Passenger Trains > Dick Spotswood: A "Two Amtrak" Concept

A “Two Amtrak” Concept
Railway Age
by Dick Spotswood

The dilemma: It’s now clear that Amtrak, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and its new management under former Delta Airlines CEO Richard Anderson and Executive Vice President Stephen Gardner, regards its principal responsibility as making the Northeast Corridor America’s first true high-speed rail route. That’s a worthy goal and no easy task. Running from Boston south through seven states and the District of Columbia, the Northeast Corridor is the central transportation axis for southern New England and the Middle Atlantic states. The dilemma is that Amtrak’s mandate is not limited to the Northeastern states.


 Amtrak’s official name is the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. Some, particularly in the Northeast, forget that the rail passenger corporation’s Congressional mandate has always been to provide a truly national rail system. Unfortunately, it’s a role to which the current Amtrak board and much of its senior staff give mere lip service.


 The great losers in this Middle Atlantic-centric approach are south of Richmond, Va., and everything west of Buffalo/Harrisburg/Washington. The rumor, given Amtrak’s legendary aversion to transparency is all we can expect, says that the first train-off will be the Chicago-Los Angeles Southwest Chief. Amtrak has promised Congress to continue the number one train linking east and west … for now.


 Another to go may be the daily Chicago-Seattle/Portland Empire Builder and the tri-weekly New Orleans-Los Angeles Sunset Limited. The fate of the St. Louis-San Antonio Texas Eagle is dubious. That would leave the West with only two Amtrak-funded services: the Seattle-Los Angeles Coast Starlight and the Oakland-Chicago California Zephyr. It appears Amtrak’s hope is that those two tokens will satisfy their legislative mandate to provide a truly national service.


 It’s time for America to have two intercity rail passenger operators: The current Amtrak in the eight-state/District of Columbia Northeast Corridor should be matched with a brand-new entity in providing high levels of passenger-oriented services for America west of the Allegheny Mountains and south of Richmond.  


 Amtrak’s current priority, whether it is staff time, innovation, planning or allocation of fiscal resources, is the right-of-way between Boston and Washington. The reality is that the Northeast Corridor is perceived by the corporation as the prime reason for its existence. The national system serves as little more than a useful political device when it comes time for the public passenger carrier to seek federal subsidies, and now even that fig leaf appears to be headed for the trash bin.


 When times are fiscally tough, Amtrak’s long-distance trains provide its current management was a convenient scapegoat on which to blame deficits. It’s a task facilitated by Amtrak’s dysfunctional, opaque, non-GAAP train accounting system, and a political agenda that places the Northeast Corridor as Priority One. A correct accounting that includes capital and fairly distributes overhead (management) costs will demonstrate that the Northeast Corridor isn’t a money-maker as Amtrak claims, and requires substantial federal dollars, making it an overall financial drain. Of course, that deals with the inconvenient truth that some of those states’ commuter lines use the Northeast Corridor far more frequently than does Amtrak’s intercity trains, with generous subsidies from federal taxpayers.


 Amtrak’s focus is on this 455-mile stretch of Middle Atlantic-Southern New England main line trackage. That leaves the remaining national system’s 21,000 route-miles across the American West, Midwest and South as an unwanted stepchild. So much for so-called “fly-over country.” Some of Amtrak’s limited focus is due to an East Coast-centric corporate cultural that dominates both staff and board.


 From an Amtrak management and board point of view, its concentration on the Northeast Corridor and especially their Acela Express high-speed train service provides a manageable project within the professional capabilities of their current staff. The corporate cultural aspect of the dilemma is harder to quantify, but very real. They ride Northeast Corridor trains. The long-distance trains to Florida, the Midwest and the South appear as oddities with weak constituencies. Ditto for private railcars and charter trains, which Anderson considers “old fashioned” blights, despite their substantial contribution to Amtrak’s bottom line.  


