Senate bill passes, but still want to cut 40% operating expense.

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Larry H.

Conductor
Joined
Dec 22, 2006
Messages
1,045
Haven't seen anything else here today about this, its probably old news. But I thought I heard where the democrats were proposing to elimanate the self sustaning goal for Amtrak.. But todays Post Dispatch has a little blurb about the Senate passing Billions for Amtrak, but with a goal of still reducing expenses by 40%.. Come on, what going to be left?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Haven't seen anything else here today about this, its probably old news. But I thought I heard where the democrats were proposing to elimanate the self sustaning goal for Amtrak.. But todays Post Dispatch has a little blurb about the Senate passing Billions for Amtrak, but with a goal of still reducing expenses by 40%.. Come on, what going to be left?
As long as its simply a goal and not a requirement, it doesn't matter too much. If it is a requirement, this could be bad...
 
If truly adequate amounts were supplied for rebuilds, maintenance, and repair, and for the purchase of new rolling stock to replace the worst of the aging and decrepit existing equipment, the duct-tape and WD-40 budgets could be substantially reduced, and if the freight companies were seriously penalized, monetarily, when Amtrak trains were delayed because of freight interference, with those penalties being used to pay off Amtrak's debt and then to help pay for Amtrak's expenditures, THAT would reduce expenses in a lot more useful and effective way than trying to "reduce expenses" by micromanaging how Amtrak runs. And the end result would likely be hugely improved service.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If truly adequate amounts were supplied for rebuilds, maintenance, and repair, and for the purchase of new rolling stock to replace the worst of the aging and decrepit existing equipment, the duct-tape and WD-40 budgets could be substantially reduced, and if the freight companies were seriously penalized, monetarily, when Amtrak trains were delayed because of freight interference, with those penalties being used to pay off Amtrak's debt and then to help pay for Amtrak's expenditures, THAT would reduce expenses in a lot more useful and effective way than trying to "reduce expenses" by micromanaging how Amtrak runs. And the end result would likely be hugely improved service.
I would just like to add one thing; the morale of both the employees and passengers might rise if they could start using modern equipment. It's not much fun when you're running in summer heat or the dead of winter with one engine and it gives out in the middle of tin-buck-too. Then the freight engine that the home road sends never has HEP so you sweat or freeze to death. Not to mention the 50 plus year old diners.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
... the morale of both the employees and passengers might rise if they could start using modern equipment. It's not much fun when you're running in summer heat or the dead of winter with one engine and it gives out in the middle of tin-buck-too. Then the freight engine that the home road sends never has HEP so you sweat or freeze to death. Not to mention the 50 plus year old diners.
The P42's are less than 10 years old: in some cases much less. By locomotive standards, they are modern units. The problem is lack of maintenance, not age.
 
Haven't seen anything else here today about this, its probably old news. But I thought I heard where the democrats were proposing to elimanate the self sustaning goal for Amtrak.. But todays Post Dispatch has a little blurb about the Senate passing Billions for Amtrak, but with a goal of still reducing expenses by 40%.. Come on, what going to be left?
Maybe 40% is possible, but will take plenty of work.

You wonder what efficiences can be wrung out of passenger rail, and you have to think that Amtrak hasn't tried that hard yet to find them. Amtrak probably operates with a similar amount of labor-intensiveness that passenger rail did in the 1950s. But back then passenger rail was an advertisement for the profitable freight business, so the spending on the passenger trains was not concerned with operating ratios. That state of affairs is of course over.

You look at freight railroads and how much things have changed there in 120 years. They are so much more labor-efficient. You no longer have to hire brakemen to clamber over the cars and other on-train employees, signaling and dispatching no longer require employees on the ground on-site, laying track no longer requires muscle power... Each innovation required economic pain: big-time capital was needed, people lost their jobs, management structures had to be changed. But the freight railroads changed because they had to, and we're all better for it: we all pay less for energy and other products every day.

You may say that something about the passenger rail experience will be lost if there are less employees per train, and that's true. That's what happened with air travel, but people voted with their wallets and chose the cheaper spartan service, even though it's sure no fun to fly today.

