# Wick Moorman CEO of Amtrak



## Seaboard92 (Aug 19, 2016)

Amtrak has just announced their next CEO. Former CEO of Norfolk Southern Wick Moreman.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/amtrak-names-new-ceo-1471618771


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (Aug 19, 2016)

For real? Absolutely for real? Wick Moorman was my first choice, but I thought we had no chance because he was going to completely retire.

I am almost in tears I am so happy. This is the best Amtrak news I've heard in ages  , and it looks like maybe they realize they are in so much trouble they do need someone who loves his work and knows what he is doing.


----------



## TylerP42 (Aug 19, 2016)

I'm happy that it looks like a person who will run Amtrak like a railroad instead of a buisness will be in charge.


----------



## Agent (Aug 19, 2016)

I don't know a lot, but this looks like it has a fair chance to go well.

With W. Graham Claytor Jr. being the former president of the Southern Railway, this feels at least a little bit like history repeating itself.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 19, 2016)

I'll defer to those in the know at Amtrak and familiar with Moormans Record @ NS,( all I know is what I've read) but on first glance this seems much better than some Political Hack or Lobbyist from K Street!

Good luck to Amtrak and hopefully Amtrak Joe Biden will join the board when he departs the Vice Presidency in Jan.of 2017!


----------



## jis (Aug 19, 2016)

As someone said on Facebook: "Let the Amtrak Steam program begin" 

Kidding aside, this is an excellent choice, and at least I am happy to see that it is someone who is not a NEC-centric person. See? My new abode is showing.  He should be able to negotiate better with the Class Is and make better progress on the LD network. Now only if he can get equipment that is actually built and delivered.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Aug 19, 2016)

I am very pleased with the announcement. I've actually met Wick on several occasions he is truly a nice person. And someone that I feel will do a good job. He has started from the bottom of the totem pole at Southern Railway and worked his way up to the CEO of its successor. He has a good grasp on how a railroad runs. That and he has a good grasp on people. And his executive train is one of the nicest I've ever been on.


----------



## TylerP42 (Aug 19, 2016)

I do not want to see an amtrak steam program. That's money that can be much better used elsewhere.


----------



## StriderGDM (Aug 19, 2016)

TylerP42, I doubt highly you'll see an Amtrak Steam Program. It's only in reference to his work at NS, which is pure marketing/nostalgia. I suspect he won't see an advantage for doing the same at Amtrak.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Aug 19, 2016)

No but then again it could make it easier for steam engine excursions with Amtrak crews. As I would know dealing with special operations can be a hard to thing to do. And maybe he can fix that to make steam operators have a chance to run special trips. But that isn't his first priority. And I guarantee you he will be meeting employees on the ground. And he will also meet with passengers.


----------



## jis (Aug 19, 2016)

TylerP42 said:


> I do not want to see an amtrak steam program. That's money that can be much better used elsewhere.


We are just being a bit humor challenged, are we?


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 19, 2016)

I am pretty sure that was [joke]Let the Amtrak Steam program begin[/joke].

Mr. Moreman sounds like a much better pick than I would have imagined they'd make. In fact, he sounds like about the best possible pick.


----------



## west point (Aug 19, 2016)

Wonder how he will handle the auto router problem ? NS might claim that he cannot testify about the delays it caused.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Aug 19, 2016)

Another bonus for trains that use NS he still has powerful influence over that company. I've been on NS steam trips working after he retired from them and you better believe every NS employee went up and spoke with him. And treated him with upmost respect. Then he ran the engine


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 19, 2016)

TylerP42 said:


> I'm happy that it looks like a person who will run Amtrak like a railroad instead of a buisness will be in charge.


Norfolk Southern is a railroad AND a business, and a pretty successful business at that. He also know how to run a safe operation for both the public and employees, something that has challenged Amtrak in recent years.
The best news is that he is not yet another transit, government agency lifer with no clue how to run a railroad or a business.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Aug 19, 2016)

Wouldn't have dreamed this was possible. Fantastic news!


----------



## ParanoidAndroid (Aug 19, 2016)

Moorman's salary at Amtrak will be $1 a year, with an annual bonus of $500,000 tied to performance goals, according to The Wall Street Journal.

What! Probably a typo.


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 19, 2016)

maxbuskirk said:


> Moorman's salary at Amtrak will be $1 a year, with an annual bonus of $500,000 tied to performance goals, according to The Wall Street Journal.
> 
> What! Probably a typo.


Not a typo.


----------



## MattW (Aug 19, 2016)

This does indeed seem to be good news! He's a Georgia Tech grad so that's definitely a plus!


----------



## jis (Aug 19, 2016)

Here is a bit of unstructured rambling on my part ....

It would be interesting to see what effect this has on the hope echelons of Amtrak Executive Suite - how many VPs remain and how many go bye bye, etc.

I also wonder if he would bring back on board people like Brian Rosenwald who was rather callously shoved aside by the current management. Will he work towards trying to maximize revenues on LD service given what is available? Or will he try to cut costs to profitability, something no one has ever successfully done AFAICT. 

The performance based bonus thing can be a two edged sword. Hard to tell what will come of it until the Board decides to share what the performance metrics are. For example, if the Board in its infinite wisdom decides that one of the performance metrics is "How well do you satisfy Mica", then we are screwed. From some noises that we have heard from the Board, indications are that they are very concerned about what has been done to the LD BU, and were frustrated that they had no levers available to them to actually force a change in approach. If the rumors are true that the current CEO was kept out of the loop in the new CEO selection that also says something about what was going on.

But these are all speculations based on rumors. We shall just have to wait and see. Won't we? Keep an eye out for executive departures and appointments after he comes on board, and also how he interacts with the employees and the Board. That will give some early hints.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 19, 2016)

Excellent topics for thought and discussion jis!

Knowing Brian Rosenwald and his record, I would hope he would be one of the first Executives named to help get Amtrak back on track!

Some of the bean counters and lifers at 60 Mass are probably polishing their resumes!


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (Aug 19, 2016)

jis,

My impression (and that is all it is--just the feeling I get about him) is that he is one of those people who is secure enough within himself that he is not afraid of John Mica or anyone else. (After all, he had to deal with Hunter Harrison, and that's about as tough an enemy as you could come across.) And also secure enough that he can be that rare combination: an excellent businessman combined with a truly gracious and sincere personality.

I would imagine that, the first year, he will take stock of what is most in need of fixing and deal with that. If he stays longer, then perhaps we will see some dead wood go and some excellent people return. (Jim, you might have to be patient just a little bit longer!  )

I think his biggest strength is that he will be approachable and listen to ideas from all sides (maybe even us!  )

Also, I realize it's probably obvious, but what does the acronym "BU" stand for in regard to long-distance trains? Thanks....


----------



## Caesar La Rock (Aug 19, 2016)

Wow, just incredible. Someone who actually ran a railroad will be running Amtrak. Sure haven't seen that in a while.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Aug 19, 2016)

All right, Moorman is a good choice. A railroad executive who actually seems to enjoy railroads. He'll bring some new ideas and energy into the operation and will know how to negotiate with the freight rails. Looking forward to see what happens.


----------



## jis (Aug 19, 2016)

Mystic River Dragon said:


> Also, I realize it's probably obvious, but what does the acronym "BU" stand for in regard to long-distance trains? Thanks....


Business Unit.  A common acronym used in businesses that organized around a number of Business Units.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (Aug 19, 2016)

Thanks, jis!

Now I know what it means, I think he will most certainly be able to do something good about the LD BU!

