Passenger Trains > NY Times: Growth Predicted for Amtrak

The New York Times

December 23, 2006
Surprising Forecast for Amtrak: Growth
By MATTHEW L. WALD and DON PHILLIPS

WASHINGTON, Dec. 22 — Amtrak could see a ridership growth spurt of 50 percent in the next five to 10 years, but it would require billions of state and federal dollars invested in the tracks of other railroads, and millions more of private investment in passenger rail cars, the new president of the railroad said Thursday in an interview.

“The stars may be aligning” for a renaissance of rail, both passenger and freight, said Alexander K. Kummant, who was named president of Amtrak in September, after the board fired his predecessor, David L. Gunn.

Mr. Kummant indicated that Amtrak was backing away from some ideas that had upset Amtrak supporters, including putting the Washington-to-Boston corridor under separate ownership. He also said he did not intend to slash the long-distance network because it was a national asset that, once lost, would probably never be recovered.

Mr. Kummant appeared to rule out much-discussed plans to privatize major parts of Amtrak’s unionized work force, instead saying it would make better sense to expand passenger service, and with it union jobs, while outsourcing only peripheral functions, like tree trimming.

The railroad may be poised for a rebound. Congressional Democrats, soon to be in control, are hopeful that they can enact a law setting goals for Amtrak, replacing the one that lapsed in 2002. Those goals include some of what Mr. Kummant listed as his own strategy, like financing rail projects the way that the federal government finances highways — by offering matching money to the states — and helping Amtrak and local rail transit agencies consolidate their purchases of new equipment at reduced cost.

The proposals passed the Senate overwhelmingly last year, but House Republican leaders would not bring them up for a vote.

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, the New Jersey Democrat who co-sponsored a bill with those provisions, will be in charge of the Senate’s rail subcommittee next year. Mr. Lautenberg said he would offer a similar measure when Congress reconvened.

Amtrak reported record revenue of $131.2 million in November, the highest of any month. For the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, ticket revenue was $1.37 billion, up 11 percent over the 2005 fiscal year. Its flagship Acela train, which runs between Washington and Boston, was sidelined for months with brake problems in 2005, but now is running well, and national ridership is up.

But Amtrak, which has $3.6 billion in long-term debt, will remain heavily dependent on federal subsidies of about $1 billion a year for the foreseeable future. And it has enduring labor problems; most of its employees have been without a contract for seven years.

Mr. Kummant, a former freight rail executive, said that the rail network nationally was overloaded, but that strong growth in freight traffic, and the interest in rail as a solution to congestion and energy problems, opened the possibility for government investment in private freight railroad lines that Amtrak used.

He said the additional money needed — perhaps $1 billion a year for 10 years — was modest compared with what Washington spent on other modes of transportation. He said that track improvements for “the cost of four or five highway interchanges” would allow corridors of several hundred miles with passenger service at more than 100 miles an hour.

But both Amtrak and the freight railroads would need outside capital. Matthew Rose, chairman of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, said Mr. Kummant’s idea of government investment “makes a lot of sense” as long as it is carefully devised to avoid government interference in private-sector decisions. Mr. Rose said that railroading was in a “rising tide” era, and that without government help, Amtrak would inevitably be squeezed and unable to provide reliable service.

Amtrak’s chairman, David M. Laney, chosen by the Bush administration, and Mr. Kummant are viewed with suspicion by some of Amtrak’s allies in Congress, who fear they share the view of the Transportation Department that the railroad, a perennial money-loser, should drop its long-distance routes. But in a one-hour interview in his office, which was punctuated by the vibrations from trains passing in a tunnel four stories below, Mr. Kummant said, “We’re not going to do anything radical there.”

The cost of cross-country trains comes to about a dollar and a half per American per year, he said, and they are irreplaceable. He compared trains like the Empire Builder and the City of New Orleans to assets like national parks. “I haven’t had the opportunity to go to Glacier National Park since 1976, but I pay taxes every year in the hope that I have the option to go back,” Mr. Kummant said.

The Government Accountability Office said in a report in November that 80 percent of Amtrak’s losses were on long-distance trains, which were not helping with congestion, urban mobility or energy use, and suggested they be dropped.

