All Things Empire Builder

updrumcorpsguy wrote:....he would know something about Amtrak, if for no other reason than the hugely successful Amtrak California program. But yet he is blithely spewing out nonsense.

He OUGHT to know something about Amtrak California. He played a fairly significant role in the creation of the Capitol Corridor!

One of these days his misinformation is going to catch up to him. He can't keep it up forever. We can help hasten that day by writing letters to newspapers whenever he happens to be quoted therein. If anyone gains advance knowledge of an appearance in your area, contact the local media before he shows up, and suggest some questions for reporters to ask.

Correct me if im wrong, but ms. mineta is a democrat, no?
What type of political stunt is he trying to pull by siding with the administration?

He needs to be in a padded wall facility.

Jon

capltd29 wrote:Correct me if im wrong, but ms. mineta is a democrat, no?
What type of political stunt is he trying to pull by siding with the administration?

He needs to be in a padded wall facility.

Jon

Yes he is a Democrate. Bush in 00 said he'd have 1 Democrate. He needs to be doing something esle.

DId you notice that he does his speeches in parts of the country that would not lose service under the Bush (un)plan, Detroit, Charlotte, Chicago (I believe). He is a thousand miles away from the Montanians that would lose service.

Why doesnt he go tell that old woman in Montana to her face that next time there is a major traffic disruption in Montana( due to weather or something) that she wont be able to get her cancer treatment, but that a New Yorker will get to work on time this morning!

Jon

capltd29 wrote:DId you notice that he does his speeches in parts of the country that would not lose service under the Bush (un)plan, Detroit, Charlotte, Chicago (I believe). He is a thousand miles away from the Montanians that would lose service.

Why doesnt he go tell that old woman in Montana to her face that next time there is a major traffic disruption in Montana( due to weather or something) that she wont be able to get her cancer treatment, but that a New Yorker will get to work on time this morning!

Jon

Despite the "gloom" story that many pro-Amtrak groups like to cite, no Montanan would take Amtrak, or at least be solely dependent on Amtrak to receive cancer treatment.

First of all, any hospital that is in Montana and has the ability to provide most cancer treatments, is located in Billings, Great Falls, or Missoula. None of those communities have Amtrak service.

The most advanced hospital that is remotely close to Amtrak would be Kalispell Regional Medical Center, and it requires a $25 taxi ride from the Amtrak station in Whitefish (that's $25 one-way) since there is no bus service.

That leaves Minneapolis, Spokane, Seattle or Portland. Given that most of these people are probably on substantial drug therapies, they probably would not do well confined onboard any mode of transportation for very long. Amtrak is not a desirable option in this case.

Even if someone would ride Amtrak to Kalispell to the hospital, the train arrives at 9:00 PM, requiring the patient to spend at least two nights in a hotel, before catching an eastbound train leaving at 7:30 AM.

(And, most trauma cases, even those caused in run-of-the-mill auto accidents, are OFTEN airlifted to Seattle, Salt Lake City or Denver - even in the Kalispell area. Kalispell's ALERT helicopter (singular) is probably used more often on a daily basis than an ambulance in many towns.)

As for traffic disruption...well...it is a rare event that extreme snowfall shuts down any highway in Montana. Most people who live in Montana know how to deal with snow drifts and sudden snow storms. The Montana Department of Transportation spends MORE money on snow-fighting than it does on any other function, including pavement maintenance. The most common traffic tie-up in Montana is a slow moving piece of farm machinery.

capltd29 wrote:DId you notice that he does his speeches in parts of the country that would not lose service under the Bush (un)plan, Detroit, Charlotte, Chicago (I believe). He is a thousand miles away from the Montanians that would lose service.

Detroit would lose service. The Wolverine corridor is fully Amtrak-funded.

I believe the Empire Builder should be rerouted off the Canadian Pacific Railroad and onto the BNSF. Same for the City Of New Orleans that runs on the former Illinois Central now Canadian National Railroad.

These railroads have their Headquarters in a foreign capital. How do we know America’s best interests are being look after in these days of high security?

