Hadley, could you tell me what happened there? I only got into riding trains like I do in the last few years.Apparently you weren't around when the Class 1's started cutting back on services. The Sunset actually had an automat car (diner pulled off) that that had an attendant to give you change (no dollar bill changers in the cave days) and this was in the '60's !!! The ICC had to force them to put sleepers and diners back on in return for a tri-weekly train. Talk about people scream; today would be no different.I totally disagree with your statememnt...if a pax pays mega-bucks for a bunk in the sleeper he/she is going to want somewhere decent to eat~ history has a way of repeating itself and this is a good example.I rode enough one and two car pax trains after they lost the mail contract. They weren't pretty and smelled even worse. The RR's tried, and wholeheartedly succeeded, in running off the pax business. Just look at all the posts about the Cardinal's food service; or lack thereof.I disagree... The costs of the dining cars are certainly not necessary. If you cut out all full service dining cars people will still ride Amtrak. And they will stay pay extra for sleepers too.Oh, not this again...look, there are incidentals that Amtrak has to have in order to keep what market share it has for LD runs. You do not want to go back to what Joe Haldeman told me about diner service in the 80s (and which some friends have confirmed), which consisted of a glorified cafeteria that you picked up a tray, got your order from something akin to your old public school cafeteria, and then went to your seat. If you were in the sleeper, your perk was that you got that tray brought to you. No, no, NO, you do not want to go back to that. Go to far on that, and you're going to cut back to all but the most diehard or desperate LD travelers, and I'll start looking at driving on a lot of trips I currently run through the train.
Did the Cardinal or the City of New Orleans lose ridership when they switched to CCC / Diner Lite? I dont think so.
I like dining cars, but they are not a necessary expense in my opinion.
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
Hadley, could you tell me what happened there? I only got into riding trains like I do in the last few years.
had8ley
Engineer
It would take volumes to explain just what RR's did to dissolve pax biz. They used what was called a "train Off" which was an application to the Interstate Commerce Commission (IIRC, no longer exists) to eliminate a train. The RR's could have saved a forest with the train-off apps they flooded the ICC with. I believe the RR's had to give 6 months notice to abolish service but that did not stop them from not servicing the equipment, lock the toilets on the pretense that they were broken (and never got fixed) made arrival times that made no sense and made connections almost always impossible. There were a few RR's that stuck it out to the end~ most notably the Southern, UP, BN and Seaboard. When Pullman died so did the sleeper biz on some RR's. Our RR cut off the sleeper and diners and arrived at the terminus at 5 a.m. on one end and 6 a.m. on the other; hardly what I'd call pax friendly especially when they no longer carried the mail. I could go on all day but I'm sure some of the older heads have some input as to how bad it really got...
TVRM610
Conductor
Had8ley,
I wasn't around for that era no. But I do believe we are talking apples to oranges here. Taking a dining car off today does not equal automat cars. There are many options. What I suggested was 1st class Acela type food served in rooms. How that equals an automat car I'm not sure.
I wasn't around for that era no. But I do believe we are talking apples to oranges here. Taking a dining car off today does not equal automat cars. There are many options. What I suggested was 1st class Acela type food served in rooms. How that equals an automat car I'm not sure.
Hadley,
I think I crossed up some wires here. I was thinking, in particular, of the Cardinal bits (as there was no pre-Amtrak Cardinal that I know of).
By the way, you make the "train off" sound like something for Alfred Perlman's iPhone.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think one other thing that you overlook here is that on Acela, the majority are only on the train for 3 to 3-1/2 hours, with some rare riders there for 6-1/2. For someone on a 24+ hour ride, much less a 2 night ride, the ability to get out of the room for meals is a huge consideration.
Yes, there are some that don't like the shared experience in the dining car. But far more passengers actually enjoy that interaction and the ability to get out of their rooms.
Yes, I know the lounge car is still there, but it's not quite the same and it can fill up. The diner guarantees you a seat for a while that isn't in your room.
I'm also not sure where Amtrak is going to prepare potentially 92 meals 3 times a day and store that food, without yet another car be it a dining car or not. On Acela they only have to prep 36 max IIRC and the food is rolled on in DC, NY, & Boston. Does Amtrak now setup commissaries in cities all across the country so as to be able to roll breakfast on here, lunch there, etc?
TVRM610
Conductor
Alan...
