Viewliner II "Progress" Report from the Amtrak Inspector General

[wanswheel]

Going off-topic now because talk about the Amtrak board makes me nostalgic for the mid-70s, when my dad was on it.

Chicago Tribune, March 20 1975

Editorial - Let Amtrak's critics speak

We are on the side of all endangered and thus cheer the president of Amtrak in his endeavors to save the passenger train, but we cannot hope that God and the Interstate Commerce Commission grant him his latest wish.

The president, Paul Reistrup, wants the ICC to call off hearings in various cities concerning Amtrak's performance. He made his request after witnesses in New York and Chicago told some pretty hot [and cold] stories about their travel experiences. One woman, for example, reported that her roomette on the Panama Limited was so overheated that she was compelled to travel nude to New Orleans. The lights didn't work and there was no cool water.

Mr. Reistrup considers this kind of talk harmful to Amtrak and wants it stopped. But consider how tremendously much more harmful it would be, if the ICC said: "Okay, Paul. You win. No more hearings."

Then people would say, "See? The trains are so bad that Amtrak hushed up the people who tried to tell about it."

The passenger train would then progress from the status of endangered to that of well nigh extinct.

No, for Amtrak's own sake the stories must be told. The ICC more than a year ago issued regulations calling for better quality passenger service, and it is entitled to have face-to-face discussions with riders to learn how well the regulations are being observed. The public is helping to pay the bill for Amtrak.

Mr. Reistrup complains correctly that only some 50 of last year’s 19 million riders have been heard at the sessions, but that ratio won t be improved by stopping the hearings now. He suggests that the 50 may not be representative of the 19 million, and that, too, may well be true. The dissatisfied tend to speak up and the satisfied to remain quiet, but that s life.

Mr. Reistrup is probably most correct of all when he says the purpose of the hearings is "to generate publicity," and is most wrong of all in implying that this is bad. Publicity has helped to bring about much of the good in this world and to correct much of the wrong. The ICC is seeking to get the facts out into the light so that Amtrak may be moved to improve itself and Congress be bestirred to provide any additional legislation needed to make things better. Of all people, Mr. Reistrup should be most grateful that this process is under way.

 

 

Chicago Tribune, March 29, 1975

Voice of the People (Letters to the editor) - Amtrak is improving

CHICAGO—As one of the three consumer representatives on the board of National Railroad Passenger Corp., I read with especial interest your March 20 editorial "Let Amtrak's critics speak."

There is no question that all too many of Amtrak's patrons during the last four years have suffered experiences entirely justifying indignation. From Amtrak's beginning I have been critical of what I considered to be major mistakes in the setting up and early implementation of our national inter-city rail passenger service.

Many of our passengers' complaints today are the continuing consequences of things that should have been done differently in the beginning, as well as of things that we still aren't doing right. Wherever we are falling short, we do want to hear from our customers, and indeed we do: our consumer mail is heavy, both in complaints and in praise. For both we are grateful, for we do intend to do a good job.

I share your view that "publicity has helped to bring about much of the good in this world and to correct much of the wrong." But I'm a bit skeptical that "the ICC is seeking to get the facts out into the light so that Amtrak may be moved to improve itself and Congress be bestirred to provide any additional legislation needed to make things better." Rather I support Paul Reistrup's suggestion that the purpose of the ICC hearings is to gain publicity for the sake of publicity, not to bring about improvements in Amtrak's service.

The ICC has been regulating the railroads since 1887. We don't lack publicity for the sad state of our northeastern railroads, with seven of them bankrupt and the Rock Island now falling, too. In that perspective, where has the ICC been since 1887 in looking after rail passenger service?

Not until 1974 did the ICC decide, and then only under congressional prodding, that it had any business even thinking about "the adequacy of passenger service." By that time, Congress had already created a new board of directors for Amtrak, including the three consumer representatives. The new board took office July 19, 1974.

