Passenger Trains > WSJ full text, "Amtrak Plan to Expand Ridership..."

I started a new thread with the full text of the article, because the prior one at

https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,4737466

had already gone to where TO members/WSJ nonsubscribers could not see past the first page.
============================================================================

Amtrak Plan to Expand Ridership Could Sidetrack Storied Trains

Railroad wants to offer more service between cities in fast-growing regions. That could mean swapping sleepers for passenger cars (COACHES)

Wall Street Journal
By Ted Mann
Feb. 20, 2019 7:00 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON—Seeking to attract millions more passengers, Amtrak is preparing a large-scale overhaul of its national network aimed at boosting passenger service in the South and West—but at the expense of long-haul routes beloved by train buffs and their allies in Congress.

The goal is to revamp the way Amtrak runs trains along the aging network of national routes it already maintains, with more frequent service between pairs of cities in the fastest-growing parts of the country, such as Atlanta and Charlotte, N.C., or Cleveland and Cincinnati. Running more trains over shorter distances would allow Amtrak to better serve those commercial corridors where rail can compete with flying and driving, railroad officials said.

But that new service could come at the cost of curtailing some long-distance routes, where storied trains like the Empire Builder and the Southwest Chief have small but fervent bases of support and lineage stretching back to the golden age of railroads.

Red Lines

Amtrak is exploring the possibility of curtailing service on its long-distance routes—which incur the railroad’s biggest losses—to focus on service along more densely populated routes similar to the Northeast Corridor.

And any change in Amtrak’s management of the national network will require approval from Congress, which has aggressively defended the long-distance routes in the past, even as it presses Amtrak to prioritize improving its financial performance.

The debate over Amtrak’s national service will be renewed in earnest next month, when the railroad releases a five-year asset-management plan that will preview the choices it will face in replacing the aging fleet of long-distance trains. Amtrak says it will need $2.2 billion to $2.7 billion between now and 2030, as part of a total $3.8 billion it expects to spend on replacing the long-distance fleet, including locomotives Amtrak has already ordered.

Railroad officials are using that looming procurement to present Congress with a tough decision it will have to make when it takes up Amtrak’s reauthorization and capital funding later this year.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/amtrak-plan-to-expand-ridership-could-sidetrack-storied-trains-11550664000

(SUBSCRIPTION REQUIRED which is why I posted the entire article)

Now, let's see how NARP/RPA/Alphabet Soup "Advocacy" is going to spin this in defense of Amtrak, as a positive.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/19 10:44 by GenePoon.

Atlanta to Charlotte is under 750 miles, so the states would pay for that.  You might get some money out of NC, but getting money out of GA and SC could be a challenge.  FL has no expressed interest in taking over BrightLine's corridor, which could eventually run from Miami to Orlando to Tampa. Still under 750 miles.

Gene: the story is much longer than what you've included. I'll include this excerpt:

"The debate over Amtrak’s national service will be renewed in earnest next month, when the railroad releases a five-year asset-management plan that will preview the choices it will face in replacing the aging fleet of long-distance trains. Amtrak says it will need $2.2 billion to $2.7 billion between now and 2030, as part of a total $3.8 billion it expects to spend on replacing the long-distance fleet, including locomotives Amtrak has already ordered."

I guess we'll know more soon about Amtrak's intentions.

As for corridors: Cleveland to Cincinnati is the wave of the future? 

The State's former governor took a hard pass on that, even when offered federal money. What makes Anderson and his advisors think that conditions on the ground have changed, or that this represents a viable commercial opportunity? 

I've read through Anderson's congressional testimony, and most of what he said was an utterly conventional "begfest" for NEC capital investment. Gateway, B&P Tunnels and so forth. ("Infrastructure" was the topic of the hearing, after all.) Cleveland-Cincinnati and Atlanta-Charlotte are embellishments added by the anonymous company official. I wonder what sort of multi-billion-dollar sum NS will come up with for an Atlanta-Charlotte corridor?

