Anderson Speaks on Long Distance Trains

jis said:

Ryan said:

I don't disagree, it would just good to see a little bit more thought go into things like this. But, as you said, "it is what it is".

Click to expand...

I agree with you that there is a bit too much of manufactured or tenuously deduced conclusions being used by some rail advocates to stir up some excitement. I find that unfortunate, but they claim they are experts at advocacy. Which of course may or may not be so considering the slim pickings of the results from said advocacy so far. I suppose it is better to have poorly thought out advocacy sometimes than none at all, but of course we will see how things go. Can't have perfection when many disjointed groups and people are involved.

This is specially a concern if it is a seasoned CEO's game to discredit advocates by having them over react intentionally and send 'em over the edge so to speak. The ambiguous provocative statements that he makes and then backs off when faced with coherent push back suggests that we need to be very careful about how we handle his tactics.

One thing that Anderson did clearly say regarding restoring LD trains is that he will do nothing since they don't make any economic sense, and that would suggest that there will be no expansion of the LD network as long as Anderson is around, which does run against what a majority of folks around here appear to want. Therefore it is probably reasonable to start playing the political game to get rid of him, without getting too shrill about it, even though he has not said anything about discontinuing all LD trains.

Click to expand...

As much as I would love to see the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers return, the fact is if there is rail expansion it does make more economic sense to start more corridor service trains in the 200-500 mile range (think Las Vegas-Los Angeles, Dallas-Houston, 3C, etc) than in the LD range (assuming we can get the funding and the host railroads cooperate, big assumptions of course). Trains in that mile range can be more competitive to flying/driving while above that range you will never be able to compete and you are basically a niche market (we are all part of that market but it is still a niche market). Anderson was asked about the Pioneer at RailPAC and said it doesn't make much economic sense and IMO it doesn't (of the LD trains canceled in my lifetime it would be near the bottom of my list of trains I would bring back).

Congress on the other hand views the 200-500 mile trains as not being "national" (750 mile rule). I've said before, their definition of what is national and not national is arbitrary. If a train connects Los Angeles to Las Vegas, then it becomes part of the national network, anyone that can get to LAX can get to Vegas. So if Las Vegas is of national interest, the train is of national interest even though it is well less than 750 miles. There is no reason Congress should say they're not funding it. On the other hand, a train can run over a thousand miles and only serve its local communities.

It is true that some LD trains do have overlapping corridors (a potential Broadway Limited is one of them) and there is nothing wrong with those trains as you get the benefit of corridor service and LD service rolled into one. But others do not and starting a train thousands of miles through the middle of nowhere is counterproductive.

Color me a cynic, but until I see signs that Amtrak management is committed to a national network, well run, my days of writing letters and calling congressmen to push for funding have hit a wall...

Earlier I read some comments about how the whole Hostage taking process went with the NEC and the system as a whole to force funding. I am at a point that I think the real solution would fall along these lines instead...

1. Split Amtrak into three companies.

• Infrastructure (primarily NEC including stations, yards, and other related holdings)
• NEC Trains limited to the high speed corridor
• Amtrak LD and State sponsored trains.

2. All entities would be totally separate of one another. Separate management teams, independently run.

3. The infrastructure team would be responsible for operating at break even and generating sufficient capital (along with budgeted appropriations) to modernize properties to reasonable commercial standards. All infrastructure would be open access. So if Virgin wanted to run high speed rail on the NEC, they could negotiate trackage rights. The Amtrak Passenger NEC corridor team would compete with others to see who could operate the most efficiently and generate the best business. This surfaces the true cost of the NEC for all to see. They fund below and above the rail costs, no cross subsidies, no funky allocations. Any losses would have to be covered by special appropriations, same as the LD side.

4. NEC Amtrak and LD Amtrak would be responsible for their own sets of trains, with no cross subsidies. All equipment captive to each entity, unless they choose to lease / sell equipment.

5. As part of the program, states could shift their service provider from Amtrak LD to a third party such as Hertzog or the railroads themselves under this agreement, and would have the same access rights as Amtrak provided they met certain requirements for equipment condition, inspection, crew training, etc.

