OIG faulted Amtrak's procurement decisions of rolling stock. Although their reports are basically well informed I believe that many items were ignored although others are correct.
1. Says that ATK only needs 56 electric motors. That would give absolutely no standby power in case of any kind of failures and limit any future expansion.
2. Says that HHP-8s should be rebuilt instead. That ignores the fact that dispatch reliability is much lower and costs 64% more per mile to operate than AEM-7 ACs.. Also this is an orphan design that Bombardier no longer makes and what if there is a future failure on several parts that may not be available. Maybe a better idea is to sell them to MARC which already operates them ? There is an assumption that parts availability is the same as 30 years ago ?
3. disputes that 80 Heritge cars cannot be refurbshed. No mention that 60 ft cars are slow & rough riders. Report ignores fact that Amtrak needs to operate its NEC trains at a maximum of 125 MPH to provide fluidity to NEC. Since equipment is all rotated to Hialeah for servicing the Lakeshore cars all need that higher speed capability.
4. Report states that Amtrak can increase equipment utilization to provide more seats. At 90 % availibility of passenger cars cannot improve that due to the Heritage car availability. Bet my airline would have liked to have a 90+& avaiilability. The electric motor fleet availability is about 79% with almost 1/2 the fleet the HHPs and AEM-7s that are dragging down availability.
5. wants Amtrak to look at bi-levels everywhere. WHAT !
6. Says Amtrak should study eash route for passenger growth and growth will level off in 3 years.. Of course study but all Amtrak projections for the last few years have been low. Does anyone think there will not be continued growth?.
Comments from this reading ?
EDIT: --- Due to an error on my part I posted the wrong link and now the Amtrak report has been removed probably due to some one noting the OIG's errors ?
But now found it in archives : Hope this link works.
http://www.amtrakoig.gov/sites/default/files/reports/oig-e-2013-014.pdf
Sounds like a pinstriped vested milktoast CPA is feeling his oats but knows nothing about railroading, or business, or people. He should order another bowl of oatmeal, then go home.
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.
henry6 Sounds like a pinstriped vested milktoast CPA is feeling his oats but knows nothing about railroading, or business, or people. He should order another bowl of oatmeal, then go home.
I've known several CPA's who were pretty good rugby players.
CSSHEGEWISCH henry6 Sounds like a pinstriped vested milktoast CPA is feeling his oats but knows nothing about railroading, or business, or people. He should order another bowl of oatmeal, then go home. I've known several CPA's who were pretty good rugby players.
But can they run a railroad?
blue streak 15. wants Amtrak to look at bi-levels everywhere. WHAT !
I tried your link but the report on it has been changed. I also surfed around on Amtrak's OIG reports but could not dig it out of the mass of material there. The most recent OIG report emphasizes that Amtrak needs to have better controls to prevent theft by both employees and passengers.
I think Amtrak can rebut the OIG if it believes the IG is mistaken. Certainly point 5 suggests a basic lack of knowledge of Amtrak facilities, particularly of tunnels that will not accommodate Amtrak bi-level cars. To my mind that kind of error casts a shadow over the entire report.
Appologies to all and thanks to John WR to point out my mistake. Puter decided to post another older link.
Note OIG's report did disappear from their regular link but found it in archives.
That's what I get for not proof reading my link ! !
The man who chastised Amtrak for being sensible (should operate bi-level cars everywhere; should refurbish locomotives that are not as reliable as others and cost more to operate than others; etc) should repay whatever he was paid for offering his opinions.
Johnny
Deggesty : I am holding most comments later but will address your comment about bi-levels. Romur has it that NJT bi-levels are not high enough to carry more passengers ?
