New Interview; Mr. Anderson/NPR

[gokeefe]

As railfans, how can any of you guys seriously defend this guy? My problem isn't with anyone's opinion regarding changes to the Amtrak system, it's that Anderson blatantly distorts facts in an effort to undermine our long distance rail network. He mentions 7 people boarding the Southwest Chief (where that's the only train on the line) while blatantly leaving out the number of passengers riding over that portion of the line who DID NOT board at the stations on that segment.

This and other points of view you mentioned are something the Congressional staff understands quite well as a communication tactic. They see this technique all the time where policy makers may highlight certain facts but omit or obscure others in order to advance their own agenda.

This is completely natural part of politics that has centuries of tradition in our own country and also our predecessor state, the United Kingdom.

Anderson is an able and effective practitioner of the art of rhetoric. He understands his political audience and again I note the "fluffy carrot" which if taken by Congress will be done so in a manner that is sure to be ironclad.

The only thing worse than "canceling" the local train would be fumbling it's replacement and getting nothing at all in return.

[Tadman]

As railfans, how can any of you guys seriously defend this guy? My problem isn't with anyone's opinion regarding changes to the Amtrak system, it's that Anderson blatantly distorts facts in an effort to undermine our long distance rail network. He mentions 7 people boarding the Southwest Chief (where that's the only train on the line) while blatantly leaving out the number of passengers riding over that portion of the line who DID NOT board at the stations on that segment.

This and other points of view you mentioned are something the Congressional staff understands quite well as a communication tactic. They see this technique all the time where policy makers may highlight certain facts but omit or obscure others in order to advance their own agenda.

This is completely natural part of politics that has centuries of tradition in our own country and also our predecessor state, the United Kingdom.

Anderson is an able and effective practitioner of the art of rhetoric. He understands his political audience and again I note the "fluffy carrot" which if taken by Congress will be done so in a manner that is sure to be ironclad.

The only thing worse than "canceling" the local train would be fumbling it's replacement and getting nothing at all in return.

How can you undermine something that is completely marginal and borderline useless? The national network carries <1% of national passengers. Arguing about diners completely ignores the fact that the train is not a choice for almost anybody, literally, by the numbers. Amtrak could serve fresh lobster and Dom Perignon every day and it wouldn't change things.

Mr. Anderson wants to create a network that means something, that stands for something, that actually provides useful services. Why is that wrong? Who are we hurting when <1% of national passengers choose the train?

[Tadman]

I can say, though, that In twenty years of travelling from downstate Illinois or West Central Indiana to greater Salt Lake City, I have very rarely if ever seen Amtrak coach fares that were higher than plane fares. Just this summer I took the train SLC-Effingham for $174 dollars and flew back for around $300; I bought the tickets the same day, about a week before the train trip and ten days before the plane trip.

I admire your zeal for rail travel, but even I'm not doing that trip. Coach to SLC is rough. I rode coach a few times before growing up to DC, SLC, Denver, etc... and it is a long haul in the seats.

If your time is worth more than $10/hour, that $170 vs. $300 tilts pretty quickly in favor of the plane. Even as a fan, I can hardly justify a SLC run, sleeper or not.

On here we talk a lot about using time as a justifier for traveling by corridor train compared to car. If I can drive Detroit in 3-4 hours, but train is 5, I can justify it because I can sleep or work instead of holding a steering wheel for four hours. That same justification works against the long distance train. 48 hours of seat time is rough compared to 4 hours in the air, even if there's another 4 at airports.

[lordsigma12345]

On here we talk a lot about using time as a justifier for traveling by corridor train compared to car. If I can drive Detroit in 3-4 hours, but train is 5, I can justify it because I can sleep or work instead of holding a steering wheel for four hours. That same justification works against the long distance train. 48 hours of seat time is rough compared to 4 hours in the air, even if there's another 4 at airports.

But what about people that don't or won't fly and don't want to drive? That's a pretty good justification and is the reason I take the train. And a bus isn't really a good option for me because you are crammed in a cramped seat where on the train you can get up and walk around a little bit. I guess one could argue that people that fit into that category aren't the taxpayers problem, but it is a legitimate group of people. Don't get me wrong I'm not one that's saying we can't have any changes, and I think Amtrak should try to focus on making itself more relevant in more corridors, but I think there should be a place for some long distance (not necessarily all 15 routes we have now.) However I'm not panicking because I don't think the plan is to cut them all.

