Senate hearing on "Amtrak: Next Steps for Passenger Rail"

[TiBike]

The senate commerce, science and transportation committee held a hearing entitled "Amtrak: Next Steps for Passenger Rail" this past Wednesday, 26 June 2019. Amtrak CEO Richard Anderson appeared, as did representatives from the Association of American Railroads, the NTSB and the Front Range Passenger Rail Commission/Colorado rail passenger association. The video and the written submissions are here:

https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=9D28DFD1-2E72-4460-B7AD-46DC06C21477

It runs about two hours and is worth watching.

Long distance trains got a fair amount of attention, but virtually all of it concerned the Southwest Chief. Three senators – Jerry Moran (R - KS), Tom Udall (D - NM) and Cory Gardner (R - CO) – pressed Anderson on the Southwest Chief, which was also what James Souby, from the Colorado association spoke mostly about.

The chair, Roger Wicker (R - MS) asked him whether he planned to "shrink any of long distance train routes to state supported".

Anderson's reply was:

On the state supported network, under 209 of PRIIA, that's the strongest part of Amtrak. That piece of Amtrak is really where the future lies for intercity passenger rail – in short haul markets where freeways are jammed and you can't add more capacity. So I'd say under section 209 of PRIIA, our state supported piece, which is really separate from the long distance, is performing very well. And we have great partnerships with over 20 states in the United States. That's half of Amtrak's business and it's growing.

Here's the challenge on the long distance. Trips since FY13 to FY18, our trips for miles over 600 miles, in other words passengers buying tickets to go over 600 miles, is down 30%. The train goes 45 miles an hour and the ticket is more than a low cost, discount airline ticket in the same market. So we are working hard to try to get ridership up, but it's just clear that trips over 600 miles is not where consumers want to use Amtrak.

85% of our trips are short haul trips, where people get on in Chicago and get off in a hundred or two hundred miles. The challenge in long distance is the on time performance is a threat to the viability of that business, and number two, it needs billions of dollars of investment. So what I want to do is have this dialog with you and your professional staff as we go into reauthorisation about how we tackle that challenge.

I do think that there are historically important trains in the long distance network that we should always operate. Like the Builder, like the Zephyr, like the Coast Starlight. But because we spread our resources like peanut butter, we don't have the kind of investment you should have in making those a really special product experience. So, we believe there's always a role for long distance, but on the margin we should be looking at breaking up some of those long distance trains, and figuring out how we serve the American consumer to provide high quality service in short haul markets where they're using that service today.

Anderson did not make any commitments regarding the SWC, or about any long distance routes past September. Wicker seemed happy about plans to reinstate Gulf Coast service, and didn't express any particular concern about long distance trains, including the two – the Crescent and City of New Orleans – that run through his state. Even when Anderson said that the Crescent's on time performance is the worst in the system.

The only other pushback on long distance plans came from Jon Tester (D - Montana), who brought up the elimination of ticket agents at two stations in Montana. Wicker did as well, but it was more or less in support of Anderson's position. Anderson said that the number of boardings hasn't changed since ticket sales stopped at those two stations.

To the extent they asked questions about passenger service, other senators were concerned about the NEC and state supported corridors.

Both Anderson and Wicker said that discussions would continue with committee staff about the next reauthorisation and network plans.

I think a deal is shaping up. There's room for a compromise on the SWC, but daily, contiguous service on it (or probably on some or all of the three routes Anderson wants to keep) won't, I think, continue. Anderson clearly doesn't think so. He said "we will reach breakeven on an operating basis in the next 12 months". The only way to do that is to completely restructure long distance service.

 

[jis]

I don't think it particularly matters what Anderson thinks. He will do what Congress asks him to do. He has repeatedly shown that he will fold and follow Congressional directive, like he should. He pretty much said that Congress is the boss and he is their servant. The relevant question is what will Congress ask him to do.

 

[TiBike]

What Anderson thinks matters because that's what he's going to do, absent specific congressional mandates. Congress isn't going to give Amtrak a blanket directive to maintain long distance service in its present form. It might nibble around the edges and, say, require continuance of the SWC or preserve a certain number of union jobs. But it will leave a clear pathway for Amtrak to shift money, equipment and labor to corridor service.

 

[user 14106]

Anderson wants to convert Amtrak into VIA rail Canada. Focusing on busy corridors with a couple flagship premium routes, possibly operating seasonally or on limited days (3 days a week or whatever) with the Zephyr, Builder, and Starlight as his “Ocean” and “Canadian.” He wants to turn the long distance product into an experiential premium excursion cruise instead of essential travel. (I know the Canadian does have some essential travel purposes but I think he views the premium service classes on it as a model.)

