# Joe Boardman questions current Amtrak's managements motives



## Lonestar648 (May 8, 2018)

We are all wondering what is happening to Amtrak based on recent management decisions, well I saw that Boardman feels the same. See text quote below:



> Based on the Communication I've seen being submitted to Hill Staff, I think that Amtrak has begun to do surgical communications in a way that does not provide a transparent discussion of what they are doing, instead the plan seems to be to keep the recommendations and briefings small and isolated from each other, just the opposite of transparent.
> 
> ....
> 
> ...


MODERATOR NOTE: Edited for copyright issues

http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/05/08-former-amtrak-president-questions-motives-of-current-management


----------



## Lonestar648 (May 8, 2018)

So is Anderson signaling the end of LD trains coming this year and next? Definitely looks like the SWC is doomed quickly.


----------



## chrsjrcj (May 8, 2018)

Im sure Anderson will signal the end to a lot of things, in a hope that a state or states (jeez isnt this why we have a Federal government) will pony up the cash. Whether they do or dont has the same desired effect I assume.


----------



## crescent2 (May 8, 2018)

From reading the entire article from the link, Boardman is certainly critical of the way things are currently being handled under Anderson. Is it usual for a former to be so critical of the current management? Regardless, his concerns lend credence to the concerns being expressed in several threads in this forum. Not encouraging news imo.


----------



## lordsigma (May 8, 2018)

The part where he said that Amtrak is not really a private business and is a state owned Enterprise says it all about the difference between him and Anderson. Anderson believes its a private business - Boardman thought of it as a state owned Enterprise that provides a public service.


----------



## looshi (May 8, 2018)

I would speculate that Boardman's fire could be fueled by some of his former direct reports that still work for the company. He's also probably personally offended at the disregard for some of the PTC exceptions developed by the FRA. This letter seems like a very uncommon thing to do. I'm not sure how productive it will be.


----------



## MikeM (May 8, 2018)

Not sure how many of you read the letter from the private car owners organization, but it was a real page turner also. They also challenge Amtrak's commitment to a national railroad, vs operating as a couple of isolated railroad islands. I'll let the letter speak for itself. I'm just too damn peeved to even think much more about this. Let's just hope that there will be enough of an outcry that Anderson's term will come to an end sooner rather than later.

http://www.aaprco.com/news/aaprco-and-rpca-4302018-response-to-amtrak/

http://www.aaprco.com/news/aaprco-and-rpca-4302018-response-to-amtrak/


----------



## Thirdrail7 (May 8, 2018)

Remember, Mr. Boardman spent a lot of time talking up the network as a whole. He did not believe in dismantling the system. Mr. Moorman felt the need to protect the system to the point he took a job he didn't want in an attempt to preserve passenger service. I'm not sure how he feels about his choice, but he didn't invest as much time and capital as Mr. Boardman.

Now, that money is FINALLY flowing and the fruits of his labor are realized, you have someone who may not match the TIGER grant for the Chief and seem to be taking steps that may set Amtrak back years.

I'd be upset too.


----------



## Lonestar648 (May 8, 2018)

Anderson is really talking the chief down. Rapid decrease in ridership, increasing costs, and this agreement to match the $3M. Really sounds like he is posturing for an official end date to be announced very soon. I think Boardman knows this and is trying to stop it. Once you kill one I fear the rest come tumbling down after it. Reason why Boardman said all the trains were necessary for the network, one was not better than another.


----------



## neroden (May 9, 2018)

I can confirm that everything Boardman says is correct. The first thing Anderson started doing was to conceal information by removing it from the monthly performance reports. Then he started to lie about the costs of the so-called long-distance trains. Then he made moves which cost revenue and reduce service, with absolutely no regard for financial sense.

What are his motives? I don't care. Get rid of him; he's wrecking the system through incompetence.

I have to respect AARPCO and RPCA for launching a serious broadside against him and sending it to most of the relevant members of Congress -- particularly because they didn't just include the private car issues, but also Anderson's other inexcusable and stupid attacks on service.


----------



## Seaboard92 (May 9, 2018)

Honestly I think RPCA and AAPRCO have been a lot more active and vocal then RPA/NARP on the national network issue. It seams like NARP/RPA is very reactive and also in Amtrak's pocket.

While the PV and charter people have been using all methods at their disposal. Some of the biggest supporters of the national network are the PV owners because that's where we run the most often.

NARP/RPA does claim to be for the national network and I believe that. I just get the vibe that they aren't as well connected as they try to say they are. I also feel they kinda suck up to Amtrak at any chance.

Disclosure: I am a PV person and a charter person who has lost money and some of my reputation because of a change of position by NARP. So am I a bit biased probably. But even the people I talk to in my industry lack a lot of respect for NARP. And I know it's not because of what happened to me.


----------



## seat38a (May 9, 2018)

Hmmmmm. So it wasn't that long ago ya'll were ready to lynch Boardman for every decision he made regarding Amtrak. And now this post is full of praises for him from the same people who were calling for Boardman's head to roll.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (May 9, 2018)

seat38a said:


> Hmmmmm. So it wasn't that long ago ya'll were ready to lynch Boardman for every decision he made regarding Amtrak. And now this post is full of praises for him from the same people who were calling for Boardman's head to roll.


Just because some have criticized some of his past decisions doesn't mean that he can't be right regarding his position now. Additionally, just because some may support his statements doesn't mean that he made the right the decisions when he was in charge and doesn't mean that he was the best person for the job.


----------



## Lonestar648 (May 9, 2018)

May not have like some of Boardman's decisions, but he was for keeping the network intact. Anderson is talking about the start of dismantling the network. First the SWC, then may the CL, not enough riders maybe after the meal change, and the list goes on. Once you take down the first route/train, the second is more doable, then the third, fourth, and fifth becomes even easier to make happen.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (May 9, 2018)

I never disliked Joe Boardman--just disagreed with some of his decisions. I much preferred him (well-meaning but sometimes muddle-headed) to the current person, who seems arrogant and sneaky.

Arrogance sometimes does get its comeuppance, though (see, for example, Harvey, Matt, dfa'd by Mets and traded to a team at the bottom of the standings). So we will see what happens to Anderson. Things cannot go on this way forever.

(Somehow I don't think Anderson will ever get an Amtrak locomotive named after him



)


----------



## jis (May 9, 2018)

Did he ever manage to get a Delta plane named after him?





No matter what happens to Anderson, big changes at Amtrak are inevitable. I just wish they are more constructive than destructive. At present the indications are bleak.

BTW, Board Chairman Coscia went on record last week saying that the Board stands behind the national network. We are now waiting to see what it intends to do about it.


----------



## MikefromCrete (May 9, 2018)

It is strange how Boardman's every decision was nit-picked, yet he now comes back as someone who's opposing Anderson's antics. I would say it is unprecedented for a former Amtrak president to criticize the current chief.

I guess the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know.


----------



## frequentflyer (May 9, 2018)

Lonestar648 said:


> *Anderson is really talking the chief down. Rapid decrease in ridership, increasing costs, *and this agreement to match the $3M. Really sounds like he is posturing for an official end date to be announced very soon. I think Boardman knows this and is trying to stop it. Once you kill one I fear the rest come tumbling down after it. Reason why Boardman said all the trains were necessary for the network, one was not better than another.


How is Anderson doing this?


----------



## Lonestar648 (May 9, 2018)

He is the CEO with the power to make the decisions. Only the BofD can over rule by removing him, or threatening to do so.


----------



## chrsjrcj (May 9, 2018)

The rapid decrease in ridership claim is total BS. One simply has to look at ridership numbers for the train over its history to know that the exact opposite is true. Ridership continues to increase, though has plateaued some likely as a result of capacity constraints.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (May 9, 2018)

How much power does the Board have, compared to members of Congress? I have never understood the relationship of the Board to Congress or to Amtrak--can someone explain this to me? In other words, who would be most effective to write to and tell them to hand Anderson a plane ticket and hire someone else? And who has a title but absolutely no power, so would be useless to write to? Thanks....


----------



## jis (May 9, 2018)

Mystic River Dragon said:


> How much power does the Board have, compared to members of Congress? I have never understood the relationship of the Board to Congress or to Amtrak--can someone explain this to me? In other words, who would be most effective to write to and tell them to hand Anderson a plane ticket and hire someone else? And who has a title but absolutely no power, so would be useless to write to? Thanks....


It is the Board that does the hiring and firing of Officers of Amtrak. Congress holds the purse strings on the federal subsidy. They cannot directly hire or fire anyone. Nor can the POTUS. POTUS gets to propose candidates for the Board which has to be approved by the Senate.

Currently there are two Trump proposed appointees awaiting Senate confirmation. The current Board is entirely Obama appointed except for the ex-Officio SecDOT and the Board appointed CEO.

See https://www.amtrak.com/board-of-directors


----------



## neroden (May 9, 2018)

For the record, I always supported Boardman; I think he's probably the best President Amtrak ever had.


----------



## Lonestar648 (May 9, 2018)

The current BofD hires Anderson, but is Pro keep the network intact, so what Anderson is doing, or says he wants to do, isn't that against the desires of the Board?

I know nothing about the pending appointments, does anyone know if they are pro or con LD? Does Anderson have a friendlier Board now or after the Senate confirmations? In other words, does Anderson need to move quickly or is he working on plans to roll out once the Board changes?


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (May 9, 2018)

Thanks, jis--now I see how the Board fits into the picture.

So a possible step would be to write to the Board chairman and say (as politely as I can manage) that Amtrak and the new CEO are not a good fit and that they need to replace him before he completely destroys the whole system (including their precious NEC, which would go down with the rest, even if they can't see it)?

And, of course, as has been discussed elsewhere, who do we suggest to replace him? What railroad people are left? (The only two I can think of who are not retired or have passed on are a man involved with Brightline--Gene someone? and the lady up in Maine with the Downeaster--can't remember her name right now.) Are they possibilities? Are there other similar people with train knowledge that we could list? I would like to have a list of names to propose in my letter--something they could actually use to work with.

Also, Lonestar648, I'm not sure it matters who appointed the Board members--if most were appointed by Obama but they still chose Anderson as the CEO, it doesn't seem that a president's party would matter all that much in this case.


----------



## neroden (May 9, 2018)

That would be a decent letter. I might suggest an internal promotion (I think others know better than I which of Amtrak's executives are competent). . Alternatively, someone from VIA (who would consider the long-distance situation a vast improvement over VIA's situation, and might recognize that most of Amtrak's so-called long-distance routes are similar to VIA's *Corridor* in terms of population and usage). I mean ideally we'd want a European or Chinese railroader, but they wouldn't take the job.


----------



## jis (May 9, 2018)

Practically, we really should not be in the business of proposing replacement individuals, since we simply don't have access to the necessary information. We should certainly propose characteristics that we would like to see in a CEO, maybe even drop a name as an example, and even state preference for internal vs. external should we want to get that deep into it.

