Passenger Trains > New Leadership needed at Amtrak

With Obama's 2nd term I am hoping he gets rid of "Joe" and gets a quality passenger railroader; someone with knowledge of railroads, political savy, a vision of passenger railroading for the WHOLE nation, and a top flight manager of the Amtrak organization.

Amtrak is talking about replacing Acelas, when they should be figuring out how to keep Hoosier State and all the other state-supported trains in operation. Amtrak has to dragged kicking and screaming to even talk about restarting the Sunset ltd. east of New Orleans. Clearly the focus of Amtrak should be outside of the NEC, bringing passenger rail to the rest of the country.

If it were not for active states such as NC, MI, IL, CA, WA, etc., passenger rail would be shriveling and dying in this nation. Amtrak provides no leadership, but only follows. Amtrak casts no visions about what could be, but moves reluctantly into the future. The day-to-day management ends up woefully inconsistent in delivery of service and maintenance.

Good leadership starts at the top. Surely Obama and Ray LaHood (DOT Sect.) can see poor leadership and should seek a dynamic replacement. Yes, another Graham Claytor/Paul Reistrup. If the Obama administration is going to invest billions into passenger trains, a high quality leader is needed and demanded.

It is about money. If The company is threatened with extinction every year there is no way to plan anything.

MEKoch Wrote, in part:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the
> Obama administration is going to invest billions
> into passenger trains, a high quality leader is
> needed and demanded.

I hasn't yet...

This may sound strange, but I have respect for people like Joe Boardman and some of Amtrak's people. It's very difficult to do your day to day job in an environment where you have little control over what goes on. It's difficult to convey vision, hope, growth, opportunity, etc.

It's very tough to issue reprimands that stick, or enforce discipline. It's tough to fire people who aren't doing their job. Issues like the food and beverage theft hemorrhage millions from the company, yet seem to be unsolvable for years. You can't run a company for the long term without demonstrating to your many many good employees you're at least trying to get rid of slackers.

Various yahoos regularly call for the company to be eliminated, although there's little chance the whole place will be closed down.

Tough place to manage.

Mike,

You summed it up in three words, another Graham Claytor.

Good luck with that. Mr Claytor was unique. Somebody that knew railroading and Washington. I know of no one in the business now that has those qualifications.

The job is more political than railroading unfortunately. You hire a top notch railroader as VP to run it.

J.

The days of railroaders actually running a railroad are long gone...

J.Ferris Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mike,
>
> You summed it up in three words, another Graham
> Claytor.
>
> Good luck with that. Mr Claytor was unique.
> Somebody that knew railroading and Washington. I
> know of no one in the business now that has those
> qualifications.
>
> The job is more political than railroading
> unfortunately. You hire a top notch railroader as
> VP to run it.
>
> J.

The railfans might have had a great impression of Claytor, but he really didn't change the fundamentals of Amtrak. The one that I wish had had a longer tenure was Paul Reistrup.

Though I picked at Boardman when he first came in (about goofy statements like electrifying from Maine to Florida, IIRC), for someone to hold things together in the face of funding cutbacks, he must be doing something right. I don't think now is the time to be changing horses.

MEKoch:

It's painful to admit this; but, if you fired the entire Amtrak management, and replaced them with the finest leadership money can buy, from the freight railroads or Harvard, these individuals would be just as impotent and powerless as the current leadership.

This is because Amtrak is totally political in nature. It is micromanaged, underfunded, and dictated to by politicians--many of them hostile. Even if we had Mr. Claytor back; or even the President of today's Union Pacific or BNSF; these men would be up against the same anti-Amtrak politicians and "cost cutters" who don't want real Amtrak success.

Amtrak leadership could succeed handsomely if they had sufficient funding, and a carload of supportive political backers. And, of course, if the freight railroads suddenly fell in love with the passenger train, and were demanding Amtrak run more of them on their system.

Point fingers at Amtrak management if you want; but Boardman is powerless to improve things much. How can he? Mr. Claytor would be in the same boat today; he preceded this horrible partisan politics that Boardman deals with today. I'm afraid Politicians and the freight railroads call the tune at Amtrak--not Amtrak leadership.

So, instead of hating poor old Joe, pity him for having the most frustrating job in America. You'd be crazy to want this job, even if it were offered. I know I sure wouldn't.

Joe



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/12 17:32 by floridajoe2001.

I agree with you, Joe is hopeless. Leadership and vision is what Amtrak so badly needs and Joe just isn't cutting it. In this environment you have to have a plan and you have to be able to sell it to Congress. With Obama and Biden in there for another four years opportunities have never been better.

