Club car

[The Davy Crockett]

Ah, Davey - forgot that GML posted on page 1.

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?

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

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.

No worries Ryan. Hope you had a good holiday! :hi:

 

[The Davy Crockett]

I find it amusing that my having the 'nerve' to have a thought or idea that certain people disagree with causes them to resort to tactics along the lines of implying I'm a cult loving spoiled brat. It may make them feel superior, but in reality they don't do their views any favor in the court of public opinion. I don't let the fact that they are obviously so unhappy bother me. In fact, I feel rather sorry for them. What is too bad is that such nonsense diminishes and discourages the exchange of ideas in a forum such as this. Merry Christmas to EVERYONE. Peace to all mankind.

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.

Now that is a whole lotta number crunching... One thought on this is that when I'm in a sleeper I use my room as my personal lounge - as has been suggested in this thread. I in effect camp out in my room, other than for meals, or to view the scenery in the SSL, as its not worth spending time in the lounge otherwise. If the lounge was more of a draw, I'd certainly drop some greenbacks in it. Would there be enough people like me to support better lounge service? I can't answer that. I hear what your saying about it not working in the past. I think that the better level of service, the more ridership will increase and the more people will be willing to spend for it. Some of this could be achieved through better personel management for relatively little cash, while some would certainly require a bigger capital expenditure and be a gamble...

Just some thoughts from a turkey dinner induced stupor... Hope you've had a good x-mas.

 

[Donctor]

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.

As far as I'm aware, the following were the reasons for adding the lounge:

1. There's an axle requirement, and it makes more sense to have a lounge than an empty coach, especially because...

2. The City is interlined with the Eagle, a train that already has a lounge.

3. There wasn't enough lounge space in the CCC.

When a Sightseer is bad-ordered, the City and the Eagle will typically run with two CCCs. It's not that bad, but the trip isn't the same without a Sightseer.

 

[Larry H.]

Yes I agree the trip is not the same (IE return passengers), when the level of equipment is not up to expectations. Its odd I happened to hear a NPR program this morning, or at least on NPR, probably from a European country overnight fill in show, but they were interviewing Russian Passengers on a new line that follows a 100 year old route from Russia to France. Brand new train designed for long distance business which has flourished even amongst business travelers. They were interviewing passengers who were all offering rave reviews of the "details" of decor and conveniences this train offered and how much better it was than any of the European equipment. I thought it was timely for the discussion were having as to wether offering a product that people find attractive compared to one that just gets them there.

 

[Larry H.]

A quick google gives a number of stories about this train.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11434770