you notice the baggage end of the bag-dorms has stiffer springs (painted red)?  That would be the predominant difference between a baggage car and a non-baggage car's structure.

Well, having consulted with one of my peers (who has been doing this a lot longer than I) the differences between baggage cars and everything else was made plain. The center sill is not the issue. Aside from the thicker floors and heavier springs it is the side sills which need reinforcement especially around the doors. Otherwise, yes, they are the same. This has been an educational exercise, thank you. I still agree with the original premise, the Viewliner platform did not need to be utilized for baggage cars. Maybe an updated version of this: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/pictures/44584/aSP%20x6772-1971b%20baggage%20car.jpg

At least we'll have some pretty baggage cars for a while.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Saturday, November 9, 2013 1:04 PM

Paul, thanks for your explanation, it goest a long way to answering some long-held questions.

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Friday, November 8, 2013 7:25 PM

^^^ Which brings me to another point I neglected to mention from my recent experience on the Capitol Limited, one of the sleepers had wheels with flat spots on it..................leading to the notorious sound of whop-whop-whop-whop-whop, at night when I was drifting off to sleep.   Happily I was in a neighboring car.  

I wonder though now that they are shifting to high speed if they will prioritize fixing flat spots or just reduce the speed of the train in HSR trackage areas............or if it even matters with HSR?

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 2,741 posts
Posted by Paul Milenkovic on Friday, November 8, 2013 3:49 PM

The top truck is for the Superliner I and is the earlier design.

The bottom truck is for the Superliner II and is the later design.

The top, earlier design was influenced by European and especially British research into higher speed passenger trains.  This effort to place the design of train cars that can safely and comfortably operate at high speeds on a scientific-theoretical basis rather than simple trial and error, emphasized the need for the "bogie" (truck in American usage) to precisely control the resistance offered to the wheelset.  This resistance needs to counteract the tendency of the pair of wheels connected by a solid axle to oversteer, resulting in dangerous levels of "hunting" or "nosing" at speed.  Mild levels of such hunting are experienced by the passengers as side-to-side sway.

What makes this earlier Superliner truck different is that it connects the axle box to the truck frame through an articulated link as seen in the picture.  This type of design is characteristic of automotive practice -- the rear suspension in my Ford Taurus has similar links that stabilize the pointing direction of the back wheels.  It is believed that such a suspension design can better control the amount of resistance of change in direction of the axle relative to the truck frame.  It is meant to have that resistance not degrade with wear of the truck over time.

The bottom design from the Superliner II is more characteristic of U.S. passenger train practice.  It is sometimes called a "pedestal" truck as the axle boxes are guided by being allowed to slide in "pedestal" guides in the main truck frame.  You can also see this in the second picture.

This type of truck design is preferred by Amtrak and its maintenance shops for some reason.  Maybe they are more accustomed to knowing how to repair and maintain it.  This design is generally not used in higher-speed trains and certainly not in HSR.  It is more difficult to control the amount of resistance to wheelset self steer with this design, and this design is regarded as being particularly bad as the axle box guides wear, lowering the critical speed and making the train car run much more roughly.

I have asked people who ride Amtrak a lot and have encountered 'bad track" whether it is really the track or it is the fault of the wheelsets and trucks.  On a number of occasions I have asked whether the bad riding is encountered in Amfleet (the resistance of the wheelset to turning is controlled by a synthetic rubber slab in the Budd "Pioneer III" truck design according to Don Oltmann -- Pioneer I was the Pioneer Zephyr whereas Pioneer III was an experimental lighweight train car of more conventional design that first had the Amfleet truck), by the automotive-style links as in Superliner I, or the pedestal-style truck in Superliner II.

One thing Don Oltmann mentioned is something called "Franklin wedges."  These are gadgets used in late-era steam to counteract the wear of axles sliding in pedestal guides as do the drivers on a steam locomotive.  If such appliances can be used in a passenger car truck, this may explain why latter-day pedestal truck designs are indeed qualified for 125 MPH operation whereas older pedestal-truck baggage cars are not.

The superior truck is the one that can offer the proper level of resistance between the wheelset and the truck frame to operate at the speeds required, do so without unduly degrading over time, and be something the Amtrak shops are able to work with.  A yet better truck design may be a forced-steer radial truck where, similar to the Talgo guided axles, the wheelsets are guided into the "radial" direction in relation to the curve by the pivoting of the truck but still have resistance from deviating from this direction.  Such a truck may reduce wheel wear, especially on sharper curves while allowing for smooth, safe high-speed operation.  This advantage has to be weighed against initial cost as well as more parts to maintain.