The benefit of this:

• No more mystery about whether LD trains earn their keep. Amtrak NEC is their own little boat, competing against the rest of the world if so desired.
• LD operations segregated and no longer "poor cousin" to the NEC. Sink or swim, management would be more attuned to product quality if they liked working in passenger rail.
• Potential for competition in the "profitable" NEC with agnostic ownership
• States outside the NEC who have spent funds to create their own corridors (think California in particular) can see what the cost of the NEC infrastructure is, and either push for support for their expansions, or push to get NE states to cover more of the burden.
• States who have gone and purchased their own cars and locomotives can aggressively negotiate and take advantage of other providers where it is cost effective.

Of course, this proposal would never fly, but given the level of animus that many of us are feeling towards Amtrak management, I think it's time to consider how to salvage passenger rail in ways that may not involve Amtrak as a long term player.

There are no cross subsidies today. The NEC does not subsidize the national network.

In reality, the only way I can see having a chance of conserving the remaining national network is for Congress to concede that Amtrak is not a for-profit entity.

MikeM said:

Color me a cynic, but until I see signs that Amtrak management is committed to a national network, well run, my days of writing letters and calling congressmen to push for funding have hit a wall...

Earlier I read some comments about how the whole Hostage taking process went with the NEC and the system as a whole to force funding. I am at a point that I think the real solution would fall along these lines instead...

1. Split Amtrak into three companies.

• Infrastructure (primarily NEC including stations, yards, and other related holdings)
• NEC Trains limited to the high speed corridor
• Amtrak LD and State sponsored trains.

2. All entities would be totally separate of one another. Separate management teams, independently run.
3. The infrastructure team would be responsible for operating at break even and generating sufficient capital (along with budgeted appropriations) to modernize properties to reasonable commercial standards. All infrastructure would be open access. So if Virgin wanted to run high speed rail on the NEC, they could negotiate trackage rights. The Amtrak Passenger NEC corridor team would compete with others to see who could operate the most efficiently and generate the best business. This surfaces the true cost of the NEC for all to see. They fund below and above the rail costs, no cross subsidies, no funky allocations. Any losses would have to be covered by special appropriations, same as the LD side.

4. NEC Amtrak and LD Amtrak would be responsible for their own sets of trains, with no cross subsidies. All equipment captive to each entity, unless they choose to lease / sell equipment.

5. As part of the program, states could shift their service provider from Amtrak LD to a third party such as Hertzog or the railroads themselves under this agreement, and would have the same access rights as Amtrak provided they met certain requirements for equipment condition, inspection, crew training, etc.

The benefit of this:

• No more mystery about whether LD trains earn their keep. Amtrak NEC is their own little boat, competing against the rest of the world if so desired.
• LD operations segregated and no longer "poor cousin" to the NEC. Sink or swim, management would be more attuned to product quality if they liked working in passenger rail.
• Potential for competition in the "profitable" NEC with agnostic ownership
• States outside the NEC who have spent funds to create their own corridors (think California in particular) can see what the cost of the NEC infrastructure is, and either push for support for their expansions, or push to get NE states to cover more of the burden.
• States who have gone and purchased their own cars and locomotives can aggressively negotiate and take advantage of other providers where it is cost effective.

Of course, this proposal would never fly, but given the level of animus that many of us are feeling towards Amtrak management, I think it's time to consider how to salvage passenger rail in ways that may not involve Amtrak as a long term player.

Click to expand...

It's already two separate accounts. Congress appropriates a specific amount to each and it can't be transferred from NEC to LD or the other way around except with special authorization. And any state now could contract out train service to someone else other than Amtrak. Some of them already have commuter service run by companies like Keolis

I am hoping that the Congress does decide that Amtrak long distance, is a national asset that if let die, would be near impossible to restart. That it serves a purpose in connecting the nation with an alternative to flying or driving, and is worthy of saving, even if it does lose some money. But that they would fund it well enough to provide at least a daily service on all its routes, and allow it to provide a good and reliable service, where it does run, with decent equipment.