It's a lot easier to appear to be a leader when you have control over your funding and budget. Joe Boardman has to beg for his funding every year, and that situation doesn't lead to the possibility to have the appearance of a strong leader. Think of the leaders you have admired. Did they have to beg for funding? (Perhaps, but you didn't know that.)

He is in a position that has the greatest challenges and his position calls for the best management skills. If you can set your budget (or hide the financial fundamentals) it's easy to appear to be a strong, in-charge leader. Managing an organization within heavy financial limitations is at best a huge challenge.

When your financial management is fully transparent, it's easy to be criticized by the sidewalk superintendents, from my experience....

MirandaDepot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's a lot easier to appear to be a leader when
> you have control over your funding and budget.
> Joe Boardman has to beg for his funding every
> year, and that situation doesn't lead to the
> possibility to have the appearance of a strong
> leader. Think of the leaders you have admired.
> Did they have to beg for funding? (Perhaps, but
> you didn't know that.)
>
> He is in a position that has the greatest
> challenges and his position calls for the best
> management skills. If you can set your budget (or
> hide the financial fundamentals) it's easy to
> appear to be a strong, in-charge leader. Managing
> an organization within heavy financial limitations
> is at best a huge challenge.
>
> When your financial management is fully
> transparent, it's easy to be criticized by the
> sidewalk superintendents, from my experience....


Are you saying that Amtrak's financial management is fully transparent?

floridajoe2001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Point fingers at Amtrak management if you want; but Boardman is powerless to improve things much.
> How can he? Mr. Claytor would be in the same boat today; he preceded this horrible partisan politics
> that Boardman deals with today.

============================================================

Not true. He didn't.

Reagan administration Federal Budget Director David Stockman proposed zeroing out the
Amtrak budget in 1985, when W. Graham Claytor had only been Amtrak president for three years.

Claytor then led the company on a steady upward trend until he retired in 1993, terminally ill
with cancer.

And then the "fun" started with a succession of bumblers and stumblers.

Claytor exceeded in areas where Boardman would not even THINK to tread...including knowing
how to handle politicians. He was the ONLY truly great Amtrak president. None before,
and none since come close.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/12 19:20 by GenePoon.

Amtrak is always needed new leadership.until we can get organized labor involved it will always be at tremendous waste of money for the taxpayers of America.

highball Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amtrak is always needed new leadership.until we
> can get organized labor involved it will always
> be at tremendous waste of money for the taxpayers
> of America.

What exactly does this have to do with the subject at hand??

J.

As far i am concerned no UTU member should be invovled in any utu/amtrak supported programs. amtrak has repetedly stated they sre not not willing to negoiate fairly for a labor contract.its been 2 1/2 years

"Are you saying that Amtrak's financial management is fully transparent?"

The congressional oversight people felt like they needed to dig deeper due to a lack, in their view, of transparency.

Without budget authority (and therefore an adequately funded organization), Joe will be kicked around. Anyone in that position will get a performance evaluation of "marginal" to "adequate." No way to do better. You don't want that position.

We're probably hoping for a superhero to be in charge, someone with an extraordinary amount of influence. Those are rare.

Data disclosure is an interesting issue. No matter how much (or little) data are disclosed, someone will be unhappy. In my experience, I always tried to disclose less. The busy bodies always wanted more so they could be "helpful."

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This may sound strange, but I have respect for
> people like Joe Boardman and some of Amtrak's
> people. It's very difficult to do your day to day
> job in an environment where you have little
> control over what goes on. It's difficult to
> convey vision, hope, growth, opportunity, etc.
>
> It's very tough to issue reprimands that stick, or
> enforce discipline. It's tough to fire people who
> aren't doing their job. Issues like the food and
> beverage theft hemorrhage millions from the
> company, yet seem to be unsolvable for years. You
> can't run a company for the long term without
> demonstrating to your many many good employees
> you're at least trying to get rid of slackers.
>
> Various yahoos regularly call for the company to
> be eliminated, although there's little chance the
> whole place will be closed down.
>
> Tough place to manage.


I would agree. Claytor has been gone for quite a while now and it's not the same company.
The Amtrak "culture" began to evolve, and has now taken on a life of its own. No matter
who you install as CEO and upper management, it's not going to fix the problem. You must
change this culture.

As mentioned above, you can't fire the bums, slackers, and thieves; its like an army with
no discipline or respect for authority. Instead of saluting the general, you just flip
him off. No business could operate in this environment.

