# Fire Richard Anderson Campaign?



## Thirdrail7

According to the water cooler reports, "Save Amtrak, Fire Richard Anderson "billboards have appeared in Pennsylvania. I was told they were erected near Juniata. A search revealed a Fire Anderson billboards thread on TO, stating they may be around Philadelphia.

While I can't say I've seen pictures of the billboards (if they actually exist), I can confirm the same search revealed  a hat on Ebay with the same slogan.

Apparently, people wore them to Pennsylvania Railroad Technical and Historical Society Annual Meeting last week. That may involve the charter train that Amtrak declined to operate, which may explain things.

Personally, I don't think it will do much good. This is particularly true since he is following PRIIA's mandate. While there have been some hiccups and serious miscommunication, I'm not seeing the basis for the vitriol that has headed in his direction. I haven't really seen anything that should warrant termination, removal or even a serious change in his thinking. He is still working it out. We don't have a fully formed vision. While I believe he should have more time, I also believe the Board of Directors should chart a clear path for him to follow.

I considered putting this tidbit in the existing Richard Anderson CEO thread but figured this may be worthy of its own discussion. Naturally, the mods will make the final call and merge if necessary.


----------



## Ryan

I’ve seen photos of them on Facebook. Sitting at a traffic light so I can’t pull them down.


----------



## jis

I guess Bennett Levin is ticked off because of the cancellation of his E8 charter and is letting off steam by posting billboards on the property of Juniata which he controls. [emoji57]

Reminds me of the few dueling billboards that we have seen in the past.


----------



## Ryan

This link should be publicly visible.

https://www.facebook.com/philaprrths/photos/a.2033982830183655.1073741831.1428794407369170/2033983070183631/?type=3


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Luckily there is at least one pro-Anderson billboard to help counter the blowback.


----------



## cpotisch

I don't think Anderson should be fired, since a lot of the blame/credit for some of the recent changes isn't just for him. And I feel like a campaign like this, which wants the CEO kicked out altogether, really delegitimizes those of us who (somewhat) understand the challenges involved in maintaining quality of service and amenities in this climate. And even if a bunch of people really do feel like kicking out Anderson is the best choice, an angry roadside campaign most likely will get written of as just that, whereas a letter campaign or something like that can really let the people in power know what you want. Just my opinion.


----------



## MikeM

I'm not necessarily a fan of firing the Amtrak CEO, but the flip side is that there needs to be a price to be paid for attacking LD trains and curtailing services. So much of what I read consists of folks saying that the only way to support Amtrak is to keep riding and not make a fuss. I'm ready to make a fuss. And if LD trains go away, my letter writing in support for Amtrak goes away too, as I'm sure it will for the 47 other states that won't have fully paid Amtrak service. In the meantime, maybe some of the radical rock throwers will push Amtrak's management to try to make amends and work with stakeholders who use trains throughout the country.


----------



## Seaboard92

There are some of us who are all but out of work because of him. I have a bumper sticker on my car with Save Amtrak fire Anderson. And I'm not ashamed to say I have it.

It was designed by someone who just bought his first private car. And given to me by an Amtrak employee. I would love to see Anderson go but I also want to see Stephen Gardner go right along with him. Before the things I've heard are coming.


----------



## Thirdrail7

I'm wondering why people haven't turned their attention and wrath on the Board Of Directors.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Thirdrail7 said:


> I'm wondering why people haven't turned their attention and wrath on the Board Of Directors.


Because most of the rants are from people wearing “I hate airlines” blinders. They can only see the guy from the airlines.


----------



## MikefromCrete

This just proves that even a millionaire can act like a fifth grader at the playground, but I guess we already knew that.


----------



## Seaboard92

I've known that about Mr. Levin for quite sometime. So has most of the industry I'm afraid. This issue were having is coordinating an attack plan (probably not the best of phrases) in an industry that is used to attacking other members of it constantly. The reason we can't go after the Amtrak board is we can't get all 300 of us to agree on one thing.

Half of the industry doesn't even want to see Anderson fired. But now that the puppet master is upset something might just change. Personally I want rid of Gardner, then Anderson in that order.


----------



## jis

MikefromCrete said:


> This just proves that even a millionaire can act like a fifth grader at the playground, but I guess we already knew that.


Specially when his favorite ox is gored






When Boardman was around everyone was abuzz with how an experienced executive from the transportation industry would do wonders for Amtrak. As the Chinese proverb says ... well I guess I need to consult with Ivanka first to figure out what it says ... so hold on


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

One of my commuter friends (she heads to Philly from TRE and I go north) told me those signs are, indeed, there. On the left going southbound, just before the North Philadelphia station.

I'm going down in a few days and will look for them and let you know what I see.


----------



## jis

Isn't the Juniata property on the right of the Amtrak ROW when one is heading towards Philly? Or am I remembering wrong?


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

Well, she told me the signs were on the left going down there, but she might have been wrong.


----------



## PaTrainFan

It is far too early to think about firing a new CEO who was handed a great many issues and initiatives, including the changes to the dining car menus. Give the guy a chance to see what he can do. We all agree airlines have little in common with the rail industry other than moving people, and undoubtedly he has a steep learning curve but he "ain't" dumb and will figure it out. He has some harsh realities to confront. I, too, am at least a little alarmed at the thought of the national system being disrupted but the bottom line is even a Republican Congress is going to push back against trains being discontinued in their back yards. It's been mentioned earlier in another forum that Anderson didn't have to deal with politicians at Delta, and that is surely sinking in by now. Truth is, as painful as the dining car changes are to me, maybe something had to be done given the realities. This isn't 1955. We can just hope as they test and learn that there will be tweaks to enhance what they've started, and, who knows, maybe someday some semblance of the traditional service will return if the new service is deemed a failure. Like many here, though, I don't get the charter decision at all, but I may not fully understand the ramifications on daily Amtrak operations. But if it made a profit, then what's the issue? We'll all have to stay tuned.


----------



## VentureForth

Anderson is doing what's right for Amtrak and what he's mandated to do under the law. Yes, it'll **** most of us off. No one likes paying more for less. No one.

Most all of his station staffing cuts make sense.

His dining cuts make sense - but was poorly executed. I would like to have seen a new IG report to see if the waste addressed in the 2004(5?) report was fixed and what revenue was recovered. I'd like to see the 24-hour diner concept revitalized.

AGR sucks now, but it's closer to what the airlines do.

The Private Rail Car movement was also poorly executed but the right thing to do. Stop slowing down hundreds of passengers for the benefit of an elite few. Biggest problem here is that people don't all have their private varnish parked in a 30-minute dwell station.

Don't forget, many of the cuts that we're complaining about started before Anderson - the loss of flowers, linen table clothes, 2nd chef in the diner happened long ago.


----------



## pksundevil

VentureForth said:


> Anderson is doing what's right for Amtrak and what he's mandated to do under the law. Yes, it'll **** most of us off. No one likes paying more for less. No one.
> 
> Most all of his station staffing cuts make sense.
> 
> His dining cuts make sense - but was poorly executed. I would like to have seen a new IG report to see if the waste addressed in the 2004(5?) report was fixed and what revenue was recovered. I'd like to see the 24-hour diner concept revitalized.
> 
> AGR sucks now, but it's closer to what the airlines do.
> 
> The Private Rail Car movement was also poorly executed but the right thing to do. Stop slowing down hundreds of passengers for the benefit of an elite few. Biggest problem here is that people don't all have their private varnish parked in a 30-minute dwell station.
> 
> Don't forget, many of the cuts that we're complaining about started before Anderson - the loss of flowers, linen table clothes, 2nd chef in the diner happened long ago.


Bingo. Anderson was the best CEO in an industry (airlines) that was long considered the worst industry known to exist from a profitability standpoint. That industry has improved safety dramatically- it has a safety record that puts railroads to shame. It has improved customer service as measured by satisfaction. It's profitable now.

Amtrak has a ton of problems. Changes are needed. He needs to be given time.


----------



## chrsjrcj

My biggest issue with the Anderson administration is the straight up lies.

“We will not bus passengers between Klamath Falls and Eugene because it is an overnight trip.”

Um, no it is not. But they are okay bussing passengers between Seattle/Portland and Spokane, when they get into Spokane at 1 in the morning?

Then there is the SWC letter that completely twisted the true operating realities of the route to make it look worse.

I do not have much faith in someone whose previous railroad experience consisted of riding a train out of Galveston 50 years ago.


----------



## cpotisch

pksundevil said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson is doing what's right for Amtrak and what he's mandated to do under the law. Yes, it'll **** most of us off. No one likes paying more for less. No one.
> 
> Most all of his station staffing cuts make sense.
> 
> His dining cuts make sense - but was poorly executed. I would like to have seen a new IG report to see if the waste addressed in the 2004(5?) report was fixed and what revenue was recovered. I'd like to see the 24-hour diner concept revitalized.
> 
> AGR sucks now, but it's closer to what the airlines do.
> 
> The Private Rail Car movement was also poorly executed but the right thing to do. Stop slowing down hundreds of passengers for the benefit of an elite few. Biggest problem here is that people don't all have their private varnish parked in a 30-minute dwell station.
> 
> Don't forget, many of the cuts that we're complaining about started before Anderson - the loss of flowers, linen table clothes, 2nd chef in the diner happened long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo. Anderson was the best CEO in an industry (airlines) that was long considered the worst industry known to exist from a profitability standpoint.
Click to expand...

Really? I though that airlines usually make tremendous amounts of revenue?


----------



## chrsjrcj

One of parts of PRIIA tells Amtrak to generate extra revenue from running special trains. I wonder why Anderson gets to ignore that one?


----------



## jis

Making revenue is different from making a profit. You can make huge amounts of revenue and yet make huge losses.

Working in an organization that had P/L responsibilities, we were always looking for so called bad revenues to get rid of them. Bad revenues are revenues that do not cover their cost. They make sense only when they are part of a strategic move, and that too for a short period of time. Not forever. It is important to manage the granularity of projects correctly too, so for example while running passenger trains that require toilets and food service, you don not want to make toilet and food service separate profit centers, but manage the passenger operation as the profit center as a whole.

There were cases when we dropped pretty large customers because there was no hope of producing any good revenue from them.

It is all about the bottom line, not just revenue.


----------



## Seaboard92

What I want to see is what trains was Amtrak losing money on. It's been asked for by multiple people on my side of the industry and not answered. Of course there is a senator asking now. Maybe they can provide him a better answer this time than their last one that was "I don't know."


----------



## jis

Neroden has done some pretty good analysis of the incremental cost and revenue. However, that does not account for the common costs that are necessary to run any trains at all.

The two sides of that coin are:

1. If you kill a train those costs do not go away. They just get redistributed to the other trains thus making all of them look less attractive.

2. If you completely remove that common cost then you are unable to run any train effectively, so the entire edifice collapses.

The trick, and a pretty hard one at that, is to figure out how to minimize the common cost without losing the business on the one hand, and trying to get the incremental revenue minus the incremental cost of each (or at least the most number of) trains positive. On step to take is to try to account for actual costs for each train at as fine a per cost item granularity as possible, based on real numbers traceable unequivocally to the operation of the train using a capable inventory and work resource tracking system.

Taking a rolled up number and then trying to distribute it based on some arbitrary formula is at the root of a lot of the evil. In some cases that is all you can do, but at present many believe that due to the weakness of inventory and resource accounting systems used, Amtrak does too much of it, much more than for example airlines do - something that Anderson may actually be able to fix. And trust me, past experience suggests that if that is done effectively many traditional railroaders will be terribly upset about it, just like many traditional airline folks were upset about it when they were hit by such. A lot of sins and favorite oxen hide in those caves.





At least one major complications arises in this exercise when one has to take into consideration second and third order effects and cross elasticities to take into account the network effects. A number of trains together produce more than just the sum of trains, and how much more depends a lot on the quality of design of the network.

So even if someone can gussy up a number to satisfy some Senator’s demands, I am not sure that at the end of the day it will provide the right metric for doing anything. It really is more complicated than that, and that is the reason each time someone comes up with one of these simple minded numbers and tries to justify some action that does not quite pass the "taste test" I cringe. The greater danger in my mind is to be told "I know and this is it" while skating on thin ice, and basing decisions on such.


----------



## AmtrakFlyer

I wouldnt give Anderson THAT much credit at Delta. Sure he wasnt bad by any stretch but he was so so at NW post 9/11 before following the money to United Heatlhcare. At Delta he had record low fuel prices and a consolidated competitive enviroment when he left that allowed Delta to thrive not to mention realitively good labor relations. Delta was by default the industry leader when he arrived and he keep it going.


----------



## PVD

The people who would make this type of decision are the very people who hired him. Are people so naive as to believe that they did not know what they were getting, and that he isn't doing exactly what was expected of him (and desired by the board). Many of the changes, and in some case the way in which those changes have been implemented may have upset some people, but I'm not so sure the people in charge are actually bothered by that one bit.


----------



## IndyLions

The dining car issue is Congress’ fault not Anderson’s.

I don’t like a fair amount of what he’s doing. But I couldn’t agree with him more that the trains need to be safer, the cars need to be cleaner, the equipment needs to be better, and Amtrak needs to be relevant to the next generation, not just the previous generation.

And I’m closer in age to the previous generation than I am the next generation, by the way.


----------



## bretton88

My view on Anderson is he needs to get a new PR team. The changes he is making at Amtrak are changes that mostly needed to be made, but boy Amtrak has been terrible at getting the message out and making the logical case for the changes.


----------



## Chey

Few of the problems Anderson's had to address were created by him. Am I happy with all his solutions? No; he's been there how long? I'm going to give him more time.


----------



## Acela150

jis said:


> Isn't the Juniata property on the right of the Amtrak ROW when one is heading towards Philly? Or am I remembering wrong?


If one is headed to NYP it’s on the right hand side.


----------



## Thirdrail7

chrsjrcj said:


> One of parts of PRIIA tells Amtrak to generate extra revenue from running special trains. I wonder why Anderson gets to ignore that one?


There are plenty of charters operating.



PVD said:


> The people who would make this type of decision are the very people who hired him. Are people so naive as to believe that they did not know what they were getting, and that he isn't doing exactly what was expected of him (and desired by the board). Many of the changes, and in some case the way in which those changes have been implemented may have upset some people, but I'm not so sure the people in charge are actually bothered by that one bit.


I'm willing to bet board members are going to be bothered when legislators start discussing your antics and taking matters into their own hands.


----------



## LookingGlassTie

The fact that Anderson used to be the CEO of Delta is proving to be an albatross around his neck. Even if he were to return Amtrak to its glory days, people would still see that big scarlet "D" on his forehead.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Seaboard92 said:


> What I want to see is what trains was Amtrak losing money on. It's been asked for by multiple people on my side of the industry and not answered. Of course there is a senator asking now. Maybe they can provide him a better answer this time than their last one that was "I don't know."



"A Senator". All that proves is some selfish West Virginia Senator who only cares about West Virginians. Same thing about the ticket agent.

I'd like my AAA discount back but I guess no one in West Virginia has AAA so Manchin or the other Senator in WV doesn't care to fight to get it back. I'm sure the Cincinnati ticket agent and others aren't important enough for Manchin either. If I'm one of Ohio's Senators, I'm voting no on this Manchin bill unless that portion gets taken out.

I have nothing against the charter industry personally but realize that this is strictly a West Virginia/New River Train issue and I highly doubt he will help your business in any way (unless you're affiliated with the New River Train).


----------



## Thirdrail7

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> "A Senator". All that proves is some selfish West Virginia Senator who only cares about West Virginians. Same thing about the ticket agent.
> 
> I'd like my AAA discount back but I guess no one in West Virginia has AAA so Manchin or the other Senator in WV doesn't care to fight to get it back. I'm sure the Cincinnati ticket agent and others aren't important enough for Manchin either. If I'm one of Ohio's Senators, I'm voting no on this Manchin bill unless that portion gets taken out.
> 
> I have nothing against the charter industry personally but realize that this is strictly a West Virginia/New River Train issue and I highly doubt he will help your business in any way (unless you're affiliated with the New River Train).


Actually, it is more than West Virginia at this point. Texas, North Dakota and Montana have fired off letters (FWIW) and once again, you've missed the point. The Senators are looking out for the interests of their constituents.....which is exactly what they are supposed to do. If the legislators along the route of your favorite canceled train would have gotten involved, perhaps it would still operate. This is not to be taken lightly since this has the potential to represent four votes against things like Gateway, Portal, new engines and new equipment.

The charter industry impacts nationwide operations and brought in additional revenue to the company. While I agree that some of them were out in left field, what will fill the gap? The canceled Coast Starlight? The second Pennsylvanian that isn't operating? The numerous diverted trains that no longer operate into NYP, your busiest station? The Acela sets that are being overhauled and can't be used? The private cars that paid premium for being hauled, stored and repaired?


----------



## Seaboard92

Well the thing too about Senator Manchin he understands how a far off charter in Seattle directly affects his state. For instance the Leavenworth train this year was supposed to have both of our cars from Thanksgiving (when they would leave) to a week past New Years. Our cars rent for 2,000 dollars a day per car. So somewhat over 160,000 dollars will not be made by a West Virginia non profit if that train doesn't run. And that's not counting the paid staff fees for the riders (my position) to go out there and live for an entire month and a week.

Then you have trains like New River which bring in cars annually from Illinois, California, North Carolina, Ohio(now based in Chicago), New Jersey, Minnesota, and another state I forget (Missouri maybe). So something like new River actually does effect the nation.

Let's say hypothetically that 261 in Minnesota which maintains an immaculate fleet of cars can no longer run their train. Why should they keep maintaining the size of a fleet they have. Which would then cut down on cars available for new River and reduce capacity.

Next example let's say New River can't get their cars out which still remains true. We would no longer have to maintain those cars to Amtrak standard, and could cut our two paid managers who oversee the cars, and do most of the mechanical when I don't pitch in. So there goes a complete business from West Virginia and two west Virginians lose their jobs.

Manchin has demonstrated when he called Gardner to save the one position at CHW that he cares for each and every job. And he is willing to fight for the job. Which is why when you read the language that New River was instrumental in getting in the T-HUD bill that it mandates any station that had an agent in FY 2018 must have at least one agent.

Not only does that save CHW, but also CIN, Montana, and quite a few others. So Manchin has demonstrated he cares about not just his state by his language but about the national network as a whole. And he's been fighting one hell of a fight to keep New River open because if things don't change South Yard will close down permanently And New River Train will cease to exist.

Manchin doesn't want to lose the money CP Huntington contributes to his state via passengers traveling far and wide to ride the train contributing millions to local economies, West Virginia businesses lose out on repairs to the cars, and servicing New River, and he loses institutional knowledge if and when South Yard closes because both individuals there will bounce back and likely won't return to West Virginia.

Now maybe if Senator Casey and Toomey understood how much money the Broadway Limited contributed they would try and bring it back. But the difference between West Virginia and Pennsylvania is stark. West Virginia doesn't have a lot so every dollar counts. Whereas in Pennsylvania a rich industrial economy it really doesn't matter a whole lot.

I can also say that if South Yard shuts down both employees will land on their feet because I already know their plans. And honestly it's far better than what they've been doing in my honest opinion. But then again they gave me a decent position in the new organization.

The thing to remember is PV passengers and charter passengers are equally as much rail passengers because they are traveling on the rails. And don't think that charter people don't care about the rest of us. We've been the ones fighting for station agents to remain. And I can speak for New River were about to put a major fight for the national network as a whole.

But what can I say we're just elitists who want to ride away from the schmucks so why should we waste our time fighting to save station agents, dining car crews, and other things. Yet we do it anyway because PV people are not necessarily Coastal Elites.

Yes some are but a lot are nice normal people like you and me. And it's a stigma we need to break. Me personally I can't wait for Manchin's next announcement. That will be fun.....


----------



## MikefromCrete

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I want to see is what trains was Amtrak losing money on. It's been asked for by multiple people on my side of the industry and not answered. Of course there is a senator asking now. Maybe they can provide him a better answer this time than their last one that was "I don't know."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "A Senator". All that proves is some selfish West Virginia Senator who only cares about West Virginians. Same thing about the ticket agent.
> 
> I'd like my AAA discount back but I guess no one in West Virginia has AAA so Manchin or the other Senator in WV doesn't care to fight to get it back. I'm sure the Cincinnati ticket agent and others aren't important enough for Manchin either. If I'm one of Ohio's Senators, I'm voting no on this Manchin bill unless that portion gets taken out.
> 
> I have nothing against the charter industry personally but realize that this is strictly a West Virginia/New River Train issue and I highly doubt he will help your business in any way (unless you're affiliated with the New River Train).
Click to expand...

If your're one of Ohio's senators you should be making noise to get the Cincinnati agent back on the job. After all, that's the senator's job, to look after their constituents' interests.


----------



## Seaboard92

MikefromCrete said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I want to see is what trains was Amtrak losing money on. It's been asked for by multiple people on my side of the industry and not answered. Of course there is a senator asking now. Maybe they can provide him a better answer this time than their last one that was "I don't know."
> 
> 
> 
> "A Senator". All that proves is some selfish West Virginia Senator who only cares about West Virginians. Same thing about the ticket agent.
> 
> I'd like my AAA discount back but I guess no one in West Virginia has AAA so Manchin or the other Senator in WV doesn't care to fight to get it back. I'm sure the Cincinnati ticket agent and others aren't important enough for Manchin
> 
> either. If I'm one of Ohio's Senators, I'm voting no on this Manchin bill unless that portion gets taken out.
> 
> 
> 
> I have nothing against the charter industry personally but realize that this is strictly a West Virginia/New River Train issue and I highly doubt he will help your business in any way (unless you're affiliated with the New River Train).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your're one of Ohio's senators you should be making noise to get the Cincinnati agent back on the job. After all, that's the senator's job, to look after their constituents' interests.
Click to expand...

The city of Cincinnati offered to pay for the salary of all station employees and Amtrak turned it down. The local government was and still is very involved in what's going on at Cincinnati. Even though Senator Manchin in his rider in T-HUD is going to get the CIN agent back.


----------



## dlagrua

IndyLions said:


> The dining car issue is Congress’ fault not Anderson’s.


That is a true statement but true railroad people understand that *dining cars are put there to attract passengers into buying the highest priced accommodations*. AFAIK, this point has not been made to congress. We can only hope that LD business plunges so that the message is loud and clear. We will no longer ride to CHI on a 20-28 hr trip without fresh hot food. There must be other passengers who feel the same way. Remember if this effort is successful you can kiss goodbye to the dining service on the trains West from CHI as well..


----------



## GBNorman

I certainly have expressed around here that if I had occasion to go to the Coast, I'd be ringing up United Airlines. My last "transcon" was on the Chief during May 1991.

My Northward Auto-Train journeys are simply to save a net of 450 miles of driving and the possibility to see a long time friend who works at Quantico. I see friends along the Southward drive. Last two journeys I went to my Bedroom, chilled down in the sink a nice bottle of Viognier, asked for my "mystery meat" Dinner in my room, had both a Times and Journal with me, and otherwise never left my room until arrival at Lorton.

All of that speaks for how much a railfan I am nowadays; I "rode 'em all" during the '60's when they were worth riding.

All told, with maybe 2% of the population setting foot on any Amtrak train (my Sister, living in Greenwich CT, has never once set foot on such - my Nephews living in Brooklyn, have - in the Corridor and in Coach. We're they ever near the Snack Bar, who knows?), who cares away from sites like this, about on board amenities.

What the traveling public who would consider Amtrak largely reside along Corridors and all they want is a safe ride that arrives and departs "more or less" on time. While possibly the West Coast corridor trains meet that standard, the LD's and the Midwest Corridors certainly do not.

So, at such time I choose, or have it be chosen for me, to "keep the buggy in the barn" and make it to O'Hare for "a little sun", that will be the Adios for me and Auto Train.

All told, for the first time in its existence, Congress appears ready to fund Amtrak so that the matters of aging equipment and infrastructure are properly addressed. Mr. Anderson's primary task is to develop, direct and manage a team to ensure these Congressional objectives are met. Apparently they are willing to do so without maintaining and let alone expanding the LD system. Those who expect taxpayer funded Super Chief dining service (and who would be expected to dress accordingly), will be looking at a "sorry 'bout that".


----------



## AmtrakBlue

dlagrua said:


> IndyLions said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dining car issue is Congress’ fault not Anderson’s.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a true statement but true railroad people understand that *dining cars are put there to attract passengers into buying the highest priced accommodations*. AFAIK, this point has not been made to congress. We can only hope that LD business plunges so that the message is loud and clear. We will no longer ride to CHI on a 20-28 hr trip without fresh hot food. There must be other passengers who feel the same way. Remember if this effort is successful you can kiss goodbye to the dining service on the trains West from CHI as well..
Click to expand...

Looks like you took their bait.

I ride in sleepers for the flat bed, not for the meals included, though they are a bonus. I'm fine with taking my own food or buying it from the cafe car.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Seaboard92 said:


> Manchin has demonstrated when he called Gardner to save the one position at CHW that he cares for each and every job. And he is willing to fight for the job. Which is why when you read the language that New River was instrumental in getting in the T-HUD bill that it mandates any station that had an agent in FY 2018 must have at least one agent.
> 
> Not only does that save CHW, but also CIN, Montana, and quite a few others. So Manchin has demonstrated he cares about not just his state by his language but about the national network as a whole. And he's been fighting one hell of a fight to keep New River open because if things don't change South Yard will close down permanently And New River Train will cease to exist.


You might want to read the fine print again...

https://www.manchin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/manchin-secures-language-to-ensure-amtrak-ticket-agent-in-west-Virginia

"The Committee directs Amtrak to provide at least one station agent in every state where it operates that had at least one station agent in FY 2018, and reiterates its encouragement to improve public outreach prior to making customer service changes."

I underlined state for clarity.

Cincinnati would not qualify since Cleveland and Toledo still have ticket offices open.

Manchin can't flat out say he's only trying to save Charleston only but he had to figure out that there aren't that many other stations that this applies to so placing this language in makes it sound like he's being more unselfish than he actually is. In the future, it will certainly help smaller states than bigger states. It guarantees states like Montana and North Dakota will always have an agent no matter how few people they serve per day. You think California and Florida are worried about a ticket agent? They will always have the business to have multiple agents.


----------



## Seaboard92

Either way what has senator Casey or Senator Tooney done for Your pet train? Point of the matter in this new environment all trains matter be it private cars, be it charters, be it the cardinal, and to some extent the Acela. And if we as advocates can't fight for all aspects of the trains we love. Then we won't have any train to love. Hence New River fought hard to save the Charleston Station agent, and they are fighting hard on other national network issues. We're in this fight with you but are you in it with us?


----------



## dlagrua

AmtrakBlue said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndyLions said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dining car issue is Congress’ fault not Anderson’s.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a true statement but true railroad people understand that *dining cars are put there to attract passengers into buying the highest priced accommodations*. AFAIK, this point has not been made to congress. We can only hope that LD business plunges so that the message is loud and clear. We will no longer ride to CHI on a 20-28 hr trip without fresh hot food. There must be other passengers who feel the same way. Remember if this effort is successful you can kiss goodbye to the dining service on the trains West from CHI as well..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looks like you took their bait.
> 
> I ride in sleepers for the flat bed, not for the meals included, though they are a bonus. I'm fine with taking my own food or buying it from the cafe car.
Click to expand...

Everyone's idea of comfort is different. If people like eating an unhealthy high salt box lunch with loads of chemical additives they are certainly entitled to do so. We will spend our money elsewhere and enjoy a full dinner on the road. As for bait. IMO the bait is to see if ridership still stays strong on the CL and LSL. If it does then the Western trains are next. The issue of laying off good people is also a concern but certain people don't care about that. .


----------



## AmtrakBlue

dlagrua said:


> AmtrakBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndyLions said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dining car issue is Congress’ fault not Anderson’s.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a true statement but true railroad people understand that *dining cars are put there to attract passengers into buying the highest priced accommodations*. AFAIK, this point has not been made to congress. We can only hope that LD business plunges so that the message is loud and clear. We will no longer ride to CHI on a 20-28 hr trip without fresh hot food. There must be other passengers who feel the same way. Remember if this effort is successful you can kiss goodbye to the dining service on the trains West from CHI as well..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looks like you took their bait.
> 
> I ride in sleepers for the flat bed, not for the meals included, though they are a bonus. I'm fine with taking my own food or buying it from the cafe car.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone's idea of comfort is different. If people like eating an unhealthy high salt box lunch with loads of chemical additives they are certainly entitled to do so. We will spend our money elsewhere and enjoy a full dinner on the road. As for bait. IMO the bait is to see if ridership still stays strong on the CL and LSL. If it does then the Western trains are next. The issue of *laying off good people is also a concern but certain people don't care about that. .*
Click to expand...

You keep bringing up the laying off of people. You do realize that employees get laid off everyday, don't you? I've been laid off quite a few times in my life time and I've survived. It's a fact of life, not something that only happens to Amtrak employees.

And did I say I was happy with the box lunch/dinner? No, I did not. Did I say I like eating high salt foods with chemical additives. No, I did not. I said I'm ok with bringing my own food or buying food in the cafe.

I do not speak for everyone, so you should not assume EVERYONE does what I do.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Seaboard92 said:


> Either way what has senator Casey or Senator Tooney done for Your pet train? Point of the matter in this new environment all trains matter be it private cars, be it charters, be it the cardinal, and to some extent the Acela. And if we as advocates can't fight for all aspects of the trains we love. Then we won't have any train to love. Hence New River fought hard to save the Charleston Station agent, and they are fighting hard on other national network issues. We're in this fight with you but are you in it with us?


I hardly believe the Charleston Station agent nor other station agents in most stations in places I've never heard of are "national network issues". I forget the actual statistic but most tickets are handled online these days and a lot of stops don't have agents already. Cutting agents is a cost cutting move just like the AAA discount. I don't like it but I get it. Spending money on a ticket agent takes money away which could be used elsewhere. Amtrak is only given a certain amount of money a year. I want it used to better benefit the country, not just West Virginia. Does it have to be Philadelphia? Not necessarily. But I think it should be proportionally based on population and right now it does seem to be IMO disproportionally given to benefit rural population more and Amtrak were to truly benefit that needs to change.

I'm not sure if Anderson's delivery is the best but he might get the idea of Amtrak being a taxpayer burden and is trying to reduce the burden on the American taxpayer.


----------



## tricia

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either way what has senator Casey or Senator Tooney done for Your pet train? Point of the matter in this new environment all trains matter be it private cars, be it charters, be it the cardinal, and to some extent the Acela. And if we as advocates can't fight for all aspects of the trains we love. Then we won't have any train to love. Hence New River fought hard to save the Charleston Station agent, and they are fighting hard on other national network issues. We're in this fight with you but are you in it with us?
> 
> 
> 
> I hardly believe the Charleston Station agent nor other station agents in most stations in places I've never heard of are "national network issues". I forget the actual statistic but most tickets are handled online these days and a lot of stops don't have agents already. Cutting agents is a cost cutting move just like the AAA discount. I don't like it but I get it. Spending money on a ticket agent takes money away which could be used elsewhere. Amtrak is only given a certain amount of money a year. I want it used to better benefit the country, not just West Virginia. Does it have to be Philadelphia? Not necessarily. But I think it should be proportionally based on population and right now it does seem to be IMO disproportionally given to benefit rural population more and Amtrak were to truly benefit that needs to change.
> 
> I'm not sure if Anderson's delivery is the best but he might get the idea of Amtrak being a taxpayer burden and is trying to reduce the burden on the American taxpayer.
Click to expand...

US citizens are citizens of the entire United States, not just their local municipality. Why shouldn't our national government maintain infrastructure that enables us to travel throughout our entire country? Likewise, all of us have an interest in maintaining infrastructure that supports a functioning economy across the entire nation. Amtrak routes through sparsely populated areas benefit ALL of us, just as the national highway system does.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

Philly,

I truly don't understand how you and I can live in a similar area and have such different perceptions/reactions to the same situation. I perceive everything as being given to the rich, crowded, and often rude Northeast Corridor, with the rural areas getting scraps and having to beg for those. And West Virginia seems to me to be one of the eastern states that is a true treasure, with its incredible scenery, and should be promoted, not scorned. I love Philadelphia, too--it is my favorite local getaway city--but don't see why, for example, the east coast gets a bunch of trains, including Acelas, and still wants to starve the rest of the country of LD trains.


----------



## frequentflyer

Fire Mr Anderson and replace him with who? Another yes man bureaucrat not wanting to rock the boat?

This is about wanting Amtrak to be the way it has always been or moving it in a new direction. One can be for either and that's fine, its your prerogative and change can be unsettling, but at least admit it .


----------



## Seaboard92

Personally I want to replace him with Cindy Sandborn formerly of CSX now Union Pacific. She's grown up in railroading, she understands railroading, and she understands amtraks unique needs.