Many questions like that would indeed need to be answered. And let me restate that I like the dining cars and am even very satisfied with current offerings. My point was that other options are out there, the dining car is not an absolute necessity to LD trains.
Many questions like that would indeed need to be answered. And let me restate that I like the dining cars and am even very satisfied with current offerings. My point was that other options are out there, the dining car is not an absolute necessity to LD trains.
By the way, one other thing to consider:
SDS, the Simplified Dining Service, that Amtrak introduced a few year ago is to a large extent Acela type service. That was the entire idea behind SDS, roll a bunch of pre-plated meals into the dining car and just have the chef toss things into a convection oven, much like happens right now on Acela. The biggest difference is that you still got to sit at a table, instead of staying at your seat.
Since Amtrak is slowly swinging back to more meals being cooked to order it would lend one to think that passenger complaints have forced Amtrak to reconsider that idea.
SDS, the Simplified Dining Service, that Amtrak introduced a few year ago is to a large extent Acela type service. That was the entire idea behind SDS, roll a bunch of pre-plated meals into the dining car and just have the chef toss things into a convection oven, much like happens right now on Acela. The biggest difference is that you still got to sit at a table, instead of staying at your seat.
Since Amtrak is slowly swinging back to more meals being cooked to order it would lend one to think that passenger complaints have forced Amtrak to reconsider that idea.
amamba
Engineer
I actually prefer some of the acela food to that on the LD dining car, but I agree that on a sold out FC car the dining service can get VERY frenzied. This seems like it would be too much to add meal prep to the job of the SCA on the LD trains. And it is true that they add on food in NYP on the acela. For example I have been told that they are out of an item between BOS - NYP, but then they restock at NYP and it is available. I actually overheard the FC attendant calling into the commissary at NYP with an order on my last southbound trip.
had8ley
Engineer
Oh Boy :help: I smell the Bob Evans scrambles coming back :lol: :lol: :lol:
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Let me start by saying that I don't believe Dining cars should be removed from trains that have them. Having said that, let me describe what happened in real life as ridership increased by leaps and bounds on overnight premier LD trains which originally had Dining Cars (or Restaurant Cars as they were called) in another system. Indian Railways went through all the gyrations and combination over the last 50 years.
In the 60's the premier overnight trains were the so called Air-Conditioned Express trains. They had Dining Cars and they were relatively short trains essentially 8 to 10 cars. In the last incarnation they even tried married pair Kitchen and Dining Car sets. But even those were pretty much overwhelmed as the trains grew to 12 cars, 5 or 6 AC Chair Cars (coaches) and 2 or 3 AC Sleepers.
In 69 the first Rajdhani Express was introduced and it was introduced with a Pantry/Buffet car, not a Dining Car, and food was served at your seat for the four snacks/meals - Evening Tea, Dinner, Morning Tea and Breakfast. The original 10 car train had a single Pantry Car, and the food served was really good, but lesser variety than in the Dining Car. But because more people could actually get the food this was very popular, and it was imperative that everyone who wants food gets it because these trains had very very few commercial stops where one could get food from the station. So either you get food on train or starve was the situation.
As the Pantry Car experiment on Rajdhani was considered a success, the trains that had Dining Cars all lost them within a year or two and had Pantry Cars and food served at seat/berth substituted. That was pretty much the end of Dining Car service in India, except one outlier in the Deccan Queen between Mumbai and Pune, and an occasional other short distance train.
Since then, specially post 92 economic liberalization, traffic has grown by leaps and bounds and trains have grown to 18, 20 even 24 cars. The Rajdhanis are upto 18 cars, all Sleeper trains now, and the longest ones carry two Pantry Cars. So an 18 car train typically has 14 revenue cars 2 Luggage/Guard/Generator cars and 2 Pantry Cars.
Some food - the main course and a few side orders, for AC First Sleepers are cooked on board, but for all others freshly cooked pre-packaged meals are boarded from on shore kitchens and stored in massive hot storage racks in the Pantry Cars at high enough temps so as not to spoil, and are served at everyone's seat by an army of servers. Cheap labor can do wonders in terms of service sometimes
So oddly enough the very success of overnight trains has led to the more or less permanent demise of Dining Cars, simply because it became impossible to serve ~900 their meals with any guarantee using the Dining Car method.
