N. Y. Times article left many feeling ignored.

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.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Larry H.

Conductor
Joined
Dec 22, 2006
Messages
1,045
When I first spotted a long article from the New York Times in the Post Dispatch yesterday I was enthused. Surly something finally about the plans Amtrak has to provide some real expanded service for the "Country". Well I read it, two long columns, and nary a word about anything but how Amtrak was working to spend even more money on the Northeast Corridor. And worse how the Acela trains were the only money makers while all the rest loose. Maybe I am too gullible but I rather thought that the Newsletter that post here had shown over and over how the charges for the east coast are spread around making the trains that really have solid support look like losers.

I find it very disgusting that Amtrak still apparently has no intention to act like its revenues come from the "entire" country not just the Boston, Washington corridor. They point out how improvements to times, and services have greatly increased ridership. Duh... If they provided some real convenient modern services to the rest of us we might take to them also. But what is really needed as has been repeatedly pointed out here is the interconnections to many more places, otherwise a national rail system is really only a dream for most. "You can't get there from here" should be the motto of amtrak.
 
New York paper writes article about trains, focuses on trains that serve New York.
Film at 11.
New York centered article reprinted in St Louis Post Dispatch

Dang, we need a REAL newspaper in the Lou!!
 
I'm not kidding, and stop calling me Surly, er, Surely, er, Shirley!

I would tend to expect the focus on New York based services, depite the NYT reputation as being a "worldly" paper. Ironically, if the article only focuses on the NEC with emphasis on Acela, it also ignores Empire Service linking many major New York cities, as well as about a dozen longer disance trains directly serving New York City.
 
To be fair, the Times has covered Amtrak throughout the country. Their article on cross-country train travel earlier this year ended up being the #5 most viewed article in their travel section for the entire year.

But as others have mentioned, they are a NY based paper - they're going to cover NY based trains. Perhaps your problem should be the Post Dispatch who can't be bothered to write an article about Amtrak's plans for the trains in your area. When I want to read about the Vermonter, I'm not looking at the Times, I'm reading the Burlington Free Press, which isn't the greatest paper in the world, but manages to cover our local service on a pretty regular basis. If the Times calls Amtrak and asks about Amtrak's planes for the NY area/northeast, that's what Amtrak is going to talk about.
 
To be fair, the Times has covered Amtrak throughout the country. Their article on cross-country train travel earlier this year ended up being the #5 most viewed article in their travel section for the entire year.
But as others have mentioned, they are a NY based paper - they're going to cover NY based trains. Perhaps your problem should be the Post Dispatch who can't be bothered to write an article about Amtrak's plans for the trains in your area. When I want to read about the Vermonter, I'm not looking at the Times, I'm reading the Burlington Free Press, which isn't the greatest paper in the world, but manages to cover our local service on a pretty regular basis. If the Times calls Amtrak and asks about Amtrak's planes for the NY area/northeast, that's what Amtrak is going to talk about.
It would seem that an article about the Missouri and even the Illinois services would interest the readership of a St. Louis paper. A N.Y. Times article about service in the NEC might fill up space in some summarized form in the Post-Dispatch, but probably a featured article about an Amtrak service that few readers are likely to use, at least on a regular basis, is indicative of the poor editorial and management practices that seem to affect so many major dailies in the U.S. nowadays.
 
When I first spotted a long article from the New York Times in the Post Dispatch yesterday I was enthused. Surly something finally about the plans Amtrak has to provide some real expanded service for the "Country". Well I read it, two long columns, and nary a word about anything but how Amtrak was working to spend even more money on the Northeast Corridor. And worse how the Acela trains were the only money makers while all the rest loose. Maybe I am too gullible but I rather thought that the Newsletter that post here had shown over and over how the charges for the east coast are spread around making the trains that really have solid support look like losers.
I find it very disgusting that Amtrak still apparently has no intention to act like its revenues come from the "entire" country not just the Boston, Washington corridor. They point out how improvements to times, and services have greatly increased ridership. Duh... If they provided some real convenient modern services to the rest of us we might take to them also. But what is really needed as has been repeatedly pointed out here is the interconnections to many more places, otherwise a national rail system is really only a dream for most. "You can't get there from here" should be the motto of amtrak.
The same omission happens sometimes in the Philadelphia media, too.

New York has six of Amtrak's long-distance trains downstairs at Penn Station: Lake Shore, Silver Meteor, Silver Star, Palmetto, Crescent, and Cardinal. You would think they'd get the same level of "our train" media treatment, unless the editors think the six trains have little relevance to the paper's readership.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top