# Anderson Speaks on Long Distance Trains



## amtrakpass (Apr 19, 2018)

Sounds like train offs may be coming down the pipe to me from his attitude.

Richard Anderson Speaks - Long Distance Trains

This is a partial transcript from Richard Anderson's speech at the California Rail Summit...

http://www.californiapassengerrailsummit.com/

Unidentified Questioner - I represent the President of the Rail Passengers Association an all volunteer group to represent your customers. Many of them are an older age group that really enjoy riding these long distance trains which you carefully skirted around during your presentation. Many of them spend a quite a few thousands of dollars a year on tickets. I believe in the concept of having a unique selling proposition including myself I own my own private business.

Passenger rail has a lot of unique selling propositions. It seems to me that you are going out of your way to destroy a lot of those like removing the [Pacific] Parlor Cars cutting back on dining car services, at the same time you havent mentioned at all about renewing the Superliner fleet and now you want to convert these trains into short haul corridors. So can we assume that this is now the end game for the Long Distance trains?

Actually if you dont mind we have about 1,600 route or more miles of those lines within the state of California they do represent an important service to a lot of people. Thank you.

Richard Anderson - Theres a place for the long distance experiential trains, but that is not what our customers are using them for. There are only 4% of the people that use the long distance or some very small part of that go end to end. I think the number is 6%? Six isnt it?

Only 6% of people who get on a Long Distance train travel from beginning-point to end-point. Now there is a place for that. There are some really sort of epic trips on our long-distance system the California Zephyr, the Coast Starlight that are in the some of our trains we run on the east coast that you know that experiential train has a place. But people have to understand today we the government pays every person who uses the long distance trains $145 because it costs $750 million to run those trains. That is the loss that it creates. So our responsibility is to figure out how to keep the experiential piece of the pie in place, and there is an important part of that experiential piece, in place and at the same time figure out how we discharge our mission under


----------



## TinCan782 (Apr 19, 2018)

New word for me!






ex·pe·ri·en·tial
ikˌspirēˈen(t)SH(ə)l/
_adjective_


 involving or based on experience and observation.
"the experiential learning associated with employment"


----------



## jebr (Apr 20, 2018)

I think part of the quote is missing.

That being said, nothing from the above quote makes me thinks he wants to kill off any routes. What I see is a CEO that recognizes that most passengers use the train, even long distance trains, as short-to-medium-distance trains in terms of their origin and destination points. Which, frankly, makes sense. While there's certainly a lot of people (especially railfans and Amtrak advocates, which are typically the most vocal about Amtrak changes) that take longer-than-750-mile trips on Amtrak, the vast majority of passengers see Amtrak as merely a convenient transportation mode for their trips that are too long to drive (or too undesirable to drive) but too short to justify flying. He probably also has in the back of his head that while railfans will complain loudly about whatever changes occur, they'll likely come back anyways, so it's not worth doing something just to cater to that audience unless it's profitable in and of itself.

There's certainly the chance for some trainoffs on portions of routes that are both extremely underutilized and have little political support, but I don't think that there'll be any large-scale trainoffs. I do think that it's most likely that any trainoffs would be paired with (or shortly down the road result in) some train route being added or frequency improved on a route. At least that's my (potentially naive) hope.


----------



## bretton88 (Apr 20, 2018)

I see nothing in that statement that indicates train offs. He's just pointing out what has been known for a while, most people don't ride the trains end to end. So he's trying to figure out how to make these LD trains improve service to the 94% (by his numbers) that use them for corridor service and necessary transportation.


----------



## jis (Apr 20, 2018)

I am always skeptical of those that arrive at conclusions based on partial transcripts. Usually a partial transcript is associated with a specific agenda. But clearly this one was just random partial transcript since it does not even support the alleged conclusion.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Apr 20, 2018)

Even if we believe the partial transcript does not point to anything. Even if gloss over the fact that a lot of the cuts seem directed towards people that are traveling the longest distances. Even if we overlook the the proposed equipment caters to a shorter distance market, you can not ignore the elephant in the room:



amtrakpass said:


> *Unidentified Questioner - I represent the President of the Rail Passengers Association an all volunteer group to represent your customers. Many of them are an older age group that really enjoy riding these long distance trains which you carefully skirted around during your presentation. *
> 
> Actually if you dont mind we have about 1,600 route or more miles of those lines within the state of California they do represent an important service to a lot of people.


Where is the dialogue regarding Long Distance trains? I brought it up months ago:



Thirdrail7 said:


> T
> 
> This is the bottom line. We have corporate changes occurring. Now, I can say with certainty there are certain agendas (customer services, safety,discipline, cost controls) that are clearly being pursued. There are certain interests that are clearly being contemplated (seating plans, uniformity.) We will find out more after next calendar begins. I do note a few things. We have heard a great deal about infrastructure, the NEC, state supported services, and the various plans to deliver these services to the average person that is looking to go from "here to there"(hence the website debacle) This is what is to be expected when you have airline people in charge. We've been through this before and we know the deal. * However, it has been unusually quiet on the Long Distance front. When you try to get answers, they are not readily available. There does not appear to be a discernible "clear path." Perhaps they are in the process of working on it right now. Our CEO wanted to upgrade cars and quickly found out how the finances work over here! Obviously, you need a pecking order! That's all well and good. However, when you start asking "what should we do with these cars," and there isn't an enthusiastic "prepare the LSL", it is worthy of note.*
> 
> ...



After listening to Mr. Anderson, I noticed a trend and made this query:



Thirdrail7 said:


> Has anyone heard a firm commitment to the Long Distance network from Mr. Anderson?


Most CEOs identified the LD as the weak link and the biggest money losers (while overlooking the NEC sucked billions upon billions over the last 30 years or so). However, they went on to stress the importance in keep the network together. If they couldn't expand it, it should at least remain as it is. Each CEO stated that self sufficiency was not feasible and although it may have been for political reasons, they agreed the national network should be preserved. Mr. Moorman believed that passenger rail is so important, he came out of retirement to help out after turning down the job.

I haven't heard Mr. Anderson really stress the importance of passenger rail or preserving a national network. Indeed, he seems to be taking incremental baby steps to minimize longer passengers...all without really addressing long distance trains.

Sometimes, there's nothing as loud as a stony silence!

At any rate, summer is approaching and more things have come out. Amtrak2.0 is clearly taking shape but plans for LD service may have been hindered by the funding Amtrak was granted.

We'll see.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Apr 20, 2018)

Heading into the busy season for Amtrak, Anderson and company most likely want to hang on to the high revenue this season generates before announcing major changes to the LD system. Changes for sure are coming, but the marketing staff is probably telling him timing is everything.


----------



## chrsjrcj (Apr 20, 2018)

For the two trains that Anderson just downgraded food service on, that number is higher than 4% (or is it 6%



)

Capitol Limited

Chicago to Washington is 764 miles. Passengers traveling more than 700 miles make up 27.5% of passengers on this train, the highest of any other segment. The only other LD train that comes close to that in end to end travel is the Silver Meteor which comes in at 20% (also the highest of any other segment for that train).

Lakeshore Limited

Chicago to New York is 959 miles. According to that NARP ridership document 9.2% travel the 900-999 miles, plus another 2.2% that travel the full Chicago to Boston distance. That adds up to....11.4%. Maybe throw in the 5.7% in the 800-899 mile category too (yeah I know we're talking end to end, but Chicago to Albany is 818 miles and that is very much a long distance trip). Now you're up to 17.1%.

Looking at all long distance trains, most are in the 9-14% range. The only laggards are the Texas Eagle if you look at the full Chicago to Los Angeles run (2.4%) though the 1000-1499 mile segment comes in at 8.7%, and the Cardinal which comes in at 4.5%.

Of course those numbers include stations within ~100 miles of the origin station, but I think it's pretty disingenuous for Mr. Anderson to only touch on end to end travel when we all know that a long distance train is also has numerous short distance and medium distance pairs. Now I ask, has Anderson even traveled on a LD train? I'm going to say no, but look forward to being proven wrong if it isn't the case.

ETA: After reading the Anderson replaces Moorman thread, I see Mr. Anderson at least rode the Capitol Limited.


----------



## DSS&A (Apr 20, 2018)

Railway Age believes Mr. Anderson wants to END long distance passenger trains. Amtrak would be better off if Wick Moorman would have stayed for a few more years.

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/intercity/want-airline-food-take-amtrak/

Please read this article and share it.


----------



## amtrakpass (Apr 20, 2018)

Of course you can disagree on the details and the nuances but I think it is plain to see that Anderson fundamentaly does not support the long distance network from any understanding of his framing of the context over the time he has been in office. Remember the class one freights have also made it a policy for a generation to drive away local industry work. This is where the railroad spots individual box cars, tank cars etc in favor of unit trains or intermodal. The playbook is the same. Raise rates to the customer. Provide worse service on less days then hopefully customer either switches to intermodal or trucks so you don't have to service them anymore.The class ones have been almost completely sucessful in driving away this business. I am not all doom and gloom. There are many many people who work for the railroads including Amtrak who do a great job everyday including some supervisors. Also with any business or goverment agency there should be a continual process of reform to try to provide the best service most effciently. The most bang for the buck you might say. But lets not pretend someone is a friend of the industry when they get an appropriated increase from Congress only to cut services.


----------



## rrdude (Apr 20, 2018)

His choice of the word Experimental says it all for me. Experiments are short term events, that end, and typically result in CHANGE.

EDIT: Mis-read the word Experiential. Not nearly as dire, IMHO.

I will give credit where credit is due. Andersons spin-masters are epic. The notification and wordiing used about the recent Dining Car changes are virtually perfect. It should be studied by university courses in marketing & public relations.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 20, 2018)

He used the word “experiential”, not “experimental”.

Sort of a big difference.


----------



## rrdude (Apr 20, 2018)

Ryan said:


> He used the word “experiential”, not “experimental”.
> 
> Sort of a big difference.


OK, my bad. Too early in AM, and don’t have my readers..... FACE PALM.


----------



## dlagrua (Apr 20, 2018)

It is certainly true that most passengers do not ride LD trains from origin to destination but I would say that the percentage is higher on the NYP-CHI trains Is that trip long distance? While passengers do get on and off all routes many passengers do ride for considerable distances to many cities.

The current CEO sights losses but fails to recognize that public transportation was created to serve the American people not to make a profit Highways, airports, bridges,tunnels, even the NY City Subway all lose money. As a matter of fact every public transportation system in the USA loses money. In the beginning Amtrak only covered 21% of its operating budget. Today I believe the number is around 87% Anderson and congress should be happy about that but if further cuts are made to make the system "profitable" (such as removal of the dining cars) then its back on the roads we go


----------



## Ryan (Apr 20, 2018)

That’s not on the current CEO, that’s on his 535 bosses up the Hill.

Want to change that? Convince them of your viewpoint, or work to elect representatives you agree with.


----------



## RPC (Apr 20, 2018)

If Mr. Anderson actually discontinues the long distance trains, he'd better have a plan for getting Amtrak to break-even pretty much instantly. I can't imagine the Honorable Senators from Colorado, Nebraska, etc. continuing to fund Amtrak if "their" trains disappear.


----------



## AcrossTheOcean (Apr 20, 2018)

Can someone explain to me why end-to-end ridership should be a focus? I wouldn't expect a high percentage of end-to-end ridership on any train, be that a city's mass transit system or an LD train that goes halfway across the country.

I mean, there is a reason that the trains stop several times between their end points. People live between big cities. People visit places other than big cities.



chrsjrcj said:


> For the two trains that Anderson just downgraded food service on, that number is higher than 4% (or is it 6%
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just curious, do your numbers include people who ride straight through, or does it also include those who do stopovers, like spend a day or two in Denver on their way from Chicago to California?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 20, 2018)

dlagrua said:


> It is certainly true that most passengers do not ride LD trains from origin to destination but I would say that the percentage is higher on the NYP-CHI trains Is that trip long distance? While passengers do get on and off all routes many passengers do ride for considerable distances to many cities.
> 
> The current CEO sights losses but fails to recognize that public transportation was created to serve the American people not to make a profit Highways, airports, bridges,tunnels, even the NY City Subway all lose money. As a matter of fact every public transportation system in the USA loses money. In the beginning Amtrak only covered 21% of its operating budget. Today I believe the number is around 87% Anderson and congress should be happy about that but if further cuts are made to make the system "profitable" (such as removal of the dining cars) then its back on the roads we go


For FY2017, 94.7%, a record.

https://media.amtrak.com/2017/11/amtrak-sets-ridership-revenue-and-earnings-records/


----------



## JRR (Apr 20, 2018)

So if I ride the Meteor from DFB to Wilmington DE, a 24 hour trip, that doesn’t count as end to end nor does it when I go to NYP.

Somehow, counting only end to end in any calculation of the value of LD trains misses a large part of the ridership.


----------



## dlagrua (Apr 20, 2018)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > It is certainly true that most passengers do not ride LD trains from origin to destination but I would say that the percentage is higher on the NYP-CHI trains Is that trip long distance? While passengers do get on and off all routes many passengers do ride for considerable distances to many cities.
> ...


I stand corrected


----------



## jis (Apr 20, 2018)

DSS&A said:


> Railway Age believes Mr. Anderson wants to END long distance passenger trains. Amtrak would be better off if Wick Moorman would have stayed for a few more years.
> 
> https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/intercity/want-airline-food-take-amtrak/
> 
> Please read this article and share it.


I am afraid even for Vantuono that is an extreme piece of meandering unstructured flow of consciousness article.



Railway Age could really do with a better Chief Editor.


----------



## JoeBas (Apr 20, 2018)

Seriously... as fed up as I am with this direction, that article left for New York and arrived at Chicago.

Author would have been better served calming down a little and producing something more coherent.


----------



## keelhauled (Apr 20, 2018)

Par for the course for Railway Age. There are few good industry publications. The only one which can be relied upon not to go meandering into editorial or reprint press releases is Railway Gazette, which being European comparatively infrequently covers US stories.


----------



## saxman (Apr 20, 2018)

The data that NARP(RPA) provides for long distance passengers is really telling. Somehow, someway I wish we could get away from calling the LD trains, "long distance trains." Rather they are corridor trains that overlap dozens and dozens of city pairs. The longer routes, coach seats turn over several times in its journey which means that one seat brings in a decent amount of revenue. Back when I had access to Arrow, I would look at passenger boardings for one Empire Builder trip from Chicago to Seattle and Portland. In the summer months it would be over 1500 boardings for a single run from end to end. Obviously the EB consist doesn't have 1500 seats or sleeping car berths, but it shows how much turn over of seats there is on train like the Empire Builder. Now compare that to the corridor trains. I doubt many seats get sold more than once on corridors like the Lincoln Service. Maybe the WAS to BOS trains sell their seats twice as one run makes its way up the corridor but it isn't much more than that. This doesn't even cover connections that can be made at endpoints. A huge amount of passengers make connections in Chicago for other types of services. Hopefully Anderson realizes the importance of building a network as any airline guy should.

Changes are indeed needed at Amtrak, as status quo and "thats the way we've always done it" is deeply ingrained in Amtrak culture. Efficiencies need to made. But I sure hope it doesn't come at the expense of losing service. Amtrak got a nice boost of money from Congress this year. Never thought I'd see that from a Republican controlled Congress, yet at the same time threats to Amtrak's map may lie within.



Hope I'm wrong.


----------



## Chey (Apr 21, 2018)

AcrossTheOcean said:


> Can someone explain to me why end-to-end ridership should be a focus? I wouldn't expect a high percentage of end-to-end ridership on any train, be that a city's mass transit system or an LD train that goes halfway across the country.
> 
> ...
> 
> Just curious, do your numbers include people who ride straight through, or does it also include those who do stopovers, like spend a day or two in Denver on their way from Chicago to California?


I'm having trouble understanding that too. Why is end-to-end the only criteria he uses for LD travel? If I get on the 22 in FTW instead of SAS and ride it to CHI, then get on the CL and ride it to WAS, I consider it LD. Am I misunderstanding him?


----------



## jis (Apr 21, 2018)

The current issue that we facing is not because there is a focus on end to end ridership, but because there is a recognition that most people do not ride end to end, but there are a series of overlapping shorter corridors that are more relevant. Using that as a basis, some are arguing that the LD trains could be chopped up into multiple short to medium distance trains. Of course the impracticality and added cost of doing that seems to elude them, even not considering the fact that you would inconvenience a lot of middle distance passengers too whose journey would span the arbitrary chopping points.

As for whether the current consideration includes "stopovers", it implicitly does, since a trip with stopover simply appears as two shorter trips in the data that they are using.


----------



## Amtrak706 (Apr 22, 2018)

http://railpac.org/2018/04/21/amtrak-ceo-phasing-out-long-distance-trains-in-favor-of-corridors/

Yikes. Are we sure that Railway Age article is so far off?


----------



## neroden (Apr 22, 2018)

Let's hope Anderson isn't as much of a dumbass as he currently appears to be.


----------



## Amtrak706 (Apr 22, 2018)

neroden said:


> Let's hope Anderson isn't as much of a dumbass as he currently appears to be.


I think it is officially time to stop giving him the benefit of the doubt. Over the past few days he has explicitly categorized the LD trains as "experiential" in nature and has been substantially hostile to any questions about their future, going as far as saying that simple corridor trains run by fixed DMU consists are Amtrak's future. Too many red flags. I fear that too many of us, perhaps with the best of intentions in our skepticism and withholding of judgement, fail to see the writing on the wall and will continue to do so until it is too late.


----------



## dlagrua (Apr 22, 2018)

I view Anderson as a ruthless big corporate guy. IMO, he doesn't seem to care about customer service or even the people employed on the LD trains. He speaks of those in the food service area as expendable. .Like many corporate executives, his motivation is solely about profit. On his quest to profitability, he wants to lay off those who he believes are not needed with no concern about jobs that people need to feed their family; just put them out on the street and don't worry about it. These comments might be a bit harsh but that's the impression that I have about this individual. We need to get a petition going to express how rail passengers feel about the direction that Amtrak is taking?


----------



## mlanoue (Apr 22, 2018)

I think people do need to speak up, but our focus should be on Congress. Anderson's not going to get rich working at Amtrak, whether it's corridor or LD trains. It's up to Congress to stress the importance of the national network to him.


----------



## CAMISSY55 (Apr 22, 2018)

dlagrua said:


> I view Anderson as a ruthless big corporate guy. IMO, he doesn't seem to care about customer service or even the people employed on the LD trains. He speaks of those in the food service area as expendable. .Like many corporate executives, his motivation is solely about profit. On his quest to profitability, he wants to lay off those who he believes are not needed with no concern about jobs that people need to feed their family; just put them out on the street and don't worry about it. These comments might be a bit harsh but that's the impression that I have about this individual. We need to get a petition going to express how rail passengers feel about the direction that Amtrak is taking?



From information on the "Fresh Choice..." thread about the coming changes to F&B operations on the CL and LSL, it appears Anderson has statutory limitations on his ability to blanketly lay off employees to cut costs. Granted this applys to F&B employees, but maybe (hopefully) protections exists for other Amtrak positions.

In response to a question about the 2015 statute that is governing the F&B reforms the following excerpt was posted. In particular see item "C".

"...the statute is Title 49 USC Ch. 243, section 24321:

Quote

§24321. Food and beverage reform

(a) Plan.Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2015, Amtrak shall develop and begin implementing a plan to eliminate, within 5 years of such date of enactment, the operating loss associated with providing food and beverage service on board Amtrak trains.

(b) Considerations.In developing and implementing the plan, Amtrak shall consider a combination of cost management and revenue generation initiatives, including

(1) scheduling optimization;

(2) on-board logistics;

(3) product development and supply chain efficiency;

(4) training, awards, and accountability;

(5) technology enhancements and process improvements; and

(6) ticket revenue allocation.

© Savings Clause.Amtrak shall ensure that no Amtrak employee holding a position as of the date of enactment of the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2015 is involuntarily separated because of

(1) the development and implementation of the plan required under subsection (a); or

(2) any other action taken by Amtrak to implement this section.

(d) No Federal Funding for Operating Losses.Beginning on the date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2015, no Federal funds may be used to cover any operating loss associated with providing food and beverage service on a route operated by Amtrak or a rail carrier that operates a route in lieu of Amtrak pursuant to section 24711."


----------



## bretton88 (Apr 22, 2018)

dlagrua said:


> I view Anderson as a ruthless big corporate guy. IMO, he doesn't seem to care about customer service or even the people employed on the LD trains. He speaks of those in the food service area as expendable. .Like many corporate executives, his motivation is solely about profit. On his quest to profitability, he wants to lay off those who he believes are not needed with no concern about jobs that people need to feed their family; just put them out on the street and don't worry about it. These comments might be a bit harsh but that's the impression that I have about this individual. We need to get a petition going to express how rail passengers feel about the direction that Amtrak is taking?


Congress required Amtrak to be run like a business, so Anderson is running it like a business now. I don't think it's anything personal from Anderson. Unfortunately the modern definition of "run like a business" is try to profit above all else. The flip side is if he can get Amtrak to show some form of profitability, maybe we won't have to deal as much with these mandates from congress.


----------



## jis (Apr 22, 2018)

Here is what RailPAC has to say based on a meeting at which Anderson spoke in California:

http://railpac.org/2018/04/21/amtrak-ceo-phasing-out-long-distance-trains-in-favor-of-corridors/

Note that these are notes of an observer in a meeting in California where Anderson spoke.... He did not explicitly say what the title claims, but one could reach such a conclusion from the reported notes if the observer's notes are unbiased.

Thirdrail, maybe we have a strong hint of an answer to your question. What have you been hearing internally that you can share?


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Apr 22, 2018)

Wait.... I thought corridor trains under a certain amount of miles had to be state sponsored? Did that rule change?

The guy is half right... We DO need more frequent, corridor type service between city pairs where Long Distance trains run. But not instead of, in addition to. They feed each other and share resources.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Apr 22, 2018)

jis said:


> Here is what RailPAC has to say based on a meeting at which Anderson spoke in California:
> 
> http://railpac.org/2018/04/21/amtrak-ceo-phasing-out-long-distance-trains-in-favor-of-corridors/
> 
> ...


I've heard worse in greater detail. However, I've noticed that how he articulates something doesn't necessarily mean it how it will turn out. A perfect example is the brouhaha that ensued with the private car message. What he said and how it came out is not how it was explained. That is why I'm anxiously awaiting some sort of vision on the LD. front. He believes corridors are the future and he believes that operations should concentrate on the heavily used stations. Does that mean the death of the LD trains or does that mean the elimination of many, low usage stations in an effort to reduce the running times along the route?

If Congress steps in, does it mean a puny, perfunctory train with minimum services along the route or a showdown, with him waving PRIIA? The fact they gave additional money to the operation of the LD network probably doesn't make things cut and dry.

We'll see.



crescent-zephyr said:


> Wait.... I thought corridor trains under a certain amount of miles had to be state sponsored? Did that rule change?
> 
> The guy is half right... We DO need more frequent, corridor type service between city pairs where Long Distance trains run. But not instead of, in addition to. They feed each other and share resources.


The rule did not change, which also makes things difficult. The only thing is PRIIA also mentions working with the states. He may tell the states to put their money where their mouths are.


----------



## me_little_me (Apr 22, 2018)

I for one don't care about end-to-end long distance travel as the only one I have taken of my many long distance (i.e. ones with overnight travel) rides has been the Capitol Limited. However, Atlanta to/from WAS and NYP; Greenville, SC to/from NYP, PHL, WIL; NOL to/from El Paso, CHI to ABQ, Portland, OR to/from L.A.; various NC cities to/from various FLA ones; Reno to/from DEN; Prince,WV to/from CHI and more all involved overnight travel but not one was end to end so don't fit Mr. A's numbers. Many day trips involved using sleepers because of the privacy and restfulness involved. Were not something more than coach available on shorter trips and more than BC on long-day ones, I'd reduce the number of trips and fly the remainder first class.

Unless Amtrak makes a dramatic improvement to provide clean coach class restrooms and real meals and not at my seat on long day trips, it isn't worth it for me to use them. An all-day trip such as ATL to WAS would be okay in BC with a real diner like the Crescent has but then staying overnight and taking another all-day trip to, say, Portland, ME would be just too much sitting with no enjoyment. Similarly, dividing up what is now an overnight into two long days with a hotel stop is, to me, worthless. I could do that by car easier. Sleepers allow me to travel in daytime comfort and sleep at night while the engineer does the driving.

