Compare and contrast: the leadership of Claytor and Gunn

Is there any way to compare Gunn and Claytor as Amtrak leaders? I realize that the problems they faced and the political realities they had to deal with differ. My reason for wanting to compare these two men is that railfans tend to canonize Claytor, and I'm always wary of secular canonization. The Southern Railway, from what I've read, wasn't a pleasant place to work. I suspect Claytor was extremely authoritarian. Also, when he left Amtrak, it was in financial disarray.
I hope I will be corrected if my impressions are wrong (I have no real facts at hand) but my impression is that Claytor deferred as much maintenance as possible to put visible trains, etc on the road, while Gunn is finally biting the bullet and spending money on invisible (to the public) but vital infrastructure work. If my impression is right, it may be that Claytor was making the best allocation of resources given the political realities he faced, but we are paying the piper now, having to suffer reduced amenities, reduced sleeping car lines, etc. to pay for long-deferred infrastructure investment.

This subject, Mr. Grossman, I'm certain will engender many interesting responses. I hope to add one myself with a bit more substance than the following.

For the opener, let's be mindful that when WGC came on the property, he inherited not simply a fleet in "good repair"; he inherited a brand new fleet of three year old Amfleets and Superliners still being delivered.

Regarding the needed infrastructure improvements, well there was simply 20 years less use of the system then when compared with now.

Mr Norman--
You're certainly right that we have 20 more years of infrastructure decay than Mr C had, and he had new cars. But, bear in mind that the Pennsy had reached its infrastructure peak in the Thirties. It made money in the depression and used RFC loans plus the availability of cheap Depression labor to do its electrification and other improvements that made the NY-Washington line a high-speed corridor. In WW2 there was no time for maintenance beyond the minimum, and after that the dark ages descended on the Pennsy. I defer to your knowledge of the New Haven, but I suspect that things were worse there. I would argue that Mr C should have been putting money into the NEC but largely didn't.

Mr. Grossman's comment illustrates a structural problem that goes back decades: the ability to feed either the national system or the Northeast Corridor, but never both at the same time.

Every Amtrak president has had to rob Peter to pay Paul, and for many railfans the proof of Mr. Gunn is in whether he can induce Congress to put an end to this distasteful but nonetheless necessary exercise.

Gunn was the best ever Claytor was Amtrak's 2nd Best.

AmtrakFan

As other correspondents have noted, it is difficult to compare Amtrak presidents because each managed at a different time in history with differing challenges.

Mr. Claytor inhereted -- through no efforts of his own -- a nearly new fleet of equipment, so operations impoved in many respects during his tenure. But he deferred maintenence terribly on his nice new fleet. Onboard sanitation reached its nadir during the Claytor era. The famous FDA inspection and resulting consent order was probably the lowest point in Amtrak's history. Mr. Claytor's relationship with labor could not have been worse, and he really did not belong in the service intensive business of passenger railroading. At one point, Mr. Claytor's management team conjured up during a labor negotiation a facetious goal of "self-sufficiency by the year 2000." Of course Mr. Claytor surely knew that he would not be around in the year 2000, and that Amtrak would never be self sufficient. But it created a powerful negotiating platform. Obviously, labor deeply resented that type of negotiating ploy.

On the other hand, Mr. Claytor's hard-line labor management style was popular at the time with Congress, and it seemed to placate the Reagan administration. I would venture a guess that Amtrak's route miles must have approached their high-point under his leadership, and that certainly is a good thing. Finally, and sadly, the man did now know how to quit, and those around him and his board of directors was apparently unwilling or afraid to tell him.

