Don reported on what one cop said regarding Amtrak’s no photo policy. The officer stated that instead of less photography being allowed, MORE photography should be encouraged. More photos being available would help in solving crimes by providing images at or near the time of a crime. Another advantage would be that if miscreant’s see a lot of cameras, they’ll stay away the area. And as a final point, Amtrak’s policy is just that and not law. Which brings up the point I have about no photo policies posted by Amtrak and The Port Authority of NY & Nj. One court case or even the threat of a case could bring these both down. Obviously, few of us could afford it by ourselves but if there was a civil liberties class action suit, that could do it. Terrorists, as stated in Don’s article, can get all the photo’s they want from internet sites like Google Earth or by pretending to take a picture of someone. Thus America’s freedom to take photo’s in a public place is being taken away from us bit by bit for ultimately no reason. So by taking some of our freedom away, the terrorists have already won.
I haven’t seen the piece, but I don’t know that the person cares much if he/she is seen in the commission of a crime, particularly when it is meant to be a catastrophic event designed to inflict maximum violence and damage, surprise, and terror, and in which the perpetrator is looking for a quick way to his/her glory. All the stills in the world viewed after the fact will afford the aggrieved little comfort, although I concede it may supply some useful intelligence to the authorities.
We must stop being afraid. Fear is the principle weapon that the terrorist uses against his/her victims. There are things worse than death.
-Crandell
Agreed!!! [tup]
Additionally, I find it interesting how the U.S. government uses the same fear tactics in order to ensure compliance with their ‘just’ cause in fighting whatever they deem is currently the enemy of the people.
Homeland Security’s Janet Napolitano issued this statements: “One of the things that we ask patriotic citizens to do is when they see something unusual, if they see, for example, somebody continually taking photographs of a piece of critical infrastructure that doesn’t seem to make any sense, to report that to local law enforcement so it can be followed up on”.
Those of us that are into photography frequently find ourselves the focus of attention by the flock of sheep that believe anything our governments’ leaders tell them.
Some examples of how our rights are currently being infringed upon:
http://www.nycphotorights.com/2009/07/janet-napolitano-declares-war-against-photographers/
http://nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2008/03/london_terror.html
The list goes on and on. [sigh]
I also agree, have you noticed not just government(s), but private concerns using the paranoia of 9/11 as an excuse to enforce restrictions upon people. At times it has seemed to trickle down to such insignificant issues.
If I need photographs of some rail facility to train my terrorist team, I don’t need Canon quality; a cell phone is adequate to do the job. I can fake a telephone conversation and get it done. Amtrak’s photo policy might make sense for some crowded big city platform, but the reason has nothing to do with national security. The policy was poorly thought through to begin with, but now Amtrak feels compelled to defend it – can you say “mindless bureaucracy”?
I didn’t like how he spent a few sentences about the Amtrak chief wanting to scrap the Amfleets to avoid competition, but then spends most of the rest of the article discussing the photography issue.
It should have been the other way around.
I take issue with that statement, too. For Amtrak’s survival there is not only going to have to be some form of competetion but also supplimnetary, complimentary, and ancilliary services which will need equipment which such groups will not be able to afford. Ony used Amtrak equipment would financially, and physically, fit the bill. In some ways the statement is shortsighted for the long range benefit of Amtrak.
I don’t have the column in front of me to reread, but the idea that Amtrak’s plan to scrap old cars as a means of stiffling competition is a little speculative. At the Trains/Amtrak Town Hall meeting, Amtrak reported on their look at the cost of maintaining the aging car fleet and noted that the oldest of the cars are way beyond the point where continuing to maintain them makes economic sense. Better to get rid of them and replace with new. By setting a policy to scrap rather than sell, they avoid the potential situation where a state or other entity owning a rail passenger service being operated by Amtrak, picks up the old cars which then have to be maintained by Amtrak.
Never-the-less, the scrap vs. sell position was presented as a policy issue, and it seems possible that in the right circumstances the cars could be sold, perhaps to some entity wishing to start a service on a shoe string. Even then, a refusal to sell old cars to a start-up might be a favor to agency looking for cars for a new service. Consider. Would you start a new taxi service with a fleet of $500 junkers and expect to make money after paying for the maintenance to keep them running?
But, would selling them to a tourist railroad or donating them to a museum be detrimental to Amtrak in any way? I think not, and it would help preserve history that is all too often rewritten.
[quote user=“jeaton”]
I don’t have the column in front of me to reread, but the idea that Amtrak’s plan to scrap old cars as a means of stiffling competition is a little speculative.
jeaton: I think it is not speculative. Go this Amtrak website.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/Page/1241245669222/1241245669129
Go Halfway down page then:
Select “Fleet strategy Plan” Then read Page 44 and then on page 45 Paragraph 2 & 3 you will see the Amtrak fleet disposal plansl
At the Trains/Amtrak Town Hall meeting, Amtrak reported on their look at the cost of maintaining the aging car fleet and noted that the oldest of the cars are way beyond the point where continuing to maintain them makes economic sense. Better to get rid of them and replace with new. By setting a policy to scrap rather than sell, they avoid the potential situation where a state or other entity owning a rail passenger service being operated by Amtrak, picks up the old cars which then have to be maintained by Amtrak.
I believe that Amtak does not maintain the Piedmont cars and locos but that rolling stock is maintained by the NC DOT. So why would Amtrak have to maintain others? Under the Amtrak best retirement plans the first retirees will be the heritage fleet. That is mainly the baggage cars which will not be useable for passengers and also the heritage dinners. I lost the site that list these totals but could not be more than 20+ dinner cars. There are a total of 87 Heritage cars in the present fleet. The dinners might be rebuilt (cost may be too high?).