The board has taken positive steps to correct the conditions that have led to our customers' complaints. We have authorized the purchase of new cars and locomotives, station improvements, and the acquisition of major shop facilities to improve and speed up overhaul of our aged equipment. We have made modifications to the reservations system, adding unreserved coaches to formerly all-reserved trains, in response to suggestions by experienced train conductors and ticket agents. We have taken on a substantial part of the cost of upgrading the track of some of the railroads over which we run. And we have elected an experienced railroad man, Mr. Reistrup, as our new chief executive officer.

We're well aware of our shortcomings, and we are hard at work to correct them. I find it hard to believe that the ICC doesn't know this and has had to hold costly public hearings to find out.

Joseph V. MacDonald

The Pioneer (Seattle-Salt Lake City) at Shoshone, Idaho, June 1977. Left to right, Idaho Gov. John Evans, Mrs. Bethine Church, Amtrak President Paul Reistrup, Sen. Frank Church and Amtrak board member Joseph V. MacDonald

Mike MacDonald

[schlimm]

The Vice Chair formerly was with BNSF; Boardman was head of a regional transit agency.   Directors of any company are seldom "eminently qualified" to run that company.  Check the boards of CSX or NS or UP.

The CSX board has two people besides Michael Ward with rail experience, out of twelve.

NS board only one, Jim Squires, has rail experience, out of twelve.

UP board has only one, Mr. Fritz, out of eleven with rail experience.

CP board, two of nine wth a lot of experience.

[D.Carleton]

And since some of you are certainly wondering, here is the current slate of NRPC directors: https://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241245669142

Feel free to peruse their individual CV's to see what makes them so eminently qualified to run a passenger railroad.

[dakotafred]

Ah, but can you meet CSX's ownership requirement with 5 years' worth of "gift" stock? Is there real skin in the game? Why shouldn't there be ownership going in?

[PJS1]

Most of the board members of public corporations have a substantial position in the stock of the company.

The compensation of most board members consists of an annual retainer and common stock awards or warrants to purchase stock on the strike date.

CSX, which is a typical example, has 12 non-employee directors.  In 2014 they received fees or cash payments that ranged from $27,500 to $105,000.  In addition, each director received CSX common stock with a market value of $149,851 on the grant date, which was February 12, 2014.

The requirements regarding non-employee director ownership of CSX stock are set forth in this paragraph from the Proxy Report:

"These guidelines require that all non-employee directors own shares of CSX common stock.

Within five years of election to the Board, a non-employee director is expected to acquire and hold an amount of CSX common stock equal in value to five times the amount of such non-employee director’s annual retainer.

Moreover, non-employee directors may only dispose of shares held in excess of 120% of the applicable ownership threshold.

If the annual retainer increases, the non-employee directors will have five years from the time of the increase to acquire any additional shares needed to satisfy the guidelines."

 

 

[dakotafred]

I know this wouldn't work at Amtrak, but maybe board members at private companies should be required to have skin -- a significant number of shares -- in the game. That would pique interest, one would think.

[schlimm]

Most board members at most corporations go along with management like sock puppets, unless they got elected by 'restless' shareholders.

[dakotafred]

Thank you for the info, D. I've never had a sense of the board's interest in administration of Amtrak except when they run off an effective president such as David Gunn. Maybe nobody in the press -- or his boss -- cares what's going on at the board.

Hard to believe you could get 9 people to sign off on that stupid equipment order. Or to make no fuss (that we ever heard of) about the botched job they got from their contractor.

[D.Carleton]

dakotafred

What it really needs is a new board of directors. Who appoints those people, anyway?

49 U.S. Code § 24302 - Board of directors

(a) Composition and Terms.—                    

(1) The Amtrak Board of Directors (referred to in this section as the “Board”) is composed of the following 9 directors, each of whom must be a citizen of the United States:

 

(A) The Secretary of Transportation.

