Order some new high speed trains for the NEC.
Wallpaper from the Alstom website:
A) Wash the trains every night.
B) Try desparately to catch up to the rest of the civilized world in rail service.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
1) Reevaluate the ratio between Roomettes and full Bedrooms in the Sleeping Cars. The times I've used the Sleeping Car service, the Bedrooms were always full but there seemed to be several empty Roomettes. As I understand it, the Superliners were designed modularly (sp?) so conversion of one type of space to the other should be at least possible at reasonable cost. Not sure if this applies to the Viewliners. A Bedroom occupies about twice the floor space of a Roomette, but the fare premium is about twice that, so the income difference would be a wash, if all accomodations were filled. If you can fill more of one type than the other, you should have more of them.
2) To refine a suggestion above: offer a "larger than Bedroom" type room, of course at a higher fee, for the people that want more of a Stateroom type accomodation. It could replace two Bedrooms, but be more open than just using the door between two rooms, as configured now.
TomDiehl wrote: 1) Reevaluate the ratio between Roomettes and full Bedrooms in the Sleeping Cars. The times I've used the Sleeping Car service, the Bedrooms were always full but there seemed to be several empty Roomettes. As I understand it, the Superliners were designed modularly (sp?) so conversion of one type of space to the other should be at least possible at reasonable cost. Not sure if this applies to the Viewliners. A Bedroom occupies about twice the floor space of a Roomette, but the fare premium is about twice that, so the income difference would be a wash, if all accomodations were filled. If you can fill more of one type than the other, you should have more of them.2) To refine a suggestion above: offer a "larger than Bedroom" type room, of course at a higher fee, for the people that want more of a Stateroom type accomodation. It could replace two Bedrooms, but be more open than just using the door between two rooms, as configured now.
This is work for a grunt or two in marketing, not the president.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd wrote: TomDiehl wrote: 1) Reevaluate the ratio between Roomettes and full Bedrooms in the Sleeping Cars. The times I've used the Sleeping Car service, the Bedrooms were always full but there seemed to be several empty Roomettes. As I understand it, the Superliners were designed modularly (sp?) so conversion of one type of space to the other should be at least possible at reasonable cost. Not sure if this applies to the Viewliners. A Bedroom occupies about twice the floor space of a Roomette, but the fare premium is about twice that, so the income difference would be a wash, if all accomodations were filled. If you can fill more of one type than the other, you should have more of them.2) To refine a suggestion above: offer a "larger than Bedroom" type room, of course at a higher fee, for the people that want more of a Stateroom type accomodation. It could replace two Bedrooms, but be more open than just using the door between two rooms, as configured now.This is work for a grunt or two in marketing, not the president.
Nobody in Marketing is going to take the initiative if the boss doesn't care. New leadership needs to direct the "grunts" what needs to be done and show that there will be support from the upper levels if the initiative is taken.
TomDiehl wrote: oltmannd wrote: TomDiehl wrote: 1) Reevaluate the ratio between Roomettes and full Bedrooms in the Sleeping Cars. The times I've used the Sleeping Car service, the Bedrooms were always full but there seemed to be several empty Roomettes. As I understand it, the Superliners were designed modularly (sp?) so conversion of one type of space to the other should be at least possible at reasonable cost. Not sure if this applies to the Viewliners. A Bedroom occupies about twice the floor space of a Roomette, but the fare premium is about twice that, so the income difference would be a wash, if all accomodations were filled. If you can fill more of one type than the other, you should have more of them.2) To refine a suggestion above: offer a "larger than Bedroom" type room, of course at a higher fee, for the people that want more of a Stateroom type accomodation. It could replace two Bedrooms, but be more open than just using the door between two rooms, as configured now.This is work for a grunt or two in marketing, not the president. Nobody in Marketing is going to take the initiative if the boss doesn't care. New leadership needs to direct the "grunts" what needs to be done and show that there will be support from the upper levels if the initiative is taken.
So, your sole idea for improving Amtrak is "adjust the sleeper rates"? Everything else is just perfect?
Micromanaging is just about the fastest way to kill initiative in the work force. Leadership is not about micromanaging.
Any company where initiative only exists at the top is doomed. If ideas don't continuously bubble up from the bottom, your company's dead.