----------



## cpotisch

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either way what has senator Casey or Senator Tooney done for Your pet train? Point of the matter in this new environment all trains matter be it private cars, be it charters, be it the cardinal, and to some extent the Acela. And if we as advocates can't fight for all aspects of the trains we love. Then we won't have any train to love. Hence New River fought hard to save the Charleston Station agent, and they are fighting hard on other national network issues. We're in this fight with you but are you in it with us?
> 
> 
> 
> I hardly believe the Charleston Station agent nor other station agents in most stations in places I've never heard of are "national network issues". I forget the actual statistic but most tickets are handled online these days and a lot of stops don't have agents already. Cutting agents is a cost cutting move just like the AAA discount. I don't like it but I get it. Spending money on a ticket agent takes money away which could be used elsewhere. Amtrak is only given a certain amount of money a year. I want it used to better benefit the country, not just West Virginia. Does it have to be Philadelphia? Not necessarily. But I think it should be proportionally based on population and right now it does seem to be IMO disproportionally given to benefit rural population more and Amtrak were to truly benefit that needs to change.
> 
> I'm not sure if Anderson's delivery is the best but he might get the idea of Amtrak being a taxpayer burden and is trying to reduce the burden on the American taxpayer.
Click to expand...

Why is it that you feel that West Virginia does not deserve a station agent, or even a train at all?

You know how many departures each station in West Virginia gets in a week? Six. You know how many Amtrak departures Philadelphia gets each day? 108. But still you complain that your hometown doesn't have daily non-stop service to Chicago, and that the thrice-weekly train which does offer you non-stop service, should get the ax.

As Tricia said, West Virginia is part of the United States, so how can you say that you're not benefiting the nation by giving it a station agent? Under your logic that by Amtrak spending money on something that benefits locals, they are wasting funds and failing to benefit the country as a whole, then any money spent on any local service must be a waste, be it Charleston or New York City.

Tell me this: If you lived in WV, and had to put up with train service from one train that serves your town three days a week in each direction, what would be your opinion of someone whose town gets more than 750 Amtrak departures a week (not even including SEPTA or NJT), but wants you to lose train service altogether, just so that they can get a faster one seat ride to Chicago? I think I'll leave it at that.


----------



## KmH

dlagrua said:


> That is a true statement but true railroad people understand that *dining cars are put there to attract passengers into buying the highest priced accommodations*. . . We will no longer ride to CHI on a 20-28 hr trip without fresh hot food. There must be other passengers who feel the same way.


These days sleeper passengers only account for some 16% of LD train riders, and the average age of a sleeper pax is 61. The other 84% are in coach or business.

With some 5x as many coach riders it seems the math works out that Amtrak makes as much revenue, if not a little more, from coach passengers and what they spend in the SSL café and dining car.

A superliner sleeper car has 21 sleeper rooms. Since the sleeper cost is not connected to how many people occupy a sleeper berth, Amtrak makes out somewhat dollar wise if just 1 person occupies a sleeper because they then provide just meals for 1, not 2 per roomette/H-room, 3 per Bedroom or 4 per Family room.

It's been noted before that_ *even sold out*_ sleeper cars in the consist of a LD train cost more to operate than the revenue they generate.

Other than eggs and steak you haven't been getting "fresh" food in a lot of years.

No doubt some passengers will feel the same way, but Amtrak has been reducing amenities and services for quite a few years. Some passengers have stopped riding Amtrak because of those changes, but ridership continues to increase (25% since 2006) making it hard to suggest that Amtrak is on the wrong track (pun intended) regards fine tuning the Amtrak sleeper experience so it is more contemporary and maybe more appealing to a younger demographic.

Source of Amtrak LD train numbers: https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/businessplanning/Amtrak-Five-Year-Service-Plans-FY18-FY23.pdf


----------



## AmtrakBlue

KmH said:


> No doubt some passengers will feel the same way, but Amtrak has been reducing amenities and services for quite a few years. *Some passengers have stopped riding Amtrak because of those change*s, but ridership continues to increase (25% since 2006) making it hard to suggest that Amtrak is on the wrong track (pun intended) regards fine tuning the Amtrak sleeper experience so it is more contemporary and maybe more appealing to a younger demographic.


And some keep threatening to stop riding...but they're still riding and threatening....


----------



## Devil's Advocate

KmH said:


> No doubt some passengers will feel the same way, but Amtrak has been reducing amenities and services for quite a few years. Some passengers have stopped riding Amtrak because of those changes, but ridership continues to increase (25% since 2006) making it hard to suggest that Amtrak is on the wrong track (pun intended) regards fine tuning the Amtrak sleeper experience so it is more contemporary and maybe more appealing to a younger demographic.


So by reducing services, cutting amenities, and raising prices Amtrak is making the sleeper experience more appealing to a generation that has less disposable income, higher debt burdens, and fewer opportunities for luxury travel? Please tell me more.



AmtrakBlue said:


> And some keep threatening to stop riding...but they're still riding and threatening.


While others repeatedly claim they support every price increase and service cutback...even though they never seem to have any actual long distance sleeper trips to talk about.


----------



## tommylicious

Happy to sign a recall petition


----------



## seat38a

Seaboard92 said:


> Personally I want to replace him with Cindy Sandborn formerly of CSX now Union Pacific. She's grown up in railroading, she understands railroading, and she understands amtraks unique needs.


Has Cindy shown any interest in the job? Last I checked, taking unwilling people and throwing them in a job that they don't want is a NO NO.


----------



## Thirdrail7

seat38a said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I want to replace him with Cindy Sandborn formerly of CSX now Union Pacific. She's grown up in railroading, she understands railroading, and she understands amtraks unique needs.
> 
> 
> 
> Has Cindy shown any interest in the job? Last I checked, taking unwilling people and throwing them in a job that they don't want is a NO NO.
Click to expand...


Cindy was one of the people that expressed zero interest in the job. It is hard to find a railroader with interest and maybe that is the real problem that needs to be addressed.


----------



## frequentflyer

Still waiting for this mythical CEO that's "wants" to work for Amtrak.


----------



## Seaboard92

Well the other person I want as CEO is Thirdrail7 but I doubt he has the interest in doing it.

But I would accept Brian Ghallanger Boardmans right hand man. At least he's come from the crafts and understands how a railroad works. And being Boardmans right hand man probably understands how the CEO job works as well.


----------



## PRR 60

Seaboard92 said:


> Well the other person I want as CEO is Thirdrail7 but I doubt he has the interest in doing it.
> 
> But I would accept Brian Ghallanger Boardmans right hand man. At least he's come from the crafts and understands how a railroad works. And *being Boardmans right hand man probably understands how the CEO job works as well*.


That's debatable.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

frequentflyer said:


> Still waiting for this mythical CEO that's "wants" to work for Amtrak.


I am available...


----------



## railiner

I met Brian Gallagher a couple of years ago, aboard the Autumn Express...he impressed me as a great, down-to-earth kind of guy, but I can't say if he would fit all the requirements of being the CEO.

One thing for sure...special trains would continue on....





Anyone know what he is doing now?


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

I think we should all run it. I could oversee coffee and breakfast in the sleepers. Coffee pot (1) working, and (2) on all day. South Jersey diner-style breakfast for all, with lots of eggs and potatoes, starting with a full dining car in the precious little Cardinal....





The rest (like actually moving the trains) will be up to the rest of you



.


----------



## niemi24s

KmH said:


> Source of Amtrak LD train numbers: https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/businessplanning/Amtrak-Five-Year-Service-Plans-FY18-FY23.pdf


I've just got to wonder about some of those numbers, such as these from Page 66 of that linked document:




Average sleeper pax income is $102,000? Uh. . . . I've a hunch some bean counter pulled that one and some others out of his BVD's!


----------



## AmtrakFlyer

The numbers are all pulled out of no where or at best skewed. Income, birthdate, reason for travel arent asked to the masses. Id be interested to know how many people get or fill out the emailed trip review surveys. The 84 percent coach riders stat make it sound like no one rides in the sleepers and is hugely skewed. Gives Anderson misleading ammunition to break up the LD trains. Of course if your only riding 2-8 hours most people will ride in coach. A better stat would be coach brings in _%revenue and sleepers bring in _% revenue. Or trips over 12 hours coach %vs sleepers %.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

If they truly think that 92 percent of both coach and sleeper passengers are not traveling on business, and that most of us are over 50, then say goodbye to the trains for sure, except for the northeast. My impression is that Amtrak does not care about older passengers or leisure passengers--it just wants young and rich, traveling for business.


----------



## tricia

Mystic River Dragon said:


> If they truly think that 92 percent of both coach and sleeper passengers are not traveling on business, and that most of us are over 50, then say goodbye to the trains for sure, except for the northeast. My impression is that Amtrak does not care about older passengers or leisure passengers--it just wants young and rich, traveling for business.




I don't know if that's what Amtrak wants, but they're certainly not going to get it without much more reliable schedules, better connectivity, additional frequencies, and perhaps additional routes as well.


----------



## Seaboard92

railiner said:


> I met Brian Gallagher a couple of years ago, aboard the Autumn Express...he impressed me as a great, down-to-earth kind of guy, but I can't say if he would fit all the requirements of being the CEO.
> 
> One thing for sure...special trains would continue on....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone know what he is doing now?


He's currently an engineer again out of Albany. And I might add one of the ones with better train handling skills.



Mystic River Dragon said:


> I think we should all run it. I could oversee coffee and breakfast in the sleepers. Coffee pot (1) working, and (2) on all day. South Jersey diner-style breakfast for all, with lots of eggs and potatoes, starting with a full dining car in the precious little Cardinal....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rest (like actually moving the trains) will be up to the rest of you
> 
> 
> 
> .


I'm more than happy to take over charters, and special operations. Then were guaranteed charter trains will return and likely be more numerous then before.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

AmtrakFlyer said:


> The numbers are all pulled out of no where or at best skewed. Income, birthdate, reason for travel arent asked to the masses. Id be interested to know how many people get or fill out the emailed trip review surveys. The 84 percent coach riders stat make it sound like no one rides in the sleepers and is hugely skewed. Gives Anderson misleading ammunition to break up the LD trains. Of course if your only riding 2-8 hours most people will ride in coach. A better stat would be coach brings in _%revenue and sleepers bring in _% revenue. Or trips over 12 hours coach %vs sleepers %.


Silver Meteor: https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3459/19.pdf

Revenue from Coach: 300,151 * $ 83.00 = $24,912,533

Revenue from Sleeper: 41,255 * $291.00 = $12,005,205 

They make twice as much revenue from coach fares (not counting the food that coach passengers have to buy vs. the sleeper fares that include food).

The top city pair on the SM is NYP-ORL. MIA-NYP and ORL-WAS are 3rd and 4th, respectively. All three are overnight. (NYP-Richmond is #2). Still, almost 88% of the passengers on the SM are coach. If you look at trips over 1000 miles (which include NYP-ORL and MIA-NYP), a large majority of those trips are in coach as are a large majority of trips 900-999 miles (which include ORL-WAS).

It's a slightly different story on the California Zephyr (https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3440/27.pdf ). For trips between 1000-1499 miles (including CHI-DEN), more passengers ride coach. But for trips over 2000 miles (including CHI-EMY), more passengers ride sleeper (from my eyes it looks like 1/3 ride coach). Overall, about 79% of CZ passengers ride coach and revenue still is about 2 to 1 in favor of coach. For the SWC (https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3439/28.pdf ), it looks about 50-50 coach to sleeper for trips 2000+ miles and a little more in favor of coach.


----------



## Seaboard92

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> AmtrakFlyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers are all pulled out of no where or at best skewed. Income, birthdate, reason for travel arent asked to the masses. Id be interested to know how many people get or fill out the emailed trip review surveys. The 84 percent coach riders stat make it sound like no one rides in the sleepers and is hugely skewed. Gives Anderson misleading ammunition to break up the LD trains. Of course if your only riding 2-8 hours most people will ride in coach. A better stat would be coach brings in _%revenue and sleepers bring in _% revenue. Or trips over 12 hours coach %vs sleepers %.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Meteor:
> 
> 
> https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3459/19.pdf
> Revenue from Coach: 300,151 * $ 83.00 = $24,912,533
> 
> Revenue from Sleeper: 41,255 * $291.00 = $12,005,205
> 
> They make twice as much revenue from coach fares (not counting the food that coach passengers have to buy vs. the sleeper fares that include food).
> 
> The top city pair on the SM is NYP-ORL. MIA-NYP and ORL-WAS are 3rd and 4th, respectively. All three are overnight. (NYP-Richmond is #2). Still, almost 88% of the passengers on the SM are coach. If you look at trips over 1000 miles (which include NYP-ORL and MIA-NYP), a large majority of those trips are in coach as are a large majority of trips 900-999 miles (which include ORL-WAS).
> 
> It's a slightly different story on the California Zephyr (https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3440/27.pdf ). For trips between 1000-1499 miles (including CHI-DEN), more passengers ride coach. But for trips over 2000 miles (including CHI-EMY), more passengers ride sleeper (from my eyes it looks like 1/3 ride coach). Overall, about 79% of CZ passengers ride coach and revenue still is about 2 to 1 in favor of coach. For the SWC (https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3439/28.pdf ), it looks about 50-50 coach to sleeper for trips 2000+ miles and a little more in favor of coach.
Click to expand...

And your point would be? It sounds to me like you are in favor of eliminating sleepers and having all coach trains. In which we will have to disagree on that. I only travel sleeper when it's an option.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Seaboard92 said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmtrakFlyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers are all pulled out of no where or at best skewed. Income, birthdate, reason for travel arent asked to the masses. Id be interested to know how many people get or fill out the emailed trip review surveys. The 84 percent coach riders stat make it sound like no one rides in the sleepers and is hugely skewed. Gives Anderson misleading ammunition to break up the LD trains. Of course if your only riding 2-8 hours most people will ride in coach. A better stat would be coach brings in _%revenue and sleepers bring in _% revenue. Or trips over 12 hours coach %vs sleepers %.
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Meteor:
> 
> https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3459/19.pdf
> Revenue from Coach: 300,151 * $ 83.00 = $24,912,533
> 
> Revenue from Sleeper: 41,255 * $291.00 = $12,005,205
> 
> They make twice as much revenue from coach fares (not counting the food that coach passengers have to buy vs. the sleeper fares that include food).
> 
> The top city pair on the SM is NYP-ORL. MIA-NYP and ORL-WAS are 3rd and 4th, respectively. All three are overnight. (NYP-Richmond is #2). Still, almost 88% of the passengers on the SM are coach. If you look at trips over 1000 miles (which include NYP-ORL and MIA-NYP), a large majority of those trips are in coach as are a large majority of trips 900-999 miles (which include ORL-WAS).
> 
> It's a slightly different story on the California Zephyr (https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3440/27.pdf ). For trips between 1000-1499 miles (including CHI-DEN), more passengers ride coach. But for trips over 2000 miles (including CHI-EMY), more passengers ride sleeper (from my eyes it looks like 1/3 ride coach). Overall, about 79% of CZ passengers ride coach and revenue still is about 2 to 1 in favor of coach. For the SWC (https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3439/28.pdf ), it looks about 50-50 coach to sleeper for trips 2000+ miles and a little more in favor of coach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point would be? It sounds to me like you are in favor of eliminating sleepers and having all coach trains. In which we will have to disagree on that. I only travel sleeper when it's an option.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far but I was disproving the notion that true overnight LD travel is sleeper only. I have taken a lot of overnight LD travel and I have never taken a sleeper before. For a single passenger, unless you are part of AGR or some other plan, you are paying 2-3X as much for a "bed" and "meals".


----------



## cpotisch

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmtrakFlyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers are all pulled out of no where or at best skewed. Income, birthdate, reason for travel arent asked to the masses. Id be interested to know how many people get or fill out the emailed trip review surveys. The 84 percent coach riders stat make it sound like no one rides in the sleepers and is hugely skewed. Gives Anderson misleading ammunition to break up the LD trains. Of course if your only riding 2-8 hours most people will ride in coach. A better stat would be coach brings in _%revenue and sleepers bring in _% revenue. Or trips over 12 hours coach %vs sleepers %.
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Meteor:
> 
> https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3459/19.pdf
> Revenue from Coach: 300,151 * $ 83.00 = $24,912,533
> 
> Revenue from Sleeper: 41,255 * $291.00 = $12,005,205
> 
> They make twice as much revenue from coach fares (not counting the food that coach passengers have to buy vs. the sleeper fares that include food).
> 
> The top city pair on the SM is NYP-ORL. MIA-NYP and ORL-WAS are 3rd and 4th, respectively. All three are overnight. (NYP-Richmond is #2). Still, almost 88% of the passengers on the SM are coach. If you look at trips over 1000 miles (which include NYP-ORL and MIA-NYP), a large majority of those trips are in coach as are a large majority of trips 900-999 miles (which include ORL-WAS).
> 
> It's a slightly different story on the California Zephyr (https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3440/27.pdf ). For trips between 1000-1499 miles (including CHI-DEN), more passengers ride coach. But for trips over 2000 miles (including CHI-EMY), more passengers ride sleeper (from my eyes it looks like 1/3 ride coach). Overall, about 79% of CZ passengers ride coach and revenue still is about 2 to 1 in favor of coach. For the SWC (https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3439/28.pdf ), it looks about 50-50 coach to sleeper for trips 2000+ miles and a little more in favor of coach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point would be? It sounds to me like you are in favor of eliminating sleepers and having all coach trains. In which we will have to disagree on that. I only travel sleeper when it's an option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are paying 2-3X as much for a "bed" and "meals".
Click to expand...

You're not paying 2-3X as much for just a bed and meals (also I don't know why you put those words in quotes). You get privacy, the ability to shower, complimentary coffee and refreshments, your own thermostat, etc. You're pretty much dead on about the, but you definitely get a lot more than just a bed and some food.


----------



## tricia

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> AmtrakFlyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers are all pulled out of no where or at best skewed. Income, birthdate, reason for travel arent asked to the masses. Id be interested to know how many people get or fill out the emailed trip review surveys. The 84 percent coach riders stat make it sound like no one rides in the sleepers and is hugely skewed. Gives Anderson misleading ammunition to break up the LD trains. Of course if your only riding 2-8 hours most people will ride in coach. A better stat would be coach brings in _%revenue and sleepers bring in _% revenue. Or trips over 12 hours coach %vs sleepers %.
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Meteor: https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3459/19.pdf
> 
> Revenue from Coach: 300,151 * $ 83.00 = $24,912,533
> 
> Revenue from Sleeper: 41,255 * $291.00 = $12,005,205
Click to expand...


Another way of looking at this is each sleeper passenger generates 3.5 times as much revenue as a coach passenger.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

A basic reason for a sleeper for me is that I am traveling alone. I do not want to sit (or sleep) next to a total stranger all night. At best, I would feel uncomfortable; at worst, afraid if the person acted odd. The other reason is that the bathrooms in coach after a few hours are disgusting.

Looking again at the chart, I don't know where they think that sleeper passengers make an average of $102,000 a year. For many of us, taking a sleeper is something we have saved up for. I can travel by train because I do not spend money on a car, smartphone, TV, designer clothes, or much else, and I save up for my trips.

Someone making that much money probably would not be taking Amtrak LD. They would be in Prestige Class on the Canadian, or they would take a repositioning cruise from one coast to the other, or they would fly first-class wherever they wanted to.

Back to the Fire Anderson signs--I did see them as we came toward North Philadelphia (my SEPTA train was crawling along because of Amtrak signal problems, so I had plenty of time to take them in). I know nothing about the person who put them up, but I'm not sure where they are is the best place for them to be taken seriously. The building doesn't look all that fancy, and it is in an unattractive area. But the worst part is that there were four really sad-looking train cars that had graffiti all over them and looked like they had been abandoned. I do give the person credit for trying, but don't think they are any threat to Anderson--it is certainly silly if he gets his legal team to fight them--it's not like it's running every few minutes on the new electronic billboards on Market Street where a lot of people would notice.


----------



## cpotisch

Mystic River Dragon said:


> Looking again at the chart, I don't know where they think that sleeper passengers make an average of $102,000 a year. For many of us, taking a sleeper is something we have saved up for.


Yeah, that part really did surprise me. We can't afford to take a sleeper more than two or three times a year - it's something you save for and splurge on. Whatever. People can derive pretty much whatever numbers they want to see from surveys and studies.


----------



## Chey

Mystic River Dragon said:


> Yeah, that part really did surprise me. We can't afford to take a sleeper more than two or three times a year - it's something you save for and splurge on. Whatever. People can derive pretty much whatever numbers they want to see from surveys and studies.


Same - I have to make sacrifices to be able to afford it but for me there is no other way. I don't come close to that income bracket!


----------



## jis

Without some idea of what the Median is, an Average does not convey as much information as many ascribe to it though.


----------



## railiner

Seaboard92 said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> I met Brian Gallagher a couple of years ago, aboard the Autumn Express...he impressed me as a great, down-to-earth kind of guy, but I can't say if he would fit all the requirements of being the CEO.
> 
> One thing for sure...special trains would continue on....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone know what he is doing now?
> 
> 
> 
> He's currently an engineer again out of Albany. And I might add one of the ones with better train handling skills.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

It always pays to keep your union dues current...no matter how far you may go in management...


----------



## Seaboard92

Mystic River Dragon said:


> A basic reason for a sleeper for me is that I am traveling alone. I do not want to sit (or sleep) next to a total stranger all night. At best, I would feel uncomfortable; at worst, afraid if the person acted odd. The other reason is that the bathrooms in coach after a few hours are disgusting.
> 
> Looking again at the chart, I don't know where they think that sleeper passengers make an average of $102,000 a year. For many of us, taking a sleeper is something we have saved up for. I can travel by train because I do not spend money on a car, smartphone, TV, designer clothes, or much else, and I save up for my trips.
> 
> Someone making that much money probably would not be taking Amtrak LD. They would be in Prestige Class on the Canadian, or they would take a repositioning cruise from one coast to the other, or they would fly first-class wherever they wanted to.
> 
> Back to the Fire Anderson signs--I did see them as we came toward North Philadelphia (my SEPTA train was crawling along because of Amtrak signal problems, so I had plenty of time to take them in). I know nothing about the person who put them up, but I'm not sure where they are is the best place for them to be taken seriously. The building doesn't look all that fancy, and it is in an unattractive area. But the worst part is that there were four really sad-looking train cars that had graffiti all over them and looked like they had been abandoned. I do give the person credit for trying, but don't think they are any threat to Anderson--it is certainly silly if he gets his legal team to fight them--it's not like it's running every few minutes on the new electronic billboards on Market Street where a lot of people would notice.


I actually know the character of the person who did it. Quite a few of us call him the puppet master because he's the one who runs the PV industry. In the past when Amtrak had threatened ending the industry in the past. He talked them out of it and was able to get us a reasonable tariff. So a good portion of the industry is indebted to him and does as he wishes. And he doesn't tend to like those of us who blaze our own trails.

He's done some great things like his Liberty Limited excursion train that carried troops from Bethesda and Walter Reed to the Army Navy game in Philadelphia. He also has maintained three passenger cars and two historic E 8 locomotives. One of his cars carried Senator Robert F Kennedy's body after his assassination.

The equipment you see outside the facility isn't for rebuild. It's actually all for parts to maintain the other cars and locomotives. So none of that junk will ever run but all of them have pieces to maintain the other cars.

Personally I am not a super large fan of him because of the stuff he has done to my friends in the industry he doesn't like. And for some of his antics. Even though I don't like him I do respect him and he's always been nice to me.

Now do I think this was a good move for the industry no. I think Gardner and Anderson will see this as a threat and they will take action against us for it. So we shall see what our next punishment from those two idiots are. They've already taken away open vestibules and open platforms because some railroad executives from P&W and Metro North rode a PV open platform on the back of a Regional.

So it'll be interesting to see what the retaliation will be from those two. Even though I think Bennet has some serious power on the hill so he might be able to accomplish his goal of a federal charter insurance program so we can cut Amtrak out of the charter equation. And just charter direct from freight railroads. It's obvious to me that both Anderson and Gardner do not care who they anger and run off.

The current list of groups Anderson and Gardner have attacked.

-AAA

-Veterans

-students

-labor

-PV owners

-charter operators

-long distance passengers on the LSL, CL

-all passengers with the new refund policy.

-sleeper passengers

Did I forget anyone?


----------



## Ryan

As a veteran, I didn’t feel attacked in the least when he ended the for pay discount system that allowed a private group to sell Amtrak discounts that didn’t share that revenue with Amtrak.

I believe that they’re working on a real veteran’s discount that doesn’t require me to pay a random third party to qualify for. If that comes to pass, it’s a net win.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

I don’t feel like I’ve been attacked and I’m in a few of those categories.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

AmtrakBlue said:


> I don’t feel like I’ve been attacked and I’m in a few of those categories.


Attacked is a strong word. If you no longer receive a 10% discount on railfare, I would hardly think that qualifies as an attack (maybe an attack on your wallet, and that's assuming you choose to travel). The LSL/CL meals at most are an attack on their stomachs.


----------



## cirdan

AmtrakFlyer said:


> The numbers are all pulled out of no where or at best skewed. Income, birthdate, reason for travel arent asked to the masses. Id be interested to know how many people get or fill out the emailed trip review surveys. The 84 percent coach riders stat make it sound like no one rides in the sleepers and is hugely skewed. Gives Anderson misleading ammunition to break up the LD trains. Of course if your only riding 2-8 hours most people will ride in coach. A better stat would be coach brings in _%revenue and sleepers bring in _% revenue. Or trips over 12 hours coach %vs sleepers %.


I guess you could make similarl statements about airlines, comparing business class to economy passengers. But most airlines are not exactly in a hurry to abolish business class.

I don't think Amtrak will be either.


----------



## MikefromCrete

I'm not sure what the fuss is about on some of these numbers. It makes sense to me that 84 percent of passengers ride in coach. Most trains have more coaches than sleepers, there are more seats in coaches and passengers traveling short distances usually travel by coach. It seems logical to me. As to income, sleeping car passengers probably have higher incomes. It's not an argument about eliminating sleepers. I imagine these statistics have been common throughout the history of railroad passenger service.


----------



## cpotisch

MikefromCrete said:


> I'm not sure what the fuss is about on some of these numbers. It makes sense to me that 84 percent of passengers ride in coach. Most trains have more coaches than sleepers, there are more seats in coaches and passengers traveling short distances usually travel by coach. It seems logical to me. As to income, sleeping car passengers probably have higher incomes. It's not an argument about eliminating sleepers. I imagine these statistics have been common throughout the history of railroad passenger service.


I do agree about the sleepers. I don't think there are any trains with as many sleepers as coaches. A Superliner sleeper can carry 44 passengers with normal occupancy, whereas a Superliner coach can carry 78 passengers. Likewise a Viewliner sleeper can carry 30 passengers, while an Amfleet II carries 59. So on the Silver Meteor, which usually runs with three sleepers and five coaches, coach consists of 76.6% of the train's capacity.

So I really don't think that 84% sounds far fetched at all.


----------



## railiner

Ryan said:


> As a veteran, I didn’t feel attacked in the least when he ended the for pay discount system that allowed a private group to sell Amtrak discounts that didn’t share that revenue with Amtrak.
> 
> I believe that they’re working on a real veteran’s discount that doesn’t require me to pay a random third party to qualify for. If that comes to pass, it’s a net win.


First, thanks for your service....

And did you get yourself one of these yet? https://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=3979

It is for veteran's that didn't serve long enough to get a retiree ID card...


----------



## Chey

railiner said:


> And did you get yourself one of these yet? https://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=3979
> 
> It is for veteran's that didn't serve long enough to get a retiree ID card...


Thanks for that link - my spouse had no idea and will be filling out the app for it.


----------



## railiner

Chey said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> And did you get yourself one of these yet? https://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=3979
> 
> It is for veteran's that didn't serve long enough to get a retiree ID card...
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that link - my spouse had no idea and will be filling out the app for it.
Click to expand...

You're very welcome...and thank him for his service...


----------



## TiBike

Replacing old school affinity group discounts with targeted promotions, like I've been seeing in my email, isn't an attack on anyone. Modernising food service or trying to improve on time performance isn't an attack on passengers in general either. Some might not like the changes, but on the whole it looks to me like a net gain.


----------



## neroden

Thirdrail7 said:


> Personally, I don't think it will do much good. This is particularly true since he is following PRIIA's mandate.


No, he's not following PRIIA -- he's flagrantly ignoring its requirements.

Where's the FRA reporting on short-term and long-term avoidable costs by train route? Required in 2008! I'd like to see it. It would prove what a bunch of lies he's been telling about the various trains.


----------



## neroden

Mystic River Dragon said:


> If they truly think that 92 percent of both coach and sleeper passengers are not traveling on business, and that most of us are over 50, then say goodbye to the trains for sure, except for the northeast. My impression is that Amtrak does not care about older passengers or leisure passengers--it just wants young and rich, traveling for business.


The vast majority of travel, EVEN ON THE NEC, is not "for business". It includes visiting family, going to college and back, taking regular holidays, etc.


----------



## neroden

KmH said:


> It's been noted before that_ *even sold out*_ sleeper cars in the consist of a LD train cost more to operate than the revenue they generate.


It's been proven flat out that that's false on the Lake Shore Limited, actually. The sleeper cars produce more revenue than their costs. In fact, on the LSL, they are almost certainly more profitable than the coach cars.
But feel free to keep spreading lies.


----------



## neroden

Thirdrail7 said:


> I'm wondering why people haven't turned their attention and wrath on the Board Of Directors.


Because the Board of Directors is the same one which retained Boardman and hired Moorman. Looks like Anderson is doing a snow-job on them. Certainly, campaigns to fire Anderson should be *directed* at the Board of Directors, particularly pointing out Anderson's serial dishonesty in Amtrak public statements.


----------



## TinCan782

Chey said:


> Thanks for that link - my spouse had no idea and will be filling out the app for it.


Also, some states will add a Veteran designation (with proof) to their driver license or ID card. I just applied last week here in Calif (at the same time that I applied for a "RealID").


----------



## SANSR

I want to nominate Ryan as the next CEO. (Just as long as he will promise me a cab ride of my choosing...........................)


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Going past North Philadelphia on train 98. Saw the billboard for Save Amtrak Fire Anderson were cover up by grey tarps.

Wondering what has changed?


----------



## GBNorman

FrensicPic said:


> Chey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that link - my spouse had no idea and will be filling out the app for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, some states will add a Veteran designation (with proof) to their driver license or ID card. I just applied last week here in Calif (at the same time that I applied for a "RealID").
Click to expand...

Illinois is one such state. To have your license so endorsed, you must first go to an Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs, and have a copy of your 214 "authenticated". Then go to Driver's Services with that and otherwise follow the normal renewal process.


----------



## Seaboard92

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Going past North Philadelphia on train 98. Saw the billboard for Save Amtrak Fire Anderson were cover up by grey tarps.
> 
> Wondering what has changed?


Probably a strongly worded letter threatening legal action. That and probably threatening the prevent him from using his cars. I'm sure Bennet will do something again. And what I think the next move will be spectacular.


----------



## jis

Seaboard92 said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Going past North Philadelphia on train 98. Saw the billboard for Save Amtrak Fire Anderson were cover up by grey tarps.
> 
> Wondering what has changed?
> 
> 
> 
> Probably a strongly worded letter threatening legal action. That and probably threatening the prevent him from using his cars. I'm sure Bennet will do something again. And what I think the next move will be spectacular.
Click to expand...

The eternal dream of all of us railfans. Yet to be seen how it all turns out ...


----------



## tommylicious

Is there an official Fire Anderson campaign? Where and how do I sign up?


----------



## chrsjrcj

Someone was selling “Fire Anderson” hats on eBay


----------



## Seaboard92

I know what I've suggested to him and that would be a big no win for Anderson and Gardner. But it's classy and would be great PR for private cars.


----------



## Seaboard92

chrsjrcj said:


> Someone was selling “Fire Anderson” hats on eBay


If you want them I know the guy. Amtrak made him take them down. But I can hook you up. Same with bumper stickers. No surprise the person doing it owns a private car or five.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

The crew on the Sliver Meteor love my hat.

One thinks there try to protect the Amtrak brand. So we need a hat like Save the Trains Fire Anderson

Not so short and sweet.

.


----------



## Acela150

Seaboard92 said:


> chrsjrcj said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone was selling “Fire Anderson” hats on eBay
> 
> 
> 
> If you want them I know the guy. Amtrak made him take them down. But I can hook you up. Same with bumper stickers. No surprise the person doing it owns a private car or five.
Click to expand...

Seaboard. I’ll drop you a PM about said hats later today.


----------



## fredmcain

I don't know how significant a development it may be, but the New Jersey ARP has now officially come out calling for Anderson's outsting. I guess I feel like he may have cooked his own goose. He P.O.'d some of the most important people whose support he needs the most. My best guess is that he will be gone within a year - two years at most. Once he finally sees the handwriting on the wall, he'll probably just quit and in doing so will make an attempt of face saving by claiming that Amtrak is "a hopeless basket case".

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## jis

Yeah, we decided to jump into the fray at the last Board meeting (I am on the Board of NJ-ARP for many years now). Looks like RailPAC also shot off a similar letter at about the same time. One is never sure how much effect these have, but no harm in trying to communicate displeasure the best we can. And the more the merrier.


----------



## bretton88

I support most of what Anderson has done. Amtrak needed to be shaken up and he's doing it. Yes it will upset some people in the process. We need reliable corridors in this country. Of the LD trains, I see the Empire Builder as necessary for rural transportation. A restructured SWC (not as Amtrak has proposed) could fill that role well too. Other things, like meal service, needed to change.


