Do not know if this is a true letter but does need looking into.
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/7c8e6b_eee64e5f666340a986eb501785146e9f.pdf
Hilarious. All this time Anderson thought he was alone as CEO, now he is going to learn of his 535 advisors that were previously silent. I kind of had a sneaking suspicion after the public announcement he was changing the company to be all Corridors...... the WTH do you think you are letter was going to be rolled out soon (heh-heh) and poof! There it is.
Personally, I think he is really dumb to try the corridors strategy he doesn't have the money and the states are not going to spend what is needed unless they see a workable and viable HSR system in this country that provides a decent return for taxpayer money invested. Otherwise each new corridor Amtrak starts up will be a money pit. Also, the notion that there is only such corridor opportunities in the fastest growing areas of the United States also shows a lack of vision on the part of Amtrak.
CMStPnP Hilarious. All this time Anderson thought he was alone as CEO, now he is going to learn of his 535 advisors that were previously silent. I kind of had a sneaking suspicion after the public announcement he was changing the company to be all Corridors...... the WTH do you think you are letter was going to be rolled out soon (heh-heh) and poof! There it is. Personally, I think he is really dumb to try the corridors strategy he doesn't have the money and the states are not going to spend what is needed unless they see a workable and viable HSR system in this country that provides a decent return for taxpayer money invested. Otherwise each new corridor Amtrak starts up will be a money pit. Also, the notion that there is only such corridor opportunities in the fastest growing areas of the United States also shows a lack of vision on the part of Amtrak.
Anderson is persuing the Class 1's - corrupt the service strategy that brought about Amtrak in the first place. Now it is his attempt the kill Amtrak.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDAnderson is persuing the Class 1's - corrupt the service strategy that brought about Amtrak in the first place. Now it is his attempt the kill Amtrak.
I think he is trying to make it more viable but his approaches taken so far indicate to me that he is not a very deep thinker when it comes to fixing things. He might have got a pass in the airline industry or others might have carried him there but I think he is really going to struggle at Amtrak because I don't think there is anyone left subordinate to him that has any smarts either. If Congress replaces him they also need to consider replacing #2 and #3 in line to succession.
I think they should have sent this letter to the Board of Directors, demanding that they replace Anderson with someone who can clean up the mess and alienation that he has caused. Why pussyfoot waiting for more disasterous decisions to occur? We need someone with the vision of making Amtrak better, not a hatchet man tearing the system apart.
How do you know he isn't doing what the BOD wants? Some one has to come up with a better plan than the current one.
alphas How do you know he isn't doing what the BOD wants? Some one has to come up with a better plan than the current one.
Good point!
JPS1 alphas How do you know he isn't doing what the BOD wants? Some one has to come up with a better plan than the current one. Good point! Making Amtrak better means running trains where there is a high probability that they will be used by a significant percent of the population and will be able to cover their operating costs, as well as make a significant contribution to the fixed costs. Better means frequent, quick, economical, safe, and dependable trains in high density corridors. It means structuring the ride to meet the needs of most of the passengers, i.e. comfortable business and coach class accommodations, good food service, and customer focused employees. It means eliminating the long-distance trains, which are a financial and operating drag on the system. Anderson did an effective job with Delta Airlines. The notion that he is shallow minded and does not get it is unsupported.
I agree with a few changes. Many people on here seem to lose sight of this: What is the point of passenger rail services? I believe it is to provide useful transportation, not land cruises, not alternatives for people who don't like flying, not sightseeing for children and others and not gourmet dining.
Thus a Mission Staement for Amtrak: "Making Amtrak better means providing passenger rail services where there is a high probability that they will be used by a significant percent of the population and will cover 90% or better of their operating costs. Better means frequent, quick, economical, safe, and dependable trains in high density corridors. It means structuring the ride to meet the needs of most of the passengers, i.e. comfortable business and coach class accommodations, good food service, and customer-focused employees."
