# Amtrak trains to get 180 day notices after July 1s



## Save Our Trains Michigan (Jun 25, 2006)

As of right now Amtrak trains 1-8 and trains 58-59 will get there 180 day notices after July 1st 2006

Trains 19-20 will get cut back and run from New York to Atlanta

This will be the 1st round of cuts there will be more.


----------



## AmtrakWPK (Jun 25, 2006)

1-8? Sunset and EB and Southwest Chief and Calif Zephyr AND CONO? ALL OF THEM? n AND Truncating Crescent? Abandoning NOL completely in addition to all the Western routes??


----------



## Save Our Trains Michigan (Jun 25, 2006)

AmtrakWPK said:


> 1-8? Sunset and EB and Southwest Chief and Calif Zephyr AND CONO? ALL OF THEM? n AND Truncating Crescent? Abandoning NOL completely in addition to all the Western routes??


Like i have been trying to tell all of you no train was safe even the Empire Builder.


----------



## yarrow (Jun 25, 2006)

ok, most of us have done what we can as far as writing politicans and talking to friends. you say you have inside information that amtrak will abandon western routes. we will see. i can't imagine congress not overiding most of these cuts if they occur.


----------



## Save Our Trains Michigan (Jun 25, 2006)

yarrow said:


> ok, most of us have done what we can as far as writing politicans and talking to friends.  you say you have inside information that amtrak will abandon western routes.  we will see.  i can't imagine congress not overiding most of these cuts if they occur.


Congress alredy did this last year when they gave Amtrak there funding for FY 2006 and there was a part that said Amtrak must reduce service costs well here it is.

with more to come


----------



## yarrow (Jun 25, 2006)

bnsf, you know much more about this than i do but i thought the presumed savings from diner lite(short sighted though it is)would satisfy the congressional mandate.


----------



## gswager (Jun 25, 2006)

BNSF_1088 said:


> As of right now Amtrak trains 1-8 and trains 58-59 will get there 180 day notices after July 1st 2006
> Trains 19-20 will get cut back and run from New York to Atlanta
> 
> This will be the 1st round of cuts there will be more.


Where do you get/heard it from?


----------



## Save Our Trains Michigan (Jun 25, 2006)

yarrow said:


> bnsf, you know much more about this than i do but i thought the presumed savings from diner lite(short sighted though it is)would satisfy the congressional mandate.


Nope it included anything that would bring the costs down.


----------



## Save Our Trains Michigan (Jun 25, 2006)

Look NARP and other State groups are not getting the right information this is done for a reason to throw everyone off.

I have the the inside information and i am watched on what i post on the Internet.

My 2 groups put a stop to this issue about 4 months ago when it 1st came up and all of you said nothing was happening open your eyes this is being done behind closed doors away from NARP and other groups i just happen to have the respect from people to get this information and issue you it to the public but i will not give out there names or where they work in the company.

This is for real this is not a rumor you can take this information and use it to try to save these trains or wait till it is to late and we can lose these trains plus more.


----------



## TransAtlantic (Jun 25, 2006)

the question remains: what is the source of this information? without some kind of independently verifiable source, it's all just conspiracy theory....


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2006)

I find it hard to believe that the entire company is moving forward with such things as the fall timetable; budgets; advertising; marketing deals; station renovations; hiring; simplified dining service; on-board service managers; signing agreements with vendors, etc, etc and you have inside information such as this.

I will believe it when I see it and certainly not based on your continued "cry wolf" "behnind the scenes" and "secret" deals theories.


----------



## Save Our Trains Michigan (Jun 25, 2006)

TransAtlantic said:


> the question remains: what is the source of this information? without some kind of independently verifiable source, it's all just conspiracy theory....


Read abouve your post it explains your Q


----------



## trainboy325 (Jun 25, 2006)

Thanks BNSF for the update. I must tell everyone now that this is all true and if you don't believe it, well that's your choice. I have spoken with my former bosses in both JAX and NOL whom I have absolute trust in their honesty regarding the subject of the future of services in and out of NOL, and yes, both 1/2 and 58/59 will be abolished and will be completely off the Amtrak roster no later than September 30, period! I can't speak for the other routes BNSF1088 reports personally, but I do believe they are dead too. The actual public announcement by Amtrak will begin with the formal 180 notices on Monday, June 3. The NOL crew base, both OBS and T&E were "unofficially" notified of this service cut by regional and local managers now unable to cover up this long awaited change in the way Amtrak will do business nationally. According to my former supervisors, they were point blanked asked by other OBS employees during the 58 safety briefing the other day, if the date of Southern Division Superintendent Sid Birket's resignation was just a coincidence or specific timing to get off the "Titanic" before it hit the iceburg. At that point, they openly confessed to everyone that the Hughes Adminstration had given them direct orders that any leak of the shutdown to labor employees from them would result in an immediate dismissal from Amtrak employment. In addition, again according to my former supervisors via my phone converstation, the station clerk at NOL, whom I believe 100% since I helped her and her family in Natchitoches when she got evacuated from NOL during Katrina, received a FedEX mail package that strickly states that it may only be opened by the manager of stations no earlier than Monday, July 3 its contents be distributed to all depots within her division. Folks, its here and now, and the people who remain with Amtrak now have the full picture of the pending doom that's about to occur with their jobs, and more importantly, the national passenger rail system. They can no longer deny it to themselves or others that the end is near.

Folks, this has been coming for a long time now. BNSF, Amtrak OBS Employee and myself have been warning of such radical system cuts for almost a couple of years now. I'm not going to say I told you so, because that's not an appropriate response by a member of a civil forum such as this and more importantly is it obsolutely true that those who choose not to believe statements made by others on this forum have every right to question the integrity and validity of such information made by people on any on-line forum. What I will say is that the formal announcement to the general public and the entire Amtrak employee network and the general public is scheduled for Monday, July 3 from David Hughes' office. That in a nutshell is exactly what three OBS managers told me on the phone Friday after calling to check up on old friends and to quite frankly find out if any news of the long awaited shutdown of the long distance network was truly coming pass as feared. I no longer work for Amtrak, I have personal agenda. I'm just giving you the facts as presented from three Amtrak managers to one former employee and personal friend.

Trainboy325 has said all that can be said of this very sad and disappointing subject!!!


----------



## TC2000 (Jun 25, 2006)

trainboy325 said:


> I have spoken with my former bosses in both JAX and NOL whom I have absolute trust in their honesty regarding the subject of the future of services in and out of NOL, and yes, both 1/2 and 58/59 will be abolished and will be completely off the Amtrak roster no later than September 30, period!
> .........................
> 
> The actual public announcement by Amtrak will begin with the formal 180 notices on Monday, June 3.


Well, we _know_ this part cannot be entirely accurate. A 180-day notice. issued July 1 or July 3 or whenever, would run through the end of 2006. A train "abolished and will be completely off the Amtrak roster" by September 30th would clearly be in violation of the law, and Amtrak is aware of this. With any train-offs being no doubt controversial, you couldn't get away with this as easily as post-Katrina (Sunset east of New Orleans).

The rest of the rumor doesn't hold water either, but no matter what the truth is, by law the trains will still be around for Christmas.


----------



## TransAtlantic (Jun 25, 2006)

BNSF_1088 said:


> TransAtlantic said:
> 
> 
> > the question remains: what is the source of this information?  without some kind of independently verifiable source, it's all just conspiracy theory....
> ...


actually, no, it doesn't identify any such source; all it does is say who DOESN'T have the correct information, according to you....and as far as 1/2 being cancelled, that would entail the elimination of train service to Houston and Beaumont, which would be replaced by bus connections to San Antonio and/or New Orleans. Not a real suprise, as far as I can see; maybe it will be back after the state of Mississippi finally decides what to do about the right-of-way relocation project.


----------



## The Metropolitan (Jun 25, 2006)

In a slight way, I tend to hope this is true. Of course, I don't want the trains to vanish and certainly don't want the employees to lose their job, but I hope that somehow, enough attention is brought to this subject, and enough of a stink is made that puts a LOT of peoples attention on the subject, and that it ultimately comes back to bite them in the end.

If there is truth to the scope of this dilemma, it seems as if the subtly implied, "new trains in place of old trains" theory is a bunch of bunk.

I still can't see the banishment of the SWC, CZ, and EB. I thought OTP was part of the factor, which the SWC especially, is rather decent on.


----------



## The Chief (Jun 25, 2006)

*L*et's agree that *Amtrak* funding _never_ has been an easy deal. With that in mind, I'll use this as an opportunity to contact my two Senators (both Amtrak supporters from Texas) and my congressman.

And I'll share w/them that I heard/read Amtrak is planning some serious announcements 3 July. Congress folks generally don't like end-arounds or trick plays (especially those from Texas).

Every year I write / email my Congress squad, so this is as good a time as any.

Seems that BNSF_1088 has some stones to even broach this subject. And this is the Internet. So maybe some of y'all may want to take a bit of time to contact your Congress people (2+1) and let them know about your support of Amtrak and what you're hearing on your passenger rail websites and forums. Would that hurt?


----------



## TC2000 (Jun 25, 2006)

For whatever its worth, my thinking is you could go ahead and start your letters in support of Amtrak - thats never a bad idea. But I wouldn't mail them just yet. You can save a copy on your PC, and always edit them to reflect what does - or does not - happen next week.

We can afford to wait a week or so. If nothing happens through the Independance Day holidays, you can make it just a general appeal for support for passenger rail. Should, however, the worst occur (not very likely), you can then make it appeal to actually _save_ our trains.


----------



## Guest_Gingee (Jun 25, 2006)

SWChief? Is that the one that goes through Galesburg, Illinois on the way to Los Angeles (starts in Chicago)?

So that one may leave us?


----------



## Save Our Trains Michigan (Jun 25, 2006)

Guest_Gingee said:


> SWChief? Is that the one that goes through Galesburg, Illinois on the way to Los Angeles (starts in Chicago)?
> So that one may leave us?


Yes


----------



## Guest_Gingee (Jun 25, 2006)

Oh pooh. Our local paper just had a article on a train museum that they are building in Galesburg (45 minutes away) and they mentioned that six Amtrak trains go through there a day and the Chief was one. I thought - hey that would be a good train to take to California. Well, I guess I had better hold on that thought.

By the way, is the Chief a decent train? I know it isn't like the Empire but...........


----------



## RailFanLNK (Jun 25, 2006)

I'm a "rookie" here but I don't see how a bunch of "politicians" would cut Amtrak on election year. If anything, do it last year or '07. But both my girlfriend and I will contacting our reps (AGAIN) tomorrow.


----------



## AmtrakWPK (Jun 25, 2006)

If you aren't convinced by now that Bush doesn't care what anybody else thinks, and doesn't even care what the law says about anything, then you haven't been paying attention to the tv or newspapers for the last six years. Once he decides to do something, he does it. What anybody else thinks is irrelevant. WAKE UP everybody!!


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 25, 2006)

BNSF_1088 said:


> yarrow said:
> 
> 
> > bnsf, you know much more about this than i do but i thought the presumed savings from diner lite(short sighted though it is)would satisfy the congressional mandate.
> ...


Can you provide the bill number and the exact quote in a piece of passed and signed legislation (such that it can be searched at http://thomas.loc.gov ) that says everything is subject to cancellation?


----------



## greatcats (Jun 25, 2006)

I certainly don't like what I read here, and am not disbelieving that the management has cooked up such a scheme. My feeling is that this crap will get squashed. P.S. - I did not vote for George Bush.


----------



## Guest_guest (Jun 26, 2006)

rmadisonwi said:


> BNSF_1088 said:
> 
> 
> > yarrow said:
> ...


H.R.4214.IH, Sec. 3. Not sure if that's what you're looking for, but, it states it clearly in black and white, that service will be discontinued.


----------



## Sam Damon (Jun 26, 2006)

Guest_guest said:


> rmadisonwi said:
> 
> 
> > Can you provide the bill number and the exact quote in a piece of passed and signed legislation (such that it can be searched at http://thomas.loc.gov ) that says everything is subject to cancellation?
> ...


As far as I can determine, that bill is still in committee. Nowhere near being passed by the House and Senate, much less signed.

That's the drift I get. If I'm wrong, please correct me. Where's Rafi when we need him?


----------



## Chi_Train_Fan (Jun 26, 2006)

Guest_guest said:


> H.R.4214.IH, Sec. 3. Not sure if that's what you're looking for, but, it states it clearly in black and white, that service will be discontinued.


That resolution did not become law. It is irrelevant.

-David Z


----------



## Save Our Trains Michigan (Jun 26, 2006)

This was all tied into the FY 2006 budget.And there is nothing that states that trains would come off it states however costs can be saved congress never put what could be cut they left that up Amtrak and we know who is running Amtrak at the present time and there was nothing protecting the trains from being cut they found a loop hole and are using it.

It is all tied in with the diner lite issue it was just taken a step ahead to Kill Amtrak right off like i said the Bush Admin found a loop hole.


----------



## Everydaymatters (Jun 26, 2006)

I'm absolutely dumbfounded. It's not that I don't believe it could happen, I just find it very hard to believe the the government would leave us without western rail transportation.

Seems there's always a last-minute reprieve when something major happens to Amtrak. We'll have to wait and see.


----------



## caravanman (Jun 26, 2006)

I would have thought another line of defence against any cuts would be to ensure that all the towns and cities affected by proposals are made fully aware...I am thinking email editors of local papers, tourist offices, (...I am thinking to visit your town but I see the train won't be stopping there...etc, etc.)

I imagine New Orleans would be especialy upset by withdrawal of two trains, when they need to regenerate.

It is important not to cry wolf, if we make a fuss too early, and our info is wrong, then there is a good chance of being disbelieved next time..on the other hand 180 days isn't long to overturn a govt. decision.

Ed. B)


----------



## Rafi (Jun 26, 2006)

I can't speak to the validity of BNSF's report (time will tell, obviously), but I can tell you this. When I had dinner with Hughes on April 30—a completely off-the-record conversation on both sides of the table—he assured me that as long as he was on watch, "nothing drastic, like cutting multiple routes at one time" was going to happen. Instead, he said the only thing on the chopping block, so to speak, are diners and sleepers because of the new "break even" legislation on those services, and even in those cases, he had a good handle on how to approach those situations without losing the services.

Now, unless something has changed between now and then, I can't see how Hughes would let this happen without going out to the media and NARP to drum up congressional support. In fact, his entire leadership theory is to open communication between Amtrak and the public as a whole. When a route is in danger, his intention is—or at least was—to use all available PR resources to get the congressional support to keep it. Again, we'll know in a week, but the idea that Hughes is going to issue a 180 notice on every connection between Chicago and the west coast, along with the City and a Crescent curtailment—all without any prior "last chance" appeal—is a very big pill to swallow.

-Rafi


----------



## x-press (Jun 26, 2006)

Ooooooookay, I'll play.

Let's get this latest rumor straight:

They are (supposedly) discontinuing:

- Sunset Limited (which makes sense, since it's a disastrously unreliable train that serves as nothing but a national laughingstock, hurting useful long distance trains).

- California Zephyr (a popular train serving major population centers, though with major reliability issues once it gets on UP . . . tough one)

- Empire Builder and Southwest Chief (huh? Two highly reliable trains, one of which they just spent big bucks refurbishing, and the other they just re-trained everybody for diner-lite?!)

- City of New Orleans (Don't know much about this route, but New Orleans just may not have the population to support much (if any) train service at this point). Note how many of the trains cut terminate at, or go through New Orleans. Probably not coincidence. Not Amtrak's fault, but they have to react, right?

Now, just in case you're an anti-rail zealot and this all makes perfect sense to you, let's note which trains they're NOT cutting:

- Cardinal: A meandering, slow, unreliable train New York-Chicago that barely has enough equipment available to run a sleeper.

- Coast Starlight: Reliability's a catastrophe, parlor cars are falling apart.

