Auto Train Cuts

[Allypet]

One final point back on the topic of this thread. It has been mentioned that the AT has the most number of repeat customers than any other train in the LD system. You don't muck around with repeat customers by increasing their prices and decreasing their services. The most prolific AT rider that I'm aware of is AlanB and he's been unusually quiet. Would HE continue to take the AT as often as he has with these changes?

Last year I took the AT a total of 6 times. That's up from my usual 2 trips and I always go in a bedroom (DW preference). That is because my son started college in FL last year so that will increase my demands for travel to FL at least for the next 3 years. So as a repeat customer I will have to reserve judgment until my next AT trip, which is already booked. I do believe that with all these cuts planned for the AT, I will be paying a lot more attention to my price point. When I feel that the costs of the AT exceeds what I get in return for my money, I will drive the whole way from NY. So the less service I receive the lower my price point will become, just what that is depends on my next experience.

I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm just being realistic, but I will give Amtrak a chance to keep me.

 

[Ryan]

1. Same place they found two coaches to add to the current consist starting in two weeks.

2. Same place they found the money to build 120 new Viewliners - 80 of which arguable lose money (diners/baggage).

What makes you think that there's more where they came from?

 

[VentureForth]

1. Same place they found two coaches to add to the current consist starting in two weeks.

2. Same place they found the money to build 120 new Viewliners - 80 of which arguable lose money (diners/baggage).

What makes you think that there's more where they came from?

What makes you think they had those they got (before they got them)?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I would like to reiterate...I don't want Slumbercoaches, and I don't want Sectionals. I would like to see existing coaches phased out and replaced with refurbished coaches that incorporate some sort of high capacity sleeping arrangement. My mentioning of Slumbers and Sectionals was meant as a "for instance". I appreciate the aesthetics of a good consist, and reusing stock that's not been in inventory for decades tacked onto a Superliner consist is my first idea of ugly.I appreciate GML's number crunching... I wonder if they did that sort of thing when they purchased all those new Viewliners.So - what are cheaper alternatives that could raise the cost of a ticket (because a customer is willing to pay more for comfort) without losing existing customers and honestly without having to add new cars?And I would like to get an answer to this - They say that the Auto Train can run up to 50 cars. I've never counted more than around 36, but obviously I don't count them every day. If this is the case, are there really 28 (14 x 2) coaches/sleepers/car carriers "laying around" Sanford or Lorton?One final point back on the topic of this thread. It has been mentioned that the AT has the most number of repeat customers than any other train in the LD system. You don't muck around with repeat customers by increasing their prices and decreasing their services. The most prolific AT rider that I'm aware of is AlanB and he's been unusually quiet. Would HE continue to take the AT as often as he has with these changes?

That is the highest capacity possible lay flat option available- a sectional sleeper. A lay flat chair system would cut capacity to below that of a sleeper, I'm quite sure, by about 25%. And the conversion I was talking about was building sectionals into coach cars. I answered your question quite thoroughly. It would lower the trains capacity by 24 passengers, while it might hold the revenue at a level barely high enough to cover the investment, and then again it might not even cover the investment. Regardless of whether I had the funding for it or not, if I would not elect to do it if I was the one making the decisions.

1. Where do the coaches come from for conversion?2. Where does the money to do those conversions come from?3. Is that the best use of that money and "found" coaches, or would it be better served going towards increasing capacity (and therefore revenue potential)?

1. Same place they found two coaches to add to the current consist starting in two weeks.2. Same place they found the money to build 120 new Viewliners - 80 of which arguable lose money (diners/baggage).3. Never said it was. My idea was simply a way to generate conversation about how to KEEP AT passengers rather than lose them.Initial ideas are rarely perfect. Each idea produces pros and cons that then generate new ideas. Eventually, a workable solution is discovered and implemented. Even that final solution is rarely perfect, but rather a compromise of need, logistics, performance and effectiveness.In my business, there are stupid, nitwitted ideas all the time - and some from very experienced, highly trained people. If we dismissed them immediately we would lose the ingenuity that comes from baby steps that are made from ideas to solutions.

The money for investing in the viewliners was done on the basis that all 125 cars will pay for themselves. The diners and baggage cars will pay for themselves because they are currently spending more money band aiding these relics back onto the road every two or three years then the replacements cost. The sleepers and bag dorms will add capacity thus increasing revenue. I won't qualify all the other nonsense from previous amtrak management teams, but standing here with an MBA I am telling you this team is managing amtrak very well.

