Wow this is terrific news - In all my travels I have never know or had the privilege to work anyone who is a better railroader than Mr. Moorman!
http://www.wsj.com/articles/am...s-new-ceo-1471618771
I like how the WSJ used the picture of him from the 611's maiden run from Spencer to Roanoke in 2015.
Replies sorted oldest to newest
WOW! Now THAT is encouraging. Imagine a REAL RAILROADER in charge of Amtrak.
Not Mr. Clayton, but Amtrak has a good leader!
Dominic Mazoch posted:Not Mr. Clayton, but Amtrak has a good leader!
Who is "Mr. Clayton"?
This is great to hear...congratulations to Mr. Moorman.
Next week's headline - Announcing Amtraks 21st Century Steam Program!
Let's face it they would probably make more money than they could imagine if that happened.
A good choice!
Hot Water posted:Dominic Mazoch posted:Not Mr. Clayton, but Amtrak has a good leader!
Who is "Mr. Clayton"?
OK, Claytor.
for the first time in a long time, I am encouraged by Amtrak's future. well done!
Amtrak had several CEOs and Presidents who have had railroad experience. David Gunn, Thomas Downs, Graham Claytor, the current president and a few others who's name just don't come to mind. In a way I thought that Vice President Joseph Biden who has a close relationship with Amtrak and rides the train every working day from his home near Baltimore to Washington D.C. would be considered. It's a tough job dealing with the congress who likes to micro manage Amtrak but most of them have never been on an Amtrak Train. If it were up to me I would require each of them to ride an overnight train once a year to get an idea what it takes to run the railroad before voting on Amtrak funding.
Mr Moorman has better experience at every level of railroading than any of Amtrak's past presidents. Its time that the corporation is not run by another lawyer or political hack. As a career politician, Biden would have been a very poor choice. His entire career was spent taking his check from the taxpayer, promising everything and delivering nothing. Moorman took the job for a salary of $1/yr with incentives. Expect some big changes at Amtrak.
Biden is a dial tone.
boy I hope so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it has really gone downhill. ride coast starlight regularly and have seen it go from bad to worse over the last 5 years. especially the food. not all boardman's fault, congress has to take part of blame. shame as it used to be such a joy to ride. still better than flying.
This is good for Amtrack.....and those who like trains, Rail roads led by railroaders always succeed and make me stand up and take notice. My name sake Conrail did not prosper till L Stanley Crane came in with a baseball bat and cleaned house !!! Turned it into a lean mean fighting machine. I can hardly wait for the first heritage painted amtrack unit..sets my mind a wonderin....conrail john
Rule292 posted:I have to wonder if it's possible in the twenty first century environment to work your way up from a blue collar craft into the executive ranks.
I think it can happen. The stockholders of a company have to insist that a percentage of the BOD has had time making and/or serving the product, AND MUST spend a set amount of time doing the same once on the BOD.
BOD's today better realize the company they are watching is worth NOTHING to anybody if there are no customers!
Rule292 posted:No disrespect for Mr. Moorman, but his ultimate background is as a lawyer first, then railroader.
Where on earth do you get information from to make this asinine statement?
Mr. Moorman attended Georgia Tech and majored in Civil Engineering where he also had a Co-op with the Southern Railway. Upon graduation he hired into Southern Railway's track department and was appointed track supervisor in Albany, Georgia. I know this for a fact because my current boss was the man whom Wick replaced in 1976. Wake worked his way up to the rank of Division Engineer on the Piedmont division, left NS to earn his MBA at Harvard, came back and had various AVP and then VP positions includig Strategic Planning, Labor Relations, T-Cubed (Fiber optic), IT and operations. He was appointed president in 2005 and CEO and Chairman in 2006, before stepping down from president and CEO June 1, 2015 and retired from Chairman in October 2015.
Nowhere in there is any gravitas for your claim that he is a "lawyer first."
He has led NS through challenging times with the downturn in coal, and still tried hard to focus on what lawyers would call "frivolous" endeavors such as heritage units, steam excursions, and strong support of museums with ties to NS heritage including the Virginia Museum of Transportation, Tennessee Valley Railway Museum, Fort Wayne Historical Society and the North Carolina Transportation Museum to name a few.
If you spent anytime with him you would know within 10 minutes that he has a genuine love of the railroad, listens to his people and solicits the opinions of his employees on all levels of management, even speaking with me multiple times.
Thats not to say Mr. Moorman didn't have many lawyers on the NS payroll giving him counsel because the entire floor at the headquarters is 2 levels below the executive level is all corporate law, but when you deal with the government on a federal and state level constantly, not to mention the thousands upon thousands of lawsuits that arise during normal railroad operations, I am sure he discussed often and frequently with attorneys and has a good knowledge of legal matters. But he is not nor ever was a "lawyer first."