He is looking at everything from strictly a business perspective and not from Amtrak’s mission to provide public transit.

 

[Ryan]

I don't think it particularly matters what Anderson thinks. He will do what Congress asks him to do. He has repeatedly shown that he will fold and follow Congressional directive, like he should. He pretty much said that Congress is the boss and he is their servant. The relevant question is what will Congress ask him to do.

 

[bms]

It is so irritating when someone talks about public transit as if every rider has the option to drive instead, or as if its purpose is to make a profit. Even more irritating when the speaker is in the business of providing public transit.

 

[Dakota 400]

I am hopeful for all Amtrak service. Some of our representatives in Congress are listening and aware. Living in a congressional district with significant financial/personal impact on funding issues for my community and state regarding WPAFB and others, having some Senators/Representatives who are so attuned to Amtrak's planning issues, financial issues, and impacts on those these men and women and families whom they represent is not bad.

 

[user 14106]

Congress is the key - from watching the video there still seems to be big support in Congress for the national network. If that is the mandate of congress Anderson will morph himself into a national network guy or resign if he can’t bring himself to support the mandate.

 

[Ryan]

It is so irritating when someone talks about public transit as if every rider has the option to drive instead, or as if its purpose is to make a profit. Even more irritating when the speaker is in the business of providing public transit.

Interesting related notes from Anderson's testimony:

He understands that not everyone has a car:

Fueling that population growth are the Millennials – the twenty- and thirty-somethings who now comprise our largest age cohort. Ninety percent of them live in urban areas according to the Pew Research Center. A Travelport survey found that they already travel more and spend more on travel than any other age cohort. Millennials care less about owning cars and do not particularly enjoy them: in a study by Arity, 16% of 22- to 37-year olds said they could live without access to a car and more than half said they would rather be doing something other than driving.

He treats is as if it is a for profit business, because that's what the law says it is:

▪ Principle #6 – Congress should allow Amtrak to operate like a business.

o The Rail Passenger Service Act, as codified at 49 USC 24301(a), clearly states that Amtrak “shall be operated and managed as a for-profit corporation.” Amtrak’s Mission and Goals, codified at 49 USC 24101(b) and (c), states that our service should be “efficient and effective” and Amtrak “shall use its best business judgement in acting to minimize United States Government subsidies....”.

 

[user 14106]

Hey look at that my town is mentioned in this video. Longmeadow, MA on the Springfield line. (At grade crossing where sadly a DPW worker was killed a couple years ago and it getting warning lights and gates.)

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

Interesting Anderson says if the network does remain new equipment is a must. Fair enough but why wasn’t he asked about the Viewliner 2’s that are being accepted and immediately stored (a good portion at least). The Cardinal should have had a V2 diner and a dorm sleeper a month ago. Dorm sleepers on the western LD trains fully opening up the transition sleepers. Etc, etc. The equipment for the Cardinal is in place today and the dorm sleepers for the western trains will be shortly. Will Anderson do any of it, doubtful.

 

[Ryan]

why wasn’t he asked about the Viewliner 2’s that are being accepted and immediately stored

Because they don't exist?

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

There’s no V2 diners for the Cardinal or for use as a lounge for the Starvation? No baggage/dorms for the Cardinal as well? The Cardinal has one sleeper this peak season. Both those cars types have been accepted and are stored to varying degrees.
There was a way to get the new cars in use for the summer peak if there was a desire by management. Saying they’re being retrofitted (diners) or going through acceptance (dorms) is a joke at this point.
If nothing else put the onboard employees in the dorm and don’t sell revenue space. Frees up 3-5 revenue rooms in the normal sleeper and what better way to test out new equipment then run it with employees only.

 

[JP1822]

When it is said that travel over 600 miles is down from FY13, and by 30% etc., it would be interesting to see this in terms of dollars and coach verse sleeper. I’d even venture to say that sleeper sales and occupancy is up. Anderson is not defining what this 30% drop really is.......

- I am not seeing empty sleepers being operated on a regular basis
- I’d argue that most sleeping class passengers ARE travelling the 600 miles plus, thus more revenue?

Again, recent trips on the Coast Starlight, Empire Builder, Southwest Chief, Capitol Limited, Crescent, Lake Shore Limited, etc. passengers were nearly going end point to end point.

