Ryan
Court Jester
Being in charge has nothing to do with the matter. Explain to me how Amtrak can work a Christmas miracle and spend money to make the lounges nicer without raising fares or getting more money from the government?
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
G
Guest
Guest
It is not my job to explain to YOU, on how to run a railroad. Amtrak employs people to try and attract customers to a comfortable and attractive mode of transportation
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
If my expression of opinion discourages you from posting on this board, you have some real problems that have nothing to do with your opinions. I don't care for the court of public opinion- I am not looking to be elected to office.
The idea that current fares and subsidies could pay for superior equipment with just incrased passenger traffic is flawed. Why? Lets do the math. The Diner-Lite conversions involved, as you state, spartan furnishings and cost about 750k a car. So lets do it over with lavish furnishings for... a million a car? So that's $25 million bucks- do the math, million bucks a car, 25 Amfleet II food service cars.
Now, Amtrak provided service to about 1.5 million people long distance on the single-level trains last year, generating about $121 million, or about 80 a piece. Granting the lounges would likely live a life of about 10 years in that configuration, ok? Now, Amtrak financial reports indicate that the LD trains have a marginal financial benefit of about .15, or about 15% on average of the money collected from an additional passenger proves beneficial to the company- if the company was making a profit, you'd probably call it a profit margin.
So that would mean each additional passenger could contribute $12 towards the cost of this luxury refit. Which means you'd have to produce about 2.1 million new passengers over 10 years, or 210,000 a year. There are 5 trains that run with this lounge, 10 runs. Each run, as it were, would have to get 58 more passengers per diem. Each run carries about 400 people, thus meaning you'd have to increase traffic 15% over current regular growth and trends. I don't think the trains actually have the capacity to handle that growth.
So there you go. Statistically unrealistic, and it operates on the assumption that such amenities would really drive ridership to that degree. It doesn't, particularly. Oh, it drives ridership, but not that much.
Ryan
Court Jester
Ah, Davey - forgot that GML posted on page 1. 
Which is exactly what they're doing. If you propose that they make a change, it's your job to explain how that change would be in Amtrak's best interest. You forget that you're the one that's trying to change the status quo.
G
Guest
Guest
I have not fogotten anything. Many people on this forum have made comments or ideas of a better way to run Amtrak, but some clown keeps saying it's just not practical.Ah, Davey - forgot that GML posted on page 1.
Which is exactly what they're doing. If you propose that they make a change, it's your job to explain how that change would be in Amtrak's best interest. You forget that you're the one that's trying to change the status quo.
Keep in mind that whatever company took over the assets of American Orient Express (I forget their name) tried putting their luxury cars on the back of Amtrak trains and selling space on them, essentially offering a scheduled luxury service. It failed, and the company went out of business.
People will pay more for better service. The issue is, will enough people be willing to pay enough more for better service to make it worthwhile? The answer typically seems to be no. It's the same thing in the airline industry. Airlines that tried to cater specifically to higher fare passengers with luxury accommodations have died and/or replaced their product with your typical coach and "first class" (which, when it comes down to it, is a bit like Amtrak business class or Acela first class for US domestic flights) accommodations, many of the latter of which are filled with elite frequent fliers traveling on upgrades.
Airlines used to have lounges and piano bars on 747s, too. Those got replaced with seats.
Travelers who truly want luxury and have the means to pay for it tend to have their own transportation (be it a private jet, a private railcar, limousine, etc.). Public, common-carrier mass transportation generally has not done too well trying to provide luxury and paying for it with fares.
People will pay more for better service. The issue is, will enough people be willing to pay enough more for better service to make it worthwhile? The answer typically seems to be no. It's the same thing in the airline industry. Airlines that tried to cater specifically to higher fare passengers with luxury accommodations have died and/or replaced their product with your typical coach and "first class" (which, when it comes down to it, is a bit like Amtrak business class or Acela first class for US domestic flights) accommodations, many of the latter of which are filled with elite frequent fliers traveling on upgrades.
Airlines used to have lounges and piano bars on 747s, too. Those got replaced with seats.
Travelers who truly want luxury and have the means to pay for it tend to have their own transportation (be it a private jet, a private railcar, limousine, etc.). Public, common-carrier mass transportation generally has not done too well trying to provide luxury and paying for it with fares.
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
I am not a clown, I am a guy who spends more time dealing with the politics of rail/mass transportation than anyone I know on this board besides Jishnu. As such, I have some idea how things work, both financially and politically.