I WISH the anti-Amtrak folks would try to cut the network this way! Because if they did, they'd be DOOMED to fail! You'd have almost every congressman west of the Mississippi aligned against you (and you already have most of them east of the Mississippi up in arms, note the "blue state" concentration). You'd create national, even international headlines screaming that 70% of the country was losing its rail service.

Not to give them any free advice, but if they really want to get rid of Amtrak long distance trains, take the "Three Rivers" approach. Kill off an underperforming train once in a while, cite operational problems, low ridership, offer to slightly improve food service on other trains (since that's all railfans apparently care about any more).

This rumor has, at best, been passed down through so many people before reaching us, that even if there is some truth to it, it's likely been warped beyond recognition.

Look, there may well be some changes coming July 1. Can you argue that they're not needed? Is the Sunset doing anything other than giving Vranich something to whine about? I understand it's a good, useful route, but what's the point if it's so unreliable? A New York-Atlanta train would be GREAT! The reliability of the Crescent on that stretch is superb! Shortening the Zephyr to Denver-CHI would be worth a try, too, as I believe it's much more punctual along that stretch, and Chicago-West Coast passengers have other options.

If trains 3-8 are really on the block this Saturday, I'll be first in line to raise hell (especially if they are totally cut and not just truncated to more pragmatic overnight routes). Still, I really, really have my doubts.

JPS


----------



## AlanB (Jun 26, 2006)

x-press said:


> Now, just in case you're an anti-rail zealot and this all makes perfect sense to you, let's note which trains they're NOT cutting:
> - Cardinal: A meandering, slow, unreliable train New York-Chicago that barely has enough equipment available to run a sleeper.


The Cardinal can't be cut, at least so long as Amtrak exists as a corporation. Senator Byrd got legislation passed years ago requiring Amtrak to run that train. Amtrak can't get out of that, unless they go belly up or get Congress to change the law.


----------



## Alan (Jun 26, 2006)

AlanB said:


> > The Cardinal can't be cut, at least so long as Amtrak exists as a corporation.  Senator Byrd got legislation passed years ago requiring Amtrak to run that train.  Amtrak can't get out of that, unless they go belly up or get Congress to change the law.


Interesting historical note:

On A-Day (5/1/71) there was no thru train on the route.

The original routes were Newport News/DC - Cincinnati and Cincinnati - Chicago. The original trains were the overnight _George Washington_ and the Cincinnati - Chicago daytime round trip _James Whitcomb Riley_ with no eastbound connection !


----------



## Guest_George Harris (Jun 26, 2006)

Alan said:


> On A-Day (5/1/71) there was no thru train on the route.The original routes were Newport News/DC - Cincinnati and Cincinnati - Chicago. The original trains were the overnight _George Washington_ and the Cincinnati - Chicago daytime round trip _James Whitcomb Riley_ with no eastbound connection !


This is not correct. That was the pre-Amtrak situation. With Amtrak, they were made into one through train. For a while it carried the James Whitcomb Riley name in one direction and the George Washington in the other. It actually carried through cars to both Newport News and Washington DC, with the train being split at C&O's station in Charlottesville, VA, which was not the same as the Southern Railway station. The Newport News car was a dome, plus a coach or snack bar car was added at Charlottesville. Really don't recall exactly at this point.

I rode this train in early December 1971 from Chicago to Washington. At that time thanks to the Penn Central falling apart, much of the run across Indiana was at 25 mph, getting into Cincinatti about 2 hours late. But, when we got to Cincinatti, the Chessie ran it like it ought to be run.


----------



## minstrel (Jun 26, 2006)

I apologize if this has been asked before but I am just getting started with my LD train travel obsession. I have reservations from Houston to LA on SL over Christmas. If what you are saying is true there might not be a SL around on Christmas. I am sure Amtrak would refund the fare, but it would be just another trip without the train. Should I be making alternate plans?


----------



## Sam Damon (Jun 26, 2006)

Rafi said:


> I can't speak to the validity of BNSF's report (time will tell, obviously), but I can tell you this.


Thank you for injecting a badly needed dose of sanity into this thread. I think we need to know where the "panic button" is, but at this point, I don't think it needs pressed.

Given the nature of off-the-record conversations with sources, I certainly think you've told us what you could tell from that particular one without breaking your word. Thanks for chiming in.

BNSF, you're going to have to come up with some better, verifiable sources. If I were you, or Trainboy, I'd PM the phone numbers to Rafi -- I don't think he got the job he has by *not* using discretion appropriately -- and let him break the story if it's true. I'm not saying your story's false; I am saying that to believe you fully, I'd like to see some more solid evidence, even on an internet BB like this one. Rafi's in a position to set the tone for coverage in this matter, and I believe he would set a fair and objective tone. We will certainly see what happens July 3d. The premise for making the announcement that day is perfectly valid -- given this year's calendar, it's a good day to bury an unpleasant story.


----------



## AmtrakFan (Jun 26, 2006)

This does NOT surprise me ONE BIT! We have gotton warning thanks to several members and it will only get worse from here.


----------



## Boxcar (Jun 26, 2006)

minstrel said:


> I apologize if this has been asked before but I am just getting started with my LD train travel obsession. I have reservations from Houston to LA on SL over Christmas. If what you are saying is true there might not be a SL around on Christmas. I am sure Amtrak would refund the fare, but it would be just another trip without the train. Should I be making alternate plans?


It's possible but I would't scrap the train travel part as yet. As Sam said,"I think we need to know where the "panic button" is, but at this point, I don't think it needs pressed."

It has long been the speculation that the Sunset Limited would be the first to go and It may well be but it would really create a problem for people like you and I that live in Texas or the deep South that wish to travel to Southern California. Without the Sunset you would have to take the Amtrak thruway(Bus) from Houston to Longview to connect to the Texas Eagle or somehow catch it in San Antonio and go up to Chicago, connect to the Southwest Chief, and come all the way back down through New Mexico and Arizona to LA. I live in Lubbock and usually catch the Eagle out of Austin which is close to 400 miles if I want to go North or the SW Chief out of Lamy, NM near Albuquerque, NM.(another 350 miles if I wish to go to LA.)

Either way...nearly all passengers in the South that wish to go to LA will have to pass through Chicago some way.....


----------



## TransAtlantic (Jun 26, 2006)

...or perhaps they'll just keep running the Texas Eagle as a through train 3 days a week, as it currently is (albeit attached to the SL)...I don't think the governors and senators/representatives from Texas, New Mexico and Arizona want to see small-town rail service curtailed in their states, and I can assure you (she sent me a PERSONALIZED e-mail) that Barbara Boxer will never allow rail service to be cut in California without a MAJOR stink!!


----------



## Save Our Trains Michigan (Jun 26, 2006)

look i am going to lay this on the line people

4 months ago when i posted about station and train offs and you all said nothing was happining well this is the 2nd time around with this same issue they let it cool off before going behind closed doors again and getting this going again.

As far as names that you want you won't get them because i will not let any employee get fired which will happen to any employee that says anything about what is going on.

This information was never to be made public until the 180 day notices come out just like 4 months ago when i put a stop to it.


----------



## GP35 (Jun 26, 2006)

Bush and Amtrak both wanted states to join the funding at 80/20. This was the main reason behind last year zero funding. I think this is nothing more than a ploy to get states involved by pissing off the public.


----------



## Boxcar (Jun 26, 2006)

TransAtlantic said:


> ...or perhaps they'll just keep running the Texas Eagle as a through train 3 days a week, as it currently is (albeit attached to the SL)...I don't think the governors and senators/representatives from Texas, New Mexico and Arizona want to see small-town rail service curtailed in their states, and I can assure you (she sent me a PERSONALIZED e-mail) that Barbara Boxer will never allow rail service to be cut in California without a MAJOR stink!!


The trouble with that is with the Sunset Limited gone, New Mexico, Southern Arizona and California will still be serviced by The SW Chief to the point it wouldn't be as missed as it would be to the points east of New Mexico. At least my Texas Senators and Congressmen are supporting Amtrak but what pull if any they have on George W I don't know.

Too run the Texas Eagle on through 3 days a week would be the same as the Sunset now runs and would not accomplish anything as I see....BD


----------



## GP35 (Jun 26, 2006)

Think about it, the LD trains cost about $400 million per year. A drop in the bucket in our multi-trillion dollar economy. Would Bush risk outrage from the public and Republicans before an election to gain nothing. If anything is annouced, we will see a few days of outrage before a deal with states funding 20% is reached. Then you will see new serves popping up everywhere.


----------



## Save Our Trains Michigan (Jun 26, 2006)

GP35 said:


> Think about it, the LD trains cost about $400 million per year. A drop in the bucket in our multi-trillion dollar economy. Would Bush risk outrage from the public and Republicans before an election to gain nothing. If anything is annouced, we will see a few days of outrage before a deal with states funding 20% is reached. Then you will see new serves popping up everywhere.


The States are broke and can't pay to take over service


----------



## Boxcar (Jun 26, 2006)

GP35 said:


> Think about it, the LD trains cost about $400 million per year. A drop in the bucket in our multi-trillion dollar economy. Would Bush risk outrage from the public and Republicans before an election to gain nothing. If anything is annouced, we will see a few days of outrage before a deal with states funding 20% is reached. Then you will see new serves popping up everywhere.


I just read where Congress is to start voting on the 2007 Defense bill of $460 (some odd ) Billion. Maybe we can work a deal for a few billion for Amtrak to pull a couple of cars of Humvee's or Bradley's from point to point. <_<



> The States are broke and can't pay to take over service


True to a point but they seem to find money for medical and schooling for illegals.


----------



## PennCentralFan (Jun 26, 2006)

Don't underestimate the hatred Bush, the NeoCons, the airline industry, trucking companies and their allies in Big Oil have for Amtrak and all forms of public transportation.

The Bush Dynasty was built on Big Oil. Read the latest book by Kevin Phillips. Wake Up! We go to war in Iraq and then Oil companies reap record profits. Public transportation is the antithesis of Big Oil and the airlines.


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2006)

it looks to me that the anti-rail execs that Bush has appointed to the Amtrak board are trying to kiss up to top brass in the Bush Administration by proposing unrealistic cuts like this, more than anything else(why else would the EB and the CZ be on this list?). personally, to me this unrealistic cut list is pretty much nothing more than a backdoor way to dismantle Amtrak service in rural areas of the country, and was probably proposed to impress insider policy wonks within the Bush Administration.

i'm gonna side with the minority here and say that I don't think those trains are gonna disappear, especially since i believe there are enough pro-Amtrak senators and Congressmen that'll fight like hell to override any proposed Amtrak cuts. plus, i doubt the successful budgetary amendment that restored something like $200 to $400 million to Amtrak's budget a week or 2 ago(upping it from $900 million to $1.3 billion) was the last shot fired on this issue, as i'm anticipating that hopefully it can be raised at least slightly more.

that all said, i agree that we shouldn't cry wolf over train eliminations just yet. however, we will need to be much more proactive than we have in previous summers, and write to as many Congressmen and U.S. Senators as we can, explaining how important Amtrak is to so many citizens in this country, urban or rural, poor or rich. i know i'm gonna write to my local Congressman, my Senators, and even to Senators in other states(especially nearby ones) stating the importance of intercity transportation. its a no-brainer why Amtrak needs to be allowed to continue its operations nationwide(even including its cross-border services to Canada)!

and a question for BNSF: would the San Antonio to Los Angeles portion of the Sunset Limited be eliminated by these cuts? i was reading through the cuts that were posted, and it didn't state whether that portion of the Texas Eagle/SL would remain or not. or would these cuts mean that the Texas Eagle would now trunciate in San Antonio, instead of LA 3 days a week(with no more through-car service to there)?


----------



## PRR 60 (Jun 26, 2006)

BNSF_1088 said:


> look i am going to lay this on the line people
> 4 months ago when i posted about station and train offs and you all said nothing was happining well this is the 2nd time around with this same issue they let it cool off before going behind closed doors again and getting this going again.
> 
> As far as names that you want you won't get them because i will not let any employee get fired which will happen to any employee that says anything about what is going on.
> ...


As I said before, unless you know someone on the Board who is leaking information directly to you, how would you know anything about what the Board is discussing or has decided? There is no one to be fired because no one outside DC knows about the Board's plans (and, if all the trains are cut, won't they be fired anyway?).

If the Amtrak Board is so malicious and wants so badly to kill Amtrak, why would the Board tell anyone outside their little circle about anything? Wouldn't they keep their vicious plans to themselves and drop the bomb when it was least expected? There is no way this would leak to a freight railroad employee in Louisiana. So, if that makes sense (and it does), how would you find out about the dirty secret from inside the Amtrak Board Room?

Quite frankly, the track record of your dire warnings having any factual basis has been less than impressive. So far, not one has come to fruition. But, even if you are right and all kinds of trains are being cut on July 3rd, or July 30th, or a month from next year, there will still 180 days to ponder the proposal and make changes if that makes sense. But, until such time as there is factual information posted from an authoritative source, rumor mongering is simply rumor mongering: nothing more and nothing less. You are doing no one any favors posting rumors as facts and then declining to provide any semblance of substantiation.


----------



## GP35 (Jun 26, 2006)

BNSF_1088 said:


> GP35 said:
> 
> 
> > Think about it, the LD trains cost about $400 million per year. A drop in the bucket in our multi-trillion dollar economy. Would Bush risk outrage from the public and Republicans before an election to gain nothing. If anything is annouced, we will see a few days of outrage before a deal with states funding 20% is reached. Then you will see new serves popping up everywhere.
> ...


Thats not true. Illinois is paying to add more trains. Missouri is paying to add a new route. Texas had a $6 billion dollar SURPLUS in the budget. 20% of $400 million is only $80 million. Split that between 36 states and you getc $2.2 million. Every state in the country could afford that. If a state pays $10 million, then the feds will add $50 million. $60 million could buy several new routes in Texas.


----------



## Boxcar (Jun 26, 2006)

> Every state in the country could afford that. If a state pays $10 million, then the feds will add $50 million. $60 million could buy several new routes in Texas


GP-35 , As a Texan I can only say "From your key board to God's ear"


----------



## minstrel (Jun 26, 2006)

I second what Boxcar says....


----------



## GP35 (Jun 26, 2006)

Boxcar Dummy said:


> > Every state in the country could afford that. If a state pays $10 million, then the feds will add $50 million. $60 million could buy several new routes in Texas
> 
> 
> GP-35 , As a Texan I can only say "From your key board to God's ear"


This was the goal of Amtrak and Bush 1 year ago. To put Amtrak on 80/20 funding with states. This 80/20 funding is behind so many road projects. Amtrak could finally grow once this happens. Here is an example of a state funding it's share of Amtrak.

MoDOT, Amtrak studying plan to establish Springfield-St. Louis rail service

Wes Johnson

© 2006, Springfield News-Leader

State highway officials are studying a plan to bring Amtrak passenger train service to Springfield.

The Missouri Department of Transportation is working with Amtrak to develop a daily round-trip route between Springfield and St. Louis.

http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...KING03/60614007

So much for cutting routes.


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2006)

Time will tell about this, but the maintenance in N.O. is tobe transferred to Chicago soon.


----------



## Boxcar (Jun 27, 2006)

> The Missouri Department of Transportation is working with Amtrak to develop a daily round-trip route between Springfield and St. Louis.
> http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...KING03/60614007
> 
> So much for cutting routes.


I just wonder where they will get the equipment or do I not want too know? Hmmmmmmmmmmm <_<


----------



## AmtrakFan (Jun 27, 2006)

Boxcar Dummy said:


> > The Missouri Department of Transportation is working with Amtrak to develop a daily round-trip route between Springfield and St. Louis.
> > http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...KING03/60614007
> >
> > So much for cutting routes.
> ...


I have heard they might extend a Train from Chicago to fulfill this.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 27, 2006)

AmtrakFan said:


> Boxcar Dummy said:
> 
> 
> > > The Missouri Department of Transportation is working with Amtrak to develop a daily round-trip route between Springfield and St. Louis.
> ...


