Upgrades to one, down grades to the rest?

[Larry H.]

Hi All,

I know this has been sort of hashed out before.. But in this day of ever increasing ridership, I am still irritated by the way in which some routes are chosen for extra service while the rest of us are downgraded. I received my notice from Amtrak about the newly remodeled Pacific Parlor Cars and new wine and cheese at the Los Angeles station along with other upgrades to attract passengers.

Now that is going on while our full sightseer lounges are being removed and the food service instead of being upgraded is made cheaper. What few small perks the sleeper passengers had, are now gone for the most part.. IE; on board welcome package, snack, ect..

My point as usual is what makes a government run system tilted towards providing service we all would like only to a few trains of their choosing.. It can't be the time of the run, many long distance trains run as far or longer with no lounge and very poor equipment, let alone a first class lounge and first class dining service. I think we all deserve those features when we all pay a similar charge for the accommodations. I am sure we will get the usual (it can't be done everywhere) responses and I agree that not every train may indeed be worth those services.. But when most are ignored at the improvement of one, especially one that seems to always get preferential treatment, then I have to wonder why? Is our travel or our money here in the midwest less deserving than those on the West or East coast? Well I better leave the East coast out of it.. The Cardinal and the Lake Shore are no beauties and I dare say the Lake shore most likely could or would haul many more than the CS does. Why wouldn't passengers between the two largest cities in the country deserve a full service diner, first class lounges ect? My opinion would be that if that kind of service is found to be a reason to attract passengers then we should all receive it!

 

[yarrow]

larry, it seems to me that the problem is clueless managment(which amtrak doesn't have a corner on). instead of asking workers and customers what is important to them decisions seem to be made by groups of mangers talking only to themselves. that is the way it appears to this customer and to pretty much any amtrak workers i have talked to. the decisions are hidden behind the mantra of "meeting congressional mandates". i wonder how much of that is true and how much a smokescreen to hide poor decisions. amtrak doesn't seem to know what it wants to do and at the present time of golden opportunity, due to gas prices, their leadership seems distant and bumbling. i know these are generalities without facts. nonetheless, they represent how i feel and i don't think i am the only one.

 

[haolerider]

larry, it seems to me that the problem is clueless managment(which amtrak doesn't have a corner on). instead of asking workers and customers what is important to them decisions seem to be made by groups of mangers talking only to themselves. that is the way it appears to this customer and to pretty much any amtrak workers i have talked to. the decisions are hidden behind the mantra of "meeting congressional mandates". i wonder how much of that is true and how much a smokescreen to hide poor decisions. amtrak doesn't seem to know what it wants to do and at the present time of golden opportunity, due to gas prices, their leadership seems distant and bumbling. i know these are generalities without facts. nonetheless, they represent how i feel and i don't think i am the only one.

I don't know how much you know about congressional mandates, but they are facts and unless Amtrak can show substantial reductions in the cost of food and beverage on their trains, the service will be terminated by Congress. That is a fact. I also know for a fact that Amtrak does consult with on-board employees as it makes and studies changes to service levels. They also receive constant suggestions and comments from on-board employees as to what works and what doesn't work. Amtrak also conducts focus groups with current, past and potential passengers to gauge reactions to changes. These things are not done in a vacumn as you suggest.

As far as what trains get upgrades and what trains don't, it is all a matter of how much revenue can be generated by various trains and various configurations of service. It is not hit or miss as you might suggest.

 

[Walt]

I don't know how much you know about congressional mandates, but they are facts and unless Amtrak can show substantial reductions in the cost of food and beverage on their trains, the service will be terminated by Congress. That is a fact.

Food costs to riders/customers, or cost to run the service?

I know that on the Silvers, sleeper car customers continue to eat additional meals, whenever the trains run late. I wonder what "bucket" all those additional meals are paid from? I would hate to think that they come out of the dining car budget. In other words, the dining car gets, for example, $40 out of the accommodation charge, and for that is suppose to provide 3 meals. Now, if they have to provide 4 or 5 meals for that same $40, they just got to "loose" money.

