Article in December '22 Trains issue on Amtrak management

[Amtrakfflyer]

I just read the digital copy, I can’t cut and paste any of it unfortunately. 6 page in-depth article. With some bombshell nuggets from sources within Amtrak. To paraphrase a few takes, “Amtrak management bonuses are/were based off of raising NEC revenue and reducing expenses everywhere else.“ “Cars were not fixed and hiring slowed due to expenses that would have been incurred“. Definitely worth a read when you can.

 

[user 14106]

Some interesting things in the article but there is also some inaccurate detail in this article. There absolutely was not legislation to prevent layoffs making its way through Congress when the job cuts occurred. The CARES act covered until the end of FY20 ONLY. The "HEROES" act which was a second relief bill had been proposed by the House, which would have dealt with the Amtrak layoffs was a non-starter in the GOP Senate. The GOP senate proposed a "skinny bill" which did not include the Amtrak funding and neither got anywhere. This ultimately stalled and the cuts were not reversed until the American Rescue Plan which was developed after the Democratic run off victories in Georgia. The reauthorization language was being developed but that really didn't have anything to do with the relief funding Amtrak needed. An argument could certainly be made that they should have waited to see what happened, but to say that legislation was making its way through congress is misleading and I would go as far as saying inaccurate.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Yea great way to set up bonus for management. Though we all were complaining about the continuing of certain board members. It just hilarious that a organization that has three major brands would be focused on only one.

 

[Amtrak25]

The important part is the flawed, discriminatory, and unethical criteria for determining bonsues: revenue growth on the NEC / cost cut everywhere else.

Once again Congress should override the Board and intervene. Either make it a combo of cost cuts, ticket revenue, passenger miles (not ridership), CSI scores, and OTP due to mechanical faulires - applied uniformly system wide, or else bonuses are to be banned.

 

[jis]

I had suspected for a while that the Board had set incentives to de-emphasize LD and emphasize state funded Corridor (thus reducing cost accountable to Amtrak) and NEC. Afterall management is just a bunch of hamsters albeit running on a different exercise wheel from the ones that a normal person on the street runs on. Interesting to see that conjecture clearly validated. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that Congress is more or less entirely on board with this approach except when poked and prodded by the likes of RPA. No Congress will change any of this unless they are pressured by advocacy groups, and of course those are too busy with their internecine warfare and rail-frothing to be as effective as they need to be.

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

The scary part is what Lordsigma alluded to above. The funding didn’t go through until the D’s won the run off races in GA. Now this pretty much exact same Amtrak management and Board get to make their case to what could be a more sympathetic Congress for cuts to the system. I know as well as anyone Amtrak has friends in very high places within the GOP, namely Senator Moran. But if the party decides to have scorched earth policies we could go from complaining about flexible dining to fighting train offs.

I’m interested to see, depending on how the election goes if Gardner continues to play coy and has lukewarm support for the national network or if he sees an opportunity arise in the new Congress to put route cuts on the table.

Just losing the support of the House could cause major headaches for RPA and rail service in our nation.

 

[jis]

The scary part is as Lordsigma alluded to above. The funding didn’t go through until the D’s won the run off races in GA. Now this pretty much exact same Amtrak management and Board get to make their case to what could be a more sympathetic Congress for cuts to the system. I know as well as anyone Amtrak has friends in very high places within the GOP, namely Senator Moran. But if the party decides to have scorched earth policies we could go from complaining about flexible dining to fighting train offs.

I’m interested to see depending on how the election goes if Gardner continues to play coy and has lukewarm support for the national network or if he sees an opportunity arise in the new Congress to put route cuts on the table.

My suspicion is that we will be talking about LD route cuts and not so much about details of Diner Menu or access in the coming months and years. Meanwhile, I suspect there will be opportunistic growths in Corridor Service since there is a bit of a general agreement about their usefulness and viability through either joint state-federal or even public-private funding. As for whether they will be operated by Amtrak or not is an open issue.

