posted
Likely a "tell 'em what they want to hear" exercise, but I'm sure the representatives from "the organization formerly known as NARP" were excited to hear it.
A "Chamberlain getting off the plane" moment?
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
With no long-distance trains, just where will the political support come from for the very expensive NEC?
Also, without the LD trains, there will be no place for Amtrak to put some of the expenses of the NEC.
Posts: 211 | From: California | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
As Mr. Pullman notes, "the votes are there" to have Amtrak enjoy its record funding levels without the interconnected National System.
As I've noted, Congress, especially amongst the applicable Committees, appears to accept that "National System" means Amtrak is involved with the operation of locally sponsored regional services throughout the land. Although "a bit thin" between Chicago and the West Coast (Heartland Flyer is "it"), the National System by such standard is met.
However, what if a bi-State passenger agency approached Amtrak with a properly funded plan to operate Cheyenne-Colorado Springs trains and we're in a position to fund the track capacity that BNSF and UP would expect?
Finally, so far as the "LD dumping ground for Corridor expenses", no one with any knowledge of either accounting principles or of passenger train affairs, will hold that $750M, or whatever the fiction writers decide "the number of the day" to be, holds such number will be added to the cookie jar with the LD's gone.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I continue to be optimistic about the future of intercity rail. Based on Anderson's recent statements and the current authorization I don't see any substantial changes in the national network through 2020. As a refresher, I found this on the FRA website:
"The FAST Act authorizes a total of $8.1 billion for Amtrak through 2020 under a new structure that includes $2.6 billion for the Northeast Corridor (NEC) that runs from Boston to Washington, D.C., and $5.45 billion for the National Network (which encompasses Amtrak’s State-Supported and Long-Distance routes, as well as other non-NEC activities). Amtrak’s annual Federal funding was previously provided through an operating grant and a capital/debt grant. This new account structure, when combined with new planning and reporting requirements focused on Amtrak’s business lines and asset categories, will significantly improve the transparency of Amtrak funding and the delivery of its services. "
Another summary on T.O. of the meeting provided by the RPA of the meeting in the link above had these comments:
- that Amtrak will continue to operate, and even selectively upgrade, what Anderson calls "epic, experiential" trains, like the Builder, Starlight and other long-distance trains; (my comment: in a prior meeting in CA he also mentioned the CZ, CS and Florida service).
- that Amtrak is going to take steps to improve food, and is prepared to spend MORE money on food to do so;
- Amtrak will add a hot meal option to the new Lake Shore and Capitol menu in a few months' time, once the supply chain is built;
- Coach passengers will be able to buy food again in the Lake Shore/Capitol food model once the hot meal is restored and the supply chain is fleshed out;
- Amtrak will work to grow in important corridors beyond the NEC, such as the Midwest, the Southeast and the West Coast, adding frequencies and service;
- there are NO plans on July 1 to announce that they would use the PTC issue to rework long-distance routes
- Amtrak will ask us to identify, in advance, potential Station Host volunteers to help in stations marked for de-staffing. The target is 40,000 pax or less, as Gardner testified last week
Anderson and Gardner also offered the following assurances:
- there are NO immediate changes planned or proposed to the long-distance network; any changes would be taken up at Congressional direction through the re-authorization process; (my emphasis)
I think it would be pure speculation to guess what congress will do in 2020. Who would have thought two years ago we would have our current President.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
During the "sit-down" with the RPA/NARP representative, Jim Matthews, it has been widely reported, including on TRAINS Newswire, that Mr. Anderson stated there are eleven VII-D's parked at HIA "awaiting parts and modifications".
By my count, there are nineteen on the property, and six remain to be delivered. While there are no reports of any such cars in the consists of 448-449, Lake Shore, there have been no reports of consists for 19-20, Crescent, or 97-98, Meteor, without such cars. If there are eleven cars out of service, that means there only eight cars available for service - the number needed to protect the noted Crescent and Meteor sets.
There have bern reports that there are protect cars positioned at the several end-points.
"Something doesn't add up".
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I deleted, on this thread, my link to "The Folly of Dismantling Amtrak's National Network". I didn't realize Margaret had already posted the link. Sorry about that, Margaret. You can go to Margaret's post to read the article, posted on May 25th.
I do question the idea of replacing the LD routes with 400 mile or less segments. How would that work? I think the whole idea is a ruse.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is either a ruse or Anderson's set-in-stone belief that he is there only to cut Amtrak's losses and to "obey the laws" Congress' stupidly passed - PRIIA and PRRIA. AFA*I*K, PRRIA requires Amtrak to break even on its dining car expenses.
Focusing on such an extremely small amount of money -- when compared to the entire Amtrak budget -- is really a very bad idea, but it does convince ignorant people that Congress is "rally doing something to cut bloated government spending".
Congress is really good at selling the sizzle to the general public, when there is almost no real steak at all.
We really need and deserve a really good national passenger rail system / network, run by people wo really care about the passengers and the crew.
Amtrak is just a convenient target for bloviating politicians, and has been for its entire existence. The poor thing......