 It’s so easy for those residing in the bulk of the continental United States to forget that some Northeasterners suffer from a provincialism that regards much of America, even California, Chicago, Seattle or Dallas as a backwater. They vaguely understand that New Orleans, San Francisco, Mobile, Denver and Chicago exist. More often, these far-off locales are out of sight and mind. “The Coast,” “The Far West.” The “Great Plains” or “Deep South” are locales where Northeasterners go on vacation but certainly not where they perceive many Americans live.


 As long as that East Coast culture represents the world view of Amtrak managers, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation will be “national” in name only.


 The politics is understandable. In the eight Northeast Corridor states, Amtrak and commuter rail are a big deal. Much of the Middle Atlantic States voting public rides trains and makes it known to their elected officials and the press that passenger rail is a priority. Unfortunately, the unintended result is that the national long-distance system is wrongly dismissed as underutilized anachronisms. The negative effect of this orientation is visible on every Amtrak long-distance train, resulting in an inconsistent (at best) and rapidly deteriorating on-board passenger experience.


 The removal of dining cars east of the Mississippi River is a classic service downgrade to discourage patronage, making train discontinuance seem reasonable. Old equipment, poorly maintained and staffed by unmotivated employees, is the norm. While most Amtrak employees are highly dedicated and professional, the current poor passenger experience stems from management preoccupied with the Northeast Corridor.   


 To any impartial observer of the national rail passenger scene, it’s clear that unless a prompt order is made for new long-distance coaches, sleepers, fully-staffed diners and amenity cars, the long-distance national service will wither away within a few years. The present roster of coaches, sleeping cars and diners is on its last legs. Given the huge lead time in ordering any new equipment, the delay by Amtrak management to address this critical need is probably intentional.


 Likewise, senior Amtrak management doesn’t even possess the basic budgetary tools necessary to evaluate the costs and expenses of long-distance services. Their current muddled accounting system provides none of the methodologies widely available to regional transit systems, not to mention airlines, to analyze and accurately inform management of the incremental costs of each route segment.


 Wildly inaccurate information is disseminated that too often appears to be grossly biased against any passenger trains not based in the Northeast, and likewise prejudiced in favor of Northeast Corridor trains.


 As Amtrak critic Andrew Selden points out, accounting gimmicks were designed to minimize the costs and maximize the revenue generated in the Northeast Corridor, preordaining that one will always be perceived as a fiscal winner and the other a fiscal loser.


 As a former transit director, I know that “lying with numbers” is an old trick. It’s the use of seemingly unbiased figures to justify actions that coincide with the agenda preset by staff and well-positioned board members.


 While the Northeast Corridor addresses a crucial if limited segment of America’s mobility needs, current Amtrak management ignores other regions, in particular “the West.” It’s “understood” at Amtrak headquarters that the Northeast Corridor’s infrastructure requirements and operations will be financed by the national system, while California, Illinois, North Carolina, Maine or Pacific Northwest need to be “partnered” with local state funding sources.


 Continuing the status quo isn’t only unfair to the other 40 Continental U.S. states; it puts untenable pressure on Amtrak’s staff and board, which are required to serve two competing masters: the Northeast Corridor plus a national system of long-distance trains and “emerging” corridors.


 It’s time to dissolve Amtrak. The name “Amtrak” has developed in the public’s mind a negative, bureaucratic connotation akin to the old Eastern Airlines. Why else does Amtrak in the East focus on the conjured word “Acela” (a combination of “acceleration” and “excellence”) to describe its premier service?


 In its place, two alternative models are suggested:


 Transform the present National Railroad Passenger Corporation into a new, slimmed-down entity. Either it remains in the public sector with new state financial involvement (just like western and southern “state-supported” services are already required to provide) or as a taxpayer-assisted but private enterprise operation. Let’s call it by its brand name ACELA and allocate to it the responsibility of perfecting New England-Middle Atlantic passenger service. The current Amtrak staff that’s so oriented to the Northeast Corridor would be the core of the management team.     


