Silver Star has new Café menu and no diner

[AmtrakBlue]

Here's a thought. Would you rather them remove the diner for a period of time and notify you before you travel that there is no diner or would you rather find out on your day of travel that the diner was bad ordered due to it's age and lack of maintenance (due to the plan to replace it with a new one)?

 

[Thirdrail7]

I doubt Amtrak "lied" about the trial period end date anticipating the diners would be in service. It is more likely they like what they saw and/or want to see more information. The Palmetto is under a trial consist change. I fully expect an extension at the end of the trial period.

Additionally, there is another issue that only AmtrakLKL has touched upon. Currently, the diner-less Star is operating with three coaches. I doubt you will see another coach outside peak travel periods unless advanced reservations dictate it is necessary. As such, ridership and revenue may indeed be lower. However, the diners and extra coaches hog fuel. This tiny Star has been running around with one diesel for quite some time. There are people (cough cough) that see the fuel comparisons between the two consists.

So, here is an additional metric: How many seats would you have to sell make the extra coach(es) and and diners worth effort of adding them?

I suppose the answer lies in the travel patterns and what you deem Amtrak's mission to be. If you believe that their job is to control their costs by eliminating waste and abuse while moving as people as possible by making seats available, then you'll say add the seats regardless of their destination and the costs. If your opinion is Amtrak should do a better job controlling their costs by eliminating waste and abuse in addition to weighing the costs of providing the service, then you'll agree that adding a coach, diner and associated support for passenger that aren't going to cover the costs is a bad thing. If you're carrying less passengers ,there are less people to patronize you facilities, particularly if you allow most local passenger than long distance passengers.

On a personal level, I feel passenger trains inherently lose money. They will not make a profit. Therefore, I feel their mission is to move the people. If you aren't moving people, find out why. What can you do to bring people to your product? I'd love nothing more to cut fares but Congress will never allow it. So, marketing must do what they can to entice people to ride.

Personally, serving precooked meals that are just as expensive as a fresh cooked meal in a decent restaurant is not my idea of enticement, but I don't have to balance the books.

 

[tonys96]

It would certainly be nice to know how Amtrak intends to judge the failure or success of the no-diner experiment on the Silver Star. Because that's the only judgement that really, truly matters. What any of us decrees, claims or opines (regardless of many posts we have made) makes no difference to Amtrak. And if it makes no difference to Amtrak it simply does not matter at all. In Bob Dylan's opinion it's a success. In Neroden's opinion it's a failure.

Absolutely agree. And I believe the metric used to determine failure or success will be whichever metric matches the outcome that was desired at the beginning of the "experiment".

 

[A Voice]

Additionally, there is another issue that only AmtrakLKL has touched upon. Currently, the diner-less Star is operating with three coaches. I doubt you will see another coach outside peak travel periods unless advanced reservations dictate it is necessary. As such, ridership and revenue may indeed be lower. However, the diners and extra coaches hog fuel. This tiny Star has been running around with one diesel for quite some time. There are people (cough cough) that see the fuel comparisons between the two consists.

I don't doubt anything you say at all, but both the Star and Meteor have ran a full consist with a single locomotive before. Eliminating one engine obviously saves expenses, but does adding just one or two more cars to the current single-unit train really cost all that much more? As you correctly note the train is going to lose money either way; Even with expense-centered thinking, it seems a strong business case could be made to pay for the incrementally greater operating cost of 25% more coach capacity and superior on-board amenities (dining car), thus providing a justification for higher fares (and hence higher revenue).

 

[neroden]

So, here is an additional metric: How many seats would you have to sell make the extra coach(es) and and diners worth effort of adding them?

I have stated before that I think the absolute minimum number of mostly-full single-level cars to support sit-down dining service financially is around six (three coaches / three sleepers or four coaches / two sleepers). It really ought to be more. I know there are fewer people in the sleeping cars, but they're more likely to be travelling for long distances and need more food, so I think it balances out.

Once you're up to eight revenue cars being served (like the LSL and the Meteor), the cafe gets overwhelmed by lines and a sit-down service becomes practically a necessity.

Cutting the size of the consist, however, is practically always wrong in the long term. Trains thrive on economies of scale, so a smaller consist is a way to drive yourself into the death spiral: you can't accept passengers when they show up (the train is sold out!) so you can never get enough volume to cover your fixed costs. It's a mug's game, and anyone who's doing it is not competent.