This post is long so I won't guess what you would change, but would say that this view is definitely compatible with being an Amtrak supporter. You need to win the politics game. Improving operating ratios is a great argument for supporters in D.C. to show other Congressmen that Amtrak is headed in the right direction. Also, Congress has shown it is more willing to fund capital for Amtrak than operating subsidies (take a look at the bill the Senate just passed). Finally, if you cut costs you can run more trains and carry more poeple on your same funding. Increasing ridership and growing your empire is the number one key long-term to Amtrak ensuring its survival, relevance and funding.

I hope there are some creative minds at Amtrak that can come up with something. SDS is a step in the right direction IMHO. Go and search the web for Amtrak nightmare trip reports. People with only one or two big complaints about their trip rarely mention that the food is not yummy or that the dining car is understaffed.
 
... the morale of both the employees and passengers might rise if they could start using modern equipment. It's not much fun when you're running in summer heat or the dead of winter with one engine and it gives out in the middle of tin-buck-too. Then the freight engine that the home road sends never has HEP so you sweat or freeze to death. Not to mention the 50 plus year old diners.
The P42's are less than 10 years old: in some cases much less. By locomotive standards, they are modern units. The problem is lack of maintenance, not age.
When you run anything 24 and 7 it ain't "new" for long. And GE had a horrific entry into the locomotive market in the 70's~ just ask any engineer who ran a U-23. I'm not sure of the number but I think it was a P-30 that GE dumped on Amtrak. At the end of their short life they were running (if you could get it started) it as the second unit on the Sunset with a mechanic to keep it running on board the train. I remember many trips being rescued by SP units.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
we all pay less for energy and other products every day
I don't know about you (maybe you live in Venezuela where gas is subsidized to something like 7 cents per gallon) but MY energy costs aren't going down. Gas here is almost $3.00 per gallon again. Energy has been going up; wages have been stagnant or in some cases actually dropping. The increased cost of energy is helpful to Amtrak because it makes other modes that much more expensive and tends to give folks a financial reason to check out something beyond their personal vehicles.The freight railroads may indeed have changed but not necessarily all for the better. They cut back trackage, and cut from double-track to single, all over the place, made their networks smaller. Yes, that saved them money. It "cut their expenses" - the supposed goal for Amtrak. But then when their business exploded, they were suddenly swamped with freight, with no way to handle it all (U.P. especially). As a result, their trains run like they're running through a sea of molasses, and the Amtrak trains running on their tracks pay the price for the freight companies' cutback of capacity, for their "cutting of expenses". That was "penny wise, pound foolish" behavior by the freight companies, just as a knee-jerk "WE HAVE TO CUT EXPENSES" reaction forced on Amtrak tends to result in lack of proper maintenance and repair, followed by high equipment breakdown rates and then demands by CSX that Amtrak run two engines on trains that could be pulled by one.

That result should not happen, and I think it's a failure of leadership that it happens that way. But it's also partly because there's so much politics involved it's very hard to say, given the rampant rabid ideology involved in current politics, just where the lack of proper management ends and the political sabotage takes over.

Amtrak is a national resource, and personally I think it should be operated in a non-partisan manner, NOT operated in such a way that the Executive branch says who top management is, and all too frequently picks them based not on expertise in the subject matter but instead on their personal political purity of thought, (or for their campaign contributions or for their past work on political campaigns) as judged solely by the administration. Amtrak should be operated strictly as a passenger rail transportation operation. As such, management should all be folks who understand how rail works and what it needs to do so properly, always with the thought in mind that it is a NATIONAL NETWORK. Political philosophy, i.e., liberalism or conservatism, should be irrelevant. In the past few years, we have seen, again and again, where political hacks, campaign contributors, and good buddies of the administration leaders have been put in charge of important national posts and rather than preventing national disasters, have instead caused them. Enough is enough.
 
Well said WPK!

