I would not know Joseph Boardman or any of the other members of the Amtrak leadership team if I fell across them. Moreover, I don't have any inside information about the inner workings of Amtrak. Having said that, here is a situation that causes me to wonder about Boardman's leadership.
A proposal to switch the Texas Eagle to a daily Chicago/LAX train, with a connecting train between New Orleans and San Antonio, was floated. Amongst other things the proposed schedule would have had better call times for Houston, Tucson, and Phoenix, which are major population centers, and it would have changed the layover time in San Antonio from most of the night to a hour or two. Supposedly the proposal died because the UP wanted $700 million to upgrade its facilities to hoist the train daily, and Amtrak management did not want to take their numbers to task.
What's preventing Amtrak from improving the thrice a week schedule, i.e. improve the layover and calling times per the preceding paragraph?
Along similar lines, does anyone know whether the UP required a significant infusion of money to upgrade its facilities when the Eagle was switched from a thrice a week train to its current daily schedule between Chicago and San Antonio?
It is no secret that I would discontinue the long distance trains if I were in charge. Having said that, as long as Amtrak is required to run them to keep the political winds at bay, it should run them as well as possible and organize their schedules to serve their major markets at the best possible times.
"First, as a former federal official, he is prohibited by law from lobbying his former agency, the FRA. I believe but am not certain that this prohibition will expire before the end of this year".
Hmm. If that is the case, why has he hired a number of FRA folks as "consultants" to look into various departments including the Law Department.
oltmanndBNSFwatcherPoor service, surley crews, etc. seems to be confined in the CHI-NYP-WAS "Triangle of Snarl". I'll leave you to figure out why, but the old Pennsylvania RR "School of Snarl" graduates are mostly gone. Culture can outlast individual employees.
BNSFwatcherPoor service, surley crews, etc. seems to be confined in the CHI-NYP-WAS "Triangle of Snarl". I'll leave you to figure out why, but the old Pennsylvania RR "School of Snarl" graduates are mostly gone.
Basic psychology with some--there just is a certain percentage of people in any corporate body that are, at base, crabby
--I've got a friend who moved up here to go to school who is a former NYC cabbie. Anytime I've ever gone with him to NY it is interesting to watch how he mutates into this miserable angry person--"Road Rage" type of cabbie. I tend to take the train more instead of his taking me anywhere near a BIG CITY
------there's just this certain thing about BIG CITIES and him----
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I only examined the studies from the infrastructure perspective, not equipment or operating cost, but at least for that aspect of the studies, I did not see any padding or gold-plating.
RWM
HarveyK400 What is disturbing are the proposed orders for Viewliners and baggage cars as I mentioned in a separate thread and the study for a return of the North Coast Hiawatha. If long distance routes are to be considered at all, what priorities and parameters are there? It would seem to me that a more successful and expanded base of regional corridors would need to be developed before long distance services might be added. I have heard the argument that long distance routes open the the way for corridors; but that hasn't happened as far as I recall other than for North Carolina.
What is disturbing are the proposed orders for Viewliners and baggage cars as I mentioned in a separate thread and the study for a return of the North Coast Hiawatha. If long distance routes are to be considered at all, what priorities and parameters are there? It would seem to me that a more successful and expanded base of regional corridors would need to be developed before long distance services might be added. I have heard the argument that long distance routes open the the way for corridors; but that hasn't happened as far as I recall other than for North Carolina.
The Sunset East, the Pioneer and the North Coast Hiawatha studies all were done because Congress required Amtrak to do them not due to any initative on Amtrak's part. I believe all three of them are heavily padded in terms of start up costs, and envision getting up and running on a very leisurely basis. I don't think Amtrak has any intention of pursuing these routes.
The concept that Montana can or would come up with the billion dollars to start up the North Coast Hiawatha is an obvious non-starter. However, if it is going to be done with federal money, how do we explain that to Michigan, California or North Carolina (just to pick three examples)?
Your question regarding priorities is a very basic one but one that is largely unaddressed. Perhaps when we see how the $8 billion for HSR is going to be distributed we may be able to discern what the priorities are.
