Richard Anderson replacing Wick Moorman as Amtrak CEO

[Qapla]

Can't think of an airline executive I would want at Amtrak

Gotta disagree with this

It seems to me that having ANY airline executive in charge of Amtrak, regardless of the airline, would be like having a McDonald's or Burger King manager in charge of a 3 Star restaurant ... why put a "fast-food" type person in charge a much more casual paced means of travel - especially if they want to turn the 3 Star place into "fast-food"?

 

[sttom]

I respectfully disagree with much of what you are saying, and I would commend to your attention to some of the work of Andrew Seldon in this area. The long distance network is as skeletal as it can be. It cannot absorb any more cuts. The long distance train is a model of efficiency. It serves equally the person traveling 70 miles or 1,000 miles. It serves an infinite number of enroute corridors, yet achieved economies of scale with maintenance facilities only in major terminals. Corridors are incredibly expensive to develop. Look at the NEC with around $30 billion in deferred maintenance. The long distance trains achieve incredible market penetration. If 5,000 people board annually in a town of 10,000, that’s an incredible market share. The economic impact on these towns is also incredible. Please see the study from the Trent Lott Institute That bears this out. The national network costs us roughly $500 million a year. That is a rounding error in the US budget. For that, we get a national rail system including yards, terminals, and service to towns and cities nationally. You ask how to grow Amtrak? Partner with the freight railroads to fund capacity improvements that would allow you to do things like extend the Heartland Flyer to connect with the Chief. Add a Denver-Pueblo connection to the Chief opening up Denver-Albuquerque-LA possibilities. Run the Sunset Limited daily through Phoenix. Add a section of the Texas Eagle to run through Midland and Odessa to connect to the Sunset in El Paso. That would be a second two night Chicago - LA train. Run the Sunset through Phoenix again. Add capacity to existing long distance trains so there are more seats and sleepers in peak seasons. Get a standard single level car so equipment can be moved to other routes during seasonal fluctuations. Add a second daily frequency on many, if not all, long distance routes. I do agree that there is a historical fixation on Chicago which is probably not warranted since the growth in the country is in the south and west. Not taking anything away from Chicago, but to really grow the system, it needs to grow in the south and west. Finally, we need to stop with the nonsense that it’s either the corridors or the long distance trains. We can and must develop both. But there is no place for dismantling any long distance trains on such a skeletal system. Nor should developed traffic patterns that go back many decades be disrupted. Adding is the way to experiment.

And your kind of exemplifying what I see as the issue with rail advocates. All you've suggested is tinkering around the edges. Amtrak needs local service to feed long distance line, attract more ridership in general and to some extent solve the last mile issue. Most "long distance" trips in the US are around 200 miles. Or about the distance from Chicago to Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis and many other city pairs in the US that either get 1 train per day or none at all.

I also never said to dismantle the national network, I said Amtrak needs more than just long haul trains.

 

[Mail4MrTed]

I respectfully disagree with much of what you are saying, and I would commend to your attention to some of the work of Andrew Seldon in this area. The long distance network is as skeletal as it can be. It cannot absorb any more cuts. The long distance train is a model of efficiency. It serves equally the person traveling 70 miles or 1,000 miles. It serves an infinite number of enroute corridors, yet achieved economies of scale with maintenance facilities only in major terminals. Corridors are incredibly expensive to develop. Look at the NEC with around $30 billion in deferred maintenance. The long distance trains achieve incredible market penetration. If 5,000 people board annually in a town of 10,000, that’s an incredible market share. The economic impact on these towns is also incredible. Please see the study from the Trent Lott Institute That bears this out. The national network costs us roughly $500 million a year. That is a rounding error in the US budget. For that, we get a national rail system including yards, terminals, and service to towns and cities nationally. You ask how to grow Amtrak? Partner with the freight railroads to fund capacity improvements that would allow you to do things like extend the Heartland Flyer to connect with the Chief. Add a Denver-Pueblo connection to the Chief opening up Denver-Albuquerque-LA possibilities. Run the Sunset Limited daily through Phoenix. Add a section of the Texas Eagle to run through Midland and Odessa to connect to the Sunset in El Paso. That would be a second two night Chicago - LA train. Run the Sunset through Phoenix again. Add capacity to existing long distance trains so there are more seats and sleepers in peak seasons. Get a standard single level car so equipment can be moved to other routes during seasonal fluctuations. Add a second daily frequency on many, if not all, long distance routes. I do agree that there is a historical fixation on Chicago which is probably not warranted since the growth in the country is in the south and west. Not taking anything away from Chicago, but to really grow the system, it needs to grow in the south and west. Finally, we need to stop with the nonsense that it’s either the corridors or the long distance trains. We can and must develop both. But there is no place for dismantling any long distance trains on such a skeletal system. Nor should developed traffic patterns that go back many decades be disrupted. Adding is the way to experiment.

