New Amtrak President on the Crescent

[Hytec]

If/when those run out with fewer workers supporting each retiree each year, benefits will have to be reduced no matter what your statement says. Or Congress will have to support the benefits from the general fund, leaving less money for transportation spending and other things.

Start by removing the cap on withholding, and the situation gets much, much better.

There is another major drain on the Social Security Trust Fund that rarely is mentioned, that of continuously modifying the eligibility standards to add different categories of society to the list of eligible recipients. I can't give any specifics, except to note that Mitt Romney stated during his 2008 campaign that there were only three people contributing to the Trust Fund for each recipient. Whereas there were 15 contributors for each recipient 50 years before, in the 1950's. The major changes to the eligibility requirements occurred as the result of the Great Society programs launched during Lyndon Johnson's administration.

 

[Hytec]

As said before , we wish Wick Moorman well in keeping Amtrak afloat but the more I read peoples posts here, the more that I wish for private passenger rail. In other words the contracting of routes to the private railroads, and by providing a fair subsidy such as the airlines receive. Many states contract out their regional rail so why count not that scheme work on the LD routes. Could it be much worse than having to endure lower amenities, steadily raising prices, and riding in old worn out equipment where some of the help could care less?. I am convinced that Amtrak is too much of a political animal to ever be successful. I am glad that we still have passenger rail but if the money to keep things moving forward is just not there, you end up with the same ole same ole story. Government can't even get CAF to deliver badly needed product. I predict that privatization w subsidies is the path that Amtrak is on but I could be wrong as there might not be many takers.

Does anyone have information about how the UK system of having private carriers, both passenger and freight, running on federal rights-of-way is working out? The UK system, similar to what Diagrua describes, has been in in place for at least twenty years, possibly longer. I believe it was started when British Rail, the wholly federally owned and operated railroad system, was dissolved.

 

[Palmetto]

I do believe we're quite far from Mr. Moorman being on the train? :huh:

 

[Acela150]

Welcome to AU then lol

 

[Hytec]

I do believe we're quite far from Mr. Moorman being on the train? :huh:

I did not intend to hijack this thread, instead offered a correction to a misconception of the Social Security and Medicare program structures. Followed by attempting to correct another misconception.

However, my question regarding the pros and cons of the current railroad operating system in the UK is within the context of this thread, given the various suggestions, concepts, and opinions being offered by other members.

 

[Acela150]

As for my comments about Wick can thank Joe for the issues. Here is what I'll add.

Joe Boardman did a great job at first. But towards the end of his reign he would be bent over and letting congress have its way with him. John Mica constantly on the Food Service issue. I find it a little ironic that a train that services his state no longer has a full service dining car. Yes the heritage fleet is stretched thin. In a bad way thanks to CAF. But as much as I don't want to say it. The LSL should have been first to lose a diner for one reason. It serves two meals a trip. While the Star serves what 4? If they made an effort to put a diner lite on 91/92 then fine. But any Sleeper passenger shouldn't have to buy food. Period. Lowered fares or not. When was the last time anyone saw an Amtrak President riding the cushions and talking with staff on what they think should be improved instead of being shut in 10001 and not really talking to people. Yes there was a interview of with Boardman where he was in 10001 and coming out to talk with passengers. But let's be real. He was on a news program. That's the only reason. If I'm in charge of such a major operation I would be doing what Wick did and should continue to do. Finding out what needs improvement, finding out what the passengers think about the service. What they would like to see improved, or even unchanged. Talking with T&E employees about things they'd like to see improved or things that they would like to see added to training classes. When my CT training wrapped up in Georgia they gave a survey of what improvements could be made to the program. Thanks to 2 months at Modoc I knew what to put. They did reach out to me later and thanked me for the suggestions and said they would be looking into adding them in the program. Employees know best.

 

[Hytec]

They did reach out to me later and thanked me for the suggestions and said they would be looking into adding them in the program. Employees know best.

That's an excellent point. Too many managers and executives ignore, or do not understand the benefit of MBWA, Management By Walking Around. Periodic staff meetings with only your direct-reports doesn't cut it. You must get out to observe, ask, and listen to all your employees and your customers.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

As for my comments about Wick can thank Joe for the issues. Here is what I'll add.

Joe Boardman did a great job at first. But towards the end of his reign he would be bent over and letting congress have its way with him. John Mica constantly on the Food Service issue. I find it a little ironic that a train that services his state no longer has a full service dining car. Yes the heritage fleet is stretched thin. In a bad way thanks to CAF. But as much as I don't want to say it. The LSL should have been first to lose a diner for one reason. It serves two meals a trip. While the Star serves what 4? If they made an effort to put a diner lite on 91/92 then fine. But any Sleeper passenger shouldn't have to buy food. Period. Lowered fares or not.

