3 ms·

This seems to be part of a debate I'm unfamiliar with. I am however familiar with this style of argument. The page reads like a lot of motivated reasoning, wh

This seems to be part of a debate I'm unfamiliar with. I am however familiar with this style of argument. The page reads like a lot of motivated reasoning, where they have a conclusion set and they're selecting data, massaging statistics, etc. to fit into their narrative. They might be right in the points they're making, I have no idea, but the style of the article definitely makes me skeptical.

Ericson2314 2y ago
I mean... it's a rebuttal. See my comment below: we already put out a report saying we thought through running was the right approach, and now we're responding to Amtrak's report on the topic. Even if there were passenger circulation issues problems (and our passenger model was half-written when we did the first report), there are other solutions like decking over tracks to join adjacent platforms into a wider platform. We're happy that do not appear necessary, but if it did it doesn't fatally imperil through running as being the best option. Finally, the number of outright errors and dubious claims in the Amtrak study makes us think they are doing their own reasoning. If you really don't believe my previous two paragraphs, just think ask yourself motivated reasoning seems less suspect! :) Through-running, unlike 10s billions for a station expansion, is a cheap experiment. We can just try it! If there are more passengers than expected (yay! Though) and safe circulation does become and issue, that's great new info and very little money wasted.
crote 2y ago
Why not do the same with Amtrak's reports? From a European perspective a 15-22 minute dwell time sounds ludicrous. My local train station is pretty large and designed around through trains, and a 7-minute followup between departures (so between train 1 departing on track X to train 2 departing on track X) is routine here. If it can be done over here, what makes Penn Station so special that they need 3x as much time? Why can't Amtrak do what other railway companies have been doing for years? Amtrak is already lying about other countries using headway-based scheduling, so can they really be trusted about the rest? I have no idea if this ETA article is 100% trustworthy, but Amtrak definitely isn't.
- Ericson2314 2y ago
  Thank you! We need a lot more Europeans berating us, truly! :)
- TimK65 2y ago
  I live in Stockholm. Dwells on the commuter rail system here -- formerly at Stockholm Central, now at the new (2017) Stockholm City underground commuter station -- are scheduled for 3 minutes and have been for decades. The commuter rail service here is a bit of a basket case, but that has nothing to do with through-running practices, which make the system much better than it otherwise would be.

Ericson2314 2y ago

I mean... it's a rebuttal. See my comment below: we already put out a report saying we thought through running was the right approach, and now we're responding to Amtrak's report on the topic. Even if there were passenger circulation issues problems (and our passenger model was half-written when we did the first report), there are other solutions like decking over tracks to join adjacent platforms into a wider platform. We're happy that do not appear necessary, but if it did it doesn't fatally imperil through running as being the best option. Finally, the number of outright errors and dubious claims in the Amtrak study makes us think they are doing their own reasoning. If you really don't believe my previous two paragraphs, just think ask yourself motivated reasoning seems less suspect! :) Through-running, unlike 10s billions for a station expansion, is a cheap experiment. We can just try it! If there are more passengers than expected (yay! Though) and safe circulation does become and issue, that's great new info and very little money wasted.

crote 2y ago

Why not do the same with Amtrak's reports? From a European perspective a 15-22 minute dwell time sounds ludicrous. My local train station is pretty large and designed around through trains, and a 7-minute followup between departures (so between train 1 departing on track X to train 2 departing on track X) is routine here. If it can be done over here, what makes Penn Station so special that they need 3x as much time? Why can't Amtrak do what other railway companies have been doing for years? Amtrak is already lying about other countries using headway-based scheduling, so can they really be trusted about the rest? I have no idea if this ETA article is 100% trustworthy, but Amtrak definitely isn't.

Ericson2314 2y ago
Thank you! We need a lot more Europeans berating us, truly! :)
TimK65 2y ago
I live in Stockholm. Dwells on the commuter rail system here -- formerly at Stockholm Central, now at the new (2017) Stockholm City underground commuter station -- are scheduled for 3 minutes and have been for decades. The commuter rail service here is a bit of a basket case, but that has nothing to do with through-running practices, which make the system much better than it otherwise would be.