Sawyer Berry
Clemson University c/o 2018
Building a protolanced industrial park layout
While I would love that, the simple fact is that Amtrak was created because the railroads of America no longer WANT to provide passenger service.
Freight is much more profitable, and passenger service just interferes with their freight schedules.
The comment regarding the establishment of an organization in which new (and hopefully) good ideas bubble up from below is a good one.
Additionally, talking the Administration and Congress into getting away from the annual budget cycle should be a high priority. For one reason, the one year at a time process prohibits the orderly procurement of new equipment, both to service existing routes and establish new ones.
What's the question again? If you were the "head of Amtrak" (I presume you mean the position of President of that company), what would I do...?
The "head of Amtrak" has no power. Doesn't matter who has the job; the federal government and the chairman of the Amtrak Board would work against the president of the company. We've seen this in action already.The public already rides. The solution is as plain as the nose on Cyrano de Bergerac's face: more and faster trains. That takes capital investment. However, this country is socialistic with highways and Libertarian with railroads.
oltmannd wrote: TomDiehl wrote: oltmannd wrote: TomDiehl wrote: 1) Reevaluate the ratio between Roomettes and full Bedrooms in the Sleeping Cars. The times I've used the Sleeping Car service, the Bedrooms were always full but there seemed to be several empty Roomettes. As I understand it, the Superliners were designed modularly (sp?) so conversion of one type of space to the other should be at least possible at reasonable cost. Not sure if this applies to the Viewliners. A Bedroom occupies about twice the floor space of a Roomette, but the fare premium is about twice that, so the income difference would be a wash, if all accomodations were filled. If you can fill more of one type than the other, you should have more of them.2) To refine a suggestion above: offer a "larger than Bedroom" type room, of course at a higher fee, for the people that want more of a Stateroom type accomodation. It could replace two Bedrooms, but be more open than just using the door between two rooms, as configured now.This is work for a grunt or two in marketing, not the president. Nobody in Marketing is going to take the initiative if the boss doesn't care. New leadership needs to direct the "grunts" what needs to be done and show that there will be support from the upper levels if the initiative is taken.So, your sole idea for improving Amtrak is "adjust the sleeper rates"? Everything else is just perfect?Micromanaging is just about the fastest way to kill initiative in the work force. Leadership is not about micromanaging.Any company where initiative only exists at the top is doomed. If ideas don't continuously bubble up from the bottom, your company's dead.
Management has to start somewhere to initiate inovation and to assure the subordinates that suggestions for change would be at least considered by the people making the final decision. Especially in an industry where the amount of money they have to work with can't be predicted for years in advance, the "ball needs to get rolling" from the top, which can only be considered micromanagement if they keep doing it.
Leadership is about setting the example for the workforce, giving them the tools to do the job, and supporting them when they do it. They may even take the radical step to allow the decisions to be made at a lower level.
The first thing that I would do as the president of Amtrak is order to top to bottom review of the organization. I would assess the capabilities and commitments of the management team. Anyone who is not a good fit would be fired. Then I would look at the layers of management and assess how each one contributed to the achievement of the organization's goals. Experience tells me that I would find plenty of opportunities to flatten the organization by eliminating redundant layers of management. Lastly, I would go far and wide to find the best persons to make up my executive and management team.
Once my executive team was in place, we would define the core purpose of the business. A variety of resources, e.g. consultants, employees, customers, etc. would be tapped to help achieve this objective. When the purpose is defined, it would be communicated to all the stakeholders. Next, we would assess each business process to be sure it was aligned with the core purpose. If it did not make any sense, we would eliminate it. We would also make sure that the organization had the right mix of managers and key personnel to achieve its objectives. All existing personnel would be required to reapply for their job. Most would probably be successful; some would not make the cut.
In conjunction with the review of the organization's business processes, the management team would assess whether any of them should be out sourced. Everything outside of the core business processes (operations, marketing, public relations, strategic planning, financial management, internal audit, and governmental affairs) would be on the table. Several processes that come to mind for outsourcing (contracting) include maintenance, Information Technology, back office operations (HR, Accounting, Finance, etc.), inventory management, etc. Outsourcing, if it is done correctly, can produce synergies that generate improved results and significant savings for the business.