A most interesting thought that I guess overlooks that Milwaukee offers 'a mite bit' more passenger potential than does, say, Savanna.

Further of interest, I believe the GM&O's New Orleans-Chicago route has been truncated by one merger or another, although the "Humming Bird' route (L&N-Evansville-C&EI) is still intact, even if the operators nowadays go by the initials of CSX and UP.

Even though 'dated' in that it was released at the height of the "dot.boom' and as such was "pre-9/11', Tom Friedman's "The Lexus and the Olive Tree' makes for interesting reading and a "primer' on the subject of Globalization. If not familiar with his works, Friedman has the 'uncanny' ability to address the most complex foreign relations issues and present them in a manner so that anyone with a High School education can understand the subject.

Not meaning to start a "political brawl' around here, but the man should be our 'sinecured Secretary of State' and serve regardless of whether elephants or donkeys roam the South Lawn @ 1600.

Disclaimer: Author employed 1970-81 by CP predecessor, MILW.

I Like BNSF wrote:These railroads have their Headquarters in a foreign capital. How do we know America’s best interests are being look after in these days of high security?

Oh, please. Give me a break.

Union Pacific and CSX are headquartered in the good ole US of A, and they *certainly* aren't doing Amtrak any good.

I Like BNSF wrote:These railroads have their Headquarters in a foreign capital. How do we know America’s best interests are being look after in these days of high security?

What absolute B** to consider that an Empire Builder passenger would be less secure because they are on the Canadian Pacific vs BNSF just because it is headquartered in Calgary, Alberta! (And by the way it’s not a capital) The CPR when operating in the US abides by the same rules and regulations as the BNSF does.

Same goes for the City Of New Orleans on CN. And if you listen to the talk on the RR chat lines, CN might be headquartered in Montreal (also not a capital) but it’s being run by xIC management.

I hate to interrupt what's looking like a pile-on, but isn't this the exact argument in favor of limiting foreign ownership of U.S. air line companies?

For what it be worth, Mr. I Like, the two Canadian carriers noted, seem to do "better than average" in fufilling their operating contracts than do the two US carriers noted by Mr. Madison.

CP (MILW) Hiawathas have a 'pretty darned good" OT record (there are stats regarding such at the Amtrak website) and generally "holds its own' handling the Empire Builder. Timekeeping of both the CN/IC operated Shawnee, #391-392, and City of New Orleans, #58-59, is also "pretty darned good'.

In short, and possibly I am guilty of generalizing, these two Canadian carriers are doing their job. I believe your concerns, while noted with respect, are groundless.

To address Mr. Carville's point, I believe the prohibitions on foreign ownership of airlines arises from that the aircraft of US flagged carriers are part of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, or CRAF. As a condition of the registration, the Government, through I believe the Defense Department, can requisition whatever aircraft and flight crews are needed in order to accomplish military airlift missions. Of course, proper compensation is due the aircraft owners.

Now of interest involves the maritime industry. For all intent and purpose, the USA no longer has a Merchant Marine. Thus the DoD must rely on foreign flagged vessels for their sea-lift capacity. However, I believe there is an exception regarding maritime companies that have been sold to foreign interests, such as, once CSX owned, Sea-Land, that is now owned by the Danish maritime concern, Maersk. Those vessels, and, as successor thereto, the tonnage represented by such, can be requisitioned by the Defense Dept to provide sealift capacity.

I Like BNSF wrote:These railroads have their Headquarters in a foreign capital. How do we know America’s best interests are being look after in these days of high security?

Scoff now, but just wait until all the entrees in the Empire Builder's diner contain back-bacon!

Changing a trains route because the owner of the railroad is Canadian????!!!!

Why???

Thought 1: Mr BNSF, with six posts, is trolling.

Thought 2: What are the demographics of the stations on his proposed re-routing? How can he demonstrate a higher level of service for these two trains on his new routing than what exists now? How can he demonstrate better track mile for mile than what exists now?

Absent detailed answers to thought 2 above, Mr BNSF's thoughts deserve to lie in the "this doesn't pass the common sense test" bit bucket

John Perkowski