Amtrak FY22 Grant Request

Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
jiml said:
Back to the original point though, when Amtrak moves on from Superliners I'd expect interest in North America long before they're shipped to another continent, as was suggested.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah. I don't think they will go to any other continent. I agree that they are more likely to go to Canada or Mexico even, if they ever leave the US that is.

Who knows? Maybe Iran will buy a few 😬
 
Last edited:
That would burn. The Iranian's got more use out of our F-14's than we did! For them to do the same with the SuperLiners would be adding insult to injury.
LOL!

jis said:
Oh yeah. I don't think they will go to any other continent. I agree that they are more likely to go to Canada or Mexico even, if they ever leave the US that is.

Who knows? Maybe Iran will buy a few 😬
Click to expand...
 
Ferroequinologist said:
As I said, he WAS. The Wall Street Journal has dubbed him "Joe Sanders".
Click to expand...

Stop reading WSJ Editorial Page. They have a record of constant lies dating back over 50 years. No, really. There have been articles about it by Columbia Journalism Review every decade or so. Until the 2000s, you could play a game: read the letters column. It would contain the factual corrections to the lies -- fabricated statistics, falsified quotes -- which the Editorial Page had made the previous week. The people who had had quotes falsified (including world leaders) or had had statistics faked (including government agencies) wrote the letters.

When Murdoch bought the WSJ, they stopped publishing the correction letters. WSJ Editorial is still non-stop lies though. Don't read it.

I speak as a professional investor. WSJ used to have very good news pages, despite the lying Editorial staff (who were kept in a different building on the other side of the river). Murdoch ruined the news pages by unleashing the lying Editorial staff on them. Now I read Financial Times and Bloomberg.
 
neroden said:
Stop reading WSJ Editorial Page. They have a record of constant lies dating back over 50 years. No, really. There have been articles about it by Columbia Journalism Review every decade or so. Until the 2000s, you could play a game: read the letters column. It would contain the factual corrections to the lies -- fabricated statistics, falsified quotes -- which the Editorial Page had made the previous week. The people who had had quotes falsified (including world leaders) or had had statistics faked (including government agencies) wrote the letters.

When Murdoch bought the WSJ, they stopped publishing the correction letters. WSJ Editorial is still non-stop lies though. Don't read it.

I speak as a professional investor. WSJ used to have very good news pages, despite the lying Editorial staff (who were kept in a different building on the other side of the river). Murdoch ruined the news pages by unleashing the lying Editorial staff on them. Now I read Financial Times and Bloomberg.
[/QU

I could not agree less. I find the WSJ the most reliable and independent paper in the nation. I don't always agree with them but I trust the paper's integrity. Some people like to read the extensive reader comments to get a pulse on public opinion. Incidentally, the WSJ editorialized for Trump's resignation after January 6. Few people seem to know that.
Click to expand...
 
Ferroequinologist said:
I could not agree less. I find the WSJ the most reliable and independent paper in the nation. I don't always agree with them but I trust the paper's integrity. Some people like to read the extensive reader comments to get a pulse on public opinion. Incidentally, the WSJ editorialized for Trump's resignation after January 6. Few people seem to know that.
Click to expand...
That certainly explain what seems to me to be many of your beliefs. The fact that you trust that paper's integrity says a lot. ;)

All IMHO of course and I don't claim to have the ultimate inside track to anything, except for how seriously I personally take comments from each individual 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
neroden said:
Stop reading WSJ Editorial Page. They have a record of constant lies dating back over 50 years. No, really. There have been articles about it by Columbia Journalism Review every decade or so. Until the 2000s, you could play a game: read the letters column. It would contain the factual corrections to the lies -- fabricated statistics, falsified quotes -- which the Editorial Page had made the previous week. The people who had had quotes falsified (including world leaders) or had had statistics faked (including government agencies) wrote the letters.

When Murdoch bought the WSJ, they stopped publishing the correction letters. WSJ Editorial is still non-stop lies though. Don't read it.

I speak as a professional investor. WSJ used to have very good news pages, despite the lying Editorial staff (who were kept in a different building on the other side of the river). Murdoch ruined the news pages by unleashing the lying Editorial staff on them. Now I read Financial Times and Bloomberg.
Click to expand...
The WSJ, since Murdock took over, has as much credibility as Fox News Lineup of Lying Liars,Racists, Homophobes and Trump Cultists!
 
Bob Dylan said:
The WSJ, since Murdock took over, has as much credibility as Fox News Lineup of Lying Liars,Racists, Homophobes and Trump Cultists!
Click to expand...