I will give him at least a couple of months before I ask for the diner back on the Silver Star!


----------



## jis (Aug 19, 2016)

Mystic River Dragon said:


> Thanks, jis!
> 
> Now I know what it means, I think he will most certainly be able to do something good about the LD BU!
> 
> I will give him at least a couple of months before I ask for the diner back on the Silver Star!


Yeah, we can ask all we want. It is not clear that even our creator mother nature can extract a few working Diners out of CAF anytime soon.


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 19, 2016)

Fingers crossed here.


----------



## Acela150 (Aug 19, 2016)

Ok.. Here are some facts that I can present to you about Wick..

1. His retirement was forced.. NS has a corporate policy that MANDATES retirement from senior management at a certain age. He hit that age. It's a complete farce IMO.

2. He actually knows how to railroad! If you ever work for the railroad, the one thing that is constantly bitched and moaned about is that many Trainmasters these days have never touched foot on a piece of equipment, let alone know how a train moves. This is a major up and coming problem.. I had a train master tell me once how to do my job.. He had NO previous railroad experience.. I told him to Shut up you have not a (insert expletive here) clue what you're talking about. And when I proved that he was a dumb moron who doesn't know the rule book he shut up and went to a trailing unit for the rest of the trip. He never gave me or anyone crap again.

Wick started as a Conductor and moved his way up through management.. I can almost promise you that if you gave him a cut sheet of 100 cars he could still shift the hell out of them with the best of us! THIS IS WHAT RAILROADS NEED!!!!!

3. He's a pretty big buff.. Why do you think NS has 20 heritage units and has repainted several more to their original paint. Wick Moorman..

4. It's fair to say he could be a Graham Claytor part deux.

5. NS employees were annoyed when he was forced out. Simply cause he knows the business better then anyone.

6. His replacement at NS is a lawyer who has never done anything T&E related. You can imagine how that's been going over with the T&E employees at NS.

When I saw this, I almost had a moment of running around in happiness.

I will say that personally I think that this is going to be a short term thing, to get Amtrak turned around from where Boardman had the company going. it's a win for Amtrak though. And I'm sure that Charlie could tell you that personally I wanted him as the next guy in charge.


----------



## OBS (Aug 19, 2016)

Anybody know his age?


----------



## jis (Aug 19, 2016)

OBS said:


> Anybody know his age?


66. Born in 1950 in Hattiesburg MS.


----------



## acelafan (Aug 19, 2016)

The Amtrak CEO will always have limited resources unless the funding structure for Amtrak is significantly changed, but still I'm hopeful that some good decisions can come from Mr. Moorman in the fairly short term. This is good news for Amtrak.

(Moderators: You may wish to edit the title of this post to correct the spelling of Moorman)


----------



## OBS (Aug 19, 2016)

Thanks Jis.


----------



## oregon pioneer (Aug 19, 2016)

Sounds like a very good choice. I am looking forward to seeing some positive changes, I hope enough to increase ridership and make Amtrak travel more enjoyable again.


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 19, 2016)

Now if only he can wrangle Congress like Claytor could.


----------



## pennyk (Aug 19, 2016)

acelafan said:


> (Moderators: You may wish to edit the title of this post to correct the spelling of Moorman)


Thanks.


----------



## Acela150 (Aug 19, 2016)

zephyr17 said:


> Now if only he can wrangle Congress like Claytor could.


The man has it in him.


----------



## NE933 (Aug 19, 2016)

Great news. I can start caring again, and, all the rail forums will hopefully turn around the daily doldrums that stayed overwhelmingly negative for the past several years.

Now, from what I've picked up and reasoned, there will be changes, in order for Amtrak to survive, some of which we may not like but necessary none the less. We can all agree that the mess we're in requires SOMETHING(s) be done differently. I'm hoping for actions that will address the lack of badly need rolling stock acquisition to counter the slow but steady deterioration, and attrition, of railcars and locomotives. Plus lots of common sense stuff too numerous to list but mentioned aplenty in the past.

So, what date does Charles 'Wick' Moorman start? September 1?


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Aug 19, 2016)

why would someone retire from this : While CEO of Norfolk Southern in 2008, Charles Moorman earned a total compensation of just over $9 million, which included a base salary of $950,000, a cash bonus of $1,759,400, stocks granted of $6,768,618, and options granted of $2,415,000.

and then a year later take job like this : 

in May 2013, Boardman signed to a two-year "renewable" contract. Board Chairman Anthony Coscia said, "We are extremely pleased with the progress Amtrak has made under the leadership of Joe Boardman". Boardman's salary during 2013 was $350,000.


----------



## George K (Aug 19, 2016)

Dutchrailnut said:


> why would someone retire from this : While CEO of Norfolk Southern in 2008, Charles Moorman earned a total compensation of just over $9 million, which included a base salary of $950,000, a cash bonus of $1,759,400, stocks granted of $6,768,618, and options granted of $2,415,000.
> 
> and then a year later take job like this :
> 
> in May 2013, Boardman signed to a two-year "renewable" contract. Board Chairman Anthony Coscia said, "We are extremely pleased with the progress Amtrak has made under the leadership of Joe Boardman". Boardman's salary during 2013 was $350,000.


Because, "at some point, you've made enough money" ?


----------



## John Bobinyec (Aug 19, 2016)

Perhaps he had had enough of just sitting around the house?

jb


----------



## Carolina Special (Aug 19, 2016)

Norfolk Southern has a mandatory retirement age of 65. Presumably he still wants to work.


----------



## gaspeamtrak (Aug 19, 2016)

YIPPEE !!! There is hope again !

I hope he cracks the whip with CAF and gets those Viewliner 2's rolling ASAP !!! ;0;0;0


----------



## MikefromCrete (Aug 19, 2016)

gaspeamtrak said:


> YIPPEE !!! There is hope again !
> 
> I hope he cracks the whip with CAF and gets those Viewliner 2's rolling ASAP !!! ;0;0;0


He's only a mere mortal, not some kind of super hero.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 19, 2016)

As F. Scott Fitzgerald said: " .The Rich are different than you and I!. "


----------



## JohannFarley (Aug 20, 2016)

Here's what's been quoted on NS's instagram of their current CEO in regards to Wick's appointment.


----------



## railiner (Aug 20, 2016)

Acela150 said:


> Ok.. Here are some facts that I can present to you about Wick..
> 
> 1. His retirement was forced.. NS has a corporate policy that MANDATES retirement from senior management at a certain age. He hit that age. It's a complete farce IMO.
> 
> ...





zephyr17 said:


> Now if only he can wrangle Congress like Claytor could.


Keep in mind that the revered W. Graham Claytor Jr., was a lawyer to begin with on the Southern...not an up-from-the-ranks operating employee....and he was also a political appointee...served as Secretary of the Navy (he did have a distinguished Naval career), and Assistant Secretary of Defense....


----------



## Acela150 (Aug 20, 2016)

Dutchrailnut said:


> why would someone retire from this : While CEO of Norfolk Southern in 2008, Charles Moorman earned a total compensation of just over $9 million, which included a base salary of $950,000, a cash bonus of $1,759,400, stocks granted of $6,768,618, and options granted of $2,415,000.
> 
> and then a year later take job like this :
> 
> in May 2013, Boardman signed to a two-year "renewable" contract. Board Chairman Anthony Coscia said, "We are extremely pleased with the progress Amtrak has made under the leadership of Joe Boardman". Boardman's salary during 2013 was $350,000.


