57 replies to this topic

[Ispolkom]

Food on trains should be edible. McDonalds does not meet this criteria.

Agreed.

Sadly, Amtrak Cafe food also is not edible.

[Anderson]

With all of the talk of McDonalds, why not consider Panera or someone in that vein? Again, you've often got a system of pre-packaged food (in Panera's case, I know that for example the Mac and Cheese comes in a pouch that is just heated, sliced open, and poured in the bowl; I think the sandwiches are in a similar vein, as are the salads...where you have a "base salad" and then a topping mix that is put in). I raise Panera (or Au Bon Pain...substantially similar, same corporate history but different owners now, and the latter has locations in a lot of the big NER stations) partly because of the relative variety of food there.

As to McDonalds, honestly, I've grabbed a few Sausage Egg McMuffins before boarding the train out of NPN. Somehow, the on-board breakfast sandwiches didn't appeal to me as much as one of those and a hashbrown.

Another possibility would be to operate several franchises (say, one for the NEC, one for the Midwest, and one for CA). More or less keep the LD trains in-house (or on their own franchise) for the cafe side of things.

Finally, one thing that I'm hoping Amtrak can do is find a way to, on some of the really long non-overnight routes (Palmetto, Adirondack, etc. come to mind...I'm thinking 6-10 hour rides) get something a bit closer to the diner-club operation they're looking at trial-ing on the LSL. A decent meal en route (and one that I'm quite happy to hand over cash for, I'd note) makes a long trip far more enjoyable.

[rrdude]

Numerous sub-topics here, but let me remind us all, that on LD trains, the "Dining Car" was NEVER a source of revenue, it was an "amenity", that actually was supposed to help entice patrons to travel by train. (and eliminate the need to stop at a Harvey House, or other land-based station-restaurant, in order to allow for a faster schedule)

If tomorrow Amtrak were to further down-grade the selections in the diner, or completely go to a "cafe-car" type of concept on LD trains, I'd be done with any Amtrak rail travel. PERIOD. FULL STOP. (other than NEC, where Amtrak is pure-transportation)

I'd save my cash, and travel on charters or other rail trips, where I could experience enjoying a cooked-to-order meal, leisurely, with a glass (or bottle) of wine.

While simply "riding a train" is somewhat enjoyable in and of itself, I'm looking for the OVERALL experience, and fine-dining food service is one of those. I'm currently debating the LSL Eastbound, solely for the purpose of having a few meals in the diner.

I don't think Amtrak's marketing department has ever done an accurate job of conveying what the "LD rail travel experience" could be. But perhaps they have erred on the side of reality, and not tried to get the public's general expectations too high.

[jebr]

Numerous sub-topics here, but let me remind us all, that on LD trains, the "Dining Car" was NEVER a source of revenue, it was an "amenity", that actually was supposed to help entice patrons to travel by train. (and eliminate the need to stop at a Harvey House, or other land-based station-restaurant, in order to allow for a faster schedule)

If tomorrow Amtrak were to further down-grade the selections in the diner, or completely go to a "cafe-car" type of concept on LD trains, I'd be done with any Amtrak rail travel. PERIOD. FULL STOP. (other than NEC, where Amtrak is pure-transportation)

I'd save my cash, and travel on charters or other rail trips, where I could experience enjoying a cooked-to-order meal, leisurely, with a glass (or bottle) of wine.

While simply "riding a train" is somewhat enjoyable in and of itself, I'm looking for the OVERALL experience, and fine-dining food service is one of those. I'm currently debating the LSL Eastbound, solely for the purpose of having a few meals in the diner.

I don't think Amtrak's marketing department has ever done an accurate job of conveying what the "LD rail travel experience" could be. But perhaps they have erred on the side of reality, and not tried to get the public's general expectations too high.

Definitely. Let's not get rid of the dining car on LD routes...when trains are multiple days, even a Panera-style cafe car wouldn't be enough.

The cafe car would be a nice place to do an overhaul. I look at the menu and I'm not sure I'd actually want to make that my meal. Something like Panera or Starbucks, which has a reputation for decent food (even if it's made the same way) would make myself and others more open to eating full meals there. It also gives a huge network to have the cafe car restocked with food if there's more demand for the food or the train is very late and the dining car is running out of food.

[Green Maned Lion]

First of all, to anybody who thinks Subway is healthier than McDonalds: You've been duped. Stop looking at numbers and look at the actual ingredients used. They are really about the same, by which I mean they are absolutely terrible for you and anyone who wants to live a long, healthy, productive life would do well to eat neither "food".

