Sleeping cars under attack

[sunchaser]

We ran across a factually incorrect factcheck.org report just last weekend where it disagreed with primary sources from the Treasury Department about federal debt growth over the past decade. I've seen factcheck.org reports conflicting with primary sources an awful lot over the years, considering that it's entire point of existing is to be factual--and always in directions that support the Democrats' stances. Take from that what you want.

I'm sure that you won't have any trouble posting an example, then.

When he came back, he threw all his medals away. He said he committed war atrocities, then backed away from it later. Now we are to believe that he was proud to serve.

How does that relate to factcheck at all? Is it unreasonable for people to change their mind on something over 30+ years? As a former Naval officer, I was damn proud of my service in the opening weeks of OIF (I was aboard a cruiser that fired Tomahawks into Iraq and provided defense to two carriers while they flew strikes into Iraq. These days, with the myth of WMDs debunked and the war looking like a colossal mistake, I'm significantly less proud of my service.

Ryan,

This is information that was not available on factcheck.

Yes, you can change your mind. I was referring to the atrocities he claimed to have committed, then said he didn't. You can't have it both ways. Either he did or he didn't. :blink:

Thank you for serving our country.

 

[Ryan]

It's not available on factcheck because they're not there to provide a comprehensive overview of everything about a subject, they're there to correct the factual inaccuracies that get bandied about. That's probably why you feel that it has a liberal bias - of course, correcting factual inaccuracies tossed out there by the right wing will make it look like that. If the left were to spend as much time playing fast and loose with the truth, it would look a little more balanced.

 

[Bierboy]

Republican arguments against Amtrak always make me very tired...

Quit lumping "arguments" into an entire political party. They aren't blanket "Republican" arguments. Leave politics out of this thread.

 

[Ryan]

They're arguments made by a Republican, making them "Republican arguments". Nobody's saying that all Republicans feel that way.

 

[George Harris]

If the left were to spend as much time playing fast and loose with the truth, it would look a little more balanced.

Which leave the opening to say, the left does not play fast and loose with the truth because it can't find the truth and would not recognise it if they did.

At this point I will say no more nor answer anything else political.

 

[Ryan]

If the left were to spend as much time playing fast and loose with the truth, it would look a little more balanced.

Which leave the opening to say, the left does not play fast and loose with the truth because it can't find the truth and would not recognise it if they did.

At this point I will say no more nor answer anything else political.

Gotta sling an insult, then take your ball and run home since you know that it isn't supportable here in reality. That's a real valuable contribution to the conversation, George.

 

[sunchaser]

We ran across a factually incorrect factcheck.org report just last weekend where it disagreed with primary sources from the Treasury Department about federal debt growth over the past decade. I've seen factcheck.org reports conflicting with primary sources an awful lot over the years, considering that it's entire point of existing is to be factual--and always in directions that support the Democrats' stances. Take from that what you want.

Anyway, getting back on topic, the numbers supporting Cantor can be found here. See table 1 for the route-by-route breakdown.

In the end, part of the contradiction may come down to two groups asking different questions: the NARP, as it states, is asking what can be done to most efficiently maintain rail services it considers appropriate, while the DOT report is asking how much rail service is worth in the first place. Those are very different questions requiring different types of analysis, but in the end the DOT direction is probably more correct since the government is holding the lifeline.

Accounting is a tricky thing when there's no chance to see a profit. At that point you can lose revenues and actually come out ahead for it.

Thank you for posting it. That one is pretty old too. I did notice some interesting ideas according to the study:

They wanted to get rid of the diner, checked baggage & transdorm.

The diner, to save money.

Same with checked baggage!!

I don't know where they thought the snack car & coach attendants, & Conductors would sleep.

They also stated that sleeper passengers would just ride in coach!!! While that may be true for some, but I'm sure many would just not ride at all.

Here is an update-the Amtrak cut was selected, but itDID NOT PASS

Which of course I expected, & fine with me- I like using the sleepers!

 

[Green Maned Lion]

So, IMHO, that is partisan when you try to slant the information in one way or another.

Merely being "incorrect" doesn't make it partisan. Partisan implies intentional manipulation to match a predetermined view or a desired outcome.

Enough!

I am now partaking in my roll as Obergrammargruppenführer Grünermähnenlöwe, the feared grammar ****.

According to my holy bible of languages, Webster's New 20th Century Dictionary (Unabridged), printed and copyright 1940, Partisan is:

n. [Fr.] 1. One who takes side of. or strongly supports the side of, a particular party, usually political.2. in milatary affairs, (a) a member of a group of irregular troops engaging in guerilla fighting, often behind military lines. (b) a person commanding such a party.