Already been addressed. Read the topic before you go wasting your time. So for the third time... Second from me... NS has a mandatory senior management retirement age. He hit it and was forced out.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Aug 20, 2016)

Seaboard92 said:


> Another bonus for trains that use NS he still has powerful influence over that company. I've been on NS steam trips working after he retired from them and you better believe every NS employee went up and spoke with him. And treated him with upmost respect. Then he ran the engine


Lets not get ahead of ourselves too quickly. The company he has gained powerful influence over is Amtrak. The company he has a strong identity with and affinity toward is Norfolk Southern. Until his loyalties and influence are tested I wouldn't read too much into any this.


----------



## GaSteve (Aug 20, 2016)

I just read in the Trains article about 20th Century Limited that he personally owns one of the few remaining round end observations for that train. That can only be good as regards his attitude toward passenger rail.

And, I'm sure other will chime in here, but IMO NS has a better attitude toward Amtrak than just about any other RR.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Aug 20, 2016)

GaSteve said:


> I just read in the Trains article about 20th Century Limited that he personally owns one of the few remaining round end observations for that train. That can only be good as regards his attitude toward passenger rail.
> 
> And, I'm sure other will chime in here, but IMO NS has a better attitude toward Amtrak than just about any other RR.


Hopefully this will lead to smoother negotiations between Amtrak and Norfolk Southern to increase/improve service along NS routes (especially one of them).


----------



## BCL (Aug 20, 2016)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> > Another bonus for trains that use NS he still has powerful influence over that company. I've been on NS steam trips working after he retired from them and you better believe every NS employee went up and spoke with him. And treated him with upmost respect. Then he ran the engine
> ...


Amtrak's press release hints that he still owns stock in NS and they'll have to handle that conflict of interest.


----------



## NE933 (Aug 20, 2016)

How did he get the nickname 'Wick'?


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Aug 20, 2016)

NE933 said:


> How did he get the nickname 'Wick'?


Maybe he absorbs information like a candle wick?


----------



## dlagrua (Aug 20, 2016)

I view Wick Moorman's appointment as Amtrak CEO as a positive move. Amtrak was created as an independent for profit corporation but it has always been run by people who have connections to the political class and not railroading.

I envision Moorman making positive changes while he travels the country in his own private railroad car at his own expense. Amtrak is a bigger challenge than running a freight railroad but I never thought that it was well run. Moorman has first hand experience at all levels on a railroad and should be able to make a positive difference. Maybe he can break the stalemate with congress and establish new routes by subcontracting them out. My prediction, look for private industry to be brought into the fold.


----------



## pennyk (Aug 20, 2016)

NE933 said:


> How did he get the nickname 'Wick'?


Possibly from his middle name "Wilson."


----------



## john small berries (Aug 20, 2016)

NE933 said:


> How did he get the nickname 'Wick'?


Sometimes Southern nicknames are not tied to any reality that anyone outside the family can understand.

Trust me on this.


----------



## jis (Aug 20, 2016)

Clearly we are in the euphoria stage as is usual when someone with a relatively good reputation is selected. As for what he will be able to do in the new environment, that is a different issue.

He has the luxury of not being beholden to any of the current occupants in the management chain, which suggest that he would not have the chains on his feet implicit in a deeply embedded group of cronies. Also the obvious conflict of interest that has existed at Amtrak with many management positions occupied by union members on sabbatical from the union may get fixed.



railiner said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> > Now if only he can wrangle Congress like Claytor could.
> ...


I can also think of plenty of people who rose through the ranks and passed their level of incompetence somewhere on the way and became pretty hopeless executives. So it can go many ways.

It is more important to focus on the individual and his record and capabilities rather than trying to apply over-generalized correlations. It is also not self-evident that a railfan would necessarily make a great executive. I can think of many that won't. Just look around you on this board.

My take is: What Moorman has going for him is his track record in operations at is good, tarnished only by the NS meltdown on the Water Level Route due to an obvious managerial faux pas regarding the use of dispatch automation system. I am sure he has learned from that experience and won't repeat it. Otherwise we could see the mother of all meltdowns on the NEC. He evidently has little first hand experience in running a customer facing hotel system such as Amtrak LD is. But he can overcome that by appointing experts in the field to advise him. The Hotel part of Amtrak as we know has been one of its weakest points partly by omission and partly by commission. He has significant experience in managing Telecommunication, IT and Personnel and HR Departments, which will all come in very handy. From what we hear from the NS folks his relation with labor has been good at NS (Correct me if I am wrong) BTW, is it he that finally got NS to put toilets in locomotives to replace the old "pail for toilet" approach that NS stuck with longer than anyone else?

If he is able to disentangle the mess that 14th St. in Chicago is and Sunnyside in New York is, that in itself will be an achievement beyond Graham Claytor. So we'll see how that goes. Unless he is able to tackle things like those at Amtrak it is not clear how he can get things like RCM instituted for all locomotives and rolling stock, if he wants to go there that is.



BCL said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> > Lets not get ahead of ourselves too quickly. The company he has gained powerful influence over is Amtrak. The company he has a strong identity with and affinity toward is Norfolk Southern. Until his loyalties and influence are tested I wouldn't read too much into any this.
> ...


Just owning a bunch of stock per se is not a problem. That is why blind trusts were invented. Theoretically being a member of the Board of another corporation could be construed to be a conflict of interest too. But in reality the test that is applied is whether such membrship is in a corporation that substantially competes with the primary relationship the executive has with the corporation that employs him. For example, I don;t think his Board membership of Chevron will be viewed as a conflict. NS did not view it as such either.

Anyway, to get a better feel for who he is and what he is about, here is an interview with him when he received the Railroader of the Year Award: http://www.nscorp.com/nscorphtml/pdf/rarroty_jan2011.pdf


----------



## BCL (Aug 20, 2016)

jis said:


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



This is what it said:

http://media.amtrak.com/2016/08/amtrak-names-industry-veteran-wick-moorman-president-and-chief-executive-officer/

Moorman currently holds securities of a rail carrier. Amtrak will ensure that any conflict will be avoided as is required by federal law.

I suppose this could mean all sorts of things, but lots of public information says that his NS compensation over the years was primarily in stock options and awards.


----------



## Hal (Aug 20, 2016)

jis said:


> He has the luxury of not being beholden to any of the current occupants in the management chain, which suggest that he would not have the chains on his feet implicit in a deeply embedded group of cronies. Also the obvious conflict of interest that has existed at Amtrak with many management positions occupied by union members on sabbatical from the union may get fixed.


Unlikely that will change. Amtrak managment has always insisted that union members that take mangement positions be able to retain their union seniority.


----------



## jis (Aug 20, 2016)

BCL said:


> This is what it said:
> 
> http://media.amtrak.com/2016/08/amtrak-names-industry-veteran-wick-moorman-president-and-chief-executive-officer/
> 
> ...


What I meant is that that sort of conflict is mitigated by putting all the holdings in question in a blind trust and having the owner release all control of the blind trust to an independent trustee for the period of the conflict. this is done all the time when an executive moves from one company to another. it is not something that is extremely out of the ordinary. For example when Mark hurd moved from NCR to HP he had to do so with his NCR holdings from what I have heard.


----------



## jis (Aug 20, 2016)

Hal said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > He has the luxury of not being beholden to any of the current occupants in the management chain, which suggest that he would not have the chains on his feet implicit in a deeply embedded group of cronies. Also the obvious conflict of interest that has existed at Amtrak with many management positions occupied by union members on sabbatical from the union may get fixed.
> ...


