# NY Times: Anderson out, William Flynn in



## Trogdor (Mar 2, 2020)

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/02/nyregion/amtrak-ceo-william-flynn.html



> The national railroad’s board of directors is expected to announce this week that William J. Flynn, the chairman and former chief executive of Atlas Air Worldwide, will succeed Richard Andersonas chief executive of Amtrak, according to people familiar with the decision.


----------



## jis (Mar 2, 2020)

Cool! From passenger airline to freight and high density passenger aircraft leasing operation  That should work out well  His experience as President and CEO is with Polar Air Cargo and Atlas Air, which he has recently retired from.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 2, 2020)

> Mr. Flynn...also has experience in the railroad industry, having been a senior executive at CSX Corporation, a rail-freight company that owns some of the tracks Amtrak runs on.


----------



## jis (Mar 2, 2020)

I wonder what his thinking is on Precision Railroading.

I also wonder if we will see a wholesale departure of Anderson's posse to be replaced by Flynn's

Should be interesting.


----------



## Mike G (Mar 2, 2020)

Yeah and Altas is basically slave to Amazon,{ just put one one the water landing at Houston } he got caught snoozing when he order new 767 jet freighters from Boeing to support the Amazon deal by not ordering when Boeing suggested and their delivery dates ended up behind a Big FedEx order


----------



## KnightRail (Mar 2, 2020)

William J. Flynn will become Amtrak’s next Chief Executive Officer and President on April 15, 2020.


----------



## LookingGlassTie (Mar 2, 2020)

Well this leaves me with some questions:

Was there a "no confidence" vote by the board against Anderson (or something similar)?
Was Anderson's term intended to be this short-lived all along?
Will Flynn's railroad experience (whatever extent that is) help or hurt Amtrak?


----------



## bretton88 (Mar 2, 2020)

LookingGlassTie said:


> Well this leaves me with some questions:
> 
> Was there a "no confidence" vote by the board against Anderson (or something similar)?
> Was Anderson's term intended to be this short-lived all along?
> Will Flynn's railroad experience (whatever extent that is) help or hurt Amtrak?


Being that Anderson was on a short term contract with bonuses over base pay, I don't think Anderson's tenure was ever meant to be long term. Anderson was the turnaround specialist, this guy is probably the long term pick. As a former CSX executive and background in transportation, he seems qualified to take Amtrak into the next era.


----------



## Skyline (Mar 2, 2020)

Who knows what may change now?

In the Glass Half Full Dept., Flynn's freight rail experience might give him significant insight into how freight and pax rail could co-exist better -- potentially improving OTP.

In the Glass Half Empty Dept., this might just be a further nail in the coffin for LD pax trains, as his CSX experience may bleed over to Amtrak in the form of train-killing. 

Inquiring minds want to know: Was the Trump administration in any way involved in the selection of Flynn?


----------



## cirdan (Mar 2, 2020)

Trogdor said:


> chairman and former chief executive of Atlas



ha ha, so he knows about model railroads at least


----------



## bretton88 (Mar 2, 2020)

Skyline said:


> Who knows what may change now?
> 
> In the Glass Half Full Dept., Flynn's freight rail experience might give him significant insight into how freight and pax rail could co-exist better -- potentially improving OTP.
> 
> ...


While Trump may have some influence on the pick via the Transportation department, this is a largely the same board that chose Anderson.


----------



## jis (Mar 2, 2020)

As I had mentioned earlier, Anderson's contract ends this year so it was potentially likely that he would leave and a new CEO would come in. Looks like the potential has become reality. Heck if I was Anderson I'd take my bonus and run too.


----------



## fdaley (Mar 2, 2020)

Glad to see the end of Anderson, who has been a disaster for long-distance rail travel. But since basically the same board picked Flynn, I am not sure whether to be optimistic about any improvements going forward.


----------



## chrsjrcj (Mar 2, 2020)

It looks like the new guy is taking a salary. Don’t know whether to be hopeful or not, but as others have mentioned it’s the same board that gave us Anderson.


----------



## bretton88 (Mar 2, 2020)

To me this feels like Anderson was brought in to do the dirty work of a turnaround. This is now the guy who will be the long term guy who will build off that foundation. Being that this is the same board who appointed Anderson, I don't think there will be any significant changes to the course Amtrak is now pursuing.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Mar 2, 2020)

The next POTUS will still have pull with his or her budget request, board appointments, and or cleaning of the current board.


----------



## jis (Mar 2, 2020)

Here is more on how the Board sees the situation in terms of extensive comments from Chairman Coscia. It is pretty much full steam ahead...

https://www.railwayage.com/passenge...-veteran-flynn-to-succeed-anderson-at-amtrak/


----------



## bretton88 (Mar 2, 2020)

My hope is that as a former VP of strategic planning at CSX, he knows how to speak "freight railroad" which would definitely help Amtrak's corridor vision. Otherwise this guy seems like your classic cost cutter.


----------



## jis (Mar 2, 2020)

His position at CSX was "_Senior Vice President-Merchandise Service Group by CSX Corp."._


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Mar 2, 2020)

jis said:


> His position at CSX was "_Senior Vice President-Merchandise Service Group by CSX Corp."._



Does this mean Matt D is out of a job? [emoji33]. Or maybe he’s in line for the CEO job. [emoji57]


----------



## Palmland (Mar 2, 2020)

I knew him as a sales director at CSX before being promoted to other positions and eventually head of Merchandise Service (sales and marketing). He left in 2002. He can certainly 'speak railroad' but not sure what skills he brings as far as passenger rail or transit. Apparently that's no longer important but he should be an improvement over Anderson.


----------



## keelhauled (Mar 2, 2020)

According to Coscia in the Wall Street Journal, Flynn is expected to serve as CEO for at least five years.


----------



## zephyr17 (Mar 2, 2020)

Palmland said:


> I knew him as a sales director at CSX before being promoted to other positions and eventually head of Merchandise Service (sales and marketing). He left in 2002. He can certainly 'speak railroad' but not sure what skills he brings as far as passenger rail or transit. Apparently that's no longer important but he should be an improvement over Anderson.


Completely agree, but that isn't a high bar.


----------



## dlagrua (Mar 2, 2020)

Anyone know if Gardner will still be with Amtrak? That guy was also a leading voice behind cutting long distance routes in favor of Corridor routes that for all practical purposes cannot be expanded much over a region, but perhaps within a state with state funding.


----------



## Anderson (Mar 2, 2020)

I'm reserving judgment on Flynn, but I'm at least glad to see Anderson go over the railing.


----------



## Willbridge (Mar 2, 2020)

Anderson said:


> I'm reserving judgment on Flynn, but I'm at least glad to see Anderson go over the railing.


At least this will take the surname burden off of OUR Anderson.


----------



## zephyr17 (Mar 3, 2020)

Can't help but think having Congress get in his face was an unpleasant surprise and may have something to do with his agreement to get out of Dodge.

He came in great guns with his inane proposal to literally get Amtrak out of Dodge City with his SWC bus bridge. No doubt he had agreement with Gardiner and the rest of the board when he tried to get that turkey to fly.

Then he found out that he wasn't responsible just to a board when he got slapped silly by Congress. He clearly would not have been able to do what he dearly would have liked to do with long distance service. Messing about with agents and food service was about all he could do, bad as that was. Congress tied his hands. It must have been frustrating...


----------



## hundredakerwood (Mar 3, 2020)

So is Amtrak safe in William J Flynn's hands as its next President & Chief Executive?


----------



## cirdan (Mar 3, 2020)

What requirements should the new CEO bring?

Some say he should understand transportation. But if its an airline guy people say he doesn't get LD trains.
Some say he should understand hospitality. But if you bring in a hotel guy, people say he doesn't get transportation.
Some say he should understand the luxury segment. But if you bring in a cruise guy, people say he doesn't get coach passengers.
Some say he should understand the low end segment. But if you bring in a Greyhound guy people say he wants to do everything on the cheap.
Some say he should be a railroad guy. But if you bring one in, people say he doesn't understand passenger stuff.
Some say it should be an Amtrak internal promotion. But then people say he doesn't have the outside perspective.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Mar 3, 2020)

zephyr17 said:


> Can't help but think having Congress get in his face was an unpleasant surprise and may have something to do with his agreement to get out of Dodge.
> 
> He came in great guns with his inane proposal to literally get Amtrak out of Dodge City with his SWC bus bridge. No doubt he had agreement with Gardiner and the rest of the board when he tried to get that turkey to fly.
> 
> Then he found out that he wasn't responsible just to a board when he got slapped silly by Congress. He clearly would not have been able to do what he dearly would have liked to do with long distance service. Messing about with agents and food service was about all he could do, bad as that was. Congress tied his hands. It must have been frustrating...



1) I believe his short contact was up this year, so he’s not leaving because of interactions with Congress.

2) He was abiding by Congresses mandate to make F&B not operate at a loss, so how is that “messing with food service”?


----------



## railiner (Mar 3, 2020)

bretton88 said:


> Being that Anderson was on a short term contract with bonuses over base pay, I don't think Anderson's tenure was ever meant to be long term. Anderson was the turnaround specialist, this guy is probably the long term pick..


I had thought that Wick Moorman was the “turnaround specialist”, and laid the groundwork for his long-term replacement.
The job seems like a revolving door...


----------



## AGM.12 (Mar 3, 2020)

According to, I believe, Railway Age, Mr. Flynn's father was a Conrail engineer and his uncle was one for Amtrak. He also has a brother who is a conductor with Amtrak active in his union local. So Amtrak is not an unknown quantity to him.


----------



## Barb Stout (Mar 3, 2020)

From the Railway Age article, "...“We want to continue the modernization of Amtrak that started four years ago with Wick Moorman, and then accelerated under Richard Anderson...." What did Wick Moorman do that is meant by "the modernization of Amtrak"? I am relatively new to paying attention to Amtrak and wasn't part of this forum during that time.


----------



## jis (Mar 3, 2020)

dlagrua said:


> Anyone know if Gardner will still be with Amtrak?


Gardner is of course still at Amtrak. Why would he leave? He has nothing to do with Anderson and his three year contract per se. He is a full time regular employee of Amtrak AFAIK.


----------



## rrdude (Mar 3, 2020)

While I too would prefer a leader with some "passenger railroad experience", they are few and far between. (outside of Brightline, and former Amtrak C-suite level execs, there is not a big pool to choose from...I think Brian Rosenwald would be ideal, alas...) However, JUST BECAUSE the new skipper doesn't come with the pedigree that we would like, doesn't mean we need to slam the board's decision out of the gate. Mr. Flynn is obviously qualified to lead a large organization, has experience with unions, (good-bad-ugly-debatable) "knows" the transportation industry inside-and-out, and should be given a fair chance to make his mark upon Amtrak.

Amtrak didn't really "suffer" under Anderson, in fact, quite the opposite. While I was not in favor of MANY of his decisions, primarily the disaster they call "Flexible Dining" and the retiring of the PPCs, many of his other decisions were the right decisions, they were just unpopular. Take the new(er) ticketing penalties? Very unpopular, but a wise move IMHO. Staffed stations? That's truly debatable, as some Amtrak agents were indeed revenue-generators and community ambassadors, but's it's hard to evaluate each station individually, but it SHOULD have been done, not the across the board cuts like Anderson did.

I think Amtrak's CEO needs to make hard decisions, not EZ decisions, any moron can do that. It might be "hard" to offer both basic transportation for the masses, AND sell a luxury product that pays for itself, but there is likely a market for both. It might be "hard" to empower field employees to make decisions that influence revenue in a positive manner, like selling rooms for a discount, once the train has left the station, or "low priced entrees" for inventory that is going to be condemned anyway upon arrival at the terminal... or PV hauling, or Special Charters, that, in the worst case, break even, but more than make up for it in public relations.

Think outside the box, invite the unions to the table for REAL discussions and change, and do something, do a LOT OF THINGS; DIFFERENT. Because what Amtrak has been doing for the last 49 years, just isn't good enough for the next 49. Not by a long shot. That train has left the station, and it ain't comin' back.


----------



## LookingGlassTie (Mar 3, 2020)

rrdude said:


> While I too would prefer a leader with some "passenger railroad experience", they are few and far between. (outside of Brightline, and former Amtrak C-suite level execs, there is not a big pool to choose from...I think Brian Rosenwald would be ideal, alas...) However, JUST BECAUSE the new skipper doesn't come with the pedigree that we would like, doesn't mean we need to slam the board's decision out of the gate. Mr. Flynn is obviously qualified to lead a large organization, has experience with unions, (good-bad-ugly-debatable) "knows" the transportation industry inside-and-out, and should be given a fair chance to make his mark upon Amtrak.
> 
> Amtrak didn't really "suffer" under Anderson, in fact, quite the opposite. While I was not in favor of MANY of his decisions, primarily the disaster they call "Flexible Dining" and the retiring of the PPCs, many of his other decisions were the right decisions, they were just unpopular. Take the new(er) ticketing penalties? Very unpopular, but a wise move IMHO. Staffed stations? That's truly debatable, as some Amtrak agents were indeed revenue-generators and community ambassadors, but's it's hard to evaluate each station individually, but it SHOULD have been done, not the across the board cuts like Anderson did.
> 
> ...



^This^


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Mar 3, 2020)

As ThirdRail7 has said, more than once, the rail people qualified for CEO most likely do not want the job.


----------



## Rasputin (Mar 3, 2020)

I will vote for Patricia Quinn for Amtrak CEO. She may not be a veteran railroader but she knows what needs to be done and she gets it done. We have suffered enough under those with "railroad experience."


----------



## west point (Mar 3, 2020)

In the end It is all about customer service. All the listed needs for a chief executive comes down to customer service. Clean interiors, easy reservations, available seats, food, handling of various problems especially delays, cancellations, etc.


----------



## Qapla (Mar 3, 2020)

Well, they did it again ... they passed me up in favor of someone with "experience" - and never even asked if I was interested


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Mar 3, 2020)

railiner said:


> I had thought that Wick Moorman was the “turnaround specialist”, and laid the groundwork for his long-term replacement.
> The job seems like a revolving door...



He was doing a good job too. It’s a shame Amtrak couldn’t have kept him longer, he “got it” both with NS and Amtrak. Both have taken a turn for the worse since his departure.