I think the problem with those Mission statements is that that is Not really what Amtrak's mission statement has traditionally been. And therein lies the difficulty. Te LD trains and their underserved communities are a feature of the system not a drag. But the requirement to be a more effective use of federal funds runs counter to this.
We then get into the definition of the weasel words. What consistutes a "significant percentage" of the population? What time windows are used?
There are also chicken and egg problems. Government money is often spent on projects that aren't viable for the private sector. So things like HSR. I'd argue that Capital infrastructure projects that produce social capital even if not repaying their costs directly have value...but what's the cutoff there? 2 projects that cost the same, one may be worth the spent money in social capital, the other one may be a boondoggle. Niether will repay it's costs. And people will have different opinions on these items.
Anyway, I'd love to see an Amtrak mission statement or rather, Federal infrastructure plan that addressed this reality...because the operational costs of any specific service are easy to quantify and if the service provides value, are relatively easy to fund....laying new or upgrading track is hard to do and hard to recoup.
YoHo1975We then get into the definition of the weasel words. What consistutes a "significant percentage" of the population? What time windows are used?
It takes time, of course, especially for new routes. But one yardstick which might be used would be comparing city pair riderships: rail, bus, air and auto. By this standard, most western LD routes would cease. However, within some of those routes there are city pairs which could develop good ridership levels if fast, frequent convenient services were offered. Some folks mention this as a justification for an LD train like the CZ because there are some good city pairs enroute. The problem is reliability and convenience. LD train delays are compounded so that the departure time might be delayed by many hours, say from Denver or Omaha to Chicago. The scheduled times of arrival and departure could be adjusted to serve the public at decent hours. Currently the eastbound CZ is scheduled to leave Denver at 7:10 pm, not bad if the train is close to being on time. But if only 4 hours late, it becomes an 11 pm departure. Even worse is Omaha to Chicago. Currently leaves at 5:14 am. Surely more people would ride if there were an 8:00 am departure. It would also help if the current 500 mile 9.5 hour run (52 mph) Omaha to Chicago were more like the 1957 Denver Zephyr, which managed it in 7:45 (64.5 mph), 7:30 WB!!
JPS1Anderson did an effective job with Delta Airlines. The notion that he is shallow minded and does not get it is unsupported.
+1 If he's trying to kill Amtrak, he's doing an awful job of it. All the trains are still running. Heck, as of monday, there's another new one...
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
YoHo1975 What consistutes a "significant percentage" of the population?
Agreed! Most words in the English language, or any language for that matter, have multiple meanings and, therefore, are open to challenge.
A significant percentage of the population means enough people willing to pay a fare that will recover the operating costs and make a contribution to the fixed costs.
oltmannd JPS1 Anderson did an effective job with Delta Airlines. The notion that he is shallow minded and does not get it is unsupported. +1 If he's trying to kill Amtrak, he's doing an awful job of it. All the trains are still running. Heck, as of monday, there's another new one...
Spot-on!
JPS1 YoHo1975 What consistutes a "significant percentage" of the population? Agreed! Most words in the English language, or any language for that matter, have multiple meanings and, therefore, are open to challenge. A significant percentage of the population means enough people willing to pay a fare that will recover the operating costs and make a contribution to the fixed costs.
He is applying the torture of 1000 cuts as his means of 'improving' Amtrak. Cutting meal service on the Lake Shore and Capitol was such a 'improvement'. Antagonizing the private car community is another such improvement. Every 'improvement' has a corresponding aggrivation to the Amtrak customer base that uses the 'improved' service.
Within ther recent past here. there was a discussion referencing the Accounting Methods of AMTRAK.
[paraphrasing that discussion] IIRC the conversation had to do with the methods of 'costing their[AMTK's] services'. I think the basis of that was some testimony before a Congressional Committee (?). It was stated within that conversation, that using current accounting methods; there was 'no date available, for the costs of the on-train services being discussed(?).
If such were the case, I'd think, that the first place to start would be in the area of overhauling the AMTRAK cost accounting apparatus.