 

[user 14106]

I'm not quite so pessimistic about long distance route cuts. Congress was pretty clear about no train offs even during the GOP control of the Senate during the Trump years and passed a nearly unanimous dismissal of route cuts that was a result of the Southwest Chief fiasco and even if they get senate control its unlikely to be a large majority. The current language does not allow for route cuts - it would take new legislation to change that. Biden will not accept a gutting of his signature infrastructure deal which did win several GOP votes and I think worrying about post 2024 is premature and impossible to predict. I have some concerns about Heritage and some of the other conservative think tanks that are anti Amtrak trying to pull some shenanigans through the appropriations process, but nothing is going to happen to the authorization language in the next two years. I'm more concerned watching the appropriations process for any games and the ability to keep get Congressional attention for oversight purposes if required than I am about rehashing settled matters that were addressed in the reauthorization. If Amtrak really wants to consider long distance changes down the road it's going to have to wait until this five-year period comes to an end to make a case. I also don't think there's a desire to discontinue all long distance routes - if something were to happen, I'd be most worried about the two tri weekly routes along with the Texas Eagle.

It is very important however that advocates show up to this public Amtrak board meeting and make their voices heard in a loud, organized, and coherent manner. Rest assured policy makers will be observing this.

 

[Amtrak25]

Congress set requirements about daily service, but they are not aware of the nitty griity of all the equipment parked, minimalist LD consists inhibiting economic impact of rural communities served, deliberate mis-use of LD equipment on corridor trains and no restoration of Amtrak Express both designed to kill revenue streams and make a case for route cuts. Congress people, particularly Senators, have egos that dislike defiance.

Gardner is a Democrat and former congressional staffer. His credibility will be much less so in front of a Republican Congress. I also do not think they will stand for route cuts while leaving the NEC through 8 Blue states unscathed. I do not think he will any longer get away with lying to Congress about how ready they are to expand corridor service when the midwest corridors are in meltdown, while most NEC Regionals are now 9 cars, as opposed to 8, to deceive that all is back to normal. He has been clearly speaking to the NE Congressional delegation, Donald Payne (NJ) will no longer chair the House T&I, and they will not be in the majority come January.

P.S. - I think Gardner, Harris, and Chestler are setting up the Capitol Ltd and Texas Eagle to kill. They coud run a Thruway bus in the middle of the night between Pittsburgh and Cleveland, and every senator on the Texas Eagle route would kill Amtrak in a heartbeat. The train is politically incorrect.

 

[jis]

One oddity that continues unabated at both state and federal level is the relative ease with which Capital funding is provided but with no plan to ensure any service at all operationally using the brand spaknig new infrastructure. Some states are better than others, but NJ for example is a poster child of underfunded operations where the excellent infrastructure available is perennially underutilized, except on the NEC of course. California is much better at integrated planning and execution notwithstanding the CAHSR circus. Amtrak has the same problem. They have brand spanking new capital acquisitions forever parked due to lack of operating funds, either actually or in situation created by misguided executive incentives.

 

[user 14106]

P.S. - I think Gardner, Harris, and Chestler are setting up the Capitol Ltd and Texas Eagle to kill. They coud run a Thruway bus in the middle of the night between Pittsburgh and Cleveland, and every senator on the Texas Eagle route would kill Amtrak in a heartbeat. The train is politically incorrect.

I don't see them abandoning the Capitol Limited's corridor altogether. What I think would be more likely is a push to change to daytime running service between DC and Cleveland - something more akin to the Vermonter or Pennsylvanian than the Capitol of today. Based on various comments made I think there is a preference among some for the model of the Palmetto, Carolinian, Vermonter, Pennsylvanian, etc. for longer distances over overnighters. I think it's more about shifting to shorter day running trains where possible than it is about trimming down the network.

 

[Amtrak25]

Can't terminate a train in Cleveland.
Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virgina, and Maryland won't subsidize it.

The Capitol Ltd runs daytime as it is east of Pittsburgh; its patronage has never been good since it is too slow, can be driven in 4 hours, has poor intermediate stop patronage, and would be without Pennsylvanian and Chicago ridership west of Pittsburgh.

 

[jis]

I don't see them abandoning the Capitol Limited's corridor altogether. What I think would be more likely is a push to change to daytime running service between DC and Cleveland - something more akin to the Vermonter or Pennsylvanian than the Capitol of today. Based on various comments made I think there is a preference among some for the model of the Palmetto, Carolinian, Vermonter, Pennsylvanian, etc. for longer distances over overnighters. I think it's more about shifting to shorter day running trains where possible than it is about trimming down the network.

I think a daytime service to Cleveland (assuming the local issues of turning a train at Cleveland can be solved) is more likely to happen out of New York, perhaps with extension of one of the Empire Service trains or a new train than from Washington DC. Also a second Pennsylvanian with extension to Cleveland may be more likely even perhaps starting from Washington DC. The problem with the Sand Patch route relatively to these others is that the number of people served by these other alternatives is way larger.