 

[yarrow]

larry, it seems to me that the problem is clueless managment(which amtrak doesn't have a corner on). instead of asking workers and customers what is important to them decisions seem to be made by groups of mangers talking only to themselves. that is the way it appears to this customer and to pretty much any amtrak workers i have talked to. the decisions are hidden behind the mantra of "meeting congressional mandates". i wonder how much of that is true and how much a smokescreen to hide poor decisions. amtrak doesn't seem to know what it wants to do and at the present time of golden opportunity, due to gas prices, their leadership seems distant and bumbling. i know these are generalities without facts. nonetheless, they represent how i feel and i don't think i am the only one.

I don't know how much you know about congressional mandates, but they are facts and unless Amtrak can show substantial reductions in the cost of food and beverage on their trains, the service will be terminated by Congress. That is a fact. I also know for a fact that Amtrak does consult with on-board employees as it makes and studies changes to service levels. They also receive constant suggestions and comments from on-board employees as to what works and what doesn't work. Amtrak also conducts focus groups with current, past and potential passengers to gauge reactions to changes. These things are not done in a vacumn as you suggest.

As far as what trains get upgrades and what trains don't, it is all a matter of how much revenue can be generated by various trains and various configurations of service. It is not hit or miss as you might suggest.

the amtrak obs people i have talked to don't seem to feel managment pays much attention to their ideas. it seems to me that amtrak has wasted a lot of money trying to reduce the cost of food service. i will let members who actually know the facts respond. the above post represents my perceptions as a customer. i am nearing the point where i would almost say that long distance service should be terminated and busses be used for those in areas with no other transportation option.

everytime i travel amtrak i fill out the survey and check the box to be part of a focus group. neither i nor anyone i know has ever been contacted. i maintain my original point that managment is out of touch with employees and customers

 

[MrEd]

oh no, I don't want to ride the bus, they don't serve the flat iron steak.

 

[Larry H.]

When we rode the Coast Starlight last month we indeed were approached by a Customer Service Manager who talked a great length about the service. I mentioned the down grade in lounges and food on the City of New Orleans and Texas Eagle so he knew exactly what I was discussing. His opinion was that the kind of service they had gone to on those trains was a winner in both public acceptance and in revenue. I have no idea where he is getting that because the on board service people as well as the conductors on the City have consistently complained about the changes and tell everyone to write there congressmen about it. I had done so often, not that it does much good if any. The fellow ask for a more comprehensive view of how the trip had gone and gave me his email address , I have not follow up on that, I need to do so..

He was quite happy though to be telling us about what great plans they had to upgrade the Coast Starlight yet again.. I just want to know "what about the rest of us". Why is a remodeled First class lounge a great idea for that train when no lounge is a great idea for yet others? I would still like to know the passenger totals for the CS as opposed to the New York Chicago runs. I can't believe that at least one of those routes would support a truly first class effort such as is given the CS, and would encourage more ridership and people willing to pay for sleeper service.. Well that is if they had sleepers which evidently they don't. Its all part of the same problem. Maybe this gas price crisis will finally force the issue to a head.. Where the heck does the congress think the passengers are going to eat if they eliminated diner service and lounge service.. They should all be voted out, but that doesn't happen either.. I still say they should all be required to ride cross country at least once a year to see what the passengers are seeing.. And Eating..

 

[RTOlson]

Random thought -- maybe it's an inadverant reflection of the history of U.S. rail travel. For more than a century, many rail companies tried to offer enhanced amenities to entice passengers on journeys out West.

Maybe Amtrak, having initially inherited the routes, trains and passengers, subconciously continued these traditions because that's what's expected. Painting broadly -- Amtrak seems to provide the great journey out West while offering relatively convenient and timely service in the Midwest and NEC (one's mileage varies, of course).

----------------

As for the current situation, it's hard to say definitively, but it seems to me that Amtrak needed to step up the service on Coast Starlight.

After years of astonishingly dismal on-time performance and concerns about how it handled the Oregon mudslide, Amtrak needs to show riders that Coast Starlight can really perform and with a reasonable level of comfort. Living on the Starlight line, I somewhat selfishly hope it can pull things off.

A question -- when you say "full Sightseer lounges" and dining service is being downgraded, do both of those points refer to the Cross-Country Cafe initiative? I initially thought so, but re-reading your message you cite different routes using either single-level or Superliner service.

Your post I think brings up both the issue of vehicles available and services offered.