I do not worry about the short haul trains on the busy corridors...state or regional authorities will insure that those will continue on with or without Amtrak

I remember shortly after 9/11 (tried to find the quote but haven't, will post if I find it) it was stated in Washington that having a national rail system during a national crisis was necessary for national security. Having the entire airline system grounded and Amtrak under funded created a transportation nightmare. Unfortunately, Congress felt 9/11 would not be repeated where every airplane is grounded..

Again, if the goal is to build the "national" rail system, being a "long distance" train should not be a requirement, that's just Congress's arbitrary (750 mile) requirement. Where do people live and where do people want to go and get trains (or more trains) there the most feasible way possible and people will ride them.

There is $20 million in the Amtrak budget towards the "Rail Restoration Program" (https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/blog/great-news-for-rail-passengers-in-fiscal-year-2018-budget/) so hopefully that will lead to new service somewhere (according to RPA, possibly Gulf Coast).

At $20 million a year, I look forward to service restoration on the Gulf Coast sometime after 2068. Assuming Im even healthy enough to ride the rails at that point.

It is quite unlikely that the Feds will cover all the costs of Gulf Coast restoration. It has been known all along that the local states and communities will have to match funds.

The Southern Rail Commission was basically looking for something in the area of $20 to $35 million for 2018, which is available through various combination of budget items in the 2018 appropriations.

The initial plan is to start a New Orleans - Mobile service, which could happen relatively quickly. The full NOL - JAX - ORL involves some additional complications what with CSX trying to sell the line in Florida. But still it looks reasonably likely in a couple of years, with additional appropriations and state and local matches.

It should be noted that even though the NOL -ORL distance is greater than 750 miles, the restoration is being handled as a regional project and not as a National LD Network one, in terms of how it will be funded for day to day operation. This gives the region greater control over how it evolves, and everyone locally seem to desire that rather than leaving it to Washington DC. So it is somewhat out of scope of an LD discussion.

Of course we will see how all that goes.

chrsjrcj said:

There are no cross subsidies today. The NEC does not subsidize the national network.

In reality, the only way I can see having a chance of conserving the remaining national network is for Congress to concede that Amtrak is not a for-profit entity.

Click to expand...

I agree that the budgets are separated. However, I disagree that there is not cross subsidization; allocation of overhead to business segments can be a factor to shift expenses between the two accounts. I go back to the early days, before Amtrak jumped hard into the NEC and the subsidy requirements were significantly below current levels. Fundamentally, I really don't trust current management to operate a national network. I'd love to be wrong, but I just don't feel it.

chrsjrcj said:

There are no cross subsidies today. The NEC does not subsidize the national network.

In reality, the only way I can see having a chance of conserving the remaining national network is for Congress to concede that Amtrak is not a for-profit entity.

Click to expand...

One area where I wish we would do what Europe does. Move away from this Amtrak is a for-profit company stuff and instead just concede it is a government run rail line and then invest in it properly and focus on making it a quality product. Build real high speed corridors, replace the superliners, replace the amfleet cars, and do the infrastructure investments that are needed. Why not try to turn Amtrak from something many people would consider an embarrassment into something for the nation to be proud of with some of the kazillions of dollars spent on military hardware and wars. Not saying I think it should be a bottomless pit and those that run it need to run it as efficiently as possible and held accountable to that, but not these nickle and dime cuts, amenities cuts, and service cuts to try to get to this "break even" point. Efficiencies rather than cuts. Will it ever happen? Unlikely but hey I can dream can't I.

I don't see our Congress changing. Actually, I don't think any of them really care about Amtrak. They only speak, if a camera is on and this subject seems to get some camera and mic time so you have Congress speaking about what they don't know about.

Lonestar648 said:

I don't see our Congress changing. Actually, I don't think any of them really care about Amtrak. They only speak, if a camera is on and this subject seems to get some camera and mic time so you have Congress speaking about what they don't know about.