----------



## zephyr17 (Mar 3, 2020)

Have to say I agree with the comment that maybe a candidate from the hospitality industry may make a lot of sense.


----------



## jis (Mar 3, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> He was doing a good job too. It’s a shame Amtrak couldn’t have kept him longer, he “got it” both with NS and Amtrak. Both have taken a turn for the worse since his departure.


He is the one that did not want to stay. His appointment was for a year. He did stick around a bit longer.


zephyr17 said:


> Have to say I agree with the comment that maybe a candidate from the hospitality industry may make a lot of sense.


The CEO of Brightline, Patrick Goddard is from the Hospitality industry. His background is in hotel management.


----------



## neroden (Mar 3, 2020)

Barb Stout said:


> From the Railway Age article, "...“We want to continue the modernization of Amtrak that started four years ago with Wick Moorman, and then accelerated under Richard Anderson...." What did Wick Moorman do that is meant by "the modernization of Amtrak"? I am relatively new to paying attention to Amtrak and wasn't part of this forum during that time.


Nothing. It's corporate-brag-speak.


----------



## neroden (Mar 3, 2020)

LookingGlassTie said:


> Well this leaves me with some questions:
> 
> Was there a "no confidence" vote by the board against Anderson (or something similar)?


I'm pretty sure. Mr. Anderson didn't have the common sense to avoid yelling at Senators, who are his bosses. At that point I said his days were numbered. The Board are all political creatures of DC, they understand how it works, and they probably turned against him as soon as he proved incapable of being polite to Congress.

As Amtrak CEO, you can disagree with Congress, but you have to respect that they are your bosses, and Mr. Anderson didn't.


----------



## neroden (Mar 3, 2020)

Palmland said:


> I knew him as a sales director at CSX before being promoted to other positions and eventually head of Merchandise Service (sales and marketing). He left in 2002. He can certainly 'speak railroad' but not sure what skills he brings as far as passenger rail or transit. Apparently that's no longer important but he should be an improvement over Anderson.



Having a long history in sales & marketing means that he probably has more awareness of *customer satisfaction* issues than Mr. Anderson did. I read the press release from when Atlas hired him -- apparently he spent a lot of time with Sea-Land, which had a good reputation. After CSX idiotically sold Sea-Land and engaged in the idiotic Conrail merger, Mr. Flynn was apparently called back (presumably at a raise) to recover the freight customers lost to bad service. Atlas has run passenger charters, which are an intensely customer-satisfaction-based business.

Freight customers have different satisfaction metrics than passengers, though some things are the same: run the trains on time, deliver everything in good condition. But just a focus on customer satisfaction would be different from Anderson's reckless disregard of customer satisfaction.


----------



## neroden (Mar 3, 2020)

rrdude said:


> Amtrak didn't really "suffer" under Anderson, in fact, quite the opposite. While I was not in favor of MANY of his decisions, primarily the disaster they call "Flexible Dining"


I think we can all agree that that was an act of total mismanagement. I'm OK with cold food in boxes if it's done *well* but this was just *junk* which requires me and anyone else trying to eat a half-decent meal to take our own food.



> and the retiring of the PPCs,


They were a maintenance nightmare and weren't pulliing their weight financially -- that's one of the few Anderson decisions I actually agree with.

Unfortunately he failed to understand why they were there in the first place -- overflow demand in the dining car and lounge car. Something should have been planned to address that problem (though I think it would have to be part of the new fleet order).



> many of his other decisions were the right decisions, they were just unpopular. Take the new(er) ticketing penalties? Very unpopular, but a wise move IMHO.


Nope. Unwise move. Reputation destroying money loser.

The whole "offer low teaser prices and then mistreat people on the back end, taking their money and giving them nothing when their plans have to change" scheme often backfires. It's certainly not a selling point. Some foreign airlines have dropped it entirely because the amount of money the scam makes is not worth the customer dissatisfaction.

Really, what does it cost Amtrak to offer free *changes* of ticket? Nothing! It fills seats which wouldn't be sold otherwise, typically. The correct move IMNSHO is to make it difficult to get cash refunds but really easy to get vouchers for future travel. This sort of "locks people into Amtrak" -- even people who are unhappy end up taking another trip using the vouchers. This was the system under Boardman -- full value in a voucher, significant fee if you wanted cash back.

Instead, the new penalties-for-everyone scheme just make it more likely for people to take the cash refund, get angry at Amtrak for the stolen money from the refund fee, and buy tickets from someone else next time. Dumbassery.



> Staffed stations? That's truly debatable, as some Amtrak agents were indeed revenue-generators and community ambassadors, but's it's hard to evaluate each station individually, but it SHOULD have been done, not the across the board cuts like Anderson did.


Boardman and Moorman were both successfully destaffing smaller stations, quietly. Anderson was idiotic enough to destaff Cincinatti, which obviously should be staffed, and that got a backlash. Again, dumbassery.

One can get a lot more done if one doesn't make high-profile, stupid moves which anger people.


----------



## Anderson (Mar 3, 2020)

Well, and if I had to guess, someone probably told him that there was a good chance Congress would continue doing so. Given what he's dealt with so far, I suspect that would have been enough.


----------



## neroden (Mar 3, 2020)

If he'd taken a less egomanaical approach he probably could have implemented an agenda. Ignoring and yelling at your bosses is not a good way to get an agenda implemented. 

The business with Cincy is still gobsmacking to me -- anyone with common sense would have kept the station agent there, and a couple of the other most high-profile locations, and been able to cut the station agents everywhere else they wanted to cut them with few objections. Instead, by picking a fight over a case where Amtrak was *clearly wrong*, they ended up with legislation ordering them to put back *all* the station agents.

I don't know what Flynn is going to do, but I suspect he's going to be a lot smoother about it, whatever it is.


----------



## Bonser (Mar 3, 2020)

neroden said:


> If he'd taken a less egomanaical approach he probably could have implemented an agenda. Ignoring and yelling at your bosses is not a good way to get an agenda implemented.
> 
> The business with Cincy is still gobsmacking to me -- anyone with common sense would have kept the station agent there, and a couple of the other most high-profile locations, and been able to cut the station agents everywhere else they wanted to cut them with few objections. Instead, by picking a fight over a case where Amtrak was *clearly wrong*, they ended up with legislation ordering them to put back *all* the station agents.
> 
> I don't know what Flynn is going to do, but I suspect he's going to be a lot smoother about it, whatever it is.


Let's hope.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Mar 3, 2020)

Let’s hope not if it’s as twisted an agenda as Andersons.


----------



## west point (Mar 3, 2020)

As to Moorman. I have to wonder if he had been made aware of the track problems at NYP. What ever once they became public ( and to him ) he rapidly started the program to rebuild the tracks there. The rebuilding evidently is going to take a few years. As well it has also been announced that one at a time East river tunnel bores will be closed for rehabilitation starting soon..


----------



## toddinde (Mar 4, 2020)

I think we can all agree that Anderson was not positive. The war on the long distance trains was especially ridiculous. Anyone with a brain can understand that they serve many states and congressional districts and thus, are politically essential to Amtrak’s existence. On the other hand, that fact has been firmly established now. Hopefully, the new guy will focus on expanding and improving the long distance network because in reality, that’s the easiest, most cost effective place to grow the system.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 4, 2020)

The desired competence of someone at implementing an agenda varies on how much you like their agenda.


----------



## Barb Stout (Mar 4, 2020)

neroden said:


> Boardman and Moorman were both successfully destaffing smaller stations, quietly. Anderson was idiotic enough to destaff Cincinatti, which obviously should be staffed, and that got a backlash. Again, dumbassery.


I have heard this about Cincinnati, but when did it take place? I rode through there last August and there was a station agent there and a very good one he was.


----------



## jis (Mar 4, 2020)

toddinde said:


> I think we can all agree that Anderson was not positive. The war on the long distance trains was especially ridiculous. Anyone with a brain can understand that they serve many states and congressional districts and thus, are politically essential to Amtrak’s existence. On the other hand, that fact has been firmly established now. Hopefully, the new guy will focus on expanding and improving the long distance network because in reality, that’s the easiest, most cost effective place to grow the system.


I am not sure we all agree that Anderson was universally not positive. He did a few really bad things, but he also did a bunch of good, like refreshing rolling stock, ordering new rolling stock, including for LD service, and such. His stance on LD trains was indeed negative, but that was not everything that he did. His stance on food service should have forced Congress to legislatively put an end to it, which they chose not to, which says quite a bit about how Congress overall feels about that matter I suppose - not something that I like. And oddly enough, because of his negative stance, as a reaction to it, the LD network is probably on firmer financial footing with more subsidy than ever budgeted for it. So there are pluses and minuses to consider.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 4, 2020)

I live at the junction of the Eagle and Sunset and mainly ride Western trains. I've seen zero refreshed anything. The only new rolling stock came in the form of barely used baggage cars that weren't ordered or deployed by Anderson. I've seen no meaningful improvements to dining, on time performance, service standards, interruption recovery, timely communication, fare restrictions, ticket prices, etc. Anderson seemed to go out of his way to antagonize people like me, and I will not be thanking him for inadvertently helping the long distance network by repeatedly attacking and undermining those who support it while trying to promote a replacement network of stub trains and bus bridges.


----------



## fdaley (Mar 4, 2020)

To me Anderson's achievements seem unremarkable at best and are far outweighed by his destructive legacy with the long-distance trains, with "flexible" non-dining as the worst example. From upstate New York I have historically used both corridor and long-distance trains. But the Lake Shore Limited, the only national network train that serves my home turf, has become such an abomination under Anderson that I avoid it like the plague. The corridor trains are still pretty well run, which they were before Anderson. But Devil's Advocate is right: Anderson's message to long-distance travelers, even high-revenue sleeper customers, has been to get lost. And in my case, it's working, as I've simply opted to stay home rather than to take discretionary long-distance trips over the past year and half. I don't think that's progress.


----------



## Palmetto (Mar 4, 2020)

Devil's Advocate said:


> I live at the junction of the Eagle and Sunset and mainly ride Western trains. I've seen zero refreshed anything. The only new rolling stock came in the form of barely used baggage cars that weren't ordered or deployed by Anderson. I've seen no meaningful improvements to dining, on time performance, service standards, interruption recovery, timely communication, fare restrictions, ticket prices, etc. Anderson seemed to go out of his way to antagonize people like me, and I will not be thanking him for inadvertently helping the long distance network by repeatedly attacking and undermining those who support it while trying to promote a replacement network of stub trains and bus bridges.



All this because you live on 2 LD routes, unfortunately. And your state [formerly mine, too] will most like do absolutely nothing to improve passenger rail.


----------



## jis (Mar 4, 2020)

The fact of the matter is that the service that Anderson has been promoting, namely short-medium distance corridor service has actually improved with better offerings in the cafe and fully refurbished cars. OTOH the service that Anderson has been negative about has not improved and gone downhill. Depending on which of the Amtrak service you use predominantly is bound to color ones attitude about Anderson. That is for most casual users of Amtrak who are blissfully ignorant about what goes on in the corners of Amtrak that don't touch them.

Hopefully, going forward a better balance will be struck. But that depends on what the agenda is that the Board chooses to set for Amtrak more than anything else. The CEO is an employee and is not going to do things that are at odds with what the Board wants him to do.


----------



## west point (Mar 4, 2020)

We can argue this to ad infimum. If we want to see change support for the Amtrak grant request plan needs congressional support and being passed by both houses of congress. See this link starting at page 30 for requested items.

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/...lative-Annual-Report-FY2021-Grant-Request.pdf

I would add eliminate the food profitability clause and the 750 mile PRIIA short haul restriction.


----------



## John Bredin (Mar 4, 2020)

Having read the above-linked annual report and grant request (thanks, *west point*!), and maybe being in a particularly optimistic mood today , I don't see an Amtrak leadership out to screw long-distance trains as some other people do. I noticed that, while many of the budget request line-items are broken down by long-distance vs. state-supported trains, the narrative portions of the report seem to talk about intercity passenger rail or the National Network without singling out long-distance trains and definitely without denigrating them.

I particularly liked:
"Likewise, at our smaller stations found throughout our 46 state network, we provide a vital alternative and connection to places where harsh winters can make driving a challenge, to communities where airlines and bus companies have reduced service, and for people who do not wish to drive or fly or are unable to do so. Today many such locations are only served once a day, often by late trains in the middle of the night. We continue to seek collaboration and support from Congress to build the necessary partnerships and policies to help us serve such communities better through improved train performance, new and more passenger equipment, and increased frequencies and city-pair connections, where demand warrants. Across the continental United States, Amtrak serves more locations than are served by scheduled commercial airlines combined, demonstrating our importance as a link to the nation for many."

Despite the budget asking for the same or an increased amount of money for every line item, I'm sure the remark about "improving our ability to sustainably maintain the operation of appropriate long distance routes" will be read by some as being not suitably rah-rah about long-distance trains because "appropriate" could mean something less than the existing number. 

All that said, I have a question. The largest line item under National Network (non-NEC) equipment is the somewhat vague "all other equipment" at $170,549,070, of which long distance is $119,384,349. Judging from the other line items, it isn't for overhauling Amfleet or bilevel cars, nor for Amfleet I replacement. So what is it?


----------



## jis (Mar 4, 2020)

Request for first tranche funding of new equipment to get the ball rolling?


----------



## John Bredin (Mar 4, 2020)

I forgot to mention something else that struck me about the report/grant request: the proposed corridor development program, for which Amtrak is seeking a $300 million grant. I think this is a clever idea. I also think it's the basis for the recent discussion on the Amtrak futures subforum that Amtrak was proposing Nashville-Atlanta service to Tennessee officials.

As some noted in that thread, the sticky wicket for getting a new corridor started in a state that doesn't already have corridor service is getting the state government to cough up money. The work-around for the Gulf Coast has been to ask entities other than the state gov't, such as the city of Mobile, for funding. This corridor program is clearly intended to get a state onboard (pun intended) with new corridor service by providing service first at wholly federal expense. I imagine state support will be needed after a few years when the initial grant runs out, but by then the service will have been running for some time and will have a local constituency (riders, chambers of commerce in towns with stations, etc.) that can push their elected officials for funding to keep it going.