Most importantly, Amtrak needs to provide FAR FASTER AVERAGE speeds on their long distance network. That would be step one. There's where the money could be saved: increased ridership; lower crew costs; fewer meal times; etc, etc. Then I could travel from ATL to WAS in 6 hours with a 100mph average speed (instead of the present 14 hours and 45mph), have time to enjoy an overnight hotel stay and be refreshed enough to travel further without a sleeper.

Mr. Anderson is right. We can pretty much get rid of sleepers. Triple average train speed; provide a LOT BETTER coach service; provide real business/first class with separate lounge; keep the diners to provide real meals for breakfast and lunch; make all city pairs leave/arrive at reasonable daylight hours with more service times. Not a chance in hell of having that.


----------



## cpotisch (Apr 23, 2018)

me_little_me said:


> An all-day trip such as ATL to WAS would be okay in BC with a real diner like the Crescent


But don't forget that they're taking Business Class off the Crescent next month...


----------



## Lonestar648 (Apr 23, 2018)

It it comes to cutting low volume stops, Anderson will have to politic with the Senators and Congress members affected. So if Amtrak drops a number of stops to speed up service, where is the cost savings to offset the lost revenue. If you eliminate the LD routes for corridor service how do you offset the revenue lost for the long distance passengers, from those passengers that need two different hub city corridor services. Say you live in Little Rock and want to go to Detroit. Corridor service to St. Louis, get a hotel room, then corridor service to CHI, change, with late arrival into Detroit. Some how I do not see very many people who ride Amtrak today to accept this type of travel. Corridor service on the West and East Coasts will survive, but other areas with very limited or no State support will default to car or air transportation. If the anti-Amtrak Congressmen and Anderson convince everyone in Congress that the state supported corridor service is the future, our grandchildren will show their children a video of the old style transportation that Grandpa and Grandma used to travel on decades ago.


----------



## Larry H. (Apr 23, 2018)

It would be interesting to know what it cost per auto trip on a federal highway? For some reason Amtrak has always been judged by a much different standard than other forms of transportation. And should I have to drive from central Illinois all the way to Chicago to be considered a successful trip? Or like most people we get off and on the highway at many different starting and ending points. Until we go back to running passenger service as an alternative to other modes and excepting what makes a successful experience for a plane is not the same as the cars necessary for a trip lasting up to three days.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Apr 23, 2018)

Lonestar648 said:


> our grandchildren will show their children a video of the old style transportation that Grandpa and Grandma used to travel on decades ago.


They'll probabbly keep 1 token LD route running 2 or 3 times a week like Canada did. I vote for the zephyr.


----------



## JRR (Apr 23, 2018)

That would be better than nothing but why not keep at least 3?


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Apr 23, 2018)

JRR said:


> That would be better than nothing but why not keep at least 3?


Same reason Canada went down to 1 would be my guess.


----------



## JRR (Apr 23, 2018)

Well, I’m not sure it would be easy to put a rail line across northern Canada, however, connecting Whitehorse to Toronto would be interesting . You could the use the narrow gage to Skagway in the summer.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Apr 23, 2018)

JRR said:


> Well, Im not sure it would be easy to put a rail line across northern Canada, however, connecting Whitehorse to Toronto would be interesting . You could the use the narrow gage to Skagway in the summer.


The current Canadian is the northern route, there used to be a southern transcon that ran on the CP line as well. They both, at one time, operated daily.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Apr 23, 2018)

crescent-zephyr said:


> JRR said:
> 
> 
> > That would be better than nothing but why not keep at least 3?
> ...


However, the population of Canada is far less spread out north-south than the US and Canada still manages to have one connected system at the present. If only the CZ was retained, the Pacific Northwest, Southern California, and Northeast networks would not be connected to the national system. In addition, far more major cities would be cut off than were in Canada. For Canadian metro areas with at least a million people, only Calgary currently does not have a VIA Rail station. In the US, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Columbus, Nashville, and Louisville already lack Amtrak service while Dallas, Houston, Miami, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Tampa, Orlando, San Antonio, Cincinnati, Austin, Cleveland, Jacksonville, Oklahoma City, Memphis, New Orleans, Birmingham, and Tucson would be cut from the network if LD service (except the CZ) was lost.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Apr 23, 2018)

Don't worry... Corridors will serve all those cities! 

It always irritates me when people say "well the geography and population density is different in europe than usa" or Canada vs usa. Yes... Obviously no 2 different places are exactly the same. But the geography and population density has very little to do with it... It's mostly a political thing. Canada has seemingly dropped every LD train they could get away with. That's my point.


----------



## frequentflyer (Apr 23, 2018)

IMO-

1. State Supported Corridors is Amtrak's future. Which include DMU and EMUs.

2. Most of the present LD trains will stick around to connect said corridors and keeping a "national" network.

3. Not all LD trains will survive though. SL, and Cardinal be gone, replaced with "corridors" somewhere along their routing.

4. For those of us that grew up riding on Amfleets and Superliners and now have families of our own riding on the same cars its a big change for us. Sometimes change is necessary.

In the end there will be less LD trains, but Amtrak's pax and revenues will increase and require less subsidies. LD trains are not going anywhere, but sadly there will be less of them.


----------



## JRR (Apr 23, 2018)

I’d like a “corridor” if it connected Orlando to New Orleans!


----------



## jis (Apr 23, 2018)

On the positive side there will be a very significant equipment order replacing half a century old equipment, possibly even releasing some of that old equipment to be cascaded to new services somewhere.

I tend to agree with frequentflyer, specially given the $1.3 billion appropriated for National Network, that all LD trains are unlikely to vaporize in the near future, though a prportion that was not intended by the House and Senate Appropriators may be diverted to short/medium corridors thus short changing the LD system.

I think Thirdrail has summarized the current situation quite well.

Meanwhile I (and I am sure others in RPA Council) are waiting to hear some definitive information from the RPA Staff's meeting with Anderson this week.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Apr 23, 2018)

I'm still quite confused on the funding situation...

The Corridors pay for themselves via the states.

The NEC "makes a profit" (yeah I know.. but that's what is claimed).

So what's left to be subsidized... the long distance. So where does the subsidy for Long distance trains go? Does Anderson want to eliminate LD trains and therefore eliminate the LD subsidy? Well if that's what the government wants, they can do that already. If it's not what they want then why is Anderson going that route?

If the government is voting to give amtrak LD subsidy... and even being picky that said money cannot go to food and beverage costs... it would seem the government wants and sees value in the LD network.


----------



## dlagrua (Apr 23, 2018)

Rail passengers should decide to have a say about the direction that Anderson is taking Amtrak. I've thought about possible actions. If we organized a national boycott of the LD trains that might end up hurting employees and reinforce the position that no one rides the trains. I believe that best way to to have petitions available in every dining car that state our position for the LD trains and for the dining car. We will suggest to the dining car crew on our trip next month.

It is my belief that if we do nothing, right after the meal service is killed off, the LD trains will follow..

As for Amtrak being made profitable, it must be asked is Social Security, Medicare, Affordable housing, the National Highway system, National Parks and other government owned agencies profitable??, Why should Amtrak be the only exception??


----------



## jis (Apr 23, 2018)

I would prefer it if people would stop equating Social Security and Medicare, which have their own taxes that is paid over a lifetime, with Amtrak which has no specific taxes associated with it (which is part of the problem). It just confuses the issue and makes one look ridiculous. Let us just stick to talking about subsidy for transportation modes and leave it at that.


----------



## jebr (Apr 23, 2018)

I actually don't disagree with Anderson on the general pretense that most people use trains as essentially a corridor service, even on the "long distance" trains. I also think that's likely what Congress is intending to fund - not the rides of 2, 3, or more full days that can, at least in part, be replaced by commercial air service, but the shorter (under 24 hours, and mainly under 12 hour) journeys that people take when they can't drive or is in a sweet spot where driving is a bit too much but it's not enough (or a small enough market) where flying doesn't make sense. If certain services don't really dissuade people from taking those shorter journeys but are only really major selling points on the multi-day journeys, then they only really make sense if they're self-sustainable. Even from a smaller market like Havre, MT, if someone's traveling to Florida it makes more sense to take the train to MSP, SEA, or PDX and fly the rest of the way, and even a Chicago - Florida train wouldn't really make that sort of trip viable for most people.

It makes more sense to advocate for long distance trains as essentially overlapping corridors where the strength comes from having numerous corridors all served by a direct train. Sure, you could theoretically break up the trains at certain points, but does it make sense to do that when you can run the train through, especially if there's no real other service to connect to? For example, trying to have the Empire Builder only run Spokane = St. Paul and having corridor trains serve the rest isn't really helpful when the only other intercity rail service you can connect to is the one that continues to Chicago. That's generally true across the long-distance network, and having the ability to have that one train continue through and be overlapping corridors is the best way (in my opinion) to advocate for it.

That does mean that we'll likely wind up having to de-emphasize saving certain things (such as the dining car; it's not really necessary even over a couple meal times as long as there's decent food in the cafe car) but there's still a place for sleeper car service (overnight journeys over a corridor; Minot - St. Paul is a good example of one, as is Illinois/Iowa - Denver.) Overall, though, to me it makes the most sense to advocate for things that reinforce Amtrak's place as a transportation mode first and foremost.


----------



## rrdude (Apr 23, 2018)

I have mostly held the position that Amtrak, while being directed to be "All things to all people" (and in turn ios mediocre, at best) could indeed cater to different markets: 1) Core basic transportation. 2) Semi-luxury travelers. However, I think the optics of catering to the latter, kill the idea, tho Via Rail, in a very different environment, does "get away with it".

Not sure of the demand for "First Class" anymore on Amtrak. But, I'd pay a premium above what sleepers cost now, given:


Linen, China, and glassware
Fresh flowers on table
Turn-down service @ nite with choc or other
Wine or non-alcoholic beverage upon boarding
Amenity Kit
Wine tasting or other local samplings
Exclusive lounge car access. (PPC perfect example)
Menu could pretty much stay the same, except for desserts and salads.
Ice, Coffee, juice all day in sleepers
etc., etc.
Now, the $64K question is, at what yield or occupancy rate, do you cover your increased costs to provide the above "extras"......


----------



## bretton88 (Apr 23, 2018)

I suspect the message that Anderson is trying to convey is to get the states moving on more corridor service (i.e. Seattle to Spokane, Chicago to MSP). His biggest problem is the 750 mile rule, which requires a state partner. It's very possible he's trying to turn the long distance trains into a loophole allowing Amtrak to provide corridor service within the 750 miles.


----------



## jis (Apr 23, 2018)

bretton88 said:


> I suspect the message that Anderson is trying to convey is to get the states moving on more corridor service (i.e. Seattle to Spokane, Chicago to MSP). His biggest problem is the 750 mile rule, which requires a state partner. It's very possible he's trying to turn the long distance trains into a loophole allowing Amtrak to provide corridor service within the 750 miles.


The logic of this eludes me. Why would he want to get rid of the 750 mile rule. It gives him leverage to get states to fund things. He has very little incentive to take those trains fully in house in terms of funding. In general he correctly believes that Corridor services is where the growth is and is going to be. But that does not mean he necessarily wants to take on the entire financial risk of it. I am sure he would like to run them and get someone else to contract him to run them with adequate subsidy. The Corridor trains that run today at their fare levels, barring a few unusual corridors that are extensions of the NEC, are actually spectacular money losers.


----------



## bretton88 (Apr 23, 2018)

jis said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect the message that Anderson is trying to convey is to get the states moving on more corridor service (i.e. Seattle to Spokane, Chicago to MSP). His biggest problem is the 750 mile rule, which requires a state partner. It's very possible he's trying to turn the long distance trains into a loophole allowing Amtrak to provide corridor service within the 750 miles.
> ...


It's not getting rid of the 750 mile rule, ideally he'd like to run corridors that are only state supported, the problem he faces is states don't necessarily want to cooperate or pay for it. Let's say he splits up the EB into three segments (Seattle to Sand Point, Sand Point to Grand Forks, GF to Chicago for example, choosing points that are longer than 750 miles) he could possibly have 3 possibly more reliable corridor trains that outperform the original LD train. Or the Chicago to GF train capturing the market for Chicago to MSP and the captured Seattle to Spokane corridor traffic would outperform enough to cover for the weak middle segment. This could be done without dealing with uncooperative state governments. I am not advocating for this, but his statements about DMUs and such make me think this is a direction he's going.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Apr 23, 2018)

I ask again... why is he wanting to do this? The government is giving money specifically to operate "Long Distance Trains" that's what the money is for.

Now... could it be that his plan is to eliminate the dining cars and make all LD trains transit only with limited food service? So the LD trains become totally bare bones... and then focus on state supported corridors running in addition to these trains? Ok... well that at least makes sense.

His "answers" just beg for more questions!


----------



## chrsjrcj (Apr 23, 2018)

My opinion- Anderson sees Amtrak as a for-profit corporation, with the Federal government being more or less the sole shareholder. His objective is to reduce any costs to the shareholder (Federal subsidies). It's likely why he is more than happy to accept state funds (and count it as revenue), and would be okay with running the LD trains if the states funded it.

It's the difference between a business minded CEO like Anderson and someone like David Gunn who understood the benefit that a national passenger rail service provides.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (Apr 23, 2018)

I agree completely, chrsjrcj--I think you've put it very well.

I believe Anderson has been hired explicitly to cut expenses down to the bone. That is it. I believe his feeling is probably if Amtrak survives, fine; if it doesn't, fine--either way, he will have done the job he was hired to do. To be fair to him, I believe he is doing what he feels it is his mandate to do.

When Anderson has left, though, after he finishes what he considers to be his work, are there any railroad people left who would be able to step in and repair the damage? Or are they all retired or no longer with us?

I am sorry about Wick Moorman--he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, because he could have been the one. And David Gunn is retired up there in Canada and has no intention of coming back.


----------



## Trogdor (Apr 23, 2018)

Theres nothing about which to feel sorry for Wick Moorman. He was more or less doing Amtrak a favor by taking the job when he really didnt want. He was retired and really had no intention of coming back to work, but he was the one that felt sorry for Amtrak, and took the job, temporarily, to help Amtrak extend the search for a permanent CEO.

When Boardman announced his retirement, essentially nobody wanted the job. Thats why Moorman was brought in.

You typically bring in an interim CEO when there is a sudden and unexpected departure (death, sudden resignation to take another position somewhere else, a scandal forcing an early departure, etc.). Boardman announced his retirement many months, if not a year, in advance. Even if he hadnt explicitly announced it, his age and years of service in the industry should have caused the company/board to work on some sort of succession plan. If there was anybody both willing and qualified for the job, they should have been known and hired prior to Boardmans departure. Instead, after a many-months-long search, we wind up with someone who was already retired and said up front that he was only going to be there a short time.

So, whatever people think of Anderson, he was (and I dont like using the word literally very lightly) almost literally the only person they could get to do the job. And he, himself, was essentially already retired. I know Ive said on here before that Amtrak was an organizational mess. Its something that executive-level folks with a future career left dont want to touch.

Its unfortunate that long-distance trains are suffering, but lets be honest, theyve been suffering a slow, steady decline for a couple of decades (or more). The quality of food in the dining car has decreased. The amount of cooked-on-board food has decreased. Individual route menus have been replaced with standardized menus system-wide. Sleeping car perks have been reduced or eliminated. And much of that happened long before anyone associated Richard Anderson with a railroad.

Many folks dont like Anderson, but I really dont know who would be qualified for the job and actually want it. Experienced railroad executives are better off with freight companies (and they know it), and experienced passenger executives are better off at more stable transit and commuter railroads (and they know it). Who does that leave you with?

Edit: apologies for the lack of proper apostrophies. The iOS mobile website bug seems to have removed them all.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 23, 2018)

You raise an interesting point.

Has anyone gone on from the Amtrak job to go and do great things elsewhere?


----------



## JRR (Apr 23, 2018)

I am not into accounting, but allocation of costs and revenue with respect to food service, seems to be just an accounting issue with respect to the sleepers. As some have suggested, raise the price of the sleeper to cover the food service costs or, more imaginatively, allocate more of the sleeper revenue to the food service.

Recognizing the fiduciary responsibility of management, a reasonable combination of the two approaches would seem to be a workable solution.

I think one could even upgrade the quality of the food, cover the costs and increase ridership with an imaginative advertising campaign featuring the “experiential” benefits of traveling on Amtrak. “Your vacation starts when you step on board!”


----------



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

frequentflyer said:


> In the end there will be less LD trains, but Amtrak's pax and revenues will increase and require less subsidies. LD trains are not going anywhere, but sadly there will be less of them.


As we have witnessed in the past Amtrak's long distance network continues to shrink over time. Whenever another route is scaled back or abandoned the other routes suffer reduced connections, discouraged supporters, and weakened budget relevance. Over a long enough timeline each and every route will eventually fall victim to becoming the weakest link in the chain. When only one long distance route remains it will be too weak and isolated to maintain continued relevance on its own.


----------



## NorthShore (Apr 24, 2018)

jis said:


> I tend to agree with frequentflyer, specially given the $1.3 billion appropriated for National Network, that all LD trains are unlikely to vaporize in the near future, though a prportion that was not intended by the House and Senate Appropriators may be diverted to short/medium corridors thus short changing the LD system.
> 
> I think Thirdrail has summarized the current situation quite well.


Every time my (Democratic Chicago) Congressman addresses questions I pose about Amtrak funding at community meetings, this is essentially what his answer amounts to, also.


----------



## NorthShore (Apr 24, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> He believes corridors are the future and he believes that operations should concentrate on the heavily used stations. Does that mean the death of the LD trains or does that mean the elimination of many, low usage stations in an effort to reduce the running times along the route?


Sounds like it means Greyhound.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 24, 2018)

Devil's Advocate said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> > In the end there will be less LD trains, but Amtrak's pax and revenues will increase and require less subsidies. LD trains are not going anywhere, but sadly there will be less of them.
> ...


Nah, Amtrak has had the same weakest link for the last 40 years. They've just canceled other better routes and kept it around instead. Maybe if there is a round of cuts and the right cut is made some other train will actually be the weakest link for a change. At least he's dead now.


----------



## frequentflyer (Apr 24, 2018)

Ironic isn't it? We all know Amtrak cannot keep operating as it has for the past 40 years, yet no can agree what it needs to change to to prosper. The status quo is not prospering.


----------



## KmH (Apr 24, 2018)

Amtrak exists because private railroads could no longer break even running intercity passenger rail service back in the late 60s.

None the less, Amtrak has steadily improved regards generating revenue and at present is said to be covering 94.7% of its operating costs.

Interestingly, the biggest problem area regards costs is apparently the often touted NEC.

While Amtrak makes a profit from the rails up on the NEC trains, Amtrak is said to be many billions of dollars behind in maintenance and improvements to the NEC infrastucture.

LD train infrastructure is maintained by the host railroads, with some miles of exception, like the miles the Southwest Chief uses between La Junta and the Dalies Junction south of Albuquerque.


----------



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

frequentflyer said:


> Ironic isn't it? We all know Amtrak cannot keep operating as it has for the past 40 years, yet no can agree what it needs to change to to prosper. The status quo is not prospering.


Prosper how? Compared to what? Financially Amtrak is doing better now than it ever has in the past. Unfortunately Amtrak has also raised prices, increased penalties, and reduced or removed many services and amenities along the way. I think this disconnect is where the complication lies. How do we improve and solidify Amtrak's financial standing without being left behind in the process.


----------



## AGM.12 (Apr 24, 2018)

I seem to remember that one of the PRIIA laws directed Amtrak to begin the efforts to turn some of the long distance trains over to private operators. I would be curious to see what Mr. Anderson's thoughts are on this idea.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Apr 24, 2018)

Not sure who would want to run a money losing train. Iowa Pacific tried to get in the business and... Lost money. I had hoped that Iowa Pacific would succeed and become the "new Pullman" and slowly take over 1st class on overnight trains.

Plus there is the liability. The CSX wreck wasn't Amtraks fault, but they lost crew members, equipment, and who knows how much $$$. Who wants to be responsible for all that?


----------



## Bob Dylan (Apr 24, 2018)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Not sure who would want to run a money losing train. Iowa Pacific tried to get in the business and... Lost money. I had hoped that Iowa Pacific would succeed and become the "new Pullman" and slowly take over 1st class on overnight trains.
> 
> Plus there is the liability. The CSX wreck wasn't Amtraks fault, but they lost crew members, equipment, and who knows how much $$$. Who wants to be responsible for all that?


This!!!


----------



## bretton88 (Apr 24, 2018)

JRR said:


> I am not into accounting, but allocation of costs and revenue with respect to food service, seems to be just an accounting issue with respect to the sleepers. As some have suggested, raise the price of the sleeper to cover the food service costs or, more imaginatively, allocate more of the sleeper revenue to the food service.
> 
> Recognizing the fiduciary responsibility of management, a reasonable combination of the two approaches would seem to be a workable solution.
> 
> I think one could even upgrade the quality of the food, cover the costs and increase ridership with an imaginative advertising campaign featuring the “experiential” benefits of traveling on Amtrak. “Your vacation starts when you step on board!”


And you have just stated the exact marketing on how to alienate Congress. How do you think subsized vacations would go over in Congress? VIA gets away with this because even they admit they don't even register on the radar in Canada anymore. The Canadian is supposedly still a money loser even with premier class.


----------



## cpotisch (Apr 24, 2018)

bretton88 said:


> JRR said:
> 
> 
> > I am not into accounting, but allocation of costs and revenue with respect to food service, seems to be just an accounting issue with respect to the sleepers. As some have suggested, raise the price of the sleeper to cover the food service costs or, more imaginatively, allocate more of the sleeper revenue to the food service.
> ...


I feel like Congress can distinguish marketing from the actual product...


----------



## Anderson (Apr 24, 2018)

AGM.12 said:


> I seem to remember that one of the PRIIA laws directed Amtrak to begin the efforts to turn some of the long distance trains over to private operators. I would be curious to see what Mr. Anderson's thoughts are on this idea.


It depends on how much of a check the private operators get. If they got 80-90% of the "fully allocated loss" as a subsidy, I suspect that would go far beyond covering "actual" operating costs and give them some slack to acquire equipment for an overhaul that would leave the train(s) in question properly equipped.

The main thing that doomed the private operator deal is this: Amtrak was not required to provide their existing access rights or (at-cost or at-cost-plus-reasonable-markup) operating crews upon request. What Mr. Ellis ultimately had to do is hire an Amtrak conductor (and I think an operating crew) and then have his folks "on top" of that. His other issue had to do with revenue allocations between himself and Amtrak when incentive payments to the hosts spiked.

Setting that aside, if an operator was offered the LSL and told "Here is $27m/yr[1], here is an Amtrak operating crew, here is Amtrak's existing equipment allocation if you want to lease it, and here is Amtrak's set of slots from NYP/BOS-CHI" I think they could make it work[2]. Telling them "Here is $27m/yr, now figure everything else out but the equipment" was a fool's errand.

[1]The LSL's nominal loss at the moment for FY17 was $33m per the 9/17 MPR; I'm discounting that by 20% (I think the initial mandate was 10%) to account for "actual services" provided by Amtrak (e.g. booking system, etc.).

[2]Per the famous "Boardman chart", the LSL's direct cash losses are probably <$5m. If that were to hold, and if nothing else were to need to be changed, $330m over a 15-year franchise (I picked this because it's the length of the Caledonian sleeper franchise) should be _more_ than enough to completely overhaul the train into something that isn't falling apart _and_ pump up incentive payments to get at least passable OTP. For example, if the train were overhauled into an 11-car NYP section and a 5-car BOS section, at $3m/car that would be $144m. Throw in a half-dozen spare/shop cars and you're still at $162m. You can probably buy new locomotives for the BOS-ALB-CHI run and "just" lease Amtrak locos for NYP-ALB (since those need to be dual-modes) with some more of the cash (or just lease from Amtrak). This would_ probably _bump your financial performance substantially as well.


