Silver Service Test Period Fares

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is LD only in name. It rally is a very extended regional train, in the same category as the Carolinian or the Pennsylvanian. The fact that it is relatively fast and is able to run a sustainable day schedule on a route longer than 750 miles makes it an LD train technically by an arbitrary definition.
A definition that means we're all paying for it.
 
You do realize that you are in the process of hijacking this thread towards dealing with your one seat ride obsession to Chicago again, don't you? So I think I am done with this line of discussion here. Ciao.
 
The odd thing about the Pittsburgh - Chicago situation was that originally there was a single combined train that was doing well. Then it was split in two and one sent down a new untested route (in the Amtrak era). It failed to maintain ridership so it was canned. So what do you know? The next thing that Warrington does is he introduce not one but two additional trains, and proposes to add third one on the routes that could not supposedly sustain two trains (remember Skyline Connection which failed to start before Warrington got the boot?). The whole thing was of course justified by trying to become a freight railroad with a few passenger cars attached, and passenger concerns were entirely secondary to everything else at that point. That was no way to run a passenger railroad, and rightfully the whole thing died, and with it went all the unsustainable additions.

Now if there were another 50 or so Viewliner Sleepers and 20 more Diners available and such maybe the Three Rivers (which by the way got its name instead of Broadway because even Amtrak with a straight face could not name that excuse of a train Broadway), and even the Silver Palm. But that was clearly not the case. So yeah, a lot, but not all service reductions happened as the fleet size available to Amtrak shrank dramatically over the years.

At present even after more cars become available the challenge will be lining up enough operating funds to dramatically expand LD service. I don;t think it will happen in the near future absent a dramatic collapse of the current anti-investment in transportation infrastructure movement in the country.
To me, the Skyline would have worked instead of the Pennsylvanian. The times (timetables.org) were quite a bit better.

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=20000521n&item=0030

The Pennsylvanian got into Chicago and Philadelphia too late and left too early. I think the Skyline times were much better and might have given Amtrak the CHI-TOL-CLE at better hours. Which is better from CHI to CLE, 1:30-9:15pm or 6:00am-1:15pm? Which is better from CLE to CHI, 12:38-6:47pm or 6:07pm-12:26am? Who would want to arrive in Chicago at 12:26am? Who would want to leave Chicago at 6:00am? It's one thing to arrive/leave your home town at that hour but not a tourist attraction.

To me the Three Rivers name was too Pittsburgh'y. I have pushed the name "Liberty Limited" for the Philly connection and New York connection. New York probably favors the LSL so why not have a train marketed to Philadelphia?

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1246041980246

The three largest Amtrak markets are NYP, WAS, and PHL. Each one IMHO should have their own train to CHI and be able to connect in Chicago for other services in the MW/West.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1246041980246
13PSy0V.jpg
 
There were no multiple runs on the same route left in the west to cut in 2005. Generally a route or area that has multiple trains per day faces a higher risk of cutting of one frequency than a route that will be left with nothing.

Also like in 1997 when the western routes were hit hard with equipment shortage upon retirement of most of the Hi-Level cars,
I'm going to dispute that losing the three-a-week Pioneer and the Desert Wind was "hit hard". It was barely noticeable. The major losses for the Western trains came much, much earlier. Phoenix was lost to unmaintained track of course.

Of the passenger trains which were running in December 1971 in the West:

-- The Coast Starlight has gone from less-than-daily to daily

-- The CZ:

---- Denver-Salt Lake has gone from less-than-daily to daily

---- Utah-California has gone from less-than-daily to daily

---- (although service via the Overland Route did end)

-- The Portland-Spokane section of the Empire Builder has been added

-- Several additional routes in California were added

-- The Topeka - OKC - Fort Worth - Houston train was lost (but OKC-Fort Worth is back)

-- but the Texas Eagle was gained

-- Phoenix service was lost

So almost entirely improvements to service. Texas and Phoenix can complain, but nobody else in the west has lost anything, net, since Amtrak started.