The current NS CEO, Chairman and President, Mr. James A. Squires, has a law degree from the University of Chicago Law school and has a strong legal and financial background.
M J Breen posted:Rule292 posted:No disrespect for Mr. Moorman, but his ultimate background is as a lawyer first, then railroader.Where on earth do you get information from to make this asinine statement?
Mr. Moorman attended Georgia Tech and majored in Civil Engineering where he also had a Co-op with the Southern Railway. Upon graduation he hired into Southern Railway's track department and was appointed track supervisor in Albany, Georgia. I know this for a fact because my current boss was the man whom Wick replaced in 1976. Wake worked his way up to the rank of Division Engineer on the Piedmont division, left NS to earn his MBA at Harvard, came back and had various AVP and then VP positions includig Strategic Planning, Labor Relations, T-Cubed (Fiber optic), IT and operations. He was appointed president in 2005 and CEO and Chairman in 2006, before stepping down from president and CEO June 1, 2015 and retired from Chairman in October 2015.
Nowhere in there is any gravitas for your claim that he is a "lawyer first."
He has led NS through challenging times with the downturn in coal, and still tried hard to focus on what lawyers would call "frivolous" endeavors such as heritage units, steam excursions, and strong support of museums with ties to NS heritage including the Virginia Museum of Transportation, Tennessee Valley Railway Museum, Fort Wayne Historical Society and the North Carolina Transportation Museum to name a few.
If you spent anytime with him you would know within 10 minutes that he has a genuine love of the railroad, listens to his people and solicits the opinions of his employees on all levels of management, even speaking with me multiple times.
Thats not to say Mr. Moorman didn't have many lawyers on the NS payroll giving him counsel because the entire floor at the headquarters is 2 levels below the executive level is all corporate law, but when you deal with the government on a federal and state level constantly, not to mention the thousands upon thousands of lawsuits that arise during normal railroad operations, I am sure he discussed often and frequently with attorneys and has a good knowledge of legal matters. But he is not nor ever was a "lawyer first."
The current NS CEO, Chairman and President, Mr. James A. Squires, has a law degree from the University of Chicago Law school and has a strong legal and financial background.
Excuse me, I stand corrected. Must be the current CEO I was thinking of.
I will delete my confusing and incorrect post.
I was alluding to heritage paint in its truest form ala 1950 style e unit markings.
john f penca jr posted:I was alluding to heritage paint in its truest form ala 1950 style e unit markings.
That would have been well prior to the existence of Amtrak. Besides, does Amtrak even HAVE any "E" units?
Hot Water posted:Besides, does Amtrak even HAVE any "E" units?
Nope.
Rusty
Rusty Traque posted:Hot Water posted:Besides, does Amtrak even HAVE any "E" units?Nope.
Rusty
Thanks, I didn't think so. I can NOT imagine what any of those fancy, original EMD Styling Group passenger unit designs would look like on todays modern Amtrak units. On the other hand, Amtrak needs to spend THAT kind of money on "other things" besides fantasy paint jobs, anyway.
M J Breen posted:
Wow this is terrific news - In all my travels I have never know or had the privilege to work anyone who is a better railroader than Mr. Moorman!
http://www.wsj.com/articles/am...s-new-ceo-1471618771
I like how the WSJ used the picture of him from the 611's maiden run from Spencer to Roanoke in 2015.
In related news, Commodore Edward John Smith has been named Captain of RMS Titanic by the White Star Line.
Moorman, like Smith, has a well earned reputation for excellence in his profession.
Amtrak, like Titanic, is a disaster of epic proportions.
Amtrak may be a disaster of epic proportions, but let's give the guy a chance.
Clarence Siman posted:Amtrak may be a disaster of epic proportions, but let's give the guy a chance.
Absolutely. Unlike Smith who thought the ship was seaworthy, Moorman knows what Amtrak is like!
He could do a great job as he did at NS, BUT they don't have any MONEY$$$$$$$$!
BC
Amtrak has a budget. For FY 2016 it is $288.5 million operating, $1.1 billion capital. Bottom line is Amtrak has money. What is has needs to be properly managed if there is ever to be a break-even point (forget about a "profit" for now).
I wish him all the best.
Clarence Siman posted:Amtrak may be a disaster of epic proportions, but let's give the guy a chance.
Amtrak will never be viable outside of a select few high density corridors, whether the CEO is named Moorman, Claytor or anyone else.
The freight railroads view Amtrak trains on their lines as a nuisance.
Most of the general public doesn't know nor care anything about Amtrak.
As a lifelong railfan, who tries to cut Amtrak more slack than any member of the general public would, I would describe my experiences with Amtrak's long distance trains as underwhelming to poor. The last LD train I rode where the equipment, on-time performance and service staff was praiseworthy was the "Southern Crescent", in 1976 when the New Orleans - DC portion was still operated by the Southern Railway.