The political mess Amtrak is a result of is bad. And a 40% reduction in costs is kind of lofty too. I'm not saying corporations should never reduce expenses. They should where it makes sence. But what about revenue? Why isn't the thought of a company, can we increase revenue? This is not just short sighteness in politics but a big problem within Amtrak itself. I'm sure we can all agree with that. (SDS) Honestly I think operation costs can't really be cut back much more...without losing revenue too. I mean, what are the direct operational costs for running a single run? Fuel, labor, equipment up keep, trackage payments, on board service? I'm sure there's other catagories. But what can you cut in that? The only thing I can think of is equipment upkeep. And how you do that, is well, buy new equipment is the main thing. Of course there are small things. American Airlines use to pay $100 each for a little washer that went somewhere on the landing gear of their Super 80's. On the brink of Ch. 11, when everyone came together to think of ways to save money, some skilled mechanics realized they could make the washer themselves for a total of $25 each. Multiply that by their 300 or so Super 80's, and you save tens of thousands a year. It was this type of thinking that kept them from filing Ch. 11 like 4 other carriers just did.

This is what we need at Amtrak. A little vision and know how in making money and saving money. And I must agree, Amtrak needs to be a business, not a political beauocracy.
 
I can't recall his name, but in a discussion of rail passenger service last week on Public Radio the X head of the committee for transportation was saying that Amtrak is paying like 55,000 to a person to hand out sandwiches and drinks. He thought that was excessive expense.. Could be it would seem.. What really gets me is the Tip cup those employees put up for you to add to there pitiful pay!
 
Statements about what employees are paid pose a question. $55k seems like a lot to hand out sandwiches, but, if someone were based in New York does that really seem as great a sum? On the other hand $55k to hand out sandwiches in a rural area is outrageous.

Is Mr. X taking the total compensation package into consideration when he says $55k or just the Gross pay? The total comp package would include the amount of RR(not called FICA) paid by the employer on the employee's behalf, and probably other items. $55k based on a 2080 hour work year would be over $26/hour.

I've wondered how Amtrak determines their wage rates and if they're regional. As a reference to another quasi-governmental agency, the Postal Service, consider that rural carriers are paid in a different manner than urban carriers. There may even be a COLA involved.

So, if Mr. X wanted something to seem ridiculous to some parts of America, he might open with the amount paid in New York City.
 
While I don't know what the actual pay is, remember please that what is being referred to here as the "handing out sandwiches" job, if you will pardon the pun, carries a lot more baggage with it than you might initially consider. They are on duty for 36 hours or more at a stretch. They have emergency procedures training, and are responsible for the safety of the passengers in the event of an emergency. They don't go home at night - they are relegated to a small compartment on a moving train for whatever sleep they can manage to grab. They don't just go to work at a regular fixed location during the day and then go home to their own bed at night. Their opportunity for any kind of family life, or any kind of social life, is severely limited. There is a whole lot more to this than "handing out sandwiches". Personally, before I'd sign up for that kind of life, I'd have to be offered a whole lot more than minimum wage. And if my safety as a passenger depended on those folks, I'd sure want them to be a whole lot more proficient, trained, and capable than the typical minimum-wage burger-flipper.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Agreed there is more to it than handing out sandwiches which was his observation not mine.. But its not a continuous 36 hour working behind the counter. They do close at 11 or earlier and open around 7 am again. At least they do get to rest somewhat in there.. And I would have to consider that no one made them take the job either.. Has to be a reason they are doing it.. It might be the pay.

Another comment the Mr. X made that I found great fault in was in quoting the passenger load as reflecting the difference in air demand to rail. That is a totally mis represented way of looking at it.. If rail went anywhere the figures would be much different.. Its like saying everyone that flys only leaves from Chicago or New York.. That would sure change the passenger figures quick.. Not that amtrak only runs there, but they are the main transfer points, if you had every major city offering rail service to other major cities and points in between, then you would really have a different outcome on passenger miles.

As to the continuing cuts making things more lean, thus better, I think it has become too lean in many cases.. Too few cars running, poorer food service, fewer car attendants, not enough sleepers to meet demand. Cars that are dingy around the edges, toilets that don't work in winter, or summer for that matter, doors that bang and rattle, all which come from leaner budgets. All of which to me creates a passenger "Unfriendly" environment, which of course some politicians use knowing it will eventually kill passenger service, or make it so lightly used as to give them reason to totally eliminate it..
 