If I remember correctly, the Three Rivers never had a dining car. So the Silver Star wasn't the first overnight sleeper car to not have a diner car although if the TR never had one, the Star is the first to "lose" it. I think the Star was the obvious choice because they have two trains that serve roughly the same route. With the exception of Raleigh,Tampa, and other markets that aren't served by the SM, they could just go to the SM. A much larger group would lose dining service if the LSL lost dining service first.

 

[A Voice]

As for my comments about Wick can thank Joe for the issues. Here is what I'll add.

Joe Boardman did a great job at first. But towards the end of his reign he would be bent over and letting congress have its way with him. John Mica constantly on the Food Service issue. I find it a little ironic that a train that services his state no longer has a full service dining car. Yes the heritage fleet is stretched thin. In a bad way thanks to CAF. But as much as I don't want to say it. The LSL should have been first to lose a diner for one reason. It serves two meals a trip. While the Star serves what 4? If they made an effort to put a diner lite on 91/92 then fine. But any Sleeper passenger shouldn't have to buy food. Period. Lowered fares or not.

If I remember correctly, the Three Rivers never had a dining car. So the Silver Star wasn't the first overnight sleeper car to not have a diner car although if the TR never had one, the Star is the first to "lose" it. I think the Star was the obvious choice because they have two trains that serve roughly the same route. With the exception of Raleigh,Tampa, and other markets that aren't served by the SM, they could just go to the SM. A much larger group would lose dining service if the LSL lost dining service first.

Didn't the Silver Star briefly lose its dining car in the wake of the Mercer driven cuts in the mid-1990's? The diner returned that time, as I expect it to this time around.....eventually.

As for overnight sleeping-car trains without an actual dining car, did the New York to Miami Silver Palm have a full (Heritage) dining car? I can't recall. Technically, though, the Night Owl (later Twilight Shoreliner) was an "overnight train with sleeping car(s)", but no diner. Given its schedule (10:30 to 7 a.m. or so) it really didn't have a chance to serve meals anyway.

 

[Ryan]

As said before , we wish Wick Moorman well in keeping Amtrak afloat but the more I read peoples posts here, the more that I wish for private passenger rail. In other words the contracting of routes to the private railroads, and by providing a fair subsidy such as the airlines receive. Many states contract out their regional rail so why count not that scheme work on the LD routes. Could it be much worse than having to endure lower amenities, steadily raising prices, and riding in old worn out equipment where some of the help could care less?. I am convinced that Amtrak is too much of a political animal to ever be successful. I am glad that we still have passenger rail but if the money to keep things moving forward is just not there, you end up with the same ole same ole story. Government can't even get CAF to deliver badly needed product. I predict that privatization w subsidies is the path that Amtrak is on but I could be wrong as there might not be many takers.

If the money to keep things moving isn't there, where exactly do you think that the money for the subsidies will come from? Your entire post is lacking a vertical logical consistency...

 

[keelhauled]

Many states contract out their regional rail so why count not that scheme work on the LD routes. Could it be much worse than having to endure lower amenities, steadily raising prices, and riding in old worn out equipment where some of the help could care less?.

The MBTA in Boston contracts out their commuter rail operations to Keolis. Nevertheless, they still struggle with antiquated equipment, their new locomotives and cars have suffered various failures, and their fares have increased. i fail to see how this model is superior to Amtrak as it is today.

 

[MikefromCrete]

They did reach out to me later and thanked me for the suggestions and said they would be looking into adding them in the program. Employees know best.

That's an excellent point. Too many managers and executives ignore, or do not understand the benefit of MBWA, Management By Walking Around. Periodic staff meetings with only your direct-reports doesn't cut it. You must get out to observe, ask, and listen to all your employees and your customers.

Back in my newspaper days, we had a circulation director who practiced MBWA. Everybody thought he was one of the most useless people ever to be employed at the paper.

 

[Ryan]

Many states contract out their regional rail so why count not that scheme work on the LD routes. Could it be much worse than having to endure lower amenities, steadily raising prices, and riding in old worn out equipment where some of the help could care less?.

The MBTA in Boston contracts out their commuter rail operations to Keolis. Nevertheless, they still struggle with antiquated equipment, their new locomotives and cars have suffered various failures, and their fares have increased. i fail to see how this model is superior to Amtrak as it is today.

It's superior for the guy making a nice fat profit off of the taxpayer's dime!

