Anderson Speaks on Long Distance Trains

[Just-Thinking-51]

Original Budd RDC had powertrain issues. No reason why a new version would have the same issues. Modern engine and transmission are a bit different today. Automatic transmission are common today. Even the traction motors have change. The low floor light rail trams have a compact light weight system.

The question is how many path are available to Amtrak to run this type of equipment. A couple odd ball locations? Connecticut getting its own equipment, so the inland route does not need it. What left. Heartland Flyer, Virginia Service, maybe Milwaukee service. Other than the growing Virginia service, seem a far flung couple of train sets needed. Maintenance will be a issue.

 

[Tarm]

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.

^^^This^^^

96% of Amtrak passengers travel less than 750 miles.

Two guys are having a few beers and are discussing the CAF Viewliner II order. One of then finally asks:

"Why do we have sleeper cars on trains?"

"Because people like to sleep at night."

"Why do we run trains at night?"

"Because they go a long distance."

"Why do they go a long distance?"

"Because 80 years ago there were no passenger airlines to carry people long distances."

"So to this day we run sleeper cars on long distance trains on overnight schedules because 80 years ago there were no airline passenger services."

"Yeah, right."

"That's just dumb."

I think Mr. Anderson gets it.

Tarm

 

[chrsjrcj]

Is the 96% figure a result of having more short distance trains vs long distance? My guess is, yes.

And what about the people in between that have limited or no air service?

I have no problem with corridor trains. Just remember that if it’s under 750miles, the Feds won’t pay. Do you think Georgia will chip in for an Atlanta to Charlotte train? Not anytime soon.

 

[railiner]

Original Budd RDC had powertrain issues. No reason why a new version would have the same issues. Modern engine and transmission are a bit different today. Automatic transmission are common today. Even the traction motors have change. The low floor light rail trams have a compact light weight system.

The question is how many path are available to Amtrak to run this type of equipment. A couple odd ball locations? Connecticut getting its own equipment, so the inland route does not need it. What left. Heartland Flyer, Virginia Service, maybe Milwaukee service. Other than the growing Virginia service, seem a far flung couple of train sets needed. Maintenance will be a issue.

I had thought that the original RDC's had proven their reliability over a very long period....they were powered by a pair of Detroit Diesel 6 cylinder, 2 stroke engines, arguably the most reliable internal combustion engines ever built, and then simple hydraulic torque converters to the axle's...no electric traction motor's. Unlike diesel-electric's, they could even operate thru flood-waters over their wheels if necessary.

As for their utility in the current Amtrak system, I cannot disagree with your assessment....

 

[jis]

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.

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"?

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.

Considering that he gave Acelas as an example of xMU equipment, I am almost certain that he is neither thinking of RDCs nor of the original Metroliner. He may be thinking more along the lines of Brightline sets. In all cases only the power cars are considered to require locomotive-like maintenance protocol by the FRA.

And even if one were to be considering extremely distributed power for efficient heavy start stop operations, why would Mechanical folks who know what theya re talking about oppose such? Don't such things operate just fine with rather spectacular MDBF on MNRR, LIRR etc.?

I would like to know which Mechanical expert has opposed the idea of using DMUs , for what reason? What configuration of a DMU did they have in mind when they opposed such? I am just hoping that it is not a case of random name dropping to make an argument.

As an aside, even NJT after their wrong headed move away from EMUs several years back, has now come around to realize that it is almost impossible to operate a time efficient start and stop service using push-pulls, and is starting to figure out how they can convert their large fleet of trailer cars into EMUs, which basically amounts to creating a power car based on the MLV frame and sticking a number of them within a consist. The terminology gets strained in many ways as people explore alternatives.

 

[neroden]

If Mr. Anderson thinks people are riding from Syracuse to Chicago for a "cruise" type experience, he doesn't understand Amtrak's market at all. I invite him to chat with the crowd waiting in the Syracuse station to go to Chicago.

People who can't fly for medical reasons, are afraid of flying, are prevented by the TSA from flying, are boycotting the TSA, simply hate flying, can't afford to fly (airfare from small cities is expensive), need to take more luggage than the airplanes allow, need to bring their own drinks, don't want to take the "redeye" and can't afford to waste a day in transit, etc etc.