- I was even surprised with the Coast Starlight.....On the days I travelled, the largest number of boarding was LA, Portland, and Seattle by FAR. Even the Bay Area was light with boardings and those getting off the train.

- The Southwest Chief - MANY bookings Chicago to Flagstaff even, and then Flagstaff to LA. Chicago to LA still VERY strong in sleeper. Rooms were equally turned over.

- Empire Builder had an eclectic amount of on/offs across the route, but even the sleeping car attendants were commenting that they had not seen full sleepers departing eastbound out of Minot, ND like what had been happening in recent days back in May. They actually had overbookings in the Seattle sleepers and inventory had not been opened up yet in the Superliner Trans/Dorm Sleeper for a trip in early May. But the sleeping car attendant in Car 831 had to open up at last five roomettes unexpectedly after leaving Minot. He wasn’t happy only because he wasn’t prepared for it. All passengers were happy though and accommodated!

- Capitol Limited, again, Chicago and Washington DC were the largest on/off points for sleeper car passengers. Cleveland was inching up there, surprisingly....Pittsburgh was down from what I used to see (on paper) for sleeper class, boardings and unloadings, but that also could be a function of the sleepers being booked up out of either Washington DC, Cleveland, or Chicago and filling it!

- By end of May, Amtrak was selling Superliner Trans Dorm Sleeper roomettes on the “otherside” of the staircase in the crew car. This was the first time I saw these roomettes for sale - roomettes 1, 2, 3, 4. Typically it was roomettes 16 to 24 only. Anything on the “otherside” of the staircase was reserved for crew. But with, less onboard crew, particularly in the diner, Amtrak is able to free more roomettes in the crew car and offer as revenue roomettes.

But Amtrak is generally operating and making available less sleeping car berths than what VIA is on the Ocean and Canadian trains on a given peak period departure, even though the Ocean is only operating 3 days per week and Canadian 2 days per week. They may have single level equipment, but VIA is operating WAY more sleepers in its consists, and thus selling or making available, more berths for passengers than what Amtrak is doing with even 2 to 3 Superliner Sleepers. Even LESS with Viewliner sleepers. I did an analysis of another forum and was quite surprised overall. VIA is pressing all its revenue generating assets into full operation (e.g. sleeping cars) in peak season. I can’t say the same for Amtrak. If Amtrak did - could that 30% number be narrowed? Maybe Amtrak is starting to see the fruits that can be harvested from an extra Portland sleeper in peak season. It would seem that LD service needs more sleeper cars and a general overhaul to capture the high end revenue.

Perhaps the sleeper class is more “relevant” for LD service, and if so, is it even looking at some sort of service line in between coach and sleeper (e.g. slumber coach). On my trip aboard the Coast Starlight, people were enjoying the “Business Class” option for overnight travel (didn't include meals, but it was a more comfortable option with NEW leather seats, foot rests, leg rests, more room (in all directions), etc. Needs to include something more than just an Amfleet II with free beverages. I think the Superliner Business Class seemed to work better. And it’s an option between coach and sleeper to experiment with.

 

[Ryan]

There’s no V2 diners for the Cardinal or for use as a lounge for the Starvation? No baggage/dorms for the Cardinal as well? The Cardinal has one sleeper this peak season. Both those cars types have been accepted and are stored to varying degrees.

The fact that they have been delivered to Amtrak does not mean that they are ready for revenue service. There is a lengthy series of post-delivery inspections and modifications that have to occur before revenue service begins. Here is a recent laydown of Diner status from earlier this month:

14JUN2019
68000 Albany: Hialeah(B/O)
68001 Annapolis: 49(14JUN)
68002 Atlanta: Hialeah(B/O)
68003 Augusta: 48(14JUN)
68004 Baton Rouge: Hialeah(Warranty)
68005 Boston: Sunnyside(B/O)
68006 Charleston: Hialeah(Warranty)
68007 Columbia: 98(13JUN)
68008 Columbus: Hialeah(Warranty)
68009 Concord: Hialeah(B/O)
68010 Dover: 49(14JUN)
68011 Frankfort: New Orleans(B/O)
68012 Harrisburg: 97(14JUN)
68013 Hartford: 97(13JUN)
68014 Jackson: Hialeah(B/O)
68015 Lansing: 48(13JUN)
68016 Madison: Chicago
68017 Montgomery: 98(14JUN)
68018 Montpelier: 19(13JUN)
68019 Nashville: 19(14JUN)
68020 Providence: 20(13JUN)
68021 Raleigh: Hialeah(scheduled)
68022 Richmond: Chicago
68023 Springfield: Hialeah(Protect)
68024 Tallahassee: 20(14JUN)

I don't see anything being stored, because there aren't any.