Agreed there is more to it than handing out sandwiches which was his observation not mine.. But its not a continuous 36 hour working behind the counter. They do close at 11 or earlier and open around 7 am again. At least they do get to rest somewhat in there.. And I would have to consider that no one made them take the job either.. Has to be a reason they are doing it.. It might be the pay. Another comment the Mr. X made that I found great fault in was in quoting the passenger load as reflecting the difference in air demand to rail. That is a totally mis represented way of looking at it.. If rail went anywhere the figures would be much different.. Its like saying everyone that flys only leaves from Chicago or New York.. That would sure change the passenger figures quick.. Not that amtrak only runs there, but they are the main transfer points, if you had every major city offering rail service to other major cities and points in between, then you would really have a different outcome on passenger miles.

As to the continuing cuts making things more lean, thus better, I think it has become too lean in many cases.. Too few cars running, poorer food service, fewer car attendants, not enough sleepers to meet demand. Cars that are dingy around the edges, toilets that don't work in winter, or summer for that matter, doors that bang and rattle, all which come from leaner budgets. All of which to me creates a passenger "Unfriendly" environment, which of course some politicians use knowing it will eventually kill passenger service, or make it so lightly used as to give them reason to totally eliminate it..
I sure wish I knew how to transfer to this site a letter I received from Richard Baker, our representative in Congress. Obviously, one of his aides went to great lengths to find this one~ he claims it takes more BTU's of energy to run an Amtrak train one mile than it does a city bus. How in the heck do the two equate? Anyway, he responded to my letter.
 
Do you know if there is a transcript of what Mr. X said last week on Public Radio? Would be interesting to read.

Another thought... I'm a relatively new troll (registered but don't post there anymore) to this group and wonder if most of you are in the habit of giving your informed opinions to your representatives? Besides employees, it's hard to think of a group more interested in the facts, history and myths of railroad lore and operations. You seem to be the unpaid lobbyists for the rr :D .

had8ly: Do you have access to a scanner?
 
A quick reply here to the question about the PBS program..

It was on the Diane Rehm Show.

I found it on google, in it there is a link to archives and the show is listed under Amtrak, October 2007 on the 29th at 10am. I think it offers transcripts as well as recordings? But not an expert, someone else will have to check it out. I have about half of it on tape here that I forgot about.. I will in a bit try to listen to enough of it to at least get a name for Mr. X.... And will take another look at that archive site to see whats there, have to leave the computer for a bit this morning..
 
A quick reply here to the question about the PBS program..
It was on the Diane Rehm Show.
I think this is the link directly to the audio.

As far as the letter to had8ley from the confused congressional aide goes, it sounds like the aide was counting BTUs/mile and not BTUs/passengermile. Is that in fact the case, and if it seems to be obviously the next step is to inform the aide of the oversight! (Well, that and the more obvious oversight about how intercity rail is serving a somewhat different purpose than intracity buses....)

As for the comment that we should all write our congresscritters, sounds like a good idea and one I myself haven't yet done. It's on my to-do list, though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
we all pay less for energy and other products every day
I don't know about you (maybe you live in Venezuela where gas is subsidized to something like 7 cents per gallon) but MY energy costs aren't going down. Gas here is almost $3.00 per gallon again. Energy has been going up; wages have been stagnant or in some cases actually dropping. The increased cost of energy is helpful to Amtrak because it makes other modes that much more expensive and tends to give folks a financial reason to check out something beyond their personal vehicles.The freight railroads may indeed have changed but not necessarily all for the better. They cut back trackage, and cut from double-track to single, all over the place, made their networks smaller. Yes, that saved them money. It "cut their expenses" - the supposed goal for Amtrak. But then when their business exploded, they were suddenly swamped with freight, with no way to handle it all (U.P. especially). As a result, their trains run like they're running through a sea of molasses, and the Amtrak trains running on their tracks pay the price for the freight companies' cutback of capacity, for their "cutting of expenses". That was "penny wise, pound foolish" behavior by the freight companies, just as a knee-jerk "WE HAVE TO CUT EXPENSES" reaction forced on Amtrak tends to result in lack of proper maintenance and repair, followed by high equipment breakdown rates and then demands by CSX that Amtrak run two engines on trains that could be pulled by one.