I have no problem with a focus on "corridors", but Mr. Anderson apparently doesn't understand that most of the so-called long-distance trains are providing precisely that corridor service. (Sunset Limited excepted.) It seems like he doesn't understand the business.

 

[neroden]

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.

Well.... I wish? If he actually understood that, he'd understand the Syracuse-Chicago corridor market, and he'd be providing eggs for breakfast.

I mean, we can hope. But I think he doesn't fully understand how a single train serves multiple pairs of cities. I'm quite sure most of us here have spent more time delving into individual train statistics than he has, unfortunately.

 

[neroden]

I will give credit where credit is due. Andersons spin-masters are epic. The notification and wordiing used about the recent Dining Car changes are virtually perfect. It should be studied by university courses in marketing & public relations.

No, actually, they're incompetent. This sort of garbage, claiming a massive and obvious downgrade as an "improvement", is convincing to precisely nobody and is a classic example of the sort of "public relations" which gives PR a bad name.

I know good spin. I've witnessed some epically good spin lately. This isn't one of 'em.

 

[neroden]

I view Anderson as a ruthless big corporate guy. IMO, he doesn't seem to care about customer service or even the people employed on the LD trains. He speaks of those in the food service area as expendable. .Like many corporate executives, his motivation is solely about profit. On his quest to profitability, he wants to lay off those who he believes are not needed with no concern about jobs that people need to feed their family; just put them out on the street and don't worry about it. These comments might be a bit harsh but that's the impression that I have about this individual. We need to get a petition going to express how rail passengers feel about the direction that Amtrak is taking?

From information on the "Fresh Choice..." thread about the coming changes to F&B operations on the CL and LSL, it appears Anderson has statutory limitations on his ability to blanketly lay off employees to cut costs. Granted this applys to F&B employees, but maybe (hopefully) protections exists for other Amtrak positions.

In response to a question about the 2015 statute that is governing the F&B reforms the following excerpt was posted. In particular see item "C".

"...the statute is Title 49 USC Ch. 243, section 24321:

Quote

§24321. Food and beverage reform

(a) Plan.Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2015, Amtrak shall develop and begin implementing a plan to eliminate, within 5 years of such date of enactment, the operating loss associated with providing food and beverage service on board Amtrak trains.

(b) Considerations.In developing and implementing the plan, Amtrak shall consider a combination of cost management and revenue generation initiatives, including

(1) scheduling optimization;

(2) on-board logistics;

(3) product development and supply chain efficiency;

(4) training, awards, and accountability;

(5) technology enhancements and process improvements; and

(6) ticket revenue allocation.

© Savings Clause.Amtrak shall ensure that no Amtrak employee holding a position as of the date of enactment of the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2015 is involuntarily separated because of

(1) the development and implementation of the plan required under subsection (a); or

(2) any other action taken by Amtrak to implement this section.

(d) No Federal Funding for Operating Losses.Beginning on the date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2015, no Federal funds may be used to cover any operating loss associated with providing food and beverage service on a route operated by Amtrak or a rail carrier that operates a route in lieu of Amtrak pursuant to section 24711."

Anderson doesn't seem to understand the phrase about "revenue generation"

 

[neroden]

Many folks dont like Anderson, but I really dont know who would be qualified for the job and actually want it. Experienced railroad executives are better off with freight companies (and they know it), and experienced passenger executives are better off at more stable transit and commuter railroads (and they know it). Who does that leave you with?

Oh hell, I'd do it. I mean, I don't know the business as well as Moorman or Boardman, but I seem to already know more than Anderson. :sigh: I've stopped assuming that just because people became CEOs that means they know anything.
I would, however, have to get a special budgetary allocation to straighten out Amtrak's accounting. You can't make any sense out of what they're doing; there's a GIGO problem. To his vast credit, Boardman established and pushed some major initiatives at Amtrak's shops to track parts inventory and labor time spent on particular cars and so forth, so that they could *actually* figure out where the maintenance money was going, but the process wasn't finished last I checked (not surprising).