Click to expand...

They care about Amtrak if a train serves their state. And their idea of "national network" is the national network of 1971 or after the last round of cuts.

Ok here is the recording of the entire session of the conference which includes Anderson's presentation and Q&A. which is the last 45 mins or so of the recording.

https://www.ustream.tv/recorded/114596550

I listened through it all, and was left considerably puzzled about the firestorm that it has caused. Are the people who appear to have gone off the deep end really talking about this presentation and Q&A or are they talking about something else. As I suspected the notes that were presented regarding this, in my reckoning do not really represent this talk fairly at all. I wonder what others think of all this after listening to the actual source material.

Anderson did not say most of the things that he is alleged to have said. The questioners asked questions with those words in them and apparently then projected those onto Anderson as agreeing with their dire scenarios simply because he did not categorically disagree with whatever they said.

That is not to say that he may not go ahead and take some of their ideas and run with them. But who knows?

Very puzzling!

BTW, on the matter of covering costs, what he said is that he intends to get to break even on operating cash account by 2020. He clarified that this is different from GAAP or total operations account. I did not see this highlighted in any of the notes or discussions. Notice that this is not F&B, this is total operating cash.

On the matter of DMU, he specifically mentioned them as similar to Acela IIs in principle, for use on daytime regional trains. Which is exactly what one would expect to be addressing when looking for replacements for Amfleet Is, no? He emphasized the double ended aspect of the sets thus saving on wyeing or switching engines from one end to the other.

I remember in the early days of 25kV electrification around Kolkata on Indian Railways (Eastern Railway). There was a huge shortage of power cars for EMUs. So EMU service was introduced using EMU trailer cars with a cab car at one end and an electric engine (WAM-1 or WAM-2 Class japanese or French manufactured engine) at the other end in fixed consist, They even on occasions hooked two of these together to create longer trains. maybe that is how the existing ACS-64s can be repurposed for the immediate future. OTOH, he was very explict about dual mode MUs for use on Regional trains that run south of Washington after traveling to Washington on the NEC, e.g. the Virginia service, which would arguably shorten their schedules almost immediately by 20 mins.

My best guess is the firestorm was caused by him basically not getting into a debate with the RailPAC and Streetsblog questioners about how long distance service would work exactly going forward. The questions themselves seemed to be leading, essentially already making the presumption that he was going to kill the long distance trains. In the speech itself it seems that he understands that the long distance trains are essentially corridors stringed together and that's what people, for the most part, use them for.

He seems to have a different vision of Amtrak than I think the questioners wanted; he has a vision of Amtrak that focuses on corridor transportation across America (recognizing that the LD trains already do that today) but many railfans think of the trains a mainly an experiential mode of transportation. There was also the glib about the subsidy for long distance rail passengers - while one can argue on the accounting aspect, LD trains, even sleepers, aren't 100% break-even, and it's easier to justify subsidies for trains when they're being primarily used for transportation instead of having an image of being simply for those who want to take a vacation on the rails.

lordsigma said:

chrsjrcj said:

There are no cross subsidies today. The NEC does not subsidize the national network.

In reality, the only way I can see having a chance of conserving the remaining national network is for Congress to concede that Amtrak is not a for-profit entity.

Click to expand...

One area where I wish we would do what Europe does. Move away from this Amtrak is a for-profit company stuff and instead just concede it is a government run rail line and then invest in it properly and focus on making it a quality product. Build real high speed corridors, replace the superliners, replace the amfleet cars, and do the infrastructure investments that are needed. Why not try to turn Amtrak from something many people would consider an embarrassment into something for the nation to be proud of with some of the kazillions of dollars spent on military hardware and wars. Not saying I think it should be a bottomless pit and those that run it need to run it as efficiently as possible and held accountable to that, but not these nickle and dime cuts, amenities cuts, and service cuts to try to get to this "break even" point. Efficiencies rather than cuts. Will it ever happen? Unlikely but hey I can dream can't I.

Click to expand...