 Simultaneously, a new railroad passenger corporation needs to be established that we’ll name TRANS AMERICA RAIL. It’ll assume Amtrak’s rights and obligations outside the Northeast Corridor. That entity will operate and secure its share of federal financing for all long-distance and corridor services in America’s West, South and Midwest. It should combine aspects of public funding, perhaps with the service operated line-by-line by private enterprise. Its unionized operating staff—the folks that do the real day-to-day railroading—will retain seniority and job security.


 At a time when the need to bind our nation together is crucial, TRANS AMERICA RAIL will benefit from an organization solely focused on its own mission, needs and priorities. The name signifies a fresh start, with its headquarters anywhere but Washington. Chicago, the traditional hub for Western and mid-American rail passenger services, would be a fine, as would St. Louis or New Orleans. With its own board of directors, new management with private-sector hospitality or cruise industry experiences, TRANS AMERICA RAIL would be ACELA’s Western, Southern and Midwestern independent connection, and be the operator for all current state-supported trains outside the Northeast Corridor.


 With passenger-centered innovation the watchword, TRANS AMERICA RAIL should lead to new routes and increased frequencies, all with 21st century passenger cars and locomotives operated by a freshly recruited staff, with its management having a private-sector-style customer-first approach.


 Politically, if long-distance trains die, national political support for any remaining aspect of the current Amtrak will collapse. The Northeast Corridor will then face the reality that under overdue GAAP-based accounting, it’ll be clear that it too is a deficit generator. Northeast Corridor states will then need to fund Amtrak’s true capital and operating deficit.  


 With a neutral, GAAP-compliant accounting system applying to all rail routes, for the first time, the public and Congress will learn what aspects of the current Amtrak cover their costs, and which need capital and operating subsidies. That’s something even Amtrak’s famously hands-off board doesn’t know.


 This “two Amtrak” concept is a win-win for all except current management employees at Amtrak’s Washington headquarters who may find many of themselves redundant.


 Rail labor will benefit. Not only will there be no layoffs of operating personnel, there is a good prospect of additional employment associated with more routes and greater frequency. Certainly the manufacturing sector will benefit from equipment purchases replacing worn-out long-distance passenger cars and locomotives.


 Small town, rural America wins with TRANS AMERICA RAIL, a new entity focused on long-neglected needs. Northeast Corridor states win with ACELA, an operation not distracted by what’s proved to be an incompatible union with a long-distance system.  


 Analyzing this concept should cause many in the rail community to ponder Amtrak’s current dysfunctional structure and understand long-term implications, including the ultimate demise of long-distance trains. A vigorous public conversation will have the salutatory side effect that Amtrak’s current Northeast Corridor-focused management will never again take the 40 Western, Southern, Midwestern and rural New England states for granted.


https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/intercity/a-two-amtrak-concept/


 Dick Spotswood is the former Secretary of the California Railroad Passengers Association, a past director of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District, current chair of Classic American Railcars and Politics & Government columnist for the Marin (daily) Independent Journal, the paper of record of Marin County, Calif.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/19 23:32 by GenePoon.

Create a second company so it can duplicate all the multiple levels
of management incompetence of the first company.  When Amtrak 
began enlarging its bureaucracy with the takeover of off corridor 
T&E crews in the mid 80s, NEC management was able to rid itself 
of a lot of ex-PC dead weight by sending them off to the midwest
and west.  A second company will give Amtrak another shot at 
dumping the losers on the rest of the country.

The only way to get their attention is to keep the system together and let it
be known that the rest of the country will not support an NEC only Amtrak.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/19 04:17 by Englewood.

While I don’t necessarily ascribe to all of Mr. Spotswood’s statements, I nonetheless think he may have the only viable long-term solution to the problem.  Nothing is ever easy, of course, like what would be the southern limit of the NEC — DC, Richmond, Charlotte? Are the PNW/Capitol Corridor/Surfliner separate “corridors”? — but these could be dealt with.  The key is total separation of (1) management and (2) budget.  The NEC is simply a different animal than the national network.  Both would benefit from a management free to focus on its unique needs rather than having to always make compromises.  While there could still be arguments about “cooking the books”, at least the issue of cross-subsidization would be eliminated.