I would direct my legislative affairs team to lobby the federal and state governments to support a balanced transportation policy. Hopefully, such a policy would recognize that air travel is the best option for long distance travel; rapid rail can be advantageous in short to medium high density corridors; rail, rapid bus technology, and HOV lanes for multiple occupancy personal vehicles work best for commuting in metropolitan areas; intercity buses and personal vehicles are the best option for rural areas.
I would urge the federal and state governments to support rapid rail corridors where they make sense. Ultimately the states through which the corridor runs should pay most of the required subsidies, although hopefully all subsidies, as per the next paragraph, could be eliminated in time.
In conjunction with the rapid rail initiative, I would urge the federal and state governments to stop subsidizing all modes of transport, thereby requiring the users to pay directly the cost of their mode of choice. For example, in addition to the normal costs embedded in the price of gasoline, it would bear the proportional costs of keeping the Middle East oil sea lanes open, repairing the environmental damage done by fossil fuel vehicles; and treating those with heath problems generated by said vehicles. It would also include the cost of all roads, including county roads and city streets, which for the most part are paid for with bond funds or property taxes. This would probably drive the price of gasoline north of $5.00 a gallon, which would enable trains in high density corridors to compete.
I would recommend the discontinuance of Amtrak's long distance trains. They generate 23.2 per cent of Amtrak's ticket revenues, but they account for 142 per cent of the operating expenses before interest and depreciation or 47 per cent of the federal subsidy to Amtrak. The long distance passenger train is used by a tiny percentage of the traveling public. It does not meet a vital social and economic need. No rational business person would continue to offer a product line or service that generates these kinds of numbers. The savings, which would add up to billions of dollars over several decades, could be used to enhance existing corridors and establish new ones.
I would recommend that the states or private operators be permitted to operate long distance trains if they pay for them. If California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Louisiana want to run a train from Los Angles to New Orleans, they should be permitted to do so. If a private operator wants to run a scenic train from Denver to Salt Lake City, it should be able to do so. If the states or a private operator want to run the train every day or one day a week, it would be their call. I would allow them to use Amtrak's reservation system to manage bookings. And I would sell them the long distance equipment if they wanted it.
Assuming the Congress, as well as other interest groups supported my initiatives; I would recommend that Amtrak begin a program of equipment renewal. The emphasis would be on bi-directional equipment based on a standard design. Most trains would consist of coach, business class, and food service cars. One or two models based on a standard design would reduce operating, maintenance, inventory and training costs. This concept is followed by Southwest Airlines, which only flies Boeing 737s, thereby helping it be one of the most successful air carriers in the world.
My business plan would spark a chorus of objections. Leading the parade would be NARP and a variety of rail enthusiasts. I would listen to them, but at the end of the day they would know that they are not accountable for the outcomes. They are like fans at a sporting event. Most of them cheer or boo loudly but have little idea what it is like to play the game.
The traveling public holds the trump card. If they are willing to pay for the service, it should be offered. If they are not willing to pay for it, it should be scrapped.
Let me know how it goes when you run that by the unions. Then let me know how it goes when you run it by the elected ones.
Good luck.
PS:
I'm not a math major, but I'm having a little difficulty understanding how one type of service is responsible for 142% of the operating expenses.
What new equipment would you like to see
Amateurs talk equipment (as in rolling stock). Experts talk signals.
My first priority would be to figure out what it would take to make the trains run on time, especially with regard to moving 50 MPH (avg speed) trains over what is essentially at 20 MPH network. If you can't make the trains run on time, what is the point of a train as opposed to taking your chances on traffic congestion on a bus or the vagaries of weather on an airplane? If you have once-daily service, often at odd hours for many of the small towns regarding LD trains as life lines, how is anyone supposed to get anyplace they need to be if the trains run as much as hours late by routine.
Would it require new technology for signals? Building sidings or crossovers in strategic places? Blackmailing railroad executives by compromising them with young persons of the opposite gender (or perhaps same gender -- I am not prejudiced)?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
The probability of realizing my entire plan, especially in the short run, if I were the president of Amtrak is slim. But the probability of achieving a lot of change plans has been even slimmer.