 

[Ryan]

1. Same place they found two coaches to add to the current consist starting in two weeks.

2. Same place they found the money to build 120 new Viewliners - 80 of which arguable lose money (diners/baggage).

What makes you think that there's more where they came from?

What makes you think they had those they got (before they got them)?

This is an absurd line of reasoning.
Since they found two cars, I say they should find 7,437 more cars. That'll give them enough to run twice daily service on every line. Since they have money to buy Viewliners, they should just go to that same source and get 4.235 Billion Dollars. That'll pay for all of the costs to run the new trains, with enough left over for a half dozen silk flowers.

It'll totally work, right?

Edit to add: Oh, they should also find a pony while they're there. I've always wanted a pony.

 

[andersone]

I think we need to play nice in the sandbox boys and girls,,, nothing on this board should make us speak ill of our brothers in sisters in the love of AT. Nothing wrong with disagreeing with folks, lets be civil. If i want drama in my life, I can call my daughters.

 

[rrdude]

I think we need to play nice in the sandbox boys and girls,,, nothing on this board should make us speak ill of our brothers in sisters in the love of AT. Nothing wrong with disagreeing with folks, lets be civil. If i want drama in my life, I can call my daughters.

Other Posters kno, I just love to read the drama that comes organically, so I don't mind at all.

 

[Nathanael]

On the Auto Train, all onboard service attendants are qualified to work all positions with one exception: Chef. Even so, many are qualified for Chef as well. Those who work the Lead Service Attendant (LSA) positions in the sleeper lounges on the five crews will continue in their positions until the jobs (and the lounge cars) are abolished. This will happen around the time that all jobs go up for semiannual re-bid. All will bid on the jobs they want on the crews they prefer, and the person with the highest seniority gets the job he/she wants. Since there won't be so many lounge LSA jobs, those who are displaced will get their second, third, fourth, etc. choices. Ultimately, some will end up on the extra board. I don't know whether they will stay on the board, possibly working less often, or if they will be furloughed. Until recently, the crew size has been adjusted when the passenger count goes over a certain number. Crews have been told from now on there will be no increase in crew size, no matter what the passenger count.

Sounds like they're trying to shut down the Auto Train. Maybe they'll succeed.

Understaffing is just stupid.

 

[neroden]

Training takes people away from production, so it is highly discouraged.

This is a particularly stupid mistake which has been made by the majority of American companies. It's part of the reason why all American business is going down the drain. Competent managers know better than this.

 

[neroden]

It really does sound to me like the plan is to kill the Auto Train entirely.

Dining car service has just been cut back to frustration-inducing levels for no particularly good reason (mindless "fewer employees" mantra). Management has stated that they will make sure that short-staffing continues, so that passengers will remain annoyed and angry about the short-staffing. Lounge cars are now being cut back to frustration-inducing levels as well.

Well, if the *goal* was to *reduce ridership* and *reduce revenues*, good work Amtrak.

That way Amtrak can claim "see, the Auto Train can't be made profitable", and shut it down entirely. That would save a lot of money. It would eliminate the cost of operating Lorton and Sanford stations, allow Amtrak to sell the autoracks, and allow the Superliners to be transferred to beef up the Western fleet.

If you're trying to do this, it makes sense to attempt to squeeze out maximum gross revenue during the run-down period when you're dismantling the train -- hence, lay on the coaches.

It's worth noting that an accounting change last year or the year before massively increased the costs allocated to the Auto Train, changing it from showing a profit to showing a large loss. This may be indicative of Amtrak's plan: disliked service gets disfavorable accounting.

Hey, it may even be a reasonable corporate strategy for Amtrak to sabotage and shut down the Auto Train. It has a particularly high cost structure and is hamstrung by CSX's 50-car limit. It is an easy target for those who claim that Amtrak is for the elite, and it's also very much not "green" to haul automobiles from Virginia to Florida and back. It doesn't fit with the corporate "mission", if you will. And the Superliner shortage, combined with the lack of likelihood of a new order of bilevel sleepers, means that it becomes tempting to shut down one route to redistribute its rolling stock.

