Ryan
Court Jester
Yeah, I’m not going to put a lot of trust in anonymous “reports” in the midst of RPA breaking their elbow to pat themselves on the back for avoiding an apocalypse that only they foretold.
What's it like to break your elbow telling everyone there's nothing to worry about? You've made it very clear that the only people you trust are from AU's echo chamber clique. Your loyalty was never in doubt, or in play for that matter.Yeah, I’m not going to put a lot of trust in anonymous “reports” in the midst of RPA breaking their elbow to pat themselves on the back for avoiding an apocalypse that only they foretold.
It's not a handful of words. It's novel's worth of condescending snark written over the course of several years. I've yet to see anyone shouting or raging or claiming the sky is falling or that the apocalypse is near. But those are the dismissive discussion-ending terms you've used to repeatedly attack anyone who blows off too much steam or shows too much emotion or doesn't meet your bizarrely narrow expectations of acceptable criticism. It's clear that our forum hosts a clique of vocal insiders who routinely interject themselves into critical threads and tag-team/dogpile on general members who speak up too forcefully or too often or don't pay enough deference to the core of the hive mind. Your inability or unwillingness to admit this rather obvious truth exposes more bias than anything I could say on my own.I find it somewhat amusing to be told what I think by some stranger on the internet, based solely on a handful of words on the screen.
Isn't there a 17-plus page thread that started out with someone saying "Amtrak will no longer do special charters or moves anymore EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY"?I've yet to see anyone shouting or raging or claiming the sky is falling or that the apocalypse is near.
So far as I'm aware the original concern is based on an actual goal of Anderson, which then generated a lot of news and attention, which in turn spawned a lot of phone calls and in-person meetings, which may have softened the blow and left us with the middle ground we're currently navigating. I wasn't aware anyone was still disputing that Anderson wants to substantially remove/restrict the movement of private rolling stock. If that's enough to be called a hate train then is your dogpile apologist clique some sort of Anderson love train?Isn't there a 17-plus page thread that started out with someone saying "Amtrak will no longer do special charters or moves anymore EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY"?I've yet to see anyone shouting or raging or claiming the sky is falling or that the apocalypse is near.
Turned out not to be true, but it sure got everyone all worked up and set the Anderson hate-train into high gear.
What is a train off? Do you mean layoff? If the dining car eventually becomes an unstaffed lounge for sleeper class passengers then it's not that hard to imagine layoffs may actually be coming. The dining car staff can bid on other positions but if they get the job by outranking someone else then at some point someone below them will be at risk of falling off the payroll totem pole. Seems like a reasonable concern to me.There's another thread about LD trains where the OP's opening line is "train offs may be coming" even though there was nothing in the actual quoted comments from RA that said so.
It doesn't take much to find these examples.
What is that "knowledge" based on?So far as I'm aware the original concern is based on an actual goal of Anderson
No, he means train off, which is the statutorily (49 U.S. Code § 24706) required 180 day notification before Amtrak discontinues service over a route. That would be the time for the pitchfork and torches brigade.What is a train off? Do you mean layoff?
What exactly are you disputing - that Amtrak is substantially restricting private charter movements or that Richard Anderson personally supports these restrictions?What is that "knowledge" based on?So far as I'm aware the original concern is based on an actual goal of Anderson
Was there any 180 day notice before the Sunset East was discontinued? I personally think waiting for a formal notice is a bit late in the process to start speaking up. In my experience when it comes to meaningful activism you generally want to get your foot in the door and your name on the schedule as soon as there is any sign of wavering.No, he means train off, which is the statutorily (49 U.S. Code § 24706) required 180 day notification before Amtrak discontinues service over a route. That would be the time for the pitchfork and torches brigade.
I'm not sure that "based in reality" is bizarrely narrow, but maybe I'm just crazy.doesn't meet your bizarrely narrow expectations of acceptable criticism.
Neither. I'm disputing the claim that we know what Anderson's goal is, and that the end of all charters and PVs was a reasonable concern given that goal.What exactly are you disputing - that Amtrak is substantially restricting private charter movements or that Richard Anderson personally supports these restrictions?
