# Richard Anderson replacing Wick Moorman as Amtrak CEO



## jis

According to this Politico article:

http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2017/06/26/amid-penn-station-meltdown-amtrak-gets-a-new-ceo-113037



> Amtrak CEO Wick Moorman is stepping down at the end of the year, and will be replaced by former Delta CEO Richard Anderson, according to knowledgeable sources and confirmed Monday by Amtrak.
> 
> The two men will serve as co-CEOs until the end of December.
> 
> Anderson, a 62-year-old former prosecutor from Texas, rose through the ranks of the airline industry to become CEO of Delta in 2007, just as it was leaving bankruptcy. He has a reputation as an iconoclast within the airline industry and is credited with transforming the airline into one of the world's most profitable.


----------



## Lonestar648

Looks like Wick will not be making any major decisions, since he is in effect a lame duck now.


----------



## the_traveler

Now if they could only get from Delta SkyMiles as the next Amtrak CEO a guy named Anthony R!


----------



## jis

Well, we knew Anothony has some influence. But WOW!


----------



## Shawn Ryu

Richard Anderson has done well with Delta but Delta is a for profit company.


----------



## jis

Shawn Ryu said:


> Richard Anderson has done well with Delta but Delta is a for profit company.


As is Amtrak supposed to be according to its Charter, No? 

But the bottom line is, if he is a good hands on executive who can get things done, and is guided by Wick for at least six months and a bit beyond that, the situation would appear to be overall positive IMHO.

We knew Wick was going to leave after a year or so. So it was not a question of when we will get someone else, but who we will get. And I could think of many worse choices and only a very few better ones, who I understand are not available anyway.


----------



## jis

https://media.amtrak.com/2017/06/amtrak-names-transportation-veteran-richard-anderson-president-ceo/



> “It is an honor to join Amtrak at a time when passenger rail service is growing in importance in America. I look forward to working alongside Amtrak’s dedicated employees to continue the improvements begun by Wick,” said Anderson. “Amtrak is a great company today, and I’m excited about using my experience and working with the board to make it even better. I’m passionate about building strong businesses that create the best travel experience possible for customers.”


----------



## Eric S

Moorman had said all along that he'd only be with Amtrak for a short period of time.

Interesting choice in Anderson. I don't follow the airline industry closely enough to know anything about him or what happened at Delta during his time there. Maybe some of our resident airline industry experts can chime in with any observations.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

I was hoping Wick's ties to NS could help with relations/negotiations between NS and Amtrak (getting new service at reasonable costs). Oh well, back to the drawing board.


----------



## Ryan

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I was hoping Wick's ties to NS could help with relations/negotiations between NS and Amtrak (getting new service at reasonable costs). Oh well, back to the drawing board.


And on that front, nothing has changed. He was never going to be here that long, so what he was going to accomplish this year is what he is going to accomplish this year.

He's also staying on as an advisor, so not really back to the drawing board...


----------



## Bob Dylan

As was said,Amtrak could have done alot worse and having time with Wick will benefit the new CEO for sure.

The idea that Anthony might come back to Amtrak is a wish that hopefully could come true for us, but knowing Washington and Anthony it probably won't happen.( Anthony is a Very Smart guy!)

Let's hope we get a decent budget for the next Fiscal year and that Wick can continue to appoint good people and implement beneficial policies during the rest of his tenure. Stay tuned!


----------



## A Voice

We always knew Wick Moorman's time at Amtrak would be brief, but I must admit being disappointed it will be this short. He inherited an awful mess left behind by Joe Boardman, and I fear he hasn't had a sufficient chance to fully right the ship.

I wish Richard Anderson the best and hope he is up to the challenge. Certainly Amtrak is a very different animal - and requires a rather different mindset - than managing an airline. Such a background could be a concern, but I know nothing about the man.


----------



## fairviewroad

The bad news is that we'll have to change trains in Atlanta every time we need to get anywhere. 

[though in all seriousness, more service to Atlanta would be a good thing...]


----------



## bretton88

I think this will be a good thing for Amtrak. He will emphasize customer service (Delta got much better at that) and a premium experience (Delta economy + and business class is excellent). Downside: how long before airline strict fees come to Amtrak?

To note: Moorman will be staying around after in "some capacity." That's probably to help handle the railroad side of things like negotiations with the freights.


----------



## jis

fairviewroad said:


> The bad news is that we'll have to change trains in Atlanta every time we need to get anywhere.
> 
> [though in all seriousness, more service to Atlanta would be a good thing...]


Well that came later. First it was change at Detroit. 

He started at Continental, then moved to Northwest, and then from there to Delta.  The constant factor in all of that was Skyteam, something that is the home of Anthony these days. 

BTW, his Dad worked for the Santa Fe Railroad, so he does have a railroad connection of sorts.


----------



## Bob Dylan

fairviewroad said:


> The bad news is that we'll have to change trains in Atlanta every time we need to get anywhere.
> 
> [though in all seriousness, more service to Atlanta would be a good thing...]


ROTFLMAO!!!!


----------



## saxman

I'm optimistic. Anderson really turned things around at Delta during the Northwest/Delta merger. Employee moral was down the tubes during what we call the lost airline decade of the 2000's, and it seems to be back on top again. He made a lot of customer service improvements such as modernization of aircraft interiors, bringing back better snacks, alcoholic beverages for domestic Comfort+ seating. The merger was probably the much smoother run of the Legacy carriers. Hopefully he does similar for Amtrak and realizes the importance of the LD network as well.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

fairviewroad said:


> The bad news is that we'll have to change trains in Atlanta every time we need to get anywhere.
> 
> [though in all seriousness, more service to Atlanta would be a good thing...]


Nah, I'm changing trains, I mean planes, in Minneapolis later this year. Atlanta is barely west of me and I'm trying to minimize my hours on any given flight on my cross country trip.


----------



## Dakota 400

I think this is good news. I consider Delta to be customer-oriented and does respond to individual customers (such as me) when a problem takes place. I even have had a response when I offered compliments for unusually good service.


----------



## neroden

I also know zilch about Anderson. Anyone with any info would be welcome.

There are a lot of similarities between the airline and railroad industries structurally. The big, big differences are:

-- the ability of trains to stop at multiple stations on a line, which is critically important to network design

-- the high cost of track infrastructure vs. relatively low cost of stations; whereas sky routes are free and airports are insanely expensive

-- the ability to lengthen trains

I'm not sure he'll understand these three points, but Moorman can probably explain them to him.


----------



## seat38a

Well, so this probably mean, many many more seats in coach. Devaluation of AGR points ala SkyPeso's. Forget new equipment, if what he did with the DC9's and MD90's are any indication, then he will buy up used railcars from around the world and refurbish with higher density seating. But good news for premium passengers since he increased food quality and choice for FC. Oh and may just buy a oil refinery so Amtrak can make their own diesel ala the Trainer Refinery for Jet A.


----------



## bretton88

To note, he was the Northwest CEO beforehand as well, which was a fine airline. The two things I think he will bring to the table are: improved rolling stock maintenance practices, and a more consistent business/first class product.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


----------



## jis

He was also Exec VP at United Healthcare between 2004 and 2007 between his CEO job at Northwest and Delta.

He started in the airline industry in 1987 at Continental and then moved to Northwest in 1990.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

When Boardman came aboard it was good news. When Boardman announced he was stepping down it was good news. When Moorman came aboard it was good news. Anderson replacing Moorman is good news. Anthony leaving was good news. Anthony coming back in the future would also be good news. With all this endless good news Amtrak must be in excellent shape by now.


----------



## jis

It's all relative. It is better news than possible worse news, and Amtrak is in better shape than possible worse shapes it could have been in 

Along the same lines it is worse news than possible better news that could have been and Amtrak is in worse shape than far better shape that it could have been in


----------



## PVD

Delta invested heavily in IT and passenger facility modernization. Delta tech ops (maintenance) has a decent reputation. They keep a very diverse fleet (including some pretty old suff) mix in decent shape.


----------



## JayPea

I have dealt with Delta (pun intended) and I have had universally rotten customer service. Bar none, the worst I have ever had in public transportation and perhaps anywhere else. That said, I hope Mr. Anderson can make a big difference with Amtrak and help Amtrak roll forward instead of the back and forth rut it seems to be in nowadays.


----------



## Dakota 400

bretton88 said:


> To note, he was the Northwest CEO beforehand as well, which was a fine airline. The two things I think he will bring to the table are: improved rolling stock maintenance practices, and a more consistent business/first class product.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk



Yes, that would be my expectation as well. Northwest was a good airline.


----------



## Dakota 400

JayPea said:


> I have dealt with Delta (pun intended) and I have had universally rotten customer service. Bar none, the worst I have ever had in public transportation and perhaps anywhere else. That said, I hope Mr. Anderson can make a big difference with Amtrak and help Amtrak roll forward instead of the back and forth rut it seems to be in nowadays.


JayPea,

As I previously posted, my customer service experience surely has been different from yours. From airport staff, aircraft crew, and PR people, I have been a pleased Delta customer and will fly with them this week once again.


----------



## MattW

I can't say I'm fond of an airline exec trying to run a railroad. Suffice to say, I am NOT optimistic.


----------



## A Voice

seat38a said:


> Well, so this probably mean, many many more seats in coach. Devaluation of AGR points ala SkyPeso's. Forget new equipment, if what he did with the DC9's and MD90's are any indication, then he will buy up used railcars from around the world and refurbish with higher density seating. But good news for premium passengers since he increased food quality and choice for FC. Oh and may just buy a oil refinery so Amtrak can make their own diesel ala the Trainer Refinery for Jet A.


I really don't think we can draw any parallels between aircraft acquisition at Delta and rolling stock needs at Amtrak. That's a bit like expecting him to purchase turbine powered locomotives rather than diesels, or replace dining car staff with additional coach attendants.

Style and approach of management, customer service standards, and ability to work with the freight railroads and varied federal and state government agencies - among other factors - are far more pertinent.



jis said:


> It's all relative. It is better news than possible worse news, and Amtrak is in better shape than possible worse shapes it could have been in
> 
> Along the same lines it is worse news than possible better news that could have been and Amtrak is in worse shape than far better shape that it could have been in


Are you running for political office and afraid to commit to a position?


----------



## jis

A Voice said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all relative. It is better news than possible worse news, and Amtrak is in better shape than possible worse shapes it could have been in
> 
> Along the same lines it is worse news than possible better news that could have been and Amtrak is in worse shape than far better shape that it could have been in
> 
> 
> 
> Are you running for political office and afraid to commit to a position?
Click to expand...

It is what it is. It really is not the best news. I could think of a couple of better choices, but probably not available, and it is far from the worst news. It is somewhere in the middle. ^_^


----------



## OlympianHiawatha

Does this mean complimentary Squirrel Brand Peanuts and Biscoff Cookies in the Coaches.....


----------



## Lonestar648

He is definitely experienced in talking to Congress, dealing with Labor Unions, having a limited amount of money when Delta was in trouble to make major improvements, understanding the importance of customer satisfaction to bringing a company to profitability, and that spending money is necessary to make money.


----------



## bretton88

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-26/amtrak-hires-delta-ex-ceo-anderson-to-oversee-passenger-railroad

Salary details are here, 3 years at zero pay with a possible 500k bonus each year from the amtrak board. So he definitely took the job because he wanted it, not because it was going to pay well. The other nice thing is the 3 year term means he won't be a super short term CEO. Lets see how the grind wears him down.


----------



## dlagrua

I don't understand this move. Do you call a plumber when you need an expert electrician? Airlines and train travel have little in common except that both are transportation. I say this airlines guy invites in the TSA and drives us all away. I refuse to be degraded and lowered to the level of an animal just to board any transportation means. TSA comes in full force and we will bail.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

dlagrua said:


> I don't understand this move. Do you call a plumber when you need an expert electrician? Airlines and train travel have little in common except that both are transportation. I say this airlines guy invites in the TSA and drives us all away. I refuse to be degraded and lowered to the level of an animal just to board any transportation means. TSA comes in full force and we will bail.


Yet another of your "no longer take Amtrak" posts and yet, I bet you'll be taking more trips on Amtrak.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato

I find it funny how many folks on here:

1) Seem to think that because someone worked for the airlines, that they would have no concept of the differences between air travel and rail travel, and therefore would try to run Amtrak the same as an airline

2) Believe that the CEO is personally involved in a lot of the decisions related to equipment configuration, frequent traveler program benefits, pricing and fees, etc.


----------



## JayPea

dlagrua said:


> I don't understand this move. Do you call a plumber when you need an expert electrician? Airlines and train travel have little in common except that both are transportation. I say this airlines guy invites in the TSA and drives us all away. I refuse to be degraded and lowered to the level of an animal just to board any transportation means. TSA comes in full force and we will bail.


All the more room for the rest of us. There is not one shred of evidence that Anderson will have anything to do with the TSA. I would be insulted about being compared to an animal because I fly but coming from you I am used to it and I know you don't care one bit about how insulting you come off sounding.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

JayPea said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand this move. Do you call a plumber when you need an expert electrician? Airlines and train travel have little in common except that both are transportation. I say this airlines guy invites in the TSA and drives us all away. I refuse to be degraded and lowered to the level of an animal just to board any transportation means. TSA comes in full force and we will bail.
> 
> 
> 
> All the more room for the rest of us. There is not one shred of evidence that Anderson will have anything to do with the TSA. I would be insulted about being compared to an animal because I fly but coming from you I am used to it and I know you don't care one bit about how insulting you come off sounding.
Click to expand...

Same here.


----------



## Ryan

Just another bogus conclusion based factually challenged ideas of how someone thinks the world works.

The "people on airplanes are unthinking bootlickers" but gets old too. Bonus points for being consistent, I guess.


----------



## Steve4031

I'll take a wait and see attitude.

If I understand correctly the most effective leaders at Amtrak were Gunn and Claytor, both railroad guys. Iirc some effective early leaders were also railroad guys.

Are there any non railroad leaders who were considered effective?

I do like the customer service emphasis. Anderson might have ways of improving it.


----------



## neroden

Devil's Advocate said:


> When Boardman came aboard it was good news. When Boardman announced he was stepping down it was good news. When Moorman came aboard it was good news. Anderson replacing Moorman is good news. Anthony leaving was good news. Anthony coming back in the future would also be good news. With all this endless good news Amtrak must be in excellent shape by now.


Well, compared to Hughes/Kummant/Crosbie in 2005-2008... yes. Amtrak is doing spectactularly well compared to its state in 2008. That's a pretty low bar though.


----------



## saxman

Hotblack Desiato said:


> I find it funny how many folks on here:
> 
> 1) Seem to think that because someone worked for the airlines, that they would have no concept of the differences between air travel and rail travel, and therefore would try to run Amtrak the same as an airline
> 
> 2) Believe that the CEO is personally involved in a lot of the decisions related to equipment configuration, frequent traveler program benefits, pricing and fees, etc.


I was thinking the exact same thing. Social media is going nuts over this news because somehow they think because he was an airline CEO he'll do the exact same things at Amtrak, such as more seats, charging for checked luggage, etc. Or the same crazy conspiracy theories that Trump appointed him to shut it down.


----------



## calwatch

Delta is operationally the best out of the major airlines in the US, but it took a long road to get there. http://www.ajc.com/business/delta-cuts-delays-boosts-revenue/6Xl7sSeKttbAskTWTQI53M/

If he can make the trains leave the gate on time, I don't care if AGR is gutted. The operational issues and delays need to stop.


----------



## dogbert617

calwatch said:


> Delta is operationally the best out of the major airlines in the US, but it took a long road to get there. http://www.ajc.com/business/delta-cuts-delays-boosts-revenue/6Xl7sSeKttbAskTWTQI53M/
> 
> If he can make the trains leave the gate on time, I don't care if AGR is gutted. The operational issues and delays need to stop.


I'd be surprised, if the Amtrak Guest Rewards program(assuming you meant that by AGR) was ever discontinued. But that's just me.

Little odd of a choice for someone to replace Moorman, but hopefully he does a good job. I'm intrigued seeing that AJC article, that showed while he was CEO that Delta had much improved on time performance. Maybe he'll do some good for Amtrak, who knows?


----------



## jis

Remember, in the wonderful Gunn times, NEC Regional trains were down to five and four cars, which of course was not really Gunn's fault. But either way, it naturally played havoc with revenues.

It was Kummant that hired Fremeaux who took it upon himself to push for restoring the Regionals to eight cars by getting the Kummant management team to reallocate funds to repair the cars that were parked at Wilmington and Bear.

Boardman started with things that were not falling apart and were already headed in the right direction. To his credit he built upon that base instead of destroying it one more time. To his debit he proceeded to neglect the PIPs completely and essentially saw to it that anything to do with improving LD service was nipped in the bud over and over again, and anyone involved in such nefarious activities left Amtrak - basically pushed out or laid off (remember Brian Rosenwald?). Which makes the fact that he also went and ordered the Viewliners a bit of an oddity, but perhaps fits the mold if keeping the system running as is, which was becoming impossible with the aging Heritage cars.

As for how Anderson will work out, only time will tell. Basically it is possible for non railroader to manage a railroad if he or she is a good manager. There have been many cases of excellent management of railroads in the world by someone who came in from the outside. Then again there have been many cases of a railroader who proved to be not so good as a manager too.

Amtrak is way more than just a railroad and its basic problem has been that it has been run too often as if all that mattered was running choo choo trains all over the place with relatively little concern for the experience of the customer riding them. Maybe Amtrak does need a customer service oriented person. My greatest concern is whether Andreson is really going to be able to address the Customer Service issues and inconsistencies which has dogged Amtrak. I am sure he can delegate the basic operation to a fine NS man that Moorman appointed to the Exec VP Operation post after removing Stadler from it - off to Finance or some such.


----------



## PRR 60

David Gunn was not really a railroad guy. He was a transit guy. At the time he came to Amtrak, he was 25 years removed from having worked for a railroad. Which brings me to my point: I would much rather have a person at the top of Amtrak who has actually run a for-profit, competitive passenger transportation business than yet another person who's résumé only has transit or government regulatory work - work in areas that have very little incentive to please customers.


----------



## lyke99

I don't believe the selection of Richard Anderson is the end of the world as some poster have said. Yes railroads and airlines are different, but they have some similarities as well. I think Anderson's experience will enhance the customer experience on Amtrak, which if we're honest, is inconsistent.

As a person who has traveled in sleeper cars on long distance and business class on regional services for many years I can tell you, there are great people out there and there are SCAs who you never see between boarding and detraining a day or two later. You also occasionally get the guy who wanted you to detrain in Williston, ND (WTN) rather than Winona, MN (WIN) because he couldn't read the faint print on his manifest, but was sure it was correct and the paper copy of my e-ticket was wrong...

Will we see not only a continuation of services, but growth under Anderson's leadership? I hope so. Will we see new equipment orders? I hope so. Will we see at least twice daily service on the long distance routes? I doubt it, but there is little to harm in dreaming...


----------



## Eric S

dlagrua said:


> I don't understand this move. Do you call a plumber when you need an expert electrician? Airlines and train travel have little in common except that both are transportation. I say this airlines guy invites in the TSA and drives us all away. I refuse to be degraded and lowered to the level of an animal just to board any transportation means. TSA comes in full force and *we* will bail.


Who does "we" refer to?

And why would you assume that someone from the airline industry would be thrilled with the way TSA operates?


----------



## mfastx

I think Amtrak should be run more like an airline, so I like it. However he needs to surround himself with people that know a lot about railroads to advise him on issues.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Hotblack Desiato said:


> I find it funny how many folks on here seem to think that because someone worked for the airlines, that they would have no concept of the differences between air travel and rail travel, and therefore would try to run Amtrak the same as an airline.


A large part of the appeal of taking Amtrak is based on it being substantially different from taking an airline. Although we have no way of knowing what any given airline CEO might do it's a relevant concern in my view. This forum has a way with repeatedly attacking or dismissing anything that doesn't fit the hive mind, but that doesn't change the fundamental legitimacy of the concern.



Hotblack Desiato said:


> I find it funny how many folks on here seem to believe that the CEO is personally involved in a lot of the decisions related to equipment configuration, frequent traveler program benefits, pricing and fees, etc.


 The CEO doesn't generally make a lot of low level decisions but he does select the people who will oversee these projects and narrow the options down for his approval.



saxman said:


> Social media is going nuts over this news because somehow they think because he was an airline CEO he'll do the exact same things at Amtrak, such as more seats, charging for checked luggage, etc. Or the same crazy conspiracy theories that Trump appointed him to shut it down.


Adding more seats and charging for checked luggage sound like perfectly reasonable concerns to me. This forum seems to have a bipolar relationship with Amtrak. First we rejoice over a man who will supposedly bring a focus on profitability to the organization and then in the next breath we dismiss the types of changes that someone focused on profitability might implement.



Eric S said:


> And why would you assume that someone from the airline industry would be thrilled with the way TSA operates?


The only continuing complaint I've heard from US airlines about the TSA is that they didn't want to pay for it. Put that burden on passengers and taxpayers and they seem to be perfectly fine with it. In fact the TSA helps create a situation from which US airlines indirectly benefit. For instance, passengers now have more delays and impediments to reaching the gate on time. As the delays get longer and the recovery window and penalties for missing a flight get harsher US airlines can charge more people higher fees. US airlines have also used premium security access to entice people to remain loyal or pay more for the privilege. Meanwhile non-US airlines are generally prevented from implementing similar schemes which creates an arbitrary imbalance. Over time the details and specifics have changed but US airlines are still looking for and finding ways to benefit from the ever increasing security state.



lyke99 said:


> I think Anderson's experience will enhance the customer experience on Amtrak, which if we're honest, is inconsistent.


Every time I hear the call for consistency I always wonder just what sort of consistency the poster expects to receive. US airline services have become amazing consistent over the years and yet I don't hear many people singing their praises or clamoring for more.


----------



## jis

mfastx said:


> I think Amtrak should be run more like an airline, so I like it. However he needs to surround himself with people that know a lot about railroads to advise him on issues.


I would watch for the following signals:

1. Getting rid of the current VP Operations would raise a red flag for me

2. Getting rid of the current VP Finance would be a green flag for me.

3. Stadler (Administration) and Gardner (Planning, Technology and Public Affairs) are possibly OK where they are.

4. I will be looking for some significant changes on the Customer Services side of the equation, currently under Jason Molfetas. If that does not happen I will be disappointed.

As I said earlier (and was joshed about it), I view this as a definite mixed bag. This could go very pear shaped, but there is a significant possibility that it won't and something good might come out of it.


----------



## A Voice

Devil's Advocate said:


> saxman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social media is going nuts over this news because somehow they think because he was an airline CEO he'll do the exact same things at Amtrak, such as more seats, charging for checked luggage, etc. Or the same crazy conspiracy theories that Trump appointed him to shut it down.
> 
> 
> 
> Adding more seats and charging for checked luggage sound like perfectly reasonable concerns to me. This forum seems to have a bipolar relationship with Amtrak. First we rejoice over a man who will bring a focus on profitability to the organization and then in the next breath we dismiss the very changes that might actually make Amtrak profitable.
Click to expand...

Amtrak - including the Northeast Corridor - is not profitable nor is that an achievable goal* (remember the "glide path to self sufficiency"?). While we have no reason to believe this is the case (some of the rampant speculation in this thread would be amsuing, were the posters not serious...) or that Anderson has such a mistaken concept, it is possible for the senseless pursuit of profitability to do a lot of damage to Amtrak. Again, note both Warrington's "glide path" and Boardman's elimination of food service losses; Both were guilty of telling Congress what they wanted to hear, when neither objective was ever actually possible, and both needlessly damaged Amtrak train service.

*Obviously, this does not necessarily preclude individual trains or service(s) from reaching a break-even point, on a short-term avoidable cost basis, or (as demonstrated) posting an "on paper" above-the-rail "profit" (which is a 'polite fiction').


----------



## Devil's Advocate

A Voice said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saxman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social media is going nuts over this news because somehow they think because he was an airline CEO he'll do the exact same things at Amtrak, such as more seats, charging for checked luggage, etc. Or the same crazy conspiracy theories that Trump appointed him to shut it down.
> 
> 
> 
> Adding more seats and charging for checked luggage sound like perfectly reasonable concerns to me. This forum seems to have a bipolar relationship with Amtrak. First we rejoice over a man who will bring a focus on profitability to the organization and then in the next breath we dismiss the very changes that might actually make Amtrak profitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amtrak - including the Northeast Corridor - is not profitable nor is that an achievable goal* (remember the "glide path to self sufficiency"?). While we have no reason to believe this is the case (some of the rampant speculation in this thread would be amsuing, were the posters not serious...) or that Anderson has such a mistaken concept, it is possible for the senseless pursuit of profitability to do a lot of damage to Amtrak. Again, note both Warrington's "glide path" and Boardman's elimination of food service losses; Both were guilty of telling Congress what they wanted to hear, when neither objective was ever actually possible, and both needlessly damaged Amtrak train service. *Obviously, this does not necessarily preclude individual trains or service(s) from reaching a break-even point, on a short-term avoidable cost basis, or (as demonstrated) posting an "on paper" above-the-rail "profit" (which is a 'polite fiction').
Click to expand...

I saw the poor wording and edited my post to remove the implication that conventional profitability was genuinely obtainable, at least in an objective and practical sense. Play with the numbers enough and you can probably make almost anything look profitable, including the notoriously unprofitable airline industry, but I agree that Amtrak is never going to reach such a status as currently constructed.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

I read this in my newspaper this morning and cried. 

Then I started to read between the lines and felt a bit better. The article I read (today's Newark Star Ledger, p. 2--can anyone find it and post it? I'm in the local library, which doesn't have it, and I can't find it online), if my short-term memory is not failing me, said that Anderson and Moorman would be co-CEOs til the end of the year, and Wick would stay on in an advisory capacity starting in January.

Mr. Moorman very graciously came out of retirement to help Amtrak out, then got NJ and NY commuters all riled up because he was there at the worst possible time, with the derailments, and actually dared to arrange to fix things that had been broken forever at Penn Station. In other words, "No good deed goes unpunished" and he was the one stuck with saying things were Amtrak's fault, when it had nothing to do with him personally.

I am hoping that he has simply had enough of being the fall guy and had input into who the next CEO would be, and that Anderson respects him enough to take his advice. A plus is that everyone seems to like and respect him, so the two hopefully will get on well.

Also, if Anderson has a focus on customer service, I've got a list I will send him the minute he takes over. I did not want to bother Wick with it, with everything else he was dealing with, but I don't mind sending it to the new guy. My list ranges from staffing stations again, to providing decent food in the cafe cars, to training every employee to have an attitude as good as the best ones (of which, to be fair, there are many).

And when he really completely retires, I hope Wick is planning to take his very patient wife on a round-the-world cruise  . (I have a feeling she probably won't want a long trip on a train at that point  .)


----------



## jis

when he took this job Moorman pretty much said that his wife had permitted him to take this on for a year. Well the year is almost up, and you know what happens when you displease your wife too much  That is a much bigger potential disaster than pesky little things like Penn Station and two egocentric gasbag Governors.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jis said:


> When he took this job Moorman pretty much said that his wife had permitted him to take this on for a year. Well the year is almost up, and you know what happens when you displease your wife too much. That is a much bigger potential disaster than pesky little things like Penn Station...





Trains.com said:


> "To my wifes absolute disgust...I agreed to take the job," Moorman says, noting that "disgust" probably was not a strong enough word.


She sounds lovely. Perhaps like Amtrak was doing him a favor by giving him a place to go when he'd had enough of the special overbearing snowflake at home.


----------



## jis

Boy, did you fall out of the bed on the wrong side today? Or is that just your normal state?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jis said:


> Boy, did you fall out of the bed on the wrong side today? Or is that just your normal state?


My normal state is to wonder how publicly humble-bragging that your spouse casually dominates your decision making became a thing.


----------



## jis

Devil's Advocate said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, did you fall out of the bed on the wrong side today? Or is that just your normal state?
> 
> 
> 
> My normal state is to wonder how publicly humble-bragging that your spouse casually dominates your decision making became a thing.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that it is an integral part of American culture, and has been that way from even before I came to this country for a brief visit back in 1965, and has not changed since then..


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Running a business is hard work, but it is not rocket science.

Most public facing businesses are roughly the same, and air travel and railroading particularly so. It is very simple: you must maintain equipment such to transport people from A to B in such a manner that they wish to be transported by you again while doing so for the best possible fair and at the lowest possible expenses to reach the primary goal of the passenger wishing to be transported again.

What a CEO does is develop broad strategy and manage the people who implement it. A good CEO hires good people. A bad CEO keeps idiots around but fires anyone who disagrees with them. Most CEOs these days are frankly bad.

What Amtrak needs are two things: more money, and better people. If Anderson is good as a CEO he will do that- and a lot indicates he is pretty good, although anybody involved with UHC scares me.

When I first read the name I was scared though. I hope he won't Macgyver anything....


----------



## Steve4031

jis said:


> Devil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, did you fall out of the bed on the wrong side today? Or is that just your normal state?
> 
> 
> 
> My normal state is to wonder how publicly humble-bragging that your spouse casually dominates your decision making became a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was under the impression that it is an integral part of American culture, and has been that way from even before I came to this country for a brief visit back in 1965, and has not changed since then..
Click to expand...

Every male in this country is not p#%^^y whipped. Just some.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I'm not sure why admitting that my wife has some say in decisions I make is anything wrong. Frankly if our decision making process and our goals and ideals were at such contretemps as to make the moderation of each other's decisione a burden, it's time to get divorced.


----------



## Steve4031

There's a difference between discussion and controlling. I'm all for a rational discussion where both people are treated with respect.


----------



## neroden

The key thing which I hope Anderson can get through his head is the economies of scale in railroading. Many of these are NOT present in the airline industry and it can lead to bad decisions.

(1) Longer trains. Huge economies of scale. No equivalent in airlines.

(2) More trains per day on the same route. Huge economies of scale. No equivalent in airlines.

If he doesn't understand these two points, he will completely and utterly screw it up. If Moorman manages to make these two economies of scale clear to Anderson he'll do fine.


----------



## jis

Green Maned Lion said:


> I'm not sure why admitting that my wife has some say in decisions I make is anything wrong. Frankly if our decision making process and our goals and ideals were at such contretemps as to make the moderation of each other's decisione a burden, it's time to get divorced.


That too. I agree. This holds true for married couples as well as others that are in a long term stable relationships. I will admit that I have made significant career decisions after consulting with my long term friend even though I am not married to her.


----------



## A Voice

Green Maned Lion said:


> What Amtrak needs are two things: more money, and better people. If Anderson is good as a CEO he will do that- and a lot indicates he is pretty good, although anybody involved with UHC scares me.
> 
> When I first read the name I was scared though. I hope he won't Macgyver anything....


He won't. But Colonel Carter will be consulting on development of replacement Amfleet trucks which float magnetically above the rails. Teal'c is in charge of new security procedures.


----------



## neroden

Sooooo I don't know if there's any way to formally communicate and stress the importance of those two economies of scale to Anderson. They are the things which non-railroaders most frequently screw up about railroads.


----------



## A Voice

neroden said:


> The key thing which I hope Anderson can get through his head is the economies of scale in railroading. Many of these are NOT present in the airline industry and it can lead to bad decisions.
> 
> (1) Longer trains. Huge economies of scale. No equivalent in airlines.
> 
> (2) More trains per day on the same route. Huge economies of scale. No equivalent in airlines.
> 
> If he doesn't understand these two points, he will completely and utterly screw it up. If Moorman manages to make these two economies of scale clear to Anderson he'll do fine.


Airlines certainly have more than one flight per day along the same route (between the same destinations); That's not only common but typical. What they lack is a comparable intermediate point business.


----------



## Chessie

neroden said:


> The key thing which I hope Anderson can get through his head is the economies of scale in railroading. Many of these are NOT present in the airline industry and it can lead to bad decisions.
> 
> (1) Longer trains. Huge economies of scale. No equivalent in airlines.
> 
> (2) More trains per day on the same route. Huge economies of scale. No equivalent in airlines.
> 
> If he doesn't understand these two points, he will completely and utterly screw it up. If Moorman manages to make these two economies of scale clear to Anderson he'll do fine.


1.) How about larger air craft? Does it have to do exponential fuel consumption which leads to less economy of scale in airline industry?

2.) I assume it means on the same tracks? Track usage vs maintenance cost?


----------



## Chessie

A Voice said:


> Airlines certainly have more than one flight per day along the same route (between the same destinations); That's not only common but typical. What they lack is a comparable intermediate point business.


I don't think it's common in US but I once took a flight in South America that made a few intermediate stops. The flight started out in Buenos Aires, made several short stops close by to pick additional passengers, and then a 3-hour flight to get down to the southern end of the country, Ushuaia.

Very interesting but I don't not think intermediate stop customers are their focus.


----------



## Dakota 400

For those who are understandably concerned about Mr. Anderson's lack of background in the railroad industry, I would like to offer this as food for thought.

Much concern among Carnival Corporation shareholders when Mr. Arnold Donald was named CEO of CCL. No cruise industry experience. Same angst was expressed when Mr. Orlando Ashford was appointed President of Holland America Line. He also had no cruise industry experience. CCL is thriving under Mr. Donald and HAL seems to be doing the same under Mr. Ashford. Have changes been made since the arrival of these gentlemen? Yes, some of which the "regulars" approve and some of which the "regulars" disapprove. It seems to be the newest idea in the selection of business leaders to choose those have been successful in other industry executive positions.

With Mr. Anderson's track record with Delta dealing its with financial and union issues, I am hopeful he will be able to improve Amtrak's services.


----------



## seat38a

Chessie said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key thing which I hope Anderson can get through his head is the economies of scale in railroading. Many of these are NOT present in the airline industry and it can lead to bad decisions.
> 
> (1) Longer trains. Huge economies of scale. No equivalent in airlines.
> 
> (2) More trains per day on the same route. Huge economies of scale. No equivalent in airlines.
> 
> If he doesn't understand these two points, he will completely and utterly screw it up. If Moorman manages to make these two economies of scale clear to Anderson he'll do fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.) How about larger air craft? Does it have to do exponential fuel consumption which leads to less economy of scale in airline industry?
> 
> 2.) I assume it means on the same tracks? Track usage vs maintenance cost?
Click to expand...

A stretched model has negligible increase in cost hence why the airlines are scrambling to buy the stretched model vs the base model.

737-700 not selling well 737-800 selling really well

A319 not selling well A320 selling really well

When you start getting into second and third stretch then you get into cost with extra FA etc. but a simple stretch does not cost much extra for burn too much more fuel but has lot more revenue opportunity. I can't find the Alaska Airline article from a while back that explained why they don't buy a 700 series anymore and buy the stretched versions only of the 737.


----------



## neroden

A Voice said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key thing which I hope Anderson can get through his head is the economies of scale in railroading. Many of these are NOT present in the airline industry and it can lead to bad decisions.
> 
> (1) Longer trains. Huge economies of scale. No equivalent in airlines.
> 
> (2) More trains per day on the same route. Huge economies of scale. No equivalent in airlines.
> 
> If he doesn't understand these two points, he will completely and utterly screw it up. If Moorman manages to make these two economies of scale clear to Anderson he'll do fine.
> 
> 
> 
> Airlines certainly have more than one flight per day along the same route (between the same destinations); That's not only common but typical. What they lack is a comparable intermediate point business.
Click to expand...

That's not my point. My point is that there are relatively few economies of scale in doing so. There is no "fixed cost of track maintenance" being defrayed as the airplanes go through the sky.
To put it another way, it's actually relatively effective to run a lot of flights in crisscrossing directions in a "network"; or in a "hub and spoke" mode; and that sort of thing doesn't work at all with trains. Ramping up the frequency of a single route doesn't work that great with airplanes, but works marvelously with trains.

And you're right that the ease of stopping at intermediate points is another difference between railroads and airplanes. It's also one which people sometimes fail to understand though less often than the other two.


----------



## neroden

seat38a said:


> A stretched model has negligible increase in cost hence why the airlines are scrambling to buy the stretched model vs the base model.


All right! so he'll understand the "longer train" thing. Good.  If he understands "more trains per day" having economies of scale, then he gets the business and we'll be OK.


----------



## neroden

Chessie said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key thing which I hope Anderson can get through his head is the economies of scale in railroading. Many of these are NOT present in the airline industry and it can lead to bad decisions.
> 
> (1) Longer trains. Huge economies of scale. No equivalent in airlines.
> 
> (2) More trains per day on the same route. Huge economies of scale. No equivalent in airlines.
> 
> If he doesn't understand these two points, he will completely and utterly screw it up. If Moorman manages to make these two economies of scale clear to Anderson he'll do fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.) How about larger air craft? Does it have to do exponential fuel consumption which leads to less economy of scale in airline industry?
> 
> 2.) I assume it means on the same tracks? Track usage vs maintenance cost?
Click to expand...

Yeah, #2, that's what I meant. Fixed costs of keeping the track & signals up to passenger standards.


----------



## bretton88

neroden said:


> seat38a said:
> 
> 
> 
> A stretched model has negligible increase in cost hence why the airlines are scrambling to buy the stretched model vs the base model.
> 
> 
> 
> All right! so he'll understand the "longer train" thing. Good.  If he understands "more trains per day" having economies of scale, then he gets the business and we'll be OK.
Click to expand...

To note Moorman will still be on until the end of the year and be a consultant after that. He will probably emphasize some of the things like the economy of scale to Anderson. The reason I like this hire is because he comes from a transportation background. Amtrak is a transportation company. His background shows that he cares about customer service and operations, both of which could use improvement at Amtrak (especially customer service). With a 3 year contract, I am sure he is empowered to make the changes he feels necessary.


----------



## railiner

MattW said:


> I can't say I'm fond of an airline exec trying to run a railroad. Suffice to say, I am NOT optimistic.


In the "every thing old, is new again" department........ :unsure:

http://www.nytimes.com/1971/05/01/archives/nominee-for-top-amtrak-post-roger-lewis.html


----------



## Trainmans daughter

My first thought was the same as GML. But then I saw the photo and realized this is not the same Richard Anderson. Too bad.....MacGyver would be great for Amtrak,and he's adorable, too.


----------



## neroden

Well, in most ways Roger Lewis is considered to have done a pretty good job at Amtrak. He made one absolutely catastrophic error -- asked by a member of Congress in a hearing, "what would you do with a billion dollars if we gave it to Amtrak", he said he wouldn't know what to do with it.

I am pretty sure Anderson won't make THAT mistake!


----------



## dlagrua

A point to consider is that Richard Anderson was the CEO of a for profit corporation. Amtrak is a totally different animal. When he discovers that Amtrak salaries account for about 75% of total revenue, jobs may be cut or lost.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

dlagrua said:


> A point to consider is that Richard Anderson was the CEO of a for profit corporation. Amtrak is a totally different animal. When he discovers that Amtrak salaries account for about 75% of total revenue, jobs may be cut or lost.


Citation


----------



## MikefromCrete

Devil's Advocate said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, did you fall out of the bed on the wrong side today? Or is that just your normal state?
> 
> 
> 
> My normal state is to wonder how publicly humble-bragging that your spouse casually dominates your decision making became a thing.
Click to expand...

Guess you've never been married, Devil.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

MikefromCrete said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, did you fall out of the bed on the wrong side today? Or is that just your normal state?
> 
> 
> 
> My normal state is to wonder how publicly humble-bragging that your spouse casually dominates your decision making became a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess you've never been married, Devil.
Click to expand...

Nope. Been asked but politely declined. I have no problem with longterm romantic cohabitation but I simply don't see the point in adding religious sanctioning and government bonding to a private relationship. Some people think that means I'm scared of committing my life to a potential nutcase, but from my perspective people who think like that are probably hiding an overactive fear of dying alone.


----------



## neroden

Perhaps unsurprising given my financial leanings, but I always viewed marriage as a legal and financial arrangement. For some it is advantageous; for others it is not. I've been in a committed relationship for, hmm, 19 years now, but marriage would have cost us over $15,000 per year, because it would kick her off of her health insurance! If it ever becomes profitable, we'll do it.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

Actually, the reason Mrs. Moorman was so annoyed was that she had asked her husband to promise to never take a full-time job again after retirement, and then he got persuaded/sucked into the Amtrak mess. And it turned out she was right--look at the horrible stuff he's had to deal with.

Now, with all due respect, can we please get back to how we can save Amtrak under a CEO from an airline and make him do the right thing (better customer service, keeping long-distance, etc.) and not do the wrong thing (killing Amtrak completely)? I know we all (myself among the worst culprits) tend to get side-tracked (and yes, I think I may have even started it without realizing what I was starting), but this subject is too important for us to lose our focus. Thanks, everyone....


----------



## neroden

If it's possible to make it clear to Anderson that:

-- running a second train on the Water Level Route would improve Amtrak's bottom line thanks to higher ridership and economies of scale

-- adding sleepers to the eastern trains would improve Amtrak's bottom line thanks to higher ridership and economies of scale

-- getting their own tracks from Porter to Chicago would massively improve Amtrak's *top* line by increasing on time performance

.... I think he can probably understand everything else, given his customer service history. Things like the above points are pecuilar to railroads, however, and don't apply to airlines.


----------



## jis

AmtrakBlue said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> 
> A point to consider is that Richard Anderson was the CEO of a for profit corporation. Amtrak is a totally different animal. When he discovers that Amtrak salaries account for about 75% of total revenue, jobs may be cut or lost.
> 
> 
> 
> Citation
Click to expand...

For FY16 AFAICT Total Revenue was $3.2406 million and Salaries, Wages and Benefits was $2.0876 million, making it 64.4% of Total Revenue, not 75%. Numbers used are the YTD numbers from the Summary Financial Results in the September 2016 Monthly Performance Report, Appendix 1 (Audited).

Jobs may be cut or lost or salaries and benefits may get revised downwards. Such stuff happens in the industry all the time. We went through a period of about ten years of flat or occasional declining salaries and several significant benefits reductions, and very significant work force readjustments (layoffs), a period that ended sometime around 2013-14. And darn it, through almost all of that period we were a profitable company, except for one quarter when a cost of a merger was written off.

And until someone manages to update 49 CFR 700.2 (requires an act of the Congress) to take out the phrase "for profit corporation", Amtrak by its charter continues to be a "for profit corporation". That it does not or cannot make a profit for various possibly legitimate reasons is a matter that is not included in its charter at present. Granted that Mr. Anderson will have a bit of a challenge, but then he has been there and done that in the airline industry. So that experience should be nothing new. Unfortunately the straitjacket environment in which Amtrak operates does not give him as many flexible options as he had in the airline industry to address the issue as swiftly as he could at Delta.

I don't think Anderson will have any problem understanding the points that neroden raises, specially with Moorman spending 6+ months explaining those and other railroad specific issue to him.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

I think Anderson understands economies of scale and Woody's motto "best cure for Amtrak is more Amtrak". as does Moorman and as did most of their predecessors too. The problem is Congress doesn't know this and doesn't give Amtrak the money to expand service to improve the bottom line (or they just don't care if Amtrak succeeds). In reality the best Amtrak CEO would be the one who can get the most $$$ out of Congress). Hopefully a little extra now and Amtrak won't need as much 5-10 years from now.