1. It is obvious OIG knows something we do not know. Maybe complete construction in 3 - 5 years.
2. New B & P tunnels ?
3. Raise all clearances in the intermediate stations removing all the side clearance problems.?
4. Upgrade and raise all the CAT WASH - NYP
5. Build new Portal bridge.
6. Build Gatewqay tunnels to clearances
7. NYP expansion with higher clearances
8. New East river tunnels
9. Raise CAT in Sunnyside
10. Raise CAT on Hell Gate and NYNH&H line to NH
11. Raise CAT is necessary at South Station ? or anywhere needed on shore line ?
12. So where is the money -that the OIG knows about ?
Asset Management: Integrating Sound Business Practices into its Fleet Planning Process Could Save Amtrak Hundreds of Millions of Dollars on Equipment Procurements, OIG-E-2013-014, dated May 28, 2013, presumably is the report being cited.
The report was completed by a team from Inspections and Evaluations. It is one of three functional organizations reporting to the Inspector General. The other two are audits and investigations.
"The Office of Inspections and Evaluations (I&E) conducts targeted inspections and evaluations of Amtrak programs and operations to identify opportunities to improve cost efficiency and effectiveness, and the overall quality of service delivery throughout Amtrak." In other words, it performs operational audits as opposed to financial audits. The Inspections and Evaluations group is directed by Calvin Evans.
Typically groups whose primary mission is operational audits or inspections are staffed by persons with a variety of disciplines, i.e. engineering, IT, economics, finance, operations research, statistics, etc. It may have a CPA or two on the staff, but they are more likely to be found in the audit group. I am curious, however, as to the make-up of the staff and, therefore, I have submitted a request to Amtrak for information on the education and experience of the members of the team that performed the inspection and wrote the aforesaid report.
I have skimmed the report. I plan to read it more thoroughly over the next week or so. I ran a search on multi-level passengers cars to see what the report said. I could only find two references regarding multi-level passenger cars. A search for bi-level passengers cars did not produce any results in the report, although it may have been mentioned in Boardman's response.
The first reference to multi-level passenger cars is found on Page 4 of the report: "Amtrak has not adequately analyzed options to refurbish or repurpose existing equipment rather than buying new equipment, or to incorporate more efficient equipment types into its fleet, such as multi-level passenger cars."
Appendix II, which references prior recommendations to improve Amtrak's fleet planning process, contains this reference to multi-level passenger cars: "Multi-level Passenger Cars. Ensure that future strategy updates consider increasing the use of multi-level passenger coaches wherever practical and feasible."
I did not find any OIG recommendation that Amtrak only use multi-level passenger cars.
Thanks for the report, Streak.
The first thing I noticed is that it is very recent: May 28. I an inclined to give Amtrak a chance to read it and see if they agree with all of its points or wish to rebut some.
John
John WR Thanks for the report, Streak. The first thing I noticed is that it is very recent: May 28. I an inclined to give Amtrak a chance to read it and see if they agree with all of its points or wish to rebut some. John
As pointed out in the methodology, as well as Boardman's response, which probably was put together by his staff, Amtrak has responded to the OIG's recommendations.
I was an Audit Director for a Fortune 250 corporation and the chief auditor for its Australian subsidiary. I managed audit, inspection, and investigation functions just like those performed by Amtrak's OIG.
As is true for OIG, as well as every audit function that I know of, auditors give management an opportunity to review an audit, inspection, etc. report in draft before issuing it. If management has a different view from the auditors, its views may be incorporated in the audit report or appended to it.
If management can show the auditors that they are wrong in fact, conclusions, or recommendations, the auditors will change their findings and recommendations. Equally important, if management has a contrary view, it is free to express their differing point of view. If the auditors issue a report without giving management an opportunity to review and comment on it, they will not be auditors for very long, at least not in the world that I know of.
OK Sam. Appendix III, Amtrak's rebuttal, is difficult for me to read because the typeface does not reproduce clearly on my computer.
I did notice that Amtrak points out that right now it is undergoing change and it does not know where it is with the change because Congress has not yet acted on its proposed 5 year plan. That makes the OIG report of limited relevance.
I looked at the locomotive section. Amtrak says it needs to order 70. OIG says 56 is enough to operated with. In rebuttal Amtrak first notes that it lost 7 locomotives to fires and other accidents in several years and must plan for that contingency. Similar looses would leave it will a fleet of 62, 6 more than OIG recommends. However, it also faced a situation a few years back where all Acelas had to be removed from service. That could happen again and that is the reason it believes it needs the extra 6 locomotives in reserve. That seems to me to be a reasonable rebuttal.