 

[neroden]

Therefore, I feel their mission is to move the people. If you aren't moving people, find out why. What can you do to bring people to your product? I'd love nothing more to cut fares but Congress will never allow it. So, marketing must do what they can to entice people to ride.

Run more coaches and more sleepers. Run faster. Stock enough food and a large enough variety of food, and a sufficiently well-documented list of ingredients, to ensure that people don't have to carry coolers of food on board. (Coolers of food are fine if the train's half-empty, but problematic if you have the large ridership you want.)
I am more or less fine with the cafe food on the Downeaster (and presumably on the Acela though I haven't tried it). The national cafe menu isn't good enough.

And I'm fine with cafe-style service -- *until* it starts turning into lines snaking out to the vestibule, at which point it becomes essential to find another service method.Empire Service usually runs with only 2-4 cars full, and the cafe is fine with that. On really busy days, they fill 7 cars and the cafe is NOT OK; the lines are stretching into the next car and it's completely overwhelmed.

Amtrak needs to have a method of food service provision which can cope with high volumes, because *high volumes are what trains are for*. At-seat ordering and delivery of cafe food might be highly effective, but I'm pretty sure it would require increasing the number of coach attendants, and publishing and documenting the meal-break hours which they get, since they couldn't get meal breaks when the passengers are getting meals.

Amtrak needs to be prepared to deal with high volumes of passengers, because that's what a successful train service has.

The cafes can't handle high volumes.

 

[neroden]

Additionally, there is another issue that only AmtrakLKL has touched upon. Currently, the diner-less Star is operating with three coaches. I doubt you will see another coach outside peak travel periods unless advanced reservations dictate it is necessary. As such, ridership and revenue may indeed be lower. However, the diners and extra coaches hog fuel. This tiny Star has been running around with one diesel for quite some time. There are people (cough cough) that see the fuel comparisons between the two consists.

I don't doubt anything you say at all, but both the Star and Meteor have ran a full consist with a single locomotive before.

Indeed. Ahem.

Running a shorter consist is a mug's game. The advantage of trains is that they can handle large volumes efficiently. This is the *only* fundamental advantage of trains. If you're going to run short consists all the time even when the demand is higher, you might as well be running buses, economically speaking. Or taxicabs. That way lies the death of Amtrak.

 

[neroden]

They're right there in the report - going from memory, they're basically flat.

Edit:

July posted a 26.2 percent ridership gain in the sleeping cars and a 1.8% decline in revenue.

August posted a 23.5 percent ridership gain in the sleeping cars and a 6% decline in revenue.

(both over the same month in 2014)

Bletchulous.

There are about 13 additional sleeper passengers, and between 5 and 7 staff were laid off, so that's basically the rooms vacated by staff being filled.

The correct move was obviously to keep the dining car but add a sleeping car. Or two. And add a coach, probably. Oh right, Amtrak has a sleeping car shortage, and a coach shortage as well. :sigh:

I guess I understand cutting consists because the cars just don't exist. But if Amtrak is cutting consists, and therefore preventing passengers from travelling because of sellout conditions, because of "fuel costs", then Amtrak is managed by idiots who ought to be fired ASAP.

 

[niemi24s]

Bletchulous? Kindly dispel my ignorance of the term.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Additionally, there is another issue that only AmtrakLKL has touched upon. Currently, the diner-less Star is operating with three coaches. I doubt you will see another coach outside peak travel periods unless advanced reservations dictate it is necessary. As such, ridership and revenue may indeed be lower. However, the diners and extra coaches hog fuel. This tiny Star has been running around with one diesel for quite some time. There are people (cough cough) that see the fuel comparisons between the two consists.

I don't doubt anything you say at all, but both the Star and Meteor have ran a full consist with a single locomotive before. Eliminating one engine obviously saves expenses, but does adding just one or two more cars to the current single-unit train really cost all that much more? As you correctly note the train is going to lose money either way; Even with expense-centered thinking, it seems a strong business case could be made to pay for the incrementally greater operating cost of 25% more coach capacity and superior on-board amenities (dining car), thus providing a justification for higher fares (and hence higher revenue).

Sure, and I have seen 11 coaches, 2 sleepers, 2 cafes with an AEM-7 in the middle being pulled and powered by an AEM-7DC. For the record, they were rated for 10 cars on HEP.