The only source cited for a direct quote in the piece is Anderson's written congressional testimony, since he (famously) declines to be interviewed.

Paul Wilson
Arlington, VA



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/19 11:09 by Dcmcrider.

Full text available here.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/amtrak-plan-to-expand-ridership-could-sidetrack-storied-trains/ar-BBTQFFM

Excerpt:

The debate over Amtrak’s national service will be renewed in earnest next month, when the railroad releases a five-year asset-management plan that will preview the choices it will face in replacing the aging fleet of long-distance trains. Amtrak says it will need $2.2 billion to $2.7 billion between now and 2030, as part of a total $3.8 billion it expects to spend on replacing the long-distance fleet, including locomotives Amtrak has already ordered.

Railroad officials are using that looming procurement to present Congress with a tough decision it will have to make when it takes up Amtrak’s reauthorization and capital funding later this year.

Rather than simply replacing the sleeping and dining cars used on cross-country routes, Congress and the railroad could decide to purchase railcars better suited to carrying more passengers along shorter corridors, Amtrak and government officials said.

Amtrak Chief Executive Richard Anderson, a former Delta Air Lines Inc. CEO, has hinted at his desire to grow ridership along densely populated corridors where Amtrak currently runs infrequent service, and has already tangled with supporters of long-distance trains in the process.

“The demand is clearly there for additional short-corridor service throughout the U.S., which includes both additional frequencies for existing routes and establishing new routes between city pairs,” Mr. Anderson said in written testimony to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee earlier this month.

“The present network simply does not fit the future,” Mr. Anderson said.

Most of Amtrak’s train sets in service along long-distance routes are nearing the end of their useful life, railroad officials say.

That will mean deciding whether to replace all of the sleepers, diners and baggage cars now in use on trains like the City of New Orleans or the Sunset Limited, or purchasing some equipment that could be more readily used for intercity service like that on the Northeast Corridor.

The long-distance trains run 15 routes that can stretch well over 1,000 miles, usually once a day, with passengers who tend to be older and more likely to be vacationing than those on the packed Acela and regional trains of the Northeast Corridor.

The timetables on these long routes mean inefficiencies for shorter distances. For instance, the long-distance Capitol Limited rolls through Cleveland once daily in each direction on its run between Chicago and Washington, D.C. But because the timetable is based on people riding from end to end, the departure times in Cleveland are 1:45 a.m. and 2:53 a.m.

More flexible train sets—trains made up of passenger coaches designed to hold more riders—could be used to run more-frequent daily service between pairs of cities in the fastest-growing parts of the country, Amtrak planners say, such as Atlanta and Charlotte, N.C., or Memphis and New Orleans.

That could allow Amtrak’s annual ridership to expand by millions over the coming decades, the officials said. It would also let Amtrak pursue the strategy that has been effective at increasing revenue and lowering operating subsidies in sections of the Northeast Corridor: focusing on dense corridors of 300 to 400 miles in which rail has proven competitive with both flying and driving.

“We are undertaking a major rethinking of the national network and how we offer service on the national network,” an Amtrak spokeswoman said. “That study and planning isn’t done yet, and we aren’t prepared to announce any plans or recommendations yet—those will come in our reauthorization proposal.”

Amtrak’s plan could mean ending once-a-day through-train service connecting distant cities such as Chicago and New Orleans, and instead offering multiple trains a day on different sections of that route—meaning greater travel frequencies connecting population centers along the way, like Memphis, Tenn., and Jackson, Miss. Some long-distance routes would likely be preserved based on consumer demand.

But such a reimagining of the railroad’s national network won’t come without a fight. That is because the long-distance routes, while serving just 15% of Amtrak’s 31.7 million annual riders, have strong defenders. And running more frequent service would also set up a clash with the freight railroads that own the tracks Amtrak uses for almost all of its service outside the Northeast Corridor. The freight lines and Amtrak are already locked in a long-running dispute over on-time performance and when freight trains must allow passenger service to take precedence on the railroad.

