Joseph Boardman next CEO of Amtrak

[jis]

From Amtrak:

November 25, 2008Amtrak Selects Transportation Industry Veteran as President & CEO

WASHINGTON – The National Railroad Passenger Corporation Board of Directors announced today that it has chosen Joseph Boardman, a nationally recognized transportation industry professional, to become president and chief executive officer of the company, effective November 26.

Boardman offers nearly 34 years of experience in the surface transportation industry at city, county, state, and federal government levels; most recently as the administrator at the Federal Railroad Administration.

You can read the full press release here.

 

[access bob]

From Amtrak:

November 25, 2008Amtrak Selects Transportation Industry Veteran as President & CEO

WASHINGTON – The National Railroad Passenger Corporation Board of Directors announced today that it has chosen Joseph Boardman, a nationally recognized transportation industry professional, to become president and chief executive officer of the company, effective November 26.

Boardman offers nearly 34 years of experience in the surface transportation industry at city, county, state, and federal government levels; most recently as the administrator at the Federal Railroad Administration.

You can read the full press release here.

interesting......... does anyone know much about him, at least he knows railroads, and may be familiar with getting the Freight Railroads to cooperate better with Amtrak.

reading his bio it appears he was head of NY state transportation when the turbotrain debacle was begun',

Bob

 

[the_traveler]

interesting......... does anyone know much about him, at least he knows railroads, and may be familiar with getting the Freight Railroads to cooperate better with Amtrak.
reading his bio it appears he was head of NY state transportation when the turbotrain debacle was begun

THAT'S where I heard his name - although I moved out of NYS by then, but I had family there. Besides his name, I don't know much about him. But I do agree that he seems to know railroads. Anything is better than nothing!

 

[Rafi]

He gets my vote of confidence. I met him briefly at the NARP regional meeting in Baltimore this past April and he was quite friendly toward passenger service making a comeback. In the meeting he relayed his belief that having an electrified east coast corridor Boston-Flordia is something to strive for in the near future‚ not long-term, necessarily. Seemed like a good guy all around, and a real railroad man.

Rafi

 

[Rumpled]

One year interim while conducting a search for permament CEO. Kinda sounds lame duckish right off the bat.

 

[Acela150]

I will say that he should be at the top of his game! After Kummant there's some big shoes to fill after what he did!

 

[Ryan]

One year interim while conducting a search for permament CEO. Kinda sounds lame duckish right off the bat.

Could be a year long job interview, causing him to be on top of his game!

 

[had8ley]

One year interim while conducting a search for permament CEO. Kinda sounds lame duckish right off the bat.

Hey, let's give the man a chance to even get his pants on! He may become your permanent president before it is all over and done with.

 

[Amtrak839]

He gets my vote of confidence. I met him briefly at the NARP regional meeting in Baltimore this past April and he was quite friendly toward passenger service making a comeback. In the meeting he relayed his belief that having an electrified east coast corridor Boston-Flordia is something to strive for in the near future‚ not long-term, necessarily. Seemed like a good guy all around, and a real railroad man.
Rafi

I agree that we can expect good things. I was at the meeting in Baltimore, too, and I liked what he had to say.

 

[PRR 60]

...In the meeting he relayed his belief that having an electrified east coast corridor Boston-Flordia is something to strive for in the near future‚ not long-term, necessarily. Seemed like a good guy all around, and a real railroad man.
Rafi

Considering that, as far as I know, he has never worked for a railroad, the term "real railroad man" might be a stretch. Transit man, yes. Political man, yes. Railroad man? I don't see that on his resume.

And the comment about electrifying Washington to Florida is a little scary. It is not even remotely justified. Even if there were twenty trains a day (there are only eight today), and even if CSXT were willing to permit it (which, I assure you, they are not), the cost could never be recouped on that line. The traffic density is just not there. Forgetting the 10 to 15 billion dollars to put up the wires, build the substations, and rebuild the entire CSXT signal system to Miami (did I mention that conventional signal systems behave very badly when exposed to electric and magnetic fields), the O&M cost alone of 1100 miles of one and two track catenary divided by twenty trains (or, worse, eight trains) would be enormous. Catenary is very labor-intensive to keep working, and electric power is not that cheap. The money spent to put wires up to Florida could buy a lot of things for Amtrak that would actually help the cause. I kind of hope he was just schmoozing a fan, and not actually serious.

 

[GG-1]

...In the meeting he relayed his belief that having an electrified east coast corridor Boston-Flordia is something to strive for in the near future‚ not long-term, necessarily. Seemed like a good guy all around, and a real railroad man.
Rafi

I kind of hope he was just schmoozing a fan, and not actually serious.

I hope that s not what he was doing because the we can't trust anything he says. On the other hand if he was mis-informed or ignorant of cost then he can learn and go forward.