Maybe AMTRAK will take over NS ?? I wish Mr. Moorman all the best.
Wow, I'm already seeing on a few other RR-related forums that fans are hoping that Moorman will press to get a GG-1 running on the NE Corridor for Amtrak...
Cool idea, but I'm not gonna hold my breath. That said, if any Amtrak boss would do it, it would be him!
p51 posted:Wow, I'm already seeing on a few other RR-related forums that fans are hoping that Moorman will press to get a GG-1 running on the NE Corridor for Amtrak...
Cool idea, but I'm not gonna hold my breath. That said, if any Amtrak boss would do it, it would be him!
Doesn't anybody remember that all the transformers were removed from ALL the GG-1 locomotives, due to the hazardous PCB cooling oil? Besides, I would think that Amtrak would have far better things to spend our taxpayers' money on.
Hot Water posted:Doesn't anybody remember that all the transformers were removed from ALL the GG-1 locomotives, due to the hazardous PCB cooling oil? Besides, I would think that Amtrak would have far better things to spend our taxpayers' money on.
Just saying that others are openly wondering it, nothing about whether it's mechanically possible.
Nothing wrong with a little dreaming, I think.
Hot Water posted:Doesn't anybody remember that all the transformers were removed from ALL the GG-1 locomotives, due to the hazardous PCB cooling oil? Besides, I would think that Amtrak would have far better things to spend our taxpayers' money on.
Yes indeed, like making Amtrak a viable alternative to the airlines in the middle of the country, not just the coast lines.
It will be interesting to see what this guy can do with Amtrak and what approach he brings. One of the things to speculate about is if because he ran a railroad in the 'real world' ie as a money making venture, if Congress will give him more credibility when he makes pitches for the things he thinks Amtrak should do, there are a lot of congress people, like people at large, who are skeptical when someone they see as a bureaucrat makes a request but if it is someone they see as a businessman, may see it differently. One of the biggest challenges he will have is looking at Amtrak and trying to figure out what its mission is and then selling it. There are corridors on Amtrak that are heavily used, like the Boston to DC route, that you can make a business case for pretty easily (including something like the NY Gateway project being planned).
On the other hand, can he sell Congress people that more than a few of the routes they run will never be anywhere near well used? Should something that is well used in effect subsidize routes with poor ridership and are inefficient, like more than a few regional and long distance ones are? Will Congressman smith from some town served by Amtrak someplace in the heartland agree that it isn't worth running? I am not one of those who thinks transportation like Amtrak should be run like a private business, if it is critical to a regional economy, like the Northeast corridor, or the way airlines are subsidized with airports, I am in favor of government support, but it should be rationalized? Does a long distance train make sense as an operation, or is it in effect a nostalgia train for those who love train travel?
These are the kind of questions this guy will hopefully bring a fresh eye on, and be able to make the decisions Amtrak needs to remain viable. Personally I don't think long distance train travel makes sense unless we develop super high speed rail, and even there I am not sure it would make sense, could a train have the kind of speed that would make let's say Chicago to NYC in terms of time travelled and cost competitive with an airplane? Where airplane travel is congested and time wise rail isn't all that much worse if you compare the total time of flying, it can make sense, otherwise, might just be the rest of the system subsidizing nostalgia.
One thing we have to get past is this "grass is always greener " mentality. Yes, France has a popular rail system. But it is smaller than the NEC. Yes, VIA has cool retro service. But it is actually in worse shape than Amtrak, and runs way fewer trains. Sure, there are bullet trains in Japan, China and Eastern Europe... But do you really want to live there?
Is there a model for long-distance service that would work for our massive continental wide system? Does Iowa Pacific have the right idea? An upscale land cruise?
Jon 
Back in the 1980's, when Amtrak was still using railroad employees to run its trains, I had a regular Engineer assignment on a San Diegan. One morning, when I reported for duty in the crew room underneath Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal, I checked the bulletin book, registered my watch, signed the engine crew register book and Federal sheet, and then noticed a gentleman in a suit, also looking at the bulletin book. I said hello, and we shook hands, and he introduced himself: Paul Reistrup, then-President of Amtrak, and formerly responsible for reviving B&O's passenger service. He was just out looking at things, talking, and riding. No local Amtrak managers were with him. I mentioned that it was unusual to see the President out on the railroad by himself. He said that they didn't know he was on the property.
I think that it is wonderful that Amtrak will again have some real leadership from a real railroader. I only hope that he does not quit in two or three years.
The point is not whether we would want to live in Japan or Eastern Europe or whatnot, the point is whether rail travel makes sense, and there can be places where bullet trains or fast train service make sense. There are heavily travelled corridors, like Boston-DC, San Francisco-LA-San Diego, places that have heavy car traffic on the roads and where plane travel is congested, where having fast trains might make sense. Japan has bullet trains because they are densely populated and it made sense. Trains generally make sense in densely packed areas where there is a need for multiple forms of transit,for example densely travelled roads and airports. Some longer runs might make sense, like Chicago to NYC, if the train speed was such that if you add up the time of flying, getting to the airport, security and so forth, might be worth it.