Amtrak could face opposition from local and federal elected officials from the states traversed by the long-distance trains, labor unions already incensed by Amtrak’s reductions of dining service on some long-distance routes, and those who feel that preserving the routes is central to Amtrak’s mission to serve the entire country.

And running more frequent service could also set up a clash with the freight railroads that own the tracks Amtrak uses for almost all of its service outside the Northeast Corridor. Freight delays lead to passenger-train delays, denting Amtrak’s on-time performance and triggering disputes over when freight trains must give priority to passenger trains.

A plan that cuts back service on the long-distance routes, especially one eliminating stops in small rural communities, won’t be politically viable, said Jim Matthews, president of the Rail Passengers Association, a nonprofit advocacy group in Washington.

The railroad, which was chartered by Congress in 1971 to preserve passenger rail service as private carriers dropped out of the business, is charged with operating a national service, Mr. Matthews noted, and representatives and senators from states served by the long-haul trains have proven fierce opponents of efforts to cut back service.

While his group supports new, frequent corridors of intercity service, it won’t do so at the price of the long-distance routes, Mr. Matthews said.

Congress has backed Mr. Matthews’s position in the past, including in the bipartisan spending bill passed this month, which included language urging Amtrak to preserve existing long-distance routes, which serve nearly 5 million riders a year.

Amtrak has already seen the blowback that can come from trying to pare long-distance service.

Mr. Anderson, Amtrak’s CEO, last fall postponed a plan to replace trains with a bus on sections of the Southwest Chief, a route that crawls from Chicago all the way to Los Angeles, after protests from representatives from the affected states who would have lost access to the train.

The Senate, in response, approved an amendment offering $50 million for track upgrades and blocking the bus proposal through 2019, by a vote of 95 to 4.

1955 Budd equipment:  64 years old. Completely re-built in 1990. Still going strong with more sleepers and diners being re-furbished again this year including handicap compliant and new kitchens.

1981 Superliner I equipment: 38 years old and needs replacement? Superliner II equipment even less aged.  Delta is still flying MD 88's and MD 90's from God know when. So what's the problem that a complete overhaul wouldn't correct. 

There are now 338 comments to the article.  One expected theme, which appears every few comments, is that Congress is micro-managing both Amtrak and the Postal Service.  By mandating coverage and service, and also requiring a "profit" an impossible situation is created.

Either people have a right to six days a week mail service, etc or they don't.  Same thing for long distance trains. 

(Not unlike the issue with health care.  Either people have a right to health care, or they don't.  )

Amtrak needs to stop it's binary thinking. i.e. (paraphrasing): "We can have multiple frequencies between fast growing urban centers - or - we can have long distance trains once a day as is now done. But we can't have both" My answer is why not? 

John Webb
Trinidad, CA

All this is evidently missing a critical fact. The class 1 freight railrods will resist any increased proposed use of their tracks with every tool at their disposal. Unless the Congress gets behind the establishment of the shorter new corridors that are  the core of Mr. Anderson's vision and appropriates BILLIONS of dollars to pay for the robust additional track AND competitive track usage fees they will demand ( if they're even willing to seriously discuss this which I doubt) at the very least.

   IMHO this is a smokescreen. The real agenda is to get rid of all the LDT's asap, then tell Congress we tried our best to establish new routes but the railroads wouldn't have it so now we'll concentrate on improving the NEC.

    My 2 cents worth. Ross Rowland 

co614 Wrote:

>    IMHO this is a smokescreen. The real agenda
> is to get rid of all the LDT's asap, then tell
> Congress we tried our best to establish new routes
> but the railroads wouldn't have it so now we'll
> concentrate on improving the NEC.