Trying to think of a government program ran the way you are suggesting.

frequentflyer said:

lordsigma said:

chrsjrcj said:

There are no cross subsidies today. The NEC does not subsidize the national network.

In reality, the only way I can see having a chance of conserving the remaining national network is for Congress to concede that Amtrak is not a for-profit entity.

Click to expand...

One area where I wish we would do what Europe does. Move away from this Amtrak is a for-profit company stuff and instead just concede it is a government run rail line and then invest in it properly and focus on making it a quality product. Build real high speed corridors, replace the superliners, replace the amfleet cars, and do the infrastructure investments that are needed. Why not try to turn Amtrak from something many people would consider an embarrassment into something for the nation to be proud of with some of the kazillions of dollars spent on military hardware and wars. Not saying I think it should be a bottomless pit and those that run it need to run it as efficiently as possible and held accountable to that, but not these nickle and dime cuts, amenities cuts, and service cuts to try to get to this "break even" point. Efficiencies rather than cuts. Will it ever happen? Unlikely but hey I can dream can't I.

Click to expand...

Trying to think of a government program ran the way you are suggesting.

Click to expand...

I personally think the Internet is/was a government program worthy of national pride. Lots of people have pride in our emergency services and/or the US military, even if they choose to hate everything else. Many others might feel pride in the interstate highway system or Medicare or the National Flood Insurance Program if they spent a bit of time to contemplate what their lives would be like without those programs. Personally I believe that most government programs have a legitimate reason for feeling pride in their purpose, although many of them are stymied by (often intentional) conflicts of interest which prevent them from accomplishing their goals fairly and efficiently. Just because we've been repeatedly conditioned to believe that anything and everything related to our government is forever doomed to be wrong/stupid/evil doesn't necessarily make it so. Although I will admit that selecting/electing anti-government subversives to head important government agencies and departments is a self-fulfilling destiny we'd be wise to acknowledge and reverse.

Other important ones to be proud of:

Social Security, the War on Poverty,Public Education and the EPA ( although these are currently Way Underfunded and messed with by the "Budget Hawks" and Know Nothings),the Center for Disease Prevention and Control,NASA,the National Weather Bureau, the Labor Department/Fair Labor Standards Act) and of course Civil Rights Laws!

jebr said:

My best guess is the firestorm was caused by him basically not getting into a debate with the RailPAC and Streetsblog questioners about how long distance service would work exactly going forward. The questions themselves seemed to be leading, essentially already making the presumption that he was going to kill the long distance trains. In the speech itself it seems that he understands that the long distance trains are essentially corridors stringed together and that's what people, for the most part, use them for.

He seems to have a different vision of Amtrak than I think the questioners wanted; he has a vision of Amtrak that focuses on corridor transportation across America (recognizing that the LD trains already do that today) but many railfans think of the trains a mainly an experiential mode of transportation. There was also the glib about the subsidy for long distance rail passengers - while one can argue on the accounting aspect, LD trains, even sleepers, aren't 100% break-even, and it's easier to justify subsidies for trains when they're being primarily used for transportation instead of having an image of being simply for those who want to take a vacation on the rails.

Click to expand...

^^^This^^^

Interesting he states he has been hoarding cash to pay for the train sets. Anderson states he has traveled via trains extensively in Europe and Asia. Wants that type of operation in America and really wants DMUs because of his experience with them in Europe. The RFP for these will be coming soon. So this is not vaporware.

People should listen to the link, listen to his words, and not an interpretation from someone with a set view. For a non railroad guy, he has a good grasp of the situation. Pretty exciting listening to him, he used to getting things done, not just putting out PR pieces, followed him closely at Delta. 96% of Amtrak pax travel less than 750 miles. And did I hear right, he wants to bring back NOL-Mobile?

I fully agree with Jis and Jebr. I had initially expected that this firestorm came from some miss-worded statements by Anderson, as he has not impressed me with details in the past. That is not the case here. He seemed well prepared to me.

Nothing he stated implies ANY sort of LD discontinuance.