I think this is clever because it is an attempt to beat the chicken-and-egg problem of getting new service off the ground. Look at how many cities have struggled to get their first light-rail line running, with much opposition based on NIMBYism, ginned-up fear of "loot rail"  etc., but then once one line is running and people see that it increases rather than decreases property values, neighborhoods and suburbs not on the initial line start pushing for extensions and new lines instead of fighting against them.

Or look at the Southeastern states that have state-sponsored trains: Virginia and North Carolina. They inherited or began state service before the 2000s when intercity passenger rail became a "culture wars" shibboleth, and they couldn't or wouldn't drop service even with GOP state governments and even while passenger rail was being politicized by GOP politicians in other states in the Southeast and elsewhere (Ohio! Wisconsin!). Indeed, look at Wisconsin: while Walker [spit!] cravenly politicized the extension of the Hiawatha to Madison, he had to repeatedly talk up the existing Hiawatha service to make it clear to its constituents that his anti-rail talk didn't extend to ending the existing service.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Mar 4, 2020)

jis said:


> The fact of the matter is that the service that Anderson has been promoting, namely short-medium distance corridor service has actually improved with better offerings in the cafe and fully refurbished cars.



Replacing upholstery = fully refurbished?

And what better offerings? Dunkin coffee?


----------



## west point (Mar 4, 2020)

John: You may have an insight on a possible Amtrak plan ? It may not be the ATL - Nashville proposal but let us take it as a possibility. The loss of the proposal terminal location in ATL does not help. Atlanta's biggest problem right now is no location and beginning engineering for a new terminal. However ATL <> NVL could start the beginning of a hub and spoke system around ATL such as NYP, CHI, LAX and the bay area ? CHI type would be the best comparison as ATL could have as many as 13 separate routes into the city. A couple would be problematic. 4 would be ones that combine with others outside of ATL. The Georgia population is increasing rapidly which will mean the addition of 1 or possibly 2 more congressional seats at this years census..


----------



## Rover (Mar 4, 2020)

Once again, if Amtrak devolves into mainly NEC service, I will be pressing my Texas Congressmen & women, to not use my tax dollars to fund that. Fund yourself NEC.


----------



## Palmetto (Mar 5, 2020)

I would probably guess that if we all thought that way, the Interstate highway system would never have gotten built. Just sayin'. I certainly wouldn't want my tax dollars going to TxDot if I live in Wyoming.


----------



## jis (Mar 5, 2020)

Rover said:


> Once again, if Amtrak devolves into mainly NEC service, I will be pressing my Texas Congressmen & women, to not use my tax dollars to fund that. Fund yourself NEC.



Since all NEC states are net donor states as far as federal taxes and expenses go, it can be argued that the paltry subsidy that NEC is getting is not using a single penny of Texas money. Grow up!


----------



## MARC Rider (Mar 5, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Replacing upholstery = fully refurbished?
> 
> And what better offerings? Dunkin coffee?


They also replaced the carpets, which, in my opinion, is almost as important. A tually, I don't really like the new upholstery, but I understand that it's easier to keep clean, which counts for something.

The Corridor Cafe menu upgrades were more than the coffee. And the Dunkin coffee is a big upgrade compared to what they served before.


----------



## jis (Mar 5, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> They also replaced the carpets, which, in my opinion, is almost as important. Actually, I don't really like the new upholstery, but I understand that it's easier to keep clean, which counts for something.
> 
> The Corridor Cafe menu upgrades were more than the coffee. And the Dunkin coffee is a big upgrade compared to what they served before.


The toilets were also refreshed, and the addition of en-route cleaning has generally been appreciated by the riders too. I should probably have said "refreshed" instead of "refurbished". But beyond that semantic quibble, all indications are that the corridor customers liked those changes, and at the end of the day that is what matters.

The changes to Acela and Amfleet and Horizon fleet equipment is quite similar to the refresh that for example, United Airlines has given to their ex-con Rolls-Royce 757s to upgrade to Polaris though still using the Diamond seats in Polaris Business. The customers generally like the new fresh feel instead of the admittedly tired feel that was replaced.

Having said that, it is also true that LD has been generally neglected both in the hard product in cars and decline in the soft product, though the LD locomotive order is absolutely critical for maintaining LD service.


----------



## Mail4MrTed (Mar 5, 2020)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> Let’s hope not if it’s as twisted an agenda as Andersons.



I have just arrived home from a New Orleans to New York trip on the Crescent (Anderson's "end points"). This is my first experience with "contemporary" dining. The food was tasty enough though on a long haul trip of 29 plus hours it got old. We bought sandwiches from the cafe for lunch since we really didn't want another "bowl (so much for being free)." The first wine was NOT free for the second of our two dinners which was not made clear. I paid a whopping $2,700 for two fares plus a bedroom. The bedroom on the way North was worn out and rattled and had doors that didn't close and lights that didn't work. The sleeping car attendant was usually missing in action somewhere. We had to wander around the train to find her to put the beds down. The Lead Service Attendant in the dining car was not a happy person and "self service" was not working well, especially for the older folks. There were no Millennials in site in the diner probably because they didn't know what a sleeper was and couldn't afford one if they did. So whether they were willing to sit with others was moot. The little signs inviting people to sit together were a joke. I truly missed intermingling with the coach folks as did everyone else. And I think coach people on a long trip should be able to purchase dinners though I am sure Amtrak would over charge.

On the way back the sleeper attendant was far more personable and the dining attendant made an effort at table service, her choice, though on a previous trip she was "scolded" by some official for making the extra effort! The train was 2 and half hours late into New York and 3 into New Orleans, which I am told was the earliest arrival time in NOLA all that week! The time keeping issue is not entirely Anderson's fault and must be corrected,somehow, since people can't rely on the time keeping. Other than that, my experience tells me Anderson's administration is a disaster and the company doesn't care that much. Good riddance. Now let's see if another airline guy can do any better. As far as food and service goes, they can save money and still offer a good product - they can and should do far better, especially for that kind of money.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 5, 2020)

jis said:


> The fact of the matter is that the service that Anderson has been promoting, namely short-medium distance corridor service has actually improved with better offerings in the cafe and fully refurbished cars. OTOH the service that Anderson has been negative about has not improved and gone downhill. Depending on which of the Amtrak service you use predominantly is bound to color ones attitude about Anderson. That is for most casual users of Amtrak who are blissfully ignorant about what goes on in the corners of Amtrak that don't touch them.


It's true that we each have our own views and agendas, but one major difference I've noticed is that corridor focused members don't seem to have a problem supporting the loss of long distance amenities or offering up entire long distance routes for abandonment unsolicited. Even in cases where they live a thousand miles away from a route they've ridden maybe once or not at all they'll offer to give our trains away for nothing. Which is odd because I don't see folks who live out on the long distance network suggesting we discontinue commuter trains just because we don't like the schedule or they carry fewer passengers than some other train. It's unfortunate but also unsurprising that people who live along commuter rail areas are willing to give Anderson a pass for moves that actively undermined and devalued the long distance network.


----------



## railiner (Mar 5, 2020)

Mail4MrTed said:


> I have just arrived home from a New Orleans to New York trip on the Crescent (Anderson's "end points"). This is my first experience with "contemporary" dining. The food was tasty enough though on a long haul trip of 29 plus hours it got old. We bought sandwiches from the cafe for lunch since we really didn't want another "bowl (so much for being free)." The first wine was NOT free for the second of our two dinners which was not made clear. I paid a whopping $2,700 for two fares plus a bedroom. The bedroom on the way North was worn out and rattled and had doors that didn't close and lights that didn't work. The sleeping car attendant was usually missing in action somewhere. We had to wander around the train to find her to put the beds down. The Lead Service Attendant in the dining car was not a happy person and "self service" was not working well, especially for the older folks. There were no Millennials in site in the diner probably because they didn't know what a sleeper was and couldn't afford one if they did. So whether they were willing to sit with others was moot. The little signs inviting people to sit together were a joke. I truly missed intermingling with the coach folks as did everyone else. And I think coach people on a long trip should be able to purchase dinners though I am sure Amtrak would over charge.
> 
> On the way back the sleeper attendant was far more personable and the dining attendant made an effort at table service, her choice, though on a previous trip she was "scolded" by some official for making the extra effort! The train was 2 and half hours late into New York and 3 into New Orleans, which I am told was the earliest arrival time in NOLA all that week! The time keeping issue is not entirely Anderson's fault and must be corrected,somehow, since people can't rely on the time keeping. Other than that, my experience tells me Anderson's administration is a disaster and the company doesn't care that much. Good riddance. Now let's see if another airline guy can do any better. As far as food and service goes, they can save money and still offer a good product - they can and should do far better, especially for that kind of money.


The experience you had, at the fare you paid is IMHO, entirely unsatisfactory...
I would strongly suggest you call Amtrak Customer Relation’s, and read them your review.
I believe they would offer you a nice voucher applicable toward future travel...


----------



## tricia (Mar 5, 2020)

railiner said:


> The experience you had, at the fare you paid is IMHO, entirely unsatisfactory...
> I would strongly suggest you call Amtrak Customer Relation’s, and read them your review.
> I believe they would offer you a nice voucher applicable toward future travel...


Or just send it in a letter. They do read and respond to thoughtful, detailed letters of complaint and/or praise--at least sometimes. As with everything Amtrak, YMMV.


----------



## jis (Mar 5, 2020)

Devil's Advocate said:


> It's true that we each have our own views and agendas, but one major difference I've noticed is that corridor focused members don't seem to have a problem supporting the loss of long distance amenities or offering up entire long distance routes for abandonment unsolicited. Even in cases where they live a thousand miles away from a route they've ridden maybe once or not at all they'll offer to give our trains away for nothing. Which is odd because I don't see folks who live out on the long distance network suggesting we discontinue commuter trains just because we don't like the schedule or they carry fewer passengers than some other train. It's unfortunate but also unsurprising that people who live along commuter rail areas are willing to give Anderson a pass for moves that actively undermined and devalued the long distance network.


You and most reasonable people don't. But there have been non-corridor advocates who have seriously suggested that certain corridors should be cut back. Similarly, many reasonable corridor people work quite diligently to advocate for LD trains. I would point to - for example - NJ-ARP Unquestionably, primarily "corridor people"), which has a long running record of fighting for LD trains. But then there are also unreasonable people in Corridor land who are not as supportive of and sometimes destructive of LD trains.

That is where my comment about being ignorant (either willingly or by omission or acting as such as a convenient political posture) playing a significant role comes in. Corridor people who are ignorant (willingly or otherwise) about the importance of LD trains to their users (we have even seen a few examples on AU) are willing to forego them and LD people who are ignorant of the importance of Corridors to the economy of where they run are willing to trash them at every opportunity. All that one can do is educate both negative groups, but sometimes you can just bring the horse to the water, but can't make them drink. That unfortunately is life.


----------



## toddinde (Mar 5, 2020)

jis said:


> I am not sure we all agree that Anderson was universally not positive. He did a few really bad things, but he also did a bunch of good, like refreshing rolling stock, ordering new rolling stock, including for LD service, and such. His stance on LD trains was indeed negative, but that was not everything that he did. His stance on food service should have forced Congress to legislatively put an end to it, which they chose not to, which says quite a bit about how Congress overall feels about that matter I suppose - not something that I like. And oddly enough, because of his negative stance, as a reaction to it, the LD network is probably on firmer financial footing with more subsidy than ever budgeted for it. So there are pluses and minuses to consider.


I concur that Anderson was not all bad.


----------



## toddinde (Mar 5, 2020)

Devil's Advocate said:


> I live at the junction of the Eagle and Sunset and mainly ride Western trains. I've seen zero refreshed anything. The only new rolling stock came in the form of barely used baggage cars that weren't ordered or deployed by Anderson. I've seen no meaningful improvements to dining, on time performance, service standards, interruption recovery, timely communication, fare restrictions, ticket prices, etc. Anderson seemed to go out of his way to antagonize people like me, and I will not be thanking him for inadvertently helping the long distance network by repeatedly attacking and undermining those who support it while trying to promote a replacement network of stub trains and bus bridges.


----------



## toddinde (Mar 5, 2020)

We live in a similar part of the world which is interestingly where the population growth and economic dynamism is. The Sunset Limited route serves faster growing, more population centers, and a greater population than the Northeast Corridor. Phoenix is the largest American city without rail service. It definitely justifies two daily trains.


----------



## toddinde (Mar 5, 2020)

jis said:


> Since all NEC states are net donor states as far as federal taxes and expenses go, it can be argued that the paltry subsidy that NEC is getting is not using a single penny of Texas money. Grow up!


I’m grown up, and it’s national or nothing. Period.


----------



## railiner (Mar 5, 2020)

toddinde said:


> it’s national or nothing. Period.


You are in denial...
If “nothing” (the demise of Amtrak as a national entity), ever came to pass,
you can be assured, the Northeast Corridor would survive in one form or another, as would some other corridors around the country...


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Mar 5, 2020)

jis said:


> The customers generally like the new fresh feel instead of the admittedly tired feel that was replaced.


 I thought the refreshed cars were nice enough on my last amtrak ride... I just don't see the point of praising Anderson for a lite refresh of 30+ year old cars. (actually going on 40 aren't they!? wow.) 

When did the new cafe menu start? I last rode regional and acela in October and the cafe menu was more limited than I remembered.


----------



## jis (Mar 5, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I thought the refreshed cars were nice enough on my last amtrak ride... I just don't see the point of praising Anderson for a lite refresh of 30+ year old cars. (actually going on 40 aren't they!? wow.)
> 
> When did the new cafe menu start? I last rode regional and acela in October and the cafe menu was more limited than I remembered.



I was just giving a balanced scorecard in my opinion. I have no problem if others have other opinion. C’est la vie. 

Anderson also did issue the RFP for replacing Amfleet Is. But those who cannot see any positive in someone they are trying to demonize I suppose will find some ulterior motive or something like that there too [emoji849]


----------



## zephyr17 (Mar 5, 2020)

hundredakerwood said:


> So is Amtrak safe in William J Flynn's hands as its next President & Chief Executive?


Amtrak is_ never_ safe.