----------



## PVD

The huge unanswered question is to what degree is he filling the bill the board was looking to fill. If he told them what they wanted to hear, and he is marching to the beat of their drum, advancing an agenda that we may not support, but they clearly don't wish to share with the public in its totality, even if they don't have the guts to admit it, if he was cut loose as a sacrificial lamb, the likelihood is the next person would not be radically different.


----------



## jebr

PVD said:


> The huge unanswered question is to what degree is he filling the bill the board was looking to fill. If he told them what they wanted to hear, and he is marching to the beat of their drum, advancing an agenda that we may not support, but they clearly don't wish to share with the public in its totality, even if they don't have the guts to admit it, if he was cut loose as a sacrificial lamb, the likelihood is the next person would not be radically different.


This is pretty much it. I'm getting the feeling that the board and Congress weren't too happy with subsidizing the status quo and felt changes were needed. I'll admit that I really can't get my outrage-o-meter on for the dining service changes; I think they're fine for most trips under 24 hours, and if a trip is longer than that I'm probably flying anyways (as would most customers.) The markets Amtrak serves, especially with the long distance trains, while certainly useful, seem to be more of a happenstance of history than a recent evaluation on what markets most need Amtrak or would be the best fit for Amtrak. Frankly, Amtrak hasn't really truly shaken things up in a number of years, and Anderson is probably one of the best people that were both willing to become CEO of Amtrak and could try and disrupt the status quo.

It could certainly go horribly wrong, and the SWC discussions (especially without any corresponding additions to service elsewhere that would suggest they're retooling the network instead of cutting it) certainly worry me. However, and maybe I'm just an eternal optimist, I'm hopeful that Anderson's changes will put Amtrak on a more solid footing and make Amtrak more relevant to more people as a transportation option that's competitive with the air and road markets, instead of being seen as either an option of last resort or a "land cruise" outside of a few corridors.


----------



## keelhauled

fredmcain said:


> Once he finally sees the handwriting on the wall, he'll probably just quit and in doing so will make an attempt of face saving by claiming that Amtrak is "a hopeless basket case".


Who knows, maybe he would even be right.


----------



## bretton88

PVD said:


> The huge unanswered question is to what degree is he filling the bill the board was looking to fill. If he told them what they wanted to hear, and he is marching to the beat of their drum, advancing an agenda that we may not support, but they clearly don't wish to share with the public in its totality, even if they don't have the guts to admit it, if he was cut loose as a sacrificial lamb, the likelihood is the next person would not be radically different.


Anderson's contract is based upon incentives for hitting certain targets. I have no doubt that means the board had a certain direction they wanted to pursue and I highly doubt Anderson is carrying out initiatives that would harm his incentives. This is why I have trouble getting outraged or even really concerned, especially when a lot of the outrage is "but this is how we've done it for the last 40 years, how dare they change it." I do think he needs better PR, and I am eyeing the SWC issue because it could indicate whether Amtrak is serious about route improvements (Colorado enhancements combined with a Heartland Flyer extension?) or is just looking to swing the axe.


----------



## DSS&A

Thirdrail7 said:


> I'm wondering why people haven't turned their attention and wrath on the Board Of Directors.


It would be beneficial for Amtrak to have one or two Board members with RAILROAD experience (commuter rail, rail transit or freight rail).


----------



## cpotisch

bretton88 said:


> This is why I have trouble getting outraged or even really concerned, especially when a lot of the outrage is "but this is how we've done it for the last 40 years, how dare they change it."


Actually, a lot of the outrage is "the way they've done it for the last 40 years was better than how they're doing it now." Opposing a new, poorer product does not mean that you just oppose change of any kind.


----------



## jis

Also, there is a general mistrust of leadership, specially when it comes to Amtrak, with very good reasons. Specially those that lived through the dismantling of passenger service are naturally seeing it from that perspective. Younger people do not have that context, so they may find the reaction perplexing. Even I find it somewhat perplexing having not lived through 1971 in this country, but I can understand some of it having lived through Reagan/Stockman.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

bretton88 said:


> I support most of what Anderson has done. Amtrak needed to be shaken up and he's doing it. Yes it will upset some people in the process. We need reliable corridors in this country. Of the LD trains, I see the Empire Builder as necessary for rural transportation. A restructured SWC (not as Amtrak has proposed) could fill that role well too. Other things, like meal service, needed to change.


I believe many folks would agree that meal service needed to change but I doubt most would agree that reducing selections from an already tiny menu and removing special dietary requests is a genuine improvement. I guess to an Anderson supporter all that really matters is that he changed something, disrupted something, shook something up, and/or hurt someone's feelings. Staunch Anderson supporters don't seem to have a thoughtful plan for success so much as a vague emotional itch begging to be scratched.



jebr said:


> I'll admit that I really can't get my outrage-o-meter on for the dining service changes; I think they're fine for most trips under 24 hours, and if a trip is longer than that I'm probably flying anyways (as would most customers.) The markets Amtrak serves, especially with the long distance trains, while certainly useful, seem to be more of a happenstance of history than a recent evaluation on what markets most need Amtrak or would be the best fit for Amtrak.


Can you point to any event that actually moved your ho-hum-o-meter so we can understand what gets your attention? Even a permanent service gap in the SWC doesn't seem to be enough to generate more than a tepid gosh darn it. Amtrak's current network is anything _but_ a product of happenstance. Nearly every route and stop was fought for by someone who cared enough to spend their time, money, and/or political capital in defense or promotion of something they cared about. Your casual indifference to Amtrak's past ignores decades of activism and mocks the efforts those who cared enough to take action.



jebr said:


> However, and maybe I'm just an eternal optimist, I'm hopeful that Anderson's changes will put Amtrak on a more solid footing and make Amtrak more relevant to more people as a transportation option that's competitive with the air and road markets, instead of being seen as either an option of last resort or a "land cruise" outside of a few corridors.


Even an eternal optimist would still be expected to explain how the things Anderson is actually doing are going to help Amtrak in the future. Instead many Anderson supporters seem to treat his stewardship like an opaque equation with known inputs leading to an end result which cannot be known until after Anderson declares victory or the board declares defeat. If history is any guide the time to act is when a service you consider important is threatened by someone in a position to actively undermine it. By the time such service is in the process of being undermined it's too late to worry about bringing it back again.


----------



## jebr

Devil's Advocate said:


> Can you point to any event that actually moved your ho-hum-o-meter so we can understand what gets your attention? Even a permanent service gap in the SWC doesn't seem to be enough to generate more than a tepid gosh darn it. Amtrak's current network is anything _but_ a product of happenstance. Nearly every route and stop was fought for by someone who cared enough to spend their time, money, and/or political capital in defense or promotion of something they cared about. Your casual indifference to Amtrak's past ignores decades of activism and mocks the efforts those who cared enough to take action.


I'm willing to concede that the routes we have left are the ones that had the most political support and advocacy during each round of cuts. That certainly helps to show support for a route, but I'm not convinced that, should we have the chance to build something from scratch with equivalent route-mileage that the current route miles would be the best pick for a holistic national system. I know that's not realistic, but I'm willing to consider the option of trading route-miles if the swap makes sense. It doesn't help that most of the leaked information regarding the SWC, at least initially, seems to come from the same people that have outraged at every change that Anderson has made, including many I agree with, which mixed with the lack of "official" information makes me wonder what information, if any, isn't being shared. (As an example, has a reroute onto the transcon through Amarillo been floated as a possibility?)

There's also a lot of issues that are larger personal priorities for me than non-local Amtrak routes. With the number of other things that are happening in DC on a regular basis (mainly non-passenger rail related) it's hard to feel like even something as drastic as replacing a large portion of the SWC with a bus is worth much of my political time and energy. (That's not to say it isn't worth other people's time and energy; I still advocate for local transit/rail projects, and I fully support people advocating for the multimodal transportation options that matter to them.)



Devil's Advocate said:


> Even an eternal optimist would still be expected to explain how the things Anderson is actually doing are going to help Amtrak in the future.


Hearing reports that maintenance has been given additional funds/labor is a positive sign, especially when it appears to be paired with accountability to try and keep equipment road-worthy and reduce delays and failures en-route. I'm also okay with the idea that private cars should only be attached when it doesn't delay the schedule. Anderson does seem to be focusing on OTP, at least what factors he can easily control, and finding ways to make Amtrak's on-time performance adequate for passengers who care about a schedule will do more for me to take Amtrak than almost anything else.


----------



## GBNorman

I have to wonder how anyone can make a cogent argument that there is an economic case to be made for continuation of the Long Distance trains.

I guarantee you that as one who has followed industry affairs for now over sixty yesrs, I can't.

Obviously I hold that LD trains simply have no economic and very little social impact in twenty first century USA. I also hold that they represent a "taking" in that they hardly pay their full economic rent to the Class I industry.

Our economy is presently at full employment, and as such, the impact upon any employees will be minimized. Will there be "pain" from displacement for some Amtrak employees?, yes but "C'est la Vie". Is there legislated or collectively bargained relief for those adversely affected employees? YES. Is there assistance for displaced employees such as Station Agents who would need to relocate to exercise their seniority? Pretty sure there would be under New York Dock.

Will the "little old lady" from Williston, ND have to find another way to get to the Specialist physician in Minneapolis she needs to see? Yes. If there is enough social outcry for relief in these situations, the "pain" could be alleviated for far less than the $400M I hold leaves the cookie jar in support of the LD's by means of establishing subsidized bus routes along those of the discontinued trains. Lest we not forget, there is NO Amtrak station inaccessible by highway.

Will those who find the journey part, if not most, of the travel experience be adversely affected with their pastime lost? Yes; "sorry 'bout that". After all, does Delta Air Lines operate "nostalgia flights" with DC-6's, "Stews"; young and unmarried serving First Class meals (complete with the complimentary pack of three cigarettes to give me a headache), and with TSA formalities being waived? "Uh, don't think so".

Now the "wild card"; uh those 535 of "our finest wo/men, and so we elect them again and again" who dwell "under the Dome"? At present, I think the sentiment has been developed that they are prepared to fund rail passenger service infrastructure that is relevant to 21st century needs - and around here we all know what that is - and what it aint'. However, we all know how the climate in that building can change "just like that", but at the moment, get that Requisition into Procurement for some fifty Adios drumheads.


----------



## jis

GBN, can you make a cogent argument for any passenger trains? I would like to hear one for any that you can come up with. [emoji57]


----------



## Thirdrail7

jis said:


> GBN, can you make a cogent argument for any passenger trains? I would like to hear one for any that you can come up with. [emoji57]


I have to agree with everything DA stated above and this post from Jis. What exactly is the argument for passenger rail when you consider this:



GBNorman said:


> I have to wonder how anyone can make a cogent argument that thete us an economic ca to be made for continuation of the Long Distance trains.
> 
> *Will the "little old lady" from Williston, ND have to find another way to get to the Specialist physician in Minneapolis she needs to see? Yes. If there is enough social outcry for relief in these situations, the "pain" could be alleviated for far less than the $400M I hold leaves the cookie jar in support of the LD's by means of establishing subsidized bus routes along those of the discontinued trains. Lest we not forget, there is NO Amtrak station inaccessible by highway.*



Well, if that is our attitude, the NEC should be the VERY fist thing to go. This is taken from the Railpac letter to Amtrak Chair Coscia thread:



Thirdrail7 said:


> I love this part:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over the years the National Network of overnight trains has been blamed for Amtrak’s deficits. We disagree. The National Network generates more passenger miles and revenue than the Northeast Corridor and is mostly hampered by being starved of investment and freight railroad issues for at least two decades. *You and your Board should remember that the NEC was not part of the original Amtrak and that it was dumped on the company in 1976, because no other agency wanted to take on the crippling backlog of infrastructure repairs. With $300 – $400 million in yearly maintenance costs and $30 to $50 Billion in state of good repair and capacity needs, it’s the NEC that is the burden on Amtrak, not the National Network.*
> 
> 
> 
> The NEC carries the most riders but it also costs a great deal...no matter who finances it.
Click to expand...


That is a lot of money for an area that is replete with highways, airports, regional railways and bus lines.

For those that cry shake up, if you're interested in modifying the system and expanding the reach, that is one thing. If you're going to do this by eliminating the existing, skeletal system, that is not something that should be condoned. Value is subject. Whay should "your train" trump "my train?"

Corridor services can exist in tandem with the the LD network. Indeed, it should. However, the states clearly do not want to finance them. Cutting the existing network into corridor service will likely doom the existing network.

A permanent source of funding and Amtrak showing it can actually handle the funding without blowing it should be the goal.

PS: I'm still interested in knowing what would happen if a campaign to oust Mr. Anderson succeeded. It is quite clear not many people actually want this job. We could get stuck with much worse.


----------



## cirdan

GBNorman said:


> Lest we not forget, there is NO Amtrak station inaccessible by highway.


The same can probably be said of all airports.

Let me turn your thinking around?

If Amtrak were to be totally discontinued, how much money would that save?

And where would that money go? Would the alternative be more worthwhile than what we have now?

Probably more congressional fact finding missions, lawyers, red tape.

If you're thinking more teachers or something like that, you're probably mistaken

Probably just a drop in the ocean. Once gone, never to be recovered. Nothing to show for it.

If you look at not just the cost but also the value, Amtrak is pretty much there among the best things the government is doing for you.

In a time that more and more people are losing faith in government, isn't it just accelerateing that if government is actively cutting back on the things people actually appreciate?


----------



## VentureForth

Can anyone verify if the IG report on waste from like 2004 has been fully addressed and corrected?

I get Anderson's mission and charter. I don't approve of the means. If the IG report of still valid, go after that rather than the customer experience.

There have been more OIG reports detailing over charging by employees, corrupt contracts and more up to today. Clean these up and perhaps one can enjoy a steak between Chicago and Boston.


----------



## fredmcain

cpotisch said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I have trouble getting outraged or even really concerned, especially when a lot of the outrage is "but this is how we've done it for the last 40 years, how dare they change it."
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a lot of the outrage is "the way we've done it for the last 40 years is better than how they're doing it now." Opposition to a new, poorer product is different from merely opposing change of any kind.
Click to expand...

Yes! Or, to quote a very old cliché, we shouldn't be blindly opposed to change but opposed to blind change. Change for the sake of change alone is of no benefit to anyone if it doesn't provide a better product.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## fredmcain

jebr said:


> <snip> However, and maybe I'm just an eternal optimist, I'm hopeful that Anderson's changes will put Amtrak on a more solid footing and make Amtrak more relevant to more people as a transportation option that's competitive with the air and road markets, instead of being seen as either an option of last resort or a "land cruise" outside of a few corridors.


This "land cruise" stuff is a perception that I have always felt is _WAY_ off base. Kinda like, Amtrak should be done away with because the trains are always empty. Phooo! I have taken many, many long-distance, cross-country train trips and I have always found it interesting talking to people on there and finding out why they took the train. Indeed, there is a market niche for a "land cruise" and this can be a selling point that Amtrak should market aggressively. But there are many, many patrons on the L-D trains who are on there for other reasons.
I talked with an elderly couple one time who was in my sleeping car from Denver to Omaha, I think it was. The guy was_ NOT _a train fan. He told me that that the sleeping car fare was about half the air fare 'cause it was a corridor that the airlines didn't want to mess with. I have met many college kids going home for Christmas who were sick and tired of flying and wanted to see the country at ground level. One time I met a guy with his wife who had a "family tradition" of taking the train every year at Christmas from Detroit to L.A. (Yes, the _Chief_) and they had been doing that since end of the Santa Fe days in the late 1960s.

Then you have small cities like Elko, NV or Grand Junction, CO that do not have a lot of transportation options other than the automobile. There are folks like the elderly or the Amish who simply do not/can not fly. One time I met a guy on his way to Brownsville, TX whose doctor told him he cannot fly for medical reasons. He was unhappy that someone had to drive all the way to San Antonio to pick him up 'cause Amtrak does not serve Brownsville directly. (Perhaps it should but that's a different topic).

So, you see, it's not all "land cruise" customers. There are lots of different kinds of people on those trains and throughout most of the year they are also full.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## cirdan

I was chatting to a guy, I think it was on one of the Silvers. I think he was from Florida. He told me he had been on a plane that had been shot down and had crash landed in the Vietnam War. As a result he had a recurring trauma and couldn't go near a plane again.

But such stories aside, I don't think it's right to have to defend Amtrak too strongly on the basis of special groups and special needs. Rather, Amtrak should be there for everybody and that's how we should pitch it.


----------



## fredmcain

cirdan said:


> I was chatting to a guy, I think it was on one of the Silvers. I think he was from Florida. He told me he had been on a plane that had been shot down and had crash landed in the Vietnam War. As a result he had a recurring trauma and couldn't go near a plane again.
> 
> But such stories aside, I don't think it's right to have to defend Amtrak too strongly on the basis of special groups and special needs. Rather, Amtrak should be there for everybody and that's how we should pitch it.


Right. But what are passengers, really, (either rail or air) but a huge collection of different people with "special needs"? In the last part of my post I mentioned that the trains are full. So, why can't we get more service?

Now, here's another question. Last year Congress gave Amtrak a huge, record-breaking appropriation. But the $ didn't stop there. How much ticket revenue did they collect last year? If you add the ticket revenue to the taxpayer support, that is one helluva a lotta money. *WHERE* is it going? I don't know but for that much money we ought to be able to have more service and not expect to have cuts. I'm not sure what the problem is but I strongly suspect that truncating trains like the _Chief _and offering a "bus bridge" in the middle is not going to help things or solve anything.

Regards,

Fred M. cain


----------



## Seaboard92

The reason I'm fighting for the Chief is not because I've ever ridden, or maybe even will ride the route. But by cutting the Chief and being quiet you are setting the precedent that this is an acceptable behavior. And by doing that you open up every train for the chop block even that blessed curse the NEC.

We need to save trains because they exist for everybody. And should be able to be used by everyone. I'm honestly appalled at a lot of people who are being quiet about cuts to the network despite the risk to their own trains. I've been vocal but then again I lost my PV job thanks to Anderson.

Just because one train doesn't directly affect you. Doesn't mean it doesn't effect your friends, business dealings, among other things. As eventually it won't be the Chief being threatened it'll be your train. And you'll want us on board with you to save it. And I don't think Kansas, New Mexico, or West Virginia will fight to save the NEC of they are robbed of their train to help divert assets to it.

It's national or nothing.


----------



## fredmcain

Seaboard92 said:


> The reason I'm fighting for the Chief is not because I've ever ridden, or maybe even will ride the route. But by cutting the Chief and being quiet you are setting the precedent that this is an acceptable behavior. And by doing that you open up every train for the chop block even that blessed curse the NEC.
> 
> We need to save trains because they exist for everybody. And should be able to be used by everyone. I'm honestly appalled at a lot of people who are being quiet about cuts to the network despite the risk to their own trains. I've been vocal but then again I lost my PV job thanks to Anderson.
> 
> Just because one train doesn't directly affect you. Doesn't mean it doesn't effect your friends, business dealings, among other things. As eventually it won't be the Chief being threatened it'll be your train. And you'll want us on board with you to save it. And I don't think Kansas, New Mexico, or West Virginia will fight to save the NEC of they are robbed of their train to help divert assets to it.
> 
> It's national or nothing.


Dear "Seaboard",

Your thoughts are spot-on. I believe it has been NARP's stance for years that the American taxpayers are NOT going to support the NEC once the L-D trains are gone. That only makes sense.

Wanna fix the tunnel under the Hudson River? How 'bout wrapping that into an investment package that would also buy a lot of new equipment and provide better service to Phoenix, Cleveland, Cheyenne, Sioux City, Oklahoma City, etc, etc., etc.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## cpotisch

cirdan said:


> Rather, Amtrak should be there for everybody and that's how we should pitch it.


They should be, but sometimes it just doesn't work like that. A good example is speed. LD trains objectively can not compete with air travel in that respect - if you need to get somewhere quickly, you have to fly. For example, it takes six hours to fly from Los Angeles to NYC, but it takes almost 70 hours to take the train. And there really is nothing Amtrak can do about that.


----------



## fredmcain

cpotisch said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather, Amtrak should be there for everybody and that's how we should pitch it.
> 
> 
> 
> They should be, but sometimes it just doesn't work like that. A good example is speed. LD trains objectively can not compete with air travel in that respect - if you need to get somewhere quickly, you have to fly. For example, it takes six hours to fly from Los Angeles to NYC, but it takes almost 70 hours to take the train. And there really is nothing Amtrak can do about that.
Click to expand...

Oh, I dunno. Using this same logic, who would ever drive their car from New York to California or from Chicago to Florida or from Washington to Chicago or a myriad of other cross-country city pairs?

Make no mistake about it. Much of the "traffic" in this country, even long distance traffic, is actually on the roads, NOT in the air. So, if Amtrak (or some other entity) could entice people out of their cars and onto the rails, then they would have a lot more business. But that can never/will never happen if they don't have the equipment and the services don't even exist.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## fredmcain

Just a brief add-on to my above post as an after-thought; polls have shown that many Americans do not like to fly and it is not looked upon as an enjoyable experience but a rather miserable experience to dread. They only do it because they have to when they are in a pinch for time. If they have the time, most Americans (and Canadians) would probably rather drive that fly. BUT ! They might consider the train IF the trains went more places more often.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## jebr

fredmcain said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snip> However, and maybe I'm just an eternal optimist, I'm hopeful that Anderson's changes will put Amtrak on a more solid footing and make Amtrak more relevant to more people as a transportation option that's competitive with the air and road markets, instead of being seen as either an option of last resort or a "land cruise" outside of a few corridors.
> 
> 
> 
> <snip> So, you see, it's not all "land cruise" customers. There are lots of different kinds of people on those trains and throughout most of the year they are also full.
Click to expand...

I saw that before you made your post. That's why I explicitly stated that there are people who use Amtrak as an "option of last resort"; because there are a lot of people who can't fly or drive and need some sort of alternative transportation option.

However, as long as the long-distance trains have a (pretty well-earned) reputation of not adhering close to their schedule a fair amount of the time, it's hard to see any large group of people switching from competing modes of transportation to the long-distance trains. Anderson has made moves that suggest that he's aware of this and trying to eliminate delays within Amtrak's control. If, once he's done that, he can move to the host railroads and convince or coerce them to run Amtrak on time as frequently as airlines can, or he can get Congress to either put some teeth into enforcing Amtrak's priority on the rails, that will do more to make Amtrak relevant than almost anything else.


----------



## cpotisch

The quote was "Amtrak should be there for everybody and that's how we should pitch it." Considering a large portion of "everybody" traveling long distance go with the airlines, and the train just can't compete when it comes to speed, I don't think that the train works for everybody. Amtrak might be a great alternative to a car or a bus, however I think that cars and busses are a lot less common than flying for people traveling thousands of miles. My point is, I don't think Amtrak is for everybody. If you're going on a short vacation a thousand miles away, you may well not have time to take the train.


----------



## cirdan

I just wanted to get back to the "cruise" thing.

Maybe, if you catch a cruise from, say, Miami, and tour the Caribbean, that is an entirely vacation thing that has nothing to do with transportation.

But there are other types of cruises. I think in Norway they have coastal ships that are marketed as cruises and have all the cruise amenities on board. But they allso perform a vital trasnportation role as locals use them for transportation between intermediate points on shorter trips, I think some even take mail.

This is a classic example of how you can combine two prodicts, neither of which would necessarily be able to stand on its own feet, into one product that serves two distinct markets.

Chopping up LD routes into corridors would be the equivalent of choping up cruise ship routes and replacing them by nominally interconnecting ferries. Local travellers probably don't mind but you lose the entire "cruise" overlay and with them their contribution to the fixed costs.


----------



## tricia

cirdan said:


> I just wanted to get back to the "cruise" thing.
> 
> Maybe, if you catch a cruise from, say, Miami, and tour the Caribbean, that is an entirely vacation thing that has nothing to do with transportation.
> 
> But there are other types of cruises. I think in Norway they have coastal ships that are marketed as cruises and have all the cruise amenities on board. But they allso perform a vital trasnportation role as locals use them for transportation between intermediate points on shorter trips, I think some even take mail.
> 
> This is a classic example of how you can combine two prodicts, neither of which would necessarily be able to stand on its own feet, into one product that serves two distinct markets.
> 
> Chopping up LD routes into corridors would be the equivalent of choping up cruise ship routes and replacing them by nominally interconnecting ferries. Local travellers probably don't mind but you lose the entire "cruise" overlay and with them their contribution to the fixed costs.


An example of this closer to home is the Alaska Marine Highway system of ferries, which serves a mix of local/regional passengers (especially to/from coastal towns with little or no land routes connecting them to the wider world) and tourists.


----------



## keelhauled

cpotisch said:


> The quote was "Amtrak should be there for everybody and that's how we should pitch it."


Can we perhaps define who "everybody" is? It certainly isn't anyone in Phoenix, Columbus, Las Vegas, or Nashville, nor is it anyone in any of the thousands of smaller towns and cities not served by Amtrak. In fact, with ridership of about 30 million in a country of somewhat more than 300 million, "everybody" would seem to be, at best, slightly less than 10% of the United States. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Amtrak is here for nobody, and everybody gets along fine without it.

Not that I believe that is true, either, but to pretend that Amtrak is some critical part of the country's national infrastructure is stretching facts to the point of absurdity.


----------



## Seaboard92

But see the trains may run transcontinental but they don't truly function as that. Denver-Chicago, Denver-Omaha, Denver-Salt Lake, Florence-Orlando, Buffalo-Toledo, Charlottesville-Indy, Saint Paul to Fargo, and so many others.

To think its all about end points is to make the same categorical error as Anderson and Gardner themselves. Each person has a unique set of end points. And those are all important.


----------



## tricia

keelhauled said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The quote was "Amtrak should be there for everybody and that's how we should pitch it."
> 
> 
> 
> Can we perhaps define who "everybody" is? It certainly isn't anyone in Phoenix, Columbus, Las Vegas, or Nashville, nor is it anyone in any of the thousands of smaller towns and cities not served by Amtrak. In fact, with ridership of about 30 million in a country of somewhat more than 300 million, "everybody" would seem to be, at best, slightly less than 10% of the United States. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Amtrak is here for nobody, and everybody gets along fine without it.
> 
> Not that I believe that is true, either, but to pretend that Amtrak is some critical part of the country's national infrastructure is stretching facts to the point of absurdity.
Click to expand...

All US citizens are citizens of the entire country, not just our home towns. We need NATIONAL transportation infrastructure that enables us to travel where we want and need to, throughout our entire country. Amtrak is part of that--perhaps a part that we'll very much need to build upon in future decades, as fossil fuels continue to become scarcer, less accessible, and more expensive.


----------



## pksundevil

fredmcain said:


> Just a brief add-on to my above post as an after-thought; polls have shown that many Americans do not like to fly and it is not looked upon as an enjoyable experience but a rather miserable experience to dread. They only do it because they have to when they are in a pinch for time. If they have the time, most Americans (and Canadians) would probably rather drive that fly. BUT ! They might consider the train IF the trains went more places more often.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Fred M. Cain


JD Power's 2018 survey- a gold standard- show that consumer satisfaction among airline passengers has risen 7 years in a row and is at an all-time high. Delta scores very well in that survey.

http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/jd-power-2018-north-america-airline-satisfaction-study


----------



## bretton88

fredmcain said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason I'm fighting for the Chief is not because I've ever ridden, or maybe even will ride the route. But by cutting the Chief and being quiet you are setting the precedent that this is an acceptable behavior. And by doing that you open up every train for the chop block even that blessed curse the NEC.
> 
> We need to save trains because they exist for everybody. And should be able to be used by everyone. I'm honestly appalled at a lot of people who are being quiet about cuts to the network despite the risk to their own trains. I've been vocal but then again I lost my PV job thanks to Anderson.
> 
> Just because one train doesn't directly affect you. Doesn't mean it doesn't effect your friends, business dealings, among other things. As eventually it won't be the Chief being threatened it'll be your train. And you'll want us on board with you to save it. And I don't think Kansas, New Mexico, or West Virginia will fight to save the NEC of they are robbed of their train to help divert assets to it.
> 
> It's national or nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Dear "Seaboard",
> Your thoughts are spot-on. I believe it has been NARP's stance for years that the American taxpayers are NOT going to support the NEC once the L-D trains are gone. That only makes sense.
> 
> Wanna fix the tunnel under the Hudson River? How 'bout wrapping that into an investment package that would also buy a lot of new equipment and provide better service to Phoenix, Cleveland, Cheyenne, Sioux City, Oklahoma City, etc, etc., etc.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Fred M. Cain
Click to expand...

That used to be the case. Now the NEC is too vital to that region to be allowed to fail, regardless of what happens to the national network. What we're now seeing is an Amtrak that isn't scared of losing those votes because they know someone will pick up the void in the NEC. What I think we're heading for is the full John Mica scenario, a Northeast corridor that will be owned by some separate entity: whether that's a federal entity, or a state led entity (like a Northeast states compact) with Amtrak being purely an operator. National no longer means what it used to mean.


----------



## fredmcain

pksundevil said:


> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a brief add-on to my above post as an after-thought; polls have shown that many Americans do not like to fly and it is not looked upon as an enjoyable experience but a rather miserable experience to dread. They only do it because they have to when they are in a pinch for time. If they have the time, most Americans (and Canadians) would probably rather drive that fly. BUT ! They might consider the train IF the trains went more places more often.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Fred M. Cain
> 
> 
> 
> JD Power's 2018 survey- a gold standard- show that consumer satisfaction among airline passengers has risen 7 years in a row and is at an all-time high. Delta scores very well in that survey.
> 
> http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/jd-power-2018-north-america-airline-satisfaction-study
Click to expand...

Well, that might be so but does that prove that it's an enjoyable experience? My point was that much travel is by road and that point is borne out here:

https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/highlights_of_the_2001_national_household_travel_survey/section_03m 

Scrolling down it shows that air has less than half (42%) of trips between 1,000 and 2,000 miles.

So, I stand by my statement that if Amtrak could lure some cars off the road they'd get a lot more business. But they can't do that without more equipment and service.

Regards,

FMC


----------



## Devil's Advocate

pksundevil said:


> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a brief add-on to my above post as an after-thought; polls have shown that many Americans do not like to fly and it is not looked upon as an enjoyable experience but a rather miserable experience to dread. They only do it because they have to when they are in a pinch for time. If they have the time, most Americans (and Canadians) would probably rather drive that fly. BUT ! They might consider the train IF the trains went more places more often.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Fred M. Cain
> 
> 
> 
> JD Power's 2018 survey- a gold standard- show that consumer satisfaction among airline passengers has risen 7 years in a row and is at an all-time high. Delta scores very well in that survey. http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/jd-power-2018-north-america-airline-satisfaction-study
Click to expand...

Makes sense. I know every time I get on a plane people are falling all over themselves to remark at how wonderful the experience has become. People love the endless fees, the cramped seats, the indifferent staff, and the wonderful food.


----------



## bretton88

Devil's Advocate said:


> pksundevil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a brief add-on to my above post as an after-thought; polls have shown that many Americans do not like to fly and it is not looked upon as an enjoyable experience but a rather miserable experience to dread. They only do it because they have to when they are in a pinch for time. If they have the time, most Americans (and Canadians) would probably rather drive that fly. BUT ! They might consider the train IF the trains went more places more often.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Fred M. Cain
> 
> 
> 
> JD Power's 2018 survey- a gold standard- show that consumer satisfaction among airline passengers has risen 7 years in a row and is at an all-time high. Delta scores very well in that survey. http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/jd-power-2018-north-america-airline-satisfaction-study
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Makes sense. I know every time I get on a plane people are falling all over themselves to remark at how wonderful the experience has become. People love the endless fees, the cramped seats, the indifferent staff, and the wonderful food.
Click to expand...

The sad truth is airline flying has gotten better over the last few years. They've significantly improved in flight entertainment options, and the first class products are miles better than where they used to be. That being said, it's still a really low bar that's been set.


----------



## keelhauled

tricia said:


> All US citizens are citizens of the entire country, not just our home towns. We need NATIONAL transportation infrastructure that enables us to travel where we want and need to, throughout our entire country. Amtrak is part of that--perhaps a part that we'll very much need to build upon in future decades, as fossil fuels continue to become scarcer, less accessible, and more expensive.


I agree that we need a national transportation infrastructure, but I don't think that trains are the universal answer. The Interstate system stitches together most of rural America far better than Amtrak ever has or most likely ever will, and aviation will always be a more efficient mode of transcontinental travel, unless something even more radically different than the Hyperloop is developed, and at that point I doubt you could even call it a train. Expanding the long distance train system for the purposes of long haul and/or basic transportation for on-line communities is both redundant in the face of existing and effective options and at odds with every point where rail transport has an efficiency advantage (high passenger density in a right of way, high frequency, delivery of passengers to urban cores, relatively few incremental costs to adding capacity), as well as exacerbating the high capital costs required.


----------



## cirdan

keelhauled said:


> Can we perhaps define who "everybody" is?


Everybody has a right to be protected by the police. Everybody has the right to a legal counsel when arrested. Everybody has the right to use the court systen.

But many people live their entire lives without actually making use of that right, or having the need to.