However if management employees that are hired are not union members then the question would become moot. We were talking conflict of interest, and if this is not a huge conflict of interest I don;t know what is.


----------



## Hal (Aug 20, 2016)

jis said:


> Hal said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


The managers who have been union members that they co opt to management, are the managers who have railroad experience. You want more managers who don't have a clue about railroad operations?


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 20, 2016)

I too think this policy is unwise,it is like the Fox guarding the Hen House and is what led to the Chief of On Board Service Position being unwworkable, and I can think of no Private Company where Executives are members of the Union that their employees belong too. ( although having a Union Repl on the Board of Directors happens in some companies)

When I was a Firefighter while in College (Lifetime Member of the IAFF)my fellow Executive Committee Member was Promoted to Chief of Department and was therefore a Member of Management and an "Exempt" Employee as required by State Civil Service Law. ( Texas is a Right to Work State).

Perhaps Hal meant to say that the Union is the one that demands this provision, not Amtrak Executives???


----------



## John Bobinyec (Aug 20, 2016)

jis said:


> Hal said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


If union members were not allowed to retain their union rights when they take management positions in the same company, then no one would.

jb


----------



## Hal (Aug 20, 2016)

Bob Dylan said:


> Perhaps Hal meant to say that the Union is the one that demands this provision, not Amtrak Executives???


No, that is not what I meant. It is not the unions that demand the provision. Railroad executives are the ones who demand it. Management would not agree to a union contract that took that provision out. Management wants to be able to co opt union members to management. Union members would not take management jobs if they gave up their seniority.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 20, 2016)

Thanks for the clarification Hal, I understand the Suits wanting to co-opt the Union Members, but still think about the example of the Chief of on Board Services and why it was doomed to failure from the get go, although it is a concept that works very well in other counties including Canada!


----------



## jis (Aug 20, 2016)

Hal said:


> The managers who have been union members that they co opt to management, are the managers who have railroad experience. You want more managers who don't have a clue about railroad operations?


If just matters of convenience were always enough to verlook conflicts of interest then perhaps there should be no conflict of interest considerations at all. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Aug 20, 2016)

jis said:


> Hal said:
> 
> 
> > The managers who have been union members that they co opt to management, are the managers who have railroad experience. You want more managers who don't have a clue about railroad operations?
> ...



So far, only you and bob Dylan mentioned conflicts of interest. Perhaps you can give us examples...because it almost seems as if you two are saying that people can't possibly manage their respective crafts (and others) and I'm almost taking it as you're insulting the integrity of those in the positions that maintain a roster affiliation.

Using your logic, this man can't possibly be a good CEO of Amtrak since he comes from freight...which hasn't been particularly cooperative to Amtrak. Therefore, his appointment is obviously a plot to undermine Amtrak and shut it down.

Turning back to the topic, while it may be nice to have an operations man at the the helm, the learning curve is still steep. Passenger operations are a different beast. Freight hauls things for their customers while passengers transport the actual customer. Additionally, you are no longer beholden to the stockholders as you are still intertwined with the various politicians that have their hands in the operation.

Can he and more importantly, will he be able to walk that line? Will someone that made millions work for peanuts while being trapped within the framework of those who fund the operation?

It almost makes you wonder why he's even putting himself in this position. Hmmmmm...I guess we'll just have to "keep our eye" on things!


----------



## jis (Aug 20, 2016)

Conflict of interest rules are always about not putting people in a position where they have divided loyalties. It is not about questioning anyone's integrity.

In this specific case it would depend on what it means to keep roster seniority. As long as they are free to act against the interest of the union involved and not favor union members over non union members in areas where membership of union is irrelevant without losing said seniority, it should be OK. A problem would arise if the union is able to exert control, even covertly, over their action by holding an implicit threat of retaliation.

So as long as there are clear contractual demarcation of action and non-interference, it is fine. Usually in conflict of interest cases that we deal with in private industry much of it is about appearance of conflict rather than actual conflict unfortunately, and that is why great care is taken in exhibiting clearly why even when there appears to be a conflict there actually is no conflict.

From what you are saying, perhaps all that is necessary is to shed some light on the nature of the lack of conflict and that should take care of that. I have not seen much of that, but that may just be my ignorance.

Hope that clarifies my position on this matter.

BTW, the example of Moorman moving from freight railroad to passenger railroad is more or less irrelevant and a contrived example, because at any given point in time he has no divided loyalties (except for the issue of stock holdings that was mentioned). He has specific performance related pay package at Amtrak which clearly sets up his loyalties at this point, and NS has no leverage over him to influence his actions at Amtrak.


----------



## John Bobinyec (Aug 20, 2016)

I can only speak for the long-gone Erie Lackawanna. There, when you moved from union ranks to first-line management, the first thing that happened was you were moved to a division which was not your home division. This was specifically to avoid your having a conflict of interest with all of those people whom you knew there.

jb


----------



## Hal (Aug 20, 2016)

jis said:


> Conflict of interest rules are always about not putting people in a position where they have divided loyalties. It is not about questioning anyone's integrity.
> 
> In this specific case it would depend on what it means to keep roster seniority. As long as they are free to act against the interest of the union involved and not favor union members over non union members in areas where membership of union is irrelevant without losing said seniority, it should be OK. A problem would arise if the union is able to exert control, even covertly, over their action by holding an implicit threat of retaliation.
> 
> So as long as there are clear contractual demarcation of action and non-interference, it is fine. Usually in conflict of interest cases that we deal with in private industry much of it is about appearance of conflict rather than actual conflict unfortunately, and that is why great care is taken in exhibiting clearly why even when there appears to be a conflict there actually is no conflict.


Keeping roster seniority means just that. They can return to their craft at the same roster position. Nothing more. They don't participate in the union they were in. When they take a managment position they are free to act against the interests of the union, and they often do. They carry out the interests of management. The union can't exert any control, and a far as threats of retaliation it is management that holds all the retaliation cards, not the unions.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Aug 20, 2016)

jis said:


> Conflict of interest rules are always about not putting people in a position where they have divided loyalties. It is not about questioning anyone's integrity.
> 
> In this specific case it would depend on what it means to keep roster seniority. As long as they are free to act against the interest of the union involved and not favor union members over non union members in areas where membership of union is irrelevant without losing said seniority, it should be OK. A problem would arise if the union is able to exert control, even covertly, over their action by holding an implicit threat of retaliation.
> 
> ...


Nope....let's get back to your statement.



jis said:


> He has the luxury of not being beholden to any of the current occupants in the management chain, which suggest that he would not have the chains on his feet implicit in a deeply embedded group of cronies. *Also the obvious conflict of interest that has existed at Amtrak with many management positions occupied by union members on sabbatical from the union may get fixed.*


Your statement (please note it was not posed as a question) states there is an obvious conflict of interest. I'm asking you to post examples of the conflict of interest since you feel they obviously exist in some form.

You further state that this must be a problem because you said the "problem may get fixed."

Can you give us examples of how this "problem" as you mentioned it has detrimentally impacted the current operation? Additionally, out of Amtrak's (in my opinion) burgeoning management during the Boardman era, how many of them actually are associated with an actual roster? Are the problems caused by the union affiliated managers or the off the street managers, piggybacking on their politically connected appointees?

Please enlighten us.



jis said:


> BTW, the example of Moorman moving from freight railroad to passenger railroad is more or less irrelevant and a contrived example, because at any given point in time he has no divided loyalties (except for the issue of stock holdings that was mentioned). He has specific performance related pay package at Amtrak which clearly sets up his loyalties at this point, and NS has no leverage over him based on his actions at Amtrak.


