A question that is a lot more appropriate, agreed?
The bloke´s a little over 75 years now - don´t think he has the ambition to return to railroading.
My recollection of Gunn (and all Amtrak Presidents) - they have yet to ‘make’ the trains run on time.
For the most part, that is well beyond their power to make happen.
Agreed! Now for a real question. What transformative policies, procedures, and practices did David Gunn implement at Amtrak that made it a more efficient, effective, and financially sound organization? Of course, in this case financially sound means Amtrak lost less money than otherwise would have been the case.
Good question, and worthy of an answer. I think first that he was adapt at getting support from Congress and the Senate, that he knew railroad operations cold, and could come up with specific answers to specific situations quickly, that he had the respect of railroad operating people and in turn respected their problems and issues, and he did do some streamlining of Amtrak’s management structure that made it more efficient, more responsive, and somewhat less costly. He is credited by everyone in getting equipment repaired. Others may come up with more detailed answers.
Those nice monthly reports they post on their web site were his, I believe. My impression was that he did quite a bit to get some useful management financial reporting in place, so the company would have a clue where they were economically and the public reporting was an offshoot.
He also killed the “freight” business, cut the trains put in place to serve that business and focused the company on getting their “bread and butter”, the NEC into functional shape. He also spent a lot of time keeping Amtrak from being killed off completely by the White House and Congress.
The problem is that we’ve pretty much “used up” the guys that Amtrak needs, like Gunn. That is, guys with Class 1 background that are “true believers” in passenger trains. Gunn, Claytor and Reistrup were those guys in the past. The were able to “talk turkey” to the host RRs without getting snowed as well as have a feel for what it takes to run a railroad as a business. The only guy I know who fits that mold now is Moorman, and he’s a bit busy at present.
Part of the problem is that Amtrak can never lure a good Class 1 guy away because they can’t pay what it would take.
Gunn understood the term “service”. Bottom liners, politicos, and others run trains for their convenience and not run them when it doesn’t fit their concept.
Another part is that any of them with enough talent to get to VPO or better would view going to ATK as a big step down. Rightly so.
Mac
That´s a genuine problem - not only for AMTRAK. Top management folks of Deutsche Bahn in Germany do not have a railroad background any longer. Mr. Mehdorn, who nearly successfully “grounded” Deutsche Bahn, had an airline background, turning the railroad into an airline flying low - with sad results on quality, punctuality and maintenance of rolling stock.
Your point raises another question. Lets suppose that you are on the Board of Directors for the California High Speed Rail Project. What would lead you to believe that the board could find top rail executives (CEO, CFO, COO) to manage operations once the project is up and running?
Sir Madog:
I have heard that the top speed on the ICE trains in Germany is now 187.5 mph. Is this true? Also, I have heard that the system has a relatively high number of speed restrictions or slow order track because of deferred maintenance. Is this true?
Sam
I would continue to rely on the wishfull thinking that got me this far, if I even thought of the need for competent management. H***, there is nothing to running this little bitty thing, is there?
Mac
Having an Amtrak president with a railroading background is only one part of the problem. The real problem
is to have a Board of Directors with some knowledge of transportation in general, and passenger rail in
particular. They don’t have to be experts, but they should not be there as political patronage only.
Are you now a 200+ MPH HSR denialist? That is a provocative claim around here.
Three things an Amtrak president must have: railroad and transit knowledge, business savvy, and political acumen. It was figured that Joe Boardman had the background that encompassed all three catagores. His problem has been a government, not just a Congress, that has been unable to get enough traction in any direction itself to give him direction of what he can do. He is between a rock and a hard place and is being told to go in several opposing directions at the same time. He is using his best bipartisan political savvy to hold on to the business job by using his railroad and transit background to show both sides what they want. Unfortunately he is in a system that makes him and his efforts appear as if the train has not left the station. Unfortunatley, nobody in government knows or cares.
I would say his RR knowledge is limited and his business savvy is lacking, particularly as an organizational leader - just based on what we know from recent history - bungled “downsizing” and bungled Sunset expansion.
That would depend on what the board members think it is they know about passenger trains…
A strong Amtrak president with good skills and knowledge should be able to inform and persuade any board. In fact, it might be a relief to those who are in over their head!
It is no secret that I believe passenger rail makes sense in relatively short, high density corridors where the cost to expand the highway and the airways is prohibitive.
Quick should be one of the characteristics of passenger rail service in the corridors. End point to end point times that are sufficient to attract customers, who ideally would pay for the service, is a key requirement. I am not convinced that a train has to run 200 mph to achieve this goal. After all, if we are to believe Amtrak’s numbers, it already carries more passengers between New York and Washington than either commercial airliners or buses.
You are an engineer. You know better than I do that the cost of obtaining incrementally higher speeds is greater than the incremental step-up in the speeds, especially for the higher incremental speeds near the outside of the envelope. Very high speed comes with a very high price tag. If it is more than what is required for a viable solution, it is throwing money down the drain.
When we built a power plant, it was scoped to meet the needs of our customers. We did not build it to meet the needs of Florida Power & Light’s customers. The same rationale, it seems to me, applies to building so-called high speed rail in the U.S. It should be scoped for our needs. If
Hah! [:)]