----------



## KmH

Anyone expecting the police to protect them doesn't get how it works.

Your protection is _your responsibility_.

Our courts are a bad joke.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

KmH said:


> Anyone expecting the police to protect them doesn't get how it works.
> 
> Your protection is _your responsibility_.
> 
> Our courts are a bad joke.


Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html


----------



## railiner

After reading all the posts on this page...the answer is simple....

What we need here, is another 1973 OPEC embargo....


----------



## Palmetto

bretton88 said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pksundevil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a brief add-on to my above post as an after-thought; polls have shown that many Americans do not like to fly and it is not looked upon as an enjoyable experience but a rather miserable experience to dread. They only do it because they have to when they are in a pinch for time. If they have the time, most Americans (and Canadians) would probably rather drive that fly. BUT ! They might consider the train IF the trains went more places more often.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Fred M. Cain
> 
> 
> 
> JD Power's 2018 survey- a gold standard- show that consumer satisfaction among airline passengers has risen 7 years in a row and is at an all-time high. Delta scores very well in that survey. http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/jd-power-2018-north-america-airline-satisfaction-study
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Makes sense. I know every time I get on a plane people are falling all over themselves to remark at how wonderful the experience has become. People love the endless fees, the cramped seats, the indifferent staff, and the wonderful food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The sad truth is airline flying has gotten better over the last few years. They've significantly improved in flight entertainment options, and the first class products are miles better than where they used to be. That being said, it's still a really low bar that's been set.
Click to expand...

Apparently, you don't fly American in ecomony. Reduced seat pitch, new planes without seatback entertainment, basic economy. Great stuff.


----------



## bretton88

Palmetto said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pksundevil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a brief add-on to my above post as an after-thought; polls have shown that many Americans do not like to fly and it is not looked upon as an enjoyable experience but a rather miserable experience to dread. They only do it because they have to when they are in a pinch for time. If they have the time, most Americans (and Canadians) would probably rather drive that fly. BUT ! They might consider the train IF the trains went more places more often.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Fred M. Cain
> 
> 
> 
> JD Power's 2018 survey- a gold standard- show that consumer satisfaction among airline passengers has risen 7 years in a row and is at an all-time high. Delta scores very well in that survey. http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/jd-power-2018-north-america-airline-satisfaction-study
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Makes sense. I know every time I get on a plane people are falling all over themselves to remark at how wonderful the experience has become. People love the endless fees, the cramped seats, the indifferent staff, and the wonderful food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The sad truth is airline flying has gotten better over the last few years. They've significantly improved in flight entertainment options, and the first class products are miles better than where they used to be. That being said, it's still a really low bar that's been set.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently, you don't fly American in ecomony. Reduced seat pitch, new planes without seatback entertainment, basic economy. Great stuff.
Click to expand...

I said it's a low bar and American is actually the one airline I don't fly. I can deal with Spirit or frontier being miserable because I pay only 50$ (usually) to fly them. At Americans prices though, I have other better options.


----------



## Seaboard92

The thing about Frontier and Spirit you know wha you are getting into when you buy the ticket. With the current Amtrak administration you really don't. Remember they were selling full fare sleepers for four trains (29/30, 48/49) long before they announced their permanent test. And when they announced the cold meal crap.

Standard refund rates (which are crappy now) apply to the fare. At least on Spirit you know they aren't going to feed you or carry your bag without extra money.

In a way Spirit is much better than Amtrak under Anderson because you can expect consistency in the product something Amtrak is sorely lacking.


----------



## bretton88

Seaboard92 said:


> The thing about Frontier and Spirit you know wha you are getting into when you buy the ticket. With the current Amtrak administration you really don't. Remember they were selling full fare sleepers for four trains (29/30, 48/49) long before they announced their permanent test. And when they announced the cold meal crap.
> 
> Standard refund rates (which are crappy now) apply to the fare. At least on Spirit you know they aren't going to feed you or carry your bag without extra money.
> 
> In a way Spirit is much better than Amtrak under Anderson because you can expect consistency in the product something Amtrak is sorely lacking.


This inconsistency of services was something I was really hoping Anderson would focus on at Amtrak. Maybe he still will, but therein lies the problem with the short shelf life of an Amtrak CEO, new visions come and go constantly at Amtrak.


----------



## dlagrua

Getting back on track; IMO any politician or official of a public entity should act in the best interests of the American people. Anderson has not, and that is why he needs to go. Fact is (and correct me if I am wrong) that there is no government owned public transportation system in the USA that turns a profit. Amtrak is there to serve the people. Somehow Washington and certainly Anderson has forgotten this.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

dlagrua said:


> Getting back on track; IMO any politician or official of a public entity should act in the best interests of the American people. Anderson has not, and that is why he needs to go. Fact is (and correct me if I am wrong) that there is no government owned public transportation system in the USA that turns a profit. Amtrak is there to serve the people. Somehow Washington and certainly Anderson has forgotten this.


So, in your mind making safety & OTP is not the best interest of the passengers but hot meals are? And remember, Anderson did not create the requirement to reduce F&B costs, Congress did. Anderson is just doing what is required of him.


----------



## pksundevil

Palmetto said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pksundevil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a brief add-on to my above post as an after-thought; polls have shown that many Americans do not like to fly and it is not looked upon as an enjoyable experience but a rather miserable experience to dread. They only do it because they have to when they are in a pinch for time. If they have the time, most Americans (and Canadians) would probably rather drive that fly. BUT ! They might consider the train IF the trains went more places more often.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Fred M. Cain
> 
> 
> 
> JD Power's 2018 survey- a gold standard- show that consumer satisfaction among airline passengers has risen 7 years in a row and is at an all-time high. Delta scores very well in that survey. http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/jd-power-2018-north-america-airline-satisfaction-study
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Makes sense. I know every time I get on a plane people are falling all over themselves to remark at how wonderful the experience has become. People love the endless fees, the cramped seats, the indifferent staff, and the wonderful food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The sad truth is airline flying has gotten better over the last few years. They've significantly improved in flight entertainment options, and the first class products are miles better than where they used to be. That being said, it's still a really low bar that's been set.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently, you don't fly American in ecomony. Reduced seat pitch, new planes without seatback entertainment, basic economy. Great stuff.
Click to expand...

I take Amtrak every weekday and have been doing that for well over a decade, and I've taken a few LD trips. When I compare Amtrak to airlines, it almost always loses. Onboard food pricing/taste/quality? Airlines win. On time? Airlines win. Clean bathrooms? Airlines win. Safety? Airlines win. Friendly staff? Airlines win. Absolutely, airlines are far more cramped. Amtrak doesn't offer seatback entertainment. I can fly roundtrip Philly to Chicago cheaper ($260 when I just looked) for $30 more than a value fare in early August on Amtrak and $140 cheaper than a flexible Amtrak fare (and the airline gets you there fast so you don't have to sleep overnight in a coach seat). I get this is an Amtrak forum, but denying that airlines do their job very well, and have been getting better over the past decade, is nonsensical.

And to blame Anderson for the inconsistency in Amtrak's product, as someone just did, just reveals the level of denial.


----------



## cpotisch

pksundevil said:


> And to blame Anderson for the inconsistency in Amtrak's product, as someone just did, just reveals the level of denial.


I don't think we're blaming Anderson for Amtrak's inconsistent product. I think we're criticizing him for not taking steps to improve that. There's a big difference


----------



## AmtrakBlue

cpotisch said:


> pksundevil said:
> 
> 
> 
> And to blame Anderson for the inconsistency in Amtrak's product, as someone just did, just reveals the level of denial.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think we're blaming Anderson for Amtrak's inconsistent product. I think we're criticizing him for not taking steps to improve that. There's a big difference
Click to expand...

You may not be, but others certainly are.


----------



## chrsjrcj

I do not have the link handy, but Amtrak Service Workers Council confronted Anderson over the cold food cuts. This is going around on one of the Amtrak facebook groups.


----------



## chrsjrcj

AmtrakBlue said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back on track; IMO any politician or official of a public entity should act in the best interests of the American people. Anderson has not, and that is why he needs to go. Fact is (and correct me if I am wrong) that there is no government owned public transportation system in the USA that turns a profit. Amtrak is there to serve the people. Somehow Washington and certainly Anderson has forgotten this.
> 
> 
> 
> So, in your mind making safety & OTP is not the best interest of the passengers but hot meals are? And remember, Anderson did not create the requirement to reduce F&B costs, Congress did. Anderson is just doing what is required of him.
Click to expand...

Anderson does not have to be a puppet. He is perfectly capable of speaking up in the interest of his riders and employees. But it looks like he is more than happy to be a yes man, which is probably why the board will not terminate him.


----------



## GBNorman

It is no wonder that the ASWC (Teamsters) has sounded off. For each LD route discontinued likely represents 50 OBS positions abolished, with some 75 employees needed to cover such.

But lest they not forget, it is, other than Sleeping Car Attendants, management has prerogative to decide staffing levels to meet requirements of service they have established.

As I've noted previously, "Appendix C-2" will provide compensatory relief to adversely affected employees. Further, those within the OBS craft have additional relief under PRRRIA 15 (Amtrak Act).

So even if their Representatives choose to "paint some dire picture", an adversely affected Amtrak employee in otherwise good standing, will not be residing under a highway overpass.


----------



## jis

2015 Amtrak Act refers to PRRIA 2015 I presume.


----------



## Thirdrail7

AmtrakBlue said:


> So, in your mind making safety & OTP is not the best interest of the passengers but hot meals are? And remember, Anderson did not create the requirement to reduce F&B costs, Congress did. Anderson is just doing what is required of him.


Why must it be one group or the other? Why isn't he going to Congress and saying "I'm attempting to do things according to your law but I'm running into interference....you know...from YOUR MEMBERS! Perhaps you'd like to revisit this law since it may lead to revenue loss."


----------



## AmtrakBlue

I don't disagree that Anderson should tell Congress what they're asking is not doable, or whatever. I was just pointing out that it wasn't his idea...it was there before he started the job. So many people think he came in and just decided to make the F&B on the trains like airlines F&B on his on initiative.


----------



## GBNorman

jis said:


> 2015 Amtrak Act refers to PRRIA 2015 I presume.


Absolutely; I was at a loss to check the citation. Post has been edited accordingly.


----------



## Acela150

For those of you who feel strongly about the cause of "Fire Anderson" someone has hats and t-shirts available on eBay.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/SAVE-AMTRAK-FIRE-ANDERSON-EMBROIDERED-BALL-CAP-HAT-NEW-FREE-SHIPPING/113145192858?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649

https://www.ebay.com/itm/SAVE-AMTRAK-MAKE-TRAIN-TRAVEL-GREAT-AGAIN-FIRE-ANDERSON-T-SHIRT-Read-DescriptioN/113134386917?hash=item1a5755bee5%3Am%3AmIebvrld9s2WpjOvJ7axSWQ&var=413444206964&_sacat=0&_nkw=fire+anderson&_from=R40&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.m570.l1312.R1.TR10.TRC1.A0.H0.Xfire.TRS1


----------



## Thirdrail7

I hope those who purchased the hat and bumper sticker have T-shirt with the name of an available replacement for Mr. Anderson.


----------



## Acela150

Thirdrail7 said:


> I hope those who purchased the hat and bumper sticker have T-shirt with the name of an available replacement for Mr. Anderson.


While I agree with you, I think the person who replaces him will need to be a David Gunn. Who restores the credibility of Amtrak. While not all of what is happening is on him and on congress. He still has to answer for most of the ongoing issues. I had some hope with him bringing things such as a standardized BC across the system, and even more so listening to the passengers and what they want. But I'm starting to lose my hope on that front.


----------



## bretton88

Acela150 said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope those who purchased the hat and bumper sticker have T-shirt with the name of an available replacement for Mr. Anderson.
> 
> 
> 
> While I agree with you, I think the person who replaces him will need to be a David Gunn. Who restores the credibility of Amtrak. While not all of what is happening is on him and on congress. He still has to answer for most of the ongoing issues. I had some hope with him bringing things such as a standardized BC across the system, and even more so listening to the passengers and what they want. But I'm starting to lose my hope on that front.
Click to expand...

The real problem is the Amtrak top job is seen as career poison these days. So Amtrak would be very hard pressed to find a qualified replacement. Anyone willing to take the job would either be close to retirement, or someone who wants to take on the challenge of turning around the organization (which is what I think Anderson falls into). Of course the latter means upsetting some people.


----------



## Acela150

He’s not really turning Amtrak around is the problem.


----------



## jis

Acela150 said:


> He’s not really turning Amtrak around is the problem.


Depends on what “turning around” means to those with fiduciary responsibility for Amtrak. [emoji6]


----------



## AmtrakBlue

jis said:


> Acela150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He’s not really turning Amtrak around is the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what “turning around” means to those with fiduciary responsibility for Amtrak. [emoji6]
Click to expand...

Plus there's probably not a wye nearby to make a quick turn around.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Thirdrail7 said:


> I hope those who purchased the hat and bumper sticker have T-shirt with the name of an available replacement for Mr. Anderson.


Still available...
At least I not afraid to communicate with stakeholders and passengers on issues, visions, and the path forward.

Anderson could address so many issues with a Town Hall meeting in Chicago about the future of Amtrak. Anderson could of made changes to Charters and PV but wait 12 months before they came in force. Anderson or his Board could be transparent on his performance based salary requirements.

Still not fully invested in getting Anderson fired. But not a supporter either.

Change is not bad, but the lack transparent is a problem.

.


----------



## VentureForth

I've asked this before, but I don't remember where; and I don't think I got a response.

Whatever happened to the damning OIG report that focused on fraud, waste & abuse? There were a couple of high profile contracting issues that were addressed, but has the core issue of fraud, waste and abuse been addressed and dealt with?


----------



## ohle

It's not up to Anderson's many AND LEGITIMATE critics to offer a replacement.

Anderson, an airline man, was a poor choice.

The derelict board of directors, because they support all these irrational changes, including discontinuing trains, should also go.

Bringing in a man who knows little about rail travel -- and openly expresses his hostility toward trains and the people who ride them -- has to be one of the worst things that ever happened to Amtrak.


----------



## Seaboard92

So I was walking by an Amtrak police car outside Penn Station in New York and check out what I found. Are our brothers in blue on our side?


----------



## VentureForth

Wow. That's pretty ballsy. Not sure that is going to last long there. If the cop put it on, he could be reassigned. Best keep politics and your job separate.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

I bet it was put on by someone else when the cop was elsewhere--he would not risk his job over that. And he probably is just getting in and out of the driver's door and not seeing the back of the car til later.


----------



## Seaboard92

I don't know who did it but I completely support them. What's next a locomotive? I wonder how long it will last.


----------



## JoeBas

There were plenty of "Let Conrail Be Conrail" stickers back in the day too. We saw how well that worked.


----------



## jis

These are usually mechanisms for venting frustration, and seldom achieve their stated goal.


----------



## railiner

JoeBas said:


> There were plenty of "Let Conrail Be Conrail" stickers back in the day too. We saw how well that worked.


And a sad outcome it has been...for sure....


----------



## MikefromCrete

Seaboard92 said:


> I don't know who did it but I completely support them. What's next a locomotive? I wonder how long it will last.


If the cop put it there, he's probably walking around Sunnyside Yard on the midnight shift now.


----------



## Acela150

MikefromCrete said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know who did it but I completely support them. What's next a locomotive? I wonder how long it will last.
> 
> 
> 
> If the cop put it there, he's probably walking around Sunnyside Yard on the midnight shift now.
Click to expand...

The problem is you have to find the person that did it, and then have to prove it was them.. This is the kinda thing that would go to a Union Trial and the Union would probably win unless they have stone cold proof that said person did it.


----------



## MikefromCrete

Acela150 said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know who did it but I completely support them. What's next a locomotive? I wonder how long it will last.
> 
> 
> 
> If the cop put it there, he's probably walking around Sunnyside Yard on the midnight shift now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is you have to find the person that did it, and then have to prove it was them.. This is the kinda thing that would go to a Union Trial and the Union would probably win unless they have stone cold proof that said person did it.
Click to expand...


I was making a joke, Acela. No need to explain that it would be difficult to prove any individual actually did it.


----------



## drakejings

On a recent long distance train I had a long conversation with an Amtrak cop; one with many years on the force. He was far from complimentary regarding Mr. Anderson. He viewed the situation as close to hopeless. Mr. Anderson won't be replaced, the board is afraid of him. He views Mr. Anderson as aloof and distant and stated he's never experienced an Amtrak president like this. He also mentioned that the Amtrak Police are also being cut back. I know this is just one instance, but it's telling. I think someone other than an Amtrak Policeman put that sticker there, although they may be slow to remove it.

To the defenders of Mr. Anderson I say this: When has any Amtrak president faced this much resentment and criticism? Either he's a noble trail blazer or pretty much the negative element that so many employees and customers say he is.


----------



## Ryan

I would trust a cop to understand the relationship between Anderson and the board about as much as I would trust that same cop to understand the rights of photographers (which is to say “not at all”).

The chances of someone other than a cop putting a bumper sticker on a police cruiser are also hovering somewhere just below zero.


----------



## jis

"The Board is afraid of him"? Talk about ridiculous nonsense. The Board gave him a set of goals to meet to collect his bonus, and now they are afraid of him that he is working towards meeting those?

The simpler explanation is that the Board and Mr. Coscia are not doing anything that the railfans want because they do not share the railfan's vision of Amtrak, I have no clue what they believe in, but apparently it is not what many in the railfan/advocate community believe in.

The bottom line simple explanation is that the Board is not getting rid of him because he is performing in accordance with their expectation towards the goals that they set for him. There is currently absolutely no evidence to suggest anything else.

This does not mean that I personally agree with much of what is happening. But when evidence is staring starkly in ones face, it is better to call it out than pussyfoot around with convoluted explanations based on random conspiracies.


----------



## Bob Dylan

As is usually the case,jis gets it right!


----------



## Thirdrail7

jis said:


> The simpler explanation is that the Board and Mr. Coscia are not doing anything that the railfans want because they do not share the railfan's vision of Amtrak, I have no clue what they believe in, but apparently it is not what many in the railfan/advocate community believe in.


So, you think the board wants and welcomes the lack of a discernible vision that is poorly communicated?



jis said:


> .
> 
> The bottom line simple explanation is that the Board is not getting rid of him because he is performing in accordance with their expectation towards the goals that they set for him. There is currently absolutely no evidence to suggest anything else.



Do you think the board set goals for causing Congress breathe down their neck by threatening to cut trains, eliminate service, eliminate connectivity, and now will face possible legislative actions? If that's the case, it goes back to what I've said for years. Perhaps everyone needs to stop focusing on the CEO and work on replacing the board.


----------



## jis

The Board is responsible for managing the CEO. Either it is doing its job as intended by the majority of Congress people, or it will get reprimanded. So far all the amendments proposed by the good Senators are wishy-washy horsepucky. None of them are definite about what specific actions they expect of the Board or the CEO. How difficult is it to say something like "Continue to run the Southwest Chief on its present route and tell us what funding needs to be included for that in FY2019"? A Congress that was actually serious about maintaining the "National Network" in its present form would in my reclo0ning do something like that. Which leads me to believe that maybe Congress is not really intersted in going beyond platitudes when it comes to the National Network. Am I wrong? I sure hope so.

I have a suspicion that maybe what Anderson is doing is not an accident but is part of some diabolical plan of his, somewhat akin to the actions of the Congress and the President in running the country. We'll see.

Otherwise can you explain the singular lack of any reaction of any sort that is actionable from the Board or Congress so far, beyond feel good sounding amendment or two? No peep about threats of withholding funds unless this and that is specifically done etc.? What gives?


----------



## fredmcain

JIS,

I, for one, have four (4) competing theories on Anderson.

One, he is in bed with big oil, air and highway interests and this is all a very insidious plot to rid the Nation of the rail passenger option. This is truly possible but unlikely. For one thing, it sounds too paranoid to me. Besides, I’m not especially fond of conspiracy theories but that’s just me.

Two, he is just plain incompetent and does not know how to run Amtrak so he is attempting to manage by experiment. This is a lot more likely. If true, it will almost certainly end badly. Believe me. I have worked under managers before who have acted like that and it is _NO_ fun. “Let’s try this” and when that doesn’t work, well, “I guess we will have to do this” and then, uh, well, etc. etc.

Third, he does not want to go down with blood on his hands. There were three terrible wrecks right after he took the reins and he does not want to risk more wrecks. So, when he says he will not operate over tracks with no PTC, he really means that. This is both possible and logical. Unfortunately, deep-sixing the long distance trains will probably do far more damage to the bottom line – and the Nation – than if he were to keep running them.

Fourth and last, the most optimistic of my theories. His whole approach is a Trumpian-like ploy to eke out a better deal and to get more $ out of the states and Congress. This is both possible and likely. Unfortunately, it could backfire. If the states and Congress fail to pony up, Anderson could well see no other alternative than carrying out his threats.

FMC


----------



## jis

My suspicion is that it is a combination of 3 and 4 in some proportion, maybe with a very small amount of 2 thrown in. I don;t believe 1 is a factor basically for the reason you state.

I am still a bit perplexed with the whole SWC thing, both what Anderson is doing, and the really lukewarm platitudes of support coming from the Senators. We, who are used tog getting o support or hostility are rejoicing at the few spare bones being tossed at us I am afraid.


----------



## bretton88

jis said:


> My suspicion is that it is a combination of 3 and 4 in some proportion, maybe with a very small amount of 2 thrown in. I don;t believe 1 is a factor basically for the reason you state.
> 
> I am still a bit perplexed with the whole SWC thing, both what Anderson is doing, and the really lukewarm platitudes of support coming from the Senators. We, who are used tog getting o support or hostility are rejoicing at the few spare bones being tossed at us I am afraid.


I believe the senators are providing extra funding to rehab the tracks for the SWC. So if that's the case, #4 worked. What he's doing with the SWC smells to me like a classic private sector negotiating tactic.


----------



## fredmcain

JIS,

Another thing that makes me wonder about possibility #four is that I thought I saw where Anderson stated that to get the line up to snuff would take at LEAST $300 million. That'd be "a start". So, he might be pushing for more money since the current deal with Amtrak providing the $3 million match wouldn't bring the total to anywhere near that ball park.

As I have alluded to before, I believe too much energy is getting expended on saving the Chief when the_ FIRST_ thing to think about is saving the line it operates over. The three states, the feds, Amtrak and BNSF need to all get on the same page and come up with a plan that does that not just for the Chief but for freight as well. This could be a viable freight route for certain kinds of freight like very hot intermodal trains. But if BNSF has to shoulder all the costs alone, then they're not interested. But they might cooperate and work with a well balanced plan that spreads the costs around. There's no way to know for sure except by trying to contact them but if we did that I doubt they'd tell us.

I have been trying for over a year now to get a straight answer out of the You Pee as to what they plan to do with the old West Phoenix line but they won't tell me.

Regards,

FMC


----------



## bretton88

I will say this, when BNSF threatened to downgrade/shortline the Raton Line, it was a successful negotiating tactic. So why do people view it as a crime when Amtrak is basically doing the same thing? The end game here is to pry more money from the politicians, on a bigger scale than a TIGER grant here, and a TIGER grant there. The truth is in this era, to get better funding, you have to create a sense of urgency. Sounds like it might be working.


----------



## GBNorman

jis said:


> The simpler explanation is that the Board and Mr. Coscia are not doing anything that the railfans want because they do not share the railfan's vision of Amtrak, I have no clue what they believe in, but apparently it is not what many in the railfan/advocate community believe in.
> 
> The bottom line simple explanation is that the Board is not getting rid of him because he is performing in accordance with their expectation towards the goals that they set for him. There is currently absolutely no evidence to suggest anything else.


"..they do not share the railfan's vision of Amtrak"; grief; what goes through the minds of some with whom we share this planet?
The corollary to such is that the Board does not share the vision of the hobbyist Long Distance train traveler. They do not even share the purposeful traveler using an LD, as I believe they recognize that subsidized bus routes over a phase out period serving likely 350 of Amtrak's 500 stations, represent a more economical means to provide transportation to those small number of passengers affected by any LD discontinuances.

While likely not attainable in full, the object of the Board and their "hired hand", Mr. Anderson, appears to be the transformation of Amtrak into a transportation resource serving markets in which such resource is recognized as needed. In the aggregate, the Corridor and the Locally funded routes, put more into the cookie jar than they take out for "gas, lube & oil, car washes, and drivers,". The more the record level of FY 18 funding, and hopefully at the same level in future years, can be directed to infrastructure improvements, Corridor and elsewhere (street running in Ashland or Oakland; "romantic" - but efficient? Chicago area; where to begin!!), the more Amtrak will be recognized as a means to solve transportation problems.

Unfortunately for the Long Distance advocacy community, "Three a Week" through the fastest growing region of the USA, does not.


----------



## jis

That is certainly a plausible hypothesis that at the face of it fits the current facts.

Unfortunately apparently the street running in Ashland is not one of the things that will get fixed anytime soon and it is smack dab in the middle of a successful growing corridor [emoji57]


----------



## GBNorman

Deleted


----------



## jis

Redacted


----------



## fredmcain

bretton88 said:


> I will say this, when BNSF threatened to downgrade/shortline the Raton Line, it was a successful negotiating tactic. So why do people view it as a crime when Amtrak is basically doing the same thing? The end game here is to pry more money from the politicians, on a bigger scale than a TIGER grant here, and a TIGER grant there. The truth is in this era, to get better funding, you have to create a sense of urgency. Sounds like it might be working.


Well, I don't view it as a "crime". It's just one of my theories as to why Anderson might be doing what he's doing. I'll say this. If he pulls that off successfully, I will give him high marks. But we'll have to wait and see 'cause none of us really know at this point what his real intentions are.

Regards,

FMC


----------



## PVD

Big oil wan't too happy when Delta bought an oil refinery to help it with its jet fuel costs.


----------



## amtrakpass

I have to say a lot of times I think people assign complex motives and good intentions to others because they themselves have good motives and just assume others in the human race naturally have them to. Unfortunately, in my experience you have to understand that some people in positions of power actually don't want to improve what they are responsible for. They are just there because they like power for the sake of it and it feeds there ego. If it means destroying what they are in charge of. So be it.

I hope I am wrong about Anderson, but I haven't seen any hard evidence of him being committed to passenger rail. I don't think he has some deep motivation to increase funding and service by threatening cuts. He just seems to enjoy cutting because he can.

Maybe I am wrong. I will be happy to admit my mistake and be his biggest supporter if Amtrak service is greatly improved and expanded under his tenure.


----------



## jis

It also depends on what is the definition of "improve", since what is an improvement or not is a matter of opinion and can differ depending on the viewpoint and the context in which the term is being used.


----------



## VentureForth

PVD said:


> Big oil wan't too happy when Delta bought an oil refinery to help it with its jet fuel costs.


Funny. JR in Japan was _praised_ for owning its own powerplants to supply electricity for their railroads, buying shortage and selling surplus as required.


----------



## PRR 60

PVD said:


> Big oil wan't too happy when Delta bought an oil refinery to help it with its jet fuel costs.


Big oil (Phillips) sold it to them. It was a win-win because Phillips wanted to unload it and Delta looked at it as an innovative fuel hedge strategy.


----------



## amtrakpass

"It also depends on what is the definition of "improve", ""

Well my definition of improve is on time, faster and more frequent Amtrak trains on the current routes plus expanded service to new routes and places with new equipment and good customer service. I think most passengers would agree with that definition.


----------



## jis

The real issue is whether the Board and Congress agrees with our most likely minority opinion as far as new routes etc. go. But we labor on nonetheless as we always have. I am not very confident that more of the same is actually a wise and viable course, and I don’t think the enthusiasts are necessarily ready to take a fresh look at what needs to be done differently. Mind you I am not suggesting that what the current regime is doing is the right thing. But I am not sure what the previous regime was doing was the right thing either.


----------



## pksundevil

PRR 60 said:


> PVD said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big oil wan't too happy when Delta bought an oil refinery to help it with its jet fuel costs.
> 
> 
> 
> Big oil (Phillips) sold it to them. It was a win-win because Phillips wanted to unload it and Delta looked at it as an innovative fuel hedge strategy.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that "Big oil" (whoever that is) "wasn't too happy"- if you have any, I'd love to see it.


----------



## PVD

Let me explain the full context of the remark, that seems to be missed: Earlier in this thread a poster listed reasons for Anderson's behavior. One of them (which he considered possible but unlikely) was being in bed with big oil. I was pointing out that he has a track record of taking an action to benefit his organization, not the leaders of an other industry. Oil companies as a group would have no reason to be happy with an action that increases supply and lowers or stabilizes pricing over time. It also removes some pricing power. Nothing sinister, a normal reaction. Certainly not something people would want to be too vocal about or put in writing.


----------



## railiner

PVD said:


> Let me explain the full context of the remark, that seems to be missed: Earlier in this thread a poster listed reasons for Anderson's behavior. One of them (which he considered possible but unlikely) was being in bed with big oil. I was pointing out that he has a track record of taking an action to benefit his organization, not the leaders of an other industry. Oil companies as a group would have no reason to be happy with an action that increases supply and lowers or stabilizes pricing over time. It also removes some pricing power. Nothing sinister, a normal reaction. Certainly not something people would want to be too vocal about or put in writing.


I have always been curious about why oil companies, as well as gas and electric utilities, seem to encourage energy efficiency. It that all just "good public relation's"?

And electric utilities also seem to encourage people to install solar panels, and sell back to the 'grid' excess. Same reason? Or does it save them from further infrastructure investment to meet peak demands?


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

railiner said:


> I have always been curious about why oil companies, as well as gas and electric utilities, seem to encourage energy efficiency. It that all just "good public relation's"?
> 
> And electric utilities also seem to encourage people to install solar panels, and sell back to the 'grid' excess. Same reason? Or does it save them from further infrastructure investment to meet peak demands?


A bit off topic but...

Oil companies are about get a roll back of efficiency standards for cars.

Power utility are pushing back on the idea of buying excess solar power. In Hawaii you must have a battery collector, and can not send power into the grid. Other states such as Arizona are no longer required there utility to buy excessive solar electricity. Arizona did a complete change with no grandfather of current providers.

Here in NY you can have 10kw of solar and the electric company is required to buy your extra power. For now.


----------



## tricia

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have always been curious about why oil companies, as well as gas and electric utilities, seem to encourage energy efficiency. It that all just "good public relation's"?
> 
> And electric utilities also seem to encourage people to install solar panels, and sell back to the 'grid' excess. Same reason? Or does it save them from further infrastructure investment to meet peak demands?
> 
> 
> 
> A bit off topic but...
> 
> Oil companies are about get a roll back of efficiency standards for cars.
> 
> Power utility are pushing back on the idea of buying excess solar power. In Hawaii you must have a battery collector, and can not send power into the grid. Other states such as Arizona are no longer required there utility to buy excessive solar electricity. Arizona did a complete change with no grandfather of current providers.
> 
> Here in NY you can have 10kw of solar and the electric company is required to buy your extra power. For now.
Click to expand...

The beauty of solar power, from an electric company's perspective, is that it's at peak production during times of peak demand. But they'd generally rather own the means of production themselves, instead of buying solar electricity from homeowners. Many state governments have required net metering because the public-interest case for broadly distributed electric-power production is compelling (unless you're a market ideologue, in which case the purported magical power of the "free" market idol trumps everything).


----------



## jis

I am sure big oil politics and solar generation has a lot to do with firing Richard Anderson. But I am still figuring out how.


----------



## tricia

jis said:


> I am sure big oil politics and solar generation has a lot to do with firing Richard Anderson. But I am still figuring out how.


Sorry to have pursued the digression still further off-topic. (That NEVER happens at AU!



)

Back to the subject in the title of this thread.....


----------



## cpotisch

VentureForth said:


> Wow. That's pretty ballsy. Not sure that is going to last long there. If the cop put it on, he could be reassigned. Best keep politics and your job separate.


It might not be a good idea, but its still pretty sweet. Kudos to him for having the nerve to speak his mind like that.


----------



## NSC1109

Closely related: Amtrak has declined to operate the annual Toys for Tots train, saying it “doesn’t fit with the business model”. They appear to have ticked off the Marines in the process.

https://wnyt.com/news/no-toys-for-tots-train-amtrak/5015460/

Say what you want about Anderson, but this is a low blow no matter how you dice it.


----------



## Seaboard92

NSC1109 said:


> Closely related: Amtrak has declined to operate the annual Toys for Tots train, saying it “doesn’t fit with the business model”. They appear to have ticked off the Marines in the process.
> 
> https://wnyt.com/news/no-toys-for-tots-train-amtrak/5015460/
> 
> Say what you want about Anderson, but this is a low blow no matter how you dice it.


As far as I'm concerned there is a special place in hell for Richard and Stephen over this one. A train that doesn't take passengers just toys for disadvantaged children.

I can see red over this one. I might just email both of those men over this one


----------



## zephyr17

I think Anderson doesn't understand that Amtrak is ultimately a political creature in a way that cannot be avoided. It is subject to direct political pressure and influence in ways that most companies, including Delta are not.

He's going to get schooled. From a PR and political support standpoint this is just stupid.


----------



## railiner

Very bad public relations move for Amtrak, but I am confident that some other corporate sponsor(s) will be glad to pick up the ball and run with it....