How do you figure that when they criticized many of Trump's policies throughout his Administration, ultimately editorializing for his resignation? Base comments on actual facts, not heresy and prejudice.
 
jis said:
That certainly explain what seems to me to be many of your beliefs. The fact that you trust that paper's integrity says a lot. ;)

All IMHO of course and I don't claim to have the ultimate inside track to anything, except for how seriously I personally take comments from each individual 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...

So if someone likes the NYT and the Washington Post you automatically support that person's views on Amtrak issues?
 
Ferroequinologist said:
So if someone likes the NYT and the Washington Post you automatically support that person's views on Amtrak issues?
Click to expand...
No

I do not also automatically oppose the views of someone that reads the WSJ regarding Amtrak or anything else for that matter. Afterall I would not want to automatically perpetually disagree with myself since I do read the WSJ. 😬

I don't recall ever saying that I disagreed with all your views either. If you bother to go back and read through my reactions to all of your posts that I reacted to, you will find that you are mistaken if you believe I disagree with you on everything. All that I said is that the affinity to WSJ helps understand where you are coming from.
 
Last edited:
Ferroequinologist said:
How do you figure that when they criticized many of Trump's policies throughout his Administration, ultimately editorializing for his resignation? Base comments on actual facts, not heresy and prejudice.
Click to expand...
You seem to have an incorrect idea of some ironclad correlation between "thinks Trump should have been impeached" and "therefore must always be factually accurate".

Here in the real world, there is no such correlation, and the formed does absolutely nothing to prove the latter. On the other hand, there's a fairly significant body of evidence that argues that the latter is completely off-base, and anyone choosing to believe it has suspect judgement and reasoning skills.
 
Ryan said:
You seem to have an incorrect idea of some ironclad correlation between "thinks Trump should have been impeached" and "therefore must always be factually accurate".

Here in the real world, there is no such correlation, and the formed does absolutely nothing to prove the latter. On the other hand, there's a fairly significant body of evidence that argues that the latter is completely off-base, and anyone choosing to believe it has suspect judgement and reasoning skills.
Click to expand...

Actually the WSJ called for Trump to resign. The impeachment process had come and gone. I never stated that everything in the WSJ is 100% accurate. All newspapers make mistakes, including the NYT. I recall a number of years ago a scandal when it was discovered that a NYT reporter had a habit of completely inventing stories. My point was that the WSJ is independent and I believe generally reliable - not perfect. You state that those who read the WSJ have 'suspect judgment and reasoning skills" thus I assume you opposed the Journal's call for Trump to resign, favor tarriffs and believe that immigration should be severely restricted. On all of these the Wall Street Journal opposed Trump as they criticized his tweets and frequent outbursts. Incidentally I also read the NYT however I do not identify with many of that newspapers positions, just as I disagree with some of the editorial positions of the WSJ (particularly regarding Amtrak). It is a pity that so many of the people in this nation are judgmental to the point of name calling rather than being willing to discuss ideas.
 
jis said:
No

I do not also automatically oppose the views of someone that reads the WSJ regarding Amtrak or anything else for that matter. Afterall I would not want to automatically perpetually disagree with myself since I do read the WSJ. 😬

I don't recall ever saying that I disagreed with all your views either. If you bother to go back and read through my reactions to all of your posts that I reacted to, you will find that you are mistaken if you believe I disagree with you on everything. All that I said is that the affinity to WSJ helps understand where you are coming from.
Click to expand...

That sounds awfully judgmental however as you too read the WSJ I should be able to say the same, i.e. that I understand where you are coming from. Unfortunately it seems contradictory to me.
 
I'm just going to quote Wikipedia. It includes citations. CJR is a neutral organization which cares only about quality in reporting.

----
Two summaries published in 1995 by the progressive blog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, and in 1996 by the Columbia Journalism Review[70] criticized the Journal's editorial page for inaccuracy during the 1980s and 1990s.

In July 2020, more than 280 Journal journalists and Dow Jones staff members wrote a letter to new publisher Almar Latour to criticize the opinion pages' "lack of fact-checking and transparency, and its apparent disregard for evidence", adding that "opinion articles often make assertions that are contradicted by WSJ reporting."[71][72] The editorial board responded that its opinion pages "won't wilt under cancel-culture pressure" and that the objective of the editorial content is to be independent of the Journal's news content and offer alternative views to "the uniform progressive views that dominate nearly all of today's media."[73] The board's response did not address issues regarding fact-checking that had been raised in the letter.[74]
----

Bottom line: WSJ Editorial has no integrity whatsoever, and certainly has not had any since 1980. The reporters are better, *and have actually complained about the lies in the Editorial Page* -- but you should never, ever believe anything written by WSJ Editorial. Never. Facts matter.
 