The present methods seem to present gross negatives on the continuance of AMTRAK's services and on-train experiences. UNLESS, the major objective is to drive AMTRAK completely, out of any services, except on the NEC.
charlie hebdoI agree with a few changes. Many people on here seem to lose sight of this: What is the point of passenger rail services? I believe it is to provide useful transportation, not land cruises, not alternatives for people who don't like flying, not sightseeing for children and others and not gourmet dining.
We'll have to see what the final proposal is but his proposal struck me as a complete reorientation of the company. Congress is not going to fund that at anything near the level that is needed by Amtrak. Further a good portion of the LD trains formed the basis of the initial corridor system and still occupy operating slots on them.....there really is not a hard and fast dividing line there. So what happens to the train frequency the LD train represents? Is it replaced or its it lost? Losing that frequency on a SD corridor is not going to make that future Amtrak SD corridor client very happy. In essence if your preserving part of the LD route and discontinuing another part, what is to stop rural states from stepping up and agreeing to subsidize just the portion that traverses their state.......and preserving the LD train along it's full route. Can Amtrak resist that small pot of money? I have my doubts there.
Last, I think we are seeing increasing and successful competition to Amtrak as both states and now it seems private companies are entering the corridor space. I remember when it was just Amtrak in the commuter rail operation but no longer. I think we are starting to see increasing competition in the SD corridor space. Can a slow and tree sloth like Amtrak management compete against a faster and more agile set of trully hungry for more business private companies with established records of there own. I have my doubts there.
Time will tell but I would not be surprised to see Amtrak shrink significantly at it's first leap into this new structure and potentially we could even see Amtrak disappear outside of the NEC. Though eventually the folks slumbering in the Northeast have to come to the realization sooner or later that Amtrak is very expensive as a contractor and they might do better via trying someone else.
If Amtrak is going to persue this strategy they should find a way to remove maintence and upkeep of the NEC from the books. Perhaps spinning it off to another company or a regional RTA that specializes in infrastructure management. I don't think Amtrak will ever do that voluntarily but they are not managing the NEC infrastructure competently now (by their own admission it is massively underfunded and not in a state of good repair) and it is hurting the entire NE.
BaltACDHe is applying the torture of 1000 cuts as his means of 'improving' Amtrak. Cutting meal service on the Lake Shore and Capitol was such a 'improvement'. Antagonizing the private car community is another such improvement. Every 'improvement' has a corresponding aggrivation to the Amtrak customer base that uses the 'improved' service.
But is the amtrak customer base (at least the majority of it) affected by dining car menus or PV movement? Perhaps the former somewhat, but I'd doubt the latter.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
zugmann BaltACD He is applying the torture of 1000 cuts as his means of 'improving' Amtrak. Cutting meal service on the Lake Shore and Capitol was such a 'improvement'. Antagonizing the private car community is another such improvement. Every 'improvement' has a corresponding aggrivation to the Amtrak customer base that uses the 'improved' service. But is the amtrak customer base (at least the majority of it) affected by dining car menus or PV movement? Perhaps the former somewhat, but I'd doubt the latter.
BaltACD He is applying the torture of 1000 cuts as his means of 'improving' Amtrak. Cutting meal service on the Lake Shore and Capitol was such a 'improvement'. Antagonizing the private car community is another such improvement. Every 'improvement' has a corresponding aggrivation to the Amtrak customer base that uses the 'improved' service.
He has been applying 'indignitys' to all Amtrak operations, those were just two that I could think of off the top of my head. Give your customers one 'aggrevation' after another and soon - POOF! they are gone!
Private Car owners as a group swing a pretty heavy political hammer - and Amtrak is nothing if not political.
Remember several CSX Vice Presidents of operations that thought Amtrak and commuter operations were a pain and not deserving of maintaining schedules - right up to the time they got 'summoned' to DC and had a 'come to Jesus' meeting with the political powers behind those operations. I have no idea of what was said in those meetings, however the word came down that all efforts needed to be used to keep those schedules on time. As in all such meetings I am sure major threats and promises were conveyed among the participating parties.
zugmann But is the amtrak customer base (at least the majority of it) affected by dining car menus......?