Maybe not so much for travelers, though...

 

[ehbowen]

Many states contract out their regional rail so why count not that scheme work on the LD routes. Could it be much worse than having to endure lower amenities, steadily raising prices, and riding in old worn out equipment where some of the help could care less?.

The MBTA in Boston contracts out their commuter rail operations to Keolis. Nevertheless, they still struggle with antiquated equipment, their new locomotives and cars have suffered various failures, and their fares have increased. i fail to see how this model is superior to Amtrak as it is today.

It's superior for the guy making a nice fat profit off of the taxpayer's dime!

Maybe not so much for travelers, though...

There are ways to strike a balance. Make it possible for an efficient and attractive private operator to turn a steady profit, without bleeding the taxpayer dry. My own favored plan is a two-tiered subsidy: You get a small basic subsidy for every seat provided on the train, just for being there. You also get a somewhat larger subsidy for every occupied seat on the train. If restaurant-quality food service is provided on board, both of those subsidies get an appropriate "bump". The most effective subsidy is that which leverages the consumer's dollar. Give private operators an incentive to provide those seats...and then to fill them.

 

[Acela150]

As for my comments about Wick can thank Joe for the issues. Here is what I'll add.

Joe Boardman did a great job at first. But towards the end of his reign he would be bent over and letting congress have its way with him. John Mica constantly on the Food Service issue. I find it a little ironic that a train that services his state no longer has a full service dining car. Yes the heritage fleet is stretched thin. In a bad way thanks to CAF. But as much as I don't want to say it. The LSL should have been first to lose a diner for one reason. It serves two meals a trip. While the Star serves what 4? If they made an effort to put a diner lite on 91/92 then fine. But any Sleeper passenger shouldn't have to buy food. Period. Lowered fares or not.

If I remember correctly, the Three Rivers never had a dining car. So the Silver Star wasn't the first overnight sleeper car to not have a diner car although if the TR never had one, the Star is the first to "lose" it. I think the Star was the obvious choice because they have two trains that serve roughly the same route. With the exception of Raleigh,Tampa, and other markets that aren't served by the SM, they could just go to the SM. A much larger group would lose dining service if the LSL lost dining service first.

Yes. The Three Rivers was cafe service only. BUT... If you were booked in a sleeper you would go to the cafe place your order and say I'm in Room 2 and the charge was waived as it was included in your sleeper fare, and again it was a 2 meal train. Although I think it left NYP around noon so you could argue 3. But the problem with that train is that it was nothing but a mail train. Had 1 sleeper and 3 or 4 coaches. And the coaches and cafe were whatever they could find. Horizon's, Amfleet I's and II's. You never knew what you'd see on that thing.

 

[jis]

As for my comments about Wick can thank Joe for the issues. Here is what I'll add.

Joe Boardman did a great job at first. But towards the end of his reign he would be bent over and letting congress have its way with him. John Mica constantly on the Food Service issue. I find it a little ironic that a train that services his state no longer has a full service dining car. Yes the heritage fleet is stretched thin. In a bad way thanks to CAF. But as much as I don't want to say it. The LSL should have been first to lose a diner for one reason. It serves two meals a trip. While the Star serves what 4? If they made an effort to put a diner lite on 91/92 then fine. But any Sleeper passenger shouldn't have to buy food. Period. Lowered fares or not.

If I remember correctly, the Three Rivers never had a dining car. So the Silver Star wasn't the first overnight sleeper car to not have a diner car although if the TR never had one, the Star is the first to "lose" it. I think the Star was the obvious choice because they have two trains that serve roughly the same route. With the exception of Raleigh,Tampa, and other markets that aren't served by the SM, they could just go to the SM. A much larger group would lose dining service if the LSL lost dining service first.

The first incarnation of the Pioneer, both the single level and the Superliner version that split at SLC did not have a Dining Car either. Amtrak has several precedents of overnight trains without Dining Cars as did the private railroads.
Historically all Sleeper passengers had to buy food on Amtrak. The food inclusion in the fare happened sometime in the '90s IIRC. So even that is not supported necessarily by Amtrak or private railroad precedent.

 

[zephyr17]

Meals were never included in the fare on the services run by railroads. Santa Fe offered an "All-In-One" fare where a meal plan was included, but you did not have to buy that.

Amtrak started bundling the meals into the sleeper fares in the mid-1980s. I remember I was kind of po'd about it because you could see that they raised the fares by the cost of meals for two people for the duration of the trip.

Including meals in sleeping car fares is a fairly new thing. It certainly is not a traditional practice.