Not sure why some folks made claims that the report recommended adopting all multi-level cars, when it clearly says in appendix 2:
2. Multi-level Passenger Cars. Ensure that future strategy updates consider increasing the use of multi-level passenger coaches wherever practical and feasible.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Granted the OIG's report just touched on the single levvel purchase. This latest purchase of the Viewliner-2s is only for routes ;that go on the NEC. The exception is the bagage cars which no one would contemplate getting bilevel baggage cars for the western trains.
The midwest purchase grooup's buy of bilevels is going to supplement their routes some which only or partially use older single level cars at present. Amtrak had only approval of those cars & not any money .
I would like someone to take the time to cost out these new bi-levels and single levels as to cost per seat, Also cost per pound of weight ,to determine which car costs more to operate behind a locomotive. The midwest group picked bi-levels which definetely save money on platform length per seat and storage at various facilities per seat..
My own reading of the OIG's report seemed to call into question this purchase of Viewliner-2s. But nowhere do we see any of them being used except on present single level only routes
.
A complete reading of the report before posting brought up my Bi-level posts. In the report about halfway down is Appendix III. It is a reply from the President and Chief executive officer of Amtrak ( Joe Boardman ). in the appendix it is stated that Amtrak consulted the OIG closely on the report contents.
Appx III on page 11 - 13 Bi-levels on the NEC are addressed stating that bi-levels are an issue. Issues were aisle width, high center of gravity, maximum unbalance ( FRA requirement that limits speeds around curves ) , passenger capacity, Bathrooms, luggage, & an iimportant one dwell time. I suspect unloading a bi-level would take more time than a single level. Some of these concers will certqaainly slow down the train trip times.
So with Boardman consulting with the OIG and stating concerns about bi-levels on the NEC then we certainly can. One additional concer not stated is that a NEC bi-level would have to be an entirely different design than the new California cars. There are different height restrictions, width restrictions near top, high level boarding vs low level, an even narrower staircase, etc.
Again, it's those Round The Christmas Railroaders who think because of that they can operate Amtrak and Union Pacific and BNSR and CSX and NS and all the others, too
Had you carefully read the report, you would have seen that the critique is Amtrak's lack of cost benefit analysis as well as a failure to do proper market research and match up equipment needs with those markets served, present and future.
Unfortunately, the OIG report confirms some of my worst fears about Amtrak, but gives a few glimmers of hope, too. More tomorrow!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
schlimm tthe critique is Amtrak's lack of cost benefit analysis as well as a failure to do proper market research and match up equipment needs with those markets served, present and future.
tthe critique is Amtrak's lack of cost benefit analysis as well as a failure to do proper market research and match up equipment needs with those markets served, present and future.
1. Metroliners were projected higher than first happened..
2. LD projected higher & with the cancellation of the National, Desert Wind, Pioneer by Pres Carter dropped LD traffic even farther.
3. Before HEP conversions ATK could not carry Florida winter trafficvdue to lack of reliable equipment so cancelled winter specials.
For whatever reasons now the projections given appear to be understated except for the LD routes ?
4. Alll three of Va's short distance routes are way above projections Is that due to local advertizing ? The downeasters have had good growth and above projection except this May due to many trip cancellations because of maintenance of a bridge.
5. remember when the Keystone trains carried only 22 - 25 k per month and were not projected to go much higher and now are over 100 k per month.
6. A long Distance route that has blossomed is the Eagle which was almost slated for cancellation before local marketing.
7. Of course there are duds such as the Heartland which is below projections.
8. California is somewhat flat right now except the expansion of San Joaquin service this month.
All this has make wonder how much a proper market research coupled to a marketing plan might increase ridership exponentially ? The short distance routes that have beaten projections apppear to benefit from local advertizing . Posters along each of these routes can give us a better idea of how much advertizing is promoting these routes ? Phoebee how much promoting of Piedmonts and Carolinian are done around CLT ?