----------



## frequentflyer

The post stating having Amtrak hub in ATL is funny, I was just going through there yesterday.


----------



## Rover

This opinion was posted on another board, but I though it should be viewed.

aemoreira1981:
_I suspect that the real reason for this appointment might be his stance with unions. Under Richard Anderson at Northwest and Delta, the non-pilot and flight dispatcher employees were all successfully de-unionized following the merger of the highly-unionized Northwest with the mostly non-union Delta (Delta needed Northwest's Asia network, but for Delta's culture to predominate). Knowing that federal worker strikes are illegal under Taft-Hartley, I suspect that Anderson has a mandate to be a hard-liner with the unions._


----------



## Hotblack Desiato

neroden said:


> If it's possible to make it clear to Anderson that:
> 
> -- running a second train on the Water Level Route would improve Amtrak's bottom line thanks to higher ridership and economies of scale
> 
> -- adding sleepers to the eastern trains would improve Amtrak's bottom line thanks to higher ridership and economies of scale
> 
> -- getting their own tracks from Porter to Chicago would massively improve Amtrak's *top* line by increasing on time performance
> 
> .... I think he can probably understand everything else, given his customer service history. Things like the above points are pecuilar to railroads, however, and don't apply to airlines.





dlagrua said:


> A point to consider is that Richard Anderson was the CEO of a for profit corporation. Amtrak is a totally different animal. When he discovers that Amtrak salaries account for about 75% of total revenue, jobs may be cut or lost.


Jesus, do you folks really think Anderson is that much of an idiot, that he doesn't realize Amtrak is a railroad? That he hasn't taken a good look at Amtrak's finances and corporate structure before accepting the job?

It's not like he's some teenager that just applied for a job at McDonald's.

I'd be willing to bet that he knows more about the railroad industry than certain posters in this thread.


----------



## JoeBas

Hotblack Desiato said:


> I'd be willing to bet that he knows more about the railroad industry than certain posters in this thread.


YOU TAKE THAT BACK!!! *NO ONE* knows more about railroads than message board foamers!


----------



## A Voice

Hotblack Desiato said:


> I'd be willing to bet that he knows more about the railroad industry than certain posters in this thread.


That's not really a very high bar for him to have to reach, is it? Well said, regardless (but did you _have_ to take God's name in vain to do it?). .


----------



## MARC Rider

Rover said:


> This opinion was posted on another board, but I though it should be viewed.
> 
> aemoreira1981:
> 
> _I suspect that the real reason for this appointment might be his stance with unions. Under Richard Anderson at Northwest and Delta, the non-pilot and flight dispatcher employees were all successfully de-unionized following the merger of the highly-unionized Northwest with the mostly non-union Delta (Delta needed Northwest's Asia network, but for Delta's culture to predominate). Knowing that federal worker strikes are illegal under Taft-Hartley, I suspect that Anderson has a mandate to be a hard-liner with the unions._


I don't think Amtrak employees are Federal employees. Thus, if they want to strike, they can.

However, I'd like to know how Mr. Anderson managed to take a hard line with the workers and at the same time improve customer service at Delta. My last experience with this sort of thing was as a reluctant passenger on Frank Lorenzo's Continental Airlines in the 1980s. Sure, they de-unionized the lot, but the screwed-over workers took it out on us passengers. The only reason I flew Continental was because they had the government contract for the city pair that I was using at the time. When other airlines got the contract, I was a very happy traveler.

You might be right about why Mr. Anderson was chosen, but I don't think unions are really the problem that everybody thinks they are.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

I'm inclined to agree with those who are theorizing that hardline anti-union moves and benefit reductions is likely to be one of the primary goals of the new CEO.


----------



## jis

JoeBas said:


> Hotblack Desiato said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be willing to bet that he knows more about the railroad industry than certain posters in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU TAKE THAT BACK!!! *NO ONE* knows more about railroads than message board foamers!
Click to expand...

ROTFL! So true! So true! The sanctimonious they are the more they know  LOL!


----------



## Steve4031

One thing Anderson will have to address is what is or is not happening to equipment in chicago, New York, Washington and Miami. We all know that trains are sent out on the road with defective equipment. Is this a union issue with lazy workers, poor management of resources, or not enough equipment? Or a combination.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

frequentflyer said:


> The post stating having Amtrak hub in ATL is funny.


If you're going to Hell, you have to change planes in Atlanta.

Srsly, Anderson must know many important people in ATL who will take his call. He has to tell them how urgently ATL needs a new and much larger station, with an adequate waiting room and facilities, including ample parking for autos and especially buses (and a link to mass transit would be good, too). ATL needs a separate station track to get stopped Amtrak trains out of the way of the NS main line traffic; a way to turn the train around; and a way to split off for service to Macon-points south, to Chattanooga-points north, and to points west-Dallas-Ft Worth.

If Anderson can get spending started on the Amtrak Atlanta complex by the times he retires, he will join the pantheon.



Devil's Advocate said:


> I'm inclined to agree with those who are theorizing that hardline anti-union moves and benefit reductions is likely to be one of the primary goals of the new CEO.


Obviously, under the Obama/Biden/LaHood/Szabo/Boardman administration, nobody was looking to pick a fight with the unions. And as far as I could see, the unions in turn were never unreasonable. So Amtrak enjoyed 8 years of labor peace, which is worth something.

Again obviously, some Congresscritters now are looking to fight any and all unions out of ideological zealotry, so we could see trouble where there has been none.

The overall situation, however, does not exactly parallel Delta's history. The Northwest merger came at a time when low-cost start-up airlines were popping up everywhere, with two big advantages: lower payroll costs (for crews with no seniority); and younger, cuter, sexier stewardesses (with no seniority and therefore no accumulated pounds or wrinkles). Amtrak today doesn't face those marketplace challenges that Delta and the other heritage airlines did.

Meanwhile, the Stimulus improvements and other expansion will kick in by October, the beginning of FY 2018. So two more round trips of th_e _Cascades Seattle-Portland, another run of the Piedmonts and then still an another in a year or so, (or is it going to be two right off?). And Virginia plans to crank up another train to Norfolk soon, and still another one soonish. It also will introduce an extension of D.C.-Lynchburg service to Roanoke. And not to forget that last year California added a 7th San Joaquin run and the umpteenth Pacific Surfliner frequency L.A.-S.D. Each of these routes will benefit from economies of scale, and see revenues outpace their employee costs, thus allowing Amtrak to show progress by some critical metrics.


----------



## jis

Those are all on State financed route and are unlikely to have much of a direct impact on Amtrak unless they become wildly profitable in and of themselves perhaps.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

jis said:


> Those are all on State financed route and are unlikely to have much of a direct impact on Amtrak unless they become wildly profitable in and of themselves perhaps.


So this is you now?

But this was you then:



> For FY16 AFAICT Total Revenue was $3.2406 million and Salaries, Wages and Benefits was $2.0876 million, making it 64.4% of Total Revenue, not 75%. Numbers used are the YTD numbers from the Summary Financial Results in the September 2016 Monthly Performance Report, Appendix 1 (Audited).


You are saying that the Revenue from state-supported trains is not included in Total Revenue, and the Salaries, Wages and Benefits from state-supported trains are not included in Amtrak's Totals?

I'm pretty sure that the Revenues and Employee Costs of state-supported trains are included in the Amtrak totals. Therefore, when growing revenue outpaces increasing costs on the Lincoln Service, the Wolverines, the Vermonter, and others, Amtrak's overall performance looks better.

If you are not saying that the state-supported figures are not included in Amtrak's totals, what is your point again?


----------



## jis

The costs are included too in the total cost. If the additional revenues (ticket plus state subsidy) do not produce a big net surplus over the added cost then it has relatively small effect on the bottom line. OTOH if they actually produce a huge amount of net positive then at least until the state contract is rewritten on the cost sharing formula, Amtrak comes out ahead. So there is no inconsistency in what I said and the two things you quoted.


----------



## neroden

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I think Anderson understands economies of scale and Woody's motto "best cure for Amtrak is more Amtrak". as does Moorman and as did most of their predecessors too


Honestly, I believe Roger "I don't know what I'd do with a billion dollars" Lewis didn't get it -- possibly appointed because he didn't get it -- and Alan Boyd, the hatchetman, didn't get it -- almost certainly appointed because he didn't get it. Thomas Downs did understand this stuff, and ordered the Acelas, but he seemed incapable of cost control and incapable of handling maintenance (he appears to have had similar disasters at every other operation he's led).

Many of the earlier Amtrak Presidents were operating with a different situation, financially. Having dug up those old financial statements... for most of Amtrak's history, until the 1990s, the trains actually were losing money "above the rails". They're not any more, largely because more people are riding trains at higher ticket prices -- consistently higher demand. It seems to partly be gas prices, partly the unpleasantness of airlines, and partly a secular generational trend.

I have to wonder if it's a coincidence that Congress and the President started asking for "fully allocated costs" shortly after many trains started showing consistent above-the-rail profits, and if it's a coincidence that the states which were paying avoidable costs were suddenly asked to pay "fully allocated costs" shortly after several of the state trains started showing above-the-rail profits.

What seems odd to me is that Congress ALSO asked for avoidable costs and Amtrak hasn't been providing them. Given the above-the-rail profitability of nearly everything, this seems counterproductive on Amtrak's part.


----------



## neroden

Hotblack Desiato said:


> Jesus, do you folks really think Anderson is that much of an idiot, that he doesn't realize Amtrak is a railroad? That he hasn't taken a good look at Amtrak's finances and corporate structure before accepting the job?


I've repeatedly seen extremely ignorant people walk in and try to manage businesses they didn't understand, resulting in obvious and predictable disasters. It happens ALL THE TIME. It's one of the things I watch out for in investing.

Please note, in this regard, who is President of the United States right now.

I am cautiously optimistic about Anderson, but assuming that he understands the quirky economics of railroads is a heavy assumption. John W Snow certainly didn't understand them, and he was the CEO of CSX. Do I have to mention the executives of the Milwaukee Road who were so bad at accounting that they literally demolished the profitable part of the business and kept only the unprofitable part?

Assuming competence may be polite, but it's usually wrong.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> Those are all on State financed route and are unlikely to have much of a direct impact on Amtrak unless they become wildly profitable in and of themselves perhaps.


I'm pretty sure they'll have a powerful indirect effect.

It's documented that people who start out riding the Cascades start considering taking the Coast Starlight to California. There are similar effects with nearly all the other state routes. The Capitol Limited basically lives off of connecting passengers; add Norfolk or Roanoake, get a few more people taking the train to Chicago. I've witnessed a startling number of "Oh, you can take the train to Chicago?!? Cool, I have to do that some day!" on the Denver platform from people using the local rail system. The awareness effect is strong, and so are the network effects.

I genuinely believe that every improvement to Cascades service ends up adding a few Empire Builder passengers and a few Coast Starlight passengers. Every improvement to Capitol Corridor or San Joaquin service adds a few California Zephyr and a few Coast Starlight passengers. Every improvement to Missouri River Runner service (not that there have been improvements lately) adds a few Southwest Chief passengers. Every improvement to Piedmont service adds a few Crescent and a few Silver Star passengers. Every improvement to the Dallas DART system adds a few Texas Eagle passengers. And so on.


----------



## jis

Mystic River Dragon said:


> Actually, the reason Mrs. Moorman was so annoyed was that she had asked her husband to promise to never take a full-time job again after retirement, and then he got persuaded/sucked into the Amtrak mess. And it turned out she was right--look at the horrible stuff he's had to deal with.
> 
> Now, with all due respect, can we please get back to how we can save Amtrak under a CEO from an airline and make him do the right thing (better customer service, keeping long-distance, etc.) and not do the wrong thing (killing Amtrak completely)? I know we all (myself among the worst culprits) tend to get side-tracked (and yes, I think I may have even started it without realizing what I was starting), but this subject is too important for us to lose our focus. Thanks, everyone....


Suffice it to say that past experience suggest that there is not much that "we" venting on AU can do to save Amtrak from its CEO. If we could, Amtrak would not be in the state it is in today.  But discussion here is good therapy for many and helps maintain sanity in the face of obvious serious adversity that one faces in retaining a semblance of credible passenger rail service in the country.

And yes, I am all for discussing how we can give credible feedback to Amtrak and hope that they will do something useful with it. For such input to be taken seriously, they need to be presented in a way that would be viewed as credible by the receivers, so that they do not direct it to circular file with the comment "another nutty off the wall thing" or some such. I think many of us with very good intention miss the point that any feedback needs to be in a shape that is likely to be considered seriously by the receiver, which cause a lot of good ideas to get misrouted to oblivion. And complaining that that is unfair is not going to fix the problem either. The screwed up system that we have is what we have to work with, which is a huge challenge.


----------



## Thirdrail7

I just hope he can work with Congress and the states. That is always the bottom line. All the initiatives and proposals won't amount to much if there isn't enough funding for execution and upkeep. Mr. Moorman just completed another round of restructuring and alignment for the on board experience. Hopefully, it will yield results...not that he'll be around too long to see if it works. ^_^ He's definitely attempting to put a force in place for his successor and as a consultant, it will difficult for others to pick apart the efforts by preying on the ignorance of someone without operational experience (e.g. Stadler.)


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

jis--

I agree with you that discussion here is good therapy and helps us keep our sanity  . And I admit to being one of the ones who wanders off topic most frequently  .

I do think, though, that we, as rail passengers, need to be more vocal advocates. For example, the rally for trains sounded great, but there was no coverage of it in the papers in my region, whereas other gatherings and issues get in the paper over and over, because they have an aggressive marketing campaign, with a laser focus on the issue itself.

Or, as another example many can relate to, the NY and NJ commuters have been complaining non-stop about the delays to their commute this summer because of the Amtrak work in Penn Station, and everyone is trying to placate them, even though they can still get to work. What we need is for people with no Amtrak service to be complaining as frequently and loudly (while still being polite, of course) and never letting up on the focus on the issue.

I think people in general who sometimes take the train but are not rail fans don't see a problem and assume it will just be there--for example, I told my cousin about the possibility of the long-distance trains being cut, and she said, "Oh, don't be silly, Patty--they won't cut the trains--everyone needs them." So the general public doesn't even realize there's a problem.

And I think, because as a group we rail passengers and advocates come across as quiet, polite, nice people who will never make waves, our legislators don't pay attention to us because they are trying to fend off the more aggressive advocates for other causes.

I never, ever thought I'd say this, but I am pinning my hopes on the millennials. They ride trains and they are used to getting what they want.  And, frankly, they've got more energy than I do these days to fight an uphill battle.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Mystic River Dragon said:


> I think people in general who sometimes take the train but are not rail fans don't see a problem and assume it will just be there--for example, I told my cousin about the possibility of the long-distance trains being cut, and she said, "Oh, don't be silly, Patty--they won't cut the trains--everyone needs them." So the general public doesn't even realize there's a problem.


How does your cousin explain the current focus on cutting health care or food stamps or clean water protections? Does she think people simply don't need those things? How does she explain the train routes that have already been cut in the past? Does she think those trains were empty?


----------



## frequentflyer

Maybe congress seeing a very successful CEO running Amtrak will soothe their fears of giving Amtrak more money.

And for the record, Anderson is the reason why is the Delta is a financial powerhouse today.


----------



## neroden

Just a warning, because I've seen this before. Suppose Anderson does a great job and Amtrak becomes (barely) profitable. (Not likely but possible).

The right-wingers in Congress will immediately push to sell Amtrak off to private industry, because they cannot *stand* the idea of the government making a profit on *anything*. I've watched this happen far too many times, and multiple times in railroads alone, with Conrail most dramatically. I'm sorry to describe this in partisan terms, but as far as I can tell it is partisan: there's an ideological opposition to profitable government-run enterprises among right-wingers in the US.

It's worse in Canada: historically, both parties pushed for privatization of profitable railroads in Canada.

A paper on the privatization of CN -- it was bad for the country:

http://www.sauder.ubc.ca/Faculty/Research_Centres/Phelps_Centre_for_the_Study_of_Government_and_Business/~/media/Files/Faculty%20Research/Phelps%20Centre/Working%20Papers/2007_03_boardman.ashx

And of course having privatized it they are now buying the track back piecemeal. A worse public policy decision is hard to conceive of.

This particular madness seems less common outside North America, where the idea of the government making a profit seems to be more acceptable even among right-wing parties.


----------



## railiner

frequentflyer said:


> .
> 
> And for the record, Anderson is the reason why is the Delta is a financial powerhouse today.


Maybe...but I think first you would have to go back and thank C.E. Woolman for that.....


----------



## Devil's Advocate

frequentflyer said:


> And for the record, Anderson is the reason why is the Delta is a financial powerhouse today.


You don't think massive fortress hubs, de facto regional partitioning, and vast market consolidation has anything to do with it?

Braniff > Bankruptcy

Eastern Airlines > Bankruptcy

Pan Am > Bankruptcy

TWA > American Airlines

America West > US Airways

Northwest > Delta

Continental > United

US Airways > American Airlines

AirTran > Southwest

I happen to like Delta, and I believe they probably represent the best domestic product as we head toward the vaguely adversarial post-loyalty era, but Delta's current situation is not the result of any one person.


----------



## Anderson

Devil's Advocate said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> And for the record, Anderson is the reason why is the Delta is a financial powerhouse today.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think massive fortress hubs, de facto regional partitioning, and vast market consolidation has anything to do with it?
> 
> Braniff > Bankruptcy
> 
> Eastern Airlines > Bankruptcy
> 
> Pan Am > Bankruptcy
> 
> TWA > American Airlines
> 
> America West > US Airways
> 
> Northwest > Delta
> 
> Continental > United
> 
> US Airways > American Airlines
> 
> AirTran > Southwest
> 
> I happen to like Delta, and I believe they probably represent the best domestic product as we head toward the vaguely adversarial post-loyalty era, but Delta's current situation is not the result of any one person.
Click to expand...

Arguably it's the reason Delta is the _most_ profitable. WN has a model which limits certain upside potential but otherwise works well. UA and AA have issues (UA's appearing to be management-related in at least some part)...

...and there's a reason that more than a few frequent flyers have opted for status and earning with foreign carriers (I have accounts with SQ and VS instead of UA and DL; I've got one with AS by default as well).


----------



## tricia

neroden said:


> Just a warning, because I've seen this before. Suppose Anderson does a great job and Amtrak becomes (barely) profitable. (Not likely but possible).
> 
> The right-wingers in Congress will immediately push to sell Amtrak off to private industry, because they cannot *stand* the idea of the government making a profit on *anything*.


And at the same time, they can't stand the reality of government NOT making a profit on its services or functions. (Dining cars that don't turn a profit, for example.)


----------



## frequentflyer

@Devil's Advocate (for some reason my quote function does not work). Former Delta CEOs got them in the position of bankruptcy by their decisions (looking at you Mullin) so yes, one CEO can have a major effect on a corporation's financial performance.

Mergers have made capacity control easier to manage along with a new group think. Airlines are no longer addicted to market share and more so to profitability. Limit the number of seats makes it easier to raise fares and have them stick. And before anyone starts complaining about yields, Amtrak is doing the same with Acela and sleeper rooms. Running smaller consists allows Amtrak to do the same.


----------



## tommylicious

Gonna be a disaster. He will cut to the bone, get paid huge personally, and then serve up Amtrak on a platter to its ultimate Congressional executioners.


----------



## jis

frequentflyer said:


> And before anyone starts complaining about yields, Amtrak is doing the same with Acela and sleeper rooms. Running smaller consists allows Amtrak to do the same.


It is not like Amtrak could run longer consists even if it wanted to do so.  Arguably airlines actually have been able to rightsize to match demand with inventory way better than Amtrak ever will be able to, because Amtrak is unlikely to ever have the equipment to deploy to actually meet demand to the fullest in places like the NEC, There are two barriers. one is simple shortage of equipment and the other is shortage of slots north of New York due to bizarre agreements with communities along the route and the Coast Guard, just as an example.


----------



## frequentflyer

@JIS, what you stated is true, especially with traffic restrictions. However, do you remember when NEC trains routinely ran 10 car Amfleet consists? Now a lot of the regionals run 8 car consists. The Acela may not have the capacity to handle peak loads turning away business but Amtrak was smart enough to raise the fares to increase revenue on the seats they do have.

It will be interesting to see how Anderson tries to extract more revenues for Amtrak. Not much more can be cut from Amtrak services, though I am a lost on why food service numbers look so negative on a spreadsheet.

My question is why did Moorman take a job that he knew would be so short? What exactly did he accomplish or stabilized?


----------



## jis

Also remember the period when Regionals were four and five cars during Gunn's time, when half the Amfleet fleet was parked in Wilmington and Bear due to lack of funds to get them through their various FRA designated inspections. There was no amount of raising fares that was going to recover the lost revenue of lost seat inventory, since while there is some elasticity there is not that much elasticity in far5es.

Amtrak's primary problem is insufficient of total inventory, and no obvious way to mitigate, and even Acela fares are at a point of negative returns if they are raised to much more. The original plan was to acquire significantly more units of Acelas, but it was pared back due to lack of funding. Incidentally, addition of the Acelas was a net significant growth in overall inventory on the NEC, since no Amfleets were withdrawn from the NEC except in periods of inadequate funding to keep all the available cars running in service. Today Regionals are 8 cars because there are more of them than when they had ten cars. The total number of available Amfleet Is has not changed significantly, with a net loss of maybe half a dozen to accidents.


----------



## A Voice

jis said:


> Also remember the period when Regionals were four and five cars during Gunn's time, when half the Amfleet fleet was parked in Wilmington and Bear due to lack of funds to get them through their various FRA designated inspections. There was no amount of raising fares that was going to recover the lost revenue of lost seat inventory, since while there is some elasticity there is not that much elasticity in far5es.
> 
> Amtrak's primary problem is insufficient of total inventory, and no obvious way to mitigate, and even Acela fares are at a point of negative returns if they are raised to much more. The original plan was to acquire significantly more units of Acelas, but it was pared back due to lack of funding. Incidentally, addition of the Acelas was a net significant growth in overall inventory on the NEC, since no Amfleets were withdrawn from the NEC except in periods of inadequate funding to keep all the available cars running in service. Today Regionals are 8 cars because there are more of them than when they had ten cars. The total number of available Amfleet Is has not changed significantly, with a net loss of maybe half a dozen to accidents.


Absolutely correct, well said.

We talk a lot about presumed replacement of the Amfleet I cars in a few years, but overlook the fact that even a ~500 car order (little more than 1:1 replacement) does nothing to address greater capacity. Amtrak potentially would _still_ have a use for much of the Amfleet I equipment (assumes you _could_ add trains or cars, of course, on an already congested corridor).


----------



## WoodyinNYC

The new _Avelia Liberty _High Speed trains should add at least 30% more capacity to that service, and probably a little more than that to revenue. Better revenue will be thanks to new and shiny cars, with some real upgrades, which will allow fare increases; costs will be reduced due to much lighter weight and better reliability.

But most of that additional revenue is pledged to back the RIFF loan that's paying for the new rolling stock. Amtrak will benefit from the political and marketing value of reporting increasing ridership and revenues (and probably better metrics like a teeny bit higher average speed, and better On Time Performance).

But the new trains will not help much to get money for the overall system. Well, wait a minute. If the Avelias generate enuff success above the rails, then the NEC can take on more of the allocated overhead and lighten the burden on other trains a wee bit.

Meanwhile, investing any extra operating profits from the NEC trains into the dilapidated NEC infrastructure will help in ways often overlooked. The new tunnels at Baltimore are projected to save 2 1/2 minutes for the _Avelias_; they will save 2 1/2 minutes for the Regional and LD trains on the NEC as well. Add tiny time savings from better tracks and station facilities at BWI and Newark, Delaware. The new Susquehanna bridge will shave at least a minute, maybe two. Four-tracking the main line thru all of Maryland will be a biggie. So all trains on the NEC could go 8 or 10 minutes faster south of the Delaware (plus something in PA, NJ, and NYC, of course).

The _Regionals _and the _Amtrak Virginia_ trains, as well as the _Palmetto, Silver Meteor, Silver Star, Carolinian, Crescent, _and _Cardinal_ would all benefit from run times faster by even a few minutes.

Add in time savings coming D.C.-Richmond and then Richmond-Raleigh down the road to see some real impact on the _Star_, the _Carolinian_, and the phantom _Day Train _to Atlanta, NYC-D.C-Richmond-Raleigh-Greensboro-Charlotte-Greenville, S.C.-ATL.

(Obviously I believe the Acelas/Avelias and the Regional trains on the NEC, along with the other corridor routes, and the LD trains have common interests that far outweigh any rivalries.)

++++++++++++++++++++++

One a quibble: "... during Gunn's time, when half the Amfleet fleet was parked in Wilmington and Bear due to lack of funds ..."

Why blame Gunn for any lack of funds, what power did he have? More correct to say, "... *during Bush's time* ... due to lack of funds ..."


----------



## Anderson

The Acela IIs (I'm sorry, I just don't feel like using the new term) should add about 30% to BOS-NYP, but they should actually add somewhere around 100-160% to NYP-WAS since enough sets were ordered to allow twice-hourly service.

As to Gunn, I'd also point out that he inherited the mess that Downs and Warrington gave him. I know that Warrington had reasons for doing what he did (Downs may be another story), but let's not forget that when Gunn took over from Warrington, Amtrak was almost insolvent with a massive debt pile and he had to accept the bailout loan from Congress that imposed all of those no-new-LD-trains conditions just to keep operating. He may well have made lousy calls on that front but he didn't exactly have a lot of good choices.


----------



## Thirdrail7

frequentflyer said:


> @JIS, what you stated is true, especially with traffic restrictions. However, do you remember when NEC trains routinely ran 10 car Amfleet consists? Now a lot of the regionals run 8 car consists. The Acela may not have the capacity to handle peak loads turning away business but Amtrak was smart enough to raise the fares to increase revenue on the seats they do have.





jis said:


> Also remember the period when Regionals were four and five cars during Gunn's time, when half the Amfleet fleet was parked in Wilmington and Bear due to lack of funds to get them through their various FRA designated inspections. There was no amount of raising fares that was going to recover the lost revenue of lost seat inventory, since while there is some elasticity there is not that much elasticity in far5es.
> 
> Amtrak's primary problem is insufficient of total inventory, and no obvious way to mitigate, and even Acela fares are at a point of negative returns if they are raised to much more. The original plan was to acquire significantly more units of Acelas, but it was pared back due to lack of funding. Incidentally, addition of the Acelas was a net significant growth in overall inventory on the NEC, since no Amfleets were withdrawn from the NEC except in periods of inadequate funding to keep all the available cars running in service. Today Regionals are 8 cars because there are more of them than when they had ten cars. The total number of available Amfleet Is has not changed significantly, with a net loss of maybe half a dozen to accidents.


To expand on this, not only are there more trains now, the equipment on the certain trains are often traveling greater distances. A lot of the trains were confined on the NEC proper. Trains are increasingly leaving the NEC, meaning those coaches are often unavailable until the next day. Previously, you could turn them right back.

Additionally, with ridership increases, the usage had increased. The Albany pool lost the Turboliners and Heritage fleet that was rebuilt for the Adirondack. The Amfleets picked up the slack, The Keystones used to operate with two or three cars with very little exception (e.g. the Keystone State Express had 5 or 6 cars). Now, there are a few more sets and they have 4 amfleets and a cab car. Additionally, the vast majority travel to NYP where as most of them stayed between HAR-PHL.



> My question is why did Moorman take a job that he knew would be so short? What exactly did he accomplish or stabilized?


He took the job on an interim basis because no one else was interested. He wanted to set up an organizational structure that would improve safety, create focus and attract candidates.


----------



## railiner

I wonder, what if any influence the freight railroads of the nation may have had, in influencing Amtrak's selection of Moorman as CEO? I could see that consideration as possibly beneficial to both sides, not necessarily a conflict of interest.....


----------



## Thirdrail7

railiner said:


> I wonder, what if any influence the freight railroads of the nation may have had, in influencing Amtrak's selection of Moorman as CEO? I could see that consideration as possibly beneficial to both sides, not necessarily a conflict of interest.....


I doubt it was the actual influence of freight industry. I think they were interested in him and his leadership at NS. He knew how to run a railroad and was a Railroader of the Year.

Besides, he's still remaining as a consultant. His finger will remain on the pulse for some time.


----------



## keelhauled

Thirdrail7 said:


> I doubt it was the actual influence of freight industry. I think they were interested in him and his leadership at NS. He knew how to run a railroad and was a Railroader of the Year.
> 
> Besides, he's still remaining as a consultant. His finger will remain on the pulse for some time.


Perfect! Anything that goes wrong can be blamed on the airline guy, and any successes will be laid at the feet of Our Lord and Savior Wick.


----------



## Anderson

Thirdrail7 said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> @JIS, what you stated is true, especially with traffic restrictions. However, do you remember when NEC trains routinely ran 10 car Amfleet consists? Now a lot of the regionals run 8 car consists. The Acela may not have the capacity to handle peak loads turning away business but Amtrak was smart enough to raise the fares to increase revenue on the seats they do have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also remember the period when Regionals were four and five cars during Gunn's time, when half the Amfleet fleet was parked in Wilmington and Bear due to lack of funds to get them through their various FRA designated inspections. There was no amount of raising fares that was going to recover the lost revenue of lost seat inventory, since while there is some elasticity there is not that much elasticity in far5es.
> 
> Amtrak's primary problem is insufficient of total inventory, and no obvious way to mitigate, and even Acela fares are at a point of negative returns if they are raised to much more. The original plan was to acquire significantly more units of Acelas, but it was pared back due to lack of funding. Incidentally, addition of the Acelas was a net significant growth in overall inventory on the NEC, since no Amfleets were withdrawn from the NEC except in periods of inadequate funding to keep all the available cars running in service. Today Regionals are 8 cars because there are more of them than when they had ten cars. The total number of available Amfleet Is has not changed significantly, with a net loss of maybe half a dozen to accidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To expand on this, not only are there more trains now, the equipment on the certain trains are often traveling greater distances. A lot of the trains were confined on the NEC proper. Trains are increasingly leaving the NEC, meaning those coaches are often unavailable until the next day. Previously, you could turn them right back.
> 
> Additionally, with ridership increases, the usage had increased. The Albany pool lost the Turboliners and Heritage fleet that was rebuilt for the Adirondack. The Amfleets picked up the slack, The Keystones used to operate with two or three cars with very little exception (e.g. the Keystone State Express had 5 or 6 cars). Now, there are a few more sets and they have 4 amfleets and a cab car. Additionally, the vast majority travel to NYP where as most of them stayed between HAR-PHL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My question is why did Moorman take a job that he knew would be so short? What exactly did he accomplish or stabilized?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He took the job on an interim basis because no one else was interested. He wanted to set up an organizational structure that would improve safety, create focus and attract candidates.
Click to expand...

Just looking at VA alone, IIRC in the mid-2000s there were 8x daily trains to Richmond (7x daily on the weekends): The four longer-distance trains and four Regionals (three on weekends). Lynchburg was only served by the Crescent.

As of now, there's one Regional which goes to Lynchburg (potentially messing up a turn) and another that was extended, first to Richmond and then to Norfolk. Both of these moves pull a set of cars out of Washington in the evening which could have been turned as one of the later Regionals or as another train in the morning. Thus either equipment turns have to be changed or sets have to be added, and it's stretched the pool.

IIRC there were some Keystones added in this timeframe as well. Also, in the early 2000s the Cardinal was switched from Superliners to Viewliners/Amfleets (pulling a half-dozen Amfleet IIs and a pair of cafes out of availability from elsewhere).

Some slack was taken up by converting some cafes into coaches. However, even more was supposed to come from the N-S order (which went bad).

FWIW I'm now wondering, since I remember seeing some ten-car Regionals in VA (I'm usually seeing eight these days) if some of the hits to VA's ridership are simply to there being less space available and the resulting yield management on through-Washington traffic eroding away a few thousand riders.


----------



## GBNorman

I hold concerns that to Delta Airlines "the only good labor union is a busted union".

Lest we forget that the Attendant craft "de-certed" the AFA that had represented the Northwest Attendants, and rebuffed another, the IAMAW, who sought to represent all Delta Attendants. The only major craft at Delta covered by Agreement are the Flight Officers. Ground service is all non-Agreement.

Now if Mr. Anderson brings any kind of "union busting" philosophy on to the Amtrak property, he is in for a "rough ride". All to many of Amtrak's strongest supporters are from states and districts where organized labor remains strong.


----------



## neroden

Well, the on-board services, conductors, and engineers on Amtrak have been quite reasonable. Any attempts to bust those unions would be counterproductive.

On the other hand, Chicago Maintenance is kind of infamous. Locking them out and firing everyone might be just about the right thing to do, based on the stories I've heard.


----------



## Rover

neroden said:


> Chicago Maintenance is kind of infamous. Locking them out and firing everyone might be just about the right thing to do, based on the stories I've heard.


That would make the Headlines !!


----------



## Steve4031

There are management issues too imho.


----------



## Rover

Amtrak interim CEO Charles W. Moorman III made a rare admission for a businessman in a speech last week: His company is never going to make a profit.



> Amtrak’s long-distance routes lose about $600 million annually. Despite exorbitant menu prices, the train’s food service scraped $900 million into the garbage between 2003 and 2013. The average onboard employee, meanwhile, made $41.19 an hour on Amtrak in 2012, while private contract employees earned $7.75 to $13.00 an hour.
> 
> http://www.weeklystandard.com/amtrak-chief-admits-his-rail-system-is-a-financial-loser/article/2008952


The President and CEO of Amtrak, Charles W. "Wick" Moorman IV, discussed the challenges facing America’s passenger rail system and the changes to come at a National Press Club Headliners Luncheon on July 12, 2017.


[flash=740,480]


----------



## neroden

It's like roads making a profit: it rarely if ever happens, even with toll roads. The track costs will absolutely have to be covered by government forever.

The freight railroads are currently covering track costs with profits from freight movement, but this isn't really sustainable either (and they were almost all heavily subsidized in initial construction). Currently Amtrak pays track costs on both the tracks it owns, and indirectly (through fees) pays part of the costs on the tracks it doesn't own.

"Above the rail" profits are another matter; it is actually potentially possible to make an above-the-rail profit, but it's probably bad policy, because having ticket prices that high means excess wear on the government-subsidized roads.


----------



## Blackwolf

Aaaand we know where the writer of that article stands. Unless they're clearly an opinion piece, I truly get annoyed when a member of the media inserts their opinion in a report. Even when its an opinion I may agree with, it bugs the crap out of me. Yup...



> Moorman is asking the American taxpayer to think of Amtrak as a public service *(money pit)* that will always need to be subsidized


Better save us all from the MONEY PIT and just flush the whole system now. System-wide Train-Off announcements commence tomorrow. hboy:


----------



## CCC1007

neroden said:


> The freight railroads are currently covering track costs with profits from freight movement, but this isn't really sustainable either (and they were almost all heavily subsidized in initial construction). Currently Amtrak pays track costs on both the tracks it owns, and indirectly (through fees) pays part of the costs on the tracks it doesn't own.


Please let the rest of us in on how Rail is not "sustainable" for freight transportation? Would a toll railroad be viable for a private company? As in maintaining a line and letting other companies operate trains on that line for a fee? Would a toll railroad around Chicago help with the congestion on the rail lines of Chicago?


----------



## neroden

What's not sustainable is forcing private business to pay for the costs of the tracks, rather than supporting the tracks through tax money like everyone else does. The result is a deteriorated railroad system which is already hampering and crippling the nation's economic competitiveness.

If you don't see this, I ask you: what's the last time we built a new freight railroad route without using public money? What's the last time we ripped one out?

Please, folks, learn to read. Freight rail is entirely viable if the tracks are subsidized as the roadways are. But if they're not, there's a slow deterioration. Removing the extra taxes which used to apply to railroads helped, and consolidating the industry into an oligopoly helped, but there's still a shrinkage.

No, a private toll railroad would be just as non-viable as a toll road.


----------



## dlagrua

AmtrakBlue said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand this move. Do you call a plumber when you need an expert electrician? Airlines and train travel have little in common except that both are transportation. I say this airlines guy invites in the TSA and drives us all away. I refuse to be degraded and lowered to the level of an animal just to board any transportation means. TSA comes in full force and we will bail.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another of your "no longer take Amtrak" posts and yet, I bet you'll be taking more trips on Amtrak.
Click to expand...

You will lose that bet. When the TSA was installed to violate peoples rights with the X-Ray machines, the removal of shoes and the whole none yards that was the time that we began boycotting the airports and started taking train trips.. If they gave us the flights for free we would not take them. What makes you believe that if the ONLY reason that we take Amtrak is changed, we won't do the same? Yes we enjoy train travel but when government ignores the Bill of Rights we just say no. Read the 4th amendment. Driving is perfectly fine and will get us to our destination in about the same time..


----------



## ehbowen

dlagrua said:


> You will lose that bet. When the TSA was installed to violate peoples rights with the X-Ray machines, the removal of shoes and the whole none yards that was the time that we began boycotting the airports and started taking train trips.. If they gave us the flights for free we would not take them. What makes you believe that if the ONLY reason that we take Amtrak is changed, we won't do the same? Yes we enjoy train travel but when government ignores the Bill of Rights we just say no. Read the 4th amendment. Driving is perfectly fine and will get us to our destination in about the same time..


"Checkpoint - 2 miles ahead. All Traffic Must Stop."

Think it can't happen here? Think again. After all, what ever happened to, "Shall not be infringed?"


----------



## Ryan

dlagrua said:


> but when government ignores the Bill of Rights we just say no. Read the 4th amendment.


I'm well familiar with it, we don't need your smug condescension. It all boils down to what's "unreasonable". Fortunately, that's for the courts to decide and not you.


----------



## railiner

ehbowen said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will lose that bet. When the TSA was installed to violate peoples rights with the X-Ray machines, the removal of shoes and the whole none yards that was the time that we began boycotting the airports and started taking train trips.. If they gave us the flights for free we would not take them. What makes you believe that if the ONLY reason that we take Amtrak is changed, we won't do the same? Yes we enjoy train travel but when government ignores the Bill of Rights we just say no. Read the 4th amendment. Driving is perfectly fine and will get us to our destination in about the same time..
> 
> 
> 
> "Checkpoint - 2 miles ahead. All Traffic Must Stop."
> 
> Think it can't happen here? Think again. After all, what ever happened to, "Shall not be infringed?"
Click to expand...

It's already happened...ever see the classic film, "The Grapes of Wrath"....the one where the migrant "Okies" are either harassed or turned back at western agricultural inspection station's on Route 66?


----------



## Rover

Amtrak is doomed.... Congress will/would likely give Billions in support toward Elon Musk's _Sexy_ High Speed Hyperloop tunnel routes from NY to DC and elsewhere. Then, they'll really be no more money left to fund Amtrak!!

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/musk-government-likes-plan-high-speed-tunnels-48754650


----------



## cirdan

Rover said:


> Amtrak is doomed.... Congress will/would likely give Billions in support toward Elon Musk's _Sexy_ High Speed Hyperloop tunnel routes from NY to DC and elsewhere. Then, they'll really be no more money left to fund Amtrak!!
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/musk-government-likes-plan-high-speed-tunnels-48754650


I don't think he's going to get billions without a proof of concept, and I think if he had to deliver a demonstartion line it wouod become apparent that the costs and difficulties are being lowballed.

If he really had a point, he'd go to China and sell it there. The Chinese know a good business case when they see one. That's why the Chiinese love conventional HSR. It's the best value for money. And I'm sure they'll turn around and drop it the day something better is invented. Musk thinks Congress are a bunch of fools who can quickly be parted from big sums of money. Well, maybe some of them are but i still think there is some sense in the others.


----------



## Rover

cirdan said:


> Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak is doomed.... Congress will/would likely give Billions in support toward Elon Musk's _Sexy_ High Speed Hyperloop tunnel routes from NY to DC and elsewhere. Then, they'll really be no more money left to fund Amtrak!!
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/musk-government-likes-plan-high-speed-tunnels-48754650
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think he's going to get billions without a proof of concept, and I think if he had to deliver a demonstartion line it wouod become apparent that the costs and difficulties are being lowballed.
> 
> If he really had a point, he'd go to China and sell it there. The Chinese know a good business case when they see one. That's why the Chiinese love conventional HSR. It's the best value for money. And I'm sure they'll turn around and drop it the day something better is invented. Musk thinks Congress are a bunch of fools who can quickly be parted from big sums of money. Well, maybe some of them are but i still think there is some sense in the others.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but in China, I don't think the Govt. has _any_ problem with right of ways above ground.


----------



## A Voice

There is a (much) better chance that Amtrak will reactivate the Rohr Turbos, pulled by rebuilt GG-1 locomotives, on a reborn Metroliner service to/from New York's newly built Union Station than this Hyperloopy fantasy will ever actually be built.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

A Voice said:


> There is a (much) better chance that Amtrak will reactivate the Rohr Turbos, pulled by rebuilt GG-1 locomotives, on a reborn Metroliner service to/from New York's newly built Union Station than this Hyperloopy fantasy will ever actually be built.


With regard to a hyperloop being built in America I'm inclined to agree. As for the possibility of a hyperloop being built anywhere, I'm inclined to disagree. I used to claim that energy inefficient hyper expensive Maglev trains would never be used as a routine transportation link and I've already been proven wrong about that. Then I postulated that Maglev would never be used for for longer distance intercity travel and it would appear that I'm about to be proven wrong about that as well. America's problem with hyperloops is not that they're crazy or fundamentally unsound. America's problem with hyperloops is that they're not roads. When the only tool in your belt is an asphalt paver, every problem starts to look like a long series of cars and trucks.


----------



## neroden

Maglev has been abandoned because it's energy-inefficient and hyper expensive. I think Japan is still building one, but that'll probably be the last one.

The problem with Hyperloop is that it's vaporware with all the problems of Maglev.


----------



## cirdan

Devil's Advocate said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a (much) better chance that Amtrak will reactivate the Rohr Turbos, pulled by rebuilt GG-1 locomotives, on a reborn Metroliner service to/from New York's newly built Union Station than this Hyperloopy fantasy will ever actually be built.
> 
> 
> 
> With regard to a hyperloop being built in America I'm inclined to agree. As for the possibility of a hyperloop being built anywhere, I'm inclined to disagree. I used to claim that energy inefficient hyper expensive Maglev trains would never be used as a routine transportation link and I've already been proven wrong about that. Then I postulated that Maglev would never be used for for longer distance intercity travel and it would appear that I'm about to be proven wrong about that as well. America's problem with hyperloops is not that they're crazy or fundamentally unsound. America's problem with hyperloops is that they're not roads. When the only tool in your belt is an asphalt paver, every problem starts to look like a long series of cars and trucks.
Click to expand...

Nothing is so crazy that somebody isn't going to try it some place somehow. Think of the Lartigue monorail for example.

