Richard Anderson replacing Wick Moorman as Amtrak CEO

[neroden]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[frequentflyer]

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

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

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

 

[chrsjrcj]

Less talk and more action.

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

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

 

[jis]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Devil's Advocate]

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

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

 

[JoeBas]

Some men, just want to watch the world burn.

 

[amtrakpass]

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

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

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

 

[TiBike]

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

What do you base that on?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[jis]

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

What do you base that on?

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

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

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

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

 

[CHamilton]

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

• Cutting station agents means no boarding assistance and checked baggage for those with mobility impairments.
• Reduced food choices potentially means no options for people with special dietary needs.

We certainly don't want Amtrak to become the "short bus," but there are many people who take the train because they cannot or should not fly for a host of medical reasons. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see ADA-based class-action lawsuits filed.

 

[jis]

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

• Cutting station agents means no boarding assistance and checked baggage for those with mobility impairments.
• Reduced food choices potentially means no options for people with special dietary needs.

We certainly don't want Amtrak to become the "short bus," but there are many people who take the train because they cannot or should not fly for a host of medical reasons. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see ADA-based class-action lawsuits filed.

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

 

[frequentflyer]

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

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

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

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

2. Pax are tired of trains arriving habitually late.

3. in difference in employee attitudes.

4. pax cars that look worn, including sleepers.

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

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

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

 

[TiBike]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[tricia]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[jis]

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

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

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

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

 

[TiBike]

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

As a practical matter, it would be fait accompli. If congress doesn't like it, congress can figure out how to fix it. Good thing we've elected 536 rocket scientists.

 

[jis]

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

As a practical matter, it would be fait accompli. If congress doesn't like it, congress can figure out how to fix it. Good thing we've elected 536 rocket scientists.

ROTFL! Indeed!

 

[CHamilton]

It's always been an article of faith among passenger rail advocates that the national network will survive, simply because Amtrak management can count votes. They know that they need more votes than the NEC can provide in order to maintain Amtrak's budget. But...if the board and management of Amtrak doesn't care whether Amtrak survives, or have been given marching orders to kill the entire passenger rail system, then that logic fails.

 

[CAQuail]

Should be noted that before Grinstein was at BN/BNSF he was CEO of Western Airlines which merged with Delta in 1987.

 

[jis]

It's always been an article of faith among passenger rail advocates that the national network will survive, simply because Amtrak management can count votes. They know that they need more votes than the NEC can provide in order to maintain Amtrak's budget. But...if the board and management of Amtrak doesn't care whether Amtrak survives, or have been given marching orders to kill the entire passenger rail system, then that logic fails.

Indeed that is true. But how likely is it that an entirely Obama appointed Board with an Obama appointed Chairman like Coscia is marching with an order to kill passenger rail national network? And if indeed that is the case with such an otherwise likely to be pro passenger rail Board, what is the likelihood that the National Network would survive anyway? Close to zero I'd say. So I have difficulty believing the core premise of the argument.

 

[bretton88]

When you look at the increased funding coming from a supposedly hostile congress, I'd say Anderson is impressing the right people.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Just read the letter, wow. Refreshing to have someone stick to his ideas, right or wrong.

Well, when you have no frame of reference, you're going to stick to your talking points as dictated. If you start shooting from your lip, you'll come off as uniformed and say things like "We have some new sleepers that should arrive soon and we'll look at improving the experience on things like the Auto train and the Coast Starlight."

Everyone on the call looked at each other, thinking that some new mystery equipment was ordered in secrecy when it was realized he was talking about the CAF order.

You mention people want a different dining model....while overlooking that the solution you want to pursue was already available. If anyone actually recalls, the lounge was a separate from the dining car and cafe car. It was completely separate and passengers could always eat in their room. All you've really down is downgrade the food service, while bringing back the previous lounge car.....and keeping coach passenger out of it.

Yes, stay on the script...right or wrong.

. I wish some would be just as honest here and state they do not want change. They honestly want the same 47 year old Amtak. Better yet, want to go back to the way things "used to be " in the 50s and 60s.

I don't think people mind change. If you read this board, you'll see people are starving for change. However, there is change for the good and a change in something that I think you and the CEO/CFO types overlook and that is a change in the VALUE....whether perceived or realized.

Again, to spin the changes as "improvements" may work on the uniformed. However, to paying passenger these are cuts in services and amenities without the benefit of "value" for their hard earned money. After all, prices haven't dropped. Indeed, they have gone up in many cases. If you"re happy paying more for less, that is fine. The average person wouldn't agree.