 

[jis]

That will also involve fixing the FRA, since half of the bizarre stuff that Amtrak does in accounting is stipulated by the FRA under the tender guidance of the Congress, or perhaps according to their tea leaves reading of whatever incoherent language Congress passes in their bills and associated legislative records.

 

[Anderson]

Nothing is stopping Anderson from demanding a coherent set of books that he and his team can understand and use from the accounting folks (for example, demanding a set that follows an overhead allocation closer to what the airlines use). Spending some amount of money to bring somebody in to disentangle RPS outputs and reassemble them into something useful would be a reasonable approach even if we all never saw it.

I'm reminded of one thing that was drilled into us in Accounting 101: There are rules for GAAP and so on, but for your own internal decision-making processes you can tinker with them as needed to generate useful information for said process. It's only the public stuff that has to be compliant with rules.

 

[jis]

I agree, and I am hoping that he is beating up on his accounting guys.

I have never heard of an airline allocating headquarters costs to individual flights, or say Apple allocating headquarters costs to individual iPhones. That is the more bizarre part of Amtrak's accounting practices, and that is foisted on it by Congress and FRA. Nothing prevents them from doing something more reasonable internally, and there is considerable evidence that they do have incremental cost accounting information internally. But for some odd reason, except in a few weaker moments of this CEO or that, they seem to preserve that as a deeply held secret.

I am hoping that since Anderson talks of being operating account neutral on cash basis by 2020, he will take the steps to actually share the information with the rest of us about each BU on the same basis, and justify any service changes based on such concrete facts instead of what appears to be the whim of the day.

 

[GBNorman]

These are the babies in which I have had my most recent EMU experience:

They're good enough for a 95 mile ride Munich-Salzburg (Rosenheim is a major intermediate stop about 40 miles East of Munich), but even on passenger oriented track (a 20 car freight over there is "par for the course" - and bulk commodities are more likely to be handled on waterways), they still have excessive vibration. Within Austria, EMU's are operated Salzburg-Vienna (185 miles) by a private operator - Westbahn. I've never ridden them.

If as some here suggest that Mr. Anderson considers equipment such as the Acela and the Brightline sets to be D/EMU, then the definition has been expanded from its traditional meaning of self-propelled equipment.

 

[jis]

Even traditional "self propelled" EMUs do not necessarily have every car powered. Very often it is one power car with two trailer cars, or something like that. Consists in which every car is powered is a subset of the entire class of things that are called EMUs.

In the heavy traffic suburban sections of Mumbai and Kolkata in India, the 12 car EMUs consist typically of 4 power cars and 8 trailers. Even though theoretically they are supposed to consist of 4 3 car units, often they do away with the cab cars in the middle of the 12 car4 sets so as to provide more revenue space, So there are many variations that one sees. There no one single all encompassing definition of EMU. Sepcially in higher speed environments because one wants to reduce the number of pantographs, one tends to either carry a power bus through the length of the train distributing power from a single deployed pantograph to all power cars, or use powerheads at each end or some combination thereof. Similarly, it is not uncommon to find DMU sets which have two or three power cars and rest trailers at one end of the spectrum, and consists of all power cars at the other.

If you take a closer look at the Hitachi 80x deployed in the UK one finds that the 5 car consist has 3 power cars and two trailers. Both the cab cars are trailers. The nine car consist has five power cars and four trailers. As I have mentioned before the Hitachi 80x as a set of trains that cover EMU, DMU and EDMMU is probably the sort of thing that Anderson is talking about. I have not ridden a Class 80x yet, but I have ridden their close cousin the Javelins which are used on the Southeast High Speed Commuter service on HS-1, and they are beautiful trains and ride wonderfully even off the high speed line.

Here are two 5 car consists of Class 800 MU-ed together:

If an American version is made it will naturally have wider and taller body shell consistent with the American A loading gauge.

Reading his pronouncements, what I understand Mr. Anderson is looking for first and foremost is operational efficiency as far as I can tell. He is looking for driving positions at both ends so no need to turn trains, somewhat better power to weight ratios than we typically get with lengthy train attached to a single locomotive, and the associated better performance. There is absolutely no reason that the cars of an EMU has to be any flimsier than regular cars, and as my friend Joe V reminds us, the business end of the noses at the two ends of the train have still got be built like a battering ram to withstand the impact of a large truck giving considerable protection to the crew in the cab. I am almost certain that Mr. Anderson does not disagree with the last part either. He is a fanatic for safety.