I think, for both the Coast Starlight and the Cross-Country Cafe concept, Amtrak is trying to make the best out of its situation with an aging fleet and ever-ongoing questions about the profitability of Amtrak's on-board operations.

I would love having the Sighteer Lounge and the dining car remain separate cars, but perhaps it's not in the cards. I've never ridden single-level service so I can't comment on it although it would've been nice for Amtrak to have purchased entire Viewliner train sets.

I don't know if I can get behind the argument that all long-distance lines should get the same, across-the-board amenities. Surely, you know that's impossible for the double-level Parlour Cars -- there's only five of them left. Would you rather mothball those cars just because Amtrak can't roll enough to cover all the lines? Amtrak only has one Great Dome left, should that be laid up in Beech Grove because it can only be in one place at a time?

Personally, I'd rather have these unique vehicles on the rails helping to make Amtrak some money and provide passengers unique experiences.

To take the original poster's argument to an extreme, why have Superliner service at all? It can't be offered on NEC, and it's arguably a better vehicle/service than Amfleet. Let Amfleet cars run coast-to-coast. Additionally, the first-class lounges are only in a handful of cities, we should shutter them until all cities have them. Don't get me started about Acela.

And finally, the Coast Starlight's wine tastings use regional wineries. I daresay Lake Shore Limited could have a regional wine tasting and it wouldn't be on par with Starlight.

Kidding, I've had some Michigan wines before -- not too bad for cherries. I would also shudder to think of the wine tasting if the train went down California's Central Valley (Enjoy your Thunderbird sir).

 

[RRrich]

Well DANGIT!!@!

I'm in STL and ride or have plans to ride the Texas Eagle, Lake Shore Limited and City of New Orleans.

My very limited experience with Lounges is that on the City of New Orleans the Lounge half of the dining car was full of teenagers from coach - nothing wrong with that, but no place for sleeper pax to "lounge". I would have liked to be able to sit by a big window and enjoy the passing view NOT in my bedroom. With wifi, it would have been ideal.

I asked an Amtrak gentleman about the Lounge and he kind of chuckled and said "I'll show you what we have" with kind of an ironic tone. Then I saw why and went back to my sleeper.

I have no plans at present to go to the Left Coast, so what good do improvements on the CS do for me???

 

[haolerider]

When we rode the Coast Starlight last month we indeed were approached by a Customer Service Manager who talked a great length about the service. I mentioned the down grade in lounges and food on the City of New Orleans and Texas Eagle so he knew exactly what I was discussing. His opinion was that the kind of service they had gone to on those trains was a winner in both public acceptance and in revenue. I have no idea where he is getting that because the on board service people as well as the conductors on the City have consistently complained about the changes and tell everyone to write there congressmen about it. I had done so often, not that it does much good if any. The fellow ask for a more comprehensive view of how the trip had gone and gave me his email address , I have not follow up on that, I need to do so..
He was quite happy though to be telling us about what great plans they had to upgrade the Coast Starlight yet again.. I just want to know "what about the rest of us". Why is a remodeled First class lounge a great idea for that train when no lounge is a great idea for yet others? I would still like to know the passenger totals for the CS as opposed to the New York Chicago runs. I can't believe that at least one of those routes would support a truly first class effort such as is given the CS, and would encourage more ridership and people willing to pay for sleeper service.. Well that is if they had sleepers which evidently they don't. Its all part of the same problem. Maybe this gas price crisis will finally force the issue to a head.. Where the heck does the congress think the passengers are going to eat if they eliminated diner service and lounge service.. They should all be voted out, but that doesn't happen either.. I still say they should all be required to ride cross country at least once a year to see what the passengers are seeing.. And Eating..

The Cross Country Cafe is presently producing more revenue from one car than the dining car and the lounge car produced - comparing the same period year over year. It also cost less in labor becauese it takes less staff to run it and if you look at riderhip & overall revenue on the City of New Orleans, they are both up double digits, so something must be working, in spite of what you have heard. The complaints do not seem to be coming from passengers.

 

[Larry H.]

Not true, the passengers are complaining loudly as the one above about no where to enjoy the trip but his room.. When your paying that kind of fare you should be able to expect more than four tables, which in my experience also is always filled with the same few passengers leaving no where to go but your room.