Except Congress will then tell Amtrak to eff themselves and if they wish to live, take your grovelling to the 8 NEC states to improve it. Senator Manchin would be among the first to tell them so. Anderson has been getting under his skin for the last 13 months. I doubt Anderson/Gardner are intelligent enough to understand how this works. 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/19 12:58 by joemvcnj.

Winnemucca Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amtrak needs to stop it's binary thinking. i.e.
> (paraphrasing): "We can have multiple frequencies
> between fast growing urban centers - or - we can
> have long distance trains once a day as is now
> done. But we can't have both" My answer is why
> not? 

Agree! Invest in the corridors that make sense, while maintaining the long distance network to fill in the gaps and connect everything.

Posted from iPhone

I agree, everyone in their right mind, me included, knew what was up, how the Hell do you think they tried to split the Chief for crying out loud and even gave eviddence proving their case that people in their right mind didn't buy at all, we need to get rid of Ariline Boy, all he's been doing since he took over is finding was to dismantle Amtrak! The city to city pairs isn't a bad idea, but it won't work someone wants to go farther than what the proposed train does, I really am fed up with this crap, be nice if we can get leadership that can put Amtrak back on track for crying out loud!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/19 21:34 by ProAmtrak.

Call the local offices of your 3 reps everyday. It does make difference, 2 of mine are R’s here in Iowa and Amtrak is the only thing we agree on:). It makes a difference, if daily is too much weekly still gets the point across. It’s such a no brainer the LDTs  should be the skeleton for corridors. Not either or.



ProAmtrak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree, everyone in their right mind, me
> included, knew what was up, how the Hell do you
> think they tried to split the Chief for crying out
> loud and even gave eviddence proving their case
> that people in their right mind did't buy at all,
> we need to get rid of Ariline Boy, all he's been
> doing since he took over is finding was to
> dismantle Amtrak! The city to city pairs isn't a
> bad idea, but it won't work someone wants to go
> farther than what the proposed train does, I
> really am fed up with this crap, be nice if we can
> get leadership that can put Amtrak back on track
> for crying out loud!

That would be the 2 Iowa Senators ? I thought Rep. King always voted to kill Amtrak when such amendments are offered. 

It is extremely important to have more corridor routes in the USA but it is also very important to continue the long distance routes as well. As for future state sponsored corridor routes, I would love to see some in the Rust Belt Region including Cleveland to Chicago, Cleveland to Columbus, Pittsburgh to Chicago maybe by way of Columbus and Ft. Wayne. Down south, it would be nice to see service in Tennesee. I know that there have been proposals to extend the NE Regionals from Roanoke to Bristol but I think first, it will possibly be extended to Christiansburg. In the Northeast, if the Lackawanna Cutoff ever opens up, it would be nice to, instead of having NJT run to Scranton, Amtrak run up there. In fact, maybe Amtrak can run up to Binghamton and Syracuse that way with stops in cities like Cortland. NJT would only go as far as E. Stroudsburg. In the Southwest, it would be nice to have routes from Phoenix and Tuscon to Los Angeles.

As for the future new equipment purchases, being that Amtrak is looking at replacing the Amfleets with Siemens coaches and cafe cars for the NE Regional trains, I saw that they are looking at doing that to many of the state sponsored corridor services, especially those that run in the Northeast. As for self propelled trainsets, for many Amtrak routes, I'm not for that. Maybe on the Springfield Line and Keystone Corridors, given that multiple stops are very close to each other.

We are all singing to the choir here... most of us recognize the value of the long-distance trains and the national network, and we understand that there is NO reason to frame this argument as an either-or decision... we can and should have a robust national system as well as corridor frequencies over shorter distances where traffic density dictates.  Lets not lose sight about this... discuss the details among ourselves, but FIRST, do the necessary and call or send emails to both of your U.S. Senators and your Congressman.  Get everyone else who is within sight of a computer keyboard or smart phone to do the same.  Then contact your local mayor and the head of any nearby convention and tourism bureau and give them the same message.  You do not need to go into great detail... a simple message, we use Amtrak L-D trains, we support MORE Amtrak long-distance service, and if we lose our trains, we want you (the elected official) to do everything possible to remove the rest of Amtrak from the federal budget.  That phrase "National or Nothing" is not an idle threat, it is absolutely serious, and it is one that elected officials in the 23 states which have only L-D service can readily identify.  This is how folks along the Texas Eagle route kept their train the last time this foolishness came around, and it is how the Southwest Chief supporters overcame Amtrak's abject stupidity in dealing with that route over the last year or so. 