It is about as contrived as you stating there is an obvious conflict of interest just because a manager may be affiliated with a union...a union that may have nothing to do with what they are ultimately in charge of.

Your statement neglects the fact that a proper manager is their to manage....not dictate and they may use their knowledge of the craft to bolster the craft. They can use their experience to steer people towards the proper way to do the job since they (hopefully) have knowledge of the position. They can make the position stronger through education, knowledge and more importantly, empathy. Your goals become achievable and realistic.

When that is your position, there are no divided loyalties.

PS: he currently owns stock in NS. A person with such a skeptical view of what amounts to potential of conflict of interest may think that a decision that may help Amtrak but could possibly (not definitely) impact said stock portfolio may not even be broached.


----------



## jis (Aug 20, 2016)

Hal said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Conflict of interest rules are always about not putting people in a position where they have divided loyalties. It is not about questioning anyone's integrity.
> ...


Well, so that clarifies that. I am glad that we were able to address, at least in my view, what the core issues are, and come to a conclusion. Clearly it was my ignorance of the actual nature of the relationship that caused me to have the perception. Thank you.

Incidentally, I am particularly sensitive to this because I have to deal with such issues in my day to day work with regard to loyalties of people to the multiple roles that they play in conjunction with working as delegates to other organizations. We have to go through refresher training twice a year. This stuff is taken pretty seriously. Typically one starts with any possible perception of conflicts and then goes about documenting exactly why the perception arises and how it is to be mitigated should someone raise an issue. And in today's lawyer infested society there are plenty of opportunities for such to occur.

As the cause of my statement was my perception I am not going to argue further the minutia of this with Thirdrail since it is unlikely to make any material improvement to the understanding of the situation, at least for me.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Aug 20, 2016)

Hal said:


> Keeping roster seniority means just that. They can return to their craft at the same roster position. Nothing more. They don't participate in the union they were in. When they take a managment position they are free to act against the interests of the union, and they often do. They carry out the interests of management. The union can't exert any control, and a far as threats of retaliation it is management that holds all the retaliation cards, not the unions.



Additionally, managers can't even vote for things that would affect them if they returned to the craft. They can not participate in elections, vote for contracts, receive and loses any outstanding entitlements due before they went to management (e.g.. if you went 7 years without a contract and back pay was awarded, you don't receive it if you transferred even if you weren't a manager during the period.)

There is no conflict if you are a true manager.


----------



## jis (Aug 20, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Hal said:
> 
> 
> > Keeping roster seniority means just that. They can return to their craft at the same roster position. Nothing more. They don't participate in the union they were in. When they take a managment position they are free to act against the interests of the union, and they often do. They carry out the interests of management. The union can't exert any control, and a far as threats of retaliation it is management that holds all the retaliation cards, not the unions.
> ...


Thanks for the further clarification. Sounds like it is pretty clear and sound separation. That is all that I was seeking an explanation of, and clearly I had some misconceptions. Thanks again.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 20, 2016)

Ditto to what jishnu said! Thanks for the clarification from those on the inside but I still say that a person put into an Exempt Position shouldn't have oversight of where they used to work as a Union Employee covered by agreement!

That's a direct conflict of interest in my view.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Aug 20, 2016)

A true manager would not need to maintain his dues to a craft union.

Not trying to poke the flames. Just disagree strongly. Why would a manager spend funds to maintain his position in a union? So the manager has a fall back job.

I myself and many other still maintain license that we have not used in years, but we still pay money ever year to keep that license. Just in case.

It is a conflict of interest. How could it not be.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Aug 20, 2016)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> A true manager would not need to maintain his dues to a craft union.
> 
> Not trying to poke the flames. Just disagree strongly. Why would a manager spend funds to maintain his position in a union? So the manager has a fall back job.
> 
> ...


There is a difference between NEEDING to maintain their dues and WANTING to maintain their dues. There are indeed managers that don't remain on their associated rosters. There are managers that were never on a roster to begin with. Some managers are indeed on a roster which is because they WANT to. It is not a requirement.

You have failed to demonstrate how remaining on a roster...which may not even be the craft you're managing is a conflict. Why does the ability to return to a craft represent a conflict over managers that may not be on a roster? Are you insinuating that a craft manager will not work as hard or can't manage their coworkers?


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Aug 20, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Are you insinuating that a craft manager will not work as hard or can't manage their coworkers?


Yes I am. If a craft manager is put in a management positions over the same craft, and they can return to said craft. That sir is a bad set up, you will not get a good manager. See it several times in several different career field. Once your a manager there is no going back. You fail, you look for a different company to work for. That's how my private sector business works. I am not saying that a craft employee can't be a great manager, but just giving them the option to test the waters, and return to there craft is a poor way of doing business.

Yoda: No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try.

A Star Wars quote in a trains forums.


----------



## Acela150 (Aug 20, 2016)

No. It's not a bad set up. Some trainmasters don't want to do that forever. So if they want to go back to the ground they can. You can think it's a bad deal. But it's actually a really good deal.


----------



## John Bobinyec (Aug 20, 2016)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you insinuating that a craft manager will not work as hard or can't manage their coworkers?
> ...


So if there were no retention of craft rights when being promoted to management what could you offer to entice someone out of the ranks? More money? Upon promotion you usually make LESS money because there is no more overtime or other contract incentives. Job security? Job security would be better if the person stayed in the craft. A chance to "make a difference"? Yawn.

And here's something else. Oftentimes the relationship between management and the craft is adversarial. Suppose a manager disliked a particular craft employee. If that person stays within the craft, any disciplinary action must take place according to contract rules. But an easier way would be to offer the craft employee a promotion to management, and then after they accepted, summarily dismiss them, since they would have no recourse.

I'm sure those who have insisted upon this "protection" have other reasons as well. The practice is not likely to change.

jb


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Aug 21, 2016)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you insinuating that a craft manager will not work as hard or can't manage their coworkers?
> ...



Ok.. while I don't necessarily agree or disagree with all aspects of your position, that still does not answer why you (and others) think it is a conflict of interest. Your statement answers the question of whether you think a union employee or a non union employee would make a better manager and why.

To be certain:



> con·flict of in·ter·est
> 
> noun
> 
> ...


.

As previously indicated, when you become a manager it's not like you don't work directly for the best interests of the company. You enact, enforce and oversee their policies. If you fail to do so, you're terminated. From the union's perspective although you are a member in good standing, you are not a participating member. As such, your voice and opinions mean nothing, so it is not like you're setting up your future. .

So, I'm still at a loss as to why this is deemed a conflict of interest.

As previously stated, a true manager works to make sure things work to the point that not only will it strengthen the company, it will strengthen the craft they're managing...which again, may not necessarily be the craft they belong to.

This is not limited to the railroad field. I know managers in the medical field that still hang on to their certifications and licenses form their original profession and they aren't even union employees.

PS: I always tip my hat to anyone that works a Star Wars or Star Trek quote into a post. :hi: :hi:

You get a double tip for mentioning Yoda!!


----------



## jis (Aug 21, 2016)

Frankly, I don't think that a person who has been promoted from a craft to a management position managing the same craft under the rules followed by Amtrak as we discussed earlier would constitute a conflict of interest.

You have to have more than a passing relationship for that. For example in general a person being the immediate supervisor of his or her family member is usually considered to be a conflict of interest. Having previously been an active member of the same organization does not meet that threshold under the rules followed at Amtrak. There could be other situation under different rules regime where it may. But at least in my mind definitely not in this case.