A caution, however.  Both the NEC and the national network require congressionally-appropriated subsidies.  That is simple fact.  That introduces politics into the equation and while it would be nice if there was some form of absolutely transparent and neutral way of assessing cost-benefit, the fact is that competition for passenger rail budget dollars would come down to who has greater political clout.

Just my thoughts and happy to hear what others think.

Gordon



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/19 04:18 by gbmott.

I would go with an Airnet-21 break up instead. Separating NEC Infrastructure would automatically eliminate much of Amtrak's fraudulent accounting schemes.   

If too many more years are allowed to go by without a solution, Amtrak Long-distance train-offs will be decided by force or default due to lack of serviceable equipment. As far as I am aware, there has been no movement to even know who a vendor would be for new long-distance equipment, and the Superliners are getting very long in the tooth. === === = === JLH

Interesting approach. Certainly worthy of much thought. 

   IMHO-Ross Rowland 

Superliner I's :  38 years old. VIA Budds: 64 years old. So with proper maintenance and refurbishment they should be good for another 25 years or so. Or maybe not. 

I've always thought the Cruise Ship companies should run long distance trains.  They fill their ships with passengers from around the world and filling trains would be a real winner.  It's not like there is nothing to see or visit enroute.  Sell tourist packages with excursions enroute.  A few cars for locals and cars for rail cruisers. An example:   Drop today's arriving passengers off for their overnight Grand Canyon excursion with hotel and pick up yesterday's drop offs for the rail trip to the next excursion. There is something to visit on every long distance route.  Locals would remain on the train.  They could make it work and have the incentive to do so.  The money generated could go to Anderson's golden parachute!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/19 07:57 by milepost180.

Deferred maintenance, lack of interior  refreshes and possibly not dumping lavs as much as they used to make the Superliners “look and smell” like they’re falling apart. It’s looking more and more everyday like thats the narrative going forward.

Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Superliner I's :  38 years old. VIA Budds: 64
> years old. So with proper maintenance and
> refurbishment they should be good for another 25
> years or so. Or maybe not. 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/19 07:37 by Flyer92122.

andersonb109 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Superliner I's :  38 years old. VIA Budds: 64
> years old. So with proper maintenance and
> refurbishment they should be good for another 25
> years or so. Or maybe not. 

The oldest 757's in Delta's active fleet are 30 years old but if you step inside you would think they were delivered last month.  All it would take to do similar to the Superliners is money and will-power, neither of which appear to be in abundant supply.

Gordon 

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would go with an Airnet-21 break up instead.
> Separating NEC Infrastructure would automatically
> eliminate much of Amtrak's fraudulent accounting
> schemes.   

I agree that NEC should have a separate infrastructure company. However, I would still split Amtrak along corridor and LDT. Both can co-exist as tenants on the NEC (and other corridors which could be set up with a facility operator).

Didn't PRIIA require separate accounting and financial reporting for long distance trains and the NEC?

Posted from Android

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree that NEC should have a separate
> infrastructure company. However, I would still
> split Amtrak along corridor and LDT. Both can
> co-exist as tenants on the NEC (and other
> corridors which could be set up with a facility
> operator).

Law of Unintended Consequences could mean corridor and LD trains could not borrow each other's equipment for whatever reason, and breaking of what are now guaranteed connections. 
I would put nothing passed these people. 

There is no political will to fix up and maintain broken down infrastructure in this country.
Not just decent transportation alternatives, but basics such as clean air and water.
Taxpayers want instant gratification, not a 10 year or rest of your  life plan with no real timetable improvements like Illinois, California, and Michigan have turned out to be.
The true dilemma is finding $100 billion or so just to patch the holes in the northeast corrridor.