The question here is more, is this going to make Amtrak irreversibly obsolete within our lifetimes, or is it just another one of those passing fads.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Personally I am not going to write off the hyperloop so easily. Elon Musk has several times accomplished things I had assumed was impossible, and I have learned to write off people like him at my peril. Creating a successful and nominally profitable electric automobile that is the best selling car in the luxury class (not the electric luxury class- the whole luxury class) was a task I considered a lot more impossible than figuring out how to tunnel cheaper than the civil engineering cabal does it and run a vacuum maglev through said tunnel.

You are looking at the project without taking into account the man running it.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Most of the concern lies in the (as yet unknown) practical limitations, barriers to commercial scale implementation, and lack of user demand. But these same barriers existed for Monorail and Maglev trains so if an entity with enough spare money and a strong enough desire for world recognition is willing to fund a series of trials and tests there's nothing I can think of that would fundamentally prevent such a system from being deployed and implemented.


----------



## jis

And all of this has exactly what to do with Anderson's appointment as CEO of Amtrak?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

They are both closely related to the price of tea in china.


----------



## Thirdrail7

jis said:


> And all of this has exactly what to do with Anderson's appointment as CEO of Amtrak?



Their names both have a capital "A".


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Anderson said:


> The Acela IIs ... should add about 30% to BOS-NYP, but they should actually add somewhere around 100-160% to NYP-WAS since enough sets were ordered to allow twice-hourly service.


Not exactly. The plan is to add twice-hourly service but only during the rush hours. So capacity will increase by just two more round trips every day. That's good, up 30% from more seats per train set, plus up X% from two more frequencies. But it's nowhere near 100-160%.


----------



## Thirdrail7

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


----------



## TiBike

I haven't heard or seen it. It's hard to prove a negative, but based on the answer he gave to Robert Siegel on NPR in September, I'd say his thinking is going in the opposite direction:



> SIEGEL: You've spoken of serving cities and urban areas. I mean, are you saying, in effect - perhaps this is - the deed's been done already - that real, long-range intercity train travel is finished. We're talking about much shorter-range train trips.
> 
> 
> ANDERSON: Well, when you say long range, Amtrak long range means over 750 miles. And where we see the most growth over the last couple of decades has been in routes under 750 miles, like Milwaukee to Chicago, Detroit to Chicago, San Francisco to Los Angeles down the coast. When you think about infrastructure in the U.S., we have become a very urbanized society - less reliance on automobiles, more reliance on public transportation. There's an important role for Amtrak to play. And that's actually been one of the fastest-growing parts of this business and represents over half of Amtrak's passenger traffic annually.


----------



## jis

Thirdrail7 said:


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


At the NARP conclave in Chicago, during his keynote he did say that the LD trains form the backbone of the national network, which is an integral part of Amtrak. I don’t know if that categorical statement means anything concrete or not. 

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## TiBike

That's a good question. It can be read as a simple statement of fact, with no particular meaning in regards to future plans.



jis said:


> At the NARP conclave in Chicago, during his keynote he did say that the LD trains form the backbone of the national network, which is an integral part of Amtrak. I don’t know if that categorical statement means anything concrete or not.


----------



## neroden

At the NARP meeting, Mr. Anderson also said something a little more concrete.

He rode the Capitol Limited from DC to Chicago, in a sleeper, to get there.

He said that it would be an excellent way to do business travel if the train arrived on time, explaining the "go to sleep, wake up well-rested at your destination, get a full day's work done, go to sleep, wake up well-rested at your destination" model which we all know.

And then started talking about the importance of having the reading lights in the roomettes working. 

(Later, he was talking about forcing the freight railroads to run the trains on time.)

I think, from this, that he is certainly not going to neglect the single-overnight markets, at any rate. The viable business travel model for an *on-time* Capitol Limited applies just as well to the Lake Shore Limited, Crescent, Silver Star, Silver Meteor, City of New Orleans, (for certain city pairs) the Cardinal, (for Denver to Chicago) the Calfornia Zephyr, and the Coast Starlight, at the very least. That's most of the so-called long-distance trains.

(Despite Amtrak's awful accounting, I'm pretty sure all of these are marginal cash generators.)


----------



## TiBike

I'd suggest taking a closer look at the overnight schedules. DC to Chicago on the Capitol Limited works well -- it's a late afternoon, central, major city departure and an early enough central, major city arrival. Going the other way, it doesn't work so well -- you arrive DC in the afternoon, with most of a day gone.

It's the same with the Coast Starlight. Leaving from Seattle you'll lose a whole day getting to the Bay Area (half a day from Portland), and you'll likely still need time to connect to your final destination -- it doesn't go to San Francisco, and Silicon Valley is spread out all over the place. Not so much is within walking distance of the Oakland or San Jose stations. Coming north, it's the same problem in reverse, except even getting to Portland burns a whole day.

If he's thinking about optimising overnight city pairs for business travel, then it would make sense to break up the Starlight into two trains, one that would connect Portland and the Bay Area overnight, and a day train between the Bay Area and LA. Or maybe just move up the departure times from LA and Seattle -- a 6am departure out of LA would make the Bay Area to Portland run a little more workable, and arguably improve business service between LA and the Bay Area, or at least between the Central Coast and LA.

Then there's the on-time problem. You're absolutely right that it's critical. One way to address it is to make the runs shorter, i.e. break up or truncate the long haul routes.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

I wrote a post inside a thread about my desire about the overnight train where you go to bed and wake up your destination city. This is ideal for a trip approximately 8 hours in length. The two trips I most often mention are PHL-PGH and LAX-Bay Area (Sleep Bus offers that service now and there is a thread somewhere on AU?). Certainly an overnight CS running between LAX and SAC (a Spirit of California?) would be ideal.


----------



## Anderson

This is part of why I've wished for a second Capitol Limited: The current schedule is good WB and a complete wreck EB, but changing it to something decent EB hoses the LD connections at Chicago; both schedules also don't do much, if anything for anywhere in the middle (such as PGH). I've also suspected that an extra r/t could be done with a single additional set if you massaged the timing right...


----------



## west point

The only way for either PHL <> CHI or WASH <> CHI can meet your time constrains is to get the South of the Lake route becomes the rerouted 125 MPH run for all the trains.


----------



## ainamkartma

neroden said:


> I think, from this, that he is certainly not going to neglect the single-overnight markets, at any rate. The viable business travel model for an *on-time* Capitol Limited applies just as well to the Lake Shore Limited, Crescent, Silver Star, Silver Meteor, City of New Orleans, (for certain city pairs) the Cardinal, (for Denver to Chicago) the Calfornia Zephyr, and the Coast Starlight, at the very least. That's most of the so-called long-distance trains.


And the SWC between ABQ and LA! (Not so much east of ABQ...)

Ainamkartma


----------



## Rover

fairviewroad said:


> The bad news is that we'll have to change trains in Atlanta every time we need to get anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [though in all seriousness, more service to Atlanta would be a good thing...]


The new Slogan is:

"Amtrak is Ready When You Are"


----------



## Carolina Special

And for the dining cars “We love to fry and it shows”.[emoji4]

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Chey

Anybody have an address where I could write to Anderson?


----------



## districtRich

Chey said:


> Anybody have an address where I could write to Anderson?


Amtrak Headquarters

1 Massachusetts Ave NW

Washington, DC 20001


----------



## Chey

districtRich said:


> Chey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody have an address where I could write to Anderson?
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak Headquarters
> 
> 1 Massachusetts Ave NW
> 
> Washington, DC 20001
Click to expand...

Thanks! For some reason I thought their HQ was in Chicago...


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Aint it 60 Mass?


----------



## Ryan

Union Station is at 60 Mass, but apparently they receive mail at #1.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato

Some Amtrak offices in DC moved recently. I don't know if all the Union Station offices moved, or just some of them.


----------



## districtRich

Amtrak corporate offices moved out of Union Station during the past few months to an office building a block away


----------



## Thirdrail7

dlagrua said:


> *A point to consider is that Richard Anderson was the CEO of a for profit corporation.* Amtrak is a totally different animal. When he discovers that Amtrak salaries account for about 75% of total revenue, jobs may be cut or lost.





jis said:


> And until someone manages to update 49 CFR 700.2 (requires an act of the Congress) to take out the phrase "for profit corporation", Amtrak by its charter continues to be a "for profit corporation". That it does not or cannot make a profit for various possibly legitimate reasons is a matter that is not included in its charter at present. Granted that Mr. Anderson will have a bit of a challenge, but then he has been there and done that in the airline industry. So that experience should be nothing new. Unfortunately the straitjacket environment in which Amtrak operates does not give him as many flexible options as he had in the airline industry to address the issue as swiftly as he could at Delta.


This is the key. Can a person that has a "for profit" mantra understand that passenger railroads typically don't run at a profit and even if you attempt to cut your costs by eliminating things that don't necessarily make money but can add to the base, sometimes that actually drives away your customers?

I guess we'll find out soon enough.







Rover said:


> This opinion was posted on another board, but I though it should be viewed.
> 
> aemoreira1981:
> 
> _I suspect that the real reason for this appointment might be his stance with unions. Under Richard Anderson at Northwest and Delta, the non-pilot and flight dispatcher employees were all successfully de-unionized following the merger of the highly-unionized Northwest with the mostly non-union Delta (Delta needed Northwest's Asia network, but for Delta's culture to predominate). Knowing that federal worker strikes are illegal under Taft-Hartley, I suspect that Anderson has a mandate to be a hard-liner with the unions._


Well, he seems to be taking on the contracts head-on. Please allow a brief "fair use" quote from this Progressive Railroading article: Amtrak, TCU reach tentative pact



> Amtrak last week reached a tentative contract agreement with the Transportation Communications Union (TCU) representing carmen, clerks, on-board service workers and supervisors.
> 
> The agreement calls for "significant" percentage wage increases and protects health care benefits, according to a press release issued by the union.
> 
> Percentage increases were preferred by the union. Amtrak had proposed one-time lump sum increases.The tentative agreement follows three years of negotiations, TCU officials said.


----------



## MARC Rider

railiner said:


> ehbowen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will lose that bet. When the TSA was installed to violate peoples rights with the X-Ray machines, the removal of shoes and the whole none yards that was the time that we began boycotting the airports and started taking train trips.. If they gave us the flights for free we would not take them. What makes you believe that if the ONLY reason that we take Amtrak is changed, we won't do the same? Yes we enjoy train travel but when government ignores the Bill of Rights we just say no. Read the 4th amendment. Driving is perfectly fine and will get us to our destination in about the same time..
> 
> 
> 
> "Checkpoint - 2 miles ahead. All Traffic Must Stop."
> 
> Think it can't happen here? Think again. After all, what ever happened to, "Shall not be infringed?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's already happened...ever see the classic film, "The Grapes of Wrath"....the one where the migrant "Okies" are either harassed or turned back at western agricultural inspection station's on Route 66?
Click to expand...


Still happens, we were driving into California on US97 and had to stop and an inspection station in beautiful downtown Dorris. They didn't seem too concerned about the few pieces of fruit we has purchased that morning in a supermarket in Grant's Pass, though.

The funny thing was that we had already spent most of the day in California, as we had visited Lava Beds National Monument, and there didn't seem to be any ag inspection stations on the back roads we took. In fact, we could have kept going on the back roads south from the monument and eventually ended up where we were going, thus potentially bringing who knows what kind of Oregon fruit flies into the Golden State.


----------



## Thirdrail7

I'm really not sensing a commitment to long distance travel. I've barely even see it mentioned and that safety message about changing operations during a signal suspension seems like it is designed to get under the hosts skin. I don't think it will spur the hosts to action. I think it will give them an excuse to delay the trains.


----------



## OBS

Thirdrail7 said:


> I'm really not sensing a commitment to long distance travel. I've barely even see it mentioned and that safety message about changing operations during a signal suspension seems like it is designed to get under the hosts skin. I don't think it will spur the hosts to action. I think it will give them an excuse to delay the trains.


This is what I was afraid of....


----------



## neroden

TiBike said:


> I'd suggest taking a closer look at the overnight schedules. DC to Chicago on the Capitol Limited works well -- it's a late afternoon, central, major city departure and an early enough central, major city arrival. Going the other way, it doesn't work so well -- you arrive DC in the afternoon, with most of a day gone.
> 
> It's the same with the Coast Starlight. Leaving from Seattle you'll lose a whole day getting to the Bay Area (half a day from Portland), and you'll likely still need time to connect to your final destination -- it doesn't go to San Francisco, and Silicon Valley is spread out all over the place. Not so much is within walking distance of the Oakland or San Jose stations. Coming north, it's the same problem in reverse, except even getting to Portland burns a whole day.
> 
> If he's thinking about optimising overnight city pairs for business travel, then it would make sense to break up the Starlight into two trains, one that would connect Portland and the Bay Area overnight, and a day train between the Bay Area and LA. Or maybe just move up the departure times from LA and Seattle -- a 6am departure out of LA would make the Bay Area to Portland run a little more workable, and arguably improve business service between LA and the Bay Area, or at least between the Central Coast and LA.
> 
> Then there's the on-time problem. You're absolutely right that it's critical. One way to address it is to make the runs shorter, i.e. break up or truncate the long haul routes.


So, making the runs shorter doesn't fix the on-time problem... AT ALL.

The irresponsible Class Is are quite capable of delaying a Michigan Service or Empire Service train by hours, and even Amtrak can do so.


----------



## TiBike

Shortening runs won't prevent delays, but it will keep them from cascading. If the Coast Starlight is split, say, at Oakland, a delay in Oregon won't affect LA service and vice versa.


----------



## Thirdrail7

TiBike said:


> Shortening runs won't prevent delays, but it will keep them from cascading. If the Coast Starlight is split, say, at Oakland, a delay in Oregon won't affect LA service and vice versa.


That depends on if there are connections split and the equipment usage. It can cause connection delays at the intermediate point and delays at the associated turnaround points. So, instead of having one delayed train, you could have 4...depending on the schedule and equipment usage.


----------



## TiBike

Thirdrail7 said:


> That depends on if there are connections split and the equipment usage. It can cause connection delays at the intermediate point and delays at the associated turnaround points. So, instead of having one delayed train, you could have 4...depending on the schedule and equipment usage.


You're assuming that it would be a straight through connection. If you assume, as an airline that focused on maximising service between city pairs rather than excursions might, that through passengers would overnight in the Bay Area at their own expense, it's not such a problem. Equipment could be assigned to one segment or the other, depending on services offered, with no more overlap than would be normal with any other trains that begin and end at the same location.


----------



## Steve4031

What percentage of ridership are through passengers? Splitting routes up could end up killing ridership IMHO.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## neroden

Given equipment cycles, shortening runs doesn't even prevent delays from cascading. The LSL has frequently been late out of Chicago because the previous LSL was late getting *into* Chicago. The only ways to fix this are to get extra equipment or to get extra station staff.

Runs have to terminate at maintenance bases in any case. So it's theoretically possible to divide the Coast Starlight into multiple routes at Oakland -- but it's extremely inconvenient at Oakland due to the location of the shops. It's theoretically possible to divide the Lake Shore Limited into multiple routes at Albany NY, but it would need a new commissary, NY and MA would have to support the trains east and south of there, and it would lose a lot of ridership. It's theoretically possible to divide the Silver Star and Silver Meteor at Sanford, FL but the Sanford facility is basically full, Florida would have to support the trains south of there, and it would lose a lot of ridership.

However, it's not possible to divide the routes of the Empire Builder, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief, Sunset Limited, Texas Eagle, City of New Orleans, or Capitol Limited *anywhere* -- they have to get to the maintenance base. And the only other place you could divide the Cardinal, Crescent, Silver Star, or Silver Meteor routes is Washington, which already happens sometimes and is definitely not worth the loss in ridership.

So basically it's not practical to split any of the routes. If the tracks near the Oakland maintenance faciliity weren't heavily congested (which they are) it might be possible to split the Coast Starlight at Oakland; but it isn't. See, you could run one train from Jack London Square to LA and one from Emeryville to Seattle, but if you want to run both of them to the same station, you end up having to run one of them backwards (probably to Jack London Square along the street trackage) and block the extremely congested tracks there for a long time. The only way I see around this would be to build a brand-new Amtrak station in West Oakland or move the Oakland maintenance facility, either of which would cost a fortune.


----------



## TiBike

Airlines have figured this out. It's easy to raise objections to any specific example, and then to find specific solutions. But a better approach is to begin with general solutions that minimise the specific problems that need to be solved:

- Figure out what your core business is, then optimise for it. Anderson seems to think that Amtrak's core business is hauling lots and lots of people between key city pairs.

- Reduce the complexity of the fleet by getting rid of high maintenance and/or non-essential and/or low inventory equipment. The PPC qualified on all three counts, the next step is to scrap equipment that scores two out of three.

- The more the fleet is standardised, the easier it is to contract out break/fix maintenance. The newer the fleet, the less need there is for it.

- Vary the size and configuration of trains to match traffic and need. For example, eliminate sleepers and diners and increase coach/business class service south of Oakland.

- Where demand is lower, reduce frequency on that segment. Where demand is higher, raise it. Daily or better service might be needed between LA and Oakland, but not north of there, for example.

- Less frequent and shorter/less complex trains mean less maintenance, and more flexibility to assign equipment where demand is greater. It also reduces head count.

My impression is that Anderson thinks in terms of maximising the number of people transported between points A and B, and iteratively focusing on the points A and B with the maximum number of passengers. I don't think he's anti-long distance as such, but if the math works out that way I don't think he's going to let sentimentality drive decisions.


----------



## Thirdrail7

While your ideas have merit Tibike, there are large operational differences between airlines and trains that make general solutions somewhat problematic.

I'm not up on airline regulations, procedures or financial limitations. However, I assume that there is no cost to maintain the main piece of infrastructure an airplane uses...and that is the sky. While I'm sure there are designated flight paths and there me be fees to utilize them, I'm willing to bet there is no maintenance fee. I doubt planes are charged by the "wing" or the "number of engines". I'm willing to bet there isn't a charge based upon how fast the plane intends to travel in the flight path since I doubt there is someone in the sky, inspecting the flight path. That means there is unlikely a federal guideline indicating something similar to "This is Class III sky, so if a plane wants to exceed 200mph or use a jet engine, this flight path must be inspected weekly, clouds must be cleared and no plane with a propeller that doesn't maintain 199mph may use the flight path...if there is plane that exceeds 200mph within 10,000 feet vertical feet...unless there are passing sidings that are 40 miles long."

These ARE limitations that exist on train travel. It is quite easy to say "let's maximize frequency between certain pairs," until the hosts get involved. Some railroads charge by axle! Therefore, running more trains ramps up more access fees. Some railroads charge by the number of trains. Some railroads charge by the car. Some charge by the tonnage. Some railroads may use different charges on different routes. That makes a general solution problematic because there isn't a "general route" or "general fee" that exists. Trains have to follow the track and the owner of the track sets the bar and can assign fees. The bottom line is you can't assume that running more trains won;t DRAMATICALLY increase your contribution and nullify the revenue.

A perfect example is the second Pennsylvanian. That is coveted, state supported service that Pennsylvania desires. At one point, there were two trains. When the restoration of a second train was proposed, NS stated they wanted millions in infrastructure repairs, new sidings, new tracks, upgrades to the signal system, etc. CSX wanted almost a billion in infrastructure repairs to restore a train on a previous route that is still operation.

The large elephant in the room is PTC and who will assume the costs. This is where you might have hit the nail on the head Tibike. There are hosts that have basically said, if you want to use this route, you'll have to foot the costs of PTC. If in fact Amtrak did foot those costs, then they need bang for their buck. Running as many trains over their territory is a wise investment. However, what if the costs of the investment doesn't translate into ridership and/or revenue? Should you make the investment merely to keep "the system" together?

Well, that is the ultimate question and that once again boils down to, finances, revenue, ridership and politics. What is more important...revenue or ridership? I'm not from the west cost Tibike, so I'm going to need your help. Using the Coast Starlight as an example, you have stated that running it as separate corridor trains may stimulate ridership since the train is not helpful to people in CA. Am I understanding you correctly? If that is the case, it would make sense that the top city pairs for this train would be long distance passengers since this train isn't reliable for corridor service. Again, this makes sense. Now, the REVENUE from the LD pairs is going to be quite higher since typically, the greater the distance, the higher the fare. So, taking a train like the CS and breaking it into various trains may increase ridership but you'd have to hope the volume makes up for the potential loss in revenue from the long distance trip and the potential increase in fees. What if it doesn't?

A classic example is the Capitol Punishment....I mean errr Limited. On its own, this is dopey train. It has poor arrival times at the main city along the route (PGH) and poor connections (relatively short in one direction and too long in the other direction.) The intermediate markets are small and poorly served. However, if you attempt to change their schedules, NS has basically promised to paralyze the train....not that it should matter since they kind of do that anyway, so what harm is there in changing the times?




However, from a system perspective, this train is a major west-south conduit. It funnels a great deal of through traffic between the east coast and the mid west. Altering the train would impact the entire system. So, if a host wants to pass the PTC costs along, a cursory look would suggest you kill this train because as a stand alone route, the finances of the city pair wouldn't justify the investment . However, an in depth look would make you have the opposite point of view. That is because the through ridership is there and with that comes revenue not only for the route, but for the system.

Speaking of the system, that is where politics comes into play. I know things are different now, but there are plenty of people that don't believe in trains. Period. If you want them, pay for them! That sounds logical but there are plenty of people that will not vote for funding a scattered system. In other words, it sounds good to say you're going to invest BILLIONS in the NEC....until someone in Kentucky says "Sure, as long as you continue to stop in Mayville!' and someone in Montana says "I'll allocate for a national system, which means Malta. So if you think you're turning the Empire Builder into two trains between CHI-MSP along with one SEA-SPK train, you've have another thing coming!"

The trains are shorter now then they have ever been. However, I think that is because of slightly better utilization and assignment. That may also be because revenue (higher fares) are trumping ridership numbers (lowering fares may drive up the numbers but may not translate into revenue.). Additionally, shorter trains traveling shorter distances doesn't necessarily mean less maintenance or less head count. Quite often, it means just the opposite. Short distance intercity trains must have a calendar day inspection lust like a Long Distance train ,except a long distance train can actually continue to its final repair point if a non-running gear defect is found en route. That is not the case for commuter or short distance intercity trains. Additionally, a delayed en route LD train can continue in service to its next calendar day inspection point. That is not the case with SD/COM trains. They can continue to the next inspection point, but not with the passengers. Multiple trains may need additional crews and crew bases. Again, this MAY not be an issue. It depends on the costs, the ridership and the revenue.

These are all major issues, Tibike. Where trains exist, I believe in multiple services. You already have the stations. You already have the mechanical forces available. You already have the crew base and commissary profile. If more trains can utilize them, that's better. So, I'm not saying your idea for breaking up the CS may not be a good idea. However, will the states fund it? If they kill the train, does that mean other states will fund what is left? Will Oregon willingly fork over money to invest in the NEC? Our new CEO may believe so but I really don't think that is the case. We could lose it all.

We may find out soon enough. My prediction is a push to corridor type trains, financed by the states. We may not have a choice. If that fails, you'll see a nod to sustaining the system by running a perfunctory train with minimal amenities and a puny consist. The rest of the equipment will be diverted to other places in the system to feed corridor type service. Again, this may NOT be the end of the world, depending on how it is accomplished.


----------



## TiBike

The Coast Starlight is helpful to Californians, but not as useful as the Surfliner or the Capitol Corridor in my experience, or, I'm guessing, the San Joaquins. From my Salinas perspective, the Starlight isn't as reliable or conveniently scheduled a way of getting to LA or the Bay Area or Sacramento as the bus/corridor train alternatives. For travel north of Sacramento, it's not very useful at all, because it's a graveyard shift run in either direction.

I'm not saying trains and planes are the same, but passengers are passengers. Conveniently timed, reliably run, comfortable service between LA and the Bay Area might be attractive enough to pull a sufficient number of passengers to make it worthwhile. So might Redding to the Bay Area -- that's in the too close to fly, too far to drive sweet spot (I've done both). Daytime or overnight service to Portland might be viable, but I doubt overnight Bay Area to Seattle would be sufficiently competitive (or LA to Portland) -- however you do it, it'll take a day and a night and that's difficult to justify for anything other than leisure travel or transportation of last resort.

I agree with you completely, TR7, about where things are likely headed. Expanded corridor service and skeletal, non-daily service elsewhere seems to fit both Anderson's vision of the business (transportation, not entertainment) and the mood of the administration. You have a far better grasp of the railroad business than I do, and I believe you when you say it's more complicated, in many respects at least, than airlines. But I'm betting that long distance service as we know it is not one of the choices on the table. It's either solve the problems and reshape service and schedules to maximise revenue/minimise empty seat-miles, or walk away from some routes completely.


----------



## neroden

Thirdrail7 said:


> These ARE limitations that exist on train travel. It is quite easy to say "let's maximize frequency between certain pairs," until the hosts get involved. Some railroads charge by axle! Therefore, running more trains ramps up more access fees. Some railroads charge by the number of trains. Some railroads charge by the car. Some charge by the tonnage. Some railroads may use different charges on different routes. That makes a general solution problematic because there isn't a "general route" or "general fee" that exists. Trains have to follow the track and the owner of the track sets the bar and can assign fees. The bottom line is you can't assume that running more trains won;t DRAMATICALLY increase your contribution and nullify the revenue.


This gets back to what I have said a thousand times: the passenger operators, or the state & local governments, need to own the tracks. It's unacceptable for freight operators to own the tracks. Nowhere else in the world does it, and there's good reason for that.
We're getting there a step at a time. It may happen eventually.


----------



## neroden

As for less-than-daily service, Anderson isn't an idiot. He won't propose *that*. Only complete and total idiots propose *that*. Anderson is not an idiot.

I will boldly predict that Anderson would kill the Sunset Limited or the Cardinal outright before he'd downgrade any daily train to less-than-daily service. Because he's not *stupid*.


----------



## Thirdrail7

TiBike said:


> But I'm betting that long distance service as we know it is not one of the choices on the table. It's either solve the problems and reshape service and schedules to maximise revenue/minimise empty seat-miles, or walk away from some routes completely.



Your last sentence says it all....but it comes with a rub. If you walk away from some routes completely, how will that impact the rest of the system politically and financially? Times have changed but I just don't see other states basically funding what would amount to as a mostly Northeast/East system.


----------



## jis

Walking away from significant LD routes will cause the rest of the routes to progressively fold. Historically closure of routes never lived upto their advertised advantages, except when they were done simply because of lack of equipment to run a route viably. Financially they were as often as not negative.


----------



## TiBike

I'm assuming you mean the rest of the long distance routes would fold? Or is there history that shows downgrading LD routes has a significant negative effect on corridor/city pair travel? You imply that there were times when closing routes had a positive impact. I get it that the advertised benefits never materialised, but that's not the same as no benefit at all. I'm betting that if any given service reduction or elimination shows a better than even chance of improving the bottom line, Anderson will look kindly upon it.

As TR7 wrote, there are both political and financial dimensions to consider, so maintaining some semblance of a national network might be necessary politically. Although there are plenty of examples of federally subsidised programs and services that primarily serve either rural or urban communities, but not both. In my business, telecoms, universal service programs subsidise mostly rural service, while lifeline program and economic development administration money goes mostly to people in urban areas. If rural and urban districts get funding for their top priorities, no one seems to worry that any given program doesn't benefit everyone equally.



jis said:


> Walking away from significant LD routes will cause the rest of the routes to progressively fold. Historically closure of routes never lived upto their advertised advantages, except when they were done simply because of lack of equipment to run a route viably. Financially they were as often as not negative.


----------



## jis

It is a given that after the shutoff costs are paid off, shutting the whole thing down will show a remarkable improvement in the bottom line since it will be exactly no loss for ever.



But that is not the reason that one runs a public service anyway, so that is moot.


----------



## TiBike

But a fair question is "what should that public service be"? One possible answer is "the one that serves the maximum number of people". Not the maximum number of seat miles, but the raw passenger count. If focusing the service on high traffic corridors/pairs results in the daily passenger count going from X to 2X (or anything greater than 1X), there's an argument to be made that the public benefit has increased too.


----------



## jis

Realistically one has to strike a balance between how much cost should be born by the commons in order to increase public utility of a service. One way to come to some fare conclusion is to account for the increase in economic activity that is enable by the increased mobility. Where there is belief in such there are interesting schemes in place for recapture of economic benefit in the form of diversion part of the local tax collection to improve mobility (i.e. increase ridership). Unfortunately in the US there is complete lack of belief in such except may be in a very few isolated places. Hence the whole discussion boils down to a zero sum game around money doled out from some pie in the sky with no connection or accountability for any related economic results positive or negative. that is why these discussions never arrive at any reasonable conclusion. And Anderson does not really have all the levers available to him to make it otherwise. So I just watch it with certain level of bemusement as we go around the block one more time.


----------



## Tarm

neroden said:


> As for less-than-daily service, Anderson isn't an idiot. He won't propose *that*. Only complete and total idiots propose *that*. Anderson is not an idiot.
> 
> I will boldly predict that Anderson would kill the Sunset Limited or the Cardinal outright before he'd downgrade any daily train to less-than-daily service. Because he's not *stupid*.


Or he could go for a less-than-LD service. Take the Cardinal for example. For slightly less train miles per week the Cardinal could be restructured into daily 1RT CIN-CHI plus 1RT IND-CHI daytime coach trains. Presto! An inconvenient 3X weekly LD train becomes a useful corridor service. Higher ridership, lower costs. IMHO that is the future of passenger rail.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Tarm said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for less-than-daily service, Anderson isn't an idiot. He won't propose *that*. Only complete and total idiots propose *that*. Anderson is not an idiot.
> 
> I will boldly predict that Anderson would kill the Sunset Limited or the Cardinal outright before he'd downgrade any daily train to less-than-daily service. Because he's not *stupid*.
> 
> 
> 
> Or he could go for a less-than-LD service. Take the Cardinal for example. For slightly less train miles per week the Cardinal could be restructured into daily 1RT CIN-CHI plus 1RT IND-CHI daytime coach trains. Presto! An inconvenient 3X weekly LD train becomes a useful corridor service. Higher ridership, lower costs. IMHO that is the future of passenger rail.
Click to expand...

Such a train would require state funding at present as well as probably more coaches.


----------



## jis

Tarm said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for less-than-daily service, Anderson isn't an idiot. He won't propose *that*. Only complete and total idiots propose *that*. Anderson is not an idiot.
> 
> I will boldly predict that Anderson would kill the Sunset Limited or the Cardinal outright before he'd downgrade any daily train to less-than-daily service. Because he's not *stupid*.
> 
> 
> 
> Or he could go for a less-than-LD service. Take the Cardinal for example. For slightly less train miles per week the Cardinal could be restructured into daily 1RT CIN-CHI plus 1RT IND-CHI daytime coach trains. Presto! An inconvenient 3X weekly LD train becomes a useful corridor service. Higher ridership, lower costs. IMHO that is the future of passenger rail.
Click to expand...

Presto! None of them will be feasible unless Indiana and Ohio pays for them under current law. And we know the likelihood of that happening.


----------



## Tarm

jis said:


> Tarm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for less-than-daily service, Anderson isn't an idiot. He won't propose *that*. Only complete and total idiots propose *that*. Anderson is not an idiot.
> 
> I will boldly predict that Anderson would kill the Sunset Limited or the Cardinal outright before he'd downgrade any daily train to less-than-daily service. Because he's not *stupid*.
> 
> 
> 
> Or he could go for a less-than-LD service. Take the Cardinal for example. For slightly less train miles per week the Cardinal could be restructured into daily 1RT CIN-CHI plus 1RT IND-CHI daytime coach trains. Presto! An inconvenient 3X weekly LD train becomes a useful corridor service. Higher ridership, lower costs. IMHO that is the future of passenger rail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Presto! None of them will be feasible unless Indiana and Ohio pays for them under current law. And we know the likelihood of that happening.
Click to expand...

Nothing is feasible unless someone is willing to pay for it. If the private sector chooses not to provide passenger rail and the state governments declines to fund it then all of us passenger rail advocates are left sucking on fumes from the federal government. Maybe, just maybe, Mr. Anderson has the vision to work with Congress and restructure passenger rail in this country before the whole system comes crashing down.


----------



## Lonestar648

The corridor concept presumes the states are willing and are financially capable to support these operations. Now if more interstate highways became toll roads, there would be more incentive to ride instead of drive.

I also see or saw Amtrak as a National Security operation in case the country needs alternate intercity transportation when an event like 9/11 or worse occurs. I have talked with a couple men from Congress, who believe the airline shutdown like happen on 9/11 can never happen again. I don't agree, I think it is a matter of time.


----------



## jis

If Mr. Anderson really wants to focus on something, he should focus on fixing things that he has control over, that desperately need fixing, first, rather than fixating on grand ideas about "fixing passenger rail in the country" which is way beyond his remit. He has a company to run first and foremost. So far he has not shown much of a vision beyond replacing seat cushions on some cars (a good thing I might add) about even running said company, which is his primary responsibility. He is currently coasting along on projects that were all initiated before his arrival. Miracles are always possible though.


----------



## Lonestar648

Good point, because Amtrak and passenger rail are not Delta Airlines and the Airline industry. Yes both move people from city to city, but it ends there.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

TiBike said:


> But a fair question is "what should that public service be"? One possible answer is "the one that serves the maximum number of people". Not the maximum number of seat miles, but the raw passenger count. If focusing the service on high traffic corridors/pairs results in the daily passenger count going from X to 2X (or anything greater than 1X), there's an argument to be made that the public benefit has increased too.


While passenger count is certainly very relevant, distance traveled is also an important component that should not be ignored. It would be rather ridiculous to suggest that a train that carries x number of people from CHI-MKE is worth the same amount as a train that carries x number of people CHI-EMY. Obviously it is far more complicated than that as most passengers do not ride end-to-end and the CHI-MKE trip would be much cheaper to operate, but the point is still valid.


----------



## west point

Also remember the partial air line shut down due to Mt. St. Helens eruption. another was the Iceland volcano. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. A volcano ash cloud can easily block all satellite transmissions especially GPS. There goes the PTC that is GPS based !


----------



## jis

west point said:


> Also remember the partial air line shut down due to Mt. St. Helens eruption. another was the Iceland volcano. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. A volcano ash cloud can easily block all satellite transmissions especially GPS. There goes the PTC !


Only of the I-ETMS variety which depends critically on GPS will be affected

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Thirdrail7

jis said:


> If Mr. Anderson really wants to focus on something, he should focus on fixing things that he has control over, that desperately need fixing, first, rather than fixating on grand ideas about "fixing passenger rail in the country" which is way beyond his remit. He has a company to run first and foremost. So far he has not shown much of a vision beyond replacing seat cushions on some cars (a good thing I might add) about even running said company, which is his primary responsibility. He is currently coasting along on projects that were all initiated before his arrival. Miracles are always possible though.


So, now that is seems he is focusing on things he has control over, what do you think of vision?

I'll ask this question again in about.....90 days or so and we'll see if there is any change in your answer.


----------



## stappend

Thirdrail7 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Mr. Anderson really wants to focus on something, he should focus on fixing things that he has control over, that desperately need fixing, first, rather than fixating on grand ideas about "fixing passenger rail in the country" which is way beyond his remit. He has a company to run first and foremost. So far he has not shown much of a vision beyond replacing seat cushions on some cars (a good thing I might add) about even running said company, which is his primary responsibility. He is currently coasting along on projects that were all initiated before his arrival. Miracles are always possible though.
> 
> 
> 
> So, now that is seems he is focusing on things he has control over, what do you think of vision?
> 
> I'll ask this question again in about.....90 days or so and we'll see if there is any change in your answer.
Click to expand...

I do wonder if he had an effective testimony before congress. Amtrak did come out pretty good, and suddenly there was money for PTC added to the budget.


----------



## jis

Thirdrail7 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Mr. Anderson really wants to focus on something, he should focus on fixing things that he has control over, that desperately need fixing, first, rather than fixating on grand ideas about "fixing passenger rail in the country" which is way beyond his remit. He has a company to run first and foremost. So far he has not shown much of a vision beyond replacing seat cushions on some cars (a good thing I might add) about even running said company, which is his primary responsibility. He is currently coasting along on projects that were all initiated before his arrival. Miracles are always possible though.
> 
> 
> 
> So, now that is seems he is focusing on things he has control over, what do you think of vision?
> 
> I'll ask this question again in about.....90 days or so and we'll see if there is any change in your answer.
Click to expand...

While I may not like a few details, he is certainly focusing on things where he can make a huge difference as opposed to fiddling in the peripheries. 
He is definitely managing the finances though it is not quite clear what his overall vision of Amtrak the Corporation is. He has not articulated that yet. But that may be a strategic move to keep those that would attempt to lop his head off if they knew his vision, at bay. I have seen this play both by successful and disastrous CEOs. So the jury is still out.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

I think Anderson's overall vision is to save as much money as possible by removing anything left that is not a basic train necessity and making Amtrak into essentially the equivalent of an NJ Transit bus, but on the rails. No frills, no courtesy, no service. Just pay us a lot of money, then sit down and don't bother us til we throw you off at your stop. Exactly why I don't fly, and will probably not do much train travel this year.

I am very disappointed in Wick Moorman, though--not that he's retiring, of course he deserves to--but that he seems to have joined the corporate world and isn't disagreeing (at least publicly) with any of the changes.


----------



## jis

Wick Moorman is and has always been part of the corporate world. I have no idea from where people develop these romantic ideas about specific individuals thus setting themselves up for disappointment




Just because someone has a PV hobby does not mean that he would let that cloud his decisions when he is working as a CEO or the right hand man of a company. I would expect him to put the interest of the organization that he is CEO of first.. Of course I also do not know for sure what has been discussed among the Board, Moorman and Anderson, so who knows? But the last thing I would expect is to see Moorman publicly criticize Anderson's actions.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

I agree, jis, that while Wick Moorman is officially working for Amtrak, he would certainly be professional and not criticize Anderson's actions. I am just surprised that he hasn't retired and gotten out of having to be in that position.

I think many people liked Wick Moorman because he seemed to be truly interested in everyone, from the highest-level worker to the lowest, and apparently spent time talking to everybody. So yes, of course he's part of the corporate world--he just never seemed to present that aloof corporate image.


----------



## jebr

I think Anderson is trying to make Amtrak a lot like Delta. He wants Amtrak to run safely, on-time, with equipment being in as decent of shape as practical. He wants pricing to be dynamic; in general, flat discounts off pretty much any fare are out, but with targeted deeper discounts than we've seen before (the 33% off sale is even better than most of the SmartFares.) I think he'll keep the leg room and basic amenities of coach the same, but work to make business class and sleeper class more of a defined, specific type of service with as little of the variability between trains as possible. He'll probably try to streamline food and beverage service and make it more airline-style (which, as long as they source the right type of meals, should still work out fine.)

As far as I'm concerned, If Amtrak can have the reliability and consistency of service that Delta seems to have, I think it'll be a good improvement.


----------



## Seaboard92

As someone who has personally worked around wick I can attest to his people skills. No matter what your job was the man always took an interest in his employees and made small talk. My best memories of working around him was doing the 21st century steam program in 2016. He was always around for at least one trip each weekend.

The first two times he saw me was in the two minutes I was taking a water break. So the last time in Manassas that season he saw me and asked "where's your water bottle." I told him I didn't have time to grab one because I was busy trying to fix a leaky compressed. And five minutes later he came back with a bottle of water for me. He was and is a truly great man.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

I have done my small part. I got an email from America by Rail and unsubscribed, and when they wanted to know why, I told them that I will not be taking long trips on Amtrak while it has a CEO with an airline background whose changes I disagree with. A drop in the bucket, but it doesn't hurt to let advertisers know this could affect their bottom line.


----------



## spinnaker

Mystic River Dragon said:


> I have done my small part. I got an email from America by Rail and unsubscribed, and when they wanted to know why, I told them that I will not be taking long trips on Amtrak while it has a CEO with an airline background whose changes I disagree with. A drop in the bucket, but it doesn't hurt to let advertisers know this could affect their bottom line.



The problem with that plan is that there might not be a train at all if you wait too long to come back. I never took the train before. It was expensive and I didn't have the extra vacation time to spend on travel. Now later in life I have the time and the money. And I read the writing on the wall. I want to get my rides in before the train goes the way of the stage coach





I just wish I started riding sooner. Reading some of the posts here about the way it was, really makes me jealous.



But I will be happy to get the crumbs in the few remaining years.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Maybe we're underestimating Mr. Anderson. Consider:



Mystic River Dragon said:


> I think Anderson's overall vision is to save as much money as possible by removing anything left that is not a basic train necessity and making Amtrak into essentially the equivalent of an NJ Transit bus, but on the rails. No frills, no courtesy, no service. Just pay us a lot of money, then sit down and don't bother us til we throw you off at your stop. Exactly why I don't fly, and will probably not do much train travel this year.



Let's see. He's overseeing the cuts in amenities, services and sooner or later, probably routes or stops. However, it is also going after things like specials, charters and pet projects of supporters. He wants to get back to the "core" business, but wants to make a profit.

As such, people are writing their representatives, high profile groups are starting to complain and that leads to lobbying.

All the while, he's clutching PRIIA and saying this is what you want!

At that point, they'll either say continue on and he'll be justified or they'll either have to fund what he cuts or write it into some kind of law, at which point he'll say "stop complaining."

This was similar to Gunn's way of doing things. Perhaps he is starting to push the right buttons.

Continue to write....and soon!


----------



## TiBike

What you're describing sounds like the Washington Monument strategy -- any time the Park Service's budget is threatened, that's the first thing they say they'll close. It's real and it works.

That said, I'm not seeing that. Arguably, eliminating chefs will result in better and more consistent food – the public won't complain about that.

From the voting public's – and therefor most congresscritters' – private cars are the least visible service Amtrak offers. I've been reading the threads on Train Orders, too. Lots of wailing from rail fans, but there are also people on that board with decades of railroad operating experience, and they've all been saying that cutting private cars in/out at midpoints causes service delays. Eliminating a service that benefits less than 1% of Amtrak customers and improving service, even marginally, for the 99+% is not exactly a way to strike fear in a senator's heart (assuming such a thing exists .


----------



## neroden

Thirdrail7 said:


> This was similar to Gunn's way of doing things.


Gunn was a failure at Amtrak. While I share Gunn's desires, it is unarguable that his management of Amtrak failed outright. So I conclude that Gunn's tactics were bad. Frankly, Warrington's tactics were more effective, if you look at *results*. (Both were better than Downs or Lewis, but that's not saying much.)

I'm fine with restricting charter moves to those which don't interfere with regular operations.

I'm fine with changes to dining service in general, but *I want my fresh-cooked eggs back*, and seriously, grilling some eggs costs next to nothing compared to the customer benefit they give. The downgrades are undoubtedly leading to less business in the dining car: I witness it on the LSL each time I travel. Since most of the costs are fixed costs rather than variable costs, this is idiocy.