----------



## Acela150

The Toys for Tots train would fall under his BS no chartered movements if I had to guess. But I’m sorry that is despicable to cancel such a train that is for the people that are less fortunate. He keeps ticking me off on new levels everyday. I can’t wait for this (insert choice words here) to be removed.

Now the sad thing is that whoever takes over for him will have a hell of a lot of work to do to make Amtrak credible again. Aka the David Gunn term.


----------



## Seaboard92

railiner said:


> Very bad public relations move for Amtrak, but I am confident that some other corporate sponsor(s) will be glad to pick up the ball and run with it....


Let's just say the PV community has been mobilizing since this news broke this evening. We're going to try and resurrect it. But in all seriousness write your congressmen even if they are from different states and tell them about this. Especially if your congressmen served in the armed forces especially the marines.

Especially because the Marine Corp is one of the main sponsors of Toys for Tots. If I was running a political campaign against Gardner or Anderson I can see several ways you can spin this for a negative campaign ad.

But I will say that everyone I've talked to tonight is actively trying to do something. We're waiving the charter fees for our two cars, and likely will eat the deadhead because it's a good cause. I'm sure several others will as well.

#sendgardnerbacktothegarden

#saveamtrakfireanderson


----------



## Ryan

NSC1109 said:


> Closely related: Amtrak has declined to operate the annual Toys for Tots train, saying it “doesn’t fit with the business model”. They appear to have ticked off the Marines in the process.
> 
> https://wnyt.com/news/no-toys-for-tots-train-amtrak/5015460/
> 
> Say what you want about Anderson, but this is a low blow no matter how you dice it.


I don’t see that quote in the article. Where is it from?


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Ryan said:


> NSC1109 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Closely related: Amtrak has declined to operate the annual Toys for Tots train, saying it “doesn’t fit with the business model”. They appear to have ticked off the Marines in the process.
> 
> https://wnyt.com/news/no-toys-for-tots-train-amtrak/5015460/
> 
> Say what you want about Anderson, but this is a low blow no matter how you dice it.
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t see that quote in the article. Where is it from?
Click to expand...




> Marine Toys for Tots organizers tell NewsChannel 13 Amtrak has informed them it no longer fits within their business model.


----------



## NSC1109

Ryan said:


> NSC1109 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Closely related: Amtrak has declined to operate the annual Toys for Tots train, saying it “doesn’t fit with the business model”. They appear to have ticked off the Marines in the process.
> 
> https://wnyt.com/news/no-toys-for-tots-train-amtrak/5015460/
> 
> Say what you want about Anderson, but this is a low blow no matter how you dice it.
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t see that quote in the article. Where is it from?
Click to expand...

Third paragraph


----------



## Ryan

Thanks. I thought it was an actual quote from someone at Amtrak, not secondhand info from someone else.

It would be interesting to see what Amtrak has to say for themselves.


----------



## Thirdrail7

NSC1109 said:


> Amtrak has declined to operate the annual Toys for Tots train, saying it “doesn’t fit with the business model”.









Yes, two engines, a trio of baggage cars and a cafe were really breaking the bank and curtailing service.



I mean, it's not like we need good customer and public relations or anything. Amtrak can toss these kinds of things aside since it provides a superior and consistent product and that is all the advertising they need.


----------



## drakejings

Well said Thirdrail 7. And yet there are still people who will post; "give him some time and he may turn things around." A lot of negativity as a result of Mr. Anderson's various moves. It's a tough choice, but this may be the worst.


----------



## cpotisch

We're almost a year into the Anderson regime. He's already been pushing things in one direction, so I don't see any logical reason why we should give him time and wait for him to go the other way. If he's had this job long enough to cut dining service on the LSL and CL, to try and chop up the SWC, etc, then he's had the job long enough to do the opposite. If he hadn't done anything at this point, it might make sense to be optimistic that when he does make changes, it will be to improve service, amenities, and the LD network. But the boulder is already rolling downhill, and I don't see why it's going to stop.


----------



## Seaboard92

cpotisch said:


> We're almost a year into the Anderson regime. He's already been pushing things in one direction, so I don't see any logical reason why we should give him time and wait for him to go the other way. If he's had this job long enough to cut dining service on the LSL and CL, to try and chop up the SWC, etc, then he's had the job long enough to do the opposite. If he hadn't done anything at this point, it might make sense to be optimistic that when he does make changes, it will be to improve service, amenities, and the LD network. But the boulder is already rolling downhill, and I don't see why it's going to stop.


That's very well said. And honestly we need more people like you in the advocacy world. We need more young guns.


----------



## Acela150

I have joined the bandwagon. Bought a hat and t shirt off of FeeBay for $30. And especially after the cancellation of the Toys for Tots train. I’m done with this idiot.


----------



## railiner

Haha....tell us how you really feel, eh?


----------



## jis

Evidence suggests that one of Anderson's goals is to provoke everyone into action of some sort or the other. At least Congress is now talking more about Amtrak than it has done in quite a while, which may or may not be a good or bad thing. But at least if they make specific service parameters part of the law then there will be less wiggle room towards cutting service. An unintended consequence may be less wiggle room towards increasing service too. This is something we will need to watch out for and oppose if it comes to pass. As we all know too well, getting Congress to micro-manage is a two edged sword.


----------



## Acela150

I just took a look at Amtrak’s Facebook page. The amount of people pissed about the cancellation of the Toys For Tots train is.... Well let’s just say it’s high.


----------



## Anthony V

Mr. Anderson and Mr. Gardner are certainly going to be on Santa's naughty list this Christmas because of this move and all of their other moves designed to hurt passenger rail ridership in America.


----------



## ohle

cpotisch said:


> I don't think Anderson should be fired, since a lot of the blame/credit for some of the recent changes isn't just for him. And I feel like a campaign like this, which wants the CEO kicked out altogether, really delegitimizes those of us who (somewhat) understand the challenges involved in maintaining quality of service and amenities in this climate. And even if a bunch of people really do feel like kicking out Anderson is the best choice, an angry roadside campaign most likely will get written of as just that, whereas a letter campaign or something like that can really let the people in power know what you want. Just my opinion.


This corrupt CEO absolutely needs to be fired, as well as the entire corrupt and derelict board, who is failing in their duty, BY LAW, to "run a NATIONAL system of trains...."

For a CEO who so often quotes "the law," he needs to obey the Amtrak law, which states the system is a NATIONAL -- not solely regional-- system.

This sorry excuse for a CEO has made more changes that will forever harm U.S. train travel.

His firing is long overdue.


----------



## jis

Unfortunately the phrase "National System" is subject to very broad interpretation. So just screaming about it is neither here, nor there. The actual meaning of the phrase can unfortunately only be settled in court, and what is worse is that apparently only the Attorney General has the standing to challenge whatever Amtrak wants to interpret it as, or alternatively Congress can clarify by more clearly stating what it means. They have an opportunity to do so in the 2019 appropriation, but apparently have no intention to go there at least so far.

As usual life is more complicated than we would like. But it is what it is.


----------



## cocojacoby

Is it true that Anderson is taking no salary? Is there some kind of monetary bonus to reach certain milestones like a professional sports player? Is his incentive to chop things up related to his personal financial gain? Why is he otherwise even doing this job?


----------



## cpotisch

cocojacoby said:


> Is it true that Anderson is taking no salary? Is there some kind of monetary bonus to reach certain milestones like a professional sports player? Is his incentive to chop things up related to his personal financial gain? Why is he otherwise even doing this job?


Anderson doesn't take a salary but the board decides on his bonus. If they think he did a good job, whatever that might mean, he'll get more dough.


----------



## jis

cocojacoby said:


> Is it true that Anderson is taking no salary? Is there some kind of monetary bonus to reach certain milestones like a professional sports player? Is his incentive to chop things up related to his personal financial gain? Why is he otherwise even doing this job?


He is not taking any salary.

He has a significant (like way more than you or I could make in several years



) performance bonus based on meeting goals set for him by the Board of Directors. His contract spells out the amount of the bonus, which I do not recall off the top of my head. It is not some arbitrary number that the Board can cook up post-facto. The exact terms and amount are spelled out in the contract.


----------



## fredmcain

The most recent issue of _Passenger Train Journal_ had an editorial by Don Phillips advocating getting rid of Anderson.  But I'm not sure how to do this.  Who exactly does he report to and whom can we contact recommending this?

Although PTJ did not specifically mention it, I noticed in their Amtrak stats that Anderson's numbers are starting to look bad, as well.  Amtrak ridership and revenues had kinda been on a roll there for a few years - before Anderson took over.  As PTJ mentioned it, "Anderson was never right for Amtrak" and I think he really needs to go.  But how?

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## NSC1109

fredmcain said:


> The most recent issue of _Passenger Train Journal_ had an editorial by Don Phillips advocating getting rid of Anderson.  But I'm not sure how to do this.  Who exactly does he report to and whom can we contact recommending this?
> 
> Although PTJ did not specifically mention it, I noticed in their Amtrak stats that Anderson's numbers are starting to look bad, as well.  Amtrak ridership and revenues had kinda been on a roll there for a few years - before Anderson took over.  As PTJ mentioned it, "Anderson was never right for Amtrak" and I think he really needs to go.  But how?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Fred M. Cain


Anderson reports to Amtrak’s Board of Directors who I believe in turn report to Congress. The President appoints new members to Amtrak’s board. 

Best way I can think to voice your displeasure is to contact your representative. I’m not sure how or even if you can contact the BoD.


----------



## jis

Also remember that not only did the Board appoint him, but they are on record stating that they approve of Anderson's performance. If you are into bashing your head against a concrete wall feel free to complain to the Board. Otherwise express your opinion to your representatives in Congress.

As I have explained elsewhere, merely getting rid of Anderson won't change a thing. The source of the current state of affairs is elsewhere.


----------



## bretton88

Ultimately, changing the CEO won't change much because a new CEO will come in and in order to acquaint themselves with how Amtrak works, they'll ask qualified people to get advice. Which on paper means asking Gardner (VP of operations, helped write PRIAA, on paper great qualifications), which then gives the same feedback loop the current (and probably past) CEO is in now. Anderson having no prior experience on a passenger railroad just gave Gardner a much freer hand to carry out that vision and plan.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jis said:


> Also remember that not only did the Board appoint him, but they are on record stating that they approve of Anderson's performance. If you are into bashing your head against a concrete wall feel free to complain to the Board. Otherwise express your opinion to your representatives in Congress. As I have explained elsewhere, merely getting rid of Anderson won't change a thing. The source of the current state of affairs is elsewhere.


If the board is undermining their own credibility then it's perfectly within the rights of customers and stakeholders to criticize them.  Citizen advocacy rarely follows a clear and obvious path to success.  A series of complaints written to an otherwise indifferent board member might spark a concerned underling or whistle blower to release previously unknown data to a third party journalist who decides to write a story that is used to help sway a congressional staffer to bring the issue to the attention of an important Senator or Representative who endeavors to make moves toward righting the ship.  We live in a society that is already predisposed toward perpetual indifference.  If someone feels like letting the board know that they're unhappy with the product and process they've overseen there is no reason to dissuade them.  My advice would be to start with congress but rather than stop there continue writing, calling, and visiting with everyone in a position to help, even if they're not inclined to do so.


----------



## jis

Devil's Advocate said:


> If the board is undermining their own credibility then it's perfectly within the rights of customers and stakeholders to criticize them.  The idea that the board should be off limits simply because they are unlikely to change course is nothing but low effort reasoning.  Citizen advocacy rarely follows a clear and obvious path to success.  A series of complaints written to a proudly indifferent board member might spark a concerned underling or whistle blower to release previously unknown data to a third party journalist who decides to write a story that is used to help sway a congressional staffer to bring the issue to the attention of an important Senator or Representative who endeavors to make moves toward righting the ship.


I did not mean to say do not bash your head against a concrete wall. Please go ahead. I was merely suggesting what might be more effective.


----------



## Seaboard92

No offense I think a VP of Operations needs to come from I don't know maybe the operations department. People who've worked themselves up from being a conductor to engineer and then into management. Those people actually know what operations is. While someone who has spent three years supposedly as a brakeman-dispatcher at Buckingham Branch and concurrently serving as a dispatcher-trainmen with another railroad in Maine before jumping over to congress. 

But then I'm personally a large opponent of Stephen Gardner but even without my personal biases against him I do think a VP of Operations needs to have several years preferably over a decade of experience on the ground.


----------



## jis

You might not have noticed that Gardner is not VP of Operations. His title is Executive VP and Chief Commercial Officer. He oversees the Product Development and Customer Experience; Corporate Planning; and Government Affairs and Corporate Communications departments, as well as the State Supported, Northeast Corridor and Long Distance Service Lines.

The guy with the title Executive VP and Chief Operating Officer is Scot Naparstek. He oversees the Engineering, Mechanical, Transportation and Network Support departments.

Looks like Gardner is more into the Commercial side of things whereas Naparstek has the Operations side of things.


----------



## daybeers

jis said:


> You might not have noticed that Gardner is not VP of Operations. His title is Executive VP and Chief Commercial Officer. He oversees the Product Development and Customer Experience; Corporate Planning; and Government Affairs and Corporate Communications departments, as well as the State Supported, Northeast Corridor and Long Distance Service Lines.
> 
> The guy with the title Executive VP and Chief Operating Officer is Scot Naparstek. He oversees the Engineering, Mechanical, Transportation and Network Support departments.
> 
> Looks like Gardner is more into the Commercial side of things whereas Naparstek has the Operations side of things.


Does that make it any better?


----------



## jis

Gardner still is the one that gets the laws written and deals with Government Affairs. I don;t think Amtrak's core problem is "operations" though many of the symptoms of the overall problems manifest in various operational practices. The core problem is that of governance and accounting.

I am sure it is better for someone, but not necessarily for us that want to improve Amtrak.


----------



## fredmcain

jis said:


> Gardner still is the one that gets the laws written and deals with Government Affairs. I don;t think Amtrak's core problem is "operations" though many of the symptoms of the overall problems manifest in various operational practices. The core problem is that of governance and accounting.
> 
> I am sure it is better for someone, but not necessarily for us that want to improve Amtrak.


So, JIS, how do we "fix" Amtrak then?  Or, is it just plain un-fixable?

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## jis

Broadly I think of these problems in three categories, with different approaches for each.

On specific urgent issues like" if this funding is not restored this train disappears" work with local officials and local advocacy groups to create and foster train specific user groups. These have worked well for the Texas Eagle and Empire Builder, and is currently working well for the Southwest Chief. Also a movement for addressing station issues through Station Volunteer Groups is worth pursuing pending the fixing of the underlying accounting issues that is causing Amtrak to make stupid decisions.

For fixing governance and accounting issues work with your representatives and other advocates to change the language in the next authorization . That is the clearest way to fix the relevant laws, and to remove requirements like Diners must make money etc.

As for fixing the problems built into its DNA from the getgo that reflect the national ambivalence/hostility towards passenger trains ... anyone’s guess is as good as mine. How do you change national institutional attitudes? Maybe it is already changing in the right direction. I intentionally use the phrase "institutional attitude" because poll after poll shows that the general public attitude is more pro-passenger rail than is reflected by the institutions that statutorily control decision making on transportation policy.


----------



## west point

jis said:


> For fixing governance and accounting issues work with your representatives and other advocates to change the language in the next authorization . That is the clearest way to fix the relevant laws, and to remove requirements like Diners must make money etc.
> 
> Maybe it is already changing in the right direction. I intentionally use the phrase "institutional attitude" because poll after poll shows that the general public attitude is more pro-passenger rail than is reflected by the institutions that statutorily control decision making on transportation policy.


Bingo  JIS is right on. 

Fix the law in reference to food being accounted as making a profit.   Require that food be supplied for complete trip bookings including providing intermediate food stocking where there is not enough space for food.  Maybe supply some extra  food from baggage cars ?.  Have provisional locations in place where additional food will be added  for any train delayed for 4 or more hours or delayed thru a regular meal time ! Require all meal services to remain open until at least 30 minutes or less before final revised arrival time .

Remove the 750 mile local support artificial LD requirement as it is not practiced on many trains in the NEC .  

Require Amtrak to spend the allocations for  LD  to at least 90% of amount in congressional  appropriations and report why all of remaining not spent !.

Require Amtrak to provide more information about day to day operations.  Restore completely the practices and stats of the older monthly reports and add several metrics including RPM for each train's leg and list every segment that has more than a 90% load weekday and weekends ( holidays inc ) separately including coach, business, & sleeper !  Also list number of seats for those legs and plans and orders to mitigate that seat shortage,  That is increasing number of cars on those legs.  Add instructions to have cut off cars started on trains that have major variations of loads on route.  Example Crescent at Atlanta. CZ at Denver.

Remove 50 max discount fares on low ridership segments and report same.

Some kind of limit on maximum fare buckets 

Require some kind of advertising along route segments with low ridership.


----------



## neroden

Well, my only idea on fixing the institutional attitude is to get it through their heads that their accounting is no good and they need proper avoidable-cost accounting.  Which would show them that "the answer to Amtrak's problems is more Amtrak", aka economies of scale.

This might wake up some of the people *inside* Amtrak -- who obviously are not inherently anti-train -- to the fact that they are engaging in "Milwaukee Road" accounting and they would have a lot more resources if they weren't looking at faked accounting.

RPA's recent report is the biggest deal in this arena in a very long time, and I hope to push it.  Not sure how best to push it.


----------



## west point

In addition to previous post

Some kind of tax break for freight RR passenger infrastructure improvements probably no property tax and some kind of income tax credit for those improvements .  Make them retroactive if RRs Willi mediately allow  more trains ,


----------



## fredmcain

West Point,

I think you have some good ideas there that I'd agree with wholeheartedly.  There is just one thing that I'd like to say.  I still think that Amtrak management - perhaps on a better day - should take another look and rethink head-end business like presorted mail and the like.  Graham had that dialed in pretty well.  I seem to remember that at one point the Southwest Chief was actually running at a thin profit overall.  While Ed Ellis might've tried to take the head end business too far, I still think it's a shame that it got chucked altogether.  Course, I realize that resurrecting the head-end business would require more equipment purchases but perhaps the right manager could work something out.  Maybe if some of the "Amfleet" equipment gets retired, those cars could be reconfigured to carry baggage and/or mail?  I don't know.  If not, surely a smart manager could work something out.

I made the suggestion to Anderson in my e-mail to him.  But what the heck?  If he won't listen to life-long railroaders in the know, why would he listen to me?

Regards,

FMC


----------



## cpotisch

fredmcain said:


> Maybe if some of the "Amfleet" equipment gets retired, those cars could be reconfigured to carry baggage and/or mail?  I don't know.  If not, surely a smart manager could work something out.


I thought the whole idea of converting old coaches into baggage cars did not work out well for Amtrak last time...


----------



## west point

Even if Amtrak could get the MHC cars back were they limited on speeds ?  One MAS figure for loaded cars another for empty.  Remember reading Amtrak D/H MHC on extra trains LAX - CHI .


----------



## TiBike

jis said:


> Broadly I think of these problems in three categories, with different approaches for each.
> 
> On specific urgent issues like" if this funding is not restored this train disappears" work with local officials and local advocacy groups to create and foster train specific user groups. These have worked well for the Texas Eagle and Empire Builder, and is currently working well for the Southwest Chief. Also a movement for addressing station issues through Station Volunteer Groups is worth pursuing pending the fixing of the underlying accounting issues that is causing Amtrak to make stupid decisions.
> 
> For fixing governance and accounting issues work with your representatives and other advocates to change the language in the next authorization . That is the clearest way to fix the relevant laws, and to remove requirements like Diners must make money etc.
> 
> As for fixing the problems built into its DNA from the getgo that reflect the national ambivalence/hostility towards passenger trains ... anyone’s guess is as good as mine. How do you change national institutional attitudes? Maybe it is already changing in the right direction. I intentionally use the phrase "institutional attitude" because poll after poll shows that the general public attitude is more pro-passenger rail than is reflected by the institutions that statutorily control decision making on transportation policy.


You're not proposing to fix Amtrak, you're trying to preserve its failure. Amtrak's route system and service model was obsolete the day the company launched – that's why it was created in the first place. States and regional transportation agencies should be more involved, and if that happens I think you'll see them setting priorities based on the greatest need – corridors and conveniently timed, reliable service between key city pairs. At least in public, the Southwest Chief changes were presented as a zero sum game, which makes it a cheap and easy issue for representatives and senators to jump on. If trade offs were on the table – say, a modern service from Albuquerque to Phoenix to LA in exchange for accepting bus service (also conveniently timed and reliable) east of there – you'd see a different reaction.

By modern service, I mean what you can find in Europe and Asia: safe, fast, clean, on-time trains, good food prepared and served via sophisticated supply chains, and an efficient, pain-free customer experience from beginning to end. Maybe Acela already does that – I don't know, never been on it. The California trains are about halfway there, but will never get closer with Amtrak's legacy DNA. The long distance trains are not even in the game, because there's no business or policy justification for making it any better.

The essential transportation argument is nonsense. The vast majority of small towns in the U.S. do fine without Amtrak. Amtrak serves a relative handful of remote communities, that could be better served by more frequent buses with more flexible destinations. The best RPA can do is to complain about accounting and lobby to roll the calendar back even further. Advocating for a business model that failed 50 years ago, because of market, technological and demographic trends that have only accelerated in the years since, will prevent the kind of meaningful change that will truly fix Amtrak, and make it relevant in this century.


----------



## cpotisch

TiBike said:


> You're not proposing to fix Amtrak, you're trying to preserve its failure. Amtrak's route system and service model was obsolete the day the company launched – that's why it was created in the first place. States and regional transportation agencies should be more involved, and if that happens I think you'll see them setting priorities based on the greatest need – corridors and conveniently timed, reliable service between key city pairs. At least in public, the Southwest Chief changes were presented as a zero sum game, which makes it a cheap and easy issue for representatives and senators to jump on. If trade offs were on the table – say, a modern service from Albuquerque to Phoenix to LA in exchange for accepting bus service (also conveniently timed and reliable) east of there – you'd see a different reaction.
> 
> By modern service, I mean what you can find in Europe and Asia: safe, fast, clean, on-time trains, good food prepared and served via sophisticated supply chains, and an efficient, pain-free customer experience from beginning to end. Maybe Acela already does that – I don't know, never been on it. The California trains are about halfway there, but will never get closer with Amtrak's legacy DNA. The long distance trains are not even in the game, because there's no business or policy justification for making it any better.
> 
> The essential transportation argument is nonsense. The vast majority of small towns in the U.S. do fine without Amtrak. Amtrak serves a relative handful of remote communities, that could be better served by more frequent buses with more flexible destinations. The best RPA can do is to complain about accounting and lobby to roll the calendar back even further. Advocating for a business model that failed 50 years ago, because of market, technological and demographic trends that have only accelerated in the years since, will prevent the kind of meaningful change that will truly fix Amtrak, and make it relevant in this century.


So basically you're saying that they should completely dismantle the entire national network, replace it with corridor services, and completely screw over anyone who lives in a remote town and relies on train travel?

Cool. hboy:


----------



## keelhauled

cpotisch said:


> So basically you're saying that they should completely dismantle the entire national network, replace it with corridor services, and completely screw over anyone who lives in a remote town and relies on train travel?
> 
> Cool. hboy:


Thousands of remote towns across the countries don't rely on train travel, and do just fine anyway.  Anyone who does rely on long distance train travel is almost certainly getting screwed anyway with regards to reliability of service.


----------



## ehbowen

keelhauled said:


> Thousands of remote towns across the countries don't rely on train travel, and do just fine anyway.  Anyone who does rely on long distance train travel is almost certainly getting screwed anyway with regards to reliability of service.


Thousands of remote towns across this nation are dying because they were bypassed by the Interstates and are more than two hours from the nearest airline service. You must not get out on the road much (former long-haul truck driver, here).

But, hey, this is supposed to be a free market economy, right? Just pick one mode (of transportation) and subsidize it to the hilt. Choices? We don't need no steenking choices!

Edit To Add: I'm doubling down. In those "remote towns" which ARE lucky enough to be on the Interstate or on a major highway, all too often the only business in town really doing well is the truck stop. Get away from the off- and on-ramp and drive through town, and you'll find that the former business district is a ghost town. The major exception is those towns which are close enough to the Big City to qualify as "bedroom communities." But while the new residents may live and vote there, their real community loyalties lie with where they work.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

cpotisch said:


> So basically you're saying that they should completely dismantle the entire national network, replace it with corridor services, and completely screw over anyone who lives in a remote town and relies on train travel?
> 
> Cool. hboy:


I'm not entirely LD vs. corridor but I feel Amtrak should serve the most number of people possible. I feel Amtrak sacrifices serving more people to serve fewer because the fewer "need it more" or don't have other transportation options. The airline industry and the bus industry chooses who gets service by demand. But in Amtrak, Las Vegas, Nashville, and Columbus have no rail service but Thurmond, WV and Rugby, ND do.


----------



## ehbowen

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I'm not entirely LD vs. corridor but I feel Amtrak should serve the most number of people possible. I feel Amtrak sacrifices serving more people to serve fewer because the fewer "need it more" or don't have other transportation options. The airline industry and the bus industry chooses who gets service by demand. But in Amtrak, Las Vegas, Nashville, and Columbus have no rail service but Thurmond, WV and Rugby, ND do.


Uh, no. Nobody has ever established a passenger service specifically for "Thurmond, WV" or "Rugby, ND". The passenger services in question were established to connect New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, DC with Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Chicago and Chicago, Milwaukee,  and the Twin Cities with Seattle and Portland. Once those services were established Thurmond and Rugby were simply low-hanging fruit; the dynamics of rail travel make it possible to add an intermediate stop which serves a secondary or tertiary market and makes the overall matrix even more valuable with less than five minutes extension of the schedule, a platform, a shelter, and (if you're feeling generous) possibly a station agent. Are you saying that, once the decision has been made to serve the primary end points, we should bypass all the small towns (and their potential passenger bases) in between?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

ehbowen said:


> Uh, no. Nobody has ever established a passenger service specifically for "Thurmond, WV" or "Rugby, ND". The passenger services in question were established to connect New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, DC with Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Chicago and Chicago, Milwaukee,  and the Twin Cities with Seattle and Portland.


Oh come on, we've been through this before.

Chicago-Washington already has a train (a way faster one).

Chicago-New York already has a train (a way faster one).

If they cared about Chicago-Philadelphia, they would have never canceled the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers (a way faster one). Baltimore used to have through service on the Broadway before they got rid of it to start the Capitol as well. If they cared about Chicago-Baltimore, they would have never changed that either.

If they cared about Cincinnati, train service there wouldn't be during the graveyard shift. Indianapolis isn't much better.

The only reason that train exists now isn't for the reason you say it does.

I can't dispute the Empire Builder has a unique national purpose between Chicago and Seattle (I may debate the importance of that purpose). But you're never going to convince me about that other train.


----------



## jis

TiBike said:


> You're not proposing to fix Amtrak, you're trying to preserve its failure. Amtrak's route system and service model was obsolete the day the company launched – that's why it was created in the first place. States and regional transportation agencies should be more involved, and if that happens I think you'll see them setting priorities based on the greatest need – corridors and conveniently timed, reliable service between key city pairs. At least in public, the Southwest Chief changes were presented as a zero sum game, which makes it a cheap and easy issue for representatives and senators to jump on. If trade offs were on the table – say, a modern service from Albuquerque to Phoenix to LA in exchange for accepting bus service (also conveniently timed and reliable) east of there – you'd see a different reaction.
> 
> By modern service, I mean what you can find in Europe and Asia: safe, fast, clean, on-time trains, good food prepared and served via sophisticated supply chains, and an efficient, pain-free customer experience from beginning to end. Maybe Acela already does that – I don't know, never been on it. The California trains are about halfway there, but will never get closer with Amtrak's legacy DNA. The long distance trains are not even in the game, because there's no business or policy justification for making it any better.
> 
> The essential transportation argument is nonsense. The vast majority of small towns in the U.S. do fine without Amtrak. Amtrak serves a relative handful of remote communities, that could be better served by more frequent buses with more flexible destinations. The best RPA can do is to complain about accounting and lobby to roll the calendar back even further. Advocating for a business model that failed 50 years ago, because of market, technological and demographic trends that have only accelerated in the years since, will prevent the kind of meaningful change that will truly fix Amtrak, and make it relevant in this century.


This is where the third type of issues that I mentioned comes in. I don't deny that there is a need to change the model, and indeed the "essential service" argument should be debated and resolved. Just because you think one way does not mean that is the majority or even a plurality opinion. I actually happen to agree that buses integrated with trains through seamless ticketing and timed transfers should have much larger role to play in the overall ground transport strategy for rural areas, but that does not mean that trains should be completely included a core set of links between large urban conglomerations. Are the current Amtrak LD routes the right inter-region links? I don;t know. But is getting rid of them today going to lead to development of anything other than simply building more highways? I don't know either. But clearly there are brighter brains than I - lie you. It is upto you to present your case and convince enough people and make it happen.

I absolutely think that the issue should be debated and resolved through the usual democratic processes. Maybe there will be no long distance or any distance trains beyond commuter type distances after that, and all we will have is Musk Pods. FRA can then get out of the business of dealing with passengers, and leave that purely as an FTA concern. But until that happens there is good reason to preserve and evolve rather than slash and burn. Afterall, the reason for the creation of the much maligned Section 209 funding was exactly to enable corridors to thrive separate from long distance trains, sponsored by corridor stakeholders. Actually seeds of it was in the original Amtrak 403b concept, but that did not work out so well because it was too ad hoc and unpredictable as to what Amtrak would do in terms of supporting such. Unlike Section 209, 403b was more general and was used to initially start the Lake Shore Limited, which was not part of the original network.

Anyway, Section 209 and the entry of the likes of Brightline may be moving things towards a qucker development of corridor services anyway, and leave the long distance arguments aside, to take place in a different forum, while corridors are developed to a point where their value becomes self evident. I think the panic in the LD supporter community partly arises from the realization of that possibility after they have oversold the LD vs. Corridor schism and made a coffin for themselves to lay in. Time will tell.


----------



## cpotisch

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I'm not entirely LD vs. corridor but I feel Amtrak should serve the most number of people possible. I feel Amtrak sacrifices serving more people to serve fewer because the fewer "need it more" or don't have other transportation options. The airline industry and the bus industry chooses who gets service by demand. But in Amtrak, Las Vegas, Nashville, and Columbus have no rail service but Thurmond, WV and Rugby, ND do.


Here we go again about West Virginia. I posted this in June on page 3 of this same thread, and I think it applies pretty well in this case:



cpotisch said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/16/2018 at 1:33 PM, Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/16/2018 at 10:50 AM, Seaboard92 said:
> 
> Either way what has senator Casey or Senator Tooney done for Your pet train? Point of the matter in this new environment all trains matter be it private cars, be it charters, be it the cardinal, and to some extent the Acela. And if we as advocates can't fight for all aspects of the trains we love. Then we won't have any train to love. Hence New River fought hard to save the Charleston Station agent, and they are fighting hard on other national network issues. We're in this fight with you but are you in it with us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hardly believe the Charleston Station agent nor other station agents in most stations in places I've never heard of are "national network issues". I forget the actual statistic but most tickets are handled online these days and a lot of stops don't have agents already. Cutting agents is a cost cutting move just like the AAA discount. I don't like it but I get it. Spending money on a ticket agent takes money away which could be used elsewhere. Amtrak is only given a certain amount of money a year. I want it used to better benefit the country, not just West Virginia. Does it have to be Philadelphia? Not necessarily. But I think it should be proportionally based on population and right now it does seem to be IMO disproportionally given to benefit rural population more and Amtrak were to truly benefit that needs to change.
> 
> I'm not sure if Anderson's delivery is the best but he might get the idea of Amtrak being a taxpayer burden and is trying to reduce the burden on the American taxpayer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Why is it that you feel that West Virginia does not deserve a station agent, or even a train at all?*
> 
> *You know how many departures each station in West Virginia gets in a week? Six. You know how many Amtrak departures Philadelphia gets each day? 108. But still you complain that your hometown doesn't have daily non-stop service to Chicago, and that the thrice-weekly train which does offer you non-stop service, should get the ax.*
> 
> *As Tricia said, West Virginia is part of the United States, so how can you say that you're not benefiting the nation by giving it a station agent? Under your logic that by Amtrak spending money on something that benefits locals, they are wasting funds and failing to benefit the country as a whole, then any money spent on any local service must be a waste, be it Charleston or New York City.*
> 
> *Tell me this: If you lived in WV, and had to put up with train service from one train that serves your town three days a week in each direction, what would be your opinion of someone whose town gets more than 750 Amtrak departures a week (not even including SEPTA or NJT), but wants you to lose train service altogether, just so that they can get a faster one seat ride to Chicago? I think I'll leave it at that.*
Click to expand...