A better example is this move:



We're on the same page and I stated as much in my posts in this thread. They've cut the Star to the point that you don't even have a real reason to operate a diner. It is just like the Cardinal.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Therefore, I feel their mission is to move the people. If you aren't moving people, find out why. What can you do to bring people to your product? I'd love nothing more to cut fares but Congress will never allow it. So, marketing must do what they can to entice people to ride.

Run more coaches and more sleepers. Run faster. Stock enough food and a large enough variety of food, and a sufficiently well-documented list of ingredients, to ensure that people don't have to carry coolers of food on board. (Coolers of food are fine if the train's half-empty, but problematic if you have the large ridership you want.)
I am more or less fine with the cafe food on the Downeaster (and presumably on the Acela though I haven't tried it). The national cafe menu isn't good enough.

And I'm fine with cafe-style service -- *until* it starts turning into lines snaking out to the vestibule, at which point it becomes essential to find another service method.Empire Service usually runs with only 2-4 cars full, and the cafe is fine with that. On really busy days, they fill 7 cars and the cafe is NOT OK; the lines are stretching into the next car and it's completely overwhelmed.

Amtrak needs to have a method of food service provision which can cope with high volumes, because *high volumes are what trains are for*. At-seat ordering and delivery of cafe food might be highly effective, but I'm pretty sure it would require increasing the number of coach attendants, and publishing and documenting the meal-break hours which they get, since they couldn't get meal breaks when the passengers are getting meals.

Amtrak needs to be prepared to deal with high volumes of passengers, because that's what a successful train service has.

The cafes can't handle high volumes.

Yes to all of the above...except for one thing. There aren't enough coaches and sleepers without cutting service elsewhere. I would love to see long distance trains return to the days of accommodating 360 coach passengers and (roughly) 72 sleeping car passengers.

PS: I think I'm off topic. :wub:

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Yes to all of the above...except for one thing. There aren't enough coaches and sleepers without cutting service elsewhere.

Cutting service? Works for me.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Yes to all of the above...except for one thing. There aren't enough coaches and sleepers without cutting service elsewhere.

Cutting service? Works for me.

Yes to all of the above...except for one thing. There aren't enough coaches and sleepers without cutting service elsewhere.

Cutting service? Works for me.

You again? Great. Let's cut the Pennsylvanian and run a second Cardinal...three days a week. :hi: Your group has done a great job, but I'm afraid more is needed! :giggle:

 

[A Voice]

Yes to all of the above...except for one thing. There aren't enough coaches and sleepers without cutting service elsewhere.

Cutting service? Works for me.

The largest number of coaches could be released for use elsewhere by cutting service on the Northeast Corridor, such as the Keystones.

Still on board for your cut service plan?

NOT that I am in any way advocating such a silly idea, of course.

 

[A Voice]

I would love to see long distance trains return to the days of accommodating 360 coach passengers and (roughly) 72 sleeping car passengers.

PS: I think I'm off topic. :wub:

Not at all, you're right on track with that suggestion.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Yes to all of the above...except for one thing. There aren't enough coaches and sleepers without cutting service elsewhere.

Cutting service? Works for me.

You again? Great. Let's cut the Pennsylvanian and run a second Cardinal...three days a week.

I would laugh except that's kind of what really happened ... twice (Broadway Limited & Three Rivers)

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Yes to all of the above...except for one thing. There aren't enough coaches and sleepers without cutting service elsewhere.

Cutting service? Works for me.

The largest number of coaches could be released for use elsewhere by cutting service on the Northeast Corridor, such as the Keystones.

Still on board for your cut service plan?

If it's an under performing train to free up space for a train more people ride and that makes more money, yes. If it's just for personal reasons to spite someone you don't like, no.

 

[niemi24s]

That's just people filling the rooms vacated by the former dining car staff. The trouble is, *they're paying a lot less* for the rooms, so it's a financial loss for Amtrak.

While sleeper passengers are now paying less for the roomettes vacated by the dining car staff, at least they're not getting them for free. That means those vacated rooms are providing some income for Amtrak. And my meager knowledge of economics tells me that's a financial gain for Amtrak - albeit a reduced one.

And you think that's a financial loss for Amtrak? Did your economics course - like my algebra ones - include a few lessons about imaginary numbers?