You only seem to accept criticism that can link to irrefutable first person evidence. Unfortunately that's not how the real world works. Opaque executives don't generally give much forewarning about future service restrictions/reductions or cost increases or loss of protections. In many cases you have to read between the lines to see what's coming in time to react to it. Not that long ago there was genuine concern that the current SWC route was in danger and instead of waiting to see what happened people reached out to the various stakeholders and managed to protect the status quo. If they had waited for a formal notice of abandonment there may not have been enough time to save the entire route.I'm not sure that "based in reality" is bizarrely narrow, but maybe I'm just crazy. Ironically, you're serving as a shining example of what I do have a problem with - criticizing people for positions that they haven't taken.doesn't meet your bizarrely narrow expectations of acceptable criticism.
The earliest posts generally come from the earliest bits of information. Back then it wasn't entirely clear what Amtrak intended and it was possible to interpret what had been said to mean that all third party movements might now be disqualified. From what I've read the vast majority of third party charters are indeed affected. Even those third party charters that will continue to run in the future are apparently allowed to do so only in the form of a per-instance waiver that further limits and complicates a convoluted process that was already extremely tedious and time consuming. From a practical standpoint this is a huge change. But I guess so long as even one single charter is allowed to run somewhere on the network you've made your point about challenging anyone who dares to overstep or oversimplify. Regarding the Sunset East the route still existing is the fiction while route's abandonment is the reality. Trying to bring back a route that exists in name only is far harder than protecting a route that still hosts actual trains today. Better to be ahead of the curve than chasing after it.Neither. I'm disputing the claim that we know what Anderson's goal is, and that the end of all charters and PVs was a reasonable concern given that goal. I do agree that the current "suspension" of the Sunset East nearly 13 years later is an embarrassing fiction that needs to be rectified. I'm not sure that a one-off example from 13 years ago really supports you point, though.What exactly are you disputing - that Amtrak is substantially restricting private charter movements or that Richard Anderson personally supports these restrictions?
Devil's Advocate,You only seem to accept criticism that can link to irrefutable first person evidence. Unfortunately that's not how the real world works. Opaque executives don't generally give much forewarning about future service restrictions/reductions or cost increases or loss of protections. In many cases you have to read between the lines to see what's coming in time to react to it. Not that long ago there was genuine concern that the current SWC route was in danger and instead of waiting to see what happened people reached out to the various stakeholders and managed to protect the status quo. If they had waited for a formal notice of abandonment there may not have been enough time to save the entire route.I'm not sure that "based in reality" is bizarrely narrow, but maybe I'm just crazy. Ironically, you're serving as a shining example of what I do have a problem with - criticizing people for positions that they haven't taken.doesn't meet your bizarrely narrow expectations of acceptable criticism.
The earliest posts generally come from the earliest bits of information. Back then it wasn't entirely clear what Amtrak intended and it was possible to interpret what had been said to mean that all third party movements might now be disqualified. From what I've read the vast majority of third party charters are indeed affected. Even those third party charters that will continue to run in the future are apparently allowed to do so only in the form of a per-instance waiver that further limits and complicates a convoluted process that was already extremely tedious and time consuming. From a practical standpoint this is a huge change. But I guess so long as even one single charter is allowed to run somewhere on the network you've made your point about challenging anyone who dares to overstep or oversimplify. Regarding the Sunset East the route still existing is the fiction while route's abandonment is the reality. Trying to bring back a route that exists in name only is far harder than protecting a route that still hosts actual trains today. Better to be ahead of the curve than chasing after it.Neither. I'm disputing the claim that we know what Anderson's goal is, and that the end of all charters and PVs was a reasonable concern given that goal. I do agree that the current "suspension" of the Sunset East nearly 13 years later is an embarrassing fiction that needs to be rectified. I'm not sure that a one-off example from 13 years ago really supports you point, though.What exactly are you disputing - that Amtrak is substantially restricting private charter movements or that Richard Anderson personally supports these restrictions?
Why do I not find that consoling?It is worth noting a lot of the pre Anderson management team is still in place, Anderson is not making/continuing these decisions in a vacuum.
I'm not sure if you realize it or not but what you're describing here seems to have been a large part of the problem. Lack of timely communication and explanation lead to heightened concerns and confusion. When I was looking for verifiable specifics on my own it became clear that 99% of the available information was secondhand reporting by third parties. When people who need critical information are confronted with an information vacuum you can't blame them for succumbing to personal assumptions and group think. Regardless of how you feel about PV operators Amtrak is the entity making these changes and it's reasonable to hold the current CEO responsible for recognizing conflicts and managing concerns in a professional and productive manner.The reality of the situation is most people didn't have a LICK of understanding of the plans for private cars or charters/special movements.. However, that didn't stop the posts or whining. What I find entertaining is the plan that was initially authorized and explained to the employees is pretty much EXACTLY what occurred. The problem is you're mostly hearing about the issue from disgruntled people who feel they are getting the short end of the stick instead hearing about it from a detailed, business point of view.