----------



## ehbowen

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Oh come on, we've been through this before.
> 
> Chicago-Washington already has a train (a way faster one).
> 
> Chicago-New York already has a train (a way faster one).
> 
> If they cared about Chicago-Philadelphia, they would have never canceled the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers (a way faster one). Baltimore used to have through service on the Broadway before they got rid of it to start the Capitol as well. If they cared about Chicago-Baltimore, they would have never changed that either.
> 
> If they cared about Cincinnati, train service there wouldn't be during the graveyard shift. Indianapolis isn't much better.
> 
> The only reason that train exists now isn't for the reason you say it does.
> 
> I can't dispute the Empire Builder has a unique national purpose between Chicago and Seattle (I may debate the importance of that purpose). But you're never going to convince me about that other train.


No, *you* have been through this before. "You" is not "we". I for one support a comprehensive national network...*including* West Virginia. Yes, I would very much like to see the _Broadway Limited_ restored as well. But not at the expense of chopping the service lifeline to other states and regions which also happen to pay the taxes which support Amtrak.

As far as the "graveyard shift"...one of the unfortunate concomitants of "one a day" service is that it's just not possible to schedule all stops in all major destinations at convenient hours. But middle of the night service is better than no service at all. Ask Salt Lake City. I personally have awakened at four in the morning to catch the _Sunset Limited_ when that one train which serves my (larger than Philadelphia) hometown three days a week each way (sound familiar?) had a less-than-desirable scheduling. The obvious answer is to run more than one train a day. Southern Pacific found out the hard way in the mid-1950s that when you cut one of a pair of trains on a line, ridership on the remaining train goes *down*, not up...as long as alternatives exist, rail becomes that much less attractive...and consequently more attractive when/if service is restored. Take a look at linear algebra and matrix theory some time.

I enjoy your discussions and many of your insights. But, honestly, some times I think that if I put a button before you which would restore the _Broadway Limited_ at the cost of destroying the remainder of the national network, you'd push it. Yes, I'm using hyperbole. But not a whole lot.


----------



## cpotisch

ehbowen said:


> No, *you* have been through this before. "You" is not "we". I for one support a comprehensive national network...*including* West Virginia. Yes, I would very much like to see the _Broadway Limited_ restored as well. But not at the expense of chopping the service lifeline to other states and regions which also happen to pay the taxes which support Amtrak.
> 
> As far as the "graveyard shift"...one of the unfortunate concomitants of "one a day" service is that it's just not possible to schedule all stops in all major destinations at convenient hours. But middle of the night service is better than no service at all. Ask Salt Lake City. I personally have awakened at four in the morning to catch the _Sunset Limited_ when that one train which serves my (larger than Philadelphia) hometown three days a week each way (sound familiar?) had a less-than-desirable scheduling. The obvious answer is to run more than one train a day. Southern Pacific found out the hard way in the mid-1950s that when you cut one of a pair of trains on a line, ridership on the remaining train goes *down*, not up...as long as alternatives exist, rail becomes that much less attractive...and consequently more attractive when/if service is restored. Take a look at linear algebra and matrix theory some time.
> 
> I enjoy your discussions and many of your insights. But, honestly, some times I think that if I put a button before you which would restore the _Broadway Limited_ at the cost of destroying the remainder of the national network, you'd push it. Yes, I'm using hyperbole. But not a whole lot.


----------



## IndyLions

It sounds what everyone is talking about here is a re-allocation of the meager funds allocated to the National network. Yes - by government standards those funds ARE meager.

Re-allocating those funds isn’t going to get a heck of a lot done in expanding corridor service anywhere. That’s going to cost a heck of a lot more than a billion or two a year. Those expansions in corridor service are significantly needed, but need to be funded separately on their own merit. As many young people are adopting a more urban and less automobile reliant lifestyle - and especially as they will soon outnumber the baby boomers - they should have enough votes to get that done if they want it. If they don’t, it won’t happen.

In my opinion, a billion or two spent on the current national network is money well spent keeping up rail support in general in rural states like WV or ND.


----------



## jis

That is a good point. However, unfortunately there is a group of rail advocates who have incorrectly (and foolishly in my opinion) made it an either-or proposition, which the LD side is bound to eventually lose. What we need is a coherent national policy that is multi-modal surface transport and addresses the concerns of the whole nation, rural, suburban and urban, instead of pitting one group against the other. But I guess culturally we are more prone to setup pointless battles and bloody each other instead of cooperating and collaborating towards solutions that address broader concerns.


----------



## lordsigma

It should be all of the above not either or. Having the National network as a base from which to build from makes it more feasible to develop corridors in areas where Amtrak is already running trains. The existing train gives you an idea about what challenges and improvements you may need to make to the railroad segments. Also you have some of the building blocks already in place - stations for example and soon PTC operable segments. And the corridors will do better with an interconnected network than without it.


----------



## west point

JIS  Again you hit the nails on the head.  This pitting of the urban vs rural has got to stop.  However the terrible rhetoric coming out of Washington needs to be toned down.  Even though we do not live on the Cardinal its service to / from CVS, White Sulphur springs, Charleston, Huntington, Cincinnati, INDY from the various end points cannot be easily duplicate especially since many persons are going to the no automobile in family,  It is time to try to save fly over country., i  ,   ,


----------



## TiBike

jis said:


> Maybe there will be no long distance or any distance trains beyond commuter type distances after that, and all we will have is Musk Pods. FRA can then get out of the business of dealing with passengers, and leave that purely as an FTA concern. But until that happens there is good reason to preserve and evolve rather than slash and burn.


This is the contradiction that long distance fans have to resolve. "Preserve" or "evolve", you can't do both. The Southwest Chief is a case study: there was – is – a 100% focus on preserving a contiguous rail trip and 0% on how the available resources could evolve to be a better service for everyone along the route. If every incremental change is met with blind opposition and a last ditch defence, then the rational response is to fight one big, decisive battle – slash and burn – rather than continually engage in a series of rear guard actions. If people who reckon themselves rail passenger advocates don't turn and face the future, they will wake up one morning and discover there is no place in it for them.


----------



## jis

TiBike said:


> This is the contradiction that long distance fans have to resolve. "Preserve" or "evolve", you can't do both. The Southwest Chief is a case study: there was – is – a 100% focus on preserving a contiguous rail trip and 0% on how the available resources could evolve to be a better service for everyone along the route. If every incremental change is met with blind opposition and a last ditch defence, then the rational response is to fight one big, decisive battle – slash and burn – rather than continually engage in a series of rear guard actions. If people who reckon themselves rail passenger advocates don't turn and face the future, they will wake up one morning and discover there is no place in it for them.


Yup. But one should recognize that all rail passenger advocates are not of the same mindset and there is a huge schism developing among them as a result of the shenanigans of the California gang on the one hand and a few from the midwest. Only time will tell if the overall rail advocacy community will commit Harakiri over idiotic extreme positions or not. They very well might since many appear to be driven by emotion more than brains and are often fast and loose with facts as is becoming more and more fashionable in general these days.


----------



## Tarm

cpotisch said:


> So basically you're saying that they should completely dismantle the entire national network, replace it with corridor services, and completely screw over anyone who lives in a remote town and relies on train travel?
> 
> Cool. hboy:


Yes!

The quicker we get started on replacing the national network with corridor services the better chance we have of preserving passenger rail for the future. If we passenger rail advocates maintain the position of a national network or bust we might just get the bust.


----------



## cpotisch

Tarm said:


> Yes!
> 
> The quicker we get started on replacing the national network with corridor services the better chance we have of preserving passenger rail for the future. If we passenger rail advocates maintain the position of a national network or bust we might just get the bust.


Ok, here's a question: If you lived in a rural area only served by long distance trains, and you relied on train travel, do you think you would be singing the same tune?


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

Tarm said:


> Yes!
> 
> The quicker we get started on replacing the national network with corridor services the better chance we have of preserving passenger rail for the future. If we passenger rail advocates maintain the position of a national network or bust we might just get the bust.


Why is it national or BUST?

The LDT trains are the skeleton for corridors at an overall cost of next to nothing all things considered. Look how corridors popped up along the route of the Coast Starlight with the actual  Coast Starlight filing in the gaps between. That’s a poster child of how it can and should work. The difference is CA, OR and WA stepped to the plate to make it happen. That investment in infrastructure generally won’t happen in red states in today’s political climate and the 750 mile rule makes it a catch 22. Amtrak can’t run the corridors unless the states pay for them.

 We are/were the most prosperous nation on the planet. There obviously are more pressing issues like social security or  healthcare for example where we just fell into second world standards being 34th in the world in lifespan. 

Keeping this on Amtrak/infrastructure we have issues and decisions to make as a country. But having a cohesive first world infrastructure is peanuts in the big picture and will reap benefits in the day to day lives of ours and future generations.


----------



## jis

Realistically, nothing will BUST if we keep the national core network and even fill out the few obvious gaps, and also nothing will blow up completely if we get rid of the national network. I don't think there are too many rail advocates beyond a few foolish ones, who believe in "national network or bust" even though they may try to use that as an argument for maintaining the national network, assuming that all funding for everything will disappear if the national network disappears. Of course when they talk of "corridor" they also usually mean just the Northeast Corridor, because again they foolishly make it a either-or proposition between the NEC and the LD network. Unfortunately once you paint yourself into a foolish corner then it becomes an issue of how you extricate yourself from that corner while saving your face, and I believe many of those that are going on about "national or bust" will find themselves in that situation.

As it is, most of the corridors are funded from a funding source that is different from the one used for the core national network. The NEC maintenance of SOGR is funded through Amtrak, but from a separate account than the national network, and bulk of the funding is now in the national network bucket. The NEC major new constructions will get funded separately, and the funding will be a mix of FRA, FTA and State funds. Make no mistake, no matter what happens to the national network, NEC will get funded. So please stop this destructive line of politicking.

Having said that, the existence of the national network can only help the development of new corridors where none exist now, and also to interconnect such corridors to provide a vastly superior interconnected network with many additional pairs of stations accessible easily. If we add to this an enhanced Thruway bus/van network to connect more remote rural areas, we will have a well developed and usable public surface transportation system,


----------



## neroden

I believe if the national network becomes disconnected, we will have some really serious problems.  Specifically, losing the Lake Shore Limited & Capitol Limited would seriously trash Amtrak -- inability to move people between the Northeast Corridor network and the Chicago network would be a disaster.  Losing Denver service would also be a disaster, and losing East Coast - West Coast service would severely hamper Amtrak's future.

As long as the core links between regions remain intact, the national network can afford to be altered.  If we lose the core links, we break the network effects, and it bleeds the regional traffic, visibility, and finances on both sides -- this is more dramatic in the NEC/Chicago case than the East Coast/West Coast case, but it is true in both.  People here know that I've advocated for rerouting the Southwest Chief through Amarillo, where the people are -- I'm an opponent of the "essential service" argument -- but I'm a strong supporter of the "network connectivity" argument. 

Train systems thrive on connectivity, and the weakest systems, financially and in ridership terms, are always the isolated lines.


----------



## bretton88

cpotisch said:


> Ok, here's a question: If you lived in a rural area only served by long distance trains, and you relied on train travel, do you think you would be singing the same tune?


Being in a rural area, I would say 95% of people would say yes, as long as it came with a nice 4 lane expressway.


----------



## cpotisch

bretton88 said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, here's a question: If you lived in a rural area only served by long distance trains, and you relied on train travel, do you think you would be singing the same tune?
> 
> 
> 
> Being in a rural area, I would say 95% of people would say yes, as long as it came with a nice 4 lane expressway.
Click to expand...

Firstly, it doesn't. Secondly, do you really think that 95% of people who need train travel would support losing it?


----------



## ehbowen

bretton88 said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, here's a question: If you lived in a rural area only served by long distance trains, and you relied on train travel, do you think you would be singing the same tune?
> 
> 
> 
> Being in a rural area, I would say 95% of people would say yes, as long as it came with a nice 4 lane expressway.
Click to expand...

What about those persons that for either physical or financial reasons are unable to own and/or operate a motor vehicle? Are they now unpersons?


----------



## jebr

Yeah, I think even if most rural residents would want a rural expressway over train service, there's a certain amount of people that can't drive or can't afford to own a vehicle. Given how much tax money goes into roads (beyond that collected via gas tax,) it seems fair to make sure everyone can get places even if they can't use the roads with their own vehicle.

That said, depending on the cost I think there's an argument to be made that most of those people would rather see a few well-timed buses connecting them throughout their region, with connections available to nationwide bus, rail, and air networks, versus having an once-a-day train, especially if that train stops in the middle of the night. That, however, would require us making a strong effort to build those connections and making it simple to use, and having it coordinated much more than the rural intercity bus subsidies currently are. It'd also still require a network for people to connect to, and having no rail network connecting the East Coast to Chicago, or Chicago to the West Coast, would make that a difficult proposition.


----------



## TiBike

jebr said:


> Yeah, I think even if most rural residents would want a rural expressway over train service, there's a certain amount of people that can't drive or can't afford to own a vehicle. Given how much tax money goes into roads (beyond that collected via gas tax,) it seems fair to make sure everyone can get places even if they can't use the roads with their own vehicle.
> 
> That said, depending on the cost I think there's an argument to be made that most of those people would rather see a few well-timed buses connecting them throughout their region, with connections available to nationwide bus, rail, and air networks, versus having an once-a-day train, especially if that train stops in the middle of the night. That, however, would require us making a strong effort to build those connections and making it simple to use, and having it coordinated much more than the rural intercity bus subsidies currently are. It'd also still require a network for people to connect to, and having no rail network connecting the East Coast to Chicago, or Chicago to the West Coast, would make that a difficult proposition.


I agree. Time and money is better spent improving rural bus service and highways.

Most travel is local. There's a much greater need in rural areas (I live in one too, although it's one of California's versions of rural) for well timed local and regional transportation than for direct access to long haul travel, e.g. a long distance train with the next stop being a hundred miles or more away. Good regional links will get you to long distance services. Highways are orders of magnitude more important to rural economies than a daily train of any kind, and provide access to far more essential services (e.g. health, education, jobs) to far more people.

Passenger rail connections to the coasts are nice, but of near zero utility compared to highways – in the U.S., there are as many motor vehicle trips in six minutes as there are LD train passengers in a year.


----------



## mlanoue

I'm no expert on any of this, but it seems to me that most of the people who ride intercity trains (or we hope will ride them in the future) don't know or care if it's considered Long Distance or Corridor.  The cars say "Amtrak" on the outside--in some form or the other--and if it's going where they want to go in a reasonable amount of time, then they buy a ticket and get on. I used to ride the Illinois Zephyr/Sandburg between Macomb and Plano, and had no clue how it was funded--nor did I realize that that made any difference from how any other trains were funded.  It looked close enough to the other Amtrak's I had ridden in the past.  (I suppose Midwest corridor trains might be a little more generic in appearance when compared to those in California and maybe the NEC.)

Of course, now I do believe that it actually IS important to understand the funding streams, though.

It's great to have frequent departures and on-time arrivals between a bigger cities, but it's also great to be able to get on in some smaller town nowhere near an airport and get off at another smaller town nowhere near an airport, even if you only have that opportunity once a day  And, having a bus available to get you closer to a train makes it even better. I'd hate to lose any of the service we have, but I definitely can understand why most, if not all, of the expansion we see would be of the corridor variety.


----------



## jis

TiBike said:


> Passenger rail connections to the coasts are nice, but of near zero utility compared to highways – in the U.S., there are as many motor vehicle trips in six minutes as there are LD train passengers in a year.


I don't think all service "to the coast" are equivalent either. For example,the east of Mississippi network is much more viable as a series of interconnected and overlapping corridors that can easily support multiple service per day through trains like say from Chicago to New York or even St. Louis to Washington/Virginia and such.

OTOH, this approach becomes far more tenuous, if not difficult to keep going once you get west of Denver, just roughly speaking, until you get to the west coastal states. But such is life. Geography and population distribution and demographics rules.


----------



## jebr

TiBike said:


> Passenger rail connections to the coasts are nice, but of near zero utility compared to highways – in the U.S., there are as many motor vehicle trips in six minutes as there are LD train passengers in a year.


Comparing specifically LD train passengers to the entirety of motor vehicle travel is a pretty stacked comparison in favor of vehicle travel. Certainly, LD train travel has a pretty small market share (thanks to its lack of frequency, cost compared to nominal cost of driving, among other things,) but there's a lot of motor vehicle trips that would make no sense trying to switch to a LD train even if our goal was to get as many trips as possible onto trains. The vast majority of trips would likely fall into that category (commuter trips or trips to the grocery or hardware store, for example, would almost never make sense as part of a LD train's market.)

I'd generally agree that LD trains, in and of themselves, are a pretty poor form of local transit, but that's not what they're designed to do. It'd be better to compare them to something closer to essential air service. There also has to be an intercity system for people to connect to in order for a bus connecting to those modes of transportation to work for those longer trips; it's pretty hard to have an intercity bus connect to a national rail network if that national rail network doesn't exist! It really needs to be a "both/and" conversation, not an "either/or." They both have their strong suits, and as long as we have some semblance of a national rail network there's always going to be a few rural towns that are along the way and that make sense to serve as an "along the way" destination even if that city needs other forms of transportation in order to fully connect their residents to the wider world. In general, rail also makes sense once you have capacity that buses can't meet, but it's much harder to justify that when the rail network is primarily privately owned and the road network is primarily publicly owned and doesn't charge a direct fee (or toll) in most cases.


----------



## Rover

The "fix" to me is a Federal Investment in dedicated Passenger LD rail (in Billions of Dollars). How that becomes reality is beyond me.


----------



## TiBike

jebr said:


> Comparing specifically LD train passengers to the entirety of motor vehicle travel is a pretty stacked comparison in favor of vehicle travel. Certainly, LD train travel has a pretty small market share (thanks to its lack of frequency, cost compared to nominal cost of driving, among other things,) but there's a lot of motor vehicle trips that would make no sense trying to switch to a LD train even if our goal was to get as many trips as possible onto trains. The vast majority of trips would likely fall into that category (commuter trips or trips to the grocery or hardware store, for example, would almost never make sense as part of a LD train's market.)
> 
> I'd generally agree that LD trains, in and of themselves, are a pretty poor form of local transit, but that's not what they're designed to do. It'd be better to compare them to something closer to essential air service. There also has to be an intercity system for people to connect to in order for a bus connecting to those modes of transportation to work for those longer trips; it's pretty hard to have an intercity bus connect to a national rail network if that national rail network doesn't exist! It really needs to be a "both/and" conversation, not an "either/or." They both have their strong suits, and as long as we have some semblance of a national rail network there's always going to be a few rural towns that are along the way and that make sense to serve as an "along the way" destination even if that city needs other forms of transportation in order to fully connect their residents to the wider world. In general, rail also makes sense once you have capacity that buses can't meet, but it's much harder to justify that when the rail network is primarily privately owned and the road network is primarily publicly owned and doesn't charge a direct fee (or toll) in most cases.


It's a fine thing to have long distance trains stop at towns along the way, but it's not a justification for the trains. How many Amtrak stations are only served by long distance trains? A couple hundred? Fewer? Subtract out the number on an interstate highway and/or with an airport with commercial service, and you're down into the dozens. There are 3,000 _counties_ in the U.S., 19,000 incorporated cities and thousands more unincorporated communities. The number of communities that rely solely on Amtrak LD trains is a rounding error. If you're worried about rural transportation policy on a national, or even state, scale, Amtrak LD is irrelevant.

Assigning more resources to regional/corridor services, and less to long haul connectivity, will serve more people and more communities – rural and otherwise – than the current system. If we had unlimited resources, it wouldn't be a problem. But that's hardly the case: it is a matter of either/or.


----------



## daybeers

TiBike said:


> It's a fine thing to have long distance trains stop at towns along the way, but it's not a justification for the trains. How many Amtrak stations are only served by long distance trains? A couple hundred? Fewer? Subtract out the number on an interstate highway and/or with an airport with commercial service, and you're down into the dozens. There are 3,000 _counties_ in the U.S., 19,000 incorporated cities and thousands more unincorporated communities. The number of communities that rely solely on Amtrak LD trains is a rounding error. If you're worried about rural transportation policy on a national, or even state, scale, Amtrak LD is irrelevant.
> 
> Assigning more resources to regional/corridor services, and less to long haul connectivity, will serve more people and more communities – rural and otherwise – than the current system. If we had unlimited resources, it wouldn't be a problem. But that's hardly the case: it is a matter of either/or.


There are many communities Amtrak serves that don't get regular long-distance bus service by Greyhound or something of the sort, and we already established that many people in such rural areas don't own cars or aren't able to due to financial or physical limitations. Many stops are quite far from large cities and/or interstate highways, a system which usually works well, but doesn't go everywhere.

Also, in regards to airports: do you know how expensive it is to fly from small, regional airports? Usually in the several hundred to _thousands of dollars_. Meaning I could fly from the East Coast to Europe and back for less money (and probably less time) than someone from Havre, Montana could fly to Chicago and back.

In my opinion, American culture around transportation is changing: fewer people, especially the younger generations, are choosing to own cars and are taking public transportation instead. The population growth in the U.S. is spurring the desperate need for more of it, and it's clear there is a lot of demand. It just takes the advocacy of citizens and the determination by governors and representatives to expand and increase service, not necessarily just on Amtrak, but on all modes of public transportation.

I think this just takes us back to probably (hopefully) the #1 stance on Amtrak by its supporters: *the cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak!*


----------



## Rover

Name a nation as large as the US that has long distance trains not underwritten by the Govt.


----------



## cpotisch

TiBike said:


> It's a fine thing to have long distance trains stop at towns along the way, but it's not a justification for the trains. How many Amtrak stations are only served by long distance trains? A couple hundred? Fewer? Subtract out the number on an interstate highway and/or with an airport with commercial service, and you're down into the dozens. *There are 3,000 counties in the U.S., 19,000 incorporated cities and thousands more unincorporated communities. The number of communities that rely solely on Amtrak LD trains is a rounding error.* If you're worried about rural transportation policy on a national, or even state, scale, Amtrak LD is irrelevant.


The amount of government funds spent on long distance trains is also a rounding error. And concentrating on corridors that are already developed and thriving won't serve any more of those 3,000 counties. So your own logic defeats you.


----------



## bretton88

ehbowen said:


> What about those persons that for either physical or financial reasons are unable to own and/or operate a motor vehicle? Are they now unpersons?


No, not here in Iowa. that's what dial a ride is for. Every region has one here in Iowa. They will get you to the big city or the place with nearest facilities. It is not uncommon to see those vans/minibuses at the local grocery stores and medical facilities. In rural areas you're talking about a very small number of people that can't run a motor vehicle.


----------



## jebr

bretton88 said:


> ehbowen said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about those persons that for either physical or financial reasons are unable to own and/or operate a motor vehicle? Are they now unpersons?
> 
> 
> 
> No, not here in Iowa. that's what dial a ride is for. Every region has one here in Iowa. They will get you to the big city or the place with nearest facilities. It is not uncommon to see those vans/minibuses at the local grocery stores and medical facilities. In rural areas you're talking about a very small number of people.
Click to expand...

At least the last time I looked, the dial-a-ride for northwest Iowa only provides service "around town," at least in some towns, with no way to connect to the larger world. I have a friend who lives there and doesn't have a car (and can't legally drive) and he has to rely on other people when he wants to leave town. He can walk around town easily enough, but getting to Sioux City or Sioux Falls to catch intercity transportation requires the kindness of friends in the area.

In Minnesota many rural dial-a-rides are similar, though some at least offer once-a-week (or, in some cases, once-a-month!) transportation to the larger city. Once-a-month transportation works for appointments if you can schedule them well in advance, but it does little to connect to the wider world (most people don't want to take a month-long trip somewhere!)


----------



## jebr

TiBike said:


> It's a fine thing to have long distance trains stop at towns along the way, but it's not a justification for the trains. How many Amtrak stations are only served by long distance trains? A couple hundred? Fewer? Subtract out the number on an interstate highway and/or with an airport with commercial service, and you're down into the dozens. There are 3,000 _counties_ in the U.S., 19,000 incorporated cities and thousands more unincorporated communities. The number of communities that rely solely on Amtrak LD trains is a rounding error. If you're worried about rural transportation policy on a national, or even state, scale, Amtrak LD is irrelevant.
> 
> Assigning more resources to regional/corridor services, and less to long haul connectivity, will serve more people and more communities – rural and otherwise – than the current system. If we had unlimited resources, it wouldn't be a problem. But that's hardly the case: it is a matter of either/or.


Maybe rural connectivity alone isn't justification for the trains, but that, along with larger-city connectivity and connecting regional rail networks to each other, certainly make them relatively useful and necessary on the whole. It's the totality of what those trains do, not just the individual aspects, that make them worthwhile. Are they perfect? Certainly not, and there's instances where I think there's better alternatives; as but one example, if BNSF wants to abandon the Raton line, Amtrak should be pushing for a reroute onto the southern transcon and using connecting bus service only for the bypassed communities to connect to the rerouted SWC. That still preserves the general connectivity of the system, ensures some service for every community that currently has it, and seems to be a good way to minimize long-term costs for the current frequency in the area.

As for funding, the current amount is frankly minuscule for the size of country we have, and either a small increase in taxes or cuts to other parts of the federal budget could certainly provide enough funding for a both/and situation across the country. It requires lobbying for more money for intercity ground transportation, sure, but that seems to be a much better course of action than trying to find a way to parcel out the very limited funds in a way that would actually provide comprehensive connectivity; the funds seem so limited that doing so seems like a fool's errand.


----------



## TiBike

daybeers said:


> There are many communities Amtrak serves that don't get regular long-distance bus service by Greyhound or something of the sort, and we already established that many people in such rural areas don't own cars or aren't able to due to financial or physical limitations. Many stops are quite far from large cities and/or interstate highways, a system which usually works well, but doesn't go everywhere.
> 
> Also, in regards to airports: do you know how expensive it is to fly from small, regional airports? Usually in the several hundred to _thousands of dollars_. Meaning I could fly from the East Coast to Europe and back for less money (and probably less time) than someone from Havre, Montana could fly to Chicago and back.
> 
> In my opinion, American culture around transportation is changing: fewer people, especially the younger generations, are choosing to own cars and are taking public transportation instead. The population growth in the U.S. is spurring the desperate need for more of it, and it's clear there is a lot of demand. It just takes the advocacy of citizens and the determination by governors and representatives to expand and increase service, not necessarily just on Amtrak, but on all modes of public transportation.
> 
> I think this just takes us back to probably (hopefully) the #1 stance on Amtrak by its supporters: *the cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak!*


How many is "many"? How many communities on Amtrak's long distance network would otherwise be without any public transportation service? People without cars in rural areas (and everywhere else) need local and regional transportation, i.e. buses, more than a daily long distance train. I'm not saying a long distance train is useless for them, but the idea that Amtrak's long distance network is essential transportation is nonsense in all but a handful of cases. Maybe there are enough of those along the Empire Builder's route to justify it (I doubt it, but I can see the argument), but you can either find buses, planes and highways everywhere else already or bus service can be extended – the proposed bus bridge on the SW Chief route was feasible.

You're right, there is a trend toward more use of public transportation. That's why Amtrak's focus should be on corridors and key city pairs. Put the money, people and equipment where the passengers are. The cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak only if economically rational decisions are made


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

The trouble with buses is that they have the same conditions as cars--traffic jams, more possibility of being in or affected by accidents, and having to deal with distracted drivers all around them. Also, in some places (and I will not say where, but I know of one place that people who have been on that bus have told me about), buses are not safe because fights break out and the bus driver cannot stop them because he is driving the bus and can't do two things at the same time. Plus, some people who take trains and are fine in them get carsick in a bus if they have to be in it for a long time.

In addition, for older people who no longer want to (or cannot) drive (and nobody seems to care a bit about them, even though there are a lot of baby boomers living a long time, and even some Greatest Generation people still around), a train is a lot better than a bus (even if just for the fact that there is a conductor to help them on and off and answer any questions).

I am going on a bus trip in early December with a friend who wants to do it--just a day trip, and with a reputable company--but I am actually dreading it because I rarely ride a bus at all now.


----------



## daybeers

TiBike said:


> How many is "many"? How many communities on Amtrak's long distance network would otherwise be without any public transportation service? People without cars in rural areas (and everywhere else) need local and regional transportation, i.e. buses, more than a daily long distance train. I'm not saying a long distance train is useless for them, but the idea that Amtrak's long distance network is essential transportation is nonsense in all but a handful of cases. Maybe there are enough of those along the Empire Builder's route to justify it (I doubt it, but I can see the argument), but you can either find buses, planes and highways everywhere else already or bus service can be extended – the proposed bus bridge on the SW Chief route was feasible.


I never claimed that Amtrak's long distance network is essential local or regional transportation. In my opinion, it's terrible for that, primarily due to frequency and reliability. However, it is sometimes essential for transportation to far-away parts of the country. And no, we already covered that the interstate highway system doesn't go everywhere, so how do those buses get between stops? Slow, windy roads that are dangerous in the harsh winters for a small sedan, not to mention a large commercial coach bus.

"the proposed bus bridge on the SW Chief route was feasible." What?!?!?! Ridership on the SWC would have _tanked_ and I think everyone here knows that.


----------



## TiBike

Mystic River Dragon said:


> The trouble with buses is that they have the same conditions as cars--traffic jams, more possibility of being in or affected by accidents, and having to deal with distracted drivers all around them. Also, in some places (and I will not say where, but I know of one place that people who have been on that bus have told me about), buses are not safe because fights break out and the bus driver cannot stop them because he is driving the bus and can't do two things at the same time. Plus, some people who take trains and are fine in them get carsick in a bus if they have to be in it for a long time.
> 
> In addition, for older people who no longer want to (or cannot) drive (and nobody seems to care a bit about them, even though there are a lot of baby boomers living a long time, and even some Greatest Generation people still around), a train is a lot better than a bus (even if just for the fact that there is a conductor to help them on and off and answer any questions).
> 
> I am going on a bus trip in early December with a friend who wants to do it--just a day trip, and with a reputable company--but I am actually dreading it because I rarely ride a bus at all now.


Everything you say here is true. The greater the population served, the truer it is.


----------



## TiBike

daybeers said:


> I never claimed that Amtrak's long distance network is essential local or regional transportation. In my opinion, it's terrible for that, primarily due to frequency and reliability. However, it is sometimes essential for transportation to far-away parts of the country. And no, we already covered that the interstate highway system doesn't go everywhere, so how do those buses get between stops? Slow, windy roads that are dangerous in the harsh winters for a small sedan, not to mention a large commercial coach bus.
> 
> "the proposed bus bridge on the SW Chief route was feasible." What?!?!?! Ridership on the SWC would have _tanked_ and I think everyone here knows that.


The SW Chief bus bridge was feasible as a means of providing whatever essential service was needed in the gap. That's my only point. That said, we don't know what the service would have looked like – maybe redesigned to be individually optimised for the two rail segments? – or what would have happened to ridership or profitability. Everyone here might have an opinion, but no one knows.

Which towns on Amtrak's long distance network are only accessible by "slow, windy roads that are dangerous in the harsh winters for a small sedan"? I'll bet you a beer that in any town you can point to, Amtrak long distance service accounts for less than 1% of the passenger trips in and out of the town limits every day. Some towns on the long distance network are _relatively_ small and remote, but I can't think of a single one that would qualify as small and remote by rural development standards (that's _really_ small and remote). Amtrak does not go to Ice Station Zebra.


----------



## cpotisch

TiBike said:


> The SW Chief bus bridge was feasible as a means of providing whatever essential service was needed in the gap. That's my only point. That said, we don't know what the service would have looked like – maybe redesigned to be individually optimised for the two rail segments? – or what would have happened to ridership or profitability. Everyone here might have an opinion, but no one knows.
> 
> Which towns on Amtrak's long distance network are only accessible by "slow, windy roads that are dangerous in the harsh winters for a small sedan"? I'll bet you a beer that in any town you can point to, Amtrak long distance service accounts for less than 1% of the passenger trips in and out of the town limits every day. Some towns on the long distance network are _relatively_ small and remote, but I can't think of a single one that would qualify as small and remote by rural development standards (that's _really_ small and remote). Amtrak does not go to Ice Station Zebra.


But here's the thing: you live in Alta California, which is not exactly out of the way, remote, or lacking in transportation infrastructure. So I don't think you can really speak to how easy it would be for someone who does live in a tiny town without nearby airports or highways to lose their train service. That said, I guess I'm in the same pickle.


----------



## cpotisch

TiBike said:


> The SW Chief bus bridge was feasible as a means of providing whatever essential service was needed in the gap. That's my only point. That said, we don't know what the service would have looked like – maybe redesigned to be individually optimised for the two rail segments? – or what would have happened to ridership or profitability. Everyone here might have an opinion, but no one knows.


The bus bridge would have lost anyone who can't spend hours a bus, anyone who wants through-service and doesn't want to transfer at all in the middle of their trip (let alone twice), anyone who likes comfortable travel in a sleeper, and more. I think it's safe to say that anyone who doesn't absolutely positively have to use land transport, would not take a two night trip with two transfers to and from two busses.


----------



## jebr

cpotisch said:


> The bus bridge would have lost anyone who can't spend hours a bus, anyone who wants through-service and doesn't want to transfer at all in the middle of their trip (let alone twice), anyone who likes comfortable travel in a sleeper, and more. I think it's safe to say that anyone who doesn't absolutely positively have to use land transport, would not take a two night trip with two transfers to and from two busses.