I'd rather go hungry then eat either. I love eating. I love tasting food. Taste is multidimensional. If to you the first bite is the same as the last... you need to learn how to taste things. And you are eating homogenized garbage like McDonald's or Subway. Shame on you.

I have long noticed the terrible decline in food quality. EVERYWHERE. Why do we put up with this? Chicken has stopped tasting like chicken. Beef has stopped tasting like beef. Pork has stopped tasting like pork. Fruit has stopped tasting like fruit. I buy most of my food at farmers markets- partly because I run my business out of them 5 days a week, but also because, um, its worth eating.

Be sane. Stop eating at chains. Stop eating the garbage so many of them dish out. I'd rather not eat at all then eating at the following places: McDonalds, Burger King, Five Guys, Denny's, Fridays, Applebee's, Ruby Tuesday's, Perkins, Chili's, Arby's, Subway, Quizno's, Blimpie's, Sbarro, Au Bon Pain, IHOP, Chik Fil A, Dunkin' Donuts, and of course, Starbucks. How not eat? If they were the last food sources on earth, I'd rather die of starvation... or maybe kill, cook, and eat their employees. I mean, Petro's Iron Skillet and Travel America's Buckhorn are better. And they are chain truck stops, for crying out loud.

Safe choices? That's the reason I hear. Consistent, safe. Yeah, they are consistently terrible. Inedible. Be safe. Avoid all danger. Stay in your house. Strap everything down and to the wall so it doesn't fall. Pad your walls. Filter your air. Put a back up filter in case the first filter fails. You might get a disease or something.

I moved to Adamstown, PA four months ago. I have dined in... 9 different establishments, locally within 10 miles of my house. Of them only one of them wasn't good, interesting, with local flavor, and quality ingredients. Good places to eat can be found. Why in the name of God would you patronize and give money to these crappy chains over a local eatery, a local economy, a local flavor, a person who had the guts to actually start their own restaurant and craft their own food?

I don't complain about Amtrak's food much... because they are better then ANY of those chains up there I have mentioned. Those chains represent a vast majority of dining establishment revenue in this country. Amtrak is better then this- better than the vast majority by sales. I can't ask for better than that from our national rail provider.

[Blackwolf]

Don't assume that "railfans who like dining cars" is the most important segment of the market, even on long distance routes.

I would be comfortable in predicting that if you remove full-service dining from any form of transport, be it train or ship or even airliners, when the trip lasts greater than 10 hours and you are going to experience a precipitous drop in interest. Rail fan or not, people want to eat well. If you are taking the train from the SF Bay Area to Chicago, a fast-food setup is just not going to cut it. Period, end of discussion. This is a sentement shared both by me (the rail fan) and by those around me; friend, coworker, and family alike. Food service is a "loss-leader" on every single method of transportation that offers it; even mighty Carnival Cruise Lines, with their many brands (Cunard, Costa, Holland-America, etc.) loose money on the food because they know they actually make it back and then some on the other end through the allure and subsequent profit when bookings increase. Eliminate the fancy dining rooms and all-you-can-eat buffets, substitute a Burger King in their place, and watch the passengers jump ship faster than if the vessel had just tore her keel out on a reef. This is as true now as it was 100 years ago. Transat; aka Compagnie Générale Transatlantique, aka The French Line (owner and operator of such famous ships as the France, Ile de France, Normandy) was a heavily subsidized and marginally profitable trans-Atlantic shipping company that existed from 1861 through its merger in 1996, and they made food (even at massive loss financially) their center core philosophy to such a degree that even the interior architecture of the ships were designed with enticing the appetite in mind.

So you are right, "railfans who like dining cars" are not the focus. "Paying passengers who like dining cars" are very much the focus, and will remain that way. Amtrak does a lot of idiotic things, but they are not completely AmStupid!

Edited by Blackwolf, 27 April 2012 - 11:44 AM.

[Donctor]

I don't think Amtrak's marketing department has ever done an accurate job of conveying what the "LD rail travel experience" could be. But perhaps they have erred on the side of reality, and not tried to get the public's general expectations too high.

Perhaps not. I've seen so many disappointed first-time riders with unmet expectations—reasonable ones, like expecting a clean room or free ice—that I'd want to err on the side of caution, too.

[Blackwolf]

Blackwolf:

Actually, the airline experience proves the opposite. Like it or not, food service is actually a great place to cut costs (I am speaking from a standpoint of what works, not whether I'd like it if they did it-- indeed, I hate the fact that you don't get a meal on a 6 hour flight from Boston to LA or an 8 hour flight from Chicago to Honolulu anymore, but as a cost cutting measure, it was effective).