Or Amtrak could pull some of those Amfleets that they just mothballed back out of storage to run this train.


----------



## Sam Damon (Jun 27, 2006)

BNSF_1088 said:


> look i am going to lay this on the line people
> 4 months ago when i posted about station and train offs and you all said nothing was happining well this is the 2nd time around with this same issue they let it cool off before going behind closed doors again and getting this going again.
> 
> As far as names that you want you won't get them because i will not let any employee get fired which will happen to any employee that says anything about what is going on.
> ...


I wasn't asking you to post names and telephone numbers on this board for all to see. I was asking you to PM them to a journo who is in a position to break the story while preserving a reasonable level of anonymity, and setting a tone for the news coverage that would logically follow.

BNSF, I deal with this sort of crap on a daily basis, as does Rafi, albeit he does it at a rarified level compared to me. Every news organization gets phone calls on a daily basis from people pitching story ideas based on personal agendas of one sort or another. Other pitches come in by fax. These days bunches come by email. Still others come from wire services or network news feeds. Part of the job of a good editor or producer is to act as a filter; in other words, to say "Hey, this is a real story", or "This guy is full of ----", or blip! into the trash can.

There are more people pitching stories than column-inches or minutes of airtime, so having solid stories with verifiable information is vital. No one in the newsbiz wants to run a story only to have it shot down by The Other Guys in the next show, or edition. Believe me when I tell you most in authority in newsbiz would rather sit on a story like you've outlined for us here, rather than get burned when it doesn't happen. Should what you've outlined happen as you say it will, for the most part it will be chalked up as experience, and the source will receive more attention.

For my part, I do hope that 180-day train-off notices don't show up July 3d. Until I see or hear some better info from either respected news organizations or advocacy groups, I'm chalking this one up in the "rumor" category.


----------



## Save Our Trains Michigan (Jun 27, 2006)

Here goes

When i post anything on the Internet or make fliers i do it as the Director of Save Our Trains Michigan and Save Our Trains Mississippi.

Which means why would i put false information or rumors out on the Internet and on fliers that would hurt the 2 groups i am in charge of plus i am watched what i put on the Internet and on fliers.

The 2 groups i am in charge of are very well respected by Amtrak and i would never put out any information that would hurt Amtrak or it's employees.

If you people want to wait for the news to pick up on it by then it will be to late and the news media isn't always right sometimes they write what they want and not what was said.

The way my 2 groups have gotten to be where they are today is from a former Amtrak President who is no longer with the company.


----------



## Guest_George Harris (Jun 27, 2006)

Boxcar Dummy said:


> > The Missouri Department of Transportation is working with Amtrak to develop a daily round-trip route between Springfield and St. Louis.
> > http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...KING03/60614007
> >
> > So much for cutting routes.
> ...


This is a STUDY. These things happen all the time. Just doing the STUDY will get some of the agitators for the service off the backs of the politician. They can say, look, we are doing something. When they start funding stations, equipment, and track improvements, you can then think that something will probably happen. Even then, the picture can change right up to the starting of the operation.

Missouri has not exactly overwhelmed the service they have with funding, so this whole thing has something of the flavor of "let's look like we are doing something" about it.

Second: Addition of this sort of service is completely irrelevant to the operation or discontinuance of the fully Amtrak funded long distance trains. State supported services do not cost Amtrak one red cent to run. All loses are covered by the states. You notice that none of them were being listed in the proposed discontinuances.

Could also be that these trains are being picked for maximum impact. Amtrak could probably save almost as much by dumping the completely in state trains between New York City and Buffalo that the state of New York contributes absoluely nothing toward.

George


----------



## AlanB (Jun 27, 2006)

Guest_George Harris said:


> Amtrak could probably save almost as much by dumping the completely in state trains between New York City and Buffalo that the state of New York contributes absoluely nothing toward.


Something that continues to be a major pet peeve of mine. NY (the State that I live in) continues to cry about the whole Turboliner deal and how Amtrak screwed them, even as they continue to enjoy the use of more Amtrak trains than any other State in the Union. Trains that but for one, the Adirondack, they contribute nothing towards.

We continue to be put to shame by California, Illinois, Michigan, and others in this regard.


----------



## TC2000 (Jun 27, 2006)

BNSF_1088 said:


> Here goes
> When i post anything on the Internet or make fliers i do it as the Director of Save Our Trains Michigan and Save Our Trains Mississippi.
> 
> Which means why would i put false information or rumors out on the Internet and on fliers that would hurt the 2 groups i am in charge of plus i am watched what i put on the Internet and on fliers.
> ...


Waiting for 180-day notices is not "too late". In fact, it is roughly six months (180 days) short of being too late.

As for false information, your "flier" about train discontinuances was factually incorrect. The Bush administration is not planning, nor does it even have the authority, to discontinue Amtrak routes. They might like to, of course, but the President has far more important concerns than Amtrak anyway. He's not paying that much attention to the railroad.

The Bush-appointed Amtrak reform board can do these things, and while it would no doubt meet with the approval (and blessing) of the administration, it is an Amtrak decision, not the Presidents.


----------



## Save Our Trains Michigan (Jun 27, 2006)

TC2000 said:


> BNSF_1088 said:
> 
> 
> > Here goes
> ...


Bush controls the Amtrak Board and the Amtrak Board runs Amtrak since the Amtrak Board has not appointed a new Amtrak president.

Mr.Hughes has very little control over Amtrak since he is acting as president the Amtrak Board tells Mr.Hughes what to do and how to do it in sense it all goes back to Bush controlling Amtrak and Bush wants Amtrak gone.


----------



## Save Our Trains Michigan (Jun 27, 2006)

Like i have said before this all can change since the Study is not over until June 30th 2006 none of this information was never to be made public so it could come down to what happened 4 months ago which is it will be stalled because of to much pressure being put on the issue.


----------



## PRR 60 (Jun 27, 2006)

BNSF_1088 said:


> Like i have said before this all can change since the Study is not over until June 30th 2006 none of this information was never to be made public so it could come down to what happened 4 months ago which is it will be stalled because of to much pressure being put on the issue.


All this can change? Seems like a little back-tracking on your pretty firm assertion that train off notices were ready to go on July 3.

Matt: I do not doubt that you are passing info as you hear it. What I doubt is that your sources know what they are talking about. Everyone outside the Amtrak Board Room is simply speculating. That includes everyone from road foremen to VP's. None of them know what is going on. Maybe the best bet for everyone is to wait until July 3 and see what does or does not happen.


----------



## Chatter163 (Jun 27, 2006)

BNSF_1088 said:


> Like i have said before this all can change since the Study is not over until June 30th 2006 none of this information was never to be made public so it could come down to what happened 4 months ago which is it will be stalled because of to much pressure being put on the issue.


Ah, finally--the much awaited disclaimer! So at the end of next week, when the purported notices do not appear, the reporter can refer back to this point as a method to save face. "See, I SAID these things might not happen."

After all expressions to the contrary, this seems rather much. :blink:


----------



## PennCentralFan (Jun 27, 2006)

BNSF_1088 said:


> Bush controls the Amtrak Board and the Amtrak Board runs Amtrak since the Amtrak Board has not appointed a new Amtrak president.
> Mr.Hughes has very little control over Amtrak since he is acting as president the Amtrak Board tells Mr.Hughes what to do and how to do it in sense it all goes back to Bush controlling Amtrak and Bush wants Amtrak gone.





> Thanks for pointing this out. Bush hates Amtrak and all forms of public transportation that does not benefit big oil. While BNSF 1088 may be in error on the details, he is not in error on the big plan the Bush Administration has for Amtrak and public transportation. The actions and policies taken by the Bush adminstration have made it clear that Big Oil runs the show.
> 
> Don't forget that Conservatives hate Amtrak because the first really powerful labor unions in this country were unions for railroad workers. The symbolism of destroying Amtrak is too great for them. Also don't forget that in the pre-Civil Rights Movement South working for the Railroads especially ones based in the North was a route to the middle-class for African-Americans. Wealthy Southerners also hated the Railroads going up North because it was the means many African-Americans fled the South during the Great Migration. Many land-owners in the South despised the railroads going North.
> 
> You have to understand that to conservatives the blending of economic conservatism and social conservatism is what got them where they are now. Destroying Amtrak and weakening labor has been one of their goals and would represent a symbolic victory for them more than anything.


----------



## Save Our Trains Michigan (Jun 27, 2006)

PRR 60 said:


> BNSF_1088 said:
> 
> 
> > Like i have said before this all can change since the Study is not over until June 30th 2006 none of this information was never to be made public so it could come down to what happened 4 months ago which is it will be stalled because of to much pressure being put on the issue.
> ...


These trains are on the list as of right now and should get there 180 day notices other trains could be added no ones knows for sure because the study is not over. like i have said this is being done behind closed doors.


----------



## OpenMinded (Jun 27, 2006)

Hello,

I am an open minded conserative that has been reading this forum off and on for several months but never posted before. I'm not here to dispute what anyone has said about this administrations attitude about Amtrak but to assimilate Facts from the Liberal hatred of Bush.

Now we must consider that the Republican controlled Senate and House

are no more part of the Bush Administration as they were part of Clinton's.

The Administration is comprised of the President,Vice President and Cabnet Members. Oh sure, there are appointees of the President that have to follow his whims regardless of personal feeling if they wish to remain employed . Does Bush personally appoint the head of Amtrak? Seriously, I'm just asking. The following are also part of the Bush Administration:

Director of National Intelligence....Director of CIA ....FBI Director....National Security Advisor...EPA Administrator....UN Ambassador...FCC Chairnan...

OMB Director...WH Chief of Staff/ Deputy Chiefs of Staff...WH Counsel/Advisors....WH Press Secretary....and Personal Ade.

Of all this group the only one that is directly involved daily with Amtrak was the Secretary of Transportation which was a Democrat held over from the Clinton years.

The President has a very low approval rate and is a lame duck President that will be out of office in a year and a half.

The Senate and House however are not dependent on Bush's whims and gain nothing in supporting him over the wishes of the folks back home.

I have heard repeatedly on here to show where posted facts and items come from. I humbly ask where are the facts that George W. Bush hates Amtrak? I'm not asking for opinions or left wing talking points or right wing talking points either. Has he come right out and said he hated Amtrak? Has he personally stated that Amtrak needs dismantling? Has he personally set the funding on Amtrak and if so, how? I thought this has to be done by the House. Did he veto or use the line item veto to lower the funding?

There is an old saying in my part of the woods, " Either Poop or get off the pot." Now I am an Amtrak fan and user but isn't 35 years of limping along with worn out equipment and being underfunded long enough. Isn't it time to do something?

I'm not attacking you people, I just really want to know. I have noticed several well informed people on here that will have the data I seek.

Now if its the Republican controlled Congress that's doing this, why is Bush to blame anymore than all the Presidents since Nixon that were controlled by Democrats? Those Democratic Administrations were not exactly "Daddy Warbucks" in regards to Amtrak. As I stated before, What has this Congress to gain by supporting Bush? As unpopular as he is, looks like there would be more to gain by opposing him.


----------



## Boxcar (Jun 27, 2006)

PennCentralFan said:


> BNSF_1088 said:
> 
> 
> > Bush controls the Amtrak Board and the Amtrak Board runs Amtrak since the Amtrak Board has not appointed a new Amtrak president.
> ...


Penncentralfan, could you please input your opinions into this thread without the attacks on conseratives? Your input is as valid as any other but Some of your remarks are better suited on Moveon.org

Thanks.......BD


----------



## Save Our Trains Michigan (Jun 27, 2006)

what i am saying is the study is not over until June 30th 2006 and then all the information will be released to the public in the form of the 180 day train notices what i have posted are the trains that are on the list at the present time.

The study is for trains and stations to come off or be closed the study is not to add trains.

Just like my flier says that has been out for the last 4 moths or so all of these issues are behind closed doors and anyone who leaks the information out will be fired thats why i will not give names or job titles.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 27, 2006)

Boxcar Dummy said:


> Penncentralfan, could you please input your opinions into this thread without the attacks on conseratives? Your input is as valid as any other but Some of your remarks are better suited on Moveon.orgThanks.......BD


Yes, we need to be a bit more careful about painting such broad strokes with statements like "all conservatives."

Let me remind everyone that one of Amtrak's biggest supporters for several years during the Clinton administration was Michigan's Republican (conservative) Governor Tommy Thompson. Tommy was also chairman of Amtrak's board for several years and spent quite a bit of his time tooting Amtrak's horn and trying to wake up everyone to provide proper funding.

Then we have Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchensen from Texas who has almost without fail, supported a National Amtrak system for years. I also seem to recall that the last chairman of Amtrak's board, the mayor of Meridian MS whose name escapes me at the moment, is a Republican. He too fought long and hard for Amtrak.

I'm sure that many other examples can also be cited, so to label all conservatives as being anti-Amtrak is simply not true.

And as PRR60 has pointed out many times on this very forum, some of Amtrak's worst service cuts as well as the lowest annual funding rates have occured during Democratic White Houses, with a Democratic Congress.


----------



## EmpireBuilderFan1976 (Jun 27, 2006)

> Now I am an Amtrak fan and user but isn't 35 years of limping along with worn out equipment and being underfunded long enough. Isn't it time to do something?
> 
> Well OpenMinded the quote above from your post is one that I could not agree with more! And although I do not have any direct quotes from Bush on Amtrak, I would say his proposal of $0 for the 2006 budget year for Amtrak speaks volumes. And I did read some news article from a regular news source that he thinks private companies should take over passenger rail service. I guess he has never done any reading on Amtrak and why it was created in the first place.
> 
> ...


----------



## Boxcar (Jun 27, 2006)

AlanB said:


> Boxcar Dummy said:
> 
> 
> > Penncentralfan, could you please input your opinions into this thread without the attacks on conseratives? Your input is as valid as any other but Some of your remarks are better suited on Moveon.orgThanks.......BD
> ...


Thanks Allen....Kay Bailey is my Senator and I'm proud of her.

My point was much like yours, There are Conseratives as well as liberals in this forum and Amtracks problems and resolutions of those problems fall on both of our shoulders....Bd


----------



## frj1983 (Jun 27, 2006)

Alan,

Being a former Wisconsinite, I must humbly correct you and state that Tommy Thompson is from Wisconsin, and I think he should have gotten the nod as Secretary of Transportation when Bush first came into office!

Would things have been different? quite possibly, as he at least was educated about Amtrak.


----------



## OpenMinded (Jun 27, 2006)

Thanks Empirebuilderfan



> Well OpenMinded the quote above from your post is one that I could not agree with more! And although I do not have any direct quotes from Bush on Amtrak, I would say his proposal of $0 for the 2006 budget year for Amtrak speaks volumes. And I did read some news article from a regular news source that he thinks private companies should take over passenger rail service. I guess he has never done any reading on Amtrak and why it was created in the first place.


 I'm not disputing a thing you said. Is the $0 funding for 2006 a published fact and not just some New York Times article? If he did in fact do this, could the motive be as someone else suggested, to shake up the status Quo for more states funding? Is the restrictions on Amtrak coming straight from him or being dictated by the funding from Congress? And how did he get Congress to do this?

I'm not defending this President, just support him when I think he is right and criticize him when IMHO he is wrong. It's the same thing I did for Bill Clinton...


----------



## AlanB (Jun 27, 2006)

OpenMinded said:


> Does Bush personally appoint the head of Amtrak? Seriously, I'm just asking.


Technically by definition, no Bush does not appoint the head of Amtrak. However that said, he has appointed the few members of the Amtrak board that have that power. And it should be noted that of the 3 members that he has appointed, all are friends of his, and two of them he couldn't get confirmed by Congress. So he had to use a loophole to get them on the board, twice.

Apparently he didn't get the message from Congress the first time, when they refused to vote on his nominations. But rather than provide two new names, he used that loophole once again. Now he finally has provided two more nominations to Congress, that have yet to be acted upon by Congress. However, the fact remains that he has failed in his duties as President to appoint a full Amtrak board for the last several years.