Mr. Kummant spoke six days after he fired several top executives of Amtrak; he would not comment on why. Mr. Laney said Mr. Kummant was simply making room for his own management team.

Mr. Kummant said Amtrak was looking into a new way to buy rail cars for its aging fleet: allying with commuter lines and ordering cars by the hundreds, instead of the dozens, cutting the cost to manufacture new models.

Joint purchase efforts are already under way in a partnership between Metrolink in Southern California and Tri-Rail in South Florida, while New Jersey is buying locomotives identical to those being bought in Montreal, said Anthony M. Kouneski, vice president for member services at the American Public Transit Association.

Mr. Kummant also raised the possibility of using “equipment trusts” to provide passenger cars and locomotives, much the way freight cars and airplanes are often purchased, with banks or other investors buying the cars and leasing them to Amtrak long-term.

The Amtrak president seemed conciliatory toward the railroad’s unions, suggesting that they could share in the railroad’s growth and observing, as a former manufacturing executive, that “outsourcing is no panacea.” But he said that the railroad would need flexibility from its unions. For example, he said, the highly skilled workers who maintain the overhead power lines should not spend their time trimming trees, and their union should allow the railroad to bring in outside contractors to do that job at lower cost.

Tony Iannone, vice president of the United Transportation Union and an Amtrak conductor, said that Mr. Kummant was “saying the right things, and we are patiently waiting” to hear more.

The idea of equipment trusts is interesting, although I thought Amtrak already used that process.

One problem for leasing situations is the lessor often demands absolute fidelity to maintenance schedules, and oversight of maintenance work. It's part of the game, and will require some adjustments on Amtrak's part. That was a big issue with BN when the LMX units came on line. They ended up being serviced by BN people with supervision by the builder. Same for servicing some of the unit coal train hopper cars.

Getting more state money in the planning is a good idea. NY NC NJ PA MI IL WA CA and others are already in that game

"Give us more money. And this time we won't waste it. Promise".

Geesh.

"The cost of cross-country trains comes to about a dollar and a half per American per year, he said, and they are irreplaceable."

I like the way this guy talks. I guess we'll find out how he walks.....

lowwater

Amtrak Sort of does the Equipment trust thing... California owns the majority of the bilevels used in the intercity services here. All of the CABlue and Gold cars are owned by the state and 1/5 of the Surfliner fleet is State-owned. I believe the Talgo equipment is all owned by the state of Washington... in fact the Las Vegas Corridor that was going to start up would have used equipment purchased by the Hotel Coalition that was lobbying to get the service started. Once the plans fell through the equipment was sold instead to Washington.

but everything else... the Amfleets, Superliners, Horizons, Viewliners, etc are owned by the NRPC (Amtrak's real name) and were purchased by Amtrak with Amtrak funding and revenue. I could mainly see the Trust on local corridors operating within or around a certain locality (like Las Vegas) but not on long-distance equipment.

My worst Nightmare: external company logos adorning the side of superliner cars (OOh... The "Hooters" owned diner car!! The "Starbucks" Cafe car... yeah, I could see it too!)

As for the long term I hear some good things coming out. I've said before Amtrak's current funding level is only adequate for maintaining its current level of service, not for improving anything. Hopefully they can get funding earmarked for track projects and new corridors. If Amtrak's able to reduce labor costs by negotiating with the Unions for more flexibility then funding there could be reduced. I like that he wants to keep the long-distance network, hopefully it can be expanded to go more places (Extend the Heartland flyer to Chicago Via STL, or at least to STL, Bring back the Desert Wind LAX-SLC to provide a decent connection to the Zephyr from SoCal... And I'm sure there's more in the East to be done).

I'm impressed, and can't wait to see some positive changes myself... But I'll remain optimistic until it happens.

Jaanfo Wrote:

> My worst Nightmare: external company logos
> adorning the side of superliner cars (OOh... The
> "Hooters" owned diner car!!

Hold on there pardner...

A Hooters owned diner car doesn't sound too bad. BTW, I'm still waiting for Amtrak to take up my idea of adding a strip club car to the consist...

I didn't say it was a bad concept... I just don't want Amtrak trains to pass by with various logos on their cars and locomotives...