 

(B) The President of Amtrak.

 

(C) 7 individuals appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, with general business and financial experience, experience or qualifications in transportation, freight and passenger rail transportation, travel, hospitality, cruise line, or passenger air transportation businesses, or representatives of employees or users of passenger rail transportation or a State government.

 

(2) In selecting individuals described in paragraph (1) for nominations for appointments to the Board, the President shall consult with the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority leader of the Senate, and the minority leader of the Senate and try to provide adequate and balanced representation of the major geographic regions of the United States served by Amtrak.

 

(3) An individual appointed under paragraph (1)(C) of this subsection shall be appointed for a term of 5 years. Such term may be extended until the individual’s successor is appointed and qualified. Not more than 5 individuals appointed under paragraph (1)(C) may be members of the same political party.

 

(4) The Board shall elect a chairman and a vice chairman, other than the President of Amtrak, from among its membership. The vice chairman shall serve as chairman in the absence of the chairman.

 

(5) The Secretary may be represented at Board meetings by the Secretary’s designee.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/24302

[dakotafred]

More misfeasance by the Boardman regime, like composition of the order itself -- all those baggage and dorm cars -- and its capitulation on food service.

Well, Amtrak has been thru many misadventures, including food service that has been up, down and back again. I suppose it will survive this one too, because support for it in the public is there.

What it really needs is a new board of directors. Who appoints those people, anyway?

[D.Carleton]

schlimm

So should Amrak acede to CAF under the threat of their going out of business and do nothing?   There may be some sort of performance bonds put up by the manufacturer to make good on the defective product.  But you are right.  Amtrak should use manufacturers with a proven record of success with those specs.  I wonder if there was any under the table component on CAF's bid?

For the year 2015 CAF USA, aside from the Viewliner order, delivered 32 light rail vehicles to Houston and a handfull of streetcars to Cincinnati and Kansas City. Backloged for this year's delivery are 24 light rail vehicles for Boston and the completion of the streetcars for the Midwest. That's it. CAF's exposure in the USA is so small that unless orders pick up they can easily pull up stakes and walk away unlike Bombardier, Siemens, Kawasaki, etc.

What should Amtrak do? They should learn not to do business with companies that have very little skin-in-the-game. Obviously they are not very good at that.

[schlimm]

So should Amrak acede to CAF under the threat of their going out of business and do nothing?   There may be some sort of performance bonds put up by the manufacturer to make good on the defective product.  But you are right.  Amtrak should use manufacturers with a proven record of success with those specs.  I wonder if there was any under the table component on CAF's bid?

 

[D.Carleton]

Wizlish

 

schlimm

If the V2 baggage cars do not meet the specs, why does Amtrak accept them? They should have been returned to the manufacturer to remediate before paying one dime for them.

I think, in part, we're looking at the same thing Mr. Carleton was hinting at above: if CAF cuts its losses or loses too much, and quits, there goes the whole production with no one else eager or willing to fill in.  I am still  in shock that the whole Turbotrain stock went for cheap scrap prices as it did.  Might be worth more than a little careful 'aftermarket' tinkering at Hialeah to fix defined errors would cost to keep the facility going a while longer...

... but I do agree that CAF, or its insurers or bond providers or whatever, should compensate Amtrak for both the expense and the consequences of the delays (to the extent that consequential damages aren't excluded from the contract terms).

CAF USA has already lost $41 million on this contract per the OIG report. The losses from production are currently taken out of spare parts supply. When the losses exceed the price of the total contract then CAF throws up its hands and walks away, vis-a-vis M-K twenty years ago. Then comes a 'bailout' funded by the taxpayers to set up a third party to finish the cars. (Maybe we can call it Amerail II?) The eastern trains continue to be under equipped. The shop in Hialeah continues to be under supplied. And the long distance trains continue to look like a joke. But look at all the money we saved by signing with the low bidder with no experience in stainless steel... again.