----------



## jis (Mar 5, 2020)

railiner said:


> You are in denial...
> If “nothing” (the demise of Amtrak as a national entity), ever came to pass,
> you can be assured, the Northeast Corridor would survive in one form or another, as would some other corridors around the country...



To be fair though I think “National or nothing” is a good political slogan. Reality is a different animal, as you point out.


----------



## zephyr17 (Mar 5, 2020)

jis said:


> To be fair though I think “National or nothing” is a good political slogan. Reality is a different animal, as you point out.


It would survive, but hopefully with much less federal support, such as competitive DOT grants available to any state, and owned and operated by a consortium of states that benefit.

Amtrak restricted to the NE Corridor would lose political support in Congress necessary for its survival. I know i would hope my Washington State Congressional delegation would swing from its current strong Amtrak support to opposition in such a scheme.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Mar 5, 2020)

jis said:


> But those who cannot see any positive in someone they are trying to demonize I suppose will find some ulterior motive or something like that there too



I’m not trying to demonize the guy but I don’t see much to praise him for. 

I thought the new amfleet I’s look nice enough and the Chargers are a good investment.


----------



## Rasputin (Mar 5, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I’m not trying to demonize the guy but I don’t see much to praise him for.



I think he kind of demonized himself without needing any help in doing so.


----------



## jis (Mar 5, 2020)

zephyr17 said:


> It would survive, but hopefully with much less federal support, such as competitive DOT grants available to any state, and owned and operated by a consortium of states that benefit.
> 
> Amtrak restricted to the NE Corridor would lose political support in Congress necessary for its survival. I know i would hope my Washington State Congressional delegation would swing from its current strong Amtrak support to opposition in such a scheme.


If the dismantling of Amtrak were to come to pass, I very much doubt that the NEC operations would be called Amtrak. It would be funded by a mix of state and federal funds like most other things. Emphasis on the high speed aspect may be reduced unless there is some kind of a public-private partnership with market investment involved. But the majority used services will continue quite unabated including some sort of equivalent of Regional service, and maybe the artificial partitioning of service that causes absurdities like requiring to change trains at Trenton to get a reasonable fare service between NY and Philly will possibly become a thing of the past.

Basically it will be something equivalent to what is growing in California, but starting from a very large existing system. The infrastructure will get fixed irrespective of whether it is Amtrak or something else, just like eventually California HSR will get significant support from the Feds after the present crop of obstructionist Republicans have been duly neutered. NEC infrastructure is not an Amtrak issue. It is more like Highways in the northeast issue. Horsetrading on that will be about infrastructure, not about Amtrak.

Actually there is considerable support in the northeast among advocates to separate out the infrastructure from Amtrak and return Amtrak to its original role of being a TOC. Of course Amtrak does not like that idea at all. Who likes to lose part of a fiefdom? So what happens to NEC is not exactly tied at the hips with Amtrak, and in regular Amtrak budget the National Network gets more money than NEC anyway.


----------



## John Bredin (Mar 5, 2020)

jis said:


> in regular Amtrak budget the National Network gets more money than NEC anyway.


Don't confuse people with facts, Amtrak is anti-LD and everyone knows it.


----------



## zephyr17 (Mar 5, 2020)

John Bredin said:


> Don't confuse people with facts, Amtrak is anti-LD and everyone knows it.


From an Amtrak management perspective under Anderson it is. From a Congressional perspective, the source and assigner of those funds, it isn't, or shouldn't be.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 5, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I’m not trying to demonize the guy but I don’t see much to praise him for.





Rasputin said:


> I think he kind of demonized himself without needing any help in doing so.


You don't remember all those customer outreach events where Anderson asked us what we needed from Amtrak? Or the endless clamoring for DMU's and bus bridges with vending machines and TV dinners? Give the man a break already.


----------



## John Bredin (Mar 5, 2020)

zephyr17 said:


> From an Amtrak management perspective under Anderson it is. From a Congressional perspective, the source and assigner of those funds, it isn't, or shouldn't be.


If that was true, then Amtrak, like the Trump administration, would be submitting a draft budget with little or no money for LD trains and Congress would have to restore LD funding _a la_ Reagan's zero budgets. Amtrak's proposed budget is linked above, and it isn't a screw-LD-trains budget.

Here are some of Amtrak's requested Federal grant amounts:

Infrastructure $774,596,210: Northeast Corridor $419,899,890; National Network $354,696,320.
Equipment $792,038,240: Northeast Corridor $214,949,633; National Network $577,088,607.
Stations $275,077,721: Northeast Corridor $70,580,477; National Network $204,497,244.

46% of requested infrastructure grants for the National Network even though Amtrak doesn't own much of the infrastructure it uses for National Network trains. 73% of requested equipment grants for National Network equipment, and 74% of requested station grants for National Network stations.


----------



## zephyr17 (Mar 5, 2020)

John Bredin said:


> If that was true, then Amtrak, like the Trump administration, would be submitting a draft budget with little or no money for LD trains and Congress would have to restore LD funding _a la_ Reagan's zero budgets. Amtrak's proposed budget is linked above, and it isn't a screw-LD-trains budget.
> 
> Here are some of Amtrak's requested Federal grant amounts:
> 
> ...


Amtrak management is not entirely stupid and knows they are under MANDATE to operate the national network

Zeroing it out on their own budget request would be a stupid meat axe approach that Congress would override and they know it.

It doesn't mean they want to, as both Anderson's attempted actions and comments make clear.


----------



## west point (Mar 5, 2020)

Maybe you should send a copy of tour letter to Amtrak to Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee. He Questioned Gardner today about how passengers were accepting the new food service. Gardner could not give an answer. See trains newswire.

https://trn.trains.com/news/news-wi...break-even-claims-questioned-in-house-hearing


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 5, 2020)

John Bredin said:


> If that was true, then Amtrak, like the Trump administration, would be submitting a draft budget with little or no money for LD trains and Congress would have to restore LD funding _a la_ Reagan's zero budgets.


Just because I disagree with Anderson doesn't mean I think he's an idiot. Attacking every long haul route at the same time would be a fool's errand. So he picked a single route to test the waters. Anderson's plan to replace the Southwest Chief with shortened stub trains and permanent bus bridges would have made the Southern Pacific envious. Fortunately for us he picked the wrong route to attack first and was met with substantial resistance that quickly roused political allies. If Anderson had picked a weaker route that was less accustomed to defending itself he might have succeeded and could have used a similar premise to attack other routes as well. Does a long haul route traverse old tracks in need of repair? Bus bridge. Does a long haul route need to cross an adversarial host? Bus bridge. Does a long haul route include a segment with limited patronage? Bus bridge. Does anyone forced to travel across the bridge really want to pay Amtrak prices for lowest bidder bus service? Doubtful.


----------



## John Bredin (Mar 5, 2020)

Can anyone point to Amtrak under Anderson talking about a bus bridge for any LD service other than the Southwest Chief? 

And does anyone remember what was happening with the Chief at the time: BNSF talking about mothballing a stretch of the line, so that Amtrak would bear the maintenance costs including installing PTC? Is it possible, just possible, that the bus bridge proposal had something to do with that?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 5, 2020)

John Bredin said:


> Can anyone point to Amtrak under Anderson talking about a bus bridge for any LD service other than the Southwest Chief? And does anyone remember what was happening with the Chief at the time: BNSF talking about mothballing a stretch of the line, so that Amtrak would bear the maintenance costs including installing PTC? Is it possible, just possible, that the bus bridge proposal had something to do with that?


If Anderson was convinced the prior arrangement had somehow become untenable you could make a case for good faith efforts if he first tried to save the route as-is by promoting service retention to the relevant stakeholders. If he encountered budgetary resistance and was forced to move the route to the BNSF mainline I think supporters would be disappointed but would still understand. There would also be a mix of negative and positive outcomes that would help moderate the result. Instead of doing that Anderson rebuffed calls to keep the route intact and kept trying to sell bus and corridor service to long haul train supporters.


----------



## Trogdor (Mar 5, 2020)

John Bredin said:


> Can anyone point to Amtrak under Anderson talking about a bus bridge for any LD service other than the Southwest Chief?
> 
> And does anyone remember what was happening with the Chief at the time: BNSF talking about mothballing a stretch of the line, so that Amtrak would bear the maintenance costs including installing PTC? Is it possible, just possible, that the bus bridge proposal had something to do with that?



Not quite. The whole deal with BNSF wanting nothing to do with maintaining the line was resolved long before Anderson took over. IIRC, a three-way agreement was reached between Amtrak, BNSF, and the State of Colorado that dealt with the line. At the time, Amtrak basically had a deadline to either come to an agreement to maintain the track or reroute the Chief over the transcon, which would have run the train through north Texas instead. I want to say it was around 2015/16 or so that the issue got resolved, and Amtrak agreed to pitch in some money to maintain the track.


----------



## John Bredin (Mar 5, 2020)

You know, I thought the people saying Anderson was anti-LD meant he had no enthusiasm for LD trains and was mismanaging LD service because he didn't care. Not-so-benign neglect, in short.

But it seems the theory/belief is that he actively hated the LD trains, that he knew the right noises to make to Congress -- carrying the charade to the extent of asking Congress for more money for the national network than the NEC -- but then after getting that funding actively sabotaged the LD trains.

Does anyone realize how bonkers that sounds? Where would such active malice come from? Neglect or lack of enthusiasm makes some sense given that Anderson came to Amtrak from another industry altogether, but that same lack of experience leans against him knowing enough about LD trains to either hate or love them.

It's particularly odd in light of the national-network-heavy budget request. Half the infrastructure money and three-quarters of the equipment and station money is IMHO a hell of a lot more than you'd ask for if you hated LD trains but needed to ask for enough funding to hide it. Plus once Congress expects you to run the LD trains, what's to be gained from deliberately sabotaging them? Some of the old railroads sabotaged passenger service because they were fishing for ICC train-off authorizations, but Amtrak is more like a government bureaucracy where you connive to add to your bailiwick, not to be rid of a good chunk of it. 

A lot of weight for the malice theory is placed on contemporary dining and other amenity cutbacks. But I was taught to not attribute to malice that which can be as easily explained by stupidity.  And for all the times Congress has pulled Amtrak's fat out of the fire, it was also Congress that passed into law the goal of breaking even on food service. Anderson may well have picked a lousy way to reach that goal, but the goal itself was imposed on him from above, he didn't pull it out of his hat.


----------



## Willbridge (Mar 6, 2020)

Regarding deleting the agents, it reminded me of what transit system boards of directors do when they panic. They'll make up a rule, say "no trip should operate that carries less than seven passengers", and staff will roll their eyes and turn reverse peak trips into deadheads that may or may not make real savings. The excuse is that till this century transit systems had limited information. Amtrak should have been able to cut agents based on revenue inbound and outbound for each station, not on boardings.

Regarding the PPC, dining car capacity on the CS has been an issue since the beginning, when dinners were wrapping up at 10:30 p.m. When Amtrak developed a staff in LA, they discovered that they had Santa Fe cafe cars sitting around. They had been used on secondary transcons. They were inserted between the coaches and the diners and coach passengers loved their plain, but good, menus. So I started to write up a commendation, until I was told that Washington, DC was not in the decision-making process and would kill the improvement if they learned of it before it was well-established. If a second server had been added in the CS Superliner lounge, for example, the end of the PPC might have been less harsh.


----------



## Willbridge (Mar 6, 2020)

Trogdor said:


> Not quite. The whole deal with BNSF wanting nothing to do with maintaining the line was resolved long before Anderson took over. IIRC, a three-way agreement was reached between Amtrak, BNSF, and the State of Colorado that dealt with the line. At the time, Amtrak basically had a deadline to either come to an agreement to maintain the track or reroute the Chief over the transcon, which would have run the train through north Texas instead. I want to say it was around 2015/16 or so that the issue got resolved, and Amtrak agreed to pitch in some money to maintain the track.


In fact it was like the movie "Z" (1969), in which a coup plot is inadvertently exposed by an unrelated investigation. The tri-state and community efforts culminating in the successful agreement accidentally exposed the plot to segment the SWC.

Other factors were Amtrak's finding that rerouting the SWC would require costly station improvements and BNSF's realization that putting the SWC on their priority freight route had some disadvantages. (This was similar to their experiences when the EB was routed on the cut-off between Fargo and Minot due to flooding and track problems on the line through Grand Forks).


----------



## Willbridge (Mar 6, 2020)

One issue that is not considered by casual proposals to do in the LD trains is that with all of the discontinuances over the years the routes that remain include many segments that are not paralleled by the Interstate Highway system. Example: the SWC bus bridge included US350, two lanes and barely any shoulders, and low priority for snow removal. If the segmented trains were held at Albuquerque or Dodge City for the bus, their neo-corridor role would have been undercut.

I've followed the intercity bus industry over the years. Their customers demand to be routed via the Interstates or tollways. Check the history of Pacific Trailways (PDX<>SLC via US20 and US26) vs. Greyhound (PDX<>SLC via I-84). Routing long-distance Amtrak passengers on secondary highways would have limited appeal.

At Oregon DOT we found that there was a handy rule of thumb regarding the public's willingness to ride an intercity bus for a given number of hours. Dodge City <> Albuquerque would interest about 10% of the public. Given this and the condition of the needed highways, it was only possible to assume that the segmentation proposal was either evil or incompetent.


----------



## Qapla (Mar 6, 2020)

Is it possible that it may not be "hatred of LD trains" but undisclosed love of "profit from airline stock". Maybe he thought that, if the LD trains were killed off, airline stock would go even higher - at least the stock he may own.

Just a thought .... don't know if he owns any stock - but, many of the decisions he made for Amtrak seem to be dumber than a person with his track record should have made.


----------



## fdaley (Mar 6, 2020)

It might well be mere stupidity rather than malice, but either way the Anderson record is just dismal. All of the overnight trains in the east have been so degraded that even an inveterate train rider like me would rather stay home or find some alternative to riding them. Ridership on these trains is falling, even as it rises on the system overall, and this situation will get worse as more people in the trains' large pool of occasional riders discover how truly awful the service has become. Read Mail4MrTed's review of the Crescent above. Every day more riders are having their "never again" Amtrak experience. The Lake Shore now has the shortest consist of any in the nearly 45 years of its operation by Amtrak. 

