Odd unfavorable article about Amtrak

[John Bredin]

Article by Baltimore Sun via Yahoo. "10 Civil War-era piers in Susquehanna River demolished by Amtrak, despite opposition over historical value."

The article asserts that the 1866 bridge (mind that date!) has "historical proximity to the Underground Railroad" so 10 bridge piers should be kept intact in the river, and removing them would be "wasteful spending."

Doesn't sound good for Amtrak, right? But then the article mentions that the opposition is led by Scott Spencer of AmeriStarRail, a "rail startup with ambitious plans to privatize Amtrak’s busy Northeast Corridor,"

The article acknowledges "the rail bridge opening after Maryland abolished slavery and the end of the Civil War," and a historic review found little to preserve as the actual bridge was removed decades ago. Oh, by the way, "Public input during Amtrak’s review process favored clearing the piers from the landscape."

The article goes on to reveal Spencer's goal: he wanted to build a new bridge for AmeriStarRail instead of Amtrak's new bridge. And the article parrots Spencer's cheap shot at Amtrak: "He said money spent on demolition could have gone to critical infrastructure like securing tracks to avoid train fatalities like two seen last week."

I can't say the article as a whole is false, as the relevant facts are included. But it seems like a misleading hatchet job by the Sun for Spencer, with a tone at points unduly favorable to his position in light of (1) the clear post-Civil-War and post-Underground Railroad origin of the bridge, and (2) Spencer's position as a would-be competitor for Amtrak. It sounds like someone decided to print a Spencer press release as news, or to make the Sun Spencer's cats-paw, but someone else with journalistic integrity decided to include counter-balancing facts without changing the tone of the press-release/gullible parts. Why even print such an article when the facts included as a caveat to the apparent thesis eat the thesis? It doesn't make me think well of Spencer/AmeriStarRail, and now it doesn't make me think too well of the Baltimore Sun either.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Article by Baltimore Sun via Yahoo. "10 Civil War-era piers in Susquehanna River demolished by Amtrak, despite opposition over historical value."

The article asserts that the 1866 bridge (mind that date!) has "historical proximity to the Underground Railroad" so 10 bridge piers should be kept intact in the river, and removing them would be "wasteful spending."

Doesn't sound good for Amtrak, right? But then the article mentions that the opposition is led by Scott Spencer of AmeriStarRail, a "rail startup with ambitious plans to privatize Amtrak’s busy Northeast Corridor,"

The article acknowledges "the rail bridge opening after Maryland abolished slavery and the end of the Civil War," and a historic review found little to preserve as the actual bridge was removed decades ago. Oh, by the way, "Public input during Amtrak’s review process favored clearing the piers from the landscape."

The article goes on to reveal Spencer's goal: he wanted to build a new bridge for AmeriStarRail instead of Amtrak's new bridge. And the article parrots Spencer's cheap shot at Amtrak: "He said money spent on demolition could have gone to critical infrastructure like securing tracks to avoid train fatalities like two seen last week."

I can't say the article as a whole is false, as the relevant facts are included. But it seems like a misleading hatchet job by the Sun for Spencer, with a tone at points unduly favorable to his position in light of (1) the clear post-Civil-War and post-Underground Railroad origin of the bridge, and (2) Spencer's position as a would-be competitor for Amtrak. It sounds like someone decided to print a Spencer press release as news, or to make the Sun Spencer's cats-paw, but someone else with journalistic integrity decided to include counter-balancing facts without changing the tone of the press-release/gullible parts. Why even print such an article when the facts included as a caveat to the apparent thesis eat the thesis? It doesn't make me think well of Spencer/AmeriStarRail, and now it doesn't make me think too well of the Baltimore Sun either.

The Sun used to be a respected Newspaper, but as Corporate ownership became so prevelant in Media, like most other papers, became a " for sale" vehicle as ad revenue declined drastically!

Just like the internet, what you read in the paper may not be true, or as the late Paul Harvey used to say, contain " ..the rest of the story!"

 

[caravanman]

Sadly, a continual drip of biased "disinformation" in small doses can alter opinions without folk being aware of it...

 

[B&Ofan]

The article asserts that the 1866 bridge (mind that date!) has "historical proximity to the Underground Railroad" so 10 bridge piers should be kept intact in the river, and removing them would be "wasteful spending."

I hate to say it but this almost sounds like a joke, someone thinking the underground railroad as an actual railroad.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

I hate to say it but this almost sounds like a joke, someone thinking the underground railroad as an actual railroad.

They may not be thinking of an actual railroad but the crossings that were there before the railroad bridge was built.

https://cecilcountyhistory.com/perr...onal-underground-railroad-network-to-freedom/

 

[MARC Rider]

Doesn't sound good for Amtrak, right? But then the article mentions that the opposition is led by Scott Spencer of AmeriStarRail, a "rail startup with ambitious plans to privatize Amtrak’s busy Northeast Corridor,"

This makes no sense. If this guy wants to privatize the Northeast Corridor, he's either going to have to take over the existing rail line, or he will need to build a lot more than a new bridge over the Susquehanna River. I would suspect that building a new Northeast Corridor rail route is pretty much impossible. Maybe if he took over CSX he could run trains on the old B&O "Royal Blue" route, but that already has a bridge over the Susquehanna, so who cares about the old bridge piers?

I agree with the comments about the decline of the Baltimore Sun. It's definitely jumped the shark and can't be relied on for accurate reporting of the news.

 

[John Bredin]

This makes no sense. If this guy wants to privatize the Northeast Corridor, he's either going to have to take over the existing rail line, or he will need to build a lot more than a new bridge over the Susquehanna River.

I think the answer is in this portion of the article:

Spencer’s firm had pitched its own bi-level replacement to Amtrak’s bridge. That plan, conceived after a decade of planning for Amtrak’s replacement project, would have left the piers intact and was supported by Perryville’s mayor and commissioners.

Sounds like Spencer wanted to build a road-rail bridge using the piers, presumably splitting the expense with the highway authorities. AmeriStar would get a new rail bridge on one level, the local drivers would get a new road bridge on the other.

 

[alanh]

I really doubt the old piers were still usable. It kinda sounds like Spencer was saying that if he was in charge he'd have replaced the current NEC bridge with a road/rail bridge and left the piers in place.

I presume the new bridge will be built next to the current bridge and the piers were in the way. But yeah, it's weird to fixate on the old piers as historic objects.

 

[Rasputin]

I always enjoyed looking at those stone piers every time we crossed the river and wondered what their history was and how old they were.

I will miss seeing them but if they are in the way of construction of a new bridge, I guess they need to go.

 

[Cal]

I always enjoyed looking at those stone piers every time we crossed the river and wondered what their history was and how old they were.

I LOVE looking at old infrastructure, especially if it's rail-related. The fact that they were so old is so fascinating. I wouldn't mind if they're preserved (maybe they could make for some cool structures in a park, I don't know?) but little problem with their removal.

 

[west point]

How were the old piers anchored to the ground or even anchored? If just sitting on riverbed or even bedrock they would not have been strong enough to resist the braking of the planned 160 MPH trains. Also, the piers may be planned for even higher speed trains in the future.

 

[jis]

How were the old piers anchored to the ground or even anchored? If just sitting on riverbed or even bedrock they would not have been strong enough to resist the braking of the planned 160 MPH trains. Also, the piers may be planned for even higher speed trains in the future.

They were already inadequate for the current bridge. At best they could have probably been used for a vanity project walkway bridge if such could be funded locally. I cannot imagine why anyone would waste that kind of money but one never knows ….