Wall Street Journal Article on Amtrak and Anderson: A Flight Plan For Amtrak

[Gilbert B Norman]

The Wall Street Journal has printed an article and circulated today titled "A Flight Plan For Amtrak":

https://www.wsj.com/articles/amtrak-has ... lewebshare

Fair Use:

..The signs are aimed at the thousands of train passengers who rumble each day through North Philadelphia—two banners 14 feet high by 26 feet wide, mounted outside an old package-sorting facility built in the heyday of the Pennsylvania Railroad.

“SAVE AMTRAK,” one says. The other: “FIRE ANDERSON.”

No one has stirred up the people who feel deeply about the national passenger railroad—long-haul train fanatics, safety regulators, union employees, private railcar owners—quite like Richard Anderson, the former Delta Air Lines Inc. boss who took over as Amtrak’s chief executive in 2017.

It is "the usual litany" to me regarding the LD's, PV's. the advocacy groups. It hsrdly breaks new ground around here, but to The Journal's readership base less informed of Amtrak affairs, it could "break new ground".

[frequentflyer]

From the article-


"For all his years in airlines, Mr. Anderson has embraced his new role running a railroad. Still new on the job in 2017, he joined a track gang along the busy Boston-to-Washington corridor when fast-moving trains began bearing down from both directions.

“The horns sounded and they pulled him underneath a piece of machinery where they would go for protection,” said Gerhard Williams, head of Amtrak’s engineering department. “He loved it.”

Kind of goes the thought he hates Amtrak.

[rcthompson04]

Yes sounds like he is actually getting out and seeing how things are done. I don’t think Anderson is a long term leader, but he is rattling the cages, which is needed.

[JoeG]

I read the WSJ article; it isn't behind their paywall. It certainly didn't make me like Mr Anderson better. First, I don't see that there is any reason for Amtrak to be profitable or break even. And I'm sure it won't without some creative accounting.
Maybe Mr Anderson enjoys playing with trains. If so I recommend the model railroad hobby although I can see that screwing up Amtrak would be more fun.

I'm not addressing the issue of LD trains or even diners; we have discussed these topics in many threads. And Congress has, to my dismay, ordered Amtrak to reduce dining car losses.

The problem is that he has no idea of how to run a railroad. What's with canceling short-haul trains days before a forecast storm? Maybe he had to do that at Delta, where planes have complex country-wide schedules. That's not true of Keystone service, NEC service or Empire service, for three.
Why is he making life tough for PV owners and charterers? These guys are willing to pay whatever to run their cars and he is rejecting their business.
He says PV makes trains late? As everyone know they are already disgracefully late. I'm not just talking about the LD network, where probably a lot of the problem is with the Class Is. Even their premier Acela service has an ontime percentage in the eighties.And that is with "on time" defined as no more than 15 minutes late. Even bedraggled NJT considers a train late after 5 minutes.

Finally, when ordinary railroad things go wrong, like an engine that fails to load, it takes Amtrak at least a couple of hours to recover, and that's on the NEC. It certainly seems that some of their "almost" profitability is caused by their failing to provide enough protect engines, cars and crews.
If Mr Anderson hires a safety expert, that is one (the only) thing he's done that is progressive. But his lack of nuts and bolts railroading experience prevents him from being the leader Amtrak needs.

[Gilbert B Norman]

For the moment, I've found a "knothole" in the paywall. For how much longer, we shall see.

Thank you. Mr. Grossman, for your mature and respectful thoughts.

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

First, I don't see that there is any reason for Amtrak to be profitable or break even.

If Amtrak loses money, guess who pays for it. Hint: Look in the mirror.

Now you may be thinking Amtrak is a public service so we as taxpayers should be paying for it. Try telling someone in Las Vegas, Louisville, or Columbus Ohio to pay for something and not be able to use it for people in Cincinnati to get 3 trains per week during the graveyard shift. No transportation service should be profitable but I think it is fair for it to cover its operating losses. Taxpayers aren't paying the airlines' or Greyhound's operating losses, are they?

It sounds like Anderson is pitting "long distance" service vs. "short distance" or "corridor" service. But a long distance train can serve several overlapping corridors (example, the Lake Shore Limited serves CHI-TOL-CLE and BUF-SYR-ALB-NYP/BOS). To me, the paradigm should be urban vs. rural, Amtrak needs more urban service as opposed to rural service. There is no reason there should be more trains going through rinky dink towns in North Dakota than Houston. The question should be where do people live and where do people want to go, that's where Amtrak should serve. If Amtrak wants to expand service, it either has to cut some fat (cough, Byrd Crap) or spend more money (and guess where that money is going to come from).

[JoeG]

I don't mind paying my share of Amtrak's losses. I already pay for highway maintenance.
The answer to the problem of no service to Columbus, Louisville and Las Vegas is, of course, to provide those cities with Amtrak service.

It may be that long distance train service will end; with their terrible timekeeping they hardly serve as transportation. And the Class I's certainly want them gone. We may end up with private operators who charge megabucks for a cruise-like experience.
But of course if there are no ld trains, people without Amtrak service will have little incentive to support Amtrak. So, we might have to provide a connecting network of day trains instead. Amtrak could cover the country with shorter distance trains that would in many cases be more convenient than current ld trains, which often arrive in towns in the middle of the night.

Supposedly Mr Anderson is in favor of some kind of network of shorter distance trains, but so far i haven't seen him acting to actually add any shorter distance, or corridor, trains. If we curtail the ld trains and don't provide an alternative of shorter distance trains, i worry that Amtrak will lose national support and find it difficult or impossible to run the NEC and other lines that it owns.

[SouthernRailway]

First, I don't see that there is any reason for Amtrak to be profitable or break even.