 

[access bob]

...In the meeting he relayed his belief that having an electrified east coast corridor Boston-Flordia is something to strive for in the near future‚ not long-term, necessarily. Seemed like a good guy all around, and a real railroad man.
Rafi

Considering that, as far as I know, he has never worked for a railroad, the term "real railroad man" might be a stretch. Transit man, yes. Political man, yes. Railroad man? I don't see that on his resume.

And the comment about electrifying Washington to Florida is a little scary. It is not even remotely justified. Even if there were twenty trains a day (there are only eight today), and even if CSXT were willing to permit it (which, I assure you, they are not), the cost could never be recouped on that line. The traffic density is just not there. Forgetting the 10 to 15 billion dollars to put up the wires, build the substations, and rebuild the entire CSXT signal system to Miami (did I mention that conventional signal systems behave very badly when exposed to electric and magnetic fields), the O&M cost alone of 1100 miles of one and two track catenary divided by twenty trains (or, worse, eight trains) would be enormous. Catenary is very labor-intensive to keep working, and electric power is not that cheap. The money spent to put wires up to Florida could buy a lot of things for Amtrak that would actually help the cause. I kind of hope he was just schmoozing a fan, and not actually serious.

the CSX freights would need to use the electric too,. and with sufficient tax incentive they could be persuaded to use the electric.

Bob

 

[PRR 60]

...the CSX freights would need to use the electric too,. and with sufficient tax incentive they could be persuaded to use the electric.
Bob

I know CSXT all too well, and they are not very easily persuaded to do anything they do not want to do. Electric ops is definately not something they want any part of.

Electric traction is too restrictive for a large freight railroad. Unless every mile of every line is under wire, the need to change power offsets whatever advantage there is to electric (which is not much anyway). Add to that the fact that electric energy is not cheap, and the system is extraordinarily expensive to operate and maintain, and you have a losing proposition. Conrail found that out quickly. They abandoned all of the catenary system they inherited from the Penn Central within a couple of years of formation. Even the Pennsylvania Railroad, the champions of electric power, never expanded their system after the 1930's build.

Believe me, no one would be more thrilled to have more electric traction than me. It is kind of my line of work. But, from a practical perspective, it only works for passenger, and only for high density operations. The money spent to electrify long distance, low density freight lines with a couple of pax trains a day, would be much better spent on high-tech locomotives and new cars.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Better electricfication than continuing to play around with jet-turbine engines. UP tried it. CN tried it. Amtrak tried it bloody 3 times already. Why doesn't anyone recognized a bad idea already?

 

[Sam Damon]

I know CSXT all too well, and they are not very easily persuaded to do anything they do not want to do. Electric ops is definately not something they want any part of.

Quite.

Electric traction is too restrictive for a large freight railroad. Unless every mile of every line is under wire, the need to change power offsets whatever advantage there is to electric (which is not much anyway). Add to that the fact that electric energy is not cheap, and the system is extraordinarily expensive to operate and maintain, and you have a losing proposition. Conrail found that out quickly. They abandoned all of the catenary system they inherited from the Penn Central within a couple of years of formation. Even the Pennsylvania Railroad, the champions of electric power, never expanded their system after the 1930's build.
Believe me, no one would be more thrilled to have more electric traction than me. It is kind of my line of work. But, from a practical perspective, it only works for passenger, and only for high density operations. The money spent to electrify long distance, low density freight lines with a couple of pax trains a day, would be much better spent on high-tech locomotives and new cars.

Mr. Pittsburgher, I'm with you on some of this, and respectfully disagree on some of it as well.

As I see it, the move to electrification lies more in the freight railroads being significantly compensated for their rights-of-way in order to enable the American nation to enhance its electrical distribution capability significantly. Using electricity as motive power is more a side benefit in this scenario, than the main objective.

Think about this from a purely bureaucratic perspective. What is easier to regulate: 5,000 diesel-electric locomotives, or 500 power plants feeding electricity into the grid? This is the scenario where electrification on a massive scale actually makes sense. The freight RRs get rid of diesels, greenhouse gases are controlled easier, and the USA gets a new bit of electrical distribution grid. Everyone wins! Yay!

(And it's only going to cost us multiple billions of feddybux. But who's counting?)

Anyway, I do agree with you that some of whatever federal infrastructure spending package should be spent on reducing freight railroad congestion. The best part of this concept, is that like the PRR electrification during the 1930's, there exists some rationality for making this sort of thing a loan which -- gasp! -- could actually be repaid.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Anyway, I do agree with you that some of whatever federal infrastructure spending package should be spent on reducing freight railroad congestion. The best part of this concept, is that like the PRR electrification during the 1930's, there exists some rationality for making this sort of thing a loan which -- gasp! -- could actually be repaid.

I'm in agreement that more freight track would be a good thing.

