Hoosier State derails outside Chicago 6/8

>>Springfield shuttle typically has two cars. Distance to New Haven is approximately 62 miles.<<

I have used it to link with the Lake Shore at Springfield. The train had very few passengers but I was glad of it to go from Hartford. Yes, there were two cars.

The Springfield shuttle operates push-pull with an ex-Metroliner cab car. Now that's logical. Why they didn't do that with the Kentucky Cardinal is beyond me! They used to have two P42's pulling a single Horizon car!

mattfels wrote:

draintree wrote: I think tut-tutting amongst ourselves is probably the best and most appropriate response.

Amongst ourselves? What part of public forum still isn't clear?

Um, Matt. Exactly how many non-rail fans do you think reads this stuff? I mean, sure, it's a public forum, but wouldn't you say it's patronized mainly by those rarefied birds; Amtrak fans? Speaking for myself, I am rather humble about the influence we of the railroad.net Amtrak forum wield.

mattfels wrote:Without question, "tut-tutting" is the preference of so-called railfans (all of the fun, none of the accountabilitiy), but let's be clear about this: The most appropriate action is to help build demand for the train through word of mouth. Words matter. Selective denial won't change that.

Um, Matt. Why would I want to build up a train through word of mouth that, in my sincere opinion, has lousy service? Exactly how is this supposed to help Amtrak? In fact, rather than helping Amtrak, wouldn't recommending the Hoosier State actually cheese innocent passengers off and drive them away? And I'm not at all clear about what it is I'm supposed to be in denial of. And, if we can't honestly give our opinion about how Amtrak is doing, warts and all, what is the point of this forum? Do you see the purpose of the Amtrak forum as being essentially one of propaganda?

mattfels wrote:Here's another fallacy that the so-called railfans copy directly from Wendell Cox: that the Amtrak system is a collection of discrete trains. The proper way to think of Amtrak is as a network. Each train feeds, and is fed by, other connecting trains. The Hoosier State exists to provide daily service over the IND-CHI route. It maintains daily connectivity to and from Amtrak's western route network and in a real sense "protects" the Cardinal. As we learned from the Mercer experiment a decade ago, passengers are unwilling to adjust their travel dates to a less-than-daily schedule. They want to go when they want to go.

All 1/2 car per-day of them.

mattfels wrote:A real fan looks for reasons to take trains, not for reasons to get trains taken off. Be one.

So you get to decide if I'm a real fan or not? I never realized you had that power. Please accept my most grovelling apologies for disagreeing with you, but I think the best way to get people to take the train is to provide the best service possible where demand actually exists and, if you have limited resources, to concentrate on putting them where they'll do the most good. Deciding that requires honest criticism even if that is, according to you it would seem, a form of denial.

Allow me to conclude by congratulating you on your magnificent self-confidence.

I have learned, from private sources, that the "major'Amtrak related messages boards ARE reviewed by Amtrak Public Affairs. While this is hardly saying that there is a full time position within the Responsibility with sole duties to review message boards, there is apparently some level of review.

Obviously, the reviewer cannot post in an official capacity and to what extent informatoion learned from the reviews is used by Amtrak management, I know not.

So you get to decide if I'm a real fan or not?

Of course not. Never said that, wouldn't claim that. But I do "get" to express my opinion.

I assert that fans of all persuasions share certain basic characteristics. These include:

• Good will. The fan wishes the object of his interest well, not ill. He takes up for it. Talks it up. Looks for opportunities to support it.
• Information. A fan works from facts, seeking out and compiling information that pertains to the object of his interest. Red Sox fans, for example, read the linescores, know the batting averages and ERAs of the major players.
• Belief that his words and actions mean something. A sports fan shows up at the game not merely because he finds it interesting but because he feels that his presence matters.

That's my yardstick. I say it's a reasonable way to determine who's a fan and who isn't. Why is that important? Because this is a public forum.

And after the 1986 World Series, there were plenty of Red Sox fans who had plenty of unkind things to say about Bill Buckner. Does that mean they are no longer fans?

True fans call 'em the way they see 'em. They'll boo over bad plays but they'll stay with their team through thick and thin, like the (hockey) Ranger fans who waited over 50 years for a Stanley Cup and those Red Sox and Cubs fans for whom the agony endures. But they're not above letting their feelings known when they're unhappy.

It's called letting out steam, and it's healthier then keeping those feelings bottled up. Otherwise it would be like being in a lousy marriage and looking the other way while your spouse gets drunk every night or cheats.