You have some excellent ideas! I have one on the Sunset. It see it leave New Orleans of late with ONE coach. Amtrak can't fill one coach even as far as Houston which is pathetic. Why? The train doesn't run every day. With track work it only runs 2 times a week! There are huge amounts of territory it serves that are mostly desert. I would suggest getting rid of the Sunset, as much as I may like it, starting a daily, daylight train from New Orleans to Houston and Dallas. Serve San Antonio with more corridor service between there and Austin and Dallas, creating a corridor in a huge population area with Dallas as the hub. As you suggest, connect the Heartland with the Southwest. I have also seen a suggestion in Railway Age to run a daily train from Tucson to Phoenix to the Southwest Chief in Northern Arizona. That would be the beginning of a corridor in another high population area and the lines used are not busy mainlines where added capacity would work. If I can come up with such ideas, why not Anderson and company?

 

[tricia]

You have some excellent ideas! I have one on the Sunset. It see it leave New Orleans of late with ONE coach. Amtrak can't fill one coach even as far as Houston which is pathetic. Why? The train doesn't run every day. With track work it only runs 2 times a week! There are huge amounts of territory it serves that are mostly desert. I would suggest getting rid of the Sunset, as much as I may like it, starting a daily, daylight train from New Orleans to Houston and Dallas. Serve San Antonio with more corridor service between there and Austin and Dallas, creating a corridor in a huge population area with Dallas as the hub. As you suggest, connect the Heartland with the Southwest. I have also seen a suggestion in Railway Age to run a daily train from Tucson to Phoenix to the Southwest Chief in Northern Arizona. That would be the beginning of a corridor in another high population area and the lines used are not busy mainlines where added capacity would work. If I can come up with such ideas, why not Anderson and company?

In addition to running only three times a week, the Sunset Ltd doesn't have a same-day connection with ANY other train in NOL. NONE of Amtrak's three trains that terminate in NOL connect with ANY of the others without an overnight stay. Making the SL daily, and adding a second frequency for all three of those trains, would be a huge help in increasing ridership.

 

[Steve4031]

I fly southwest enough to appreciate them. They are good if you book far out and get the wanna get away fares. I’ve used early bird check in and have not used it and checked in 24 hours ahead of time. By being diligent I usually get a b-sometimes boarding position. This is enough to get an aisle seat further back. On some flights I’ve had an empty middle next to me.

The problem is not so much that The Amtrak president is an airline guy. It’s that he’s unwilling to learn or adjust his approach to Amtrak. Additionally the politics are not favorable right now to Amtrak.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

In addition to running only three times a week, the Sunset Ltd doesn't have a same-day connection with ANY other train in NOL. NONE of Amtrak's three trains that terminate in NOL connect with ANY of the others without an overnight stay. Making the SL daily, and adding a second frequency for all three of those trains, would be a huge help in increasing ridership.

Forget daily, give the possibility of a same day connection between the Crescent and SL and I'll work the days to do a trip from PHL to LAX without having to go through CHI.

 

[MARC Rider]

Any kind of private-sector corporate overlord is a bad fit for a publicly owned company like Antrak. The point of private investor owned companies is to make profit without limit, the point of a "profitable" Amtrak would be to allow the company to perform its essential public service without requiring an operating subsidy.

 

[toddinde]

Forget daily, give the possibility of a same day connection between the Crescent and SL and I'll work the days to do a trip from PHL to LAX without having to go through CHI.

