Talk:Amtrak/2005 archive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Routes and Services

I tidied up the listings for things like Routes, Commuter services, Freight, etc, and combined them under "Amtrak routes and services". I also took the infrastructure-related items and consolidated them under "Trains and Tracks". I see Slambo, a fellow UNIX/Railroad geek is cleaning up the route table as well. Good. It needs it. --Plaws 15:27, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

The table was a little crunched by the route schematic, so a quick br fixed that. Adding the background color on the column headers makes them easier to distinguish too. I used the same background color as we're using on the Trains Wikiportal and in the infobox at the top of the page. I think it could look a little better if it had a 1px border on the cells, especially for rows where the text wraps (which will happen on smaller monitor resolutions). slambo 15:37, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I finally got around to moving the lists of "routes" and defunct trains to a new page Amtrak Routes. --Plaws 19:48, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I see that someone decided to re-lengthen this already long article by moving the routes, extant and defunct, back to the main article. Folks, this is an encyclopedia article. Not a home page, not a fan page, not the Amtrak Tech and Historical Society meeting page, an encyclopedia article. I will put it back the way it was. It'd be nice if the person that is against organization would at least post their rationale here ... --Plaws 21:52, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Here's your culprit. BobGreenwade 16:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
You could have asked me and I would have. I missed the discussion going on here. --SPUI (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Especially with the wealth of information on defunct routes (many many thanks!), having the route table in the main article is simply uncalled for. --CComMack 02:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Even more so when we have to go through it a few times to fix links and bypass redirects and disambigs. Ugh! I would agree that these tables should be split out to their own articles and keep this article more on the history of Amtrak. With the data here, this article is getting way too long and the list/prose ratio is getting a little high; it wouldn't get through WP:FAC with those lists there. slambo 03:40, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I can understand moving the defunct services to another article, but I don't see the problem with keeping the current ones here. --SPUI (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Amtrak in the UK

In the UK, Amtrak is the name of a parcel delivery company.

Possible the two companies are related?

No, but U.S. Amtrak does accept parcels for station-to-station shipment. Mine disappeared without a trace. Or as they say, Do all Amtrak trains go to Chicago? No, but all the baggage does.

It seems like Amtrak is doing better, i.e. less crashes (or maybe I'm just not up on the news). All I ever used to hear about Amtrak was yet another crash. The article doesn't seem to address their safety record. Does anyone have information on this?


hmm...not really... i ride it between home and college every few weeks. The trains are often late and not very popular. However, I still glad that it's an transportation option for me. --Macrowiz 20:55, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Amtrak is dependent on freight traffic and track that Amtrak doesn't own or operate to function. In dense areas, Amtrak does well because states can organize better trackage for particular routes (like the Amtrak Cascades route). With higher-ridership routes, the trains can operate with a profit if they provide a level of service capable of getting people off the roads, but since US citizens don't see the price of their roads when making transportation decisions, they tend to use cars.

Amtrak employs over 22,000 employees and receives a great deal of federal government funding, leading to recurring debates over its elimination. However, since the terrorist atttacks of September 11, 2001, government funding of Amtrak has been greatly increased.

Is there a single thing happening in the United States that's not related to terrorism ?

good call. I'm glad you changed that.--Macrowiz 20:55, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

NPOV?

Often, Amtrak's top management would be more interested in their own political ambitions than in actually making the operation successful, and would often lie to Congress about Amtrak being close to self-sufficiency. This changed when President George W. Bush appointed David Gunn as President of Amtrak. He immediately began a program of trimming fat from the operation, and of giving Congress unvarnished truth, rather than toadying to curry favor, a change that earned him respect from both Congress and the Public.

This does not seem very neutral to me. I'm certain that no one in Washington has ever muttered the "unvarnished truth," and how can one prove the supposed respect he has with Congress and the public? Just say what he did in an "unvarnished" way. What are the facts? This seems to me a bit too enthusiastic to be considered neutral.