----------



## neroden

Tarm said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for less-than-daily service, Anderson isn't an idiot. He won't propose *that*. Only complete and total idiots propose *that*. Anderson is not an idiot.
> 
> I will boldly predict that Anderson would kill the Sunset Limited or the Cardinal outright before he'd downgrade any daily train to less-than-daily service. Because he's not *stupid*.
> 
> 
> 
> Or he could go for a less-than-LD service. Take the Cardinal for example. For slightly less train miles per week the Cardinal could be restructured into daily 1RT CIN-CHI plus 1RT IND-CHI daytime coach trains. Presto! An inconvenient 3X weekly LD train becomes a useful corridor service. Higher ridership, lower costs. IMHO that is the future of passenger rail.
Click to expand...

Sure; but the first problem is, if you look at the ridership, you've done it wrong. You're losing three of the ten top city pairs by ridership:

* Charlottseville - Chicago *

* Chicago - DC *

* Charleston - Chicago *

And, more importantly, the top four by revenue:

Charlottesville - NY

CHI - DC

CHI - NY

Charlottesville - CHI

I'm all for a focus on corridors with frequent service in the corridors, but it has to be data-driven, not driven by arbitrary preconceived biases. I demonstrated at one point that an LSL sleeper makes more money than an LSL coache; another fellow here showed that the LSL was the exception and the reverse was true on the Star, Meteor, and Crescent. (Interesting, surely.)

In the case of the Cardinal, the data says that a replacement with corridors as you suggest would also demand an additional Charlottesville-NY frequency, and an improved way of getting people from Charlottesville to Chicago (improved Capitol Limited or whatever). Minimum. That's if you don't think Charleston WV is significant (and it may not be, given the depopulation of WV and its bad political situation).

That said, would I trade the Cardinal for a daily route which ran Chicago-Cincy-Columbus-Cleveland? In a heartbeat.


----------



## Anderson

That would also require the host railroads and the states to play ball.

Honestly, if you added capacity (particularly CVS-NYP), there's a case for running CIN-NYP as a "state supported" train of some sort. I suspect that if Amtrak were willing to give VA/WV a deal similar to the Lynchburger, the resulting train (as a "day train") might make sense from the states' perspective (considering the cost recovery situation on the Lynchburger and how the Cardinal plays into VA's overall schedule, it would likely at least break even); operation to CIN would probably border on being a fiction in terms of ridership, but it would at least preserve track access. What you _don't_ want is to go to a "bus bridge" situation HUN-CIN, if only because of the resulting loss of access.


----------



## Trogdor

neroden said:


> So I conclude that Gunn's tactics were bad. Frankly, Warrington's tactics were more effective, if you look at *results*.


What “results” would that be?

Warrington left Amtrak basically a couple months from insolvency (they would not have been able to make payroll). Warrington mortgaged Penn Station just to pay current operating expenses. Amtrak had a bunch of usable, repairable equipment rotting away at Beech Grove because Amtrak couldn’t afford to repair them. The equipment that was running, if not brand new (Acela and some California equipment), was generally in terrible shape with interiors that hadn’t been touched since the 1980s.

Gunn came on and convinced congress and a very hostile administration to give Amtrak additional money to make it through the year, plus enough to keep things running, rebuild damaged equipment at Beech Grove, refurbish most of the Superliner fleet, and generally operate more reliably. His one failure is that he didn’t play politics, and because he said some mean things about the Bush Administration’s budget proposals, the Bush-appointed board fired him. But Gunn’s legacy basically carried Amtrak through the next decade or so. Warrington’s legacy would have had the network shut down within the year following his departure had someone like Gunn not come in and used straight, no-BS talk about the reality of the situation.

I’m sorry, but to suggest that Warrington did better than Gunn at anything other than leaving voluntarily is one of the most asinine things I’ve read on this forum in many years.


----------



## neroden

Gunn was fired, and managed to discontinue three of the most important routes in the system (both in terms of network connectivity and financials) before he got fired (they haven't returned).

Warrington kept the system running. Gunn didn't. He failed and then was fired.

I know a lot of Amtrak fans love Gunn, but objectively, he was a failure.

Having actually analyzed the Warrington era in detail, he did his best to dig out from under the even larger disaster which was the Downs period. (Which, to be fair, was partly Claytor's fault... but it was mostly Downs's fault.). Some of Warrington's initiatives worked out poorly, others worked out well, but in the end he left the railroad in a better place than when he inherited it, *just as bankrupt and unable to make payroll*, from Downs. Arguably he was a miracle worker, put in an impossible situation.


----------



## Anderson

Warrington played a large number of stupid games, but they very arguably got us the Acela (which, though it has created all sorts of issues with company focus, has arguably closed the total operating loss and made it _far_ harder to "get away with" killing Amtrak even before you take the Senate into account). The problem that we are facing is that Amtrak is so painfully close to break-even overall that it is hard not to just try and knock out some costs and fill that gap accordingly...even if the Acela IIs should fix the problem as a whole.


----------



## Thirdrail7

neroden said:


> Gunn was fired, and managed to discontinue three of the most important routes in the system (both in terms of network connectivity and financials) before he got fired (they haven't returned).
> 
> Warrington kept the system running. Gunn didn't. He failed and then was fired.
> 
> I know a lot of Amtrak fans love Gunn, but objectively, he was a failure.
> 
> Having actually analyzed the Warrington era in detail, he did his best to dig out from under the even larger disaster which was the Downs period. (Which, to be fair, was partly Claytor's fault... but it was mostly Downs's fault.). Some of Warrington's initiatives worked out poorly, others worked out well, but in the end he left the railroad in a better place than when he inherited it, *just as bankrupt and unable to make payroll*, from Downs. Arguably he was a miracle worker, put in an impossible situation.



Your original statement was (putting nicely) extraordinary. Mr. Warrington did not keep the system running. He did the same thing as Mr. Boardman. He tried to expand business opportunities in the hope of reducing deficits. However, Mr. Warrington met with far less success by kicking too much of the can down the road. he lied to himself and others by not asking for capital and deferring maintenance to dangerous levels (where have we seen this recently?). That yielded sidelined trains due to lack of equipment, a lack of credibility, extra expenses to catch up on maintenance and poor relationships with the hosts, Congress and his own workforce.

Mr. Gunn came in and attempted to dig out the mess that was Amtrak. He concentrated on the basics, streamlined the operation, marched through the larded workforce like General Sherman and actually brought back training. He prioritized getting the railroad back into a state of good repair. He teamed with states to work on the infrastructure and also reestablished working relations with Congress, who ignored Bush and funded Amtrak. Of course he discontinued routes that were based upon Mail and Baggage hocus pocus when Mr. Warrington left Amtrak with no equipment, no capital, no credibility and a bunch of extremely hostile hosts.

His failure to shut down the railroad, keep the politically "endorsed" positions and embrace the lie that Warrington stated and Bush wanted him to say (this railroad can run without subsidies) is what got him fired. If he had been allowed to continue his work, we probably would have been better off. One thing is for sure, this place may not have existed this long without him.

He's actually what this placed needed when MR. Boardman left.


----------



## Trogdor

neroden said:


> Gunn was fired, and managed to discontinue three of the most important routes in the system (both in terms of network connectivity and financials) before he got fired (they haven't returned).
> 
> Warrington kept the system running. Gunn didn't. He failed and then was fired.
> 
> I know a lot of Amtrak fans love Gunn, but objectively, he was a failure.
> 
> Having actually analyzed the Warrington era in detail, he did his best to dig out from under the even larger disaster which was the Downs period. (Which, to be fair, was partly Claytor's fault... but it was mostly Downs's fault.). Some of Warrington's initiatives worked out poorly, others worked out well, but in the end he left the railroad in a better place than when he inherited it, *just as bankrupt and unable to make payroll*, from Downs. Arguably he was a miracle worker, put in an impossible situation.


This is just hilarious. I don't know any other way to put it.

I wasn't following Amtrak during the Downs era, so can't comment on their financial situation at the end, but I have a hard time believing they were burning through cash vs. appropriations at the rate that they would entirely run out of cash three months before the end of the fiscal year / next year's appropriations. That's where Warrington left the company.

He also spent a billion or so dollars (I can't find the exact number right now, but my memory tells me it was in this ballpark) on a failed freight initiative (money that could have gone into passenger equipment; all the new Viewliners folks are foaming over now could have been on the property 15 years ago, extra sleepers and coaches to make longer revenue consists, etc.). We got trains to such exotic places as Janesville, WI and Louisville, KY (if it was possible for a train to have negative passenger counts, these trains would have found a way to do so, but they had to settle for single digits; sometimes including 0).

Then there was the "Service Guarantee" initiative that cost Amtrak a ton of money and didn't even provide any meaningful way of improving the service (just gave free trips to people who didn't like that the fabric on the seat next to them was torn).

I'm actually curious what initiatives he had that you think worked out well.



Anderson said:


> Warrington played a large number of stupid games, but they very arguably got us the Acela (which, though it has created all sorts of issues with company focus, has arguably closed the total operating loss and made it _far_ harder to "get away with" killing Amtrak even before you take the Senate into account). The problem that we are facing is that Amtrak is so painfully close to break-even overall that it is hard not to just try and knock out some costs and fill that gap accordingly...even if the Acela IIs should fix the problem as a whole.


Most of the Acela project (including equipment acquisition and the electrification NHV-BOS) was underway before Warrington came in. What he brought us was the name and marketing, including the confusing branding of turning the then-Northeast Direct trains (but, IIRC, only certain ones) into Acela Regionals.


----------



## jis

And painting a bunch Amfleets in strange colors and shapes. What was her name? Barb something?

All very good points Trogdor. I also found it quite hilarious.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Palmetto

Barb Richardson, I believe. I think it was she who had something to do with the tilt fiasco, as well. The Acela cars were a bit too wide to use the mechanism on Metro North. Hence, the "clunk" sound heading west at Shorline Jct. when it gets de-activated.

Edit: here's a link:https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,537819


----------



## jis

Since then the ban on tilt on Metro North has been lifted. Now Acelas run with tilt on on the Metro North segment too.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## OBS

Palmetto said:


> Barb Richardson, I believe. I think it was she who had something to do with the tilt fiasco, as well. The Acela cars were a bit too wide to use the mechanism on Metro North. Hence, the "clunk" sound heading west at Shorline Jct. when it gets de-activated.
> 
> Edit: here's a link:https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,537819


It was Richardson. She followed Warrington to NJT...


----------



## daybeers

jis said:


> Since then the ban on tilt on Metro North has been lifted. Now Acelas run with tilt on on the Metro North segment too.


But the tilt is still reduced to 4.2 degrees versus the usual 6.8 degree on that segment, correct?


----------



## jis

Thirdrail could tell you. I am not aware of any difference in tilt and I am not even sure it can be selectively limited per block.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Palmetto

Interesting. So, does Acela run faster than regionals on Metro North?

BTW, I just looked at the title of this thread, and we are WAY off topic.


----------



## jis

Palmetto said:


> Interesting. So, does Acela run faster than regionals on Metro North?


AFAIK no speeds limits were changed. Only comfort enhanced. Acelas and Regionals with similar stopping pattern between NHV and NYP appear to be scheduled for roughly the same running time.


----------



## PaulM

> Then there was the "Service Guarantee" initiative that cost Amtrak a ton of money and didn't even provide any meaningful way of improving the service (just gave free trips to people who didn't like that the fabric on the seat next to them was torn).


I'm sure that a service guarantee isn't free; but then a business's quality control function isn't free either. When trains are run like a factory without a plant manager or foreman, how else are you going to have any accountability?


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

Back to Richard Anderson and Wick Moorman--

According to Wikipedia, Richard Anderson's father worked for the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad (although as an office worker, not on the rails), so you'd think he'd have more respect for rail in general.

As for Wick, one of his greatest strengths is seeing the good in everyone and truly liking everyone. Perhaps that is also his greatest weakness, and he can't see that perhaps Anderson does not have rail in his heart, just on his balance sheet.


----------



## Ryan

He’s doing his job to the best of his abilities.

Don’t like what he’s doing? Don’t blame his heart, blame his bosses.


----------



## zephyr17

In fairness, all CEO's have to look at their balance sheets. Amtrak's best CEO's (Claytor, and, though I will draw fire, Gunn) had a great understanding of their balance sheets. Some of the bad ones (Downs, Warrington) were living in a fiscal fantasy worlds ("glidepath to self sufficiency").

It is the potential "solutions" to the issues in balance sheets where the problems lie. Someone who doesn't understand the business does things like the Mercer cuts under Downs where trying to cut losses results in both more losses and less service. The Mercer cuts were arguably the worst thing that ever happened to the national network and it still hasn't fully recovered and probably never will.

We'll see how Anderson works out and how well he understands that Amtrak isn't an airline and many airline models won't work. Cut the PPCs? Frankly, understandable, they've been hanging by a thread for a long time. Cut special moves and charters? Well, you can make a sound argument about concentrating on your core business. Some of the nonsense about PTC, well, my understanding is he back to "PTC or FRA waiver" now, not just "PTC or death" and I think some grandstanding was involved, so I am reserving judgement on that. The rumors about cutting the LDs into connecting corridor trains? Ummm, no, that would be a bad move and the one I am most afraid of. Encouraging more corridor service, great.


----------



## MikeM

All of this discussion is great, but at the end of the day, what sort of product is Amtrak selling, and who is going to buy it?

We have to be honest;


the delays in getting the Viewliner order completed has cost the company capacity for first class service, which is considerably better profit than coach, and subsidizes the whazoo out of dining car service. How much of this delay is because of the car builder, and how much is Amtrak not pushing completion harder?
there's no sign what so ever that Amtrak is even thinking about replacement cars for the Superliners, many of which went into service while I was an undergrad. I'm nearing retirement. They should be too.
All of the cuts to local station staffing may not affect ticket sales, but what about creating some connection to the local community? Why not use local agents to make visits to local businesses, schools, etc and market the trains better in small communities? How does it feel to drive up to a dirty, quasi-abandoned rail station in the middle of the night to catch a train that only shows up once a day, with nobody around?
Many of the cars of all types are very tired - frayed upholstery, flat cushions, old restrooms, stained walls, etc. Crews are pushed harder every year on the trains, personal service is catch as catch can. Great they did new seat cushions on the coaches for the Northeast, and single level services, but what about the viewliners, Superliners, and stations?
Against that backdrop, it used to be when I booked Amtrak, I could generally travel via sleeper for what it cost to fly in coach, plus a little bit more, but the product was good, predictable, and relaxing. Now days, when I book Amtrak, the cost for a sleeper is many times pretty close to first class airfare, for a much inferior product. Yes, I don't get xray'd and searched on Amtrak, but terminals are well maintained, good food options in terminals, staff is around if something goes wrong, and the majority of airlines offer a consistent product which while not spacious is tolerable for the shorter haul. Fundamentals, like parking near Amtrak stations and knowing menu items will be available in the diner and not sold out immediately seem to be lacking.

I've seen my share of bashing of Gunn in the comments. He may have been impolitic to many, but his attitude of getting the railroad into a state of good repair is missed. It seems now like every change sets off another round of staff reductions. How much of the real understanding of passenger rail is being sacrificed to cover consulting charges. And where is the will of the government to force the railroad industry to treat Amtrak with something vaguely like respect when it tries to make reasonably simple changes like making a 3 day a week train a daily for less than billions of dollars of capital expense?

I have a trip in a week, and this will probably be my last for a while until I see some progress in making the train service better. All the ham fisted cost savings, from eliminating newspapers in sleepers, cutting back meal options, eliminating staff, not replacing old equipment, canceling trains at the drop of a hat for track maintenance, they're all taking away some of what made train travel fun. I hope something happens, that NARP and AARPCO can push for improvements and our congress pushes back. But what I feel is going to happen is that Amtrak in the end wants to be the NEC railroad, and that will not work long run. The system only works if it's national and serves the nation.

There


----------



## neroden

Trogdor said:


> I wasn't following Amtrak during the Downs era, so can't comment on their financial situation at the end, but I have a hard time believing they were burning through cash vs. appropriations at the rate that they would entirely run out of cash three months before the end of the fiscal year / next year's appropriations. That's where Warrington left the company.


 You're wrong. They were actually out of cash in 1997 and needed an emergency injection of cash at that time, made by special legislation. Downs had been hiding the railroad's financial condition from Congress, so it came as an unpleasant surprise to them. The Secretary of Transportation had to intervene to get the bailout passed.

Congress's condition for the bailout was the infamous and impossible "glidepath to self-sufficiency" (or Amtrak would be shut down) which Warrington was saddled with before he was even hired. This is the impossible situation which Warrington *entered*. After several years, he left the railroad... financially, exactly where it had been when Downs admitted that he'd run out of money; operationally, much improved, including the Acela. This with a completely hostile Secretary of Transportation, whereas Downs had a friendly Secretary of Transportation and *still* managed to screw everything up.

Gunn just cancelled useful trains and got himself fired. He talked a good game but he didn't really make any improvements before he got fired. (Would he have if he'd stayed? Probably. But he didn't.) The best that can be said is that by talking a good game he convinced Congress that Amtrak needed permanent funding; but Warrington didn't have the *opportunity* to do that. When Warrington came in, the Downs era had been such a disaster that Congress was in no mood to provide permanent funding. Did Warrington lie to Congress? I think he had to, if he wanted Amtrak to continue to exist.

The Downs era was an unmitigated disaster. Warrington gets unfairly tarred for being the guy who came after Downs. It's a pretty normal thing: people blame the current guy for problems which actually started under the last guy.

I wasn't riding Amtrak during the Downs era... there's a reason for that. I barely knew it existed, and it had an entirely bad reputation. Warrington's marketing moves were actually substantially effective and raised awareness.


----------



## neroden

zephyr17 said:


> In fairness, all CEO's have to look at their balance sheets. Amtrak's best CEO's (Claytor, and, though I will draw fire, Gunn) had a great understanding of their balance sheets. Some of the bad ones (Downs, Warrington) were living in a fiscal fantasy worlds ("glidepath to self sufficiency").
> 
> It is the potential "solutions" to the issues in balance sheets where the problems lie. Someone who doesn't understand the business does things like the Mercer cuts under Downs where trying to cut losses results in both more losses and less service. The Mercer cuts were arguably the worst thing that ever happened to the national network and it still hasn't fully recovered and probably never will.
> 
> We'll see how Anderson works out and how well he understands that Amtrak isn't an airline and many airline models won't work. Cut the PPCs? Frankly, understandable, they've been hanging by a thread for a long time. Cut special moves and charters? Well, you can make a sound argument about concentrating on your core business. Some of the nonsense about PTC, well, my understanding is he back to "PTC or FRA waiver" now, not just "PTC or death" and I think some grandstanding was involved, so I am reserving judgement on that. The rumors about cutting the LDs into connecting corridor trains? Ummm, no, that would be a bad move and the one I am most afraid of. Encouraging more corridor service, great.


I agree 110% with what zephyr17 says. Particularly the Mercer cuts, which were utterly disastrous (perhaps the only comparably bad period was the "1979 Cuts").

Does Anderson understand the economies-of-scale nature of railroading? (More trains per day on the same route, longer trains, etc.)


----------



## Northeastern292

I think everyone here can agree that Richard Anderson is trying to make Amtrak profitable at all costs, including ailenating the company's best customers, and in the end doing more harm than good.

Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## Ryan

I disagree with your assertion that this will alienate the “best” customers and that this will end up doing more harm than good.

We don’t even know the full extent of what is going to happen, I think that it’s somewhat premature to call those efforts a failure.


----------



## PRR 60

Northeastern292 said:


> I think everyone here can agree that Richard Anderson is trying to make Amtrak profitable at all costs, including ailenating the company's best customers, and in the end doing more harm than good.
> 
> Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app


Put me in the "I do not agree" column.


----------



## Northeastern292

PRR 60 said:


> Northeastern292 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone here can agree that Richard Anderson is trying to make Amtrak profitable at all costs, including ailenating the company's best customers, and in the end doing more harm than good.
> 
> Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app
> 
> 
> 
> Put me in the "I do not agree" column.
Click to expand...

You think he has some redeeming qualities? 
Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## Northeastern292

Ryan said:


> I disagree with your assertion that this will alienate the “best” customers and that this will end up doing more harm than good.
> 
> We don’t even know the full extent of what is going to happen, I think that it’s somewhat premature to call those efforts a failure.


I guess, but unassigned seating, free bags, the occasional appearance of a PV, those things help add to the charm of Amtrak.
I don't want my ride on Amtrak to be like an airline. And I don't trust Richard Anderson. I really don't.

Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## Trogdor

Northeastern292 said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Northeastern292 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone here can agree that Richard Anderson is trying to make Amtrak profitable at all costs, including ailenating the company's best customers, and in the end doing more harm than good.
> 
> Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app
> 
> 
> 
> Put me in the "I do not agree" column.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think he has some redeeming qualities?
> Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app
Click to expand...


Yes. He has successfully managed several large corporations (not just airlines), and knows how to get companies to be disciplined in their operation (something Amtrak doesn't seem to know how to do).

He also doesn't like the (dying) status quo, which is something I (and many others) have also been frustrated with in recent years.

Amtrak, organizationally, is an absolute mess, and has been for many years. Under Boardman, the company underwent a management restructuring every 2-3 years, with nothing to show for any of them.

Moorman may have been good, but it was obvious he didn't really want the job and never intended to stay.

If Richard Anderson can instill some organizational discipline and consistency, that will be an achievement not seen in decades. Sorry you can't get a Denny's-quality meal or ride around in your 70-year-old private car.


----------



## Northeastern292

Trogdor said:


> Northeastern292 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Northeastern292 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone here can agree that Richard Anderson is trying to make Amtrak profitable at all costs, including ailenating the company's best customers, and in the end doing more harm than good.
> 
> Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app
> 
> 
> 
> Put me in the "I do not agree" column.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think he has some redeeming qualities?
> Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. He has successfully managed several large corporations (not just airlines), and knows how to get companies to be disciplined in their operation (something Amtrak doesn't seem to know how to do).
> 
> He also doesn't like the (dying) status quo, which is something I (and many others) have also been frustrated with in recent years.
> 
> Amtrak, organizationally, is an absolute mess, and has been for many years. Under Boardman, the company underwent a management restructuring every 2-3 years, with nothing to show for any of them.
> 
> Moorman may have been good, but it was obvious he didn't really want the job and never intended to stay.
> 
> If Richard Anderson can instill some organizational discipline and consistency, that will be an achievement not seen in decades. Sorry you can't get a Denny's-quality meal or ride around in your 70-year-old private car.
Click to expand...

One of my biggest problems is that Amtrak can't have the luxury of operating as a utility. It needs to operate as a business....
Some parts of the status quo I actually like, for instance free bags and unassigned seats. Others, like the drab Amfleets I've come to find dull.

The fact is is that if Richard Anderson is being brought in to rip the soul out of Amtrak, that's something I take issue with. I used to think a rail advocate (and CNW alumnus) from Iowa was nuts. Now I think he's the Bernie Sanders of rail advocates.

Personally, I'm a bit of a socialist to the point I'd be happy to see a nationalized railway system, but that's another deal.

To get to the point: Amtrak is a public service. While it should be a proper steward of federal funds, this notion that Amtrak should be profitable erks me.

NO form of transportation in America is profitable.

Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## Ryan

Trogdor the Burninator said it better than I could.

Having a PV attached to a train I’m riding in adds absolutely no value whatsoever, and brings with it the risk of making it later. Do Not Want.

I’m also not sure where you’re getting the no free bags thing from. Has there been anything proposed on that, or is this just more of the “some airlines do this, and some of Anderson’s previous jobs were at airlines, so surely it’s coming” logical fallacy that so many are enamored with?


----------



## jis

Northeastern292 said:


> I think everyone here can agree that Richard Anderson is trying to make Amtrak profitable at all costs, including ailenating the company's best customers, and in the end doing more harm than good.
> 
> Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app


Put me in the vehemently do not agree column.

Which best customers do you speak of? The ones that pay less than 1% of Amtrak’s revenues? [emoji57]

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## jis

Northeastern292 said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with your assertion that this will alienate the “best” customers and that this will end up doing more harm than good.
> 
> We don’t even know the full extent of what is going to happen, I think that it’s somewhat premature to call those efforts a failure.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess, but unassigned seating, free bags, the occasional appearance of a PV, those things help add to the charm of Amtrak.
> I don't want my ride on Amtrak to be like an airline. And I don't trust Richard Anderson. I really don't.
> 
> Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app
Click to expand...

That is fine. But it is a huge leap from that to believing that everyone agrees with you. 

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Trogdor

Northeastern292 said:


> One of my biggest problems is that Amtrak can't have the luxury of operating as a utility. It needs to operate as a business....
> 
> Some parts of the status quo I actually like, for instance free bags and unassigned seats. Others, like the drab Amfleets I've come to find dull.
> 
> The fact is is that if Richard Anderson is being brought in to rip the soul out of Amtrak, that's something I take issue with. I used to think a rail advocate (and CNW alumnus) from Iowa was nuts. Now I think he's the Bernie Sanders of rail advocates.
> 
> Personally, I'm a bit of a socialist to the point I'd be happy to see a nationalized railway system, but that's another deal.
> 
> To get to the point: Amtrak is a public service. While it should be a proper steward of federal funds, this notion that Amtrak should be profitable erks me.
> 
> NO form of transportation in America is profitable.



But none of that has anything to do with Richard Anderson, his airline background, or anything else. The issues you cite have been in existence for 47 years (and long before that, as well).

I will also note that "run like a business" doesn't have to mean "profitable."

As far as being a proper steward of public money, I'd question whether that really describes Amtrak's operation of recent years. There's been a lot of wheel-spinning inside the company in the past (and even still today), lots of musical chairs, reorgs for the sake of reorgs. Reorging the reorgs before the first reorg was even finished (these are actual things that happened when I worked there).

This is stuff that passengers, railfans, rail advocates, etc. don't see, but causes a lot of problems that can extend to how the trains operate.

These are the things I am hopeful that an experienced and successful executive can fix. And that executive has to come from outside of Amtrak. They won't come from another railroad (unless they're retired and basically doing it as a short-term thing to do, like Wick) because most other railroad executives won't touch that job with a ten-foot pole (and even if they did, then folks on here would be complaining about how this "freight guy" doesn't understand how passengers work; if they came from the transit industry, then folks would be complaining about how this "transit guy" doesn't understand how long-distance trains work).

Amtrak needs to learn how to operate like a proper company.


----------



## PRR 60

Northeastern292 said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Northeastern292 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone here can agree that Richard Anderson is trying to make Amtrak profitable at all costs, including ailenating the company's best customers, and in the end doing more harm than good.
> 
> Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app
> 
> 
> 
> Put me in the "I do not agree" column.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think he has some redeeming qualities?
> Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app
Click to expand...

I sure do. He has the guts to question and reject the "that's the way we have always done it" mentality that is legendary at Amtrak. He wants to drag Amtrak kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Yes, he is the steward of federal funding, and he seems to be taking that responsibility seriously.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

^^ I agree with the disagreers.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Caesar La Rock

I too disagree. Maintaining a status quo that hasn't worked for long period of time in transportation is insane. Especially in today's changing world where more people are depending on transportation now then ever before. I'm also pretty sure Richard Anderson has heard all of the excuses as to why he shouldn't run Amtrak. Nothing new being said here.


----------



## keelhauled

Also disagree. Amtrak, fundamentally, is a passenger transportation company. It happens that it transports passengers in trains, but that doesn't mean it should be run in the same vein as railroads from days gone by. And in many regards other modes of transportation (cough, airlines, cough) outclass Amtrak, such as but certainly not limited to consistency of service, reliability, and availability. There are of course other areas Amtrak has the advantage in, and I think if Anderson is able to transcribe the best characteristics of air travel onto rail service he will have elevated Amtrak into an exceptional transport provider when right now it is generally adequate.

I don't mean to say that Amtrak is doing a universally poor job, because I use it and generally enjoy it. But what I can generally say about my travel is that I choose the train because the positives (downtown access, price, most of the on board hard product, sometimes travel time) outweigh the negatives (inconsistent service from employees, timekeeping challenges, aging equipment). If those are addressed, and I think Anderson's airline background where consistency is holy will help, then I think Amtrak will be a competitive option for a larger part of the overall travel market.


----------



## jebr

I'm honestly somewhat excited to see what R. Anderson has up his sleeve. There's certainly a number of negative changes (the change in the refund policy being a particular sore point for me) but there's also some real positive changes (a 33% off sale that includes the LD trains has been _unheard_ of in my time traveling Amtrak, especially since it was essentially any train with Saver fares.) From a fare management standpoint, if removing/reducing the everyday discounts means that Amtrak can offer semi-regular deeply discounted sales, I think that's a tradeoff worth making. Assigned seating would be amazing; even though I'm not terribly picky about a seat, being able to select a roomette online would be nice and, frankly, I wouldn't mind knowing exactly where I was seated when buying my ticket.

I don't think R. Anderson will be 100% positive for Amtrak, but I think his out-of-the-box thinking and willingness to rock the boat in order to try and push things forward is sorely needed at Amtrak. There's generally been too many CEOs lately that haven't really wanted to change the status quo, and I think there's a need to shake the status quo up a bit and see what sticks.


----------



## cpotisch

Northeastern292 said:


> I think everyone here can agree that Richard Anderson is trying to make Amtrak profitable at all costs, including ailenating the company's best customers, and in the end doing more harm than good.
> 
> Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app


If I were you I'd be careful about saying that everyone agrees with one of your opinions. Done that a couple times on this forum and gotten torn apart for it. Just a tip.


----------



## Northeastern292

cpotisch said:


> Northeastern292 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone here can agree that Richard Anderson is trying to make Amtrak profitable at all costs, including ailenating the company's best customers, and in the end doing more harm than good.
> 
> Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app
> 
> 
> 
> If I were you I'd be careful about saying that everyone agrees with one of your opinions. Done that a couple times on this forum and gotten torn apart for it. Just a tip.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## Thirdrail7

This thread is fascinating. A man that hasn't even been on the job for a full year or on his own for six months is being held up as a get thing done savior and a railroad killer in the same thread.

That being said



Northeastern292 said:


> I think everyone here can agree that Richard Anderson is trying to make Amtrak profitable at all costs, including ailenating the company's best customers, and in the end doing more harm than good.
> 
> Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app


This is bizarre at best and alarmist. I'm not sure where you get these things from and some of the things you have stated have little to do with Mr. Anderson. Along those lines, let's address these:



PRR 60 said:


> . He has the guts to question and reject the "that's the way we have always done it" mentality that is legendary at Amtrak. He wants to drag Amtrak kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Yes, he is the steward of federal funding, and he seems to be taking that responsibility seriously.






jebr said:


> I don't think R. Anderson will be 100% positive for Amtrak, but I think his out-of-the-box thinking and willingness to rock the boat in order to try and push things forward is sorely needed at Amtrak. There's generally been too many CEOs lately that haven't really wanted to change the status quo, and I think there's a need to shake the status quo up a bit and see what sticks.


Can you cite some examples of what Mr. Anderson has done vs what was already, planned, underway well before he arrived or in the process of ramping up upon his arrival? What are some of these "rejecting the way its already been done," "outside of the box" thoughts and willingness to rock the boat initiatives that are being driven by Mr. Anderson vs a continuation or ramping up version of things (as an example) Mr. Stadtler (who is still around for those of you who didn't know) has been pushing and implementing.

After all, if you are to believe Amtrak, they had another fiscal year(17) of record ridership, record revenue and came within a (relative) stone's throw of covering their operating expenses from farebox....all without Mr. Anderson doing a thing.

The turnaround had begun long before he arrived.

I'll ask the same for those who think Mr. Anderson is "driving away or chipping away" at Amtrak's base. Sure, he is in the position to take action if he think something is dramatically wrong, but he is still learning, trying and attempting to follow the law that is PRIIA. I would ask how much of this is driven by Mr. Anderson versus him not stopping initiatives that were already contemplated, planned and were awaiting execution.

Besides, most of the bad press come from people leaking information that was taken out of context, leading to WHOA IS ME, AALLL THE PRIVATE CARS AND CHARTERS ARE DOOOOOOOOOOMED type of threads.

Give the man a chance to actually DO something because remember, action speaks louder than words and you'll never know how someone performed until they leave. It may take YEARS to see how Mr. Anderson performed.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Trogdor said:


> But none of that has anything to do with Richard Anderson, his airline background, or anything else. The issues you cite have been in existence for 47 years (and long before that, as well).
> 
> I will also note that "run like a business" doesn't have to mean "profitable."
> 
> As far as being a proper steward of public money, I'd question whether that really describes Amtrak's operation of recent years. There's been a lot of wheel-spinning inside the company in the past (and even still today), lots of musical chairs, reorgs for the sake of reorgs. Reorging the reorgs before the first reorg was even finished (these are actual things that happened when I worked there).
> 
> This is stuff that passengers, railfans, rail advocates, etc. don't see, but causes a lot of problems that can extend to how the trains operate.
> 
> These are the things I am hopeful that an experienced and successful executive can fix. And that executive has to come from outside of Amtrak. They won't come from another railroad (unless they're retired and basically doing it as a short-term thing to do, like Wick) because most other railroad executives won't touch that job with a ten-foot pole (and even if they did, then folks on here would be complaining about how this "freight guy" doesn't understand how passengers work; if they came from the transit industry, then folks would be complaining about how this "transit guy" doesn't understand how long-distance trains work).
> 
> Amtrak needs to learn how to operate like a proper company.



This is an interesting statement since for the last several years, Amtrak has increased ridership and narrowed the gap between operating expenses and losses...year, after year, after year.

While there is definitely fat, (there always is) and considering that Amtrak didn't CUT any routes, it seems that they have been operating much better since their losses have decreased and ridership has increased. If they had more equipment or the equipment they had was a bit more reliable (hopefully driving down expenses and maintenance costs,) that gap may have narrowed even more since you could grow your reach.

THAT is what I';m waiting to see from our new CEO. It is easier to shut things down than build things up. I want to see continued growth. How will they continue to expand ridership and attract new riders, markets while maintaining existing riders.

As for reorgs, there were 5 in the last 36 months, and three were in the last 18 months when the new regime took over.


----------



## jis

I agree with you Thirdrail, and pretty completely so.

What I said in response to you back in http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/70892-richard-anderson-replacing-wick-moorman-as-amtrak-ceo/?p=746663still holds. Some of the things that we are hearing tends to confirm my feeling that he is indeed focusing on things where he can make a huge difference rather than nibbling at the peripheries. If any thing, the utter consternation among the railfans strongly suggests that too.

But the jury is still out, and we'll see how it goes.

As for whether he is inside or outside the box, I just keep seeing visions of Schoredinger's Cat ... errr ... Anderson






Meanwhile the chicken little "sky is falling" shows carries on merrily!


----------



## TiBike

If all Anderson is doing is figuring out who in the company knows his/her stuff, and then let's them get on with it, he's doing his job well. Doesn't matter if it was his idea, or if he even understands it. Identifying and empowering talent is on the short list of genuine CEO responsibilities.

Another is clearly defining both the mission and those things that are irrelevant to it. He's done that:

"We must narrow our focus to running a great core railroad: safe, on time, clean cars, friendly service and great customer-facing technology". And he's put "a safe and reliable schedule" at the top of the list.

I agree, there's little in the way of actual accomplishments that can be directly credited to Anderson. But what he's saying, particularly the safe, clean, on time trains bit, is what I'm wishing for and I'm allowing myself enough optimism to start looking forward to seeing it.


----------



## Northeastern292

I guess, but I just worry that Amtrak will turn into another VIA Rail Canada.

Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## Seaboard92

Northeastern292 said:


> I guess, but I just worry that Amtrak will turn into another VIA Rail Canada.
> 
> Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app


In what regard VIA Rail to be honest is pretty damned good. Yes the equipment is old but the customer service is out of this world. And yes the frequencies suck to really suck in winter. But again you are getting a far superior hard product and soft product.


----------



## cpotisch

Seaboard92 said:


> Northeastern292 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess, but I just worry that Amtrak will turn into another VIA Rail Canada.
> 
> Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app
> 
> 
> 
> In what regard VIA Rail to be honest is pretty damned good. Yes the equipment is old but the customer service is out of this world. And yes the frequencies suck to really suck in winter. But again you are getting a far superior hard product and soft product.
Click to expand...

Yeah, VIA is vastly superior to Amtrak. The service, the food, the amenities all blow Amtrak out of the water. It’s like comparing a classic Ferrari to a beat up taxi. They’re not even in the same league.


----------



## Northeastern292

Seaboard92 said:


> Northeastern292 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess, but I just worry that Amtrak will turn into another VIA Rail Canada.
> 
> Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app
> 
> 
> 
> In what regard VIA Rail to be honest is pretty damned good. Yes the equipment is old but the customer service is out of this world. And yes the frequencies suck to really suck in winter. But again you are getting a far superior hard product and soft product.
Click to expand...

A fair argument. When I rode the Ocean back in 2015, the food was well prepared and despite the shortcomings of the Renaissance cars, it was a wonderful ride both ways. The Park car used that October had a clean but a tired interior. 
I guess my concerns is getting rid of PV's, charters, etc will impede on Amtrak being able to handle service changes in general. Outside of it's hubs, Amtrak's long distance trains are like the Wild West- a good example is with the Empire Builder with Amtrak canceling the train between Thursday and Saturday. What Amtrak should do is at least run it between MSP and CHI (but when I just checked apparently the entire route will be affected by the storm).

Which begs the question: when did Amtrak stop being an all-weather railroad?

Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## Northeastern292

cpotisch said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Northeastern292 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess, but I just worry that Amtrak will turn into another VIA Rail Canada.
> 
> Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app
> 
> 
> 
> In what regard VIA Rail to be honest is pretty damned good. Yes the equipment is old but the customer service is out of this world. And yes the frequencies suck to really suck in winter. But again you are getting a far superior hard product and soft product.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, VIA vs Amtrak is sort of like a Ferrari vs a Taxi. They’re not even in the same league.
Click to expand...

I won't lie and I'll admit that I've fallen in love with the late British Rail as of recent. Dull product, but it went just about everywhere.*
*Not counting the Beeching Axe, of course.

Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## Seaboard92

Northeastern292 said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Northeastern292 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess, but I just worry that Amtrak will turn into another VIA Rail Canada.
> 
> Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app
> 
> 
> 
> In what regard VIA Rail to be honest is pretty damned good. Yes the equipment is old but the customer service is out of this world. And yes the frequencies suck to really suck in winter. But again you are getting a far superior hard product and soft product.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fair argument. When I rode the Ocean back in 2015, the food was well prepared and despite the shortcomings of the Renaissance cars, it was a wonderful ride both ways. The Park car used that October had a clean but a tired interior.
> I guess my concerns is getting rid of PV's, charters, etc will impede on Amtrak being able to handle service changes in general. Outside of it's hubs, Amtrak's long distance trains are like the Wild West- a good example is with the Empire Builder with Amtrak canceling the train between Thursday and Saturday. What Amtrak should do is at least run it between MSP and CHI (but when I just checked apparently the entire route will be affected by the storm).
> 
> Which begs the question: when did Amtrak stop being an all-weather railroad?
> 
> Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app
Click to expand...

VIA is also doing something Amtrak isn't doing and rebuilding their fleet and renovating. They just announced that today 25 more cars will be rebuilt. Even the pre prepared Ocean good beats the stuff on Amtrak. Which for the most case is pre prepared.

Don't get me started on charters and PVs as if you remember this is my career field. And I have plenty of data to prove its valuable.


----------



## Northeastern292

Seaboard92 said:


> Northeastern292 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Northeastern292 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess, but I just worry that Amtrak will turn into another VIA Rail Canada.
> 
> Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app
> 
> 
> 
> In what regard VIA Rail to be honest is pretty damned good. Yes the equipment is old but the customer service is out of this world. And yes the frequencies suck to really suck in winter. But again you are getting a far superior hard product and soft product.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fair argument. When I rode the Ocean back in 2015, the food was well prepared and despite the shortcomings of the Renaissance cars, it was a wonderful ride both ways. The Park car used that October had a clean but a tired interior.
> I guess my concerns is getting rid of PV's, charters, etc will impede on Amtrak being able to handle service changes in general. Outside of it's hubs, Amtrak's long distance trains are like the Wild West- a good example is with the Empire Builder with Amtrak canceling the train between Thursday and Saturday. What Amtrak should do is at least run it between MSP and CHI (but when I just checked apparently the entire route will be affected by the storm).
> 
> Which begs the question: when did Amtrak stop being an all-weather railroad?
> 
> Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> VIA is also doing something Amtrak isn't doing and rebuilding their fleet and renovating. They just announced that today 25 more cars will be rebuilt. Even the pre prepared Ocean good beats the stuff on Amtrak. Which for the most case is pre prepared.
> Don't get me started on charters and PVs as if you remember this is my career field. And I have plenty of data to prove its valuable.
Click to expand...

I remember! 
Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## tricia

Northeastern292 said:


> Which begs the question: when did Amtrak stop being an all-weather railroad?


Several threads related to service cancellations this past winter have alluded to this. Maybe needs its own thread....

My sense is that Amtrak has been cancelling trains in recent months in weather conditions that wouldn't have caused cancellations in years past. I have zero statistics to back that up, but the anecdotal evidence seems strong.

Anyone here care to comment, either on whether this is happening, and/or why?


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Didn't the Canadian have quite the issue this winter with passengers being stranded? I wonder if that raised some red flags.


----------



## Trogdor

Drifting off-topic (all-weather railroad), but there are a number of reasons Amtrak may be more willing to cancel.

1) Severity of storms that can be better predicted in advance (yes, sometimes the predictions are wrong). In the past, even if weather modeling knew it was going to snow, they might not have known how much (granted, we still don't "know" but have better computer modeling to provide an estimate). Back then, the policy was to run it, and hope for the best.

1a) It's also possible that the storms in question are more severe than normal for recent times.

2) Despite the popular belief that railroading is "all-weather," severe weather does do a number on the operation. It makes trains very late, puts crews out of place, and can take a few days to recover from those delays. Meanwhile, costs of the delays increase (missed connections, bus charters, hotels, plus overtime for crews, recrewing T&E, etc.).

3) In some cases, these storms put entire cities/regions out of commission (particularly the recent winter storms in the northeast). What's the point of running if people can't get to your trains, or can't get anywhere once the train drops them off?

3a) When cities/regions are shut down, it can be difficult for employees to report to the stations / trains.

3b) If an emergency occurs on the train, you are putting stress on local emergency services in a time where they are already having difficulty managing local conditions

4) Liability concerns are probably much greater today than in the past. (Connected to 3b, if something happens and the situation can't be dealt with in a timely manner, even if Amtrak ultimately isn't found liable in court...and it's not clear that they would or would not...the trouble of dealing with such may exceed any benefit from having tried to run the train.)

5) Any major delay could make it all over the media (traditional and/or social), and give Amtrak another public black eye. It doesn't matter what the reason for the delay.

6) (Possibly linked to 4 or 5): Extended weather delays "stranded in the middle of nowhere" could lead to new regulation causing more harm than good (congressfolk are good at that). Airlines got slapped with fines after a couple of incidents where bad weather prevented them from letting passengers off the plane (because staff couldn't get to the airport, so there was nobody available to operate the ground equipment necessary to park the planes at the gates, and/or nobody to move the already-parked planes away to allow another plane to park), and now airlines cancel entire days' worth of flights at the drop of a hat, partly to avoid these kinds of delays. While such hasn't happened to Amtrak yet, have a snowbound train stranded for 12 hours and get enough passengers tweeting at the media and see what happens.