In the last 5 years they have introduced overnight trains that are point to point non-stop trains, i.e. no commercial stop other than the origin and destination, e.g. Delhi to Kolkata 1441 km overnight in 16 hours, no commercial stops on the way. They are branded as Duronto Express (Duronto implying fast) and have uniquely liveried consists. This has made guaranteed delivery of food an even greater imperative, and even these trains are always filled to the gills with long waiting lists on most runs.
In the 60's the premier overnight trains were the so called Air-Conditioned Express trains. They had Dining Cars and they were relatively short trains essentially 8 to 10 cars. In the last incarnation they even tried married pair Kitchen and Dining Car sets. But even those were pretty much overwhelmed as the trains grew to 12 cars, 5 or 6 AC Chair Cars (coaches) and 2 or 3 AC Sleepers.
In 69 the first Rajdhani Express was introduced and it was introduced with a Pantry/Buffet car, not a Dining Car, and food was served at your seat for the four snacks/meals - Evening Tea, Dinner, Morning Tea and Breakfast. The original 10 car train had a single Pantry Car, and the food served was really good, but lesser variety than in the Dining Car. But because more people could actually get the food this was very popular, and it was imperative that everyone who wants food gets it because these trains had very very few commercial stops where one could get food from the station. So either you get food on train or starve was the situation.
As the Pantry Car experiment on Rajdhani was considered a success, the trains that had Dining Cars all lost them within a year or two and had Pantry Cars and food served at seat/berth substituted. That was pretty much the end of Dining Car service in India, except one outlier in the Deccan Queen between Mumbai and Pune, and an occasional other short distance train.
Since then, specially post 92 economic liberalization, traffic has grown by leaps and bounds and trains have grown to 18, 20 even 24 cars. The Rajdhanis are upto 18 cars, all Sleeper trains now, and the longest ones carry two Pantry Cars. So an 18 car train typically has 14 revenue cars 2 Luggage/Guard/Generator cars and 2 Pantry Cars.
Some food - the main course and a few side orders, for AC First Sleepers are cooked on board, but for all others freshly cooked pre-packaged meals are boarded from on shore kitchens and stored in massive hot storage racks in the Pantry Cars at high enough temps so as not to spoil, and are served at everyone's seat by an army of servers. Cheap labor can do wonders in terms of service sometimes
So oddly enough the very success of overnight trains has led to the more or less permanent demise of Dining Cars, simply because it became impossible to serve ~900 their meals with any guarantee using the Dining Car method.
In the last 5 years they have introduced overnight trains that are point to point non-stop trains, i.e. no commercial stop other than the origin and destination, e.g. Delhi to Kolkata 1441 km overnight in 16 hours, no commercial stops on the way. They are branded as Duronto Express (Duronto implying fast) and have uniquely liveried consists. This has made guaranteed delivery of food an even greater imperative, and even these trains are always filled to the gills with long waiting lists on most runs.
Ok, I admit I am no expert. But I am curious about a premise that always comes up. That in running a train to carry more passengers your going to increase your loss by the amount of cars. It sounds like it makes sense but I can't help think that at some point the extra cars and people paying fares are increasing the revenue not lowering it as so many contend. If so why do I see post worried that a train with loads of 30% are money losers, heck there all money losers. I know there will be the factors of expense of extra equipment, but that was always the case. Such limited car space in many long distance trains can't be much help to revenues. It would be interesting to see the break down of actual cost per trip of a sleeper is, I am sure some here know it. But at yearly salaries as sometimes quoted here of on board staff it would seem that it wouldn't take many trips to pay the salary of the attendant. So hauling the car an cleaning and maintaining it is what seems to be left. I am sure most engines would haul many more passenger cars at little additional cost of fuel? So daily or every other day cleaning and maintenance seems to make up the rest of the cost. Again a yearly salary of a cleaning person surely is covered fairly quickly by the revenue a full sleeper incurs. I am a bit puzzled where the huge additional expense of running larger loads comes from?