I have not stayed in the many hubs in a few years so what is the amount of advertizing at BOS, NYC, PHL, WASH, CHI, LAX, SFO, SEA? If so are they promoting both short distance and long distance travel on Amtrak ? My only trips to Florida have never noted any ads for Amtrak and here in ATL nonel. The occasional sell outs of the Crescent probably preclude any advertizing for it ?
Again projections and marketing are tied together in lockstep.
Amtrak's presence in advertising in Chicago seems minimal, at least on TV, in my experience.
If I were a member of Amtrak's Board of Directors, I would be concerned about two findings that the OIG's report references several times:
Amtrak has not used robust analytical tools to determine its asset (equipment) needs and, furthermore, to the extent that it has determined its needs, they have not been tied closely to the company's strategic business plans.
Amtrak apparently ignored previous recommendations from the OIG and others.
Boardman largely agrees with the OIG's findings and recommendations, although he differs on some of the specifics.
The OIG's methodologies appear to be sound. If they were not, given the tone of the report, management would have pushed back much harder.
It will be interesting to see whether management takes on the OIG's recommendations.
Boardman appears to know that Amtrak must change its business practices if it is to become a more efficient and effective organization. Or at least he says the right things. Partnering with the California High Speed Rail Project on new high speed train sets based on performance as opposed to design is a positive sign. Also, the implementation of Six Sigma processes is encouraging. A key question, of course, is why it has taken to now to implement these processes. Modern competitive business organizations of the same size as Amtrak implemented them decades ago. Politics, however, makes his job very difficult.
Here's one thing I noticed.
There is no plan for the use of the new sleepers. This is not to say they won't be used, just that Amtrak has no plan to deploy them nor any idea what the revenue yield will be. Many of us have wondered what Amtrak's plans for this equipment were/are. Now we know why we don't know. There is no plan.
I infer from this that Amtrak is still operating under the old RR culture of "the boss just knows" as opposed to the new culture of OR/simulation tools and data driven decision making.
The good news is it appears Amtrak is going to try the "new" way. I hope the "bosses who just know" don't try to torpedo the effort.
The second thing I noticed was the lack of ridership projections by route. I told you Amtrak wasn't using any census data!
The third thing I noticed was the total disconnect in logic for replacing ALL of the older electrics with new while assuming the availability for the new won't be any different from the old. This is a classic case of getting new for new's sake! If the new aren't better than the old, then why buy new at all? If they are better (and you can get a pretty good idea from the current users of this common power), you can factor that into the fleet demand model (they do have a fleet demand model, I hope - at least on a spreadsheet...)
The fourth thing I noticed was the idea of using new locomotives for spares and protection. No class one freight RR would EVER think of doing this. That's what the older locomotives are for! Protection/spares don't have to be world-beaters, they just have work. Don't trust them? Pair them up! You can never justify the ownership cost for new locomotives for this service. Remember, the AEM7's cousins of the same age are still going strong in freight service over in Sweden. Why wouldn't Amtrak keep the AEM7ACs for protection?
The fifth thing I noticed is that Boardman pretty much agrees with the OIG's finding. Is he using the OIG's office to start culture change at Amtrak. That would be a strange way of going about it. But, I'll take strange over none, any day!
blue streak 1 Phoebee how much promoting of Piedmonts and Carolinian are done around CLT ?
He can tell us about radio and TV, I hope, but I do know that up and down I-85 and I-40 in NC there are highway signs promoting NC train service along with the phone number (1-800- bytrain, or something like that, I think) that you can call for info.
blue streak 1 A complete reading of the report before posting brought up my Bi-level posts. In the report about halfway down is Appendix III. It is a reply from the President and Chief executive officer of Amtrak ( Joe Boardman ). in the appendix it is stated that Amtrak consulted the OIG closely on the report contents. Appx III on page 11 - 13 Bi-levels on the NEC are addressed stating that bi-levels are an issue. Issues were aisle width, high center of gravity, maximum unbalance ( FRA requirement that limits speeds around curves ) , passenger capacity, Bathrooms, luggage, & an iimportant one dwell time. I suspect unloading a bi-level would take more time than a single level. Some of these concers will certqaainly slow down the train trip times. So with Boardman consulting with the OIG and stating concerns about bi-levels on the NEC then we certainly can. One additional concer not stated is that a NEC bi-level would have to be an entirely different design than the new California cars. There are different height restrictions, width restrictions near top, high level boarding vs low level, an even narrower staircase, etc.