So, you face all of those issues, some with unknown and potentially majorly negative outcomes...or you just cancel a run, give folks their money back and tell them to come back tomorrow.


----------



## jis

Railways as an "all weather" thing is just a popular romantic fantasy anyway. It has always been so.


----------



## Northeastern292

Trogdor said:


> Drifting off-topic (all-weather railroad), but there are a number of reasons Amtrak may be more willing to cancel.
> 
> 1) Severity of storms that can be better predicted in advance (yes, sometimes the predictions are wrong). In the past, even if weather modeling knew it was going to snow, they might not have known how much (granted, we still don't "know" but have better computer modeling to provide an estimate). Back then, the policy was to run it, and hope for the best.
> 
> 1a) It's also possible that the storms in question are more severe than normal for recent times.
> 
> 2) Despite the popular belief that railroading is "all-weather," severe weather does do a number on the operation. It makes trains very late, puts crews out of place, and can take a few days to recover from those delays. Meanwhile, costs of the delays increase (missed connections, bus charters, hotels, plus overtime for crews, recrewing T&E, etc.).
> 
> 3) In some cases, these storms put entire cities/regions out of commission (particularly the recent winter storms in the northeast). What's the point of running if people can't get to your trains, or can't get anywhere once the train drops them off?
> 
> 3a) When cities/regions are shut down, it can be difficult for employees to report to the stations / trains.
> 
> 3b) If an emergency occurs on the train, you are putting stress on local emergency services in a time where they are already having difficulty managing local conditions
> 
> 4) Liability concerns are probably much greater today than in the past. (Connected to 3b, if something happens and the situation can't be dealt with in a timely manner, even if Amtrak ultimately isn't found liable in court...and it's not clear that they would or would not...the trouble of dealing with such may exceed any benefit from having tried to run the train.)
> 
> 5) Any major delay could make it all over the media (traditional and/or social), and give Amtrak another public black eye. It doesn't matter what the reason for the delay.
> 
> 6) (Possibly linked to 4 or 5): Extended weather delays "stranded in the middle of nowhere" could lead to new regulation causing more harm than good (congressfolk are good at that). Airlines got slapped with fines after a couple of incidents where bad weather prevented them from letting passengers off the plane (because staff couldn't get to the airport, so there was nobody available to operate the ground equipment necessary to park the planes at the gates, and/or nobody to move the already-parked planes away to allow another plane to park), and now airlines cancel entire days' worth of flights at the drop of a hat, partly to avoid these kinds of delays. While such hasn't happened to Amtrak yet, have a snowbound train stranded for 12 hours and get enough passengers tweeting at the media and see what happens.
> 
> So, you face all of those issues, some with unknown and potentially majorly negative outcomes...or you just cancel a run, give folks their money back and tell them to come back tomorrow.


I've recently come out strongly in favor of liability reform. No other country I think has the liability laws we have. Even using the toilet is a liability. 
Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## jis

OTOH, the typical European Passenger Bill of Rights puts anything vaguely resembling that in this country to utter shame. Amtrak basically has none. Airlines face a relatively weak one.


----------



## Northeastern292

jis said:


> OTOH, the typical European Passenger Bill of Rights puts anything vaguely resembling that in this country to utter shame. Amtrak basically has none. Airlines face a relatively weak one.


Another thing that needs to be worked on. 
Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## Thirdrail7

tricia said:


> Northeastern292 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which begs the question: when did Amtrak stop being an all-weather railroad?
> 
> 
> 
> Several threads related to service cancellations this past winter have alluded to this. Maybe needs its own thread....
> 
> My sense is that Amtrak has been cancelling trains in recent months in weather conditions that wouldn't have caused cancellations in years past. I have zero statistics to back that up, but the anecdotal evidence seems strong.
> 
> Anyone here care to comment, either on whether this is happening, and/or why?
Click to expand...

It's definitely happening. If he feels the train is without support or safe passage is endangered for any and/or all of the reasons may occur, he'd rather not take the risk.

Personally, I can find a risk at any moment of the day. There is a such thing as heat kinks which have caused derailments. Does this mean we'll stop operating if it is too hot out at someplace along the route? Wind can be twice as dangerous as rain or snow. Rain can cause flash floods and flash flood restrictions.

Shall we cancel?

Sometimes, all you need is an excuse....and if you're looking, you'll surely find one.


----------



## Seaboard92

Thirdrail7 said:


> Personally, I can find a risk at any moment of the day. There is a such thing as heat kinks which have caused derailments. Does this mean we'll stop operating if it is too hot out at someplace along the route? Wind can be twice as dangerous as rain or snow. Rain can cause flash floods and flash flood restrictions.
> 
> Shall we cancel?
> 
> Sometimes, all you need is an excuse....and if you're looking, you'll surely find one.


For people like you and me it's easy to find risk in the industry because everything is a controlled risk in the industry.


----------



## keelhauled

Trogdor said:


> Drifting off-topic (all-weather railroad), but there are a number of reasons Amtrak may be more willing to cancel.
> 
> 5) Any major delay could make it all over the media (traditional and/or social), and give Amtrak another public black eye. It doesn't matter what the reason for the delay.


For example, Via made the CBC four entirely separate times this winter due to Canadian delays.


----------



## neroden

Thirdrail7 said:


> THAT is what I';m waiting to see from our new CEO. It is easier to shut things down than build things up. I want to see continued growth. How will they continue to expand ridership and attract new riders, markets while maintaining existing riders.


I'm all for that. Woody always says "The cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak". I always talk about economies of scale. Longer trains, more trains on the same routes, better connections...

**** train cancellations are a very bad sign. The weather's fine, let's cancel the train? Excuse me, that's what drives people away; I watched it happen to USAir.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Only time will tell if Richard Anderson will support expansion of the Amtrak LD system or expansion of Amtrak at all ... and if it will even matter if he does. If Amtrak can't afford expansion or doesn't have the equipment to support expansion, it won't matter how much Rich supports expansion.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Only time will tell if Richard Anderson will support expansion of the Amtrak LD system or expansion of Amtrak at all ... and if it will even matter if he does. If Amtrak can't afford expansion or doesn't have the equipment to support expansion, it won't matter how much Rich supports expansion.


You tend to not get what you _don't_ ask for. If he doesn't plan on expansion or ask for funding for expansion/growth, funding won't even be considered. So, it definitely makes a difference. Imagine if he just went along with the proposed budget and didn't ask for anything else. Do you honestly think Congress would have forked over more than requested??


----------



## Green Maned Lion

One of the things that bugs me about NJ Transit is their lack of competent political hacks. The proper job of the head of a government agency is to advocate for their agency, against any opposers. NJ Transit usually fails to publicly do this.

Andersons job is to advocate for improving and increasing the scope of his agency while running it efficiently. Of he hasnt called out the LD trains as something requiring elimination, his job is to advocate for its expansion and improvements.

When I ran my business I was in charge of buying, management, and keeping the books and controlling the purse strings on reinvestment. My wife was in charge of maintaining the inventory and running the store. We had debates every week about what to buy, with me tending towards conserving monetary resources (rainy day and money to be taken out of the business for personal use) and her aiming to better stock shelves and expand our lineup.

That is the kind of thing that should take place between Congress and somebody like Anderson.


----------



## Seaboard92

Maybe there would be a use for my Poli Sci degree at NJT. I could be a decent political hack.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Thirdrail7 said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only time will tell if Richard Anderson will support expansion of the Amtrak LD system or expansion of Amtrak at all ... and if it will even matter if he does. If Amtrak can't afford expansion or doesn't have the equipment to support expansion, it won't matter how much Rich supports expansion.
> 
> 
> 
> You tend to not get what you _don't_ ask for. If he doesn't plan on expansion or ask for funding for expansion/growth, funding won't even be considered. So, it definitely makes a difference. Imagine if he just went along with the proposed budget and didn't ask for anything else. Do you honestly think Congress would have forked over more than requested??
Click to expand...

I don't know what Amtrak CEO's have asked for since A-Day. I know how much new we've gotten since then and that's not much.


----------



## cpotisch

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only time will tell if Richard Anderson will support expansion of the Amtrak LD system or expansion of Amtrak at all ... and if it will even matter if he does. If Amtrak can't afford expansion or doesn't have the equipment to support expansion, it won't matter how much Rich supports expansion.
> 
> 
> 
> You tend to not get what you _don't_ ask for. If he doesn't plan on expansion or ask for funding for expansion/growth, funding won't even be considered. So, it definitely makes a difference. Imagine if he just went along with the proposed budget and didn't ask for anything else. Do you honestly think Congress would have forked over more than requested??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know what Amtrak CEO's have asked for since A-Day. I know how much new we've gotten since then and that's not much.
Click to expand...

Let's say I offer you $75 to clean my house. And you say, "I'll do it for $90." And I respond, "Sure!" Now you have $90 and that's great.

Alternative scenario:

I offer you $75 to clean my house. And you say, "Deal!" Now you have $75.

Do you now see why it makes a difference what the CEO asks for?


----------



## TinCan782

Came across this this morning. Wasn't aware of "To the Trains" website/blog until now. Appears to be fairly new. FWIW...covers several of the Anderson concerns being voiced here.

*An Open Letter to Richard Anderson*

_I am writing this open letter to you as a proponent of train travel and finding ways to improve the utilization of Amtrak in the United States. Since January 1 of this year, when you became the sole Chief Executive Officer after the retirement of Charles “Wick” Moorman, you have been putting forth policies which I do not believe are in the best interest of America’s Railroad._

http://tothetrainstravel.com/an-open-letter-to-richard-anderson/

Moderator - If a different discussion is more fitting, feel free to move this post.


----------



## cpotisch

FrensicPic said:


> Came across this this morning. Wasn't aware of "To the Trains" website/blog until now. Appears to be fairly new. FWIW...covers several of the Anderson concerns being voiced here.
> 
> *An Open Letter to Richard Anderson*
> 
> _I am writing this open letter to you as a proponent of train travel and finding ways to improve the utilization of Amtrak in the United States. Since January 1 of this year, when you became the sole Chief Executive Officer after the retirement of Charles “Wick” Moorman, you have been putting forth policies which I do not believe are in the best interest of America’s Railroad._
> 
> http://tothetrainstravel.com/an-open-letter-to-richard-anderson/
> 
> Moderator - If a different discussion is more fitting, feel free to move this post.


I agree with a lot the writer has to say here, but I don't see how those final angry words do much good if you're trying to convince the CEO to hear your point of view:

_And unfortunately, the steps which you have taken and have said you plan to take in your short amount of time in office have shown me little more than that you are an airline CEO who does not know what operating Amtrak successfully would require and either does not know how to fix it or simply does not care._


----------



## neroden

Anderson's grossly inaccurate claim that the national network claims "cost $750 million per year" (they don't) is a sign that he simply doesn't understand the business.

He needs to talk to Boardman, who understands something about the mare's nest which is Amtrak accounting. Believing phony accounting has been the downfall of many a CEO (the Board of the Milwaukee Railroad is perhaps most infamous in this regard). If Mr. Anderson is making decisions based on bad business data -- and I think that he *is* -- he's going to get very bad results.

Allocated costs are a fake. The costs are real but the allocations are fake. As Boardman knew, and attempted to explain to Congress, marginal costs are critical. Most of that $750 million would just fall right back on the NEC -- or onto the state corridors -- if the long-distance trains were eliminated. There is no legitimate sense in which those are costs of the long-distance trains.

Anderson flubbed an easy question from Jim Matthews regarding overhead and economies of scale back at the NARP 50th anniversary meeting. Let me make this very clear: Anderson's answer to that question was outright wrong. It showed a failure to understand fixed costs vs. variable costs. He's doubled down on this fatal misunderstanding in later comments. I think he just flat-out does not understand what he's dealing with.

I used to think that someone who was a major corporate CEO would have to understand the difference, but I've now witnessed (in the course of following Tesla stock) enough investment analysts, investment bankers, portfolio managers, and ex-CEOs who *clearly don't* understand the difference between fixed and variable costs that I can no longer assume that. The evidence so far points to Mr. Anderson being one of the guys who doesn't. I hope he can prove me wrong.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Mr. Anderson has dramatically increased the en route cleaning program. He is attempting to bring it to state supported trains as well.

Additional mechanical employees and cleaners are also being hired for the terminals so they can receive proper attention even if the train is dramatically late. This is an area that has been deprived since Mr. Gunn slashed the mechanical departments.

I guess the chefs can ask for a transfer.


----------



## jis

Are they going to restore the overnight crew that was removed , causing LD consists to be not touched at Sunnyside until just a few hours before departure, as you had explained a while back in response to one of my occasional hissy-fits on the subject?


----------



## Seaboard92

Thirdrail7 said:


> Mr. Anderson has dramatically increased the en route cleaning program. He is attempting to bring it to state supported trains as well.
> 
> Additional mechanical employees and cleaners are also being hired for the terminals so they can receive proper attention even if the train is dramatically late. This is an area that has been deprived since Mr. Gunn slashed the mechanical departments.
> 
> I guess the chefs can ask for a transfer.


Now this is a change I can actually support. Hopefully they will bring back the graveyard shift in NYS which should bring down some initial terminal delays as well.


----------



## Thirdrail7

jis said:


> Are they going to restore the overnight crew that was removed , causing LD consists to be not touched at Sunnyside until just a few hours before departure, as you had explained a while back in response to one of my occasional hissy-fits on the subject?





Seaboard92 said:


> Hopefully they will bring back the graveyard shift in NYS which should bring down some initial terminal delays as well.


I seriously doubt they would bring back the Long Distance graveyard shift at SSYD. I believe they changed some of the scheduling so there will a bridge shift of sorts.

That should cover it for the time being, particularly while the LSL is operating to BOS. If things aren't that delayed, 98 and 20 should arrive in time for daylight or the bridge crew to work.

That just leaves 92 and 50.


----------



## jis

Amtrak CEO Richard Anderson's response to a letter from the Presidents of AAPRCO Robert Donnely and and RPCA Roger Fuehring on matters ranging from food service and Southwest Chief to PV and Charter Trains

http://files.constantcontact.com/8b70d88e201/c6a4f31c-df0f-45c6-b37a-871531d9c63e.pdf


----------



## AmtrakFlyer

Not impressed with Andersons letter. To start with anyone who has actually ridden a LDT end point to end point knows that seats and rooms turn over constantly. On the flip side people do indeed ride end point to endpoint. This makes our current long distance trains a model for something build upon, not destroy.

He either doesnt understand the business model or will just say anything to implement Elaine Chous and the administrations agenda.


----------



## Ryan

The "destroy" part seems to be completely made up. There is still nothing in there that says LD trains are going away.

The problem that he cites are real ones. Cities like Cincinnati, San Antonio, and Pittsburgh see their one-a-day LD trains at abysmal hours. It's a long-acknowledged issue here, that Amtrak has done nothing to address. Now, we have someone that recognizes that this is a problem, and seems to want to do something about it. He may make a terrible mess of trying to fix it up, but maybe the answer is working to establish daytime service in cities such as those in addition to the current trains that pass through. That would make nearly everyone here thrilled, no? Is that a pie in the sky notion? Maybe? But I'm willing to at least hear what the man's plan is before running him out of town.


----------



## AmtrakFlyer

The answer is corridor trains in ADDITION to long distance trains, its so simple its stupid.


----------



## Ryan

Which is why I suggested it.

The actual funding and execution of it is anything but simple.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

AmtrakFlyer said:


> The answer is corridor trains in ADDITION to long distance trains, its so simple its stupid.


With what equipment? With what money? If it was that simple, wouldn't it have been done by the last ten Amtrak presidents?


----------



## AmtrakFlyer

You cant have a strong body without a skeleton. The national network is the skeleton to build upon. Yes, more money is the answer even to maintain the status quo.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> Amtrak CEO Richard Anderson's response to a letter from the Presidents of AAPRCO Robert Donnely and and RPCA Roger Fuehring on matters ranging from food service and Southwest Chief to PV and Charter Trains
> 
> http://files.constantcontact.com/8b70d88e201/c6a4f31c-df0f-45c6-b37a-871531d9c63e.pdf


A fine piece of complete bullshitting in which he doesn't so much as admit that he lied about the costs of the long-distance network; doesn't admit that he's downgrading food service; and generally spreads a lot of ****.

My conclusion: complaints should be directed directly to Coscia, because Anderson doesn't understand the passenger railroad business, and doesn't want to.

Tactical advice: Concede upfront that traditional dining car service wasn't viable, and zero in on the totally unacceptable lack of options for breakfast.


----------



## frequentflyer

Just read the letter, wow. Refreshing to have someone stick to his ideas, right or wrong. I wish some would be just as honest here and state they do not want change. They honestly want the same 47 year old Amtak. Better yet, want to go back to the way things "used to be " in the 50s and 60s. Boardman was the right CEO then, he didn't rock the boat. I am glad Anderson is taking a fresh wrecking ball to some "traditions" at Amtrak. I can't wait to see what further changes occur at Amtrak.

And I will repeat, we will never know how many of these initiatives were started under Boardman or the "railroad guy" Moorman.

My prediction, there may be a dip in pax numbers but ridership will continue to grow on the CL and LSL. And Amtrak's food deficit numbers will be significantly lowered as this spreads across the system.


----------



## chrsjrcj

Less talk and more action.

Developing corridors really requires contributions from the states. Other than the Virginia trains (which also serve the NEC), there are no corridor trains (I am aware of) that fully cover their operating expenses. If it is under 750 miles, which seems to be the segments he is targeting, a state/states have to makeup most of the losses.

So what additional corridors is he targeting, or is he just focusing on improving the ones that already exists?


----------



## jis

If he can get collaboration with specific states going for additional Corridors, more power to him. A candidate might be the Gulf Coast Corridor.

But it is important to make sure that the core National Network is maintained, and not curtailed creating further gaps in the system.

This business about hiving off part of the National Network into shorter corridor service is not something that Anderson invented. It was Boardman's PIPs that suggested hiving off the SAS - HOU - NOL portion of the Sunset Limited into a corridor train.

However, my impression is that Anderson in general is talking about exploring second frequencies to better serve the communities that are currently served at Oh Dark Thirty hours, presumably in addition to the current service. If that is the thing that he is after, i think that is a good thing. But we have to see exactly where he intends to go with all that.

My guess is that to quite an extent nothing spectacularly new will happen other than some significant equipment replacement orders between now and the re-authorization of Amtrak, and possibly some movement on the Gulf Coast Service, since it is now substantially funded to start at least the shorter NOL - Mobile service, and maybe a few other similar ones that pop up.. There will be vigorous discussion of what Amtrak ought to become in the re-authorization debate and the results will be inked into CFR


----------



## Devil's Advocate

frequentflyer said:


> Just read the letter, wow. Refreshing to have someone stick to his ideas, right or wrong. I wish some would be just as honest here and state they do not want change. They honestly want the same 47 year old Amtak. Better yet, want to go back to the way things "used to be " in the 50s and 60s. Boardman was the right CEO then, he didn't rock the boat. I am glad Anderson is taking a fresh wrecking ball to some "traditions" at Amtrak. I can't wait to see what further changes occur at Amtrak. And I will repeat, we will never know how many of these initiatives were started under Boardman or the "railroad guy" Moorman. My prediction, there may be a dip in pax numbers but ridership will continue to grow on the CL and LSL. And Amtrak's food deficit numbers will be significantly lowered as this spreads across the system.


It's interesting that I can't find any meaningful qualifiers in your post. So long as the new CEO keeps swinging his wrecking ball I guess you'll remain happy and supportive. Whatever was lost or gained doesn't seem to matter nearly as much as the fact that something changed. I've never really understood what you envision happening after Anderson balances the F&B budget. If Amtrak loses customers because they're unhappy with the new service relative to the speed and price what reason would those customers have for returning later? Do you envision Anderson substantially raising speeds or significantly lowering prices to draw customers back again? There are any number of ways to modernize passenger rail but not all of them reach the same finish line. Some countries modernize into fast and efficient high speed rail services while others eventually modernize into partial or total abandonment leaving planes and vehicles as the sole survivors.


----------



## JoeBas

Some men, just want to watch the world burn.


----------



## amtrakpass

I would believe Anderson more if he had simply come out with actual plans to add service in many places soon and then said we need some reforms in order to execute this expansion of corridor service. But what we have had is a real downgrade in service, real high prices, real shortened consists, and then vague thoughts and conjecture that perhaps we may add some more corridor service if the states pay for it. From any basic understanding of context clues, he plainly wants to chop the Southwest Chief.

If he really wanted to add corridor service significantly wouldn't it work better to build bridges both in the industry, politcally and with the most important constituancy of the customers to come up with a positive way forward? To me he just seems bent on being antagonistic to the customers, employees and leaders who have supported Amtrak over the years. Now in the end, perhaps Anderson does actually support increased service and will not pull the trigger on route cuts. If that is the case, I will be more than thankful. If it is only bluster and an arrogant attidude which hides a real committment to improved Amtrak service nationwide I will be excited to see the results.

However the proof will have to be in the proverbial pudding for me.


----------



## TiBike

jis said:


> my impression is that Anderson in general is talking about exploring second frequencies to better serve the communities that are currently served at Oh Dark Thirty hours, presumably in addition to the current service.


What do you base that on?

In the letter, Anderson said "we agree that to terminate the long-distance trains with nothing to take their place would result in a crippled transportation network that would greatly diminish the value our trains offered to our customers and the communities they serve". Something other than nothing is a mighty low bar.

In his testimony to congress, in regards to "sizing the long distance services for national demand", Gardner said, "we will review possible new approaches that enable us to provide the critical connectivity that so many communities rely on us to provide".

According to the RPA hotline, Gardner subsequently said there would be no "permanent reductions in [long distance] service through Amtrak’s next authorization in 2020".

I can find other quotes and paraphrases from Anderson and Gardner that offered qualified support for long distance trains, but that also indicate a willingness, if not an intention, to cut long distance service, albeit temporarily until 2020, with some mode of bridging gaps, and/or with a focus on corridors/city pairs.

There's nothing that particularly indicates there's any intention to add a second train on existing routes. Everything that's been said, at least that I've seen, could just as easily interpreted as breaking up some routes into better-timed (and better on time) segments, bridging gaps with bus service and reducing long distance frequency in favor of increased service between key city pairs.

I think that would be the smart move: run trains where and when more people want to ride them; don't run them where/when fewer people are served.


----------



## jis

TiBike said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> my impression is that Anderson in general is talking about exploring second frequencies to better serve the communities that are currently served at Oh Dark Thirty hours, presumably in addition to the current service.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you base that on?
Click to expand...

A face to face conversation with him after his presentation at the RPA Chicago Meeting last fall.

A similar conversation that Jim had is also is the basis of the position that RPA has taken regarding maintenance of the current National Network and adding corridor service to it, not as a substitute.

Now of course anyone can change their mind on the way I suppose, so I would not take any of this to the bank myself. That is why I said my impression, and that could be completely wrong by now admittedly. But I have not found any indication yet to change my impression.

He certainly likes to stir things up with his style of presentation. I wonder if it is planned to get this effect or it is because he misjudged something. His immediate staff has clearly shown some significant gap in knowledge with several patently inaccurate statements that they have made. Someone who saw him operate at Delta may be able to throw some light on this. I once had a CEO who liked to raise the hackles of people just to get an honest feedback on who stands where instead of platitudes. Who knows?


----------



## CHamilton

Of concern to me is that many of these cuts are not just amenities, but they make the railroad difficult or impossible for people with disabilities to use. For example:


Cutting station agents means no boarding assistance and checked baggage for those with mobility impairments.
Reduced food choices potentially means no options for people with special dietary needs.
We certainly don't want Amtrak to become the "short bus," but there are many people who take the train because they cannot or should not fly for a host of medical reasons. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see ADA-based class-action lawsuits filed.


----------



## jis

CHamilton said:


> Of concern to me is that many of these cuts are not just amenities, but they make the railroad difficult or impossible for people with disabilities to use. For example:
> 
> 
> Cutting station agents means no boarding assistance and checked baggage for those with mobility impairments.
> Reduced food choices potentially means no options for people with special dietary needs.
> We certainly don't want Amtrak to become the "short bus," but there are many people who take the train because they cannot or should not fly for a host of medical reasons. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see ADA-based class-action lawsuits filed.


That would make sense as a tactic to reverse some of these changes.


----------



## frequentflyer

Devil's Advocate said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just read the letter, wow. Refreshing to have someone stick to his ideas, right or wrong. I wish some would be just as honest here and state they do not want change. They honestly want the same 47 year old Amtak. Better yet, want to go back to the way things "used to be " in the 50s and 60s. Boardman was the right CEO then, he didn't rock the boat. I am glad Anderson is taking a fresh wrecking ball to some "traditions" at Amtrak. I can't wait to see what further changes occur at Amtrak. And I will repeat, we will never know how many of these initiatives were started under Boardman or the "railroad guy" Moorman. My prediction, there may be a dip in pax numbers but ridership will continue to grow on the CL and LSL. And Amtrak's food deficit numbers will be significantly lowered as this spreads across the system.
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting that I can't find any meaningful qualifiers in your post. So long as the new CEO keeps swinging his wrecking ball I guess you'll remain happy and supportive. Whatever was lost or gained doesn't seem to matter nearly as much as the fact that something changed. I've never really understood what you envision happening after Anderson balances the F&B budget. If Amtrak loses customers because they're unhappy with the new service relative to the speed and price what reason would those customers have for returning later? Do you envision Anderson substantially raising speeds or significantly lowering prices to draw customers back again? There are any number of ways to modernize passenger rail but not all of them reach the same finish line. Some countries modernize into fast and efficient high speed rail services while others eventually modernize into partial or total abandonment leaving planes and vehicles as the sole survivors.
Click to expand...

If Amtrak looses customers its not because there is not a dinning car in the consist.

1. It's because a 20 year old GE tired locomotive quits in the middle of Texas with no HEP.

2. Pax are tired of trains arriving habitually late.

3. in difference in employee attitudes.

4. pax cars that look worn, including sleepers.

All the above and then some will make a passenger walk away before not being able to get a "steak" on a train. The new CEO has spoken to the four issues I have listed and we have some action being taken with talk of new locomotives and passenger cars.

As regards the savings from food losses, the less Amtrak has to rely on the government for money (notice I did not say totally subsidy free) the less of a political football Amtrak becomes. Will allow Amtrak to do its core charter of transporting people efficiently and safely by rail.

Side note, Anderson took over the CEO of Delta from Grinstein.......Who was a former CEO of BNSF for 10 years, a railroad guy. Running an "airline"?


----------



## TiBike

jis said:


> A similar conversation that Jim had is also is the basis of the position that RPA has taken regarding maintenance of the current National Network and adding corridor service to it, not as a substitute.
> 
> A face to face conversation with him after his presentation at the RPA Chicago Meeting last fall.
> 
> Now of course anyone can change their mind on the way I suppose, so I would not take any of this to the bank myself. That is why I said my impression, and that could be completely wrong by now admittedly. But I have not found any indication yet to change my impression.
> 
> He certainly likes to stir things up with his style of presentation. I wonder if it is planned to get this effect or it is because he misjudged something. His immediate staff has clearly shown some significant gap in knowledge with several patently inaccurate statements that they have made. Someone who saw him operate at Delta may be able to throw some light on this. I once had a CEO who liked to raise the hackles of people just to get an honest feedback on who stands where instead of platitudes. Who knows?


A lot has to do with definitions -- national network might mean something different to an executive than to a customer. When I read the article that resulted from Mathew's conversation with Anderson and Gardner, I was struck by the lack of critical thinking that the author brought to it. Consistently, two things weren't connected: Anderson/Gardener saying we're going to do/not going to do X, Mathews appearing to assume that X means what RPA/rail fans have always wanted it to mean.

I can only think of two possible paths that Anderson might follow, given his stated goals and the immediately available resources:

1. "Temporarily" reduce or eliminate through train service on long distance routes (some, probably not all), and redirect the resources to improved service between key city pairs. The results will be presented to congress in 2020, with congress having the option of either making the LD changes permanent or increasing funding for LD trains or, in effect, firing Anderson and going back to the old ways.

2. Wait until 2020 to make any significant changes to corridor/city pair service, thereby putting the decision in congress' hands. In the meantime, LD service will continue as it is now, and improvements to Amtrak's financial performance will come from fiddling around the edges with food service, station closings and process changes.

Option 1 is the only likely path, as I see it. A rock star CEO (albeit one that's not exactly a stadium-level act) that's being paid on a performance bonus basis and, it appears, is more interested in his legacy than in bureaucratic survival will not sit around for two or three years waiting for someone else to make decisions for him.


----------



## tricia

TiBike said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> A similar conversation that Jim had is also is the basis of the position that RPA has taken regarding maintenance of the current National Network and adding corridor service to it, not as a substitute.
> 
> A face to face conversation with him after his presentation at the RPA Chicago Meeting last fall.
> 
> Now of course anyone can change their mind on the way I suppose, so I would not take any of this to the bank myself. That is why I said my impression, and that could be completely wrong by now admittedly. But I have not found any indication yet to change my impression.
> 
> He certainly likes to stir things up with his style of presentation. I wonder if it is planned to get this effect or it is because he misjudged something. His immediate staff has clearly shown some significant gap in knowledge with several patently inaccurate statements that they have made. Someone who saw him operate at Delta may be able to throw some light on this. I once had a CEO who liked to raise the hackles of people just to get an honest feedback on who stands where instead of platitudes. Who knows?
> 
> 
> 
> A lot has to do with definitions -- national network might mean something different to an executive than to a customer. When I read the article that resulted from Mathew's conversation with Anderson and Gardner, I was struck by the lack of critical thinking that the author brought to it. Consistently, two things weren't connected: Anderson/Gardener saying we're going to do/not going to do X, Mathews appearing to assume that X means what RPA/rail fans have always wanted it to mean.
> 
> I can only think of two possible paths that Anderson might follow, given his stated goals and the immediately available resources:
> 
> 1. "Temporarily" reduce or eliminate through train service on long distance routes (some, probably not all), and redirect the resources to improved service between key city pairs. The results will be presented to congress in 2020, with congress having the option of either making the LD changes permanent or increasing funding for LD trains or, in effect, firing Anderson and going back to the old ways.
> 
> 2. Wait until 2020 to make any significant changes to corridor/city pair service, thereby putting the decision in congress' hands. In the meantime, LD service will continue as it is now, and improvements to Amtrak's financial performance will come from fiddling around the edges with food service, station closings and process changes.
> 
> Option 1 is the only likely path, as I see it. A rock star CEO (albeit one that's not exactly a stadium-level act) that's being paid on a performance bonus basis and, it appears, is more interested in his legacy than in bureaucratic survival will not sit around for two or three years waiting for someone else to make decisions for him.
Click to expand...

The obvious problem with 1. is that, once broken into pieces, it's hard to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.


----------



## jis

In my view, based on conversations with relevant people he has pretty much said he will do 2 and not do 1 as described above. But the railfan community has convinced themselves that it means he will do 1, and has been going through contortions trying to parse everything that is said or written to figure out at least one way in which it could mean that. And there is no changing of anyone's mind since no one is listening to anyone else anyway anymore. That is the reason that I have stopped wasting time in these careful parsing of sentences.

As for the future of the National Network, I am sure he and his gang will take part in the vigorous debate that will lead upto the reauthorization. It would be interesting to see whether he was bluffing last year or whether he follows through on what he said. Our job is to make sure that he sticks to what he said last year as far as the National Network and filler corridor service goes.

For the present he will just try to meet the statutory requirements placed on him by PRRIA 2015 and the FAST Act. We as Passenger Rail Advocates made a serious error in not making sure that the Mica Clause was removed through the FAST Act.But now it is what it is until the next Authorization, or if we can get some group in Congress to revoke that in an earlier Appropriation Bill, though that looks unlikely in the imminent election mess at least this year.

The only concrete indication that we can get at present and for the next 18-24 months is to see what he does with equipment orders and with evolution of OBS. If he continues to order equipment for the LD network then it is likely that he will not dismember the National Network. OTOH if he only orders corridor stuff then it would be bad news.


----------



## TiBike

tricia said:


> The obvious problem with 1. is that, once broken into pieces, it's hard to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.


As a practical matter, it would be fait accompli. If congress doesn't like it, congress can figure out how to fix it. Good thing we've elected 536 rocket scientists.


----------



## jis

TiBike said:


> tricia said:
> 
> 
> 
> The obvious problem with 1. is that, once broken into pieces, it's hard to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
> 
> 
> 
> As a practical matter, it would be fait accompli. If congress doesn't like it, congress can figure out how to fix it. Good thing we've elected 536 rocket scientists.
Click to expand...

ROTFL! Indeed!


----------



## CHamilton

It's always been an article of faith among passenger rail advocates that the national network will survive, simply because Amtrak management can count votes. They know that they need more votes than the NEC can provide in order to maintain Amtrak's budget. But...if the board and management of Amtrak *doesn't care* whether Amtrak survives, or have been given marching orders to kill the entire passenger rail system, then that logic fails.


----------



## CAQuail

Should be noted that before Grinstein was at BN/BNSF he was CEO of Western Airlines which merged with Delta in 1987.


----------



## jis

CHamilton said:


> It's always been an article of faith among passenger rail advocates that the national network will survive, simply because Amtrak management can count votes. They know that they need more votes than the NEC can provide in order to maintain Amtrak's budget. But...if the board and management of Amtrak *doesn't care* whether Amtrak survives, or have been given marching orders to kill the entire passenger rail system, then that logic fails.


Indeed that is true. But how likely is it that an entirely Obama appointed Board with an Obama appointed Chairman like Coscia is marching with an order to kill passenger rail national network? And if indeed that is the case with such an otherwise likely to be pro passenger rail Board, what is the likelihood that the National Network would survive anyway? Close to zero I'd say. So I have difficulty believing the core premise of the argument.


----------



## bretton88

When you look at the increased funding coming from a supposedly hostile congress, I'd say Anderson is impressing the right people.


----------



## Thirdrail7

frequentflyer said:


> Just read the letter, wow. Refreshing to have someone stick to his ideas, right or wrong.


Well, when you have no frame of reference, you're going to stick to your talking points as dictated. If you start shooting from your lip, you'll come off as uniformed and say things like "We have some new sleepers that should arrive soon and we'll look at improving the experience on things like the Auto train and the Coast Starlight."

Everyone on the call looked at each other, thinking that some new mystery equipment was ordered in secrecy when it was realized he was talking about the CAF order.

You mention people want a different dining model....while overlooking that the solution you want to pursue was already available. If anyone actually recalls, the lounge was a separate from the dining car and cafe car. It was completely separate and passengers could always eat in their room. All you've really down is downgrade the food service, while bringing back the previous lounge car.....and keeping coach passenger out of it.

Yes, stay on the script...right or wrong.







frequentflyer said:


> . I wish some would be just as honest here and state they do not want change. They honestly want the same 47 year old Amtak. Better yet, want to go back to the way things "used to be " in the 50s and 60s.


I don't think people mind change. If you read this board, you'll see people are starving for change. However, there is change for the good and a change in something that I think you and the CEO/CFO types overlook and that is a change in the VALUE....whether perceived or realized.

Again, to spin the changes as "improvements" may work on the uniformed. However, to paying passenger these are cuts in services and amenities without the benefit of "value" for their hard earned money. After all, prices haven't dropped. Indeed, they have gone up in many cases. If you"re happy paying more for less, that is fine. The average person wouldn't agree.



frequentflyer said:


> Boardman was the right CEO then, he didn't rock the boat. I am glad Anderson is taking a fresh wrecking ball to some "traditions" at Amtrak. I can't wait to see what further changes occur at Amtrak.


Mr. Boardman and his regime managed to achieve record ridership and record cost recovery (almost 95%) using a lot of the "traditions" you'd like to see wrecked. He also rocked the boat by not slashing trains, ordered new electrics, new single level cars and pushed, pushed and pushed for preserving and EXPANDING the network with the help of state partners. He was also the first CEO (during my tenure) that pushed to make sure all departments worked to support customer service.

As for changes, Devil's Advocate hit the nail on the head but I'll expand. Neither you or Mr. Anderson have demonstrated why certain services were altered. From an insider perspective, I call B/S on a large amount of his claims. Has anyone PRESSED Mr. Anderson for examples of charters not covering their expenses? Can we see some? More time than not, they are run with extra equipment or redirected equipment(such as Autumn Express, Denver Ski train). The ones that didn't typically made more than running the actual train (such as Train Jam, WPB Special). Additionally, some of those specials have led to increased awareness and support for expanding Amtrak service, (such as Roanoke).

The private cars may be a nuisance but there is no denying they brought in revenue. They also bring the attention and support. I am aware that adding and removing them can take time. However, that is why some of these schedules have so much recovery time to begin with. you goal should be to eliminate other avoidable delays so the time could be used wisely.

How hard will it be to reinstate the bridge once it is damaged or torn down? After you chase people away, will it be easy to lure them back? How much support do you expect from PA after you financially impacted two major cities in their stat by not assisting with private cars? Particularly when private operators are chomping at the bit to pick up state supported services! The damage from these moves may resonate for years!



frequentflyer said:


> And I will repeat, we will never know how many of these initiatives were started under Boardman or the "railroad guy" Moorman.


Agreed, although I know. A great deal of this actually started under Mr. Boardman. Things like assigned seating, the refresh program, the search for new equipment was all well under way. A lot of it has to do with funding. I can also say that the whole boxed lunch thing was kicked around during his tenure and it was his rgime that killed the dining car on the Star and brought diner lite to the LSL....although these were the effects of the late arriving dining cars. there were only a handful of serviceable heritage dining cars available.



frequentflyer said:


> My prediction, there may be a dip in pax numbers but ridership will continue to grow on the CL and LSL. And Amtrak's food deficit numbers will be significantly lowered as this spreads across the system.


I'm curious. How can you "grow" ridership when you divert your assets and resources away from your product? Instead on finding way to put more butts in the seats, you've "right sized (read cut cars from the consist), slashed the value of the leftover service by cutting amenities and saying the dining car doesn't pull its weight? Of course it doesn't!!!! You have a full staff that used to support 300 coach passengers and 64 sleeping car passengers serving with 120 coach passengers and 32 sleeping car passengers. That is because you cannibalized the LD network in favor of state supported service.

As for the food service, for the single night LD trains that operate with these puny consists, I've stated it before and I'll say it again: Amtrak has slashed the need for a dining car to compete with a cafe car. You don't have the equipment committed to bring in the necessary numbers. If that is the case, drive your cost down and follow the example you've started with the Star. Be honest. Introduce high end cafe service or boxed/delivered.pre-ordered hot meals etc and adjust your prices accordingly.


----------



## Thirdrail7

frequentflyer said:


> If Amtrak looses customers its not because there is not a dinning car in the consist.
> 
> 1. It's because a 20 year old GE tired locomotive quits in the middle of Texas with no HEP.
> 
> 2. Pax are tired of trains arriving habitually late.
> 
> 3. in difference in employee attitudes.
> 
> 4. pax cars that look worn, including sleepers.
> 
> All the above and then some will make a passenger walk away before not being able to get a "steak" on a train. The new CEO has spoken to the four issues I have listed and we have some action being taken with talk of new locomotives and passenger cars.
> 
> As regards the savings from food losses, the less Amtrak has to rely on the government for money (notice I did not say totally subsidy free) the less of a political football Amtrak becomes. Will allow Amtrak to do its core charter of transporting people efficiently and safely by rail.


 I slightly disagree. The problems listed in 1-4 have existed and *persisted * yet, ridership and cost recovery climbed to record levels. However, this may be someones tipping point. It occurred before. I remember when they cut cafe service and ridership plummeted on the associated trains. Again, it is the perception of value and what you're willing to accept. Having food and drink seems to soothe late arriving passengers with dead engines.



bretton88 said:


> When you look at the increased funding coming from a supposedly hostile congress, I'd say Anderson is impressing the right people.


How much was leftover credibility from the previous regimes?


----------



## cpotisch

bretton88 said:


> When you look at the increased funding coming from a supposedly hostile congress, I'd say Anderson is impressing the right people.


How do you know it's Anderson impressing congress? Anderson is not the only person working in all of Amtrak, and there are plenty other factors to take into consideration.


----------



## jis

cpotisch said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you look at the increased funding coming from a supposedly hostile congress, I'd say Anderson is impressing the right people.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you it's Anderson impressing congress? Anderson is not the only person working in all of Amtrak, and there are plenty other factors to take into consideration.
Click to expand...

Yeah. In my reckoning Anderson didn’t do diddly to get the increased funding. [emoji57]


----------



## Seaboard92

I will shoot a message odd to some people and see if I can't get an answer to which charters were the money losers. I'm tempted to say none of them were money losers based on what they actually charge us. But I could be wrong.

Without right sizing the consists I could see the argument that equipment sent out for charters cost money from lack of space on scheduled trains.

My initial thought was the AAPRCO Specials but those just get a crew and engines from Amtrak so the resources used are small. But also they bring in far less than say New River Train which at times has had ten Amtrak cars and three locomotives for two weeks.

Speaking of that if I were you I would ride New River Train this year because you never know when you might get the opportunity again.


----------



## neroden

Thirdrail7 said:


> As for the food service, for the single night LD trains that operate with these puny consists, I've stated it before and I'll say it again: Amtrak has slashed the need for a dining car to compete with a cafe car. You don't have the equipment committed to bring in the necessary numbers. If that is the case, drive your cost down and follow the example you've started with the Star. Be honest. Introduce high end cafe service or boxed/delivered.pre-ordered hot meals etc and adjust your prices accordingly.


Bluntly, I'd be happy with high-end cafe service, but Amtrak currently seems unwilling to provide the level of service you can get from a bad buffet at a cheap motel. Where are the boiled eggs? While I understand it's more expensive to provide things on a train than in a fixed location, maintaining "at least as good as a cheap free motel breakfast, but for exorbitant prices" standards shouldn't be that hard.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> His immediate staff has clearly shown some significant gap in knowledge with several patently inaccurate statements that they have made.


This specifically is what turned me against Anderson. If his staff had shown that they *knew what they were talking about*, I would have cut him a lot of slack. But at the moment it looks like he's surrounded by complete ignoramuses who are absolutely sure of their false beliefs -- a bit like the current President -- and that never ever works out well.

Again, my tactical advice is to point out that the CEO and his immediate staff have been publishing verifiably false claims and demonstrating gross lack of understanding (with quick citations). Admit upfront that the old methods of operation needed to be changed (so they won't write you off as a "never change anything" type), but say that Amtrak needs someone who *knows what they're talking about* in order to improve things.

This is an argument which can convince a Board of Directors. You are demonstrating to them that their employee, the CEO, is incompetent, and merely asking them to hire someone competent.


----------



## JoeBas

neroden said:


> Where are the boiled eggs?


These mythical boiled eggs are starting to reach "Philly Fan vs. the Cardinal" levels of jihadist infamy...