Keep in mind that adding capacity may not reduce congestion if the new capacity is used to get more trucks off the highways, which would not necessarily be a bad thing.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

And the comment about electrifying Washington to Florida is a little scary. It is not even remotely justified. Even if there were twenty trains a day (there are only eight today), and even if CSXT were willing to permit it (which, I assure you, they are not), the cost could never be recouped on that line. The traffic density is just not there. Forgetting the 10 to 15 billion dollars to put up the wires, build the substations, and rebuild the entire CSXT signal system to Miami (did I mention that conventional signal systems behave very badly when exposed to electric and magnetic fields), the O&M cost alone of 1100 miles of one and two track catenary divided by twenty trains (or, worse, eight trains) would be enormous. Catenary is very labor-intensive to keep working, and electric power is not that cheap. The money spent to put wires up to Florida could buy a lot of things for Amtrak that would actually help the cause. I kind of hope he was just schmoozing a fan, and not actually serious.

I think that changes a bit if there were new tracks being built with an alignment that will support high speeds under those wires, though.

 

[access bob]

I know CSXT all too well, and they are not very easily persuaded to do anything they do not want to do. Electric ops is definately not something they want any part of.

Quite.

Electric traction is too restrictive for a large freight railroad. Unless every mile of every line is under wire, the need to change power offsets whatever advantage there is to electric (which is not much anyway). Add to that the fact that electric energy is not cheap, and the system is extraordinarily expensive to operate and maintain, and you have a losing proposition. Conrail found that out quickly. They abandoned all of the catenary system they inherited from the Penn Central within a couple of years of formation. Even the Pennsylvania Railroad, the champions of electric power, never expanded their system after the 1930's build.
Believe me, no one would be more thrilled to have more electric traction than me. It is kind of my line of work. But, from a practical perspective, it only works for passenger, and only for high density operations. The money spent to electrify long distance, low density freight lines with a couple of pax trains a day, would be much better spent on high-tech locomotives and new cars.

Mr. Pittsburgher, I'm with you on some of this, and respectfully disagree on some of it as well.

As I see it, the move to electrification lies more in the freight railroads being significantly compensated for their rights-of-way in order to enable the American nation to enhance its electrical distribution capability significantly. Using electricity as motive power is more a side benefit in this scenario, than the main objective.

Think about this from a purely bureaucratic perspective. What is easier to regulate: 5,000 diesel-electric locomotives, or 500 power plants feeding electricity into the grid? This is the scenario where electrification on a massive scale actually makes sense. The freight RRs get rid of diesels, greenhouse gases are controlled easier, and the USA gets a new bit of electrical distribution grid. Everyone wins! Yay!

(And it's only going to cost us multiple billions of feddybux. But who's counting?)

Anyway, I do agree with you that some of whatever federal infrastructure spending package should be spent on reducing freight railroad congestion. The best part of this concept, is that like the PRR electrification during the 1930's, there exists some rationality for making this sort of thing a loan which -- gasp! -- could actually be repaid.

much better put than I was able.

I also think that the major transcon railroads are the places that need electrifcation first UP west of Omaha for example. There is also the move by T. Boone Pickens and others to harvest millions of KW from wind farms in the midwest, but the major problem is getting that electric to places where it is needed. The big advantage of Electric in freight is not faster on the flats, but keeping the trains moving in the mountains. instead of slugging up a mountain at 15mph you could "Fly" up at 30mph freeing up much needed track capacity.

Bob

 

[wayman]

I also think that the major transcon railroads are the places that need electrifcation first UP west of Omaha for example. There is also the move by T. Boone Pickens and others to harvest millions of KW from wind farms in the midwest, but the major problem is getting that electric to places where it is needed. The big advantage of Electric in freight is not faster on the flats, but keeping the trains moving in the mountains. instead of slugging up a mountain at 15mph you could "Fly" up at 30mph freeing up much needed track capacity.

I sure wish my Subaru had been powered by overhead wires yesterday--driving up to the crest of Coyote Pass and the Arizona Divide, I was absolutely flooring the gas pedal and barely staying at 40 MPH on a 75 MPH highway! (I'm pulling a very full 5'x8' U-Haul trailer, so I'm fancying myself to be a "very short mixed goods train, minus the rails" ) Now I have a much better understanding of exactly why freight trains lumber so slowly, with so many engines, on uphill grades. Until this summer, I'd never towed anything before.

The Milwaukee Road electrified something like a third or half the distance between Chicago and the West Coast (only the more mountainous stretches, which required several power changes from steam/diesel to electric and back along the way. And they did it the quick-and-dirty way, with their catenary held up by what were basically two wooden telephone polls with a crossbar stuck between them. Too bad that model never caught on--their electric locomotives were a beautiful design and simply enormous:

And back then, they could get away with doing some crazy stunts to show how powerful their electric locomotives were:

Yes, that's a bipolar electric playing tug-of-war with two full-open-throttle steam engines. The bipolar won.