Yes, there was a congressional mandate on food-service costs, but under Anderson there seems to have been little if any effort to figure out how to navigate or comply with this in a way that might be palatable to the company's most loyal and high-revenue customers. And in their public comments, Anderson and his team repeatedly spread the false narrative that long-distance trains were somehow standing in the way of developing and expanding corridor operations, when in fact the existence of the national network has been crucial to the development of short-haul corridors in the Midwest, California and the Northwest over the past four decades. 

And then there was the crazy bus-bridge proposal for the Southwest Chief. To conceive of such a farce, and to actually implement "contemporary" non-dining in the way that Amtrak has, reflects an utter cluelessness on Anderson's part about the organization he was leading, its mission and its customers. I fear it will take a long time to undo the damage of his tenure, if it is even possible to do so.


----------



## lordsigma (Mar 6, 2020)

Mail4MrTed said:


> I have just arrived home from a New Orleans to New York trip on the Crescent (Anderson's "end points"). This is my first experience with "contemporary" dining. The food was tasty enough though on a long haul trip of 29 plus hours it got old. We bought sandwiches from the cafe for lunch since we really didn't want another "bowl (so much for being free)." The first wine was NOT free for the second of our two dinners which was not made clear. I paid a whopping $2,700 for two fares plus a bedroom. The bedroom on the way North was worn out and rattled and had doors that didn't close and lights that didn't work. The sleeping car attendant was usually missing in action somewhere. We had to wander around the train to find her to put the beds down. The Lead Service Attendant in the dining car was not a happy person and "self service" was not working well, especially for the older folks. There were no Millennials in site in the diner probably because they didn't know what a sleeper was and couldn't afford one if they did. So whether they were willing to sit with others was moot. The little signs inviting people to sit together were a joke. I truly missed intermingling with the coach folks as did everyone else. And I think coach people on a long trip should be able to purchase dinners though I am sure Amtrak would over charge.
> 
> On the way back the sleeper attendant was far more personable and the dining attendant made an effort at table service, her choice, though on a previous trip she was "scolded" by some official for making the extra effort! The train was 2 and half hours late into New York and 3 into New Orleans, which I am told was the earliest arrival time in NOLA all that week! The time keeping issue is not entirely Anderson's fault and must be corrected,somehow, since people can't rely on the time keeping. Other than that, my experience tells me Anderson's administration is a disaster and the company doesn't care that much. Good riddance. Now let's see if another airline guy can do any better. As far as food and service goes, they can save money and still offer a good product - they can and should do far better, especially for that kind of money.



The crescents OTP has been terrible for quite some time. I’m surprised it’s ridership seems to hold stable year after year. I guess it just shows the strength of that New York to Atlanta corridor and the ticket prices must be competitive with flying. If the Crescents OTP was fixed it would need more equipment.


----------



## Rail Freak (Mar 6, 2020)

C'mon Traditional Dinning!!!


----------



## jis (Mar 6, 2020)

Rail Freak said:


> C'mon Traditional Dinning!!!



What is “Dinning”? Did you mean to say “Dining” perhaps? [emoji51]


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Mar 6, 2020)

John Bredin said:


> But it seems the theory/belief is that he actively hated the LD trains, that he knew the right noises to make to Congress -- carrying the charade to the extent of asking Congress for more money for the national network than the NEC -- but then after getting that funding actively sabotaged the LD trains.
> 
> Does anyone realize how bonkers that sounds? Where would such active malice come from? Neglect or lack of enthusiasm makes some sense given that Anderson came to Amtrak from another industry altogether, but that same lack of experience leans against him knowing enough about LD trains to either hate or love them.
> 
> It's particularly odd in light of the national-network-heavy budget request. Half the infrastructure money and three-quarters of the equipment and station money is IMHO a hell of a lot more than you'd ask for if you hated LD trains but needed to ask for enough funding to hide it. Plus once Congress expects you to run the LD trains, what's to be gained from deliberately sabotaging them? Some of the old railroads sabotaged passenger service because they were fishing for ICC train-off authorizations, but Amtrak is more like a government bureaucracy where you connive to add to your bailiwick, not to be rid of a good chunk of it.



I think you're attempting to simplify the situation by turning it into a "love/hate" situation. I have read his remarks, heard his remarks and seen proposals and the message is quite clear. It is not about love or hate. It is about costs and it has been said time and time again the long-distance trains are cost eaters that have run their length. 

Since certain think tanks and groups have been pushing for changes to the LD network, it was assumed it would be easy to "make the right noises to Congress." If you look at fleet plans and strategy, there is constant talk of reimaging of the LD network. They even made casual mention in the latest fleet proposal:

*Several key elements which will drive our long-distance refleeting initiative remain
outstanding and will become clearer over the next 12-18 months. These include:

• Changes to our planned route network following reauthorization. Some long-distance
routes today may be better-served by daylight services which can use corridor trainsets;
the Palmetto is already a candidate for conversion to Amfleet I replacement trainsets.
The upcoming reauthorization will provide guidance to Amtrak from Congress
regarding the future National Network, and thus the route network which the new
long-distance fleet must support. *

If you read the budget request, it was based upon the desire of Congress to operate the system as is. 

While some may believe that he attempted to "sabotage" the long-distance system, I don't believe he did anything to "sell" or "grow" the system. Consists were cuts, trains were routinely canceled while tired rhetoric like using end to end ridership numbers as a basis for saying the service isn't what people want. 

Once Congress started pushing back and people started realizing that asking for BILLIONS for the NEC while balking at funding 1 train for a few senators that you may need in your corner wasn't working out too well, the rhetoric was turned down. 

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the new CEO, who hasn't uttered a peep and we have 105 posts in his thread.


----------



## fdaley (Mar 7, 2020)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Some long-distance
> routes today may be better-served by daylight services which can use corridor trainsets;



Yes, I'm sure New York-to-Chicago travelers would be better served by spending the night in Buffalo or Pittsburgh en route. Talk about clueless. 

On the plus side, at least we could get a real dinner and breakfast while we were stopped overnight between trains.


----------



## tricia (Mar 7, 2020)

lordsigma said:


> The crescents OTP has been terrible for quite some time. I’m surprised it’s ridership seems to hold stable year after year. I guess it just shows the strength of that New York to Atlanta corridor and the ticket prices must be competitive with flying. If the Crescents OTP was fixed it would need more equipment.


FWIW: OTP arrival in Atlanta from NY has been reasonably reliable (by Amtrak's current standards)--most of the delays have been south of Atlanta.


----------



## jis (Mar 7, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Is it possible that it may not be "hatred of LD trains" but undisclosed love of "profit from airline stock". Maybe he thought that, if the LD trains were killed off, airline stock would go even higher - at least the stock he may own.


Actually, killing LD trains will have negligible effect on airline stock. I don't think any airline executive or stockholder really worries about Amtrak as an effective competitor in the LD market at all. The numbers tell the story pretty clearly. Amtrak's LD ridership falls in the noise territory in the statistics.

Just a very very rough back of the envelope scribbling suggests that Amtrak LD ridership is around 4.5 million per year, give or take (based on PTJ ridership figures for 2019). Airline domestic ridership is about 800 million give or take (based on FDOT Bureau of Transportation supplied statistics for 2018). Even if only 75% are main line that is still 600 million. Very generously if we say LD trains enable 6 million riders to not ride on planes, that is still just 1% of mainline air ridership. And I doubt that all of them or even 2/3rds of them would start flying if LD trains got segmented or disappeared.


----------



## jis (Mar 7, 2020)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Of course, none of this has anything to do with the new CEO, who hasn't uttered a peep and we have 105 posts in his thread.


Well considering that he does not become the CEO until April 15, and the he has a bit of a learning curve to traverse, it would be unfair to expect any "peep"s from him, specially ones that are substantially based on knowledge of the business and facts.

But I agree, AU as usual is ahead of the times


----------



## west point (Mar 7, 2020)

From the 1st of the year. Actually the arrivals of #19 in ATL are not that good. Just 8 OT arrivals

Average Ar delay: 50 minutes late
Median Ar delay: 31 minutes late

Now arrivals of #19 in CLT average just 15 minutes with 29 OT arrivals - departures

Average Ar delay: 15 minutes late
Median Ar delay: 9 minutes late 

So Crescent loosing average of 35 minutes on each train clt - atl


----------



## tricia (Mar 7, 2020)

west point said:


> From the 1st of the year. Actually the arrivals of #19 in ATL are not that good. Just 8 OT arrivals
> 
> Average Ar delay: 50 minutes late
> Median Ar delay: 31 minutes late
> ...



I stand corrected. Haven't been on this train in a while, and for several years the major delays were south of Atlanta.


----------



## west point (Mar 7, 2020)

Yes it is disappointing that the delays north and southbound CLT <>ATL have gotten worse.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Mar 7, 2020)

tricia said:


> I stand corrected. Haven't been on this train in a while, and for several years the major delays were south of Atlanta.


The major delays are still south of Atlanta. Averaging an hour or so late into Atlanta isn't good, but it's still much better than averaging 3-4 hours late into NOL.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 7, 2020)

fdaley said:


> Yes, I'm sure New York-to-Chicago travelers would be better served by spending the night in Buffalo or Pittsburgh en route. Talk about clueless.
> 
> On the plus side, at least we could get a real dinner and breakfast while we were stopped overnight between trains.



You seem to have missed the first word of the bit you quoted.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Mar 8, 2020)

The problem with the “just following orders to reduce food costs” excuse is there were other tests that some claim were successful that were cut. The at your seat coach meals for example.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 8, 2020)

Perhaps those claims were untrue, or the additional revenue from said tests was insufficient to satisfy the mandate.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Mar 8, 2020)

Ryan said:


> Perhaps those claims were untrue, or the additional revenue from said tests was insufficient to satisfy the mandate.



But they were selling, myself and others on this board saw that. So why cut something that was selling? Why cut the big sky dinners from the empire builder?


----------



## Trogdor (Mar 9, 2020)

Something “selling” doesn’t mean it’s covering its costs or satisfying a mandate. The problem is that the mandate effectively required eliminating losses on food service, not just reducing them. Food service on Amtrak starts with a relatively high cost base (staff, equipment, catering logistics), and has a limited overall revenue potential (limited by the the more restrictive of the amount of storage space on board, the number of passengers on the train, and the price those passengers are willing to pay; essentially a supply-and-demand problem). So even if a certain practice was overall financially positive vs. the previously existing model, it may not have been enough to eliminate all of the losses for food service. It’s possible the best they could hope for under that model still only gets them part way towards their goal.


----------



## JRR (Mar 9, 2020)

Trogdor said:


> Something “selling” doesn’t mean it’s covering its costs or satisfying a mandate. The problem is that the mandate effectively required eliminating losses on food service, not just reducing them. Food service on Amtrak starts with a relatively high cost base (staff, equipment, catering logistics), and has a limited overall revenue potential (limited by the the more restrictive of the amount of storage space on board, the number of passengers on the train, and the price those passengers are willing to pay; essentially a supply-and-demand problem). So even if a certain practice was overall financially positive vs. the previously existing model, it may not have been enough to eliminate all of the losses for food service. It’s possible the best they could hope for under that model still only gets them part way towards their goal.



Again, with respect to the f&b mandate, the discussion of accounting for revenue is missing. 

The very high sleeper price includes the meals but no indication as to the portion of the ticket price which is allocated to f&b.

It is likely that a shift in the allocation would cure any “apparent” loss.


----------



## Qapla (Mar 9, 2020)

Maybe that is why they discontinued allowing coach passengers on the Silvers from eating in the dining car - it made it too easy to set a price on each meal. If they wanted to declare a higher or lower portion of the sleepers for food - that is hard to do when menu prices show what is being charged.

Eliminate meals for coach - you eliminate published prices for the meals.


----------



## toddinde (Mar 9, 2020)

jis said:


> Actually, killing LD trains will have negligible effect on airline stock. I don't think any airline executive or stockholder really worries about Amtrak as an effective competitor in the LD market at all. The numbers tell the story pretty clearly. Amtrak's LD ridership falls in the noise territory in the statistics.
> 
> Just a very very rough back of the envelope scribbling suggests that Amtrak LD ridership is around 4.5 million per year, give or take (based on PTJ ridership figures for 2019). Airline domestic ridership is about 800 million give or take (based on FDOT Bureau of Transportation supplied statistics for 2018). Even if only 75% are main line that is still 600 million. Very generously if we say LD trains enable 6 million riders to not ride on planes, that is still just 1% of mainline air ridership. And I doubt that all of them or even 2/3rds of them would start flying if LD trains got segmented or disappeared.


I agree. Amtrak is not a factor, and no air executive views it as a threat. In the same way that Walmart and Target locate near each other, the more people travel is just good for business.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Mar 9, 2020)

Trogdor said:


> Something “selling” doesn’t mean it’s covering its costs or satisfying a mandate. The problem is that the mandate effectively required eliminating losses on food service, not just reducing them. Food service on Amtrak starts with a relatively high cost base (staff, equipment, catering logistics), and has a limited overall revenue potential (limited by the the more restrictive of the amount of storage space on board, the number of passengers on the train, and the price those passengers are willing to pay; essentially a supply-and-demand problem). So even if a certain practice was overall financially positive vs. the previously existing model, it may not have been enough to eliminate all of the losses for food service. It’s possible the best they could hope for under that model still only gets them part way towards their goal.



The at your seat coach meal was eliminated on trains that still have dining cars. It didn’t require any extra staffing, and it was selling (some on this board have said it was successful, as far as I know there is no data). So it had to be lowering the losses of F&B on those routes. Same with the big sky dinners.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 9, 2020)

John Bredin said:


> You know, I thought the people saying Anderson was anti-LD meant he had no enthusiasm for LD trains and was mismanaging LD service because he didn't care. Not-so-benign neglect, in short. But it seems the theory/belief is that he actively hated the LD trains, that he knew the right noises to make to Congress -- carrying the charade to the extent of asking Congress for more money for the national network than the NEC -- but then after getting that funding actively sabotaged the LD trains.