I agree, not very neutral. My personal opinion would be to just delete the whole paragraph. Any other opinions? JYolkowski 03:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
NPOV does NOT mean removing any points of view that are not neutral, it means including all points of view to make the article neutral. If there are criticisms of Amtrak then they do belong in this article, as well as reasonable responses to such criticisms, if they are held by Amtrak users; what I am not sure about is the accuracy of the above. If it is accurate the writer should back it up with sources. — © Alex756 05:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yeah that seems like an POV statemnt to me. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is truth in the statement, but it is incomplete and poorly expressed. I do not think we can fairly use the word lie when those in Washington are all playing something of a game of the Emporer's New Clothes. The fact is that they truth was twisted to be politically correct. I think the comments present an important problem Amtrak has had (and will have for the foreseeable future). Vaoverland

Try this working as an alternative:

Amtrak was established to relieve railroads of their federally-mandated responsibilities to transport passengers as a priority over freight. This was causing increasingly large large financial losses for the railroads as the networks of federally-funded highways and airports expanded.

At the outset, Amtrak was expected to pursue conflicting goals. Amtrak was supposed to provide a national rail passenger service while simultaneously operating as a commercial enterprise. Without a without a dedicated source of capital equipment and operating funding (except for competitive passenger fares and even less express income, Amtrak's continued operation has been dependent upon both the Executive and Legislative branches of the U.S. government. Both congressional funding, and appointments of Amtrak's leaders are subject to political considerations, which have varied widely during its existence through seven U.S. presidencies and major shifts of power in the U.S. Congress.

Amtrak has benefited from both highly skilled and politically-oriented leaders. For example, former U.S. Secretary of the Navy Southern Railway head W. Graham Claytor Jr. brought his naval and railroad experience to the job. Claytor to come out of retirement to lead Amtrak after the disastrous results of the Alan Boyd presidency during the Carter administration (1979-1983). He was recruited and strongly supported by John H. Riley, an attorney who was the highly-skilled head of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) from 1983-1989. Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole also tacitly supported Amtrak. Claytor seemed to enjoy a good relationship with the Congress for his 11 years on the job. Since then, leadership changed several times. Two of the leaders who followed Claytor lacked freight railroad or private-sector experience. They also inherited the Amtrak self-sufficiency myth which began under David Stockman and his successors at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Claytor's presidency (in 1986).

Amtrak President Thomas Downs had been City Administrator of Washington DC, and oversaw the Union Station project, which had experienced massive delays and cost overruns. Under Downs, in 1995 Amtrak began to claim that it could achieve operating self-sufficiency, and its leaders seemed to be increasingly misleading as to the prospects of achieving that goal when pressed by Congress and the media.

After Downs left Amtrak, George Warrington was appointed as Amtrak's president. He had extensive experience in the New York City area, where citizens have long demonstrated a commitment to the mass transit services. When he took the helm in January, 1998, self-sufficiency was still officially a goal, although it was becoming elusive in the eyes of Congress. Under Warrington's administration, Amtrak was mandated by the Administration and Congress to become totally self-sufficient within a five-year period, and all its management efforts were directed to that goal. Finally, at the end of that period, it became clear that self-sufficiency was an idealistic goal which was simply unachievable, no matter how many much additional express revenue was gained or how many cuts were made in Amtrak services.

In fairness, while both Downs or Warrington had extensive experience in government, neither had the non-governmental cost accounting or practical experience in railroading of that Claytor also had. Claytor also enjoyed the benefit of serving during the Reagan Administration when increases in federal spending on military items was drawing a lot of the political attention in Congress.