I ride Amtrak quite a bit -- four trips, so far, this year. I have traveled most of the routes since its inception. Poor service, surley crews, etc. seems to be confined in the CHI-NYP-WAS "Triangle of Snarl". I'll leave you to figure out why, but the old Pennsylvania RR "School of Snarl" graduates are mostly gone. On a brighter point, the crews in the west seem to be doing a great job. Even those that had to put up with UP's disregard of Amtrak (lots of siding-time = unhappy passengers) seem to be happier. Note the "Sunset's" re-connection with the "Coast Starlight" and its re-connection with the "Empire Builder" in PDX. I did have an interesting journey on the "City of New Orleans" a couple of years ago: the nastiest conductor I ever met (duly reported) on the southbound, along with a great dining car crew (I got the last Filet Mignon!); the greatest crew I ever met, including an engineer, on the northbound (also duly reported -- the engineer actually briefed the First Class passengers in the lounge before departure!). I 'gifted' my nephew a trip to ALB, and a return to NYP on a PV ("NYC 3"), a couple of weeks ago. He is in his mid-forties, and it was his first Amtrak trip. He loved it! The personnel at ALB were most helpful. Apparently, the intra-mural war at ALB has a 'cease-fire'. Good deal! I tried to tell Amtrak this, but I cannot access the "Contact Us" thingie on their web site. Anyhoo....
Sam1Designed to fail? Maybe! A better assessment can be found in the program which was laid on Amtrak's management. Had the architects eliminated the long distance trains, which provide a relatively small share of the revenues whilst eating a disproportionate share of the operating expenses, and concentrated on a few corridors, where passenger trains have a chance for success, the results probably would have been different. With some minor tweaking of the fare and cost structure, Amtrak could cover its operating expenses and contribute a significant amount to the fixed costs on its relatively short corridor routes. Unfortunately, Amtrak is a political animal, which contains the seeds of its inability to be at least a partially commercial success. It has been whipsawed by political forces rather than run as a response to market demand for passenger rail services. Ironically, many of the people in the advocacy groups, who profess to love trains, have contributed to Amtrak's many problems through their 1950s. perspectives. They keep insisting on running trains based on a bygone model that have no chance whatsoever of being viable.
With some minor tweaking of the fare and cost structure, Amtrak could cover its operating expenses and contribute a significant amount to the fixed costs on its relatively short corridor routes.
Unfortunately, Amtrak is a political animal, which contains the seeds of its inability to be at least a partially commercial success. It has been whipsawed by political forces rather than run as a response to market demand for passenger rail services.
Ironically, many of the people in the advocacy groups, who profess to love trains, have contributed to Amtrak's many problems through their 1950s. perspectives. They keep insisting on running trains based on a bygone model that have no chance whatsoever of being viable.
I can agree with you here.
passengerfanI for one believe Amtrak needs to be run by the private sector as management and project overseers with the ability to fire any Amtrak employees not doing the jobs they were hired to do or that have become so complacent they are worthless to Amtrak. There are thousands of unemployed Americans that would be anxious to take jobs that pay as well as Amtrak. But all new employees should undergo two months of training by Via Rail Canada before they can become Amtrak onboard personel and keep them away from present Amtrak employees as we do not want to infect the new hires. Al - in - Stockton
Al - in - Stockton
It's been a while since I took Amtrak long distance, 2005; but I was generally impressed with the enthusiasm and helpfulness of most crew. Yes, there were a couple just watching the clock, so to speak; but not enough to make such a blanket condemnation. This issue has popped up before; and seems to recur. Has the situation truly grown worse; or is this a local problem stemming from poor supervision and employee handling?
BNSFwatcher Enlighten me, please. I thought the DHS and TSA worked for the Department of Justice. Anyhoo, why did the TSA hire ten people, as screeners, at each of our silly "EAS" airports in Montana? Lots of donuts, or "Fry Bread", being eaten at those places! Bill P. S.: the fine citizens of "Podunk, KY" are offended by your misspelling and misrepresentation!