So this to one extent or another leaves either Bush or someone within his administration with way too much influence on the small, under populated board.

Next let's consider that the board hired a firm to find the next president of Amtrak, the very day that they fired Gunn. Here we are now 6+ months later with narry a name in the wind. Either this firm is incompetent or they simply can find someone who can do the job that the board and through it the Administration seem to want done.



OpenMinded said:


> The Senate and House however are not dependent on Bush's whims and gain nothing in supporting him over the wishes of the folks back home.


You're quite right, but consider that the DOT, not Congress holds control of Amtrak's stock. And any law that Congress passes to stop or change things that the administration may want, must be signed by the President or they more over-ride his veto.



OpenMinded said:


> I have heard repeatedly on here to show where posted facts and items come from. I humbly ask where are the facts that George W. Bush hates Amtrak? I'm not asking for opinions or left wing talking points or right wing talking points either. Has he come right out and said he hated Amtrak? Has he personally stated that Amtrak needs dismantling? Has he personally set the funding on Amtrak and if so, how? I thought this has to be done by the House. Did he veto or use the line item veto to lower the funding?


I don't think that anyone outside of the Bush administration actually knows if it was George or someone else who wrote the zero funding for Amtrak into last years proposed budget that the White House sent to Capitol Hill. However, like it or not, the buck stops with the President. Everything that comes out of the White House by definition is what he wants. It's simply the way things are.

Had he fired someone over the zero funding, then he could have disavowed knowledge of it. Since the didn't happen, he at least concurred with trying to kill Amtrak when he allowed his proposed budget to go to Congress without comment or further action.

He's also allowed Norman Mineta, and others from the DOT, to run around bad mouthing Amtrak. Now I'll be the first to admit, that Amtrak needs fixing, major fixing. A lot of the problems can be corrected with proper funding, but not all. There does need to be some fundamental changes in how Amtrak works, manages things, and runs trains.

But allowing Norman to run around spouting half truths, and in some cases out right untruths, isn't the correct way to fix Amtrak. Saying that no one rides the LD's, when the facts clearly indicate otherwise as I proved with last March's figures else where on this forum, is a lie. Unless one considers an average of 333 people per LD train, each and every day to be nobody.

And again, Norman Mineta serves at the President's pleasure. If George didn't like what he was saying, then he should have fired him. The fact that that didn't happen can only mean of two things, either the President approved of Norman's actions, or the President has no clue about what's going on in the White House. I sure hope that it's the former, as the later is too scarry to contemplate.

To answer your direct question, no, I don't think that George has ever been quoted as saying that Amtrak should be gone. In fact as Governor of Texas, he once proclaimed that Amtrak was a Federal responsability. But the actions from his White House now seem to be in direct contradiction of that statement. It was his White House that proposed "Zero" funding last year. It was his White House that proposed joint State/Federal funding on more than one occasion. Oddly enough the funding split that they proposed is far worse for the states, than the matches they currently get for highways.

So the actions of the White House would seem to indicate that he has changed his tune, since he became President. And again, like it or not, everything that comes out of the White House is ultimately his responsability. He'll get the blame for everything bad, and the credit for everything good. It's simply the way things are.

As for your final question in that paragraph, the President proposes a budget, that Congress can accept outright or they can alter it to how they see fit. Then once it passes both houses of Congress, the President must sign it into law. Since the President doesn't have line item veto power on the budget, he can't just kill one line. He would have to shoot down the entire budget. That would shut this country down or at least create problems and political fall out.



OpenMinded said:


> Now if its the Republican controlled Congress that's doing this, why is Bush to blame anymore than all the Presidents since Nixon that were controlled by Democrats?


So far it's been the Republican controlled Congress that has been opposing the budget recomendations from the White House, and approving more money than the administration asked them to give to Amtrak.

So everything keeps coming back to the White House and therefore, the President.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 27, 2006)

frj1983 said:


> Alan,
> Being a former Wisconsinite, I must humbly correct you and state that Tommy Thompson is from Wisconsin, and I think he should have gotten the nod as Secretary of Transportation when Bush first came into office!
> 
> Would things have been different? quite possibly, as he at least was educated about Amtrak.


You are quite right and I'm sorry, not sure how Michigan popped into my head at that moment. :unsure:

You and many others had hoped that Tommy would get DOT, including Tommy himself. I've heard that he was quite disapointed when he didn't get that post and that one of the reasons that he took the HHS position was so that he could still try to keep his voice heard when Amtrak was discussed in the White House.

I do know that his heart never quite seemed into being HHS Secretary.

And Tommy definately knew about Amtrak, he fought long and hard for them. So much so, that out of 207 new P42's only one so far has ever been named in anyone's honor, and engine #182 proudly carries Tommy Thompson's name on its side.


----------



## MrFSS (Jun 27, 2006)

And here is that engine in Milwaukee. I rode behind her on 6/2/06.


----------



## GP35 (Jun 27, 2006)

An 80/20 funding for Amtrak would be one of the best gifts for Amtrak ever. If Bush supports 80/20, then Bush supports Amtrak.

BTW, 80/20 would mean the feds will pay a lot more for Amtrak. Billions more.


----------



## OpenMinded (Jun 27, 2006)

Ok, Thank you AlanB for your detailed explanation. So I gather that it is more of a track record over a period of time rather than just easily referenced web links or articals.

As I said, I'm very open minded and you certainly have been involved on the subject of Amtrak much more than I ,so I don't doubt your views.

Shame on mean ole Bush.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 27, 2006)

GP35 said:


> An 80/20 funding for Amtrak would be one of the best gifts for Amtrak ever. If Bush supports 80/20, then Bush supports Amtrak.
> BTW, 80/20 would mean the feds will pay a lot more for Amtrak. Billions more.


The Administration didn't support 80/20, they proposed a 50/50 split. That's far lower than the 80/20 or occasionally 70/30 split that the highways and other rail projects get.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 27, 2006)

OpenMinded said:


> Ok, Thank you AlanB for your detailed explanation. So I gather that it is more of a track record over a period of time rather than just easily referenced web links or articals.As I said, I'm very open minded and you certainly have been involved on the subject of Amtrak much more than I ,so I don't doubt your views.
> 
> Shame on mean ole Bush.


Open,

Yes, part of it is simply the ongoing track record as it were of the administration. The zero budget however was widely publicized and generally critcized in the media at that time. I'm not sure if that budget proposal can still be found on the governements website, but I wouldn't be surprised if you couldn't still find some newspaper articles in the archives of some papers.

One simple and interesting thing that you might want to do is to check out the NARP fact checkers for the last two years. These pages located here and here make for some interesting reading. They dispute some of the mis-statement and mis-truths spouted by Mineta, as well as others opposed to Amtrak. Note that not all of the statements are from White House spokesmen, some are from Congressmen, other's from DOT, and so on.

But it will give you some insight into some of the things that the President has allowed to be said on his behalf. Things that sadly when taken with no clear statements from him, along with the zero budget, would seem to indicate that the President doesn't want Amtrak. At the very least, he's certainly not fighting for it.


----------



## Boxcar (Jun 27, 2006)

> The Administration didn't support 80/20, they proposed a 50/50 split. That's far lower than the 80/20 or occasionally 70/30 split that the highways and other rail projects get.


IE...Boston's "Big Dig" :angry:


----------



## GP35 (Jun 27, 2006)

AlanB said:


> GP35 said:
> 
> 
> > An 80/20 funding for Amtrak would be one of the best gifts for Amtrak ever. If Bush supports 80/20, then Bush supports Amtrak.
> ...


Maybe propose 50/50, settle for 80/20.


----------



## caravanman (Jun 27, 2006)

I have enjoyed the Conservative's comment deploring the finding of money for medical and education issues for illegals, and then bemoaning the attacks on Conservatives on this board. I always enjoy an even handed approach to Amtrak funding! ha ha.

Ed B)


----------



## Boxcar (Jun 27, 2006)

> Maybe propose 50/50, settle for 80/20.


Thats the way We Texans think for sure.

My Dad was co-signing for my first car at The local bank with his loan officer.

He knew how this loan officer operated so he asked for a $1200.00 loan for a car that was priced at $600.00. This was a time before "Blue Books" were used on car loans. The loan officer stated that was too much and cut it in half like he always did. My Dad said to always ask for more than needed

and settle for less.....BD


----------



## Boxcar (Jun 27, 2006)

caravanman said:


> I have enjoyed the Conservative's comment deploring the finding of money for medical and education issues for illegals, and then bemoaning the attacks on Conservatives on this board. I always enjoy an even handed approach to Amtrak funding! ha ha.Ed  B)


Ed...The point being, this is a rail fan or Amtrak blog and should contain a healthy discussion on the politics behind Amtraks funding but not the politics of wide sweeping attacks on either Liberals or Conseratives.

Lord knows there are plenty of both Right and left wing blogs for that.

I, in no way, wish to turn this into politics but as for the illegals, It's not that America is anti-immigration because we are not. We are a nation of Former immigrants. What is hurting us right now is the tidal wave of illegals

that have swamped our medical facilities for free medical that their bills are passed on to our citizens that have medical insurance. This drives up the cost of insurance to the point many have to drop their coverage and they add to the burden of taxpayers if they are lucky and not be stuck with thousands owed. As for education, in my state, local schools are funded mostly by property tax's imposed on home owners and supposedly by the Lotto( which is used for everything). The renters do not pay property tax or fund public schools and most illegals are renters. They usually have large numbers of children and are also swamping the schools. We are having to build more and more classrooms plus hire more teachers. We also have to provide special educational classes to teach English and provide a more natural homeland atmosphere for the kids. This funding simply does not come from the illegals. Maybe we need to pass a Tea Tax huh?  just kidding....

Now, if there are any illegals or family of illegals on here, I'm not attacking you and apologize if I offended anyone. I'm just saying that as a taxpayer and health care user, I can't afford you any longer.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Jun 28, 2006)

No more service to NOL at all? I find that hard to believe. Amtrak has done a lot of PR proclaiming its return to New Orleans after the hurricane. They even recently issued a press release saying that the "rail/cruise" packages from New Orleans will be starting again this Fall to coincide with the return of the cruise ships.

If this takes place, it will just add more insult to injury to the people down here....air service capacity is way down (even though demand is extraordinarily high), bus service is way down, and now, no trains. Unbelieveable.

I'm glad I got to ride on the thee NOL trains in their entirety over the past few years.

$% the Bush administration.


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 28, 2006)

The discussion on "illegals" does not belong on this forum, period.

Now, I've seen some comments on this thread and others that states that Bush hates Amtrak because Amtrak is a threat to his friends in the oil and airline industries.

However, logic does not follow that this would be behind an attack on long-distance trains. Why? Because Amtrak's long-distance trains *do not compete* with airlines. PERIOD. The _only_ place where Amtrak competes with the airlines is on the northeast corridor. If it was really about protecting the airline interests, the NEC would be the subject of the greatest attacks and lies and misinformation. The long-distance trains as a whole carry a few million passengers a year, which is less than 1% of what the airlines carry. Furthermore, they serve cities that are not served (or not very well served) by airlines. The purpose of the long-distance train is not, never has been, and never will be to compete with the airlines.

Certainly, Bush is no friend of passenger rail. Certainly, he has good friends tied to the oil and airline industries. But that isn't behind the attacks on long-distance trains. I don't know what is, specifically (maybe a dislike for labor unions, with Amtrak being heavily unionized), but it ain't the airlines and oil issue.


----------



## caravanman (Jun 28, 2006)

It seems to me that no rail system in the world is free of public financial support, non can expect to make a profit in commercial terms. It seems that the debate should not be about profitability, but simply about how much (financial) support the American public want to give their rail system.

I guess a rich person who has a vehicle won't see it as being as worthwhile as a poorer person who lacks private transport.

I was kind of surprised to see immigration as an issue on this forum too, but as it was raised, I like to see a balanced argument...I guess a ready supply of cheaper labour can't hurt the economy...

Ed B)


----------



## EmpireBuilderFan1976 (Jun 28, 2006)

I disagree with the oil companies not being behind the attacks on Amtrak. Trains are very efficient in that they can carry alot of people and freight. And the demand/need for train travel is growing by the day. More people riding trains would mean less people driving cars and filling up at the pump. If Amtrak were eliminated, all of the people who currently ride trains would be forced to either drive, take buses or fly. For people in rural areas it would probably entail all three.

So without Amtrak oil consumption will rise. Not significantly, but I think it would be a big step in re-eliminating trains as a means for passenger travel. Do some research on what happened to the old trolley's in the cities. And why they were replaced with smelly, noisey buses. It's unbelieveable!


----------



## Sam Damon (Jun 28, 2006)

While illegal immigration is a "hot-button" topic right now in the USA, it has nothing, *nothing*, _*nothing*_ to do with Amtrak. Any mention of this really is beyond the scope of this forum.

Conspiracy theories, I suppose, are okay, as long as we understand they're _theories._ The support for Amtrak in "red state" America is a bit stronger than the Beltway bunch thinks. It's just those types are hung up over Amtrak's direct subsidies, rather than the hidden ones highways, air, and barge traffic obtain.

It's not that those types are conservatives, liberals, or socialists; it's just they like their socialism in great big whacking gobs.


----------



## OpenMinded (Jun 28, 2006)

AlanB said:


> OpenMinded said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, Thank you AlanB for your detailed explanation. So I gather that it is more of a track record over a period of time rather than just easily referenced web links or articals.As I said, I'm very open minded and you certainly have been involved on the subject of Amtrak much more  than I ,so I don't doubt your views.
> ...


Again, Thank you Mr AlanB and also for the web links. I had no clue as to the full battle going on towards Amtrak.


----------



## dan72 (Jun 28, 2006)

Getting back to the orginal topic, here is a question that came to mind.

If trains 1-8 are supposedly on the chopping block, trains 7 & 8 being the Empire Builder, then what about 27 & 28??? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that part of it is being eliminated. Then again, getting rid of the EB, which has been one of the more successful LD trains and has had significant equiptment investment in the last year or so, doesn't make any sense, either. Even back in 2002 when (I think) 13 LD routes were on the block, the EB was not one of those routes.

Dan


----------



## Boxcar (Jun 28, 2006)

caravanman said:


> .I was kind of surprised to see immigration as an issue on this forum too, but as it was raised, I like to see a balanced argument...I guess a ready supply of cheaper labour can't hurt the economy...
> 
> Ed  B)


Huh! caravanman. I stated that this was not a political forum but should be limited to Amtrack and the politics affecting it. The only reason I posted what I did was in response to your post



> I have enjoyed the Conservative's comment deploring the finding of money for medical and education issues for illegals, and then bemoaning the attacks on Conservatives on this board. I always enjoy an even handed approach to Amtrak funding! ha ha.Ed


 and I seem to be the conserative that bemoaned the aforementioned attacks.However, the others are correct that this is not the place for this subject and I apologize to all......BD


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 28, 2006)

EmpireBuilderFan1976 said:


> I disagree with the oil companies not being behind the attacks on Amtrak. Trains are very efficient in that they can carry alot of people and freight. And the demand/need for train travel is growing by the day. More people riding trains would mean less people driving cars and filling up at the pump. If Amtrak were eliminated, all of the people who currently ride trains would be forced to either drive, take buses or fly. For people in rural areas it would probably entail all three.
> So without Amtrak oil consumption will rise. Not significantly, but I think it would be a big step in re-eliminating trains as a means for passenger travel. Do some research on what happened to the old trolley's in the cities. And why they were replaced with smelly, noisey buses. It's unbelieveable!


As I said before, if one was really in the camp of being pro-oil companies, then the real attacks should be on the Northeast Corridor, where massive numbers of passengers are carried. That's where Amtrak competes the most with other forms of transportation, not these once-a-day trains through lightly-populated areas which, in the grand scheme of things, would have very little impact on oil consumption.

