On 05-16-97 LANCE HILLHOUSE wrote to KEN FREEMAN... 
 
 LH> KF> LH> Sort of what I thought.  Amtrak is quick on the trigger to
 LH> eliminate 
 LH> KF> LH> routes. 
 LH> KF> Well, our elected officals are demanding they break even. 
 LH>  
 LH> Profitability had little to do with it.  They thought if they cut 
 LH> here, 
 LH> there wouldn't be as much protest.  They found out differently. 
Glad someone did protest, really. They seem to have a big problem though, 
when 
they decide that a route isn't self sustaining and decide to cut it, and then 
all of a sudden someone from Washington comes up with just enough money to  
keep the route open for another 6 months so that a blue ribbon panel can 
study  
it some more. Did that with the Lakeshore from Albany to Boston. All of a 
sudden,  
after they'd announced the cut, they had to keep it going, and they didn't 
have  
any equipment ready to use, the new stuff anyway. That section is sort of an 
operational nightmare, as part of the train has to be separated, then 
everything 
coupled back together, and then they can go. Takes a while to do it. They'd 
be 
better off if there was just a separate train at Albany, anyone going to 
Boston 
gets off and goes over to the other one and let the Lakeshore head to New 
York 
City.  
 LH> No, the Texas Legislature loaned them $5 million + collaterallized by 
 LH> a 
 LH> lien on rolling stock.  
 Interesting.  
 
  
  
  
  The money was to pay operating expenses for 
 LH> six 
 LH> months while Amtrak pursues new contracts.  If these contracts are so 
 LH> lucrative, why did they wait until operating with state money to 
 LH> pursue 
 LH> them? 
 Now I'm confused. Contracts with whom, the state? The host railroads?  
 
                                    K 
-*- 
 * OFFLINE 1.56 * "Le sens commun n'est pas si commun"  Voltaire 
--- Opus-CBCS 1.7x via O_QWKer 1.1
---------------