When David Gunn was selected as Amtrak president, the myth of Amtrak self-sufficiency had been exposed. He came with a reputation as a strong, straight-foward and experienced operating manager. In his selection, President George W. Bush knew he was not hiring someone who would tell Congress whatever was politically correct. Years earlier, Gunn's refusal to "do politics" put him at odds with the WMATA (Metro) board, which includes representatives from the District of Columbia and suburban jurisdictions in Maryland and Virginia during his tenure from 1991-1994. His work as president of the New York City Transit Authority from 1984 to 1990 and as Chief General Manager of the Toronto Transit Commission in Canada from 1995-1999 earned him a great deal of operating credibility, despite his rough handling of politics and labor unions. The two agencies were each the largest transit operations of their respective countries. Prior to 1974, Gunn also gained private-sector railroad experience with Illinois Central Gulf Railroad, the New York Central Railroad System (before the Penn Central debacle) and for the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway. Before that, he had experince with the U.S. Navy in the Naval Reserve. Gunn's credentials are the strongest at the head of Amtrak since W. Graham Claytor came out of retirement by request in 1982.

So far, Gunn has been polite, but very direct in response to congressional criticism, and is seen as more credible by the Congress, the media, and many Amtrak supporters and employees. Perhaps more than any past president of Amtrak, Gunn seems willing to publicly oppose the positions of the President of the United States who appointed him, and whose pleasure he serves.

A more realistic view of Amtrak under the Gunn administration is that no form of mass passenger transportation in the United States is self-sufficient as the economy is currently structured. Highways, airports, and air traffic control all require large expenditures to build and maintain. Gunn answered a demand by leading Amtrak critic Arizona Senator John McCain to eliminate all operating subsidies by asking the Senator if he would also demand the same of the commuter airlines, upon whom the citizens of Arizona are much more dependent.

If Amtrak is to operate, it must do so safely and it will require extensive ongoing financial capital and operating support. Gunn and President Bush are probably in agreement that more state and local funding support would be desirable for Amtrak. Both probably also realize that the more practical and frugal management under Gunn will draw less fire from Amtrak's opponents in Congress, where the question of federal financing will ultimately be decided, perhaps an a year-to-year basis for the foreseeable future.

Is this too much detail? My career has been in transportation, mostly in competition with Amtrak to a point. However, I am not anti-Amtrak, mostly I am NPOV, personally. I am comfortable with the facts as I have written them above. How is that for a more balanced statement of Amtrak, leadership, and the funding dilemma? Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 08:10, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and replace the offensive paragraph with the suggested text as listed above. Vaoverland 11:29, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Commuter services- Sounder

The Puget Sound Area's Sounder Commuter Rail system is also a partnership with Amtrak, some Amtrak trains accept Sounder passes, and the logo is displayed as a partership symbol.

confused by caption

can somebody explain this for me please? Amtrak Auto Train dining car awaits passengers next to auto carrier which will join it at rear of consist at Lorton VA in 2000. SaltyPig 00:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, a "consist" is the set of cars (carriages) that make up a train, so this is a photo of a dining car (that will hold passengers) which will then be joined with an automobile-carrying car (which will carry the passengers' automobiles). (As you know, Americans never go anywhere without their cars!)
Atlant 00:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
i've never heard "consist" used for a set of train cars. if this is a page for rail fans, that works (despite being a little awkward). for an encyclopedia, a link for "consist", or different words, might be better. anyway, thanks for the explanation. SaltyPig 03:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Excellent point - it's not supposed to be a page for railfans, yet we use Secret Railfan Codewords (actually the term consist comes from the US rail industry). What is the best way to correct that? An article about the meaning? --Plaws 19:25, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, anyone can choose to be bold and translate that caption into English. :-)

Atlant 17:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

It's fixed. See if that clears it up. Had to edit both Amtrak and the image itself. --Plaws 21:56, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Weasel words

Hey gang. I think the section on Amtrak politics -- particularly the "self-sufficiency" and portions on Gunn -- need work. I agree with the thrust of the commentary, but it contains way too many weasel words that ought to be tidied up. For instance... Some of Gunn's actions have been seen by many as politically wise. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:11, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Past services

I deleted the reference to the Metrolink (Southern California) contract that Amtrak used to have ... And then User:SPUI put it back (see the history for the main article). My reason for deleting the reference is that if we include Metrolink, then we have to include all Amtrak's previous contracts to provide commuter service, i.e. MBTA Commuter Rail. I think that's a waste of space in the main article, just as I thought it was a waste of space to include a list of every route or train that ever was (see List of Amtrak routes).