We've been talking about the rise in train travel being due to the decline in desirability of auto travel, and the Auto Train looks odd-man-out in this regard. Auto Train sleeper ticket prices are actually kind of low compared to regular Superliner sleeper prices, already -- judging by picking a random date. Maybe in the long term the Auto Train doesn't make sense and the equipment should be used on regular trains.

I don't think this is a good idea, but I'm throwing this out there for the sake of contrarianism.

The defining reason why I think it's a bad idea is that frustration with the Auto Train will translate to a bad reputation for *all* Amtrak trains; I simply don't believe in this kind of "slow shutdown".

 

[VentureForth]

I would like to reiterate...I don't want Slumbercoaches, and I don't want Sectionals. I would like to see existing coaches phased out and replaced with refurbished coaches that incorporate some sort of high capacity sleeping arrangement. My mentioning of Slumbers and Sectionals was meant as a "for instance". I appreciate the aesthetics of a good consist, and reusing stock that's not been in inventory for decades tacked onto a Superliner consist is my first idea of ugly.I appreciate GML's number crunching... I wonder if they did that sort of thing when they purchased all those new Viewliners.So - what are cheaper alternatives that could raise the cost of a ticket (because a customer is willing to pay more for comfort) without losing existing customers and honestly without having to add new cars?And I would like to get an answer to this - They say that the Auto Train can run up to 50 cars. I've never counted more than around 36, but obviously I don't count them every day. If this is the case, are there really 28 (14 x 2) coaches/sleepers/car carriers "laying around" Sanford or Lorton?One final point back on the topic of this thread. It has been mentioned that the AT has the most number of repeat customers than any other train in the LD system. You don't muck around with repeat customers by increasing their prices and decreasing their services. The most prolific AT rider that I'm aware of is AlanB and he's been unusually quiet. Would HE continue to take the AT as often as he has with these changes?

That is the highest capacity possible lay flat option available- a sectional sleeper. A lay flat chair system would cut capacity to below that of a sleeper, I'm quite sure, by about 25%. And the conversion I was talking about was building sectionals into coach cars. I answered your question quite thoroughly. It would lower the trains capacity by 24 passengers, while it might hold the revenue at a level barely high enough to cover the investment, and then again it might not even cover the investment. Regardless of whether I had the funding for it or not, if I would not elect to do it if I was the one making the decisions.

I understand that. I was responding to FoamerOBS who told me to stop talking about using equipment we owned, which is NOT what I was doing. My suggestion was simply what you just restated. Refurbish exsiting coaches to a slumbercoach-LIKE solution.

I get your point on the numbers. I really do. The problem is that it is fiscally painful to go through a refurbishment process that would reduce capacity in hopes of raising revenue.

My only hope in offering the nitwitted idea to begin with was to find a way, perhaps or perhaps not, of increasing revenue by doing the opposite of what they are doing now, which is cutting costs that could potentially reduce revenue and harm ridership. I would argue that most people riding in coach would rather be laying flat. And I'm also guessing that those folks would pay a little more than coach to do so (as opposed to a lot more which is offered now).

So, riddle me this.

1) What is the maximum revenue of a sleeper car

2) What is the maximum revenue of a coach car

3) What is the cost to feed maximum passengers in a sleeper car

4) What is the cost to feed maximum passengers in a coach car

5) What is overall ridership, by % capacity of both coach and sleeper?

If coach doesn't make as much money as sleeper, how about we just get rid of coach class all together? Of course that is a ridiculous statement, but if sleepers generate more revenue inspite of their commissary costs, why not increase the number of sleepers rather than coaches (obviously the availablity and cost not withstanding)?

 

[Paulus]

It's worth noting that an accounting change last year or the year before massively increased the costs allocated to the Auto Train, changing it from showing a profit to showing a large loss. This may be indicative of Amtrak's plan: disliked service gets disfavorable accounting.

The Auto Train has never made a profit under full accounting. Costs jumped between 2010 and 2011, but that was not unique to the Auto Train (though it probably had the largest percentage jump). Aside from the new calculation method being introduced around that time, a new labor contract went into force in 2010 (as I recall) and Amtrak's costs are predominately labor ones, especially on the long distance trains.

 

[jis]

Upon reading some the discussion here this is the image that passes through my mind....