 

[keelhauled]

That's just people filling the rooms vacated by the former dining car staff. The trouble is, *they're paying a lot less* for the rooms, so it's a financial loss for Amtrak.

While sleeper passengers are now paying less for the roomettes vacated by the dining car staff, at least they're not getting them for free. That means those vacated rooms are providing some income for Amtrak. And my meager knowledge of economics tells me that's a financial gain for Amtrak - albeit a reduced one.

And you think that's a financial loss for Amtrak? Did your economics course - like my algebra ones - include a few lessons about imaginary numbers?

Yeah but each passenger pays less for the accommodation. Say it used to be (THESE ARE EXAMPLE NUMBERS TO PROVE A POINT AND IF ANYONE TELLS ME MY DATA IS WRONG I WILL CRY) 50 sleeper passengers over the coarse of the trip, each paying an average of $300. There's $15,000 in revenue. Now 60 people are in the sleepers, but they're paying an average of $230, and your revenue is only $13,800. But of coarse you dropped the diner, so did you save more than $1,200? I don't know, but the point is, there are several things happening at the same time, which means that success or failure of the experiment is very much in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Ryan]

YOUR DATA IS WRONG AND YOU SHOULD CRY. h34r:

You make a good point, and it's highly likely that Amtrak is saving more than the notional $1,200 by not running the diner.

But by that metric, Amtrak could cut all of their losses by shutting down. While an absurd reduction, it underscores the point that Amtrak should be operated as a service, not as a business. Too bad the paymasters on the Hill insist on the latter instead of the former.

 

[niemi24s]

Of course they pay less for the accommodations - it's the Star test period. Seems to me it would be a financial loss only if the rooms occupied by the diner staff were paid for by money out of the diner staff members pocket and they paid more than than reduced fares of the test period. But I only had one course in basic economics - never took creative accounting.

 

[keelhauled]

But by that metric, Amtrak could cut all of their losses by shutting down. While an absurd reduction, it underscores the point that Amtrak should be operated as a service, not as a business. Too bad the paymasters on the Hill insist on the latter instead of the former.

Yeah it's a bit of a slippery slope isn't it? I am optimistic that Amtrak does actually want to run trains, and isn't planning on using the Star experiment as justification or cover for completely axing services, because I have no doubt that three different people with three different opinions can look at the same data and find a way to use it to support their point of view. But I suppose we shall see.

 

[City of Miami]

Didn't Joe Boardman make an agreement about a year ago with Rep. Mica or some relevant Congressional committee to reduce the food and beverage losses to zero within five years? Did I dream this? If he did this, I'm sure he had his reasons and I give him the benefit of the doubt that he is trying to fulfill that pledge. It seems to me that all of the changes and machinations that are complained about on AU have their root cause here. Amtrak is trying, perhaps fumbling around, to find ways to at least minimize f/b losses if not eliminate them altogether. Not trying to commit suicide; not trying to kill passenger service; not trying to alienate customers.

 

[jis]

This is actually de ja vue all over again as they say. In the 90s a pledge was made to Congress to reduce overall operating subsidies to zero, which led to some pretty bizarre behavior and experimentation, leading finally to Warrington's departure and Amtrak on the brink of bankruptcy. At least this time around the brink of bankruptcy thing is unlikely to happen, but the bizarre behavior will continue for a while until it will lead to failure of that specific unrealistic pledge and maybe Boardman's head will roll (but rumor has it that he has been planning to retire for a while anyway) and the world will go on with no one asking for making F&B profitable by itself for quite a while. The question is how soon that breakpoint will come to pass.

And before one goes about blaming Warrington or Boardman, remember, that these sorts of pledges are usually extracted under some amount of duress threatening something worse if the pledge is not made. Rightly or wrongly the lesser of the two evils is chosen by the guy in the hot seat. If you have never been in such a hot seat, you'll never know what I am talking about.

 

[dlagrua]

Terrible, absolutely terrible! You are on a train for up to 20 hours and you can't even get a decent meal? We travel on Amtrak because the dining is part of the LD expereince. Remove it and passenger rail travel becomes far less attractive. The "Silver Star is curently on our "no ride" list.

For God sakes if they must go cheap, at least offer the Cardinal "diner lite" food service. Its not great but passable for a day and an overnight.