When all is said and done, I give Mr. Claytor a D+/C-

Mr. Gunn, on the other hand, inhereted many of the problems created by the Claytor administration -- though post-Claytor administrations have done their own part in heaping problems onto Mr. Gunn's plate. As a railfan, I certainly appreciate Mr. Gunn's "back to the basics" approach to railroading, but I want to start seeing some results. A state of good repair doesn't mean much to me if it does not sooner or later translate into improved service. And if rumours of no more complementary cheese on cheeseburgers and ice-cream on pie are true, then Mr. Gunn clearly suffers from some of the same shortsightedness that has long plagued Amtrak's tope beltway management.

When all is said and done, I give Mr. Gunn a solid B, but the grade is at serious risk of dropping.[/u]

I would submit that it is difficult to determine how good any president of Amtrak is simply because the purse strings are too tight to do much. Gunn's back-to-basics approach is popular among fans (myself included) but money and equipment are just so tight that he really doesn't have a chance to do much.

The 5 year plans are the biggest place that we should see his influence. It is these plans that show what vision he has for the company. Based on the two 5 year plans that I believe Amtrak has produced, I am not impressed with his vision. During the 5 year period, Amtrak would like to replace some cars that are old, order a few DMU's and a few switchers.

There is no plans to order equipment to expand service (DMU's excepted). So at the end of five years, we will have an Amtrak that looks basically like it does right now. Are you happy with that? It doesn't excite me much.

I absolutely agree with Mr. dwmoore1416. Very well said. I am ready to lower my grade on Mr. Gunn already.

As for the details of the 5-year plan, I refer those "just tuning in" to two threads that were recently dedicated to that topic. Unfortunately, they are littered with some badgering which I found unproductive, but there was still a lot of good discussion.

dwmoore1416 wrote:The 5 year plans are the biggest place that we should see his influence. It is these plans that show what vision he has for the company. Based on the two 5 year plans that I believe Amtrak has produced, I am not impressed with his vision. During the 5 year period, Amtrak would like to replace some cars that are old, order a few DMU's and a few switchers.

There is no plans to order equipment to expand service (DMU's excepted). So at the end of five years, we will have an Amtrak that looks basically like it does right now. Are you happy with that? It doesn't excite me much.

With all due respect, how exactly would one go about adding all sorts of equipment and expanding services when funding to do such things is not forthcoming from Congress or the current administration?

I'd rather see five year plans based on realistic expectations of funding (i.e. not much) than dazzling plans for expanded services with new equipment that are unlikely to ever see the real world.

My Grades for Gunn and Claytor JR.
Claytor JR. C
Dave Gunn B+ Gunn is the Best Amtrak Ever had. But I need Results NOW with the Reparies before I boost it to an A

AmtrakFan

Keystone is unfortunately right. Gunn is prohibited from adding new routes or services. If he put proposals for such in a plan he would be considered to be violating his mandate. True, his choices aren't exciting. I hope Congress can be persuaded to be more open-handed. I hope Gunn can continue to find money for fixing wrecked cars and rehabbing aging, worn ones. I hope he can continue to work on the NEC infrastructure. He should be able to show improved ontime performance on the NEC. Hopefully, he will be able to negotiate agreements with freight railroads that will lead to fewer delays of Amtrak trains.
I guess it's pretty depressing. I wonder if continued high gas prices will pry any more money loose for Amtrak.

The one area of the 5-year plan that clearly speaks to expansion is the emerging corridors element. Mr Gunn carefully describes the benefits of leveraging these opportunites while also hanging the economy factor in the window with a broad-brush description of the dire freight railroad situation. Finally, he emphatically calls on the Bush Administration to fulfill its promise to match the local/state/Amtrak investment to get those corridor proposals moving. Otherwise, they will remain in limbo...

i think focusing on the emerging corridors was a good idea . Its ties in with Dot's etc wishes for Amtrak , and as Mr Baker says , It puts the pressure on the admin to put its money wheres it s mouth is .
Spinoffs for long distance would be faster running times on the corridor sections , and freeing up of equipment if new corridor trains are bought .

why did Claytor leave President for Amtrak, long time as President?

Claytor left on account of failing health. He died a few months later.