Please take time to do this now... we have plenty of time to talk details among ourselves, but lets make a difference and make Amtrak understand once and for all that they are, and will alway be, a NATIONAL passenger railroad connecting rural and urban areas.  If Amtrak's ideas are DOA, so much the better.

Bill Pollard

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> co614 Wrote:
>
> >    IMHO this is a smokescreen. The real
> agenda
> > is to get rid of all the LDT's asap, then tell
> > Congress we tried our best to establish new
> routes
> > but the railroads wouldn't have it so now we'll
> > concentrate on improving the NEC.
>
> Except Congress will then tell Amtrak to eff
> themselves and if they wish to live, take your
> grovelling to the 8 NEC states to improve it.
> Senator Manchin would be among the first to tell
> them so. Anderson has been getting under his skin
> for the last 13 months. I doubt Anderson/Gardner
> are intelligent enough to understand how this
> works. 

You have never been so mistaken, Anderson is a shrewd businessman and Gardner knows Capitol Hill better than anyone. This is great news and a positive plan for passenger rail.

another_view Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> joemvcnj Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > co614 Wrote:
> >
> > >    IMHO this is a smokescreen. The real
> > agenda
> > > is to get rid of all the LDT's asap, then
> tell
> > > Congress we tried our best to establish new
> > routes
> > > but the railroads wouldn't have it so now
> we'll
> > > concentrate on improving the NEC.
> >
> > Except Congress will then tell Amtrak to eff
> > themselves and if they wish to live, take your
> > grovelling to the 8 NEC states to improve it.
> > Senator Manchin would be among the first to
> tell
> > them so. Anderson has been getting under his
> skin
> > for the last 13 months. I doubt
> Anderson/Gardner
> > are intelligent enough to understand how this
> > works. 
>
> You have never been so mistaken, Anderson is a
> shrewd businessman and Gardner knows Capitol Hill
> better than anyone. This is great news and a
> positive plan for passenger rail.

Boy your handle fits your responses perfectly, you really don't get it do you!

chrsjrcj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Winnemucca Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Amtrak needs to stop it's binary thinking. i.e.
> > (paraphrasing): "We can have multiple
> frequencies
> > between fast growing urban centers - or - we
> can
> > have long distance trains once a day as is now
> > done. But we can't have both" My answer is why
> > not? 
>
> Agree! Invest in the corridors that make sense,
> while maintaining the long distance network to
> fill in the gaps and connect everything.
>
> Posted from iPhone

Agree completely with above, but I believe there's more to the story here that needs to be explained.

Amtrak and Gardner are in effect holding hostage to the fact that some of the long distance equipment is 38 years old and thus a decision needs to be made

a) to continue long distance or
b) drop the long distance/national network as it now exists and and invest in "unknown" corridor trains... 

- Corridor trains have not been proven (absent of state $$$ involvement and state planning) or APPROVED to be run by freight railroads. 
- There's been no inquiry and study as to what it will take to establish said corridor service.

And believe me, I am not a supporter of massively funded indepdent studies. Thus I would not be in favor of a third party contractor being hired by Amtrak to understand the feasibility of a corridor trains. Can't stand these types of studies as they are filled with fantasy, don't assess reality, heavily over-priced ,and ultimately not worth the paper the report's been written on. The money spent on the Mercer Consulting reports (and others by Downs and Warrington in the 1990s) - totally not worth it. Rather, like the PIP reports, they should be generated in-house.  