The Davy Crockett
Engineer
Yes, there are other options out there, but DCs became an integral part of LD train culture in the USA because they fill a need and people enjoy the experience of eating in them. That is why the RRs ran DCs even though they lost money. It is why when the RRs no longer wanted to run pax trains, and were trying to kill demand, they often elimnated DCs. It is also why the DC has survived to this day. And it is why it is a short hop from this to a discussion about the absolute necessity of LD trains.
had8ley
Engineer
Only one problem I see Jis is you can probably set your watch by Indian train arivals/departures. I wish we could even come close; the canned stew, for delayed trains, is used more often than I would like to see it. And cheap labor in a unionized environment is non-existent. I don't see any transformation such as this ever happening in our part of the world. We can't even get states to accept high speed rail money....Let me start by saying that I don't believe Dining cars should be removed from trains that have them. Having said that, let me describe what happened in real life as ridership increased by leaps and bounds on overnight premier LD trains which originally had Dining Cars (or Restaurant Cars as they were called) in another system. Indian Railways went through all the gyrations and combination over the last 50 years.
In the 60's the premier overnight trains were the so called Air-Conditioned Express trains. They had Dining Cars and they were relatively short trains essentially 8 to 10 cars. In the last incarnation they even tried married pair Kitchen and Dining Car sets. But even those were pretty much overwhelmed as the trains grew to 12 cars, 5 or 6 AC Chair Cars (coaches) and 2 or 3 AC Sleepers.
In 69 the first Rajdhani Express was introduced and it was introduced with a Pantry/Buffet car, not a Dining Car, and food was served at your seat for the four snacks/meals - Evening Tea, Dinner, Morning Tea and Breakfast. The original 10 car train had a single Pantry Car, and the food served was really good, but lesser variety than in the Dining Car. But because more people could actually get the food this was very popular, and it was imperative that everyone who wants food gets it because these trains had very very few commercial stops where one could get food from the station. So either you get food on train or starve was the situation.
As the Pantry Car experiment on Rajdhani was considered a success, the trains that had Dining Cars all lost them within a year or two and had Pantry Cars and food served at seat/berth substituted. That was pretty much the end of Dining Car service in India, except one outlier in the Deccan Queen between Mumbai and Pune, and an occasional other short distance train.
Since then, specially post 92 economic liberalization, traffic has grown by leaps and bounds and trains have grown to 18, 20 even 24 cars. The Rajdhanis are upto 18 cars, all Sleeper trains now, and the longest ones carry two Pantry Cars. So an 18 car train typically has 14 revenue cars 2 Luggage/Guard/Generator cars and 2 Pantry Cars.
Some food - the main course and a few side orders, for AC First Sleepers are cooked on board, but for all others freshly cooked pre-packaged meals are boarded from on shore kitchens and stored in massive hot storage racks in the Pantry Cars at high enough temps so as not to spoil, and are served at everyone's seat by an army of servers. Cheap labor can do wonders in terms of service sometimes
So oddly enough the very success of overnight trains has led to the more or less permanent demise of Dining Cars, simply because it became impossible to serve ~900 their meals with any guarantee using the Dining Car method.
In the last 5 years they have introduced overnight trains that are point to point non-stop trains, i.e. no commercial stop other than the origin and destination, e.g. Delhi to Kolkata 1441 km overnight in 16 hours, no commercial stops on the way. They are branded as Duronto Express (Duronto implying fast) and have uniquely liveried consists. This has made guaranteed delivery of food an even greater imperative, and even these trains are always filled to the gills with long waiting lists on most runs.
Henry,
Adding more cars doesn't decrease revenue, that always seems to go up with more cars. The problem is that expenses go up to and at least in the case of the Empire Builder, it wipes out the gains in revenue. Let me give you the numbers for last year that show what I'm talking about.
Both the EB and the Zephyr make runs of about the same length and both have considerable climbs up into the mountains along the way, which more or less makes those aspects of the run equal. The CZ runs with a Trans/Dorm, 2 sleepers normally (a third short turned in Denver during peak periods), a dining car, a lounge, and 3 or 4 coaches. The Empire Builder runs with a Trans/Dorm, 3 sleepers, a diner, a lounge, and 4 to 5 coaches.
The Empire Builder generated $62.4 Million in revenue, while the CZ only generated $48.3 a substantial difference. On the other side of the balance sheet, the EB incurred $119.4M in expenses and the CZ $100.8M. So despite earning more revenue, the EB lost $57M and the CZ only lost $52.5M. So for Amtrak, technically the CZ is the better performing train for them, if one is looking at what each train does for the bottom line.
T
TWA904
Guest
I see that for FY 2010 Amtrak shows 97.3 Mil as Food and Bev Revenue. On fares where a meal
is included in the fare, does a portion of that get allocated to the Diner, or is that 97.3
only from what people actually paid in the cafe car with cash or credit cards. If a portion
of the fare is allocated to the diner, they might see the diner actually makes money for them.