Now whether one wants to call it an E/DMU or a Muscovy Duck, is upto each person's own taste and imagination I suppose. At the end of the day what is important is to understand what features he is looking for rather than getting hung up on what term he uses to refer to them.

 

[frequentflyer]

These are the babies in which I have had my most recent EMU experience:

They're good enough for a 95 mile ride Munich-Salzburg (Rosenheim is a major intermediate stop about 40 miles East of Munich), but even on passenger oriented track (a 20 car freight over there is "par for the course" - and bulk commodities are more likely to be handled on waterways), they still have excessive vibration. Within Austria, EMU's are operated Salzburg-Vienna (185 miles) by a private operator - Westbahn. I've never ridden them.

If as some here suggest that Mr. Anderson considers equipment such as the Acela and the Brightline sets to be D/EMU, then the definition has been expanded from its traditional meaning of self-propelled equipment.

I also think what muddies the DMU conversation is that Anderson uses Stadler as an example such as in the pic. However, Stadler equipment is often used on light rail or commuter services. The company does not really have an intercity DMU product. Unlike Htachi 800 as an example which looks to be a more substantial DMU.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Stadler will build you a single custom railcar any way you want it. It what they do. Its not cheap, but there product line covers everything possible? Small number to fleets.

http://stadlerrail.ch/en/products/detail/kiss200/

 

[chrsjrcj]

I listened to the Q&A part, actually only the part where he talks about the experiental travel and restoration of the Pioneer/Sunset East. On one hand he rambles on about how only 6% of passengers travel end to end, but then states the Pioneer and Sunset East dont meet Amtraks mission as being time competitive. So I guess Boise, ID to Portland, OR has no chance of Amtrak service because it doesnt make sense to run a train from Chicago to Seattle via Ogden. Never mind all the intermediate markets.

Then he says if a private operator wants to run these trains that theyre more than welcome to. This really says to me that Anderson misses the whole point of Amtrak, or at least what I see the purpose of Amtrak being. I didnt watch all 2 hours (although just getting off a 4 hour late Crescent, I had more than enough opportunities to), but this firmly put me in the not a fan of Anderson group.

 

[Lonestar648]

He may want Amtrak to resemble one of the regional airlines he dealt with at Delta.

 

[Seaboard92]

Well one thing I've always wanted to see is us using trains in the place of a regional airline around hubs. With multiple trains a day leaving major airports and running to all of the surrounding cities and towns to do away with regional flights mostly.

But even with that I wouldn't want to touch the national network. I would leave that complete.

 

[bretton88]

These are the babies in which I have had my most recent EMU experience:

They're good enough for a 95 mile ride Munich-Salzburg (Rosenheim is a major intermediate stop about 40 miles East of Munich), but even on passenger oriented track (a 20 car freight over there is "par for the course" - and bulk commodities are more likely to be handled on waterways), they still have excessive vibration. Within Austria, EMU's are operated Salzburg-Vienna (185 miles) by a private operator - Westbahn. I've never ridden them.

If as some here suggest that Mr. Anderson considers equipment such as the Acela and the Brightline sets to be D/EMU, then the definition has been expanded from its traditional meaning of self-propelled equipment.

I also think what muddies the DMU conversation is that Anderson uses Stadler as an example such as in the pic. However, Stadler equipment is often used on light rail or commuter services. The company does not really have an intercity DMU product. Unlike Htachi 800 as an example which looks to be a more substantial DMU.

I've ridden CAF and Hyundai Rotem emu's in Turkey for 90+ minutes in duration. They ride really well, I never noticed any excessive vibration. The 800 series in the UK was a dog in diesel mode, but the 802 series they added 2 extra engines which supposedly has fixed the issue. Only complaints I've heard about the 802s are the seats, which where government designed (sound familiar?), and definitely not ever road tested.