 

[TVRM610]

i don't think he plans on electrifying the entire Boston to Florida run tomorrow... but perhaps building towards that, for instance electrifying the Florida corridor itself... (Jacksonville to Miami) then slowly increasing the Florida corridor Northward, and the NE corridor southward. I could be wrong... but that would seem like it would make more sense...

I personally think higher speed corridors (not necessarily electric) need to be introduced throughout the country... for instance the Atlanta to Charlotte portion of the Crescent... if 90-110 could be reached then amtrak could compete with the airlines between these MAJOR city pairs with regionals.. and the Crescent itself would see a great advantage in its schedule as well.

 

[Sam Damon]

i don't think he plans on electrifying the entire Boston to Florida run tomorrow... but perhaps building towards that, for instance electrifying the Florida corridor itself... (Jacksonville to Miami) then slowly increasing the Florida corridor Northward, and the NE corridor southward. I could be wrong... but that would seem like it would make more sense...
I personally think higher speed corridors (not necessarily electric) need to be introduced throughout the country... for instance the Atlanta to Charlotte portion of the Crescent... if 90-110 could be reached then amtrak could compete with the airlines between these MAJOR city pairs with regionals.. and the Crescent itself would see a great advantage in its schedule as well.

All of this chit-chat is well and good, but keep in mind the point Mr. Pittsburgher touched upon: Any national rail transportation planning is at the mercy of the freight railroads. Some of the people running freight railroads even have the quaint notion the feds can stay out of such things as running their railroad, thank you very much.

Now it's true that Congress could legislate the freight railroads out of existence next Tuesday, if 217 Representatives, 51 Senators, and one President agreed to do so. Thanks to the 4th Amendement, (IIRC) that's not likely. Put another way, the political game will have to be rigged so the freight railroads win. More practically, in order to gain support for increased intercity passenger train service in this day and time, the folks who run the freight railroads are going to have to be swayed by money.

Great, whacking gobs of money. We shall see.

 

[MattW]

Money in the form of reduced fuel costs? Feds pay for initial Catenary installation part of electric freight locomotives, RR's get to run only the cost of the power on those stretches.

 

[PaulM]

Am I hallucinating, or do a high percentage of the AU threads quickly get off topic, often into discussions that only AMNerds can appreciate.

NOTE: I'm not putting AMNerds down; only suggesting that if the pros and cons of right vs. left hand knuckles on pre-1925 baggage-diners is your thing, start your own thread. Don't insert it into a thread discussing the new Amtrak president.

 

[AlanB]

Am I hallucinating, or do a high percentage of the AU threads quickly get off topic, often into discussions that only AMNerds can appreciate.

No, you're not hallucinating at all. That's something that we permit here, the ability for topics to wander where they may generally. Occasionally we'll split a topic off if it really goes off on a major tangent, but most times we just let things go where they will.

It's something that the majority of our members seem to support, so we continue to allow it.

 

[TVRM610]

i don't think he plans on electrifying the entire Boston to Florida run tomorrow... but perhaps building towards that, for instance electrifying the Florida corridor itself... (Jacksonville to Miami) then slowly increasing the Florida corridor Northward, and the NE corridor southward. I could be wrong... but that would seem like it would make more sense...
I personally think higher speed corridors (not necessarily electric) need to be introduced throughout the country... for instance the Atlanta to Charlotte portion of the Crescent... if 90-110 could be reached then amtrak could compete with the airlines between these MAJOR city pairs with regionals.. and the Crescent itself would see a great advantage in its schedule as well.

All of this chit-chat is well and good, but keep in mind the point Mr. Pittsburgher touched upon: Any national rail transportation planning is at the mercy of the freight railroads. Some of the people running freight railroads even have the quaint notion the feds can stay out of such things as running their railroad, thank you very much.

Now it's true that Congress could legislate the freight railroads out of existence next Tuesday, if 217 Representatives, 51 Senators, and one President agreed to do so. Thanks to the 4th Amendement, (IIRC) that's not likely. Put another way, the political game will have to be rigged so the freight railroads win. More practically, in order to gain support for increased intercity passenger train service in this day and time, the folks who run the freight railroads are going to have to be swayed by money.

Great, whacking gobs of money. We shall see.

I'm just "chit-chatting" about something the new President (of Amtrak) has said! It makes perfect sense to me create these corridors... which is I think what he has in mind as I doubt Amtrak is going to get the funds needed to electrify the entire DC-Miami route in one project.

I agree with Mr. Pittsburgher... some railroads will be more willing then others to have high speed and/or electrical corridors added to there frieght lines.. however there are places on CSX where Amtrak runs at 100MPH... this shows that CSX is willing to co-operate with higher speed signal systems that they will never use.