Once you see the newly delivered cars entering service, the equation will change.

 

[Willbridge]

The senate commerce, science and transportation committee held a hearing entitled "Amtrak: Next Steps for Passenger Rail" this past Wednesday, 26 June 2019. Amtrak CEO Richard Anderson appeared, as did representatives from the Association of American Railroads, the NTSB and the Front Range Passenger Rail Commission/Colorado rail passenger association. The video and the written submissions are here:

https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=9D28DFD1-2E72-4460-B7AD-46DC06C21477

It runs about two hours and is worth watching.

Long distance trains got a fair amount of attention, but virtually all of it concerned the Southwest Chief. Three senators – Jerry Moran (R - KS), Tom Udall (D - NM) and Cory Gardner (R - CO) – pressed Anderson on the Southwest Chief, which was also what James Souby, from the Colorado association spoke mostly about.

The chair, Roger Wicker (R - MS) asked him whether he planned to "shrink any of long distance train routes to state supported".

Anderson's reply was:

Anderson did not make any commitments regarding the SWC, or about any long distance routes past September. Wicker seemed happy about plans to reinstate Gulf Coast service, and didn't express any particular concern about long distance trains, including the two – the Crescent and City of New Orleans – that run through his state. Even when Anderson said that the Crescent's on time performance is the worst in the system.

The only other pushback on long distance plans came from Jon Tester (D - Montana), who brought up the elimination of ticket agents at two stations in Montana. Wicker did as well, but it was more or less in support of Anderson's position. Anderson said that the number of boardings hasn't changed since ticket sales stopped at those two stations.

To the extent they asked questions about passenger service, other senators were concerned about the NEC and state supported corridors.

Both Anderson and Wicker said that discussions would continue with committee staff about the next reauthorisation and network plans.

I think a deal is shaping up. There's room for a compromise on the SWC, but daily, contiguous service on it (or probably on some or all of the three routes Anderson wants to keep) won't, I think, continue. Anderson clearly doesn't think so. He said "we will reach breakeven on an operating basis in the next 12 months". The only way to do that is to completely restructure long distance service.

Tri-weekly service is only an intermediate step to twice-weekly (as at VIA Rail) or no-weekly (as the North Coast Hiawatha and Desert Wind and Pioneer). It trashes connecting bus services and often tri-weeklies do not connect with tri-weeklies on the same day. It also trashes the smaller corridor routes that include a long-distance train as part of the service. I don't disagree that Amtrak might try it, but it will just lead to more misery.

 

[zephyr17]

Tri-weekly service is only an intermediate step to twice-weekly (as at VIA Rail) or no-weekly (as the North Coast Hiawatha and Desert Wind and Pioneer). It trashes connecting bus services and often tri-weeklies do not connect with tri-weeklies on the same day. It also trashes the smaller corridor routes that include a long-distance train as part of the service. I don't disagree that Amtrak might try it, but it will just lead to more misery.

Amtrak already tried it in the mid 90s (the Mercer cuts) when almost all long distance trains were reduced to less than daily, including, among others, such popular trains as the Coast Starlight and Empire Builder
It was a fiasco that increased losses. Genius consultants thought that they'd retain largely retain the ridership on fewer trains. Well, ridership fell drastically not in small part due to lost network effects, but also people not knowing when the damn train ran.

I seen to remember Graham Claytor talking about the tri- weekly services: "If it doesn't run daily, it's not a train."

 

[neroden]

Anderson just hasn't done his homework. There is no logical way to "break up" the Lake Shore Limited or the Capitol Limited into corridors -- or the Crescent or the Silver Meteor or the City of New Orleans.

The only long-distance train which actually *could* be broken into corridors is the California Zephyr. At Denver.

He's right that it works better to concentrate resources; railroading is an economies of scale business. But you can't do that by breaking trains up into pieces; that actually loses economies of scale.

If you were going to concentrate resources, the thing to do would be to:
(1) make the Cardinal daily;
(2) reroute the Lake Shore Limited and Capitol Limited via Michigan (yes, I know, that costs track-purchase / upgrade money between Toledo and Dearborn -- Toledo City Council is studying doing so for commuter rail. Help them.)
(3) add a second frequency on the Lake Shore Limited, 12 hours offset, daytime from Chicago to Buffalo, overnight in NY;
(4) and add a Broadway Limited going direct from Chicago to Philadelphia.