Enlighten me, please. I thought the DHS and TSA worked for the Department of Justice. Anyhoo, why did the TSA hire ten people, as screeners, at each of our silly "EAS" airports in Montana? Lots of donuts, or "Fry Bread", being eaten at those places!
Bill
P. S.: the fine citizens of "Podunk, KY" are offended by your misspelling and misrepresentation!
The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice are seperate entities within the Federal Government although there is plenty of cooperation between the two..The word Department in U.S "Fedspeak" means an organization headed by a Cabinet Secretary who reports directly to the Chief Executive...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
schlimmI think that is more or less the model the British have and German rail system is moving toward: government owned ROW, private or quasi-private providers, who bid on contracts.
oltmanndblownout cylinderhenry6 So, Blownout, why should I pay for an airline flight that I'll never use and only one person a week uses? Or a highway in northsouthnowhere that not only will I never use myself, but is only used seasonally by two trucks. Your arguement cannot hold up! But I do agree, and my major point is, that our transportation system has to be all but reinvented. That doesn't mean that everything has to be thrown out but rather that it all has to be reorganized and reapportioned, totally rethought. OK--and who is going to be doing the decision making? A czar from within some transportation ministry? Or will the taxpayer be consulted in some way? I think my concern here is that much of what we are discussing will not amount to a hill of beans if the whole debate is centered on the 'urban' side of the coin. Those who are in smaller/rural areas/communities also get clobbered with the same tax burden hence---- Some kind of IPO is a possibility here as well. I'd be willing to entertain that as a possibility b/c it is a voluntary procedure. Unlike some 'forced' taxation process that is imposed from on high. I'll put it out there again. I think you can bid out the service provider role, but with a twist. Let it take the form of "How much do I have to pay to provide XYZ service - soup to nuts. You do the branding, sales and marketing. You set the fares. You keep the revenue. You maintain the equipment. You provide the crew and other personnel." The bid price paid just raises the floor so that more-or-less normal market forces will shape the results. The service provider has profit motive pushing him on the cost AND revenue side. We pay less subsidy and get better service. We can think of the bid price as the subsidy that pays for providing "essential" rail service (whatever that may mean....)
blownout cylinderhenry6 So, Blownout, why should I pay for an airline flight that I'll never use and only one person a week uses? Or a highway in northsouthnowhere that not only will I never use myself, but is only used seasonally by two trucks. Your arguement cannot hold up! But I do agree, and my major point is, that our transportation system has to be all but reinvented. That doesn't mean that everything has to be thrown out but rather that it all has to be reorganized and reapportioned, totally rethought. OK--and who is going to be doing the decision making? A czar from within some transportation ministry? Or will the taxpayer be consulted in some way? I think my concern here is that much of what we are discussing will not amount to a hill of beans if the whole debate is centered on the 'urban' side of the coin. Those who are in smaller/rural areas/communities also get clobbered with the same tax burden hence---- Some kind of IPO is a possibility here as well. I'd be willing to entertain that as a possibility b/c it is a voluntary procedure. Unlike some 'forced' taxation process that is imposed from on high.
henry6 So, Blownout, why should I pay for an airline flight that I'll never use and only one person a week uses? Or a highway in northsouthnowhere that not only will I never use myself, but is only used seasonally by two trucks. Your arguement cannot hold up! But I do agree, and my major point is, that our transportation system has to be all but reinvented. That doesn't mean that everything has to be thrown out but rather that it all has to be reorganized and reapportioned, totally rethought.
So, Blownout, why should I pay for an airline flight that I'll never use and only one person a week uses? Or a highway in northsouthnowhere that not only will I never use myself, but is only used seasonally by two trucks. Your arguement cannot hold up! But I do agree, and my major point is, that our transportation system has to be all but reinvented. That doesn't mean that everything has to be thrown out but rather that it all has to be reorganized and reapportioned, totally rethought.
OK--and who is going to be doing the decision making? A czar from within some transportation ministry? Or will the taxpayer be consulted in some way? I think my concern here is that much of what we are discussing will not amount to a hill of beans if the whole debate is centered on the 'urban' side of the coin. Those who are in smaller/rural areas/communities also get clobbered with the same tax burden hence----
Some kind of IPO is a possibility here as well. I'd be willing to entertain that as a possibility b/c it is a voluntary procedure. Unlike some 'forced' taxation process that is imposed from on high.