BTW, RPA, through its President, has engaged in a direct one on one conversation with Mr. Coscia, the Board Chairman, on this matter, and letters and notes have been flying back and forth. There will be more on that interaction in the May monthly newsletter from RPA. There has also been significant engagement with the Transportation Committee members both of the House and Senate from both sides of the aisle. And needless to say, there have also been meetings quite regularly with Anderson's staff. Just because Seaboard is not aware of stuff does not mean it has not been taking place. There is also a campaign afoot to get the mayors of all towns served by Amtrak LD service to contact their representatives across the board raising awareness of the perils and propose ways of preserving the LD network.


----------



## Lonestar648 (May 9, 2018)

What would be good is to find a way that you know the CHM will actually see the letter. Too many times, all correspondence is extremely filtered, with only those items the staff likes getting to the desk for possible reading. If it is Andersons staff doing the administration, then negative corespondence are dead upon arrival.

Now Board members generally work and office somewhere else besides Amtrak, so maybe that is portal for gaining access to the CHM of the Board, without Anderson filtering.

The letter sounds great, I would just want it to actually be seen and read. The fact that you used an alternate avenue to access might possibly even give additional concern and credibility.


----------



## Bob Dylan (May 9, 2018)

It's long been a tradition for ex-US Presidents to not criticize the current occupant of the Big White Prison @1600 Pennsylvania Ave., as well as CEOs of other Corporations and Institutions.

I was one of the most persistent critics on AU of Boardman when he ran off several good Amtrak Executives, and sat back and let the CFO and the Bean Counters run amok with their Nickel and Dime Cuts to the LD Trains and rolled out the New and Unimproved AGR2.0.

I'm not a Big Fan of the Cold Meals on LD Trains, but Anderson does seem to be involved in decision making, and was actually successful in getting a Budget Increase out of the Stingy Amtrak Micro Managers on Capitol Hill!!

The jury is still out till we actually expierence the changes for ourselves, or believe the Arm Chair CEOs on this Board as they Post.

I hope Mr Boardman enjoys his retirement and keeps on speaking up, Anderson needs all the help he can get, hopefully he will listen to lots of others involved including passengers and on the Road Crews and not be a "My way or the Highway" CEO!

It's early in the Game,let's be Optimistic Doubting Thomases!!!


----------



## jis (May 9, 2018)

Lonestar648 said:


> The current BofD hires Anderson, but is Pro keep the network intact, so what Anderson is doing, or says he wants to do, isn't that against the desires of the Board?
> 
> I know nothing about the pending appointments, does anyone know if they are pro or con LD? Does Anderson have a friendlier Board now or after the Senate confirmations? In other words, does Anderson need to move quickly or is he working on plans to roll out once the Board changes?


All that is known about at least one of them is that he had a 100% record of voting anti-Amtrak on any bill of such relevance. Among those bills or amendments several were for defunding all of Amtrak, and he was happy to vote in favor of them.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (May 9, 2018)

Lonestar648 said:


> May not have like some of Boardman's decisions, but he was for keeping the network intact. Anderson is talking about the start of dismantling the network. First the SWC, then may the CL, not enough riders maybe after the meal change, and the list goes on. Once you take down the first route/train, the second is more doable, then the third, fourth, and fifth becomes even easier to make happen.


They've cut LD trains many times before and it hasn't been the end of the world (unless they cut your train). Certainly there are a few weak links you can cut and still maintain a national network. The SWC is clearly not one of them (how do you get from CHI to LAX, and don't tell me the TE, that's almost a whole day slower!)


----------



## keelhauled (May 9, 2018)

I think at this point it's clear that anyone traveling CHI-LAX is not a priority for the current administration. Whether their vision will incidentally continue to allow direct CHI-LAX (or similar) itineraries is still up in the air, as is whether it will even come to fruition.


----------



## Ryan (May 9, 2018)

Lonestar648 said:


> The current BofD hires Anderson, but is Pro keep the network intact, so what Anderson is doing, or says he wants to do, isn't that against the desires of the Board?


Perhaps this mythical "Anderson wants to destroy the LD network" that everyone is so hyped up on isn't as factual as people think.


----------



## LookingGlassTie (May 9, 2018)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Lonestar648 said:
> 
> 
> > May not have like some of Boardman's decisions, but he was for keeping the network intact. Anderson is talking about the start of dismantling the network. First the SWC, then may the CL, not enough riders maybe after the meal change, and the list goes on. Once you take down the first route/train, the second is more doable, then the third, fourth, and fifth becomes even easier to make happen.
> ...


I think that there ARE ways to "trim" Amtrak without significantly disrupting the network or upsetting/alienating the majority of RR passengers. I certainly agree that you can't run a railroad as you would run an airline, but if Anderson takes the same general business principles he went by to make Delta successful and put them into Amtrak, then it just might be better for it. But it would "appear" (and I use that word purposely) that he is not doing what he should do with Amtrak. And it's interesting that Boardman feels the same way.


----------



## CraigDK (May 9, 2018)

Ryan said:


> Perhaps this mythical "Anderson wants to destroy the LD network" that everyone is so hyped up on isn't as factual as people think.


That's not what the internet says... and we all know that the internet is correct.


----------



## chrsjrcj (May 9, 2018)

Ryan said:


> Lonestar648 said:
> 
> 
> > The current BofD hires Anderson, but is Pro keep the network intact, so what Anderson is doing, or says he wants to do, isn't that against the desires of the Board?
> ...


Maybe Anderson doesn't want to destroy the LD network, so long the states are paying for it.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (May 10, 2018)

chrsjrcj said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar648 said:
> ...


I wish the states did, or at least a portion of the LD network. If you were to say "let's start a new train", the response would immediately be talk to your state to fund it (at least a part of it). Will the current Gulf Coast route be a full federal responsibility or will Alabama/Florida/Mississippi be expected to bear more of the responsibility? So why aren't states expected to share more of the responsibility of the costs? In return, the federal government can chip in more for "state supported" service. I'm from Pennsylvania but I've ridden the Pacific Surfliner, San Joaquin, and Illini trains in my lifetime and there's a few LD trains I've never ridden and have no intention of ever riding.


----------



## jis (May 10, 2018)

States and localities already fund part of the LD network infrastructure. Even leaving aside the SWC Kabuki going on in KS-CO-NM, localities have funded upkeep of station facilities for a long time. Seems like Anderson is trying to shift more of that aspect onto the localities and states. That is what all the station destaffing and what not is all about, in essence.

Even on the NEC per PRIIA 2008, the states are expected now to foot a larger portion of the NEC infrastructure bill. The initial planning etc. of this predates Anderson by a decade. Transitioning into the new setup started a couple of years back with howls of pain and protest from various NEC states.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 10, 2018)

CraigDK said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps this mythical "Anderson wants to destroy the LD network" that everyone is so hyped up on isn't as factual as people think.
> ...


You've made this same basic joke multiple times now, but it was a lot funnier when it still had some actual subculture relevance, such as back in 1998. Here in 2018 there is little or no meaningful distinction between views that are expressed online and offline. Please update your calendar to the correct decade before endlessly regurgitating this same tired remark yet again. Thank you.


----------



## JoeBas (May 10, 2018)

Devil's Advocate said:


> CraigDK said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


Yup. The former head of Amtrak comes out and point-blank accuses his replacement of actively trying to kill the LD network, starting with the SWC, and the response from the sand eaters is "LULZ people on the interwebz is so* duuuummmmmbbbbbbbb......*".

Be careful with those fingers in your ears, guys... Mom always said you might get stuck that way.


----------



## PRR 60 (May 10, 2018)

There are those of us who do not think that Richard Anderson is trying to kill the LD. That simply means we have a different opinion. it does not mean we are "sand eaters" or "dumb." There are even some of us that think that some LD advocates are distorting and misleading with some of what they are saying, intentionally or not. The last gasp of someone who has a failing argument is name calling and insults. There is a lot of name and insults being thrown around right now on this subject.


----------



## JayPea (May 10, 2018)

PRR 60 said:


> There are those of us who do not think that Richard Anderson is trying to kill the LD. That simply means we have a different opinion. it does not mean we are "sand eaters" or "dumb." There are even some of us that think that some LD advocates are distorting and misleading with some of what they are saying, intentionally or not. The last gasp of someone who has a failing argument is name calling and insults. There is a lot of name and insults being thrown around right now on this subject.



Ahhh, the voice of reason! Thank you!!


----------



## JoeBas (May 10, 2018)

Hey, y'all wanna keep on ignoring the evidence that's right in front of you in favor of "Hope", "Optimism", "Blind Faith", or whatever you want to call it, be my guest. Every time one of these blows lands, I get told "It's not so bad" and "It's just one thing, stop being dramatic". It quite honestly gets a little tiresome of the sunshine pumpers constantly saying "It's still good, It's still good!!!" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LTgNVwfMAE)

At least I won't be disappointed when the axe does fall for good.


----------



## jis (May 10, 2018)

Here is RPA's rejoinder to Amtrak's report on the Southwest Chief to Congress....

https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/blog/rail-passengers-letter-in-response-to-amtraks-sw-chief-announcement/


----------



## neroden (May 10, 2018)

It's time to stop giving Mr. Anderson the benefit of the doubt; he's a liar. Read the RPA letter.

It's apparent that someone at Amtrak -- either Anderson or someone whispering in his ear -- is trying to kill the so-called long-distance trains through a campaign of lies, misrepresentations, and deliberate service sabotage. If you don't see this, then yes, you are dumb. It's the lies which are the giveaway.

Good for RPA for coming out with a broadside. Mr. Anderson is a liar, and it's time to tell Congress that he's a liar. Liars should be fired. Actually, since he lied to Congress, he should really be prosecuted, but I'd settle for fired. Honest mistakes are forgivable; lies are not. That's my bottom line.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (May 10, 2018)

Would someone please explain to me why Anderson took this job?

I don't see any passion for anything except cutting, and he could have done that anywhere. He doesn't need the salary.

Why on earth did he want to take on Amtrak when he obviously has no interest in passenger rail? Frankly, many people on here have a better understanding of how it works, and the rest of us are open to learning and discussion, which he doesn't seem to be.


----------



## jis (May 10, 2018)

He does not have a salary. He has a bonus tied to his meeting certain goals set for him my the Board. One can only imagine what those might be. And mind you this is from an entirely Obama appointed Board except for the ex-Officio Elaine Chou.


----------



## PRR 60 (May 10, 2018)

Mystic River Dragon said:


> Would someone please explain to me why Anderson took this job?
> 
> I don't see any passion for anything except cutting, and he could have done that anywhere. He doesn't need the salary.
> 
> Why on earth did he want to take on Amtrak when he obviously has no interest in passenger rail? Frankly, many people on here have a better understanding of how it works, and the rest of us are open to learning and discussion, which he doesn't seem to be.


He's a disruptor: a manager who comes into an organization and questions everything and accepts nothing from the past unless it is proven to his or her satisfaction - and that's not easy. His intent is to make a comfortable organization uncomfortable, and change the way things are done. People can either play ball or get out. I've been through that kind of management, and while it was very unsettling when it happened, we came out much, much better in the end.


----------



## jis (May 10, 2018)

Yeah been through a couple of those myself. Damage to many individual psyches, specially of those that were well established in the organization was something to behold. One had to chart the waters carefully and have logical rational explanation for everything that one wanted to do - either preserve from the past or move in a new direction. many could not take it and just upped and left.