If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 8, 2013 2:18 PM
 
Which of the two truck designs is the superior?  Why?  Which is the latest?  Please refer to the pictures as one and two from top to bottom for this non-tech rail fan.
  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,199 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Friday, November 8, 2013 1:21 PM

oltmannd

D.Carleton

I was re-reviewing Bob Johnston's pictures from the CAF USA open house when this photo caught my eye: http://trn.trains.com/~/media/Images/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2013/11/IMG_7006.jpg?mw=980

The truck has the General Steel Castings mark. I was under the impression that these castings were now made by Columbus Castings, f.k.a. Buckeye Steel Castings. Are they recycling trucks from older equipment (Metroliners, 1500 series MHCs)?

Recycling truck castings is a common occurrence in the locomotive purchasing world.  They are truly made "good as new" by building up worn areas with weld, machining and then soaking in an oven to normalize/relieve any residual stress from fatigue or welding.  Not one iota of difference in performance or life from new for doing this.  

It's a smart, cost saving move.

I may be able to answer my own question. Here is a comparative sample of Superliner trucks: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Superliner_trucks.jpg
 
The lower example is obviously a GSC truck but was made by Buckeye Steel Castings. Notice the "Circle B" cast next to the GSC shield. On the new Viewliner there is a underlined "C" next to the shield presumably for Columbus Castings. I find it interesting that decades after GSC disappeared the shield still appears.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Friday, November 8, 2013 11:41 AM

D.Carleton

I was re-reviewing Bob Johnston's pictures from the CAF USA open house when this photo caught my eye: http://trn.trains.com/~/media/Images/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2013/11/IMG_7006.jpg?mw=980

The truck has the General Steel Castings mark. I was under the impression that these castings were now made by Columbus Castings, f.k.a. Buckeye Steel Castings. Are they recycling trucks from older equipment (Metroliners, 1500 series MHCs)?

Did you notice the baggage end of the bag-dorms has stiffer springs (painted red)?  That would be the predominant difference between a baggage car and a non-baggage car's structure.

-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 Friday, November 8, 2013 11:38 AM

D.Carleton

I was re-reviewing Bob Johnston's pictures from the CAF USA open house when this photo caught my eye: http://trn.trains.com/~/media/Images/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2013/11/IMG_7006.jpg?mw=980

The truck has the General Steel Castings mark. I was under the impression that these castings were now made by Columbus Castings, f.k.a. Buckeye Steel Castings. Are they recycling trucks from older equipment (Metroliners, 1500 series MHCs)?

Recycling truck castings is a common occurrence in the locomotive purchasing world.  They are truly made "good as new" by building up worn areas with weld, machining and then soaking in an oven to normalize/relieve any residual stress from fatigue or welding.  Not one iota of difference in performance or life from new for doing this.  

It's a smart, cost saving move.

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

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,199 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Thursday, November 7, 2013 4:26 PM

I was re-reviewing Bob Johnston's pictures from the CAF USA open house when this photo caught my eye: http://trn.trains.com/~/media/Images/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2013/11/IMG_7006.jpg?mw=980

The truck has the General Steel Castings mark. I was under the impression that these castings were now made by Columbus Castings, f.k.a. Buckeye Steel Castings. Are they recycling trucks from older equipment (Metroliners, 1500 series MHCs)?

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 10:10 AM

The CZ always backed into DUS, because that is the way the tracks are arranged.   But with all the money going into the "New" DUS, any chance of power switches?

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 2,741 posts
Posted by Paul Milenkovic on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 10:06 AM

I guess I was criticized for getting too political.

So . . . how bout them Packers!

If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?

  • Member since
    September 2007
  • From: Charlotte, NC
  • 6,099 posts
Posted by Phoebe Vet on Saturday, October 26, 2013 11:51 AM

Apology accepted.  And now back to our regularly scheduled programing.

Dave

Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Saturday, October 26, 2013 11:05 AM

blue streak 1

oltmannd

The things that will improve the LD trains are not generally the same kinds of things that will improve corridor trains.  

 
We could make a list...but I think it's fair to say that frequency and speed improve corridors - that's typically track, signalling and equipment - capital.  For LD trains, it's mostly about operations given that speed and frequency are what they are and are hard to change.  So, the major point of attack is from the route managers trying to control costs and boost revenue with the existing assets.
 