Based on what he described, I can't help but think his "DMU" is something akin to Brightline/ What will be running in the Midwest.

frequentflyer said:

Interesting he states he has been hoarding cash to pay for the train sets. Anderson states traveled via trains extensively in Europe and Asia. Wants that type of operation in America and really wants DMUs because of his expensive. The RFP for these will be coming soon. So this is not vaporware.

Click to expand...

Mr. Flier, somehow with Mr. Google deciding you meant this, you really meant what follows:
Interesting he states he has been hoarding cash to pay for the train sets. Anderson states he has traveled via trains extensively in Europe and Asia and wants that type of operation in America and really wants DMUs because of his experiences. The RFP for these will be coming soon. So this is not vaporware.

OK, so Mr. Anderson has had experiences with DMU equipment overseas and has pronounced it sufficient for Amtrak operation. But how about listening to his Mechanical people's "war stories" regarding D/EMU equipment. Has he listened to Amtrak's past experience with the Metroliner EMU's, or the RDC's assigned to both both the 400 "Springfield Shuttle" or the "Black Haek" out my way? Has he been addressed how each MU is a Locomotive so far as the FRA is concerned when establishing maintenance protocol?

Can't he accept his Mechanical Department "underlings" have been on the property a mite longer than he, and their past adverse experiences with self-propelled equipment just might be "worth a listen"?

Or is Anderson just another "outsider CEO" parading on to the property "knowing it all"?

frequentflyer said:

lordsigma said:

chrsjrcj said:

There are no cross subsidies today. The NEC does not subsidize the national network.

In reality, the only way I can see having a chance of conserving the remaining national network is for Congress to concede that Amtrak is not a for-profit entity.

Click to expand...

One area where I wish we would do what Europe does. Move away from this Amtrak is a for-profit company stuff and instead just concede it is a government run rail line and then invest in it properly and focus on making it a quality product. Build real high speed corridors, replace the superliners, replace the amfleet cars, and do the infrastructure investments that are needed. Why not try to turn Amtrak from something many people would consider an embarrassment into something for the nation to be proud of with some of the kazillions of dollars spent on military hardware and wars. Not saying I think it should be a bottomless pit and those that run it need to run it as efficiently as possible and held accountable to that, but not these nickle and dime cuts, amenities cuts, and service cuts to try to get to this "break even" point. Efficiencies rather than cuts. Will it ever happen? Unlikely but hey I can dream can't I.

Click to expand...

Trying to think of a government program ran the way you are suggesting.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately true - not making the argument that government runs things more efficiently, but there are a certain number of things where its the only way to run them. Just saying whats already true - its a government service, maybe not in name, but in practice. And we all know that rail is not the only transportation method that the government props up. I'm not a particularly ideological person and I do believe in the private sector taking the lead in most industries, but passenger rail, like other transportation mediums, unfortunately requires government involvement to make it work and that benefits the overall economy for the private sector. Just advocating that we could make it work better. A big start for good changes would be predictable multi-year funding which they have been asking for for years instead of having to return to the trough every year. And make investments to deal with the company's infrastructure needs - both on the NEC and with rolling stock. Dealing with deferred maintenance helps address operational costs.

In the past investing in infrastructure was never so controversial is it is now and its one of the things that spurs the economy - and both sides have done it in the past. But now you have a base of one party that only wants the government to build tanks, and military airplanes and cut everything else and the base of another party that essentially only cares about social welfare programs. In the past both democrats and republicans advanced infrastructure programs and they were an area where bipartisanship occurred - some of them still try but most are hindered by the ever increasing hyper polarization on both sides of the political spectrum. It's surprising anything gets done these days.

GBNorman said:

frequentflyer said:

Interesting he states he has been hoarding cash to pay for the train sets. Anderson states traveled via trains extensively in Europe and Asia. Wants that type of operation in America and really wants DMUs because of his expensive. The RFP for these will be coming soon. So this is not vaporware.

Click to expand...