Also, by the by, it is pronounced "par-tee-zshan" not "part-issan", as one would expect of a French word. Which apparently everybody gets wrong.

You are using the wrong word, all of you. The word you are looking for, the correct word, is "partial". The paper, source, or whatnot, is being partial rather than impartial.

Defined:

favoring one side in a dispute above the other; biased

I trust you will, in the future, not make the biggest mistake, commit the biggest crime, of all- destruction of a language. English is hard enough to understand without people constantly making a mockery of it.

 

[volkris]

Is this really the direction you guys want to go, revisiting the same old political arguments that every other forum on the planet deals with?

Or do you want to talk about Amtrak and rail and the future of both?

Sometimes everyone just needs to agree to disagree on the price of tea in China and get back to what they all agree is the real subject under discussion.

 

[Ryan]

So you're also not willing or able to provide examples of factcheck conflicting with primary sources?

 

[rrdude]

So, IMHO, that is partisan when you try to slant the information in one way or another.

Merely being "incorrect" doesn't make it partisan. Partisan implies intentional manipulation to match a predetermined view or a desired outcome.

Enough!

I am now partaking in my roll as Obergrammargruppenführer Grünermähnenlöwe, the feared grammar ****.

According to my holy bible of languages, Webster's New 20th Century Dictionary (Unabridged), printed and copyright 1940, Partisan is:

n. [Fr.] 1. One who takes side of. or strongly supports the side of, a particular party, usually political.2. in milatary affairs, (a) a member of a group of irregular troops engaging in guerilla fighting, often behind military lines. (b) a person commanding such a party.

Also, by the by, it is pronounced "par-tee-zshan" not "part-issan", as one would expect of a French word. Which apparently everybody gets wrong.

You are using the wrong word, all of you. The word you are looking for, the correct word, is "partial". The paper, source, or whatnot, is being partial rather than impartial.

Defined:

favoring one side in a dispute above the other; biased

I trust you will, in the future, not make the biggest mistake, commit the biggest crime, of all- destruction of a language. English is hard enough to understand without people constantly making a mockery of it.

Wht doo u meen?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Sunchaser, thanks for (eventually) explaining what you were talking about. At least the part you (eventually) remembered.

GML, although I may take the English language more seriously than some, even I have to admit it's a living language that has changed substantially since the 1940's, just as our political discourse has.

Ryan, your stock just rose my friend. Even though I'm pretty sure you'd rather I not say so.

 

[volkris]

So you're also not willing or able to provide examples of factcheck conflicting with primary sources?

I'm here to talk about rail. I have plenty of other people to discuss politics, factuality, science, the weather, and what I had for breakfast with.

Don't we all have enough drama and enough to argue about just looking at things like the implications of the apparently contradictory analyses by the ARPA and the DOT? They certainly represent entirely different worlds of thought about the direction rail should take in the country, and figuring out the merits of the two arguments is kind of important to be able to speak in a legitimate, informed way about the advantages of rail.

 

[Ryan]

So you're also not willing or able to provide examples of factcheck conflicting with primary sources?

I'm here to talk about rail.

Then don't go making statements that you then refuse to back up, unless you want your credibility to suffer.

 

[Ispolkom]

I'm here to talk about rail. I have plenty of other people to discuss politics, factuality, science, the weather, and what I had for breakfast with.

Don't we all have enough drama and enough to argue about just looking at things like the implications of the apparently contradictory analyses by the ARPA and the DOT? They certainly represent entirely different worlds of thought about the direction rail should take in the country, and figuring out the merits of the two arguments is kind of important to be able to speak in a legitimate, informed way about the advantages of rail.

Well said. Or typed. In any case, I can't imagine that there are many issues on which I agree with you, but you hit it dead on the nail here.

 

[sunchaser]

Sunchaser, thanks for (eventually) explaining what you were talking about. At least the part you (eventually) remembered.

GML, although I may take the English language more seriously than some, even I have to admit it's a living language that has changed substantially since the 1940's, just as our political discourse has.

Ryan, your stock just rose my friend. Even though I'm pretty sure you'd rather I not say so.

It wasn't a memory issue. I did not want to put the info into print attached to me in any form. Even though I found the facts out, I did not want to discuss those facts. I still don't, because I am still very concerned about what I found. I will quote him "It is seared in my memory". I do mean mine, not his.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

GML, although I may take the English language more seriously than some, even I have to admit it's a living language that has changed substantially since the 1940's, just as our political discourse has.

A language being alive, and a language being needlessly debased are two different things. If we are going to destroy and adulterate word meanings and structure as we please at all times, what for do we have any rules governing them? What purpose does it serve if we change in such a way as to make things difficult to understand.