The President wants $750 billion a year for the Defence Dep't, yet I'm supposed to care about Amtrak losing a few million running a dining car service on their Long Distance trains?
I don't care. Tax me more if necessary. After all, the millionaires & billionaires got their tax cut, and that cost us $1.5 trillion. Except for stock buy-backs, where'd that money go? How did We the People benefit? (How's your tax refund going this year, by the way?)
I favor subsidizing dining cars and long distance trains until they're what they ought to be. Please spare me any "tender concern" for the budget deficit or the Amtrak subsidy. Anyone who can read a newspaper knows that all that twaddle about Amtrak losses and subsidies comes from hypocrites who vote Republican. Such fiscal-retentive types seem only to favor "cutting back" and "acting responsibly" when it comes to trains, never to things like defence budgets, "walls" and what they like to call "entitlements."
Who here can calculate what percent of the federal budget the Amtrak dining car subsidy is?
NKP guyI favor subsidizing dining cars and long distance trains until they're what they ought to be. Please spare me any "tender concern" for the budget deficit or the Amtrak subsidy. Anyone who can read a newspaper knows that all that twaddle about Amtrak losses and subsidies comes from hypocrites who vote Republican. Such fiscal-retentive types seem only to favor "cutting back" and "acting responsibly" when it comes to trains, never to things like defence budgets, "walls" and what they like to call "entitlements."
You should be more careful with throwing around your accusations and labeling. Yes, $50 million is a drop in the ocean of welfare-for-the-1% deficits (aka, the last tax cut) and debt. Some of us actual progressives are also realists. I would like to see more people, including younger generations, have access to the benefits of modern passenger rail services, not waste the currently limited resources on preserving an archaic sop to nostalagia lovers, mostly over age 60. If that $50 million could provide an additional train on an existing under-500-mile route, that would be a much better use of that sum, IMO.
I would rather encourage youngsters to use the long distance services to learn more about the country (countries, USA and Canada) than is possible while driving a car on interstates or flying over the countries.
People use Interstates to get to places when time and/or cost is important and the distance doesn't reqire flying. And don't forget many of the Interstates are scenic in rural areas. Dave, you are retired but working families have only limited vacation time and usually limited resources. In their cases Interstates are actually very helpful in allowing them to see nature's wonders.
"I would rather encourage youngsters to use the long distance services to learn more about the country (countries, USA and Canada) than is possible while driving a car on interstates or flying over the countries."
[/quote]
daveklepper I would rather encourage youngsters to use the long distance services to learn more about the country (countries, USA and Canada) than is possible while driving a car on interstates or flying over the countries.
I am not convinced it is the end of the LD passenger train in this country even if Amtrak attempts to abandon the whole network. I can't see Amtrak abandoning all the NEC to Florida trains for example. Nor can I see Amtrak abandoning a link to the NE to Chicago. I can see Amtrak abandoning the Sunset Limited, Southwest Chief, Texas Eagle, City of New Orleans, Empire Builder, Southern Crescent, Cardinal and either the Lake Shore Limited or Capitol Limited but not both, Vermonter is gone, Montrealer is gone, train to Maine they will ask for more subsidy money for probably. One of the three trains to Florida will go. I think they will retain the other two. Auto-Train, Amtrak is going to keep or attempt to sell if it can. I don't see Amtrak abandonment of Auto-Train. Too close to break even. Additionally, I see Amtrak attempting to keep the Coast Starlight as it connects it's West Coast Corridors very nicely.
Further I see at least one private company in the West attempt a LD excursion or cruise train once Amtrak is gone. Perhaps the Rocky Mountaineer will attempt a Seattle to Butte, Montana train?
Congressional letter asked for a response by March 8. Has it been received or is Anderson going to be held in contempt of congress?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.