In fact, I suspect that much of the grumbling here is bluster. People ride trains because they serve destinations, because the people like riding trains, because of cost competitiveness, because they don't like flying, etc. How many people stopped riding Amtrak when they went to SDS? When they started using the CCC? When they took the full diners off the Cardinal and LSL?

As long as we have long distance trains in this country, there will always and forever be a tension between what train enthusiasts would prefer in terms of service and what is cost effective. Food service is one of those areas where the tension plays out.

This has branched quite far from the original topic of discussion, but I believe you are wrong even with the airlines.

Airlines had food included in your Coach ticket price, even for small hop flights, until the early 2000's when things really went to H*ll in a handbasket for them financially. Now coach passengers are required to either buy food for purchase aboard or bring their own if they so wish to have a meal during their trip.

Amtrak has never offered food as part of your ticket while traveling in Coach. Passengers wishing to eat while on their trip are able to buy food for purchase aboard (both at the snack counter, which has a massive selection compared with airline options, and in a full-service diner aboard LD trains) or bring their own just the same. Train passengers have the added bonus of being able to carry fluids with their self-packed meals, an additional blessing over airlines which are bound by TSA limits on liquids from outside the security zone.

But here is where the similarities are still in play.

Airlines still do offer full-service food options for passengers traveling in higher (First) classes. These meals are included in your ticket cost, and many also include unlimited alcoholic beverages in addition to normal beverage choices. Below is current Domestic North American First-Class food service information from several airlines:

Delta: Business Elite Meals
USAir: First Class Menu
United: Premium Cabin Inflight Dining
Alaska: First Class Food & Beverage

And, as it should be, so does Amtrak. When traveling in Sleeper (First) class, your meals are also included in your ticket price. The only real difference, and this is just logistics because trains do have longer travel times, is that you may only get one meal during your flight but may get several days worth of meals on a train. Oh, and booze in on your dime.

As for SDS and the CCC? The answer is YES! Amtrak did see a major drop in revenue, a rise in complaints, and general heart-ache when they were implemented. Some trains saw a reduction of sleeper bookings, and many people just did not go to the diner (myself included!) when the roll-out for both was in full-swing. Let me also point out, the only reason the LSL lost its diner for a period of time was due to a lack of available dining cars; it has long since gotten the full diner back (and it has been rated as one of the best kitchens Amtrak has going on its system in recent months; I can personally agree, having experienced the LSL diner in February.) The Cardinal does not have a diner for a similar reason: not enough in the system to service the train. When the new Viewliner diners are out, the Cardinal will be getting its long-awaited full-service diner. SDS is on the way out, baring any foolish micromanaging from a Congress Critter that thinks they know better (they don't, instead they only know how to make things worse.) And the only train I know of with a CCC is the City of New Orleans. Amtrak scrapped the CCC program outside of that one route, considering it a failure, and many of the former full diners that were converted are either being used as lounges or have been rebuilt back into full diners.

Those are the facts. I'm rather finished on the subject, as this thread is not the proper place for a topic on food service. There are plenty of other threads on the forum to discuss food aboard our beloved Amtrak, and nothing is stopping you from signing on as a full member and starting a new one of your own.

[Green Maned Lion]

Please stop falling for the idiotic nonsense of the per passenger marginal loss. The marginal number per passenger is positive.

[NE933]

cut costs by cutting food... cut costs by cutting air..

The one who volutarily disposes of his own life by surrendering to an eternal empty plate shall be the first one to go before me; how many others it will take before I follow is the great unknown.

[AlanB]

Amtrak scrapped the CCC program outside of that one route, considering it a failure, and many of the former full diners that were converted are either being used as lounges or have been rebuilt back into full diners.

While I concur that Amtrak scrapped the CCC program and it stopped further planned conversions of dining cars, as well as Sightseeer Lounges, into CCC's; I'm aware of no CCC's that have been converted back into full dining cars.

[AlanB]

This is, fundamentally, what it means to say that longer distance sleeping car passengers receive a bigger subsidy (which they do).

Incorrect.

As a study by NARP showed a few years back, sleeping car passengers pay all of their above the rail costs. The only subsidy that sleeping car passengers get, is the same subsidy that coach passengers get, the railfare. And in fact, as the NARP study showed, were Amtrak to operate the LD's with only coach, the 2004 subsidy per passenger mile would have been $0.1888. The subsidy per sleeper passenger is $0.1817. Which makes the combined subsidy $0.1870, and means that thanks to the sleeper passenger, the subsidies provided overall are less thanks to those sleeper passengers.