Contrast that to the Coast Starlight where they have not only a full diner but a sightseer lounge and a first class lounge.. It just makes one wonder? Why do one set of passengers deserve all those extras when people riding a different route don't. If those up grades are "good" for business then why aren't they good for other routes as well? I know the arguments of no cars, ect. All that is true! My question isn't so much what we actually have to work with as much as the theory that reduced staffing and lounges is the way to go while at the same time saying that improved amenities will drive ridership.. It didn't used to be such a wide spread. If they think the only way to run a train is with no lounge, one waitress and cook, then the Coast Starlight should run the same. After all that seems to be fine for the rest of us?

I am mixing trains in my discussion, some are the City and the Eagle, but my premise extents to the broad system of Amtrak in general.. A premiere service on the west coast could certainly be justified from New York to Chicago, or for that matter the Chief or the Zephyr. All passengers are should be treated in a more equal way in the long run.. It can't happen today without the equipment no doubt, its just the concept I am discussing.. Better service if it equals more ridership should be planed across the board, not just on one or two routes.

And yes the CN is up in ridership, everything is up in ridership, but that is due to gas more than anything else. I don't think most people are riding because the lounge has been discontinued or the food downgraded, that isn't rocket science. If the revenue is up, its because they are making the food more easily available to the passengers, Duh! That could be done with a full service diner and lounge, the revenue increase would be the same..

 

[NativeSon5859]

Going to the CCC on 58/59 was probably a good move overall.

I have taken the train several times from end point to end point, and generally, the old dining car ran half full at meal times..sometimes less....really just depended on the season. Many passengers on the CONO are not going all the way from CHI to NO, or vice versa...the train gets a lot of local traffic...so many of those passengers are not seeking to enjoy a meal while on board. Generally the Sightseer on that train was very sparsely populated. Now I will say this...I would rather have an unattended Sightseer on 58/59 (similar to what is being done on 21/22) than no Sightseer...but if the CCC means that the train is seeing increased revenue and ridership, then I'm all for it.

I'm wondering, does the train still off cart service for Coach passengers and early boarding in Chicago? One thing I do not like about the Amtrak timetables is that there are no mention of some amenities on certain trains, even though Amtrak has announced those amenities.

 

[haolerider]

Not true, the passengers are complaining loudly as the one above about no where to enjoy the trip but his room.. When your paying that kind of fare you should be able to expect more than four tables, which in my experience also is always filled with the same few passengers leaving no where to go but your room.
Contrast that to the Coast Starlight where they have not only a full diner but a sightseer lounge and a first class lounge.. It just makes one wonder? Why do one set of passengers deserve all those extras when people riding a different route don't. If those up grades are "good" for business then why aren't they good for other routes as well? I know the arguments of no cars, ect. All that is true! My question isn't so much what we actually have to work with as much as the theory that reduced staffing and lounges is the way to go while at the same time saying that improved amenities will drive ridership.. It didn't used to be such a wide spread. If they think the only way to run a train is with no lounge, one waitress and cook, then the Coast Starlight should run the same. After all that seems to be fine for the rest of us?

I am mixing trains in my discussion, some are the City and the Eagle, but my premise extents to the broad system of Amtrak in general.. A premiere service on the west coast could certainly be justified from New York to Chicago, or for that matter the Chief or the Zephyr. All passengers are should be treated in a more equal way in the long run.. It can't happen today without the equipment no doubt, its just the concept I am discussing.. Better service if it equals more ridership should be planed across the board, not just on one or two routes.

And yes the CN is up in ridership, everything is up in ridership, but that is due to gas more than anything else. I don't think most people are riding because the lounge has been discontinued or the food downgraded, that isn't rocket science. If the revenue is up, its because they are making the food more easily available to the passengers, Duh! That could be done with a full service diner and lounge, the revenue increase would be the same..

I guess the short answer to your question is that not all trains, routes, demographics, etc are the same. Western trains tend to be more leisure oriented - longer trips for vacations and some of the eastern trains are shorter trips with people visiting friends and family, students traveling back and forth from school and shorter legs along the routes. This is not always true, but it is a good generalization. Passengers on the western trains also tend to spend more on food and beverage, whether they are in coach or sleepers. As Native Son has pointed out, many of coach passengers on the City of New Orleans do not frequent the diner or the lounge. That being said, it you are in the sleepers on the City and want to sit in the longer portin of the Cross Country Cafe, it is my understanding you can, just not during the posted meal periods.

