Unfortunately none of those trains goes near effingham . . .
Amtrak's New "Fresh Choices" Dining on CL & LSL
- Thread starter Devil's Advocate
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
If they did, everyone could jump off the train at Effingham, get their eggs and jump back on. might even improve the economy of Effingham, coming to think of it.
Moot point for me concerning hard boiled eggs because I'd eat rat poison before I'd eat a hard boiled egg. When I need protein, as I would were I to partake in the CL or LSL's breakfasts, I would have either a handful or two of almonds or low fat turkey pepperoni bites.
cpotisch
Engineer
The fact of the matter is that the fewer the options available, the fewer the people who can eat it. Food is usually not a one-size-fits-all kind of thing, and when there's a grand total of one option for breakfast, it's pretty much guaranteed that plenty of people won't be able to eat it. Even if they had a measly two options for breakfast, it could become orders of magnitude more inclusive.
I'm cautiously optimistic that if/when Amtrak starts letting passengers choose their meals in advance, they could significantly widen the selection while achieving virtually no waste. But in the meantime, the system strikes me as at least as inefficient as running a dining car when it comes to waste, while drastically reducing the selection and "compatibility" with dietary restrictions. Just my take on it.
I'm cautiously optimistic that if/when Amtrak starts letting passengers choose their meals in advance, they could significantly widen the selection while achieving virtually no waste. But in the meantime, the system strikes me as at least as inefficient as running a dining car when it comes to waste, while drastically reducing the selection and "compatibility" with dietary restrictions. Just my take on it.
VentureForth
Engineer
Appreciate that. The fact that there are 100,000,000 diabetics in the US (That's one in THREE!), it seems to be a choice that would be better accepted across many cultural and religious boundaries. Atkins, Paleo, Keto all fall into the low carb thing.
It's not just Amtrak. Gluten Free and low fat seem to trump low carb everywhere - grocery stores, restaurants, fast food, etc, and it's understandable. There is almost no other way to hold protein than with a tortilla, bread or a bun. Low carb versions of those are VERY expensive.
For what it's worth, the Centers for Disease Control report that I think you're referring to stated that 70 million of that 100 million figure were people with "prediabetes." There are an estimated 29 million diabetics (90-95% of those are Type 2 diabetics, there are believed to be about 3 million Type 1s according to JDRF) in the US.
"Prediabetes," is able to be put into remission, not cured, by changes in diet, exercise, and losing weight. Frankly, I think the 100 million figure is a scare tactic to these "pre-diabetics" and their doctors to get them to wake up and make these lifestyle changes. Also, by normalizing "pre-diabetes" it gets drug manufacturers new customers. It's like a bonanza for makers of Type 2 diabetes drugs, they instantly have 70 million new customers.
All that being said, the Amtrak meals could certainly be a little more balanced nutritionally between the macros (fat, carbs, protein) to the benefit of all.
One of the problems is separating the legitimate medical and religious needs of many people from those who are reacting to the latest magazine article or tv show they watched. Gluten free is a critical matter to someone with celiac sprue, but half the people who demand gluten free don't even know what it (gluten) is. I am very sympathetic to people who need to eat a certain way for medical or religious reasons, but if the the primary reason you want a special choice is a personal or cultural choice alone, you shouldn't expect special consideration in a mass market situation. I can satisfy many requirements or desires with a single good choice, as an example a quality vegan choice.
crescent-zephyr
Engineer
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2015
- Messages
- 4,627
So you should only be able to order a gluten free meal if you have a medical need for one?
No, I'm saying it may or may not be a good business practice to provide something customers want, and if the item requested bears added costs maybe they should pay extra for it. On the other hand if someone is required to order a special item for medical or religious reasons they should not be penalized. Ultimately, it is not Amtrak's duty, nor in its best interest to try and satisfy every individual with its food service, just the broadest possible range of passengers that can be served without a negative impact on the general passenger pool with the previously mentioned exceptions. I pointed out GF meals because they are widely requested, and not so widely required.
I would prefer a choice of clearly describing meals rather than the vague designation used by the airlines.
The descriptions used by Amtrak are fine. Just would like a better selection. I could see making choices on an internet booking pretty easily. This process would be cumbersome during a phone reservation.
The other issue is people making one selection ahead of time and then changing their mind once onboard.
The descriptions used by Amtrak are fine. Just would like a better selection. I could see making choices on an internet booking pretty easily. This process would be cumbersome during a phone reservation.
The other issue is people making one selection ahead of time and then changing their mind once onboard.
Yes, that would be a ideal solution. Say you have a choice of four main entrees, 4 sides and four desserts. You could mix and match to make up your internet meal order. The food provider would assemble you order and identify it. Each passenger would get exactly what they wanted and no wasted food.
tommylicious
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2013
- Messages
- 599
This is 2018. Why is providing good food service such a challenge for Amtrak??? Railroads, 70 years ago, provided better food service than many land-based modern fine dining restaurants do today! Seriously....figure it out already and make it happen!
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, but those railroads used it as a loss leader. Amtrak is required BY LAW to at least break even on food service in less than two years.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
We are now quite seriously trying to get the law changed in the 2019 Appropriation.
crescent-zephyr
Engineer
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2015
- Messages
- 4,627
I think that's a mistake. The funding is for transportation, not paying unnecessary wait staff to serve a meal directly comparable to Denny's or Ihop in quality.
The new program needs some work, which everyone seems to be aware of. But the old program was far from perfect and wasn't really worth what Amtrak was paying for it.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Actually this is more to give freedom to Amtrak management to do the right thing to maximize use and revenue overall and reduce the need for overall subsidy rather than focusing on reducing F&B losses. If you think that is wrong then I disagree. Congress should not be micromanaging these sorts of things.
Last edited by a moderator:
cpotisch
Engineer
I think Im going to write Amtrak and suggest that they offer a complimentary meal from the lounge car as an alternative to one of the boxes meals. Also gonna suggest that they should allow a choice of dessert while I’m at it. Will it make any difference? Probably not. But might as well try.
Last edited by a moderator:
I did that via email.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2010
- Messages
- 4,888
It's not 100g of carbs, it's 99g of SUGAR!
Who cares? If the rule is you order it 24 hours before your train leaves the initial station, then does it matter why you want/need the special meal?
cpotisch
Engineer
If they have a limited number of meals on hand, it can make sense to (attempt to) limit them to those who need it.
I have no issue with pre ordering for special needs ( or pre ordering from a reasonable selection in general) but where pre ordering drives up costs just to satisfy peoples whims, why should the general population pay for that?
crescent-zephyr
Engineer
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2015
- Messages
- 4,627
Isn't the purpose of having a menu selection to "satisfy people's whims"? It's not hard at all to provide gluten free, vegetarian, etc. options. All you have to do is provide... Options.
Only up to a point. Many fine restaurants have fairly small menus with a limited number of choices in varying categories. You can provide all the options in the world, but that drives costs through the roof, and that is exactly the opposite of what they are are trying to accomplish. A limited number of options hitting the categories that serve the widest range of passengers is all that can be reasonably expected. Example, a kosher meal is somewhat more expensive than a comparable regular meal. If it is required for religious needs, fine. But why should someone who doesn't require it be provided that meal with the cost impact affecting everyone.
Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
What if my choice of religion is based on a magazine article or television show? The arbitrary low effort reasoning in this post falls apart in the very first sentence. From my perspective there are just as many illegitimate religions (and tax shelter schemes) as there are fad diets. What you see as a big bright line looks like a hazy logic defying gray area to me. With 24/48 hour predeparture ordering all of the meals above should be workable.
Like it or not that's the standard in use in this country
- Status