 

[henryj]

According to Amtrak own statistics sleeping car passenger make up 15% of the total boardings for LONG DISTANCE TRAINS. They account for 36% of the revenue. This per the FY09 YTD september report. So the sleeping cars are actually subsidizing the coach passengers. The only reason for the low 15% number is the lack of adequate numbers of sleeping cars. If Amtrak were a viable business they would have more first class cars than coaches for Long Distance trains. But hey, it's the government.

 

[volkris]

According to Amtrak own statistics sleeping car passenger make up 15% of the total boardings for LONG DISTANCE TRAINS. They account for 36% of the revenue. This per the FY09 YTD september report. So the sleeping cars are actually subsidizing the coach passengers. The only reason for the low 15% number is the lack of adequate numbers of sleeping cars. If Amtrak were a viable business they would have more first class cars than coaches for Long Distance trains. But hey, it's the government.

Right, but that's not the question the DOT and the politician were looking to answer.

The situation you describe involves the feds handing money to both coach and first class boardings, and then the first class hands a part of their share to coach. Both are getting subsidized, and the "re-gifting" can't really be used to mask that. To put it yet another way, a charity case giving part of his donations to his friend is still a charity case.

So the officials are talking about ending subsidies for first class passengers, and the NARP is pointing out that it would increase the cost of subsidizing coach to the same levels. Right. But at the same time it would save money overall because the first class passengers wouldn't be taking their cut of the charity, and that's what these officials are specifically looking to gain.

If the first class passengers were able to completely pay their costs--and not just pay the cost difference for first class amenities--then the NARP's position would be bulletproof. That is, however, not the case.

 

[Ryan]

That's only valid if the would-be sleeping car passengers turned to another transportation method and didn't require any subsidization.

If all of the sleeper passengers became coach passengers (and therefor required the larger subsidy), the overall costs would go up considerably.

I don't think that we have the data to calculate where the break even point would be, nor do we have the data on what sleeper passengers would do if the sleepers would be eliminated to determine the impact on overall cost to the taxpayers. But it most assuredly isn't as simple as you make it out to be.

 

[Trogdor]

The situation [described] involves the feds handing money to both coach and first class boardings, and then the first class hands a part of their share to coach. Both are getting subsidized, and the "re-gifting" can't really be used to mask that. To put it yet another way, a charity case giving part of his donations to his friend is still a charity case.

So the officials are talking about ending subsidies for first class passengers, and the NARP is pointing out that it would increase the cost of subsidizing coach to the same levels. Right. But at the same time it would save money overall because the first class passengers wouldn't be taking their cut of the charity, and that's what these officials are specifically looking to gain.

If the first class passengers were able to completely pay their costs--and not just pay the cost difference for first class amenities--then the NARP's position would be bulletproof. That is, however, not the case.

That's only valid if the would-be sleeping car passengers turned to another transportation method and didn't require any subsidization.

If all of the sleeper passengers became coach passengers (and therefor required the larger subsidy), the overall costs would go up considerably.

I don't think that we have the data to calculate where the break even point would be, nor do we have the data on what sleeper passengers would do if the sleepers would be eliminated to determine the impact on overall cost to the taxpayers. But it most assuredly isn't as simple as you make it out to be.

You're both falling into the same trap that anti-Amtrak folks like to set, which is this idea of a per-passenger subsidy.

Passengers are not subsidized. It is the train service that is subsidized. This may be a matter of semantics, but it makes a difference when one approaches how to solve the "problem" (if you will) of service that doesn't make money.

Every passenger that buys a ticket reduces the amount of subsidy required to operate the train. The cost of the crew, fuel, maintenance, etc. does not change significantly with every ticket that is or isn't sold.

You can't easily say that passengers don't cover their costs, because the incremental cost of moving one passenger is very small. I also don't see how, in a theoretical situation where all sleeping car passengers became coach passengers, costs would go up considerably. Losses would likely increase, because revenue would go down significantly, but the cost of operating the train wouldn't change, except for, perhaps, a bit of a staffing adjustment on board.

But, if the incremental cost of carrying a passenger is less than the fare they paid, you really can't say that the passenger is being subsidized.

 

[henryj]

According to Amtrak own statistics sleeping car passenger make up 15% of the total boardings for LONG DISTANCE TRAINS. They account for 36% of the revenue. This per the FY09 YTD september report. So the sleeping cars are actually subsidizing the coach passengers. The only reason for the low 15% number is the lack of adequate numbers of sleeping cars. If Amtrak were a viable business they would have more first class cars than coaches for Long Distance trains. But hey, it's the government.