Of the trains in the east, on the other hand:

-- The LSL was established Buffalo-Erie-Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago

-- The Crescent went daily from Birmingham to New Orleans

-- The Adirondack, Ethan Allen, Vermonter, Boston section of LSL, and Downeaster were added

-- Detroit-Pontiac service was gained

-- Quincy service was gained

-- DC - Pittsburgh service was rerouted & DC-Cleveland service added

-- The Broadway was destroyed Pittsburgh-Fort Wayne-Chicago

-- Service through Charleston and Cincinnati and Indianpolis was reduced from daily to less-than-daily

-- The National Limited was lost entirely

-- The Floridian was lost entirely

-- On Silver Service, Ocala route service was lost entirely

-- On Silver Service, S line service in N Carolina/Virginia was largely lost

-- Frequency of service dropped in Florida

So New England has done quite well since Amtrak started -- but the Appalachians, Ohio/Indiana, and the Southeast have been screwed, and really do have a lot to complain about. Apparently it's easier to cross the Rockies than the Appalachians -- what?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was talking of two specific episodes 1995=6 and 2004-5. That is a different discussion from the one that you present above, which in its own right is very interesting I might add, and I have no fundamental disagreement with that, and I don't even see it as disputing my date specific points that you were responding to, except for proffering an opinion that you did not consider the loss of 25/26 and 35/36 as significant. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and who am I or anyone else to challenge that other than just disagree with it. :) But if you insist that is or is not the case I won't spend my time arguing about it either.

BTW, just to fill in some more details... in the west:

Fargo - Spokane via Billings, Butte, Missoula was lost ( we are talking relative to Dec 71, not May 71)

Spokane to Seattle via Yakima (Stampede Pass) was lost

Spokane to Seattle via Wenatchee (Stevens Pass) was gained

In the east:

Washington - Pittsburgh via Cumberland was gained

Newport News to Chicago via Charlottesville was lost

New York to Florida Champion was lost

New York to Savannah Palmetto was gained

Chicago - Peoria/Quad Cities was lost

Interestingly, although Petersburg - Raleigh via Norlina was lost, no station stops were lost since there were none. Only trackage was lost.

Interestingly the July 1971 timetable does show train 68/69 New York - Chicago via Buffalo, so maybe LSL was already established by Dec 1971? I don;t know for sure.

On Southern Railway:

The day time service from New York/Washington to Atlanta was lost

Service to Augusta was lost
 
The Midwest and Southeast clearly got the hardest hit, with the Appalachians taking the worst. Looking at the pre-Amtrak maps... the same result pops out. The Mountain West and West Coast didn't lose much; the Midwest and Southeast and Appalachia lost nearly everything.

Kind of interesting to look at it that way. With the Southeast and Appalachia, it's very clearly a matter of substantial lack of political support. With the Midwest, there seems to be some of that, but it's not so clear to me that that was the only cause; there seems to have been major political support emanating from those areas for most of the period, and yet the anti-rail forces were able to cancel service.

I'd like to know why. So we can avoid that in the future.
 
There were no multiple runs on the same route left in the west to cut in 2005. Generally a route or area that has multiple trains per day faces a higher risk of cutting of one frequency than a route that will be left with nothing.

Also like in 1997 when the western routes were hit hard with equipment shortage upon retirement of most of the Hi-Level cars,
I'm going to dispute that losing the three-a-week Pioneer and the Desert Wind was "hit hard". It was barely noticeable. The major losses for the Western trains came much, much earlier. Phoenix was lost to unmaintained track of course.

Of the passenger trains which were running in December 1971 in the West:

-- The Coast Starlight has gone from less-than-daily to daily

-- The CZ:

---- Denver-Salt Lake has gone from less-than-daily to daily

---- Utah-California has gone from less-than-daily to daily

---- (although service via the Overland Route did end)

-- The Portland-Spokane section of the Empire Builder has been added

-- Several additional routes in California were added

-- The Topeka - OKC - Fort Worth - Houston train was lost (but OKC-Fort Worth is back)

-- but the Texas Eagle was gained

-- Phoenix service was lost

So almost entirely improvements to service. Texas and Phoenix can complain, but nobody else in the west has lost anything, net, since Amtrak started.
I would say Denver/Salt Lake City lost quite a bit. I believe even though the CZ was not daily that CHI-DEN-SLC piggybacked between the CZ and either the Desert Wind or the Pioneer. So they traded the ability to go to Los Angeles and Seattle/Portland for the ability to go to SLC and SAC/Bay Area daily. I think it was a bad trade.

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19961110n&item=0038

Of course Las Vegas and Boise were the real losers.
 
The Midwest and Southeast clearly got the hardest hit, with the Appalachians taking the worst. Looking at the pre-Amtrak maps... the same result pops out. The Mountain West and West Coast didn't lose much; the Midwest and Southeast and Appalachia lost nearly everything.

Kind of interesting to look at it that way. With the Southeast and Appalachia, it's very clearly a matter of substantial lack of political support. With the Midwest, there seems to be some of that, but it's not so clear to me that that was the only cause; there seems to have been major political support emanating from those areas for most of the period, and yet the anti-rail forces were able to cancel service.