That result should not happen, and I think it's a failure of leadership that it happens that way. But it's also partly because there's so much politics involved it's very hard to say, given the rampant rabid ideology involved in current politics, just where the lack of proper management ends and the political sabotage takes over.

Amtrak is a national resource, and personally I think it should be operated in a non-partisan manner, NOT operated in such a way that the Executive branch says who top management is, and all too frequently picks them based not on expertise in the subject matter but instead on their personal political purity of thought, (or for their campaign contributions or for their past work on political campaigns) as judged solely by the administration. Amtrak should be operated strictly as a passenger rail transportation operation. As such, management should all be folks who understand how rail works and what it needs to do so properly, always with the thought in mind that it is a NATIONAL NETWORK. Political philosophy, i.e., liberalism or conservatism, should be irrelevant. In the past few years, we have seen, again and again, where political hacks, campaign contributors, and good buddies of the administration leaders have been put in charge of important national posts and rather than preventing national disasters, have instead caused them. Enough is enough.

How true!!! How much can you keep cutting back???

You mark my words we in North America are going to ROYALLY SCREWED when the next energy crisis hits here in the very near future!!! Sorry about the language... :rolleyes:

Everybody will be screaming at AMTRAK why don't we have any trains to use???

You just don't turn around and order equipment for delivery next month, it may take a lead time of up to 3 to 5 years to get it into service.

Our society seems to want it now and don't have any patience...

George Bush is such and idiot and the Republicans are so out of it! ( there are a few good ones!!!) The Democrats aren't much better either...and our Federal parties here in Canada aren't any better either...

Thank god Britain and Europe are so much smater than us

Enough of this rant, but it had to be said!!! but boy are we ever going to be paying for it in the VERY near future. :angry:
 
The energy and transportation joint crisis, and global warming crisis, are clearly heading in our direction, but they are the small above-water portion of the iceberg. The underwater portion is the huge, gigantic, and rapidly increasing massive national debt fueled by tax cuts coupled with the obscene and almost unimagineably profligate gobs of money being spent tilting at foreign windmills. At some point, foreign governments and foreign investors are going to say ENOUGH, and they will stop buying the U.S. Government securities (basically Federal "I.O.U'"s) that are actually providing the money, since the government is spending WAY more money than they actually have. When that dark day arrives, this country goes into the crapper, and woe be unto all of us.
 
Thanks for the link to the Amtrak program, unfortunately I am computer deprived and its asking a bunch of things to open it that I haven't a clue as to how they work or what to do.. Hopefully some others can benifit from it though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I sure wish I knew how to transfer to this site a letter I received from Richard Baker, our representative in Congress. Obviously, one of his aides went to great lengths to find this one~ he claims it takes more BTU's of energy to run an Amtrak train one mile than it does a city bus. How in the heck do the two equate? Anyway, he responded to my letter.
If the reply was via email, you should be able to cut and paste it. Otherwise, type it up off-line using say, Wordpad (or TextEdit if you're in MacintoshLand), and cut and paste it from your text editing program once you're logged in here.

Posting replies in forums like this from various US Representatives and Senators is one way to keep them honest. <_<
 
I sure wish I knew how to transfer to this site a letter I received from Richard Baker, our representative in Congress. Obviously, one of his aides went to great lengths to find this one~ he claims it takes more BTU's of energy to run an Amtrak train one mile than it does a city bus. How in the heck do the two equate? Anyway, he responded to my letter.
If the reply was via email, you should be able to cut and paste it. Otherwise, type it up off-line using say, Wordpad (or TextEdit if you're in MacintoshLand), and cut and paste it from your text editing program once you're logged in here.

Posting replies in forums like this from various US Representatives and Senators is one way to keep them honest. <_<
Oh what the heck...here we go.

Congress of the United States

October 11th, 2007

Dear Mr . Hadley,

Thank you for your follow up on H.R. 2701. I appreciate your taking the time to express your concerns and allowing me the opportunity to clarify my response.

