posted
After reading numerous posts on various Amtrak related fora about numerous and lengthly delays on many Amtak long distance trains recently a thought struck me: Could the Secretary of the Treasury, John W. Snow (late of CSX), at the bidding of the Adminstration, that zeroed out Amtraks budget be lobbying his old pals at the various "host" railroads to impede the progress of various long distance trains on the routes that use their rights of way. That the thought should enter my mind indicates either: a)I have an over active immagination; or b)I've been reading too many books on the Kennedy assassination...but then again... Best regards, Rodger
20th Century Member # 2196
posted
I wouldn't be surprised. When it comes to politics almost anything goes.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
No road is intentionally delaying Amtrak trains. They simply have more traffic than they can handle. While Amtrak has provisions for contractual payments based upon performance, Class Ones, especially the UP and apparently to some extent as well, CSX, have decided these payments are not sufficient to operate their roads for the convenience of Amtrak trains.
I think this is a condition that LD passengers had best be prepared to accept, as it is unlikely to change anytime in the forseeable future.
North American Railroader Member # 3398
posted
I can understand why UP delays so many trains, as stated above, it's just overcrowded and mismanaged. However, I don't understand CSX. I live along the Sunset Lmtd. route on CSX, which always has so many delays caused between New Orleans and Orlando, but not that many freight trains actually come through here, at least when compared to other lines out west or up north. CSX's really busy lines are between Jacksonville and Atlanta, but of course none of this is used by Amtrak. To add further to my suspicion, other railroads like NS and BNSF don't have much trouble, even though their lines are just as busy. I don't really think it's a conspiracy, I think it's probably more that CSX doesn't consider Amtrak a priority like it should. I don't think they go out of their way to inconvience Amtrak, but they certainly don't go out of their way to convenience them either.
sojourner Member # 3134
posted
Why do you think Snow is merely doing the administration's bidding? It seems to me more likely that he is the one calling the shots on the administration budget plans etc vis-a-vis Amtrak. After all, the administration didn't start with this almost-zero-funds-for-Amtrak policy until he came on the scene, did they?
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted I think it's probably more that CSX doesn't consider Amtrak a priority like it should. I don't think they go out of their way to inconvience Amtrak, but they certainly don't go out of their way to convenience them either.
Agree with your statement, Mr. North American, other than the emboldened phrase. Amtrak is simply "getting what they are paying for' with regard to train handling. When the provisions regarding on time performance bonuses/penalties were last negotiated Amtrak and the roads simply could not come together on a fair price, so the existing situation prevails. However, I would expect that the "fair price' would be far in excess of any budget Amtrak has available to expend upon train performance payments.
JONATHON Member # 2899
posted
wow, good work
Tanner929 Member # 3720
posted
Save the conspiriacys for Air America please. An early interview with Snow spoke fondly of rail travel finding taking the Acela from Washington to Wall Street was much easier then the Shuttle.
20th Century Member # 2196
posted
'the "fair price' would be far in excess of any budget Amtrak has available to expend upon train performance payments.'
Wow! That in itself leads to suspicion of furtive schemes, or of seizing on serendipitous events to exercise political moves against Amtrak. Very characteristic of our present administration.
sojourner Member # 3134
posted
I'm sorry, I wasn't ascribing to any conspiracy theories of intentional delays as outlined in the opening post. All I meant to say was that I do think that Snow's coming into the administration as Secretary of the Treasury seems to me to have possibly had some cause-and-effect with regard to the lower budget proposals for Amtrak, since they were never put forward before he came in. And I'm not sure how his speaking fondly of Acela proves that he isn't against funding the long-distance routes. Acela and the NE corridor are the only routes being preserved in the budget, and the only route the administration assures people won't be going, right?
gp35 Member # 3971
posted
Billions spent on the war, Billions spent on air and highways, Billions spent on foreign aid, a multi-Trillion dollar economy. Seems strange Bush would gamble republican domination over $1.4 billion Amtrak.
Mr. Toy Member # 311
posted
quote:Originally posted by gp35: Seems strange Bush would gamble republican domination over $1.4 billion Amtrak.
Ah, but Amtrak is the right wing's poster child for everything that is wrong with America. And symbol is substance. If they can eliminate Amtrak, it will be a huge feather in their cap. "Proof" that they are getting government spending under control. But its all an illusion to distract from the real money losers, like a certain war in Iraq.
20th Century Member # 2196
posted
Precisely, Mr. Toy. Eliminating Amtrak sends a message that says "See, we are saving your tax dollars."......and people will believe it.
Looks like he would pick up a few votes around this constituency.
BTW, I didn't watch Chris Matthews last night, so I don't know if he made comment on this insightful piece of Op-ED, nor did I tune in "Natalie News Channel" to see if O'Reilly was letting loose with his "pinheads at The Times' or Hannity screaming about the "Clintonistas".
posted