For the life of me, I don't understand why Amtrak doesn't jump into bilevels on the NEC in a huge way.
The single biggest issue on the NEC is capacity into, at, and out of NYP.
Bilevels would delay the capacity crunch. The NJT cars with ADA restrooms have 141 seats. The seating is 2+2 and the pitch is decent. Even if you stretched things out a bit and dropped the seating to 100, that's still 30% more than Amfleet. That's huge enough to require some creative thinking about luggage racks, etc.
The operating cost per car should be nearly the same as Amfleet - there is no extra complexity. Same operating costs + more revenue per car + delayed capital improvement for NYP - slightly higher capital cost for equipment = WIN!
FWIW, if the boarding/detraining is sufficiently fast for commuter service, it ought to be good enough for Amtrak. My experience with the NJT bilevels makes me think they'd do faster station stops than Amfleet. The doors are wider and there is no end vestibule door to squeeze thru with you luggage.
(edit: There ARE end vesitbules, but you don't have to use them at high level platforms)
But gee whiz Don, that's way too creative for the folks at Amtrak! Much easier to just keep doing stuff the same old way.
schlimm But gee whiz Don, that's way too creative for the folks at Amtrak! Much easier to just keep doing stuff the same old way.
And I think the LIRR should order bilevel mu's.
"A long Distance route that has blossomed is the Eagle which was almost slated for cancellation before local marketing."
In FY12 the Texas Eagle's ridership increased by 12.8 per cent. Revenues increased 7.5 per cent. Sleeping car ridership increased 8.0 per cent and sleeping car revenues increased 5.2 per cent. One possible explanation for the variance between the increase in ridership and the increase in revenues is that the Eagle is not harvesting as much revenue as the market could bear.
In FY12 the Eagle lost $34.5 million or 18.1 cents per passenger mile before depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges. In FY11 the losses were $30.1 million and 16.9 cents per passenger mile.
I find it difficult to reconcile the Eajgle's marketing successes with its deepening financial losses.
Sam1 "A long Distance route that has blossomed is the Eagle which was almost slated for cancellation before local marketing." In FY12 the Texas Eagle's ridership increased by 12.8 per cent. Revenues increased 7.5 per cent. Sleeping car ridership increased 8.0 per cent and sleeping car revenues increased 5.2 per cent. One possible explanation for the variance between the increase in ridership and the increase in revenues is that the Eagle is not harvesting as much revenue as the market could bear. In FY12 the Eagle lost $34.5 million or 18.1 cents per passenger mile before depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges. In FY11 the losses were $30.1 million and 16.9 cents per passenger mile. I find it difficult to reconcile the Eajgle's marketing successes with its deepening financial losses.
oltmanndFor the life of me, I don't understand why Amtrak doesn't jump into bilevels on the NEC in a huge way.
New Jersey Transit multilevel cars (as NJT calls them) are very comfortable. I do prefer Amtrak's reclining seats but I don't see why such seats could not be installed. NJT's cars do have very limited luggage space; however there could be ways to deal with that. NJT cars have a sort of very large vestibule with seats, some room for bicycles and two doors at each end. That space might be reconfigured for storing large pieces of luggage and have just one door at each end. Present Amfleet cars* have only 1 door per car. The big thing is that NJT had these cars specially constructed to fit in the tunnels; Amtrak might use the same outside dimensions. The certainly could operated on Amtrak's Northeast Regional Service.
*I refer to the Amfleet cars I ride on Northeast Regional Service. I understand these are Amfleet II cars. Older Amfleet I cars have a door at each end.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.