WARNING! Amtrak is Dead.

[Anonymous]

Thats funny stuff, just a bigger version of what is happening to the amtrack lines across the Missouri Sedalia Sub and River Route....course if Amtrak could try and make some money....oh well

[trains61]

Mr. Gunn is not a person to cry wolf. As stated previously in this post, " He is a factual person". In the mean time President Bush operates on business principles," Show me the profit".
However, there are very few transit systems out there that operate solely from the income from the fare box. They mostly all lose money. What needs to be considered is the intangibles such as providing MASS transit and removing cars from the highways, when reliable,speedy and convenient transit is availiable.
On behalf of south central Arizona, Mr Gunns predessesors did`nt make any friends when they decided after the derailment west of Phoenix, On the west Phoenix line, that they would not pay any of the cost to repair and maintain the trackage. UP/SP then said,"O.K. we will just make that line dormant." Now the 6th largest city in the U.S. has no direct Amtrak service. No bus service from the nearest Amtrak station in Maricopa approx. 40 miles from Phoenix. Hence the apathy.
Subsequently people could care less about the plight of Amtrak down here. Its the same story with other rural areas that Amtrak serves or used to serve.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Don

I am pretty sure that Congress had some hand in the labor protection agreements. Recall reading something about it somewhere. (How is that for an authority.) I'll admit I don't remember the details. It is sort of moot now, because it is part of the contract, and I don't think it is possible for Amtrak to unilaterally back out of the deal, so long as it is a continuing operation. Fat chance that the unions would even let that item get on the table.

It is unfortunate, but the business world is full of managers who either cannot or will not provide employees with the resources necessary to get a job done. These managers will use words like "It's your job, I don't care how you do it, just get it done." If not direct, it is implied that a career or employment is on the line. Dave Gunn has never done ego trips and he is not doing one now. As has been mentioned before, Gunn had to be talked into coming out of retirement to take the Amtrak job and there is no way any threats of career or employment conditions could cause him any concern. Like the news or not, Gunn is merely stating what has to happen at the point when there is no longer sufficient ca***o continue operations.

If you look carefully, you will see that Gunn is not saying that he will shut down Amtrak if government funds are not budgeted or for that matter if the second step, the appropriation of funds (the actual authority to distribute the funds) fails. What he is saying is that when Amtrak's cash reaches a certain level, it will not be able to continue operations. It should be noted that Gunn probably does not have the authority to shut down Amtrak. That kind of authority rest with the Amtrak Board of Directors and of the board members, Gunn is the only director that was not appointed by the President Bush.

If Congress had a hand in the labor protection in the labor agreement, then shame on them if they use bankruptcy as an "end-run" on the deal they helped create!

I think Gunn COULD shut down the system in an orderly fashion if the money ran out - without the board's approval. He does have direct charge of protecting the company's assets. The board could demand otherwise, but without any change in direction from above, it is clear Gunn will run everything or nothing.

Although, I think that Gunn is a supporter of the LD trains in general, I don't think he lets his business decisions for Amtrak be driven to any real extent by his personal beliefs. They may have motivated him to take the job, but that's about the end of it.

Someday, when he retires again, we may hear from him directly, but now all we can do is guess at it.

[Modelcar]

Brian: Don't know how you can think of Mr. Gunn as operating in such a matter....I'm sure you have read articles of his career and history of rail management qualities as I have, etc....and I haven't been informed through that means of any trait as you seem to be laying on him. Why can't the facts speak for themselves....There is so much evidence sitting around such as viewliner, and other passenger cars dormant at locations like Beechgrove..{repair facility here in Indiana}, needing repair or refurbishing so they can be put back into operation and hence be able to furnish make up cars for routes now not having cars to do so...and the list goes on....The funds are not available to the Amtrak system to do these repairs and now the President wants to cut the funds to "0".....How can we expect the system to continue at all....! I've just touched on pieces of perhaps what needs done to continue to run a viable system....And as you state above "always complaints about never getting enough"....Well, is "none" enough....Come on lets get real....
We both know rail transportation is not favorved by the President and I think we both know he is strong minded and I believe we both realize the time has come...{in his mind}, he is going to end it...And perhaps he will get it done this time.

[bbrant]

I still see the "shutdown" as a scare technique being used by David Gunn to get Federal funding. As for the uneveness...I don't see it that way. Anytime money is given out, there are always complaints about never getting enough. I'm sure those in the other parts of the transportation system are crying the blues too. Which leads me to my earlier question, when will any transportation system ever be fully funded?