That's why blaming this all on the oil/airline conspiracy doesn't quite add up. This is a very different situation than GM, Standard Oil, and the tire companies joining together to dismantle the streetcar networks.


----------



## printman2000 (Jun 28, 2006)

Is it just me or has this topic gotten a bit off the orginal topic? 

Perhaps a seperate topic should be started to discuss the politics and leave this one to the 180 day notice stuff.

Just my two cents.


----------



## Boxcar (Jun 28, 2006)

> That's why blaming this all on the oil/airline conspiracy doesn't quite add up. This is a very different situation than GM, Standard Oil, and the tire companies joining together to dismantle the streetcar networks.


 I agree with Robert here. The amount of oil used with or without Amtrak is a drop in the bucket, at least as LD train service is concerned. All they would have to do to make up any short fall in profits is to raise the price per gallon a cent or two. I think the reason Bush is so indifferent to Amtrak is due in part to the National debt. He has spent like a drunken sailor and the Debt has skyrocketed and keeps climbing. Now IMHO not all was unnecessary but we all have our own idea as to which were or were not. 9/11, Iraq, Katrina and the other natural disasters in Florida and Mississippi plus aid to other nation's disasters has pushed the debt to new limits.

I think he is simply trying to find things he deems expendable and puts on the chopping block.

This is why it is not a political party, big oil, airline problem. It's as AllanB pointed out, A Pro Amtrack V Anti Amtrak battle.We have to someway

convince Bush that Amtrak is not expendable.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2006)

printman2000 said:


> Is it just me or has this topic gotten a bit off the orginal topic?
> Perhaps a seperate topic should be started to discuss the politics and leave this one to the 180 day notice stuff.
> 
> Just my two cents.


Ok point taken. What 180 day notice items do you wish to discuss?


----------



## Chatter163 (Jun 28, 2006)

The prognosticator in question has, in these waning days before the Day of Reckoning (relatively speaking), begun to realize that he may indeed appear extremely foolish next week and, consequently, has begun to seek a path out of the corner into which he has painted himself on this and the other forum. (The other alternatives were far more unpleasant: Recant and apologize profusely, return with a new screen name, or simply disappear altgogether.) The fact that he is publicly associated with a well-known state pro-rail activist group reflects badly, to a degree, on all concerned.

Moreover, like him, I shall cut and paste these remarks, verbatim, on both forums.


----------



## caravanman (Jun 28, 2006)

This IS fun! I just love a good chit-chat as they say here in the UK..(or at least they might have said 100 years ago!). I will stop stirring the pot now, just wanted to make clear that I dislike snide comments which link Amtrak's woes to immigration issues, as much as some dislike snide comments against Conservatives.

Ed B)

ps anyone want to talk about religion ? sorry..yes, I did say I would stop!


----------



## AlanB (Jun 28, 2006)

rmadisonwi said:


> Now, I've seen some comments on this thread and others that states that Bush hates Amtrak because Amtrak is a threat to his friends in the oil and airline industries.
> However, logic does not follow that this would be behind an attack on long-distance trains. Why? Because Amtrak's long-distance trains *do not compete* with airlines. PERIOD. The _only_ place where Amtrak competes with the airlines is on the northeast corridor. If it was really about protecting the airline interests, the NEC would be the subject of the greatest attacks and lies and misinformation. The long-distance trains as a whole carry a few million passengers a year, which is less than 1% of what the airlines carry. Furthermore, they serve cities that are not served (or not very well served) by airlines. The purpose of the long-distance train is not, never has been, and never will be to compete with the airlines.
> 
> Certainly, Bush is no friend of passenger rail. Certainly, he has good friends tied to the oil and airline industries. But that isn't behind the attacks on long-distance trains. I don't know what is, specifically (maybe a dislike for labor unions, with Amtrak being heavily unionized), but it ain't the airlines and oil issue.


Robert,

The simple answer to your question is that killing the NEC outright is probably impossible and political suicide for anyone who tries. Support for Amtrak is simply too widespread within Congress, even though they don't seem inclinded to fund it properly.

However, and this is not meant as a criticizm of her, with Senators like Kay Baily Hutchensen running around saying "It's a national system or no system", in a smart but twisted mind killing off the LD's could and would make some sense. Get rid of the LD's, now it's just the states on the NEC vs. the other 41 states that have no connection to the NEC.

One would hope that the NEC States might still wrangle some support, or would find a way to come together and save the NEC and it probably would be saved. However, even if they do save the NEC, I'd bet that it would become largely commuter traffic. I'm not sure that you'd see service in the areas currently covered only by Amtrak, nor would I expect to see end to end service or even connecting end to end service.

So again, I could see someone sitting there thinking that a direct attack on the NEC won't work, so killing the LD's is the next best way to shut down the NEC or at least Amtrak's part of it, sending all those rider's back to the airlines. Additionally, by killing off Amtrak's part on the corridor, they would then be able to point at that as an example of why we should never attempt any other similar corridors or high speed corridors, like those being at least discussed in California, North Caroline, and Florida.

Finally, let me just say that this post does not constitute an endorsement of Matt's statement that the Amtrak board does indeed intend to shut down any LD's. I'm simply answering the question that Robert asked with one possible explanation for the madness being suggested.


----------



## Boxcar (Jun 28, 2006)

caravanman said:


> This IS fun! I just love a good chit-chat as they say here in the UK..(or at least they might have said 100 years ago!). I will stop stirring the pot now, just wanted to make clear that I dislike snide comments which link Amtrak's woes to immigration issues, as much as some dislike snide comments against Conservatives.Ed  B)
> 
> ps anyone want to talk about religion ? sorry..yes, I did say I would stop!


I have nothing to say futher on that subject other than the remarks were a little more than snide. The orignal remarks were deleted by the moderator and may have been missed by you.Also, I in no way linked Amtraks woes to immigration. If you wish to futher chit-chat about this, feel free to PM or e-mail me......

Sorry again Forum. I will refrain from futher posting on this subject.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2006)

Boxcar Dummy said:


> I agree with Robert here. The amount of oil used with or without Amtrak is a drop in the bucket, at least as LD train service is concerned. All they would have to do to make up any short fall in profits is to raise the price per gallon a cent or two. I think the reason Bush is so indifferent to Amtrak is due in part to the National debt. He has spent like a drunken sailor and the Debt has skyrocketed and keeps climbing. Now IMHO not all was unnecessary but we all have our own idea as to which were or were not. 9/11, Iraq, Katrina and the other natural disasters in Florida and Mississippi plus aid to other nation's disasters has pushed the debt to new limits.
> 
> I think he is simply trying to find things he deems expendable and puts on the chopping block.
> 
> ...


amen to this post.

as for the other issue, i haven't read the post(s) that have the supposed snide remarks that are causing so much debate, so i'm not gonna comment about whether the remark was inappropriate or not(since i've never seen it, and probably never will, as it was deleted). i'll only say that i'm puzzled why someone would even bring up illegal immigration on a thread about 180 day notices, and that it probably was just as well that the remark(s) was/were deleted by a mod.


----------



## boratwanksta (Jun 28, 2006)

Guest said:


> Boxcar Dummy said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with Robert here. The amount of oil used with or without Amtrak is a  drop in the bucket, at least as LD train service is concerned. All they would have to do to make up any short fall in profits is to raise the price per gallon a cent or two. I think the reason Bush is so indifferent to Amtrak is due in part to the National debt. He has spent like a drunken sailor and the Debt has skyrocketed and keeps climbing. Now IMHO not all was unnecessary but we all have our own idea as to which were or were not.  9/11, Iraq, Katrina and the other natural disasters in  Florida and Mississippi plus aid to other nation's disasters has pushed the debt to new limits.
> ...


i posted that btw, just forgot to login.


----------



## TC2000 (Jun 28, 2006)

It seems to be confirmed now that the 180-day rumors are indeed false (no surprise there).

http://www.hammondstar.com/articles/2006/0...tories/0012.txt

Amtrak station staying, officials say

Rumors that the Amtrak train station in Hammond is closing are not true, according to Amtrak spokesperson Marc Magliari.

The rumors may have surfaced from the Internet, Magliari, who is based out of Amtrak's Chicago office, said Tuesday morning.

The hearsay was enough for Mayor Mayson Foster to contact Amtrak's government affairs director, Todd Stennis, who also dispelled the rumors. Foster learned of the gossip through e-mails.

"He assures me he has had contact with the vice president of operations in Chicago and the city of New Orleans is not scheduled for elimination or change in its current schedule," Foster said.

The Amtrak train station, an historic site in downtown Hammond, is located at 404 N.E. Railroad Ave.

- Reported by Heather Crain


----------



## Save Our Trains Michigan (Jun 28, 2006)

TC2000 said:


> It seems to be confirmed now that the 180-day rumors are indeed false (no surprise there).
> 
> http://www.hammondstar.com/articles/2006/0...tories/0012.txt
> 
> ...


Anyone who asks about this issue to any Amtrak MGT is told to lie to whoever asks about issue or they will be fired on the spot this is a perfect exsample of how it is working.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2006)

This kind of "mis-information" and "speculation" is extremely dangerous, which is confirmed by the Hammond, LA situation. Rumors about the closing of the Hammond station had also prompted various Chamber of Commerce and CVBs in the region to "re-consider" their partnerships with Amtrak.

There is no reason for people to stop discussing how to "Save Our Trains", but there needs to be a very clear tempering of how these messages are presented to the general public and to forums such as this.

The original poster of the 180 day notices needs to re-examine how and when he presents his opinions, theories and so-called facts. He also needs to re-examine his sources and his sources need to re-examine the kind of information they are giving the poster. Yesterday Amtrak issued an internal notice concering Confidentiality of information and it could not have come at a more appropriate time.

July 3rd may come and we may find out there are some changes coming down the track, but I seriously doubt if the original doom and gloom that as much as guaranteed the abolishment of trains 1-8, 58 & 59 and the modification of 19 & 20 will come to be seen as fact.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2006)

"Anyone who asks about this issue to any Amtrak MGT is told to lie to whoever asks about issue or they will be fired on the spot this is a perfect exsample of how it is working."

Please stop! Will the entire company lie? I doubt it!


----------



## Save Our Trains Michigan (Jun 28, 2006)

Guest said:


> "Anyone who asks about this issue to any Amtrak MGT is told to lie to whoever asks about issue or they will be fired on the spot this is a perfect exsample of how it is working."
> Please stop! Will the entire company lie? I doubt it!


Yes because they are told to or they will be fired on spot end of story just wait and see.


----------



## yarrow (Jun 28, 2006)

this must be a worse than usual time to work for amtrak. can you imagine working under these conditons of swirling rumor. this also shows how powerless the people are. i've written, at various times, to elected officals about iraq, environmental degredation and amtrak. a lot of good it has done. if the rich and powerful decide to give us a train they will. otherwise the working people of this country will be, as usual, out of luck.


----------



## The Metropolitan (Jun 28, 2006)

BNSF_1088 said:


> Like i have said before *this all can change since the Study is not over until June 30th 2006 *none of this information was never to be made public so it could come down to what happened 4 months ago which is it will be stalled because of to much pressure being put on the issue.


This statement alone makes me QUITE skeptical.

I work in transportation, mass transit side, scheduling in fact. If we perform a study, there is always a good bit of time between when the STUDY part ends and when the REPORT is issued based on the study. Even a less comprehensive matter such as checking OTP and ridership on a bus line takes weeks to compile, catalogue, and analyze thoroughly.

If a costing analysis is done, as it certainly would, up to the minute fixed and variable overhead factors would need to be known to properly estimate fare recovery. Items such as crew platform costs, pay to platform ratios, overtime usage and exceptions, fuel expenses, maintenance, station crewing, etc. These sorts of numbers for analysis are not simply readily found in People Magazine.

I don't see how on earth a STUDY that ENDS on Friday could ever result in a complete and detailed analysis with recommendations the very NEXT Monday.

Either you worded this rebuttal wrong, you're getting misled by someone who has no idea of what a data analysis and study project involves, or any other reasons that would be less than polite to express.


----------



## TransAtlantic (Jun 28, 2006)

"the sky is falling...the sky is falling..."

or perhaps I should say instead,

"wolf!! wolf!!"

get it?


----------



## RailFanLNK (Jun 28, 2006)

Maybe we could hire Jim Bakker and Oral Roberts to get on tv and say, "if Amtrak doesn't get 1.8 billion by this weekend, the good Lord is going to taketh me away".  We could have a yearly Amtrakathon! Instead of Jerry Lewis, the emcee could be Jerry LEE Lewis!  Pesonally, I hate to say this, but how bout selling advertising on the side of the trains? I mean, every stadium now has some stupid name attached to it. "The E-Bay Empire Builder", "The Southwest Airlines Chief", "The Zima Zephyr". ...."your train trip has been brought to you by...The Miller Lite Lounge Car"


----------



## ATSFNewton (Jun 28, 2006)

Guest said:


> This kind of "mis-information" and "speculation" is extremely dangerous, which is confirmed by the Hammond, LA situation.  Rumors about the closing of the Hammond station had also prompted various Chamber of Commerce and CVBs in the region to "re-consider" their partnerships with Amtrak.
> There is no reason for people to stop discussing how to "Save Our Trains", but there needs to  be a very clear tempering of how these messages are presented to the general public and to forums such as this.
> 
> The original poster of the 180 day notices needs to re-examine how and when he presents his opinions, theories and so-called facts.  He also needs to re-examine his sources and his sources need to re-examine the kind of information they are giving the poster.  Yesterday Amtrak issued an internal notice concering Confidentiality of information and it could not have come at a more appropriate time.
> ...


I wholeheartedly agree. I've been watching these unsubstantiated claims on these boards for months and I conclude that while pushing such wild speculation may generate a lot of response and discussion, in the end it is NOT helping our cause.


----------



## George Harris (Jun 29, 2006)

Anyone who does not believe that:

"Anyone who asks about this issue to any Amtrak MGT is told to lie to whoever asks about issue or they will be fired on the spot this is a perfect example of how it is working."

a statement like this can be true has obviously not worked for some of the companies that I have. Not only will they be fired, more than likely they will never work in any management type or professional level job ever again.

No top dog anywhere wants to have any potential whistleblowers around. Someday there may be things happen that, even if basically an honorable person, they would not want to have to explain. Not to mention, that sometimes doing the "right thing" in a situation can leavy you doing something that can be construed as illegal. A lot these things come around with a double whammy. Speciifc instructions as to what the company line is and what is not to be said, along with a don't you even hint that instructions of this nature have ever been given or this or any other subject.