Believe me, Amtrak implementing it on a positive-for-Amtrak basis is not practical. It will either spend money they don't have, or annoy its lords and masters in Congress with "wasteful luxury for the rich" nonsense. If you want luxury on a government subsidized service, you have to justify that luxury, and pay for it, in a way that either doesn't add to that subsidy or makes it look like it doesn't add to that subsidy. And then you might have a chance unless somebody who wants to make a name for themselves blows the thing out of proportion.
Say, for instance, some essentially dead woman's husband wanting to put her out of their misery versus her parents not wanting to. In a sane world, that would be a private matter. In our world, Terry Schivo was a international incident.
Alternatively, Amtrak wants to waste tax payers money on luxury lounge cars that they can't 100% prove will pay for themselves. Key campaign speeches. It draws away from the fact that their campaign platform of More Services + Less Taxes = Reduced Deficit does not mathematically work.
Last edited by a moderator:
G
Guest
Guest
GML, if you look at my post, I was not refering to you, but
Ryan
Court Jester
Sorry, GML - I must be the clown in question.
Instead of name calling, explain why I'm wrong.
Instead of name calling, explain why I'm wrong.
I was going to give up this conversation since it is so difficult to express an opinion without being challenged. But here is another probably foolish try.
No one mentioned to my knowledge what Ryan is suggesting that magically lounges get redone this instant and at great cost. On the contrary I am trying to make a point which is somehow missed that when Amtrak is working on the plans for new consist the lounge car could without spending a fortune on luxuries make it a more interesting and cozy car. Rows of bench seats does not make a lounge no matter how you try to spin it. But I agree were stuck with it. I spent 50 years redesigning public spaces and I know full well how a few added touches and minor changes might make for a car that has a feel of welcoming that the Diner Lite or what ever the lake shore has been running as lounges are. I realize that its due to the government not spending money on equipment that is partially to blame. But as mentioned the superliner lounges are several steps better than what the interior of those Lake Shore cars are like.
A point mentioned already is the money spent on the CCC cars that for the most part no one seems to want. It appears that someone at least was thinking out of the box to create a variety of interior space. Sadly it isn't the best diner especially with the staffing issues that come with it. But a lounge that is being built from scratch could contain some interesting combinations of curved booths and swivel seating which at one point they ran. It would not be out of the box luxury but a few touches like well placed artwork, even if as in some cars amtrak posters greatly increases the softness of the hard furniture.
And while some dismiss the idea that passengers paying sleeper fares shouldn't expect more than a bed to sleep in or room to sit in, I have run into considerable passengers who felt the train did not live up to what they expected for the cost. Thats an argument that will continue I suspect.
I hope this is clearer since somehow what I have said is not understandable to this point.
No one mentioned to my knowledge what Ryan is suggesting that magically lounges get redone this instant and at great cost. On the contrary I am trying to make a point which is somehow missed that when Amtrak is working on the plans for new consist the lounge car could without spending a fortune on luxuries make it a more interesting and cozy car. Rows of bench seats does not make a lounge no matter how you try to spin it. But I agree were stuck with it. I spent 50 years redesigning public spaces and I know full well how a few added touches and minor changes might make for a car that has a feel of welcoming that the Diner Lite or what ever the lake shore has been running as lounges are. I realize that its due to the government not spending money on equipment that is partially to blame. But as mentioned the superliner lounges are several steps better than what the interior of those Lake Shore cars are like.
A point mentioned already is the money spent on the CCC cars that for the most part no one seems to want. It appears that someone at least was thinking out of the box to create a variety of interior space. Sadly it isn't the best diner especially with the staffing issues that come with it. But a lounge that is being built from scratch could contain some interesting combinations of curved booths and swivel seating which at one point they ran. It would not be out of the box luxury but a few touches like well placed artwork, even if as in some cars amtrak posters greatly increases the softness of the hard furniture.
And while some dismiss the idea that passengers paying sleeper fares shouldn't expect more than a bed to sleep in or room to sit in, I have run into considerable passengers who felt the train did not live up to what they expected for the cost. Thats an argument that will continue I suspect.
I hope this is clearer since somehow what I have said is not understandable to this point.
Ryan
Court Jester
Thanks, Larry - I finally understand your point. I've also read Amtrak's fleet replenishment plan that says that Amtrak plans on running the current Amfleet II cars until 2022. So yeah, in 12 years when Amtrak starts bringing those replacements online, it'd be nice if they were able to come up with a different design that was a little more welcoming as I agree that the current "lounge" cars aren't anywhere that I'm interested in spending extended lengths of time. Lets come back in 10 years and discuss that when there's actually an opportunity to do something about it, shall we?