No. It has to be daily. It’s more than a land cruise, it’s transportation.

 

[toddinde]

You have some excellent ideas! I have one on the Sunset. It see it leave New Orleans of late with ONE coach. Amtrak can't fill one coach even as far as Houston which is pathetic. Why? The train doesn't run every day. With track work it only runs 2 times a week! There are huge amounts of territory it serves that are mostly desert. I would suggest getting rid of the Sunset, as much as I may like it, starting a daily, daylight train from New Orleans to Houston and Dallas. Serve San Antonio with more corridor service between there and Austin and Dallas, creating a corridor in a huge population area with Dallas as the hub. As you suggest, connect the Heartland with the Southwest. I have also seen a suggestion in Railway Age to run a daily train from Tucson to Phoenix to the Southwest Chief in Northern Arizona. That would be the beginning of a corridor in another high population area and the lines used are not busy mainlines where added capacity would work. If I can come up with such ideas, why not Anderson and company?

You have some excellent ideas! I have one on the Sunset. It see it leave New Orleans of late with ONE coach. Amtrak can't fill one coach even as far as Houston which is pathetic. Why? The train doesn't run every day. With track work it only runs 2 times a week! There are huge amounts of territory it serves that are mostly desert. I would suggest getting rid of the Sunset, as much as I may like it, starting a daily, daylight train from New Orleans to Houston and Dallas. Serve San Antonio with more corridor service between there and Austin and Dallas, creating a corridor in a huge population area with Dallas as the hub. As you suggest, connect the Heartland with the Southwest. I have also seen a suggestion in Railway Age to run a daily train from Tucson to Phoenix to the Southwest Chief in Northern Arizona. That would be the beginning of a corridor in another high population area and the lines used are not busy mainlines where added capacity would work. If I can come up with such ideas, why not Anderson and company?

I appreciate many of your thoughts, but most respectfully disagree in one regard. I live in that desert. The Benson, Arizona stop in mine, and serves an area with over a 100,000 population. El Paso to Tucson is important territory that includes Las Cruces and Silver City. We need to be able to travel East and west. We can’t give up any long distance trains because the system is already too skeletal. This is the conditioning that led to the Carter and Clinton cuts. They propose a total destruction of the system, and advocates settle for a few train offs that lead to a less viable network. The Sunset needs to be rerouted through Phoenix and the Welton Cutoff restored. I agree with the Tucson to Southwest Chief connection, but only in addition to the daily Sunset. The Southwest is the fastest growing part of the country. It needs more service, not less.

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

I agree with the above completely. Anderson fatigue (for lack of a better name) has a lot of us accepting that there will be cuts coming to the network soon. The fact Anderson has said there MAY be a place for 5-6 experimental trains is not an acceptable outcome for our nation. Future generations (and us) deserve a first world infrastructure.

We need to keep the pressure on our representatives and RPA and most importantly vote in November. The newly elected officials in Virginia show what can happen when we elect more open minded officials that govern by the majorities wishes (Massive infrastructure and programs to help society as a whole in VA).

 

[MARC Rider]

No. It has to be daily. It’s more than a land cruise, it’s transportation.

Actually, that's not necessarily true, if you think about it. There are some intercontinental air services that do not have daily flights, yet I doubt you would consider those to be "air cruises." Back in the days of the ocean liners, they didn't have daily sailings, either, but it was the essential transportation at the time.

 

[MikefromCrete]

Apples to oranges. Train routes without daily service aren't transportation. The American public won't subsidize land cruises for the rich and idle. Long distance trains need to supply reliable service to the places in between the end points.

 

[Seaboard92]

Apples to oranges. Train routes without daily service aren't transportation. The American public won't subsidize land cruises for the rich and idle. Long distance trains need to supply reliable service to the places in between the end points.

I’ve been on both tri-weekly routes and there is a lot of poor, destitute, rich, minority, foreign, students, and you name it traveling. There are way more than land cruisers and to sum it up that way really is doing a disservice.

Take for instance the Cardinal last time I was on it did brisk business from NYP/WAS to WV points. And a lot of shorter trips between those points. And a decent amount of WV-CIN/CHI traffic.