----------



## jis (Apr 24, 2018)

The Hoosier State under IP was operated by an Amtrak T&E crew AFAIR, i.e. Engineer, Conductor and Assistant Conductor were provided by Amtrak, and they pocketed the corresponding subsidy amount. IP was responsible for providing serviceable equipment and OBS. Naturally, since the entire responsibility for operation of the train was Amtrak's, they tended to pocket most of the operating incentive. When I Iearned of the deal under which IP was operating that train, my first thought was either someone did not bother to read the contract before signing it, or someone ought to have been fired a long time back from IP.

In my opinion, the entire subsidy thing for Amtrak should be restructured as a contract, wherein the federal government pays a certain amount of money to Amtrak as part of a contract to provide specific services. Then Amtrak can do accounting like any other company that fulfills contracts. The subsidy would appear in the income column, and costs corresponding to it would appear in the expense column. That is how all of the government grants to TOCs in UK are handled. In UK the TOCs are also expected to pay a franchise fee to the government in order to be allowed to operate the franchise.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 24, 2018)

bretton88 said:


> JRR said:
> 
> 
> > I am not into accounting, but allocation of costs and revenue with respect to food service, seems to be just an accounting issue with respect to the sleepers. As some have suggested, raise the price of the sleeper to cover the food service costs or, more imaginatively, allocate more of the sleeper revenue to the food service.
> ...


The _Canadian_ has three problems. Problem #1 is that they have enough fixed costs that the train loses money quite handily in winter (so for 5-6 months out of the year it is a _major_ leak in VIA's budget). Problem #2 is that in an attempt to deal with problem #1, frequency has been cut off-season to the point that the train is problematic-at-best to use for functional transportation. Problem #3 is called "Winnipeg to Toronto": While there are a number of other city pairs the train serves where it actually makes sense to use the train, this segment is basically a "rural services" line.

I have tried to look at VIA's accounting, but there are just enough differences from Amtrak that I get a headache...but they also give a subsidy-per-pax-mile statistic which is _nice_. The subsidy given for "longhaul west" (which I presume to be solely the _Canadian_ was $1.20/mile in Q1 of 2017, $0.31/mile in Q2 of 2017, and $0.04/mile in Q3 of 2017. The Q1 figure is pretty much stuck, but Q2 and Q3 did show improvements over 2016. Since it gets rolled into the annual report (whenever it actually comes out), extracting a Q4 figure is like pulling teeth. The bottom line, however, is that if Prestige Class didn't "fix" the operating loss on the _Canadian_, it sure helped blow a hole in the deficit...the train actually seems to be performing roughly in line with how the original California Zephyr was performing during the train-off fights (doing very well "in season" and getting killed "out of season").


----------



## Anderson (Apr 24, 2018)

jis said:


> The Hoosier State under IP was operated by an Amtrak T&E crew AFAIR, i.e. Engineer, Conductor and Assistant Conductor were provided by Amtrak, and they pocketed the corresponding subsidy amount. IP was responsible for providing serviceable equipment and OBS. Naturally, since the entire responsibility for operation of the train was Amtrak's, they tended to pocket most of the operating incentive. When I Iearned of the deal under which IP was operating that train, my first thought was either someone did not bother to read the contract before signing it, or someone ought to have been fired a long time back from IP.
> 
> In my opinion, the entire subsidy thing for Amtrak should be restructured as a contract, wherein the federal government pays a certain amount of money to Amtrak as part of a contract to provide specific services. Then Amtrak can do accounting like any other company that fulfills contracts. The subsidy would appear in the income column, and costs corresponding to it would appear in the expense column. That is how all of the government grants to TOCs in UK are handled. In UK the TOCs are also expected to pay a franchise fee to the government in order to be allowed to operate the franchise.


I had wondered how that all got screwed up. Thanks for the clarification (I knew roughly what happened but a few dots had not been connected in my mind, and I never wanted to pump Mr. Ellis for arcane details like that). I think "didn't read the contract" might have been the case, considering how much of a mad scramble it was to get the train running after the "other guys" got exposed as being unable to provide their services. IIRC Iowa Pacific was basically called up and asked "Can you have a train running in a week?"

As to the contracts, I agree, but I would add the caveat that Amtrak needs to be in a position of "You WILL supply the crews to third-party operators upon request". Amtrak has an odd position in the US vis-a-vis anyone operating overseas and their "special privileges" and existing relationship(s), while necessary, inherently cripple most other operators.


----------



## Larry H. (Apr 24, 2018)

The railroads for the most part never made any real money on the trains or the diners. But when they were trying to keep them going they did everything possible to encourage ridership. Today we have the exact opposite. They mostly wanted them out of the way of their freight business, yet any video on you tube from the 50's has glowing commentary about the luxury provided on board to attract passengers. NO it might not have worked. But then it was a different time. Cars were cheap, gas was 18c a gallon. The environment didn't play any part in travelers plans. Still the railroads often tried to out do the competition because they wanted the companies name out front for encouraging freight traffic business. Granted when the signs all pointed to abandonment of the passenger base they outdid them selves in most cases to destroy the ridership and complain they couldn't afford to run them. This sounds a great deal like what is going on now to me.

In the last days of the Empire Builder we had come across Canadian and decided that we would return though the upper U. S. Instead of a return trip on the CNN. When we got to Vancouver we tried to buy a sleeper room on the Builder. Three times the agent in Canada tried to book a room. All request came back as "Sold Out".. Finally he told us to get on the train for Seattle and get off at Everett and when the train arrived ask the Conductor about getting a room.. We did that and when it arrived it had at least five sleeper. The Conductor had no problem at all getting us a room, they probably had 5 rooms sold in total. A lady who's husband worked as an Auditor for the line said they were purposely claiming sold out trains to people trying to get a ticket in order to claim no one wanted to ride. That week the signs went up in the pullman section that in 30 days they would be turning the passenger service over to the government. It was a wonderful consist, but the time was wrong.

The diners should be considered a part of the train like the engine, and the baggage cars. Odd they pick food to work at destroying the incentives to travel.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Apr 24, 2018)

Eliminating food is a quick way to discourage additional passengers, which is what I think the anti-Amtrak group in Congress is thinking. They need to see a decline in riders to sell the rest of Congress on shutting down Amtrak and give the NEC to NY and NJ to run.


----------



## MARC Rider (Apr 24, 2018)

rrdude said:


> I have mostly held the position that Amtrak, while being directed to be "All things to all people" (and in turn ios mediocre, at best) could indeed cater to different markets: 1) Core basic transportation. 2) Semi-luxury travelers. However, I think the optics of catering to the latter, kill the idea, tho Via Rail, in a very different environment, does "get away with it".
> 
> Not sure of the demand for "First Class" anymore on Amtrak. But, I'd pay a premium above what sleepers cost now, given:
> 
> ...


Well, they could outsource that sort of service and get it off the Amtrak budget. Back in the Golden Age, Pullman used to operate the sleepers. That sort of removes the talking point of tax dollars being used for retiree rail cruises.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 25, 2018)

@rrdude: You have literally described the state of the Coast Starlight within the last decade, save the beverage upon boarding.

@MARC Rider: This raises an interesting question: Would outsourcing the on-board operations of the LD trains to a third party operator (say, Serco) work as a kludge to get around the "no subsidy of F&B" clause? "We're not subsidizing F&B, we're simply hiring an operator to handle the on-board situation more efficiently (and not asking too many questions because we're distracted by the NEC)."


----------



## John Bobinyec (Apr 25, 2018)

Anderson said:


> @rrdude: You have literally described the state of the Coast Starlight within the last decade, save the beverage upon boarding.
> 
> @MARC Rider: This raises an interesting question: Would outsourcing the on-board operations of the LD trains to a third party operator (say, Serco) work as a kludge to get around the "no subsidy of F&B" clause? "We're not subsidizing F&B, we're simply hiring an operator to handle the on-board situation more efficiently (and not asking too many questions because we're distracted by the NEC)."


Have on-board services ever been outsourced - besides on the pullmans of old? I would expect a labor strike if that were tried again.

jb


----------



## Bob Dylan (Apr 25, 2018)

See the numerous threads about the Subway fiasco aboard the Empire Service Trains between NYP and ALB.


----------



## John Bobinyec (Apr 25, 2018)

Bob Dylan said:


> See the numerous threads about the Subway fiasco aboard the Empire Service Trains between NYP and ALB.


It's not that easy to find what you're referring to. Please provide some links.

Thanks,

jb


----------



## PeepersK (Apr 25, 2018)

That's one story. Another is Amtrak's successful partnership with Dunkin Donuts....

https://news.dunkindonuts.com/blog/blog_custom-20180418


----------



## jis (Apr 25, 2018)

John Bobinyec said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > @rrdude: You have literally described the state of the Coast Starlight within the last decade, save the beverage upon boarding.
> ...


It would be difficult for Amtrak to pull it off due to historical encumbrances that it is obligated to carry. State run operations apparently do not have such issues or are somehow able to get around them.

In the rest of the world, outsourcing F&B is not all that unusual. Outsourcing the rest of OBS, e.g. Car attendants is less common. though not unheard of.



John Bobinyec said:


> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> > See the numerous threads about the Subway fiasco aboard the Empire Service Trains between NYP and ALB.
> ...


Here is a thread on trainsmag website from back then.

http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/49829.aspx

and here is the thread on the subject on AU:

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/4580-subway-coming-to-amtrak/?hl=%2Bempire+%2Bservice+%2Bsubway+%2Bfood&do=findComment&comment=42174

And there is an old 11 page long thread on the subject of F&B outsourcing which also has some discussion of the Subway situation:

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/27078-could-amtrak-subcontract-dining/page-2?hl=%2Bempire+%2Bservice+%2Bsubway+%2Bfood&do=findComment&comment=161789


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Apr 25, 2018)

Iowa Pacific did operate an outsourced full service dome diner on the Hoosier State. Business Class passengers were served a meal, included in the BC, in the dome. And coach passengers could purchase and eat in the lower level of the dome.

This was on a state supported line, but did run for a year or so. Iowa Pacific was apparently losing money on the deal. The take-away is... It has been done in the past decade. And it worked... Just not financially. ha.


----------



## OBS (Apr 25, 2018)

PeepersK said:


> That's one story. Another is Amtrak's successful partnership with Dunkin Donuts....
> 
> https://news.dunkindonuts.com/blog/blog_custom-20180418


This is not contracting out anything. It is just successful co-marketing of a product on board the train. Similar co-marketing is done to a lessor extent with several products, just look at menu display boards at the Acela Cafe. Pepsi, Sam Adams, etc are advertised with revenue furnished by these companies.


----------



## jis (Apr 25, 2018)

Don't forget the famous Jimmy Dean's Breakfast Sandwich. I know I will be crucified for saying this, but I actually like it!


----------



## niemi24s (Apr 25, 2018)

It seems unlikely (to me, at least) that the Congressional mandate to eliminate F&B losses in a few years will be repealed. That leaves two alternatives: Reduce F&B expenditures or raise fares to cover the F&B losses. Regarding the later - *How much would fares need to be raised to offset F&B Losses?* A crude analysis follows:

• This document... https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/monthlyperformancereports/2017/Amtrak-Monthly-Performance-Report-September-2017-Preliminary-Unaudited.pdf ...shows F&B losses in FY 2017 were $194.1 million

• This document... https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/1038/trains-7.pdf ...shows (with some calculations) that for the LD trains there were 693,137 sleeper passengers who paid $189.0 million in fares which gives an average fare per sleeper passenger of $273

• Making the bold assumption that all of the F&B losses should be covered by sleeper fare increases, we find that for F&B to break even in FY 2017 sleeper fares would have to have been the sum of those two previously given dollar figures or $383.1 million

• Dividing this increased sum by the same number of passengers yields an average fare per sleeper passenger of $552

• This increased fare is $280 more (or slightly more than 100% more) than what was actually charged each sleeper passenger.

Remembering that I said this was a crude analysis, AU members are invited to improve upon it with their own analyses.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 25, 2018)

It’s already been improved upon in the first thread you posted it in.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Apr 25, 2018)

Doubling the Accommodation fares will drive away a percentage of potential riders, so would Amtrak really break even with F&B by such a rise in fares? Raising the prices in the Dining car also brings in more revenue, but again how many Coach passengers will no longer eat in the Dining Car. Would the increase in prices actually bring in less revenue? Based on the quality of the product being delivered, it appears there is little room to maneuver as to increases.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Apr 25, 2018)

There are ways to decrease F&B losses and increase F&B sales, both at the same time. I've seen amtrak do very little to actually try and increase on-board dining car sales. They did try the "at your seat" coach meal for dinner on a few trains. How has that worked? I think there should be an at your seat meal offered for coach passengers for each meal period. I can't imagine that wouldn't sell. I also think that ALL sleeping car passengers should be asked "would you like to eat in the diner or your room?" - this would encourage more sleeper passengers to eat in their room which would

1 - free up more space for coach passengers to eat in the diner with current staffing

2 - if coach passengers don't fill up the diner, perhaps you can reduce staffing in diner down to 1 server.


----------



## jis (Apr 25, 2018)

niemi24s said:


> It seems unlikely (to me, at least) that the Congressional mandate to eliminate F&B losses in a few years will be repealed. That leaves two alternatives: Reduce F&B expenditures or raise fares to cover the F&B losses. Regarding the later - *How much would fares need to be raised to offset F&B Losses?* A crude analysis follows:
> 
> • This document... https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/monthlyperformancereports/2017/Amtrak-Monthly-Performance-Report-September-2017-Preliminary-Unaudited.pdf ...shows F&B losses in FY 2017 were $194.1 million
> 
> ...


A good analysis of why this is way off base can be found at:

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/72777-how-can-amtrak-achieve-100-cost-recovery-fb-losses/?p=751031

Essentially, it is not possible to derive a number for F&B losses from the document where it is alleged such a number was found.


----------



## Skyline (Apr 25, 2018)

John Bobinyec said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > @rrdude: You have literally described the state of the Coast Starlight within the last decade, save the beverage upon boarding.
> ...


Absolutely. The Fred Harvey Co. staffed and operated dining cars back in the day. Way back. Get his biography; it's a long, great read. Or just google.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (Apr 25, 2018)

Thanks, Skyline, for the information on the Fred Harvey book.

I'm in my local library, and it was on the shelf! I just checked it out.

Few people in my town care about trains, but they sure are into food, so I guess that's why the book was here!


----------



## niemi24s (Apr 25, 2018)

jis said:


> niemi24s said:
> 
> 
> > It seems unlikely (to me, at least) that the Congressional mandate to eliminate F&B losses in a few years will be repealed. That leaves two alternatives: Reduce F&B expenditures or raise fares to cover the F&B losses. Regarding the later - *How much would fares need to be raised to offset F&B Losses?* A crude analysis follows:
> ...


I really messed up on this one. In that thread you linked, Anderson mentioned F&B losses were more on the order of $70Million which reduced my crude estimate of sleeper fare increase down to 37%.


----------



## Tarm (Apr 25, 2018)

I'm not sure what airline executive said it but "What people want and what they are willing to pay for are two very different things" is one of the most truthful statements I have ever heard. If the true cost of a Amtrak hot breakfast is $75 would you pay it? How about $150 for a cooked to order steak dinner? The dinning car experience is great, but let's not fool ourselves. Someone else is picking up most of the tab.


----------



## JRR (Apr 25, 2018)

The question is, what is the cost of the food which is actually properly allocated to the food?

The food cost is not transparent as part of the sleeper fare. Further, as e know the sleeper fares differ from passenger to passenger.

So, if one can properly determine the cost of ruining a sleeper car and what is the cost of the food for those sleeper passengers, the the only question left is how you allocate the revenue - sleeper car v. Food.

It seems to me you can make it come out however you want.

I am

Not saying that all of this is not being properly allocated, just that there is room to make the losses appear where you want them.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Apr 25, 2018)

JRR said:


> So, if one can properly determine the cost of ruining a sleeper car


I would think a sleeper car could be ruined at next to no cost; just drop it in the ocean like they do with old subway cars.


----------



## JRR (Apr 25, 2018)

> I would think a sleeper car could be ruined at next to no cost; just drop it in the ocean like they do with old subway cars.



Great idea. Drop it off Red Reef Park in Boca Raton and we’d have a new fishing and diving spot!


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 25, 2018)

Tarm said:


> I'm not sure what airline executive said it but "What people want and what they are willing to pay for are two very different things" is one of the most truthful statements I have ever heard. If the true cost of a Amtrak hot breakfast is $75 would you pay it? How about $150 for a cooked to order steak dinner? The dinning car experience is great, but let's not fool ourselves. Someone else is picking up most of the tab.


My problem with Amtrak dining isn't the cost of the food. I spend $75 for breakfast on a weekly basis already so if the quality is there I'm only too happy to pay. The problem is that I've never seen Amtrak serve a breakfast entree that was worth more than one tenth of that to me. Something you may not have considered previously is that the quote you referenced is true in both directions. The US airline industry is itself subsidized above and beyond the airfare, taxes, fees, and surcharges which appear on your ticket receipt. Which means people who have no need or desire to fly are nonetheless paying for something they themselves do not want.


----------



## LookingGlassTie (Apr 25, 2018)

bretton88 said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > I view Anderson as a ruthless big corporate guy. IMO, he doesn't seem to care about customer service or even the people employed on the LD trains. He speaks of those in the food service area as expendable. .Like many corporate executives, his motivation is solely about profit. On his quest to profitability, he wants to lay off those who he believes are not needed with no concern about jobs that people need to feed their family; just put them out on the street and don't worry about it. These comments might be a bit harsh but that's the impression that I have about this individual. We need to get a petition going to express how rail passengers feel about the direction that Amtrak is taking?
> ...


Good point.

To be honest, I have mixed feelings about what Anderson is doing (and wants to do) with Amtrak. However, I don't necessarily see him wielding a machete and wildly cutting through a hedge. Rather, I see him taking instructions from Congress and from the Amtrak board and cutting through the hedge methodically with a hedge trimmer. Unfortunately, we rail travelers are getting caught up in all that.

I want, as much as anyone else for Amtrak to be profitable to some extent so it can survive, and I think Anderson is cognizant of that fact. One thing I think needs to happen is for us to pressure Congress to shift some money to Amtrak from less important things. I believe the money is there, but it's not in the right places. And I also understand that Anderson wants to show Amtrak to be profitable to Congress, as was mentioned above. So the upshot is that there is responsibility on the parts of both Anderson and Congress. They have to work together and get something done, because Amtrak will become a disaster if they don't. And we will be caught up in the fallout.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Apr 25, 2018)

Need to get the ear of the big pro-Amtrak folks in Congress. They need to be on the same page as far as the Amtrak message. They will know those members who are semi-pro Amtrak, those who have no opinion, and those so anti-Amtrak they will never change. Now the Pro-Amtrak members, what would they support that could get traction with the other members. Once know the key members, then members of their district or state need to be excited to contact them. I write my Senators, one who will not take a stand without Sen McConough, the other feels Amtrak is money pit, but isn't against passenger rail, my rep is retiring, so he isn't rocking the boat. Unfortunately, I have not been successful in getting my neighbors and friends to see Amtrak as a high priority issue now and in the future, They all feel Congress will do status Quo for near future, so put their focus on other issues.


----------



## PeepersK (Apr 26, 2018)

OBS said:


> PeepersK said:
> 
> 
> > That's one story. Another is Amtrak's successful partnership with Dunkin Donuts....
> ...


And that's probably the extent of how these F&B partnerships are going to be done at least for the foreseeable future.

Eventually, however, these F&B contractors are going to want to have more control over their service delivery involving their products, and that's when the Amtrak OBS employees' role will be diminished or eliminated.


----------



## jis (Apr 26, 2018)

Meanwhile in the passenger train heaven of Switzerland ...

https://www.railjournal.com/index.php/main-line/switzerland-to-end-sbb-long-distance-monopoly.html?channel=524&utm_source=Email_marketing&utm_campaign=IRJ_Rail_Brief_Apr_26_2018&cmp=1&utm_medium=HTMLEmail


----------



## frequentflyer (Apr 26, 2018)

Most LD trains are not going anywhere, they just will not grow. I expect the Superliner fleet to be refurbished, not grow in size. New corridor service will be the domain of cheaper to operate DMUs. And if Anderson had his wish, he would probably try to talk the states from Siemens locomotives and cars to Siemens DMUs. That would make Amtrak's upcoming order cheaper.

WIth DMUs in the future, does it make sense to go to EMD or GE and get an off the shelf locomotive for what LD trains left?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 26, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> Most LD trains are not going anywhere, they just will not grow.


What is this theory based upon? Most long distance (overnight) trains have already "gone somewhere" and those few which remain are facing increasing maintenance and replacement costs along with decreasing market relevance. Not just in the US but all over the world. For more than a half century now the trend line for long distance trains has only moved in one direction. Despite claims and implications to the contrary there is no fundamental need or desire which secretly protects long distance trains from further erosion of mileage/frequency or abandonment.



frequentflyer said:


> I expect the Superliner fleet to be refurbished, not grow in size.


The first wave of Superliner cars is already pretty old, both in terms of required maintenance and their fundamental design philosophy. The last Superliner refurbishment program ran out of money forcing it to end early and incomplete. At this point it's probably not worth it to keep refurbishing tired designs from the 1970's. Either save/borrow enough to buy something from the current decade or admit the gig is up. Barring a substantial increase in expense recovery or an unexpected subsidy windfall Amtrak is likely to eventually find themselves forced to abandon long distance segments over time as they continue to lose irreparable/irreplaceable rolling stock to cowboy truck drivers and CSXT/AMTK's sloppy safety culture.


----------



## Trogdor (Apr 26, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> And if Anderson had his wish, he would probably try to talk the states from Siemens locomotives and cars to Siemens DMUs. That would make Amtrak's upcoming order cheaper.


Too late for that. Most of the Siemens locomotives have already been delivered, and the passenger cars are, more or less, right around the corner (probably far sooner than any switch to DMU could deliver).


----------



## jis (Apr 26, 2018)

How did we arrive at a conclusion that DMUs are cheaper to purchase? Seems not to really align with the realities we have seen so far.


----------



## frequentflyer (Apr 26, 2018)

Trogdor said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> > And if Anderson had his wish, he would probably try to talk the states from Siemens locomotives and cars to Siemens DMUs. That would make Amtrak's upcoming order cheaper.
> ...


Very true, I forgot to add if Anderson could back in time.


----------



## frequentflyer (Apr 26, 2018)

jis said:


> How did we arrive at a conclusion that DMUs are cheaper to purchase? Seems not to really align with the realities we have seen so far.


I stated cheaper to operate, it might be cheaper to purchase if Amtrak bulk buys and replaces the Amfleets and some Genesis with one order. And Anderson missed his opportunity to convince the states to buy DMUs instead which could have made the purchasing block for Amtrak even cheaper.


----------



## jis (Apr 26, 2018)

I frankly don't see any evidence that Anderson has any depth of understanding of DMUs and their operating characteristics at all. He seems to have read a few rail rags from Europe and come to the conclusion that DMUs are the future. He talked about getting DMUs to replace Amfleet Is? He seemed to forget that most Amfleet 1s are used on the NEC where his outfit just acquired 75 new electric engines to pull trailer cars, and diesel anything would not work in the most heavily used anchor station of the NEC.

After he had stopped smoking whatever potent stuff he uses, and come down to earth with a coherent plan, instead of the equivalent of the one line tweets, it would be worth having a serious conversation.



frequentflyer said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > How did we arrive at a conclusion that DMUs are cheaper to purchase? Seems not to really align with the realities we have seen so far.
> ...


DMUs are cheaper to operate as long your trains are shorter than 5 or 6 cars. After that it becomes quite questionable. They will work in many light corridors that we have today outside of the two coasts. They are not a panacea for all situations.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Apr 26, 2018)

If he was the ceo of delta, he's surely traveled in and out of Europe and most likely ridden European passenger trains more than most of us american based rail fans.

You can disagree with his thoughts and ideas, but he probably knows what he's talking about more than most people are giving him credit for.