In terms of the cost, it would have to be looked at in a variety of ways. If trains for example can take some of the burden off of airports and the skies over densely packed corridors, the cost might be offset by the savings in not having to upgrade air traffic control or expand airports, not to mention costs of overcrowded airports,the cost of delayed and cancelled flights, and so forth. Likewise, if trains take some cars off the roads, the cost of the trains should be offset by savings on repairing roads, on not having to expand them, fuel saved, the cost of traffic jams averted and so forth.
No nation in Europe or Asia has the rural population that the US does, nor the massive land mass. Russia, for example, doesn't have a passenger rail net like you see to the West or South of that nation. And why? For the same reasons the US, because there's a big rural and scattered population with substantial terrain to get through from city to city. For a Russian passenger train, think "Empire Builder" with an even longer route. The Chicago/Seattle run, I think, hasn't been profitable in a very long time, maybe not since the GN ran it (if even then).
Moorman's got his work cut out for him and I don't envy anyone in charge of what will always be a losing proposition, financially. Even the West Coast runs, which are reasonably popular, lose money.
Passenger business has never made money, be it RRs or trolleys. So I just hope Moorman can break even.
@p51:
China has the rural population you are talking about, and the Chinese have built quite a few rail lines from the cities to the rural areas, both high and low speed. Obviously, that is heavily subsidized by the government, but they have reasons to do that, they don't have the highway system the US does and air travel is very expensive for people living in those areas. Again, though, different country with different reasons.
The thing about rail passenger travel is we need to get out of the mindset that it be profitable, or that it should run itself IMO. A lot of the things we consider affordable get subsidies of various sorts to be able to operate, trucks for example cause more damage to roads then they pay in road use and fuel use taxes, the airline industry is subsidized as they don't bear the full cost of the FAA and air traffic control system, they don't pay full cost for using airports, and there are a number of tax breaks they get that are a de facto subsidy, cars enjoy their own form of subsidies in the form of relatively cheap gasoline, and in how highway dollars are allocated and so forth (users of highways in more rural states, for example, get a lot more money from the federal highway fund then they put in).
The reason for subsidizing railroads is something many cities and regions have found out, that subsidizing railroads and other transit gives back a lot more economically then it costs in subsidies. The subway system and commuter rail and commuter busses ends up repaying back a multiplier, time and again this has been shown for the region around a hub like NYC or the like, that it generates a multiple of the cost of running them in the form of subsidies. That doesn't mean it makes sense to support train service to every little town and such or to run long distance trains coast to coast, Amtrak has a burden kind of like airlines had before deregulation, where they had to take certain routes to areas that aren't really profitable to serve, and in that day and age the profits they made off the more lucrative routes (which had fair trade pricing applied ie no competition on price as part of the deal) subsidizes the losers. Amtrak doesn't make money, but the cost of providing train service to many areas is such that it sucks money out of the routes that do make sense and could potentially if not break even, operate with less subsidies or even better, use the subsidies to improve the operations that make sense.
The one eye opener this guy may face is if he tries to rationalize train service, how many congressmen and senators will be on his case if he tries to get rid of routes that make no sense and to rationalize the system, he will hear howls and threats from one end of congress to the other, if he cuts "their' train service.
Moorman is no fool and knows he will have to deal with Congress. His wife kept nagging him about playing with his trains so he decided to get out of the house. "Honey, do ---"
bigkid posted:China has the rural population you are talking about, and the Chinese have built quite a few rail lines from the cities to the rural areas, both high and low speed. Obviously, that is heavily subsidized by the government, but they have reasons to do that, they don't have the highway system the US does and air travel is very expensive for people living in those areas.
The reason that doesn't compare at all is that Chinese citizens don't travel nearly as much as Americans do. I know someone who spent his first 30 years in China and he said nobody in the town he lived in ever travelled more than 20-30 miles in their lifetimes that he knew of except for those who were drafted/enlisted in the military.
I think one reason China is building rail into "the sticks" is because they want people to move out of the big cities. Another is to populate some areas of the country where the ethnic makeup is not what the central government wants
Something else. Amtrak was created partly to keep the Penn Central from going under. They thought it would only last a couple of years, and go away. Kinda like Social Security......
Dominic Mazoch posted:Something else. Amtrak was created partly to keep the Penn Central from going under. They thought it would only last a couple of years, and go away. Kinda like Social Security......
Income tax, too. It wasn't originally intended to outlast the Civil War, but so many times its easier to keep doing something than to stop it. Nowhere else will you find this more often than in government.
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