You can't be negative all the time, and you can't be positive all the time. You just have to be honest about what you believe and what you know.

OK. So people at Amtrak Public affairs read this board. We're still dealing with people who are insular to the world of Amtrak. This is still a small bastion of Amtrak fandom with a tiny readership. Does anyone have any indication that we have a large audience of casual browsers who are not already hooked on trains?

And, really, when we point out that the train is slow and poorly patronized I honestly don't think we're telling the folks at Amtrak something they don't already know. I mean, they're not idiots, are they?

mattfels wrote:

So you get to decide if I'm a real fan or not?

Of course not. Never said that, wouldn't claim that. But I do "get" to express my opinion.

Well, excuse me, but didn't you just through criticizing my response as being inappropriate for a "real" fan? I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to assume that you were telling me I'm not what you consider to be a real fan because that is the clear implication of your remark. If that isn't what you meant, then please tell me what you did mean.

And, of course, you get to express your opinion. I never said you shouldn't. I don't think I've every said that anyone shouldn't be allowed to express their opinion. However, you have repeatedly insisted that others withold criticms of Amtrak. Therefore, you are the one who is telling people not to express their opinions. Please do not confuse the issue by manufacturing an opinion I have not expressed and do not hold and which would seem to place you in an entirely fictional position of victimization.

mattfels wrote:I assert that fans of all persuasions share certain basic characteristics. These include:

• Good will. The fan wishes the object of his interest well, not ill. He takes up for it. Talks it up. Looks for opportunities to support it.
• Information. A fan works from facts, seeking out and compiling information that pertains to the object of his interest. Red Sox fans, for example, read the linescores, know the batting averages and ERAs of the major players.
• Belief that his words and actions mean something. A sports fan shows up at the game not merely because he finds it interesting but because he feels that his presence matters.

Obviously you have not spent as much time as I have in the company of Red Sox fans. Red Sox fans are just about, if not, the angriest, most hypercritical group of sports fans in the country. They, in fact, can be quite vicious towards their own players. I have heard them criticize Yaz's mother's sexual behavior when he was clearly trying to play through an injury.
And, by the way, I'm a Yankee fan and I go to the ballpark not because I think it's important (like the Red Sox they draw about three millions fans a year which ought to be enough for anyone) but because I simply want enjoy seeing a ballgame in person. Are you now trying to tell me I'm not a real Yankee fan? And, by the way, during the late 1980's and early 90's, they really stank, everybody knew it and everybody said so.

mattfels wrote:That's my yardstick. I say it's a reasonable way to determine who's a fan and who isn't. Why is that important? Because this is a public forum.

So here you are once again insisting that my behavior — being openly critical of Amtrak — determines that I am not fan after you started your response by insisting that that isn't what you were saying at all.

Mr. Fels, I would appreciate it if you would make up your mind and tell me what it is you're really saying about me. I mean, I assume you're talking about me. You're directly criticizing my remarks. If not me, then who are you referring to?

And of coure the mere fact that this is a public forum is no reason not to have an honest and full discussion of what's doing in the world of Amtrak. Like you, Mr. Fels, I have a right to speak my mind and, as long as I'm being responsible (here being defined as truthful, accurate and relevant). I do not recognize your opinion that doing so is inappropriate as being in any way valid. Exactly the opposite, in fact. It is your persistent calls for self-censorship and you habit of criticizing other people for exercizing their right to free speech that are inappropriate. You are not the moderator.

Incidentally, is there anyone here besides Mr. Fels who thinks that self-censorship is appropriate and that it's wrong to honestly criticize Amtrak? Or is he presuming a somewhat autoerotic position of moral and intellectual authority here?

In view of his criticisms, I think that's a fair question.

Honest criticism is one thing, dishonest criticism quite another. Angry rants that are not based on fact fall into the latter category. I say that's a pattern of posting inconsistent with being a fan.

I don't know what the correspondent means by "self-censorship." But surely it's reasonable to expect a measure of self-discipline. That's what makes this forum "THE place" for informed discussion of all matters Amtrak. If it takes the "fun" out of posting here, there's always USENET.

Looks like some people wish to continue the sniping, eh...?

Well, let me reiterate the difference between legitimate and illegitimate criticism by saying the following: Only those who can formulate (or already know) the solution to a problem—only those can offer criticism with either validity or legitimacy. Anything else is merely hot air and a waste of carbon dioxide.