The Sunset Limited when I was on it did brisk business LAX-TUS and TUS-ELP. I can’t speak for East of SAS because I was connecting to 22. But the point is these trains are used for more than a land cruise.

 

[MikefromCrete]

Seaboard, all those passengers would be much better served by a train that ran daily, rather than one where you need a calendar to figure how to ride it. Same with the Cardinal. These less than daily trains should have be made daily long ago.

 

[zephyr17]

Seaboard, all those passengers would be much better served by a train that ran daily, rather than one where you need a calendar to figure how to ride it. Same with the Cardinal. These less than daily trains should have be made daily long ago.

Graham Claytor, arguably Amtrak's best leader, once said if it's not daily, it's not a train. He tried to get everything daily, though he didn't succeed.

 

[jis]

While I agree that ideally all trains should be daily, I still think that a less than daily train is still better than no train at all.

 

[Seaboard92]

A train provides service no matter if it runs once a week or daily. Daily service is obviously the best situation but I can think of several trains across the world that run less than daily.

 

[west point]

Though I believe that the Cardinal and Sunset would do much better if daily there is another 3 day a week train that appears to be doing great. That is the Denver - Winter Park ski train ! It is even seasonal. Maybe it is time to have another seasonal NYP - Florida train ? That would be an follow on of the winter time trains of ACL and SAL ! It could run essentially as an extra with it just receive only at start of run and discharge only at end. It might even be able to arrive at end stations ahead of schedule.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

A train provides service no matter if it runs once a week or daily. Daily service is obviously the best situation but I can think of several trains across the world that run less than daily.

Ask the people along the Desert Wind, Pioneer, and Sunset Limited East routes if they'd rather have 3x/week service or no service.

 

[Seaboard92]

I am someone with a lot of business on the Portland Rose route (Pioneer) so I see its attraction. But not at the expense of any other trains in the network. We need a lot of equipment so we can bring back the Portland Rose, City of Los Angeles, and the North Coast Limited’s.

Yes I refuse to call any train by their Amtrak era name while we’re at it.

 

[toddinde]

Of course a three day a week train is better than no train at all. But I’m not a retiree looking to take a land cruise, or self employed, or independently wealthy. I ride the Sunset or other transportation to go places. The Sunset can be competitive with driving and flying, but I’ve had to fly or drive several times when I would have taken the train if it were daily. There are trains around the world that run less than daily. But on most of those routes, there are many local or shorter distance trains that share the route so people aren’t stuck on off days. The others, are mostly land cruises. I have no interest in Amtrak becoming a high end cruise company like VIA’s Canadian. It’s simply not useful and not worth public money.

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

Keep the full Sunset 3x weekly and an appropriate corridor or two the other 4x a week. Everyone wins the corridors get covered daily and the whole route gets covered 3 times a week for through passengers or passengers going to Podunkville. Economics of the Sunset improve dramatically as well.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Keep the full Sunset 3x weekly and an appropriate corridor or two the other 4x a week. Everyone wins the corridors get covered daily and the whole route gets covered 3 times a week for through passengers or passengers going to Podunkville. Economics of the Sunset improve dramatically as well.

Or you can do what has been the plan for over a decade, make the Texas Eagle a Daily Train from CHI-LAX with a Stub Train SAS-NOL.

It would already be a reality if one of the Amtrak Suits in the Boardman era hadn't POd UP by refusing to negotiate in good faith.IMO this was Boardman's biggest failure as CEO.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

It would already be a reality if one of the Amtrak Suits in the Boardman era hadn't POd UP by refusing to negotiate in good faith.

Source? Let's see some names, dates, and other corroborated details before we repeat this unsubstantiated claim yet again. Until then it's just a rumor. We're several years beyond the supposed moratorium anyway, so even if you believed this explanation of events to be true it hasn't been relevant for a long time now.

 

[Anderson]

Source? Let's see some names, dates, and other corroborated details before we repeat this unsubstantiated claim yet again. Until then it's just a rumor. We're several years beyond the supposed moratorium anyway, so even if you believed this explanation of events to be true it hasn't been relevant for a long time now.

Yes, and if the current management didn't have such an animus towards the LD trains we might be seeing some progress here...