In 1776 few people gave the American colonists much of a chance against the British Empire, with the greatest navy the world had ever seen. In 1989 no one predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall that year or the subsequent disintegration of the Soviet Union. Both are history. Stranger things than reforming Amtrak have happened. Nations, states, businesses, individuals that refuse to change eventually die, if they are lucky, or they are pushed out of the way, sometimes violently.
With a positive labor relations model, the unions might come around. I am only talking about doing away with the long distance trains. Moreover, if additional corridors were developed, e.g. Dallas to Houston, Fort Worth to San Antonio, Tucson to Phoenix, etc., many of the long distance trains employees could work on the new corridor trains. I would pay for their relocation.
If the unions just planted their feet in the ground and refused to change for refusal sake, I would take a strike until the issue is resolved. Amtrak has a small user group, especially outside of the NEC. The majority of Americans could care less about it. They would not even miss it. It is the overly wrought politicians who would be the real stumbling block.
I worked in a union company for most of my life. We had a reasonably good labor relations environment. This was due in part to the fact that management worked closely with the unions when change was necessary. Sometimes it took a long time for them to come around, but at the end of the day they did because the leadership knew that if the company went down the drain they were going with it.
For FY ended September 30, 2007, Amtrak had a net operating loss before interest and depreciation of $309.7 million. The long distance trains lost $440.4 million before interest and depreciation. Dividing 440.4 by 309.7 gives a result of 142.2 rounded down. The reason the net loss is less than the loss incurred by the long distance trains is because the NEC covered its operating or variable expenses and contributed $258.3 million to interest and depreciation.
Samantha wrote: The first thing that I would do as the president of Amtrak is order to top to bottom review of the organization. I would assess the capabilities and commitments of the management team. Anyone who is not a good fit would be fired. Then I would look at the layers of management and assess how each one contributed to the achievement of the organization's goals. Experience tells me that I would find plenty of opportunities to flatten the organization by eliminating redundant layers of management. Lastly, I would go far and wide to find the best persons to make up my executive and management team. Once my executive team was in place, we would define the core purpose of the business. A variety of resources, e.g. consultants, employees, customers, etc. would be tapped to help achieve this objective. When the purpose is defined, it would be communicated to all the stakeholders. Next, we would assess each business process to be sure it was aligned with the core purpose. If it did not make any sense, we would eliminate it. We would also make sure that the organization had the right mix of managers and key personnel to achieve its objectives. All existing personnel would be required to reapply for their job. Most would probably be successful; some would not make the cut.In conjunction with the review of the organization's business processes, the management team would assess whether any of them should be out sourced. Everything outside of the core business processes (operations, marketing, public relations, strategic planning, financial management, internal audit, and governmental affairs) would be on the table. Several processes that come to mind for outsourcing (contracting) include maintenance, Information Technology, back office operations (HR, Accounting, Finance, etc.), inventory management, etc. Outsourcing, if it is done correctly, can produce synergies that generate improved results and significant savings for the business. I would direct my legislative affairs team to lobby the federal and state governments to support a balanced transportation policy. Hopefully, such a policy would recognize that air travel is the best option for long distance travel; rapid rail can be advantageous in short to medium high density corridors; rail, rapid bus technology, and HOV lanes for multiple occupancy personal vehicles work best for commuting in metropolitan areas; intercity buses and personal vehicles are the best option for rural areas. I would urge the federal and state governments to support rapid rail corridors where they make sense. Ultimately the states through which the corridor runs should pay most of the required subsidies, although hopefully all subsidies, as per the next paragraph, could be eliminated in time. In conjunction with the rapid rail initiative, I would urge the federal and state governments to stop subsidizing all modes of transport, thereby requiring the users to pay directly the cost of their mode of choice. For example, in addition to the normal costs embedded in the price of gasoline, it would bear the proportional costs of keeping the Middle East oil sea lanes open, repairing the environmental damage done by fossil fuel vehicles; and treating those with heath problems generated by said vehicles. It would also include the cost of all roads, including county roads and city streets, which for the most part are paid for with bond funds or property taxes. This would probably drive the price of gasoline north of $5.00 a gallon, which