There is a large middle ground between indifference and hatred. Anderson is on record as saying he was okay with _some_ long distance trains. The problem for supporters is that we're already saddled with a skeletal network that barely handles many N/S trips and Anderson never explained which trains he was willing to protect and which trains were threatened (beyond the SWC). That being the case, the prudent reaction was to assume any route could be next, because it could. Anderson was already attacking the SWC back in H1 2018, but when I plugged your numbers into google I get a budget request for 2021, which could just as easily be interpreted as a reluctant agreement to continue funding trains he originally intended to replace with low cost bus contracts and state sponsored corridor service.



toddinde said:


> Amtrak is not a factor, and no air executive views it as a threat


Amtrak's NEC service turned out to be a genuine threat. Amtrak's LD service is not much of a factor, but whenever someone in power has promoted a major passenger rail project airlines have traditionally attacked the proposal through closed door political lobbying and funding of opposition groups.


----------



## JRR (Mar 11, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Maybe that is why they discontinued allowing coach passengers on the Silvers from eating in the dining car - it made it too easy to set a price on each meal. If they wanted to declare a higher or lower portion of the sleepers for food - that is hard to do when menu prices show what is being charged.
> 
> Eliminate meals for coach - you eliminate published prices for the meals.



Actually, the “published” price for a meal paid for by Coach passengers is irrelevant.

When you buy a sleeper ticket you pay for the most expensive meal for however many meals on board. Whether or not you eat a meal or not you have paid for it and should be credited to revenue.

I doubt that they are properly accounting for revenue.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 11, 2020)

Properly accounting for the revenue, and doing it the way you think they should are two different things.

Meals consumed are accounted for.


----------



## jis (Mar 11, 2020)

Specially since Amtrak does not get to decide how to account for them. They are basically told exactly how by Volpe/FRA.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Mar 11, 2020)

jis said:


> Well considering that he does not become the CEO until April 15, and the he has a bit of a learning curve to traverse, it would be unfair to expect any "peep"s from him, specially ones that are substantially based on knowledge of the business and facts.



I'm not sure it would be unfair. I'd really like to know what his interest is and why he'd accept the job and that is something that can be answered without experience or knowledge.


----------



## Willbridge (Mar 11, 2020)

fdaley said:


> It might well be mere stupidity rather than malice, but either way the Anderson record is just dismal. All of the overnight trains in the east have been so degraded that even an inveterate train rider like me would rather stay home or find some alternative to riding them. Ridership on these trains is falling, even as it rises on the system overall, and this situation will get worse as more people in the trains' large pool of occasional riders discover how truly awful the service has become. Read Mail4MrTed's review of the Crescent above. Every day more riders are having their "never again" Amtrak experience. The Lake Shore now has the shortest consist of any in the nearly 45 years of its operation by Amtrak.
> 
> Yes, there was a congressional mandate on food-service costs, but under Anderson there seems to have been little if any effort to figure out how to navigate or comply with this in a way that might be palatable to the company's most loyal and high-revenue customers. And in their public comments, Anderson and his team repeatedly spread the false narrative that long-distance trains were somehow standing in the way of developing and expanding corridor operations, when in fact the existence of the national network has been crucial to the development of short-haul corridors in the Midwest, California and the Northwest over the past four decades.
> 
> And then there was the crazy bus-bridge proposal for the Southwest Chief. To conceive of such a farce, and to actually implement "contemporary" non-dining in the way that Amtrak has, reflects an utter cluelessness on Anderson's part about the organization he was leading, its mission and its customers. I fear it will take a long time to undo the damage of his tenure, if it is even possible to do so.


There's an added destructive factor in the Eastern LD service cutbacks, a phenomenon that westerners have experienced before. Media coverage concentrates on what happens in the East, but makes sweeping generalizations that apply to the whole country. When the Northern Lines and UP were still trying to do a good job for passengers, national media referred to broken down LIRR commuter trains as if that was typical. It was frustrating. Ironically, when Amtrak moved Western rolling stock east, they were celebrated in national media for making the trains worth traveling again.


----------



## fdaley (Mar 13, 2020)

Willbridge said:


> There's an added destructive factor in the Eastern LD service cutbacks, a phenomenon that westerners have experienced before. Media coverage concentrates on what happens in the East, but makes sweeping generalizations that apply to the whole country.



Lots of people read news stories last fall about Amtrak killing dining car service in the East, and I'm sure some of them managed to skim over the paragraph explaining that traditional dining was still offered west of Chicago and New Orleans. To the extent that they now wrongly believe this feature of rail travel is just gone, they may be steering clear of the western trains as well. 

The western trains may also suffer loss of business from people in the East who are unwilling to put up with flexible/contemporary faux dining on the trains that would connect them to the West. In the case of my family, we swore off the Lake Shore Limited after one horrible trip soon after the "contemporary dining" debut in 2018. Last year, when it came time for our annual winter trip from upstate New York to California, we avoided the LSL by taking the Canadian westbound and returning on the Sunset and Crescent. This year, with the Crescent having been turned into an abomination too (30-plus hours without a decent meal!), we looked into alternatives for getting from our home to Chicago (fly; drive to Detroit; take Via Rail and Windsor-Detroit limousine), but they all seemed like a huge hassle, so we decided to just stay home. So we not only didn't book bedrooms on the Lake Shore or any of the other eastern trains, we also didn't book them on the Southwest Chief, Coast Starlight or Zephyr.


----------



## Mail4MrTed (Mar 14, 2020)

fdaley said:


> Lots of people read news stories last fall about Amtrak killing dining car service in the East, and I'm sure some of them managed to skim over the paragraph explaining that traditional dining was still offered west of Chicago and New Orleans. To the extent that they now wrongly believe this feature of rail travel is just gone, they may be steering clear of the western trains as well.
> 
> The western trains may also suffer loss of business from people in the East who are unwilling to put up with flexible/contemporary faux dining on the trains that would connect them to the West. In the case of my family, we swore off the Lake Shore Limited after one horrible trip soon after the "contemporary dining" debut in 2018. Last year, when it came time for our annual winter trip from upstate New York to California, we avoided the LSL by taking the Canadian westbound and returning on the Sunset and Crescent. This year, with the Crescent having been turned into an abomination too (30-plus hours without a decent meal!), we looked into alternatives for getting from our home to Chicago (fly; drive to Detroit; take Via Rail and Windsor-Detroit limousine), but they all seemed like a huge hassle, so we decided to just stay home. So we not only didn't book bedrooms on the Lake Shore or any of the other eastern trains, we also didn't book them on the Southwest Chief, Coast Starlight or Zephyr.



And there you have the problem for many. The length of the Crescent trip (if it is on time which it rarely is, usually 2 to 3 hours late) is 29 hours from the Anderson "end points." On a recent trip from New York to New Orleans that meant that we were on the train for 32 hours and TWO dinner bowls. The food itself had some taste but was over cooked and the "self service" in what passes for "First Class," is pathetic. We paid a whopping $2,700.00 for two round trip tickets and bedrooms and we get "self service" food bowls. That might be OK on The City of New Orleans which would provide one evening meal, but it is not OK with a longer trip and two evening meals. ALSO, that first glass of wine free thing only applies to the FIRST of the two dinners! We had to pay for the wine at the second meal. That is not clear. Over all, it is discouraging. Amtrak can to far better.


----------



## OBS (Mar 14, 2020)

Hopefully you communicated to Amtrak your opinion of service and value for price paid. Thanks for sharing with us.


----------



## JRR (Mar 17, 2020)

Ryan said:


> Properly accounting for the revenue, and doing it the way you think they should are two different things.
> 
> Meals consumed are accounted for.



Yes, meals consumed are accounted for - that is the amount of food consumed, but as I pointed out,, the revenue is what the passenger paid to AMTRAK. The portion properly attributed to f&b of that ticket price had nothing to do with the amount consumed.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 17, 2020)

Once more for possible penetration:



jis said:


> Specially since Amtrak does not get to decide how to account for them. They are basically told exactly how by Volpe/FRA.



The passenger paid for a room, and transportation from one point to another. The breakdown past that is artificial.


----------



## JRR (Mar 17, 2020)

Ryan said:


> Once more for possible penetration:
> 
> 
> 
> The passenger paid for a room, and transportation from one point to another. The breakdown past that is artificial.



I'd be glad to continue this via PM . I'll just say this further, everyone says it is the congressional mandate that is the problem. I disagree and say it is improper accounting. I disagree with your statement. If your statement is correct, then all meals are free and no matter how cheap one makes them, the F&B will show a loss.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 17, 2020)

There is literally nothing more to discuss further. You have an opinion. That opinion is not shared by anyone that makes the rules. You can incessantly yammer about it all you want with no point and nothing will change other than crapping up every thread you bring it up in. Or, you can accept that reality isn't the way you wish it to be. Welcome to life.


----------



## Mail4MrTed (Mar 18, 2020)

OBS said:


> Hopefully you communicated to Amtrak your opinion of service and value for price paid. Thanks for sharing with us.



I have reported the trip and experience with the National Association of Railroad Passengers which has a site for such reports and is the lobbying group for Amtrak in DC. I would encourage all to join!


----------



## west point (Mar 18, 2020)

Anderson must feel that the whole of Amtrak is falling on him. He may have felt good on how he was leaving until this corona mess surfaced. In like Flynn must feel like he is entering a hornet's nest.


----------



## IndyLions (Mar 18, 2020)

west point said:


> Anderson must feel that the whole of Amtrak is falling on him. He may have felt good on how he was leaving until this corona mess surfaced. In like Flynn must feel like he is entering a hornet's nest.




There are two ways to look at it. 

One, is that he has a built-in excuse why he didn’t make the break even point that was obviously (to me at least) his primary goal all the time.

The second is true disappointment that he was “this close!” (in his mind at least) and was denied.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Mar 18, 2020)

Flynn and the board can do whatever they want. There will be every excuse they want to either cancel services, or ramp up services. Just depends on how they want to spin it politically. Since I know 100% how Anderson would spin it at least we have a slight chance with a new guy coming in.


----------



## frequentflyer (Apr 16, 2020)

Big post over on trainorders, supervised no one here mentioned it here.









Amtrak Names William Flynn as CEO and President - Amtrak Media


WASHINGTON – Amtrak announced that it has named William J. Flynn as its next Chief Executive Officer and President. Flynn, a seasoned business leader with four decades of transportation and logistics experience, will begin his role on April 15, 2020. Flynn succeeds Richard Anderson, who joined...




media.amtrak.com





MODERATOR NOTE: this new thread was merged into the existing thread on the same topic


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Apr 16, 2020)

Cautiously optimistic. I’m glad someone else besides Anderson is in charge during this historic downturn. I think the point of the post was today is day one of the new regime. Thankfully it’s time to move on from talking about Anderson.


----------



## Skyline (Apr 16, 2020)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> Cautiously optimistic. I’m glad someone else besides Anderson is in charge during this historic downturn. I think the point of the post was today is day one of the new regime. Thankfully it’s time to move on from talking about Anderson.



Agree. Let's see if Flynn continues the anti-LD agenda Anderson did, and if so, talk about Flynn.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 16, 2020)

I'm most excited about moving past the discussion of the made up "anti-LD agenda".


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 16, 2020)

Ryan said:


> I'm most excited about moving past the discussion of the made up "anti-LD agenda".


Some of us consider cold breakfasts, flimsy tray casserole, and threats of bus bridges to be a problem. Especially when combined with the highest fares we've ever been asked to pay. Toying with a once-a-day (or less) long distance service is different from making adjustments to a regional commuter frequency. Maybe if you lived along the SWC instead of the NEC you'd have a clearer understanding of our concerns.


----------



## IndyLions (Apr 17, 2020)

Ryan said:


> I'm most excited about moving past the discussion of the made up "anti-LD agenda".



If you consider a strategy of moving resources from LD to regional/corridor services as anti-LD, then I wouldn’t call that made up. That was one of Anderson’s strategies - and he was very public about it. However, for all we know that remains a strategy of the board and/or Flynn, so I wouldn’t say we’ll be getting past it any time soon either.

I don’t see anything happening other than the CURRENT LD status quo until there is some sort of indication as to what an infrastructure bill will look like.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 17, 2020)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Some of us consider cold breakfasts, flimsy tray casserole, and threats of bus bridges to be a problem. Especially when combined with the highest fares we've ever been asked to pay. Toying with a once-a-day (or less) long distance service is different from making adjustments to a regional commuter frequency. Maybe if you lived along the SWC instead of the NEC you'd have a clearer understanding of our concerns.



I understand the concerns perfectly and agree with them. They're not proof of an anti-LD agenda. The food comes from Congress. The bus bridge never happened, and instead strengthened the viability of the SWC by getting funds committed to the maintenance of the route.




IndyLions said:


> If you consider a strategy of moving resources from LD to regional/corridor services as anti-LD, then I wouldn’t call that made up.


What resources were moved from LD to regional/corridor services? Speaking out in favor of expansion into corridor service doesn't mean that it has to come at the expense of the LD service. The FY 21 budget request (prepared under Anderson) included funding requests for LD locomotive and Superliner Replacements.


----------



## IndyLions (Apr 17, 2020)

Ryan said:


> What resources were moved from LD to regional/corridor services? Speaking out in favor of expansion into corridor service doesn't mean that it has to come at the expense of the LD service. The FY 21 budget request (prepared under Anderson) included funding requests for LD locomotive and Superliner Replacements.



You made an argument some would agree with, that the bus bridge plan was just subterfuge to get additional money out of Congress. If that’s the case - it worked.

However, he was pretty clear in a variety of public interviews that we had too many LD trains and that corridor services were the future. I don’t believe that was subterfuge. 

I just don’t believe he had the people skills, negotiation skills nor the salesmanship to get anyone in Congress over to his way of thinking.


----------



## IndyLions (Apr 17, 2020)

Ryan said:


> The FY 21 budget request (prepared under Anderson) included funding requests for LD locomotive and Superliner Replacements.



Indeed, he deserves credit for insisting that new equipment was needed and attempting to do something about it. However, that also doesn’t prove he wasn’t anti-LD - because he repeatedly said we should have FEWER LD trains, not ZERO LD trains.

Most people here would consider a proponent of less LD as anti-LD.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 17, 2020)

What were his exact words?


----------



## IndyLions (Apr 17, 2020)

Interview from the Skift Global Forum preview...