 

[Larry H.]

I basically agree with both of you. The City didn't have a huge diner business, in fact close to none it would seem.. but the last time we went up a few weeks ago it was filled completely with sleeping car passengers on a tuesday which also over flowed into the crew car as extra space. In that situation there was a full diner and still no lounge. People trying to purchase breakfast from the coaches were unable to find a place to eat as the four tables were filled. With no lounge the sleeping car passengers who had been onboard since the previous afternoon were stuck in there rooms for some of the trip at least. I most definitely heard complaints about the missing lounge. My contention is that as business builds which is bound to happen, these limited service situations are going to become even less attractive to the public.

Forget the City, its is one of the worst possible choices, I used it because its handy to me.. But the same would apply to the Capitol Limited or Lakeshore, or nearly any other true long distance service. Lets see them all improved not short changed... I know its the congress, thats where the problem lies for the most part, so lets get writing, it may finally be going to do some good.

As to what parts of the country have need for a great lounge or diner, do you recall the Broadway Limited, Panama Limited, Super Chief, Baltimore and Ohio, Silver Star, Cresent, Ect. It wasn't just the west that had good trains, there is no reason to think they alone should have them now. The increase in passengers today is by default, not due to Amtrak offering anything wonderful to attract the customers beyond the plainest service. If they realize the Coast Starlight might do better as an upgraded train the same applies to many others as well.

 

[Walt]

Not true, the passengers are complaining loudly as the one above about no where to enjoy the trip but his room.. When your paying that kind of fare you should be able to expect more than four tables, which in my experience also is always filled with the same few passengers leaving no where to go but your room.

Yea, that has been my experience as well.

The lounge kind-of becomes the free seating upgrade option for a few coach passengers, who grab a seat in the lounge and don't leave it for the entire trip.

There must be some way to discourage such, without causing a scene or terribly upsetting the particular coach passenger.

 

[NativeSon5859]

How many Snack coaches does Amtrak have in the active roster? Putting one of those on a route like the City might make some sense. It would be for coach passengers only.

 

[haolerider]

How many Snack coaches does Amtrak have in the active roster? Putting one of those on a route like the City might make some sense. It would be for coach passengers only.

When you say Snack Coaches, do you mean Cafe Cars? If so, they are single level and wouldn't work with the City.

 

[Larry H.]

Well its probably another topic, but on the Southwest Chief as well as the Zephyr there were coach passengers who moved bag and baggage into the lounge and stretched out across three seats for sleeping. One woman never left the lounge for the whole trip and there were others also.. Either some kind of decent policy needs to be arrived at or all trains should have the first class lounge for sleeper passengers at some point.. That used to be standard on allmost all decent long distance trains. Then too many were all pullman also, but separate lounges were pretty standard on trains of mixed coach and sleeper service in the 50's.

 

[NativeSon5859]

How many Snack coaches does Amtrak have in the active roster? Putting one of those on a route like the City might make some sense. It would be for coach passengers only.

When you say Snack Coaches, do you mean Cafe Cars? If so, they are single level and wouldn't work with the City.

No, Snack coaches, like the one they use on the Heartland Flyer. It's a regular Superliner coach with a snack bar on the lower level.

 

[Larry H.]

Is that what is happening to the superliner lounges?

 

[Guest_david_*]

The crew shouldnt be complaining to the passengers about the facilities . thats putting a negative spin on the situation . they should do there best with what is provided . In my mind of course the cre are going to be unhappy with a reduction in thier numbers .

 

[yarrow]

david, i appreciate honest opinions from the crew. in my experience most of them know where of they speak having been with amtrak and even other roads pre-amtrak. most seem to realize that their obligation is to the passenger not the ceo

 

[AlanB]

most seem to realize that their obligation is to the passenger not the ceo

Actually the crew have an obligation to the CEO, management in general, and the passengers.

 

[yarrow]

most seem to realize that their obligation is to the passenger not the ceo

Actually the crew have an obligation to the CEO, management in general, and the passengers.

i just don't agree with you on this one alan. a good manager understands workers and their needs. he/she gives workers opportunites to show off and teach their strengths and gives opportunites to brush up in weak areas. the obligation of a worker is to do a good job not spout the company line.