Boardman was the right CEO then, he didn't rock the boat. I am glad Anderson is taking a fresh wrecking ball to some "traditions" at Amtrak. I can't wait to see what further changes occur at Amtrak.

Mr. Boardman and his regime managed to achieve record ridership and record cost recovery (almost 95%) using a lot of the "traditions" you'd like to see wrecked. He also rocked the boat by not slashing trains, ordered new electrics, new single level cars and pushed, pushed and pushed for preserving and EXPANDING the network with the help of state partners. He was also the first CEO (during my tenure) that pushed to make sure all departments worked to support customer service.

As for changes, Devil's Advocate hit the nail on the head but I'll expand. Neither you or Mr. Anderson have demonstrated why certain services were altered. From an insider perspective, I call B/S on a large amount of his claims. Has anyone PRESSED Mr. Anderson for examples of charters not covering their expenses? Can we see some? More time than not, they are run with extra equipment or redirected equipment(such as Autumn Express, Denver Ski train). The ones that didn't typically made more than running the actual train (such as Train Jam, WPB Special). Additionally, some of those specials have led to increased awareness and support for expanding Amtrak service, (such as Roanoke).

The private cars may be a nuisance but there is no denying they brought in revenue. They also bring the attention and support. I am aware that adding and removing them can take time. However, that is why some of these schedules have so much recovery time to begin with. you goal should be to eliminate other avoidable delays so the time could be used wisely.

How hard will it be to reinstate the bridge once it is damaged or torn down? After you chase people away, will it be easy to lure them back? How much support do you expect from PA after you financially impacted two major cities in their stat by not assisting with private cars? Particularly when private operators are chomping at the bit to pick up state supported services! The damage from these moves may resonate for years!

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

Agreed, although I know. A great deal of this actually started under Mr. Boardman. Things like assigned seating, the refresh program, the search for new equipment was all well under way. A lot of it has to do with funding. I can also say that the whole boxed lunch thing was kicked around during his tenure and it was his rgime that killed the dining car on the Star and brought diner lite to the LSL....although these were the effects of the late arriving dining cars. there were only a handful of serviceable heritage dining cars available.

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

I'm curious. How can you "grow" ridership when you divert your assets and resources away from your product? Instead on finding way to put more butts in the seats, you've "right sized (read cut cars from the consist), slashed the value of the leftover service by cutting amenities and saying the dining car doesn't pull its weight? Of course it doesn't!!!! You have a full staff that used to support 300 coach passengers and 64 sleeping car passengers serving with 120 coach passengers and 32 sleeping car passengers. That is because you cannibalized the LD network in favor of state supported service.

As for the food service, for the single night LD trains that operate with these puny consists, I've stated it before and I'll say it again: Amtrak has slashed the need for a dining car to compete with a cafe car. You don't have the equipment committed to bring in the necessary numbers. If that is the case, drive your cost down and follow the example you've started with the Star. Be honest. Introduce high end cafe service or boxed/delivered.pre-ordered hot meals etc and adjust your prices accordingly.

 

[Thirdrail7]

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

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

2. Pax are tired of trains arriving habitually late.

3. in difference in employee attitudes.

4. pax cars that look worn, including sleepers.

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

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

I slightly disagree. The problems listed in 1-4 have existed and persisted yet, ridership and cost recovery climbed to record levels. However, this may be someones tipping point. It occurred before. I remember when they cut cafe service and ridership plummeted on the associated trains. Again, it is the perception of value and what you're willing to accept. Having food and drink seems to soothe late arriving passengers with dead engines.

When you look at the increased funding coming from a supposedly hostile congress, I'd say Anderson is impressing the right people.

How much was leftover credibility from the previous regimes?

 

[cpotisch]

When you look at the increased funding coming from a supposedly hostile congress, I'd say Anderson is impressing the right people.

How do you know it's Anderson impressing congress? Anderson is not the only person working in all of Amtrak, and there are plenty other factors to take into consideration.

 

[jis]

When you look at the increased funding coming from a supposedly hostile congress, I'd say Anderson is impressing the right people.

How do you it's Anderson impressing congress? Anderson is not the only person working in all of Amtrak, and there are plenty other factors to take into consideration.

Yeah. In my reckoning Anderson didn’t do diddly to get the increased funding. [emoji57]