Not to mention that this is the first time I have seen railfans and sports fans been compared as if they were something similar...?

BTW, I would like everyone to read this article from AP titled "A Nation of Bystanders"—it outlines the core of the problem that causes Amtrak to have trains like the K-Card and Hoosier State, not to mention every other ill that plagues Amtrak, that of non-participation of Americans nowadays in civic life especially compared to the past generation. Demonstrate apathy about Amtrak to the politicians and they'll act accordingly.

And just to clarify: Most railfans do meet the "are you a fan?" test many times over. The so-called fans give the real fans a bad name and the casual reader a false impression. We get casual readers here. It's a public forum. Is it important to help casual readers distinguish between real fans and pseudo fans? These people think so.

LI Loco wrote:You just have to be honest about what you believe and what you know.

I'm glad to see honesty come up in this discussion. Honesty demands that when the facts contradict "what you believe," then you drop the false belief and keep "what you know."

mattfels wrote:Honest criticism is one thing, dishonest criticism quite another. Angry rants that are not based on fact fall into the latter category. I say that's a pattern of posting inconsistent with being a fan.

I don't know what the correspondent means by "self-censorship." But surely it's reasonable to expect a measure of self-discipline. That's what makes this forum "THE place" for informed discussion of all matters Amtrak. If it takes the "fun" out of posting here, there's always USENET.

So, now you're accusing me of being dishonest? I ask you for an explanation and all I get in return are more accusations.

And what exactly have I been saying here that is not based on fact? The Hoosier Limited is a slow, poorly-patrionized train that leaves and arrives at inconvienent hours. And that's when it's on time. I just checked and it seems to be two hours late on a disturbingly frequent basis, though I admittedly was only able to get a small sample. Do you think that having one train a day that often takes 7 or more hours to go 190 miles is anyone's idea of adequate service?

Mr. Fels, you keep telling people not to criticize Amtrak in ways that you don't like. That is the very definition of self censorship. I am honestly surpised that this point needs explaining. I really don't see how it could possibly be made any more simple. And, honestly, renaming it "self-discipline" doesn't change a thing. By simple definition, you keep telling people to censor themselves. Does noting that make me dishonest?

Mr. Fels, I keep asking you to explain yourself and all I get in return is more abuse. I am asking what I consider to be fair questions. The fact that you can't seem to bring yourself to give me straightforward answers is in no way my responsibility.

Mr. Fels, as far as I am concerned, this discussion is over. You have only proven to me that all I can expect from you in response to my questions are accusations, adhominen attacks and evasions with yet even more calls for self-censorship. If I may say so, you have tried and failed to be a bully. Until you can bring yourself to be a little more straightforward I cannot think of any reason why I should accord your opinion any kind of respect. IMHO you have abudently disqualified yourself.

And Mr. Chieftan, you may want to redo your last remark. The intent isn't at all clear. If, however, you are saying that one should not offer a criticism unless one can also offer a solution, I suggest you bone up on your western history. Some problems have existed for centuries before people were able to think up solutions.

Unless you can explain to me how one can address a problem without first acknowledging that it exists?

This is still a small bastion of Amtrak fandom with a tiny readership.

Really? I would imagine that the moderator would find this comment interesting. Along with the odd assertion that one can bash at will because no one's reading.

Draintree was considering solutions to problems (hopefully) when he wrote:Mr. Chieftan, you may want to redo your last remark. The intent isn't at all clear. If, however, you are saying that one should not offer a criticism unless one can also offer a solution, I suggest you bone up on your western history. Some problems have existed for centuries before people were able to think up solutions.

Unless you can explain to me how one can address a problem without first acknowledging that it exists?

QED. If you can acknowledge that a problem exists, then it automatically assumes that you do have ideas as to how to solve it. Unless you equate all problems with pathogens? That is not the case, especially when it comes to social "problems". And in the case of the K-Card and Hoosier State, clear solutions lie before us and indeed have lain before us since the inception of this country, therefore it is wasteful to complain and instead productive to begin the extant process of solving.

mattfels wrote:

This is still a small bastion of Amtrak fandom with a tiny readership.

Really? I would imagine that the moderator would find this comment interesting. Along with the conclusion that that one can bash at will because no one's reading.

Now he's trying to rat me out to the moderator. Wow. That's ugly.

"Rat"? Moderators do read their own forums, yes?