Stephen Gardner will be Amtrak's new CEO

https://news.yahoo.com/amtrak-names-lon ... p_catchall

Some say he wants to deep six the LD trains, we will see.

No surprise - the only reason he probably wasn't in the role already is due to the politics - when Anderson and Flynn were appointed it was Trump in office - Gardner was a democratic Congressional staffer - with Biden in office now is their perfect chance to put him in the front office.

I'll call BS on the politics. Richard Anderson is a documented Democrat, and as you mentioned, a Trump appointee.

eolesen wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 12:23 am I'll call BS on the politics. Richard Anderson is a documented Democrat, and as you mentioned, a Trump appointee.

You have to admit there was some politics there. Just look at the Gateway project and how much that got delayed by the Trump administration.

To be fair, though, some clean sweeping could help, especially in the accounting department...

Anderson was probably a Democrat but he was a more private sector business oriented pick which they probably figured was a better choice given the administration. I would stand my assertion that they probably didn’t think elevating Gardner at the time was feasible due to his closeness to the hill, Gateway, etc. with a Republican administration.

The pattern continues; new Administration, new CEO.

Start grooming someone for '24.

Since I suppose Gardener is supposedly "anti LD", will amtrak consider canceling Superliner refurbs or ALC 42 orders? Would it be a better idea to give LD services into the hands of private railroads such as Brightline or to split them up into regional routes (and who would operate those)?

Mr. Pennsy, you have raised a most cogent point.

Now if Mr. Gardner, considering that "he (apparently) knows his way around The Hill", is the one who can get Amtrak funded to deliver what counts - the Frderally sponsored Corridor - home to Amtrak and six regional passenger train agencies (T, SLE, MNR, NJT, SEPTA, and MARC) plus two more tangential (LI, VRE), as well as providing operational and maintenance support to the other regional agencies, including those yet.to be formed, without having to support the "rolling pork barrel" LD system, then he has done the entire railroad community avgreat service.

Now, if he turns out to be "just one more hack", in the tradition of "W", Downes , "Call me Alex", plus a couple others I missed, then it's more of "so what's new".

Why would the ALC-42s be cancelled even if long distance service was eliminated? The ALCs could easily end up being in the same pool as SCs.

The ALC-42's are always going to be needed for corridor service. There's an entire world outside of the NEC where catenary will never exist....

Gardner doesn’t and has never wanted to end all long distance services. He, like the previous two CEOs, have had problems with certain long distance services like the Southwest Chief due to the huge section of rail on which it is the only train and the amount of capital resources that consumes and feel that money like that could better be spent on building new corridor services between city pairs and addressing the back log on the NEC and other areas. I think they saw an opportunity to redirect money from the Chief and some of the very low performing routes like the sunset limited to these efforts.

Gardner and the current management see value in routes like the Zephyr and coast starlight with their potential for riders looking for an experience as well as some of the east coast routes that will benefit from corridor development. Honestly I think they wanted to move long distance to something more like VIA rail Canada with a couple flagship routes with higher priced premium amenities and they clearly wanted to start up something similar to VIA’s prestige class. I think they saw a market there that could have generated some additional revenue and reduced the operating losses associated with the one or two two-night trains that they would have continued to operate. Mr. Anderson spoke about this idea a number of times most prominently at a congressional hearing but mentioned that because they have to run 15 long distance routes (spreading the resource like peanut butter is how he put it) they can’t invest in making the signature routes a special experience.

It’s somewhat of a moot point now given what the law now says at least for the next five years. It could be changed in bills if the congress switches parties but I’m more worried about them messing with funding for things like gateway than long distance service because of the importance of those things to certain high profile democratic leaders. California HSR is another one that would probably hit the chopping block as is an area where GOP house members directed a number of inquiries during Gardner’s recent appearance.

The new engines now on order for the LD's will find a home amongst the remaining (and hopefully expanded) locally funded regional trains. I'm not concerned about that.

Now what is of concern to me is that the S-I's and A-II's are at the end of their service lives. Sure, the "ol' ho'" can keep putting on the mascara and "perform" just as with Amtrak's "cosmetology" for these fleets. But think about their electrical and HVAC systems; they're "not exactly" contemporary. How many mechanical parts must be "machined to order" at Beech to keep 'em running"?

A priority decision for the Gardner team is the future of the National Network (LD's). Can we still get funded for what counts such as the Corridor and Local Regional services we are obliged under law to support? Aside from my personal thoughts of what an utter waste of $$$ it would be to order S and A-III's for a service that was to have been gone starting about '76, the washroom walls (if they were there anymore, which they are not) on the upper floors of CUS would be again hearing "we're going to be stuck with these trains for another thirty years".

I don't think they're going to have much of a choice. The IIJA pretty much instructs them to proceed with re-fleeting and there isn't really any pathway to phasing out long distance service under the bill which is now the law they have to follow. The Gardner team is also about to get a newly reconstituted board. With all due respect, absent legislation changes after the mid-terms I don't see what pathway Gardner has to do what you guys are proposing.

I'm not so sure Amtrak is required to refleet as much as they're locked into spending anything earmarked for new rolling stock on new rolling stock vs. shifting towards other wants or needs..

If targeting LDs is indeed a goal, it would be no great feat for Gardner to slow walk requirements and subsequent RFP issuances for conclusion some time after Jan 2023, at which point control of the House looks to be shifting materially if history is any indicator.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Keep in mind that Gardner is more aligned with the current political regime - he is not pining for any shift in power to the GOP who would be just as likely to cut funding for gateway and other NEC priorities as they would long distance.

From my perspective as someone who wants to see a continuation of the network I’m not overly concerned.