----------



## frequentflyer (Apr 26, 2018)

jis said:


> I frankly don't see any evidence that Anderson has any depth of understanding of DMUs and their operating characteristics at all. He seems to have read a few rail rags from Europe and come to the conclusion that DMUs are the future. He talked about getting DMUs to replace Amfleet Is?_ He seemed to forget that most Amfleet 1s are used on the NEC where his outfit just acquired 75 new electric engines to pull trailer cars, and diesel anything would not work in the most heavily used anchor station of the NEC._
> 
> After he had stopped smoking whatever potent stuff he uses, and come down to earth with a coherent plan, instead of the equivalent of the one line tweets, it would be worth having a serious conversation.
> 
> ...


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 26, 2018)

crescent-zephyr said:


> If he was the ceo of delta, he's surely traveled in and out of Europe and most likely ridden European passenger trains more than most of us american based rail fans.You can disagree with his thoughts and ideas, but he probably knows what he's talking about more than most people are giving him credit for.


You can reach virtually any corner and crevice in Europe with aircraft and/or private vehicles. I would not presume that a top brass airline executive had any specific need or desire to use and learn about passenger rail just because it happened to exist and be popular in an area he may or may not have explored extensively. This particular executive also made a name for himself railing against foreign airlines and the countries which may or may not have supported them financially. It was a startlingly aggressive and hypocritical series of rants that made him look reactionary and uninformed.


----------



## frequentflyer (Apr 26, 2018)

Devil's Advocate said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> > Most LD trains are not going anywhere, they just will not grow.
> ...


Well, if the Superliners are not refurbished that means the more VLII cars for Western LD trains. Superliners carry more pax per car but I am not sure which is cheaper to maintain, a 30 year old Superliner or new VLII. Again, airline think, uniformity in equipment yields lower costs.

Would not surprise me to see the Cap Ltd go single level. That will free up more Superliner cars for western LD trains.


----------



## Palmetto (Apr 26, 2018)

"Would not surprise me to see the Cap Ltd go single level. That will free up more Superliner cars for western LD trains."

Yup, those new dining car AKA sleeper lounges have be used somewhere.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 26, 2018)

Palmetto said:


> "Would not surprise me to see the Cap Ltd go single level. That will free up more Superliner cars for western LD trains."
> 
> Yup, those new dining car AKA sleeper lounges have be used somewhere.


What do we need more of, Superliner or Viewliner? What do we have more of a shortage of? I know what new route I want and what kind of cars it needs.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Apr 26, 2018)

Palmetto said:


> "Would not surprise me to see the Cap Ltd go single level. That will free up more Superliner cars for western LD trains."
> 
> Yup, those new dining car AKA sleeper lounges have be used somewhere.


People have been saying this for years on this forum. It hasn't happened yet.


----------



## bretton88 (Apr 26, 2018)

MikefromCrete said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> > "Would not surprise me to see the Cap Ltd go single level. That will free up more Superliner cars for western LD trains."
> ...


True, though we really haven't had someone so willing to make changes as Anderson at Amtrak for a long time.


----------



## blueman271 (Apr 26, 2018)

Palmetto said:


> "Would not surprise me to see the Cap Ltd go single level. That will free up more Superliner cars for western LD trains."
> 
> Yup, those new dining car AKA sleeper lounges have be used somewhere.


Where would Amtrak get the coaches to make the CL single level?


----------



## Trogdor (Apr 26, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> *There is a work around for that, in the airline business and some extent railroad business, one negotiates a trade in of present asset. Amtrak did it with the SD40Fs on new F40s. Siemens would take that deal in a heart beat for 5 years or more guaranteed work and bigger contract.*


How do you know Siemens would take that deal in a heart beat?

Manufacturers will only take a trade-in if they think they can resell it somewhere else. Who else is looking for several dozen new locomotives and/or passenger cars (they still will have to/want to build the cars from the current order) other than the very places theyre buying them back from?

Theres virtually no way theyd be able to make a deal to buy them back, unless it was at a price that means Siemens would lose money on the total deal.



> *Then run two DMUs together. Before that though it allows Amtrak to have better yield management, just as Amtrak does with the frequently sold out Acela. You are right, DMUs would not be right for all circumstances but having one or fewer types of equipment yields lower costs. Again out of the airline playbook.*


The more DMUs you run together, the less cost benefit there is to running DMUs. One big issue is that DMUs are regulated as locomotives by the FRA and come with stricter inspection requirements and more frequent mandated shop visits than a plain old passenger trailer car. This means that maintenance costs are higher on a DMU than a standard car, and spare ratios have to be higher.

That quickly cancels out any savings from cheaper (but not really cheaper) DMUs and/or fleet commonality (a single-level coach can be common to electric and diesel corridors, but the same cannot be said of an EMU vs. DMU, unless you go with dual-mode, but all that does is make it even more expensive than it already is).


----------



## Ryan (Apr 26, 2018)

MikefromCrete said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> > "Would not surprise me to see the Cap Ltd go single level. That will free up more Superliner cars for western LD trains."
> ...


The equipment required to make it happen hasn't appeared yet. Part of it will be the completion of the Viewliner order.



blueman271 said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> > "Would not surprise me to see the Cap Ltd go single level. That will free up more Superliner cars for western LD trains."
> ...


The other part of it will be the bilevels going to the states to free up some coaches.


----------



## Trogdor (Apr 26, 2018)

By bilevels, you mean single-levels, right?


----------



## Lonestar648 (Apr 26, 2018)

Even if you somehow found enough cars to change out the CL to single level, those super liner cars are also very worn, but could be a band-aid to protect the existing Superliner cars until ??? That is presuming there is a light at the end of the tunnel which there is none right now. With no Superliner replacement planned, even if one was approved, Amtrak is years from seeing the first car be delivered and by that time it could be too late especially if the deterioration accelerates.

All those amenities, Amtrak has been taking away, need to return to help camouflage the deteriorating cars.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 27, 2018)

(1) Amtrak was supposed to have the Viewliner II order _years_ ago.
(2) Switching the Cap to single-level would free six sleepers, six coaches, two diners/CCCs, and two SSLs (and, I think, two Transdorms). That would give you some extra shop time to refurb some of the cars as a stopgap pending a significant order. The question, of course, is _getting_ that order.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Apr 27, 2018)

Trogdor said:


> By bilevels, you mean single-levels, right?


I misread his post too. But rereadimg it I see he’s saying single level coaches will be freed up as bilevels replace them.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 27, 2018)

Trogdor is correct, they’re not getting bilevels anymore. I did a poor job of articulating what the original plan was without making a nod to reality.


----------



## jis (Apr 27, 2018)

Anderson said:


> (1) Amtrak was supposed to have the Viewliner II order _years_ ago.
> 
> (2) Switching the Cap to single-level would free six sleepers, six coaches, two diners/CCCs, and two SSLs (and, I think, two Transdorms). That would give you some extra shop time to refurb some of the cars as a stopgap pending a significant order. The question, of course, is _getting_ that order.


The Cap requires three consists to operate, not two, as you appear to imply.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Apr 27, 2018)

Find the worse condition in the system for the initial refurb. Question would be how much would each refurb cost Amtrak? There is the obvious visible things, but what about plumbing, electrical, suspension, etc.


----------



## jis (Apr 27, 2018)

The plumbing and electricals in the Superliners apparently are pretty much the original ones duly patched up as things fail. The significant refurbs apparently did not touch the core infrastructure in each car. It was mostly a large dollop of cosmetics. Of course of necessity the wreck repairs probably had more extensive changes, but again the core architecture of the systems did not change much.


----------



## frequentflyer (Apr 27, 2018)

Trogdor said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> > *There is a work around for that, in the airline business and some extent railroad business, one negotiates a trade in of present asset. Amtrak did it with the SD40Fs on new F40s. Siemens would take that deal in a heart beat for 5 years or more guaranteed work and bigger contract.*
> ...


Seeing what Anderson how ran NWA and Delta, I am confident he has run the numbers and he and his team believes DMUs are the way to go operating costs wise. How much it costs to move pax per trip, or per mile is the same conundrum whether its moving a pax by air or rail. Are DMUs the perfect solution, no. I am not sure how a DMU fares with a semi at 79 mph at a grade crossing. But again, you or I do not know what various manufacturers of DMUs have told the Anderson team regarding durability or operating costs of their DMU products.`

Who knows what a Siemens deal would look like, IF it was Siemens. I was just speculating, with that said, I do not think Siemens would have that much of a problem placing 75 Vectron clones somewhere in the world, but that's my opinion. But Anderson WILL wheel and deal. I will not bore you on how hard of a blue chip customer Delta was to the Airbus, Boeing and Bombardier. I expect Anderson to bring that same hard nose attitude to Amtrak's OEMs.


----------



## jis (Apr 27, 2018)

Actually based on other information I am quite confident that there is no agreement even among his staff about the DMU thing. He just made a one liner statement that is being over-interpreted by people. He mentioned DMUs as an example of things worth looking at, and there is no reason to disagree with that as far as that goes. DMUs would indeed be quite desirable in the typical light corridors in the midwest.

He did not say that everything will turn into DMUs, He couldn't have meant to say that since he was talking about replacement of Amfleet Is in that talk. 90% of the Amfleet Is are used on the NEC where D anything won't work. And we are mindlessly talking about what to do with the ACS-64s. Trust me, no matter how adept Anderson may be at wheeling and dealing, the ACS-64s will last out in Amtrak far longer than Anderson will. He will be gone in a couple of years, maybe three.

And as far as midwest goes, very little DMU will happen there since they are all State operations with Amtrak merely providing operations staff and leasing equipment until states get their own, and the states have just spent a pile of money acquiring locomotives and trailer cars to stop paying lease rates charged by Amtrak. So maybe in 15 years we can talk again.

This basically leaves places like the Springfield corridor in Connecticut, and assorted other new short-medium routes that might come into being.


----------



## cpotisch (Apr 27, 2018)

Aren't locos generally more efficient and offer better range than DMUs? I just don't see why so many people are suggesting multiple units as the best replacement for conventional equipment. Is the main benefit of a DMU that they can make consists as long as they want, without worrying about HEP or insufficient power?


----------



## Bob Dylan (Apr 27, 2018)

Agree with jis. Amtrak CEOs are just like residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,(and of the same types, incompetent hacks,so-so caretakers ,average to good,a rare geat and an occasional crooked moron). They come and they go, and Life goes on!


----------



## Trogdor (Apr 27, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Aren't locos generally more efficient and offer better range than DMUs? I just don't see why so many people are suggesting multiple units as the best replacement for conventional equipment. Is the main benefit of a DMU that they can make consists as long as they want, without worrying about HEP or insufficient power?


It's actually the opposite. The main benefit of a DMU is that they could make consists as short as they want without worrying about excess power.

DMUs are more efficient for short consists, because they typically use a lot less fuel than a standard locomotive (they have a much smaller engine). Consider, if a single locomotive is capable of hauling around 9 or 10 cars with HEP, then a two-or three-car train with a locomotive is way overpowered. A DMU on a short consist will save a ton of fuel, and also reduce the overall equipment cost because you're replacing a locomotive plus three cars with just three cars.

However, once you get above a certain length, DMUs stop being practical/efficient, and conventional locomotive(s)-with-trailers becomes preferred.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 27, 2018)

jis said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > (1) Amtrak was supposed to have the Viewliner II order _years_ ago.
> ...


You're right, it does. I _know_ this; I forgot that on the diners/CCCs and SSLs. The current consist is, IIRC, 2 sleepers, 2-3 coaches, a diner/CCC, an SSL, and a Transdorm (and a baggage car, but that's not going to be altered).


----------



## jis (Apr 27, 2018)

Even the Brits, who absolutely love DMUs, do not stretch them beyond six car trains too often. And after operating them for years they have come to the conclusion that they intend to ban diesel traction by 2040 and electrify everything or for very light lines use fuel cell, battery powered or other exotic stuff.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Apr 27, 2018)

jis said:


> Actually based on other information I am quite confident that there is no agreement even among his staff about the DMU thing. He just made a one liner statement that is being over-interpreted by people. He mentioned DMUs as an example of things worth looking at, and there is no reason to disagree with that as far as that goes. DMUs would indeed be quite desirable in the typical light corridors in the midwest.



I'll break ranks. He's mentioned DMUs SEVERAL times as replacements for the traditional locomotive and coach configuration on routes where single level trains operate. Indeed, he'd like to see a DMU with electric and diesel propulsion so you can eliminate engine changes and so it can be used seamlessly throughout the entire system. He specifically stated locomotive hauled equipment will not appeal to modern thinking millennials! We need something futuristic and modern to appeal to them for the long term.

As mentioned, there is a great deal of concern about such thinking since it stymies growth and we've dealt with the Acela but he's already made it clear that fixed consists are the way to to go. In fact, it has already begun.

The bottom line is this is not some pie in the sky, what if, one off comment. The Amfleets will not last another 10 years and if he orders DMUs, don't think for a second the ACS-64s won't get benched. One only needs to look at the HHP-8 fleet and NJT's ALP-44 fleet to see what can happen even when the lease isn't up on the equipment.


----------



## frequentflyer (Apr 27, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Actually based on other information I am quite confident that there is no agreement even among his staff about the DMU thing. He just made a one liner statement that is being over-interpreted by people. He mentioned DMUs as an example of things worth looking at, and there is no reason to disagree with that as far as that goes. DMUs would indeed be quite desirable in the typical light corridors in the midwest.
> ...


Airline group think again, use the same aircraft on different routes even if not the most efficient use of asset. Deficiencies will be made up in standardizing of equipment, less spare parts/mx familiarity and less training of employees. And the fact the DMU just may be cheaper to operate than a Charger pulling four or five Siemens pax cars.

I just hope he invites some "railroad" men or women to look over his plan. Something tells me Mr. Anderson has his mind made up.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Apr 27, 2018)

What (non-railfan) millennial knows or cares what a locomotive is or how the train is moving? I'm trying to give this guy a chance but comments like that make it difficult.

Millenials care about the same things other customers care about... Comfortable seats, a clean train, good customer service, wifi, and yes decent food / drink options.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Apr 27, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Actually based on other information I am quite confident that there is no agreement even among his staff about the DMU thing. He just made a one liner statement that is being over-interpreted by people. He mentioned DMUs as an example of things worth looking at, and there is no reason to disagree with that as far as that goes. DMUs would indeed be quite desirable in the typical light corridors in the midwest.
> ...


Honestly I think your boss doesn't have a clue about railroading. I can think of several locomotive hauled conventional trains such as the RailJet (ÖBB, ĆD), ICE class 401 (DB) and a handful of others. The RailJet honestly would be a really good replacement for the Northeast Regionals.

They are semi-fixed consists with non fixed locomotives. So easy enough to do a locomotive change. It also is brand new, sleek, and modern. Not that the kids these days would like them anymore. If he wants to reach my generation he needs to reinstate the student discount, expand wifi to the superliners, and distinguish the train further from the ULC Airlines.

What is he doing playing with DMUs, food service cuts, and targeting PVs. The Germans have a lot of DMUs in service but the class 603 were poor performers. They were sleek but expensive to run, and prone to mechanical issues.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Apr 27, 2018)

How many single level trains currently are only 3 or 4 cars total? On the NEC, all the regional I have seen are about twice that long.


----------



## chrsjrcj (Apr 27, 2018)

Millennials have no idea about the difference between a DMU/EMU/P42. Actually, outside of the railfan community, I doubt most people know or care.

I agree with what crescent-zephyr said. I see it on Brightline where I see more millennials than I do on Tri-Rail which is bare bones (and had a failed experiment with DMUs, though I found the seats more comfortable than the Bombers and Hyundai-Rotem cars).


----------



## frequentflyer (Apr 27, 2018)

I don't know, there is a reason Amtrak doesn't use freight locomotives, looks do matter. A slick DMU would look flashy in Amtrak's advertising.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Apr 28, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> I don't know, there is a reason Amtrak doesn't use freight locomotives, looks do matter. A slick DMU would look flashy in Amtrak's advertising.


Freight locomotives and passenger locomotives differ not only in looks but also performance. Freight locomotives are typically designed to pull long trains, while passenger locomotives usually have faster acceleration and deceleration.


----------



## jis (Apr 28, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Actually based on other information I am quite confident that there is no agreement even among his staff about the DMU thing. He just made a one liner statement that is being over-interpreted by people. He mentioned DMUs as an example of things worth looking at, and there is no reason to disagree with that as far as that goes. DMUs would indeed be quite desirable in the typical light corridors in the midwest.
> ...


Hitachi certainly has a product set in the UK Class 8xx’s. Just needs an American car shell. I am not sure whether Siemens has anything off the shelf that would span the needs of all possible Amtrak usages in a single family in the form of D/E/DEMUs as totally unified as the 8xx’s.
If the money can be found it would indeed be quite appropriate to trash Amtrak’s entire current fleet and replace everything with new more modern equipment.

Indeed, if that happens there will be an incredible opportunities to deploy relatively cheap slightly used equipment in the hands of alternative operators too by cascading them to potential train operators other than Amtrak, at least on the NEC. Time to dust off the AIRnet-21 proposal and get some legislative action going to get things right I suppose. [emoji23]


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 28, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> I don't know, there is a reason Amtrak doesn't use freight locomotives, looks do matter. A slick DMU would look flashy in Amtrak's advertising.


Which slick and flashy DMU's? What Amtrak advertising?


----------



## cpotisch (Apr 28, 2018)

But haven’t they found with EDMUs (Electro-Diesel Multiple Units) that cramming that much technology and flexibility into a passenger car can be difficult, complicated and expensive? And the it seems like the only case where you would want a dual mode would be for trains traveling in and out of the electrified NEC. Most trains that do so are LD, with long consists, which should make locomotive(s) the more efficient option.

I can see standard DMUs as much more sensible in the Midwest, on the Heartland Flyer, Downeaster, etc. Those have short consists, aren’t electrified, and therefore are well suited for DMUs. But EDMUs just don’t seem to have a good place in the Amtrak system.


----------



## bretton88 (Apr 28, 2018)

I suspect Anderson should ride a Brightline train, then he can discover that bright, appealing passenger cars can be made in the USA. The problem the USA has is most of the really nice trains are DMUs. A lot of commuter equipment, etc are iterations of older designs and not nearly as appealing as the DMU's. The SMART DMU's and Toronto's UP express are much more pleasing rides than even a brand new Metra gallery car. Hopefully Brightline and the new coaches should remedy this.


----------



## jis (Apr 28, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> But haven’t they found with EDMUs (Electro-Diesel Multiple Units) that cramming that much technology and flexibility into a passenger car can be difficult, complicated and expensive? And the it seems like the only case where you would want a dual mode would be for trains traveling in and out of the electrified NEC. Most trains that do so are LD, with long consists, which should make locomotive(s) the more efficient option.
> 
> I can see standard DMUs as much more sensible in the Midwest, on the Heartland Flyer, Downeaster, etc. Those have short consists, aren’t electrified, and therefore are well suited for DMUs. But EDMUs just don’t seem to have a good place in the Amtrak system.


That is why I mentioned the British 80x class, which consists of three different types of train sets using the shells and same electric drive and controls. They come in pure DMU, pure EMU and dual mode DEMU varieties. Great Western is getting a mix of the EMU and the dual mode DEMU to deploy on the newly electrified main line out of Paddington. The dual mode DEMUs will be used for through service from Paddington to beyond the electrified areas in Wales and Cornwall, somewhat similar to NECR's traveling beyond the electrified area south of Washington DC.
Dual mode DEMUs, DMUs and EMUs tend to perform much better than loco hauled consists in frequent stop and go (or even decelerate-accelerate) service environment. The additional cost gives one better passenger experience as in shorter trips and better equipment utilization covering more trips because shorter trip times allow the use of the same equipment for greater net number of revenue trips in a day. Additionally if the loco hauled train does not have locos top and tail (or cab car at one end) with control line running through the train, there is additional time and labor expense of wyeing the train at each end, or at least moving the engine from one end to the other, too.

My point is, this is nothing new, nor rocket science. They exist and have and are being used elsewhere.

For Long Distance service whether it will help or not depends on the run profile for each route. For example Indian Railways is seriously considering using EMUs for its premier overnight Rajdhani Expresses that connect the national capital to each state capital because they believe that given their route characteristics, A typical run involves enough slow downs, speed ups and stop and go that they can lop off an hour or two from the schedule by just converting from loco hauled to EMUs. Mind you, we are talking here of 18 to 24 car trains that are primarily all Sleepers with 2 to 4 Service (Luggage, Pantry etc.) cars. Of course they have the inherent advantage of having most of their major trunk routes fully electrified end to end. I have no idea how that equation goes for DMUs on non-electrified routes. The Brits seem to think it works well. But the bottom line consideration is, if the performance is so much better that it significantly speeds up schedules sufficiently then the extra cost of equipment maintenance is worth it because it can be recouped in lower labor costs and potential for being able to charge slightly higher fares.

Now whether things that work well elsewhere in the world, will work in today's American environment at all is an entirely different issue. Remember UK managed to build the entire Crossrail system in less time than our East Side Access project, which has both cost and time increasing as time goes on.


----------



## cpotisch (Apr 28, 2018)

I just want to clarify that there’s a difference between a DEMU and an EDMU. A DEMU is a Diesel Electric Multiple Unit, which has the diesel engine powering the electric motors (like most conventional locomotives). Most DMUs are technically DEMUs. Then you have an EDMU, which is an Electro-Diesel Multiple Unit, aka a dual mode. Just figured I’d clarify so I know we’re all talking about the same thing.


----------



## jis (Apr 28, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> I just want to clarify that there’s a difference between a DEMU and an EDMU. A DEMU is a Diesel Electric Multiple Unit, which has the diesel engine powering the electric motors (like most conventional locomotives). Most DMUs are technically DEMUs. Then you have an EDMU, which is an Electro-Diesel Multiple Unit, aka a dual mode. Just figured I’d clarify so I know we’re all talking about the same thing.


Ok. The term “dual mode DEMU” is widely used for dual mode too whether you like it or not. Its meaning is quite clear.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Apr 28, 2018)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know, there is a reason Amtrak doesn't use freight locomotives, looks do matter. A slick DMU would look flashy in Amtrak's advertising.
> ...


Also, Passenger units have to have HEP where the freight do not. Reason when a Host RR unit is in rescue mode, the Amtrak unit is still needed to provide HEP.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Apr 28, 2018)

Lonestar648 said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> > frequentflyer said:
> ...



You two are missing his point. Amtrak has operated modified freight designed engines for passenger service. One only needs to look at the  E-60, the  "pooch" and the DASH-8 P32-BWH) former Pepsi Cans), which are still in operation, though with a bland paint job as examples.

None of these engines scream modern or are intriguing.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Apr 28, 2018)

Seaboard92 said:


> Honestly I think your boss doesn't have a clue about railroading



That is an understatement but he wears it like a badge of honor. Indeed, he's an outsider looking at the railroad's bleak existence. Paraphrasing some comments, we have gems like "Railroaders are stuck in the past and this is not good for the future", " If it was so good, railroads would make a profit and they'd have no problem recruiting and retaining talent", " It is time for changes. For too long, Amtrak has run like a freight railroad that happens to carry passengers. it clearly isn't working which is why he is here. We're going to run it like an airline!" and my personal favorite regarding long distance trains came from , well I can;t remember his title but he said in front of Mr Anderson "the long distance model is flawed since a great deal of travelers are utilizing it for vacations and Amtrak shouldn't be in the business of using taxpayers funds to provide vacations."

Mr. Anderson didn't disagree. While some may agree with that comment, I think we are chartered to provide rail service. It doesn't really matter to me why you want to ride the train. If you want to ride the train, we should provide the service. I suppose it is better for taxpayers to fund people taking day trips or commuting to work?

Whatever. I'll tie this back into a previous post but the bottom line is he IS one of the few people to take this on.



crescent-zephyr said:


> What (non-railfan) millennial knows or cares what a locomotive is or how the train is moving? I'm trying to give this guy a chance but comments like that make it difficult.
> 
> Millenials care about the same things other customers care about... Comfortable seats, a clean train, good customer service, wifi, and yes decent food / drink options.





chrsjrcj said:


> Millennials have no idea about the difference between a DMU/EMU/P42. Actually, outside of the railfan community, I doubt most people know or care.
> 
> I agree with what crescent-zephyr said. I see it on Brightline where I see more millennials than I do on Tri-Rail which is bare bones (and had a failed experiment with DMUs, though I found the seats more comfortable than the Bombers and Hyundai-Rotem cars).