I think that is more or less the model the British have and German rail system is moving toward: government owned ROW, private or quasi-private providers, who bid on contracts.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
BNSFwatcher We, in Montana, are blessed with the "Essential Air Services" boondoggle. The services go, mostly, to burgs already serviced by Amtrak (eg.: Wolf Point, MT) and fly empty, which they don't in the winter. Mostly, they don't get off the ground! Unfortunately, my representative supports this waste of taxpayers monies. Yar!, he sports facial hair, so I don't trust him much (even though I vote for him). The "EAS" passenger load figures are available, somewhere. I saw them, but didn't save the site. The cost of the DHS Airport Security Screeners (24/7), for these "Flights-to-Nowhere" are not shown in the EAS budget. Truly amazing! Janet loves it!
We, in Montana, are blessed with the "Essential Air Services" boondoggle. The services go, mostly, to burgs already serviced by Amtrak (eg.: Wolf Point, MT) and fly empty, which they don't in the winter. Mostly, they don't get off the ground! Unfortunately, my representative supports this waste of taxpayers monies. Yar!, he sports facial hair, so I don't trust him much (even though I vote for him).
The "EAS" passenger load figures are available, somewhere. I saw them, but didn't save the site.
The cost of the DHS Airport Security Screeners (24/7), for these "Flights-to-Nowhere" are not shown in the EAS budget. Truly amazing! Janet loves it!
More misinformation.....First of all, there are no DHS airport security screeners, they are TSA. Second I highly doubt that they are there 24/7, O'Hare does not have 24/7 screeners scheduled! If the second busiest airport does not have screeners 24/7, how does a little podunct airport that only rates EAS service?
An "expensive model collector"
As a retired soldier (33+ years), I have great respect for the U. S. Army's "Combat Engineers". The, so called, 'Army Corps of Engineers' is a different matter. It is a political, civilian-operated boondoggle! They 'maintain' waterways for barge traffic to compete with private enterprise and are a complete failure, dam and dikewise, not to mention the poor fish populations of our rivers. Ask anyone who lives in New Orleans, St. Louis, or Bay St. Louis, MS. They are total incompetents, currying political favor (from both sides), and run barges into our railroad bridges, with abandon. I have seen them, at thier worst, especially on the east coast of Florida and New Jersey. Does the word "groins" strike a familiar note? Barge canals, and locks, on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, as well as obscure Lake Champlain, and the vaunted Tombigbee come to mind. The "Cross-Florida Barge Canal"? Har!!! "Begone!", methinks. The sooner, the better!
Hays
n012944henry6 So, Blownout, why should I pay for an airline flight that I'll never use and only one person a week uses? One could argue the same thing the other way as well. I have been paying federal income tax since I was 15 years old, so a total of 16 years. In that 16 years, and for my 31 years on this earth for that matter, I have never ridden Amtrak as a paying passenger. How much have I been taxed in that 16 years for something that I have never on besides a road review that my employer requires? BTW I would love to see this one person a week flight that you reference.
henry6 So, Blownout, why should I pay for an airline flight that I'll never use and only one person a week uses?
So, Blownout, why should I pay for an airline flight that I'll never use and only one person a week uses?
One could argue the same thing the other way as well. I have been paying federal income tax since I was 15 years old, so a total of 16 years. In that 16 years, and for my 31 years on this earth for that matter, I have never ridden Amtrak as a paying passenger. How much have I been taxed in that 16 years for something that I have never on besides a road review that my employer requires?
BTW I would love to see this one person a week flight that you reference.
We pay collectively for a host of governmental services we may never directly or indirectly or only slightly use because that is what it means to be a citizen. For examples: fire and police protection, schools, parks, many museums, state universities and community colleges, most highways and streets, ATC's for general aviation, and on and on. And yes, Essential Air Services, because without them, some people would have no service. So it is hardly surprising that many believe more and improved subsidized transit and passenger rail systems would benefit many, especially in the more congested parts of our nation. Not everyone benefits directly, individually or equally, but there is a benefit to the citizenry as a nation.