[urr304]

Sorry but I don't have time to go all the way through this thread, so something I write down may have already been said.

What is wrong with using a LD train to connect different corridors. In one section its the day train and the next the PM train for that corridor, nothing new about that. In fact that is being used on Empire Service in a way now and the NEC a bit with some trains going beyond DC.

[Arborwayfan]

Tad, that's true enough about the grueling trip from SLC to Mattoon. But I wasn't saying a lot of people do that, or could be gotten to do that; I was just saying that I've watched who gets on and off over that route. Coach is usually pretty full and there's a lot of turnover. There are a lot of short distance pax on LD trains, and some long-haul ones in coach. (And there are also a lot of people whose time is worth less than $10 an hour, especially if you include people who maybe get paid more than that when they are working but who would not be getting paid those hours even if they weren't using them to travel -- that's me as a professor in the summer, when my work is writing and I can do it perfectly well at my seat.)

If even the people who ride the CZ and the other LD trains for shorter distances between smaller places are an insignificant fraction of their towns' travelers, then maybe there's no point supporting those trains. And maybe if they are a significant fraction of their towns' travelers, then maybe a different schedule, or a bus, or something, would be better. The thing I object to is the idea that the LD trains are just nostalgic playgrounds for rich retired people and other railfans, which I simply don't think is true. That's one of the reasons some people support them, yes, but it's not what draws in all or most of the passengers as far as I can see. The crowd in the coaches is different. Maybe no one would really be hurt if the trains went away; the LD trains sure aren't reducing congestion anywhere. But if that's the decision, it should be made by people facing all the facts and deciding to use resources elsewhere, not by people looking at selected parts of the picture.

[mtuandrew]

Sorry but I don't have time to go all the way through this thread, so something I write down may have already been said.

What is wrong with using a LD train to connect different corridors. In one section its the day train and the next the PM train for that corridor, nothing new about that. In fact that is being used on Empire Service in a way now and the NEC a bit with some trains going beyond DC.

I feel like there’s nothing at all wrong with that. The Hiawatha Service includes the Empire Builder as part of its corridor service, and the Lincoln Service includes the Texas Eagle. Again, that’s the biggest issue that I don’t feel Anderson gets: long-distance trains are themselves concatenated corridor trains, whether or not they run on a designated corridor.

[JoeG]

Anderson is skilled at interviews. However, has he actually instituted any new trains on any shorter corridors? We have another case of glib vaporware.
Meanwhile he does not seem to be using the new diners for anything at all. He could use one on the Cardinal as a sleeper lounge. He doesn't even do this. Maybe the new sleepers are coming online so slowly that he won't get to not use them. Right now his attitude seems to be that he won't use them even if they are ready.
Are these the behaviors of an innovator or a saboteur?

[gokeefe]

Anybody who has figured out how to eliminate the operating deficit without cutting a single route mile is definitely an innovator.

I would note that the Valley Flyer between SPG and NHT inaugurated service during his tenure. Also he's returned the Acela Non-Stop a decade and a half (or more?) since it last ran.

Saboteurs would be doing things like rescheduling the Empire Builder, cutting dining cars on the transcontinental Long Distance routes, slowing down the Acela and/or cutting frontline station staffing at major terminals.

They would also delay or cancel NEC improvements. I've seen these tricks elsewhere in government. He doesn't engage in any of this.

To the best of my knowledge Anderson has in fact helped Amtrak continue to move forward and improve. He's definitely made changes that some don't like but he has also restored services and amenities in other areas (Auto Train) that he gets no credit for whatsoever.

[JoeG]

Despite the Acela trainsets and other improvements, Amtrak doesn't do any better end to end than the Pennsy did. I also believe times from NY to BOS aren't better than the New Haven's fastest, despite the elimination of the engine change at NH and the complete electrification of the route.
So, here's a challenge for Mr Anderson: you;ve got some constant tension catenary, some 150 mph speed limits, nice Acela trains, complete Corridor electrification. Now, to prove your good intentions, beat the fastest New Haven and Pennsy times pre-amtrak. You have better equipment, more electrification, better road maintenance than the predecessor roads had in the sixties.
What's your excuse?