Exactly. It's one thing to look at BNSF's desire to no longer maintain the Raton route and find it makes more sense to push on BNSF for a reroute on the transcon instead of paying millions to maintain that portion of the route for two trains a day. That's a case where it could be argued that a reroute with connecting bus service for those going to/from bypassed stations makes the most sense. (And yes, I still think that if BNSF wants to abandon the Raton route that they should be obliged to offer similar speed/frequency on an alternate route at a similar price.)

It's quite another to look at the situation and push for an option that doesn't have any clear path to improved connectivity and actively harms connectivity for many passengers. After all, it doesn't seem like there'd be enough trainsets freed up to really do anything in terms of improved service (we'd gain back, at best, one to two trainsets.) It also doesn't do anything to improve connectivity (a single bus each day isn't any better than a single train each day, and there wasn't any mention I can recall of improved frequency with bus service.) However, it actively reduces ease of use for anyone traveling through the connecting points and would almost certainly have a negative impact on through ridership.


----------



## Pere Flyer

cpotisch said:


> But here's the thing: you live in Alta California, which is not exactly out of the way, remote, or lacking in transportation infrastructure. So I don't think you can really speak to how easy it would be for someone who does live in a tiny town without nearby airports or highways to lose their train service. That said, I guess I'm in the same pickle. [emoji6]


Yes. Until residents of small towns weigh in on their transportation needs, we’re only spouting opinions, statistics, and projections. Are there AUers who live in small-town areas who do/don’t have Amtrak service, and are there AUers who live in small-town areas without Interstates or U.S./state highways capable of bus travel?
As social justice advocates say, “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.”


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

Pere Flyer said:


> Yes. Until residents of small towns weigh in on their transportation needs, we’re only spouting opinions, statistics, and projections. Are there AUers who live in small-town areas who do/don’t have Amtrak service, and are there AUers who live in small-town areas without Interstates or U.S./state highways capable of bus travel?
> As social justice advocates say, “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.”


But yet small towns are why we have R’s in charge. Red states go out of their way not to improve infrastructure. Yes it’s a loaded generalized response but for the most part true. Hopefully Amtrak finally is a bipartisan issue at least  on the federal level (Senate and House).

Personally I’ve seen it both ways. In San Diego with great Amtrak service almost every 2 hours to LA. Now in Quad Cities, Iowa /Moline area where we have to drive 45 minutes to Galesburg to hop a train to Chicago. Iowa said no thanks to Amtrak service while the Moline to Chicago train is still a few years out.

One thing is for sure Amtrak is a HUGE boost to Galesburg and all the shops downtown.


----------



## lordsigma

cpotisch said:


> The bus bridge would have lost anyone who can't spend hours a bus, anyone who wants through-service and doesn't want to transfer at all in the middle of their trip (let alone twice), anyone who likes comfortable travel in a sleeper, and more. I think it's safe to say that anyone who doesn't absolutely positively have to use land transport, would not take a two night trip with two transfers to and from two busses.


Yes wasn't part of the plan to remove sleepers, dining, and baggage from the whole service as part of this?


----------



## keelhauled

cpotisch said:


> I think it's safe to say that anyone who doesn't absolutely positively have to use land transport, would not take a two night trip with two transfers to and from two busses.


Why, as a national transportation policy, should we be subsidizing anyone _other_ than those people?  We already subsidize rural infrastructure and society to a huge extent through road spending, agricultural subsidies, healthcare spending, etc.  Why is it prudent spending to fling more money at long distance trains, which are completely redundant and in almost all cases nowhere near essential transportation? Insofar as the federal government has an obligation to ensure that a its citizens have access to mobility--which I do believe that it does--why should it be obligated to provide that service in the form of trains, when other modes of transport are more cost effective and in many cases more reliable?

The fundamental advantage of railroads is that they have an extremely high throughput capacity, at the cost of an extremely high physical investment.  The only way the investment can be justified is if the capacity is utilized, and there is no scenario in which long distance trains do that.  The capacity is paid for and used by private freight operators, in which case as we see happens across the country passenger trains become horribly tardy and of complete uselessness to anyone who wants reliable transportation, which I assume would be everybody.  Or, the investment is made publicly, but for the purpose of only an extremely limited use of the infrastructure, ie Raton Pass, in which case the subsidy per passenger becomes spectacularly, and I would argue unjustifiably, high.

I am speaking from the point of view of someone who has lived in rural Vermont, New York, and now Colorado, all of which have been served by single daily passenger trains, and all of which I used extremely infrequently in favor of either buses or personal vehicles.  Almost universally I found it more efficient to drive or use a bus to Northeast Corridor points for transportation within the region.  Trains are horrible as a feeder service.  Either you do it cheaply with one train a day, which appeals to a tiny subset of the market that can afford to have extremely flexible schedules, or you use multiple frequencies that cost more, carry few people at a time, and could be replaced at great savings by buses. 

Look at what happened to the Downeaster when it was extended to Brunswick--there are about 20 passengers on each train east of Brunswick (calculated from the three roundtrips daily that previously operated).  With 306 seats (4x 72 seat coaches and 18 BC seats), that is a 6.5% load factor.  6.5%!!!  They spent $35 million on the project, then another $9 million to get two more round trips to Brunswick this fall.  The entire train generated $8.6 million in revenue last year.  How can you possibly justify expenditures like that for so few people? 

Trains are just an awful fiscal decision for low density traffic.  So what is the point of long distance trains as a public service?  What is the justification for subsidizing the segment of travelers who are riding for the experience, or because they have time to kill and choose trains as personal preference?  Why are they not paying full freight?  And why is a train so critically important for the remainder of passengers, those who do require ground transportation for a certain city pair that the train serves, that we should pay for such an inefficient mode of transport? There is nothing inherent about long distance train service that supports towns and cities, certainly not more than an effective highway network, which the United States just so happens to already have across a much larger area of the country than the Amtrak network.


----------



## tricia

Weighing in as someone whose home is very rural--a mile from the nearest neighbor, 1 1/2 hours drive to the nearest airport, 2 1/1 hours to the nearest Amtrak station....

What I want from rail is similar to what I want from air travel: Drive or catch a ride to the nearest station, leave the car there, and board a train that connects me with a national travel network. (I'd be thrilled if I could drive just 10 miles to the nearest rail line (in Hot Springs), park and catch a train, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for that. ^_^ )

Something that's been missing from this thread: As fossil fuels become more scarce and expensive, train transport has the potential to become much more economically attractive than either air or car-or-truck. If we don't make it a national priority to hang on to at least the national rail infrastructure  we've currently got, we won't be able to increase frequencies and passenger loads as rail travel's fuel efficiencies become more compelling.


----------



## TiBike

keelhauled said:


> The fundamental advantage of railroads is that they have an extremely high throughput capacity, at the cost of an extremely high physical investment.  The only way the investment can be justified is if the capacity is utilized, and there is no scenario in which long distance trains do that.  The capacity is paid for and used by private freight operators, in which case as we see happens across the country passenger trains become horribly tardy and of complete uselessness to anyone who wants reliable transportation, which I assume would be everybody.  Or, the investment is made publicly, but for the purpose of only an extremely limited use of the infrastructure, ie Raton Pass, in which case the subsidy per passenger becomes spectacularly, and I would argue unjustifiably, high.
> 
> -- snip --
> 
> Trains are just an awful fiscal decision for low density traffic.  So what is the point of long distance trains as a public service?  What is the justification for subsidizing the segment of travelers who are riding for the experience, or because they have time to kill and choose trains as personal preference?  Why are they not paying full freight?  And why is a train so critically important for the remainder of passengers, those who do require ground transportation for a certain city pair that the train serves, that we should pay for such an inefficient mode of transport? There is nothing inherent about long distance train service that supports towns and cities, certainly not more than an effective highway network, which the United States just so happens to already have across a much larger area of the country than the Amtrak network.


Just so. Trains are good at transporting large numbers of people. Putting public train subsidies and limited private resources into low density service, while high density alternatives go unserved, is wasteful.


----------



## fredmcain

Yesterday an article came to my attention from Railway Age by F.K. Plous.  The article is about a month and a half old.  I think I’d seen it before but I didn’t really read it until yesterday.  I would strongly encourage everyone on this group to read the article carefully and think this over.  Don’t form an immediate opinion on it until you’ve thought about it like I tried to.

Plous, I think, makes some good points.  I feel like he was able to put his finger on the problem(s) that Amtrak is having and has had all along.  He also comes up with an interesting solution.  He warns that it will not be easy but is nevertheless definitely possible and within reach.

According to what he is saying, NARP and its members (like me) have been pursuing exactly the wrong course all along by expending a lot of political and lobbying capital trying to “save” Amtrak one train at a time.  We need to come to grips with the fact that this strategy is not working.  We still have the same highly skeletonized and marginal system that we had nearly 50 years ago now (47 to be exact).  In my honest, humble, personal opinion it is time (actually way past time) to try something else – something that will work.

Please read and ponder:

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/the-amtrak-era-is-over-its-time-for-a-replacement/

Or *[SIZE=9.5pt]https://tinyurl.com/yckmfkek [/SIZE]*

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## jis

Is Corridor Capital looking to find someone to sell all those SantaFe Hi-Levels to?  :hi:

Merely asserting multiple times that something will work does not make it any more so. No real path is prescribed about how tog et there from here.


----------



## JRR

Very interesting article. Points raised warrant some thought and discussion.

I believe the interstate highway system resulted from Eisenhower seeing the German Autobahn system. I know my Dad was very impressed with them and saw their strategic importance.

I agree that a higher level, strategic discussion is the only way to come to a reasonable conclusion. I also think that turning this into a political debate will result in failure. All sides need to be invested and pursuing one side for support would be a mistake.


----------



## fredmcain

jis said:


> Is Corridor Capital looking to find someone to sell all those SantaFe Hi-Levels to?  :hi:
> 
> Merely asserting multiple times that something will work does not make it any more so. No real path is prescribed about how tog et there from here.


JIS,

well, my take on it is that Plous was trying to tell us that Congress needs to pass a new transportation act similar to what created the FHA and the FAA and provide a funding well.  I agree with this.  As to which cars (like the Hi-Levels you cited) go where specifically, he didn't get into that.   Actually, completely doing away with Amtrak might not be necessary but perhaps it could be transitioned into a new role - I don't know.  Surely something to think about.  But I continue to believe - and will repeat - what we got now ain't workin'.  It's not for the future in my opinion.

Regards,

FMC


----------



## Amtrak706

fredmcain said:


> JIS,
> 
> well, my take on it is that Plous was trying to tell us that Congress needs to pass a new transportation act similar to what created the FHA and the FAA and provide a funding well.  I agree with this.  As to which cars (like the Hi-Levels you cited) go where specifically, he didn't get into that.   Actually, completely doing away with Amtrak might not be necessary but perhaps it could be transitioned into a new role - I don't know.  Surely something to think about.  But I continue to believe - and will repeat - what we got now ain't workin'.  It's not for the future in my opinion.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> FMC


I have never really understood this argument. Until the recent debacle with Anderson, no one was saying that what we have now isn't working. Amtrak was and is achieving record ridership year after year in spite of itself, and besides that everyone seemed to be relatively content with the system that has been around for 47 years. Think back to maybe 2011 or 2012 - who was thinking this way? Even as late as 2016, I don't remember any of these candid discussions on whether or not Amtrak in its current form is necessary or viable. In fact, any pressing issues back then involved funding, which has somehow recently stopped being as much of an issue with the massive appropriations Amtrak has gotten in the past couple years. Why is any of this even necessary to debate outside of the BS that Anderson and the board have been on about?


----------



## cpotisch

keelhauled said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's safe to say that anyone who doesn't absolutely positively have to use land transport, would not take a two night trip with two transfers to and from two busses.
> 
> 
> 
> Why, as a national transportation policy, should we be subsidizing anyone _other_ than those people?
Click to expand...

Because we shouldn't be at the point where we're cool with passenger rail being so bad that you only take it if you're completely forced to because you don't have any other options. There are dozens of countries with phenomenal train service (short distance and long distance), that are consistently reliable, punctual, comfortable, convent, frequent, etc. People don't take that because they're forced to - they take it because it's genuinely the best option.


----------



## cpotisch

JRR said:


> Very interesting article. Points raised warrant some thought and discussion.
> 
> I believe the interstate highway system resulted from Eisenhower seeing the German Autobahn system. I know my Dad was very impressed with them and saw their strategic importance.
> 
> I agree that a higher level, strategic discussion is the only way to come to a reasonable conclusion. I also think that turning this into a political debate will result in failure. All sides need to be invested and pursuing one side for support would be a mistake.


Weren't the interstate highways also designed basically as "backup runways" if a plane needed to land and wasn't near an airport?


----------



## RichieRich

delete


----------



## PRR 60

cpotisch said:


> Weren't the interstate highways also designed basically as "backup runways" if a plane needed to land and wasn't near an airport?


Common belief, but no.  Snopes


----------



## AmtrakBlue

RichieRich said:


> Funny you remembered that from History (not taught in schools much any more) - but - YES!


Considering he's a kid in high school now....


----------



## JRR

They were used as runways by the Germans in WWII.


----------



## cpotisch

Yay, yet another case of me getting tricked by urban legends.  :help:


----------



## neroden

Pere Flyer said:


> Yes. Until residents of small towns weigh in on their transportation needs, we’re only spouting opinions, statistics, and projections. Are there AUers who live in small-town areas who do/don’t have Amtrak service, and are there AUers who live in small-town areas without Interstates or U.S./state highways capable of bus travel?
> As social justice advocates say, “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.”


Ithaca counts as a small down and doesn't have Amtrak service (directly). 

There's a big difference between

(a) driving (or having someone else drive me) 2 hours to get to the Syracuse station and

(b) being forced to drive or fly a long distance at *both* ends or for the entire trip because the national network is *disconnected* and I can't get to my destination without driving a lot.   I chose not to go to conventions in Columbus Ohio which I would otherwise have gone to, several times, because I can't get there by train.  I will also probably never go to Phoenix again.  I skipped a wedding I was invited to because it was near Duluth.  You get the picture. 

Train service is more critical for a destination than an origin.  Ithaca is a bit of a destination and I'm quite sure the lack of train service hurts our economy, but it's tolerable for me coming *from* here.


----------



## neroden

keelhauled said:


> Look at what happened to the Downeaster when it was extended to Brunswick--there are about 20 passengers on each train east of Brunswick (calculated from the three roundtrips daily that previously operated).  With 306 seats (4x 72 seat coaches and 18 BC seats), that is a 6.5% load factor.  6.5%!!!  They spent $35 million on the project, then another $9 million to get two more round trips to Brunswick this fall.  The entire train generated $8.6 million in revenue last year.  How can you possibly justify expenditures like that for so few people?
> 
> Trains are just an awful fiscal decision for low density traffic.  So what is the point of long distance trains as a public service?


The important long-distance trains ARE high-density service.  Or would be if they ran on time.

I'm going to challenge you here because you made a really bad assumption here. You just used the Downeaster extension to Brunswick -- a *corridor* train -- as an example of a low-ridership, low-density service to a low-density place.  And you're right!  But then you made the illogical, irrational, incorrect leap to attacking long-distance trains.

New York-Albany-Utica-Syracuse-Rochester-Buffalo-Cleveland-Toledo-Elkhart-South Bend-Chicago is a service which - - if running on time -- attracts a large number of passengers and can support multiple *long* trains per day.  That's a "long distance" train.  When the LSL has managed to run close to on time for enough months, with decent on-board services, it has been *stuffed* at *high ticket prices* and has been *profitable before fixed costs*.  (Amtrak's terrible, no-good, very bad accounting has disguised these facts.)  Ever watched the LSL boarding at Syracuse?  It takes a while because there are so many people getting on and off, even with all the doors opened...

Similar results can be found on the NY-Florida trains (also "long distance"), and NY-Charlotte-Atlanta (also "long distance"), and the LA-SF-Portland-Seattle train (also "long distance"), and the Chicago-Omaha-Denver-Ski Areas-Salt Lake City train, and so on.  These are all trains with high load factors, at least when they've been running on time. 

They aren't the Downeaster to Brunswick or the Vermonter to St. Albans or the proposed Regional to Bristol -- those are the actual low-density routes.  (Vermonter would probably be OK if they could get it back to Montreal.  The Adirondack is super low density except for going to Montreal.)

Interestingly, states seem to like to subsidize the low-density "geographic coverage" routes like the Adirondack and Vermonter. 

But the nation should make sure that the high-density "spine" routes like the Lake Shore Limited and Southwest Chief are retained (and start running on time).


----------



## fredmcain

Amtrak706 said:


> I have never really understood this argument. Until the recent debacle with Anderson, no one was saying that what we have now isn't working. Amtrak was and is achieving record ridership year after year in spite of itself, and besides that everyone seemed to be relatively content with the system that has been around for 47 years. Think back to maybe 2011 or 2012 - who was thinking this way? Even as late as 2016, I don't remember any of these candid discussions on whether or not Amtrak in its current form is necessary or viable. In fact, any pressing issues back then involved funding, which has somehow recently stopped being as much of an issue with the massive appropriations Amtrak has gotten in the past couple years. Why is any of this even necessary to debate outside of the BS that Anderson and the board have been on about?


Well, maybe we weren't screaming for something like that back in 2012 but perhaps we should've been.  There are a lot of people (myself included) who would like to see the intercity passenger train system expanded in America.  That is where Amtrak has been a hopeless failure and after 47 years I've given up.  If not after 47 years, how long?  How many lifetimes will it take for Amtrak to provide Cincy-Columbus-Cleveland service or Chicago-Sioux Falls, or, or, well, I could go on and on?  Those couple of "good" years you cited could also be a couple of anomalies.  It seems like every few years there's another "crisis" where RPA pulls out all stops to save a train or a diner.  So far they've been pretty good at that but expansion?  HA! 

So, yeah, I have to agree with Plous.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## neroden

The fundamental political problems have been:

-- anti-passenger-rail-expansion forces have controlled at least one house of Congress or the Presidency for most of the time since the mid-1990s.  During the brief respite in 2009, everyone was very distracted by the Great Recession -- and we still got PRIIA, which was very very helpful.  Anyway, except for that brief period, this has stymied any federal support for passenger rail.

-- State support has been... on a state-by-state basis.  Any project running through multiple states has been stymied by ONE anti-rail Governor or state legislative house along the way.  Including Ohio governors stymieing multiple projects, Indiana legislature stymieing projects, *one house* of the Iowa legislature stymieing a project primarily benefitting Iowa, one Goveror of Illinois causing trouble even though the entire state legislature told him to get on with building the tracks, etc.  Even privately funded projects have had roadblocks repeatedly thrown at them by anti-rail politicians, in California, Texas, and Florida. 

-- The major freight railroads are still usually unduly and illegally hostile to Amtrak; this may change, but after 40 years I think it is clear that the solution is for the backer of the passenger operator to own the track (whether that's Amtrak or the state government or what).

Amtrak has been booming in ridership and revenue and finally addressing its deferred maintenance problems -- mostly thanks to PRIIA, but also thanks to the supportive state governments.  You're not going to get an improvement by some thoughtless institutional structure change.  A thoughtful change, like Illinois or Michigan or Amtrak purchasing a passenger-dedicated route from Chicago to Michigan City, would be helpful.


----------



## cpotisch

neroden said:


> The important long-distance trains ARE high-density service.  Or would be if they ran on time.
> 
> I'm going to challenge you here because you made a really bad assumption here. You just used the Downeaster extension to Brunswick -- a *corridor* train -- as an example of a low-ridership, low-density service to a low-density place.  And you're right!  But then you made the illogical, irrational, incorrect leap to attacking long-distance trains.
> 
> New York-Albany-Utica-Syracuse-Rochester-Buffalo-Cleveland-Toledo-Elkhart-South Bend-Chicago is a service which - - if running on time -- attracts a large number of passengers and can support multiple *long* trains per day.  That's a "long distance" train.  When the LSL has managed to run close to on time for enough months, with decent on-board services, it has been *stuffed* at *high ticket prices* and has been *profitable before fixed costs*.  (Amtrak's terrible, no-good, very bad accounting has disguised these facts.)  Ever watched the LSL boarding at Syracuse?  It takes a while because there are so many people getting on and off, even with all the doors opened...
> 
> Similar results can be found on the NY-Florida trains (also "long distance"), and NY-Charlotte-Atlanta (also "long distance"), and the LA-SF-Portland-Seattle train (also "long distance"), and the Chicago-Omaha-Denver-Ski Areas-Salt Lake City train, and so on.  These are all trains with high load factors, at least when they've been running on time.
> 
> They aren't the Downeaster to Brunswick or the Vermonter to St. Albans or the proposed Regional to Bristol -- those are the actual low-density routes.  (Vermonter would probably be OK if they could get it back to Montreal.  The Adirondack is super low density except for going to Montreal.)
> 
> Interestingly, states seem to like to subsidize the low-density "geographic coverage" routes like the Adirondack and Vermonter.
> 
> But the nation should make sure that the high-density "spine" routes like the Lake Shore Limited and Southwest Chief are retained (and start running on time).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2


Thank you! This is absolutely dead on.


----------



## keelhauled

neroden said:


> The important long-distance trains ARE high-density service.  Or would be if they ran on time.
> 
> ...


I actually agree with in you in principle, at least generally.  I do think that some long distance trains work as a series of overlapping corridors, like the LSL or the Silver trains.  There are probably other examples, either that could exist or perhaps parts of existing routes.  I am less convinced that is true of the Western trains, although an argument could probably be made for the EB as essential transportation based on the limited Interstate highway access on its route.  But anyway, the idea of building, as you say, a reliable and timely network of long distance trains is tilting at windmills when there are more important and urgent concerns with the existing network.

In order to have reliable and frequent passenger service you need to own the infrastructure.  I know you have made that point before, and you're right.  But how do you do that?  Either you forcibly take over the existing freight trackage, or you build your own, and neither of those are realistic.  If you think there is political support to seize major freight corridors, you're out of your mind, and it's a horrible idea anyhow in terms of national infrastructure.  Intercity passengers can be, and by and large are, accommodated via highway and air travel, but there is no realistic way to transport the volume of freight that moves by rail if that track capacity is taken by passenger trains.

Building a parallel passenger route (actually logistically it would probably be better to build freight lines to preserve passenger access to downtown cores) is maybe _marginally_ more politically feasible but far more costly and would almost certainly involve decades of legal wrangling over eminent domain cases at huge expense.  California's struggle with HSR is certainly not a model you would want to follow, but would probably look like a cakewalk compared to a similar project using exclusively federal funds across multiple state lines.

And in any case, the United States struggles mightily with even maintaining its existing publicly owned infrastructure, both road, rail, and in some areas aviation.  Why should we be spending precious time and money in building a brand new system when we can't even get the existing house in order?  Unfortunately there is not an unlimited pot of money to go around--and this is where I will complain again about the Downeaster, because both Brunswick projects I mentioned were primarily federally funded--and I think that the investments should be going to where there are identified problems with current infrastructure, such as any number of NEC projects, the NS mainline entering Chicago from the east, the painfully slow Chicago/St. Louis suburban running on the Lincoln Service, CSX chokepoints in Virginia, etc.

Perhaps you are more optimistic about the chances of the government suddenly managing to develop a bipartisan consensus to make a huge infrastructure push than I am, but I don't see that happening in any of our lifetimes.  Ironically, even as public support for public transportation will probably continue increasing gradually, the political support has likely peaked as the left/right urban/rural split continues.  I don't think that either party will ever control both houses of Congress and the presidency with a majority strong enough to push through effectively single-party legislation, which is really what would be needed to pass the kind of legislature required to build out some kind of national rail system that is significantly different than what we have now.  So most, if not all, major public transportation projects are going to come under the auspices of state or municipal governments, which pretty well precludes the idea of major interstate developments.

I guess what it comes down to is that at this point I think the balance of both the nation's existing transport network, and associated travel patterns, and the political support for public infrastructure investments has tipped so far towards the use of highways and aviation for long distance travel that it's a futile endeavor to advocate for a wholesale restoration of the national passenger rail network that existed up until the 1950s.  Expecting that to come back is going to be a long wait for a ship that won't come in.  Instead we should be directing what money is available towards projects that will support the continued operation of trains in the areas where they are already an important segment of the transportation network.  Expansion of the network is going to be led primarily on a regional basis, such as what we have seen in Virginia, some areas of the Midwest, and California.  If Indiana or Ohio or wherever doesn't choose to make the effort, well, that's a pity, but there's no point in spending political and monetary capital in trying to force trains upon them when there is so little of it to go around and so many other places to spend it.


----------



## frequentflyer

Amtrak706 said:


> I have never really understood this argument. Until the recent debacle with Anderson, no one was saying that what we have now isn't working. Amtrak was and is achieving record ridership year after year in spite of itself, and besides that everyone seemed to be relatively content with the system that has been around for 47 years. Think back to maybe 2011 or 2012 - who was thinking this way? Even as late as 2016, I don't remember any of these candid discussions on whether or not Amtrak in its current form is necessary or viable. In fact, any pressing issues back then involved funding, which has somehow recently stopped being as much of an issue with the massive appropriations Amtrak has gotten in the past couple years. Why is any of this even necessary to debate outside of the BS that Anderson and the board have been on about?


So you and I imagine a sizable number want to keep Amtrak as is now. Right? Just update the equipment.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

If your a Heritage group far right type all goverment anything (except military) is a failure, so of course Amtrak isn’t working. Thankfully I think those groups are on their last legs but they won’t go down without a fight.   The citizens of our country deserve better in all parameters of our lives. People are waking up and most importantly the younger generations won’t put up with the status quo. 

For those who say we don’t have the money we do. Military is vitally important but spending more on military then the rest of the world combined when we are only 4.3 percent of the worlds population is questionable. All we ever hear is the military needs more money. If it was going to the troops that would be one thing padding the pocket of contractors is another.  Then there’s the tax breaks and endless other sources/subjects that would actually make a dent in the deficit, Amtrak just isn’t one of them.


----------



## Thirdrail7

keelhauled said:


> <snip>
> 
> And in any case, the United States struggles mightily with even maintaining its existing publicly owned infrastructure, both road, rail, and in some areas aviation.  Why should we be spending precious time and money in building a brand new system when we can't even get the existing house in order?  Unfortunately there is not an unlimited pot of money to go around--and this is where I will complain again about the Downeaster, because both Brunswick projects I mentioned were primarily federally funded--and I think that the investments should be going to where there are identified problems with current infrastructure, such as any number of NEC projects, the NS mainline entering Chicago from the east, the painfully slow Chicago/St. Louis suburban running on the Lincoln Service, CSX chokepoints in Virginia, etc.,,<snip>


I would have a lot to say about your previous post but I'll save it for another and I can (sort of) tie it in to this tidbit.

The problem  is this becomes the "your junk is my treasure" syndrome. How do you tell one group that their contribution isn't worthy of service while expecting them to fork over funds for others...that not only have service but a lot of it in in some cases? How do you tell someone in rural America that their funds will go to the NEC, which not only has a robust interstate system and airports, it has one of the most EXPENSIVE pieces of rail infrastructure in the United States with overlapping and/or competing services?

In other words, what is in it for me?

You may not like the Brunswick extension but someone does. Who are we to say it is any less important than something on the NEC or on the Chicago NS line, which has melted down since congestion has paralyzed it?  We don't live there.

Additionally, there is nothing wrong with an incremental approach for passengers and upgrades. The load factor at ends of the NEC aren't that robust either. However, you have to begin somewhere.  Do you think the trains were tooling around at 150 mph in 1910 or do you think the same incremental approach built the NEC? First, the majority of the corridor was turned over to Amtrak (from Conrail), which means they control the movements, maintenance and infrastructure. Slowly, but surely, the corridor has climbed from an 80mph operation, to 90, to 105, to 110 to 125, to 135, to 150 and soon, 160mph. It didn't happen overnight, and it wasn't cheap. Dare I say billions upon billions have poured into this 30+ year effort, with more money needed to maintain what is already here, let alone improve on it. The riders followed the improvements and investments.

This is why I always mention if you actually invested into the system in a consistent and proper manner, how many more overlapping corridors would have been completed? How many trains that are up and running right now (like the Florida service) would move at higher speeds? How do you think the NEC would favor it is was still under the control of a freight operator? I'd bet you a lot of money that if the tracks were under the control of a properly funded Amtrak, you'd see hours upon hours shaved off these routes. Trust me when I say you wouldn't plod along at 70mph on the cab signaled RF&P. Would they compete with airlines? Of course not! Would they compete with cars? That's a stretch too, but again, is that really the ultimate goal in everyone's mind?

No, the goal is to have a balanced transportation network that includes cars, planes, trains, subways as well as ferries. While the trains are point to point, the passengers...not so much.

The problem is everyone turns this into a competition, which I understand since all modes compete for scarce funds. However,  the message should be for consistent funding that will allow the private operators and states to work toward more service. Since Amtrak doesn't have the benefactors that bus and airline operators (you know that constantly contribute to the cost of their infratructure)  have, it will always stick out as a sore thumb.


----------



## keelhauled

Thirdrail7 said:


> The problem  is this becomes the "your junk is my treasure" syndrome. How do you tell one group that their contribution isn't worthy of service while expecting them to fork over funds for others...that not only have service but a lot of it in in some cases? How do you tell someone in rural America that their funds will go to the NEC, which not only has a robust interstate system and airports, it has one of the most EXPENSIVE pieces of rail infrastructure in the United States with overlapping and/or competing services?


How do you tell someone in urban America that their funds go to supporting rural Interstate exchanges they will never drive across or subsidies for crops that are exported and they will never eat? By and large, rural states are net recipients of federal funding already, and more urbanized states are the net donors, so why should even more money flow inland?  Part of living in the United States and having a federal government is accepting that tax money is going to flow where the needs of the nation demand it.  Someone in Kansas may never live near a port, yet some portion of their taxes supports the Coast Guard's authority over US waters, and so in return they have access to all the goods that flow through the ports.  They may never use a train on the NEC, but nevertheless their taxes that go to the route will help ensure the region's continued economic health, so that they can continue to use their Citibank credit card to buy products on Amazon (to take two companies with a significant/soon to be significant NYC presence).

Perhaps this is where I am hopelessly optimistic that our society will accept that their taxes are required to support parts of the country that they may never see.
 



Thirdrail7 said:


> No, the goal is to have a balanced transportation network that includes cars, planes, trains, subways as well as ferries. While the trains are point to point, the passengers...not so much.


You'll find no argument from me here.  I guess we just disagree as to the way the total transportation pie is divided up, so to speak.  Going back to the NEC example, yes it has well developed highways and airports, but it also has extremely dense urban cores with extremely high real estate costs, the most congested airspace in the country, and the only airports (LGA, JFK, and DCA) that are slot controlled in the country.  In light of that, rail transport can be an incredibly important piece of the transportation puzzle, providing high passenger capacity into city centers through relatively narrow corridors, and do so in a time competitive manner since major destinations are close together while preserving airspace capacity for long-haul traffic that cannot realistically be expected to travel via land or sea.  So the balance I see would be cars delivering passengers to major outlying points where land is cheap, trains transporting passengers into and between the urban areas, while planes provide continental and international connectivity.

The formula doesn't work in areas that don't have the high costs of personal vehicle transport, because trains will never be able to match the convenience factor of being able to arrive and depart from one's residence on their own schedule (and this will become even more true if/when autonomous vehicles become the norm), nor does it work across distances long enough that aircraft are significantly faster, even in downtown-to-downtown comparisons.



Thirdrail7 said:


> The problem is everyone turns this into a competition, which I understand since all modes compete for scarce funds. However,  the message should be for consistent funding that will allow the private operators and states to work toward more service. Since Amtrak doesn't have the benefactors that bus and airline operators (you know that constantly contribute to the cost of their infratructure)  have, it will always stick out as a sore thumb.


Yes, but I don't really see how that supports the idea of long distance trains.  A funding source that promotes development of trains by private operators and/or states?  Yes please, let's have more of it.  But I don't see any reason to expect that would lead to investments in long-haul trains, as opposed to corridors like what Brightline has or what Texas Central is working towards.  For all the reasons I have expounded on so far, the idea of dedicating significant federal funding to a national network doesn't really make sense to me.

On a completely unrelated note, I am happy to see your screen name again.


----------



## jebr

keelhauled said:


> How do you tell someone in urban America that their funds go to supporting rural Interstate exchanges they will never drive across or subsidies for crops that are exported and they will never eat? By and large, rural states are net recipients of federal funding already, and more urbanized states are the net donors, so why should even more money flow inland?  Part of living in the United States and having a federal government is accepting that tax money is going to flow where the needs of the nation demand it.  Someone in Kansas may never live near a port, yet some portion of their taxes supports the Coast Guard's authority over US waters, and so in return they have access to all the goods that flow through the ports.  They may never use a train on the NEC, but nevertheless their taxes that go to the route will help ensure the region's continued economic health, so that they can continue to use their Citibank credit card to buy products on Amazon (to take two companies with a significant/soon to be significant NYC presence).
> 
> Perhaps this is where I am hopelessly optimistic that our society will accept that their taxes are required to support parts of the country that they may never see.