More from Wikipedia's article on the WSJ, again with citations:
----
The Journal's editorial board has promoted fringe views on scientific matters, including climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health harms of second-hand smoke, pesticides and asbestos. Scholars have drawn similarities between The Journal's fringe coverage of climate change and how it used to reject the settled science on acid rain and ozone depletion.[13]
----

Again, the people at WSJ Editorial are just liars. You have to face facts. This is not a matter of opinion.

Their interference with the news pages in recent years is also documented. It's in the Wikipedia article too, under "Bias in news pages". The journalists at WSJ have been the main whistleblowers regarding this interference. (This did not happen before the Murdoch takeover; before then, the news pages are WSJ actually were reliable. But the editorial page was already lying, even making claims contradicted by its own news pages.)

----
In June 2020, following the murder of George Floyd and subsequent protests, journalists at The Journal sent a letter to editor in chief Matt Murray demanding changes to the way the paper covers race, policing and finance. The reporters stated that they "frequently meet resistance when trying to reflect the accounts and voices of workers, residents or customers, with some editors voicing heightened skepticism of those sources’ credibility compared with executives, government officials or other entities".[115]
----

Every newspaper has its problems. But WSJ Editorial has a record of lies which extends for decades. Here's the direct link to archive.org with the CJR story from 1996:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080129014101/http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/96/4/wsj.asp
I advise reading the entire CJR story. You'll understand why I say that WSJ Editorial are liars.

Here's the link to the archive.org copy of the FAIR story from 1995, as well:
https://web.archive.org/web/20081107135516/http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1325
 
Last edited:
Ferroequinologist said:
I assume you opposed the Journal's call for Trump to resign, favor tarriffs and believe that immigration should be severely restricted.
Click to expand...
That would be a prime example of your flawed black and white "logic". This isn't a game where you either agree or disagree 100% with anybody.

There are better news sources out there. I recommend you use them, rather than continue to carry the water for a bunch of lying liars that lie a lot (even if they did occasionally say something mean about Cheeto Jesus).
 
Ryan said:
That would be a prime example of your flawed black and white "logic". This isn't a game where you either agree or disagree 100% with anybody.

There are better news sources out there. I recommend you use them, rather than continue to carry the water for a bunch of lying liars that lie a lot (even if they did occasionally say something mean about Cheeto Jesus).
Click to expand...
That is indeed a problem with using WSJ as the sole source for justifying a position. If one must mention WSJ one should be able to provide additional references supporting ones position, in order to be taken seriously. But at this point I am trying to dig this thread out of the morass of discussing WSJ related hurt feelings and egos and other psychological trauma. Maybe we could start a WSJ Therapy thread under the AU Lounge.
 
Anyone notice that the grant request no longer includes Right of Way acquisition between Porter and Chicago? At least not that I saw on the projects oage
 
neroden said:
AAARGH! That remains the most-needed project west of the Appalachian Mountains....
Click to expand...

I agree, but there were significant issues with trying to buy up ROW between Porter and Chicago. Not only would several lift bridges need to be placed back into service (or replaced altogether), there are some areas where the current NS right of way can’t expand any further on either side without significant redesign and construction efforts (the double track around Ogden Dunes specifically).

Is it truly possible? Sure. Is it cost-effective? That remains to be seen. I wonder if it would be better to just approach NS and offer to buy up the main line between 482 and Lumber Street, give NS trackage rights, and do it like that.
 
NSC1109 said:
Is it truly possible? Sure. Is it cost-effective? That remains to be seen. I wonder if it would be better to just approach NS and offer to buy up the main line between 482 and Lumber Street, give NS trackage rights, and do it like that.
Click to expand...
Better yet, with NS and CSX being such obstinate "partners", the government should seize it under eminent domain so it can be taken immediately - then let the courts decide the price if NS doesn't want to quickly sit down and negotiate a reasonable one.
 
me_little_me said:
Better yet, with NS and CSX being such obstinate "partners", the government should seize it under eminent domain so it can be taken immediately - then let the courts decide the price if NS doesn't want to quickly sit down and negotiate a reasonable one.
Click to expand...

NS should’ve been handed a nice punishment a long time ago for the way they’ve treated Amtrak services, especially in Michigan. Wholly criminal in their behavior. It continues on the Chicago Line. From what I heard (second hand info, do with it what it what you will), NS built up capacity improvements but their dispatchers are apparently so incompetent that they still manage to cause bottlenecks. Maybe it’s just the sheer amount of traffic, I don’t know.

CN is the other trouble child here. Their mixed freight trains are so long that they don’t really fit anywhere. There have been times when they’ve broken up trains in two or three places because they were so long and then had to shove back to three different sidings when they were ready to go. It was ridiculous.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top