BTW, I have been loyally paying my income tax, property tax sales tax, etc. for over 40 years, as have many of you even longer.
One could argue the same thing the other way as well. I have been paying federal income tax since I was 15 years old, so a total of 16 years. In that 16 years, and for my 31 years on this earth for that matter, I have never ridden Amtrak as a paying passenger. How much have I been taxed in that 16 years for something that I have never been on besides a road review that my employer requires?
henry6 Because what was, was, and will have to be can't be what was! We must unshackle the past procedures and thinking and almost start anew!
I can see where this would come from--an impatience with a reluctance to jump into change--
The only issue here is how this change should come about. Do we as citizens of a country participate in a dialog of what and how this change should come about, or do we find a czar who knows the truth and can do the work themselves? Combinations? What?
The overall tone seems more like a Futurist Manifesto --except now I detect a hint of --"Oh! This merely material world! I want to be shed of it!" rejection of the past. BTW---a scribe in the 3rd dynasty of the Egyptian court of that era wrote something to the exact same refrain: "Oh for words never spoken before by man!!"
There are SOME aspects of said past--remember the comments regarding Single System Zoning in urban development and what that done?---that are still useful. How you going to get people to go HSR or Green when people live 15 miles from a grocery store because the single system zoning placed residences that far away from retail? The 'new' is not so easily taken after those gaffs!
Think new. Yes. But also think smarter--just because something may have come from the--ohno ohno--past should not render it bilgewater
n012944 [ Because all of passenger rail is subsidezed versus a very small percentage of airline flights. Because for the mosst part people would rather pay to have the freedom of the auto versus being tied to a passenger rail schedule. Because passenger boat operations is but a blip on the radar in this county, and the same could be said for over the road bus operations. HSR outside the northeast, and for the most part passenger rail in general besides commuter, is viewed as pork.
[ Because all of passenger rail is subsidezed versus a very small percentage of airline flights. Because for the mosst part people would rather pay to have the freedom of the auto versus being tied to a passenger rail schedule. Because passenger boat operations is but a blip on the radar in this county, and the same could be said for over the road bus operations. HSR outside the northeast, and for the most part passenger rail in general besides commuter, is viewed as pork.
But part of my point is that we must rethink, redesign, and remarket our enitre transportation system...for passengers and frieght...to meet the environment, space, and social needs of the future. Because what was, was, and will have to be can't be what was! We must unshackle the past procedures and thinking and almost start anew!
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
n012944 schlimmn012944 henry6And one of the things that I am saying is that the whole transportation systems has to be revised and integrated and portioned and partitioned and whatever else. Accept that we subsidize all the other forms of transportation and therefore, there should be no reason not to include rail. Please show me where anyone here has argued that passenger rail is NOT subsidezed. Perhaps you misread what henry6 was saying. He never claimed that anyone on this site has argued that passenger rail is not subsidized. Rather, that ultimately all forms of public transport in the US are subsidized in one form or another to varying degrees, so why the opposition to rail. Because all of passenger rail is subsidezed versus a very small percentage of airline flights. Because for the mosst part people would rather pay to have the freedom of the auto versus being tied to a passenger rail schedule. Because passenger boat operations is but a blip on the radar in this county, and the same could be said for over the road bus operations. HSR outside the northeast, and for the most part passenger rail in general besides commuter, is viewed as pork.
schlimmn012944 henry6And one of the things that I am saying is that the whole transportation systems has to be revised and integrated and portioned and partitioned and whatever else. Accept that we subsidize all the other forms of transportation and therefore, there should be no reason not to include rail. Please show me where anyone here has argued that passenger rail is NOT subsidezed. Perhaps you misread what henry6 was saying. He never claimed that anyone on this site has argued that passenger rail is not subsidized. Rather, that ultimately all forms of public transport in the US are subsidized in one form or another to varying degrees, so why the opposition to rail.
n012944 henry6And one of the things that I am saying is that the whole transportation systems has to be revised and integrated and portioned and partitioned and whatever else. Accept that we subsidize all the other forms of transportation and therefore, there should be no reason not to include rail. Please show me where anyone here has argued that passenger rail is NOT subsidezed.
henry6And one of the things that I am saying is that the whole transportation systems has to be revised and integrated and portioned and partitioned and whatever else. Accept that we subsidize all the other forms of transportation and therefore, there should be no reason not to include rail.