----------



## kmock (Aug 22, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> GaSteve said:
> 
> 
> > I just read in the Trains article about 20th Century Limited that he personally owns one of the few remaining round end observations for that train. That can only be good as regards his attitude toward passenger rail.
> ...


I had the same initial reaction: in PA, NS has not been very cooperative (see for example the latest fiasco on the Lehigh Valley Passenger Rail proposal). Also, NS has been very reluctant to release any free space on the Keystone West to allow more than one trip in each direction per day. Hopefully, with Wick Moorman, Amtrak's relationship with NS will improve to allow for more passenger rail in PA.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 22, 2016)

jis said:


> Frankly, I don't think that a person who has been promoted from a craft to a management position managing the same craft under the rules followed by Amtrak as we discussed earlier would constitute a conflict of interest.
> 
> You have to have more than a passing relationship for that. For example in general a person being the immediate supervisor of his or her family member is usually considered to be a conflict of interest. Having previously been an active member of the same organization does not meet that threshold under the rules followed at Amtrak. There could be other situation under different rules regime where it may. But at least in my mind definitely not in this case.


Maybe we're a different sort of beast, but in the Federal government, they seem to have no problem promoting professional employees to management positions supervising their former colleagues. This has happened to me in agencies that are unionized and agencies that are not unionized. This has not seemed to affect the efficiency of the the agencies, at least in the cases of my experience.

One thing I find interesting is this assumption that "management" is mostly about being able to punish employees who don't do what the managers want. There seems to be no sense that the managers and the workers have any sort of shared goals, but rather an assumption that workers are lazy bums who are out to get away with doing nothing. While that may be true for some, our economy would be in pretty bad shape if the workers had no interest in whatever it is that their companies are doing. In fact, I suspect that most Amtrak workers (or railroad workers in general), really want the trains to run safely on time. I also suspect that the rank and file workers in the field may have a better idea about what it takes to make the trains run safely on time than many of the suits, who rely on PowerPoint presentations for whatever knowledge they may have about the subject. If there's any need for an adversarial relation between workers and management, it's probably only needed between the top levels of management and the leaders of the union. At most levels mangers need to work with the people they manage as members of a team, and they need to be able to defer to the greater expertise of the workers in the field, who, after all, have the best knowledge of what's actually going on.


----------



## jis (Aug 22, 2016)

In the several companies that I have worked for, immediate supervision of family members was a strict violation of company policy. It is OK for a family member to be far down the management chain in an organization that is managed by a relative. The main rule has been that the manager must not have any direct responsibility for salary treatment, promotion and firing decisions of a family member. The typical example of conflict of interest that is given in the training sessions is that of a person managing his or her spouse and giving him or her unearned higher raises to gussy up their family income.

I don't know what the rules are in the Federal bureaucracy.

Incidentally, I have always been curious about how federal agencies measure "efficiency of organization", and how would one know if whatever it is was compromised or not?


----------



## jis (Sep 1, 2016)

Wick Moorman's open letter to Amtrak employees:

http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2016/09/01-wicks-letter


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 1, 2016)

jis said:


> Wick Moorman's open letter to Amtrak employees:
> 
> http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2016/09/01-wicks-letter


Off to a good start! 
Hopefully he'll travel on the LD Trains, not in isolation on Beech Grove,visit with the Staff and Customers, and eat in the Diners so he gets a real picture of what's going on out on the rails.

Also hopefully he can get Sunnyside and the entire Chicago Clusterflub operating correctly by visiting them just like that TV Show "Secret Boss".

We wish him well! Time will tell!


----------



## west point (Sep 1, 2016)

Probably could not happen but when a LD train takes a severe delay fly out to train and ride it and find out how the troops handle bad situations. Or maybe just send a regional manager to observe ? ?


----------



## Acela150 (Sep 1, 2016)

Bob Dylan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Wick Moorman's open letter to Amtrak employees:
> ...



I agree with Jim here. That is the best way to find what needs to be fixed, who is a great employee and who is half assed at there job.


----------



## Woodcut60 (Sep 3, 2016)

Acela150 said:


> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


Yes, I wonder how often Amtrak executives leave their Washington HQ and ride the trains themselves (not only the NEC, but also the LD trains), have dinners in the Dining Car, test the service of the SCA's, etc. This should be done on a regular basis, in my opinion.


----------



## John Bobinyec (Sep 3, 2016)

Woodcut60 said:


> Acela150 said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Dylan said:
> ...


Not too regularly because once they are recognized, their service will become exemplary.

I'd rather see unknown folks auditing the service and reporting back to HQ. I volunteer!

jb


----------



## Steve4031 (Sep 3, 2016)

Me too.


----------



## Ziv (Sep 3, 2016)

A decent amount of both, perhaps? Management by walking around does help keep the manager up to speed on what the staff are going through, and more importantly, what the customers are going through, in a more direct manner.



John Bobinyec said:


> Woodcut60 said:
> 
> 
> > Acela150 said:
> ...


----------



## zephyr17 (Sep 3, 2016)

John Bobinyec said:


> Woodcut60 said:
> 
> 
> > Acela150 said:
> ...


They need to contract for "secret shopper" services. And act on the results.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Sep 3, 2016)

zephyr17 said:


> They need to contract for "secret shopper" services. And act on the results.


They have them. They are known as "spotters."



John Bobinyec said:


> Woodcut60 said:
> 
> 
> > Acela150 said:
> ...


The only way to get Sunnyside, Chicago and other facilities operating correctly is to give them the tools to perform the tasks. That includes parts, equipment, manpower and the most important thing: time with the equipment. When a train completes a 2400 mile journey 10 hours late, you only have so much time to get things operating correctly, particularly if someone is breathing down your neck, wanting to minimize a delay.

How many times can you say "they'll take care of it at the next facility.



zephyr17 said:


> John Bobinyec said:
> 
> 
> > Woodcut60 said:
> ...


The problem is not necessarily recognition. The problem is discretion. Some people announce their plans and show up with an entourage. This is where David Gunn was a master. He would just walk away from his group (which he went out of his way to shake) and just "appear," unannounced.

We used to call him the Shadow II (since there was a gentleman who had the title first) because they would just "appear" unannounced, at any hour and alone . More often than not, he wouldn't dress for the occasion, showing up in shorts, sandals, a hat and a book. He'd just sit there in coach, reading a book until you asked him for ticket.

I remember he was sitting on a train with Former Gov. Dukakis when a relatively new conductor approached them and asked for their tickets. Mr. Dukakis handed a pass over and said "I'm on the board."

She blurts out "I'm on the board too. I just got forced assigned. Doesn't it suck??"

Mr. Dukakis looked at Mr. Gunn who just laughed and moved on.

She didn't have any idea who she conversing with until it was over...which is the way it should be in my opinion.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 3, 2016)

Outstanding story Thirdrail!

And it might even be True!


----------



## neroden (Sep 3, 2016)

There are stories about Chicago and a couple of the other yards having developed a culture of not doing their jobs -- basically demanding paid non-working time -- a bit like the chronic culture (corruption?) problem in the LIRR. Dunno if it's been fixed in Chicago yet, but you can't run a competent railroad if you've got this behavior ingrained culturally.


----------



## OBS (Sep 3, 2016)

I soooo agree about David Gunn, and it is why he had my utmost respect...You never knew where he would turn up, unlike other high end management, where you show up at the train and 30 people are washing windows, cleaning spots in carpets, etc.!


----------



## Acela150 (Sep 3, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> > They need to contract for "secret shopper" services. And act on the results.
> ...