So how do we handle it? Move it to List of Amtrak routes? Delete it and not worry? Start Yet Another Article? --N5UWY/9 - plaws 01:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

How about a line or two - Amtrak used to have contracts for Metrolink, MBTA, etc... and put the details in the linked articles? --SPUI (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
To what end? To me, it's like the list of defunct routes that used to be included - who cares? Well, actually, I do and am interested enough that I have perused the list. But include it as part of a general-audience encyclopedia article? Why? What does it add? --N5UWY/9 - plaws 17:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a general-interest encyclopedia and many specialist encyclopedias all in one. A list of all commuter services once operated by Amtrak would be useful - it could alternately be another section on the Amtrak routes article, but should be linked from this article. --SPUI (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Old Amtrak logo nickname and sliding toward bias

Another editor removed the nickname of Amtrak's old logo. The logo has been called "the pointless arrow" in many industry publications. I've seen it recently in Trains magazine. I think the nickname needs to be mentioned to present both positive and negative points of view about the subject. I'm concerned that other editors are removing text that is critical of the company while leaving text that praises it, thus biasing the article in favor of Amtrak. Reporting both sides of a story isn't POV, it's balanced reporting. slambo 11:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Speaking as an Amtrak supporter myself, I think there's something to this argument. However, I also think that it belongs in a separate section on "criticism of Amtrak" rather than scattered through the main section. At most, the logo caption could read, "nicknamed by some 'the Pointless Arrow'." BobGreenwade 16:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
It really shouldn't matter whether one is an "Amtrak supporter" or not. The term "pointless arrow" has been used by the industry for many years. I'll agree that "nicknamed by some" would be acceptable.

That's a much more useful and informative caption on the old logo now. I especially like the way it ties in the introduction of the current logo. Kudos! slambo 18:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I was the editor that originally removed the pointless arrow reference. I was afraid that it was a neologism or a slang term used by a few. Obviously I was wrong and I hope the alteration I later made to the caption is better. EdwinHJ | Talk 23:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Railroads currently operated over

Class I
Other
Commuter rail agencies

And several others listed here- http://www.trains.com/TRC/CS/forums/569629/ShowPost.aspx

{{POV}} rollback

The editor who added the {{POV}} template was an anon, and it was his very first edit. Looked more like a vandal to me. Slambo (Speak) 03:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Would not supprise me, also considering that the annon did not mention what he considered to be POV. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm the anon, it wasn't vandalism. I just didn't get around to posting on the talk page. I sense an anti-Bush-administration vibe running through the article, beginning with "Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta, also sits on the board although he has never attended a board meeting." and extending through the firing of Gunn. Likewise, there are instance of "Amtrak is incompetent" sentiment peppered throughout.
Please sign your talk posts using ~~~~ so others can correlate your words here with your edits to the article.
The statement on transportation secretary Mineta is IMHO a neutral statement of fact, and as such does not trip my POV alarm. Please elaborate on what you see as non-neutral or non-factual. — JonRoma 06:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. When discussing the history of a government agency it can sometimes be hard to separate fact from political opinion. I'll have to take another read through it this weekend. Slambo (Speak) 12:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Origin of the name

I removed the following editorial comment from the lead section:

(Please visit Amtrak's Fact sheet on their website at http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Copy/Title_Image_Copy_Page&c=am2Copy&cid=1081442674300&ssid=174 , before attempting to change this back to state that the Amtrak name was formed as a portmonteau of words including "travel". This was never the case as Amtrak's own website clearly states under the first line under the history subheading on the page. Thank you.)

The comments were made by an anonymous editor. 69.129.196.234 11:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I keep losing my session data, the above removal comment was made by Slambo. Slambo (Speak) 11:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amtrak/2005_archive&oldid=1036692742"