----------



## RPC

neroden said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> His immediate staff has clearly shown some significant gap in knowledge with several patently inaccurate statements that they have made.
> 
> 
> 
> This specifically is what turned me against Anderson. If his staff had shown that they *knew what they were talking about*, I would have cut him a lot of slack. But at the moment it looks like he's surrounded by complete ignoramuses who are absolutely sure of their false beliefs -- a bit like the current President -- and that never ever works out well.
> 
> Again, my tactical advice is to point out that the CEO and his immediate staff have been publishing verifiably false claims and demonstrating gross lack of understanding (with quick citations). Admit upfront that the old methods of operation needed to be changed (so they won't write you off as a "never change anything" type), but say that Amtrak needs someone who *knows what they're talking about* in order to improve things.
> 
> This is an argument which can convince a Board of Directors. You are demonstrating to them that their employee, the CEO, is incompetent, and merely asking them to hire someone competent.
Click to expand...

But look at how long it took them to land Anderson. They were probably pretty desperate, what with Wick champing at the bit to get out. I see no reason for anyone with the requisite experience to want the job!


----------



## jis

My guess is that the Board will not fire Anderson no matter how loudly a few rail fans/advocates huff and puff about it. They will however change some specific instructions and goals related to his $500K bonus possibly. Mind you this is just my guess. Having watched at least a dozen Boards' actions over the years, unless there is some financial or harassment or gross insubordination kind of malfeasance involved, they will not fire someone. That is not how corporate America operates, not that I necessarily agree with how it operates. But it is what it is.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Why do people keep implying Wick couldn't wait to leave? I've seen that claim at least a dozen times here on the forum but I never saw or heard anything like that from him directly. Whenever he mentioned leaving it was always his wife's idea/suggestion/demand that he give up and come home. For better or worse Wick himself seemed to be highly engaged and motivated and I was curious to see what his vision would be for Amtrak's future. Unfortunately Wick's short tenure was marred by the repercussions of long deferred maintenance and his replacement was a man best known for blaming his own company's problems on highly illogical (but politically expedient) targets 7,500 miles away.


----------



## Trogdor

Devil's Advocate said:


> Why do people keep implying Wick couldn't wait to leave? I've seen that claim at least a dozen times here on the forum but I never saw or heard anything like that from him directly. Whenever he mentioned leaving it was always his wife's idea/suggestion/demand that he give up and come home. For better or worse Wick himself seemed to be highly engaged and motivated and I was curious to see what his vision would be for Amtrak's future. Unfortunately Wick's short tenure was marred by the repercussions of long deferred maintenance and his replacement was a man best known for blaming his own company's problems on highly illogical (but politically expedient) targets 7,500 miles away.


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

Whether it was actually his wife's idea or his own was immaterial. It was always a given from the start that Wick had no intention on staying around.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Devil's Advocate said:


> Why do people keep implying Wick couldn't wait to leave? I've seen that claim at least a dozen times here on the forum but I never saw or heard anything like that from him directly. Whenever he mentioned leaving it was always his wife's idea/suggestion/demand that he give up and come home. For better or worse Wick himself seemed to be highly engaged and motivated and I was curious to see what his vision would be for Amtrak's future. Unfortunately Wick's short tenure was marred by the repercussions of long deferred maintenance and his replacement was a man best known for blaming his own company's problems on highly illogical (but politically expedient) targets 7,500 miles away.


He never really wanted to work for Amtrak. He took the job because no one else would and he felt it was important to fill in while additional candidates were found. Unfortunately, it is not an attractive position.

I have it cued up for you.

https://youtu.be/h5XsTmzfqDs?t=1358


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Even though I think Wick might have been willing to stick around, especially if no other candidate was forthcoming, I'm willing to concede this point. If he really wanted this he would have done what was needed to make it happen.


----------



## frequentflyer

The question should be why doesn't anyone want the job? Anyone one with real credibility.


----------



## railiner

frequentflyer said:


> The question should be why doesn't anyone want the job? Anyone one with real credibility.


Probably because running Amtrak is akin to "mission impossible"...even someone with the very best intentions will utimately be frustrated by their lack of power to make the meaningful changes necessary, due to its completely unique nature, in the world of business mixed with politics...


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Arent all Federal Jobs the same?

Ask to do the impossible with nothing. Seem that was the issue when I was in the military. Recalled the DoD was begging for a two year budget so they could plan purchase and projects.

Conflicting instructions from Congress effect all Agency not just Amtrak. The whole push back on Congress allowing the Administration to write rules to the law that they past.

Add in the lack of pay, the fall guy position if something fail to work, little or no respect, and no credit when it works.

Tough environment with limited up side.


----------



## Seaboard92

The railroaders creed.

"We the unwilling, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful, we have done so much for so long, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing."


----------



## Thirdrail7

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Arent all Federal Jobs the same?
> 
> Ask to do the impossible with nothing. Seem that was the issue when I was in the military. Recalled the DoD was begging for a two year budget so they could plan purchase and projects.
> 
> Conflicting instructions from Congress effect all Agency not just Amtrak. The whole push back on Congress allowing the Administration to write rules to the law that they past.
> 
> Add in the lack of pay, the fall guy position if something fail to work, little or no respect, and no credit when it works.
> 
> Tough environment with limited up side.



That being said, most railroaders want to be free to pursue their products and agendas. They answer to their board and to the operation. Action speaks louder than words. If they see something not working, they are free to make changes.

Most railroaders know this isn't the case with Amtrak. As I mentioned earlier, Mr Anderson is a for profit CEO that see PRIIA as his mandate. However, every word he speaks is scrutinized, analyzed and second guessed. Politicians, use your back as their bully pulpit. Every incident is publicized. Meanwhile, freight trains have melted down, collided, derailed and caused mass evacuations and the outrage is local..if it exists at all.

What railroaded in their right mind would want to put up with that?

This typically leaves you with an opportunist or an enthusiast. Both of them think they can "save Amtrak." One does it for the love and glory while the other looks for the glory of building their resume. The burnout impacts the opportunist first. They tend to leave on a high not, knowing the ship is tilted to the right but their actions couldn't be linked to the actually sinking. The enthusiast just starts to burn out. Sometimes they are still flickering when they depart while other times, the fire was stomped out and the boiler is cold.

Finally, when you consider the pay versus the private compensation, you have to be one of the above to put yourself through this. That is why Gunn said 'he wouldn't take this job on a bet" if he wasn't retired and Moorman turned it down. They had absolutely nothing to lose. They wanted to help since the industry was important to them.


----------



## Thirdrail7

At this point, I'd like to tip my hat to Mr. Anderson.

While Mr. Boardman was the first CEO during my tenure to make sure that various departments realized they worked for a passenger railroad, which means we should work together to support customer services, Mr. Anderson is the first CEO during my tenure to notify the mechanical department that they are FRONT LINE EMPLOYEES!





That's right and all though it will take time, this is more than words...I've seen the action.

He informed mechanical that the customer experience begins with them. If the train is dirty, looks neglected and has burnt out light bulbs, the rest of the employees are already on the defense. While he is aware that some of the equipment is just old, rundown and neglected, he wants the things that can be controlled...controlled...and is not taking no for an answer...regardless of the consequences (and there are definitely going to be consequences particularly when it comes to washing the trains.)

To that end, he is investing in the mechanical departments. He is investing in training and upgrades in facilities. Granted, he could do a lot more, but we'll have to cut loose some more chefs to make it happen.....(too soon?)

Additionally, there is a contractor that was hired to check the conditions of the trains prior to departure. In other words, the group is traveling around the various terminals, inspecting the work of the mechanical facilities. We've been told to assist when we seen them (give them access to the trains , escort them across tracks ,etc). They are also on the look out for items that haven't been repaired in a timely fashion. It has been made clear that facilities with too many exceptions will experience "changes"



.

It is a start.


----------



## railiner

I have mixed feelings learning of this contract for an outside 'auditor' to do what inside quality control should be doing...

While the outside audit may be more objective, I am wondering what the cost of this might be, and where those funds could be better utilized....


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> I have mixed feelings learning of this contract for an outside 'auditor' to do what inside quality control should be doing...
> 
> While the outside audit may be more objective, I am wondering what the cost of this might be, and where those funds could be better utilized....


It would actually be interesting to know whether there is any hope at all of getting anything objective from an inside audit too, and what the cost of that would be. I suspect that there is not a bunch of people on regular payroll with all attached benefits costs etc. with nothing to do and with expertise in auditing just sitting around waiting to be called on to audit. but who knows?


----------



## TiBike

Adult supervision and "internal" accountability have never been Amtrak's strong suit.


----------



## bretton88

jis said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have mixed feelings learning of this contract for an outside 'auditor' to do what inside quality control should be doing...
> 
> While the outside audit may be more objective, I am wondering what the cost of this might be, and where those funds could be better utilized....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would actually be interesting to know whether there is any hope at all of getting anything objective from an inside audit too, and what the cost of that would be. I suspect that there is not a bunch of people on regular payroll with all attached benefits costs etc. with nothing to do and with expertise in auditing just sitting around waiting to be called on to audit. but who knows?
Click to expand...

Usually a CEO brings in "his people" to do an audit like this. So I highly doubt anyone internal was even considered.


----------



## Thirdrail7

railiner said:


> I have mixed feelings learning of this contract for an outside 'auditor' to do what inside quality control should be doing...
> 
> While the outside audit may be more objective, I am wondering what the cost of this might be, and where those funds could be better utilized....


If it gets you a cleaner, mechanically sound train, it will be worth it.

Besides, they will look at the "pure" results. It is likely an internal audit wouldn't hold the same weight, particularly if tasks aren't accomplished. They know the time limitations and considerations. If an outside agency comes in, sees certain things aren't being addressed and they note a great deal of it is because of late arriving equipment and staffing shortage, it will verify what mechanical has been screaming about since the Gunn layoffs.

In the end, this may give the facilities what they need.


----------



## Palmetto

I would imagine the audit company is having a field day in Chicago, given all the negative posts in various places about their sloppy work.


----------



## neroden

Thirdrail7 said:


> At this point, I'd like to tip my hat to Mr. Anderson.
> 
> While Mr. Boardman was the first CEO during my tenure to make sure that various departments realized they worked for a passenger railroad, which means we should work together to support customer services, Mr. Anderson is the first CEO during my tenure to notify the mechanical department that they are FRONT LINE EMPLOYEES!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right and all though it will take time, this is more than words...I've seen the action.
> 
> He informed mechanical that the customer experience begins with them. If the train is dirty, looks neglected and has burnt out light bulbs, the rest of the employees are already on the defense. While he is aware that some of the equipment is just old, rundown and neglected, he wants the things that can be controlled...controlled...and is not taking no for an answer...regardless of the consequences (and there are definitely going to be consequences particularly when it comes to washing the trains.)
> 
> To that end, he is investing in the mechanical departments. He is investing in training and upgrades in facilities. Granted, he could do a lot more, but we'll have to cut loose some more chefs to make it happen.....(too soon?)
> 
> Additionally, there is a contractor that was hired to check the conditions of the trains prior to departure. In other words, the group is traveling around the various terminals, inspecting the work of the mechanical facilities. We've been told to assist when we seen them (give them access to the trains , escort them across tracks ,etc). They are also on the look out for items that haven't been repaired in a timely fashion. It has been made clear that facilities with too many exceptions will experience "changes"
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> It is a start.


It is. I have to respect that. Maybe the longtime chronic disaster which is Chicago Mechanical will finally be taken to task.


----------



## Thirdrail7

I'm ready for a mid year evaluation. While I like a lot of the initiatives that have continued and a return to the basics, the public handling of his messages are abysmal...and possibly destructive. I find it hard to believe that he is allowing ill timed, ill advised and poorly communicated messages to be the focal point of his tenure.

It goes back to the thoughts I had at the beginning of his tenure.



Thirdrail7 said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A point to consider is that Richard Anderson was the CEO of a for profit corporation.* Amtrak is a totally different animal. When he discovers that Amtrak salaries account for about 75% of total revenue, jobs may be cut or lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> And until someone manages to update 49 CFR 700.2 (requires an act of the Congress) to take out the phrase "for profit corporation", Amtrak by its charter continues to be a "for profit corporation". That it does not or cannot make a profit for various possibly legitimate reasons is a matter that is not included in its charter at present. Granted that Mr. Anderson will have a bit of a challenge, but then he has been there and done that in the airline industry. So that experience should be nothing new. *Unfortunately the straitjacket environment in which Amtrak operates does not give him as many flexible options as he had in the airline industry to address the issue as swiftly as he could at Delta.*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *This is the key. Can a person that has a "for profit" mantra understand that passenger railroads typically don't run at a profit and even if you attempt to cut your costs by eliminating things that don't necessarily make money but can add to the base, sometimes that actually drives away your customers?*
> 
> *I guess we'll find out soon enough.
> 
> 
> 
> *
Click to expand...




Thirdrail7 said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mystic River Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would someone please explain to me why Anderson took this job?
> 
> 
> 
> He's a disruptor: a manager who comes into an organization and questions everything and accepts nothing from the past unless it is proven to his or her satisfaction - and that's not easy. His intent is to make a comfortable organization uncomfortable, and change the way things are done. People can either play ball or get out. I've been through that kind of management, and while it was very unsettling when it happened, we came out much, much better in the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a difference in where this can work. Amtrak has had enough disruptors over the years.* What it needs is a BUILDER that serves as LEADER. It needs a LEADER with a vision and a BUILDER that can work to BRIDGE the gaps between the various stakeholders and achieve a common goal of providing service where desired.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Why "disrupt" the long term bridges that are needed to provide service and what makes you think that a corporation that is routinely starved of capital funds, operations funds and must beg for its existence every year is "comfortable?*
> 
> 
> 
> *Additionally, if you believe Amtrak, it covered almost 95% of its operational expenses from ticket sales and other revenues in FY 17. It has climbed every year, along with ridership. hat has increased year after year after by working together with stakeholders (states, feds, Congress, employees etc), not "disrupting" the network and alienating your potential partners (private car owners, states, host railroads, etc) . All that does it make the NEXT CEO, waste valuable time and capital on mending fences, restoring bridges and reestablishing the network.*
Click to expand...


We are finding out that he may not understand that eliminating things that don't necessarily make money but can add to the base may increase bad publicity and draw negative attention.

Canceling the Toys-For-Tots train immediately after a train derails in a major terminal operated and maintained by your company may seems like a good idea. Your excuse may be "we need to concentrate on the basics and that includes a state of good repair"

However, the timing and poor press will take a long time to correct. Even if there is an about face(and there have been a few 'ramp downs in rhetoric), the message has been mangled. It also shows you are unreliable and you have broken the spirit of cooperation with your partners.....partners that can help. How long until Chuck Schumer shows up in front on the podium? How many riders will get attached to funding bills? These attachments may last long after Mr Anderson and his regime are gone. There is damage to relationships being done.

Some of the passengers and future riders? Check!

Congress? Check!

States? Check!

Other Railroads? Check!

Private Car groups? Check!

Charities? Check! (Seriously!! Charities???)

Now, the Marines!! Check!

At this point, he and his regime are teetering on a shaky C-.


----------



## DSS&A

Thirdrail7 makes many good points. Anderson could use some advice from a re entry retired public transit or commuter rail CEO or senior goverment affairs staff person to help communicate with riders and elected officials for funding.


----------



## Seaboard92

His Vice President is someone who spent time on Capitol Hill. And knows how congress works. Honestly I think the Vice President is far worse than Anderson. Which is why both need to go.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

Is Moorman still involved in Amtrak at all in any capacity?


----------



## Thirdrail7

He's a consultant for infrastructure.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Seaboard92 said:


> His Vice President is someone who spent time on Capitol Hill. And knows how congress works. Honestly I think the Vice President is far worse than Anderson. Which is why both need to go.


He also had a hand in crafting PRIIA.


----------



## west point

Speaking of Wick. Is it possible that the derailment of Crescent #20 at the south throat of WASH Union station is another NYPS repeat ?


----------



## Acela150

I doubt that as of now. If it happens again then I’ll buy into it.


----------



## Seaboard92

Thirdrail7 said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> His Vice President is someone who spent time on Capitol Hill. And knows how congress works. Honestly I think the Vice President is far worse than Anderson. Which is why both need to go.
> 
> 
> 
> He also had a hand in crafting PRIIA.
Click to expand...

Do you really want to give me more reasons to not like him?


----------



## ohle

It's clear hiring an airline CEO as head of Amtrak was a disastrous decision.

The whole board needs to resign, too, as they fully support this wrongheaded CEO's irrational plans to destroy the national system.


----------



## ohle

Thirdrail7 said:


> At this point, I'd like to tip my hat to Mr. Anderson.
> 
> While Mr. Boardman was the first CEO during my tenure to make sure that various departments realized they worked for a passenger railroad, which means we should work together to support customer services, Mr. Anderson is the first CEO during my tenure to notify the mechanical department that they are FRONT LINE EMPLOYEES!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right and all though it will take time, this is more than words...I've seen the action.
> 
> He informed mechanical that the customer experience begins with them. If the train is dirty, looks neglected and has burnt out light bulbs, the rest of the employees are already on the defense. While he is aware that some of the equipment is just old, rundown and neglected, he wants the things that can be controlled...controlled...and is not taking no for an answer...regardless of the consequences (and there are definitely going to be consequences particularly when it comes to washing the trains.)
> 
> To that end, he is investing in the mechanical departments. He is investing in training and upgrades in facilities. Granted, he could do a lot more, but we'll have to cut loose some more chefs to make it happen.....(too soon?)
> 
> Additionally, there is a contractor that was hired to check the conditions of the trains prior to departure. In other words, the group is traveling around the various terminals, inspecting the work of the mechanical facilities. We've been told to assist when we seen them (give them access to the trains , escort them across tracks ,etc). They are also on the look out for items that haven't been repaired in a timely fashion. It has been made clear that facilities with too many exceptions will experience "changes"
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> It is a start.


Am not so sure about this.

Amtrak mechanical has really fallen.

It's routinely placing malfunctioning cars in service, a big no-no for a business that wants to please its customers.

Detailed in this post

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/73558-bad-amtrak-customer-service-and-maintenance-disastrous-calif-zephyr-trip/


----------



## cpotisch

ohle said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At this point, I'd like to tip my hat to Mr. Anderson.
> 
> While Mr. Boardman was the first CEO during my tenure to make sure that various departments realized they worked for a passenger railroad, which means we should work together to support customer services, Mr. Anderson is the first CEO during my tenure to notify the mechanical department that they are FRONT LINE EMPLOYEES!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right and all though it will take time, this is more than words...I've seen the action.
> 
> He informed mechanical that the customer experience begins with them. If the train is dirty, looks neglected and has burnt out light bulbs, the rest of the employees are already on the defense. While he is aware that some of the equipment is just old, rundown and neglected, he wants the things that can be controlled...controlled...and is not taking no for an answer...regardless of the consequences (and there are definitely going to be consequences particularly when it comes to washing the trains.)
> 
> To that end, he is investing in the mechanical departments. He is investing in training and upgrades in facilities. Granted, he could do a lot more, but we'll have to cut loose some more chefs to make it happen.....(too soon?)
> 
> Additionally, there is a contractor that was hired to check the conditions of the trains prior to departure. In other words, the group is traveling around the various terminals, inspecting the work of the mechanical facilities. We've been told to assist when we seen them (give them access to the trains , escort them across tracks ,etc). They are also on the look out for items that haven't been repaired in a timely fashion. It has been made clear that facilities with too many exceptions will experience "changes"
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> It is a start.
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak mechanical has really fallen.
> 
> It's routinely placing malfunctioning cars in service, a big no-no for a business that wants to please its customers.
> 
> 
> Amtrak's quality control is getting really bad. The sleeping car me and my elderly mother rode in on the California Zephyr this month had no AC. The crew said it had been like this for a week, meaning the car has been routinely running when it shouldn't have.
> Maintenance in CHI didn't fix it, and didn't replace it with a working unit. This made a lot of passengers angry with summer temps in the 90s on the California Zephyr. Many said "Never again..."
> 
> 
> 
> I called Amtrak customer service en-route (the first day, of 2 nights) to see if the car could be repaired at Salt Lake City or Denver, the next major service stops. Nope. Nothing to be done.
> 
> 
> 
> The crew recommended sleeping in coach or in the lounge, which weren't acceptable solutions. The train was sold-out, so there weren't any rooms available.
> 
> 
> 
> The family room in our car was evacuated, so me and a gentleman across the aisle took those big beds (per directions of our attendant). It was a little cooler, and better than the other rooms, which were infernos. The 2nd night, at 1 a.m., the conductor moved us to a roommette in the crew car at Holdredge, NE, which was air conditioned. But a 1 a.m. transfer wasn't convenient.
> 
> 
> 
> A large group of America by Rail travelers boarded at Glenwood Springs. They were very upset at the heat. One was looking into an overnight bus from Denver or renting cars, none of which were practical, so they remained aboard.
> 
> 
> 
> The crew (and I) recommended contacting customer service for refunds. We got a $500 voucher, which seemed fair.
> 
> 
> 
> There was no rational reason the defective sleeping car should remain in service. This points to Amtrak's lousy customer service and maintenance. Things like this shouldn't happen, particularly at the peak of summer travel.
Click to expand...

Why'd you post all of this in a new thread and in this one?


----------



## ohle

Anderson's actions show he knows little about travel in general, and next to nothing about train travel.

His firing is long overdue.


----------



## Acela150

I was at a local Cheesesteak place this evening after work.. (Shocking... Steve eating a cheesesteak



) After I placed my order I saw a gentlemen wearing a blue shirt and Amtrak Epaulettes. I asked him how long he's been at Amtrak and where he works etc. We had a nice conversation. I asked him what he thought of Richard Anderson and what the morale is like amongst the crew base he works in.. Which was NOT Philly. He told me about the stuff we already know about Food on the LSL and CL. The ongoing saga of the diners. He actually complained about the Acela Express First Class Assigned Seating Pilot. He did agree with the widely popular opinion that he's trying to make Amtrak an Airline. I'll say in his defense he said it on his own and without being persuaded etc.

I think that it's sad that your own employees have nothing nice to say about you and the way your running the company you're in charge of. While I can tell you first hand that, it's just a way of life on the RR to complain about bosses.. Talking about Richard Anderson with this gentlemen he seemed genuinely concerned about Amtrak's future and the current leadership. IMO, that's not good.. Your employees shouldn't have to worry about things like that.


----------



## drakejings

I've talked to dining car crews and SCAs. They all seem demoralized. Some are somewhat outspoken, but most seem resigned to the fact there is little they can do. Many have said in so many words that they can't let this situation dictate the quality of their work; that their first obligation is to do a good job. A few have smiled as if to say "Yes things are bad, but I don't think I should [or want] to discuss it." They all seem pleased that I am aware, and disapproving of what's taking place.

Anderson, even on this site, still has his fans. What are you cheering about? Canceling the Toys for Tots Train? The "improved" timekeeping that has gotten worse? The incorrect usage of the beautiful new Viewliner diners? The false reporting and accounting tactics [as reported by Trains Magazine] to split up the Southwest Chief? His refusal to grant interviews with the media? His alienating private car owners and their revenue, without benefit of improved timekeeping?

He's had enough time. He's put his cards on the table and doesn't want to remotely discuss it. He needs to go !


----------



## GBNorman

drakejings said:


> Anderson, even on this site, still has his fans. What are you cheering about? Canceling the Toys for Tots Train? The "improved" timekeeping that has gotten worse? The incorrect usage of the beautiful new Viewliner diners? The false reporting and accounting tactics [as reported by Trains Magazine] to split up the Southwest Chief? His refusal to grant interviews with the media? His alienating private car owners and their revenue, without benefit of improved timekeeping?


I simply do not use Amtrak enough to be any kind of expert, as my use since '12 has been an Auto-Train "voyage" each year.
But reviewing the mature, yet pointed, comments captioned, shows they are all addressing "experiential" concerns and ancillary lines of business.

To the Board, and their "benefactors" with record levels of support, their "hired hand" is attempting to give them an outfit that provides passenger transportation in a safe, efficient, manner concentrating on markets where there is sufficient or potential demand for such, as does the outfit from which he was recruited.

The issues noted above, along with those noted in many pages at sites such as this, are by and large addressing a line of business that was obsolescent after the Korean War, and obsolete by A-Day.


----------



## Pere Flyer

GBNorman said:


> drakejings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson, even on this site, still has his fans. What are you cheering about? Canceling the Toys for Tots Train? The "improved" timekeeping that has gotten worse? The incorrect usage of the beautiful new Viewliner diners? The false reporting and accounting tactics [as reported by Trains Magazine] to split up the Southwest Chief? His refusal to grant interviews with the media? His alienating private car owners and their revenue, without benefit of improved timekeeping?
> 
> 
> 
> I simply do not use Amtrak enough to be any kind of expert, as my use since '12 has been an Auto-Train "voyage" each year.
> But reviewing the mature, yet pointed, comments captioned, shows they are all addressing "experiential" concerns and ancillary lines of business.
> 
> To the Board, and their "benefactors" with record levels of support, their "hired hand" is attempting to give them an outfit that provides passenger transportation in a safe, efficient, manner concentrating on markets where there is sufficient or potential demand for such, as does the outfit from which he was recruited.
> 
> The issues noted above, along with those noted in many pages at sites such as this, are by and large addressing a line of business that was obsolescent after the Korean War, and obsolete by A-Day.
Click to expand...

Punctual timekeeping, honest accounting, and transparency with the public are not “ancillary lines of business,” let alone “obsolescent.”You’re welcome to share your opinions, but please don’t misconstrue others’ opinions for you to trample over them with yours.

This forum is not made of straw.


----------



## ohle

Pere Flyer said:


> GBNorman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drakejings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson, even on this site, still has his fans. What are you cheering about? Canceling the Toys for Tots Train? The "improved" timekeeping that has gotten worse? The incorrect usage of the beautiful new Viewliner diners? The false reporting and accounting tactics [as reported by Trains Magazine] to split up the Southwest Chief? His refusal to grant interviews with the media? His alienating private car owners and their revenue, without benefit of improved timekeeping?
> 
> 
> 
> I simply do not use Amtrak enough to be any kind of expert, as my use since '12 has been an Auto-Train "voyage" each year.
> But reviewing the mature, yet pointed, comments captioned, shows they are all addressing "experiential" concerns and ancillary lines of business.
> 
> To the Board, and their "benefactors" with record levels of support, their "hired hand" is attempting to give them an outfit that provides passenger transportation in a safe, efficient, manner concentrating on markets where there is sufficient or potential demand for such, as does the outfit from which he was recruited.
> 
> The issues noted above, along with those noted in many pages at sites such as this, are by and large addressing a line of business that was obsolescent after the Korean War, and obsolete by A-Day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Punctual timekeeping, honest accounting, and transparency with the public are not “ancillary lines of business,” let alone “obsolescent.”You’re welcome to share your opinions, but please don’t misconstrue others’ opinions for you to trample over them with yours.
> 
> This forum is not made of straw.
Click to expand...

Amen.

So much for this dismissive attitude that "nobody" rides the trains outside the lightly-used, less occupancy (and more highly subsidized) corridors and big cities, which could care less about those in "flyover" country.

As the law states, that's THE LAW,* "Amtrak shall operate a NATIONAL network...."*


----------



## GBNorman

ohle said:


> As the law states, that's THE LAW,* "Amtrak shall operate a NATIONAL network...."*


Where is there any reference to that Amtrak shall operate an INTERCONNECTED network.
Amtrak operates short distance "corridors" on both Coasts and in between, which to those who hold "it's time" for the Adios drumheads, the National system erm requirement has been met.


----------



## ohle

Just because you, in your narrow, parochial and limited view, don't see any value in the LD trains doesn't mean that holds true for most.

The long-distance trains, like Amtrak's other divisions, are experiencing record ridership in the last five years, the highest ever.

Which means more people than ever are riding the national system trains.

This is something that should be expanded, not decimated.


----------



## bretton88

ohle said:


> Just because you, in your narrow, parochial and limited view, don't see any value in the LD trains doesn't mean that holds true for most.
> 
> The long-distance trains, like Amtrak's other divisions, are experiencing record ridership in the last five years, the highest ever.
> 
> Which means more people than ever are riding the national system trains.
> 
> This is something that should be expanded, not decimated.


This is an ingenuous argument. Record ridership means the LD trains are at what .1% of the traveling public? There issue with the LD trains is that there always will be ceiling to a mode that is days slower than flying and many hours slower than driving. So Amtrak has to look at if serving that .1% is the best use of it's limited resources.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

GBNorman said:


> ohle said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the law states, that's THE LAW,* "Amtrak shall operate a NATIONAL network...."*
> 
> 
> 
> Where is there any reference to that Amtrak shall operate an INTERCONNECTED network.
> Amtrak operates short distance "corridors" on both Coasts and in between, which to those who hold "it's time" for the Adios drumheads, the National system erm requirement has been met.
Click to expand...

The definition of a network implies interconnectivity. If the the systems on the coasts as well as the Midwest system were no longer connected by LD trains, there would then be three separate networks. However, although I would interpret the law to mean a network of trains, Amtrak leadership could attempt to exploit a legal loophole by connecting the corridor trains with thruway busses or even thru-ticketing via a separate bus company such as Greyhound. Fortunately, I doubt that politicians would allow the disintegration of the LD network, at least for now.


----------



## GBNorman

ohle said:


> This is something that should be expanded, not decimated.


If, as was the case when Amtrak first started, the Class I industry had ample capacity to "run 'em on time" and to handle the proliferation of new routes, then that would be one thing.

But that capacity to contemplate new routes and/or frequencies is simply not there. The studies mandated under RSIA/PRIIA08 established that there would need be considerable capacity expansion in order to accommodate, say, a Daily Sunset. That track capacity would be out of the public through, and the cost of such directly assignable to the route benefitted.

Further, Amtrak already accesses the Class I's at reportedly "bargain basement" rates (actual rates are protected from FOIA). It is very safe assumption those are hardly sufficient to cover the opportunity cost, i.e. what could be made with one additional Container train handled.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

Amtrak can serve both easily. The long distance trains should be the skeleton for corridors. Getting rid of the LD trains isnt a panacea for breaking even. All said the same subsidy will be required for less service if they do go away. Fixed costs are fixed, the savings would be negligible. Long distance trains are the cherry on top for next to nothing if costs were correctly reported.

For those still advocating for Anderson and his agenda/ corridors. Remember under current mandates Amtrak cant operate corridors under 750 miles only states can. So the whole things a farce. Just one more way the Trump administration through Mulveney, Chou, and ultimately Anderson are passing the buck to the States.


----------



## jis

Just a reminder that Anderson was appointed by an Obama appointed Board. Trump has nothing to do with that part, no matter how much many of us wish he did.


----------



## Seaboard92

I just can't fathom why anyone is supporting this current Amtrak administration. They've done nothing but harm Amtrak's brand awareness among multiple groups. There are ways to run a business without harming the brand. The best ever "The Toys for tots trains not meet the core business." It's a train delivering toys for needy low income kids. Of course it doesn't meet the core business. It never did, and never will. I'm half tempted to throw two private cars on the Adirondack the day it was supposed to run and do the tots train myself.


----------



## jis

If you really believe they will allow that I have some prime oceanfront property to sell you in Nevada. It will be oceanfront just any day now


----------



## cpotisch

GBNorman said:


> ohle said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is something that should be expanded, not decimated.
> 
> 
> 
> If, as was the case when Amtrak first started, the Class I industry had ample capacity to "run 'em on time" and to handle the proliferation of new routes, then that would be one thing.
> 
> But that capacity to contemplate new routes and/or frequencies is simply not there. The studies mandated under RSIA/PRIIA08 established that there would need be considerable capacity expansion in order to accommodate, say, a Daily Sunset. That track capacity would be out of the public through, and the cost of such directly assignable to the route benefitted.
> 
> Further, Amtrak already accesses the Class I's at reportedly "bargain basement" rates (actual rates are protected from FOIA). It is very safe assumption those are hardly sufficient to cover the opportunity cost, i.e. what could be made with one additional Container train handled.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, you and I are lucky. Chicago and New York are large cities that are each served by well over a dozen routes, most of them being short distance. Now compare that to states like Montana, West Virginia, Nebraska, North Dakota, which have Amtrak service limited to *one* long distance route. Those are entire states which get the entirety of their intercity rail service from a single long distance train. If you get rid of the LD network, what happens to _those_ people?


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

I do think theres a legitimate link between Mulveney, Chou and Anderson.

Anderson is doing exactly what Trump laid out in his blueprint for Amtrak. Yes the Board is made up of Obama appointees but just like Obama the Board may have good intentions they arent putting up a fight though. More of we go high when a bully goes low. Give him a chance attitude.

Honestly I think Anderson has been promised something. Thats all pure speculation on my part. Did Moorman have any idea Anderson was going to be this bad? Was Anderson honest in his interview process?


----------



## ohle

bretton88 said:


> ohle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you, in your narrow, parochial and limited view, don't see any value in the LD trains doesn't mean that holds true for most.
> 
> The long-distance trains, like Amtrak's other divisions, are experiencing record ridership in the last five years, the highest ever.
> 
> Which means more people than ever are riding the national system trains.
> 
> This is something that should be expanded, not decimated.
> 
> 
> 
> This is an ingenuous argument. Record ridership means the LD trains are at what .1% of the traveling public? There issue with the LD trains is that there always will be ceiling to a mode that is days slower than flying and many hours slower than driving. So Amtrak has to look at if serving that .1% is the best use of it's limited resources.
Click to expand...

And the NEC is... what.... 1% of the traveling public? A limited, and mature (not expanding) geographic region.

So... those trains shouldn't run either?

Cruises and waterways account for a tiny fraction of freight and passenger movement, as does transit overall, compared to the highly-subsidized highways.

Aviation "only" accounts for 15% of travel of greater than 100 miles. The greedy highway industry, by law, takes 85%.

Because aviation's numbers are so insignificant (compared to the money-losing highways), they shouldn't exist?

The traveling public should be forced to drive (or fly)?

Amtrak's 15 LD trains account for about 15% of Amtrak's overall ridership.

A good number when they're expected to compete against 125 corridor trains, which of course garner higher ridership. There's more of them. Duh.

If there were twice as many LD trains, say 30 routes/ trains, that percentage would be considerably higher.


----------



## west point

Until Amtrak can truly measure demand how can we say it is only serving a small clientele ? Capacity is so limited that we can have no real measure. A certain route is almost always sold out in sleeper and coach only the highest bucket is available.. Any time Amtrak only has highest bucket available then there is capacity wanting. Only if Amtrak's LD network had many trains at the medium bucket could we say it is carrying the available demand.

As far as RR capacity. Its their own fault !! . Look back at the capacity reductions between many city pairs either by abandoning ""duplicate "" routes or installing CTC and shutting down parts of of double track. Only a fully 2 main track system can remain fluid whenever there is a problem causing a train on the line breaking down or for maintenance windows shutting down one track between CPs..

Examples are CSX' "A" line. IC now CN;s CHI- MEM, TOL - CHI. It use to be the Crescent was hard put to stay under time schedule CLT -Greensboro and now with same timing many times it beats schedule by 25 minutes because that section had all 2 main track restored. Even the few times freights interfere it can make timing on that section.


----------



## neroden

I wrote a certified mail letter to the chairman of Amtrak's board, and have posted it in another thread. It speaks for itself. I do not think it is worthwhile writing to Anderson. If his bosses are notified that Anderson is running Amtrak incompetently and dishonestly (with evidence provided) -- and the Board knows that people know that Anderson is being dishonest -- then his bosses may take notice.


----------



## Thirdrail7

It has been over a year and a half into Mr. Anderson's solo tenure. I have to admit, there are some things I really like (the pressing of mechanical, the pushing for new equipment, the cutting through a lot of the internal bureaucracy to get things done, the streamlining of management and certain products, the internal communication, your relations with the host), some things that are confusing (the "new'" website, the "improved website", the lack of external communication, the decision to butt heads with Congress by ignoring them, the lack of focus on some of your products) and some things may have long term, negative impacts ( your fleet plan, your relations with the hosts and Congress, your isolation of the private car industry and their lobbying power, your lack of focus on some products and a lack of communication with your partners.)

All things considered, I'm in the C+ range. What happens in the next few months will hopefully give us some insight and footing. 

What do you think?


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

“F” for not knowing who his bosses are (Congress and in turn taxpayers in all 50 states). I get your points on mechanical and operations.

His big disconnect is trying to run Amtrak like he ran Delta or NW. It’s not his way or the highway anymore. Amtrak is a company that operates for the public good, no matter what its charter may say Congress has made this abundantly clear to him.

Anderson could be a decent CEO if he’d continue to do the good things he’s doing. Take Congress’s money, drop the corridors vs network charade and build both up. He’d have to hire someone with railroad knowledge to guide him as well. He won’t, Moorman was supposed to stay on as a part time consultant actually.

There’s a scenario possible where we lose the National network and lose (not gain) some existing corridors as well. I’m not sure that isn’t the actual goal.

Anderson’s agenda mirrors the ideologues in the current administration and that’s what scares me the most.

PS

How cool would it be to see the next President nominate Moorman to the board? He didn’t want to be living in DC full time for family reasons, couldn’t or wouldn’t cooperate with Anderson as a consultant. Talk about qualified for the Board though. I’m sure they probably don’t meet very often.


----------



## sttom

I tend to agree with giving him a low score as well. So far we seem to have had the system be in actual peril if it weren't for congress. And this is the issue with Amtrak, they doesn't seem to be a requirement to have leadership that is actually experienced in running trains, logistics or the hospitality industries. 

Also Anderson doesn't seem to understand why people ride trains. And a good portion of the reason is because of what people like him did to airlines. Riding in economy is worse than it used to be. Yeah air fares have remained relatively low, but it makes Amtrak more attractive. Hell Amtrak can even beat Megabus when it comes to running on time and being convenient. Here in California if you need to get anywhere other than a major city and you don't want to driver/can't to you need Amtrak or Greyhound. 

And not to but to much of a point on it, but even if you dismantled the entire long distance system, there would be hardly enough equipment to replace all the buses in California let alone anywhere else in the country there are connecting buses services that could get turned into a proper train if the state was willing to sponsor it.


----------



## TiBike

Thirdrail7 said:


> All things considered, I'm in the C+ range. What happens in the next few months will hopefully give us some insight and footing.



Grading him on his ability to execute his plan, rather than the plan itself, I would have agreed with the C+ until I read the Washington Post editorial. I posted the link in the senators letter thread:

New Senators Letter to Anderson

That editorial indicates to me his plan to improve corridor service and downgrade or eliminate long distance service is mainstream thinking in Washington right now. That's effective politicking, and greatly increases his odds of success. But he hasn't succeeded yet. So I'd give him a B.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

"A" for successfully executing his slash-and-burn tactics to cut costs and turn people away from taking the train. (Stop by the beautiful new dining car to pick up your picnic in a box and be impressed by how we are letting it go to waste--including literally, with all the extra garbage. Remember to apply your not-as-good-as-before senior or student discount when booking--we want to make sure seniors and millennials--some of our best target groups--are unhappy.)

"F" for attitude. He's doing a great job of annoying a lot of us and either doesn't care or doesn't realize that he comes across as arrogant.

To be fair, he may just not be a people person in the way Wick Moorman was. (If Wick told us we were getting a picnic in a box, he would probably say it so charmingly and politely that we would think it was a nice treat.)

Which reminds me, where the heck is Mr. Moorman? He was supposed to be an adviser, but we haven't heard from or about him for ages. Is he still with Amtrak? Or has he quietly taken the Crescent back home to retire for good?


----------



## jis

Moorman was not supposed to be advisor till eternity. He was supposed to be advisor only for a transition period and that has long ended.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

I’m not so sure, the Co CEO was for the transition and advisor “ongoing” after that. A year is not eternity. 

I’ll go back and look at clippings but from the first article on this thread:

“And then I'll have some ongoing role after that to assist him," Moorman said.

It appears to me Moorman was scared off as soon as the co ceo period elapsed.

None of us know for sure especially from vague news clippings but Moormans silence and total disappearance raises questions. He’s been SO involved in railroading to just disappear doesn't add up.


----------



## jis

Well, the fact that he is not to be seen anywhere says something notwithstanding what anyone might choose to think


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

Home today with my sick daughter so I had some free time. I emailed every editor and columnist I could get contact info for from the cast of railroad news sources/magazines asking if anyone’s tried to get a one on one with Moorman. Be a great read if they could.


----------



## jis

Maybe someone asked Moorman why he chose Anderson.


----------



## Acela150

I understand that many are frustrated with Mr. Anderson's poor choices as far as the LD trains go and some other choices he has made that are poor. 

Just remember that he is taking orders from the Board and their motives are the motives to be concerned about. I give credit to Jis for that. 

I do give Mr. Anderson credit for sticking with the NYP trackwork and making sure that it is completed. I also give him credit for focusing on the Safety Record that Amtrak had put into horrible numbers and trying to improve it. He also seems to understand that new equipment must come online. He also seems to be putting Customer Service training in place for many On Board Employees.

I ding him for not understanding the national network and its purpose. I also ding him for not responding to Congressional letters. I give him multiple dings for the horrid PV policy and the cancellation of the PRR E8 trip last May. 

My largest ding (which is more like a smash to the skull for him) is the closure of a Unionized Call Center and forcing Union employees to either quit, move, or take a different job if they had the seniority and outsourcing those jobs. 

Overall? C-


----------



## sttom

Amtrak's board is primarily filled by political hacks. And I disagree with TiBike, salvaging the long distance trains for parts is not what Congress wants. If that is what they wanted, we would have gotten a bill through before the midterms, or under Obama, or under literally any President going back to Nixon. The consensus seems to be to keep the long distance trains and give the states zero dollars to start corridor trains. And no $500 million for replacement buses doesn't even qualify as a drop in the bucket.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Amtrakfflyer said:


> I’m not so sure, the Co CEO was for the transition and advisor “ongoing” after that. A year is not eternity.
> 
> I’ll go back and look at clippings but from the first article on this thread:
> 
> “And then I'll have some ongoing role after that to assist him," Moorman said.
> 
> It appears to me Moorman was scared off as soon as the co ceo period elapsed.
> 
> None of us know for sure especially from vague news clippings but Moormans silence and total disappearance raises questions. He’s been SO involved in railroading to just disappear doesn't add up.



For the record, after his Co-CEO period ended, Mr. Moorman stayed on as a consultant for infrastructure.


----------



## Anderson

Thirdrail7 said:


> It has been over a year and a half into Mr. Anderson's solo tenure. I have to admit, there are some things I really like (the pressing of mechanical, the pushing for new equipment, the cutting through a lot of the internal bureaucracy to get things done, the streamlining of management and certain products, the internal communication, your relations with the host), some things that are confusing (the "new'" website, the "improved website", the lack of external communication, the decision to butt heads with Congress by ignoring them, the lack of focus on some of your products) and some things may have long term, negative impacts ( your fleet plan, your relations with the hosts and Congress, your isolation of the private car industry and their lobbying power, your lack of focus on some products and a lack of communication with your partners.)
> 
> All things considered, I'm in the C+ range. What happens in the next few months will hopefully give us some insight and footing.
> 
> What do you think?