I think a more appropriate place to terminate a daytime train may be Toledo in terms of available facilities.

But this subthread probably needs to move to the Amtrak Futures forum.

 

[TransitTyrant]

The important part is the flawed, discriminatory, and unethical criteria for determining bonsues: revenue growth on the NEC / cost cut everywhere else.

Once again Congress should override the Board and intervene. Either make it a combo of cost cuts, ticket revenue, passenger miles (not ridership), CSI scores, and OTP due to mechanical faulires - applied uniformly system wide, or else bonuses are to be banned.

Passenger miles is an awful metric for passenger trains. That would favor worse performing LD trains over everything else. The goal shouldn’t be to favor one part of the system over the other. Perhaps Senators and Reps west of Harrisburg should take interest in Amtrak though.

 

[jis]

Passenger miles is an awful metric for passenger trains. That would favor worse performing LD trains over everything else. The goal shouldn’t be to favor one part of the system over the other. Perhaps Senators and Reps west of Harrisburg should take interest in Amtrak though.

Indeed, passenger miles at the end of the day is definitely more convenient to quote by rote, and is not particularly indicative of as much as some claim.

Here is an interesting discussion of its virtues and vices....

https://pedestrianobservations.com/2011/09/19/passenger-miles-are-overrated/
If passenger miles were the be all and end all we should abandon all long distance service on ground and focus on air service They can clearly produce way more passenger miles in a given period of time

It is also true that for short to medium distance service, passenger mile may not be the right measure for understanding effectiveness at all...

https://marketurbanism.com/2010/09/...ring-transportation-costs-per-passenger-mile/
Therefore to claim that passenger miles should be used across the board is merely looking for bureaucratic convenience than trying to understand transportation effectiveness carefully in a decision making process.

 

[Amtrak25]

Passenger miles is used as a metric of toward revenue passenger miles, and measures passenger volume. It is used throughout the transporation industry. It is ridiculous to equate a 1,000 mile trip with a 50 mile trip. How does measuring passenger miles on the Cardinal favor it over the Lake Shore Ltd or "everything else" ? It doesn't. It also does not discriminate against trains with long distances between stations and longer average trip lenghths like the Southwest Chief. Amtrak dislikes it because it favors LD trains.

 

[jis]

Passenger miles is used as a metric of toward revenue passenger miles, and measures passenger volume. It is used throughout the transporation industry. It is ridiculous to equate a 1,000 mile trip with a 50 mile trip. How does measuring passenger miles on the Cardinal favor it over the Lake Shore Ltd or "everything else" ? It doesn't. It also does not discriminate against trains with long distances between stations and longer average trip lenghths like the Southwest Chief. Amtrak dislikes it because it favors LD trains.

As I said, by the same argument it favors air transport over rail

It is important to understand for what purpose a service is being run and try to maximize utility for that purpose rather than look for one magic metric.

 

[TransitTyrant]

Passenger miles is used as a metric of toward revenue passenger miles, and measures passenger volume. It is used throughout the transporation industry. It is ridiculous to equate a 1,000 mile trip with a 50 mile trip. How does measuring passenger miles on the Cardinal favor it over the Lake Shore Ltd or "everything else" ? It doesn't. It also does not discriminate against trains with long distances between stations and longer average trip lenghths like the Southwest Chief. Amtrak dislikes it because it favors LD trains.

Who said we’re comparing LD trains? It’s the comparison between LD and shorter distance trains. The Keystone moves 5x the numbers of passengers as say they Silver Star or Builder but because the distance is ~100 miles give or take the rider on a LD train should count for more?

 

[Amtrak25]

The common denominator to compare trains regardless of route length is passenger miles and it is a measure of transportation utility, regardless of the arbitrary and nonsensical 750 miles set by PRIIA. Simply shutting ones eyes to that leads to stupid metrics like subsidy per passenger, which is neither a rate nor an efficiency measure, but abused as such. Subsidy per passenger miles is and that is why we measure passenger miles as well, besides farebox recovery ratio.

One rider who travels NYP-CHI should count the same as 2 people, one travelling NYP-BUF and another BUF-CHI. Each would otherwise be considered corridor, not long distance trips. The only thing simply counting riders does in this case is discriminating how many times a seat turns over, which is not important.