This would leverage investments in the passengers-come-first Michigan line, Keystone line, Schenectaday-Albany-NY line, Boston-Worcester line, and in stations along the Michigan, Keystone, and Empire lines as well as Springfield MA.

It would provide 5 trains a day from the NEC to Chicago; 4 from NYC to Chicago; direct service from Michigan to Ohio, upstate NY, Boston, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and DC.

All of this requires winning the OTP battle and buying/upgrading tracks.

If you had to curtail one train to find funding and cars, obviously you'd end the Sunset Limited -- it's three-a-week, it runs through far too much extremely empty territory between El Paso and San Antonio, and it has really poor political support compared to pretty much any other train in the system; while the city councils still back it, the House Representatives don't, which is almost unique.

I am not seeing Anderson talking in terms of coherent concentration of resources to obtain economies of scale. His proposals so far have not made any sense. At least he recognizes that the freight company sabotage of OTP *must* be ended in order to continue running on freight-owned lines.

 

[jis]

In the Senate hearing Anderson falsely claimed that Amtrak owns and manages all stations on the NEC. He really needs to learn his railroad, even his most favorite part, a little bit better.

 

[me_little_me]

Anderson's reply was:

Here's the challenge on the long distance. Trips since FY13 to FY18, our trips for miles over 600 miles, in other words passengers buying tickets to go over 600 miles, is down 30%. The train goes 45 miles an hour and the ticket is more than a low cost, discount airline ticket in the same market. So we are working hard to try to get ridership up, but it's just clear that trips over 600 miles is not where consumers want to use Amtrak.

Of course, he reached his conclusion independent of any other reason. How about buying is down because the trains only do 45 mph? Or because of the service? Or because no baggage service at more and more stations? Or because of the food? Or because of on-time performance being so poor? Or because of the myriad other issues?

Anderson did not make any commitments regarding the SWC, or about any long distance routes past September. Wicker seemed happy about plans to reinstate Gulf Coast service, and didn't express any particular concern about long distance trains, including the two – the Crescent and City of New Orleans – that run through his state. Even when Anderson said that the Crescent's on time performance is the worst in the system.

So why is Amtrak just whining to congress about the Crescent delays? The laws are on the books. If he feels new ones are essential, he should ask for them. Why isn't he telling the public more forcefully about NS and its threats if he complains? Did he tell congress that he is personally making sure the recently-upheld appeals court ruling is his top priority? Is he telling them he rode the Crescent and personally observed NS's behavior? And so did his top execs?

The only other pushback on long distance plans came from Jon Tester (D - Montana), who brought up the elimination of ticket agents at two stations in Montana. Wicker did as well, but it was more or less in support of Anderson's position. Anderson said that the number of boardings hasn't changed since ticket sales stopped at those two stations.

Boardings may not have changed but are customers less happy about not being able to check bags? Has he done anything to negotiate with USPS/FedEx or UPS to get a better bag-shipping rate for Amtrak-ticketed customers boarding from or arriving at no-baggage stations? Has he considered having a Remote Agent available via video conferencing who could remotely take care of issues, issue tickets, etc? Or having one agent take care of multiple stations since they can drive between them faster than his trains go?

 

[user 14106]

Yes I caught that too - said they owned all the stations from Washington Up to Springfield and Boston.....they don’t own Boston and as of June they no longer own Springfield either with the new station building let alone all the stations in between they don’t own.

 

[TiBike]

Of course, he reached his conclusion independent of any other reason. How about buying is down because the trains only do 45 mph? Or because of the service? Or because no baggage service at more and more stations? Or because of the food? Or because of on-time performance being so poor? Or because of the myriad other issues?

That's his point: long distance train service of more than 600 miles is poor quality and expensive compared to the competition. Checked baggage – there's nothing keeping passengers from bringing baggage on a train (unless there's a bike inside) – is a minor issue. They're trying to improve food service, but that's a side issue too. What really matters is price, on time performance and schedule – how long it takes and when the train arrives/departs.

There's no prospect of meaningful reduction in trip times on current routes. Maybe marginal improvements here and there, but nothing significant. Overnight trains inevitably serve some stations in the wee hours. The longer a train runs, the more problematic OTP becomes. Cutting prices significantly means cutting costs significantly. The service model has to change significantly to do that.