 

[AlanB]

Wow this topic moved very fast, I saw the first post just before leaving home this morning and after spending most of the day in the car traveling, now find more than a dozen posts.

First, one thing that should be noted here Larry is that the CS hasn't just been given the PPC's back as a gift. As noted in another topic, Amtrak has now come up with a plan that they at least hope will make at least some money off these cars. If that doesn't materialize, then these cars may vanish into history in a year or two. My point of course being that Amtrak took away cars from the City because they were failing to produce revenue, and in fact the PPC's were almost eliminated totally about a year ago. In fact, while I don't know that a public announcement was made, I do recall seeing a post on another railfan board, containing an internal Amtrak communication that basically spelled out the end for both the kiddie cars and the PPC's. Obviously the decision was reversed, no doubt in part because of pressure from fans, but also because someone at Amtrak came up with a plan to at least try to turn the car into a revenue center.

Now I note that in the other topic on this board, that some were upset that they were going to have to pay for certain things. At least and until enough of the public stands on the toes of our Congressional members to get them to reverse the ill conceived rule in the Amtrak funding bill that requires Amtrak to cut the nearly $200 Million that Amtrak was loosing on food service each year, we are going to continue to see things like the CCC and having to pay for things in the PPC. I still disagree with the SDS program, as I continue to believe that while Amtrak has cut expenses in the dining car, they also cut revenue. Therefore there was no overall net change in the losses for the dining cars.

But on a route like the City and the Eagle, where the dining cars went underutilized, I have to say that I do see the logic of the CCC. I won't deny that it would be nice if Amtrak was able to just run an empty Sightseer Lounge on the City, much like the plan for the Eagle.

And yes Yarrow, that was a Congressional mandate to cut that loss. I'm not sure if that came down two years ago now, or if it was three, but it was written into the Amtrak budget by a Congress that decided that they knew better how to run Amtrak than the people hired to run Amtrak. It's called micro-management and it rarely ever works out good for anyone, even those doing the micro-managing. Additionally it's been my experience over the years, that employees can and do have good ideas. They can also have bad ideas, or good ideas that for whatever reason can't be implemented. But every employee still thinks that his idea is a great idea. So if they don't see it implemented, then they feel that their boss isn't listening to them.

Let's not forget that Amtrak turned out a prototype CCC and tested it on the Capitol Limited route. Something’s worked, something’s didn't. Amtrak listened to engineers (design engineers, not locomotive), passengers, crew, and management after that test. That car was largely revamped; other cars already in production had things changed and all to fix the various issues and problems discovered during the tests on the CL. I'm still not personally happy with the CCC idea to some extent, probably just because I hate to see the other cars go and I will admit that I've yet to set foot into a CCC, but I do understand why the CCC exists and as much as I hate to say it, it really is the correct answer for a few of the trains out there.

Perhaps if Congress were to wake up and smell the coffee and remove the mandate, as well as to start providing more adequate funding, the CCC wouldn't need to exist. But we haven't reached that day yet.

Next, Emmett Fremaux VP of Marketing & something (I forget what), has stated in public that he wants to turn the Capitol Limited into the Eastcoast's version of the EB or the CS. Unfortunately that dream remains unrealized, because at least so far he's been unable to get that train's timekeeping to a level where it actually makes sense to invest the extra money in marketing, promotion, and the enhanced service itself. And just in case you were curious, the Lake Shore Limited (aka the Late for Sure Limited) currently has a better OTP so far this year than the Capitol Limited does.

Turning to another question that I saw asked, ridership last year for the City was 180,473. For the Coast Starlight it was 343,542. Revenue was even more disparate at just over $13 Million for the City and $29.1 Million for the CS. So if you're in management and you're forced to choose which train gets the better service, which one are you going to pick? For the LSL, ridership was 312,643 and revenue was $21.4 M. The Capitol Limited saw 193,748 passengers and pulled in almost $14.9 M last fiscal year.

Finally there are 9 Snack coaches left in the Superliner fleet. Four of them have been specially equipped for use on the Heartland Flyer route and cannot be taken away for use on another route. It's not special in terms of what's being sold or how it's being sold. The special equipment is the needed cabling to allow the HF to run in push-pull mode, such that a Cabbage can be used in place of an engine.