would enable trains in high density corridors to compete. I would recommend the discontinuance of Amtrak's long distance trains. They generate 23.2 per cent of Amtrak's ticket revenues, but they account for 142 per cent of the operating expenses before interest and depreciation or 47 per cent of the federal subsidy to Amtrak. The long distance passenger train is used by a tiny percentage of the traveling public. It does not meet a vital social and economic need. No rational business person would continue to offer a product line or service that generates these kinds of numbers. The savings, which would add up to billions of dollars over several decades, could be used to enhance existing corridors and establish new ones.I would recommend that the states or private operators be permitted to operate long distance trains if they pay for them. If California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Louisiana want to run a train from Los Angles to New Orleans, they should be permitted to do so. If a private operator wants to run a scenic train from Denver to Salt Lake City, it should be able to do so. If the states or a private operator want to run the train every day or one day a week, it would be their call. I would allow them to use Amtrak's reservation system to manage bookings. And I would sell them the long distance equipment if they wanted it.Assuming the Congress, as well as other interest groups supported my initiatives; I would recommend that Amtrak begin a program of equipment renewal. The emphasis would be on bi-directional equipment based on a standard design. Most trains would consist of coach, business class, and food service cars. One or two models based on a standard design would reduce operating, maintenance, inventory and training costs. This concept is followed by Southwest Airlines, which only flies Boeing 737s, thereby helping it be one of the most successful air carriers in the world.My business plan would spark a chorus of objections. Leading the parade would be NARP and a variety of rail enthusiasts. I would listen to them, but at the end of the day they would know that they are not accountable for the outcomes. They are like fans at a sporting event. Most of them cheer or boo loudly but have little idea what it is like to play the game. The traveling public holds the trump card. If they are willing to pay for the service, it should be offered. If they are not willing to pay for it, it should be scrapped.
That's just about perfect! Bits and pieces of what you suggest have happened sporadically over Amtrak's history, but only in fits and starts when pressure was really applied, and then things slid backward. Amtrak has gone from 25,000 employees pre-Gunn to about 17,000 now. Anybody miss the 8,000?
I'd only add that the review process should include benchmarking agianst peers or near peers. That would include any and all railroads worldwide, other transportation companies, and other service companies. For example, might Amtrak have something to learn about guest relations from an outfit like Disney?
The only thing I'd change is that you ought to do a review of the LD trains to see if they are fixable before you trash them.
This is not meant to make any point, it is a genuine question:
While I agree that very few of us would take a train from NYC to New Orleans, to use the Crescent as an example, how many people take that same train between closer together cities along the route? How many more people would take it to and from intermediate destinations if it ran more than once a day, instead of passing through my city of Charlotte at 2AM?
How many people take it from NYC to DC? ... Phildelphia to NYC or DC? How many people take it between Atlanta and Charlotte? ... Charlotte and Raleigh? Atlanta to New Orleans? It's all the same long distance train. Perhaps it shouldn't be thought of as a long distance train, but rather as a series of intercity trains that connect, and share equipment.
I have to limit my train trips to places the train I board in Charlotte serves, because the schedule is not reliable enough, and trains are not frequent enough to trust any plan that requires a connection. I could wind up stranded in the city where the connection was supposed to take place.
Presentation is everything in customer service. Frequent, clean, well maintained trains that run on schedule are key. Speed and number of stops will determine how far people are willing to travel on it. The other items will determine whether they will travel on it at all.
Boston to New York to Washington and points between.
We have 20 Acela Bullet Trains, they run every hour, they are new, they are clean! It's used by business men, some tourists, even the news media. Beats driving to an outlying Airport and going through security for a 200, 300, 500 mile trip.
If your in Boston, take a 3 1/2 hour rail trip to New York or Fly to Chicago in the same amount of time. A 20 hour train ride to Chicago, that's for tourists. Time is money. Long haul trains are a Tourist Attraction, just like the U. S. Park Service.
As for speed, Acelas operate between 135 and 150 mph. Flat out they can reach 169 mph. It's the Track and the Catenary that restricts the speed, too many curves and nothing anybody can do about it. The line was laid out in the 1840s. Too many bridges, some 100 years old, as the line follows along the Atlantic coast. Catenary installed in the 1930s, some as old as 1910, it needs to be replaced (Boston to New Haven has been replaced). Money, money, money. Wake up Tax Payer, you've got the trains, how about the "Right of Way"!