Mr. Flier, somehow with Mr. Google deciding you meant this, you really meant what follows:
Interesting he states he has been hoarding cash to pay for the train sets. Anderson states he has traveled via trains extensively in Europe and Asia and wants that type of operation in America and really wants DMUs because of his experiences. The RFP for these will be coming soon. So this is not vaporware.

OK, so Mr. Anderson has had experiences with DMU equipment overseas and has pronounced it sufficient for Amtrak operation. But how about listening to his Mechanical people's "war stories" regarding D/EMU equipment. Has he listened to Amtrak's past experience with the Metroliner EMU's, or the RDC's assigned to both both the 400 "Springfield Shuttle" or the "Black Haek" out my way? Has he been addressed how each MU is a Locomotive so far as the FRA is concerned when establishing maintenance protocol?

Can't he accept his Mechanical Department "underlings" have been on the property a mite longer than he, and their past adverse experiences with self-propelled equipment just might be "worth a listen"?

Or is Anderson just another "outsider CEO" parading on to the property "knowing it all"?

Click to expand...

Mr Norman, you are experienced railroader, I can tell from following your posts on this and other railfan websites. Isn't it likely that the technology and reliability of DMUs have increased exponentially from 50 year old Budd Metroliners and RDCs? European operators are hard on their equipment too.

GBNorman said:

frequentflyer said:

Interesting he states he has been hoarding cash to pay for the train sets. Anderson states traveled via trains extensively in Europe and Asia. Wants that type of operation in America and really wants DMUs because of his expensive. The RFP for these will be coming soon. So this is not vaporware.

Click to expand...

Mr. Flier, somehow with Mr. Google deciding you meant this, you really meant what follows:
Interesting he states he has been hoarding cash to pay for the train sets. Anderson states he has traveled via trains extensively in Europe and Asia and wants that type of operation in America and really wants DMUs because of his experiences. The RFP for these will be coming soon. So this is not vaporware.

OK, so Mr. Anderson has had experiences with DMU equipment overseas and has pronounced it sufficient for Amtrak operation. But how about listening to his Mechanical people's "war stories" regarding D/EMU equipment. Has he listened to Amtrak's past experience with the Metroliner EMU's, or the RDC's assigned to both both the 400 "Springfield Shuttle" or the "Black Haek" out my way? Has he been addressed how each MU is a Locomotive so far as the FRA is concerned when establishing maintenance protocol?

Can't he accept his Mechanical Department "underlings" have been on the property a mite longer than he, and their past adverse experiences with self-propelled equipment just might be "worth a listen"?

Or is Anderson just another "outsider CEO" parading on to the property "knowing it all"?

Click to expand...

(1) I don't think you can reasonably extrapolate the Metroliner Misadventure from the 1970s onto modern equipment. Many of the issues there were native to the equipment in question, which was a first-generation design. I've seen MU sets in Europe, for example, which seem to generally work quite well. I agree that listening to that might be worthwhile, but I can also respect why someone might be inclined to set that experience aside given both how long ago that was and how many of the issues were simply endemic to the teething problems of what was at the time a relatively new technology set (high-speed EMUs, that is, not EMUs in general). The old Budd RDCs are a better comparison, but by that token clearly a market has continued to exist for using them.

(2) I know a lot of statements have been made involving costs for single-car MUs. I do have to ask whether those hold up in cases of, say, "base sets" of "cars" which are substantially longer than what we have now (e.g. articulated cars like one often sees on LRVs, or like SP used on the Coast Daylight IIRC)? By the same token, though the "lots and lots of motors" issue doesn't arise, how does the maintenance cycle for a fixed equipment set compare to that for a given MU? Also, what about MU-plus-trailer designs (arguably a variation on the above) such as the Roger Williams that the New Haven used (and which I could see being used to "split the baby" here)?

I always thought the original Budd RDC's were considered pretty reliable...they were practically the entire operation of B&M's vast Boston commuter fleet at one time. And they also ran on many long distance routes operated by such diverse roads as B&O, ATSF, WP, and other's....

I believe it was actually their 'second generation' iteration, in the form of the SPV-2000's that suffered from reliability problems...