And seeing as how the prices for sleepers have soared since then, it's a pretty safe bet that the sleeper pax are actually covering even more of the coach subsidies than back in 2004. Back in 2004 a roomette from NY to LA low bucket cost $368. Today that's over $500.

http://www.narprail....ravy-for-amtrak

[Anderson]

It's completely invalid to pretend that none of the fixed costs of operating sleeping and dining car service is attributable to the passengers therein. If dining car cost cutting resulted in a significant decrease in sleeping car demand, Amtrak could pull sleepers offline and lay off porters. That would, in fact, save Amtrak money. In contrast, if sleeping car demand did not fall, then the cost cutting itself will save Amtrak money.

This is, fundamentally, what it means to say that longer distance sleeping car passengers receive a bigger subsidy (which they do).

The case for Amtrak's existence depends on the role the trains have in providing basic point to point transportation. And that function doesn't cost all that much, comparatively. Indeed, in the longer term, cost cutting could allow Amtrak to expand its long distance network.

Meanwhile sleeping car passengers who like sit down dining service not only cost Amtrak a lot of money, but really don't provide any compelling justification for subsidized transportation.

In the long term, the former model is sustainable. It will require subsidies, but it is sustainable. The latter model is not. Over time, Amtrak, as a matter of budgetary reality, will find ways to feed its long distance passengers more cheaply. And railfans will actually swallow their objections and continue to ride, because there is no alternative other than the private land cruise model which is far more expensive and far slower.

Enjoy the dining cars (and the sleepers, but that's longer term) while you can. Long term, that's where the cost savings are.

Eh, we're on the topic...may as well run with it. So, here's what I run into:
1) The diners are, always have been, and always will be something of a loss leader because of the staffing and capital requirements involved in operating them. However, it is worth noting that the language Amtrak used when discussing the LSL's diner situation last year seemed almost flabbergasted that coach passengers were grabbing at least breakfast or lunch in the diner, and making up something like half of the business overall.
2) With that said, since the fixed costs (operating the car and so forth) are a large enough share of things, there are ways to shrink the marginal losses. For example, assume that we carry out an exercise on a train...keep roughly the current size diner and feed as many tables with it. How many tables of four could you feed at a reasonable pace? I'm guessing at least 12 (48 seats), and possibly 14-16 (56/64 seats)...which is a far cry from the 8 tables (32 seats) that you get stuck with on occasion when a 40-seat dining car (since the staff often takes up two tables for paperwork). I would also point out that the dining car staff can often take take-out orders even when the tables are full, pointing to sub-optimal utilization of staff.
3) Moving on to sleeping car passengers, my understanding is that (with a few "bad route" exceptions...Cardinal and Sunset Limited, I'm looking at you) sleeper passengers pay their full weight as far as the cost of operating the train, and in fact usually wind up effectively cross-subsidizing the coach folks.
4) Following up on this, there's an old report called "Amtrak 90" that got linked to on here today. I won't get into the details, but if you can add capacity to an existing train, you tend to shrink the per-passenger losses (and generally the overall losses) by a noticeable amount. Look at the cost recovery on the Empire Builder, the Coast Starlight, or the Auto Train (hint: Which trains haven't gotten reviewed yet because they're in the upper third of LD trains? Those three plus the SW Chief and the CONO). I forget the exact numbers, but I think it was something like adding two sleepers and a coach to a Superliner train added 18% to operating costs but 45% to operating revenue.

What's the takeaway? No, the diners aren't going to make money...but you can push them further and close those per-passenger losses noticeably, and if you can do this plus add more sleeper space, you can dramatically improve train performance. A mid-bucket Silver Service train that adds a sleeper, filled at an average of $300/roomette [assuming 10 are filled] and $600/bedroom [assuming 3 are filled] (trust me, this tends to be on the low side once you factor in the coach fares for double occupancy), you add just over $3.5 million to the revenue of that train per year.

At this point, it's not cost-cutting that Amtrak needs...it's capacity expansion. If the former can permit the other, that is great...but right now, what Amtrak needs above all else is more space on many trains. Between 2005 and 2011, Amtrak posted the following gains on the Silvers:
Star:
2005: 405/train
2011: 581/train (+43.5%)

Meteor:
2005: 395/train
2011: 512/train (+29.6%)

What does this tell me? On the one hand, the trains are increasingly popular; on the other hand, that without new equipment, capacity is a problem. Without capacity, it is hard to push revenue up but /so/ much (since fare increases, however ambitious, can only take so much of the load). I'll say it again: Amtrak needs more cars to run on the existing trains so it can reduce losses.