[ROBERT WILLISON]

Its not that Amtrak Has no clue, their is congressional pressure to eliminate any kind of food service except the barest of essential. You need to write your right leaning congressman and senators to fix your dining and lounge issues. Quality service is not often cheap.

[nyc#25]

SuperChief49,

  You are so right!  Amtrak doesn't have a clue as to

how a lounge car should be furnished.

[SuperChief49]

In addition to the need to replace the Amfleet II coaches, what about the obvious need to replace the Amfleet/Horizon "lounge cars" still used?  The lounges today are so spartan and geared more to be a cafe; a far cry from what we knew to be the inviting club lounge cars of the past.  Today, only VIA Rail understands what a lounge should be, including the appropriate inventory, and attendant as a trained bartender.

[PJS1]

Between 1946 and 1949 the PRR built or had built 94 P85br coaches. They were 44 seat cars that were part of the Pennsy's post WWII upgrade of its passenger train fleet.  The initial batch was assigned to the Jeffersonian. Subsequently, they could be found on the General, Spirit of St. Louis, etc.

The cars were designed by ACF, which built 24 of them.  The other 70 were built in Altoona from kits.  

The Pennsylvania Railroad built more than 1,000 P70 coaches between 1907 and 1929.  I believe they many if not all of them were built at the East Altoona car shop(s). I may be wrong, but I don't believe any passenger cars were built at the Samuel Rae shops in Holisdayburg. 

[Electroliner 1935]

I believe PRR & Milwaukee built cars. Remember the Beaver tail obs and the horizontal ribbed sides on the MLW. And I think the P72 coaches were built in Holidaysburg.

Also, the plant in Rochelle that has the contract for the new Illinois/Michigan/California bilevels is stalled after their first car failed the compression test. Siemans in Sacramento seems to be doing things right with Amtrak's locomotives and has the contract for the Florida tralns. Perhaps Trains Mag can get us updates on the status of these projects.

[Wizlish]

schlimm

If the V2 baggage cars do not meet the specs, why does Amtrak accept them? They should have been returned to the manufacturer to remediate before paying one dime for them.

I think, in part, we're looking at the same thing Mr. Carleton was hinting at above: if CAF cuts its losses or loses too much, and quits, there goes the whole production with no one else eager or willing to fill in.  I am still  in shock that the whole Turbotrain stock went for cheap scrap prices as it did.  Might be worth more than a little careful 'aftermarket' tinkering at Hialeah to fix defined errors would cost to keep the facility going a while longer...

... but I do agree that CAF, or its insurers or bond providers or whatever, should compensate Amtrak for both the expense and the consequences of the delays (to the extent that consequential damages aren't excluded from the contract terms).

[schlimm]

If the V2 baggage cars do not meet the specs, why does Amtrak accept them?   They should have been returned to the manufacturer to remediate before paying one dime for them.  At the very least, the manufacturer should be held acccountable for whatever it costs to repair them.

[ACY Tom]

Ineptitude or inexperience?  Does it really matter?

The bottom line is that the cars need to meet certain standards. If they don't do that, the employees and passengers who will depend on this equipment will not be served, and that's the only thing that matters in the long run.

Tom

[D.Carleton]

Wizlish

 

D.Carleton

Ineptitude or inexperience? Sometimes it is difficult to differentiate.

Ignorance is not necessarily stupidity.  I'd like to see an engineering assessment of the details of these defects, their severity, and what is being done to remediate them and ensure the problems don't recur on new construction -- etc.

Wilful or repeated ignorance... that's another matter.

Seems to me that the big detail in the OIG story is the establishment of careful design review and oversight going forward.  If that is done by even halfway-competent people at Amtrak who understand basic things about engineering (and passenger railroading), it should work nicely

History does not repeat itself... but it does rhyme. My real concern is, by the end of the order, we shall see a manufacturer completely geared up and set up to churn out quality stainless steel rail vehicles... and it ends. No exercise of the 70 car option. No Viewliner coaches. No ready supply of spare parts. Nothing. And we are back to Hialeah getting innovative to make basic repairs. I'm afraid that design review and oversight at this point is too little too late.