_“Probably today, we operate 15 of them (LD trains), including Empire Builder across the northern western half of the U.S., the Zephyr from Chicago to San Francisco, the Southwest Chief, and the Coast Starlight. In an ideal state, we probably would operate somewhere between five to 10 and instead focus our efforts and resources on short-haul intercity transportation, because that’s where the demand indicators are for Amtrak.”_

Complete interview here (thanks Jis):
Skift Global Forum Preview: Amtrak CEO Wants to Bring Airline Nimbleness to the Rails


----------



## IndyLions (Apr 17, 2020)

From that interview, he says some sensible things. However, from his words he is obviously not a believer in the LD network. He thinks ½ to ⅔ of it should be shuttered in favor of other options.


----------



## IndyLions (Apr 17, 2020)

To me Anderson’s biggest issue was his complete lack of people skills. A CEO is the chief executive salesman for a corporation. Agree with it or not, Anderson had a vision for where he wanted to take Amtrak. With his people skills and 535 shareholders, he didn’t have a snowballs‘ chance in hell of succeeding on that front.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 17, 2020)

That's a bit of a jump to "anti-LD trains". 

Put all of your funding into half of the trains and you get all the stuff back everyone complains about.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Apr 17, 2020)

Anderson is gone.


----------



## dlagrua (Apr 17, 2020)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> Anderson is gone.


Flynn may be in but Anderson is staying on until the end of the year. Gardner also not a lover of LD trains and he is still there too. Does anyone know if Flynn has made any public statements as to his intentions on LD train service? .


----------



## IndyLions (Apr 18, 2020)

Ryan said:


> Put all of your funding into half of the trains and you get all the stuff back everyone complains about.



Absolutely true. Anderson’s stated vision in that article was 5-10 experiential trains and a significant expansion of corridor services. While I am somewhat torn - if he could have pulled it off it would probably be better than what we have today.

There are just 100 reasons why he couldn’t pull it off. Maybe soon we’ll see what kind of vision Flynn has, and if he is pragmatic enough to get it implemented.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Apr 18, 2020)

State funded corridor expansion is a pipe dream with Red and Blue States so divided. I hope that changes in the next decade. 90/10 and 80/20 funding matches being turned down by Red State governors such as mine in Iowa is a disgrace but it is what it is. Andersons plans were meant to fail in my opinion. If the SWC experiment was allowed to proceed other LD routes would have fallen like dominos with very few if any corridors popping up.

It hasn’t been mentioned yet but I would bet money the Gullf States expansion will be cancelled now due to budget shortfalls with the involved States and localities resulting from Covid 19. It at least gives ammunition to those who were against it to revisit the issue.


Quad Cities Times Dec 26th 2013
*“Iowa slams door on Amtrak”*

“The Iowa extension was priced at $108.6 million, according to a previous estimate. Federal authorities would have covered $88 million, leaving the state’s share at about $20 million.”


----------



## me_little_me (Apr 18, 2020)

Ryan said:


> I understand the concerns perfectly and agree with them. They're not proof of an anti-LD agenda. The food comes from Congress. The bus bridge never happened, and instead strengthened the viability of the SWC by getting funds committed to the maintenance of the route.


Congress did NOT say that Amtrak had to serve sugar and microwaved "McAwful Muffins" for breakfast. They did not say Amtrak had to limit its lunch and dinner menus to 3 different meals combined for both lunch and dinner for months on end. They did not prohibit Amtrak from allowing pre-ordered alternate choices. They did not prohibit Amtrak from using convection ovens instead of microwaves. They did not order that all but one of the diner employees be removed from the train. They did not order Amtrak to force passengers to order and pick up their food at the counter then bus their own tables. They did not order Amtrak to run out of items part way through a one-night trip.
Amtrak made those decisions. And by all appearances, makes it look, IMHO, that it was done to make passengers scream and complain and/or discourage LD travel by sleeper passengers to "prove" that LD service was not viable.
And, as far as I know, congress did not prohibit Amtrak from allocating money differently between travel and dining so as to lessen the apparent "losses" so that, at the very least, Amtrak could have provided decent pre-packaged meals with more choices and more changes and provide better service.
And wasn't it public pressure by congressmen and others that got Amtrak to finally pony up the money it had promised to put towards fixing up the route and not Amtrak's sudden "revelation" that an attempt to dump the SWC route by downgrading its service was not a good idea?


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Apr 18, 2020)

IndyLions said:


> Absolutely true. Anderson’s stated vision in that article was 5-10 experiential trains and a significant expansion of corridor services. While I am somewhat torn - if he could have pulled it off it would probably be better than what we have today.
> 
> There are just 100 reasons why he couldn’t pull it off. Maybe soon we’ll see what kind of vision Flynn has, and if he is pragmatic enough to get it implemented.


If something like VIA's Canadian is what is meant by an experiential train, I'd much rather have what we have now. While the Canadian is likely a very enjoyable trip and I hope to ride it some day, at this point it has basically no transportation value. Coach fares are twice that on Amtrak, trains only run twice a week, and schedules are extremely unreliable. Amtrak is intended to be a transportation provider, not a museum or attraction. I happen to use Amtrak often just for the enjoyment of the ride as do many members here, but I don't think there's a very strong argument that Amtrak's LD network should be preserved for that reason alone. Instead, the system should be designed to transport as many people as possible as well as provide essential service to rural areas. Dining cars and other amenities are nice, but they should be designed to increase profit/decrease losses like they would anywhere else.

Anderson and I likely agree on this point of maximizing transportation value, but the difference is that he seemed to see little use for LD trains. Preserving 5-10 routes for experiential uses may have just been his way of appeasing railfans while maintaining system connectivity. I think the LD routes should be optimized to increase their transportation value and increase efficiency. However, I think the best way to do that is expansion of frequencies, rather than minimizing the route structure.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (Apr 18, 2020)

What’s the scoop on why Gardner was not promoted to CEO?

I’m thrilled he wasn’t, but a bit surprised, too.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Apr 18, 2020)

Mystic River Dragon said:


> What’s the scoop on why Gardner was not promoted to CEO?
> 
> I’m thrilled he wasn’t, but a bit surprised, too.


Its Washington Patty! Who you know is much more important than what you know!

Politics is a 24/7 Operation and a Blood Sport!


----------



## sttom (Apr 18, 2020)

There are a lot of points that I'd like to talk about, one of them being food service on overnight trains. From what I have dug up on long haul flights, airlines budget between $6 and $9 for business class flights. I don't see how sleeper fares and what they charge for meals doesn't cover the cost of operating dining car service or why the downgrade to "Contemporary Dining" wasn't something more like what Airlines offer to long haul business class passengers. 

As for corridor vs long distance "division", my personal view as I've stated many times is we need both, not one or the other. Personally, until we get a leader in Amtrak willing to argue for a dedicated subsidy for corridor service on top of a subsidy for long distance services, we probably aren't getting that many more state supported trains anytime soon. I'm also one of the few people that don't see an issue with states like Ohio benefiting from a setup like this so long as all states can benefit from the new funding. 

As for the long distance trains, most (if not all) of them should be running twice a day. There are plenty of city pairs that would have conveniently times trains if the second run ran between 8 to 12 hours offset the current schedule. Of course there would need to be an adequate amount of equipment, but that's a given when talking expansion or getting rid of the 750 mile rule. 

But my overall point in bundling both long distance and expanded, federally funded corridor trains is that you need buy in. Why would a representative from Texas care that much about the Sunset Limited getting expanded to a daily train with plans to get it twice daily? Compound this by the fact that there are a lot of "fiscal conservatives" in Texas that would get their dander raised by what they see as needless spending and a lot of voters who could easily be swindled onto voting someone out based on that alone. Bundling expanding the Sunset Limited in with getting a portion of say $10 billion to operate local trains within Texas would not only be easier to sell as a justifiable expense but could get more buy in from the rest of the Texas delegation. Then rinse and repeat for other less than friendly states.


----------



## John Bredin (Apr 19, 2020)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> State funded corridor expansion is a pipe dream with Red and Blue States so divided. I hope that changes in the next decade. 90/10 and 80/20 funding matches being turned down by Red State governors such as mine in Iowa is a disgrace but it is what it is. Andersons plans were meant to fail in my opinion.


I don't think Anderson was pitching corridors with the intent that his/Amtrak's efforts fail. Part of his plan on corridors was, part of the budget and legislative request Amtrak sent to Congress still IS, a fund for Federal funding of start-up corridors. IMHO, $300 million seems a bit modest for the purpose, but it seems to me the idea is to break the ideological deadlock of state legislatures unwilling to vote state funding for passenger rail by getting new services going with federal funds and cooperation from the state DOT but little or no state funding. The initial funding will run the service only for a few years, but an operating service would have a constituency (riders, town governments and chambers of commerce in towns with service, etc.) by then. Several new services could be started from even the modest $300 million per year if new services cost, say, $10-50 million each for capital and a few years of operation.

As I've commented on this before, the barrier in red states seems to be around starting new service where no service or essentially no service (Ohio, for instance) exists. There, the constituency for new service is abstract while the ideological opposition to "wasteful" government spending is concrete. When there are no trains to ride now, the opposition can argue with a straight face that nobody will ride the new service and it's a waste of money. Pointing to other states with successful service does little good, as the opposition will argue that "our people are different than those folks in California/Illinois/North Carolina and won't give up the freedom of car travel." By comparison, GOP legislatures in red states with robust passenger rail service that existed before passenger rail became a culture-wars football (North Carolina, Oklahoma with the _Heartland Flyer_, Virginia until recently) were/are willing to maintain and in some cases expand that existing service. In those states, the nobody-will-ride argument falls mostly on deaf ears because people in that state are already riding.


----------



## sttom (Apr 19, 2020)

Personally, if the stars were to align and the infinite powers of Christ were to make Congress see the error of their ways and start funding Amtrak adequately, I don't think adding new corridor services should be 100% up to the states if federal funding was made available to start and operate the services. The only way this would happen is if there was a large sum of money put towards rail (like in the multiple of billions) with billions added to run trains annually and the funding was required to be split between the states proportionally. 

So lets just for the sake of numbers assume we got $100 billion for state corridors and $10 billion for operating trains and the money was required to be split between the states based on their population and the money couldn't be redirected. Ohio would get around $3.6 billion in capital funding and $360 million to run the trains. If Ohio still said no, even if they didn't have to put up any extra money, I see no reason why Amtrak shouldn't be allowed to use the money to start and run services within Ohio without the state's cooperation. 

But this is assuming we could get adequate funding and that funding had to stay within a state. Frankly, I don't see state services expanding in hostile states and I suspect there won't be much growth in the friendlier states anytime soon. We just came out of what was supposed to be the greatest economy in decades and all the states added together probably didn't add more than 12 round trips over the last decade. As I have mentioned before, we need a major funding package for rail that includes money to expand state corridors, interstate corridors and long distance trains. I don't see piecemeal plans at the federal level or state to state plans getting much mileage anymore.


----------



## toddinde (Apr 20, 2020)

sttom said:


> Personally, if the stars were to align and the infinite powers of Christ were to make Congress see the error of their ways and start funding Amtrak adequately, I don't think adding new corridor services should be 100% up to the states if federal funding was made available to start and operate the services. The only way this would happen is if there was a large sum of money put towards rail (like in the multiple of billions) with billions added to run trains annually and the funding was required to be split between the states proportionally.
> 
> So lets just for the sake of numbers assume we got $100 billion for state corridors and $10 billion for operating trains and the money was required to be split between the states based on their population and the money couldn't be redirected. Ohio would get around $3.6 billion in capital funding and $360 million to run the trains. If Ohio still said no, even if they didn't have to put up any extra money, I see no reason why Amtrak shouldn't be allowed to use the money to start and run services within Ohio without the state's cooperation.
> 
> But this is assuming we could get adequate funding and that funding had to stay within a state. Frankly, I don't see state services expanding in hostile states and I suspect there won't be much growth in the friendlier states anytime soon. We just came out of what was supposed to be the greatest economy in decades and all the states added together probably didn't add more than 12 round trips over the last decade. As I have mentioned before, we need a major funding package for rail that includes money to expand state corridors, interstate corridors and long distance trains. I don't see piecemeal plans at the federal level or state to state plans getting much mileage anymore.


Your points are well taken. I believe many short haul corridors will develop on their own. Miami to Orlando and Houston to Dallas are two examples. Amtrak’s biggest bang for the buck is building up the long distance routes. Two frequencies a day on most routes with more robust connecting services creates any number of corridors for a limited number of terminal maintenance facilities. In addition, a new product line which would include overnight trains in certain markets; Richmond-Washington-NYC-Boston, Washington-NYC-Montreal and Toronto; LA-SFO-Sacramento, along the lines of Britain’s Caledonian Sleeper and Europe’s resurgent night trains. These two concepts would not cost huge amounts of money in comparison to developing corridors, but would give you much the same juice for the squeeze. Meanwhile, this more robust national system can assist in the impetus for corridor development by states, the private sector, or public/private partnerships. Amtrak may even earn some revenue contracting maintenance, reservations, or shop services at Beach Grove or Bear. Relatively modest public money could leverage a lot of gain.


----------



## sttom (Apr 20, 2020)

toddinde said:


> Your points are well taken. I believe many short haul corridors will develop on their own. Miami to Orlando and Houston to Dallas are two examples. Amtrak’s biggest bang for the buck is building up the long distance routes. Two frequencies a day on most routes with more robust connecting services creates any number of corridors for a limited number of terminal maintenance facilities. In addition, a new product line which would include overnight trains in certain markets; Richmond-Washington-NYC-Boston, Washington-NYC-Montreal and Toronto; LA-SFO-Sacramento, along the lines of Britain’s Caledonian Sleeper and Europe’s resurgent night trains. These two concepts would not cost huge amounts of money in comparison to developing corridors, but would give you much the same juice for the squeeze. Meanwhile, this more robust national system can assist in the impetus for corridor development by states, the private sector, or public/private partnerships. Amtrak may even earn some revenue contracting maintenance, reservations, or shop services at Beach Grove or Bear. Relatively modest public money could leverage a lot of gain.



You still missed the point I made earlier which is that piecemeal improvements to long distance trains isn't getting through any more than asking a few states to pony up funding for corridors across the country. And all of the options you listed might be well and good, but none of them are going to happen without federal funding and the one in California won't because the state doesn't care. 