Also, 174 Mil was shown as revenue paid by the states. Is there a place I can see how much each state paid.
is included in the fare, does a portion of that get allocated to the Diner, or is that 97.3
only from what people actually paid in the cafe car with cash or credit cards. If a portion
of the fare is allocated to the diner, they might see the diner actually makes money for them.
Also, 174 Mil was shown as revenue paid by the states. Is there a place I can see how much each state paid.
Alan,
Part of this is me getting a little bit lost, but is the EB losing more money (and only marginally improving its CR numbers) because of more cars, or in spite of having them? i.e. Would a 2 sleeper, 3 coach EB have a better or worse operating picture than the current one (assuming similar load factors, etc.)? Similarly, would adding extra cars to the CZ improve the operating picture? I'm asking because the two routes are quite different and clearly have different fixed costs (I don't have good access to the EB's numbers like I do the CZ's...no PIP until next year for the EB).
Part of this is me getting a little bit lost, but is the EB losing more money (and only marginally improving its CR numbers) because of more cars, or in spite of having them? i.e. Would a 2 sleeper, 3 coach EB have a better or worse operating picture than the current one (assuming similar load factors, etc.)? Similarly, would adding extra cars to the CZ improve the operating picture? I'm asking because the two routes are quite different and clearly have different fixed costs (I don't have good access to the EB's numbers like I do the CZ's...no PIP until next year for the EB).
Yes the cost is difficult to understand some how. I tired to figure what the actually running expense difference was per trip but gave up. It would be interesting to know how much more having the other cars on actually came to? Sometimes I just have to wonder if the way the do the statistics isn't more about discouraging having longer trains than reality?
Well, there's another thing that hit me: Does Amtrak get more money (net of direct operating costs for that car) off a packed sleeper or a packed coach car on an LD route? My best guess is that it's actually the coach, but I can't tell for certain (and I don't know if a Superliner differs from a Viewliner in this regard).
A bit of reference: You've got 60 coach seats in a Viewliner coach (less than in some of the Amfleets because of needs for legroom on an overnight train), while the standard Viewliner is in a 12-3 configuration (well, technically 14-3, but 2 of the 14 aren't in revenue use). So you've got at most 33 low-bucket coach fares coming out of a sleeper (and likely closer to 20 in a lot of cases), but you've also got sleeping charges.
A bit of reference: You've got 60 coach seats in a Viewliner coach (less than in some of the Amfleets because of needs for legroom on an overnight train), while the standard Viewliner is in a 12-3 configuration (well, technically 14-3, but 2 of the 14 aren't in revenue use). So you've got at most 33 low-bucket coach fares coming out of a sleeper (and likely closer to 20 in a lot of cases), but you've also got sleeping charges.
Last edited by a moderator:
transit54
Conductor
My understanding is that the sleepers are profitable, so I'd assume it would have to be a sleeper. NARP did an analysis of this back in 2006. While costs have increased since then (primarily due to the PEB decision), sleeper fares have also increased, as many on here have pointed out.
Here is the link to the report:
http://www.narprail.org/cms/images/uploads/whitepaper_sleepers_06.pdf
I've looked at that report before. One interesting bit: On the "big four" CHI-West Coast trains (as well as the Auto Train and CL) that holds, but on the others (the Viewliners, Coast Starlight, TE, and City of NO) it's the other way around.
Another thing I would be curious about is that I have read on here now and then that Amtrak manipulates the cost of western trains to make the eastern runs look better? There may not be a shred of truth to it, but it comes up from time to time. If that were so I wonder if anyone ever really sees the actual cost of operation or just what is deemed to be the cost?
George Harris
Engineer
It was stated in the past that all trains had some of the northeast corridor costs assigned to them. Whether or not that is true and how much it was if true, I have no idea.
RCrierie
Train Attendant
That's because the british brilliantly split up British Rail and turned it into Companies A and B which ran the trains and Company C which owned the trackage and signalling. :wacko:
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
And don't forget Companies D and E (The RoSCoes) which own the rolling stock and lease them to Companies A and B (The TOCs)
- Status
Latest posts
-
Amtrak Dining and Cafe Service discussion 2024 H1- Latest: Eric in East County
-
-
-
-
-