My letter sought to highlight an important issue facing both passenger rail and freight rail: rail capacity. Clearly there is more demand for freight rail track than current capacity can accommodate. Amtrak operates approximately 44 routes over 22,000 miles of track, 97 per cent of which is owned by freight rail companies. While freight owns this track, according to the Congressional research Service (CRS; the public policy research arm of the United States located within the Library of Congress), the highest priority is given to passenger traffic and to time-sensitive, truck competitive intermodal traffic. The lowest priority is given to bulk shipments, such as coal , chemical and agricultural trains. Since H.R. 2701 centered on the debate of transportation energy safety and climate change mitigation, it is important to note that bulk shipments, which are equally important as the high priority shipments mentioned above and widely utilized by consumers across the nation, represent the safest and most energy efficient mode of transport for these goods. Furthermore, I believe many of my colleagues in Congess would agree that coal, agricultural goods, chemicals and hazardous materials and similar products should be kept off our roads as much as possible. According to the CRS, an intercity bus typically uses 953 Btu (units of energy) per passenger mile and Amtrak uses 2,646 Btu per passenger mile. While pollution varies by bus and rail car model, these figures demonstrate that passenger trains consume more energy than intercity buses.

Amtrak remains a viable passenger rail service in certain corridors across the nation, and I fully support the goals of passenger rail. Furthermore, within the debate on climate change we should continue to explore and encourage the use of efficient modes of transportation to move passengers and freight.

Again, thank you for your correspondence, I consider it an honor to represent you and the Sixth District of Louisiana. As always, please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any additional questions or concerns.

s/ Richard Baker

Member of Congress

Well, here it is in total...any comments ???
 
(Well, here it is in total...any comments ???

You might mention the results of the parade poll which I haven't looked at recently, but was running incredibly to Amtraks favor. They need to know that!
 
My initial response: there's a bunch of doublespeak in this reply.

My letter sought to highlight an important issue facing both passenger rail and freight rail: rail capacity.
Fine so far.

Clearly there is more demand for freight rail track than current capacity can accommodate. Amtrak operates approximately 44 routes over 22,000 miles of track, 97 per cent of which is owned by freight rail companies. While freight owns this track, according to the Congressional research Service (CRS; the public policy research arm of the United States located within the Library of Congress), the highest priority is given to passenger traffic and to time-sensitive, truck competitive intermodal traffic. The lowest priority is given to bulk shipments, such as coal , chemical and agricultural trains.
And your point is, Representative Ghost-Writer?

Since H.R. 2701 centered on the debate of transportation energy safety and climate change mitigation, it is important to note that bulk shipments, which are equally important as the high priority shipments mentioned above and widely utilized by consumers across the nation, represent the safest and most energy efficient mode of transport for these goods.
Doublespeak, or at the very least side-stepping, Mr. Ghost-Writer. What you're asserting is that private railroads should have the right to run 10,000 ton land barges at 20 miles an hour, when they feel like it, and without some of those passenger trains around to get in the way. Let's continue parsing...

Furthermore, I believe many of my colleagues in Congress would agree that coal, agricultural goods, chemicals and hazardous materials and similar products should be kept off our roads as much as possible.
Okay, Mr. Ghost-Writer, that sentence is a pretty good "soft-shoe routine."

According to the CRS, an intercity bus typically uses 953 Btu (units of energy) per passenger mile and Amtrak uses 2,646 Btu per passenger mile. While pollution varies by bus and rail car model, these figures demonstrate that passenger trains consume more energy than intercity buses.
Figures don't lie, but liars figure. How about a reference to the CRS source, Mr. Ghost-Writer?

Amtrak remains a viable passenger rail service in certain corridors across the nation, and I fully support the goals of passenger rail. Furthermore, within the debate on climate change we should continue to explore and encourage the use of efficient modes of transportation to move passengers and freight.
Mr. Ghost-Writer to had8ley: You're an environmentalist wacko, so I'll pander to you here.

Again, thank you for your correspondence, I consider it an honor to represent you and the Sixth District of Louisiana. As always, please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any additional questions or concerns.
s/ Richard Baker

Member of Congress
Polite boilerplate for closing the letter.

If you have the time and inclination, I'd keep an eye out for "Town Hall" meetings with this guy. You could then meet with your US Representative personally, and talk about how the Sunset Limited helps to bind America together, and so on.

One-on-one, you will get a very different response, I guarantee you. Keep the faith -- good luck.
 
Do we have your permission to copy the letter to other rr forums?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top