Please show me where anyone here has argued that passenger rail is NOT subsidezed.
Perhaps you misread what henry6 was saying. He never claimed that anyone on this site has argued that passenger rail is not subsidized. Rather, that ultimately all forms of public transport in the US are subsidized in one form or another to varying degrees, so why the opposition to rail.
Because all of passenger rail is subsidezed versus a very small percentage of airline flights. Because for the mosst part people would rather pay to have the freedom of the auto versus being tied to a passenger rail schedule. Because passenger boat operations is but a blip on the radar in this county, and the same could be said for over the road bus operations. HSR outside the northeast, and for the most part passenger rail in general besides commuter, is viewed as pork.
No two people have the same perception of what is pork and what is ham.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
n012944henry6And one of the things that I am saying is that the whole transportation systems has to be revised and integrated and portioned and partitioned and whatever else. Accept that we subsidize all the other forms of transportation and therefore, there should be no reason not to include rail. Please show me where anyone here has argued that passenger rail is NOT subsidezed.
henry6 Why should the country and its population be deprived of one type of transportation but favored with others?
Why should the country and its population be deprived of one type of transportation but favored with others?
I will be looking for your posts on boatnerd.com about highspeed ferries that need to be brought run from Milwaukee WI to Michigan City IN.
henry6 In Europe private enterprise operates airports and water ports, but all you guys spout is the socialistic way they run thier railroads! Get real!
And that seems to be a growing trend in the U.S. as well. Midway airport in Chicago is leased out to the private sector. The Chicago Skyway and Indiana Tollroad are leased out, and I am sure that there are others.
henry6In Europe private enterprise operates airports and water ports, but all you guys spout is the socialistic way they run thier railroads!
In fact, European rail is becoming even less socialized than before. For example, DB AG is the company that operates most of the rail transportation in Germany and through subsidiaries in other European countries. Since its inception in 1994 as a stock corporation (with all the stock held by the government), it has run under a business model.
It clearly is turning a nice profit. Later this year or early next, it will have an IPO.
"Peter Ramsauer, Germany's transport minister said that the timing of a partial privatization of Deutsche Bahn AG would depend on a capital market recovery. He added that an initial public offering would depend on “how the situation on the capital markets looks.” He added that any privatization must be partial, with certain assets kept under government ownership. He also said, “The network and infrastructure must stay permanently in the hands of the state.”" (Business Week, 11/11/2009)
Perhaps that sort of an arrangement, with some modifications, could work for Amtrak here.
Here is a link to financial figures for 2007:
aegrotatio I really think we should reject the whole "Nixon-conspired-to-fail-Amtrak" theory.History doesn't add this up. I sure would like to know how they were able to immediately purchase Turboliners and continue the Metroliner if that were really true. And the E-series electrics, and AEM-7, and Amfleet series one and two, and Viewliner, and Superliner. Oh, and while I'm at it, allowing a pro-passenger-rail firebrand like the great Graham Claytor to run the system at all.I really think this theory should be laid to rest.Amtrak was built on the recognition by the USA that other countries already realized: that passenger rail is subsidized just like all other passenger modes are and should not be allowed to become extinct.
I really think we should reject the whole "Nixon-conspired-to-fail-Amtrak" theory.
History doesn't add this up. I sure would like to know how they were able to immediately purchase Turboliners and continue the Metroliner if that were really true. And the E-series electrics, and AEM-7, and Amfleet series one and two, and Viewliner, and Superliner.
Oh, and while I'm at it, allowing a pro-passenger-rail firebrand like the great Graham Claytor to run the system at all.
I really think this theory should be laid to rest.
Amtrak was built on the recognition by the USA that other countries already realized: that passenger rail is subsidized just like all other passenger modes are and should not be allowed to become extinct.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.