I'd like to know why. So we can avoid that in the future.
I do realize that government (state and federal) are where the money comes from but I really dislike all of the talk of this state or this senator supports Amtrak more than this state or this senator.

I get that if you control the money you want to have a say over how it's being spent. But I think there are certain things government intervention hurts things. I wish Amtrak had the ability to determine what is best for the national transportation system and not let government dictate where trains run. Do you think Joseph Boardman has a better idea as to how Amtrak can be successful or Congress?

I remember a famous quote from the late Nipsey Russell, a comedian. Something to the tune of "The opposite of pro is con. That much is plainly seen. If progress means go forward, then what does Congress mean?"
 
OK, getting back on topic ...

PHL to ORL via Amsnag (Jan. 15-31, 2016):

Coach Fare: $110 most days

Roomette on Star: A few $179's, some $213, some $239

Roomette on Meteor: Mostly $298

Bedroom on Star: $452 or $579

Bedroom on Meteor: $661, $827, $1027, $1181

Honestly I like the lower fares and would be more likely to book a roomette (especially at the $179 rate. $69 more each way). If the lower fares get more people to book roomettes and bedrooms than coach seats, like it or not it's better financially for Amtrak.

Ideally Amtrak would have a room rate without meals and a room rate with meals to give a sleeper option to people who don't really want to pay higher fares for meals when they would rather just eat in the lounge car. I have suggested roomettes without meals and bedrooms with meals. The problem is the either the bedrooms would be way higher and/or the diner car prices would have to go up. Either one makes passengers less want to use the diner car and if fewer passengers want to use it then Amtrak will have more reason to get rid of them.

Do you think it's feasible for Amtrak to have the option of rooms without meals or would that just kill diner service?
 
Not sure if it's been posted here yet, but there's a post on T.O. indicating that the no-diner experiment on the Star and the no-chef experiment on the CONO have been extended through the end of April 2016.
 
Honestly, the jam-up is this: It would be awesome if the lower-cost experiment could be paired with a serious bump in capacity (e.g. I have to wonder how many sleepers you could fill on, say, the LSL with this) and/or an intermediate food option (I keep coming back to some sort of diner-club variant: Counter service with better food options). I know the lack of better food does cost you business for pax on the train for more than, say, 12 hours...but I think at least some of the issue has simply been cost differentials going the wrong way.
 
OK, getting back on topic ...

Do you think it's feasible for Amtrak to have the option of rooms without meals .........?
No. It seems clear to me that the economic incentive to Amtrak is to not have the dining car at all = a huge expense to jettison. It wouldn't make any sense at all to retain all the expense plus have even fewer people using the diner to off-set the expense.
 
If the lower fares get more people to book roomettes and bedrooms than coach seats, like it or not it's better financially for Amtrak.
Unfortunately, this isn't the correct conclusion here, financially speaking. The correct conclusion is "move those sleepers off the Star and onto the Meteor, where they earn more money!"
You can see where this is headed: an all-coach Star.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
and/or an intermediate food option (I keep coming back to some sort of diner-club variant: Counter service with better food options).
There's actually substantial evidence that counter service doesn't scale up properly on a train, due to lack of queuing space. On a full train, the lines are terrible and people leave frustrated.

Therefore I think: at-seat service. That's got to be the way to eliminate the lines.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Honestly I like the lower fares and would be more likely to book a roomette (especially at the $179 rate. $69 more each way). If the lower fares get more people to book roomettes and bedrooms than coach seats, like it or not it's better financially for Amtrak.
Is it? Considering the space taken up per passenger & the extra service per car, and the need to have higher income per passenger to not only overcome these but to subsidize the cost of running the train, Amtrak should want higher fares from sleeper passengers, not lower.
 
Honestly I like the lower fares and would be more likely to book a roomette (especially at the $179 rate. $69 more each way). If the lower fares get more people to book roomettes and bedrooms than coach seats, like it or not it's better financially for Amtrak.
Is it? Considering the space taken up per passenger & the extra service per car, and the need to have higher income per passenger to not only overcome these but to subsidize the cost of running the train, Amtrak should want higher fares from sleeper passengers, not lower.
But they would sell more roomettes at a lower fare. What's better, more at a lower cost or fewer at a higher cost?
 
Depends on how much more and how many fewer sold. If you sell 25@ $340 you get $8500. If you sell 15@ $500 you get $7500, but if the price is $600 you get $9000.

There are no yes/no answers without knowing how many rooms are sold at each price.
 
and/or an intermediate food option (I keep coming back to some sort of diner-club variant: Counter service with better food options).
There's actually substantial evidence that counter service doesn't scale up properly on a train, due to lack of queuing space. On a full train, the lines are terrible and people leave frustrated.