Don U. TCA 73-5735
Phoebe Vet wrote: This is not meant to make any point, it is a genuine question:While I agree that very few of us would take a train from NYC to New Orleans, to use the Crescent as an example, how many people take that same train between closer together cities along the route? How many more people would take it to and from intermediate destinations if it ran more than once a day, instead of passing through my city of Charlotte at 2AM?How many people take it from NYC to DC? ... Phildelphia to NYC or DC? How many people take it between Atlanta and Charlotte? ... Charlotte and Raleigh? Atlanta to New Orleans? It's all the same long distance train. Perhaps it shouldn't be thought of as a long distance train, but rather as a series of intercity trains that connect, and share equipment.I have to limit my train trips to places the train I board in Charlotte serves, because the schedule is not reliable enough, and trains are not frequent enough to trust any plan that requires a connection. I could wind up stranded in the city where the connection was supposed to take place.Presentation is everything in customer service. Frequent, clean, well maintained trains that run on schedule are key. Speed and number of stops will determine how far people are willing to travel on it. The other items will determine whether they will travel on it at all.
The Crescent has three personalities. It's a NEC to Atlanta overnight train, a Charlottesville/Lynchburg to NEC day train and an Atlanta to New Orleans day train. There are few through passengers at Atlanta.
Right now, 4 days a week the Atlanta - New Orleans portion is not even being operated due to trackwork.
The question that this raises in my mind is the one train a day Crescent the best way to server these markets?
Maybe it should be two day trains, one from Atlanta south, and one from Atlanta north with an additional daylight RT from Lynchburg north.
conrailman wrote:The real money pit is NEC, it needs 30 Billion Dollars worth of work to make it into A-shape again from Boston to D.C. I heard that in 1999 to 2000 that the NEC need that much work. You could run the LD trains for 50 plus years with 30 Billion Dollars. Plus NEC needs new cars too. Tunnels into New York City needs 3 or 4 billion worth of work.
$30B? Got a source for that figure?
Why new cars? Amfleet I only a few years older than Amfleet II and Superliners. All stainless. They can last forever. They probably have a few dozen more years in left in their economic life.
Don't confuse capital with operating expenditures....
$30 billion sounds like a very arbitrary figure. It works out to a whopping $66.7 million per mile over 450 miles, which is highly exorbitant to spend on an existing railroad, never mind new-build.
Why would we want the railroad to be made into an A-shape, too? That's an unusual shape.
The North and East River Tunnels are almost 100 years old, but they don't need billions put into them.
I agree about the Amfleets. They are not as old as some fans try to make them out to be.
oltmannd wrote: conrailman wrote:The real money pit is NEC, it needs 30 Billion Dollars worth of work to make it into A-shape again from Boston to D.C. I heard that in 1999 to 2000 that the NEC need that much work. You could run the LD trains for 50 plus years with 30 Billion Dollars. Plus NEC needs new cars too. Tunnels into New York City needs 3 or 4 billion worth of work.$30B? Got a source for that figure?Why new cars? Amfleet I only a few years older than Amfleet II and Superliners. All stainless. They can last forever. They probably have a few dozen more years in left in their economic life.Don't confuse capital with operating expenditures....
I got that figure in one of my Trains Magazine or Railpace back in 1999 or 2000 I forget which year, and Amtrak said it needs new cars for NEC. It was in amtrak 5 year plan back in 2000.
We keep coming back to thinking the problem with Amtrak is lack of rolling stock. It is fun to make wish lists about all of the cool stuff Amtrak should get.
The biggest priority should be getting the trains to run on time. If they can't get a once-daily service on time owing to freight-train congestion, how are they going to run a 3-times daily service?
My vote for a helpful Trains article would be an in depth look as to what it takes to get a 50 MPH (average speed) passenger train over a 20-30 MPH freight railroad network Are there differences between host railroads? Do these differences reflect different matches between traffic and capacity or are there railroads with better time keeping owing to better operational practices? Is Amtrak at fault for not honoring their "time slots" or is this an excuse from the host railroads? What are the worst bottlenecks? What impact does Amtrak have on capacity for moving freight, which by the way, also has the potential for reducing highway congestion by taking up some of the growth in truck traffic.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.