Aren't we talking about the unions' stranglehold on Amtrak? The freight RR's have negotiated
with their unions, received concessions and made changes that reflect the growth and modernization
of the industry.

Amtrak hasn't done any such thing; giving the unions anything they ask for. It's supposed to be a
negotiation process, with give and take on both sides. Amtrak CEO's (Boardman)seem all to happy to
crawl in bed with the union rather than standing up for the viability of the company. There are no
incentives to do so (personal or otherwise) so who cares as long as congress keeps feeding the kitty?

The same can be said for just about any government employee union. In the business world, management
negotiates to keep the company profitable and efficient, and thus competitive, and answers to the stockholders,
acting on their behalf. It's more of a team effort. Both sides can win.

In the case of the government employee unions, whose negotiating on behalf of the stockholders? (aka the taxpayers)

MirandaDepot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Are you saying that Amtrak's financial management
> is fully transparent?"
>
> The congressional oversight people felt like they
> needed to dig deeper due to a lack, in their view,
> of transparency.
>

OK. I interpreted your original comments to suggest Amtrak has good financial transparency.


> Without budget authority (and therefore an
> adequately funded organization), Joe will be
> kicked around. Anyone in that position will get a
> performance evaluation of "marginal" to
> "adequate." No way to do better. You don't want
> that position.


Joe Boardman and the Amtrak board has budget authority, but they're hemmed in by mandated services, and the immutability of many of its costs. In other transportation businesses, costs have been cut through work rules changes (negotiated or imposed by courts in bankruptcy), or service eliminations (hundreds of smaller airports). Steep concessions by aircraft suppliers have also reduced operating costs. Amtrak is locked into its expense and labor structure, like any other federal agency or enterprise. Although there's much hand wringing about "zeroing out" Amtrak, nobody acts like that's a real probability.

It's also locked into much of its route structure. Even middle of the night, three times weekly trains have their congressional fans.


(snip)

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> floridajoe2001 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Point fingers at Amtrak management if you want;
> but Boardman is powerless to improve things much.
>
> > How can he? Mr. Claytor would be in the same
> boat today; he preceded this horrible partisan
> politics
> > that Boardman deals with today.
>
> ==================================================
> ==========
>
> Not true. He didn't.
>
> Reagan administration Federal Budget Director
> David Stockman proposed zeroing out the
> Amtrak budget in 1985, when W. Graham Claytor had
> only been Amtrak president for three years.
>
> Claytor then led the company on a steady upward
> trend until he retired in 1993, terminally ill
> with cancer.
>
> And then the "fun" started with a succession of
> bumblers and stumblers.
>
> Claytor exceeded in areas where Boardman would not
> even THINK to tread...including knowing
> how to handle politicians. He was the ONLY truly
> great Amtrak president. None before,
> and none since come close.

=====================================================================


First and foremost, Mr. Claytor "exceeded" in continuous demonstrated personal integrity, which was widely known and enabled him to be credible in other areas and more successfully withstand political pressures. This was an Amtrak CEO who routinely traveled on the Amtrak system, alone in a roomette in a car with other customers, with a bogus reservation name to see what the paying passengers were experiencing. He rarely used a business car -- Beech Grove or others -- in those travels unless there was a specific need. Likewise, I was once told that when he took Auto-Train shortly after Amtrak resumed the service and his car was first off in Sanford, he told the local manager that he never again wanted any special treatment and if it happened again, that manager would be unemployed.
These sorts of examples CAN change a culture, and it did... many of his VPs went on to higher positions in the industry, and were/are well respected.

Regarding Graham Claytor, I have no problem with idolizing leaders of the past. But what they did "back then" just doesn't help us much today.

Mr. Claytor, and all Amtrak presidents before him, pre-dated Acela and it's achievement of reversing the air/rail market. He also pre-dated the boom in record revenue/ridership that happened after him. So, you see, all Amtrak improvement didn't stop with his departing the scene.

Also, Mr. Claytor never had to face what has become known in our world as unbending ideology; or super-charged partisanship; or a divided America--and have all this affect Amtrak so profoundly.

I tremble at the thought of a Graham Claytor having to face the likes of John Mica and his phony hearings. Being a man of integrity, he probably would have resigned long ago; or simply been fired like Alexander Kumment or David Gunn.

So, in today's Amtrak world, we have to look beyond Boardman and his team, and focus on the political dysfunction that is holding Amtrak back. This is where we will find the "new leadership" that MEKock, who started this thread, wants to have, along with the rest of us.

Joe



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/12 07:38 by floridajoe2001.