Long Distance service planning is now FRA's responsibility

[jis]

Cardinal has been tri-weekly since Reagan/Lewis/Stockman. It will always be that way, like the Sunset. If the Senate flips by so much as one vote, Manchin becomes less powerful.

I don't hear a thing about a NYP-PGH-CHI service, call it Bway Ltd or 3-Rivers. The double-ended train sets for NYP-PGH service means no thru cars onto the Captiol Ltd to do it cheaply while not adding any train miles. That was one of the few Performance Improvement Plans that if implemented would run in the Black.

I suppose you have already entered your comment in the FRA LD Committee docket pointing this out? I have.

I would like to encourage everyone to please go to:

Homepage

Federal Railroad Administration Amtrak Daily Long-Distance Service Study The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is conducting an Amtrak Daily Long-Distance Service Study to evaluate the restoration of daily long-distance intercity rail passenger service and the potential for new Amtrak...

fralongdistancerailstudy.org

And submit your comments. That is a more productive activity than venting here at AU or any of the various other railfan groups and web sites.

 

[lordsigma]

The reason why everyone has lost confidence in the Amtrak Board doing competent Long Distance network planning and execution is starkly visible in this 2018 Board Meeting minutes that has been obtained by Trains in the Valley folks. This was still under Anderson, but Coscia was clearly the Chair and had no problem with the stated position, and Gardner was a key player. Let me draw your attention to the last couple of sentences of the section titled "State Supported Strategy Review":

I remember a hearing with Anderson back around that time where he was talking about this. Unlike some I don't think their intention was to discontinue or dismantle the entire network of all 15 long distance routes 100% though I think as hinted the vision was altering portions of the network to mostly shorter daytime running segments and retaining a couple of the more scenic long distance trains intact as more of a premium experiential type tourist trains possibly influenced by services like the Canadian (they basically indicated the Coast Starlight, California Zephyr, and Empire Builder as the services they would keep as is as tourist trains) - a network setup I think most of us would have opposed pretty strongly. I think as part of it they would have argued for a reduction in the 750 mile rule to allow for Amtrak to self fund longer daytime running services in areas where state support would have been more difficult. This is kind of why I don't really get on board with some of the VIA rail praise and comparisons as I don't think that's really the direction most of us would want Amtrak to go and as great as I'm sure the food and amenities are the Canadian and Ocean aren't really models for usable transportation that should be pointed to. Thankfully with a lot of advocacy Congress rejected this vision pretty soundly.

 

[jis]

Clearly their first salvo was the South West Chief. My guess is that the EB and CZ would have been safe. The rest, who knows? Fortunately we don't need to spend time speculating on that now since it ain't happening.

 

[Amtrak25]

I suppose you have already entered your comment in the FRA LD Committee docket pointing this out? I have.

Yes I have. Mine was rectifying the sloppy Pittsburgh situation between the Pennsylvanian and Capitol Ltd with a neo-Three Rivers or Broadway Limited since Airo trainsets will be incompatible with thru car arrangements.

But most other advocates seem pre-occupied with Daily Cardinal and Lake Shore Rail Alliance, which ignore midwest and Chicago access from New Jersey, eastern, and central Pennsylvania.

 

[Amtrak25]

I remember a hearing with Anderson back around that time where he was talking about this. Unlike some I don't think their intention was to discontinue or dismantle the entire network of all 15 long distance routes 100% though I think as hinted the vision was altering portions of the network to mostly shorter daytime running segments and retaining a couple of the more scenic long distance trains intact as more of a premium experiential type tourist trains possibly influenced by services like the Canadian (they basically indicated the Coast Starlight, California Zephyr, and Empire Builder as the services they would keep as is as tourist trains) - a network setup I think most of us would have opposed pretty strongly.

Anderson was fool enough to spill his cookies and blather that he wished to have a network of only 5 - 10 long distance trains, so probably a Silver train and the Lake Shore Ltd to hold it together on top of the 3 western trains. He did lease a bunch of Superliners to California, so sure the Chief would come off.

He was a very confused, ignorant, and unteachable little man, how he thought he could emulate VIA Rail's Canadian, Ocean, and Skeena while coach passengers are restricted to filling station food in the cafe car (which most still are) and flexible dining slop served in plastic in the so-called diner.

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

Anderson was fool enough to spill his cookies and blather that he wished to have a network of only 5 - 10 long distance trains, so probably a Silver train and the Lake Shore Ltd to hold it together on top of the 3 western trains. He did lease a bunch of Superliners to California, so sure the Chief would come off.

He was a very confused, ignorant, and unteachable little man, how he thought he could emulate VIA Rail's Canadian, Ocean, and Skeena while coach passengers are restricted to filling station food in the cafe car (which most still are) and flexible dining slop served in plastic in the so-called diner.