Therefore I think: at-seat service. That's got to be the way to eliminate the lines.
It does add labor cost, but it scales almost infinitely. Indian Railways routinely operates 20 car trains with over 1500 passengers to feed and manages to pull it off in a timely manner day in and day out from a combination of Pantry Cars, in car hot storage and wayside kitchens to deliver partially pre-plated food usually with three or four menu choices..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For What It's Worth, it's quite possible to run some combination of cafe (or dining car) service and at-seat service, with the cafe providing more and more at-seat service as the number of passengers on the train goes higher. The extra staff for at-seat delivery could even be extra-board staff who are only there when the train has high passenger loads.

Amtrak is already doing this in a small way since all sleeper passengers are supposed to have the right to request to have their dining car meals brought to them in their room.

I think you could extend this to cafes by having the attendants run through the coaches with menus at specific times, collecting orders and money, and then going back to the cafe and bringing the orders back *en masse* in a cart; they'd all have to be certified to handle money, which is a pain, but it would be a way of wiping out lines. You could still have counter service available during the less busy hours.
 
and/or an intermediate food option (I keep coming back to some sort of diner-club variant: Counter service with better food options).
There's actually substantial evidence that counter service doesn't scale up properly on a train, due to lack of queuing space. On a full train, the lines are terrible and people leave frustrated.

Therefore I think: at-seat service. That's got to be the way to eliminate the lines.
It does add labor cost, but it scales almost infinitely. Indian Railways routinely operates 20 car trains with over 1500 passengers to feed and manages to pull it off in a timely manner day in and day out from a combination of Pantry Cars, in car hot storage and wayside kitchens to deliver partially pre-plated food usually with three or four menu choices..
Maybe Amtrak should subcontract the food service to Indian Railways! :)
 
and/or an intermediate food option (I keep coming back to some sort of diner-club variant: Counter service with better food options).
There's actually substantial evidence that counter service doesn't scale up properly on a train, due to lack of queuing space. On a full train, the lines are terrible and people leave frustrated.

Therefore I think: at-seat service. That's got to be the way to eliminate the lines.
It does add labor cost, but it scales almost infinitely. Indian Railways routinely operates 20 car trains with over 1500 passengers to feed and manages to pull it off in a timely manner day in and day out from a combination of Pantry Cars, in car hot storage and wayside kitchens to deliver partially pre-plated food usually with three or four menu choices..
Maybe Amtrak should subcontract the food service to Indian Railways! :)

Best Idea Yet. However, the Indian wayside kitchens probably stay a little busier over there, I highly doubt they prepare and deliver to just two trains a day. (one each way) Would kind of make it hard to succeed financially..
 
and/or an intermediate food option (I keep coming back to some sort of diner-club variant: Counter service with better food options).
There's actually substantial evidence that counter service doesn't scale up properly on a train, due to lack of queuing space. On a full train, the lines are terrible and people leave frustrated.

Therefore I think: at-seat service. That's got to be the way to eliminate the lines.
It does add labor cost, but it scales almost infinitely. Indian Railways routinely operates 20 car trains with over 1500 passengers to feed and manages to pull it off in a timely manner day in and day out from a combination of Pantry Cars, in car hot storage and wayside kitchens to deliver partially pre-plated food usually with three or four menu choices..
Maybe Amtrak should subcontract the food service to Indian Railways! :)
Best Idea Yet. However, the Indian wayside kitchens probably stay a little busier over there, I highly doubt they prepare and deliver to just two trains a day. (one each way) Would kind of make it hard to succeed financially..
You are correct it is usually 5+ trains a day, and in many places well over a dozen. However, specially on the very limited stop trains there is substantial on board Pantry facility - one or two complete cars, with substantial kitchen facility. So it is possible to cook food on board too. Indeed on the Rajdhanis most of the fare served in AC First is prepared on board. It is the folks in AC2 and AC3 Sleepers that get pre-plated stuff

Incidentally, before 1969, the prestige trains used to have what were called Restaurant Cars. On the A/C Express even a married pair Restaurant and Kitchen car set were tried. But as the trains grew longer food service was essentially getting overwhelmed. So when the first Rajdhani Express was introduced it came with a Pantry Car and no Restaurant Car and food service at each passenger's seat. The rest is history. Now many LD trains have pantry cars, specially those that have few stops, and the rest are served out of wayside kitchens as has been the case for ever. I believe only the Deccan Queen still has a Restaurant Car and AFAIK there are no other trains that have Restaurant Cars anymore. They are just completely impractical for serving 1500 - 1700 passengers in 20 - 24 car trains.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top