[Modelcar]

...No, I see no compromise between Mr. Gunn and ANY authority no matter who it will be....For several reasons stated above Mr. Gunn will when the point is reached that he can not send out trains to transport passengers that he feels can operate safely, that is the conditions under his control....are still operating...he will at that time begin to organize the orderly shut down and storage of all the equipment and that will be it ...unless or until conditions change to provide that safety that the system can operate. And of course that is just one aspect of it. And I'm sure we all understand that so no use to beat through that again. If it continues to go as it is now....Mr. Gunn will shut it down for many of the reasons several of us are stating here...
Mr. Gunn has no career to protect...That's already been indicated above...He was practically dragged out of retirement and perhaps at times wonders why he is where he is fighting such non winnable battles.
Brian, as for the 4 dollars....I've stated my thoughts on that above but on the other side, since I've retired I rarely use any airline and if we could have the amount that figure might be out of my income in tax....It probably would be many times that of Amtrak. That really doesn't bother me much, it's the uneveness we {our leaders}, apply these monies to in our transportation systems.

[jeaton]

Don

I am pretty sure that Congress had some hand in the labor protection agreements. Recall reading something about it somewhere. (How is that for an authority.) I'll admit I don't remember the details. It is sort of moot now, because it is part of the contract, and I don't think it is possible for Amtrak to unilaterally back out of the deal, so long as it is a continuing operation. Fat chance that the unions would even let that item get on the table.

It is unfortunate, but the business world is full of managers who either cannot or will not provide employees with the resources necessary to get a job done. These managers will use words like "It's your job, I don't care how you do it, just get it done." If not direct, it is implied that a career or employment is on the line. Dave Gunn has never done ego trips and he is not doing one now. As has been mentioned before, Gunn had to be talked into coming out of retirement to take the Amtrak job and there is no way any threats of career or employment conditions could cause him any concern. Like the news or not, Gunn is merely stating what has to happen at the point when there is no longer sufficient ca***o continue operations.

If you look carefully, you will see that Gunn is not saying that he will shut down Amtrak if government funds are not budgeted or for that matter if the second step, the appropriation of funds (the actual authority to distribute the funds) fails. What he is saying is that when Amtrak's cash reaches a certain level, it will not be able to continue operations. It should be noted that Gunn probably does not have the authority to shut down Amtrak. That kind of authority rest with the Amtrak Board of Directors and of the board members, Gunn is the only director that was not appointed by the President Bush.

[bbrant]

Quentin -

I still don't see that President Bush wants to put Amtrak out of business. It would be political and economic suicide. I still say he wants to see Amtrak survive without as much funding from the government and more from the private sector. Personally, I support that. $4 may not seem like a lot but if I can keep it, I'm keeping it.

I could be wrong but the way I see it, right now David Gunn and Pres. Bush are in a starring contest to see who will blink first. Gunn says he'll shut down and Bush is saying no funding. I have every confidence that the two will compromise and this will be over.

[oltmannd]

Here are a couple of observations:

1. Amtrak had a pretty good RR manager at the top for while. Remember Graham Claytor? Gunn is very similar to him. Between them we had Downs and Warrington - who were just terrible (as hindsight shows). Downs did that "yield mgt" scheme to try to improve the economic perf. of the LD trains. It just made it worse! Warrington just kept saying what Congress wanted to hear about a "glide slope", just to survive another year. In retrospect - a huge blunder.

2. Amtrak has a "poison pill" labor deal. You can't just scale back the system - you wind up paying a bunch of folks for not working - the same as if they were working - and have no revenue. Someone posted that Congress forced this deal on Amtrak. I don't remember it that way. I thought it was a clever managment protection scheme - Amtrak's mgt bought in with hardly a whimper. But, I've been wrong before.

So, it isn't that Gunn is acting on a personal level - he is very professional and always has been. The "all or nothing" doesn't appear to be based on feels, just facts.

[Modelcar]

...Brian: If Amtrak wouldn't have found such an experienced transit and railway person some years ago when he was then installed as president we'd probably be seeing the last remnants of Amtrak being hauled into the Junk yard by now...
If we want to retain passenger rail service...you and I believe all of us know it costs money to perform that service....just like it costs money to do anything else so to retain the level of service we have or better yet had a year or so ago, before the last train off's....it requires what Mr. Gunn has requested or the trains don't run...I believe it's just as simple as that....We pay or they don't run. The price of 4 dollars or so a tax payer isn't too bad, even for a retiree like me, so it's a matter whether our administration is going to hold to it's word of {no funding}, or fund as requested....We either stop the trains or pay and allow to run them. I believe If Pres. Bush has his way, they will stop....And if that is the case, {I will say it again}, stop them all...!
All this transportation business costs money....Just today in a national article in the paper relates how the airline business {now}, is awash in red ink...!