Despite best efforts to inaugurate new corridor routes, not only did Ohio (and Florida and Wisconsin etc.) reject money to plan and develop the Triple C corridor (during the Obama administration), the did not want to pay the operating cost to run them. This has also been a corridor that's been under study since at least the 1980s, if not the inception of Amtrak and they can't even make it a go given what trackage to use. Thus would it now be a new ROW that's required for the corridor. Tihis is why I mention the concept is unproven. Frankly, I am a little surprised that the CA HSR project and its present controversy didn't enter into this WSJ article's consideration? Here's the best example of poor planning and execution for a new corridor. To get new corrdors, this is what Amtrak is going to be up against - the building of new ROW's to connect cities on the new corridor.     

And remember, once you pull long distance or any train off a route, forget about EVER getting service of any kind back on that segment of track. It hasn't happened in recent times and the freight RR's hold Amtrak hostage on that one - want to restore the New Orleans to Jacksonville Sunset Limited piece of RR - Amtrak had the green light to begin service in a specific window, but they let it lapse. Now, OK, it's been what 15 years (???) since service was discontinued, and CSX wants $XX, XXX,XXX amount of money to RESTORE service for whatever upgrades. But Amtrak was offered open invitation at $0 cost by CSX at one point post-Katrina. Even to make a simple re-structuring of operations involving the Sunset Limited and Texas Eagle - the UP wants a handsom ransom!

Yes, Amtrak needs to be more relevant, expand existing service, serve more cities, build new corridors to serve new cities - but to make this truly happen, I think Congress or somthing/someone is going to have to intervene and remind the freight RR's as to why and how Amtrak was first formed and how to allocate/obtain money. 

I see that the Amfleet replacement order got passed RIGHT on through with no qualms what so ever.

But a replacement equipment order for the LD train routes is going to require "Congress to make a decision of choosing." Frankly, Congress should choose to renew service that they know they have, and then separately, figure out how to fund and build the corridor trains seperately, as it is a totally different beast. If Anderson (and Gardner) think they can just move money received (or has been received) from LD trains to corridor growth transit, that's NOT going to work.

And what is this the M&E grandstand planning of the mid-1990s all over again? Promise the moon for all these new corridor trains (the M&E freight/passenger trains that were to be established), lead Congress down the road to believing it will all be "OK and approved, don't worry," but only find out that the proper due diligence, negotiations with the States, negotiation and agreements with the freight/host RR's, and feasibility studies were not done. And in the mean time do the LD trains soldier on, or cease because the 38 year old equipment can't be put through a renewal.

The Inspector General already released a report on how the M&E expansion plans were ill-thought out and not planned properly and how many were bamboozled by its operations. Is this the path that Anderson & Co. hope to go down again? What is there specific protocol for studying and understanding how a NEW corridor will be put in inaugurated, and how they plan to get around the 750 mile rule with the states?  

Plan for both - LD trains overlaying the corridor trains as Amtrak can get started. Outright cancellation of LD trains - due to the operating of "38 year old equipment - and the hope to replace with corridor trains is a HUGE gamble. And how how will Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida and other states be convinced to operate corridor trains, knowing they have set amount of long distance trains operating through for free right now...... 

3 out of 4 Iowa US house members are blue now. Dave Lobsack is my guy, he signed on to the SWC delegation right away.  We came close to getting rid of Steve King, hopefully next time.
 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That would be the 2 Iowa Senators ? I thought Rep.
> King always voted to kill Amtrak when such
> amendments are offered. 

A lot of talk for something that is old news.  Anderson has said this from the begining.    And this is the WSJ... Never had an "unbiased " article that didnt have an agenda.  Start with the conclusion, and work backwards.    
They once did a long in depth article on what I did for a living; the company I worked for.  I knew everything on  the inside.  The article obviously had a lean...and the company was very dissappointed after giving them full access.  The only positive coment was "At least most of the article is below the fold".