Though Amtrak does not state this; the building of the baggage cars first with all the passenger car hard items
[quote user=“blue streak 1”]
[quote user=“jeaton”]
I don’t have the column in front of me to reread, but the idea that Amtrak’s plan to scrap old cars as a means of stiffling competition is a little speculative.
jeaton: I think it is not speculative. Go this Amtrak website.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/Page/1241245669222/1241245669129
Go Halfway down page then:
Select “Fleet strategy Plan” Then read Page 44 and then on page 45 Paragraph 2 & 3 you will see the Amtrak fleet disposal plansl
At the Trains/Amtrak Town Hall meeting, Amtrak reported on their look at the cost of maintaining the aging car fleet and noted that the oldest of the cars are way beyond the point where continuing to maintain them makes economic sense. Better to get rid of them and replace with new. By setting a policy to scrap rather than sell, they avoid the potential situation where a state or other entity owning a rail passenger service being operated by Amtrak, picks up the old cars which then have to be maintained by Amtrak.
I believe that Amtak does not maintain the Piedmont cars and locos but that rolling stock is maintained by the NC DOT. So why would Amtrak have to maintain others? Under the Amtrak best retirement plans the first retirees will be the heritage fleet. That is mainly the baggage cars which will not be useable for passengers and also the heritage dinners. I lost the site that list these totals but could not be more than 20+ dinner cars. There are a total of 87 Heritage cars in the present fleet. The dinners might be rebuilt (cost may be too high?).
Though Amtrak does not state this; the building of the baggage cars first with all the passenger car hard items may give more time for the break in and debugging
If someone else acquired the “junkers” and then contracted with Amtrak to maintain them, one would assume the charge either would be based on their known problems or simply an hourly rate for the skills involved. If the new owners found those rates out of line, they could either go to third parties or do it themselves. I really doubt that the maintenance issue has anything to do with Amtrak’s position on this issue.
My folks tell stories about when Fed-Ex started, the USPS did their best to derail them by demanding regular postage be paid for the “mail” handled by them and other devices. I suggest the same philosophy is at work here – a quasi-governmental agency attempting to maintain a monopoly by any means available.
Don Phillips has only two strings to his lyre anymore – Amtrak and the policing of railroad photography. June gave us both in the same column. It gets repetitious and tiresome. George Will said truly that one of the most important requirements of a columnist is the ability to change the subject.
Scrapping for new rather than rebuilding might be in the best interest of the Amtrak books. But it might also be that a rebuild from the same skeleton for another agency might be right. Happens with all kinds of equipment and structures and for many differrent purposes…mostly tax and return on investment are the reasons. I can get rid of an autombile rationalizing I need to put a couple of thousand into it to bring it up to par. By trading it and putting the same money into a downpayment will give me a brand new car. The person who gets the car I turned in for virtual peanuts, can do the work himself or wholesale, can have a good car at a reasonable price. So, if to keep the car out of the hands of “competition” may not be, in my estimation (as I said above), in the best interest of Amtrak if a start up operation which would feed or otherwise support Amtrak, suppliment it, or be of service, to Amtrak. I hope that “scrapping” was just a thrown out term meaning to take out of service for new.
Read the “Fleet Strategy Plan” available on their website. Beginning on page 47 they indicate they do intend to keep some number of the current fleet on a dead line for use in unforseen circumstances. However, they are very clear that equipment leaving Amtrak must go to a scrapper only.
Everytime VIA turns a wheel it is a silent rebuke to Amtrak’s foolishness.
Perhaps; however, the issues he writes about are still as valid as when he first presented them.
At least someone of national recognition is speaking rationally about the freedom to photograph.
I would think that the scrap-vs-sell issue is not exactly an attempt to stifle a potential competitor. If passenger service was profitable, Amtrak wouldn’t be existing in the first place. As others have pointed out, the potential problem seems to be one of states trying to establish their own passenger service on the cheap with worn-out equipment that the states would then expect Amtrak to maintain on its own dime.
Yeah, but, boy does that ring hollow to me! You mean Amtrak isn’t smart enough to avoid entering into agreements with states that would involve insufficient payment to Amtrak for having to maintain equipment that they know EXACTLY what kind of condition it is in and EXACTLY how much it costs to maintain? Sheesh!
We’re going to scrap perfectly good stainless steel carbodies that, by Amtrak’s own admission still have decades of serviceable life (they just at the end of their “commercial” life, whatever the heck that is…) left in them?
If you are offered more than scrap, why wouldn’t you just take the money and run - and then let Herzog or Veolia maintain and operate them?
I think Amtrak’s position here shows arrogance and contempt for the taxpayers.
No. But automobiles are not passenger railcars. It’s never cheaper to rebuild on older automobile that’s mechanically worn out (because new ones are cheaper) but it almost always is for railcars.
Would you want to buy a new railcar for commuter service at $2.5M a pop or buy a worn out Amfleet car for $100,000 and spend 1 to 1.5 million to rebuild and rewire it back to like new for commuter service and get another 20 years of life out of it?
Compare Amtrak’s position to that of the FTA’s rules regarding the sale of used commuter equipment originally purchased with federal money. When METRA had some early, well worn gallery cars that they had replaced with new, they were required to offer them up to other commuter agencies for $1 each. VRE and Nashville picked some up, did some modest rehab on them and put them into service. New and expanded capacity “on the cheap”. No skin off METRA’s nose.