See what happens when you take the time to write out a well thought out post with logical points?
Last edited by a moderator:
spacecadet
Lead Service Attendant
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2008
- Messages
- 368
Well, this is not true. Why has Amtrak been so desperate for sleeping cars and diners? Because they don't have enough of either one to meet demand. Both of these types of cars are for first class service (dining cars can be used by coach passengers, but they're mostly used by first class passengers).
I'm not sure where you're getting this either, and anyway it's not a valid comparison.
Most flights are 3 hours or less. At 3 hours or less, even the filthy rich don't need a private suite with a lie-flat bed. That's true on a train or a plane. That's why you don't see high-end luxury service on domestic flights.
But you certainly do on international flights, including those operated by US airlines. On flights 12 hours or longer, if an airline doesn't offer a class that includes lie-flat beds, gourmet food and personal privacy, they're at a serious competitive disadvantage. And these classes typically subsidize the economy cabin. Airlines make most of their money on business and first class passengers. Some airlines actually *lose* money consistently on their economy cabins on certain routes - they only maintain them at all to satisfy their network and alliance obligations (and the alliance benefits them overall, if not on every individual route).
The point being, yes, on longer flights the airlines do offer very high end luxury accommodations, and this is where they make their money. And these services are in high demand, and also bring prestige (and therefore positive PR) to an airline.
They got replaced with seats because seats generate revenue and lounges (on airplanes) don't. This is not the same as a train, because firstly, we're not talking about replacing a non-revenue generating car with a revenue-generating one. Lounges on trains are revenue-generating to begin with - we're just talking about the relative "niceness" of the lounge car.
Also, on a train, if you want more revenue you just add more cars. Obviously Amtrak can't do that right now because they don't have more cars, but assuming they had more sleeping cars, they could use them even now on some routes. Who's to say with better service they couldn't sell even more roomettes and bedrooms?
Amtrak is artificially constrained by a shortage of equipment, so there is currently no incentive for them to actually try to sell more rooms, and that's why the lounge cars look the way they do right now. When you need to try to actually sell accommodations, amenities become sacred cows. When you sell out of rooms months in advance, suddenly your biggest problem is basic needs like making sure there's enough food for all those people, and that it can be served reliably and in basic comfort. That's why we have the diner lites.
My point is that your basic premise is wrong. People *will* pay extra for better service, and they've demonstrated that throughout the ages and continue to do so on the airlines. You can't look at a 2 hour flight and compare it to a 14 hour train ride. Compare a 14 hour flight and that 14 hour train ride and see what the airline offers, even without the ability to add extra space to their planes. The fact that the AOE failed doesn't mean the entire concept of high end transportation accommodations and amenities failed.
Thank you, very well and thoughtfully put. Its the same reason I mentioned the Cruise ships. You don't see many bare bones no fills cruise ships advertised because people want to have nice surroundings. Take away the oil paintings, the fine food, and furniture, fancy woodwork and pools and they would just be freighters and more than likely out of business. That is somewhat my contention as well. Amtrak is doing it self no favor by running bare bones consist. It may make some here happy, but my guess is they are loosing may times the possible riders to those who for various reasons put up with it.
The comparison made that the American land Cruise didn't make it was bogus as well. That train was extremely high end and over priced from anyones perspective. Limited scheduling as well. My contention is that a well appointed, not overly so, comfortable train will indeed attract more riders. Again its part of the reason for the Pacific parlor cars popularity and why the Empire Builder when it was rechristened as an upgraded train became the train everyone wanted to ride. It needs to be a balance between cost of tickets and quality of consist, food and service. Everywhere you go people who are paying a higher rate for something generally expect something to go along with that cost. Its always been true, thats why the Super Chief was the standard for rail travel for years and why they lost the name use at Amtrak when they decided not to maintain the quality of experience any longer. It just became any old train once the quality was gone. That is where the whole system has ended up.
Again it isn't totally amtraks fault, a government run system is too prone to bickering, especially among politicians who probably never rode a train in their life and have chauffeured cars and private dining rooms for them selves. I don't know if we can ever totally fix it considering the way its constructed today. They are probably doing the best they can with what they have at the moment and many of the unpopular cuts are due to congress and their lack of knowledge about what makes a train a alternative way worth taking. Maybe with higher gas prices and a changing airline industry it will turn around at some point. I just hope that the next generation of cars will consider the overall concept of providing service and comfort to the public in a way that makes they want to come back.