[ThirdRail7]

How can you undermine something that is completely marginal and borderline useless? The national network carries <1% of national passengers. Arguing about diners completely ignores the fact that the train is not a choice for almost anybody, literally, by the numbers. Amtrak could serve fresh lobster and Dom Perignon every day and it wouldn't change things.

Mr. Anderson wants to create a network that means something, that stands for something, that actually provides useful services. Why is that wrong? Who are we hurting when <1% of national passengers choose the train?

Very simple.
You undermine it by underinvesting in the system.
You undermine it by raising the price to a borderline unreasonable price and take away the things that put "value" behind the price.
You undermine it by cutting capacity and diverting your assets away from it
You undermine it by eliminating connecting services and additional territories that can hold the system together.
You undermine it be starving it instead of feeding it.
You undermine it by not maintaining it. How many refreshes has the Acela undergone versus the long-distance fleets? While we're on the subject, the set hasn't even made 20 years and it is being replaced!

When you do all of that, it is no wonder that the system carries less than 1 percent. You actively hacked away at the system, failed to address the needs of the host, and then say "well, no one wants to ride long distance"

The trains may run point to point but the passengers may not. The end to end ridership on the NEC regionals and dare I say the Acelas isn't that outstanding. But they function well as long, corridor trains.

if you added the appropriate capacity to the system and made it price appropriate, you'd attract and retain more riders. The national network should be part of the system and in some places, it should be used as part of an operating pattern. There are plenty of opportunities for the LD to be part of an operating pattern that works with additional services (like the Crescent and the Cardinal working with the Lynchburger). If you could get those trains on time, it would be a boon.

The question in my mind is why does the Cardinal run three times a week when it is in a good slot to be part of a properly timed, multi-service pattern at both ends of the route. We should look to bolster it, with a day train out of CHI between CIN. If they took the 450 million dollars they spent on roughly 9 miles of constant tension catenary on the NEC, they could have funded the improvements to make this viable.

They could have spent that money to bring back the second Pennsylvanian or possibly restored the Broadway through Ohio.

How about the MSP-CHI train that would have worked with 7/8 or a second ATL train that could have worked with the Crescent, a train that used to have the capacity for 450 passengers, until Amtrak diverted the equipment away from it?

Then, they say there is no ridership while they only allow 1 coach to be used for long distances.

Naturally.

[mtuandrew]

Very hard to argue TR7’s points. It seems like most of the low-hanging mid-to-high profit ridership on the NEC has been grabbed, but not in the emergent or ill-served markets connected to hubs.

Let’s say no one at Amtrak wants to restart the Broadway Limited right now, since it’s too long for a day route and new sleeper routes seem to be verboten, but they still have demand for additional service over those routes. How much pricing flexibility does Amtrak have to approach Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania and New York and ask, “would you be willing to fund daylight corridors NYP-PGH-CLE, NYP-ALB-CLE, and CHI-TOL-CLE at half our regular PRIIA per-mile rate? Take it or leave it.”

[David Benton]

Yes the current network is the building block for a bigger,more frequent service. States could have the savings made from having a second train on a ld route credited off the cost of a state route. In other words ,they only pay additional costs of the route, not the new train costs.

[JoeG]

Let's consider Virginia. It seems to be willing to spend money to increase Amtrak service. It is a prosperous state and readily comes up with money. But getting anything done there still takes forever. How long did it take to add the one train to Roanoke? We see talk of extending the Roanoke train but any change seems to take years. I mean, we are not talking about building a new railroad, just about adding a round trip or lengthening an existing one. Seems like Virgin/Brightline can build a railroad faster than Amtrak can add a train. How can this be speeded up? It seems like in Virginia there are no money or NIMBY issues and still things move at a glacial pace.

[gokeefe]

No, they were talking about and did have to build additional tracks to satisfy the host railroad. That's why Virginia service enhancements (and others) take so long. Tracks have to be reinstalled, switches and signals have to be reconfigured and platforms have to be built. None of that happens overnight.