As for the cost, the costs are doable for state corridor services. Going with the same $100 billion example, Ohio's $3.6 billion dollar share would be more than enough to start the 3C's Corridor. Based on the numbers I've found in my own digging, 400 miles of double track can be built, 120 new cars bought and 25 engines with the $3.6 billion and there would still be $1.94 billion left over. That would be more than enough to build new stations and a maintenance facility. 

Yes it will cost money, but so does everything. Hell we had to put $70 billion into the Highway Trust Fund a couple years ago just to keep it solvent. And we do this every few years. Asking for $100 to $300 billion to be put into conventional rail is frankly, a justifiable ask when roads get dedicated funds and a blank check whenever its "needed". Not to mention investments in rail are generally cheaper than highways, save money overall, and to top it off, the Federal government even admits that. But the catch is, most of the studies are done on services that run more than once per day.


----------



## toddinde (Apr 23, 2020)

sttom said:


> You still missed the point I made earlier which is that piecemeal improvements to long distance trains isn't getting through any more than asking a few states to pony up funding for corridors across the country. And all of the options you listed might be well and good, but none of them are going to happen without federal funding and the one in California won't because the state doesn't care.
> 
> As for the cost, the costs are doable for state corridor services. Going with the same $100 billion example, Ohio's $3.6 billion dollar share would be more than enough to start the 3C's Corridor. Based on the numbers I've found in my own digging, 400 miles of double track can be built, 120 new cars bought and 25 engines with the $3.6 billion and there would still be $1.94 billion left over. That would be more than enough to build new stations and a maintenance facility.
> 
> Yes it will cost money, but so does everything. Hell we had to put $70 billion into the Highway Trust Fund a couple years ago just to keep it solvent. And we do this every few years. Asking for $100 to $300 billion to be put into conventional rail is frankly, a justifiable ask when roads get dedicated funds and a blank check whenever its "needed". Not to mention investments in rail are generally cheaper than highways, save money overall, and to top it off, the Federal government even admits that. But the catch is, most of the studies are done on services that run more than once per day.


I did not miss the point. I agreed. It’s a Federal program and needs to be federally funded. I am not talking about piecemeal improvements to the national system, but a focused, systematic expansion of Amtrak in a responsible and cost effective way. Introducing a new product line in certain markets makes sense. No, states are not reliable partners. They might assist in certain corridors, and that’s great. If a state wants or needs something, then they can help support it and move the process along. But the Amtrak system is a national system, and should be funded and supported as such. Just like we don’t have state by state air traffic control or interstate highways, we shouldn’t have a state by state rail system.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 23, 2020)

Ryan said:


> I understand the concerns perfectly and agree with them. They're not proof of an anti-LD agenda. The food comes from Congress. The bus bridge never happened, and instead strengthened the viability of the SWC by getting funds committed to the maintenance of the route.


So an agenda that fails to achieve its goal ceases to be an agenda at all? Going by Anderson's own words and actions his goal was to promote more corridor trains while removing long distance service from areas of lower traffic and higher operational cost with little regard for how these changes might affect the rest of the network. Congress took Anderson at his word when he threatened permanent bus bridges and I saw no evidence that his threats were a secret ploy to strengthen anything.

"When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." - Maya Angelou


----------



## me_little_me (Apr 24, 2020)

toddinde said:


> But the Amtrak system is a national system, and should be funded and supported as such. Just like we don’t have state by state air traffic control or interstate highways, we shouldn’t have a state by state rail system.


Great idea! Let the airlines and states fund intra-state flights. Or just make flights of less than 700 miles have their FAA and other costs funded by the states. Same things with roads. After all, it's only fair.


----------



## sttom (Apr 24, 2020)

toddinde said:


> Just like we don’t have state by state air traffic control or interstate highways, we shouldn’t have a state by state rail system.


The federal government still funds the lion's share of highway improvements. By your own logic, widening a 10 mile stretch of highway should get $0 federal dollars. Currently it gets anywhere from 40% to 90% of its cost covered by the federal government. I'm saying the in state Amtrak services should be funded the same way. Fair is fair and local highway projects are considered federal concerns when widening a highway in my neck of the woods has virtually no direct impact on the economy of the country as a whole.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Apr 26, 2020)

Mr. Flynn has spoken to the press. There are a few articles floating around but they are pretty much the same.

What Amtrak service could look like once stay-at-home orders are lifted


*
During a conference call with reporters, Flynn said part of the discussion is determining what customer sentiment is going to look like once things begin to reopen. Social distancing and more options for contactless interactions for passengers will be key parts of that discussion.

Stephen Gardner, senior executive vice president for Amtrak, said technology will play an important role in helping to reduce interactions during the train-riding process.

The company is working to speed up planned enhancements in technology. The deployment of new, more modern kiosks, and improvements to the system — which notifies passengers about their rides via text — will provide more information to riders.

The goal is to reduce the number of people who need help finding where they need to go at the train station.

Also in the works, according to Gardner, is speeding up improvements to Amtrak’s website and app. Both would improve not only the ticket-buying process, but also services offered during trips. The ability to buy food from the food car from your seat is among the features.

“We can receive your order in advance and process that order and then you can come and pick it up and have again, less interaction,” Gardner said.*


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Apr 26, 2020)

I read about the pilot app feature that lets you know what gate you train will be at a while ago. I have not had a chance to test it (I think WAS was one of the test stations). I look forward to those tech advances - they'll help the deaf/HoH passengers.


----------



## Qapla (Apr 26, 2020)

Since Amtrak is a Gov't service and is funded - this would be a good time to forget about them making a profit and actually being a service. Increase the funding and quit complaining about them not making money.

They could physically remove half the seats to force social distancing and either reduce ticket prices or leave them where they are - not raise them - and run more often to help with reopening the country when the time is right.


----------



## dlagrua (Apr 26, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Since Amtrak is a Gov't service and is funded - this would be a good time to forget about them making a profit and actually being a service. Increase the funding and quit complaining about them not making money.


I have been saying this for years. Is government there to make a profit or to serve the American people? Do government owned airports, highways, tunnels, bridges and city transportation systems make a profit? Does the DOE, DOJ, DOA, FDA, FRA and FBI make a profit? Of course they don't. Then why do many politicians expect Amtrak to be profitable. Our tax dollars and fares support Amtrak and if it doesn't show a profit that should be accepted.
Will the situation improve with Flynn? He still has Coccia and Gardner to worry about and Anderson will be there until 2021. I guess that we are all waiting for Flynns first official statement and his vision for Amtrak..


----------



## toddinde (Apr 27, 2020)

sttom said:


> The federal government still funds the lion's share of highway improvements. By your own logic, widening a 10 mile stretch of highway should get $0 federal dollars. Currently it gets anywhere from 40% to 90% of its cost covered by the federal government. I'm saying the in state Amtrak services should be funded the same way. Fair is fair and local highway projects are considered federal concerns when widening a highway in my neck of the woods has virtually no direct impact on the economy of the country as a whole.


“By my logic?” Did you read what I said? You seem confused. I said exactly the opposite. So you can understand, the national rail system needs to be funded nationally, just like highways and aviation.


----------



## MARC Rider (Apr 27, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Since Amtrak is a Gov't service and is funded - this would be a good time to forget about them making a profit and actually being a service. Increase the funding and quit complaining about them not making money.
> 
> They could physically remove half the seats to force social distancing and either reduce ticket prices or leave them where they are - not raise them - and run more often to help with reopening the country when the time is right.


Amtrak is actually a "private company" which happens to be owned by the government. By ether its charter or on the basis of the various authorization and appropriation bills that fund its government subsidy, it's supposed to be "profitable." Now, I suppose that the definition of "profitable" might be a bit different than what Wall Street expects, as the company's financial overlords, Congress, presumably the representative of the stockholders (the American citizen-taxpayers), aren't expecting it to become a cash cow that can pay obscene compensation to the executives, plus fully fund Social Security and the Pentagon . Most in Congress would probably consider Amtrak "profitable" if they didn't have to appropriate an operating subsidy every year. The service would still require government ownership, because private capital just isn't interested in running a "profitable" business like that.


----------



## Qapla (Apr 27, 2020)

So, let me slightly rephrase my comment



Qapla said:


> Since Amtrak is a Gov't service company that is funded - this would be a good time to forget about them making a profit change their charter to actually be a service. Increase the funding and quit complaining about them not making money.


----------



## sttom (Apr 28, 2020)

toddinde said:


> “By my logic?” Did you read what I said? You seem confused. I said exactly the opposite. So you can understand, the national rail system needs to be funded nationally, just like highways and aviation.


And my point is, this is a simplistic view that doesn't represent how we actually fund things. Highways get guaranteed matching funds not matter how localized the project is. Highway widening that is presently going on around me is getting federal funding, that is just a given even though only the people that live here will get to enjoy the widened highway. When it comes to other forms of public transit, the states and local governments have to fight for grants rather than getting a large chunk of the projects underwritten by the federal government. There is no way that widening 7 miles of highway where I live has any effect on the national highway system, but yet it gets federal funding. Why shouldn't state supported Amtrak services be treated differently? Cause they are state owned and planned? So are the highways.


----------



## me_little_me (Apr 29, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Amtrak is actually a "private company" which happens to be owned by the government.


Oxymoron. The only private "companies" owned by the government are in the military and they include the corporals, sergeants and "company" officers too!


----------



## MARC Rider (Apr 29, 2020)

me_little_me said:


> Oxymoron. The only private "companies" owned by the government are in the military and they include the corporals, sergeants and "company" officers too!


Amtrak is completely different from the military and other Federal government agencies.

Its official name is the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, (my knowing that got me a bottle of wine as a door prize during a wine-tasting -- remember them? -- on the _Empire Builder_ in 2007.)

It is a "quasi-public corporation," run by a board of directors and President, just like any other private corporation. Neither the President of the United States, nor any cabinet officers have any direct managerial authority. The assets of the company are owned by the United States and the President appoints the members of the Board of Directors. 

From my source:



> The creation of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”) was authorized by the Rail Passenger Service Act, as amended, 84 Stat. 1327, 45 U.S.C. 541 et seq. (“the Act”). The Act requires that Amtrak be operated and managed as a for-profit corporation, that it be incorporated under the District of Columbia Business Corporation Act, and subject to the provisions of that statute to the extent not inconsistent with the Act, and that it provide a balanced transportation system by developing, operating, and improving intercity rail passenger service. The Act also states that Amtrak will not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government. Amtrak thus is a corporation created by Congress to compete for the transportation business of the intercity traveller, to the end that the travelling public will have a choice of travel modes.



Note that the Rail Passenger Service Act specifically states that Amtrak is NOT an agency or establishment of the US government.


----------



## me_little_me (Apr 30, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Note that the Rail Passenger Service Act specifically states that Amtrak is NOT an agency of [sic] establishment of the US government.


Semantics is wonderful, isn't it. You can make anyone believe anything with it. Amtrak is owned by the government. It's board is appointed by the government. Government senators and fepresentatives can make it do or not do things. Other than what it earns for its services, its funding is provided by the government. And if it goes bankrupt, the government owns what is left after creditors are paid off.

I'd rather believe in the Easter Bunny. More realistic. But, go ahead and call it a private company if you wish because an Act of the government says it's the case.


----------



## tricia (Apr 30, 2020)

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...


----------



## railiner (Apr 30, 2020)

How does Amtrak compare with the US Postal Service, in its structure? IIRC, When the Post Office Department was changed into the US Postal Service, it too, was supposed to attempt to operate like a private, profit making organization...what are the similarities and differences between the two?


----------



## MARC Rider (Apr 30, 2020)

me_little_me said:


> Semantics is wonderful, isn't it. You can make anyone believe anything with it. Amtrak is owned by the government. It's board is appointed by the government. Government senators and fepresentatives can make it do or not do things. Other than what it earns for its services, its funding is provided by the government. And if it goes bankrupt, the government owns what is left after creditors are paid off.
> 
> I'd rather believe in the Easter Bunny. More realistic. But, go ahead and call it a private company if you wish because an Act of the government says it's the case.


You really don't understand.

Board members might be appointed by the President, but they don't serve at the pleasure of the President (with the exception of the Secretary of Transportation, who is an _ex-officio_ board member). Further, I believe board appointments are done on a staggered basis so that one particular President can't appoint a complete board of his or her own choosing. The CEO is chosen by the board, not the President. Yeah, they're constrained some by Congressional appropriations and micromanaging stuff like the Mica Rule, but if Amtrak didn't need the Congressional appropriation, Congress would have a lot less leverage over it.

Also, Amtrak employees are not government employees, they participate in Railroad Retirement, not in the CSRS or FERS.

It's a completely different beast from a government agency, like, say, the Department of Transportation.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 30, 2020)

Amtrak is often called quasi-governmental because the de facto status is a mix of corporate charter, bylaws, and case law that feature aspects of both private and public entities. Pigeonholing Amtrak into one side or the other is an exercise in futility.


----------



## Eric S (Apr 30, 2020)

Amtrak might best be described as a state-owned enterprise, not entirely unlike a Crown Corporation in Canada or the UK or elsewhere. As DA stated, it doesn't entirely fit in either the public or private categories.


----------



## railiner (Apr 30, 2020)

Early on, four of the railroads that 'joined' Amtrak, took the option of acquiring Amtrak common stock (PC, BN, MILW, and GTW), but all the preferred stock was held by the government. Later, the common stock became worthless...


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 30, 2020)

railiner said:


> Early on, four of the railroads that 'joined' Amtrak, took the option of acquiring Amtrak common stock (PC, BN, MILW, and GTW), but all the preferred stock was held by the government. Later, the common stock became worthless...


Those stocks granted the owners a valid claim for any profits earned. Unfortunately a fraction of zero is still zero. Or perhaps "undefined" is a better term for people who thought a publicly funded corporation owed them a big fat payday.


----------



## toddinde (May 7, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Amtrak is completely different from the military and other Federal government agencies.
> 
> Its official name is the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, (my knowing that got me a bottle of wine as a door prize during a wine-tasting -- remember them? -- on the _Empire Builder_ in 2007.)
> 
> ...


The US Supreme Court has held, that for all intents and purposes, Amtrak is an instrumentality of the US Government. It is not a private corporation. It is more similar to the Postal Service or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.


----------