 

[Ryan]

Who said we’re comparing LD trains? It’s the comparison between LD and shorter distance trains. The Keystone moves 5x the numbers of passengers as say they Silver Star or Builder but because the distance is ~100 miles give or take the rider on a LD train should count for more?

One rider who travels NYP-CHI should count the same as 2 people, one travelling NYP-BUF and another BUF-CHI. Each would otherwise be considered corridor, not long distance trips. The only thing simply counting riders does in this case is discriminating how many times a seat turns over, which is not important.

There is no one magic metric that is correct. If depends on what question you're trying to answer and what you're trying to maximize for. A through traveller NYP-CHI is going to have very different needs than your NYP-BUF and BUF-CHI passengers.

 

[rs9]

Amtrak has a firm order for 125 locomotives for its long-distance network, so there's no reason to think long distance trains are going away.

Daylight trains for corridor routes within existing long distance networks makes sense in theory, but in principle it might be challenging. The Lake Shore Limited is a good example. Presuming current travel times stay the same, a train originating in Chicago would need to leave at around 6 a.m. at the latest to have evening arrival times in western NY. However, the arrival time in NYC would then likely be around 4 a.m.

Likewise, the LSL functions as the final outbound "Empire Service" train from NYP, with evening arrivals across western NY.

Basically, it seems that whatever non-desirable arrival/departure times you convert to desirable, other destinations are going to flip. The only solution is more train frequencies, which doesn't seem likely.

 

[user 14106]

Pitting LD services against the NEC Isn’t a good strategy. I don’t suspect an argument that the Southwest Chief provides more transportation utility than the NEC would be a successful argument in most circles. Long distance and northeast corridor services have different missions and the focus should be on highlighting the benefits of the LD trains - the economic value they bring the communities they serve, connecting the parts of the network together, the underserved communities served, and providing an alternative long distance transportation option to flying - as there are some where flying isn’t an option among other reasons. All are perfectly legitimate reasons to justify LD service - there’s no need to put it against the NEC.

 

[joelkfla]

Amtrak has a firm order for 125 locomotives for its long-distance network, so there's no reason to think long distance trains are going away.

Daylight trains for corridor routes within existing long distance networks makes sense in theory, but in principle it might be challenging. The Lake Shore Limited is a good example. Presuming current travel times stay the same, a train originating in Chicago would need to leave at around 6 a.m. at the latest to have evening arrival times in western NY. However, the arrival time in NYC would then likely be around 4 a.m.

Likewise, the LSL functions as the final outbound "Empire Service" train from NYP, with evening arrivals across western NY.

Basically, it seems that whatever non-desirable arrival/departure times you convert to desirable, other destinations are going to flip. The only solution is more train frequencies, which doesn't seem likely.

A few years ago, you might've said Amtrak's firm order for VL II diners meant there was no reason to think Traditional Dining would ever go away on Eastern trains.

 

[jis]

Amtrak has a firm order for 125 locomotives for its long-distance network, so there's no reason to think long distance trains are going away.

Daylight trains for corridor routes within existing long distance networks makes sense in theory, but in principle it might be challenging. The Lake Shore Limited is a good example. Presuming current travel times stay the same, a train originating in Chicago would need to leave at around 6 a.m. at the latest to have evening arrival times in western NY. However, the arrival time in NYC would then likely be around 4 a.m.

Likewise, the LSL functions as the final outbound "Empire Service" train from NYP, with evening arrivals across western NY.

Basically, it seems that whatever non-desirable arrival/departure times you convert to desirable, other destinations are going to flip. The only solution is more train frequencies, which doesn't seem likely.

In general there is no need to run the day train end to end. On the LSL route for example, it would make sense to have a daytime service from New York to Cleveland or Toledo on the one hand and a train from Chicago to Buffalo. Afterall the Palmetto does not run the entire route of the Silver Service either, and the proposed Florida centric regional service will not run beyond JAX probably and definitely not beyond Savannah

A few years ago, you might've said Amtrak's firm order for VL II diners meant there was no reason to think Traditional Dining would ever go away on Eastern trains.

Those ACS-64s on the NEC will also see a relatively short life, happily under better circumstances.

 

[west point]

One LD route that needs a day train is ATL - CLT - Raleigh - Richmond - WAS - NYP. Recognize that is in the LD definition range.