If lengthening the LD trains can improve the bottom line, and the incremental net revenue can support the cost to acquire some equipment, this will be a much easier sale.
 

Readers:  ----  IMHO Don is very correct.  The only thing to add is taking care of slow areas.  Extra CPs is one example such as been done on BNSF and the delayed CSX work north of Selma , NC, 

But it is the first & last miles into terminals that delay all trains at many locations..  Mostly improvements would help short distance trains but for example once CHI terminal delays are reduced both types will benefit.  ( Englewood and grand crossing as 2 examples ). Other locations are WASH, BON, STL, PDX, Oakland, LAX (if the south approach is completed ).  

edit --  one example of speed ups is the CLT --  Greensboro  route that has helped both NC trains and the Crescent.  My trip on the Crescent made up ~ 30 minutes between the 2 stations.

o

You could add Denver to the list: incoming trains back into the station--and the switches are lined by hand. There is also slow running coming into Salt Lake City.

Johnny

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,199 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Saturday, October 26, 2013 10:11 AM

oltmannd

D.Carleton

We've been down this road before during the Downs administration when the company was divided into three Strategic Business Units. David Gunn ended that.

One reason for the new "look" and branding: It distinguishes the equipment from similar equipment already in service thus proving to the public that "something" is being done... even though in reality the net gain is practically none.

I think this is being done more for political purposes than public perception.  If you parse the public statement out, you get "this brand will make the conversation ... clear to our ... stakeholders."  Where "stakeholders" is basically Congress and perhaps, local politicians along the route.

Amtrak is drawing a bright red, white and blue line around the LD trains.  Boardman is clearly walking away from Gunn's "National or nothing" Amtrak, to a "which Amtrak are you talking about?" Amtrak.

Amtrak America will have their own management that controls "soup to nuts", their own equipment and their own P&L statement (apparently).  So, when the Mica (or other) circus starts up with "Why does your food service lose money?" or "We could give airline tix for what it costs you to take a person from NOL to Chicago", or other hard to defend operation cost issues,   Boardman will actually be able to respond in a fashion that make clear what costs what.  

I don't think he's trying to walking away from the LD network.  Clearly, they just spend a boat load of money on baggage cars and crew space... But, having Amtrak operating two distinct major product lines makes it much easier to explain what kind of support each need, what that costs, and what you get.

It's about the sales pitch...and not taking a flogging every time you talk to Mica, et. al.

Yes, I think you've clarified the direction I was going.
 
The "which Amtrak are you talking about?" sectioning has already begun with PRIIA section 209 and the operational costs of state corridor trains now the responsibility of those states. That division will only grow wider as time goes on with Amtrak playing a smaller role or negated completely.
 
I do hope you are correct that this will ease the explanation of what each brand serves and needs. This could mean the end of decades of confusion.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    December 2009
  • 1,751 posts
Posted by dakotafred on Saturday, October 26, 2013 10:07 AM

I do apologize. It was over the top, as charged. I violated my wait-until-the-morning rule.

  • Member since
    September 2007
  • From: Charlotte, NC
  • 6,099 posts
Posted by Phoebe Vet on Saturday, October 26, 2013 7:26 AM

dakotafred

You Democrats are demonstrating that politics of the correct stripe are just fine on the Forum.

Wm. F. Buckley Jr. is WAY beyond belittlement by you cretins.

 

 

While it is impossible to completely avoid politics in Amtrak discussions, your political insult goes WAY over the line.

Dave

Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Friday, October 25, 2013 8:51 PM

Fred, you are pretty far off the mark.  Your ideology blinds you to reality.  I am a progressive and proud of it, but I rather liked Bill Buckley and read many of his books and NR and even his fiction thrillers.  Paul M. has made some suggestions he is of a libertarian stripe, but doesn't care for Bill. The point is, don't judge everyone by their politics.  For example, you are apparently not a Democrat, yet you seem to favor federally subsidized LD passenger rail, while Paul does not, for the most part, as far as I can tell.  sam1 has voted Democratic, but would like to end all LD trains tomorrow. 

Calling fellow forum members "cretins" is really rude.  Name-calling is off-limits here.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    December 2009
  • 1,751 posts
Posted by dakotafred on Friday, October 25, 2013 8:38 PM

You Democrats are demonstrating that politics of the correct stripe are just fine on the Forum.

Wm. F. Buckley Jr. is WAY beyond belittlement by you cretins.

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