The comparison made that the American land Cruise didn't make it was bogus as well. That train was extremely high end and over priced from anyones perspective. Limited scheduling as well. My contention is that a well appointed, not overly so, comfortable train will indeed attract more riders. Again its part of the reason for the Pacific parlor cars popularity and why the Empire Builder when it was rechristened as an upgraded train became the train everyone wanted to ride. It needs to be a balance between cost of tickets and quality of consist, food and service. Everywhere you go people who are paying a higher rate for something generally expect something to go along with that cost. Its always been true, thats why the Super Chief was the standard for rail travel for years and why they lost the name use at Amtrak when they decided not to maintain the quality of experience any longer. It just became any old train once the quality was gone. That is where the whole system has ended up.
Again it isn't totally amtraks fault, a government run system is too prone to bickering, especially among politicians who probably never rode a train in their life and have chauffeured cars and private dining rooms for them selves. I don't know if we can ever totally fix it considering the way its constructed today. They are probably doing the best they can with what they have at the moment and many of the unpopular cuts are due to congress and their lack of knowledge about what makes a train a alternative way worth taking. Maybe with higher gas prices and a changing airline industry it will turn around at some point. I just hope that the next generation of cars will consider the overall concept of providing service and comfort to the public in a way that makes they want to come back.
Larry,
Just to be clear here, what Trogdor was referring to wasn't the typical land cruises that were run on special itineraries. There was an attempt several years ago to run a semi-regular high end attachment to existing Amtrak trains. They partnered with Amtrak to add a few of the luxury cars to the rear of existing Amtrak runs, including the Zephyr and one of the Silvers. I think that they also did the Chief, but I won't swear to that.
While the luxury cars didn't run every day, there were regularly scheduled opportunities to ride these cars. Typically they would turn around at the end of the run and go right back the next day, then take a day or two off before running the route again.
The prices, while still high as compared to Amtrak, were much lower than the typical "land cruises" they traditionally had offered. That of course was due in part to the fact that it wasn't a two week trip, but either an overnight trip or a 2 night trip.
I was actually going to take one of the runs to Florida, along with my mom, but alas by the time we had figured out our dates, the one run that we could do was already pulled from booking because ridership was too low. They ended up canceling more than half the planned runs do to lack of ridership.
One mistake that I think that they did make however with this idea was that they tried this in the very late fall, early winter almost up to Christmas. That was the wrong time of the year to really test this type of market. Most people save vacation time for the summer, and even those that don't come late fall are usually plotting out Christmas trips to visit family (not luxury trips) and spending their extra cash on presents.
Hi Allan,
I checked those fares as well and it was still pretty steep. The improvements I am taking about are more cosmetic with reasonable touches of class that make the difference between a sterile looking cookie cutter car and one which is "friendly" and "inviting". That does not cost a bundle more, it just takes the right person to design the interior with those goals in mind. Once the cars are built then they are paid for over a very long running time. I am not talking about increased fares as the prices are to my way of thinking rather steep as it is. Just better passenger consideration that some of the "Lounges" on single level trains are now running. Somehow I don't think that this conversation used to break down along these lines when passengers trains were run by individual railroads. Its obvious from the attempts to have a inviting interior for the passenger in nearly all the history of long distance runs that it was a common practice and not considered pandering to the wealthy or out of touch as seems to be the way some today choose to see it.
I checked those fares as well and it was still pretty steep. The improvements I am taking about are more cosmetic with reasonable touches of class that make the difference between a sterile looking cookie cutter car and one which is "friendly" and "inviting". That does not cost a bundle more, it just takes the right person to design the interior with those goals in mind. Once the cars are built then they are paid for over a very long running time. I am not talking about increased fares as the prices are to my way of thinking rather steep as it is. Just better passenger consideration that some of the "Lounges" on single level trains are now running. Somehow I don't think that this conversation used to break down along these lines when passengers trains were run by individual railroads. Its obvious from the attempts to have a inviting interior for the passenger in nearly all the history of long distance runs that it was a common practice and not considered pandering to the wealthy or out of touch as seems to be the way some today choose to see it.
G
Guest
Guest
I totaly agree, but some will say, it's just not practical.
Larry,
I fully understand what you're advocating for and I agree with you that Amtrak needs to be thinking about smaller touches just like you're describing.
I just wanted to make sure that you realized what Trogdor was referring too, and yes those fares weren't cheap. On average they were about 2 to 3 times what Amtrak charged for sleeper service at that time. But one of the regular excursions would have charged probably 5 to 6 times what Amtrak would have charged for a comparable run, so they were sort of hitting the middle of the road as it were in their effort to try and attract more business to the "luxury" market.