Not all such exercises end successfully necessarily, but when they succeed it is very good in the long run with much cobweb cleared. OTOH, when they fail the implosion is usually spectacular too. I have been through such exercises with both kinds of outcome (and survived to talk about it too I suppose) That is why I suspect that no matter how it turns out Amtrak will be quite unrecognizable from today when it comes out the other end. The only honest advice I can give is, fasten your seat belts and hold onto something....


----------



## tricia (May 10, 2018)

I'd be more inclined to believe this might turn out well if Anderson were apparently less ignorant and more truthful.


----------



## Ryan (May 10, 2018)

Can one of you that calling Anderson a liar point out exactly where he lied?


----------



## jebr (May 10, 2018)

The only thing that seems like pretty close to an outright lie was the "steadily declining" fact that he used in his letter regarding the SWC. The RPA rebuts that it was not steadily declining, at least based on the timescale they look at. (They state that it's down 1% from FY 2015, and up 14% from eight years ago.)

The rest simply are complaints about him using certain metrics to make the SWC look worse than RPA believes it should. Which is probably a fair complaint. However, I don't think the end goal of Anderson's actions are necessarily wrong; he's asking for a plan to make the infrastructure the SWC solely uses fully funded so that Amtrak isn't stuck with a huge bill for tracks they use twice a day and no one else uses. As long as his determination, if that plan doesn't come through or adequately fund the needs of that stretch of track, is that the SWC would reroute onto the southern transcon instead of using the existing track (and thus stations would be built along that line) I don't see this as a sky is falling determination. If his end goal is to kill the SWC entirely (or cut it back to short segments) then there's a problem.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (May 10, 2018)

PRR 60 said:


> Mystic River Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Would someone please explain to me why Anderson took this job?
> ...


The one impression I get from Anderson is he thinks along the lines of economic philosophy, how do certain trains or decisions affect dollars and cents. While I may not agree with every opinion or "decision" he has in mind, I do have a very economic mindset when it comes to Amtrak and that does run counter to many people at AU.


----------



## Ryan (May 10, 2018)

jebr said:


> The only thing that seems like pretty close to an outright lie was the "steadily declining" fact that he used in his letter regarding the SWC. The RPA rebuts that it was not steadily declining, at least based on the timescale they look at. (They state that it's down 1% from FY 2015, and up 14% from eight years ago.)


If something peaked in 2015, and it's now the middle of 2018, I wouldn't call "steadily declining" a lie.

As you say, it all depends on the time scale you look at.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 10, 2018)

PRR 60 said:


> Mystic River Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Would someone please explain to me why Anderson took this job? I don't see any passion for anything except cutting, and he could have done that anywhere. He doesn't need the salary. Why on earth did he want to take on Amtrak when he obviously has no interest in passenger rail? Frankly, many people on here have a better understanding of how it works, and the rest of us are open to learning and discussion, which he doesn't seem to be.
> ...



If you believe that Anderson is trying to make Amtrak stronger and more efficient then getting rid of the long distance network is a great way to accomplish that. I mean, does anyone really doubt the books would look a lot better with no long distance network to worry about or hundreds of old locomotives and passenger cars to replace? If Anderson's primary purpose is to disrupt the status quo and reimagine the future then why would he feel compelled to keep the LD network? I can easily understand those who believe we're likely to lose one or possibly several routes during Anderson's term. Amtrak's history is littered with discontinued routes that are long since forgotten. I've seen no rational counterargument for how maintaining the LD network makes Amtrak stronger or more efficient from the perspective of a emotionally indifferent and fundamentally disruptive influence like Anderson.


----------



## jis (May 10, 2018)

Ryan said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing that seems like pretty close to an outright lie was the "steadily declining" fact that he used in his letter regarding the SWC. The RPA rebuts that it was not steadily declining, at least based on the timescale they look at. (They state that it's down 1% from FY 2015, and up 14% from eight years ago.)
> ...


Yeah, I have not noticed any outright lie. There are many things I would consider to be questionable opinion, and many others that I would consider to be so ridiculously ambiguous handwaving that it is hard to make anything of it. What is good about the RPA document is that it is precise and states what the facts are as opposed to manufacturing a story line using vague nonsensical statements at times. It helps ground the discussion in facts.

If one has made up ones mind about the imputed motive of someone else then just nonsense might appear firmly to be part of a bigger scheme that may or may not actually be there. Human beings are generally prone to fit things into patterns and which pattern they will attempt to fit something into depends on where their own mind is at. And if someone coming from a different place does not agree with ones convictions then the other may be characterized as dumb. But that is neither here nor there in an adult discussion.


----------



## Ryan (May 10, 2018)

Thank you, you said it far more eloquently than I have been able to.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (May 10, 2018)

PRR 60 said:


> Mystic River Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Would someone please explain to me why Anderson took this job?
> ...



There's a difference in where this can work. Amtrak has had enough disruptors over the years. What it needs is a BUILDER that serves as LEADER. It needs a LEADER with a vision and a BUILDER that can work to BRIDGE the gaps between the various stakeholders and achieve a common goal of providing service where desired.

Why "disrupt" the long term bridges that are need to provide service ad what makes you think that a corporation that is routinely starved of capital funds, operations funds and must beg for its existence every year is "comfortable?

Additionally, if you believe Amtrak, it covered almost 95% of its operational expenses from ticket sales and other revenues in FY 17. It has climbed every year, along with ridership. That has increased year after year after by working together with stakeholders (states, feds, Congress, employees etc), not "disrupting" the network and alienating your potential partners (private car owners, states, host railroads, etc) . All that does it make the NEXT CEO, waste valuable time and capital on mending fences, restoring bridges and reestablishing the network.

Change for the sake of change means little. Change for the better is...and the best Mr. Anderson can do is finish closing the 5% gap and hopefully, preparing the network for growth by starting the ball rolling with equipment.

Disrupting the progress that was made (which helped secure record funding..for the national network btw) would be a huge step backwards.


----------



## jis (May 10, 2018)

It has seemed to me for a while that Amtrak needs an outward facing CxO and an inward facing CxO. Often these roles are played by CEO and COO respectively if the CEO can curb his or her ego enough to have a COO who is given enough rope to play with undisrupted by the politics of dealing with the various external stakeholders (other than the actual service consumers.

As for Anderson, he will either learn fast or will implode spectacularly taking half the house down with him. Just because he was good at Delta is no guarantee that he will do equally well in an unfamiliar environment. But there is no way of telling based on the shooting from the hip hand waving that he has been indulging in so far. I eagerly await July or whenever he has to propose something concrete that can actually be evaluated based on concrete stuff.

I completely agree with this assessment of Thirdrail's:



> Change for the sake of change means little. Change for the better is...and the best Mr. Anderson can do is finish closing the 5% gap and hopefully, preparing the network for growth by starting the ball rolling with equipment.


Unfortunately what damage is done in closing the 5% gap may leave an indelible mark. That is where the F&B mayhem probably comes in. But we shall see....


----------



## tricia (May 10, 2018)

Ryan said:


> Can one of you that calling Anderson a liar point out exactly where he lied?


Amtrak is our National Railroad Passenger Corporation (says so right on Amtrak's website). Its current network of trains is already so skeletal as to barely quality as "national." For anyone to take the job of running Amtrak without at minimum an ironclad commitment to keeping the existing, bare-bones network intact seems to me to be fundamentally dishonest. From what we've seen so far, Anderson lacks that commitment. Speaking only for myself, that's what I meant in post #50, just prior to your post quoted here.


----------



## jis (May 10, 2018)

The root cause of the problem is that Amtrak has conflicting requirements spelled out in its charter. Anderson is but the latest symptom of it.

Amtrak is supposed to be both a national system and a for profit corporation. Are all those past CEOs who blithely ignored the "for profit" part of it any less "dishonest" than Anderson? That is why I try to stay away from such derogatory characterizations.

Frankly I am a bit baffled by the fact that what is essentially an Obama appointed Board has set such goals for Anderson for him to earn his substantial bonus, which is his only income from this thankless job, that is leading him to go in this direction. Which raises the question what exact direction is he actually going anyway? Why is the Board not amazingly more upset with him already if what some allege he is doing is true? Quite puzzling really.


----------



## Ryan (May 10, 2018)

tricia said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Can one of you that calling Anderson a liar point out exactly where he lied?
> ...


In other words, no, you can't articulate anywhere that he's actually lied.

Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## bretton88 (May 10, 2018)

jebr said:


> The only thing that seems like pretty close to an outright lie was the "steadily declining" fact that he used in his letter regarding the SWC. The RPA rebuts that it was not steadily declining, at least based on the timescale they look at. (They state that it's down 1% from FY 2015, and up 14% from eight years ago.)
> 
> The rest simply are complaints about him using certain metrics to make the SWC look worse than RPA believes it should. Which is probably a fair complaint. However, I don't think the end goal of Anderson's actions are necessarily wrong; he's asking for a plan to make the infrastructure the SWC solely uses fully funded so that Amtrak isn't stuck with a huge bill for tracks they use twice a day and no one else uses. As long as his determination, if that plan doesn't come through or adequately fund the needs of that stretch of track, is that the SWC would reroute onto the southern transcon instead of using the existing track (and thus stations would be built along that line) I don't see this as a sky is falling determination. If his end goal is to kill the SWC entirely (or cut it back to short segments) then there's a problem.


From a business perspective, Anderson is not wrong to ask the states to come up with a business plan for the tracks. He does not want to through good money after bad, and judging by his (rumored) relationships with the class 1s, he certainly doesn't want to be subsidizing BNSF. Unlike past Amtrak CEO's Anderson is viewing this money not as a government grant, but as a business would, so he wants to see a plan. Again this all comes down to is Amtrak a business or a government agency? Truth be told, Anderson really needs to find better PR people. He's not making horrible decisions, but the PR Amtrak puts out really doesn't make the case very well for the decisions, so it's not helping.


----------



## cirdan (May 11, 2018)

Maybe this is all just a big bait and switch trick.

Spread false rumors that the entire LD system is at stake. Fear and doom mongering spreads and people start fighting for their own train and become prepared to sacrifice other trains for it. Then finally it's just one or two trains that are axed, and everybody else is relieved that the rest of the system is still there and think that somehow a good thing just happened.

Divide and conquer. It's an old trick but it always works.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (May 11, 2018)

Ryan said:


> tricia said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


I don't break down costs like Neroden or Affigatt, so I will ask. Does the Long Distance service lose $750 million per year? I've heard Mr. Anderson say it does on more than one occasion. If that figure is based on 'fuzzy math" or voodoo economics" (I'm showing my age with that one) as many suspect, that would be spreading false information and perpetuating the same tired rhetoric....if that is true.


----------



## Ryan (May 11, 2018)

I’m not sure any of us without access to the real data can evaluate that claim. Even with all of the data, I’m sure it comes down to how costs are allocated, and you can have a robust argument about the right way to do that.


----------



## tricia (May 11, 2018)

Ryan said:


> tricia said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


I haven't called him a liar--that's your choice of words, not mine. I do think he's not being quite honest or truthful.


----------



## Ryan (May 11, 2018)

Actually “liar” was Neroden’s choice of words not mine. Your choice of words it was “more truthful” yet you cannot point to anything he has said that is not true.