[BaltACD]

A McIntosh

I am rather curious about a couple of things. How many railroads back in the day built some of their own passenger equipment? This second question may sound dumb, but would it be more practical for Amtrak to build some of their own rolling stock, thus have control over quality issues?

In the 'olden' days a number of carriers did some of their own passenger car building and rebuilding - the crafts that performed these services had grown up with the equipment over the years.

Amtrak doesn't have any existing crafts to perform these services in the scale necessary to fulfill their car orders.

[A McIntosh]

I am rather curious about a couple of things. How many railroads back in the day built some of their own passenger equipment? This second question may sound dumb, but would it be more practical for Amtrak to build some of their own rolling stock, thus have control over quality issues? 

[Wizlish]

D.Carleton

Ineptitude or inexperience? Sometimes it is difficult to differentiate.

Ignorance is not necessarily stupidity.  I'd like to see an engineering assessment of the details of these defects, their severity, and what is being done to remediate them and ensure the problems don't recur on new construction -- etc.

Wilful or repeated ignorance... that's another matter.

Seems to me that the big detail in the OIG story is the establishment of careful design review and oversight going forward.  If that is done by even halfway-competent people at Amtrak who understand basic things about engineering (and passenger railroading), it should work nicely

[D.Carleton]

blue streak 1

Don't the RRs and... the airlines take delivery of units then ship them somewhere to set them up.  Someone can tell us how long it takes a RR or say BNSF to set up their new locos ?

Know it can take 2 - 4 weeks for a new airplane to be set up.

Works better for receiver of units to do final set up.

Basically, this is more than just a set up of new equipment:

Amtrak OIG report, page 10

Under the company’s agreement to accept the baggage cars, CAF will address these defects at Amtrak’s maintenance facility in Hialeah, Florida.

 

[blue streak 1]

D.Carleton

 

BaltACD

 

I found it curious that the Bags had to be transported from NY to Miami to be inspected (and I expect prepaired) prior to being placed in service.  The report seems to explain why - inept construction by CAF.

 

 

 

Ineptitude or inexperience? Sometimes it is difficult to diferentiate.

 

Don't the RRs and know the airlines take delivery of units then ship them somewhere to set them up.  Someone can tell us how long it takes a RR or say BNSF to set up their new locos ?

Know it can take 2 - 4 weeks for a new airplane to be set up.

Works better for receiver of units to do final set up.

.

[D.Carleton]

BaltACD

 

I found it curious that the Bags had to be transported from NY to Miami to be inspected (and I expect prepaired) prior to being placed in service.  The report seems to explain why - inept construction by CAF.

Ineptitude or inexperience? Sometimes it is difficult to diferentiate.

[BaltACD]

Railvt

Further to my earlier "Where are the Stories" threads on the absense of certain reporting in the rail (fan) media, the Amtrak Inspector General's office put out a fascinating (and not very inspiring) report on the endlessly delayed Viewliner II order for diners, sleepers and crew dorms on February 1. It can be read by clicking on the "report" link at https://www.amtrakoig.gov/report-records/audit-reports/asset-management-additional-actions-can-help-reduce-significant-risks

I have wondered for sometime if the Boardman management was deliberately slow-walking this project. The report clarifies the situation, but gives little hope of any early arrival of new cars--especially the revenue generating sleepers. Another rumor has the long-completed "test" diner, and sleeper (finished as far back as 2014) finally moving from Elmira to MIami in the week of March 18. We'll see.

Carl Fowler

I found it curious that the Bags had to be transported from NY to Miami to be inspected (and I expect prepaired) prior to being placed in service.  The report seems to explain why - inept construction by CAF.