Talk:Amtrak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amtrak has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

[edit] Missing png image?

When I looked at this page, I was surprised thatI could not see the image "Amtrak schematic.png" embedded in the article. At first I thought this was because someone vandalized the article, but after some examination, I found that for some reason my browser only shows a thick blue line where the image should be. If I click on the line, I am taken to the large version of the png file, which I can view without problems. I tried to tweak the code, but it makes no difference in my browser.

Am I the only one who can't see this image? I'm using Firefox 1.0.7 on Win XP. -- llywrch 22:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Not just you. I'm not seeing the image at all, the thumbnail box is at the appropriate width, but as if the image is 0px high. According to the Mozilla page info/media tab, the image embedded in the page is http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Amtrak_schematic.png , which is not the thumbnailed version. It shows "width: 300px, height: 3386 px" "physical width:5165 px, physical height: 3386px". Something definitely is not right here. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted edits

I've just reverted some edits from the anonymous user at 24.22.127.149. The assertions made by this person are unproven statements that would be appropriate if they can be verified and documented.

In particular, I take some exception to the statements

In addition to the national impact from its employees and passengers, there is a large impact from Amtrak on the national economy due to Amtrak presence in its major hub cities of Chicago, Washington, D.C, New York, and Los Angeles. Amtrak owns or operates inside the large Union Stations in these cities, and their usage by Amtrak has a very large impact on those cities economies.

I sincerely doubt that Amtrak is a significant factor in the economies of these cities in terms of the numbers of employed, and the effects to a city's economy of the loss of Amtrak service would be less significant than a loss of commuter rail. A statement that makes these assertions accompanied by factual statistics would be more meaningful than an unproven claim of "very large impact on those cities' economies".

The fact that Amtrak does not own tracks outside the NEC, and is subject to dispatching from the host freight railroads, presents a dilemma for Amtrak and delays for its passengers. Amtrak trains are often subject to extreme delays imposed by the freight railroads. Amtrak trains are often forced onto sidings for hours at a time while waiting for freight trains to pass. Although capable of speeds over 100 MPH, Amtrak trains are frequently limited to speeds of less than 40 MPH by freight railroad imposed speed restrictions. The delays most often show up on the freight railroads which have an inauspicious relationship with Amtrak and/or have poorly maintained track.

This is false. Amtrak trains are capable of speeds of 100 mph only on sections of track that have cab signals; federal regulations prohibit running above 79 mph in the absence of such systems.

Though Amtrak's relationship with its freight-carrying hosts has often been shaky, the situation is much improved from the past. It is a fair statement to discuss the challenges of running a scheduled passenger service on lines dispatched by a railroad that has its own operational priorities, but the other assertions (regarding "forced onto sidings for hours at a time" and "limited to speeds of less than 40 mph" are not supported by any facts in the edits I reverted. — JonRoma 21:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedits

I just made significant copyedits (some grammar, wording), and reordered some sections.

Put "Amtrak routes and services" before subsections "Gaps in service" followed by "Commuter services" and "Intermodal connections".
"Freight services" is now it's own section.
Cut the paragraph about David Gunn from the intro. This is already discussed in the history section.
Moved the "National impact" paragraph to the intro, as this provides some basics about what Amtrak is that belong in the intro.
Removed the schematic image, as it's showing up for me (and others). If problems with it are fixed, I don't see why it can't be re-added later.
Moved the national system map to the "Amtrak routes and services" section.
Rearranged some of the other photos, e.g. AutoTrain to where the article mentions AutoTrain.

I think these changes improve how the article reads in a more logical way, but as always feel free to discuss the changes here (or revert). -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amtrak portmanteau

I just commented out the following:

IT NEVER INCLUDED THE WORD "TRAVEL" IN ITS BLENDING AS EVIDENCED UNDER THE FIRST ITEM UNDER HISTORY ON AMTRAK'S OWN FACTS SHEET AT: http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Copy/Title_Image_Copy_Page&c=am2Copy&cid=1081442674300&ssid=174

It's still in the article, but as an HTML comment so it's not visible to readers, but apparent to editors. Slambo (Speak) 11:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In a brochure from 1972, Amtrak say, the name is American track & travel, now, Amtrak say in his hompage american and track! In a german book over world's railways is standing also american track and travel. Wat is now right?--212.99.205.172 18:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Mäfä from Germnay wikipedia

According to the late Dr. Adrian Herzog, the name Amtrak came from an employee contest; and his was the winning entry. Dr. Herzog told me his entry came from the words "America, track, and travel." -- wlindley@wlindley.com 2006-03-01