Here are a few reasons:

If Amtrak is profitable or breaks even:

1. It doesn't need to depend on the ideologues in Washington for support.
2. It will have more of its own funds available for improvement and expansion of its services.
3. It will attract new sources of capital from investors, which could lead to service improvement and expansion of its services.

The only reason I can think of for Amtrak to lose money is because it's tried everything and simply cannot make money. Taxpayer subsidies should be a last resort. We aren't at that stage.

Back to the article: it's a well-written article. The only thing I'd point out is that is glosses over Amtrak's screwy accounting, showing huge operating profits for the Acela and huge losses for long-distance trains. Those numbers are jokes, and if the Acela really made money, private investors would be itching to run their own Acelas in the Northeast. Brightline has mentioned doing so, but there have not been any viable proposals that I'm aware of (and the maglev that has been proposed is not a train). If there have been proposals for privately-run HSR in the NEC, I'd love to hear more.

[electricron]

If there have been proposals for privately-run HSR in the NEC, I'd love to hear more.

Why would anyone propose to compete directly against a government subsidized business?
While Amtrak does provide a train service between Orlando and Miami, the Virgin trains follow a different route and are much faster. Either proposed HSR trains; LA to LV and Dallas to Houston; do not have Amtrak train services in competition. The CHSR system initially will be using Amtrak California services to run on its tracks. In all these examples, private enterprise train companies are not directly competing with subsidized Amtrak trains.

It would be extremely difficult for private enterprise trains to compete against Amtrak NEC trains. Therefore, you are not going to see private trains in the NEC no matter how fast they can go until Amtrak disappears.

[SouthernRailway]

If there have been proposals for privately-run HSR in the NEC, I'd love to hear more.

Why would anyone propose to compete directly against a government subsidized business?

As per the WSJ article, Acelas and Regionals make a profit of around $700 million per year. Economic theory says that others will enter the marketplace to take some of those profits. In the EU, there are private competitors on plenty of higher-speed lines.

[charlesriverbranch]

If the Acelas and the Regionals make a profit, then why doesn't any private company want to take them over? Why did Amtrak's predecessor railroads give up the Northeast Corridor?

The answer, of course, is that when you factor in all the costs, including maintaining the NEC to high-speed standards, these trains are money-losers. So would Greyhound be if it had to maintain its own highways.

The long distance trains, because they run on tracks maintained by other railroads for their own purposes, and not to HSR standards, probably closer to profitability than the NEC trains.

The future of rail service in America should probably be one company or entity owning the tracks, while a different, and likely private, entity runs the trains. Having the same company that owns the rails running the trains creates a monopoly in many places where there is only one major railroad in or out of town.

[eolesen]

...
The problem is that he has no idea of how to run a railroad. What's with canceling short-haul trains days before a forecast storm? Maybe he had to do that at Delta, where planes have complex country-wide schedules. That's not true of Keystone service, NEC service or Empire service, for three.
...
Why is he making life tough for PV owners and charterers? These guys are willing to pay whatever to run their cars and he is rejecting their business.
He says PV makes trains late? As everyone know they are already disgracefully late. I'm not just talking about the LD network, where probably a lot of the problem is with the Class Is. Even their premier Acela service has an ontime percentage in the eighties.And that is with "on time" defined as no more than 15 minutes late. Even bedraggled NJT considers a train late after 5 minutes.
...
Finally, when ordinary railroad things go wrong, like an engine that fails to load, it takes Amtrak at least a couple of hours to recover, and that's on the NEC. It certainly seems that some of their "almost" profitability is caused by their failing to provide enough protect engines, cars and crews.
...
If Mr Anderson hires a safety expert, that is one (the only) thing he's done that is progressive. But his lack of nuts and bolts railroading experience prevents him from being the leader Amtrak needs.

It's laughable to think that these types of decisions are something the CEO or President would initiate or even need to endorse.

Just like "Orange Man, Bad" syndrome, it's easier to attack Anderson than want to admit there's a need for Amtrak to be managed differently than it has been for the previous 30+ years. The article admits there's been some significant improvements e.g. I can't think of a significant accident that's happened since he arrived.

[JoeG]

I don't know if Anderson has to sign off on train cancellations. But as CEO he is responsible for everything, just like a ship captain is responsible for accidents even if he is off the ship. The point is that the captain is held responsible for the training of his subordinates, so their screwup also becomes his screwup.
So far I don't see any indication that Amtrak's management has been improved on Anderson's watch. Many of the problems I've mentioned on this thread and elsewhere started before Anderson started. He has been in charge long enough to be held responsible for bumbling, fumbling management decisions.

Also, I do think the days-in-advance cancellation of short-haul trains is Anderson's idea because it only happened on his watch, and because airlines, with their more complicated equipment utilization schemes, may have to cancel flights well in advance of a storm.

[AgentSkelly]

I’m not entirely hating Anderson; I do like his perspective.

However yes he does not know how to run a railroad, but airlines derive most of their practices from railroads and ships so some things should translate. I’m not sure if he is consulting with his VPs about “Hey, how do we do X in trains?” but perhaps he should...

[David Benton]

...
If Mr Anderson hires a safety expert, that is one (the only) thing he's done that is progressive. But his lack of nuts and bolts railroading experience prevents him from being the leader Amtrak needs.

Just like "Orange Man, Bad" syndrome, it's easier to attack Anderson than want to admit there's a need for Amtrak to be managed differently than it has been for the previous 30+ years. The article admits there's been some significant improvements e.g. I can't think of a significant accident that's happened since he arrived.

The Talgo accident , and the Silver Star accident were both on "his watch ". The Congressmen special could possibly be counted , and seemed to be the catalyst of his "'PV ban".