[bbrant]

Then at what point will Amtrak be fully funded? Give them X amount now and they'll still come back again saying they couldn't operate due to a lack of funding. I said it before and I said it again, at some point you have to take the training wheels off the bike.

[Modelcar]

....In my opinion, Mr. Gunn has ALREADY found the only way to keep it going and has implemented it....We're looking at it in the daily operations. Any reduced funding than what is keeping the system going as we now have it....will simply be the word to stop operations because for many reasons {some included above in Dave's post}, and it won't be because Mr. Gunn wants to act like "a little kid"....It simply will be reality...!

[Anonymous]

I have read nothing on this news item, but wouldn't the government help these guys out the way they help the airlines when they're in trouble?

[bbrant]

Where there's a will there's a way. If Mr. Gunn wants to keep Amtrak going, he can and will find a way. I'm also certain that President Bush is very aware of the economic ramifications of a full Amtrak shutdown. This is why it won't happen.

[daveklepper]

O do not agree at all. When Amtrak lays off people, it is responsible for severance pay . So reducing the number of trains and routes does not save much money if any. Not right away. And David Gunn is not about to compromise safety. So he is forced to do exactly what he says he will. It isn't his choice, it would be the circumstances.

I doubt it will shut down because even President Bush will probably come to see the light, that a significant portion of the American public, inluding the majority who don't have immediate plans to use it, still regard it as an ESSENTIAL service that is probide most ECOMICALLY under the present arrangement.

[bbrant]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....I believe Mr. Gunn said over a year ago if he doesn't have the funds he indicated was needed to run the system safely and properly, less budget money would mean shut down time. He had structured the system about as lean as he could and still run it safely. I believe he was speaking of the complete system.

Sounds like Mr. Gunn is acting like the little kid who will take his ball and go home if the other kids won't play by his rules. There's the problem. If Amtrak shuts down, and I doubt seriously that it will, we'll know why. Not because of the funding but because Gunn said the hell with it.

[Anonymous]

AMEN !!! AMEN !!! Brother Dave, AMEN!!! AMEN!!!
And that is the Truth!

[daveklepper]

Comment: We are not fighting the Iraqi people. We are fighting for the Iraqi people against terrrorists. The Euorpeans seem to have worked out a deal with the terrorists and Hezbolah legally operates businesses in all ECM countries! Thanks to French President Charac.

But the deal is: We will let you raise money and operate business if you direct your terrorism only against Israel . Not against Jews in our country but only against Israel.

Problem is: All the terrorist organizations are connected, all the Arab Fundamentalist organizations, and support for terror against Israel is also support for terror against USA and Briti***roops in Iraq. All are against democracy and for Islamic fundamentalist states. (Not the comparitively mild Islam of Egypt or Turkey or Jordan or Morroco, which allows Christians to build churches.)

And the goal of all these terrorists organizations is an Islam Fundamentalist State, like Saudi Arabia's where Mecca is located.

If there were RELIGIOUS FREEDOM in Saudi Arabia, the sources of terrorism would dry up pretty quickly and our troops could come home, and the PLO could finally make peace with Israel.

And there would be more money for governent aid to raise freight capacity and for passenger and transit services.

That is the truth.

[Modelcar]

....I believe Mr. Gunn said over a year ago if he doesn't have the funds he indicated was needed to run the system safely and properly, less budget money would mean shut down time. He had structured the system about as lean as he could and still run it safely. I believe he was speaking of the complete system.

[Anonymous]

I've heard rumors here and there over the years that Amtrak was in financial trouble. They use to run through a couple of times a day down here in south Texas where I live back in the early 90s, but it didn't last long due to lack of public interest. If it does finally go belly up, I hope there will at least be some form of passenger rail service to take its place. You would think Union Pacific or BNSF would jump at the chance seeing as how they've swallowed up everything else...