George


----------



## Amtrak Watcher (Jun 29, 2006)

If the chronic under-funding; the worn out equipment; the (in too many cases) deserted, dilapidated, dirty and dangerous stations; the infrequent schedules; the strange routes; the surely and rude service crews; the self-destructive union work rules; and the stunning delays on the LD routes are not enough; then constant stream of rumors and cry-wolf warnings can do their part to scare away the remaining riders. I remain amazed by activities of the various rail supporters: amazed by how destructive their zealous and emotional activities become for their cause.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jun 29, 2006)

Hopefully, we have all contacted our Senators, Congressional Representatives and other officials about maintaining a national rail system under Amtrak. Beyond that, we have to just wait and see what happens. Once 180 day notices come forward on any trains, there will likely be 'trainoff" hearings in major communities along the specific route that can be attended to thwart the actual discontinuance of the train. Since this is an election year, the publicity that many passenger trains will be discontinued could create negative impressions of incumbent candidates. The publicity of such action could actually be good for Amtrak with competing candidates coming up with proposals to improve, not discontinue Amtrak service. What is really needed is a coalition of elected officials both Federal and State presenting a proposal that would provide long term permanant funding for Amtrak and upgrade and expansion of the rail network in the US to provide improved passenger and freight service.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jun 30, 2006)

*I still think its a hoax and on other board this was said about BNSF-1088 aka Save Our Trains Michigan/S.O.T. Mississippi**:*

* *

*I'm late to the party, but I've gotten so ticked off by the BS postings of the "director" of these "groups" on T.O. and on Louisiana Railfan/Modeling Group, I wanted to share the results of a minimal amount of Googling. *

* *

*BNSF1088 says "The way my groups have gotten to be where they are today is from a former Amtrak President who is no longer with the company." I can see why he's no longer with the company, as Save Our Trains Michigan own website shows they have a grand total of FIVE members (including the "director"). As for S.O.T. Mississippi, its website claims no members. Altho I could find no legitimate Miss. rail passenger advocacy organization, Michigan has the Michigan Association of Railroad Passengers, Inc., an honest-to-goodness 501©(3) corporation whose board of directors is larger than the "director's" Michigan membership roster. *

* *

*It's too bad good thread space is taken up with the mad-hatter ramblings of the "director." If anything he says comes to pass, it will only prove the old adage that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.*


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2006)

“Dutchrailnut” has captured the spirit of the situation. We need fewer cry-wolf, mad-hatter ramblings, and more passengers willing to spend cash money riding the LD trains, as is, with all the problems: with the dirty toilets; with the delays; with the dirty, nasty dangerous, dilapidated and deserted stations; with the missed connections; with the stupid government meddling, and with the food (what ever people may think of it – I like it) in the diner. I, for one, don’t care a wit about the rumors and even less so about those from the various and sundry “save our trains” organizations whose panic ramblings only scare away potential passengers looking for some sign of stability. Ignore the sky-is-falling noise from the “save-our-trains” crowd and make your reservations. Enjoy the last vestiges of civilized travel – while it lasts.


----------



## Amtrak Watcher (Jun 30, 2006)

Oops: double posting; I forgot to "sign-in"

“Dutchrailnut” has captured the spirit of the situation. We need fewer cry-wolf, mad-hatter ramblings, and more passengers willing to spend cash money riding the LD trains, as is, with all the problems: with the dirty toilets; with the delays; with the dirty, nasty dangerous, dilapidated and deserted stations; with the missed connections; with the stupid government meddling, and with the food (what ever people may think of it – I like it) in the diner. I, for one, don’t care a wit about the rumors and even less so about those from the various and sundry “save our trains” organizations whose panic ramblings only scare away potential passengers looking for some sign of stability. Ignore the sky-is-falling noise from the “save-our-trains” crowd and make your reservations. Enjoy the last vestiges of civilized travel – while it lasts.


----------



## The Metropolitan (Jul 3, 2006)

Sure enough, when I went to Amtrak.com this morning, I was able to uncover the suprising news... 

The Westbound Cardinal is only an hour late at Cincinatti! <_<


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2006)

From another board:

For what it's worth:

http://www.hammondstar.com/articles/2006/0...tories/0012.txt

Rumors that the Amtrak train station in Hammond is closing are not true, according to Amtrak spokesperson Marc Magliari.

The rumors may have surfaced from the Internet, Magliari, who is based out of Amtrak's Chicago office, said Tuesday morning.

The hearsay was enough for Mayor Mayson Foster to contact Amtrak's government affairs director, Todd Stennis, who also dispelled the rumors. Foster learned of the gossip through e-mails.

"He assures me he has had contact with the vice president of operations in Chicago and the city of New Orleans is not scheduled for elimination or change in its current schedule," Foster said.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2006)

I've been monitoring news outlets today and Amtrak's website. No annoucements. Perhaps the individual who started this thread could provide us with an explanation??


----------



## AmtrakFan (Jul 3, 2006)

Maybe there waiting til later in the week to release the info.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 3, 2006)

No personal attacks, Please!

Please just discuss the issues and the possibility or not of the LD's going away.


----------



## AmtrakFan (Jul 3, 2006)

I still think this will happen and before we know it everything will be gone. Even though today wasn't D-Day we still need to be on alert.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2006)

I don't think this is a personal attack, but with all the inside information that BNSF has boasted having, I think he owes everyone some sort of inside explanation of when this is going to happen and why it didn't happen today.

We all saw what happened with the Mayor of Hammond, LA - and don't think there haven't been a lot more people thinking the same thing he was thinking - especially since someone in his region was predicting the demise of the only train Hammond has. Hammond also, was the saviour of the City of New Orleans during Katrina - acting as the humb of activity.

I for one am curious as to what is going to happen and look to BNSF to let us know.


----------



## Everydaymatters (Jul 3, 2006)

The last news release on the Amtrak web site is dated June 28.

I, for one, don't believe that BNSF would irresponsibly make the statements he did without having heard it from someone. I'd be more inclined to believe that "someone" gave him faulty information.

I still have a wait and see attitude. I'm giving it until Friday to hear something before I discard it as a bad rumor.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 3, 2006)

Guest said:


> I don't think this is a personal attack, but with all the inside information that BNSF has boasted having, I think he owes everyone some sort of inside explanation of when this is going to happen and why it didn't happen today.


I have no problem with people posting questions, asking for clarification, posting valid statements, or drawing what conclusions they may from the info posted.

When I say personal attacks, I'm referring to a recent post by a guest now deleted, that resorted to childish name calling. I won't let this topic or any other for that matter, deteriorate into a slug fest with name calling and stuff like that. Right or wrong, everyone deserves to be treated with some respect. Name calling doesn't help anyone and it contributes nothing to the discussion.


----------



## Amtrak OBS Gone Freight (Jul 4, 2006)

So late getting back online today......darned internet problems (and didn't feel like playing the notebook/cell phone connection). Anyway, all was quiet today 07/03. I set a little time today to go and pay my local station a visit. I didn't really expect much today in light of the holiday weekend. Nothing much to note as far as the signifigance of the day is concerned, however, some train cancelations caught my eye for today! Here in the East train #97/02-03 was canceled. Both trains #52-03 and #53-03 were canceled as well. I am sure the situation with the Auto Train was to simply put it back on schedule, and today the July 3rd made the most sense as most everyone is where they need to be right now. I am not sure of the deal with #97. Both #92-03 and #98-03 operated out of MIA today , and the one SB train (#91-02) out of NYP operated through to MIA as well. Let's hope this is due to the weather situation in the North as well as the equipment turning issues.

It should be noted, however, many Amtrak officials (according to one of my traveling contacts) rode down to South Florida sometime late last week. According to my source who was working on board that day, many of those VIPs made up a lot of Amtrak's planning and infrastructure dept as well as what they (my on board source) could identify as representitives of a private company. They had their own private car to utilize for the trip, and the VIPs from the North were booked in sleepers overnight. Others stepped on enroute as the train made it into the South. I am told they overnighted in South Florida and returned the following day. I will persue this lead and provide any info if/when possible. Other than that, hopefully NO NEWS IS GOOD NEWS!!!! OBS...


----------



## Sam Damon (Jul 4, 2006)

I'm with you on this one, OBS. No news is good news. Amtrak's timekeeping courtesy of the freight RRs is something that needs to be passed along to your elected federal representatives, IMO. I think if more of them knew about how UP and NS were screwing Amtrak on a daily basis, there might be some better micromanaging legislation -- like, gee, run the trains on-time? -- instead of the stuff concerning 1st class and SDS.

Might your source know if it was a RR private car, or just a garden-variety private car? If not, no biggie, just curious.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jul 4, 2006)

Actually its time for politicians to bow out and let railroaders do the railroading.

the job of politicians is to fund Amtrak not run it.

If politicians had stayed out of railroading in general we would not be in the mess we are in now.


----------



## AmtrakFan (Jul 4, 2006)

OBS,

I heard CSX was doing some Track Work Out East.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2006)

Dutchrailnut said:


> If politicians had stayed out of railroading in general we would not be in the mess we are in now.


*And realistically, this forum would be superfluous, we would have had no LD trains after 1975.*


----------



## allan thomas (Jul 4, 2006)

http://www.narprail.org/default.asp?p=act%2Ehtm

What's New, June 30th, Senate subcommittee statement for the record, Statement of NARP Executive Director Ross B. Capon concerning rail capacity and what role federal investment should play in solving these issues.

Maybe Mr Capon and Senator Lott got wind of all this and settled it all June the 30th... maybe!

I think we owe a lot to Senator Lott because he's about the only one "W" is afraid of.

Chef Allan Thomas

the "City of New Orleans"


----------



## Save Our Trains Michigan (Jul 4, 2006)

allan thomas said:


> http://www.narprail.org/default.asp?p=act%2EhtmWhat's New, June 30th, Senate subcommittee statement for the record, Statement of NARP Executive Director Ross B. Capon concerning rail capacity and what role federal investment should play in solving these issues.
> 
> Maybe Mr Capon and Senator Lott got wind of all this and settled it all June the 30th... maybe!
> 
> ...


Hey Allan you still working 58 and 59.

sent you a PM


----------



## had8ley (Jul 4, 2006)

Dutchrailnut said:


> *I still think its a hoax and on other board this was said about BNSF-1088 aka Save Our Trains Michigan/S.O.T. Mississippi**:** *
> 
> *I'm late to the party, but I've gotten so ticked off by the BS postings of the "director" of these "groups" on T.O. and on Louisiana Railfan/Modeling Group, I wanted to share the results of a minimal amount of Googling. *
> 
> ...


* Funny thing...how do you devote time to saving trains in Michigan and Mississippi at the same time? I don't think you travel to both places by train every week. Are these just titles to "get you in the door?" * <_<


----------



## AlanB (Jul 4, 2006)

Guest said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> > If politicians had stayed out of railroading in general we would not be in the mess we are in now.
> ...


Actually we need a bit of both IMHO. We need Congress to stay involved and to start funding things properly. However, we also need Congress as well as the DOT to stop micro-managing things. I'm not saying that Amtrak management shouldn't be held accountable, they should.

But Congress shouldn't be the ones deciding how Amtrak should cut costs, unless it's to change work rules. This nonsense of worrying about food service loosing a little more than $100M a year, while they hand over close to $1.4 Billion, is almost like the little boy sticking his finger in the dike and trying to keep it from failing and flooding the village.

Congress should be demanding realistic and undertandable financial statements, something that David Gunn actually started providing them. David Gunn was so good at that, that one of Amtrak's harshest critics John McCain, was even saying nice things about David Gunn. But beyond that, other than authorizing realistic funding, that should be the end of their involvement.

They shouldn't be demanding specific targeted areas for improvement, unless it's to perhaps address the top heavy management structure.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 4, 2006)

had8ley said:


> Funny thing...how do you devote time to saving trains in Michigan and Mississippi at the same time? I don't think you travel to both places by train every week. Are these just titles to "get you in the door?" <_<


The wonders of the internet.


----------



## jccollins (Jul 4, 2006)

Matt used to live in Michigan and founded the grassroots support campaign for Amtrak called Save Our Trains Michigan. When he moved to Mississippi he started a campaign to save Amtrak there... thus Save Our Trains Mississippi was born. I only know this because he explained it in a post on the forum here a year or so ago.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jul 5, 2006)

Ask Matt how many members both his organisations have, and if he is affiliated with any other pro rail organisations.

Cause nobody at NARP or other organisations knows of him.

just curious.


----------



## Save Our Trains Michigan (Jul 5, 2006)

Dutchrailnut said:


> Ask Matt how many members both his organisations have, and if he is affiliated with any other pro rail organisations.Cause nobody at NARP or other organisations knows of him.
> 
> just curious.


It does not mater how many members we have we were never setup to have members we are an information group that gets the message out to the public we have NO RESTRICTIONS like NARP or the other State Organizations.

That's why we are not 501c if we would go to that we would have a lot of restrictions to follow such as getting information out to the public.

I would like any one of you that has time to bash any pro rail group try to do our job to keep Amtrak afloat year to year.

I don't need to be in Michigan to run that group i do it VIA e mails and phone calls which is 90% of my day when i am not at work.

You can say what you want about our groups but we are a lot bigger than what Goggle says.


----------



## Chatter163 (Jul 5, 2006)

OK, now that the prognosticator has broken his conspicuous silence, does he have the wherewithal to comment on his repeated and somewhat audacious predictions from "well-connected" sources? <_<


----------



## Guest_Amtrak OBS Employee (Jul 5, 2006)

Chatter163 said:


> OK, now that the prognosticator has broken his conspicuous silence, does he have the wherewithal to comment on his repeated and somewhat audacious predictions from "well-connected" sources? <_<


As I said earlier.................. NO NEWS IS GOOD NEWS!!!!!! Consider it that for now!!! And maybe just maybe the "guy" had to work and has been unavailable!!!! Hello???? OBS...


----------



## Guest_JAChooChoo (Jul 5, 2006)

BNSF_1088 said:


> As of right now Amtrak trains 1-8 and trains 58-59 will get there 180 day notices after July 1st 2006


*Lets be fair, after all, he said after July 1, and that was correct - nothing happened before then.*

*Secondly, he did not specify a date. So it can still happen.*

* *

*Actually, it would be great if it happened - it would force action. In an election year, with the balance in Congress a real cliffhanger, I think there would be action to maintain the Amtrak status quo.*


----------



## Amtrak Watcher (Jul 5, 2006)

I’ve heard the sky-is-falling predictions surrounding Amtrak for years. Having observed they are, for the most part, highly unreliable, especially if they come from the sundry “save the trains” organizations, I’ve learned to ignore the ramblings and make my reservations as I wish. But Amtrak is my default transportation mode which is in sharp contrast to the casual observer of this forum who may be looking here for information in anticipation of taking the train for the first time. The cry-wolf predictions do not serve the cause of the “save-the-trainers.” Passengers paying cash serve their cause. The value this forum offers the casual visitor contemplating rail travel for the first time is the wealth of information that can properly frame the experience: that can demonstrate what typically goes wrong as well as what might, in extreme cases, go wrong.


----------



## Foodman53 (Jul 5, 2006)

Seems to me that we've spent too much time and energy "beating up" one of our posters....rather than focusing on the facts at hand....i.e......as Amtrak OBS Employee says...."no news is good news!!"

As I troll the internet, I see that crude oil has risen to over $76 per barrel. Sadly, it's just a testimony as to what our government "hasn't" done for Amtrak since its inception 35 years ago.

BNSF1088 may be misled...or, he may be right on. The truth is we have a transportation crisis in this nation, which could be fixed by two days' expenditures of the Iraq war. Our....our nation, and/or it's leadership's...priorities are out of whack!!

Let's stay focused!!

From the "Florida Funnel"

Foodman 53


----------



## yarrow (Jul 5, 2006)

amen


----------



## Guest_bobbyswf (Jul 5, 2006)

I've only taken one cross-country Amtrak trip and am looking forward to another this year and while I am very curious about any routes being discontinued, it would be easier for novices such as myself if some of these posts were more clear. Perhaps a little less in-the-know train-speak for those of us who are new to this. Thanks for understanding.


----------



## PRR 60 (Jul 5, 2006)

Guest_bobbyswf said:


> I've only taken one cross-country Amtrak trip and am looking forward to another this year and while I am very curious about any routes being discontinued, it would be easier for novices such as myself if some of these posts were more clear.  Perhaps a little less in-the-know train-speak for those of us who are new to this.  Thanks for understanding.


Right now, today, July 5, there are no routes being discontinued or truncated. By law, Amtrak must give 180 days notice for any service change that will leave a town without train service. No such notices have been posted, so the only trains that could be dropped right now would be those where every stop is also served by at least one other train. Outside the corridor operations where multiple trains operate every day, almost all Amtrak train cancellations would require the 180 day notice.

So, for the next six months at least, it is business as usual for Amtrak.


----------



## AmtrakWPK (Jul 6, 2006)

I'll add another "Amen" to Foodman53's comment.


----------



## Everydaymatters (Jul 6, 2006)

Do you think we can chalk this up as a "non event" and go on with our lives now?


----------



## Chatter163 (Jul 6, 2006)

I think that we can. However, considering the stir that was caused, I do believe an apology/explanation is in order.


----------



## RailFanLNK (Jul 6, 2006)

Kinda like Y2K I guess!