 

[rrdude]

".......And it's also very much not "green" to haul automobiles from Virginia to Florida and back. It doesn't fit with the corporate "mission", if you will.

Unless you are mocking Amtrak, carrying those autos on Amtrak is about one of THEE greenest thing that Amtrak does, aside from taking all the REGULAR pax off the roads or fuel-guzzeling aircraft.

GOOGLISH IT!

 

[Bob Dylan]

Upon reading some the discussion here this is the image that passes through my mind....

As usual jis nails it! (said by one of the Initial "Chicken Littles" on this thread! ^_^ )

 

[Green Maned Lion]

So, riddle me this. 1) What is the maximum revenue of a sleeper car2) What is the maximum revenue of a coach car3) What is the cost to feed maximum passengers in a sleeper car4) What is the cost to feed maximum passengers in a coach car5) What is overall ridership, by % capacity of both coach and sleeper? If coach doesn't make as much money as sleeper, how about we just get rid of coach class all together? Of course that is a ridiculous statement, but if sleepers generate more revenue inspite of their commissary costs, why not increase the number of sleepers rather than coaches (obviously the availablity and cost not withstanding)?

Outside the auto train it is impossible to answer most of those questions, and the numbers given would be irrelevant anyway. For example, we could generate the maximum revenue theoretically possible on the LSL. No AGR riders, each rider being charged highest bucket and riding just one stop. Not only would that cut down on meals being served, but it would explode revenue because there is a 'intiation of service' amount built into the fare formula.

Realistically, the sleepers do provide a higher revenue per passenger, obviously, and I think for the most part a higher revenue per car. I don't know if it produces a higher revenue vs expense numbers, and Amtraks accounting is extremely hard to follow in a lot of cases. It has historically been more about obfuscation of costs then about actual reasonable expensing, for both good and bad reasons.

 

[afigg]

Upon reading some the discussion here this is the image that passes through my mind....

+1.

 

[the whistler]

So, riddle me this. 1) What is the maximum revenue of a sleeper car2) What is the maximum revenue of a coach car3) What is the cost to feed maximum passengers in a sleeper car4) What is the cost to feed maximum passengers in a coach car5) What is overall ridership, by % capacity of both coach and sleeper? If coach doesn't make as much money as sleeper, how about we just get rid of coach class all together? Of course that is a ridiculous statement, but if sleepers generate more revenue inspite of their commissary costs, why not increase the number of sleepers rather than coaches (obviously the availablity and cost not withstanding)?

Outside the auto train it is impossible to answer most of those questions, and the numbers given would be irrelevant anyway. For example, we could generate the maximum revenue theoretically possible on the LSL. No AGR riders, each rider being charged highest bucket and riding just one stop. Not only would that cut down on meals being served, but it would explode revenue because there is a 'intiation of service' amount built into the fare formula.

Realistically, the sleepers do provide a higher revenue per passenger, obviously, and I think for the most part a higher revenue per car. I don't know if it produces a higher revenue vs expense numbers, and Amtraks accounting is extremely hard to follow in a lot of cases. It has historically been more about obfuscation of costs then about actual reasonable expensing, for both good and bad reasons.

Just be aware that AGR ticketed riders do contribute revenue. All of the points that you receive on purchases are paid for by the merchants that offer them. Amtrak doesn't give the points away free but sells them to merchants for 3 cents per point or more... I would say that by accepting points for fares, Amtrak is getting at least a medium bucket (if not high bucket) fare paid for in advance to boot. The only way to cut the food costs is perhaps by bidding them out to food service companies. Years back the Santa Fe Chief had onboard food service provided by the Fred Harvey company. By privatizing the dining cars, the costs of operating them may go down. It might be worth a try.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I'm aware of how credit rewards systems work. I take credit cards and pay those fees. I don't know how close to retail amtrak gets paid, though, I remember reading its a special low fare.

 

[dlagrua]

I'm aware of how credit rewards systems work. I take credit cards and pay those fees. I don't know how close to retail amtrak gets paid, though, I remember reading its a special low fare.

A 2 zone trip one way trip in a bedroom is 40,000 points

Assuming merchant pays only .02 per point (that is on the low side) Amtrak sold the trip for $800.00.

A 2 zone one way trip in a roomette is 25,000 points or $500 using the same formula.

Those prices are at or near high bucket.