Image means quite a bit. After all, it worked before.Imagine you're new to the industry and having the converstation:

. You are walking around and people are showing you a train. It has locomotives, cars and some comfortable seats. He sits down and says "not too bad. By the way, what is that over there?"

Underling:"It is an ACELA, our premium product."

Richard Anderson: "It looks nice and sleek. Other than that, what is the difference between these two sets?"

U: " Um...well, this sleek set tilts and makes the run in 3'50" above and 2'50" minutes below."

RA: "And the other set?"

U: Well, if we push it, 4'20" above and 3'15" below.

RA: "Yes, but it seems much of that difference is due to the number of stops made between the sets."

U: "Well...yes, but there are also different amenities on the Acela"

RA: Oh yeah? Like what?"

U: Um....the Acela sets tilt."

RA: You told me that already. Anything else?"

U: "Yes!! How could I forget this? The Acela sets have purty curtains that the passengers can use to block sunlight, which is fortunate since the windows ARE bigger!"

RA: "You don't say...and what is the price difference between these trains?"

U: "It depends on the day and buckets but roughly $200-300 more per seat.

RA: Aaaaand people are paying that?

U: "yes...except on weekends, when the price difference is lower."

RA: "We should probably order more things that look like this. It seems to have worked like a charm!"

With the right buzzwords, you can sell a lot of things. I'm sure the new contemporary train set, with its modernistic look will be the train of the future!!!


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Apr 28, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Lonestar648 said:
> 
> 
> > brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> ...


You are actually just further proving the point I am trying to make. As you have shown, Amtrak is not opposed to using freight-style locomotives if they have what is required for passenger trains. Therefore, Amtrak does not have separate locomotives from freight railroads primarily because of the way they look, but more because of the different requirements for a locomotive that pulls passenger trains.


----------



## bretton88 (Apr 28, 2018)

I suspect the new Alstom sets will probably help a lot in that perception issue too.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Apr 28, 2018)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> > You two are missing his point. Amtrak has operated modified freight designed engines for passenger service. One only needs to look at the  E-60, the  "pooch" and the DASH-8 P32-BWH) former Pepsi Cans), which are still in operation, though with a bland paint job as examples.
> ...


You don't HAVE to do anything. You can actually have a an actual freight unit with a separate HEP car like they did yeas ago if they decided to. The point that is sailing over your head is Frequent Flyer didn;t say YOU COULDN'T use a freight engine. He said there is A REASON that they don't.

That reason is some regimes place a high value on looks over functionality. There is REASON that the AEM-7 looked the way it did and it wasn't just for aerodynamics. There is a REASON the Amfleets have the tubular design. There is a REASON they hid the knuckle under a nose cone for the Acela. There is a REASON the HHP-8 has the rounded edges. There was a REASON for those ridiculous paint drops and green and blue blobs on the Acela. It was to catch your eye.

It had a lot to do with visual aesthetics and that was his point.


----------



## jis (Apr 28, 2018)

The only real difference between freight locomotives and US passenger locomotives as far as I can tell is HEP and different gear ratio to enable running at a higher speed at the cost of lower torque and starting tractive effort perhaps. Ignoring the looks they have been surprisingly similar before the Tier IV engines with Urea injection came on in the last year or two. And of course the ALP-45DP is a beast unto itself which even Amtrak didn’t quite know what to make of [emoji57]


----------



## Seaboard92 (Apr 28, 2018)

Honestly he needs to look at European DMUs before determining that's what we need. The successful ones are mostly in commuter type services.

The Germans attempted to do a long distance DMU and market it as an ICE. Stylistically it's similar to the ICE III but it's been a colossal failure. While all of the other generations of ICE trains are still running. And several classes of DMUs for commuter lines are very successful.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Apr 28, 2018)

I wonder how many airline passengers are on vacation?


----------



## SarahZ (Apr 28, 2018)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I wonder how many airline passengers are on vacation?


“Business travelers account for 12 percent of passengers but are typically twice as profitable for airlines. On some flights, business passengers represent 75 percent of an airline's profits.”

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/041315/how-much-revenue-airline-industry-comes-business-travelers-compared-leisure-travelers.asp

That’s just one source, but it’s safe to say there are more leisure travelers than business travelers.

I would maybe inflate that 12% statistic a little bit to account for business travelers who don’t book through their company, such as those with a company credit card, or those who are self-employed.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Apr 28, 2018)

With the companies i worked for over the last 20 year period, all the field personnel (10 implementation teams plus support personnel and sales) made all their own reservations for transportation, hotel, and car. As far as anyone knew these were leisure trips, unless they matched up all the trips to see 40+ weeks of traveling. Airlines and Amtrak saw these as individual trips, not through a corporate travel agency. So how does any transportation company really know the percent of business to leisure travel.


----------



## SarahZ (Apr 28, 2018)

Lonestar648 said:


> With the companies i worked for over the last 20 year period, all the field personnel (10 implementation teams plus support personnel and sales) made all their own reservations for transportation, hotel, and car. As far as anyone knew these were leisure trips, unless they matched up all the trips to see 40+ weeks of traveling. Airlines and Amtrak saw these as individual trips, not through a corporate travel agency. So how does any transportation company really know the percent of business to leisure travel.


Did you read my entire post? I said:

"I would maybe inflate that 12% statistic a little bit to account for *business travelers who don’t book through their company*, such as those with a company credit card, or those who are self-employed."

​Also, some of the airlines I use have a checkbox for "business" or "leisure" when searching fares. I don't think you're bound to it, but that may be one (of many) ways they gather data.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 28, 2018)

That, and yes. The company can look at a person's travel patterns and draw reasonable conclusions about whether travel is for work or for leisure. Data analytics is a hell of a thing.


----------



## frequentflyer (Apr 28, 2018)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar648 said:
> ...


I don't think we are understanding each other. But aesthics do matter to Amtrak. As GE has proven, they could have stuck a HEP in back of Dash 8 unit and called it a day, and Amtrak did in deed buy 10 of them. I wish I had the Trains article that discussed how the Genesis locomotive came to be which is a Dash 8 in a "slick" monocoque design.

The same could be said for the venerable F40 which was a GP40 in a cowl body. Why the cowl body, when the GP40 could have been modified with HEP? Because aesthetics matter.

Finally, why has the Acela train gain popularity when the AEM7/Amfleet Metroliners were doing fine in its mission. The aesthetics of Acela helped sell it and make it the air shuttle killer it is now.

While aesthetics matter, functionality and reliability more so, and I hope whatever Anderson is cooking up, its functional first.


----------



## keelhauled (Apr 28, 2018)

I wonder if there's something being lost in translation about leisure travel as in travel where riding the train is the leisure in and of itself vs. travel in order to go to a leisure destination. I would tend to agree with Anderson if his opinion is that Amtrak shouldn't be operating for the habits of the former group, but I don't understand why he would want to turn down passengers from the latter.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Apr 29, 2018)

if Anderson doesn't want Amtrak used for vacations, he needs to stop his own company (see quote below

"Vacation package bookings and inquiries can be made through amtrakvacations.com or by calling 1-800-AMTRAK-2 (1-800-268-7252). To view the Amtrak Vacations page,

click this link:Amtrak Vacations"


----------



## George K (Apr 29, 2018)

Lonestar648 said:


> if Anderson doesn't want Amtrak used for vacations, he needs to stop his own company (see quote below
> 
> "Vacation package bookings and inquiries can be made through amtrakvacations.com or by calling 1-800-AMTRAK-2 (1-800-268-7252). To view the Amtrak Vacations page,
> 
> click this link:Amtrak Vacations"


I was under the impression that Amtrak Vacations is *not* Amtrak, but a separate company licensed to use the Amtrak name.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Apr 29, 2018)

I don't have any data, but I can't imagine too many people are using Amtrak AS their vacations. Most of the people I talk to are using amtrak as part of their vacations. For example, they want to go to california, and thought it would be fun to take the train to get there.


----------



## cpotisch (Apr 29, 2018)

George K said:


> Lonestar648 said:
> 
> 
> > if Anderson doesn't want Amtrak used for vacations, he needs to stop his own company (see quote below
> ...


Yep. I’ve called USA-RAIL multiple times, asking aboit AV offers, and they’ve always told me to call a different number, since it’s a “different thing”.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Apr 29, 2018)

It maybe different, but from the 30,000 foot view it is Amtrak saying use us to plan your vacations. Wonder how much revenue is generated for Amtrak from this outsourcing venture. Again, Anderson should look at these to see what the costs, liabilities, and revenue are and will be for 2018. He wants to streamline, then streamline here.


----------



## jis (Apr 29, 2018)

I don't know if the following document has been posted on this thread yet. This might throw some additional light and add some color to this discussion, since it does raise several interesting points, even though perhaps as speculative observations in some cases.

Why Anderson thinks he is Doing the Right Thing


----------



## Bob Dylan (Apr 29, 2018)

Thanks for sharing jis!


----------



## Ryan (Apr 29, 2018)

From what I've seen from RAILPAC, over this debacle, I'm not impressed.

I don't get "can and should destroy the national network" from the materials provided my Amtrak.

We'll do far better as rail advocates if we stick to the facts.


----------



## jis (Apr 29, 2018)

Unfortunately, there is a tremendous lack of trust between the majority of advocates on one side and Amtrak management, Board, and such on the other side. This creates a toxic situation of much speculation about the worst of possible outcomes, and a call to arms to deal with that. Unfortunately there is some amount, some would say a very considerable amount, of justification for such mistrust. Notice that the material that at least I have been posting, even when I don't agree with quite a bit of it on occasions, is actually from people who have been in the advocacy trenches far longer than AU (and even some of its members) has existed. Since this is the hand that we are dealt with for the last 50 or so years, unfortunately this is all that we get to use in our game, and sometimes it is pretty ugly and occasionally even ineffectual or counter-productive. But it is what it is.

It does not help that Anderson chooses to make pithy statements that gets everyone's paranoia run along full steam either. Maybe it is indeed his game to smoke out the "advocates" and have them make fools of themselves, before he actually does something, either not as bad as the worst fears, or given the age we are in, possibly worse than the worst fears. Who knows? We'll see how this unfolds.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 29, 2018)

I don't disagree, it would just good to see a little bit more thought go into things like this. But, as you said, "it is what it is".


----------



## JRR (Apr 29, 2018)

If I didn’t consider rail travel as part of my vacation, I would never go by Amtrak. It is cheaper and faster to either fly or drive.

That being said, we really enjoy train travel and will continue to “vacation” on Amtrak as long as we can.


----------



## DSS&A (Apr 30, 2018)

Ryan said:


> From what I've seen from RAILPAC, over this debacle, I'm not impressed.
> 
> I don't get "can and should destroy the national network" from the materials provided my Amtrak.
> 
> We'll do far better as rail advocates if we stick to the facts.


Hi Ryan, I agree with you on your statements. We will have to wait for Anderson's next announcements, which I hope have more details. Amtrak's future depends on rehabilitating or buying new equipment which take a lot of time and money to implement.


----------



## MSprintz (Apr 30, 2018)

crescent-zephyr said:


> What (non-railfan) millennial knows or cares what a locomotive is or how the train is moving? I'm trying to give this guy a chance but comments like that make it difficult.
> 
> Millenials care about the same things other customers care about... Comfortable seats, a clean train, good customer service, wifi, and yes decent food / drink options.


In the grand scheme of travel most travelers care more about timeliness then comfortable seats and WiFi. If they cared more about amenities like comfortable seats the airlines would be hurting and we’d see more highway travel because let’s face it, it’s more comfortable in your own vehicle where one can stop at their own leisure. Decent food and drink is nice, if you’re traveling greater than one day versus say the 3-4 hrs on the NEC where it’s of lesser importance.

What the population wants is true high-speed rail service between Chicago and eastern cities. A 220 mph train service between CHI-WAS would be well received and greatly reduce costs. They don’t want flashy DMU’s that will only at best manage 125-130 mph on short stretches and 75-80mph elsewhere.


----------



## jis (Apr 30, 2018)

Want is one thing. The usual issue is what are they willing to spend collectively from taxes to build their alleged want, and then what fares are they willing to pay to use such, usually is the stumbling block, specially in a political setup where everybody is empowered to torpedo anything based on some triviality. More often than not the spirit is extremely willing, but the flesh is quite weak. Everyone seem to want something for nothing.


----------



## jis (Apr 30, 2018)

Ryan said:


> I don't disagree, it would just good to see a little bit more thought go into things like this. But, as you said, "it is what it is".


I agree with you that there is a bit too much of manufactured or tenuously deduced conclusions being used by some rail advocates to stir up some excitement. I find that unfortunate, but they claim they are experts at advocacy. Which of course may or may not be so considering the slim pickings of the results from said advocacy so far. I suppose it is better to have poorly thought out advocacy sometimes than none at all, but of course we will see how things go. Can't have perfection when many disjointed groups and people are involved.

This is specially a concern if it is a seasoned CEO's game to discredit advocates by having them over react intentionally and send 'em over the edge so to speak. The ambiguous provocative statements that he makes and then backs off when faced with coherent push back suggests that we need to be very careful about how we handle his tactics.

One thing that Anderson did clearly say regarding restoring LD trains is that he will do nothing since they don't make any economic sense, and that would suggest that there will be no expansion of the LD network as long as Anderson is around, which does run against what a majority of folks around here appear to want. Therefore it is probably reasonable to start playing the political game to get rid of him, without getting too shrill about it, even though he has not said anything about discontinuing all LD trains.


----------



## railiner (Apr 30, 2018)

Unfortunately, if Anderson accomplishes his mission to make Amtrak "profitable", by whatever measure, then he will become the darling of the pols and may serve for a long tenure, with whatever it takes to achieve that goal...


----------



## Lonestar648 (Apr 30, 2018)

Anderson probably sees the LD network as a thorn in his side. He gets pressure from Congress to get rid of it, then he gets pressure from some not to affect their states or district. In the end, he needs the majority of both houses to support him in what ever he decides. Getting rid of LD would certainly eliminate a number of nagging issues, maintenance, refurbish or replace, F&B mandate, etc. But that elimination effects the most on Capitol Hill. In the end, I think he and his managers bring on board a group of Senators and Representatives after the elections to help sell to their colleagues the idea of no more long distance., after that, he has to sell the unions on the idea of no LD. Getting rid of LD sounds easy enough, but when you peal back the layers, it is actually quite complicated.


----------



## jis (Apr 30, 2018)

I find no evidence that Anderson is getting any pressure from the Congress to get rid of the LD network. Some loud mouths in Congress, maybe. But remember Congress appropriated more money for the national System in FY18 than even what Amtrak asked for. That is a mighty strange way to pressure someone to get rid of something.

All that Anderson had said definitively so far is that adding/restoring LD trains does not make economic sense. But then at the end of the day Congress gets the last word on what is or is not economic sense for Amtrak. From Anderson;s perspective it makes sense to take a hard nosed position to test Congress' resolve to actually do the needful to maintain the current network and grow it, so that it ceases being Anderson;s problem to go with a begging bowl and beat up by Congress. It is more of a come to Uncle moment for Congress which has traditionally mismanaged the entire transportation infrastructure and planning for the nation because of various reasons. And this is nothing new.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 30, 2018)

jis said:


> All that Anderson had said definitively so far is that adding/restoring LD trains does not make economic sense. But then at the end of the day Congress gets the last word on what is or is not economic sense for Amtrak.


Incidentally, this isn't all that different than Boardman's "if Congress wants me to run new trains, someone needs to pay me to do it" position.

Nothing new indeed...


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Apr 30, 2018)

railiner said:


> Unfortunately, if Anderson accomplishes his mission to make Amtrak "profitable", by whatever measure, then he will become the darling of the pols and may serve for a long tenure, with whatever it takes to achieve that goal...



This goes back to something I previously stated that I want to address. These quotes are at the heart of my concern:



Trogdor said:


> Theres nothing about which to feel sorry for Wick Moorman. He was more or less doing Amtrak a favor by taking the job when he really didnt want. He was retired and really had no intention of coming back to work, but he was the one that felt sorry for Amtrak, and took the job, temporarily, to help Amtrak extend the search for a permanent CEO.
> 
> When Boardman announced his retirement, essentially nobody wanted the job. Thats why Moorman was brought in.
> 
> ...


Indeed!



Ryan said:


> You raise an interesting point.
> 
> Has anyone gone on from the Amtrak job to go and do great things elsewhere?



Here's the concern and here is what typically happens. When these executives and leaders arrive at Amtrak, they are people that are at the end of their careers or attempting to bolster their careers. I've nicknamed them the Resume Padders. When they become "the darlings of the pols" as Railiner puts it, it can lead to great things. As such, they do things to pad their resume and promote themselves. Then, they leave...and whatever wreckage or fallout that occurs will happen after they have left. They don't have a long term view or a long term commitment. They tend to be a bit more timid with their visions because they are lining themselves up.

The people that are retired or at the end of the careers can operate with the same flexibility. After all, what do they have to lose? They don't have to worry about any burnt bridges or bad feelings because they too, can just leave. Then, the next person comes in with a bad hand, spending time doing repair work instead of moving forward.

What brought Mr Anderson to the railroad? It is extremely likely he doesn't need the money, he doesn't seem like he values keeping the system together (like previous leaders) and he doesn't appear to be a buff. Some wonder whether he is lining himself up for a government job, like Secretary of Transportation or something like that.

Why he is here doesn't concern me. What he does now is not gnawing at me. How he positions Amtrak for the FUTURE is what concerns me because not unlike other leaders, the decisions he makes now may help or hurt us for decades to come...and sometimes what seems helpful becomes hurtful...years later.

Does he have that much vision? Let's hope so.



jis said:


> I find no evidence that Anderson is getting any pressure from the Congress to get rid of the LD network. Some loud mouths in Congress, maybe. But remember Congress appropriated more money for the national System in FY18 than even what Amtrak asked for. That is a mighty strange way to pressure someone to get rid of something.
> 
> All that Anderson had said definitively so far is that adding/restoring LD trains does not make economic sense. But then at the end of the day Congress gets the last word on what is or is not economic sense for Amtrak. From Anderson;s perspective it makes sense to take a hard nosed position to test Congress' resolve to actually do the needful to maintain the current network and grow it, so that it ceases being Anderson;s problem to go with a begging bowl and beat up by Congress. It is more of a come to Uncle moment for Congress which has traditionally mismanaged the entire transportation infrastructure and planning for the nation because of various reasons. And this is nothing new.


Very true but given that he doesn't think additional service makes sense, 10 will get you 20 that he thinks the current network doesn't make economic sense.


----------



## jis (Apr 30, 2018)

And indeed given the hand he has been dealt, it doesn’t. But if it was Congress’ unequivocal policy definition that it does make senses provided its support costs no more than X, like is the case in the UK for example, then by definition of his job it makes economic sense. He is not the Secretary of the Treasury or Transportation, or the President or the Congress. It is not up to him to decide what makes sense for the nation.


----------



## railiner (Apr 30, 2018)

What Amtrak needs, is another W.G. Claytor, Jr....professional lawyer, railroader, politician, and advocate of good passenger service. He knew how to play the game with the pols very well.

That said however, I wonder how even he would deal with the challenges the Amtrak CEO faces today.....


----------



## Skyline (May 1, 2018)

railiner said:


> What Amtrak needs, is another W.G. Claytor, Jr....professional lawyer, railroader, politician, and advocate of good passenger service. He knew how to play the game with the pols very well.
> 
> That said however, I wonder how even he would deal with the challenges the Amtrak CEO faces today.....


Indeed, how would Claytor have dealt with the anti-Amtrak President, whose budget would have ended most service had Congress gone along with it?


----------



## Lonestar648 (May 1, 2018)

Previously, Amtrak Presidents stated that the network was a whole unit. Stop once piece and the whole networks stops including the NEC and state supported routes. The nightmare from shutting the NEC for all traffic put politicians into a panic. IIRC it was all hot air so Congress didn't believe until Gunn issues cancellation orders, union notices, and user notices. Now the Pols want to make sure the NEC is separate so a complete end to passenger rail in the NEC can not happen. Anderson definitely doesn't care about the longevity of the network, sacrificing pieces of it is totally acceptable.


----------



## railiner (May 1, 2018)

Very depressing...

So in the words from the CZ ads, back in 1969 and '70....."Ride it, while you can"...


----------



## cpotisch (May 1, 2018)

railiner said:


> Very depressing...
> 
> So in the words from the CZ ads, back in 1969 and '70....."Ride it, while you can"...


They actually said that in the ads back then? Whoever came up with that must have just gotten dumped or something...


----------



## jis (May 1, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > Very depressing...
> ...


Given that Rio Grande was not joining Amtrak, it was a foregone conclusion that CZ as was known then would cease to operate on A-Day, though the exact disposition of that affair was not known until the very last minute. On A day what remained was a three times a week Rio Grande Zephyr that ran from Denver to Salt lake City via the Moffatt Route, and a Chicago - Oakland through train called the San Francisco Zephyr which ran Denver to Oakland via Wyoming, including Chyenne, through Ogden UT (did not touch Salt lake City). But it did run on the Lucin Cutoff.


----------



## railiner (May 1, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > Very depressing...
> ...


Yes....they actually said that in ads in 1969, and '70...they first extolled all of the virtues of the train, but finished at the bottom with the admonition, to "ride it, while you can"...

The train was losing a fortune for the three railroads that operated it, and the WP was vigorously trying to discontinue it. The ICC finally gave its permission to the WP, and it made its last run in March of 1970, 13 months before Amtrak started up. The BN and D&RGW continued its operation, until A-Day, as the "California Service/Rio Grande Zephyr", and forwarded its thru passenger's to its former arch-rival, City of San Francisco, at Ogden.

I tried finding a copy of the ads on the net, but could not. I may have one buried somewhere, deep in my 'archives'...


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (May 1, 2018)

jis said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > I don't disagree, it would just good to see a little bit more thought go into things like this. But, as you said, "it is what it is".
> ...


As much as I would love to see the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers return, the fact is if there is rail expansion it does make more economic sense to start more corridor service trains in the 200-500 mile range (think Las Vegas-Los Angeles, Dallas-Houston, 3C, etc) than in the LD range (assuming we can get the funding and the host railroads cooperate, big assumptions of course). Trains in that mile range can be more competitive to flying/driving while above that range you will never be able to compete and you are basically a niche market (we are all part of that market but it is still a niche market). Anderson was asked about the Pioneer at RailPAC and said it doesn't make much economic sense and IMO it doesn't (of the LD trains canceled in my lifetime it would be near the bottom of my list of trains I would bring back).

Congress on the other hand views the 200-500 mile trains as not being "national" (750 mile rule). I've said before, their definition of what is national and not national is arbitrary. If a train connects Los Angeles to Las Vegas, then it becomes part of the national network, anyone that can get to LAX can get to Vegas. So if Las Vegas is of national interest, the train is of national interest even though it is well less than 750 miles. There is no reason Congress should say they're not funding it. On the other hand, a train can run over a thousand miles and only serve its local communities.

It is true that some LD trains do have overlapping corridors (a potential Broadway Limited is one of them) and there is nothing wrong with those trains as you get the benefit of corridor service and LD service rolled into one. But others do not and starting a train thousands of miles through the middle of nowhere is counterproductive.


----------



## MikeM (May 1, 2018)

Color me a cynic, but until I see signs that Amtrak management is committed to a national network, well run, my days of writing letters and calling congressmen to push for funding have hit a wall...

Earlier I read some comments about how the whole Hostage taking process went with the NEC and the system as a whole to force funding. I am at a point that I think the real solution would fall along these lines instead...

1. Split Amtrak into three companies.


Infrastructure (primarily NEC including stations, yards, and other related holdings)
NEC Trains limited to the high speed corridor
Amtrak LD and State sponsored trains.
2. All entities would be totally separate of one another. Separate management teams, independently run.

3. The infrastructure team would be responsible for operating at break even and generating sufficient capital (along with budgeted appropriations) to modernize properties to reasonable commercial standards. All infrastructure would be open access. So if Virgin wanted to run high speed rail on the NEC, they could negotiate trackage rights. The Amtrak Passenger NEC corridor team would compete with others to see who could operate the most efficiently and generate the best business. This surfaces the true cost of the NEC for all to see. They fund below and above the rail costs, no cross subsidies, no funky allocations. Any losses would have to be covered by special appropriations, same as the LD side.