----------



## PRR 60 (Jul 7, 2006)

trainboy325 said:


> ...In addition, again according to my former supervisors via my phone converstation, the station clerk at NOL, whom I believe 100% since I helped her and her family in Natchitoches when she got evacuated from NOL during Katrina, received a FedEX mail package that strickly states that it may only be opened by the manager of stations no earlier than  Monday, July 3 its contents be distributed to all depots within her division.
> ...Folks, this has been coming for a long time now. BNSF, Amtrak OBS Employee and myself have been warning of such radical system cuts for almost a couple of years now. I'm not going to say I told you so, because that's not an appropriate response by a member of a civil forum such as this and more importantly is it obsolutely true that those who choose not to believe statements made by others on this forum have every right to question the integrity and validity of such information made by people on any on-line forum. What I will say is that the formal announcement to the general public and the entire Amtrak employee network and the general public is scheduled for Monday, July 3 from David Hughes' office.
> 
> ...Trainboy325 has said all that can be said of this very sad and disappointing subject!!!


Oops: I guess they forgot to open all those FedEx envelopes on Monday. Of course, there was no mention of which July 3rd, so maybe 2007, or 8, or...

This episode was very much like one those internet hoaxes like the exploding air fresheners or gas station fires caused by cell phones. Present a claim: back it by specific details that add to the plausibility (but are entirely hearsay or unsubstantiated or just plain made-up), and sit back and watch the fun.

I am not saying the BNSF or Trainboy started this thing. They may have been innocent conduits. But they certainly did stir the pot and at the very least did not use common sense in assessing the validity of what they posted.

Oh, the power of the internet to elevate nonsense to gospel. I saw it on a web site so it must be true.


----------



## GP35 (Jul 8, 2006)

I'm sure they are still on the floor laughing at us.


----------



## Sam Damon (Jul 8, 2006)

If Matt should ever come back, go easy on him. Speaking for myself, I would simply be content for Matt to say on this and other forums, "Hey, I goofed up big time. I'm sorry." I realize this is difficult for some individuals to stomach. A bit of my reasoning follows.

The newsbiz is not an easy one, although many managers in it think any trained chimpanzee can do it well. 90% of those who have received a paycheck from a news operation have been burned on at least one story. The other ten percent are liars.

In the newsbiz, if you stay in it for very long, you start to develop your own version of a BS filter. This doesn't mean you neglect the "walk-in trade" such as the rumors BNSF heard; it means you *test* sources before you go hog-wild with a story. There are times when you protect sources. Even so, I can tell you with total assurance a lot of soul-searching goes on amongst the best ones when they agree to go with an anonymous source, precisely because you don't want to get burned. In newsbiz, your reputation tends to precede you. It's a gossipy business, probably even more so than railroads simply because the people working in it tend to be articulate.

Yes, a pot of stuff went through the Cuisinart. Even so, I lean towards forgiveness, because, as I said, I've felt the sting of having a source give me a story that was, if not wrong, at least very skewed, from the reality of a situation. This feeling is not pleasant.


----------



## x-press (Jul 8, 2006)

Sam Damon said:


> If Matt should ever come back, go easy on him.  Speaking for myself, I would simply be content for Matt to say on this and other forums, "Hey, I goofed up big time.  I'm sorry."


I am in 99% agreement: Apology=Forgiven as far as I'm concerned. Though, I must note that this apology has apparently gotten stuck behind a UP freight (meaning it's going to be a bit late, assuming it gets here at all). 

Honestly, I don't even mind reporting rumors on a forum like this . . . sometimes we might actually get some "inside info." My problems are more:

A) It was essentially presented as fact. If the claim had been "Historically Reliable Source: 180 Day Notices after July 1," I for one wouldn't have been as upset. Instead, every time someone noted that this was, in fact, just a rumor (sometimes gently, sometimes not), we'd get the whole "You just wait and see those trains are coming off July 1 and then it will be too late."

B The "logic test" did not seem to be applied. The timing (right after the time/money spent on diner lite, love it OR hate it), the dependability/popularity of several of the cut trains, the non-dependability/unpopularity of several trains left on, and the TOTAL silence from the thousands of Amtrak employees/NARP should have raised even an activist's eyebrows.

C) MOST importantly, the assertion that we should all run screaming to our Congressman about some internet rumor, regardless of credibility, is what I consider potentially damaging. Whether your congressman hears your objections on June 28 or July 3 makes no difference, except that you'd have full credibility on the latter, and wouldn't just be wasting their time.

So, an apology is fine, as long as it is combined with newfound wisdom. I'm not playing holier-than-thou, here. I learn from my mistakes on the board, and realize I've come off as something of a grump in the past (sometimes understandably, sometimes not).

There's always room to improve! 

JPS


----------



## Observer (Jul 8, 2006)

> (Sam Damon @ Sat, Jul 8, 2006, 08:45 AM) If Matt should ever come back, go easy on him.  Speaking for myself, I would simply be content for Matt to say on this and other forums, "Hey, I goofed up big time.  I'm sorry."


I agree with Sam to a point. To say he regrets passing along something he believed to be true and defending the posting would be a good thing.

However, A declaration that he owes anybody an apology is a bit egotistical in my view. Matt didn't personally mount an attack on anyone on this forum that I read but he sure had plenty of scorn come his way.

This forum would be better served to" Slay the message, not the messenger". A person must be able to post a thread (that is not against the rules of this forum) without being ridiculed or you will have a one sided forum. To ask for some verification of the subject is very much a valid recourse as well as counter rebuttal but some replys were on the very edge of civility.

This is also why it is a novel idea to allow Guest to post replys.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jul 8, 2006)

Matt was told his info was wrong from beginning, and in his hurry to be first with news he swore up and down his insider info was correct and unfallable, well it was not , so yes due to his insistence he does owe an apology.


----------



## GG-1 (Jul 8, 2006)

Dutchrailnut said:


> Matt was told his info was wrong from beginning, and in his hurry to be first with news he swore up and down his insider info was correct and unfallable, well it was not , so yes due to his insistence he does owe an apology.


Aloha

I don't think Matt owes us an apology. His conduct in reporting the information he had reason to believe in, was always presented in a respectable manner.

Possibly the support drummed up by our contacting our representatives changed the results, we may have one this battle.

Mahalo


----------



## Chatter163 (Jul 8, 2006)

I agree with Mr. x-press on this one, especially on his point C.


----------



## Observer (Jul 8, 2006)

Dutchrailnut said:


> Matt was told his info was wrong from beginning, and in his hurry to be first with news he swore up and down his insider info was correct and unfallable, well it was not , so yes due to his insistence he does owe an apology.


So who had the crystal ball to tell him he was wrong? The way to go on the information he posted was too respectfully challange and dispute it, not slander him. Too whom is the apology due if one is due? Is he not due an apology in return for some remarks made toward him then?

Wanna lead by example and apologise first?


----------



## TransAtlantic (Jul 8, 2006)

just a hypothetical question: if someone passes along information they do not know to be true, is it a lie? what if they KNOW the information is not true, but are not the source of the information?


----------



## AmtrakWPK (Jul 8, 2006)

If you believe it's true when you say it, you didn't lie. If it turns out not to be true, you may have been lied to. They're not the same thing. I have no doubt whatsoever that he did indeed believe it was true. And it may even have been true. It could very well be that the big noise that we all made, including a number of calls and emails to influential congress/senate folks, newspapers, etc., created enough heat before the fact that they decided to not send out the notices. It IS an election year. We may never know. If that IS in fact the case, then everybody trying to vilify him is a jerk but doesn't know it. So have a good long think about it before you get that tar and feathers out.


----------



## Amtrak OBS Gone Freight (Jul 8, 2006)

AmtrakWPK said:


> If you believe it's true when you say it, you didn't lie. If it turns out not to be true, you may have been lied to. They're not the same thing. I have no doubt whatsoever that he did indeed believe it was true. And it may even have been true. It could very well be that the big noise that we all made, including a number of calls and emails to influential congress/senate folks, newspapers, etc., created enough heat before the fact that they decided to not send out the notices. It IS an election year. We may never know. If that IS in fact the case, then everybody trying to vilify him is a jerk but doesn't know it. So have a good long think about it before you get that tar and feathers out.


And with the statement from this poster is exactly why I have said "NO NEWS IS GOOD NEWS!!!"

This is kinda a way of life at Amtrak as has been for a long time now. I feel as if I am in the situation the way Sam Damon describes in a previous posting. My only question is those who want verified "insider" infomation.... How much more "inside" do you need when it comes from an employee? True my management may have misled me as well, but remember folks the boardroom can and usually is an interesting place! And with that in mind, the truth always comes out in the end!!

For what it's worth, I am continuing to follow any leads I recieve from my sources as I can. We are not completely out of the woods yet, but it must be noted events have been scheduled and then rescended in the past. I vividly remember when 180 day notices made it to the bulletin board in my local station a few years ago, but were soon taken down. Amtrak has been "buying" time again and again for 35 years now. I will state this point to all being we should keep this in mind!

What I want to see now simply put is new legislation introduced, passed, and signed limiting or eliminating these "scary" reforms which are putting a heavy weight in the wrong place at Amtrak!!! That's all I have to say about that. If/when that action occurs, I will let my guard down. Other than that, it's business as usual and do not be surprised at anything out of Amtrak in the future under its current situation. That is mostly the biggest part of Matt's concern IMHO as well as mine! OBS...


----------



## Sam Damon (Jul 9, 2006)

OBS, you did see the press release Senator Byrd put out, right? If you haven't, surf here. There's also a link there to the letter he co-authored with Senator Murray to the Amtrak Board.

This may relate to the types your colleague saw while working Silver Service. I'd appreciate your comments -- it may put another piece of the puzzle together.


----------



## Amtrak OBS Gone Freight (Jul 9, 2006)

Sam Damon said:


> OBS, you did see the press release Senator Byrd put out, right? If you haven't, surf here. There's also a link there to the letter he co-authored with Senator Murray to the Amtrak Board.
> This may relate to the types your colleague saw while working Silver Service. I'd appreciate your comments -- it may put another piece of the puzzle together.


No I missed this one. Thanks for the link. I will say for sure it appears all is in line regarding my observations over the last couple of years, Sam! I will forward some better details of my comments to you in a PM. I don't feel it is time to discuss that in full just yet. OBS...


----------



## Chatter163 (Jul 9, 2006)

> > He was told his info was wrong from beginning, and in his hurry to be first with news he swore up and down his insider info was correct and unfallable, well it was not , so yes due to his insistence he does owe an apology.
> 
> 
> So who had the crystal ball to tell him he was wrong? The way to go on the information he posted was too respectfully challange and dispute it, not slander him. Too whom is the apology due if one is due? Is he not due an apology in return for some remarks made toward him then?
> ...


The poster in the second post is missing the point of the first post. It is not the rumor itself that he reported (which was only a week or so before the alleged cutoff date, so I doubt that much really changed politically in that time frame), but the insistent way in which it was done.

When members here expressed surprise and/or were a bit skeptical, he did not modestly explain himself. Rather, he insisted, somewhat excitedly, that he had anonymous inside sources that had to be protected, and that he had to "lay it on the line, people," proclaiming what he had heard. His remarks were repeatedly peppered with "I told you this before" language. Go back and read this thread from the beginning, and you will see the reactions and insistence that were offered, when members found the rumor a bit difficult to fathom. Furthermore, there was the somewhat bizarre claim that he had to be "careful" what he posted in the internet, as he was "watched." (Had he not already revealed the privileged information?) After a day or two of these histrionics and an avalanche of inquiries, he began to realize the hole into which he had dug himself, and began to backtrack and state that these things MAY come to pass, depending on the outcome of a study by Amtrak. There really was little that could be called humble in the remarks posted, at least the earlier ones.

So again, it is not the rumor itself, but the self-sure manner in which it was presented. When others questioned it, providing a natural opportunity to clarify and qualify, this was not met with any rational specifics, but rather, claims that there was a cloak-and-dagger plot underway, one that prevented anything further from being stated, due to those courageous anonymous sources and those sleuthing internet spies--this all made the saga more than a bit bizarre. Perhaps this episode can be chalked up to youthful vigor, but given the method of operation in this thread, I think that one can deomonstrate maturity and own up to the situation, after which all moves on as before.


----------



## Observer (Jul 9, 2006)

> After a day or two of these histrionics and an avalanche of inquiries, he began to realize the hole into which he had dug himself, and began to backtrack and state that these things MAY come to pass, depending on the outcome of a study by Amtrak. There really was little that could be called humble in the remarks posted, at least the earlier ones.
> So again, it is not the rumor itself, but the self-sure manner in which it was presented. When others questioned it, providing a natural opportunity to clarify and qualify, this was not met with any rational specifics, but rather, claims that there was a cloak-and-dagger plot underway, one that prevented anything further from being stated, due to those courageous anonymous sources and those sleuthing internet spies--this all made the saga more than a bit bizarre. Perhaps this episode can be chalked up to youthful vigor, but given the method of operation in this thread, I think that one can deomonstrate maturity and own up to the situation, after which all moves on as before.


So the Guy's information was wrong. BUT.. the slurs against him and not the message started coming in before the July 3rd date. I'm also aware of the "Cry Wolf" postings of Matt that cannot be backed with facts and wish he would at least post it as a rumor and not fact.

I fully understand where you are coming from and I have read the entire

thread from the first day it was posted. I'm not defending the merits of the post but I do defend his right as a member of this forum to post a subject

that he believes is true and is within the bounds of this forum without personal defamation. I'm sure he thought that the source of the 180 day

notice was impeachable when he posted it only to find it wasn't.

That along with the arguments presented by this forum may be the reason for the so called back tracking.

Should he enter a response indicating a regret for posting something that

didn't materialise, maybe, it would show maturity. Should he have learned not to vigorously defend something that cannot be backed up with facts, I hope so. Is being hardheaded a virtue or an invitation for personal scorn, NO. BUT...to apologize for a posting that wasn't vulgar, defaming other members or uncivil but inaccurate is a bit much. We all post items that are inaccurate at times and when proven to be wrong, usually acknowledge that the message was wrong but to demand an apology............

To be proven so terribly wrong by time alone would be embarrassing enough but to apologize to several members that IMHO went abit overboard in their replys ,I cannot agree with. In fact under the circumstances of several replys, I'm not sure I would.

One good thing we have in the Good Old USA is the right to our own opinion. That is true on this forum as well. I have found other than the concern for the future of Amtrak, we, like our Nation are divided on many things.

You and several others think you are owed an apology and have a right to feel that way. I and I'm sure several others( I can't prove that) feel he doesn't owe an apology. In fact I feel that the apology is due from several members and Guests to him for the personal replys that were not a rebuttal of the opinions of one of our members.

I expect Hell to freeze over before we see either..

Isn't Democracy a wonderful thing?


----------



## frj1983 (Jul 9, 2006)

I too have read this post from the beginning, but I also feel like a previous poster stated: that this forum should allow people to share information...be it correct or not.

I have the sneaking suspicion that Matt, being a passionate defender of Amtrak, was fed a little baloney by some angry, upset, fed-up, whatever, employees who would have loved to see the 180 day train off notices become valid and then say "see we told you so."

Even if he believed the information to be true, enough forum posters poked holes in the info to make the whole scenario unlikely. I would rather have "whatever" information posted here so we can debate it's merits and then can come to a conclusion. I did post to my congress-critters, but did did not mention this "rumor" as I considered it...but I think it's always OK to keep the fire stoked under our "elected" representatives feet.

So thanks to Matt for sharing the info (even if it was wrong) and thanks to all of you who logically poked holes in the argument! The debate is the thing and that is my one cent on the whole issue!


----------



## The Metropolitan (Jul 9, 2006)

I tend to agree with Chatter.

Sure, it's fine to share rumblings that we hear from our sources, but I think a line is crossed when we present those things as indisputable facts.