I could see a future consist written down by a foamer as follows

UPS Loco UPX0025
Allied Loco ALX0003
A-1 Self Storage Bag car ASX0001
Motel 6 Sleeper MTX0134
Holiday inn sleeper HDX0056
Motel 6 Sleeper MTX0012
Pizza Hut Diner PZX0004
Starbucks Lounge SBX0256
Greyhound Couch GHX0567
SouthWest Airlines Coach SWX0045
FedEx Baggage Coach FDX0002
Hooters Diner HTX0007 (Deadhead... probably for cleanup after the incident last week)
Amtrak Coach AMTK31045 (Deadheading to Beech Grove for Scrapping?)

Sorry to steal the thread... I was having too much fun with that.

carry on all.

Yeah, but we all had the same complaint when the sports stadiums started pimping themselves out to the highest corporate bidder, and look at how that...

Oh, wait a minute, I hate corporate sponsored stadium names...

Never mind... :)

"Petco Park" "IPayOne Center" "Safeco Field"

*Shudders*

What happened to the SuperDome, Sports Arena, powerful names?



Anyway, ordering new equipment (trying to rerail the topic... sorry folks). I don't think Amtrak should be purchasing commuter equipment, however I feel Amtrak should at least look to piggyback orders with state agencies... When CA orders their bilevel cars Amtrak should look into ordering some to test on the busier Chicago Routes. As Chicago slowly becomes more aware of trains (and new services improve from current poor OTP and service) that's probably going to be one of the fastest-expanding corridors, and new equipment will be a must.

I'm wondering if Amtrak should begin replacing Superliner I cars with single level cars for long distance trains. I'm thinking we should go back to streamlined single level cars with large rooms and Domeed lounges, wonder if losing the Corporate-look Superliners might attract more riders just by the nostalgia of an old-style train. Especially with Express gone... park domes... I doubt commuter agencies will be looking for those.

Also, Amtrak needs to start offering more competitive operations bids... they've been losing contracts recently, contracts which make money since there is an outside agency paying for the operations.

Amtrak Needs 1200 New Superliners and Viewliners Cars order?

JimM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Give us more money. And this time we won't waste
> it. Promise".
>
> Geesh.

Amtrak has done quite well with some of its equipment purchases. Sure, the Acelas have had their problems, but the Amfleets, Superliners, Horizons, and other equipment types have performed very well and given Amtrak its money's worth!

railcity Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amtrak Needs 1200 New Superliners and Viewliners
> Cars order?

No, because the Federal government is not going to fund the size of the deficit that running that many more trains would create.

Now if Governor Bill R. of NM were President, and he is highly qualified, all this might well be possible. Can we the contributers to this board even imagine an administration that made efficient and environmentally sound rail transportation a priority, in order to reduce reduce greenhouse gases, create construction jobs and free us from the curse of imported oil and all of the hidden costs related to it's use?

avogel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now if Governor Bill R. of NM were President, and
> he is highly qualified, all this might well be
> possible. Can we the contributers to this board
> even imagine an administration that made
> efficient and environmentally sound rail
> transportation a priority, in order to reduce
> reduce greenhouse gases, create construction jobs
> and free us from the curse of imported oil and all
> of the hidden costs related to it's use?

Maybe someone from New Mexico will tell me otherwise, but my impression of Governor Richardson is that he is creating messes in New Mexico for others to clean up after he is gone, while aspiring to create bigger messes elsewhere (and personally I like him OK). Anyhow, for any Democrat to stop the Rodham train will be tough.

Back to the question, 1200 Superliners and Viewliners won't accomplish much in the goals you outline. However, if a politician pushed something akin to the Interstate Highway System to build high speed rail corridors similar to TGV and ICE lines, I'd get behind him 100 percent. With the looming entitlement trainwreck threatening to push government debt to unmanageable levels, the key will be to come up with a funding mechanism, such as a small transportation fuel tax to keep the program from adding to national debt.