4. NEC Amtrak and LD Amtrak would be responsible for their own sets of trains, with no cross subsidies. All equipment captive to each entity, unless they choose to lease / sell equipment.

5. As part of the program, states could shift their service provider from Amtrak LD to a third party such as Hertzog or the railroads themselves under this agreement, and would have the same access rights as Amtrak provided they met certain requirements for equipment condition, inspection, crew training, etc.

The benefit of this:


No more mystery about whether LD trains earn their keep. Amtrak NEC is their own little boat, competing against the rest of the world if so desired.
LD operations segregated and no longer "poor cousin" to the NEC. Sink or swim, management would be more attuned to product quality if they liked working in passenger rail.
Potential for competition in the "profitable" NEC with agnostic ownership
States outside the NEC who have spent funds to create their own corridors (think California in particular) can see what the cost of the NEC infrastructure is, and either push for support for their expansions, or push to get NE states to cover more of the burden.
States who have gone and purchased their own cars and locomotives can aggressively negotiate and take advantage of other providers where it is cost effective.

Of course, this proposal would never fly, but given the level of animus that many of us are feeling towards Amtrak management, I think it's time to consider how to salvage passenger rail in ways that may not involve Amtrak as a long term player.


----------



## chrsjrcj (May 1, 2018)

There are no cross subsidies today. The NEC does not subsidize the national network.

In reality, the only way I can see having a chance of conserving the remaining national network is for Congress to concede that Amtrak is not a for-profit entity.


----------



## districtRich (May 1, 2018)

MikeM said:


> Color me a cynic, but until I see signs that Amtrak management is committed to a national network, well run, my days of writing letters and calling congressmen to push for funding have hit a wall...
> 
> Earlier I read some comments about how the whole Hostage taking process went with the NEC and the system as a whole to force funding. I am at a point that I think the real solution would fall along these lines instead...
> 
> ...


It's already two separate accounts. Congress appropriates a specific amount to each and it can't be transferred from NEC to LD or the other way around except with special authorization. And any state now could contract out train service to someone else other than Amtrak. Some of them already have commuter service run by companies like Keolis


----------



## railiner (May 2, 2018)

I am hoping that the Congress does decide that Amtrak long distance, is a national asset that if let die, would be near impossible to restart. That it serves a purpose in connecting the nation with an alternative to flying or driving, and is worthy of saving, even if it does lose some money. But that they would fund it well enough to provide at least a daily service on all its routes, and allow it to provide a good and reliable service, where it does run, with decent equipment.

I do not worry about the short haul trains on the busy corridors...state or regional authorities will insure that those will continue on with or without Amtrak


----------



## Lonestar648 (May 2, 2018)

I remember shortly after 9/11 (tried to find the quote but haven't, will post if I find it) it was stated in Washington that having a national rail system during a national crisis was necessary for national security. Having the entire airline system grounded and Amtrak under funded created a transportation nightmare. Unfortunately, Congress felt 9/11 would not be repeated where every airplane is grounded..


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (May 2, 2018)

Again, if the goal is to build the "national" rail system, being a "long distance" train should not be a requirement, that's just Congress's arbitrary (750 mile) requirement. Where do people live and where do people want to go and get trains (or more trains) there the most feasible way possible and people will ride them.

There is $20 million in the Amtrak budget towards the "Rail Restoration Program" (https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/blog/great-news-for-rail-passengers-in-fiscal-year-2018-budget/) so hopefully that will lead to new service somewhere (according to RPA, possibly Gulf Coast).


----------



## chrsjrcj (May 2, 2018)

At $20 million a year, I look forward to service restoration on the Gulf Coast sometime after 2068. Assuming Im even healthy enough to ride the rails at that point.


----------



## jis (May 2, 2018)

It is quite unlikely that the Feds will cover all the costs of Gulf Coast restoration. It has been known all along that the local states and communities will have to match funds.

The Southern Rail Commission was basically looking for something in the area of $20 to $35 million for 2018, which is available through various combination of budget items in the 2018 appropriations.

The initial plan is to start a New Orleans - Mobile service, which could happen relatively quickly. The full NOL - JAX - ORL involves some additional complications what with CSX trying to sell the line in Florida. But still it looks reasonably likely in a couple of years, with additional appropriations and state and local matches.

It should be noted that even though the NOL -ORL distance is greater than 750 miles, the restoration is being handled as a regional project and not as a National LD Network one, in terms of how it will be funded for day to day operation. This gives the region greater control over how it evolves, and everyone locally seem to desire that rather than leaving it to Washington DC. So it is somewhat out of scope of an LD discussion.

Of course we will see how all that goes.


----------



## MikeM (May 2, 2018)

chrsjrcj said:


> There are no cross subsidies today. The NEC does not subsidize the national network.
> 
> In reality, the only way I can see having a chance of conserving the remaining national network is for Congress to concede that Amtrak is not a for-profit entity.


I agree that the budgets are separated. However, I disagree that there is not cross subsidization; allocation of overhead to business segments can be a factor to shift expenses between the two accounts. I go back to the early days, before Amtrak jumped hard into the NEC and the subsidy requirements were significantly below current levels. Fundamentally, I really don't trust current management to operate a national network. I'd love to be wrong, but I just don't feel it.


----------



## lordsigma (May 2, 2018)

chrsjrcj said:


> There are no cross subsidies today. The NEC does not subsidize the national network.
> 
> In reality, the only way I can see having a chance of conserving the remaining national network is for Congress to concede that Amtrak is not a for-profit entity.


One area where I wish we would do what Europe does. Move away from this Amtrak is a for-profit company stuff and instead just concede it is a government run rail line and then invest in it properly and focus on making it a quality product. Build real high speed corridors, replace the superliners, replace the amfleet cars, and do the infrastructure investments that are needed. Why not try to turn Amtrak from something many people would consider an embarrassment into something for the nation to be proud of with some of the kazillions of dollars spent on military hardware and wars. Not saying I think it should be a bottomless pit and those that run it need to run it as efficiently as possible and held accountable to that, but not these nickle and dime cuts, amenities cuts, and service cuts to try to get to this "break even" point. Efficiencies rather than cuts. Will it ever happen? Unlikely but hey I can dream can't I.


----------



## Lonestar648 (May 2, 2018)

I don't see our Congress changing. Actually, I don't think any of them really care about Amtrak. They only speak, if a camera is on and this subject seems to get some camera and mic time so you have Congress speaking about what they don't know about.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (May 2, 2018)

Lonestar648 said:


> I don't see our Congress changing. Actually, I don't think any of them really care about Amtrak. They only speak, if a camera is on and this subject seems to get some camera and mic time so you have Congress speaking about what they don't know about.


They care about Amtrak if a train serves their state. And their idea of "national network" is the national network of 1971 or after the last round of cuts.


----------



## jis (May 3, 2018)

Ok here is the recording of the entire session of the conference which includes Anderson's presentation and Q&A. which is the last 45 mins or so of the recording.

https://www.ustream.tv/recorded/114596550

I listened through it all, and was left considerably puzzled about the firestorm that it has caused. Are the people who appear to have gone off the deep end really talking about this presentation and Q&A or are they talking about something else. As I suspected the notes that were presented regarding this, in my reckoning do not really represent this talk fairly at all. I wonder what others think of all this after listening to the actual source material.

Anderson did not say most of the things that he is alleged to have said. The questioners asked questions with those words in them and apparently then projected those onto Anderson as agreeing with their dire scenarios simply because he did not categorically disagree with whatever they said.

That is not to say that he may not go ahead and take some of their ideas and run with them. But who knows?

Very puzzling!

BTW, on the matter of covering costs, what he said is that he intends to get to break even on operating cash account by 2020. He clarified that this is different from GAAP or total operations account. I did not see this highlighted in any of the notes or discussions. Notice that this is not F&B, this is total operating cash.

On the matter of DMU, he specifically mentioned them as similar to Acela IIs in principle, for use on daytime regional trains. Which is exactly what one would expect to be addressing when looking for replacements for Amfleet Is, no? He emphasized the double ended aspect of the sets thus saving on wyeing or switching engines from one end to the other.

I remember in the early days of 25kV electrification around Kolkata on Indian Railways (Eastern Railway). There was a huge shortage of power cars for EMUs. So EMU service was introduced using EMU trailer cars with a cab car at one end and an electric engine (WAM-1 or WAM-2 Class japanese or French manufactured engine) at the other end in fixed consist, They even on occasions hooked two of these together to create longer trains. maybe that is how the existing ACS-64s can be repurposed for the immediate future. OTOH, he was very explict about dual mode MUs for use on Regional trains that run south of Washington after traveling to Washington on the NEC, e.g. the Virginia service, which would arguably shorten their schedules almost immediately by 20 mins.


----------



## jebr (May 3, 2018)

My best guess is the firestorm was caused by him basically not getting into a debate with the RailPAC and Streetsblog questioners about how long distance service would work exactly going forward. The questions themselves seemed to be leading, essentially already making the presumption that he was going to kill the long distance trains. In the speech itself it seems that he understands that the long distance trains are essentially corridors stringed together and that's what people, for the most part, use them for.

He seems to have a different vision of Amtrak than I think the questioners wanted; he has a vision of Amtrak that focuses on corridor transportation across America (recognizing that the LD trains already do that today) but many railfans think of the trains a mainly an experiential mode of transportation. There was also the glib about the subsidy for long distance rail passengers - while one can argue on the accounting aspect, LD trains, even sleepers, aren't 100% break-even, and it's easier to justify subsidies for trains when they're being primarily used for transportation instead of having an image of being simply for those who want to take a vacation on the rails.


----------



## frequentflyer (May 3, 2018)

lordsigma said:


> chrsjrcj said:
> 
> 
> > There are no cross subsidies today. The NEC does not subsidize the national network.
> ...


 Trying to think of a government program ran the way you are suggesting.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 3, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> lordsigma said:
> 
> 
> > chrsjrcj said:
> ...


I personally think the Internet is/was a government program worthy of national pride. Lots of people have pride in our emergency services and/or the US military, even if they choose to hate everything else. Many others might feel pride in the interstate highway system or Medicare or the National Flood Insurance Program if they spent a bit of time to contemplate what their lives would be like without those programs. Personally I believe that most government programs have a legitimate reason for feeling pride in their purpose, although many of them are stymied by (often intentional) conflicts of interest which prevent them from accomplishing their goals fairly and efficiently. Just because we've been repeatedly conditioned to believe that anything and everything related to our government is forever doomed to be wrong/stupid/evil doesn't necessarily make it so. Although I will admit that selecting/electing anti-government subversives to head important government agencies and departments is a self-fulfilling destiny we'd be wise to acknowledge and reverse.


----------



## Bob Dylan (May 3, 2018)

Other important ones to be proud of:

Social Security, the War on Poverty,Public Education and the EPA ( although these are currently Way Underfunded and messed with by the "Budget Hawks" and Know Nothings),the Center for Disease Prevention and Control,NASA,the National Weather Bureau, the Labor Department/Fair Labor Standards Act) and of course Civil Rights Laws!


----------



## frequentflyer (May 3, 2018)

jebr said:


> My best guess is the firestorm was caused by him basically not getting into a debate with the RailPAC and Streetsblog questioners about how long distance service would work exactly going forward. The questions themselves seemed to be leading, essentially already making the presumption that he was going to kill the long distance trains. In the speech itself it seems that he understands that the long distance trains are essentially corridors stringed together and that's what people, for the most part, use them for.
> 
> *He seems to have a different vision of Amtrak than I think the questioners wanted; he has a vision of Amtrak that focuses on corridor transportation across America (recognizing that the LD trains already do that today) but many railfans think of the trains a mainly an experiential mode of transportation.* There was also the glib about the subsidy for long distance rail passengers - while one can argue on the accounting aspect, LD trains, even sleepers, aren't 100% break-even, and it's easier to justify subsidies for trains when they're being primarily used for transportation instead of having an image of being simply for those who want to take a vacation on the rails.


^^^This^^^

Interesting he states he has been hoarding cash to pay for the train sets. Anderson states he has traveled via trains extensively in Europe and Asia. Wants that type of operation in America and really wants DMUs because of his experience with them in Europe. The RFP for these will be coming soon. So this is not vaporware.

People should listen to the link, listen to his words, and not an interpretation from someone with a set view. For a non railroad guy, he has a good grasp of the situation. Pretty exciting listening to him, he used to getting things done, not just putting out PR pieces, followed him closely at Delta. 96% of Amtrak pax travel less than 750 miles. And did I hear right, he wants to bring back NOL-Mobile?


----------



## R30A (May 3, 2018)

I fully agree with Jis and Jebr. I had initially expected that this firestorm came from some miss-worded statements by Anderson, as he has not impressed me with details in the past. That is not the case here. He seemed well prepared to me. 

Nothing he stated implies ANY sort of LD discontinuance. 


Based on what he described, I can't help but think his "DMU" is something akin to Brightline/ What will be running in the Midwest.


----------



## GBNorman (May 3, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> Interesting he states he has been hoarding cash to pay for the train sets. Anderson states traveled via trains extensively in Europe and Asia. Wants that type of operation in America and really wants DMUs because of his expensive. The RFP for these will be coming soon. So this is not vaporware.


Mr. Flier, somehow with Mr. Google deciding you meant this, you really meant what follows:
_Interesting he states he has been hoarding cash to pay for the train sets. Anderson states he has traveled via trains extensively in Europe and Asia and wants that type of operation in America and really wants DMUs because of his experiences. The RFP for these will be coming soon. So this is not vaporware._

OK, so Mr. Anderson has had experiences with DMU equipment overseas and has pronounced it sufficient for Amtrak operation. But how about listening to his Mechanical people's "war stories" regarding D/EMU equipment. Has he listened to Amtrak's past experience with the Metroliner EMU's, or the RDC's assigned to both both the 400 "Springfield Shuttle" or the "Black Haek" out my way? Has he been addressed how each MU is a Locomotive so far as the FRA is concerned when establishing maintenance protocol?

Can't he accept his Mechanical Department "underlings" have been on the property a mite longer than he, and their past adverse experiences with self-propelled equipment just might be "worth a listen"?

Or is Anderson just another "outsider CEO" parading on to the property "knowing it all"?


----------



## lordsigma (May 3, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> lordsigma said:
> 
> 
> > chrsjrcj said:
> ...


Unfortunately true - not making the argument that government runs things more efficiently, but there are a certain number of things where its the only way to run them. Just saying whats already true - its a government service, maybe not in name, but in practice. And we all know that rail is not the only transportation method that the government props up. I'm not a particularly ideological person and I do believe in the private sector taking the lead in most industries, but passenger rail, like other transportation mediums, unfortunately requires government involvement to make it work and that benefits the overall economy for the private sector. Just advocating that we could make it work better. A big start for good changes would be predictable multi-year funding which they have been asking for for years instead of having to return to the trough every year. And make investments to deal with the company's infrastructure needs - both on the NEC and with rolling stock. Dealing with deferred maintenance helps address operational costs.

In the past investing in infrastructure was never so controversial is it is now and its one of the things that spurs the economy - and both sides have done it in the past. But now you have a base of one party that only wants the government to build tanks, and military airplanes and cut everything else and the base of another party that essentially only cares about social welfare programs. In the past both democrats and republicans advanced infrastructure programs and they were an area where bipartisanship occurred - some of them still try but most are hindered by the ever increasing hyper polarization on both sides of the political spectrum. It's surprising anything gets done these days.


----------



## frequentflyer (May 3, 2018)

GBNorman said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting he states he has been hoarding cash to pay for the train sets. Anderson states traveled via trains extensively in Europe and Asia. Wants that type of operation in America and really wants DMUs because of his expensive. The RFP for these will be coming soon. So this is not vaporware.
> ...


Mr Norman, you are experienced railroader, I can tell from following your posts on this and other railfan websites. Isn't it likely that the technology and reliability of DMUs have increased exponentially from 50 year old Budd Metroliners and RDCs? European operators are hard on their equipment too.


----------



## Anderson (May 4, 2018)

GBNorman said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting he states he has been hoarding cash to pay for the train sets. Anderson states traveled via trains extensively in Europe and Asia. Wants that type of operation in America and really wants DMUs because of his expensive. The RFP for these will be coming soon. So this is not vaporware.
> ...


(1) I don't think you can reasonably extrapolate the Metroliner Misadventure from the 1970s onto modern equipment. Many of the issues there were native to the equipment in question, which was a first-generation design. I've seen MU sets in Europe, for example, which seem to generally work quite well. I agree that listening to that might be worthwhile, but I can also respect why someone might be inclined to set that experience aside given both how long ago that was and how many of the issues were simply endemic to the teething problems of what was at the time a relatively new technology set (high-speed EMUs, that is, not EMUs in general). The old Budd RDCs are a better comparison, but by _that_ token clearly a market has continued to exist for using them.

(2) I know a lot of statements have been made involving costs for single-car MUs. I do have to ask whether those hold up in cases of, say, "base sets" of "cars" which are substantially longer than what we have now (e.g. articulated cars like one often sees on LRVs, or like SP used on the Coast Daylight IIRC)? By the same token, though the "lots and lots of motors" issue doesn't arise, how does the maintenance cycle for a fixed equipment set compare to that for a given MU? Also, what about MU-plus-trailer designs (arguably a variation on the above) such as the _Roger Williams_ that the New Haven used (and which I could see being used to "split the baby" here)?


----------



## railiner (May 4, 2018)

I always thought the original Budd RDC's were considered pretty reliable...they were practically the entire operation of B&M's vast Boston commuter fleet at one time. And they also ran on many long distance routes operated by such diverse roads as B&O, ATSF, WP, and other's....

I believe it was actually their 'second generation' iteration, in the form of the SPV-2000's that suffered from reliability problems...


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (May 4, 2018)

Original Budd RDC had powertrain issues. No reason why a new version would have the same issues. Modern engine and transmission are a bit different today. Automatic transmission are common today. Even the traction motors have change. The low floor light rail trams have a compact light weight system.

The question is how many path are available to Amtrak to run this type of equipment. A couple odd ball locations? Connecticut getting its own equipment, so the inland route does not need it. What left. Heartland Flyer, Virginia Service, maybe Milwaukee service. Other than the growing Virginia service, seem a far flung couple of train sets needed. Maintenance will be a issue.


----------



## Tarm (May 4, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> > My best guess is the firestorm was caused by him basically not getting into a debate with the RailPAC and Streetsblog questioners about how long distance service would work exactly going forward. The questions themselves seemed to be leading, essentially already making the presumption that he was going to kill the long distance trains. In the speech itself it seems that he understands that the long distance trains are essentially corridors stringed together and that's what people, for the most part, use them for.
> ...


----------



## chrsjrcj (May 4, 2018)

Is the 96% figure a result of having more short distance trains vs long distance? My guess is, yes.

And what about the people in between that have limited or no air service?

I have no problem with corridor trains. Just remember that if it’s under 750miles, the Feds won’t pay. Do you think Georgia will chip in for an Atlanta to Charlotte train? Not anytime soon.


----------



## railiner (May 4, 2018)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Original Budd RDC had powertrain issues. No reason why a new version would have the same issues. Modern engine and transmission are a bit different today. Automatic transmission are common today. Even the traction motors have change. The low floor light rail trams have a compact light weight system.
> 
> The question is how many path are available to Amtrak to run this type of equipment. A couple odd ball locations? Connecticut getting its own equipment, so the inland route does not need it. What left. Heartland Flyer, Virginia Service, maybe Milwaukee service. Other than the growing Virginia service, seem a far flung couple of train sets needed. Maintenance will be a issue.


I had thought that the original RDC's had proven their reliability over a very long period....they were powered by a pair of Detroit Diesel 6 cylinder, 2 stroke engines, arguably the most reliable internal combustion engines ever built, and then simple hydraulic torque converters to the axle's...no electric traction motor's. Unlike diesel-electric's, they could even operate thru flood-waters over their wheels if necessary.

As for their utility in the current Amtrak system, I cannot disagree with your assessment....


----------



## jis (May 4, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> GBNorman said:
> 
> 
> > frequentflyer said:
> ...


Considering that he gave Acelas as an example of xMU equipment, I am almost certain that he is neither thinking of RDCs nor of the original Metroliner. He may be thinking more along the lines of Brightline sets. In all cases only the power cars are considered to require locomotive-like maintenance protocol by the FRA.

And even if one were to be considering extremely distributed power for efficient heavy start stop operations, why would Mechanical folks who know what theya re talking about oppose such? Don't such things operate just fine with rather spectacular MDBF on MNRR, LIRR etc.?

I would like to know which Mechanical expert has opposed the idea of using DMUs , for what reason? What configuration of a DMU did they have in mind when they opposed such? I am just hoping that it is not a case of random name dropping to make an argument.

As an aside, even NJT after their wrong headed move away from EMUs several years back, has now come around to realize that it is almost impossible to operate a time efficient start and stop service using push-pulls, and is starting to figure out how they can convert their large fleet of trailer cars into EMUs, which basically amounts to creating a power car based on the MLV frame and sticking a number of them within a consist. The terminology gets strained in many ways as people explore alternatives.


----------



## neroden (May 4, 2018)

If Mr. Anderson thinks people are riding from Syracuse to Chicago for a "cruise" type experience, he doesn't understand Amtrak's market at all. I invite him to chat with the crowd waiting in the Syracuse station to go to Chicago.

People who can't fly for medical reasons, are afraid of flying, are prevented by the TSA from flying, are boycotting the TSA, simply hate flying, can't afford to fly (airfare from small cities is expensive), need to take more luggage than the airplanes allow, need to bring their own drinks, don't want to take the "redeye" and can't afford to waste a day in transit, etc etc.

I have no problem with a focus on "corridors", but Mr. Anderson apparently doesn't understand that most of the so-called long-distance trains are providing precisely that corridor service. (Sunset Limited excepted.) It seems like he doesn't understand the business.


----------



## neroden (May 4, 2018)

jebr said:


> My best guess is the firestorm was caused by him basically not getting into a debate with the RailPAC and Streetsblog questioners about how long distance service would work exactly going forward. The questions themselves seemed to be leading, essentially already making the presumption that he was going to kill the long distance trains. In the speech itself it seems that he understands that the long distance trains are essentially corridors stringed together and that's what people, for the most part, use them for.


Well.... I wish? If he actually understood that, he'd understand the Syracuse-Chicago corridor market, and he'd be providing eggs for breakfast.

I mean, we can hope. But I think he doesn't fully understand how a single train serves multiple pairs of cities. I'm quite sure most of us here have spent more time delving into individual train statistics than he has, unfortunately.


----------



## neroden (May 4, 2018)

rrdude said:


> I will give credit where credit is due. Andersons spin-masters are epic. The notification and wordiing used about the recent Dining Car changes are virtually perfect. It should be studied by university courses in marketing & public relations.


No, actually, they're incompetent. This sort of garbage, claiming a massive and obvious downgrade as an "improvement", is convincing to precisely nobody and is a classic example of the sort of "public relations" which gives PR a bad name.

I know good spin. I've witnessed some epically good spin lately. This isn't one of 'em.


----------



## neroden (May 4, 2018)

CAMISSY55 said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > I view Anderson as a ruthless big corporate guy. IMO, he doesn't seem to care about customer service or even the people employed on the LD trains. He speaks of those in the food service area as expendable. .Like many corporate executives, his motivation is solely about profit. On his quest to profitability, he wants to lay off those who he believes are not needed with no concern about jobs that people need to feed their family; just put them out on the street and don't worry about it. These comments might be a bit harsh but that's the impression that I have about this individual. We need to get a petition going to express how rail passengers feel about the direction that Amtrak is taking?
> ...


Anderson doesn't seem to understand the phrase about "revenue generation"


----------



## neroden (May 4, 2018)

Trogdor said:


> Many folks dont like Anderson, but I really dont know who would be qualified for the job and actually want it. Experienced railroad executives are better off with freight companies (and they know it), and experienced passenger executives are better off at more stable transit and commuter railroads (and they know it). Who does that leave you with?