It's been said before, but will say it again, you are not going to come up with $100 billion for New York and Connecticut, or even a fraction of that, by looking at the other 44 states to pay for it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/19 11:01 by 79mph.

Mr. Spotswood has very salient points on the whole issue. He sure has a grasp on Amtrak's issues. I know he has written before at least for Railpac as this is at least his second composure I've seen and read. Although I have nothing at all against Railpac, I think his current  presentation should get better more widespread coverage on Railway Age. This in itself is great as it counts as one additional article to expose Amtrak for what it is and the unprofessionalism of it's "...current...board and much of its senior staff..."! Seems like every papagraph is a winner presenting the very major case that it is along with Amtrak's lack of functionality through most of the country.

The advantage of greater exposure means that Amtrak will no doubt see it from their high and lofty fortress. Remember when Amtrak's Gardner tried to respond to one article by spitting out their usual propaganda? If Amtrak's senior level was open and honest they would very capably be able to respond to all the issues covered in an article like this. The fact that they don't and seemingly can't, greatly elevates the fact that they are trying to cover themselves while they pursue their own agenda. All the while of course hoping that material presented by Mr. Spotswood, Mr. Selden and others doesn't get too much serious attention.  We do hope that yesterday's Railway Age submission adds to their exposure.

As for the specifics on his remedy he draws an excellent case. However we know that Airnet-21 is seeking many of the same actions. Seems that in order for progress to be made there needs to be a major coming-together among minds and forces. Airnet-21 really appears to have some very capable and intelligent people behind it. Somehow it needs to be brought into the forefront, the sooner the better. It would get the corridor away from Amtrak, which no doubt, is a very convenient closet for hidden accounting facts.

One of the kingpin comments by Spotswood deserves repetition and a lot of exposure: 
 As a former transit director, I know that “lying with numbers” is an old trick. It’s the use of seemingly unbiased figures to justify actions that coincide with the agenda preset by staff and well-positioned board members.





 

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Law of Unintended Consequences could mean corridor
> and LD trains could not borrow each other's
> equipment for whatever reason, and breaking of
> what are now guaranteed connections. 
> I would put nothing passed these people. 

You are one of the most contrarian persons that I have ever come in contact with.

Thanks for your usual shallow objection.

Two companies can come up with interline agreements, equipment exchanges, or any other arrangements which mutually benefits them. 


 

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You are one of the most contrarian persons that I
> have ever come in contact with.
>
> Thanks for your usual shallow objection.
>
> Two companies can come up with interline
> agreements, equipment exchanges, or any other
> arrangements which mutually benefits them. 

There is nothing "shallow" about not making foolish assumptions. 
If they can come up with all of that you suggested, then there is little reason to separate them, other than the current management has zero interest in the LD business.  

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If they can come up with all of that you
> suggested, then there is little reason to separate
> them, other than the current management has zero
> interest in the LD business.  

Two companies would bring focus.

I expect the corridor operator company will fail trying to compete with the likes of Virgin Trains. We would still have the separate LDT company, rather than having the LDTs going down with the other part.

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> joemvcnj Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If they can come up with all of that you
> > suggested, then there is little reason to
> separate
> > them, other than the current management has
> zero
> > interest in the LD business.  
>
> Two companies would bring focus.
>
> I expect the corridor operator company will fail
> trying to compete with the likes of Virgin Trains.
> We would still have the separate LDT company,
> rather than having the LDTs going down with the
> other part.

I think they would all go down together. 
Imagine the accounting of what would become separate companies sharing fixed facilities, if you think their accounting is bogus now, this would harden it. 
It should be sufficient to separate out the NEC infrastucture. It is also becoming apparent that giving the Michigan line to Amtrak was a mistake.

 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/19 12:03 by joemvcnj.

Might not be a bad idea to spin off all Amtrak terminal infrastructure to states, regional compacts, or new terminal operating companies. Having another entity charge them for access and services would vastly clarify Amtrak’s accounting, and make it easier for other operators to compete for subsidized regional corridor operations.