That's a good laugh.


----------



## dlagrua (Sep 4, 2016)

One priority for Wick Moorman should be to prioritize the manufacturing being done by CAF.of new Viewliners The Amtrak Viewliner sleepers are deteriorating and the Heritage diners (that date to none being made later than 1956), have reached the end of their service life.

I have read many rumors as to why manufacturing for Amtrak has been delayed by CAF but cannot confirm any of this. Among these RUMORS : 1 The defects in the baggage cars required a complete recall, that set back new production. 2. That Amtrak may be thinking about cancelling the contract 3. The bedroom/Roomette modules delivered to CAF were discovered to be out of spec and were returned.

Again these are rumors from online discussion forums so does anyone know if they are true?


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 4, 2016)

#2 is definitely untrue!

As for the others,as the song says: "..the answer my friend, is blowing in the wind.."

Stay tuned here for the definite Word soon as it is available from our insiders.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Sep 4, 2016)

dlagrua said:


> One priority for Wick Moorman should be to prioritize the manufacturing being done by CAF.of new Viewliners The Amtrak Viewliner sleepers are deteriorating and the Heritage diners (that date to none being made later than 1956), have reached the end of their service life.
> 
> I have read many rumors as to why manufacturing for Amtrak has been delayed by CAF but cannot confirm any of this. Among these RUMORS : 1 The defects in the baggage cars required a complete recall, that set back new production. 2. That Amtrak may be thinking about cancelling the contract 3. The bedroom/Roomette modules delivered to CAF were discovered to be out of spec and were returned.
> 
> Again these are rumors from online discussion forums so does anyone know if they are true?


I don't know if this was posted in the VII thread or not.

Per this website https://csanders429.wordpress.com/2016/03/09/caf-production-slowdown-behind-delays-in-delivering-new-viewliner-cars-to-amtrak/



> A revised timetable negotiated in December 2015 and subject to re-negotiation this year has pushed the final delivery date to March 2017.


At the bottom of that page is a link to the Feb 2016 OIG report.


----------



## jis (Sep 4, 2016)

Do we really need to hijack the Wick Moorman thread to discuss VL II and CAF issues?


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Sep 4, 2016)

jis said:


> Do we really need to hijack the Wick Moorman thread to discuss VL II and CAF issues?


No. I was actually thinking about telling the mods to feel free to move or delete my post.

Mods - do what you want with my post.


----------



## jis (Sep 4, 2016)

AmtrakBlue said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Do we really need to hijack the Wick Moorman thread to discuss VL II and CAF issues?
> ...


Well, the pivot was done by you know who, by suggesting that Wick Moorman should do what Amtrak is already doing.  Not you


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Sep 4, 2016)

jis said:


> AmtrakBlue said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


I know ... and I should have ignored the pivot.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Sep 4, 2016)

If Wick Moorman has relevant experience with freight car or locomotive orders falling far behind scheduled deliveries, and any accomplishments in resolving such a mess, we should indeed explore that possibility.

But so far as I know, Moorman has no more expertise in this area than Joe Boardman, or you or me. :-(


----------



## Gulfwind2 (Sep 5, 2016)

It should seem rather obvious that Moorman has more experience in dealing with maintenance and equipment manufacturing firms considering that he came up from MoW at Southern, whereas Joe Boardman came up from the NY State Department of Transportation (keep in mind here that Boardman first arrived there when the term for it was still a highway department).


----------



## dlagrua (Sep 6, 2016)

jis said:


> Do we really need to hijack the Wick Moorman thread to discuss VL II and CAF issues?


I found Betty's updated info on the Viewliner II cars status informative and interesting. It is an issue that Wick Moorman will need to address, follow. and that's why I brought it up. It seemed relevant and the $41 million that CAF is reported to be losing on this order will play into the picture.


----------



## jis (Sep 6, 2016)

dlagrua said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Do we really need to hijack the Wick Moorman thread to discuss VL II and CAF issues?
> ...


That is precisely the sort of information that would have been more useful if placed in the VL II thread where people would typically go to get updates on VL II information. Now they would not get it there but would have to know that someone saw it fit to ask about it in the Moorman thread and then find it there. So your explanation actually further highlights the reason why it would have been better not to pivot this thread. Yeah, it did serve your selfish purpose but at some cost to the general participants. Just IMHO of course.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Sep 6, 2016)

jis said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


** I just copied what I posted here over in the VL II thread ** h34r:


----------



## neroden (Sep 6, 2016)

Some early homework for Wick Moorman:

-- mend fences with the MBTA, which Amtrak has ticked off substantially, and for bad reasons.

-- cut a deal with Niagara Falls and get that station open. Some of Amtrak's dealmakers are making lease payments too much of a priority over *good relationships with government* and *revenue and ridership*.

-- call Quebec (and AMT... and that pension fund which just bought AMT) and get things moving on building that preclearance platform in Montreal.

-- figure out how to use the Viewliner baggage car bike racks to check unboxed bicycles on the Lake Shore Limited and Cardinal -- you've got it working on the Star, Meteor, Palmetto, Crescent, and Carolinian already! How hard can it be?

These are all pre-federal-election priorities.


----------



## Train2104 (Sep 7, 2016)

neroden said:


> -- figure out how to use the Viewliner baggage car bike racks to check unboxed bicycles on the Lake Shore Limited and Cardinal -- you've got it working on the Star, Meteor, Palmetto, Crescent, and Carolinian already! How hard can it be?


Given that these two routes go to Chicago, my guess is that they're afraid a Heritage bag will end up on them with no advance warning, and then having to turn away bikers/bikes.


----------



## jis (Sep 7, 2016)

neroden said:


> Some early homework for Wick Moorman:
> 
> -- mend fences with the MBTA, which Amtrak has ticked off substantially, and for bad reasons.
> 
> ...


They could also consider mending fences with VRE while they are at it.

The station lease payment is a long term behavior pattern problem that has been observed with Amtrak and whoever is trying to fund and build a better station for Amtrak's use. Amtrak needs to get their priorities straightened out and put the customer first as you suggest. This may be an unusual concept to consider I know. But one can always change. The grand-daddy of such continuing miscommunication is of course the Miami Airport Multimodal station. I hope Mr. Moorman can untangle that mess.


----------



## neroden (Sep 8, 2016)

Train2104 said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > -- figure out how to use the Viewliner baggage car bike racks to check unboxed bicycles on the Lake Shore Limited and Cardinal -- you've got it working on the Star, Meteor, Palmetto, Crescent, and Carolinian already! How hard can it be?
> ...


Not an excuse. There are 70 Viewliner baggage cars, which is more than enough to make sure that Heritage baggage cars are not being used on these trains.


----------



## Steve4031 (Sep 8, 2016)

I thought most of the heritage baggage cars were used to lengthen the Illini and Saluki.


----------



## gwschenk (Sep 8, 2016)

Do you think he can make it so I can park overnight in Anaheim again?


----------



## jis (Sep 8, 2016)

gwschenk said:


> Do you think he can make it so I can park overnight in Anaheim again?


That is not Amtrak's problem. That is CalDOT's problem. I doubt Wick will have anything to do with that issue.


----------



## trainman74 (Sep 8, 2016)

jis said:


> gwschenk said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think he can make it so I can park overnight in Anaheim again?
> ...


California uses the name "Caltrans" rather than "CalDOT" to abbreviate "California Department of Transportation."

But I suspect this is more of an issue for the city of Anaheim, which owns the Anaheim station.