I think one reason some are having trouble with this concept when we reference older car designs is that they some how feel that good design didn't help the railroads. It is true that mostly it didn't and that service and quality were abandoned by most railroads of the time with a few exceptions. That doesn't preclude the thought however that the workmanship and design standards of those late passenger trains before they fell from popular use wasn't a fine reference point for layouts of the cars. What I think some of us are advocating that those principles of layout and style be updated to simpler versions for modern use. I believe whom ever designed the CCC car was aware of the seating pattern of some of those late cafe cars on passenger trains of the 50's where that side seating was intermixed with standard tables for a more casual but stylish look.
Another thought which is almost tied to this whole discussion is how somehow todays trains are being divided in the same way we see the political attitude of today. The have's and have not's. Those who want a place to sleep other than a chair are placed in the "upper" class and thus should be subject to much higher fares than was standard at the time. I probably live on one of the smaller yearly incomes on here, and yet when pullman service was the standard on trains I never had to feel like I was paying 10 times more for some incredible extra. It was a simple choice, do I want to ride for two days sitting in a chair, or do I want a bit of privacy and a place to lay down. This whole way in which train passengers are now seen as either taking advantage of the government and wanting something they shouldn't get is a more recent development. Another reason why its too bad that government had to play a role at all, things didn't break down along these lines before it became a public service.
And the worst part is that it's not true! Sleeper passengers actually get less of a subsidy per mile than do coach passengers.
Government interference in the free market, namely subsidized roads and planes, is why government now needs to play a role in running trains.
I have ridden in both heritage lounges and Amfleet lounges in my life as well as the coach equivalents of each car and of course hands down the heritage cars were the best I ever rode on. One did not need a sleeper when those coaches were around and the heritage cars with there dimmer decor had that kind of cozy tavern feel. With that said to me the Amfleet II Cafe's were ok not the worst not the best. On my first train trip as a kid coming off the CZ as the first train I ever rode and getting on the LSL it was a bit of a shock. The Amfleet lounges are not the best for sightseeing they felt claustrophobic to me and they certainly did not make you wanna stay for awhile. However they did do the job on a route that is only 24 hours long without the constant flow of spectacular scenery and that was effectively serve a wide variety of food to passengers throughout the trip. I have to admit as much as we would love to hate Amfleet's they did kinda grow on me in there old interior scheme. The absolute worst lounges on a train are out here in California. The Surfliners and there identical equivalent on the Capitol Corridor are coach on top and lounge on the bottom. There are only 2 tables down stairs and if you guess that the LSA and the conductors grabbed those you are absolutely right. Now on a 2 hour ride on the Capitols this is not much of an issue to me but imagine the 7 hour ride to San Luis Obispo on the Surfliners or even the 12 to 14 hour ride on the Coast Daylight to San Francisco when it starts and you can see how unattractive this kind of lounge can be. There is worse than Amfleet cars greyhound also comes to mind on that list lol. This just goes on the same list of growing improvements that Amtrak needs to make and I think even in this thread Amtrak could get a lot of research and development for free, but either way I will still ride Amtrak just hoping for more improvement. Finally a bigger improvement I have been shouting from the roof tops on the Capitol Corridor is the resurrection of a decent hot full meal choice. When I take the train into the Bay Area and I am running around all day like I have done with no time to stop and eat one of the things that appeals to me is the ability to just wait til I get on the train.I remember ordering a Salmon Dinner Tray Meal that came out of one of those Surfliner 1/4 lounges and it was dining car quality and I don't even mean Diner Lite.
Mark Del Monte
Yes the whole thing has devolved into looking at a train from the position that its divided into classes of passengers. It used to be one train going to various destinations with choices of service that all fit within the cost of operating a whole train. Now every little thing is divided up and cost are juggled to make one set of passengers look like they are taking advantage of others. Its a sad thing.
Mark it reminds me of the CCC cars they have been running on the City for a while, although I think the lounge is back due to enough outrage at its demise. That idea was so flawed it wasn't funny. Not only did it only have three tables for a lounge with a train of passengers often amounting to hundreds in leaving chicago, but as you say, one of them was taken by the conductor, and often the couple remaining ended up in the possession of a few passengers which never left it. So much for a lounge on that run. I think maybe amtrak got the message on that one, everyone hated it. I think part of the reason for the trouble is that there is a disconnect between reality and budgets and planing at amtrak. Too many decisions wether forced on them or on their own tend to always eliminate things that were always taken for granted previously. I fear that the next congress will do much the same.
Rail Freak
Engineer
- Status