----------



## tricia (May 11, 2018)

Ryan said:


> Actually “liar” was Neroden’s choice of words not mine. Your choice of words it was “more truthful” yet you cannot point to anything he has said that is not true.


Perhaps if you actually read my post, instead of simply assuming it verifies your own position, you'll see that we're talking about different things. It's possible to be dishonest without saying anything as explicit as 2 + 2 = 5.


----------



## Ryan (May 11, 2018)

I've read all your posts repeatedly, thanks.

If you can provide an example of that dishonesty you're complaining about, I'm all ears.


----------



## Lonestar648 (May 11, 2018)

I am not sure that if the LD network was dropped, that Amtrak would be profitable since the overhead would be divided out over just a few trains. Actually, if you eliminate the LD network, it opens the door to push the corridor trains totally on to the states, thus Amtrak could be dissolved. This not what any of us wants. Problems is how you see Amtrak. Previous CEO's saw Amtrak providing a "SERVICE" to the public, but had Congress asking the impossible for Amtrak to be a service to the public in both rural and urban locations and making business acceptable profit (like all other rail systems around the world do - in the minds of Congress). In other words, it is a lose/lose situation. With Anderson, we get someone who doesn't care about service to the public, instead the system must sacrifice everything possible until it shows repeated profitable performances.


----------



## Ryan (May 11, 2018)

Lonestar648 said:


> With Anderson, we get someone who doesn't care about service to the public


[Citation needed]

I would agree with the statement that he is prioritizing the "for profit" part of Amtrak's mandate over the "public service" part. As Jishnu mentioned, that's been a structural problem for all of AMtrak's existance.

Saying that he "doesn't care" takes knowledge that we don't have.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (May 11, 2018)

My mistake about salary--I did not realize he does not have one but may get a bonus. He doesn't need that, either--it's only (well, "only" to him--I wouldn't mind it!




) $500,000 according to a Bloomberg article I just came across.

I get the disruptor part, although I personally think that is a terrible way to manage something that is already fragile. I just don't understand the attraction for him of choosing Amtrak specifically to disrupt--there are plenty of other government agencies and perhaps even private companies where he could have gone to wreak havoc or perhaps even done some good (disrupting some social network companies and making them more responsible, for example, seems like a great idea to me).


----------



## jis (May 11, 2018)

To provide some context on where Anderson may be coming from:

1. Amtrak Five Year Service Line Plans 2019-23

2. Amtrak Fiscal 2019 Fiscal Report and Grant Request

Just as a reminder, I neither come to bury Caesar, nor to praise him. Just information....


----------



## neroden (May 11, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > tricia said:
> ...


Anderson is lying flat out about that number. RPA and AARPCO have already explained this. He's lying in two different ways.

(1) That's a fully allocated cost number, and fully allocated costs are ****. Basically, if you cancelled all the long-distance trains, *nearly all of that cost would remain* -- it would just be reallocated to the NEC or to the state corridors. There is no sense in which this number is correct. Amtrak has been required by law since at least 2009 to report avoidable costs (estimated by outsiders to be about $50 million), but Amtrak is shirking its legal requirements and has not done so; until Anderson starts complying with this longstanding legal requirement, he cannot reasonable point to "the law" as a justification for anything else he does.

(2) That isn't even the official fully allocated costs number reported by Amtrak, as AARPCO explained in their letter; the official number is more like $500 million, NOT $750 million.

So Anderson's using an essentially fake number to start with -- and he's exaggerating that number for effect, to make the long-distance trainst look bad. That makes him a liar.

He also lied about the ridership profile of the Southwest Chief (which has been increasing -- he claimed it was continuously decreasing). RPA pointed that lie out in their letter.

It is now indisuptable that Mr. Anderson is lying to Congress.


----------



## neroden (May 11, 2018)

bretton88 said:


> From a business perspective, Anderson is not wrong to ask the states to come up with a business plan for the tracks.


So here's the thing: I actually *agree* with that. When the bizarre deal was made to keep the Chief running over Raton, I was an advocate of contacting Amarillo and Wichita and BNSF and rerouting the train; and if it was to stay over Raton, I believed the states needed to come up with a long-term ownership & maintenance plan, which they did not do.

HOWEVER, this does not excuse the cavalcade of dishonesty and lies which finished off the letter. If the letter had been *honest*, if it had said "While the Southwest Chief as a whole is doing very well, the stations across Raton Pass are low-ridership and declining" (which is true); if it had said "Cancelling the Southwest Chief would save $5 million a year [this is my estimate based on the last available information] and free up much-needed equipment for other trains", that would have been a fine letter. But that's not what it said. As the RPA letter pointed out, Amtrak's letter was instead wildly dishonest.

And that's not OK.


----------



## neroden (May 11, 2018)

jis said:


> The root cause of the problem is that Amtrak has conflicting requirements spelled out in its charter. Anderson is but the latest symptom of it.
> 
> Amtrak is supposed to be both a national system and a for profit corporation. Are all those past CEOs who blithely ignored the "for profit" part of it any less "dishonest" than Anderson?


Yep. If you honestly state outright that you're ignoring part of the law... which several of them did, pretty bluntly, particularly Gunn... it's honest.
I should make it clear that I don't think there's a conflict between maximizing Amtrak's profits (/minimizing its losses) and maintaining a national system. Hell, I don't even have an issue with saying "We should axe the Sunset Limited because it serves very few people, serves them poorly, and is immensely expensive". My issue is the flat-out lies and deliberately misleading statements which Anderson has been peddling.


----------



## Ryan (May 11, 2018)

neroden said:


> He also lied about the ridership profile of the Southwest Chief (which has been increasing -- he claimed it was continuously decreasing). RPA pointed that lie out in their letter.


As has already mentioned, the RPA letter states that the ridership peaked in 2015. It's mid-2018. In what direction does ridership go after a peak? Not up.

I'm not wading into the argument about cost figures. Neither you nor I have the data to be able to speak authoritatively about it. We have scraps of data filled in by guesswork.



neroden said:


> It is now indisuptable that Mr. Anderson is lying to Congress.


Not based on what was presented above.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (May 11, 2018)

jis said:


> To provide some context on where Anderson may be coming from:
> 
> 1. Amtrak Five Year Service Line Plans 2019-23
> 
> ...


Thank you, jis.

The first one will be especially helpful to me in understanding Amtrak's long-term plan. I will finally have an understanding of what the plan is and whether or not it is being followed.


----------



## Chey (May 11, 2018)

neroden said:


> So here's the thing: I actually *agree* with that. When the bizarre deal was made to keep the Chief running over Raton, I was an advocate of contacting Amarillo and Wichita and BNSF and rerouting the train; and if it was to stay over Raton, I believed the states needed to come up with a long-term ownership & maintenance plan, which they did not do.


Bingo. I never understood the deal either.


----------



## LookingGlassTie (May 11, 2018)

The thing about Anderson, is that he is known for having been the CEO of Delta. I think that that is hurting his case. Granted, I don't know whether everything he is doing (and wants to do) with Amtrak is all on the up and up, but it reminds me of a quote by John Wooden:

"Your character is who you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are".

So to me, it's a matter of public perception and Anderson, IMHO, has a serious PR problem.


----------



## dlagrua (May 11, 2018)

IMO, Anderson is trying to destroy the LD network. Going to cold meals on the LD trains will probably reduce ridership and this is exactly what Anderson needs to make his case. We won't ride LD without a dining car meal so his plan will work well with us and most likely others.. Wick Moorman once said that the dining car was part of the service. If you remove that part of the service, ridership will probably drop and this fits the Anderson's narrative.

I thought some of Joe Boardmans decisions where he pandered to congress penny pinching were bad but this Anderson guy takes it to an entirely different level. I see layoffs, more cuts in service, lower ridership and eventual discontinuance of the LD routes. The situation is absolutely terrible


----------



## Lonestar648 (May 11, 2018)

If F&B labor is the issue, generally there are at least two servers in a busy Dining Car plus LSA and the cook. The LSA stays no matter, so if the Diner returned, what if you had an extra SCA who crossed over to serve meals, but remained on accommodations overhead. An extra Coach attendant could do the same.. the added labor is your food specialist, food costs should be a wash. This would eliminate Sleeper lounge that some like so make the diner open most of the time to Sleeper passengers only except during meals


----------



## Seaboard92 (May 11, 2018)

Lonestar648 said:


> If F&B labor is the issue, generally there are at least two servers in a busy Dining Car plus LSA and the cook. The LSA stays no matter, so if the Diner returned, what if you had an extra SCA who crossed over to serve meals, but remained on accommodations overhead. An extra Coach attendant could do the same.. the added labor is your food specialist, food costs should be a wash. This would eliminate Sleeper lounge that some like so make the diner open most of the time to Sleeper passengers only except during meals


The problem then probably would come from the union honestly.


----------



## JayPea (May 12, 2018)

LookingGlassTie said:


> The thing about Anderson, is that he is known for having been the CEO of Delta. I think that that is hurting his case. Granted, I don't know whether everything he is doing (and wants to do) with Amtrak is all on the up and up, but it reminds me of a quote by John Wooden:
> 
> "Your character is who you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are".
> 
> So to me, it's a matter of public perception and Anderson, IMHO, has a serious PR problem.


I agree. He has been the CEO of an airline. Therefore in some people's eyes he has some evil ulterior motive to destroy Amtrak. If he'd been the CEO of the Wishy Washy Washing Machine Company of Walla Walla, Washington, I bet he wouldn't receive some of the flack he's been getting. And I bet he wouldn't be getting accusations he's trying to run Amtrak like a large appliance conglomerate.


----------



## jis (May 12, 2018)

It would be even better if said Wishy Washy Washing Machine was a regularly loss making company too I suppose


----------



## cpotisch (May 12, 2018)

JayPea said:


> LookingGlassTie said:
> 
> 
> > The thing about Anderson, is that he is known for having been the CEO of Delta. I think that that is hurting his case. Granted, I don't know whether everything he is doing (and wants to do) with Amtrak is all on the up and up, but it reminds me of a quote by John Wooden:
> ...


Well when you think about it, Amtrak has generators in its locomotives, as well as stoves, ovens, and freezers in its dining cars, so in some ways they are a large appliance conglomerate!


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (May 12, 2018)

Doesn't the worry about him being connected to an airline go back to the beginning of Amtrak's history? The impression (whether correct or not) that air travel (along with cars, of course) was contributing to the decline in passenger rail travel (along with the railroads' desire to get out of passenger rail). And that Amtrak's whole purpose for existing was to let the private rail companies get out of passenger rail without embarrassing themselves--persuading people that they had another option in Amtrak--then having Amtrak self-destruct as quietly and quickly as possible. And they got an airline man to be their first CEO, Then Amtrak failed in its mission to self-destruct quickly but has been working on it ever since.

So it seems like a case of what goes around comes around, and no wonder some of us are a bit leery of another airline person as CEO.