 

[ehbowen]

My understanding is that the dining car losses were becoming insupportable because few patrons—coach or sleeper—were using them on a regular basis. By requiring it as a precondition of sleeper service and building the cost into the first class fare, they were able to reallocate enough money to the service to keep the diners operating.

 

[zephyr17]

My understanding is that the dining car losses were becoming insupportable because few patrons—coach or sleeper—were using them on a regular basis. By requiring it as a precondition of sleeper service and building the cost into the first class fare, they were able to reallocate enough money to the service to keep the diners operating.

I heard the same thing.

 

[MikefromCrete]

My understanding is that the dining car losses were becoming insupportable because few patrons—coach or sleeper—were using them on a regular basis. By requiring it as a precondition of sleeper service and building the cost into the first class fare, they were able to reallocate enough money to the service to keep the diners operating.

I believe that is correct.

 

[NorthShore]

The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter a hill of beans what Presidents say because money bills originate in the House. President can just use his bully pulpit. But at the end of the day the House has to act and the Senate has to concur.

Which is why I found it so odd that my Congressman (Quigley), who holds seats on the Transportation subcommittee as well as Appropriations, answered (when asked at a community meeting last week) that Congressional investment for funding Amtrak's capital interests would depend upon the agenda set by our country's next president.
Well, in so far as setting some priorities, yes. But it isn't like his committees aren't the ones making the real decisions.

 

[Thirdrail7]

The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter a hill of beans what Presidents say because money bills originate in the House. President can just use his bully pulpit. But at the end of the day the House has to act and the Senate has to concur.

Which is why I found it so odd that my Congressman (Quigley), who holds seats on the Transportation subcommittee as well as Appropriations, answered (when asked at a community meeting last week) that Congressional investment for funding Amtrak's capital interests would depend upon the agenda set by our country's next president.
Well, in so far as setting some priorities, yes. But it isn't like his committees aren't the ones making the real decisions.

Obviously, it all boils down to what they actually think of the President. If they like the President, they'll follow the agenda. If not, they'll work against the agenda. :blink:

BTW, I don't think Mr. Moorman is still on the Crescent. ^_^

 

[Devil's Advocate]

The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter a hill of beans what Presidents say because money bills originate in the House. President can just use his bully pulpit. But at the end of the day the House has to act and the Senate has to concur.

Which is why I found it so odd that my Congressman (Quigley), who holds seats on the Transportation subcommittee as well as Appropriations, answered (when asked at a community meeting last week) that Congressional investment for funding Amtrak's capital interests would depend upon the agenda set by our country's next president.
Well, in so far as setting some priorities, yes. But it isn't like his committees aren't the ones making the real decisions.

Obviously, it all boils down to what they actually think of the President. If they like the President, they'll follow the agenda. If not, they'll work against the agenda. :blink: BTW, I don't think Mr. Moorman is still on the Crescent. ^_^

I honestly don't think it has much of anything to do with who they personally like or dislike. The halcyon days of hard fought common ground eventually leading to an occasional compromise are long gone. These days willingness to cooperate is determined almost entirely by affiliation. Which isn't that surprising since most two party presidential systems eventually end up falling into a state of perpetual bickering and intransigence before succumbing to a coup or revolution. Why should we be any different?

 

[jis]

The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter a hill of beans what Presidents say because money bills originate in the House. President can just use his bully pulpit. But at the end of the day the House has to act and the Senate has to concur.

Which is why I found it so odd that my Congressman (Quigley), who holds seats on the Transportation subcommittee as well as Appropriations, answered (when asked at a community meeting last week) that Congressional investment for funding Amtrak's capital interests would depend upon the agenda set by our country's next president.
Well, in so far as setting some priorities, yes. But it isn't like his committees aren't the ones making the real decisions.

Someone should have asked him what they did with the priorities set by the current President. Obviously it was a non-answer.

On the other hand, in the immediate future they could pass the adjusted CR and fund Amtrak fully for the next year as it appears in the draft instead of dicking around with it some more. It look like the odds are pretty good that this one might actually slip through.

 

[dlagrua]

My understanding is that the dining car losses were becoming insupportable because few patrons—coach or sleeper—were using them on a regular basis. By requiring it as a precondition of sleeper service and building the cost into the first class fare, they were able to reallocate enough money to the service to keep the diners operating.

I believe that is correct.

Sleeper passengers pay in advance for their meals as part of their fare. Whether they decide to use the diner or not they still pay for them As for coach passengers; our experiences seem to indicate that the announcement that the dining car is now open is not always made in the coaches.