[Anonymous]

I still wonder why some haven't jumped all over the idea about the U.S. shelling out $10 Billion for the Iraqi RR, in the same light "those" are grilling Amtrak. Is that Ok, while letting Amtrak die? And, all of the foreign aid we give to other nations, I say, indirectly supports those foreign railroads. Because, most foreign railroads are subsidized by their gov't. that receives "foreign aid" from the good 'ol USA. Why has it always been we have plenty of $$$ for everyone else outside of our borders, but, not for those inside our borders?? How about more "USA aid" and less "foreign aid"? Plus, I still don't understand all of the negative aspects about Amtrak on a train fan's bulletin board. Why is Amtrak an "evil" mode of transportation, but, it's Ok for the airlines and the highways to receive the biggest chunks of the transportation budget? We have tunnels that date back to the Civil War, catenary poles that were placed in the 1930's, etc. But, then again, I know there are some states who say we don't benefit from Amtrak, so, why should "our" tax dollars go into that? And, as before, I've stated, I'm sure some of my federal tax dollars over the years have been spent in states that in no way Maryland would benefit from. Amtrak wasn't setup to succeed - at least not by what has been granted in the past years, and, what needs to be done now after years and years of postponed repairs. Plus, I don't think anyone on the Pres. Bush's Amtrak committee is pro-Amtrak. The deck is stacked against Amtrak. But, still, I don't want to lose my job, but, if the gov't. feels they want to do away with Amtrak, ok, do it. Let the northeasterners, and, the rail commuters in the other states across the country jump into their cars and take to the highways, burn more gasoline, drive the prices of gas up even more, add to the highway congestion, and make your drive that much longer going to and from work. Either pull this nagging toothache, or, do a little drilling to save the tooth. But, keep in mind, "our" tax dollars will still be going outside of our borders to support foreign railroads, as their riders may say "thank you America".

[bbrant]

I have to agree with skydome in that I can't see Amtrak as completely going away. No matter if you are or aren't in favor of budget cuts, I still can't see a total shutdown of the only national passenger rail system in our country.

[Anonymous]

i find it appalling that the caption says AMTRAK is dead it is not ihave worked for more than thirty years in thr railroad industry and the best way to find out if congress and oue senators and mr.bush is to asked each member of congress hae yo ever taken amtrak in your life ,i would like to here there reply.

[Modelcar]

....Reasonable point. {unprofitable and not uneconomic}.

...And Yes Jay, we needed to keep having those c-rations coming...Ha.

[Anonymous]

Greeting everyone,

I'm new to this forum. I think the point you're missing about susbidizing Amtrak (or other utilities) is that unprofitable does not mean uneconomic. Non-users benefit form rail services to, due to things like reduced road congestion and other amenities. For instance I spend a week a year working on a tourist railway in Scotland. The guy who runs the post office by one of our stations admits that without the trade our railway brings him, he'd go out of business. Thus the village benefits from having the railway.

In the 1980's it was calculated that one of the biggest lost making lines in Britain, The Cambrian Coast line in Mid-Wales was losing £900,000 per year, but the economic benefits it brought to the area were worth about £2.5 million a year. So although unprofitable it was certainly not uneconomic.

[conrailman]

The War just Toped 300 Billion Dollars, last week.

[jeaton]

gvdobler It is obvious that you have enjoyed a reasonably good level of financial success and most likly that has come as a result of your own hard work. Good for you. Using the factors that I have worked out, your share of the Amtrak subsidy would come to about $43 bucks. So maybe I am off and it is $100.00. I know, you have to watch the dollars.

Modlecar I'm with you. My service was about 40 years ago.

Jay

[Modelcar]

....A comment on supplying our troops. I don't want them to go without where ever they are...! The big promise was that "oil" money {plenty of it}, was going to finance all that needed to be done over there...Saddam is gone and we're still there and no end in sight....and still paying billions to be there...with our tax money.
American troops must have supplies of what they need wherever they are...I have a bit of insite on that as I was one of them 50 some years ago way over there....

[Junctionfan]

So for so far am I right to assume that the biggest problem next to lack of funding is too much passenger trains and not enough ridership to support it and its operating costs?

Does a Great Lakes Corridor seem like a good strategy and good direction to follow?

[gvdobler]

The 50 % tax I referred to includes much more than the taxes mentioned. You pay tax built into to many things. Look at your phone bill for the "Gore" tax or federal subscriber tax. If you research it enough, you will find that out of every dollar you make, over 50% goes to a tax of some kind.

The $4.00 per person would be correct if everyone paid the same, but as I mentioned over 80% of taxes are paid by about 20% of tax payers. Stating that $4.00 per person nonsense is a typical tax double talk. The entire population does not pay taxes, only tax payers pay taxes. When we send income tax refunds to people that did not pay any income taxes, guess who pays that bill.

I think that we should adopt a $ 1,000 per vote rule. For every $1,000 you pay in taxes you get 1 vote. That should allow me to counter 50-60 people that want to spend my money. [:D]

I'll let you have the last word, albeit may incorrect.