I'd give him a C-. I heartily applaud him getting moving on a new single-level equipment order (something that is needed) and there are a few other things I like, but he's also made a royal ****** mess in a few areas (even if he was complying with bad mandates). If nothing else, the "Fresh and Contemporary" fiasco stands out as the real humdinger, the Chief Affair didn't make him any friends, and so on.

I also think the decision to go and do a study on the Superliner replacement front is an extremely stupid one. There, I'd be sending out an RFI sooner rather than later with an eye towards a (probably Siemens) single-level order for sleepers as well as the other car types as my first choice...but that's me.

So while I think he's dealing with some key issues that need dealing with, he's made a ton of unforced errors alongside some probably unavoidable fights (F&B, for example) and his vision presentation isn't thrilling me (there's a feeling that he's perpetually looking to cut the LD system when you'd think he would have gotten the message by now).


----------



## fredmcain

Thirdrail7 said:


> It has been over a year and a half into Mr. Anderson's solo tenure. <SNIP>
> All things considered, I'm in the C+ range. What happens in the next few months will hopefully give us some insight and footing.
> 
> What do you think?



I did not care for Anderson from the word “go”. I thought he did some really dumb things or at least tried to. He was barely in there when he announced that Amtrak passenger equipment would be converted to standard “airline” type seating. Thankfully that hasn’t happened yet and hopefully it won’t.

But, having said this I now find myself having to come somewhat to his defense. He came to Amtrak knowing for certain one thing*: * That the United States Congress had been exerting extreme pressure on Amtrak to cut their costs and reduce their losses. So, he most likely thought, “Sure. I can do that”.

So, he developed a plan. Emphasize short to medium distance corridors (which is what passenger trains really do best in the U.S.) and de-emphasize (not necessarily eliminate completely) but just de-emphasize the cross-country trains.

But then Congress woke up and smelled the coffee as was like “_WHO_A! Just hang on a minute – you can’t do _THAT!” _Especially if it meant that one of the long-distance trains just happened to run through _their_ district!

Unfortunately, Congress cannot have it both ways. They cannot mandate a profitable Amtrak and keep the current system as it stands. So, have we perhaps seen a sea change in the attitude of Congress towards Amtrak? Will Congress now finally, finally, FINALLY make a long-term commitment to the national system? I sure hope so but I’m not holding my breath. I have seen this grade B movie before. Congress comes to the rescue only to walk away from it later. Time will tell, I guess.

Regards,
Fred M. Cain


----------



## jis

Congress has consistently been transactional regarding Amtrak issues, fixing what is minimally required to calm the vocal advocates sufficiently to get them out of their hair. They have resisted doing anything truly transformative encouraging and enabling growth across the nation. Anything that comes remotely close to being transformative has been towards discouraging nationwide growth, but favoring regional growth. I am waiting to see how things may or may not be different this time around.


----------



## Ryan

fredmcain said:


> He was barely in there when he announced that Amtrak passenger equipment would be converted to standard “airline” type seating.



I must have missed that. Have a link?


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

Ryan said:


> I must have missed that. Have a link?


 I still don’t know the ins and out of links and postings here. 

Anyways I just “bing’d”, “Amtrak airline seating” and a bunch of articles popped up circa July 2017 right when Anderson joined Moorman. Got Schumer all riled up.


----------



## Anderson

@fredmcain
The problem is that there's a clear difference between "deemphasize" and "cut". If he had come out and said "Look, we're gonna replace the LD equipment at roughly current capacity...we'll probably look at adding a few sleepers where there's demand, but we're _not_ cutting any routes" and followed through, I think a bunch of us would be fine. The Fresh and Contemporary situation would have ultimately gone down as "Congress passed a stupid mandate and he complied" and the PPC cut would have been an unfortunate-but-understandable decision. Pair that with an effort to work with states proactively to build up/expand corridors (possibly working to rejigger/work around some of the PRIIA 209 arrangements to encourage adding frequencies and signing longer-term contracts) and you've got something meaningful that would leave most of us at least willing to work with the situation.

Unfortunately, the Chief Affair crossed a line between "not emphasizing" and "active attempts to slash". There had been rumors swirling of other possible cuts in the mix (particularly on the Builder). There's also the lack of any apparent interest in replacing the LD fleet. Not expanding the LD network would be one thing, and even being painfully honest would have been fine ("We want to continue running these trains, but the equipment has problems and we need to overhaul it to serve everyone better"). Heck, asking to convert the LD trains into long-term contracts with the federal government (with capital for equipment replacement, etc.) would've been a reasonable ask.

Instead, what we've seen is a mix between overt and passive-aggressive attempts to force cuts to the LD system...so this isn't "Growing the corridors and shifting emphasis", it is "Trying to get rid of part of the company".


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

And now we have the next auction that includes a lot of Superliner equipment declared excess. Including partially rebuilt lounges that were talked about as eventually PPC replacements.

Rebuilding damaged equipment would be drastically cheaper then a new order and its needed now. A new order put out to bid today would be delivered in 4-5 years at the earliest. I’m preaching to the choir.


----------



## Ryan

Amtrakfflyer said:


> I still don’t know the ins and out of links and postings here.
> 
> Anyways I just “bing’d”, “Amtrak airline seating” and a bunch of articles popped up circa July 2017 right when Anderson joined Moorman. Got Schumer all riled up.



You mean like this one:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...gn=Feed:+reuters/businessNews+(Business+News)



> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Outgoing Amtrak Co-chief Executive Wick Moorman said on Wednesday the money-losing U.S. passenger rail system is considering a less comfortable economy class of seats that could allow it to pack in more passengers.
> 
> “We are looking at doing some creative things in terms of creating an economy class,” Moorman said at the National Press Club talk in Washington.



A) Not Anderson. 
B) Not “converting”, but the addition of a new lower tier of service. Theoretically it would have competed with the economy busses, something many have advocated for. 
C) “Considering”, not “would be”. 

It seems the original claim of “would be converted to standard ‘airline’ type seating” seems to be inaccurate.


----------



## Ryan

Amtrakfflyer said:


> Rebuilding damaged equipment would be drastically cheaper then a new order



Does the phrase “beyond economical repair” mean anything to you?


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

You don’t have to be rude. A lot or at least some of the equipment is superficial. Also the gutted shells that were going to be lounges are basically blank slates. Maybe use them as “sleeper lounges” that are actually lounges not diners that they don’t know what to do with. The office car Boardman used often was remodeled recently as well.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Thirdrail7 said:


> All things considered, I'm in the C+ range...What do you think?



Around 99% of my Amtrak travel is on Western long distance routes. In that sense Anderson's performance has ranged from indifferent to threatening. In my personal experience the product and services I purchase from Amtrak have never been lower quality or higher priced. Delays and other complications have increased as well. I cannot think of one single improvement to my experience in the last two years, let alone anything I can trace to something Anderson has said or done on my behalf. All the top highlights from the last couple years involve someone else actively preventing Anderson from following through on a threat to reduce or abandon service.

I see no reason to give Anderson anything more than a *F*ailing grade.


----------



## jis

Ryan said:


> I must have missed that. Have a link?


I think he is confusing the study that was initiated in Boardman's/Moorman's time to explore the possibility of reducing seat pitch in Coaches by a few inches to allow an additional row or two of seats. The idea was shelved, but as it is fashionable to blame Anderson for everything these days, somehow it got conflated into something that Anderson did.

Mind you, I am not condoning any of the negative things that Anderson has done. But there are a lot of negative things that have been done by those that preceded Anderson too.


----------



## Anderson

There was also a discussion back in the PIPs a few years ago of cutting seat pitch in the LD Superliner coaches. Ironically, that was actually intended to _improve _the passenger experience and was based on customer complaints...the seats are so far apart that using the tray of the seat in front of you can be less-than-ideal, especially if you're trying to get some work done/watch a movie. Mind you, this was a case of cutting something like four inches back and getting an extra row or two of seats out of the deal...this was also in the context of the massive run-up in LD ridership from 2003-13 and the prospect of no new equipment.

I'll also say that I think there is a (painfully solid) case to be made for Amtrak working with Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey (and possibly Virginia as well) to run a set of through commuter-ish trains from WAS-NYP. In such a case you'd be looking at the objective being both serving a whole slew of intermediate markets (these trains would be making a _lot_ of the stops and probably take another 45-60 minutes above your standard Regional), but you would probably be able to run a crew from one end to the other and back on a legal shift (presuming a 4:30 run each way, if you turn the train in 60 minutes you'd have two hours of slack for the twelve hour limit). Pricing-wise, a "regular" fare in the $35-55 range would seem to make the most sense as that would be in line with prevailing commuter fares*. Sitting down around $40 for the total fare would probably involve reducing down a few of the "base fares" for through passengers (e.g. SEPTA nominally charges $12 for a Zone 1-to-Zone 1 ticket passing through the City Center stations, but a "passing through" fare is only $9.25...apparently even including to/from New Jersey), while a higher fare would probably also be adding a few dollars to account for the Perryville-Newark, DE gap not being in the mix below.

*Commuter fares for each segment of the run are as follows:


Code:


DC-Perryville:  $12.00          MARC
Newark, DE-PHL: $8.00   $20.00  SEPTA
PHL-TRE:        $10.00  $30.00  SEPTA
Trenton-NYP:    $16.75  $46.75  NJT
===== ===== OR ===== =====
DC-Perryville:  $12.00          MARC
Newark, DE-TRE: $9.25   $21.25  SEPTA
Trenton-NYP:    $16.75  $38.00  NJT


----------



## bretton88

Anderson said:


> There was also a discussion back in the PIPs a few years ago of cutting seat pitch in the LD Superliner coaches. Ironically, that was actually intended to _improve _the passenger experience and was based on customer complaints...the seats are so far apart that using the tray of the seat in front of you can be less-than-ideal, especially if you're trying to get some work done/watch a movie. Mind you, this was a case of cutting something like four inches back and getting an extra row or two of seats out of the deal...this was also in the context of the massive run-up in LD ridership from 2003-13 and the prospect of no new equipment.
> 
> I'll also say that I think there is a (painfully solid) case to be made for Amtrak working with Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey (and possibly Virginia as well) to run a set of through commuter-ish trains from WAS-NYP. In such a case you'd be looking at the objective being both serving a whole slew of intermediate markets (these trains would be making a _lot_ of the stops and probably take another 45-60 minutes above your standard Regional), but you would probably be able to run a crew from one end to the other and back on a legal shift (presuming a 4:30 run each way, if you turn the train in 60 minutes you'd have two hours of slack for the twelve hour limit). Pricing-wise, a "regular" fare in the $35-55 range would seem to make the most sense as that would be in line with prevailing commuter fares*. Sitting down around $40 for the total fare would probably involve reducing down a few of the "base fares" for through passengers (e.g. SEPTA nominally charges $12 for a Zone 1-to-Zone 1 ticket passing through the City Center stations, but a "passing through" fare is only $9.25...apparently even including to/from New Jersey), while a higher fare would probably also be adding a few dollars to account for the Perryville-Newark, DE gap not being in the mix below.
> 
> *Commuter fares for each segment of the run are as follows:
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> DC-Perryville:  $12.00          MARC
> Newark, DE-PHL: $8.00   $20.00  SEPTA
> PHL-TRE:        $10.00  $30.00  SEPTA
> Trenton-NYP:    $16.75  $46.75  NJT
> ===== ===== OR ===== =====
> DC-Perryville:  $12.00          MARC
> Newark, DE-TRE: $9.25   $21.25  SEPTA
> Trenton-NYP:    $16.75  $38.00  NJT


In theory this is possible to do right now, Amtrak could run it and lease the equipment from the commuter agencies. The reality is that the commuter agencies also have no spare equipment (minus a few special holiday things when they're running low schedules anyways), and the infrastructure is jammed.


----------



## Anderson

True, though to be fair ordering a couple of rakes of coaches and negotiating with NJT to adjust a few NEC slots around (I think you mostly have capacity elsewhere, but the Hudson tunnels are yet again at issue) wouldn't be absurd.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Ryan said:


> B) Not “converting”, but the addition of a new lower tier of service. Theoretically it would have competed with the economy busses, something many have advocated for.
> C) “Considering”, not “would be”.
> 
> It seems the original claim of “would be converted to standard ‘airline’ type seating” seems to be inaccurate.



To be fair, this wasn't going to be an additional order of equipment. This was going to be a conversion of the old equipment during the overhaul/refresh. The goal was to reduce the amount of bathrooms and put in high capacity seating in a certain amount of coaches. 

The cost and the life span analysis of the Amfleets (along with hounding by the FRA) made them skip it since they plan to retire them once new equipment arrives. 91's collision definitely didn't help the Amfleets.


----------



## Ryan

Thirdrail7 said:


> To be fair, this wasn't going to be an additional order of equipment. This was going to be a conversion of the old equipment during the overhaul/refresh.



Well yes, but it wasn't going to be all of the equipment. If you wanted to keep paying for and sitting in the current coach seating, that would still be an option. There would just be a cheaper option for the budget inclined.

As you mentioned, it's all irrelevant now, but the original claim wasn't a valid basis for holding against Anderson.


----------



## Thirdrail7

We're not at the 2-year mark so I won't ask for an evaluation until next month. However, this tidbit from the  thread is concerning:




Mystic River Dragon said:


> From the article above (post #38):
> "The two spoke over each other, with Anderson at one point asking, “are you going to let me finish?” and Lynch replying, “I’m not sure.” Anderson pushed the microphone away, checking his watch and phone in reply."
> 
> No matter how heated an argument gets, to check your watch and phone during it is the height of crass and impolite tastelessness--it implies that those two things are more important than the other person, and that the other person might as well not even be there. Doesn't Anderson have any sense of decorum at all? Or is he simply completely socially inept? (I could accept the social awkwardness of the second--many people are shy, after all--much more than the rudeness of the first.)





jis said:


> He often acts like an entitled brat. This is not the first time, so it is probably reasonable to surmise that that is his style and not just a one off huff.



This is a problem that could have long-lasting consequences. Amtrakfflyer even mentioned earlier in this thread:



Amtrakfflyer said:


> “F” for not knowing who his bosses are (Congress and in turn taxpayers in all 50 states). I get your points on mechanical and operations.
> 
> His big disconnect is trying to run Amtrak like he ran Delta or NW. It’s not his way or the highway anymore. Amtrak is a company that operates for the public good, no matter what its charter may say Congress has made this abundantly clear to him.



There is a difference between working with a Board of Directors and Congress and they can write things into the authorization that will impact the operation for years to come. 
Pouting, foot-stomping, and moping isn't going to cut it. You have to work with people and make your ideas look like theirs. 

Amtrak CEO: Where you only think you're in charge.


----------



## lordsigma

There was another moment where he barked "You just don't agree!" at one of the congressman in a very snotty tone. Hopefully some of the re authorization proceedings will play out in public hearings it could be some good TV.


----------



## chrsjrcj

Wednesday's hearing was the first time I watched Anderson testify in front of Congress, and I was stunned by his behavior. I'm sure he thinks Amtrak's fiscal performance speaks for itself and believes that it gives him leeway to run Amtrak the way he wants to, but it's hard for me to believe that someone so combative towards Congress will be successful in getting what they want, with the pushback coming from both employees and the public and outright distrust from one Representative.


----------



## Rover

Under Richard Anderson:
_
"Amtrak is ready when you are!"_.... As long as there's no snow in the forecast!

My attempt at being cynical.


----------



## jis

lordsigma said:


> There was another moment where he barked "You just don't agree!" at one of the congressman in a very snotty tone. Hopefully some of the re authorization proceedings will play out in public hearings it could be some good TV.


I think the Popcorn and Beer industry will make out like bandits.


----------



## neroden

I don't think Anderson will be in his job long. He keeps being rude and arrogant towards his bosses in Congress. Combine this with making dumb decisions based on believing phony accounting, which makes him look like an idiot, and being unable to understand anything about the political mood... I think he's a goner. If he had had more humility and more skepticism he would have done better.


----------



## Hans627

neroden said:


> I don't think Anderson will be in his job long. He keeps being rude and arrogant towards his bosses in Congress. Combine this with making dumb decisions based on believing phony accounting, which makes him look like an idiot, and being unable to understand anything about the political mood... I think he's a goner. If he had had more humility and more skepticism he would have done better.


I don't know how long he will last as head of Amtrak but after listening to the entire 2 hour plus testimony in front of congress I was impressed by his use of data to support his decisions. I personally don't like some of those decisions but he is, after all, trying to follow government mandated regulations.


----------



## jis

The problem with his data though is that quite a bit of his data has no known provenance, and some of the rest is known to be faulty. The reference statistics quoted are not from any controlled experiment but from uncontrolled surveys that are subject to all kinds of distortions, for example. So a lot of the decision making is somewhat GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out)


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

The problem is a lot of Anderson’s data is bogus. Whether or not he is aware of it is the true question.

After talking to a few stakeholders involved in the recent SWC negotiations my feeling is Anderson has no issue being deceitful if it helps his agenda. He also doesn’t understand Amtrak’s mission or it’s financials as well as he should.


----------



## MARC Rider

neroden said:


> I don't think Anderson will be in his job long. He keeps being rude and arrogant towards his bosses in Congress. Combine this with making dumb decisions based on believing phony accounting, which makes him look like an idiot, and being unable to understand anything about the political mood... I think he's a goner. If he had had more humility and more skepticism he would have done better.


Are his real bosses the members of Congress? I would think that his immediate boss is the Board of Directors. Maybe He's not as rude to them. However, I agree that if he remains rude to the the Members of Congress, they may constrain his actions through the appropriations process. 

Of course, the politics of that are pretty hazy to me. First there's the partisan gridlock, then the fact that the Amtrak appropriation isn't exactly one of the larger bones of contention in the appropriation struggle. It seems that Amtrak supporters in Congress are a combination of Members from states with corridor service and Members from rural states that have Long Distance service. It does seem that during the last several years that even though the Amtrak haters try to severely cut or even zero out the appropriation, in the end, it remains more or less the same. And the law seems to be be that whatever Mr. Anderson's opinion, Amtrak is tasked with providing both corridor and log distance service. So if Mr. Anderson is really Dr. Evil who wants to end Long Distance trains, he will need to persuade Congress to change the law.


----------



## jis

I don't believe that Appropriations process will prove to be a big problem because there is bipartisan agreement these days on about $2 billion per year for Amtrak.

The real jeopardy is in the Authorization process which is free to define or redefine Amtrak's mission whichever way they like. Many keep talking about Amtrak's mission without necessarily having looked at how its mission is defined in the relevant CFR. Often there is considerable daylight between what an individual claims Amtrak's mission is and what the vague statement in the CFR says and how it can be interpreted seven ways to Sunday.

Advocates need to pay special attention to the new Appropriation Bill that has to pass by early 2020, or they have to figure out a one year CR to postpone it to after the election. This bill could rewrite the mission to match Anderson's vision surreptitiously unless one is careful.


----------



## chrsjrcj

In regards to Anderson's data - "Lies, damned lies, and statistics."


----------



## Hans627

Speaking of Anderson, Jim Mathews, president of the Rail Passengers Association, a national advocacy organization for train travelers, sees an irony. “He was brought in to make Amtrak operate as if it were a profit-making company,” Mathews says. “He looked everybody in the eye and said, ‘OK, are you guys ready for this? We’re going to break some stuff.’ And everyone said, ‘Yes, this is what we want.’ And then he started breaking stuff. And people were like, ‘Wait, hold up. Stop! What?’ ”


----------



## neroden

Amtrakfflyer said:


> The problem is a lot of Anderson’s data is bogus. Whether or not he is aware of it is the true question.



I've been inclined to believe that Mr. Anderson isn't aware that his data is bogus.

I think feeding Mr. Anderson bogus data suits Mr. Gardner's personal and oft-stated vision of destroying the profitable long-distance trains so he can spend all his time thinking about "corridors".

It's just a hypothesis, but it fits. I don't think Mr. Anderson has a hate on for the LD trains; I think Mr. Gardner does.

Moorman and Boardman knew better, so Gardner couldn't defraud them. Anderson comes from airlines, doesn't know better, and is a perfect target to be defrauded. And Gardner's fingerprints are all over all the really stupid stuff.

For years. When Boardman sort of "checked out" and stopped paying attention to Amtrak a few years before he quit, suddenly weird stuff started happening; the Congressionally mandated Performance Improvement Plans were suddenly tossed in the garbage bin by *someone* (prior to that, there had been some effort to implement thim). Gardner was in a position to do that.



> He also doesn’t understand Amtrak’s mission or it’s financials as well as he should.


Mr. Anderson sure doesn't understand its financials.

There are things he's done which are fine, like a much more serious emphasis on a safety culture, or reducing the number of call centers Amtrak has.

Then there's the stupid stuff which will only reduce ridership, reduce revenue, and increase the need for Congressional subsidy... which is all based on the blatantly bogus "data". I think it's being fed to him by someone, and based on public statements, I think that someone may be Stephen Gardner.

----
Furthermore, apparently Gardner thought he was the "heir apparent" at Amtrak before Anderson was hired. Gardner has a personal reason to want to embarass Anderson, stick Anderson with the blame for every dirty trick Gardner wants to pull, and get Anderson forced out by Congress, as long as he doesn't get forced out at the same time. It's probably important for advocates to shine the spotlight on Gardner's malfeasance.


----------



## Rodd

What do you think of his decisions so far? I take the train almost daily all over and have heard feedback from many long time Amtrak Employees.....I am hoping to get better insight from my fellow regular Amtrak travelers to see if the transition from CEO of an airline to CEO of our real only true national rail option here in the US is making sense.

MODERATOR NOTE: This thread (in Amtrak Future forum) was merged with an existing thread regarding the "new" CEO.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

Oh my goodness--you are in for a treat--go search Anderson on this thread and start with those, then wander around just about anywhere and you'll find tons of opinions about him [hint--many not good, with a few people willing to give him more of a chance than the rest of us].


----------



## Qapla

Yes, about half of the threads bemoan his "improvements" to the national rail system


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

He’s tone deaf, hard headed and incompetent and I haven’t got to the negative stuff yet.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Rodd M Santomauro said:


> What do you think of his decisions so far? I take the train almost daily all over and have heard feedback from many long time Amtrak Employees..



I'm curious about your opinion of his decisions.


----------



## Mail4MrTed

Rodd M Santomauro said:


> What do you think of his decisions so far? I take the train almost daily all over and have heard feedback from many long time Amtrak Employees.....I am hoping to get better insight from my fellow regular Amtrak travelers to see if the transition from CEO of an airline to CEO of our real only true national rail option here in the US is making sense.
> 
> MODERATOR NOTE: This thread (in Amtrak Future forum) was merged with an existing thread regarding the "new" CEO.


I had at least some hope that Anderson might just be a good thing. Amtrak certainly needed some help. I am forced to think otherwise based on what I have seen so far. He has demonstrated an almost complete lack of understanding of what rail travel can be and everything is based on his airline experience in which he seems to assume that if it worked at Delta the same thing will work at Amtrak because Delta "made money (an iffy concept if the true costs were allocated). They are two different things. For example: There is nothing wrong with pre-prepared food and limiting food expenses. I have had some horrible meals on the City of New Orleans (pre Anderson) so there was plenty of room for improvement. I have had fine meals on Thalys in Europe, all cold, which were delicious and nicely served. It can be done, but it isn't because he doesn't even know enough to check what others are doing. The current first class food is no worth of first class on an airline. Or the "end point" issue. If I get on the Crescent in New Orleans and go to Baltimore, I am not at his idea of an endpoint, but they are my endpoints. He doesn't understand that trains stop at more than one station: duh. I doubt that he has ridden long distance, eaten the food or talked to the customers and employees. Why? Because he doesn't care. Does it really have to be long distance versus corridor? Why not both? The man is arrogant.


----------



## neroden

What he said about the food -- cold prepackaged meals can be done well, like on the Thalys, but are not being done well by Amtrak. And what he said about endpoints -- this is a classic issue of airplane thinking, not realizing that trains do best making many stops and the implications of that, because airplanes always go endpoint to endpoint.


----------



## neroden

cpotisch said:


> Here's the thing, you and I are lucky. Chicago and New York are large cities that are each served by well over a dozen routes, most of them being short distance. Now compare that to states like Montana, West Virginia, Nebraska, North Dakota, which have Amtrak service limited to *one* long distance route. Those are entire states which get the entirety of their intercity rail service from a single long distance train. If you get rid of the LD network, what happens to _those_ people?


Hell, if you want to go from upstate NY to Chicago, count your choices: 1 LD train.

And Denver service? 1 train. Same with Albuquerque and Tucson. These are not small towns.


----------



## Anderson

neroden said:


> Hell, if you want to go from upstate NY to Chicago, count your choices: 1 LD train.
> 
> And Denver service? 1 train. Same with Albuquerque and Tucson. These are not small towns.


This highlights a generalized cognitive disconnect. People see "Multiple trains from A to C" and forget that they all serve a different B. Case in point "There are three trains from New York to Chicago" ignores the heavy lack of overlap on the routes.

Of course, one of the biggest problems I think advocates have is that as soon as a city/town has "a train" that's often seen as sufficient, and that _is_ something that Anderson zeroed in on as being _wrong_ even if he misapplied the wrong cure.


----------



## sttom

Personally I think someone from Southwest Airlines would make a better leader if we are stuck with getting former airline executives running Amtrak. Or even someone from a hotel chain would make more sense running Amtrak. To agree with what others have pointed out, 1 train per day is insufficient. Especially when half of the line will have the 1 train showing up in the middle of the night. Amtrak needs more corridor and mid distance day trains to drive up ridership. Amtrak can't grow it's ridership much more, and therefore it's finances, unless it physically grows. But no one in Congress or Amtrak or frankly a lot of rail advocates are willing to say this. People get so caught up in the "preserve the national network vs dismantle it for regional trains" debate that we collectively ignore the fact that Amtrak needs both to survive in the long term. Most Amtrak routes are routes it inherited from the private railroads and they were planned for the traveling public of 1930. Amtrak needs leadership that understands it needs to expand beyond the national network, be open about that requiring money, and understands what it takes to grow. And Anderson is definitely not that person. I'm not sure who exactly would fit the bill.


----------



## Thirdrail7

sttom said:


> Amtrak needs more corridor and mid distance day trains to drive up ridership. Amtrak can't grow it's ridership much more, and therefore it's finances, unless it physically grows.But no one in Congress or Amtrak or frankly a lot of rail advocates are willing to say this.





sttom said:


> Amtrak needs leadership that understands it needs to expand beyond the national network, be open about that requiring money, and understands what it takes to grow. And Anderson is definitely not that person. I'm not sure who exactly would fit the bill.



Actually, Mr. Boardman championed all of this but it boiled down to funding. You started seeing corridor expansions under his watch and you also saw him cheerlead for the LD trains. You also saw PIP for the LD network but the plans weren't acted on.

Why?

Funding. No one wants to fund these expensive items and the improvements necessary to what consider an outdated mode of transportation.


----------



## sttom

Thirdrail7 said:


> Why?
> 
> Funding. No one wants to fund these expensive items and the improvements necessary to what consider an outdated mode of transportation.



Outmoded to whom, the people currently running the government? A lot of people there are old enough to remember the pre Amtrak days. I was born 20 years after Amtrak took over. A train might not be as sexy as whatever not a train tube scheme Elon Musk is pushing, but younger people like myself would like to have the option of taking a train to places rather than driving or flying everywhere. It's not uncommon to hear "eh it's only 8 hours, I can drive" or "I can put up with Southwest for a couple hours" (I've even said this one) or "is there even a train?" or "all I can afford is the bus". We want options and if you want to talk expense, a mile of new double track costs between $2.3 and $2.7 million per mile, you can't build a highway that cheap in a rural area.


----------



## neroden

I consider highways and airplanes outmoded.


----------



## neroden

Thirdrail7 said:


> Actually, Mr. Boardman championed all of this but it boiled down to funding. You started seeing corridor expansions under his watch and you also saw him cheerlead for the LD trains. You also saw PIP for the LD network but the plans weren't acted on.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Funding. No one wants to fund these expensive items and the improvements necessary to what consider an outdated mode of transportation.


I believe you are flat out wrong about the PIPs. The recommendations were on the whole profitable and certainly did not require significant funding. The choice to not implement them was purest sabotage, designed to require more Congressional subsidy. 

It is not about funding. It is about attitude. They are often not willing to do things which would benefit the bottom line if they involve the so-called long distance trains.


----------



## Thirdrail7

neroden said:


> I believe you are flat out wrong about the PIPs. The recommendations were on the whole profitable and certainly did not require significant funding. The choice to not implement them was purest sabotage, designed to require more Congressional subsidy.
> 
> It is not about funding. It is about attitude. They are often not willing to do things which would benefit the bottom line if they involve the so-called long distance trains.



A lot of that is the funding isn't there to pay for things to improve the bottom line and doing certain things with the long-distance network often brought the eye of Congress...who would then attack. How can you determine what is significant or not when you don't have enough to fund what is already operating, let alone improvements?

Even now, you have to fight to fund and prioritize the national network. The problem now is that it seems you have a Congressional group that seems as though they may want to fund the operation (or at least not kill it), it seems we have a management team that seems interested in killing it.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Thirdrail7 said:


> A lot of that is the funding isn't there to pay for things to improve the bottom line and doing certain things with the long-distance network often brought the eye of Congress...who would then attack. How can you determine what is significant or not when you don't have enough to fund what is already operating, let alone improvements?
> 
> Even now, you have to fight to fund and prioritize the national network. The problem now is that it seems you have a Congressional group that seems as though they may want to fund the operation (or at least not kill it), it seems we have a management team that seems interested in killing it.



You have a management team that is thinking of Amtrak like a company and a Congress that is thinking of Amtrak like a public service, hence the disconnect. RPA and most rail advocates will always ask why can't Amtrak serve both the "national network" (if you consider White Sulphur Springs, WV and Wolf Point, MT national) and corridor service? The answer of course is $$$$. Congress said via the 750 mile that most of the expansions that Anderson/Gardner want aren't their problem, go ask the states. If Congress were as willing to fund Dallas/Houston service or Nashville to anywhere service as much as they were Rugby to Shelby service, I don't think Anderson/Gardner would be trying as much to kill the LD trains (assuming these corridor trains were bringing in enough $). Maybe Anderson/Gardner should strategize like I am and tell Congress Amtrak wants the money to do corridor expansion and Congress says they don't have it then Amtrak should say let's get rid of some of these routes to nowhere and pit service vs. each other. We keep saying Manchin doesn't want to lose the Cardinal. How about Senators in other states who potentially could gain service? I'd love to see them fight over who gets trains. Have Anderson/Gardner expose the hypocrisy of the Amtrak LD system once and for all. If Amtrak is a public service, make it a true public service and expand it. If it's a company and is expected to cover its operating costs, do so. No in between. People in Las Vegas shouldn't be paying federal taxes for trains they can't ride.


----------



## toddinde

sttom said:


> Personally I think someone from Southwest Airlines would make a better leader if we are stuck with getting former airline executives running Amtrak. Or even someone from a hotel chain would make more sense running Amtrak. To agree with what others have pointed out, 1 train per day is insufficient. Especially when half of the line will have the 1 train showing up in the middle of the night. Amtrak needs more corridor and mid distance day trains to drive up ridership. Amtrak can't grow it's ridership much more, and therefore it's finances, unless it physically grows. But no one in Congress or Amtrak or frankly a lot of rail advocates are willing to say this. People get so caught up in the "preserve the national network vs dismantle it for regional trains" debate that we collectively ignore the fact that Amtrak needs both to survive in the long term. Most Amtrak routes are routes it inherited from the private railroads and they were planned for the traveling public of 1930. Amtrak needs leadership that understands it needs to expand beyond the national network, be open about that requiring money, and understands what it takes to grow. And Anderson is definitely not that person. I'm not sure who exactly would fit the bill.


I respectfully disagree with much of what you are saying, and I would commend to your attention to some of the work of Andrew Seldon in this area. The long distance network is as skeletal as it can be. It cannot absorb any more cuts. The long distance train is a model of efficiency. It serves equally the person traveling 70 miles or 1,000 miles. It serves an infinite number of enroute corridors, yet achieved economies of scale with maintenance facilities only in major terminals. Corridors are incredibly expensive to develop. Look at the NEC with around $30 billion in deferred maintenance. The long distance trains achieve incredible market penetration. If 5,000 people board annually in a town of 10,000, that’s an incredible market share. The economic impact on these towns is also incredible. Please see the study from the Trent Lott Institute That bears this out. The national network costs us roughly $500 million a year. That is a rounding error in the US budget. For that, we get a national rail system including yards, terminals, and service to towns and cities nationally. You ask how to grow Amtrak? Partner with the freight railroads to fund capacity improvements that would allow you to do things like extend the Heartland Flyer to connect with the Chief. Add a Denver-Pueblo connection to the Chief opening up Denver-Albuquerque-LA possibilities. Run the Sunset Limited daily through Phoenix. Add a section of the Texas Eagle to run through Midland and Odessa to connect to the Sunset in El Paso. That would be a second two night Chicago - LA train. Run the Sunset through Phoenix again. Add capacity to existing long distance trains so there are more seats and sleepers in peak seasons. Get a standard single level car so equipment can be moved to other routes during seasonal fluctuations. Add a second daily frequency on many, if not all, long distance routes. I do agree that there is a historical fixation on Chicago which is probably not warranted since the growth in the country is in the south and west. Not taking anything away from Chicago, but to really grow the system, it needs to grow in the south and west. Finally, we need to stop with the nonsense that it’s either the corridors or the long distance trains. We can and must develop both. But there is no place for dismantling any long distance trains on such a skeletal system. Nor should developed traffic patterns that go back many decades be disrupted. Adding is the way to experiment.


----------



## toddinde

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> You have a management team that is thinking of Amtrak like a company and a Congress that is thinking of Amtrak like a public service, hence the disconnect. RPA and most rail advocates will always ask why can't Amtrak serve both the "national network" (if you consider White Sulphur Springs, WV and Wolf Point, MT national) and corridor service? The answer of course is $$$$. Congress said via the 750 mile that most of the expansions that Anderson/Gardner want aren't their problem, go ask the states. If Congress were as willing to fund Dallas/Houston service or Nashville to anywhere service as much as they were Rugby to Shelby service, I don't think Anderson/Gardner would be trying as much to kill the LD trains (assuming these corridor trains were bringing in enough $). Maybe Anderson/Gardner should strategize like I am and tell Congress Amtrak wants the money to do corridor expansion and Congress says they don't have it then Amtrak should say let's get rid of some of these routes to nowhere and pit service vs. each other. We keep saying Manchin doesn't want to lose the Cardinal. How about Senators in other states who potentially could gain service? I'd love to see them fight over who gets trains. Have Anderson/Gardner expose the hypocrisy of the Amtrak LD system once and for all. If Amtrak is a public service, make it a true public service and expand it. If it's a company and is expected to cover its operating costs, do so. No in between. People in Las Vegas shouldn't be paying federal taxes for trains they can't ride.


You’re right! I think a rail infrastructure funding program to dissect where the railroads have issues that, if addressed, would improve reliability and allow Amtrak to add service is a great way to go. You create good jobs, you add passenger mobility, you improve the movement of freight by rail which has a huge impact on greenhouse gas emissions and on congestion and wear and tear on highways. There is a severe shortage of qualified truck drivers anyway. It’s an all around win.


----------



## Seaboard92

Don’t forget there is one other added benefit to adding capacity that actually works in Congress. An efficient rail system is in the nations best interest for defense. Sure you can move things by air and road. But it isn’t nearly as efficient as by rail.


----------



## neroden

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> You have a management team that is thinking of Amtrak like a company


I don't think so. As a professional investor, I see a management team who is thinking of Amtrak as a private vehicle for their own personal idiosycratic tastes, and no interest in efficient use of funds -- NOT as a business. (Happens all too often in the corporate world.)


----------



## neroden

Thirdrail7 said:


> A lot of that is the funding isn't there to pay for things to improve the bottom line and doing certain things with the long-distance network often brought the eye of Congress...who would then attack. How can you determine what is significant or not when you don't have enough to fund what is already operating, let alone improvements?


Amtrak's had enough to fund what's already operating for years, and has had excess to fund improvements. How do you think we got the Viewliner II order? (Admittedly that should not have gone to Talgo... but that's another matter) 

There's really no excuse for the revenue-destroying changes to food service on the LSL, formerly home of the highest coach-passenger sales in the dining car. There's no excuse for not doing the work to run the Pennsylvanian-Capitol Limited through cars, a profitable enterprise by any measure; a commercial loan could have covered the cost of the one switch necessary.


----------



## drdumont

Can't think of an airline executive I would want at Amtrak. Certainly not from Southwest, the Cattle Cars of the sky.
"Here's your NOT peanuts - now sit down and shut up".


----------



## Palmland

drdumont said:


> Can't think of an airline executive I would want at Amtrak. Certainly not from Southwest, the Cattle Cars of the sky.
> "Here's your NOT peanuts - now sit down and shut up".



Gotta disagree with this. Southwest planes are clean, the crews are friendly, in many cases they have terminals or concourses that are delightful (thinking of Houston Hobby and the new concourse at Charlotte), no silly fees, and I like their seating procedures where there aren’t five different fares depending on your seat assignment. If you sign in 24hrs in advance we have always had our pick of seats. And of course they generally beat the competition on fares, excepting the airlines that are truly cattle cars: Allegiant, Frontier, Spirit.

But, I’d still rather be on a train!


----------



## drdumont

Palmland said:


> Gotta disagree with this. Southwest planes are clean, the crews are friendly, in many cases they have terminals or concourses that are delightful (thinking of Houston Hobby and the new concourse at Charlotte), no silly fees, and I like their seating procedures where there aren’t five different fares depending on your seat assignment. If you sign in 24hrs in advance we have always had our pick of seats. And of course they generally beat the competition on fares, excepting the airlines that are truly cattle cars: Allegiant, Frontier, Spirit.
> 
> But, I’d still rather be on a train!


Indeed, there are worse airlines, and SW's fans are a diehard lot. And good on 'em! Oddly enough, I never really saw that much of a savings unless I cold book wayyyy out. Maybe I didn't look hard enough. And it was a pain in the gluteus maximus for me to get to Love Field when DFW was only 3 miles away.

I damn near got fired a couple of times for refusing to fly on an airline that couldn't or wouldn't assign me a seat. I won't sit in a center seat, and have stepped off the aircraft if that is the only option.
In over 50 years of constant airline travel, I got kinda picky to be sure. Flew mostly First the last 20 years because of accumulated status. Tried SW a couple of times in the later years. Don't like the cattle call procedure.
Lotsa props to Herb Kelleher, made me a little money in the market, but I flew American to the last.
Haven't been on an aircraft in 3 years, don't plan on getting on one any time soon. It's either Amtrak or my Tesla 3, or I stay home.
Admittedly, Europe or Hawaii might be a little difficult in that respect, but there are few absolutes in life...


----------



## Ryan

If you pay the sub-$50 for Early Bird, you'll get a boarding position that guarantees you won't be in a middle seat.


----------



## drdumont

I thought they had something like that. As I implied, if Southwest is good for you, Mazel Tov! 
Flying nowadays is too much of a hassle. The flying is OK. The airports and TSA aren't for me.
Like Goldilocks said, "AMTRAK is Juuuust right!" <g>


----------



## Qapla

drdumont said:


> Can't think of an airline executive I would want at Amtrak





Palmland said:


> Gotta disagree with this



It seems to me that having ANY airline executive in charge of Amtrak, regardless of the airline, would be like having a McDonald's or Burger King manager in charge of a 3 Star restaurant ... why put a "fast-food" type person in charge a much more casual paced means of travel - especially if they want to turn the 3 Star place into "fast-food"?


----------



## sttom

toddinde said:


> I respectfully disagree with much of what you are saying, and I would commend to your attention to some of the work of Andrew Seldon in this area. The long distance network is as skeletal as it can be. It cannot absorb any more cuts. The long distance train is a model of efficiency. It serves equally the person traveling 70 miles or 1,000 miles. It serves an infinite number of enroute corridors, yet achieved economies of scale with maintenance facilities only in major terminals. Corridors are incredibly expensive to develop. Look at the NEC with around $30 billion in deferred maintenance. The long distance trains achieve incredible market penetration. If 5,000 people board annually in a town of 10,000, that’s an incredible market share. The economic impact on these towns is also incredible. Please see the study from the Trent Lott Institute That bears this out. The national network costs us roughly $500 million a year. That is a rounding error in the US budget. For that, we get a national rail system including yards, terminals, and service to towns and cities nationally. You ask how to grow Amtrak? Partner with the freight railroads to fund capacity improvements that would allow you to do things like extend the Heartland Flyer to connect with the Chief. Add a Denver-Pueblo connection to the Chief opening up Denver-Albuquerque-LA possibilities. Run the Sunset Limited daily through Phoenix. Add a section of the Texas Eagle to run through Midland and Odessa to connect to the Sunset in El Paso. That would be a second two night Chicago - LA train. Run the Sunset through Phoenix again. Add capacity to existing long distance trains so there are more seats and sleepers in peak seasons. Get a standard single level car so equipment can be moved to other routes during seasonal fluctuations. Add a second daily frequency on many, if not all, long distance routes. I do agree that there is a historical fixation on Chicago which is probably not warranted since the growth in the country is in the south and west. Not taking anything away from Chicago, but to really grow the system, it needs to grow in the south and west. Finally, we need to stop with the nonsense that it’s either the corridors or the long distance trains. We can and must develop both. But there is no place for dismantling any long distance trains on such a skeletal system. Nor should developed traffic patterns that go back many decades be disrupted. Adding is the way to experiment.



And your kind of exemplifying what I see as the issue with rail advocates. All you've suggested is tinkering around the edges. Amtrak needs local service to feed long distance line, attract more ridership in general and to some extent solve the last mile issue. Most "long distance" trips in the US are around 200 miles. Or about the distance from Chicago to Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis and many other city pairs in the US that either get 1 train per day or none at all.

I also never said to dismantle the national network, I said Amtrak needs more than just long haul trains.


----------



## Mail4MrTed

toddinde said:


> I respectfully disagree with much of what you are saying, and I would commend to your attention to some of the work of Andrew Seldon in this area. The long distance network is as skeletal as it can be. It cannot absorb any more cuts. The long distance train is a model of efficiency. It serves equally the person traveling 70 miles or 1,000 miles. It serves an infinite number of enroute corridors, yet achieved economies of scale with maintenance facilities only in major terminals. Corridors are incredibly expensive to develop. Look at the NEC with around $30 billion in deferred maintenance. The long distance trains achieve incredible market penetration. If 5,000 people board annually in a town of 10,000, that’s an incredible market share. The economic impact on these towns is also incredible. Please see the study from the Trent Lott Institute That bears this out. The national network costs us roughly $500 million a year. That is a rounding error in the US budget. For that, we get a national rail system including yards, terminals, and service to towns and cities nationally. You ask how to grow Amtrak? Partner with the freight railroads to fund capacity improvements that would allow you to do things like extend the Heartland Flyer to connect with the Chief. Add a Denver-Pueblo connection to the Chief opening up Denver-Albuquerque-LA possibilities. Run the Sunset Limited daily through Phoenix. Add a section of the Texas Eagle to run through Midland and Odessa to connect to the Sunset in El Paso. That would be a second two night Chicago - LA train. Run the Sunset through Phoenix again. Add capacity to existing long distance trains so there are more seats and sleepers in peak seasons. Get a standard single level car so equipment can be moved to other routes during seasonal fluctuations. Add a second daily frequency on many, if not all, long distance routes. I do agree that there is a historical fixation on Chicago which is probably not warranted since the growth in the country is in the south and west. Not taking anything away from Chicago, but to really grow the system, it needs to grow in the south and west. Finally, we need to stop with the nonsense that it’s either the corridors or the long distance trains. We can and must develop both. But there is no place for dismantling any long distance trains on such a skeletal system. Nor should developed traffic patterns that go back many decades be disrupted. Adding is the way to experiment.