Forgive me if my history is not completely accurate--it is the impression I have had from what I've read of Amtrak's past--and I will happily stand corrected if any of this is not correct. But I do think this is where the gut-reaction worry about a CEO from an airline is coming from.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (May 12, 2018)

Truthfully, I wouldnt go that far, Mystic. The reality of the situation is no sane railroader wants the job. He came in to run it like a business and he knows the airline business. Plus, he has made it perfectly clear that he is attempting to run it according to the PRIIA. Others have attempted to ignore certain points of it but he isnt. I

If PRIIA allowed him to lose a ton of money in F&B service, Im not sure hed go for it but at least there wouldnt be a timeline for eliminating the losses. This is why I suggested he may be an evil genius. Hell ram PRIIA right up their nostrils and say this is what you wrote and Congress will have to put their money where their mouths are or stand aside.


----------



## Ryan (May 12, 2018)

In between his tenure at Northwest and Delta, he was at United Healthcare, and he has been a prosecutor and district attorney. The latter is likely where his laser like focus on PRIIA comes from.


----------



## cpotisch (May 12, 2018)

Ryan said:


> In between his tenure at Northwest and Delta, he was at United Healthcare, and he has been a prosecutor and district attorney. The latter is likely where his laser like focus on PRIIA comes from.


He worked at UH? Now I hate him even more...


----------



## Anderson (May 12, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Truthfully, I wouldnt go that far, Mystic. The reality of the situation is no sane railroader wants the job. He came in to run it like a business and he knows the airline business. Plus, he has made it perfectly clear that he is attempting to run it according to the PRIIA. Others have attempted to ignore certain points of it but he isnt. I
> 
> If PRIIA allowed him to lose a ton of money in F&B service, Im not sure hed go for it but at least there wouldnt be a timeline for eliminating the losses. This is why I suggested he may be an evil genius. Hell ram PRIIA right up their nostrils and say this is what you wrote and Congress will have to put their money where their mouths are or stand aside.


So Wick Moorman was nuts and his wife was sane?


----------



## dlagrua (May 12, 2018)

OK folks, on this post may of us got it out of our system. Now what are we going to do about it? Next week we will be on the CL and you can be sure that I will be speaking with all the dining car staff and will ask if they will accept a petition to be presented to the board expressing our/their grievances. As rail passengers we need to write letters, join with Joe Boardman to preserve the national network and incite the employees to push back. No dining service and ridership declines, with employee cuts soon to follow. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is the way I see it. My dad was an organizer for the Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union (now Unite Here) He always encouraged everyone to unite and speak out for the working person and that's what I intend to do. .


----------



## Ryan (May 12, 2018)

I wouldn't ask employees to play politics while on the clock.


----------



## railiner (May 12, 2018)

Mystic River Dragon said:


> Doesn't the worry about him being connected to an airline go back to the beginning of Amtrak's history? The impression (whether correct or not) that air travel (along with cars, of course) was contributing to the decline in passenger rail travel (along with the railroads' desire to get out of passenger rail). And that Amtrak's whole purpose for existing was to let the private rail companies get out of passenger rail without embarrassing themselves--persuading people that they had another option in Amtrak--then having Amtrak self-destruct as quietly and quickly as possible. And they got an airline man to be their first CEO, Then Amtrak failed in its mission to self-destruct quickly but has been working on it ever since.
> 
> So it seems like a case of what goes around comes around, and no wonder some of us are a bit leery of another airline person as CEO.
> 
> Forgive me if my history is not completely accurate--it is the impression I have had from what I've read of Amtrak's past--and I will happily stand corrected if any of this is not correct. But I do think this is where the gut-reaction worry about a CEO from an airline is coming from.


Your history is pretty good... there was more than one airline executive involved in Amtrak's early history...the one you are referring to was of course, Roger Lewis, first President and CEO.

But prior to him, was Arthur D. Lewis (don't know if related), who was one of the eight people chosen by President Nixon in 1970 as incorporater's of the National Railroad Passenger Corp...

He had an extensive airline background.

Besides these two, some other airline executives were recruited into Amtrak management to tap into their 'knowledge of modern passenger transportation'.


----------



## JoeBas (May 12, 2018)

Ryan said:


> I wouldn't ask employees to play politics while on the clock.


To be fair, it seems like you wouldn't want anyone to do anything except stop complaining.


----------



## Skyline (May 13, 2018)

Ryan said:


> I wouldn't ask employees to play politics while on the clock.


I don't think a rally on board a train is on anyone's radar. At least not involving employees, at this time. But educating employees about a grassroots movement? That could happen on board or off a train, on-duty or off. The employees would be listeners; others would be talkers.


----------



## Ryan (May 13, 2018)

JoeBas said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't ask employees to play politics while on the clock.
> ...


Not in the least. Just make sure that the complaints are actually based on facts and not wild conjecture.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (May 13, 2018)

Skyline said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't ask employees to play politics while on the clock.
> ...


As he stated before, diagrua wants the employees to hand out the petitions to pax. We should not be asking employees to do something like that. I’m sure the employees are well aware of what’s going on so no need for them to “listen” on the clock.


----------



## Seaboard92 (May 13, 2018)

To play devils advocate for once. What would said employees have to lose. We are in mid May and their position in the dining car ends in roughly two weeks. Assuming they are not transferring to another crew base or staying with the company.

They really wouldn't have too much at stake because it's such a short time period. And I strongly doubt they would fire someone with two weeks left on the job.


----------



## Ryan (May 13, 2018)

Seaboard92 said:


> Assuming they are not transferring to another crew base or staying with the company.


I’m not sure how valid that assumption is. Are you?


----------



## Seaboard92 (May 13, 2018)

Ryan said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> > Assuming they are not transferring to another crew base or staying with the company.
> ...


That's why I said playing devils advocate. I would assume they are staying with the company because the union has made arrangements before this was approved.


----------



## jis (May 13, 2018)

It is generally not a good idea to leave a company with an unnecessary conflict just before leaving. It can easily have adverse effects on the residual benefits if one lands up leaving the company by being fired for cause. Union contracts mitigate only part of the impact of such.


----------



## OBS (May 14, 2018)

Seaboard92 said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Seaboard92 said:
> ...


I doubt anyone will be leaving the company. They will exercise their seniority and move into a different OBS position in their or another crew base....


----------



## frequentflyer (May 15, 2018)

Did Mr. Boardman have a problem with Mr. Moorman as CEO of Amtrak, who was a former CEO of Norfolk Southern? I bet most of these new "ideas" originated from Mr. Moorman. He ran a lean operation at Norfolk Southern.

http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2016/11/21-wick-short-time


----------



## jis (May 16, 2018)

Here is an interesting article in Railway Age in response to Boardman's article

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/amtrak-must-be-redefined/

The article begins with:



> Despite what Boardman said, the irrefutable facts clearly indicate the first attempt ever at shaking down states for funding passenger rail infrastructure (Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico) was designed and initiated on Boardman’s watch, with the support of the same Board of Directors and executive line of management who were in place when he made these decisions, as well as the other issues identified below.
> 
> In practice, Amtrak withered under the leadership of Boardman, with the best managers encouraged to take buyouts during multiple reorganizations that only depleted vital institutional knowledge. An unacceptable safety culture existed, as well as questionable labor relations and lack of meaningful give-and-take negotiations, and the diminishing of a once-visible, vibrant, engaged government and public relations group built-up by Graham Claytor and nurtured by David Gunn. We saw the lack of oversight of the CAF passenger car program (note: no lounges or coaches), deterioration of menus and dining services as reduced on the _Silver Star, _payroll defalcations (timecards, overtime), and the inability to professionally work with the Class I’s re: on-time performance, despite further schedule padding and excessive bonus payments from Amtrak.
> 
> This is the track record produced under Boardman’s regime, with the same Board of Directors providing the same level of questionable oversight under their stewardship. Indeed, they did actually work behind closed doors in secrecy to promote those agendas that were anathema to the public.


Reading this one could walk away with the impression that Boardman may be trying to use this unfortunate opportunity to try to walk away from his own record and blame it all on the next guy. There may be a bit of truth to that, but as usual in an epic mess like this the truth probably lies somewhere in between.

It is though definitely true that the destruction of the national network started in the Boardman years with the forced exit of the like of Brian Rosenwald and unceremonious burial of the PIPs, including forced departure of the entire PIP team. Diner service reduction also started in that era. Remember the firestorm about removal of flower vases?






But it is also true that the absolute minimum that needed to be done as far as equipment goes, for the survival of the LD network was handled with the CAF order, though it was managed pretty miserably.

So there is stuff on both sides of the ledger and only history will tell how it balanced out. Similar will be the case with Anderson. That is why I await the equipment plan with bated breath to see the LD aspect of it.


----------



## frequentflyer (May 16, 2018)

^^^ Thanks Jis, I was going to post that same article. After reading comments on railroad forums praising Boardman for his editorial, I was beginning to doubt my memory on how Amtrak fared under Boardman. After reading this, I remembered correctly.


----------



## LookingGlassTie (May 16, 2018)

@jis

I'm not sold on Anderson, but I'm not exactly sold on Boardman's assessment of him, either.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (May 16, 2018)

That article leaves out that Mr. Boardman did not cut any long distance service and also worked to preserve the actual routes by working with the states. This is because funding was not forthcoming. He also used worked with the FRA to try obtain funding from them to preserve routes. A classic example example is the three way split between the FRA, AMtrak and the BNSF to upgrade the Devils Lake Subdivision, which BNSF said they would abandon since it was only used by Amtrak. Naturally, once the route was upgraded, BNSF flooded it with freight traffic, but the route was preserved because an investment was made. Amtrak has committed funds to plenty of improvements that benefited the LD network as well as state supported services.

AS for the PIP, I can certainly see why he got rid of the group. Sure, they had good ideas (which are largely still on file) but if no one is going to put up the money to fund them, why keep them around to produce reports year after year?

The bottom line is he may not be above reproach but I agree with the premise of taking the investment money when it is available...while it is available. Provided, you're actually interested in the service.


----------



## amtrakpass (May 16, 2018)

I posted this here because Boardman brought up the threat to the Chief.

One thing I find frustrating is that their is a simple solution to the Southwest Chief issue that no one seems to talk about. The BNSF could just run a handful of intermodal trains or other freight over the pass again which would relive pressure on their other line and make it a secure long term asset for the company and the general public. I don't know who has pulled the wool over peoples eyes that the BNSF and private industry are too good for any social responsibilty, or it is somehow impossible for them to operate the Raton Pass route profitably or very close to even. I am sure I will have armchair economic professors and armchair railroad barons say that the almighty BNSF knows better than me but I think they are just being shortsighted and arrogant to abandon this route. If you know anything about BNSF intermodal trains, the company already overpowers them with like 5 engines for a light tonnage train. And they could care less about lack of online industry or about fuel savings! Buffets got plenty of money and talks a good game about being socially conscious. How about some public-private partnership instead of the government bearing all the burden? Why let private industry dictate the fate of the public interest with impunity?


----------



## DSS&A (May 16, 2018)

I know in the late 1990s, the railroad wa sa running a few hot shot intermodals over Raton Pass one day a week to take pressure on the Transcon on the day they performed MOW work on the Transcon. BNSF now has a lot more double track on the Transcon, so that need may be reduced now. There was also a coal mine on the line that closed over 10 hears ago.