Agree with everything above and I will add Gardner was right there with him, if not calling the shots from behind the scenes. Coscia and the BOD are/were just as complicit. I really wish the minutes for this little discussion were on the record. The last sentience of the meeting minutes from above:

“Anderson and Gardner led the Board on the future of the National network”

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

The powers to be thought it wise to give the FRA responsibility for long distance route planning since a biased was sensed within Amtrak’s management against the long distance routes. I think that needs to go a step farther and have the FRA oversee the new long distance equipment order planning process. Why is one appropriate and not the other?

A. Amtrak is dragging their feet. They had no problems ordering new corridor or Acela equipment.
B. Amtrak has mothballed not only older equipment but some brand new equipment on the LD routes as well: diners, baggage, and to a lesser extent some V2 sleepers.
C. If Amtrak is still operating under the Anderson era thought process a long distance order from them might be entirely inappropriate. IE: One bastidized food service car for the entire train. No lounges/domes or true diners. Sleepers? We just don’t know but this is a once in a generation order.

Keeping this on topic why was the FRA truly put in charge of route planning? I think these two subjects are very much intertwined.

 

[lordsigma]

My biggest problem with Anderson was that he created, presumably out of a level of arrogance, an unnecessarily antagonistic relationship with the advocacy community and certain policy makers in the way he implemented certain things and in the manner he engaged with the community (or the lack thereof). I think his cost cutting and breaking even agenda was largely mandated by his board and by various pieces of legislation that were in place so I’m not sure placing the blame for all that entirely at his feet is fair. I also don’t necessarily have an issue with someone having a different vision or view of what the business should look like. I do think there are probably aspects and areas where he was critical of the business as usual at Amtrak and limitations of the network that did have some merit. The problem is instead of having a constructive conversation about these things he wanted to ram through flawed solutions with a my way or the highway type mentality which I think damaged any sense of trust between the community and Amtrak’s managers.

 

[jis]

The problem is instead of having a constructive conversation about these things he wanted to ram through flawed solutions with a my way or the highway type mentality which I think damaged any sense of trust between the community and Amtrak’s managers.

The problem was exacerbated by the fact that in effect it was the blind leading the deaf on that my way or the highway trip, since Anderson had absolutely no railroad operation experience, passenger or otherwise, and arguably Gardner did not have much practical on the ground passenger railroad experience either. He had pushed plenty of papers and studies in Congress. They had successfully gotten rid of anyone that had any deeper knowledge of the problem space, and any that were left were carefully shunted into a siding never to be heard from. They were theoreticians working hard to prove their point. Some could argue that Gardner is still somewhat like that.

 

[zephyr17]

Some could argue that Gardner is still somewhat like that.

No doubt of that whatsoever.

 

[Amtrak25]

Anderson could not make the adjustment from the private to public sector like Graham Claytor did - did not understand that traditional profitability is not the be-all/end-all of a public service, had no regard to who buttered his bread, yet was fool enough to think APT fixed cost allocation accounting had sufficient validity to be a decision-making tool, and that his effective Board of Directors is actually 535 people on Capitol Hill. Shouting matches with Senators Moran and Heinrich with his SWC mental complex sealed hs fate and went beyond even what the NEC-centric Chairman Coscia could stomach.

While he would take advice form Gardner, as though his background on a shortline freight railroad made him competent at Amtrak, he would not take advice from predeecssors Boardman or Moorman to not waste time, energy, and political capital attacking the LD network.

 

[lordsigma]

I’m not sure I’d agree on Moorman as some champion of long distance service. There was an interview with him that circulated after his tenure where he voiced the most outright and directly hostile comments about long distance I have ever heard any of them make. In the same interview he also praised Anderson and basically said he supported his moves 100%. Maybe he was saying different things privately but this didn’t sound like anyone philosophically distant.

 

[Amtrak25]

I’m not sure I’d agree on Moorman as some champion of long distance service. There was an interview with him that circulated after his tenure where he voiced the most outright and directly hostile comments about long distance I have ever heard any of them make. In the same interview he also praised Anderson and basically said he supported his moves 100%. Maybe he was saying different things privately but this didn’t sound like anyone philosophically distant.

Yes, we know about his interview. He was mixed bag, but did say the LD trains cover their above the rail costs and did advise Anderson not to touch them. Anderson's reponse was "It's my railroad now". Moorman did not take advantage of the full 6 months he was there beyond his tenure to advise Anderson since it was a waste of his time.

 

[Anderson]

Yes, we know about his interview. He was mixed bag, but did say the LD trains cover their above the rail costs and did advise Anderson not to touch them. Anderson's reponse was "It's my railroad now". Moorman did not take advantage of the full 6 months he was there beyond his tenure to advise Anderson since it was a waste of his time.

Either that or he did take advantage of it and was roundly ignored.