First, the states that are "net contributors" to the federal government is a lot more varied than the typical urban/rural divide in terms of states. There's a good Atlantic article about it here. Kansas and Nebraska, two states generally considered very rural, are net contributors to federal coffers. In fact, nine of the 14 states that are net contributors to the federal government are "inland," and as such I take issue with the claim that the coasts are funneling money inland. That's not to say that some of that money isn't well spent, or that there won't be ebbs and flows, but it's frankly false to boil down the net contributors to the federal tax coffers to "urbanized states" vs. "rural states," especially when that definition seems to be coastal vs. inland.

At any rate, if we want a system that even purports to be national, we're going to have to have a few long-distance trains, and I think it's hard to find the current long-distance network as much more than a skeletal, bare-bones system as it is. The Empire Builder has a few corridors on the ends (Spokane to Seattle and Portland, along with Minnesota to Chicago,) and the middle seems to do a fairly effective job at serving as essential transportation while building a link from Chicago to the Pacific Northwest via rail. The California Zephyr has enough overlapping corridors to pretty much serve as a single train serving as multiple corridor trains (Chicago - Denver, Denver - Salt Lake City, and Reno - Emeryville/San Francisco.) The only part not covered there, Salt Lake City - Reno, is legitimately essential transportation; even Greyhound doesn't run buses through there anymore and transfers passengers onto Amtrak! I'm less familiar with the SWC and TE/SL, but the SWC has Kansas City - Chicago and Albuquerque - Los Angeles for sure, and the middle part seems to have enough state support that will fund a fair amount of trackage costs.

I don't think there's a problem with using buses where they fit, but I think it's foolish for us to write off LD trains or trains through rural areas just because they seem to be too large to do the job; in the right corridors (which, based on ridership, the EB, CZ, and the SWC seem to be) they can even work well in the western, less-dense states. Feeder buses could make that even better; people may be more willing to overnight if needed on a train than a bus, and bus service running a few hours to different train stations could expand the reach of those trains significantly. At that point, the train is serving as the high-capacity corridor service, with feeder buses branching off serving smaller and off-route towns within a few hours of each train station.


----------



## Amtrak706

frequentflyer said:


> So you and I imagine a sizable number want to keep Amtrak as is now. Right? Just update the equipment.


Yes. And undo all the recent stuff like the loss of station agents and checked baggage, dining car stuff, PPCs, etc. Ideally also attempt to expand where possible, with new routes and longer trains.


----------



## jis

A sizable number also want to be at least multi-millionaires if not billionaires by winning lotteries too. [emoji57]


----------



## cpotisch

jis said:


> A sizable number also want to be at least multi-millionaires if not billionaires by winning lotteries too.


Hey, if I ever become a billionaire I'll happily pay for the return of station agents, checked baggage, hot meal service, and the PPCs.


----------



## ehbowen

cpotisch said:


> Hey, if I ever become a billionaire I'll happily pay for the return of station agents, checked baggage, hot meal service, and the PPCs.


The secret to becoming a billionaire is finding ways to make someone else pay for all the stuff you want.


----------



## Amtrak706

jis said:


> A sizable number also want to be at least multi-millionaires if not billionaires by winning lotteries too.


I don’t think wanting all that stuff back constitutes some kind of lottery win or distant aspiration. We had it for 47 years of Amtrak, including through several arguably worse periods like the first “glide path to self sufficiency” in 1997-2002. It only went away because of the current inane cost cutting strategies that are based off of bad accounting.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Amtrak706 said:


> I don’t think wanting all that stuff back constitutes some kind of lottery win or distant aspiration. We had it for 47 years of Amtrak, including through several arguably worse periods like the first “glide path to self sufficiency” in 1997-2002. It only went away because of the current inane cost cutting strategies that are based off of bad accounting.


"Cost cutting strategies" go way earlier than 1997. You can argue they've been cost cutting literally all 47 years. How many of the former railroad (PC, L&N, etc) routes were canceled on A-Day (not counting duplicate routes) alone?  There was also 1979. Now I wasn't born in 1971 and economic times were a lot different back in the 70's or in the 90's when more cuts were made but to me Amtrak has always been about "cost cutting" and trying to get away with a bare bones system. They've never been about thriving or growing.


----------



## Ryan

They’ve never been funded at a level that would support thriving or growing. 

Pay for a barebones railroad, and you get a barebones railroad.


----------



## GBNorman

Looks like the guy all too many around here woukd like to have fired is doing what he was hired to do:

Open Content:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-15/even-in-a-year-marred-by-accidents-amtrak-s-losses-shrink

But "just in case"; Fair Use:



> Amtrak's operating losses narrowed to a new best in its 2018 fiscal year even while the railroad experienced a spate of high-profile accidents and rushed to install new safety equipment ahead of a federal deadline, according a preview of its annual results released by the company.
> 
> The financial improvements came against a backdrop of deadly accidents and a major push to improve safety throughout the fiscal year. Five people were killed and more than 160 injured in two major accidents last year, one last December in Washington State and another in February in South Carolina.
> 
> 
> Anderson said Amtrak’s operating losses would have likely been less than $100 million if not for those two accidents.
> 
> 
> All told, it was "the best performance in Amtrak’s history," Chief Executive Officer Richard Anderson said in an interview.


----------



## jis

Amtrak706 said:


> I don’t think wanting all that stuff back constitutes some kind of lottery win or distant aspiration. We had it for 47 years of Amtrak, including through several arguably worse periods like the first “glide path to self sufficiency” in 1997-2002. It only went away because of the current inane cost cutting strategies that are based off of bad accounting.


I am sorry to say you are way disconnected from reality. See Philly’s post for a very brief intro to reality. [emoji57] you or anyone else did not have much of anything that you think you had. What do you suppose the Reagan/Stockman and the Carter cuts were all about? Growth? [emoji849]


----------



## bretton88

GBNorman said:


> Looks like the guy all too many around here woukd like to have fired is doing what he was hired to do:
> Open Content:
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-15/even-in-a-year-marred-by-accidents-amtrak-s-losses-shrink
> But "just in case"; Fair Use:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak's operating losses narrowed to a new best in its 2018 fiscal year even while the railroad experienced a spate of high-profile accidents and rushed to install new safety equipment ahead of a federal deadline, according a preview of its annual results released by the company.
> The financial improvements came against a backdrop of deadly accidents and a major push to improve safety throughout the fiscal year. Five people were killed and more than 160 injured in two major accidents last year, one last December in Washington State and another in February in South Carolina.
> 
> Anderson said Amtrak’s operating losses would have likely been less than $100 million if not for those two accidents. All told, it was "the best performance in Amtrak’s history," Chief Executive Officer Richard Anderson said in an interview.
Click to expand...

Despite the pubic grandstanding from Congress when push came to shove this is exactly what Congress wanted from Amtrak over the last couple decades. Cut losses above all else.


----------



## GBNorman

While my reaction to the Bloomberg report is that Mr. Anderson is doing his job and the results are beginning to show is obviously favorable, others evidently hold differing views - including this Railway Age columnist:

Open Content:

https://railwayage.com/passenger/intercity/amtrak-touts-performance-financial-records/

Fair Use:



> Editor’s Notes (translating much of the euphemistic, corporate-speak nonsense language in Amtrak’s press release.


----------



## jis

It is Railway Age afterall [emoji51]


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

Let’s see what these numbers look like in 2 years when former repeat customers along with first time riders don’t return on the LD trains. 

Its great what he’s doing to the NEC, cleaning trains and such but he still deserves to be fired for his tantrums before congress and mishandling of the national network.


----------



## cpotisch

Amtrakfflyer said:


> Let’s see what these numbers look like in 2 years when former repeat customers along with first time riders don’t return on the LD trains.
> 
> Its great what he’s doing to the NEC, cleaning trains and such but he still deserves to be fired for his tantrums before congress and mishandling of the national network.


Tantrums before Congress? Huh?


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

You can google it but the Amtrak delegation led by Anderson started a shouting match with Senators in June. It was well publicized  at the time and since then he has sent his subordinates to all congressional meetings in his place.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.kob.com/albuquerque-news/heinrich-balks-at-amtraks-plan-to-abandon-nm-route/4961142/

“In a meeting with Amtrak CEO Richard Anderson, U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., along with a bipartisan delegation of lawmakers from neighboring states, asked the railroad to follow through with funding that would supplement a federal grant. 

Heinrich said the meeting did not go well. 

“I think this was one of the most unproductive meetings with an agency level official that I’ve ever experienced,” he said. “To learn that not only are they planning to pull back their commitment to the TIGER grant, but that they're going to abandon the route I think is just outrageous.”

FROM RPA

Rail Passengers DC staff is already working with Congressional delegations in Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico and is in progress to add every other state along the Southwest Chief route. A recent meeting with a bi-partisan group of six U.S. Senators and Amtrak's CEO Richard Anderson and Executive Vice President / Chief Commercial Officer Stephen Gardner turned into a shouting match. You really don't want to get into a pissing contest with a Senator that controls your funding or can hold up appointments to the Amtrak board. Legislators are upset and are on our side on this issue. This issue will be won on Capitol Hill by our elected officials.


----------



## Rover

ehbowen said:


> The secret to becoming a billionaire is finding ways to make someone else pay for all the stuff you want.


Most Billionaires know well how to profit from Government welfare. If the individual was as committed to getting all the business welfare available from governments, then they too would prosper at the expense of the taxpayer, who puts the money in the government coffers to then be given, awarded to businesses big and small.


----------



## ehbowen

Rover said:


> Most Billionaires know well how to profit from Government welfare. If the individual was as committed to getting all the business welfare available from governments, then they too would prosper at the expense of the taxpayer, who puts the money in the government coffers to then be given, awarded to businesses big and small.


Oh, I agree. Believe me, my statement was intended as a condemnation, not a commendation.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

Sign sighting update:

I came down to Philly on SEPTA today, and the "Save Amtrak" and "Fire Anderson" signs are completely visible--the coverings seem to have come off and are wrapped around the sign poles.

(Hey, nobody's fault if Mother Nature just happens to send some strong wind gusts, right? :giggle: )


----------



## me_little_me

cpotisch said:


> Hey, if I ever become a billionaire I'll happily pay for the return of station agents, checked baggage, hot meal service, and the PPCs.


Nah! Buy my own private cars. Pay the railroads to carry me (and a few of you peons - after all, I'll be a big shot then) around. We'll make all those Amtrak trains sit on the sidings as the railroads prioritize their long trains. Of course, I'll need enough cars to not fit on the sidings. Free freshly cooked food and drinks of every type (for me). I'll treat for Amtrak "Fresh Choices" for you guys. I'll hire the great Amtrak car and dining people so all that are left on Amtrak are the grumps.


----------



## Amtrak706

jis said:


> I am sorry to say you are way disconnected from reality. See Philly’s post for a very brief intro to reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you or anyone else did not have much of anything that you think you had. What do you suppose the Reagan/Stockman and the Carter cuts were all about? Growth?


What is with the snark? I really don’t appreciate it.

All the stuff Anderson has done away with in the past year or so had survived thus far, including through both of the cuts you mentioned as well as the first “glide path” which was much more of an existential crisis for Amtrak than anything that is going on right now. No one is trying to argue that previous cuts were about growth or anything as ridiculous as that.


----------



## jis

Clearly Amtrak could not cut what does not exist. So it stands to reason that it is cutting things that were not cut previously [emoji6]


----------



## TiBike

Circling back to the rural service discussion...

I spent three days at a state-level economic development conference last week, and went to the infrastructure and rural development breakout sessions (it's my job). Rail transportation – passenger or freight – wasn't mentioned a single time in the rural development sessions. Not once.

Commuter/corridor rail was mentioned several times in the infrastructure breakouts and the general sessions, in the context of housing. There's a push by some in California to loosen development rules around public transportation hubs and build denser, multistory housing, particularly around stations. It's seen as a way to get cars off of highways (always a major issue here) and do something about the cost of living, which is being driven through the roof in urban areas because of a lack of supply.

High speed rail, or rather a high speed rail station (the first in the U.S.  ), got a shout out from the former mayor of Fresno, otherwise it was ignored.

Passenger rail will play an important role in 21st century transportation policy, but Amtrak's long distance trains aren't a part of it.


----------



## ehbowen

You know, what this makes me think is that we're dealing with two different natural markets. Yes, for the corridors and commuter routes there needs to be a public operator such as Amtrak (or METRA, SEPTA, etc.). No railroad manager in his or her right mind who is familiar with history wants to get back into the thankless grind of operating something such as the Pennsylvania ran in the northeast on their own into the early '60s, except possibly as a contract operation for a client who is on the hook for capital and operating expenses. And, in many of these areas, Neroden's oft-expressed wish for government to purchase the infrastructure may make sense.

But when we turn to long-distance routes, we have a completely separate natural market. Here we're talking about layering one or perhaps two passenger trains a day on an infrastructure which is already heavily used for freight and maintained and dispatched by a private operator with its own priorities. Yes, many of them currently regard passenger trains as a nuisance and shove them towards the margins as much as possible. If we're going to change that, we need to change the incentives.

You may recall that it was those railroads with significant commuter and short-distance operations which were most desperate for the relief which Amtrak promised...Penn Central is the poster child here. Santa Fe and SCL, which were almost exclusively long-distance operators, were hesitant to join at all. Southern actually held out for ten years.

Private railroad operators are not going to make a profit competing against subsidized highways and airlines which bear virtually no right-of-way costs if left to their own devices, as the sentiment was up until 1971. But I think that if we recognize that fact, and if we provide strong, ongoing tax and operating subsidy initiatives which tip the balance, we can persuade at least some of the Class Ones to reconsider their stance on passenger rail. And I believe that if we did so with a way to give them skin in the game with the possibility of a real profit if the service is run well, the LD dispatching and timekeeping woes would largely be ameliorated.

Since the unspoken agenda of several posters here seems to be to take a meat axe to all of the LDs outside of the corridors, do the rest of you think that this option is at least worthy of exploration?


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

ehbowen said:


> You know, what this makes me think is that we're dealing with two different natural markets. Yes, for the corridors and commuter routes there needs to be a public operator such as Amtrak (or METRA, SEPTA, etc.). No railroad manager in his or her right mind who is familiar with history wants to get back into the thankless grind of operating something such as the Pennsylvania ran in the northeast on their own into the early '60s, except possibly as a contract operation for a client who is on the hook for capital and operating expenses. And, in many of these areas, Neroden's oft-expressed wish for government to purchase the infrastructure may make sense.
> 
> But when we turn to long-distance routes, we have a completely separate natural market. Here we're talking about layering one or perhaps two passenger trains a day on an infrastructure which is already heavily used for freight and maintained and dispatched by a private operator with its own priorities. Yes, many of them currently regard passenger trains as a nuisance and shove them towards the margins as much as possible. If we're going to change that, we need to change the incentives.
> 
> You may recall that it was those railroads with significant commuter and short-distance operations which were most desperate for the relief which Amtrak promised...Penn Central is the poster child here. Santa Fe and SCL, which were almost exclusively long-distance operators, were hesitant to join at all. Southern actually held out for ten years.
> 
> Private railroad operators are not going to make a profit competing against subsidized highways and airlines which bear virtually no right-of-way costs if left to their own devices, as the sentiment was up until 1971. But I think that if we recognize that fact, and if we provide strong, ongoing tax and operating subsidy initiatives which tip the balance, we can persuade at least some of the Class Ones to reconsider their stance on passenger rail. And I believe that if we did so with a way to give them skin in the game with the possibility of a real profit if the service is run well, the LD dispatching and timekeeping woes would largely be ameliorated.
> 
> Since the unspoken agenda of several posters here seems to be to take a meat axe to all of the LDs outside of the corridors, do the rest of you think that this option is at least worthy of exploration?


Can’t think of anyone better to contract the service out to. Base a percentage of payments on, on time performance as well. It’s right on so many levels.


----------



## keelhauled

If Amtrak's current track use payments are so small as to not be in an incentive to prioritize passenger trains over freight traffic, then it stands to reason that, all else being equal, they need to be higher in order for passenger traffic to operate reliably on time.  A passenger train would have to represent more revenue than the amount of income generated by however many freight trains are not able to run because of the capacity taken up by the passenger train.  In that context, the operator doesn't matter--it could be Amtrak, it could be Iowa Pacific, it could be the freight railroad itself. 

But that money needs to come from somewhere--where?  It has to be the federal government, doesn't it?  Even if you use non-cash subsidies such as tax breaks, the difference still has to be made up by taxpayers.  And it should be self-evident that such a strategy would cost even more than what Amtrak receives in operating subsidies today, since its current payments are insufficient to ensure timely service.  If it's one's opinion that long distance trains are worth the federal subsidy in general, then Amtrak is as good an operator as any, probably marginally better since indirect costs can be amortized over more trains, instead of each operator maintaining their own customer service channels, administrative staff, mechanical sites, etc.  If you don't think that the network returns enough to justify the subsidy, then the operator isn't going to make a difference because it's not going to make the financial demands disappear.

It's also not accurate to say that highway and airline users pay no right of way costs--on road diesel is taxed for the highway fund, and airplanes pay landing fees to the airports every time they hit the tarmac.  It's not enough to make the infrastructure self-sustaining, but then the same is true of Amtrak's access payments.


----------



## ehbowen

keelhauled said:


> If Amtrak's current track use payments are so small as to not be in an incentive to prioritize passenger trains over freight traffic, then it stands to reason that, all else being equal, they need to be higher in order for passenger traffic to operate reliably on time.  A passenger train would have to represent more revenue than the amount of income generated by however many freight trains are not able to run because of the capacity taken up by the passenger train.  In that context, the operator doesn't matter--it could be Amtrak, it could be Iowa Pacific, it could be the freight railroad itself.


I'm not saying that this is a no-cost proposition. Restoring a viable intercity rail passenger structure after decades of neglect and direct subsidies to competitors will require substantial and ongoing effort and expense. My preferred solution would entail three levels of subsidies and incentives: First, a complete exemption from state and local property taxation on all rail lines which host a qualifying passenger service. To qualify the service would have to meet capacity requirements appropriate to the population served and meet minimum on-time performance criteria. The host railroad would benefit from this regardless of who operates the service, whether that be they themselves or a third party such as Amtrak. But delay the _Empire Builder_ all summer long, and you lose the tax exemption. Second, an "opportunity" subsidy paid to the operator of the service for every seat made available, whether occupied or not. Not enough to make it profitable to run empty trains, but enough so that you're not tempted to slash capacity during a temporary downturn. Finally, an "incentive" subsidy paid for every _occupied_ passenger seat. There is no more effective subsidy than to leverage the consumer's dollar, and this would provide a real incentive to not only provide those seats but to make sure they are filled. And isn't that the point, getting travelers off the highways?

In addition, after all these years of neglect there will need to be capital costs for facilities and equipment. As the federal government has poured trillions into infrastructure to competitors, I believe that they need to step up and guarantee these loans as well. For expenses directly related to passenger trains such as new equipment or remodeled stations, the note should be written so that if the subsidies above are withdrawn or reduced the government assumes full liability for the debt. For other tangential expenses which benefit the railroad as a whole, such as perhaps double-tracking the Hi-Line, the government should not be on the hook if the subsidies change but should agree to provide capital at a below market rate.
 



> And it should be self-evident that such a strategy would cost even more than what Amtrak receives in operating subsidies today, since its current payments are insufficient to ensure timely service.  If it's one's opinion that long distance trains are worth the federal subsidy in general, then Amtrak is as good an operator as any, probably marginally better since indirect costs can be amortized over more trains, instead of each operator maintaining their own customer service channels, administrative staff, mechanical sites, etc.  If you don't think that the network returns enough to justify the subsidy, then the operator isn't going to make a difference because it's not going to make the financial demands disappear.


I don't think it's self-evident. If you think that Amtrak is as good an operator as any, I have a bridge to sell you. Right now it appears that Amtrak is shifting costs from the Northeast Corridor and similar to the LD trains which are not even peripherally related, although with their impenetrable accounting it's difficult to say for certain. Again, I think that the best incentive is to leverage the consumer's dollar; pay the LD train operator the most to put butts in the seats.

And I'm not saying that we need to do away with Amtrak LD, either. They have existing facilities and equipment; it's quite possible that an operator such as Union Pacific would want the tax breaks offered but would prefer to have the actual trains continue to be run by Amtrak. Well, if they have a big $$$ incentive to maintain good on-time performance over the road, it's a win-win for everyone concerned. Perhaps BNSF looks at Amtrak's performance and says, "You know, I think we could do better if we ran these in-house." Let them try.



> It's also not accurate to say that highway and airline users pay no right of way costs--on road diesel is taxed for the highway fund, and airplanes pay landing fees to the airports every time they hit the tarmac.  It's not enough to make the infrastructure self-sustaining, but then the same is true of Amtrak's access payments.


I'm not saying that highway users have no right of way costs, but I am saying that the costs they pay are not even in league with the cost of providing the right-of-way. One fully loaded axle on a large truck does as much damage to the roadway surface as 10,000 passenger cars. So a loaded 18-wheeler causes as much damage per mile as 45,000 passenger cars...does it pay 45,000 times the fuel tax? Well, when you consider that I used to drive 18-wheelers and I averaged 4-5 mpg loaded...no. Plus, 18-wheelers and buses are on the highway most of the time. Ninety percent of my driving...or more...is done around town on urban freeways and streets. I might take one long road trip a year. Say I spend a week in Fort Worth...but the cost of providing the highway, which I use only one week a year, is subsidized by the other 51 weeks' worth of gas taxes I pay while commuting to and from work. The only marginal cost out of my own pocket (since I already pay to own and keep up the car) is a tank's worth of gas...and for that I can carry three passengers. How is any railroad supposed to be able to provide a reasonable alternative service for that without a substantial subsidy?

Airlines also pay for operation of the ATC system, but last I checked God doesn't charge royalties to fly between Dallas and Houston. Maybe He should. And they don't bear the full burden of their costs, either; air traffic control is a substantial line item in the federal budget. Landing fees are a thing also, I agree...I was a (private) pilot for a while, too...but municipalities don't consider airports (or highways!) a profit center as they all too often look at railroads. My Google-fu is not serving well right now and I've got to run to Mom & Dad's for dinner, but I remember reading an actual case where the Northern Pacific railroad was once responsible for paying 95% of the school taxes in a rural county which they didn't even have a station stop in.

So I'm not saying that any of this would be free or even cheap...but neither is what we're doing now. We simply can't build freeways fast enough! Rail is capable of providing a lot of flexibility, especially to rural and secondary communities...let's leverage the existing infrastructure as much as possible.


----------



## neroden

ehbowen said:


> You know, what this makes me think is that we're dealing with two different natural markets. Yes, for the corridors and commuter routes there needs to be a public operator such as Amtrak (or METRA, SEPTA, etc.). No railroad manager in his or her right mind who is familiar with history wants to get back into the thankless grind of operating something such as the Pennsylvania ran in the northeast on their own into the early '60s, except possibly as a contract operation for a client who is on the hook for capital and operating expenses. And, in many of these areas, Neroden's oft-expressed wish for government to purchase the infrastructure may make sense.
> 
> But when we turn to long-distance routes, we have a completely separate natural market.


Well, if you exclude the Lake Shore Limited, Capitol Limited, Silver Meteor, Silver Star, and Crescent from your "long distance routes" category.  They're extended corridors, with lengthy operations on Amtrak and state-dispatched track.  And due to the extremely unwise privatization of Conrail, there's no way to get any single freight operator to run the LSL or the CL.  They need their own passenger-operator-controlled tracks.

It wouldn't be crazy to ask BNSF if it wants to be the contract operator of the Empire Builder or the Southwest Chief.  Trying to do the same on the East Coast is crazy.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

If Anderson and Co really want to play this game. Game on. They claim the SWC costs $100,000,000 a year to operate depending on what memo you read, which way the winds blowing etc. Give that $100,000,000 to BNSF and ask them run the train. The train would run on time and BNSF would have operational control over what is now a nuisance to them. Win win. 

The KEY directly take it off the top of Amtrak’s subsidy. We talked about it a few days ago on here, even at 90 percent subsidy for the contractor Amtrak would surely change its tune when they see their subsidy shrink.


----------



## GBNorman

Even if in a fit of madness, a Member road wanted to operate an intercity passenger train, they are barred by RPSA70. As part of the Agreement, they surrendered their franchise to do so. That being said, if another party, such as Virgin Rail, wanted to operate a train and they and a road could agree to terms, then bring it on.


----------



## ehbowen

Uh, Mr. Norman...laws can be changed fairly easily. Isn't that what I'm proposing?


----------



## jis

I think the bottom line is, it may be time to bury RPSA70, or what has not already been obsoleted, for good, and start with a fresh clean slate. It was mostly a pretty lousy piece of legislation from the perspective of the customer anyway. [emoji6]


----------



## Anderson

So, I looked up the RPSA...and per the link below, it looks like the whole bill has been repealed.
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/[email protected]/chapter14&edition=prelim

With this in mind, and given that Indiana was able to contract with Iowa Pacific (that's key in my mind) and given the nature of the "must trial out three LD routes for others to bid on" bit last time around, I don't think a legal case against one of the Class Is looking to run their own train would hold up.  It would seem to be the express will of the Congress to have non-Amtrak operators "in the mix", after all...

In theory, let's pick on BNSF and the Chief.  Let's say that BNSF turned up tomorrow morning and said "Hey, Amtrak?  Since you don't want that train, we'd like to take it over.  We've got access rights along the whole route [1], if Amtrak objects to us using Union Station we can just go into LaSalle Street, here's our equipment plan, so we'd like that $XX million please-and-thank-you."  If Amtrak tried to refuse, I think they'd get slam-dunked in court on the grounds that they basically failed to run the trial program under the last authorization act.

The biggest issue getting the Class Is involved, aside from the size of the incentives, etc. is that a bunch of trains now operate over strange mixes of tracks...and it's not like it's a couple of regional roads like back in the day (e.g. CBQ/DRGW/WP) who, when passing trains through, often weren't _also_ competing with one another.

[1] I believe they retain access rights in Southern CA.  This was _intended_ for freight traffic, but I don't see SCRRA objecting.


----------



## jis

One observation. Iowa Pacific never operated the Hoosier State. Amtrak operated the train using Iowa Pacific rolling stock with Iowa Pacific providing OBS. All the T&E crew was always Amtrak.


----------



## cpotisch

jis said:


> One observation. Iowa Pacific never operated the Hoosier State. Amtrak operated the train using Iowa Pacific rolling stock with Iowa Pacific providing OBS. All the T&E crew was always Amtrak.


Does the word "operate" really have such a specific meaning that you'd be wrong to say that a company operated a train when they provided the rolling stock _and_ onboard staff? It really can only refer to T&E?


----------



## cpotisch

neroden said:


> Well, if you exclude the Lake Shore Limited, Capitol Limited, Silver Meteor, Silver Star, and Crescent from your "long distance routes" category.


And don't forget about the CONO (shares CHI-CDL with the Illini/Saluki), Coast Starlight (shares LAX-SNC with the Surfliner, and EUG-SEA with the Cascades), Cardinal (NEC), and the Texas Eagle (shares CHI-STL with the Lincoln Service).


----------



## ehbowen

cpotisch said:


> And don't forget about the CONO (shares CHI-CDL with the Illini/Saluki), Coast Starlight (shares LAX-SNC with the Surfliner, and EUG-SEA with the Cascades), Cardinal (NEC), and the Texas Eagle (shares CHI-STL with the Lincoln Service).


It shares the route, but I believe Neroden was talking about the underlying host railroad. The _Lake Shore Limited_, in particular...the rail landscape has changed substantially from the days when New York Central owned and dispatched every inch of track from Grand Central Terminal to the La Salle St. Station throat. Union Pacific still operates freight and dispatches CHI-STL, so that could be a pretty seamless extension of the northern end of the _Texas Eagle_...the southern end though still has BNSF in the mix between Fort Worth & Temple. The _Cardinal_ is another mishmash. Still, I don't see any showstoppers if the LD railroads are $uffi¢iently motivated...look at the original (heavyweight era) itinerary of the _Crescent_, for example.


----------



## jis

cpotisch said:


> Does the word "operate" really have such a specific meaning that you'd be wrong to say that a company operated a train when they provided the rolling stock _and_ onboard staff? It really can only refer to T&E?


The usual meaning of operate is the guys who drive the train, from the perspective of the operations folks. In some cases one could say that the guys who fund the service operate it. However Iowa Pacific had neither of those two roles viz-a-viz the Hoosier State. They were the ones who leased out the equipment to IDOT and provided OBS under contract to IDOT.


----------



## frequentflyer

keelhauled said:


> If Amtrak's current track use payments are so small as to not be in an incentive to prioritize passenger trains over freight traffic, then it stands to reason that, all else being equal, they need to be higher in order for passenger traffic to operate reliably on time.  A passenger train would have to represent more revenue than the amount of income generated by however many freight trains are not able to run because of the capacity taken up by the passenger train.  In that context, the operator doesn't matter--it could be Amtrak, it could be Iowa Pacific, it could be the freight railroad itself.
> 
> But that money needs to come from somewhere--where?  It has to be the federal government, doesn't it?  Even if you use non-cash subsidies such as tax breaks, the difference still has to be made up by taxpayers.  And it should be self-evident that such a strategy would cost even more than what Amtrak receives in operating subsidies today, since its current payments are insufficient to ensure timely service.  If it's one's opinion that long distance trains are worth the federal subsidy in general, then Amtrak is as good an operator as any, probably marginally better since indirect costs can be amortized over more trains, instead of each operator maintaining their own customer service channels, administrative staff, mechanical sites, etc.  If you don't think that the network returns enough to justify the subsidy, then the operator isn't going to make a difference because it's not going to make the financial demands disappear.
> 
> It's also not accurate to say that highway and airline users pay no right of way costs--on road diesel is taxed for the highway fund, and airplanes pay landing fees to the airports every time they hit the tarmac.  It's not enough to make the infrastructure self-sustaining, but then the same is true of Amtrak's access payments.


Remember reading a Trains article in the 90s that stated BNSF made money on the SWC because of ontime bonuses and the fact BNSF did not have to own the equipment (Amtrak) only run the train between its fast freights. Now what has changed since then and now I have no idea.


----------



## frequentflyer

Amtrakfflyer said:


> If Anderson and Co really want to play this game. Game on. They claim the SWC costs $100,000,000 a year to operate depending on what memo you read, which way the winds blowing etc. Give that $100,000,000 to BNSF and ask them run the train. The train would run on time and BNSF would have operational control over what is now a nuisance to them. Win win.
> 
> The KEY directly take it off the top of Amtrak’s subsidy. We talked about it a few days ago on here, even at 90 percent subsidy for the contractor Amtrak would surely change its tune when they see their subsidy shrink.


Innovative idea, but I would guess one would not like what the SWC would look like if you gave BNSF the subsidy instead Amtrak. Stations would still be non staffed, even less stations staffed, checked baggage gone (one less car) food choices contracted, and probably running with one unit on a slower schedule. In return, one would be able to count on it at least being on time.


----------



## GBNorman

frequentflyer said:


> Remember reading a Trains article in the 90s that stated BNSF made money on the SWC because of ontime bonuses and the fact BNSF did not have to own the equipment (Amtrak) only run the train between its fast freights. Now what has changed since then and now I have no idea.


Through the 80's, the trains ran on time as the performance psyments were liberal enough for the Class I's, as well as a lesser level of traffic than today, to "give 'em the railroad".

But during the 90's, or back in "glide path" days, Amtrak had to pare the performance payments, then traffic increased, and you end up with "today".


----------



## neroden

Anderson said:


> So, I looked up the RPSA...and per the link below, it looks like the whole bill has been repealed.
> http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/[email protected]/chapter14&edition=prelim


This was part of the codification of Title 49 -- bits of it were "repealed and re-enacted" by various laws -- so it isn't all *really* repealed.

The surviving provisions, from this and a large number of subsequent laws, are in Title 49, Subtitle V, mostly Part C.  Sorted into a more rational order.

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/[email protected]/subtitle5/partC&amp;edition=prelim

I took a look through it; the most important provision is section 24308, obviously.  Section 24309 is also important.  Section 24311(c) is the big stick.


----------



## neroden

GBNorman said:


> Through the 80's, the trains ran on time


No, they really didn't.  I was there.  Maybe they ran on time in some places (they seemed to be fine in California), but late trains on Conrail were common.


----------



## Anderson

Ok, IANAL but _this_ is an interesting clause:
"(a) General Authority.—(1) Amtrak may make an agreement with a rail carrier or regional transportation authority to use facilities of, and have services provided by, the carrier or authority under terms on which the parties agree. _The terms shall include a penalty for untimely performance_."

Emphasis mine.

I'm a bit confused by this, since I'd always heard that Amtrak wasn't _allowed_ to include penalties for poor performance.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Anderson said:


> Ok, IANAL but _this_ is an interesting clause:
> "(a) General Authority.—(1) Amtrak may make an agreement with a rail carrier or regional transportation authority to use facilities of, and have services provided by, the carrier or authority under terms on which the parties agree. _The terms shall include a penalty for untimely performance_."
> 
> Emphasis mine.
> 
> I'm a bit confused by this, since I'd always heard that Amtrak wasn't _allowed_ to include penalties for poor performance.


It probably means they can opt out of negotiated incentives as penalty.


----------