The certainty of the "trainoffs" combined with the 'mystery' confidential FedEx packages really did make a crisis seem imminent.

Perhaps an apology is asking a bit much, but I do think everyone here is entitled to some sort of explanation by the original posters (particularly some degree of validation of the Fed Ex package story) and perhaps the admission that the manner in which the info was conveyed was a bit overzealous.


----------



## Observer (Jul 9, 2006)

> Perhaps an apology is asking a bit much, but I do think everyone here is entitled to some sort of explanation by the original posters (particularly some degree of validation of the Fed Ex package story) and perhaps the admission that the manner in which the info was conveyed was a bit overzealous.


I can pretty much agree with you on this. I wish Matt would put forth some explaination of his zeal on posting this thread and too the Fed Ex story.

I thought it was farfetched myself but withheld any personal criticism of him.

That should be his decision and not from the demands of some members.

However I feel that should he do so, it would only bring forth more of the same scorn as before.

To every extent, everyone has taken their own position on this thread and I doubt if anyone has changed that position. It may well be time to let this thread die and everyone take away lessons learned. If Matt does, good and fine.

If he doesn't, get over it.


----------



## Chatter163 (Jul 9, 2006)

I agree. It is not an apology that is necesary, so much as an explanation and a general "owning up to" the posts made.


----------



## AmtrakLoverAndHater (Jul 11, 2006)

More than a week later and still no "news" eh~


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2006)

AmtrakLoverAndHater said:


> More than a week later and still no "news" eh~


Come on Guy...As another guest said,Get Over it...Please


----------



## AmtrakLoverAndHater (Jul 12, 2006)

Guest said:


> AmtrakLoverAndHater said:
> 
> 
> > More than a week later and still no "news" eh~
> ...


Nah, this guy made too many proclamations and declared them as fact, going one step beyond most of the doomsayers who come around here every couple months insisting that Amtrak is done for.

What was in the FedEx packages? Who were these anonymous people "in the know" who knew about these 180 day notices?

OP has been on the boards several times since his "prediction" came and passed, and honestly I think he owes it to the community to explain himself after starting a thread like this. Frankly, I'm disappointed that Alan has not appeared to press BNSF to offer an explanation after all of this, and in fact deleted a thread where BNSF was pressed to explain himself. Having threads conclude in a matter such as this damages the credibility of this board, especially when a poster with a long track record and high post count comes on here unequivocably swearing up and done that Amtrak is doomed.

If the only reliable news we are going to get here are reposts of stories easily accessed by searching for "Amtrak" on Google, then what's the point?


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2006)

AmtrakLoverAndHater said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > AmtrakLoverAndHater said:
> ...


The purpose of this forum is the posting of items affecting Amtrak and exchangeing information and debateing it's merits along with supplying information about rail travel too the uninformed. Yes, the information he supplied has not come to pass and was so far without merit but so have other predictions by other members on other subjects and a howling for an apology was not demanded by a few other members.

I can't speak for Allen but I feel that he and Anthony allowed this thread to continue because it was barely within the bounds of a debate. As for the deleted reply it went beyond a mere pressing into a personal attack which is and should be against the forums rules. I have tried very hard to keep this reply within those bounds and in no way wish it to be taken as a personal attack.

However go ahead and have it your way and keep the crusade for an apology and the defender of this forums integrity going.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 12, 2006)

AmtrakLoverAndHater said:


> Frankly, I'm disappointed that Alan has not appeared to press BNSF to offer an explanation after all of this, and in fact deleted a thread where BNSF was pressed to explain himself. Having threads conclude in a matter such as this damages the credibility of this board, especially when a poster with a long track record and high post count comes on here unequivocably swearing up and done that Amtrak is doomed.


With respect, my job as moderator is not to decide who is telling the truth and who might be lying. My job as moderator is to remove posts that have nothing to do with Amtrak, posts that attack another member of the board, ensure that topics are posted in the correct place, and if necessary initiate and/or stimulate conversation on the board.

Additionally because I happen to be rather well versed in most things concerned with riding Amtrak, I often respond to many first timer questions and even questions from regulars when I feel qualified to offer an idea or opinion.

But under no circumstances is my job to force anyone to prove something or to explain their actions. Even if I were to decide that someone was lying or was mislead into posting untruths, I can't force them to post if they doesn't want to. Heck, I can't even ban them from posting if I decided that they were lying. The best I could do would be to delete any future posts from them.

As to the thread that did push BNSF to answer, it was removed because it was a personal attack on him. If someone wants to politely post a serious question to BNSF that is acceptable. I haven't closed this thread where several people have pushed BNSF to explain himself and his report. But if the post resorts to name calling, it will go in the trash can just like the last one did. We will not have dog fights, cat fights, and general bad manors around here, since there are far too many under 18 railfans who should not be subjected to that. And I suspect that even some of our older members have no desire for trash talk either. I know a few who have personally told me that they enjoy coming here, as opposed to other boards that allow topics to deteriorate into nothing but name calling.

Finally, to my knowledge, Anthony created this board simply to be able to discuss all things Amtrak, as well as to provide a place for first timer's to come and ask questions from those with a knowledge of riding Amtrak. To my knowledge, it was never created as the end-all place to get Amtrak information, much less 100% correct Amtrak information. It is not an official Amtrak site, Amtrak has no connection with this site, so therefore anything posted on here (like most other internet BB's) should always be taken with a grain of salt.

We do try very hard to provide accurate information, and most times I think that we do succeed, but I'm sure that there have been times where someone accidentally got the wrong information from here.


----------



## headinthesand (Jul 12, 2006)

Alan, with logic trains (pun intended) like that, you ought to be a politician.


----------



## Boxcar (Jul 12, 2006)

> With respect, my job as moderator is not to decide who is telling the truth and who might be lying. My job as moderator is to remove posts that have nothing to do with Amtrak, posts that attack another member of the board, ensure that topics are posted in the correct place, and if necessary initiate and/or stimulate conversation on the board.


And



> But under no circumstances is my job to force anyone to prove something or to explain their actions. Even if I were to decide that someone was lying or was mislead into posting untruths, I can't force them to post if they doesn't want to. Heck, I can't even ban them from posting if I decided that they were lying. The best I could do would be to delete any future posts from them.[\QUOTE]
> And
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## sechs (Jul 17, 2006)

Has anyone sniffed out a grain of truth in this, or was it just more balderdash from BNSF_1088?


----------



## The Metropolitan (Jul 17, 2006)

sechs said:


> Has anyone sniffed out a grain of truth in this, or was it just more balderdash from BNSF_1088?


Most Recent Report I can find on Amtrak from today's Philly Enquirer. Only mentions a possible truncation of the Sunset, but nothing else...

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/15054078.htm/


----------



## AlanB (Jul 17, 2006)

The Metropolitan said:


> sechs said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone sniffed out a grain of truth in this, or was it just more balderdash from BNSF_1088?
> ...


While it neither supports BNSF's original statement and it is not yet law, you missed the part about a bill coming up for a vote that would let the White House kill long distance, depending on just what performance indicators are in this bill. And let's not forget that the White House has been very good at twisting Amtrak's numbers. Anyone remember Mr. Mineta's "no one rides the trains" statement?

Here's the quote:



> The bill gives the Bush administration authority to renegotiate the terms of Amtrak's $3.5 billion-plus debt and, if it gets favorable terms, assume responsibility to pay it off. It would also permit the executive branch to drop long-distance routes that lose money and fail to meet other performance measures.


IMHO, there is no way that this power should be given to the executive branch.


----------



## Amtrak OBS Gone Freight (Jul 17, 2006)

sechs said:


> Has anyone sniffed out a grain of truth in this, or was it just more balderdash from BNSF_1088?


I constantly have my eyes and ears open, however, it has been very quiet lately around the OBS sector of Amtrak! Nothing from any contacts lately other than a few things regarding the outsourcing issues. For now though, as earlier mentioned no news is GOOD NEWS!! OBS...


----------



## Amtrak OBS Gone Freight (Jul 17, 2006)

AlanB said:


> The Metropolitan said:
> 
> 
> > sechs said:
> ...


Hmmm thanks Alan. OBS...


----------



## AlanB (Jul 17, 2006)

The Metropolitan said:


> sechs said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone sniffed out a grain of truth in this, or was it just more balderdash from BNSF_1088?
> ...


And while it might not be the doomsday prediction of BNSF, this article does provide a statement that support's BNSF's statement that Amtrak is indeed working on a plan that will at the very least result in some cuts on the LD's.

I quote:



> In addition, Laney says Amtrak will likely release a proposal for reconfiguring long-distance national routes this fall that could reduce or eliminate routes that don't make economic sense.


That statement is too vague to decide just how bad it might be, but it does nonetheless indicate that changes are coming. The question is, will it be changes that this country can live with or will it be the kind of changes that the White House seems to want? :unsure:


----------



## sechs (Jul 18, 2006)

I think that we're all familiar with the story of the boy who cried wolf too many times.

We all know the wolves are out there. Although a reminder can be helpful, you can get too much of a good thing.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2006)

sechs said:


> I think that we're all familiar with the story of the boy who cried wolf too many times.
> We all know the wolves are out there.  Although a reminder can be helpful, you can get too much of a good thing.


When One eats crow, it's easier with the feathers removed.....


----------



## Anthony (Jul 18, 2006)

Guest said:


> When One eats crow, it's easier with the feathers removed.....


Let's try to move away from these sorts of posts in this thread. There has been ample expression of doubt to counter the strong announcement of service change. I am keeping this thread open on the off chance that follow-up, constructive conversation can be had, such as Alan's post about the bill. Posts that don't contribute anything except further confirmation of doubt don't do a whole lot for the substance of the topic, IMHO.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2006)

Anthony said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > When One eats crow, it's easier with the feathers removed.....
> ...


Anthony....I agree but that post was in reponse to the contuned replys of some on the original subject with the Boy crying wolf example. There seems to be another new dig every few days.

What I suggested was When or if some of these things BNSF posted comes true, there will be some crow to be eaten for sure.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2006)

It is also interesting to know that Amtrak issued a notice of confidentiality on June 28th. It threaten termination to anyone who released Amtrak information to any unauthorized person.


----------



## PRR 60 (Jul 18, 2006)

Guest said:


> It is also interesting to know that Amtrak issued a notice of confidentiality on June 28th. It threaten termination to anyone who released Amtrak information to any unauthorized person.


Here we go again! Rumor mongering is alive and well at Amtrak Unlimited.


----------



## TransAtlantic (Jul 19, 2006)

Guest said:


> It is also interesting to know that Amtrak issued a notice of confidentiality on June 28th. It threaten termination to anyone who released Amtrak information to any unauthorized person.


that's odd...I didn't get one, nor did anyone else I know who works for Amtrak...


----------



## sechs (Jul 19, 2006)

Anthony said:


> I am keeping this thread open on the off chance that follow-up, constructive conversation can be had, such as Alan's post about the bill. Posts that don't contribute anything except further confirmation of doubt don't do a whole lot for the substance of the topic, IMHO.


Working on the premise that ostensibly off-topic posts wil redeem this thread is fairly ridiculous. If you're not going to let members express their opinions on the topic of the thread (even if it is "rinse and repeat"), then you might as well send this off to the locker.


----------



## AmtrakLoverAndHater (Jul 19, 2006)

Amtrak OBS Employee said:


> No I missed this one. Thanks for the link. I will say for sure it appears all is in line regarding my observations over the last couple of years, Sam! I will forward some better details of my comments to you in a PM. I don't feel it is time to discuss that in full just yet. OBS...


I just read this comment here posted well after July 3... clearly there is no issue of an NDA here as a PM was sent with the details... I cannot for the life of me understand why someone publicly announce that they have information unfit for public consumption... _especially__ in the context of this thread._

_ _

_BNSF_1088, why do you keep revisiting this thread and completely ignore the 9 previous pages of hoo-ha over the rumor? Explain yourself. It's obvious a fair amount of folks feel that its way past due._


----------



## Anthony (Jul 19, 2006)

TransAtlantic said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > It is also interesting to know that Amtrak issued a notice of confidentiality on June 28th. It threaten termination to anyone who released Amtrak information to any unauthorized person.
> ...


Actually, it's true. PRR, it wasn't rumor mongering. Amtrak's Security Information Center did indeed release an internal notice to employees regarding confidentiality of information on June 26th (okay, not the 28th, but perhaps it was a typo) -- notice #06-04.

The notice said that "discipline, or in certain cases, dismissal" is warranted for "unauthorized dissemination of confidential information."


----------



## Amtrak OBS Gone Freight (Jul 19, 2006)

AmtrakLoverAndHater said:


> I just read this comment here posted well after July 3... clearly there is no issue of an NDA here as a PM was sent with the details... I cannot for the life of me understand why someone publicly announce that they have information unfit for public consumption... _especially__ in the context of this thread.__ _
> 
> _BNSF_1088, why do you keep revisiting this thread and completely ignore the 9 previous pages of hoo-ha over the rumor? Explain yourself. It's obvious a fair amount of folks feel that its way past due._


_ Obviously you may not understand the big picture!!!! Do you even have a clue what the old saying "There is a time and place for everything" means?_

_ _

_When I (from my side of the fence) am able to provide you details "worthy" of public consumption, I will be more than happy to provide those very details! The same goes for BNSF_1088, though I am sure he will be more careful about the timing of some of his info._

_For what it's worth, the details you looking for are in front of your face right here on the forums! You will just have to spend a lot of time looking for them in various threads dated back at least two years (if you can see the big picture that is.... if not you won't be able to understand)! Go back and read them, go visit the links, search the government databases for bills, other legislation, etc! I spend a lot of time doing that, and I still say "things appear to be in line!" But remember "BE HERE NOW!" Don't get too caught up in the past or future. I know how Amtrak works! I work it, and all the while I quietly observe while I am there._

_ _

_And farthermore, since it seems to be your business, I PMed Sam Damon a little bit of info regarding the link to the material he wanted to know if I had read! I had some other info I wanted to provide him (hoping by use of the experience he has in his field), to see if he might be able to offer me a real concise conclusion to some of my questions!!! _

_ _

_And BTW I am done with this topic! I will no longer post here unless I get anything factual pertaining to it. That's all. OBS..._

_ _

_ _

_PS ......... Anthony, you might as well lock this one anyway. It is getting way too long, and it is just as easy for someone to "make" a new topic when it is time. Just a thought!_


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 19, 2006)

Anthony said:


> Actually, it's true. PRR, it wasn't rumor mongering. Amtrak's Security Information Center did indeed release an internal notice to employees regarding confidentiality of information on June 26th (okay, not the 28th, but perhaps it was a typo) -- notice #06-04.
> The notice said that "discipline, or in certain cases, dismissal" is warranted for "unauthorized dissemination of confidential information."


I find it humerous that someone "disseminated" the info about this internal memo.


----------



## Ben (Jul 20, 2006)

It's obvious that BNSF_1088 posted those rumors to stir us up and write letters to Congress to support Amtrak. The cause was there, but how he did it wasn't. BNSF, please apologize.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 20, 2006)

I agree that it is time to lock this thing up. It seems to be reduced to some people trying to get a rise out of BNSF 1088 that seem otherwise uninterested in what led him to say what he said. Everything said had strong credibility with those that have experience of how big organizations and government agencies operate. I could copy over several internal emails on this job that in essence say, keep your mouth shut if you like keeping your job. But, since I do want to keep working for a few more years I won't. If it involves actions both illegal and dangerous, I might try to get the word out, otherwise, forget it. Whistleblowers usually find themselves unemployable.

I do not see that he owes anybody an apology, and certainly not those that are throwing mud at him. Instead, they owe him one. He is trying to do something constructive. What about you?: Fault-finding I do not count as a constructive activity.

George


----------



## AmtrakWPK (Jul 20, 2006)

Amen. It's like they're not going to be happy unless Amtrak DOES shut down a bunch of LD trains. Go figure. GET OVER IT! MOVE ON!


----------