Amtrak needs and deserves people like Brian Rosenwald -- who was the "Product Manager" for the Coast Starlight" and whose idea the Pacific Parlour cars was.
Anderson does not understand railroading at all -- how could he? He has had absolutely NO experience at all in that industry, which makes him completely unqualified to run any railroad entity. but he is an excellent example of the harm that is done to customers and employees and the areas served by these companies after they took as gospel the ridiculous idea that no manager had to know anything about a company's core business in order to be a good manager in that company.
We shall see what happens to poor Amtrak next.
As I have said a number of times, please contact your Congressional representatives and senators and tell them what your views are on Amtrak.
Posts: 211 | From: California | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still wonder if the Pacific Parlor Car could come back to service on the Starlight. There must be some lounge cars, somewhere, which could be refurbished for use. Just how much additional cost did the PPC represent? I always thought of them as a "mint on the pillow" for passengers in inordinately expensive sleeping car accommodations. A well deserved and appreciated mint on the pillow.
Here is an excerpt from a RailPAC interview with Brian Rosenwald, just before the demise of the PPC:
"With the introduction of the Parlour, first class achieved higher loads vs. coach, as obviously many in coach were keenly interested to experience the Parlour to move-up to first class. Despite the great debate within Amtrak, how does Amtrak explain the continued inclusion of a third sleeper in the consist, but for the Parlour? Has anyone at Amtrak HQ competently explained the difference between the alleged expenses attributed to the Parlour vs. the investment in service, the unique value, and favorable passenger experience? To what extent has Amtrak’s Finance persistently believed that although the Parlour has been “nice,” it was not a factor towards increasing ridership and revenues? If so, how did Finance explain that the “Coast Starlight” consistently achieved the highest CSI (Customer Service Index)?"
I think Amtrak looked at the PPC simply as an unnecessary burden.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Richard, hard as it is to accept for anyone here who seeks an experiential train journey, Amtrak seeks to provide a standardized transportation product throughout the System. Offering an enhanced amenity on one route only is simply not part of that playbook.
As you noted, "the PPC simply as an unnecessary burden".
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Richard Anderson apparently thinks that operating most of Amtrak and growing its business is an "unnecessary burden".
I think, as others have pointed out elsewhere, Anderson is beginning to find out that his real bosses are the 535 members of Congress. This was shown in the recent unanimous bipartisan support by all the Congresspeople representing New Mexico, Colorado, and Kansas for the continued operation of the Southwest Chief on its current route.
The sooner Anderson is removed as Amtrak CEO, the better, as long as he is not replaced by someone just as bad.
Posts: 211 | From: California | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is a quote taken from a posting made at another site (be it assured from someone other than myself):
quote:The simpler explanation is that the Board and Mr. Coscia are not doing anything that the railfans want because they do not share the railfan's vision of Amtrak, I have no clue what they believe in, but apparently it is not what many in the railfan/advocate community believe in.
"…..they do not share the railfan's vision of Amtrak"; grief; what goes through the minds of some with whom we share this planet?
The corollary to such is that the Board does not share the vision of the hobbyist Long Distance train traveler. They do not even share the purposeful traveler using an LD, as I believe they recognize that subsidized bus routes for a delineated phase out period serving likely 350 of Amtrak's 500 stations, represent a more economical means to provide transportation to those small number of passengers affected by any LD discontinuances.
While likely not attainable in full, the object of the Board and their "hired hand", Mr. Anderson, appears to transform Amtrak into a transportation resource serving markets in which that transportation resource is recognized as needed. In the aggregate, the Corridor and the Locally funded routes, put more into the cookie jar than they take out for "gas and drivers". The more the record level of FY 18 funding can be directed to infrastructure improvements, Corridor and elsewhere (street running in Oakland; "romantic" but efficient? Chicago area; where to begin!!), the more Amtrak will be recognized as a means to solve transportation problems.
Unfortunately for the Long Distance advocacy community, "Three a Week" through the fastest growing region of the USA, does not.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have said it befre, and I will say it again:
The economic and social priorities in this country are simply horrible. Our political and business leaders use the old "It is too expensive!" claim as an excuse to refuse to provie decent service to everyone, and to refuse to provide any service at all
The huge problem is -- these leaders are either badly misinformed or are lying. In either case, the facts do not support that claim. It is funny -- in a sad way -- that they never claim "It is too expensive!" when "it" is anything they really want to do -- such as go to war, or build a very expsnsive project -- such as CA HSR, or a brand-new sports stadium, all, of course, paid for with public monies.
So -- I find the claims that "Paying for Amtrak long-distance trains is too expensive!" to be non-factual, even if one accepts Amtrak's claims about what anythng costs -- which themselves are not believable, because, as insiders have said, Amtrak's own accounting practice aer, at best, quite murky.
Since RicharD Anderson was appointed CEO of amtrak, I have ot read of one single thing that Amtrak has done to keep regular customers or to attract new customer. Not one. On the contrary, since Anderson became CEO, Amtrak has done quite a number of things that discourage patronage by individuals and groups.