 

[Willbridge]

Amtrak already tried it in the mid 90s (the Mercer cuts) when almost all long distance trains were reduced to less than daily, including, among others, such popular trains as the Coast Starlight and Empire Builder
It was a fiasco that increased losses. Genius consultants thought that they'd retain largely retain the ridership on fewer trains. Well, ridership fell drastically not in small part due to lost network effects, but also people not knowing when the damn train ran.

I seen to remember Graham Claytor talking about the tri-weekly services: "If it doesn't run daily, it's not a train."

I remember that Mercer scheme and had to revisit that era when I worked on the CO/WA/OR state groups' Pioneer study in 2008-09. There were those who learned the opposite lesson from the tri-weekly experience and wanted to use the statistics against restoring the route.

There's kind of a hierarchy that cutback-minded people ignore: 1) There's little wrong with a less than daily train or bus if it's overlaid on a route that has other daily service (such as Chicago - Florida into the 1960's); 2) Having a less than daily train that only connects with daily trains mainly harms the less than daily train (as we see in the Sunset and Cardinal examples); 3) multiple less than daily trains blow up the network (as on VIA Rail).

In 1975 I flew to Bozeman for Oregon DOT to escort two higher-ups to a meeting that was determined by their schedule. ODOT was willing to have me ride the train back to Portland, knowing that I would learn a lot, BUT not to wait two days for the next train. I ended up taking Greyhound, which offered three-times daily service, and I did learn a lot that way, too! My occasional experience with tri-weekly weaknesses was replicated by countless lost customers.

 

[neroden]

What really matters is price, on time performance and schedule – how long it takes and when the train arrives/departs.

Price is barely relevant, given that people are willing to pay a huge premium to take trains, and have proven it. What really matters is, indeed, on time performance and schedule.

There's no prospect of meaningful reduction in trip times on current routes.

False. It would be pretty straightfoward to cut three hours off the Lake Shore Limited route, given cooperation by the track owners, which is lacking. My solution for this is for states to buy the tracks.

The longer a train runs, the more problematic OTP becomes.

False. OTP is actually most problematic for very short trips. Talk to a commuter about their train being FIVE MINUTES LATE....

 

[neroden]

Yes I caught that too - said they owned all the stations from Washington Up to Springfield and Boston.....they don’t own Boston and as of June they no longer own Springfield either with the new station building let alone all the stations in between they don’t own.

They don't even own all the tracks. From Boston to the Rhode Island border are owned by Massachusetts; from New Haven to the New York border are owned by Connecticut; from there to Grand Central are owned by the New York MTA.

As for stations, Great American Stations did the ownership research, necessary to determine ADA responsibility. Here's the owners:

Boston South -- MBTA
Boston Back Bay -- MBTA
Route 128 -- Amtrak, but MBTA still owns the track
Providence -- Amtrak
Kingston -- Rhode Island / RIDOT, though Amtrak owns the platform
Westerly -- Rhode Island / RIDOT, though Amtrak owns the platform
Mystic -- Amtrak
New London -- Union Station Development, LLC, though Amtrak owns the platform
Old Saybrook -- Amtrak
New Haven -- State of Connecticut
Bridgeport -- City of Bridgeport, platform & parking lot owned by State of Connecticut
Stamford -- State of Connecticut
New Rochelle -- City of New Rochelle, platform owned by MTA
New York -- Amtrak (this is changing when Moynihan opens)
Newark -- New Jersey Transit & Newark Penn Station Associates, who also own the platforms (and NJT owns some of the tracks too)
Newark Airport -- Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, including platforms
Metropark -- NJT, including platforms
Trenton -- NJT, including platforms
Philadelphia -- Amtrak
Wilmington -- Amtrak
Newark DE -- Delaware Transit Corporation / State of Delaware (not clear who will own new platforms)
Aberdeen -- Amtrak
Baltimore -- Amtrak
BWI -- Maryland Transit Administration, though Amtrak owns the platform
New Carrollton -- Amtrak
DC -- US Department of Transportation, though platform and track are owned by Washington Terminal Corporation, which Amtrak ownes but is regulated as a common carrier

So altogether Amtrak owns 10 of the stations on the NEC, not including DC, any of the Newarks, New Haven, or Boston.

Anderson really doesn't seem to do his homework, does he?

Amtrak also owns stations it does not use, mostly in SEPTA-land. Amtrak owns North Philadelphia but doesn't stop there any more, as far as I can tell.