Right, but that's not the question the DOT and the politician were looking to answer.

The situation you describe involves the feds handing money to both coach and first class boardings, and then the first class hands a part of their share to coach. Both are getting subsidized, and the "re-gifting" can't really be used to mask that. To put it yet another way, a charity case giving part of his donations to his friend is still a charity case.

So the officials are talking about ending subsidies for first class passengers, and the NARP is pointing out that it would increase the cost of subsidizing coach to the same levels. Right. But at the same time it would save money overall because the first class passengers wouldn't be taking their cut of the charity, and that's what these officials are specifically looking to gain.

If the first class passengers were able to completely pay their costs--and not just pay the cost difference for first class amenities--then the NARP's position would be bulletproof. That is, however, not the case.

Actually, I am not so sure that first class isn't already paying it's way. Amtrak does not publish any statistics devoted to first class only. They only separate the boardings and revenues, not the expenses. So I question the logic of the argument. When only 15% of the boardings are contributing 36% of the revenue I would think that first class pays it's own way already. If the long distance trains were coach only, most of the first class passengers would go elsewhere, including me. I have no desire to travel on a glorified greyhound on rails. It would basically mean the end of LD trains. I would just resort to flying. Taking the train only if it's a day train. Via has learned how to market the long distance market with the likes of the Canadian. During the summer the train is over 20 cars long with only a couple of coaches. My brother just sent me a picture from Jasper of a 25 car Canadian. That means it had probably 17 sleeping cars or almost 400 first class passengers vs probably around 100 coach. Just for comparison, the one way fare, Vancouver to Toronto, coach is around $600cad, a roomette is $1600cad during this peak season. All the bedrooms were sold out through August and possibly beyond. Compare that with the Empire Builder where the coach seat is $263 Chicago to Seattle and not sold out. Whereas I had to look for several days to find sleeping car space of any kind. A Roomette was an additional $661. Total fare is probably half that of the Canadian. In other words, Amtrak is a bargain. Empire Builder is 2200 miles vs Canadian 2700.

 

[Big Iron]

So, IMHO, that is partisan when you try to slant the information in one way or another.

Merely being "incorrect" doesn't make it partisan. Partisan implies intentional manipulation to match a predetermined view or a desired outcome.

Enough!

I am now partaking in my roll as Obergrammargruppenführer Grünermähnenlöwe, the feared grammar ****.

According to my holy bible of languages, Webster's New 20th Century Dictionary (Unabridged), printed and copyright 1940, Partisan is:

n. [Fr.] 1. One who takes side of. or strongly supports the side of, a particular party, usually political.2. in milatary affairs, (a) a member of a group of irregular troops engaging in guerilla fighting, often behind military lines. (b) a person commanding such a party.

Also, by the by, it is pronounced "par-tee-zshan" not "part-issan", as one would expect of a French word. Which apparently everybody gets wrong.

You are using the wrong word, all of you. The word you are looking for, the correct word, is "partial". The paper, source, or whatnot, is being partial rather than impartial.

Defined:

favoring one side in a dispute above the other; biased

I trust you will, in the future, not make the biggest mistake, commit the biggest crime, of all- destruction of a language. English is hard enough to understand without people constantly making a mockery of it.

Wht doo u meen?

Maybe that Demercrats speek gooder than Republicans?

Should it then be called "Amtrack"? Like all to good mainstream media reporters spell it.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Lets fall into the trap of the per-passenger cost. Then take it to its logical conclusion. There would be no trains, no cars, no sleepers, no first class subsidy, and we'd spend no money. The highways on the coasts would become unbelievably crowded and we could spend $5-10 billion a year upgrading and maintaining the needed additional infrastructure.

 

[dlagrua]

Lets fall into the trap of the per-passenger cost. Then take it to its logical conclusion. There would be no trains, no cars, no sleepers, no first class subsidy, and we'd spend no money. The highways on the coasts would become unbelievably crowded and we could spend $5-10 billion a year upgrading and maintaining the needed additional infrastructure.

Absolutely agree and considering that Amtrak recieves only 1 per cent of the total transportation department budget, the most conservative and the most liberal members of congress should be very pleased. Its unfair to pick on little Amtrak as being a significant source of our budget deficit. As the Lion pointed out, if we eliminated Amtrak completely other transportation modes ( bus, plane, car) will need to absorb the passenger numbers. The improved infrastructure costs associated with this are not free and also look at how many American jobs would be lost. I really like the way politicans operate. They site one point in a political issue and build their argument around that. You never hear the rest of the story or should I say the whole story with those dirtbags. Its always a very adverserial process that never considers the whole picture.