The latest blow to Amtran patronage -- and thus its bottom line -- was its recet closure of its large group desk. The people who worked there have all been transferred elsewehre, and Amtrak now has a new requirement that all large groups must put down a deposit equal to the entire cost of the trip! (This is a report from a very knowledgeable person.)
Amtrak under Richard Anderson, has done nothng but do whateverit can to drive away passengers.
Those of you who still believe that Richard Anderson and Amtrak's Board of Directors want to do anything but shut down all LD trains, pleese give me and the rest of us some hard evidence that supports that claim. I await your replies.
Thank you.
Posts: 211 | From: California | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a real problem with passenger rail supporters and detractors trying to outdo each other as to who is a ‘worthy’ passenger. So what if the traveler is a harried business executive, a senior, a millennial, or even a railfan. If they want to pay their money to take the train it makes no difference what their reason is.
It should be Amtrak’s mission to have the broadest appeal on routes that serve the most travelers in order to maximize revenue, given their limited resources.
Likely that is just what Amtrak is doing: upgraded and clean Amfleet cars (others to follow), an emphasis on the mechincal department to get equipment ready when needed, sprucing up stations, and yes, cutting costs when the dollars could be better spent elsewhere in the system, such as on new equipment. It is obvious that he is eliminating or reducing expenses that aren’t part of a standardized daily plan, such as PV, special trains, or tour groups, in order to maximize efficiency. Getting the most bang for the buck is not a bad thing.
Once he gets the ship righted, I suspect we will see more of an effort to maximize revenue including additional service on routes that are, or could be, part of a corridor (Atlanta-Charlotte in my neck of the woods.)
This obviously doesn’t bode well for LD trains. While I love to ride them, does it make more sense, for instance, to have multiple frequencies CHI-KC, Dallas-Austin, or Tampa-Miami? We can always say, ‘if they only had more money they could do everything’. Well they don’t and Anderson has to play the hand he was dealt.
As Anderson has said there will be a few LD trains that remain (that are almost worthy of National Park status eg. an upgraded CZ of CS). Sorry about the folks in Garden City, KS, Del Rio, TX, or maybe Camden, SC. I suspect few of those in the hundreds of other small towns without passenger rail will shed a tear for them, much less cities like Nashville, Knoxville, or Columbus - which may well be part of a corridor one day. It wasn’t long ago that few of us would have thought California, Viriginia, or Illinois or would see the passenger rail network they now offer.
While I think the boxes of contemporary food is silly, the idea is good but could be executed much better. Get rid of the boxes and stick the stuff on a tray. And I like leaving the seating arrangements up to the passenger. But my favorite thing with the dining change is making the dining car serve as a sleeper lounge on VII equipped trains. Finally, my wife and I can enjoy an evening cocktail in a pleasant space and perhaps chat with fellow passengers.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Margaret, please let it be noted, even if I disagree with your thoughts regarding long distance passenger trains as we move forth in the 21st century, I sincerely respect them.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Over the last 20 years the transportation industry has changed dramatically. Airlines now offer more flights to more places and usually at lower prices. There are $1 bus tickets between big cities with curbside boarding and bike sharing available at the destinations. Car sharing is widespread and there's even talk of hyperloops. Yet despite all these changes in transportations and mobility, the Amtrak public timetable from 1998 is virtually the same as the one published in 2018. Yes, there have been some small changes and tinkering with departure times, but Amtrak hasn't evolved with the modern culture of mobility. Amtrak has been passed by.
Businesses that don't dedicate themselves to innovation will fail. I know Amtrak has difficult relationships with its host lines and the cantankerous political environment makes funding a challenge, but Amtrak can't continue in its state of inertia. It's time for the 21st century to finally arrive at Amtrak HQ.
I believe in the value of the LD network. The LD trains define the corridors of the future and should be the focus of growth. That doesn't mean running 4-a-day Sunsets, but it does mean Los Angeles to Tucson runs at least daily during waking hours, it means Houston to New Orleans should have regular service, possibly with an extension to Mobile. Within every LD train route there are plenty of 200 to 400 mile corridors where Amtrak and the states should be focused on improving service and building ridership.
Unfortunately Amtrak and the states are still studying and scoping and debating the value of the local corridors and virtually nothing is getting done. Amtrak says it needs ridership but expects the states to find funding and do all the work on the corridors. Is that model working? Answer: Dupont WA, 12.18.2017.
Do I trust Anderson? Not really. I watched the Delta-Alaska relationship and it's clear that what Anderson says in public just noise. Pay attention to the "walk", not the "talk". But if he can improve the functionality of the network, run the trains safely and instill a culture of innovation, I'll be mightily impressed.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Norman -- Thank you for the respect. It is mutual.
Vincnt206 -- Yes, everynoe, plese do remember that "talk is cheap" and "by their works shall ye kow tem."
To all -- Is is sad and very wrong that Richard Anderson apparently has not done nothing so far to make Amtrak operate more safely than it has for the last 10 years. Shouldn't safety be his top priority? All he has done so far is discourage ridership.
Sigh.....
Posts: 211 | From: California | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