Oh hell, I'd do it. I mean, I don't know the business as well as Moorman or Boardman, but I seem to already know more than Anderson. :sigh: I've stopped assuming that just because people became CEOs that means they know anything.
I would, however, have to get a special budgetary allocation to straighten out Amtrak's accounting. You can't make any sense out of what they're doing; there's a GIGO problem. To his vast credit, Boardman established and pushed some major initiatives at Amtrak's shops to track parts inventory and labor time spent on particular cars and so forth, so that they could *actually* figure out where the maintenance money was going, but the process wasn't finished last I checked (not surprising).


----------



## jis (May 4, 2018)

That will also involve fixing the FRA, since half of the bizarre stuff that Amtrak does in accounting is stipulated by the FRA under the tender guidance of the Congress, or perhaps according to their tea leaves reading of whatever incoherent language Congress passes in their bills and associated legislative records.


----------



## Anderson (May 4, 2018)

Nothing is stopping Anderson from demanding a coherent set of books _that he and his team can understand and use_ from the accounting folks (for example, demanding a set that follows an overhead allocation closer to what the airlines use). Spending some amount of money to bring somebody in to disentangle RPS outputs and reassemble them into something useful would be a reasonable approach even if we all never saw it.

I'm reminded of one thing that was drilled into us in Accounting 101: There are rules for GAAP and so on, but for your own internal decision-making processes you can tinker with them as needed to generate useful information for said process. It's only the public stuff that has to be compliant with rules.


----------



## jis (May 4, 2018)

I agree, and I am hoping that he is beating up on his accounting guys.

I have never heard of an airline allocating headquarters costs to individual flights, or say Apple allocating headquarters costs to individual iPhones. That is the more bizarre part of Amtrak's accounting practices, and that is foisted on it by Congress and FRA. Nothing prevents them from doing something more reasonable internally, and there is considerable evidence that they do have incremental cost accounting information internally. But for some odd reason, except in a few weaker moments of this CEO or that, they seem to preserve that as a deeply held secret.

I am hoping that since Anderson talks of being operating account neutral on cash basis by 2020, he will take the steps to actually share the information with the rest of us about each BU on the same basis, and justify any service changes based on such concrete facts instead of what appears to be the whim of the day.


----------



## GBNorman (May 4, 2018)

These are the babies in which I have had my most recent EMU experience:






They're good enough for a 95 mile ride Munich-Salzburg (Rosenheim is a major intermediate stop about 40 miles East of Munich), but even on passenger oriented track (a 20 car freight over there is "par for the course" - and bulk commodities are more likely to be handled on waterways), they still have excessive vibration. Within Austria, EMU's are operated Salzburg-Vienna (185 miles) by a private operator - Westbahn. I've never ridden them.

If as some here suggest that Mr. Anderson considers equipment such as the Acela and the Brightline sets to be D/EMU, then the definition has been expanded from its traditional meaning of self-propelled equipment.


----------



## jis (May 4, 2018)

Even traditional "self propelled" EMUs do not necessarily have every car powered. Very often it is one power car with two trailer cars, or something like that. Consists in which every car is powered is a subset of the entire class of things that are called EMUs.

In the heavy traffic suburban sections of Mumbai and Kolkata in India, the 12 car EMUs consist typically of 4 power cars and 8 trailers. Even though theoretically they are supposed to consist of 4 3 car units, often they do away with the cab cars in the middle of the 12 car4 sets so as to provide more revenue space, So there are many variations that one sees. There no one single all encompassing definition of EMU. Sepcially in higher speed environments because one wants to reduce the number of pantographs, one tends to either carry a power bus through the length of the train distributing power from a single deployed pantograph to all power cars, or use powerheads at each end or some combination thereof. Similarly, it is not uncommon to find DMU sets which have two or three power cars and rest trailers at one end of the spectrum, and consists of all power cars at the other.

If you take a closer look at the Hitachi 80x deployed in the UK one finds that the 5 car consist has 3 power cars and two trailers. Both the cab cars are trailers. The nine car consist has five power cars and four trailers. As I have mentioned before the Hitachi 80x as a set of trains that cover EMU, DMU and EDMMU is probably the sort of thing that Anderson is talking about. I have not ridden a Class 80x yet, but I have ridden their close cousin the Javelins which are used on the Southeast High Speed Commuter service on HS-1, and they are beautiful trains and ride wonderfully even off the high speed line.

Here are two 5 car consists of Class 800 MU-ed together:






If an American version is made it will naturally have wider and taller body shell consistent with the American A loading gauge.

Reading his pronouncements, what I understand Mr. Anderson is looking for first and foremost is operational efficiency as far as I can tell. He is looking for driving positions at both ends so no need to turn trains, somewhat better power to weight ratios than we typically get with lengthy train attached to a single locomotive, and the associated better performance. There is absolutely no reason that the cars of an EMU has to be any flimsier than regular cars, and as my friend Joe V reminds us, the business end of the noses at the two ends of the train have still got be built like a battering ram to withstand the impact of a large truck giving considerable protection to the crew in the cab. I am almost certain that Mr. Anderson does not disagree with the last part either. He is a fanatic for safety.

Now whether one wants to call it an E/DMU or a Muscovy Duck, is upto each person's own taste and imagination I suppose. At the end of the day what is important is to understand what features he is looking for rather than getting hung up on what term he uses to refer to them.


----------



## frequentflyer (May 4, 2018)

GBNorman said:


> These are the babies in which I have had my most recent EMU experience:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I also think what muddies the DMU conversation is that Anderson uses Stadler as an example such as in the pic. However, Stadler equipment is often used on light rail or commuter services. The company does not really have an intercity DMU product. Unlike Htachi 800 as an example which looks to be a more substantial DMU.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (May 4, 2018)

Stadler will build you a single custom railcar any way you want it. It what they do. Its not cheap, but there product line covers everything possible? Small number to fleets.

http://stadlerrail.ch/en/products/detail/kiss200/


----------



## chrsjrcj (May 5, 2018)

I listened to the Q&A part, actually only the part where he talks about the experiental travel and restoration of the Pioneer/Sunset East. On one hand he rambles on about how only 6% of passengers travel end to end, but then states the Pioneer and Sunset East dont meet Amtraks mission as being time competitive. So I guess Boise, ID to Portland, OR has no chance of Amtrak service because it doesnt make sense to run a train from Chicago to Seattle via Ogden. Never mind all the intermediate markets.

Then he says if a private operator wants to run these trains that theyre more than welcome to. This really says to me that Anderson misses the whole point of Amtrak, or at least what I see the purpose of Amtrak being. I didnt watch all 2 hours (although just getting off a 4 hour late Crescent, I had more than enough opportunities to), but this firmly put me in the not a fan of Anderson group.


----------



## Lonestar648 (May 5, 2018)

He may want Amtrak to resemble one of the regional airlines he dealt with at Delta.


----------



## Seaboard92 (May 5, 2018)

Well one thing I've always wanted to see is us using trains in the place of a regional airline around hubs. With multiple trains a day leaving major airports and running to all of the surrounding cities and towns to do away with regional flights mostly.

But even with that I wouldn't want to touch the national network. I would leave that complete.


----------



## bretton88 (May 7, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> GBNorman said:
> 
> 
> > These are the babies in which I have had my most recent EMU experience:
> ...


I've ridden CAF and Hyundai Rotem emu's in Turkey for 90+ minutes in duration. They ride really well, I never noticed any excessive vibration. The 800 series in the UK was a dog in diesel mode, but the 802 series they added 2 extra engines which supposedly has fixed the issue. Only complaints I've heard about the 802s are the seats, which where government designed (sound familiar?), and definitely not ever road tested.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (May 8, 2018)

jis said:


> On the matter of DMU, he specifically mentioned them as similar to Acela IIs in principle, for use on daytime regional trains. Which is exactly what one would expect to be addressing when looking for replacements for Amfleet Is, no? He emphasized the double ended aspect of the sets thus saving on wyeing or switching engines from one end to the other.


I don't believe that is what you should look for unless laws governing their use, maintenance and inspections changes. There is one of the main reasons NJT wanted to get away from MUs and why Amtrak pulled the controls from the 9800. it is an expensive proposition, unless you're going to make them fixed consists...which is something that he alluded to.

Fixed consists are what stymied Amtrak's growth. it is no surprised that when additional equipment was released and variable consists were implemented (again), ridership and revenue grew. One only needs to look at the aging Acela sets, think 20 years in the future and imagine these types of trains taking on more territory, with grade crossings to see that this is not a good idea.


----------



## Larry H. (May 9, 2018)

Downgrading service while maintaining high fares doesn't seem like the way to encourage passengers. I know its not going to happen anytime soon, but if they were able to run trains with more sleepers (which we know are often sold out), wouldn't that help the overall passenger load and thus the overall cost of the train? I remember when any train worth taking often carried 5 sleepers. If that along with lower fares to encourage more ridership, would it seem it might make them more profitable? My friends just returned from N. Y. City on the Lakeshore. It had three sleepers and 8 coaches, and the train was sold out. How much higher might the ridership be if the cost were lower but more space available?


----------



## KmH (May 10, 2018)

Amtrak has been downgrading service for years and ridership has continually increased as they have done so.

It's my understanding that a full sleeper, even at current accommodation pricing, does not break even let alone make a profit for Amtrak.

Which might be why adding sleepers to the LSL may not make financial sense.

What % of LSL runs sell out, and is the train sold out from terminus to terminus?

On the long distance trains only 16% of passengers are sleeper passengers.


----------



## jis (May 10, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > On the matter of DMU, he specifically mentioned them as similar to Acela IIs in principle, for use on daytime regional trains. Which is exactly what one would expect to be addressing when looking for replacements for Amfleet Is, no? He emphasized the double ended aspect of the sets thus saving on wyeing or switching engines from one end to the other.
> ...


And yet the Acelas are the most successful service that is offered by Amtrak! And Amtrak has just ordered even more of them that are even more permanently articulated fixed sets. Just categorically saying "it is not a good idea" is not an argument. Why is the Acela powerhead any different from a locomotive when it comes to grade crossing? What prevents a powerhead from being as armored as necessary to make them equivalent to a P42 or an ACS64 or an SC-44 or if deemed necessary, a Long Hood Forward freight diesel?

Even with full freedom to change consists, Amtrak seldom changes them anyway. Why is the ability to add trailers in the shop inadequate to handle issues of growth if it comes to that?

The entire French and German Corridor and High Speed service is basically fixed consist double ended trains. Outfits that carry more passenger in a week than Amtrak does in a month have been moving in that direction. Why is Amtrak different in its corridors? No one has so far given a cogent explanation that goes significantly beyond essentially saying "But we haven't done so in the past and don't do things that way". Frankly, that is not a highly persuasive explanation at least for some of us.

That is the reason that I pose the question as to what Anderson exactly means by DMU. I am not sure. Are Brightline sets considered to be DMU by him? Does he think Acelas fit the bill? Well not the diesel part of course, but the rest of it? I don't know for sure, but the single video that I have seen of his presentation in California suggests that he was using the term mainly to give an example, and in the same part of his presentation he also mentioned Acela sets. So what is one to make of it? You guys were at the meeting inside Amtrak of which we have heard dribs and drabs outside, and some are having conniptions about it. Some of those that are getting ulcers, even went so far as to surmise that all LD trains will become DMUs. Based on what?

The Chairman of the Board categorically says that the LD network will not be dismantled and all that is being looked at is addition of short/medium distance frequencies in addition to the LD trains. Who exactly are we supposed to believe sitting outside the cauldron and why?

I just have more questions than answers at this point, and unfortunately it appears that everyone is so dug into their own ways, that there will be no answers forthcoming. Frankly I am frustrated, at least as much as the next guy, but possibly for a different reason.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (May 10, 2018)

jis said:


> And yet the Acelas are the most successful service that is offered by Amtrak!


I see you believe the hype so let's turn it around. What was the most successful service BEFORE the Acela sets? They were call METROLINERS!!! What was the real difference between the locomotive hauled Mets and the regular service? Umm, Amtrak allowed the former to operate at 125mph while holding the other equipment to 110mph, and the Mets had 60 seats per coach vs 84 seats per coach. Other than that, one had a 53 seat café vs an all table café and purty little curtains.

That's it.

Amtrak charged a premium price for the service and it was successful since it brought in higher revenue.

If we benched the Acelas, (which they did...twice) they could STILL bring in higher revenue with a little fluff and fu-fu marketing. A fancy set isn't really necessary. It is just eye catching. the Acelas may be successful but how mush more successful would they be if you could...you know...add more cars to it without spending MILLIONS! Remember, the Metroliners between NYP-WAS held MORE passengers on certain trains since they could ADD cars as necessary. 104, 108, 119 and 123 were *8* car sets prior to the Acela and they SOLD OUT! The rest of them were up to 7 cars....and we replaced them with 6 cars sets...and then years later, wonder why they can't handle the crowd.



jis said:


> And Amtrak has just ordered even more of them that are even more permanently articulated fixed sets. Just categorically saying "it is not a good idea" is not an argument. Why is the Acela powerhead any different from a locomotive when it comes to grade crossing? What prevents a powerhead from being as armored as necessary to make them equivalent to a P42 or an ACS64 or an SC-44 or if deemed necessary, a Long Hood Forward freight diesel?.


Very simple. When you have daily grade crossing incidents and other malfunctions, hosts can easily help us out. do you know how many times Amtrak has utilized host facilities to make equipment road worthy? Additionally, it is easier to set out an individual piece of equipment than it is multiple pieces. This is key. if a locomotive needs to be set out after a collision, we can simply add ahead. If the engine fails, we can simply add ahead and any host piece of equipment can be utilized. When Acela sets are benched...the ENTIRE set is benched. How much are you going to spend to put facilities that can handle specialized equipment at EVERY conceivable turn around point or layover facility? An Acela slid on leaves(thank you, pic) and developed flat spots. It limped to PVD, where they could set out the equipment. It sat there for almost two weeks, until they could ship everything to change the wheels on the train. A standard locomotive hauled consist would have had the unaffected equipment back on the road THAT DAY.

It is about operational flexibility. Right now, a keystone can become an Empire by swapping a cab car for a split club. We can take that same Amfleet and make this second Amtrak train:

https://youtu.be/yybjli2XWMM?t=195https://youtu.be/yybjli2XWMM?t=195Amtrak #974 Monster Train - 4/15/11

Try doing that with a DMUs and how many mechanical personnel will you need to perform all the Locomotive Calendar Day inspections? How would you even MAKE a train like that to accommodate growth or movements of that type with your, confined DMUs.



jis said:


> Even with full freedom to change consists, Amtrak seldom changes them anyway. Why is the ability to add trailers in the shop inadequate to handle issues of growth if it comes to that?


You couldn't be more wrong. That totally depends on who is operating the company. After equipment became available, the Boardman regime went to variable consists. It made all of the difference in the world. that is the reason you are seeing record ridership and record revenue. As for adding trailers, if they aren't being purchased from the onset (and from being on calls, I'm getting the impression that we're talking a fixed, semi permanent attached DMU/EMU similar to the ACELA), where will the money come from in the future? They will have the same problem they have with the current Acela sets.

Hey look! Ridership!

Let's capture it!

How?

Order more coaches!

(reaches in pocket) Umm...how?

Good point!

That was the mistake made with Acelas. I'd hate to see it repeated because years later, they are paying the price for their lack of vision. I realize that a lot of that has to do with financing and you have to take what you can get. However, someone needs to make sure there is flexibility in the future and when you put flash over substance, I suspect that has the potential to be an issue....once the luster wears off.


----------



## jis (May 10, 2018)

Here is RPA's rejoinder to Amtrak's report to Congress regarding the Southwest Chief:

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


----------



## jis (May 10, 2018)

On the matter of DMUs, I am still waiting for someone to inform me about what is meant by DMU in these discussions. I think part of the problem is that each has his or her own idea of what a DMU is to the exclusion of use of the term tor refer to anything else. That is why very early on I had posed the question as to what operational characteristics are we (or Anderson or whoever) is looking for, and then take the discussion from there.

This is going to be a longish post as I try to explain where I am coming from to this discussion, and hopefully you will start seeing that we may be talking past each other a lot simply because we are using terms in discussions without precisely defining their meaning,

What we have now as standard practice on the NER is a locomotive pulling, and occasionally pushing a bunch of trailers. Let us just bench the term D/EMU for now just for the sake of sanity of this discussion.

Now if it is a push pull set like the Keystone, it is clear that it is possible to add or remove a trailer from it exactly as easily as it is from a simple loco hauled train. The only difference is that it has a cab car at the other end. What that gives us is that the consist need not be turned at each end of its run. That is arguably a desirable feature and saves on resources and time at each end of a short/medium run. Do we agree?

If we don't agree why not. If we agree, then an issue that has been raised is, what happens at grade crossings. Clearly the locomotive end of this consists can't get any better than what it is today. So we have the cab end to deal with. The cab end could be something like what the Brits call a Driving Van Trailer, which has an appropriately armored cab and typically the rest of the car is a baggage plus auxiliary stuff car. That should address the grade crossing issue.

Now if we want a somewhat more sprightly performance then one could replace the DVT by another loco. This gives the Heartland Flyer kind of setup. You can still freely add or remove trailers. The only power units are the two powerheads. Note that I intentionally did not say that this is like Brightline or Acela because I am trying to stay away from semi-permanent coupling to continue to provide the freedom of adding or subtracting trailers as in Keystone as the example given by Thirdrail.

Now this should work well for shortish trains as far as performance goes. When you start getting to ten or twelve cars things start getting sluggish, specially for frequent start-stop service, as NJT has learned over the years.

At that point you start wondering, how can we add more power to it with the specific goal of improving performance. The typical method used is to create power cars that can be placed within the consist but is controlled from the cab units. The cab units can still continue to be powerheads or not depending on various other factors. But you add these power cars within the consist. This creates a so called distributed power consist which is typically known to perform better on services that require rapid acceleration/deceleration.

At this point we acknowledge the fact that each power car is equivalent to a locomotive as far as inspection/maintenance cycles are concerned, so it is important to not go overboard with adding too many of those to a consist. Notice that we have not yet lost the flexibility of marshaling cars into and out of the consist since we have not given up on the Tightlock AAR couplers and standard connectors.

Just as an aside, if such a five car consist with two powerheads, one at each end has control connectors at each end that allows two such units to be hooked up together, would this start resembling a D/EMU? Would it do so if it had three cars with some seats at the train end of each power + cab car? This i primarily the genesis of my question about what exactly is meant by a DMU. But setting it aside again, since it is not important to understand this progression to more integrated consists....

MInd you what follows is something that need not be pursued at all except for increasing capacity and passenger comfort in a given limited length of a consist.... You can get bi-directional operation, and flexibility in distributing power with the constructs that we have discussed so far.

The next step that Siemens has taken with the California order is to have semi-permanently coupled trailers which allows them to provide a better passenger experience and somewhat higher capacity and facilities. Several such pairs are then coupled together to form a consist. In the past there have been limited use of such in the PRR two car Diner sets etc. One of the things that you can do with semi-permanently coupled cars is provide a wider gangway. Anyhow, this still does not remove flexibility, and potentially you can still stick in power units in the middle of the train as needed. All of the caveats discussed earlier still apply. The only difference is you add/remove cars in units of two.

It turns out that such two, and on occasion three semi-permanently coupled cars with anywhere between one to all three cars powered have formed units of EMU around the New York area. Again the issue of cab strength still remains in those, but they operate widely in the NY area even on tracks with many grade crossings, and occasionally really bad stuff happens at grade crossings (Ref: MNRR at Valhalla).

Then an outfit like Brightline which has a very fixed operating plan with very well defined service levels and hard product needs comes in and says we will exclusively use semi-permanently coupled sets so that we can provide uniform passenger experience with sealed gangways etc. etc. Thus you get a Brightline set. In principle you also have the Acela I sets that follow the same architecture. Yes, now you have to deal with the entire train set as an unit as far as maintenance/outage goes, and you do lose some level of flexibility. It appears that a very significant group of large passenger operators have taken this route.

Question: Should Amtrak take this route across the Board? Answer it could, but it need not, and yet reap the advantages of the core architecture of having double ended trains that do not need to be turned at each end, and have the flexibility of distributed power even. Now do we want to bicker about whether that should be called a D/EMU or not? Some might find that argument interesting. Frankly I don't.

Proceeding along the path of greater integration - the French went one step further with the TGV and articulated the cars together using shared trucks (Jacobs bogies) using shorter cars. they decided that this architecture give a more stable train for operation at very high speed. That theory has been verified several times including in a derailment at almost full speed in which there were no casualties on the train. There were injuries to passengers waiting for another train at a station from flying ballast. This is the design that Amtrak is getting in Acela IIs. That is pretty much the complete other end of the spectrum between individual cars coupled together using standard couplers at one and and permanently articulated cars at the other end.

Now for a few quick case studies....

LIRR and MNRR use EMUs which consist of two or three car units. SEPTA uses 2 car units of late. NJT Arrows are one or two car units. All are powered, which of course makes them all have to follow the locomotive maintenance/inspection cycles.

NJT came finally to the conclusion that the performance of their MLV push pulls suck, which of course everyone else knew for years, but they could not admit it since it became a face saving issue for several generations of MMC managers. But they have finally come around to acquiring MLV power cars that can be used with their existing MLV trailer and cabs to create EMU units, that can then be strung together to create trains that are better performers and yet continue to have the flexibility of reconfiguration. Only the power and the cab units will have to follow the locomotive maintenance/inspection cycle.

Indian Railways uses typical 4 car units in their EMUs with one power car and three trailers, two of which are cab cars. Typically three such units are strung together to form 12 car trains which for all practical purposes are kept together and maintained together as a single unit. The 4 car units are semi-permanently coupled, but two such units are coupled together using standard couplers. So each four car unit has to be maintained as a single unit. OTOH, for things called MEMUs (Mainline EMUs) and DMUs, they follow the pull pull model. Each train consists of two powerheads, one at each end and a bunch of trailers that are coupled together using standard couplers, thus being quite flexible.

The Brits have used the flexible model pull-pull sets in the world's most successful 125mph diesel service using their HSTs. OTOH they used the flexible push-pull model with powerhead at one and and a DVT at the other for their higher speed electric service to Scotland until recently. At present they are in the process of converting everything to semi-permanently couple E/DMUs. We discussed the Hitachi Class 80x in this context further up thread.

The Germans in their ICE chose to go the route that is similar to Acelas and Brightlines in the first gen, but have moved progressively to extremely distributed power and hence more permanently coupled sets with each new generation. But still they certainly do not seem to derail as cleanly as the TGVs.

The Japanese have been proponents of very distributed power from the getgo and continue to be so, and hence also relatively closely coupled sets that operate and are maintained as an unit.

If you have managed to last through this flow of thoughts, maybe you understand a bit better where I am coming from and why I am at a loss to respond to some of the criticism that has been leveled at my stance earlier in the thread.

One thing I will grant is a reality that Amtrak faces that most of the other major passenger operators do not face, is poverty of availability of capital, and hence fleet size. You can afford to do all sorts of things when your fleet size is 60,000 cars, that you cannot when your fleet size is a few thousand cars. You do need more flexibility at unit level when you have a small fleet and no guarantee that you will be able to do fleet replacement in any reasonable manner and time. When you can barely add even a hundred cars a year, and usually many fewer as replacement and growth, that is a very different ballgame from one where you add 5,000 cars per year.

TAFN. Maybe more later if I can marshal additional thoughts in a presentable form.


----------



## frequentflyer (May 10, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > And yet the Acelas are the most successful service that is offered by Amtrak!
> ...




Very informative post and I share one of your concerns, namely what happens when a DMU meets a truck at a crossing. but.........

1. Wrong, the Acela customer pays the premium because of the equipment Riding in well maintained Acela is a different experience than Amfleet with a Metorliner decal stuck on the side, even if its only 5-10 minutes difference in time between Metro and Acela. And you are right Amtrak did not make the Acela long enough because even they were surprised by its success. You do need "fu fu" to charge higher prices than Metroliner, wreck what was a cash cow for airlines, the "Shuttle", and become the defacto standard for traveling between WAS-NYC.

2. Regarding DMUs, railroads that have higher operating standards than Amtrak run DMUs everyday with excellent reliability. It doesn't matter how bad the SPV2000 , French or Rohr Turboliners or the RDC sucked. We are so many generations beyond that equipment its not even worth mentioning.