I believe that point trips greatly contribute to Amtrak's bottom line.

 

[jis]

A 2 zone one way trip in a roomette is 25,000 points or $500 using the same formula.

Those prices are at or near high bucket.

The AGR site somehow thinks that 2 zone roomette reward is only 20,000 points.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I currently take cards using a service that places my percentage at NQT 2.75 percent. So I pay a flat 2.75% for an AGR card or other points carrying card. So between the general processing center taking its cut, the credit card company taking its cut, and AGR taking its cut, there is an available maximum of 2.75 cents per point. Since my FQT rate is 1.5%, I'd assume Amtrak is getting the balance, or $0.0125 per point. I don't pay a batch, monthly or other fees, unless I have to do a manual capture, in which case I pay a 50¢ manual capture fee, plus .75% more.

So Amtrak is probably getting something like 1.25%. I know that a lot of people pay higher than me for their credit card transactions- a friend of mine was average 6% when he included his monthly, batch, transaction, and general bullish*t fees. Those kinds of numbers don't go to Amtrak, they go to the card processor generally, mostly because the person who signed the credit agreement didn't know how to negotiate, or more likely, didn't even bother reading the fine print that says they can hike your rates whenever they darned well please.

And no, its not because I'm a large business. Its because I am the cheap Jew I was raised to be when running my business- and damned proud of it, too.

 

[jis]

Maybe GML would know about this. How would an outfit like Amtrak report the AGR points related financial account? Clearly in cash account they accrue the money when they get it from the party that they sold the points to. But would they not have to report a liability corresponding to that amount until they have actually delivered the service to the customers who uses those points to actually get a ticket and use it? Or is there some way of avoiding that without running afoul of the financial reporting rules? At what point would they be able to write off the liability? Seems like an accounting nightmare. I guess there would be a similar issue with all these vouchers that they issue too? Just curious. I guess these are all neat schemes for beefing up ones cash flow while mucking up the financial account? Or am I totally confused - which BTW is quite possible.

 

[rrdude]

I currently take cards using a service that places my percentage at NQT 2.75 percent. So I pay a flat 2.75% for an AGR card or other points carrying card. So between the general processing center taking its cut, the credit card company taking its cut, and AGR taking its cut, there is an available maximum of 2.75 cents per point. Since my FQT rate is 1.5%, I'd assume Amtrak is getting the balance, or $0.0125 per point. I don't pay a batch, monthly or other fees, unless I have to do a manual capture, in which case I pay a 50¢ manual capture fee, plus .75% more.

So Amtrak is probably getting something like 1.25%. I know that a lot of people pay higher than me for their credit card transactions- a friend of mine was average 6% when he included his monthly, batch, transaction, and general bullish*t fees. Those kinds of numbers don't go to Amtrak, they go to the card processor generally, mostly because the person who signed the credit agreement didn't know how to negotiate, or more likely, didn't even bother reading the fine print that says they can hike your rates whenever they darned well please.

And no, its not because I'm a large business. Its because I am the cheap Jew I was raised to be when running my business- and damned proud of it, too.

LIKE.

GML, I luv ya man!

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Maybe GML would know about this. How would an outfit like Amtrak report the AGR points related financial account? Clearly in cash account they accrue the money when they get it from the party that they sold the points to. But would they not have to report a liability corresponding to that amount until they have actually delivered the service to the customers who uses those points to actually get a ticket and use it? Or is there some way of avoiding that without running afoul of the financial reporting rules? At what point would they be able to write off the liability? Seems like an accounting nightmare. I guess there would be a similar issue with all these vouchers that they issue too? Just curious. I guess these are all neat schemes for beefing up ones cash flow while mucking up the financial account? Or am I totally confused - which BTW is quite possible.

It's not really an accounting nightmare. Amtrak has a cash equivalency rate for the point (if it's an average 1.25 cents a point it would be recorded as such), and it's an accounts payable to the customer who holds the points, to be applied to the income accounts for the specific services used when they are redeemed. You can't avoid reporting it since it is an existing debt. A certain amount of it gets written off each year, I'd assume, based both on expiring points for non card members, and the fact that a whole world of people never use credit card accrued points.
When it comes to accounting tricks, I can spot them, but I'm not well versed in implementing them since, and I say this in all honesty, I don't use them.