According to Amtrak's own websites, Amtrak is short for "American Track": [1][2] But there are also sources that say it means "American Travel by Track", including page 38 of the June 1991 issue of Trains, part of an article written by Kevin McKinney, who was involved in the behind-the-scenes work of Amtrak's startup. Is this a case of revisionist history, or simply an error by one of the sides? --NE2 09:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole discussion is kind of pointless, because anybody with half a brain can tell that Amtrak is an invented word that blends American and track, but it never existed as a full form "American Track" or anything like that. It also doesn't belong at the beginning of an encylcopedia article. It should be more like a footnote, at best.--JBH23 15:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't an explanation of where it came from belong near the beginning? Someone coming here wondering why it's called Amtrak should be able to get an answer easily. --NE2 16:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That kind of argument can be used to put anything near the beginning. How many people do you think are wondering that and can't figure it out for themselves? Besides, evidence offered doesn't seem conclusive.--JBH23 15:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that we haven't figured it out, I think many people cannot. --NE2 09:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History - an overstatement?

I am commenting on the following:

"Historically, on routes where a single railroad has had an undisputed monopoly, passenger service was as spartan and as expensive as the market and Interstate Commerce Commission regulation would bear, since such railroads had no need to advertise their freight services. But on routes where two or three railroads were in direct competition with each other for freight business, such railroads would spare no expense to make their passenger trains as fast, luxurious, and affordable as possible, because it was considered to be the most effective way of advertising their profitable freight services."

This is, I think, insightful and largely correct. But it isn't the whole story. I can't comment on the pre-World-War II situation, but after the war it was not clear to anyone that intercity passenger service would turn out to be a terrible investment. After making a major commitment to diesel-powered, streamlined equipment, the AT&SF found that its passenger revenues increased as much as 227% annually; Santa Fe remained a believer far longer than competing lines, and until its 1971 demise the Super Chief was still one of the finest trains in the history of railroading. There was a commitment there that, it seems to me, goes beyond advertising for the company's freight operations. To be sure, I'm not disputing the overall picture, but the above generalization isn't quite accurate. How should we fix this? Bryan 23:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody has objected to my call for improving this section in a couple of months, I've rewritten the section. Please take a look. Bryan 13:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Georgia in "Gaps in service"

The list of cities in th "Gaps in service" secion is of cities with no train service whatsoever, not defunct lines. It seems like the listing of Atlanta-Savannah is inappropriate here. I'm going to take it back out pending further discussion. --CComMack 22:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ridership increase

The ridership for FY2005 has already been tallied - 25.3 million passengers, third consecutive company record. There are several sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.54.204.87 (talk • contribs).

Then be bold and add it, with a citation! --CComMack 17:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time to Split?

To my eyes, the article is too large. If I were Joe Sixmegs and was interested in learning about Amtrak, would I really care that the company once hosted experimental F69PHACs? I think it's time to make the motive power/rolling stock section a seperate article, much as was done with the list of Amtrak routes. --N5UWY/9 - plaws 16:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed

There have been few times in history when any intercity rail passenger operation in the world has been profitable, even with respect to only its operating costs, and passenger trains have never brought in enough revenue to pay their infrastructure costs. Even highly efficient private-sector railroads such as the Norfolk and Western Railway could not earn a profit, or even recover operating expenses for passenger service. The concept of Amtrak as a for-profit business was fatally flawed before the first passenger boarded.

I'd like to know if that's true. This needs a citation. No I wouldn't consider myself an Amtrak supporter. --Rotten 13:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can support that paragraph as it was written. I may have been the original contributor, but cannot find the source I used if I was. I have made some changes which are more well-documented. Vaoverland 00:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am a supporter of passenger rail and I find the statement difficult to believe. The Grand Canyon Railway, for instance, must be profitable or it wouldn't be running. :-) My understanding is that most lines in the US did better than break-even until the massive government subsidies to road and air began in the 1950s ... but I have no citation for that either! --N5UWY/9 - plaws 15:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What the original author may be confused with is the fact that freight has always been far more profitable than passenger service. This was true even in the 19th and early 20th century. --Rotten 16:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah but if there is truely profit in a rail system, wouldn't that mean they would be all over the place? The statement is definetly true, by logic; NO form of transportation covers it's costs, save for walking/biking/skateboarding/etc. The Grand Canyon Railway, for instance, must be profitable or it wouldn't be running. <-- That statement cannot be true, or there would be no such thing as mass transit in the United States :) Just look at Amtrak! --Alphalife 01:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Station/route template

Has there been any talk of making a template that shows next stop on different Amtrak lines, like what is done with SEPTA stations like this one: Ridley Park (SEPTA station)? Boneillhawk 21:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be so simple to do, because for many stations the next stop varies by train.--Adam613 15:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not Neutral