We can consult and buy imitation equipment from the Europeans for Acela IIs, but think their equipment is backwards for corridor trains?

3. Will having DMUs require a change of SOPs for mx, Yes, Will they be any less reliable, if the rest of the world is any guide, No. Its been 40 years since the," F40 and four Amfleets makes a corridor train" manual has been used, maybe its time to throw it away. There may be....., just may be a better and more efficient way to run a corridor train with different equipment.


----------



## frequentflyer (May 10, 2018)

@JIS,

You nailed it when stating we are not sure what Anderson's definition of DMUs are. Didn't he state the RFP will be out around July? Hopefully around that time we will have a framework of how or why CEO Anderson thinks DMUs will be be operationally and financially beneficial to Amtrak.

But lets say for the sake of argument, how trans formative such an order would be to Amtrak. The NEC and all short corridors will be a different experience. The argument regarding capacity would be a moot point in the NEC, since if necessary Amtrak could order bilevel EMUs for the NEC or double head them (the whole train need not need stop at the platform). Amtrak's oldest and largest fleet of cars will have been replaced along with the need to replace the majority of the 220 or so Genesis.

As regards LD equipment, well apparently Amtrak is paying for the DMUs with its own money. Amtrak would be willing to pony up for replacement of LD equipment if congress pays for it. I mean with a bump in funding as Amtrak received this year. Congress love "job creating" programs as Schumer has proven with the VII order.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (May 10, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> Very informative post and I share one of your concerns, namely what happens when a DMU meets a truck at a crossing. but.........
> 
> 1. Wrong, the Acela customer pays the premium because of the equipment Riding in well maintained Acela is a different experience than Amfleet with a Metorliner decal stuck on the side, even if its only 5-10 minutes difference in time between Metro and Acela. And you are right Amtrak did not make the Acela long enough because even they were surprised by its success. You do need "fu fu" to charge higher prices than Metroliner, wreck what was a cash cow for airlines, the "Shuttle", and become the defacto standard for traveling between WAS-NYC.


This is funny, Allow me to PROVE how incorrect you are. Passengers paid the same premium for YEARS prior to the Acela. Indeed, if the Acela didn't exist, they'd STILL pay the the premium for Metroliner....just as they did before. When they BENCHED the Acelas, Amtrak brought back the Metroliners and targeted the passengers with a nice little slogan: "They're baaaack!" like it was some big deal. Guess what? The people paid! If it fit, we could probably bring a Talgo train to the NEC, call it an Acela and people would board it and pay!

If you need further proof, look no further than the much criticized cash cow, BUSINESS CLASS!

I've seen business class damn near sold out on NEC trains that have plenty of space. But, it has a fancy name and people will pay premium. What is the REAL difference between a standard, corridor business class and coach? A little more leg room, curtains and two sodas!! This is a far cry from what it USED to mean. It was formally known as Custom Class and you had unlimited soda, a coffee/tea section in your own car, more legroom, curtains, your own attendant, a newspaper and most importantly, guaranteed seating. You see, prior to custom/business class, the only way to avoid possible standing room conditions was First Class (which included meals and the split club/full club seating) or custom/business class.

Little by little, they've stripped every advantage away from the standard business class experience, yet people still pay the "premium price for it". It is no wonder that someone said "Let's see if we can get away with this on the Long Distance trains!!"

So, as I said, FU-FU is not needed and hasn't really been provided for years. Look at how bare bones the Acela experience is. Where are the newspapers? Where are the videos? What happened to the "fresh bagels"? What happened to the "fresh bistro" experience with "beer on tap?" All of that stuff disappeared and people pay. You skip a few stops (which the Metroliners managed to make and maintain 2:59 NYP-WAS schedule) As for well maintained, I'll forgive you for not knowing often these things break down, cancelled or short turned to make service. However, I won't forgive you for not knowing this thread from last month




: What happened to Acela?.

They are not aging well, not performing well, and they are half the age of most of the rest of th equipment in the fleet. Yet, with less miles, less wear and tear and less as well as less responsibility (you've never seen Acela power cars pulling a work train or the circus train on their days off) , are being retired in a few years. I'll bet the Amfleets, Cab Cars (from the 60's), and Superliners wish they could go soon!



frequentflyer said:


> 2. Regarding DMUs, railroads that have higher operating standards than Amtrak run DMUs everyday with excellent reliability. It doesn't matter how bad the SPV2000 , French or Rohr Turboliners or the RDC sucked. We are so many generations beyond that equipment its not even worth mentioning.
> 
> We can consult and buy imitation equipment from the Europeans for Acela IIs, but think their equipment is backwards for corridor trains?
> 
> 3. Will having DMUs require a change of SOPs for mx, Yes, Will they be any less reliable, if the rest of the world is any guide, No. Its been 40 years since the," F40 and four Amfleets makes a corridor train" manual has been used, maybe its time to throw it away. There may be....., just may be a better and more efficient way to run a corridor train with different equipment.


I'll wrap this up by tying these two together. You are talking about corridor service in a long distance thread. I'm speak from an operational SYSTEM perspective because the purchases that are made under this regime may have to last DECADES. What if the next CEO has a different definition of corridor? What IS a corridor and how will they be managed in the future? Look at how many extensions there have been in the last twenty years. The difference between the BOS-NFK being classified as a Short Distance intercity train instead of a Long Distance Intercity train (and their associated regulations/inspections) is a scant 12 miles...and that is between RVR-NFK. Let's not forget, operationally (inspections etc) the Pennsylvanian and the Vermonter are not considered Short Distance Intercity trains. They fall into Long Distance Intercity Trains. Additionally, look at the video I posted above. What if the next CEO says "bring on ALL charters" and wants to mix and mingle? A standard locomotive/coach consist is can go most places and can be handles by most facilities. We can mix Amfleets with Superliners, Cab cars with horizons and drill NJT/MARC cars into out equipment. Additionally, we can borrow VIA equipment.

That sort of flexibility should not be overlooked.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (May 10, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> @JIS,
> 
> You nailed it when stating we are not sure what Anderson's definition of DMUs are. Didn't he state the RFP will be out around July? Hopefully around that time we will have a framework of how or why CEO Anderson thinks DMUs will be be operationally and financially beneficial to Amtrak.
> 
> ...



I'll tackle Jis's post with yours. Indeed, until a RFI appears, we won't know exactly what we're dealing. However, I've BEEN on the calls and heard with my own ears that locomotive hauled equipment will not appeal to modern thinking millennials and how we need something futuristic and modern to appeal to them for the long term. Granted, I lost focus when he said that these fixed vehicles would have an engine on both ends so you could" drive them from either end." When he said "drive them from both ends," I lost about two minutes of his dialogue because I wasn't alone and side banter occurred when he said "drive them from either end."

That being said, I give him leeway since as I've mentioned before, I've noticed that how he articulates something doesn't necessarily mean it how it will turn out. His railroad terminology and understanding is unrefined so you have to wait for the follow up since he tends to shoot from the hips...which I like. However, as I've stated many times: Summer is just around the corner. Answers should start appearing, hopefully in the not too distant future.

I will bring this back to what I previously stated. The equipment he has mentioned would need waivers or a change in regulations to operate. If that is the case and there is no additional change in regulations for calendar day inspections, locomotive inspections, etc, then efficiency and the DMUs don't even belong in the same sentence.


----------



## jis (May 10, 2018)

I don't think a run of the mill modern thinking (or even not so modern thinking coming to think of it) millennial (or X or Y or Boomers or the Great gen for that matter) know the difference between a locomotive a cab car and a trailer anyway, so that is a completely ridiculous reason for doing anything. I tried to categorize the complexities of the issues and what considerations need to go into the decision making process. Millennial or any other customers would be interested in the appointment of the interior, the noise level, smoothness of ride, AC working adequately, clearly understandable annunciators and announcements, not falling through gaps between platform and train, clean toilets and such mundane matters. They could not tell a power car in the consist vs a trailer if both came and sat beside them and had a long chat with them.


----------



## keelhauled (May 10, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> I'll tackle Jis's post with yours. Indeed, until a RFI appears, we won't know exactly what we're dealing. However, I've BEEN on the calls and heard with my own ears that locomotive hauled equipment will not appeal to modern thinking millennials and how we need something futuristic and modern to appeal to them for the long term. Granted, I lost focus when he said that these fixed vehicles would have an engine on both ends so you could" drive them from either end." When he said "drive them from both ends," I lost about two minutes of his dialogue because I wasn't alone and side banter occurred when he said "drive them from either end."


Speaking as a millennial, and strictly using that to mean "born in the 80s or 90s," what appeals to me is the product provided--the on board services, the schedule, the reliability, the price, etc. *How* that is provided is immaterial--and that doesn't stop at within Amtrak, I'm perfectly willing to travel by bus or air if I see better value. So if multiple units can enhance the product in some way, say if they are more efficient and decrease prices marginally (<he said with hopeless optimism>), I'm all for it. But the equipment in and of itself makes no difference, and it's not what any passenger sees except for two minutes max as they're on the platform, and of those how many care? If the train shows up half an hour late, NO ONE, from millennials to the infirm, is going to give a damn whether it was a locomotive and conventional equipment, multiple units, maglev, dragon hauled chariot or anything. Service is what sells, and providing reliable service has to be the priority. I don't think I'm in the minority in saying that.

What address can I send my consulting invoice to?


----------



## chrsjrcj (May 10, 2018)

I'm not familiar with Anderson's tenure at Delta (although I've taken multiple flights with Delta over the last decade), but did he make any fleet acquisitions based off what he thought millennials (I too classify as one) wanted? In reality, I prefer JetBlue over Delta and I know other friends in my group do too, and it's not because they like the Airbus over a Boeing. JetBlue flights have free WiFi, movies and live TV, leg room equivalent to Delta's ComfortPlus seats, and arguably better snacks.


----------



## CAQuail (May 11, 2018)

Having worked in the airline/airport business for the last 15 years, I can honestly say that 99% of passengers couldn't tell a 747 from a Piper Cub. Heck most passengers couldn't tell what type of plane they are on without looking at the safety card. As for Anderson's tenure at Northwest and Delta, at both airlines he used a strategy of buying used airplanes or refurbishing existing fleet. At Northwest in the early 90s they acquired DC-10-30s to expand international flying and refurbished the DC-9 fleet instead of buying new aircraft. At Delta they acquired basically every MD-90 they could get their hands on and picked up AirTran's 717 fleet when Southwest took them over. So it is safe to say that when it comes to equipment purchases he is driven more by numbers than by image.


----------



## cpotisch (May 11, 2018)

chrsjrcj said:


> I'm not familiar with Anderson's tenure at Delta (although I've taken multiple flights with Delta over the last decade), but did he make any fleet acquisitions based off what he thought millennials (I too classify as one) wanted? In reality, I prefer JetBlue over Delta and I know other friends in my group do too, and it's not because they like the Airbus over a Boeing. JetBlue flights have free WiFi, movies and live TV, leg room equivalent to Delta's ComfortPlus seats, and arguably better snacks.


Yes! jetBlue is WAY better than Delta, American, or United. It's almost always the cheapest option for me, and just does pretty much everything better. But despite the free and fast WiFi, the movies, legroom, snacks, and low prices, which arguably haven't degraded at all over the years, they are still a thriving airline. Having such a great and consistent product guarantees people like my family flying and buying.

Amtrak, on the other hand, in recent years has done just the opposite. Prices have risen, a wide variety of amenities have been dropped, and the product is anything but consistent (there are at least 10 different types of "Business Class"). This alienates new customers, frustrates old customers, and makes Amtrak that much less credible when asking Congress for funding. The course we're on is not a good one.


----------



## keelhauled (May 11, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Amtrak, on the other hand, in recent years has done just the opposite. Prices have risen, a wide variety of amenities have been dropped, and the product is anything but consistent (there are at least 10 different types of "Business Class"). This alienates new customers, frustrates old customers, and makes Amtrak that much less credible when asking Congress for funding. The course we're on is not a good one.


And yet ridership and revenue continue to hit record highs.


----------



## cpotisch (May 11, 2018)

keelhauled said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak, on the other hand, in recent years has done just the opposite. Prices have risen, a wide variety of amenities have been dropped, and the product is anything but consistent (there are at least 10 different types of "Business Class"). This alienates new customers, frustrates old customers, and makes Amtrak that much less credible when asking Congress for funding. The course we're on is not a good one.
> ...


Yes, but that doesn't mean this sustainable. Someone can start a marathon with a sprint, and take the lead, but it doesn't take long before they run out of energy and slow to a crawl.


----------



## 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 Grant Request

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


----------



## frequentflyer (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
> 
> ...


I wander if Anderson had a hand in this 5 year plan.

Under the Long Distance Train chapter.

p.69 • Last bullet point- Acquire new and Improve existing fleet.

Notice this tidbit about LD trains in "Mr. Anderson's" Fiscal report and Grant request- Page 31

*Why Do We Want/Need to Fund the Program at the Requested Level? Long Distance and State Supported trains are a critical part of Amtrak’s intercity passenger rail network. Capital projects designed to support the National Network are a vital component of a safe and efficient operation. These projects will help to improve the integration and efficiency of the business, and ensure that Amtrak continues to offer a safe, efficient, and effective train operation on its national system that fulfills customer expectations. A frequently overlooked aspect of Amtrak Long Distance trains is that under the current cost allocation scheme, a significant portion of the costs associated with these trains are fixed costs driven by the operation of the whole network. Should the Long Distance trains be eliminated en masse or without sufficient time for planning and adjustments to Amtrak’s cost structure, those fixed costs would remain and would then be spread to the remaining NEC and State Supported routes. Thus, the shutdown of Long Distance train service would save less than might be imagined while imposing significant burdens on to the remaining routes.*

Now back to our regularly scheduled posts......." Anderson is devil"......"Anderson has to go"........"Anderson is trying to kill LD trains".


----------



## jis (May 11, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > To provide some context on where Anderson may be coming from:
> ...


Since the Introductory sections contains blurb about DMUs and DEMUs and a paragraph that is almost verbatim of what he has been saying everywhere about equipment acquisition, I suspect that even if he has not had a hand in putting it together he certainly buys into significant parts of it as his own.


----------



## railiner (May 11, 2018)

Wow...wonder what it cost just to produce those documents....


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 11, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> Now back to our regularly scheduled posts......." Anderson is devil"......"Anderson has to go"........"Anderson is trying to kill LD trains".


Anderson is the devil? Does shoving words in other people's mouths make you feel better about your own position? You've already admitted that you believe some LD routes are likely to be abandoned in the near future. You've also stated that you're perfectly fine with that, but not everyone feels the same way. Your quote isn't attributed to any specific person and doesn't define what qualifies as Long Distance or explain how much the National Network can be cut back before it ceases to accomplish it's intended purpose. Thus, it is more akin to hoping for happenstance rather than planning for a strong policy.


----------



## Ryan (May 11, 2018)

He's been called the devil and much worse in the scores of posts on Facebook.


----------



## Lonestar648 (May 11, 2018)

keelhauled said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak, on the other hand, in recent years has done just the opposite. Prices have risen, a wide variety of amenities have been dropped, and the product is anything but consistent (there are at least 10 different types of "Business Class"). This alienates new customers, frustrates old customers, and makes Amtrak that much less credible when asking Congress for funding. The course we're on is not a good one.
> ...


I wonder what the ridership and revenue would be had the amenities been kept and maybe expanded.


----------



## ainamkartma (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
> 
> ...


Thanks for posting these.

It's interesting, that given the recent intense focus on F&B profitability, the Service Line Plans document does not include numbers for F&B expenditures.

One can extract some numbers, though, from the text on page 68. For the long distance trains, in FY17, the F&B revenue was 69.7 M. All on board service costs were 122.3 M. So for F&B to be running at a loss, more than 69.7/122.3 = 57% of all on board service costs must be allocated to F&B. I guess that's remotely possible, but it does seem to strain the bounds of credibility. Is actual data on this topic available anywhere?

I wonder if Hampton Inn or other hospitality servicers that _give food away for free to their customers_ also insist that their F&B lines show a profit. It's hard to see how that's possible for a business like Hampton Inn that presumably has zero F&B revenue.

Ainamkartma


----------



## bretton88 (May 11, 2018)

ainamkartma said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > To provide some context on where Anderson may be coming from:
> ...


Hampton Inn also doesn't have a law that requires no losses on F&B services, so they can use it as a loss leader (as as been done for ages on railroads). I can believe the 57% number as a ballpark number especially since dining car staff is almost half the OBS staff on the train.


----------



## Lonestar648 (May 11, 2018)

The Hampton builds the F&B costs into the overhead, thus it is part of the room cost. Now others like HGI, charge for Breakfast, but give it away to to special members, special groups as part of their package, so do they break even with breakfast? We don't know, but we do know that breakfast is a critical offering in attracting business paid or free.


----------



## bretton88 (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
> 
> ...


That 5 year plan sounds exactly what i expect from Anderson. A renewed focus on the product, especially fixing Amtrak's customer service issues.


----------



## jis (May 11, 2018)

Ryan said:


> He's been called the devil and much worse in the scores of posts on Facebook.


Actually, I have read all those three phrases verbatim multiple time. I have absolutely no idea what DA is complaining about.


----------



## tricia (May 11, 2018)

Ryan said:


> He's been called the devil and much worse in the scores of posts on Facebook.


Um, this isn't Facebook. Maybe you're angry at the wrong people.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (May 11, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


> p.69 • Last bullet point- Acquire new and Improve existing fleet.
> 
> Notice this tidbit about LD trains in "Mr. Anderson's" Fiscal report and Grant request- Page 31
> 
> ...



While I keep stating that summer is on its way and we should have better answers, I do note that you overlooked a few key differences between the 2017-2021 plan performed by the previous regime vs the 2019-2023 plan by the current regime:

Notably, this blurb from the 2017 plan:



> *Amtrak’s long distance routes are the backbone*
> 
> *of our national rail system. They provide the only*
> 
> ...


indeed. they see a lot of additional opportunity:



> STRATEGIC ISSUES
> 
> Network Expansion
> 
> ...



Now, let's look at a key difference between the two plans. While both call for better usage and optimization of equipment, the Long Distance Plan from the 2019-2023 plan states:



> *Strategic Network Adjustments and Service Model Evaluation*
> 
> * *
> 
> *Given changing markets and demographics, host railroad challenges, and other factors, the long-term viability of the LDSL and its and its various routes may depend on strategic adjustments to its current structure. The LDSL will evaluate these opportunities to improve Long Distance routes for the National Network, **while seeking to serve ** through various means the current service territories**. Any network adjustments would also impact fleet allocation and acquisition needs.*






> Service Model Evaluation
> 
> *The changing national landscape and market for long distance travel means Amtrak must evaluate the long distance business and service model. The LDSL must determine the most appropriate service model for its customer base while remaining focused on cost discipline and efficiency. The LDSL will comprehensively assess its product offering, including markets, frequencies, timing and incremental costs of servicing a diverse customer base*.





> Increase Productivity and Accountability
> 
> Once the service model evaluation is complete, the LDSL will define its operating model and identify core business processes required to deliver long distance rail service through a matrixed organization.


<snip>

Not necessarily doomsday material, but hardly a ringing endorsement. Additionally, while the goals may seem laudable, there is isn't a commitment to rail. "Through various means" may mean reroutes with thruway connections. It may mean corridor trains with connecting buses or planes between sets. it is too early to tell, having listened to his comments about corridor service being the way, and we should concentrate on the revenue producing stations, I have reservations. This is particularly true when the demographics for the LDSL indicate that most people are using it for recreation and one of his top aides stated that the taxpayers shouldn't subsidize vacations.

The aforementioned evaluations are allegedly being performed right now, which is why I keep saying Summer is coming. That is when the reports were due. However,it states 2019 in the published FY plan. Additionally, record level funding was made to the LD network, prior to this plan. Perhaps that will show them that the LD network is more than the some of a few corridors.

We'll see.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 11, 2018)

jis said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > He's been called the devil and much worse in the scores of posts on Facebook.
> ...


Either quote someone calling Anderson the devil here on AU or drop this silly straw man charade.


----------



## frequentflyer (May 11, 2018)

_*Not necessarily doomsday material, but hardly a ringing endorsement. Additionally, while the goals may seem laudable, there is isn't a commitment to rail. "Through various means" may mean reroutes with thruway connections. It may mean corridor trains with connecting buses or planes between sets. it is too early to tell, having listened to his comments about corridor service being the way, and we should concentrate on the revenue producing stations, I have reservations. This is particularly true when the demographics for the LDSL indicate that most people are using it for recreation and one of his top aides stated that the taxpayers shouldn't subsidize vacations.*_

_*The aforementioned evaluations are allegedly being performed right now, which is why I keep saying Summer is coming. That is when the reports were due. However,it states 2019 in the published FY plan. Additionally, record level funding was made to the LD network, prior to this plan. Perhaps that will show them that the LD network is more than the some of a few corridors.*_

@Thirdrail, no not a ringing endorsement for LDs but also per his 5 year plan an acknowledgment that if all the LD trains are killed it will cost more and create an accounting nightmare. So we get what is presently happening. Cutting back on the high cost items of a LD train, food, certain amenities and station staff. It's not popular but apparently effects the bottom line for the positive. A year from now, I doubt we will see a drop in CL and LSL pax numbers.

@Devil's Advocate, I'm a realist, with Anderson's looking at the bottom line its a given that certain LD trains are on the chopping block. Not hard to SL Ltd, and Card are the LD trains in danger, how many years have these trains been in trouble. Is it good to the cities that will be missing service, of course not. But it may be advantageous to the company as a whole freeing up inventory that could to be used to bolster other LD trains. Since I am not seeing a new LD equipment order for a long time, unless a congressman wants another job works program for his district and finds money to pay for it. IMO, that's just reality.

In regards the SWC being cancelled, not seeing it. I wander Amtrak withholding matching money was a signal from Anderson to move the SWC to the main line through Clovis, so Amtrak would not be on the hook for upkeep on the present line.


----------



## jis (May 11, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> <snip>
> 
> Not necessarily doomsday material, but hardly a ringing endorsement. Additionally, while the goals may seem laudable, there is isn't a commitment to rail. "Through various means" may mean reroutes with thruway connections. It may mean corridor trains with connecting buses or planes between sets. it is too early to tell, having listened to his comments about corridor service being the way, and we should concentrate on the revenue producing stations, I have reservations. This is particularly true when the demographics for the LDSL indicate that most people are using it for recreation and one of his top aides stated that the taxpayers shouldn't subsidize vacations.
> 
> ...


Thirdrail, what bugs me is the use of some of the unconstrained phrases while alluding to "optimization" of service. I think the sections that you have excerpted are precisely the ones that had me raise at least one eyebrow. But as you say, we'll see. I think also when we start seeing whiffs of the equipment plan details that are allegedly under development, that will give some more (or less) confidence in whether things are headed in an OK direction or not. This wait and see though is just killing me.


----------



## Ryan (May 11, 2018)

tricia said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > He's been called the devil and much worse in the scores of posts on Facebook.
> ...


I'm not angry at anyone, and the original claim wasn't limited to this site.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 11, 2018)

Ryan said:


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


He says "back to our regularly scheduled posts" which sounds like it refers to comments here on AU. He never says "as seen at various times on random unnamed and unlinked places on the wider Internet."


----------



## keelhauled (May 11, 2018)

jis said:


> Actually, I have read all those three phrases verbatim multiple time. I have absolutely no idea what DA is complaining about.


Speak of the devil...is that a bad choice of words?


----------



## Ryan (May 11, 2018)

He didn't say "devil", so it doesn't count.


----------



## frequentflyer (May 12, 2018)

This was posted on another railfan site, apparently the DMU idea for Amtrak is nothing new. Mr. Anderson seems to dusted off some old Amtrak business plans.

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/DMU%20Passenger%20Rail%20Cars/dmu-reqdoc-ir.pdf


----------



## frequentflyer (May 12, 2018)

Go 45 minutes into interview (though whole video is informative) and Anderson speaks of Superliner 1 and 2 replacement or refurbish. Did not know per the video Amfleet IIs are being refurbished too.


----------



## cpotisch (May 13, 2018)

frequentflyer said:


>


4:56 "I don't know the answers". Never a truer word has been spoken.


----------