----------



## railiner (May 17, 2018)

I recall that back in the late '60's-early '70's, the Santa Fe ran their hottest container train, named the "Super C", over Raton, on a schedule that rivaled their Super Chief over the same route.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_C_(freight_train)


----------



## RPC (May 17, 2018)

There may also be property tax issues - if BNSF is running zero trains over the Raton line, it may be considered dormant or railbanked for tax purposes.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 17, 2018)

RPC said:


> There may also be property tax issues - if BNSF is running zero trains over the Raton line, it may be considered dormant or railbanked for tax purposes.


Lack of granularity in tax policy likely explains a substantial portion of our previously abandoned rail infrastructure.


----------



## amtrakpass (May 17, 2018)

there definitely is a tax issue. I know in the past the railroads would give bonuses to the track supervisors for taking tracks like spurs and sidings out of service in order to reduce tax burden. Which is one factor why railroad management has worked tirelessly to reduce online industry and convert all traffic to intermodal or unit trains. I don't necessarily think the BNSF should bear the whole cost of the Raton pass route either. But I believe if their was accountability and shared responsibilty both on the private side and public side, the public would be much better served on this and other secondary routes.


----------



## fredmcain (May 17, 2018)

Lonestar648 said:


> Anderson is really talking the chief down. Rapid decrease in ridership, increasing costs, and this agreement to match the $3M. Really sounds like he is posturing for an official end date to be announced very soon. I think Boardman knows this and is trying to stop it. Once you kill one I fear the rest come tumbling down after it. Reason why Boardman said all the trains were necessary for the network, one was not better than another.


Well, one encouraging development is that there appears to be some local, state and even U.S. politicians who are beginning to push back against Anderson's ideas. Which will happen first? Will Anderson bring Amtrak down or will passenger train supporters bring Anderson down? I guess we'll just have to wait it out and hope for the best.


----------



## frequentflyer (May 17, 2018)

fredmcain said:


> Lonestar648 said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson is really talking the chief down. Rapid decrease in ridership, increasing costs, and this agreement to match the $3M. Really sounds like he is posturing for an official end date to be announced very soon. I think Boardman knows this and is trying to stop it. Once you kill one I fear the rest come tumbling down after it. Reason why Boardman said all the trains were necessary for the network, one was not better than another.
> ...


And what are Anderson's ideas? Please tell me, because I can only go by what he has stated publicly.


----------



## jis (May 17, 2018)

Also, I don't think all passenger train supporters want to bring Anderson down either. Of course those that do find some comfort in believing that their views are universally shared by all.


----------



## jis (May 20, 2018)

The to and fro continues in Railway Age...

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/29404/


----------



## Thirdrail7 (May 20, 2018)

jis said:


> The to and fro continues in Railway Age...
> 
> https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/29404/


Give that man a cigar. This is the bottom line:



> Commuter agencies paying their fare share: Now a book is required that needs to go back to 1983 when Amtrak became an operating railroad with infrastructure to maintain as it inherited Conrail’s obligation to provide track space for commuter service. Yes, two states have ownership and maintenance responsibility of one segment between New York City and New Haven. Compare the compatibility of that portion of the route with the high-speed corridor operation that Amtrak fields elsewhere. Not good! *The Northeast Corridor traverses eight states represented by a bi-partisan mixture of** 16 senators and 82 representatives. Deal with that reality before blaming the negotiating skills of Amtrak’s managers.*
> 
> *No single leader can fix systemic problems that lay far beyond Amtrak’s control. More nuanced and better-researched commentary is needed.*


Now, add the rest of the system and how many Senators and Representatives are you talking about? That is why I stated Amtrak needs a BUILDER that can bridge the gaps between the various entities that hold the system together.


----------



## frequentflyer (May 21, 2018)

https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/1019/may_2018_newsletter.pdf

Read page 2 regarding LD services.


----------



## chrsjrcj (May 21, 2018)

Not a ringing endorsement either. Well do what ever Congress wants.

Doesnt explain why Amtrak has approached states regarding tri-weekly service either.


----------



## jis (May 21, 2018)

chrsjrcj said:


> Not a ringing endorsement either. Well do what ever Congress wants.
> 
> Doesnt explain why Amtrak has approached states regarding tri-weekly service either.


Which states has Amtrak approached regarding tri-weekly service? Source?


----------



## chrsjrcj (May 21, 2018)

From the newsletter:



> Rail Passengers has been working hard to inform congressional offices about disturbing reports from the states that Amtrak was contemplating diminishing service on mainline National Network trains such as the Empire Builder to focus on short-haul corridors.


----------



## jis (May 21, 2018)

chrsjrcj said:


> From the newsletter:
> 
> 
> 
> > Rail Passengers has been working hard to inform congressional offices about disturbing reports from the states that Amtrak was contemplating diminishing service on mainline National Network trains such as the Empire Builder to focus on short-haul corridors.


Ah that. Yup, I know the source of that



I was hoping to find a separate independent source.


----------



## Ryan (May 21, 2018)

Yeah, I’m not going to put a lot of trust in anonymous “reports” in the midst of RPA breaking their elbow to pat themselves on the back for avoiding an apocalypse that only they foretold.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 21, 2018)

Ryan said:


> Yeah, I’m not going to put a lot of trust in anonymous “reports” in the midst of RPA breaking their elbow to pat themselves on the back for avoiding an apocalypse that only they foretold.


What's it like to break your elbow telling everyone there's nothing to worry about? You've made it very clear that the only people you trust are from AU's echo chamber clique. Your loyalty was never in doubt, or in play for that matter.


----------



## Ryan (May 21, 2018)

I wouldn’t know, since I’ve not said that there is nothing to worry about.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 21, 2018)

If you criticize, ignore, or write off virtually any concern over Amtrak then it's clear where you stand. I guess you're so busy holding every concern up to a microscope you don't seem to notice or care about all the equally irrational and unfounded defenses against said concerns. If nobody can speak up before a given route/frequency/amenity/service is already lost to the ages, then I guess nobody should bother speaking up about anything. Or at least that's the message that the AU echo chamber seems to be intent on sending. I honestly cannot remember another hobbyist forum that was so proudly critical and dismissive of anyone who showed concern for the future.


----------



## Ryan (May 22, 2018)

I find it somewhat amusing to be told what I think by some stranger on the internet, based solely on a handful of words on the screen.

Suffice to say, you've got it just about completely wrong. The fact that I don't chime in on the criticisms that I find valid, doesn't mean that I've written them off. It means that I find no value whatsoever in adding a #metoo to a complaint. For things that are problematic, I would much prefer to spend my efforts doing something to help change it, and that almost never involves shouting into a message board that will have no impact on Amtrak.

Similarly, there is a small army of people here that is quite adept at shouting down the "irrational and unfounded defenses" that vex you. Adding another voice to those corrections in this forum also brings no value to the table. In other venues where those defenses are aired without rebuttal, I'm not shy about stepping in and correcting the record. I know for you that doesn't matter, since it happens outside the hallowed walls of this forum, but whatever.

I've said or done nothing to indicate that people can't speak up until a route is already gone. Perhaps you have me confused with other members of your fantasy echo chamber clique. If there are routes to be fought for, rest assured I'll be there (where "there" equates to doings something actually useful, not raging about it on an Internet forum).

You've constructed an elegant strawman here, and done an exemplary job of beating it to death. I hope that you're more successful in actually being accurate the next time you try to climb inside a stranger's head and tell them what they think.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 22, 2018)

Ryan said:


> I find it somewhat amusing to be told what I think by some stranger on the internet, based solely on a handful of words on the screen.


It's not a handful of words. It's novel's worth of condescending snark written over the course of several years. I've yet to see anyone shouting or raging or claiming the sky is falling or that the apocalypse is near. But those are the dismissive discussion-ending terms you've used to repeatedly attack anyone who blows off too much steam or shows too much emotion or doesn't meet your bizarrely narrow expectations of acceptable criticism. It's clear that our forum hosts a clique of vocal insiders who routinely interject themselves into critical threads and tag-team/dogpile on general members who speak up too forcefully or too often or don't pay enough deference to the core of the hive mind. Your inability or unwillingness to admit this rather obvious truth exposes more bias than anything I could say on my own.


----------



## Bob Dylan (May 22, 2018)

Kids,kids! Time out!


----------



## jis (May 22, 2018)

I am sure Mr. Boardman is feeling a bit ignored at this point


----------



## Trogdor (May 22, 2018)

Devil's Advocate said:


> I've yet to see anyone shouting or raging or claiming the sky is falling or that the apocalypse is near.


Isn't there a 17-plus page thread that started out with someone saying "Amtrak will no longer do special charters or moves anymore EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY"?

Turned out not to be true, but it sure got everyone all worked up and set the Anderson hate-train into high gear.

There's another thread about LD trains where the OP's opening line is "train offs may be coming" even though there was nothing in the actual quoted comments from RA that said so.

It doesn't take much to find these examples.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 22, 2018)

Trogdor said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> > I've yet to see anyone shouting or raging or claiming the sky is falling or that the apocalypse is near.
> ...


So far as I'm aware the original concern is based on an actual goal of Anderson, which then generated a lot of news and attention, which in turn spawned a lot of phone calls and in-person meetings, which may have softened the blow and left us with the middle ground we're currently navigating. I wasn't aware anyone was still disputing that Anderson wants to substantially remove/restrict the movement of private rolling stock. If that's enough to be called a hate train then is your dogpile apologist clique some sort of Anderson love train?



Trogdor said:


> There's another thread about LD trains where the OP's opening line is "train offs may be coming" even though there was nothing in the actual quoted comments from RA that said so.
> 
> It doesn't take much to find these examples.


What is a train off? Do you mean layoff? If the dining car eventually becomes an unstaffed lounge for sleeper class passengers then it's not that hard to imagine layoffs may actually be coming. The dining car staff can bid on other positions but if they get the job by outranking someone else then at some point someone below them will be at risk of falling off the payroll totem pole. Seems like a reasonable concern to me.


----------



## Ryan (May 22, 2018)

Devil's Advocate said:


> So far as I'm aware the original concern is based on an actual goal of Anderson


What is that "knowledge" based on?



Trogdor said:


> What is a train off? Do you mean layoff?


No, he means train off, which is the statutorily (49 U.S. Code § 24706) required 180 day notification before Amtrak discontinues service over a route. That would be the time for the pitchfork and torches brigade.


----------



## jis (May 22, 2018)

I am curious now... what is the actual goal of Anderson? According to whom?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 22, 2018)

Ryan said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> > So far as I'm aware the original concern is based on an actual goal of Anderson
> ...


What exactly are you disputing - that Amtrak is substantially restricting private charter movements or that Richard Anderson personally supports these restrictions?



Ryan said:


> No, he means train off, which is the statutorily (49 U.S. Code § 24706) required 180 day notification before Amtrak discontinues service over a route. That would be the time for the pitchfork and torches brigade.


Was there any 180 day notice before the Sunset East was discontinued? I personally think waiting for a formal notice is a bit late in the process to start speaking up. In my experience when it comes to meaningful activism you generally want to get your foot in the door and your name on the schedule as soon as there is any sign of wavering.


----------



## Ryan (May 22, 2018)

Devil's Advocate said:


> doesn't meet your bizarrely narrow expectations of acceptable criticism.