This article reads like an Amtrak press release and is not neutral IMHO. I have tried to add a little balance, with references. Highnote 03:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Non neutral please dont use the Cato Institute as a neutral citation, they are a politically motiavted libertarian organization, which by definition is not neutral.--Kev62nesl 06:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Comparison of Amtrak to other modes of transportation restored and extended in separate section. If you able to refute please do so, and do not simply resort to deleting facts that are inconvenient. Also, complaining that Cato is non-neutral in an article containing numerous links to advocacy groups is rather inconsistent. Highnote 19:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The facts were not inconvenient they just werent relevant to the section, however your statistics from an organizations whos goal is to destroy that thing makes those statistic not neutral and while consistence does matter something that is not neutral does not become neutral just because something else is not neutral. Also it is pretty clear that you are anti-amtrak, which isnt a problem, however your goal of inserting negative comments about the company just to be negative does seem to be a problem.--Kev62nesl 23:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I relabeled the link categories to advocacy sites "Support and Advocay" and put the Cato link with the CS Monitor report link in a catergory entitled "Amtrak criticism". That seems to be both even-handed and true. Kablammo 18:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not neutral to compare safety statistics which treat an automobile as the equivalent of an entire train. A vehicle is not the equivalent of a train and composing a table which compares the rate of deaths per vehicle with the rate of deaths per train is inherently misleading. Kablammo 19:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC) The accurate comparison is between passenger miles. I added explanatory text following the existing safey table but I propose to remove that table entirely as it contains a misleading comparison, and use instead passenger-mile statistics. Kablammo 20:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Present table directly compares between modes of transportation on the basis of fatalities per 100 million passenger (non-crew) miles. Kablammo 00:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed a better metric. --Highnote 02:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Differing Thoughts on Energy Intensity

The Transportation Energy Databook has rather different numbers for energy intensities of modes of transportation (Table 2.10).

I got a response from a source at the DOT who gave me an updated number of 2902 BTU / passenger-mile.

Unforunately, BTS (the source in the article) has some other issues with its data. Transit buses are 15% more energy intensive than their numbers, as they did not include any fuel besides diesel when doing their analysis. The Transportation Energy Databook appears to be correct for this one. The remaining difference between the two sources is for light-duty trucks, and BTS appears to be correct as it uses more current data than the Transportation Energy Databook does.

In the end, I don't know which should be linked to, since both are somewhat lacking.

On the theory that more data is better, I have added the Transportation Energy Databook table. Hat tip. --Highnote 03:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quibbles about POV and references

I had tagged statements like Amtrak "was not a true railroad" because it did not own any track, with {{POV statement}}. These tags were removed without comment. I am rather annoyed that the issue was avoided rather than addressed. There is nothing at usage of the terms railroad and railway to support this definition, and without a reference it sounds like Wikipedia is making this assertion, which is not NPOV. (It also makes no sense to me that you can have an airline that does not own runways, but you can't have a railroad that doesn't own track.) I have now simply removed these statements, because I think they are also fairly spurious.

The pinnacle of passenger rail travel — and with it, the Golden Age of the passenger train — was reached in 1920, when 1.2 billion passengers were carried.

I marked this as POV, since it sounds like boosterism, but this tag was also removed without comment. I am rewriting this to remove "pinnacle" and "Golden Age"; if someone wants to document sources that use those terms, that would be fine.

I had marked several very specific claims with {{fact}} to request references, but these were removed without comment. This is not OK; these specific claims need to be sourced, or they are subject to removal per Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- Beland 23:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MI Ridership

Under the section Michigan Ridership it is claimed that "Amtrak's Michigan services are now the most profitable lines in the U.S."

I believe the Northeast Corridor is the most profitable. Michigan services are still subsudized, its just that their ridership increase has been so great that it saved the state of MI about a million dollars in subsudies.

See: http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061124/News01/611240396/-1/NEWS01

I also was unaware that there will definately be improvements for higher speed service - I knew that the state was seeking it, but the federal government had not yet approved the funds, as far as I know.

Unless anyone has evidence to contrary, I'd suggest removing this section of the article.

I suppose it depends on what we mean by "most profitable." Most profitable compared to expenses, or most profit overall? Michigan has certainly seen a surge in ridership this year...Mackensen (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I would strike the section as uncited. I'd be shocked if the Michigan services (including the non-state-funded Wolverine) were doing better than break-even, and the Auto Train does make a profit... —CComMack (t–c) 01:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In any case, this very specialized, undocumented section seems to have no place in a general article about Amtrak. I support removing the section.JBH23 14:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/m/t/Talk%7EAmtrak_cfb5.html"