----------



## gwschenk (Sep 8, 2016)

Twice a month I take the Surfliner to Los Angeles for the weekend. For years I used Anaheim Station with no issues. (I once parked there for two weeks when on the Chief.) When Artic opened I came back to Anaheim one Monday to find a ticket on my windshield telling me overnight parking was not allowed unless I registered my vehicle with security. I did that, filled out all their paperwork.

The next trip I came back on Monday with a notice that my license plate had been permanently recorded and that I was not allowed to park overnight without registering my car.

Sheesh! I got the hint! They don't want me there. So be it. Irvine Station is not as convenient but at least they like me using the station.

I guess it's a Curt Pringle/Tom Tait issue rather than Amtrak.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Sep 13, 2016)

Rumor has it, he's on vacation. Hopefully, he's riding the rails under the guise of secrecy, resting up for his big challenge.


----------



## Acela150 (Sep 13, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Rumor has it, he's on vacation. Hopefully, he's riding the rails under the guise of secrecy, resting up for his big challenge.


Stealing facebook "Like"


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Mar 5, 2017)

Mr. Moorman is in the process of restructuring human resources, training and compliance. He has indicated that his first year will be his last. I'd be mighty surprised if he returned next year.


----------



## CraigDK (Mar 5, 2017)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Mr. Moorman is in the process of restructuring human resources, training and compliance. He has indicated that his first year will be his last. I'd be mighty surprised if he returned next year.


I know Mr. Moorman has indicated that he doesn't expect to be around long, but were did he say one year? I honestly don't recall that. If he is only staying around for a year then why bother restructuring anything? The next CEO will probably just restructure it again...


----------



## Acela150 (Mar 5, 2017)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Mr. Moorman is in the process of restructuring human resources, training and compliance. He has indicated that his first year will be his last. I'd be mighty surprised if he returned next year.


I'm curious as to the aspects of how he is restructuring HR and training. Especially since I'm on the hunt for a job at Amtrak.


----------



## jis (Mar 10, 2017)

Moorman's interview with PBS starting at about 28 mins in this video:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/videos/#209289


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 13, 2017)

Mr. Moorman will step down as Co-CEO at the end of the year. His only input will involve the engineering department.


----------



## dlagrua (Dec 13, 2017)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Mr. Moorman will step down as Co-CEO at the end of the year. His only input will involve the engineering department.


And thus the Moorman era comes to a close and Amtrak will be headed solely by an airlines man, and we all know how that industry operates. I hope that he, at least enjoys dining car food and riding trains.


----------



## neroden (Dec 13, 2017)

Despite his history as an airline executive, Mr. Anderson was advertising his rail bona fides at the NARP conference; apparently his father worked for a railroad. In Galveston.

Huh... wonder if we'll see a restoration of passenger service to Galveston


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Dec 13, 2017)

neroden said:


> Despite his history as an airline executive, Mr. Anderson ... father worked for a railroad. In Galveston.
> 
> Huh... wonder if we'll see a restoration of passenger service to Galveston


Galveston? That would make as much sense as restoring passenger service to Key West.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 13, 2017)

Amtrak runs a Thruway Bus between Galveston and Longview via Houston that makes connections with the Texas Eagle, but not the 3 times a week Sunset Ltd. in Houston.

Also Galveston has a nice Rail Museum downtown on the strand that features ex- Santa Fe equipment that still makes occasional Special runs for paying passengers.


----------



## Palmland (Dec 14, 2017)

Moorman did his job at Amtrak - find a CEO for the long term that has demonstrated ability to manage a business and is not just another political hack. He also identified the urgency of neeeded repairs at NYP and brought that project in on time and on budget much to the surprise of pundits. And, I suspect, he identified the areas needing management changes that we now see Anderson implementing. I hope the reports of him being available as an adviser for engineering projects are accurate.


----------



## cirdan (Dec 14, 2017)

WoodyinNYC said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > Despite his history as an airline executive, Mr. Anderson ... father worked for a railroad. In Galveston.
> ...


At least there are still tracks going to Galveston.

If rail service ever resumes, I expect it will be more in the form of commuter rail out of Houston rather than any LD route.


----------



## JoeBas (Dec 14, 2017)

neroden said:


> Huh... wonder if we'll see a restoration of passenger service to Galveston


Yes please.


----------



## JoeBas (Dec 14, 2017)

cirdan said:


> At least there are still tracks going to Galveston.
> 
> If rail service ever resumes, I expect it will be more in the form of commuter rail out of Houston rather than any LD route.


Active tracks, at that, including near-annual passenger specials run via the Railroad Museum.

There's been talk of heavy commuter from Galveston to Houston over the years; the biggest hurdle seems to be getting people to downtown Houston.


----------



## jis (Dec 14, 2017)

As soon as Galveston and Houston come up with the money, even if tapping FTA New Start. It really is not a Moorman issue at all.


----------



## JoeBas (Dec 14, 2017)

Or an Anderson issue, for that matter, as any commuter service would not be AMTK, and other than the extant Thruway service AMTK would not be involved at all.

But I digress...


----------



## OBS (Dec 14, 2017)

dlagrua said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Moorman will step down as Co-CEO at the end of the year. His only input will involve the engineering department.
> ...





dlagrua said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Moorman will step down as Co-CEO at the end of the year. His only input will involve the engineering department.
> ...


He posted in an employee forum this week that """he has no intention of using the 10001 car, he would rather ride as an actual passenger." He also posted a basic statement saying "dining car service would continue on long distance trains" ( this was an answer in response to a question)


----------



## jis (Dec 14, 2017)

That is what he said at the NARP conclave in Chicago too. he intends to ride in standard passenger accommodation.

And indeed, though he did not say it categorically, but the impression that he gave is that all overnight LD trains will eventually get Diners, once the Diner delivery situation is behind them. In side conversations it was mentioned that the exact nature of service (the soft product) in the Diners may vary a bit from train to train.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 14, 2017)

That is excellent news and a 180 degree turn from Smiley Joe Boardman when he was CEO, and letting the Bean Counters run amok with their Nickel and Dime cuts to LD Trains!


----------



## jis (Dec 14, 2017)

Bob Dylan said:


> That is excellent news and a 180 degree turn from Smiley Joe Boardman when he was CEO, and letting the Bean Counters run amok with their Nickel and Dime cuts to LD Trains!


Boardman's bean counter (CFO) over him even Boardman appeared to have no control, has been long gone. One of the early casualties after the arrival of Moorman.


----------



## Zach (Dec 14, 2017)

Anderson would only travel in main cabin at Delta. I'm a flight attendant at Delta and know this as fact. His wife would do the same as well. He liked the interaction with the passengers and listened to their feedback. Unlike our current CEO that doesn't follow that routine, but I digress


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Dec 16, 2017)

Zach said:


> Anderson would only travel in main cabin at Delta. I'm a flight attendant at Delta and know this as fact. His wife would do the same as well. He liked the interaction with the passengers and listened to their feedback. Unlike our current CEO that doesn't follow that routine, but I digress


Disgression can be good for the soul, and very informative, LOL.


----------



## west point (Dec 16, 2017)

Once Wick is a consultant hope Anderson uses him especially for track work and dealing with freight RRs ! Appears that NYPS work this past summer had more items completed than originally planned ?


----------



## Rover (Dec 17, 2017)

neroden said:


> Despite his history as an airline executive, Mr. Anderson was advertising his rail bona fides at the NARP conference; apparently his father worked for a railroad. In Galveston.
> 
> Huh... wonder if we'll see a restoration of passenger service to Galveston


That's all I ever wanted.


----------