I'm not sure that "based in reality" is bizarrely narrow, but maybe I'm just crazy.

Ironically, you're serving as a shining example of what I do have a problem with - criticizing people for positions that they haven't taken.


----------



## Ryan (May 22, 2018)

Devil's Advocate said:


> What exactly are you disputing - that Amtrak is substantially restricting private charter movements or that Richard Anderson personally supports these restrictions?


Neither. I'm disputing the claim that we know what Anderson's goal is, and that the end of all charters and PVs was a reasonable concern given that goal.

I do agree that the current "suspension" of the Sunset East nearly 13 years later is an embarrassing fiction that needs to be rectified. I'm not sure that a one-off example from 13 years ago really supports you point, though.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 22, 2018)

Ryan said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> > doesn't meet your bizarrely narrow expectations of acceptable criticism.
> ...


You only seem to accept criticism that can link to irrefutable first person evidence. Unfortunately that's not how the real world works. Opaque executives don't generally give much forewarning about future service restrictions/reductions or cost increases or loss of protections. In many cases you have to read between the lines to see what's coming in time to react to it. Not that long ago there was genuine concern that the current SWC route was in danger and instead of waiting to see what happened people reached out to the various stakeholders and managed to protect the status quo. If they had waited for a formal notice of abandonment there may not have been enough time to save the entire route.



Ryan said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> > What exactly are you disputing - that Amtrak is substantially restricting private charter movements or that Richard Anderson personally supports these restrictions?
> ...


The earliest posts generally come from the earliest bits of information. Back then it wasn't entirely clear what Amtrak intended and it was possible to interpret what had been said to mean that all third party movements might now be disqualified. From what I've read the vast majority of third party charters are indeed affected. Even those third party charters that will continue to run in the future are apparently allowed to do so only in the form of a per-instance waiver that further limits and complicates a convoluted process that was already extremely tedious and time consuming. From a practical standpoint this is a huge change. But I guess so long as even one single charter is allowed to run somewhere on the network you've made your point about challenging anyone who dares to overstep or oversimplify. Regarding the Sunset East the route still existing is the fiction while route's abandonment is the reality. Trying to bring back a route that exists in name only is far harder than protecting a route that still hosts actual trains today. Better to be ahead of the curve than chasing after it.


----------



## amtrakpass (May 22, 2018)

without getting into a disagreement I think it should be plain that part of the current Amtrak strategy is to not release clear information to the public on purpose. If you are going to cut something or not maintain stuff, it looks bad to spell that out in writing, so they keep it vague and close to the vest.That is why Boardman went public with his knowledge of the attempt to cut the Southwest Chief to alert the public. Even with the uproar, I am concerned that Amtraks primary means of reducing or eliminating interest in long distance trains has been to raise fares on average substantially which will be difficult for legislators and even advocates to understand and counter. I took the Southwest Chief from L.A. Chicago this year in March and fares for sleepers were astronomilicaly high and there was only 2 coaches and two sleepers available. And the trains were far from full.I could only conclude that the high prices and artificially short consists were designed to discourage ridership. Do you ever see a sale on sleeper fares or a last minute upgrade available to coach passengers made available at a discount to fill up the trains? I have traveled Amtrak extensively the last few years and while you still can find a occasional good deal the price buckets go way up long before the train sells out these days.Even with that ridership has been ok, but I fear that will change if prices continue to rise out of reach for many travelers


----------



## Thirdrail7 (May 22, 2018)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Devil's Advocate said:
> ...


Devil's Advocate,

I love your spirit and I totally agree with your bottom line: Better to be ahead of the curve than chasing after it. I also completely agree that you often have to read between the lines to see what is coming so you have time to act. it is better to be proactive than reactive. However, I would caution you to not play into the hysteria that some people are painting.

Not everything is a plot. What can YOU honestly say about the private car or charter car plans? I suspect that you wouldn't since it is not your operation. Some people would love to say that there was a rallying call to action to attempt to force Amtrak to reassess its position and it worked.

The reality of the situation is most people didn't have a LICK of understanding of the plans for private cars or charters/special movements.. However, that didn't stop the posts or whining. What I find entertaining is the plan that was initially authorized and explained to the employees is pretty much EXACTLY what occurred. The problem is you're mostly hearing about the issue from disgruntled people who feel they are getting the short end of the stick instead hearing about it from a detailed, business point of view.

That being said, private cars are still operating. Charters, specials and extras are still operating. There have been restrictions but the per instance waivers were always be there and will be required to be there, particularly if you're operating over a host railroad. The main thing that has been eliminated is the "tripping over your feet, scorched earth policy of placating the whims of the private car owners that ultimately impact your main base." If it is not out of the way and won't impact significantly impact your base operation, they're still running.

As I keep saying, a lot of the plans you are seeing PREDATE Richard Anderson. Assigned seating, the Acela overhaul, the coach overhaul (which was actually downgraded due to budget issues), the boxed lunches, the restrictions on charters/private cars and and YES eliminating certain trains were all in various stages of planning and implementation by the time Mr. Anderson came around. As the PTC mandate loomed, I mentioned trains were in jeopardy quite some time ago since the hosts want the passenger operators to foot the bill for the upgrades. It is possible that some trains may be sacrificed for the greater good.

Can Mr. Anderson stop some of this stuff? Probably. Mr. Boardman did. However,the leadership has changed and Mr. Anderson has said he plans to follow PRIIA. Despite all of the talk, most people would be hard pressed to spell out exactly how Mr. Anderson plans to achieve this goal.

We should remain cautious while remembering the story about the boy who cried wolf.


----------



## bretton88 (May 23, 2018)

It is worth noting a lot of the pre Anderson management team is still in place, Anderson is not making/continuing these decisions in a vacuum.


----------



## zephyr17 (May 23, 2018)

bretton88 said:


> It is worth noting a lot of the pre Anderson management team is still in place, Anderson is not making/continuing these decisions in a vacuum.


Why do I not find that consoling?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 23, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> The reality of the situation is most people didn't have a LICK of understanding of the plans for private cars or charters/special movements.. However, that didn't stop the posts or whining. What I find entertaining is the plan that was initially authorized and explained to the employees is pretty much EXACTLY what occurred. The problem is you're mostly hearing about the issue from disgruntled people who feel they are getting the short end of the stick instead hearing about it from a detailed, business point of view.


I'm not sure if you realize it or not but what you're describing here seems to have been a large part of the problem. Lack of timely communication and explanation lead to heightened concerns and confusion. When I was looking for verifiable specifics on my own it became clear that 99% of the available information was secondhand reporting by third parties. When people who need critical information are confronted with an information vacuum you can't blame them for succumbing to personal assumptions and group think. Regardless of how you feel about PV operators Amtrak is the entity making these changes and it's reasonable to hold the current CEO responsible for recognizing conflicts and managing concerns in a professional and productive manner.



Thirdrail7 said:


> We should remain cautious while remembering the story about the boy who cried wolf.


This seems to be a huge concern among a handful of very vocal members here on AU. Which begs the question, which previous Amtrak route/frequency/service/amenity has suffered from _too much_ consumer activism voiced too early and/or too aggressively? I cannot name even one single example and that makes it hard to explain all this nervous hand wringing. We already live in a culture that is loath to support or reward consumer activism and instead of nurturing what little we do have we gleefully hammer anyone who makes a mistake or misstatement. With supporters like this who needs enemies?


----------



## Thirdrail7 (May 23, 2018)

Devil's Advocate said:


> I'm not sure if you realize it or not but what you're describing here seems to have been a large part of the problem. Lack of timely communication and explanation lead to heightened concerns and confusion. When I was looking for verifiable specifics on my own it became clear that 99% of the available information was secondhand reporting by third parties. When people who need critical information are confronted with an information vacuum you can't blame them for succumbing to personal assumptions and group think. Regardless of how you feel about PV operators Amtrak is the entity making these changes and it's reasonable to hold the current CEO responsible for recognizing conflicts and managing concerns in a professional and productive manner.


I'm curious as to how you arrive at the conclusion that there was a lack of timely communication. Someone basically posted an internal briefing regarding a policy change that wasn't officially approved or released. When it WAS indeed ready, it was released with an explanation....to those affected.

Have you or the others attempted to charter a train? Do you own a private car? If you did, you probably received the proper notification once everything was set up. A similar example exists with the .Chefs being removed off Capitol Limited thread. Of course there wasn't "timely communication or explanation" which can lead to heightened concerns and confusion. That is because this thread was formed while things were still being solidified and wasn't publicly released since there were a few plans under review. A 20 day, 154 post thread ensued prior to an official word being released. That release was made roughly 45 days prior to the scheduled change.

While I can agree that Amtrak is often slow to post updates and release information, it certainly doesn't help when people are running with plans that aren't even finalized or confirmed. It is hard to compete for the attention of those looking for instant answers and immediate comments.



Devil's Advocate said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> > We should remain cautious while remembering the story about the boy who cried wolf.
> ...


Let's see. I remember years when Amtrak, states and the NARP used to routinely appear in front of Congress and explain why Amtrak needs more money. Amtrak would receive its minuscule appropriation and limp through most of the year until it had to return and beg for more funds....or cut service. Eventually, Congress would get sick of seeing people from Amtrak in front of them. It was clearly an annoyance. As such, they started making more demands and basically refused to fund services and expansions. Routes were cut and service were cut even as the leaders and lobbyists appeared before Congress asking for funds or equipment. The lobbying, hand wringing and threats accomplished little.

Whether you agreed with or or not, The Boardman-Stadtler team took a different approach. Like it or not (and I didn't because I believe the infrastructure and training was sacrificed), they took whatever Congress gave them and never bothered them again for the fiscal year. Instead of carrying on as if another appropriation was forthcoming by threatening to cut service, they did their best to stay out of sight and out of mind. Among other things, they cut, scrimped, altered service, raised prices to the point that I'm surprised people even ride the train and worked to find partners within the states to keep the train and infrastructure improvements rolling but largely stayed away from asking money from Congress prior to the next fiscal year.

In my opinion, it worked. Cost recovery and ridership grew (so they say) and the fight to receive funding grew less dramatic even to the point that a damn near record amount of funding was proposed. A certain degree of credibility seems to have been restored.

The point I'm trying to make is if you keep sounding alarms about personal pet peeves, when the system really needs help, it might not be forthcoming. The very nature of Amtrak's existence requires a steady vigilance and a steady focus...not a panic. Even in the best of times, supporters should support.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 24, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Have you or the others attempted to charter a train? Do you own a private car?


No, I don't charter trains with my own private cars. If Amtrak felt their ability to clear the record with charter operations, rail sector news media, and sympathetic politicians was being overwhelmed by a internal memo thread on a hobbyist forum then perhaps they need a new public relations team. A single candid phone call to a trusted industry journalist could have cleared everything up with minimal effort. In the future it would behoove Amtrak to be more careful with sending premature and easily leaked memos about undecided changes without having established a fallback plan in case the circle jerk happens to spin in the wrong direction.



Thirdrail7 said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> > Thirdrail7 said:
> ...