This seems to be a huge concern among a handful of very vocal members here on AU. Which begs the question, which previous Amtrak route/frequency/service/amenity has suffered from too much consumer activism voiced too early and/or too aggressively? I cannot name even one single example and that makes it hard to explain all this nervous hand wringing. We already live in a culture that is loath to support or reward consumer activism and instead of nurturing what little we do have we gleefully hammer anyone who makes a mistake or misstatement. With supporters like this who needs enemies?We should remain cautious while remembering the story about the boy who cried wolf.
I'm curious as to how you arrive at the conclusion that there was a lack of timely communication. Someone basically posted an internal briefing regarding a policy change that wasn't officially approved or released. When it WAS indeed ready, it was released with an explanation....to those affected.I'm not sure if you realize it or not but what you're describing here seems to have been a large part of the problem. Lack of timely communication and explanation lead to heightened concerns and confusion. When I was looking for verifiable specifics on my own it became clear that 99% of the available information was secondhand reporting by third parties. When people who need critical information are confronted with an information vacuum you can't blame them for succumbing to personal assumptions and group think. Regardless of how you feel about PV operators Amtrak is the entity making these changes and it's reasonable to hold the current CEO responsible for recognizing conflicts and managing concerns in a professional and productive manner.
Let's see. I remember years when Amtrak, states and the NARP used to routinely appear in front of Congress and explain why Amtrak needs more money. Amtrak would receive its minuscule appropriation and limp through most of the year until it had to return and beg for more funds....or cut service. Eventually, Congress would get sick of seeing people from Amtrak in front of them. It was clearly an annoyance. As such, they started making more demands and basically refused to fund services and expansions. Routes were cut and service were cut even as the leaders and lobbyists appeared before Congress asking for funds or equipment. The lobbying, hand wringing and threats accomplished little.This seems to be a huge concern among a handful of very vocal members here on AU. Which begs the question, which previous Amtrak route/frequency/service/amenity has suffered from too much consumer activism voiced too early and/or too aggressively? I cannot name even one single example and that makes it hard to explain all this nervous hand wringing. We already live in a culture that is loath to support or reward consumer activism and instead of nurturing what little we do have we gleefully hammer anyone who makes a mistake or misstatement. With supporters like this who needs enemies?We should remain cautious while remembering the story about the boy who cried wolf.
No, I don't charter trains with my own private cars. If Amtrak felt their ability to clear the record with charter operations, rail sector news media, and sympathetic politicians was being overwhelmed by a internal memo thread on a hobbyist forum then perhaps they need a new public relations team. A single candid phone call to a trusted industry journalist could have cleared everything up with minimal effort. In the future it would behoove Amtrak to be more careful with sending premature and easily leaked memos about undecided changes without having established a fallback plan in case the circle jerk happens to spin in the wrong direction.Have you or the others attempted to charter a train? Do you own a private car?
I didn't ask about industry leaders or lobbyists or executives. I asked about consumer activism. In other words grassroots initiatives. The thing about grassroots activism is that it is not born of a desire to engage in soul numbing bureaucracy but from an emotional need to fight against a fundamental imbalance of power. This type of activism is like a tiny sprout in a vast desert. If it's not nurtured and protected it quickly dies and drifts away never to be seen again. Guiding and educating those who are willing to act can be extremely helpful but endlessly faulting and criticizing every misstep and misstatement only serves to crush the sprout and salt the earth from where it came. That is the point I am trying to make.I remember years when Amtrak, states and the NARP used to routinely appear in front of Congress and explain why Amtrak needs more money. Amtrak would receive its minuscule appropriation and limp through most of the year until it had to return and beg for more funds....or cut service. Eventually, Congress would get sick of seeing people from Amtrak in front of them. It was clearly an annoyance. As such, they started making more demands and basically refused to fund services and expansions. Routes were cut and service were cut even as the leaders and lobbyists appeared before Congress asking for funds or equipment. The lobbying, hand wringing and threats accomplished little.This seems to be a huge concern among a handful of very vocal members here on AU. Which begs the question, which previous Amtrak route/frequency/service/amenity has suffered from too much consumer activism voiced too early and/or too aggressively?We should remain cautious while remembering the story about the boy who cried wolf.
Enter your email address to join: