Dining Car Etiquette

[Green Maned Lion]

I frankly liked the original Amlounge configuration. The diner lite not so much. An Amlounge style configuration (booths on one end, tables and chairs on the other) in a Viewliner she'll would make a nice lounge.

 

[neroden]

Furthermore, given the general lack of resources, given some money can be found for new cars, I would not spend it on spiffy lounge cars. I'd spend it to get revenue earning cars and basic food service cars (which might indeed look like Amfleet II kind of arrangement but perhaps in a Viewliner shell - sort of like the Viewliner Diner slightly rearranged)

I'm confused by this statement.
My vision of a spiffy single-level lounge car *is* one arranged like the Amfleet II lounge/cafe, except in a Viewliner shell with the big double Viewliner windows. (And if possible, run windows along the roof like the Superliner observation cars.)

That sounds to me like a pretty spiffy lounge car... but it sounds like your description of "basic food service cars", apart from my desire for wraparound windows. Perhaps you have a much more exotic vision of a "spiffy lounge car".

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Check this out, Nathaniel. http://www.trainweb.org/Tomsrailtravels/Amfleet%202%20lounge%20interiors.htm

The original lounge had that lounge section. I prefer that to bench style booths. It encourages interaction and reduces "booth hogging". Put that lay

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Check this out, Nathaniel. http://www.trainweb.org/Tomsrailtravels/Amfleet%202%20lounge%20interiors.htm

The original lounge had that lounge section. I prefer that to bench style booths. It encourages interaction and reduces "booth hogging". Put that layout in a Viewliner with no bathroom and a cafe snack bar in one end and you'd have a nice lounge that would look nice and probably cost little more than the booth and table layout.

 

[rrdude]

Check this out, Nathaniel. http://www.trainweb.org/Tomsrailtravels/Amfleet%202%20lounge%20interiors.htm

The original lounge had that lounge section. I prefer that to bench style booths. It encourages interaction and reduces "booth hogging". Put that layout in a Viewliner with no bathroom and a cafe snack bar in one end and you'd have a nice lounge that would look nice and probably cost little more than the booth and table layout.

Gawd Dammit GML, I totally forgot that Amtrak had those. THAT's what I'm talking about.

JIS, Those riding for "basic transportation" (and it is prolly the bulk of travelers, IDK) won't give two hoots about an lounge, no-lounge, or even ultra lounge. But I think those that CHOOSE Amtrak for the experience, would much prefer a trip with a lounge car, nicely appointed no less.

Your position seems to state that "....Non Rev cars don'r really do anything to bring revenue to the train.........." when indeed, they do!

Imagine if they removed the SSL from the Western Trains?

 

[SarahZ]

Check this out, Nathaniel. http://www.trainweb.org/Tomsrailtravels/Amfleet%202%20lounge%20interiors.htm

The original lounge had that lounge section. I prefer that to bench style booths. It encourages interaction and reduces "booth hogging".

Are you talking about this?

The only thing I don't like about that is that the people with their backs to the window can't look at the view, and the people facing the window have to look over the other people's heads.

 

[jis]

That looks like the smoking lounge in the Amlounges that were converted to so called Smokers.

 

[jis]

Check this out, Nathaniel. http://www.trainweb.org/Tomsrailtravels/Amfleet%202%20lounge%20interiors.htm

The original lounge had that lounge section. I prefer that to bench style booths. It encourages interaction and reduces "booth hogging". Put that layout in a Viewliner with no bathroom and a cafe snack bar in one end and you'd have a nice lounge that would look nice and probably cost little more than the booth and table layout.

Gawd Dammit GML, I totally forgot that Amtrak had those. THAT's what I'm talking about.
JIS, Those riding for "basic transportation" (and it is prolly the bulk of travelers, IDK) won't give two hoots about an lounge, no-lounge, or even ultra lounge. But I think those that CHOOSE Amtrak for the experience, would much prefer a trip with a lounge car, nicely appointed no less.

Your position seems to state that "....Non Rev cars don'r really do anything to bring revenue to the train.........." when indeed, they do!

Imagine if they removed the SSL from the Western Trains?

Why would they remove anything?
All that I said is that when fares are heading sky high due to shortage of available revenue seats, whether you have a lounge or not is unlikely to make a huge difference in revenues. Yes a few who ride Amtrak for the experience won't ride, but the seats left vacant by them will get filled up. That is the reality. I did not say that I necessarily like it and it is also likely that I will take Amtrak less. but it is also part of the same reality that Amtrak does not run for the pleasure of the likes of me.

It is already the case that I ride the Acelas much less, but I don't see the Acelas running any emptier because of the absence of the likes of me.

 

[neroden]

The way I see it, a lot of routes really need a cafe car. Some routes would still fill up at high prices with no onboard food... but a lot of longer routes absolutely need that cafe to attract high-paying passengers.

As long as you have a cafe car, you might as well have it be a lounge car with tables.

This reduces the number of people bringing food back to their seats and dribbling it everywhere.

It also provides a place for people to play cards or spread out maps or paperwork, which you can't do in most of the coach cars because of the lack of tables. Again, some routes may fill up at high prices without the amenity of tables.... but it's going to attract a lot of additional people. The Surfliners deliberately have some coach seats in the "table" arrangement because of the demand for this. Tables so people can sit across the table from each other are a popular enough amenity that some high-end intercity buses are adding them.

This is one reason why I think a lounge car should be full of tables. Apart from the view and the cafe, that's the main amenity it's providing which isn't present in coach: the tables. But seating layout is one of the easiest possible things to change, so if a more "lounge/observation" seat layout was desired for half the car, that would really be no problem.

And as long as you're building a cafe-table car, you might as well have it double as an observation car with lots of big windows (like the Sightseer Lounge has). (Example of how to do the roof: http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/46711-amfleet-ssl/?p=352740) This attracts business, and what does it cost you? Some extra window maintenance? That's not a big cost. Again, some routes may fill up at high prices without this amenity... but the amenity attracts more people and allows you to raise prices.

In addition, the "non-revenue space" provides some crucial overflow for certain types of problems like overbooking or broken seats in the coaches, or indeed overflow or waitlisting in the dining car.

The fact that you can accomodate all of these amenities simultaneously in a single cafe-lounge-obs car makes it a very useful type of car. One Superliner Sightseer Lounge can provide all these amenities for roughly four or five full bilevel coaches before it starts getting overcrowded, judging by the situations on the Empire Builder, Coast Starlight, and Auto Train. 4:1 is not a bad ratio. I think the ratio is probably a bit higher on single-level trains at something more like 6:1. (This is probably because the downstairs space on the Sightseer Lounges is always unpopular and doesn't get fully used.) If there's a dining car you can probably add another coach, making it 5:1 or 7:1; the effect of sleeping car capacity on cafe-lounge-obs usage is a bit harder for me to understand, as it should be lower per passenger, but the passengers are probably riding farther.

Anyway, if you think of the cafe-lounge-obs car as providing all three of these amenities at once, to a full-length train, while also providing some overflow and slack for problems, you have to suspect that not having it would lose quite a lot of people. People who weren't turned off by the loss of one of the three amenities might be turned off by the loss of another -- and people who were frustrated by problems like broken seats could not be relieved by the use of the cafe-lounge-obs.

whether you have a lounge or not is unlikely to make a huge difference in revenues.

Having no lounge/cafe car at all would probably make a substantial difference in revenues on (for example) the Palmetto or Pennsylvanian.
I'm still not entirely sure what you're saying, jis. Many routes are not nearly as busy as the most-packed routes. And even if the routes stay packed, it's quite possible that by reducing amenities, Amtrak may trade higher-paying passengers for lower-paying passengers, and if this revenue difference exceeds the cost difference, this can damage the bottom line.

As the Amfleet II cafe-lounges start to fall apart, I think it would be correct for Amtrak to order at least 25 Viewliner cafe-lounge-observation cars. They're useful. More than 25 would be useful because they'd be useful on a number of eastern single-level trains which don't need dining cars, and this is a category of trains which is fairly likely to expand. The Amfleet I "club-dinettes" and "full dinettes" are both essentially the same layout as the Amfleet II "diners" and it would make sense to replace all of these cafes at once.

Considering Amfleet I and Amfleet II cafes together, Amtrak could order 75 all-table cafe-lounge-obs cars and 50 half-table/half-business-class cafe-lounge-obs-BC cars and only be replacing current capacity. If Amtrak ever finds the needed funding for this order, I suppose the order is actually large enough to actually interest factories on its own -- it's larger than the entire CAF order. Of course, Amtrak also needs more than 500 single-level coaches just to replace the Amfleet IIs and Amfleet Is.

 

[andersone]

i know that the period from 1969 to 1975 actually happened because I was here when it started and i am still here now, however if asked to account for my actions in that time frame i think i would honestly say i have no recollection,,,,,zappa, frisbee and budweiser can do that to a man

 

[jis]

I specifically said that food service is essential. If you can pack in something like a table lounge with it great. That is what the Amlounges were designed to be and that was and still remains the right approach. That package put in a Viewliner body would be pretty good I think. What I am suggesting is that given the paucity of resources a car that serves no purpose other than just a luxury lounge probably has lower priority. I am not saying that such should be shunned under all circumstances, only that in a resource constrained situation it would have a lower priority than a multi-purpose service car.

If you consider what Amtrak started with in their original Amfleet I order you will see that they had way more food service cars with half table and half seating and even some with full seating and food service. As time went on they have converted many food service cars to pure Coach. I think a food service car of the Amfleet I Cafe type per about 6 cars is about the most that would work. For a longer train an additional one would be required. Which means if a 400 car Coach order goes out then 70 or so Cafe cars would be more than adequate. Increase number proportionately to the total Coach order envisaged. BTW 400 would be about the same number of seats as the current Amfleet I fleet. 70 Food Service would be a few less than current. As suggested by Nathaniel the number of food service cars could be augmented by doing a 40 full + 40 half table half seat cars, which would actually give net net more seats, and would be about 15 cars more than the current Amfleet I fleet.

 

[boxcarsyix]

The lounge is an importent part of my trips. 2-3 days couped up in a roomette is not my idea of fun. Might as well use a flying cattle car.

 

[oldtimer]

That looks like the smoking lounge in the Amlounges that were converted to so called Smokers.

That is one of the cars that was converted to a smoker, the glass enclosure and an additional ventilation fan. Most of the work was done at 14th St. The enclosed area was sometimes so thick with smoke that you could barely see. It was nicknamed the "penalty box".