I didn't ask about industry leaders or lobbyists or executives. I asked about consumer activism. In other words grassroots initiatives. The thing about grassroots activism is that it is not born of a desire to engage in soul numbing bureaucracy but from an emotional need to fight against a fundamental imbalance of power. This type of activism is like a tiny sprout in a vast desert. If it's not nurtured and protected it quickly dies and drifts away never to be seen again. Guiding and educating those who are willing to act can be extremely helpful but endlessly faulting and criticizing every misstep and misstatement only serves to crush the sprout and salt the earth from where it came. That is the point I am trying to make.


----------



## DSS&A (May 24, 2018)

The Railway Age article has a lot of good information about the BAD things Anderson is doing to sabotage and kill long distance trains.

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/the-folly-of-discarding-long-distance-passenger-trains/


----------



## jis (May 24, 2018)

Report from RPA (Jim Mathews) on Congressional Hearing on Amtrak including a first look at the 2019 THUD proposed numbers for Amtrak:

https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/blog/congress-presses-amtrak-on-national-network-and-amtrak-leadership-gives-the-right-answers/


----------



## Trogdor (May 24, 2018)

DSS&A said:


> Anderson KILLED local management of the Eagle and it has dropped from the No. 1 position in re enue to No. 14. The Railway Age article has a lot of good information about the BAD things Anderson is doing to sabotage and kill long distance trains.
> 
> https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/the-folly-of-discarding-long-distance-passenger-trains/


When was the Texas Eagle #1 in revenue?

As for the link, I think this is merely another example of what I provided in response to DA's question a few days ago.


----------



## jis (May 24, 2018)

I also could not figure out what was the basis of that Texas Eagle claim. But then again there have been many claims for which I cannot find much basis. So what's new?


----------



## cpotisch (May 24, 2018)

Yeah, isn't the Texas Eagle one of the least cared about or significant routes in the system? Since when was it anywhere near the top in revenue? And it's a short train that generally doesn't run full (at least from what I've seen), as well as having cheap fares, so how would it bring in so much revenue? Sorry DSS&A, you lost me.


----------



## jis (May 24, 2018)

If Anderson really means that he will follow the law, it would seem that he'd have a lot of 'splaining to do if he breaks up the national network.

Look at these pieces of the law:

49 U.S. Code § 24701 - National rail passenger transportation system

Specially, look up the definition of national rail passenger transportation system

It will be time to take him to the courts if it comes to that.

No wonder no one will even mention the possibility in any official forum.


----------



## bretton88 (May 24, 2018)

DSS&A said:


> Anderson KILLED local management of the Eagle and it has dropped from the No. 1 position in re enue to No. 14. The Railway Age article has a lot of good information about the BAD things Anderson is doing to sabotage and kill long distance trains.
> 
> https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/the-folly-of-discarding-long-distance-passenger-trains/


TEMPO (the organization overseeing the Texas Eagle) is very much alive and well. I am not sure where that claim comes from. The more probable reason for the Eagle's decline is the UP's poor treatment of it instead. It has become highly unreliable.


----------



## DSS&A (May 24, 2018)

The Railway Age article has a lot of good information about the BAD things Anderson is doing to sabotage and kill long distance trains.

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/the-folly-of-discarding-long-distance-passenger-trains/

TEMPO (the organization overseeing the Texas Eagle) is very much alive and well. I am not sure where that claim comes from. The more probable reason for the Eagle's decline is the UP's poor treatment of it instead. It has become highly unreliable.
I have edited and corrected my post above based on your posting. Thanks for the correct information.


----------



## Trogdor (May 24, 2018)

DSS&A said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> > DSS&A said:
> ...


You still didn’t correct the false statement that the Texas Eagle was in first place in revenue, and further erroneously added that it was first in ridership as well, and that somehow this fall from grace occurred in three months.


----------



## TiBike (May 24, 2018)

Plenty of wiggle room. "Continuous" only applies to the NEC and there's no frequency requirement. There are also different ways of reading the definition. One might interpret it as locking in the long and short distance routes as they were in 2008. But another way to read it is simply as a permissive scoping statement, i.e. all those things _may _be part of the system, and not as a requirement.

Would you read it as requiring Amtrak to continue operating the Capitol Corridor if Caltrans pulled its funding? If not, then it isn't a hard lock in of routes – there's no difference in that regard between the short and long distance language.

To be sure, you'll find lawyers willing to argue either side of it in court. For a price.







jis said:


> If Anderson really means that he will follow the law, it would seem that he'd have a lot of 'splaining to do if he breaks up the national network.
> 
> Look at these pieces of the law:
> 
> ...


----------



## jis (May 25, 2018)

TiBike said:


> Would you read it as requiring Amtrak to continue operating the Capitol Corridor if Caltrans pulled its funding? If not, then it isn't a hard lock in of routes – there's no difference in that regard between the short and long distance language.


Of course not. That is precluded by PRIIA 2008. That has absolutely nothing to do with how the clause about national LD service is interpreted, taking into account the legislative history in addition to the specific words of the clause. Also note that no one is pulling the funding for LD National Network. Indeed more funding has been appropriated than was authorized by the FAST Act, and same is the case for the proposed 2019 Appropriation from THUD.



> To be sure, you'll find lawyers willing to argue either side of it in court. For a price.


I was merely sharing opinions shared with me by a few people who make it their profession to handle such legal cases in the federal court system. Ultimately the only way to resolve such an issue is to run it through the court system and that is what will happen if matters come to a head. The first issue will be whether there is enough in the language and legislative history to get an injunction, and many believe there is.


----------



## TiBike (May 25, 2018)

That would be the same law that tasks the FRA with developing "objective methodologies for Amtrak to use in determining what intercity passenger routes and services it will provide, including the establishment of new routes, the elimination of existing routes, and the contraction or expansion of services or frequencies over such routes", and proposes as possible fixes for "the worst performing third of routes currently served by Amtrak" the elimination of those services (by withholding funds) and "the feasibility of restructuring service into connected corridor service". And makes allowances "for Amtrak employees who are adversely affected by the cessation of the operation of a long-distance route".

Like much (most, I'd say) federal legislation, the 2008 act is a dog's breakfast of mandates that congress gave to executive agencies, leaving them with the job of interpretation and implementation.

I don't make my living in the federal courts, but the way in which the federal courts review decisions made by executive agencies does have an impact on my business. What I've seen is that federal courts give agencies the maximum possible leeway, short of "arbitrary or capricious" behavior, so long as their actions are arguably within the scope of the law.

I have no doubt that lawyers and other "people who make it their profession" to practice or advocate within the Beltway believe they will prevail, whatever the situation or issue. Victory is much rarer.


----------



## jis (May 25, 2018)

This RPA Hotline appears to have information relevant to the National Network:

https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/hotline/hotline-1068/


----------



## chrsjrcj (May 25, 2018)

Some news in there of 1 hot meal being added to the new menu.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (May 25, 2018)

chrsjrcj said:


> Some news in there of 1 hot meal being added to the new menu.


Maybe it will be crow.


----------



## JayPea (May 25, 2018)

chrsjrcj said:


> Some news in there of 1 hot meal being added to the new menu.


That must mean Anderson is flexible, willing to listen to people, and change his mind with things that prove to be unpopular with the masses. Or he's a flip-flopper who cannot be trusted.


----------



## Lonestar648 (May 26, 2018)

Could there have been enough feed back to lots of our Congress REPs and Senators that some started calling Anderson to inquire on what was really happening and what the options were?


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 28, 2018)

Mr. Boardman is chiming in again and he's not pleased.

Amtrak: Number-crunching doesn’t do it justice

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/amtrak-number-crunching-doesnt-do-it-justice/

Please allow a brief fair use quote:



> While it is important that Amtrak focus on numbers—as must any organization with limited budgets, payrolls to meet and vendors to pay—a pure focus on statistics, as Stephen Gardner did in his December 19 op-ed, doesn’t accurately tell Amtrak’s story. Limiting the narrative to financials and comparative statistics is unbalanced—for both Amtrak’s supporters and detractors. It also is a hollow excuse to avoid the societal role and importance of Amtrak.
> 
> Amtrak is really about the value it brings to our nation, states, communities, employees and passengers—the forgotten stakeholders when one focuses solely on cold statistics.


He raises a valid point. Pure numbers will never tell the true tale, particularly when the numbers aren't transparent and easily manipulated (right sizing, anyone?)


----------



## neroden (Dec 28, 2018)

Well, I hope Coscia passed my letter to Anderson.  My main point was that you can't make business decisions based on totally bogus numbers, and Mr. Anderson needs to either get real numbers or ignore the bogus numbers (preferably, get real numbers).


----------



## bretton88 (Dec 28, 2018)

I find this funny because accounting was not really any better under his watch.


----------



## jis (Dec 28, 2018)

bretton88 said:


> I find this funny because accounting was not really any better under his watch.


I find Boardman's entire approach mainly to be targeted towards post facto trying to cover his own hiney. That of course does not invalidate many of the valid points he makes. To bad he did not bother to act much on any of them as long as his retirement benefits was in jeopardy. Then again, I probably wouldn't have either if, heaven forbid, I found myself in his position :unsure:


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 28, 2018)

jis said:


> I find Boardman's entire approach mainly to be targeted towards post facto trying to cover his own hiney. That of course does not invalidate many of the valid points he makes. To bad he did not bother to act much on any of them as long as his retirement benefits was in jeopardy. Then again, I probably wouldn;t have either if, heven forbid, I found myself in his position :unsure:


Hence why, basically, nobody (qualified) wants the top job at Amtrak.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 29, 2018)

I don't recall Mr. Boardman weaponizing the numbers in order to justify operating one train over another. Indeed, he only really started hacking at the F&B service when Congress starting making a the major issue of it.


----------



## jis (Dec 29, 2018)

I was speaking in the context of the accounting mess. I could not figure out why he simply did not go ahead and publish the incremental costs and revenues of trains in addition to whatever garbage the FRA and Volpe wants published.

One could say that Boardman's distinguishing feature was creative inaction but that would be unfairly unkind perhaps. But would explain the gentle disappearance of the PIPs without action and many other such observed developments.


----------



## PRR 60 (Dec 29, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> I don't recall Mr. Boardman weaponizing the numbers in order to justify operating one train over another. Indeed, he only really started hacking at the F&B service when Congress starting making a the major issue of it.


How many times did the now beloved "Mr. Boardman" boast that the NEC was "profitable:" to Congress, to the media, to anyone who would listen?  To do that he used the same accounting "tricks" he now derides to polish his image. Rewriting history.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 29, 2018)

PRR 60 said:


> How many times did the now beloved "Mr. Boardman" boast that the NEC was "profitable:" to Congress, to the media, to anyone who would listen?  To do that he used the same accounting "tricks" he now derides to polish his image. Rewriting history.


I believe it was stated that the NEC is profitable "above the rail," but I still don't see the relevance to what I ask: When did he use the ridership figures or "voodoo economics" accounting to publicly undermine other routes or justify cuts in service (amenities, not withstanding?)

I'm not saying it didn't happen but I seriously don't recall it happening.


----------



## neroden (Dec 29, 2018)

There was a famous presentation by Boardman to Congress pointing out that the avoidable costs of the so-called long-distance trains were quite low.  Sadly, it was a one-off.


----------