Corp sponsored paint jobs are nothing new.
Re the engines that were painted to sponsor foreign pickups of a few yrs ago and that was just advertising.
DH

Neptune Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Corp sponsored paint jobs are nothing new.
> Re the engines that were painted to sponsor
> foreign pickups of a few yrs ago and that was just
> advertising.
> DH

Looks like someone earlier in this thread took a jump from "equipment trusts" to corporate sponsored paint jobs. Equipment trusts are most viable when the equipment could be easily resold if the operator defaults. With the increasing number of commuter operations, I'd think that equipment trusts might be an option for passenger locomotives. For passenger cars, I'd think you would need some sort of standard design for a shell that could easily be modified for some other passenger operator's needs, for equipment trusts to be considered.

> The cost of cross-country trains comes to about a
> dollar and a half per American per year, he said,
> and they are irreplaceable. He compared trains
> like the Empire Builder and the City of New
> Orleans to assets like national parks. “I haven’t
> had the opportunity to go to Glacier National Park
> since 1976, but I pay taxes every year in the hope
> that I have the option to go back,” Mr. Kummant
> said.
>
> The Government Accountability Office said in a
> report in November that 80 percent of Amtrak’s
> losses were on long-distance trains, which were
> not helping with congestion, urban mobility or
> energy use, and suggested they be dropped.

Boy, how much more criticism are we gonna get here from the Accountability office on "claims" that they can't take the time to even prove! LD Trains don't cost much, Krummant even said that, but it's bad when they're like the Bush Administration on saying they need to get dropped just because they don't help with congestion, mobility, or energy use! Wonder if they actually saw how 5 and 6 were the only trains still running through Denver after that city got dumped by a major blizzard earlier this week! If 5 and 6 wasn't there, people would have no choice but to wait just like others just to get across the country, especially in Colorado! On a side note, I still wish Amtrak would give those jerks the finger. The cost control Gunn put in has helped out a lot, the Accountability office just wants Amtrak to turn a profit which is nearly impossible!

> Tony Iannone, vice president of the United
> Transportation Union and an Amtrak conductor, said
> that Mr. Kummant was “saying the right things, and
> we are patiently waiting” to hear more.

I'm with Tony, I hope more positive news comes from Amtrak than negative news that's always been a major thorn to us supporters of intercity passenger rail! I also hope once things do work out, all 3 major shops can get those cars they got back on the rails, and more trains would start coming back, not the new stuff, but like the ones Amtrak should've not of gotten rid of, I hope the 1St that does come back is the original 40 and 41, the Broadway Limited!

Replace all the Current Cars with 1200 New Ones. The NEC needs 300 new Coaches in Amtrak 5 years plan, and 500 New Superlines amtrak one time had 479 Superliners now its down to 412 Superlines today in services and single level Viewlines in Diner, Lounge, Coaches, Dorms or Reg Sleeping Cars say 230 more Viewlines? What your Plan for Amtrak Cars?

railcity Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Replace all the Current Cars with 1200 New Ones.
> The NEC needs 300 new Coaches in Amtrak 5 years
> plan, and 500 New Superlines amtrak one time had
> 479 Superliners now its down to 412 Superlines
> today in services and single level Viewlines in
> Diner, Lounge, Coaches, Dorms or Reg Sleeping Cars
> say 230 more Viewlines? What your Plan for Amtrak
> Cars?

You didn't mention any corridor cars in your original post saying that 1200 Superliners and Viewliners were needed. That implies at least a doubling of long distance service, which just isn't going to happen anytime soon.

What would I do? I would do what Amtrak and Congress appears focused on now - build the NEC cars and design and build a new car for the emerging corridor services. As for serviceable long distance cars, I'd put them to the best possible uses. If you get to the point where the financial performance of LDT's is reasonable, then you can talk about new cars.

Just curious - how many billions would 1200 new long distance cars cost? I'd say at least two or three billion.

avogel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now if Governor Bill R. of NM were President, and
> he is highly qualified, all this might well be
> possible. Can we the contributers to this board
> even imagine an administration that made
> efficient and environmentally sound rail
> transportation a priority, in order to reduce
> reduce greenhouse gases, create construction jobs
> and free us from the curse of imported oil and all
> of the hidden costs related to it's use?
--------------------------------------------------------
No, not as long as the legislative branch, both big D's and big R's, don't know about the few big I's, are beholden to the big money that gets them elected and permanently re-elected.