You have some excellent ideas! I have one on the Sunset. It see it leave New Orleans of late with ONE coach. Amtrak can't fill one coach even as far as Houston which is pathetic. Why? The train doesn't run every day. With track work it only runs 2 times a week! There are huge amounts of territory it serves that are mostly desert. I would suggest getting rid of the Sunset, as much as I may like it, starting a daily, daylight train from New Orleans to Houston and Dallas. Serve San Antonio with more corridor service between there and Austin and Dallas, creating a corridor in a huge population area with Dallas as the hub. As you suggest, connect the Heartland with the Southwest. I have also seen a suggestion in Railway Age to run a daily train from Tucson to Phoenix to the Southwest Chief in Northern Arizona. That would be the beginning of a corridor in another high population area and the lines used are not busy mainlines where added capacity would work. If I can come up with such ideas, why not Anderson and company?


----------



## tricia

Mail4MrTed said:


> You have some excellent ideas! I have one on the Sunset. It see it leave New Orleans of late with ONE coach. Amtrak can't fill one coach even as far as Houston which is pathetic. Why? The train doesn't run every day. With track work it only runs 2 times a week! There are huge amounts of territory it serves that are mostly desert. I would suggest getting rid of the Sunset, as much as I may like it, starting a daily, daylight train from New Orleans to Houston and Dallas. Serve San Antonio with more corridor service between there and Austin and Dallas, creating a corridor in a huge population area with Dallas as the hub. As you suggest, connect the Heartland with the Southwest. I have also seen a suggestion in Railway Age to run a daily train from Tucson to Phoenix to the Southwest Chief in Northern Arizona. That would be the beginning of a corridor in another high population area and the lines used are not busy mainlines where added capacity would work. If I can come up with such ideas, why not Anderson and company?



In addition to running only three times a week, the Sunset Ltd doesn't have a same-day connection with ANY other train in NOL. NONE of Amtrak's three trains that terminate in NOL connect with ANY of the others without an overnight stay. Making the SL daily, and adding a second frequency for all three of those trains, would be a huge help in increasing ridership.


----------



## Steve4031

I fly southwest enough to appreciate them. They are good if you book far out and get the wanna get away fares. I’ve used early bird check in and have not used it and checked in 24 hours ahead of time. By being diligent I usually get a b-sometimes boarding position. This is enough to get an aisle seat further back. On some flights I’ve had an empty middle next to me. 

The problem is not so much that The Amtrak president is an airline guy. It’s that he’s unwilling to learn or adjust his approach to Amtrak. Additionally the politics are not favorable right now to Amtrak.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

tricia said:


> In addition to running only three times a week, the Sunset Ltd doesn't have a same-day connection with ANY other train in NOL. NONE of Amtrak's three trains that terminate in NOL connect with ANY of the others without an overnight stay. Making the SL daily, and adding a second frequency for all three of those trains, would be a huge help in increasing ridership.



Forget daily, give the possibility of a same day connection between the Crescent and SL and I'll work the days to do a trip from PHL to LAX without having to go through CHI.


----------



## MARC Rider

Any kind of private-sector corporate overlord is a bad fit for a publicly owned company like Antrak. The point of private investor owned companies is to make profit without limit, the point of a "profitable" Amtrak would be to allow the company to perform its essential public service without requiring an operating subsidy.


----------



## toddinde

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Forget daily, give the possibility of a same day connection between the Crescent and SL and I'll work the days to do a trip from PHL to LAX without having to go through CHI.


No. It has to be daily. It’s more than a land cruise, it’s transportation.


----------



## toddinde

Mail4MrTed said:


> You have some excellent ideas! I have one on the Sunset. It see it leave New Orleans of late with ONE coach. Amtrak can't fill one coach even as far as Houston which is pathetic. Why? The train doesn't run every day. With track work it only runs 2 times a week! There are huge amounts of territory it serves that are mostly desert. I would suggest getting rid of the Sunset, as much as I may like it, starting a daily, daylight train from New Orleans to Houston and Dallas. Serve San Antonio with more corridor service between there and Austin and Dallas, creating a corridor in a huge population area with Dallas as the hub. As you suggest, connect the Heartland with the Southwest. I have also seen a suggestion in Railway Age to run a daily train from Tucson to Phoenix to the Southwest Chief in Northern Arizona. That would be the beginning of a corridor in another high population area and the lines used are not busy mainlines where added capacity would work. If I can come up with such ideas, why not Anderson and company?





Mail4MrTed said:


> You have some excellent ideas! I have one on the Sunset. It see it leave New Orleans of late with ONE coach. Amtrak can't fill one coach even as far as Houston which is pathetic. Why? The train doesn't run every day. With track work it only runs 2 times a week! There are huge amounts of territory it serves that are mostly desert. I would suggest getting rid of the Sunset, as much as I may like it, starting a daily, daylight train from New Orleans to Houston and Dallas. Serve San Antonio with more corridor service between there and Austin and Dallas, creating a corridor in a huge population area with Dallas as the hub. As you suggest, connect the Heartland with the Southwest. I have also seen a suggestion in Railway Age to run a daily train from Tucson to Phoenix to the Southwest Chief in Northern Arizona. That would be the beginning of a corridor in another high population area and the lines used are not busy mainlines where added capacity would work. If I can come up with such ideas, why not Anderson and company?


I appreciate many of your thoughts, but most respectfully disagree in one regard. I live in that desert. The Benson, Arizona stop in mine, and serves an area with over a 100,000 population. El Paso to Tucson is important territory that includes Las Cruces and Silver City. We need to be able to travel East and west. We can’t give up any long distance trains because the system is already too skeletal. This is the conditioning that led to the Carter and Clinton cuts. They propose a total destruction of the system, and advocates settle for a few train offs that lead to a less viable network. The Sunset needs to be rerouted through Phoenix and the Welton Cutoff restored. I agree with the Tucson to Southwest Chief connection, but only in addition to the daily Sunset. The Southwest is the fastest growing part of the country. It needs more service, not less.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

I agree with the above completely. Anderson fatigue (for lack of a better name) has a lot of us accepting that there will be cuts coming to the network soon. The fact Anderson has said there MAY be a place for 5-6 experimental trains is not an acceptable outcome for our nation. Future generations (and us) deserve a first world infrastructure.

We need to keep the pressure on our representatives and RPA and most importantly vote in November. The newly elected officials in Virginia show what can happen when we elect more open minded officials that govern by the majorities wishes (Massive infrastructure and programs to help society as a whole in VA).


----------



## MARC Rider

toddinde said:


> No. It has to be daily. It’s more than a land cruise, it’s transportation.


Actually, that's not necessarily true, if you think about it. There are some intercontinental air services that do not have daily flights, yet I doubt you would consider those to be "air cruises." Back in the days of the ocean liners, they didn't have daily sailings, either, but it was the essential transportation at the time.


----------



## MikefromCrete

Apples to oranges. Train routes without daily service aren't transportation. The American public won't subsidize land cruises for the rich and idle. Long distance trains need to supply reliable service to the places in between the end points.


----------



## Seaboard92

MikefromCrete said:


> Apples to oranges. Train routes without daily service aren't transportation. The American public won't subsidize land cruises for the rich and idle. Long distance trains need to supply reliable service to the places in between the end points.



I’ve been on both tri-weekly routes and there is a lot of poor, destitute, rich, minority, foreign, students, and you name it traveling. There are way more than land cruisers and to sum it up that way really is doing a disservice. 

Take for instance the Cardinal last time I was on it did brisk business from NYP/WAS to WV points. And a lot of shorter trips between those points. And a decent amount of WV-CIN/CHI traffic. 

The Sunset Limited when I was on it did brisk business LAX-TUS and TUS-ELP. I can’t speak for East of SAS because I was connecting to 22. But the point is these trains are used for more than a land cruise.


----------



## MikefromCrete

Seaboard, all those passengers would be much better served by a train that ran daily, rather than one where you need a calendar to figure how to ride it. Same with the Cardinal. These less than daily trains should have be made daily long ago.


----------



## zephyr17

MikefromCrete said:


> Seaboard, all those passengers would be much better served by a train that ran daily, rather than one where you need a calendar to figure how to ride it. Same with the Cardinal. These less than daily trains should have be made daily long ago.


Graham Claytor, arguably Amtrak's best leader, once said if it's not daily, it's not a train. He tried to get everything daily, though he didn't succeed.


----------



## jis

While I agree that ideally all trains should be daily, I still think that a less than daily train is still better than no train at all.


----------



## Seaboard92

A train provides service no matter if it runs once a week or daily. Daily service is obviously the best situation but I can think of several trains across the world that run less than daily.


----------



## west point

Though I believe that the Cardinal and Sunset would do much better if daily there is another 3 day a week train that appears to be doing great. That is the Denver - Winter Park ski train ! It is even seasonal. Maybe it is time to have another seasonal NYP - Florida train ? That would be an follow on of the winter time trains of ACL and SAL ! It could run essentially as an extra with it just receive only at start of run and discharge only at end. It might even be able to arrive at end stations ahead of schedule.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Seaboard92 said:


> A train provides service no matter if it runs once a week or daily. Daily service is obviously the best situation but I can think of several trains across the world that run less than daily.



Ask the people along the Desert Wind, Pioneer, and Sunset Limited East routes if they'd rather have 3x/week service or no service.


----------



## Seaboard92

I am someone with a lot of business on the Portland Rose route (Pioneer) so I see its attraction. But not at the expense of any other trains in the network. We need a lot of equipment so we can bring back the Portland Rose, City of Los Angeles, and the North Coast Limited’s. 

Yes I refuse to call any train by their Amtrak era name while we’re at it.


----------



## toddinde

Of course a three day a week train is better than no train at all. But I’m not a retiree looking to take a land cruise, or self employed, or independently wealthy. I ride the Sunset or other transportation to go places. The Sunset can be competitive with driving and flying, but I’ve had to fly or drive several times when I would have taken the train if it were daily. There are trains around the world that run less than daily. But on most of those routes, there are many local or shorter distance trains that share the route so people aren’t stuck on off days. The others, are mostly land cruises. I have no interest in Amtrak becoming a high end cruise company like VIA’s Canadian. It’s simply not useful and not worth public money.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

Keep the full Sunset 3x weekly and an appropriate corridor or two the other 4x a week. Everyone wins the corridors get covered daily and the whole route gets covered 3 times a week for through passengers or passengers going to Podunkville. Economics of the Sunset improve dramatically as well.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Amtrakfflyer said:


> Keep the full Sunset 3x weekly and an appropriate corridor or two the other 4x a week. Everyone wins the corridors get covered daily and the whole route gets covered 3 times a week for through passengers or passengers going to Podunkville. Economics of the Sunset improve dramatically as well.


Or you can do what has been the plan for over a decade, make the Texas Eagle a Daily Train from CHI-LAX with a Stub Train SAS-NOL.

It would already be a reality if one of the Amtrak Suits in the Boardman era hadn't POd UP by refusing to negotiate in good faith.IMO this was Boardman's biggest failure as CEO.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Bob Dylan said:


> It would already be a reality if one of the Amtrak Suits in the Boardman era hadn't POd UP by refusing to negotiate in good faith.


Source? Let's see some names, dates, and other corroborated details before we repeat this unsubstantiated claim yet again. Until then it's just a rumor. We're several years beyond the supposed moratorium anyway, so even if you believed this explanation of events to be true it hasn't been relevant for a long time now.


----------



## Anderson

Devil's Advocate said:


> Source? Let's see some names, dates, and other corroborated details before we repeat this unsubstantiated claim yet again. Until then it's just a rumor. We're several years beyond the supposed moratorium anyway, so even if you believed this explanation of events to be true it hasn't been relevant for a long time now.


Yes, and if the current management didn't have such an animus towards the LD trains we might be seeing some progress here...


----------



## toddinde

Amtrakfflyer said:


> Keep the full Sunset 3x weekly and an appropriate corridor or two the other 4x a week. Everyone wins the corridors get covered daily and the whole route gets covered 3 times a week for through passengers or passengers going to Podunkville. Economics of the Sunset improve dramatically as well.


I don’t get what allure is to a bunch of stub trains over the long distance route. More costs, more small maintenance facilities. No thanks, we’re not compromising on the daily Sunset. That is the goal of the advocates here in Arizona, and we’re not going to rest until it gets done. And back through Phoenix as well. If you want you’re milk runs, be my guest. I have no problem with the concept of a daily Texas Eagle. But daily is non negotiable.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

I agree but Anderson has proven at least up til this point he doesn’t have a grasp on the issues and isn’t willing to compromise. Unfortunately under Anderson a total discontinuation of the Sunset is more likely then daily service. We’re on the same page though a daily Eagle would be the best bet under competent management. That battle will have to wait however.


----------



## sttom

This still gets to the root of a problem that I have which is there isn't a coherent plan for expansion beyond just making the two tri-weekly trains daily. No offense, but it's really easy to say no to such small expansions. It's the same thing with most things in politics, small changes eventually die and bigger ones stand a better chance of winning. And I for one think it's time advocates push for something bigger. And something bigger needs to be a full national plan with corridors, day trains, long distance and maybe even seasonal trains with the feds kicking in money. It would be a different game if your pushing for nationwide expansion instead of adding service in a state a committee chair or member isn't from or doesn't care about. Why would a representative from Georgia care about adding service in Arizona when there is nothing in it for them? Its a different ask when something is in it for them and theirs.


----------



## Anthony V

I believe the reason the Sunset Limited doesn't enjoy the political support most other LD trains do is because the train doesn't run daily, which dramatically suppresses ridership potential. Daily service on the Sunset could mean far more political support from the districts it runs through. That's because running the train daily will mean double the ridership from what the train sees now, according to the 2010 PIP. Since 2010, (when the massive ransom Union Pacific Railroad asked for to make the train daily was made), the railroad has double tracked much of the route themselves. To find the equipment needed for daily service, make the Capitol Limited a single-level train, and reassign the Superliners currently used on that train to the Sunset Limited.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

sttom said:


> No offense, but it's really easy to say no to such small expansions. It's the same thing with most things in politics, small changes eventually die and bigger ones stand a better chance of winning. And I for one think it's time advocates push for something bigger. And something bigger needs to be a full national plan with corridors, day trains, long distance and maybe even seasonal trains with the feds kicking in money. It would be a different game if your pushing for nationwide expansion instead of adding service in a state a committee chair or member isn't from or doesn't care about. Why would a representative from Georgia care about adding service in Arizona when there is nothing in it for them? Its a different ask when something is in it for them and theirs.


President Obama made a big push for increased federal passenger rail spending at the beginning of his first term. These expansions were met with unwavering resistance and zero compromise from some of the very states that were in line for federal funding. For instance, Rick Scott refused funding for an HSR project in Florida and Scott Walker made killing commuter rail projects in Wisconsin a cornerstone of his platform. Even if another round of funding was eventually secured by a pro-rail president and pro-rail congress it would still risk being killed at the state level or by the next anti-rail president or anti-rail congress. Big projects take a long time to complete and have a long window for being attacked and eventually killed. That's why smaller under-the-radar expansions make more sense in today's hyper-partisan scorched earth environment.


----------



## Anderson

Devil's Advocate said:


> President Obama made a big push for increased federal passenger rail spending at the beginning of his first term. These expansions were met with unwavering resistance and zero compromise from some of the very states that were in line for federal funding. For instance, Rick Scott refused funding for an HSR project in Florida and Scott Walker made killing commuter rail projects in Wisconsin a cornerstone of his platform. Even if another round of funding was eventually secured by a pro-rail president and pro-rail congress it would still risk being killed at the state level or by the next anti-rail president or anti-rail congress. Big projects take a long time to complete and have a long window for being attacked and eventually killed. That's why smaller under-the-radar expansions make more sense in today's hyper-partisan scorched earth environment.


Counters are as follows:
(1) Obama put in for a lot of money but scattered a large portion of it into either half-projects (Orlando-Tampa) or studies. I don't think that Orlando (airport) to Tampa was ever a viable stand-alone without at _least_ a Sunrail connection.
(2) Obama held off announcing a lot of the funding until the last minute before the midterms, guaranteeing it would become a political football in a few races while contracts were hard to put in place in time.

Putting this differently, if the funding had been announced in the summer and the agreements inked by Labor Day, the response to those campaigns could easily have been "sucks to be you". Instead the mess got wrapped up in a campaigns (particularly in WI).


----------



## Trogdor

Anderson said:


> Counters are as follows:
> (1) Obama put in for a lot of money but scattered a large portion of it into either half-projects (Orlando-Tampa) or studies. I don't think that Orlando (airport) to Tampa was ever a viable stand-alone without at _least_ a Sunrail connection.
> (2) Obama held off announcing a lot of the funding until the last minute before the midterms, guaranteeing it would become a political football in a few races while contracts were hard to put in place in time.
> 
> Putting this differently, if the funding had been announced in the summer and the agreements inked by Labor Day, the response to those campaigns could easily have been "sucks to be you". Instead the mess got wrapped up in a campaigns (particularly in WI).



Not sure what you consider "last minute," but Wisconsin was awarded the money for Milwaukee-Madison in January 2010, long before the summer and the midterms.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Anderson said:


> Counters are as follows:
> (1) Obama put in for a lot of money but scattered a large portion of it into either half-projects (Orlando-Tampa) or studies. I don't think that Orlando (airport) to Tampa was ever a viable stand-alone without at _least_ a Sunrail connection.
> (2) Obama held off announcing a lot of the funding until the last minute before the midterms, guaranteeing it would become a political football in a few races while contracts were hard to put in place in time.
> Putting this differently, if the funding had been announced in the summer and the agreements inked by Labor Day, the response to those campaigns could easily have been "sucks to be you". Instead the mess got wrapped up in a campaigns (particularly in WI).


Spreading the funds around is precisely how some projects still made progress while other projects were being attacked and undermined. Wisconsin's funding appeared to be past the "sucks to be you" point and Walker simply broke the contracts and mothballed the trains at great expense after the fact. Combining all funds into a single large project that required good faith participation of anti-rail politicians would have risked achieving nothing at all.


----------



## Anderson

Devil's Advocate said:


> Spreading the funds around is precisely how some projects still made progress while other projects were being attacked and undermined. Wisconsin's funding appeared to be past the "sucks to be you" point and Walker simply broke the contracts and mothballed the trains at great expense after the fact. Combining all funds into a single large project that required good faith participation of anti-rail politicians would have risked achieving nothing at all.


Actually, Walker didn't _break _the contracts. When Walker beat the incumbent governor, the incumbent declined to proceed (and, to be fair, Walker had made it a major campaign issue where...I know Scott didn't do so in FL*, but I don't recall if a peep was uttered in OH or not). Obama had only awarded the money in the previous month or two, IIRC.

*As I've said, probably the most dubious of the three projects that got nixed.


----------



## Trogdor

Anderson said:


> Actually, Walker didn't _break _the contracts. When Walker beat the incumbent governor, the incumbent declined to proceed (and, to be fair, Walker had made it a major campaign issue where...I know Scott didn't do so in FL*, but I don't recall if a peep was uttered in OH or not). Obama had only awarded the money in the previous month or two, IIRC.
> 
> *As I've said, probably the most dubious of the three projects that got nixed.



You recall incorrectly. Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida all had funding announced in January 2010. Obama even referenced the groundbreaking of Tampa-Orlando in his 2010 State of the Union address.


----------



## jis

The thing that was missing before some of the awards were finalized is a comprehensive discussion with the respective DOTs, at least in the case of Florida. Tossing money every which way without any indication of any commitment towards funding the necessary follow through is a bit weird IMHO.

While the intention behind disallowing any grants to the NEC initially may have been laudable, in effect all that did was tick off some folks in NEC-land and delay the inevitable by four years, while winning very few friends in the states which rejected the funds eventually. It was a total mess at the end of the day, even though the intention was otherwise. We are still living with the consequences of that unfortunate miscue.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Anderson said:


> Actually, Walker didn't _break _the contracts. When Walker beat the incumbent governor, the incumbent declined to proceed (and, to be fair, Walker had made it a major campaign issue where...I know Scott didn't do so in FL*, but I don't recall if a peep was uttered in OH or not). Obama had only awarded the money in the previous month or two, IIRC. *As I've said, probably the most dubious of the three projects that got nixed.


Walker broke some contract terms and backpedaled around others. Some of this went to court but both Talgo and taxpayers alike got hosed by Walker's meddling. I've noticed that you keep moving the goal posts and nitpicking minor details while repeatedly ignoring the greater point being made. You've already informed us that presidents who seek to decimate passenger rail funding don't phase you in the slightest, yet a president who endeavors to expand passenger rail funding receives unending criticism and petty grievances for not doing so in the precise manner you would have preferred. How do you explain this continuing disconnect?


----------



## Mail4MrTed

tricia said:


> In addition to running only three times a week, the Sunset Ltd doesn't have a same-day connection with ANY other train in NOL. NONE of Amtrak's three trains that terminate in NOL connect with ANY of the others without an overnight stay. Making the SL daily, and adding a second frequency for all three of those trains, would be a huge help in increasing ridership.


That would be ideal. In the end, more service is better.


----------



## toddinde

Anderson said:


> Counters are as follows:
> (1) Obama put in for a lot of money but scattered a large portion of it into either half-projects (Orlando-Tampa) or studies. I don't think that Orlando (airport) to Tampa was ever a viable stand-alone without at _least_ a Sunrail connection.
> (2) Obama held off announcing a lot of the funding until the last minute before the midterms, guaranteeing it would become a political football in a few races while contracts were hard to put in place in time.
> 
> Putting this differently, if the funding had been announced in the summer and the agreements inked by Labor Day, the response to those campaigns could easily have been "sucks to be you". Instead the mess got wrapped up in a campaigns (particularly in WI).


I was in Wisconsin, and the dithering by the Obama administration in awarding the funds facilitated Walker killing the expansion which would have been amazingly successful. I’ve never seen the theory that the money was held to get midterm advantage. It totally backfired. I thought it was FRA incompetence, but the political explanation makes sense. It backfired horribly and set passenger rail in Wisconsin back by 20 years or more.


----------



## toddinde

Devil's Advocate said:


> Walker broke some contract terms and backpedaled around others. Some of this went to court but both Talgo and taxpayers alike got hosed by Walker's meddling. I've noticed that you keep moving the goal posts and nitpicking minor details while repeatedly ignoring the greater point being made. You've already informed us that presidents who seek to decimate passenger rail funding don't phase you in the slightest, yet a president who endeavors to expand passenger rail funding receives unending criticism and petty grievances for not doing so in the precise manner you would have preferred. How do you explain this irrational disconnect?


It was all Walker. Walker threatened Doyle with all kinds of investigations and liability if he didn’t suspend performance on the contracts. The contracts weren’t canceled by Doyle, just suspended. The killing of Amtrak expansion in Wisconsin was all Walker and cost Wisconsin taxpayer over $60 million in damages, and a loss of the $800 million that would have built the whole system. A really sad development courtesy of Scott Walker and the Koch Brothers.


----------



## toddinde

toddinde said:


> It was all Walker. Walker threatened Doyle with all kinds of investigations and liability if he didn’t suspend performance on the contracts. The contracts weren’t canceled by Doyle, just suspended. The killing of Amtrak expansion in Wisconsin was all Walker and cost Wisconsin taxpayer over $60 million in damages, and a loss of the $800 million that would have built the whole system. A really sad development courtesy of Scott Walker and the Koch Brothers.





toddinde said:


> It was all Walker. Walker threatened Doyle with all kinds of investigations and liability if he didn’t suspend performance on the contracts. The contracts weren’t canceled by Doyle, just suspended. The killing of Amtrak expansion in Wisconsin was all Walker and cost Wisconsin taxpayer over $60 million in damages, and a loss of the $800 million that would have built the whole system. A really sad development courtesy of Scott Walker and the Koch Brothers.





Anthony V said:


> I believe the reason the Sunset Limited doesn't enjoy the political support most other LD trains do is because the train doesn't run daily, which dramatically suppresses ridership potential. Daily service on the Sunset could mean far more political support from the districts it runs through. That's because running the train daily will mean double the ridership from what the train sees now, according to the 2010 PIP. Since 2010, (when the massive ransom Union Pacific Railroad asked for to make the train daily was made), the railroad has double tracked much of the route themselves. To find the equipment needed for daily service, make the Capitol Limited a single-level train, and reassign the Superliners currently used on that train to the Sunset Limited.


This is the right answer and easy to implement. Longer term, if Amtrak were to purchase the Wellton Cutoff from UP, and upgrade it to 110 mph, it would support the return of the Sunset to Mesa, Tempe and Phoenix, and facilitate development of a Tucson - Phoenix - LA corridor. But a daily Sunset with convenient Thruway connections to Phoenix are a great step in the right direction.


----------



## Trogdor

toddinde said:


> I was in Wisconsin, and the dithering by the Obama administration in awarding the funds facilitated Walker killing the expansion which would have been amazingly successful. I’ve never seen the theory that the money was held to get midterm advantage. It totally backfired. I thought it was FRA incompetence, but the political explanation makes sense. It backfired horribly and set passenger rail in Wisconsin back by 20 years or more.



What even are you talking about? The midterm/political advantage theory has no basis because Anderson's timeline is completely off. Not only were the funds awarded long before the election, but Wisconsin actually got every single dollar it asked for. Work was starting, contracts were being signed, trains were ordered, in fact rail was even placed on the ground at some spots adjacent to the 
old rail corridor that was due to be refurbished.

The stimulus act was signed in February, the FRA plan was released in April, applications for funding were submitted in the summer and fall, and the money was awarded in January. That's less than a year for what was essentially a brand new project that had no organizational or process structure in place, in a federal government that often moves slower than molasses on these things (by point of comparison, Metrolink is taking longer from bid submission deadline to contract award just to decide which company will run the same trains with more or less the same employees that are currently running the service).

I honestly don't think there was much of any dithering at all. They wanted that project to go as fast as it could.


----------



## toddinde

Trogdor said:


> You recall incorrectly. Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida all had funding announced in January 2010. Obama even referenced the groundbreaking of Tampa-Orlando in his 2010 State of the Union address.


The Wisconsin project was hardly dubious. Madison is a large city over 200,000 in population, fast growing, with a huge university of 50,000 students, many of whom live in the Milwaukee and Chicago areas. It was an expansion of the uber successful Hiawatha corridor. It had been planned and thoroughly engineered over a twenty year period, with broad, bipartisan support. The Wisconsin project was killed because it would be so successful. As for the 3C corridor in Ohio, I don’t know much about it. But logic suggests it would have been successful, although, unlike Wisconsin, it didn’t build off an already successful corridor.


----------



## toddinde

Trogdor said:


> What even are you talking about? The midterm/political advantage theory has no basis because Anderson's timeline is completely off. Not only were the funds awarded long before the election, but Wisconsin actually got every single dollar it asked for. Work was starting, contracts were being signed, trains were ordered, in fact rail was even placed on the ground at some spots adjacent to the
> old rail corridor that was due to be refurbished.
> 
> The stimulus act was signed in February, the FRA plan was released in April, applications for funding were submitted in the summer and fall, and the money was awarded in January. That's less than a year for what was essentially a brand new project that had no organizational or process structure in place, in a federal government that often moves slower than molasses on these things (by point of comparison, Metrolink is taking longer from bid submission deadline to contract award just to decide which company will run the same trains with more or less the same employees that are currently running the service).
> 
> I honestly don't think there was much of any dithering at all. They wanted that project to go as fast as it could.


----------



## toddinde

There was a long delay in evaluating projects for award. The Wisconsin project was, in fact, shovel ready. My criticism is that there was a severe recession, and the funds needed to be awarded quickly. Wisconsin had already demonstrated commitment by funding the Hiawatha and and luring Talgo. That project was absolutely ready to go. There is no question that FRA took an unreasonable amount of time to get the projects evaluated, and that delay allowed Walker to cancel the project. I was there, involved in the passenger rail community and politics in Wisconsin and I watched it unfold. I am correct.


----------



## Anderson

I'm going to stand partially corrected. There _was_ a grant volley announced in January 2010 (surrounding the SOTU). However, there was _also_ a second volley that was announced on October 28, 2010:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120306063332/https://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/press-releases/227.shtml
https://web.archive.org/web/2011081...ds/Summary_of_FY10_Selected_Projects_1010.pdf

Specifically, the money thrown at Iowa (to extend the Quad Cities project), Florida, and Michigan smelled funny to me at the time (October 28 being, you know, _five days_ before the midterms; there's no way anything announced close to the midterm elections like that doesn't at least smell funny in passing). NB Florida was a supplemental $800m (I remembered _that_ much) but that didn't affect me scratching my head at the project (it always was a poor IOS option, particularly if Orlando-Miami wasn't guaranteed to happen).

But I am corrected that Wisconsin wasn't in that batch, and even at the time that got lost in the fog of war of "what happened". And yes, I agree that January-October/November should have been enough time to get things sorted out (whereas anything going "out the window" on five days' notice on something being announced before an election is contributory negligence on the part of the grant-makers). It was Iowa that was the big screw-up there (Branstad threw the brakes on the project, but I'm pretty sure he didn't have a contract to disrupt), and that's _also_ one I was confused about since...er...Iowa City did not strike me as a logical terminus vs Des Moines...but I was _not_ happy about that project getting screwed up, either (it felt like the funding there was somehow half-assed). The Michigan project did make sense to me (and rumor has it that we're finally going to get a better timetable in MI soon...).

I've also never quite understood why Walker chucked the Talgos instead of just putting them on the Hiawathas once he was stuck with them other than "he was an ass" (in the case of Scott Walker, this is a _perfectly_ sufficient explanation), but...well, if you want a discussion about why I was _quite_ willing, in particular, to take Trump over Kasich [and Walker, though the latter flamed out much earlier] in '16? That whole affair _is_ why.

(Another correction to my thinking: I had thought that the upgrades to Amtrak in NJ [the 160 or 165 MPH tracks] that have been incessantly delayed were part of one of the two rounds of funding...but apparently not...)


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Anderson said:


> .....I've also never quite understood why Walker chucked the Talgos instead of just putting them on the Hiawathas once he was stuck with them other than "he was an ass" (in the case of Scott Walker, this is a _perfectly_ sufficient explanation), but...well, if you want a discussion about why I was _quite_ willing, ....




Not sure this goes here in the thread about Richard Anderson, but....

I have never heard a good reason. However I recall that if someone were to buy the two Talgo sets in the first few years after Wisconsin lost the breach of contract. That Wisconsin would recover some of the funds. Which was at the time, possibility that the 2 Wisconsin set would find a home in the Pacific Northwest. Into delays and derailment occurred.


----------



## sttom

Personally, I think it would be better if in an ideal state, Amtrak was allowed to use the capital and operating funds to build what it sees as necessary if the state's decides to be intransigent. Amtrak is still technically a corporation, it should be allowed some flexibility. Amtrak needs someone willing to fight for growth, growth that isn't chained to the good graces of anti rail states or politicians.


----------



## Eric S

Anderson said:


> *I've also never quite understood why Walker chucked the Talgos instead of just putting them on the Hiawathas once he was stuck with them* other than "he was an ass" (in the case of Scott Walker, this is a _perfectly_ sufficient explanation), but...well, if you want a discussion about why I was _quite_ willing, in particular, to take Trump over Kasich [and Walker, though the latter flamed out much earlier] in '16? That whole affair _is_ why.



Walker was unable to get the legislature to fund the maintenance facility (originally planned for Madison, then switched to Milwaukee) for the Talgos which was required by the agreement with Talgo. No maintenance facility, no Talgos on the Hiawatha.


----------



## Anderson

Eric S said:


> Walker was unable to get the legislature to fund the maintenance facility (originally planned for Madison, then switched to Milwaukee) for the Talgos which was required by the agreement with Talgo. No maintenance facility, no Talgos on the Hiawatha.


Ok, that's...actually a valid problem (particularly if he at least asked for the money to avoid a breach). And of course, as noted, the possibility of limited damages if MI, WA, or CA bought the trains (each was rumored at some point) also likely affected the equation (I'll admit that I can see being willing to pay some damages rather than eating a multi-decade maintenance contract for what would otherwise be "goofball" equipment in the area).


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> (Another correction to my thinking: I had thought that the upgrades to Amtrak in NJ [the 160 or 165 MPH tracks] that have been incessantly delayed were part of one of the two rounds of funding...but apparently not...)


The money for the NEC project came from the money returned by Wisconsin and Florida. The story goes that one fine morning Amtrak got a call from Obama DOT that if they could dig up a shovel ready project to take some money there was a bunch available, but the project proposal must be at the DOT in some completely unreasonably short time. Amtrak scrambled to cobble together the $450 Million proposal the best they could and made it to the DOT, and they were given the grant. We already know what has happened after that. I heard this story from a gentleman who was a long time Amtrak employee at a relatively high position in NEC Projects office, who has since left Amtrak and moved to Parsons, but is still working on Gateway.

Since part of the funding came with the original deadlines from the bill which appropriated the funds, Amtrak had to carefully make sure that those funds were spent within the deadline, failing which they possibly even had to ask for some remediation. I am not quite sure how that whole thing went down. But clearly the entire project was not completed within the funding deadline.


----------



## Anderson

*facepalms*
Considering the laundry list of projects that were tendered in '09 (and that a bunch of stuff would have potentially been doable with the '10 money that, IIRC, was the pot not needing a match)...wow.

(And I'd forgotten about that timeline, too...)


----------



## west point

CAT rehab certainly could have been shovel reedy in short order.


----------



## toddinde

Eric S said:


> Walker was unable to get the legislature to fund the maintenance facility (originally planned for Madison, then switched to Milwaukee) for the Talgos which was required by the agreement with Talgo. No maintenance facility, no Talgos on the Hiawatha.


Spare me. Walker is no innocent victim of the legislature. Vos, Fitzgerald and Walker were all in cahoots. Vos gave him top cover. It was all about the Kochs, Bradley’s, and Hendricks imposing an extreme, fossil fuel based agenda on Wisconsin.


----------



## neroden

toddinde said:


> Spare me. Walker is no innocent victim of the legislature. Vos, Fitzgerald and Walker were all in cahoots. Vos gave him top cover. It was all about the Kochs, Bradley’s, and Hendricks imposing an extreme, fossil fuel based agenda on Wisconsin.


Walker ran on a "kill the train, send the federal money elsewhere" PLATFORM. And he won! The voters eventually realized that electing a crook who hated Wisconsin was a mistake and voted him out. They also voted to throw the Republicans out of the legislature but gerrymandering has kept them in control. Totally corrupt...


----------



## toddinde

neroden said:


> Walker ran on a "kill the train, send the federal money elsewhere" PLATFORM. And he won! The voters eventually realized that electing a crook who hated Wisconsin was a mistake and voted him out. They also voted to throw the Republicans out of the legislature but gerrymandering has kept them in control. Totally corrupt...


Yes! That is the truth and sums up exactly what happened. I know people that ride the Hiawatha every day, and they just shake their heads at the Walker shenanigans while they ride the decrepit Horizon cars. It is total corruption.


----------



## bretton88

Speaking of corruption, we also all forget that the Talgos occurred because of a no bid contract the previous administration gave out along with some generous tax credits for Talgos factory. The whole thing was completely mishandled from start to finish.


----------



## Anderson

neroden said:


> Walker ran on a "kill the train, send the federal money elsewhere" PLATFORM. And he won! The voters eventually realized that electing a crook who hated Wisconsin was a mistake and voted him out. They also voted to throw the Republicans out of the legislature but gerrymandering has kept them in control. Totally corrupt...


He got two terms in office, which isn't exactly a bad record electorally-speaking, and he got booted amid rather negative sentiment towards the GOP by 1.1%. I don't think that qualifies as the voters having "eventually realized" anything; the voters gave him bigger margins in the '12 recall and '14 re-election than they did in '10.

Edit: To be fair, the recall was probably a strategic error on the Dems' part. I've noticed a general trend around the world that if an election's results are clear, trying to explicitly reverse them by other means later (even by an early election) doesn't go over too well.


----------



## toddinde

bretton88 said:


> Speaking of corruption, we also all forget that the Talgos occurred because of a no bid contract the previous administration gave out along with some generous tax credits for Talgos factory. The whole thing was completely mishandled from start to finish.


That’s a very misleading narrative. Talgo was part of an economic deal to bring Talgo’s North American manufacturing facility to Milwaukee and the former AO Smith manufacturing facility. It was quite a coup because, at that time, Talgos might have had an in for Midwest corridors, and were already wildly popular in the Northwest which might have landed that facility. Talgos were selected by Wisconsin because of their tilting capability. That is particularly important because they were intended for the Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison-Minneapolis corridor which has many miles of curves, particularly along the Mississippi River. It’s easy to just repeat fake, campaign spin, but the facts don’t support it.


----------



## jis

I was about to comment that just because a contract is "no bid" does not implicitly mean it is corrupt. One has to see the context around it. OTOH some contracts entered through lowest bidder have been spectacularly disastrous too.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Next Wednesday, Mr. Anderson steps down as CEO and works in an advisor role until the end of the year. I'm thinking he won't necessarily miss the job. At the end of the day, how will he be remembered?

Members of the private car industry need not reply.


----------



## Acela150

Thirdrail7 said:


> Next Wednesday, Mr. Anderson steps down as CEO and works in an advisor role until the end of the year. I'm thinking he won't necessarily miss the job. At the end of the day, how will he be remembered?
> 
> Members of the private car industry need not reply.



Well, let's be honest, he sure as all heck didn't win over any "buffs" or "advocates" with several of his decisions. I'll be honest, I'm one of them to an extent. But as Jis has mentioned, his orders came from the board. But with that being said he did make some good decisions as the boss. One of them was working on continuing to improve Amtrak's Safety Record. And his most recent "good move" was a simple one, doing everything that he can to prevent Furloughs for Unionized Employees during this CoronaVirus situation. In a post on Trains Magazines webpage Mr. Flynn joined in on a Employee Town Hall Call recently and stated that he is going to aim for no Furloughs. I give both of them credit for that. I really do. 

We shall see what will happen starting Next Wednesday.


----------



## Ryan

T-T-TRIPPPLE POST!!!


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Ryan said:


> T-T-TRIPPPLE POST!!!


But did he get his point across?


----------



## Acela150

Ryan said:


> T-T-TRIPPPLE POST!!!



For some odd reason AU was painfully slow for me for a period of 30 minutes and it just now got back to normal.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Acela150 said:


> For some odd reason AU was painfully slow for me for a period of 30 minutes and it just now got back to normal.


It caught a Virus!


----------



## railiner

I couldn't even log on to AU at about the time the post was made....I just gave up, and got back on this morning with no problem...


----------



## IndyLions

There’s a lot I didn’t like - but there are a few things he did ok. Seemed to get new equipment orders off dead center. We’ll see what happens there.


----------



## fdaley

Thirdrail7 said:


> Next Wednesday, Mr. Anderson steps down as CEO and works in an advisor role until the end of the year. I'm thinking he won't necessarily miss the job. At the end of the day, how will he be remembered?
> 
> Members of the private car industry need not reply.


He'll be remembered by me as the guy who killed dining service on all of the eastern overnight trains, thereby making it unlikely that I'll ride any of them again other than for short distances.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Good riddance to a Really Bad Fit Executive!!!


----------



## AmtrakBlue

fdaley said:


> He'll be remembered by me as the guy who killed dining service on all of the eastern overnight trains, thereby making it unlikely that I'll ride any of them again other than for short distances.


For the umpteenth time, CONGRESS killed dining service, not Anderson.


----------



## fdaley

AmtrakBlue said:


> For the umpteenth time, CONGRESS killed dining service, not Anderson.


Congress dictated that Amtrak should not lose money on food service, which is a boneheaded requirement that wasn't Anderson's fault. But Anderson chose to meet this requirement by implementing a service model that showed zero comprehension of what Amtrak's most loyal, high-revenue customers value about the experience of long-distance train travel. So, even before C-19, bookings were down as lots of us decided we would rather stay home than spend hundreds of dollars a night for a "first-class" experience that was anything but. 

Then there was the idea of a bus bridge to replace much of the Southwest Chief route. This was a leader who had no interest in or understanding of the service that much of his company was devoted to providing.


----------



## Qapla

Acela150 said:


> prevent Furloughs for Unionized Employees during this CoronaVirus situation



What about any non-unionized employees? They need their jobs, too.


----------



## Ziv

Now that Mica is not the Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and hasn't been for some time, what are the chances that a future funding bill for Amtrak could remove the requirement that dining cars pay for themselves? I have seen completely crazy stuff end up in Omnibus Acts, what are the chances that something positive could be done to reverse the "profitability" order? DeFazio is the new Chair, his district includes both Springfield and Eugene OR.
On edit: I just realized that I asked a very similar question less than a year ago, maybe without Anderson around the answer might be different?


----------



## toddinde

fdaley said:


> Congress dictated that Amtrak should not lose money on food service, which is a boneheaded requirement that wasn't Anderson's fault. But Anderson chose to meet this requirement by implementing a service model that showed zero comprehension of what Amtrak's most loyal, high-revenue customers value about the experience of long-distance train travel. So, even before C-19, bookings were down as lots of us decided we would rather stay home than spend hundreds of dollars a night for a "first-class" experience that was anything but.
> 
> Then there was the idea of a bus bridge to replace much of the Southwest Chief route. This was a leader who had no interest in or understanding of the service that much of his company was devoted to providing.


You summed it up very well. He didn’t understand the product, the politics, or the realities of the operation. Many of his decisions were union busting efforts like the dining cars and the call center outsourcing.


----------



## Ryan

fdaley said:


> But Anderson chose to meet this requirement by implementing a service model that showed zero comprehension of what Amtrak's most loyal, high-revenue customers value about the experience of long-distance train travel.



How would have you accomplished the same task?



fdaley said:


> So, even before C-19, bookings were down as lots of us decided we would rather stay home than spend hundreds of dollars a night for a "first-class" experience that was anything but.



A handful of angry people on the internet do not make for useable data.



fdaley said:


> Then there was the idea of a bus bridge to replace much of the Southwest Chief route.



The result of which was, what?



fdaley said:


> This was a leader who had no interest in or understanding of the service that much of his company was devoted to providing.



Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence.


----------