 

[Thirdrail7]

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 don't believe that is what you should look for unless laws governing their use, maintenance and inspections changes. There is one of the main reasons NJT wanted to get away from MUs and why Amtrak pulled the controls from the 9800. it is an expensive proposition, unless you're going to make them fixed consists...which is something that he alluded to.

Fixed consists are what stymied Amtrak's growth. it is no surprised that when additional equipment was released and variable consists were implemented (again), ridership and revenue grew. One only needs to look at the aging Acela sets, think 20 years in the future and imagine these types of trains taking on more territory, with grade crossings to see that this is not a good idea.

 

[Larry H.]

Downgrading service while maintaining high fares doesn't seem like the way to encourage passengers. I know its not going to happen anytime soon, but if they were able to run trains with more sleepers (which we know are often sold out), wouldn't that help the overall passenger load and thus the overall cost of the train? I remember when any train worth taking often carried 5 sleepers. If that along with lower fares to encourage more ridership, would it seem it might make them more profitable? My friends just returned from N. Y. City on the Lakeshore. It had three sleepers and 8 coaches, and the train was sold out. How much higher might the ridership be if the cost were lower but more space available?

 

[KmH]

Amtrak has been downgrading service for years and ridership has continually increased as they have done so.

It's my understanding that a full sleeper, even at current accommodation pricing, does not break even let alone make a profit for Amtrak.

Which might be why adding sleepers to the LSL may not make financial sense.

What % of LSL runs sell out, and is the train sold out from terminus to terminus?

On the long distance trains only 16% of passengers are sleeper passengers.

 

[jis]

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 don't believe that is what you should look for unless laws governing their use, maintenance and inspections changes. There is one of the main reasons NJT wanted to get away from MUs and why Amtrak pulled the controls from the 9800. it is an expensive proposition, unless you're going to make them fixed consists...which is something that he alluded to.

Fixed consists are what stymied Amtrak's growth. it is no surprised that when additional equipment was released and variable consists were implemented (again), ridership and revenue grew. One only needs to look at the aging Acela sets, think 20 years in the future and imagine these types of trains taking on more territory, with grade crossings to see that this is not a good idea.

And yet the Acelas are the most successful service that is offered by Amtrak! And Amtrak has just ordered even more of them that are even more permanently articulated fixed sets. Just categorically saying "it is not a good idea" is not an argument. Why is the Acela powerhead any different from a locomotive when it comes to grade crossing? What prevents a powerhead from being as armored as necessary to make them equivalent to a P42 or an ACS64 or an SC-44 or if deemed necessary, a Long Hood Forward freight diesel?

Even with full freedom to change consists, Amtrak seldom changes them anyway. Why is the ability to add trailers in the shop inadequate to handle issues of growth if it comes to that?

The entire French and German Corridor and High Speed service is basically fixed consist double ended trains. Outfits that carry more passenger in a week than Amtrak does in a month have been moving in that direction. Why is Amtrak different in its corridors? No one has so far given a cogent explanation that goes significantly beyond essentially saying "But we haven't done so in the past and don't do things that way". Frankly, that is not a highly persuasive explanation at least for some of us.

That is the reason that I pose the question as to what Anderson exactly means by DMU. I am not sure. Are Brightline sets considered to be DMU by him? Does he think Acelas fit the bill? Well not the diesel part of course, but the rest of it? I don't know for sure, but the single video that I have seen of his presentation in California suggests that he was using the term mainly to give an example, and in the same part of his presentation he also mentioned Acela sets. So what is one to make of it? You guys were at the meeting inside Amtrak of which we have heard dribs and drabs outside, and some are having conniptions about it. Some of those that are getting ulcers, even went so far as to surmise that all LD trains will become DMUs. Based on what?

The Chairman of the Board categorically says that the LD network will not be dismantled and all that is being looked at is addition of short/medium distance frequencies in addition to the LD trains. Who exactly are we supposed to believe sitting outside the cauldron and why?

I just have more questions than answers at this point, and unfortunately it appears that everyone is so dug into their own ways, that there will be no answers forthcoming. Frankly I am frustrated, at least as much as the next guy, but possibly for a different reason.