What Amtrak should aspire to

[Green Maned Lion]

Amtrak should offer good quality food. The level provided at a decent diner or family restaurant. You are right about "fine dining" if by fine dining you mean 5-star meals.

 

[TVRM610]

D. P. - Are you saying you want amtrak to provide something nicer than a refurbished deluxe bedroom? More of them sure, but I'm not sure how much nicer a room can get, without getting into gold sinks or something.

I don't think it's about refurbishment.

I rode the Southern Crescent on one of its last trips. The rooms were old, paint was worn off

from repeated cleanings, no fancy anything to be found.

BUT

The train was clean. Every employee was pleasant, polite, and helpful. The food was excellent, served on china with tablecloths, etc. And we got there on time.

If AMTRAK could provide that, I'd be satisfied.

What trains are you riding? I think Amtrak does provide that, definately on the Empire Builder, and my recent experiences with the Crescent, Capitol, and Lake Shore (before Diner Lite) have been great as well.

I don't think I'm looking at amtrak through rose-colored glasses, but I do not see what your pointing at.

 

[dan72]

The Indian Pacific has been on my 'bucket list' for quite some time...that and a trip the Ghan. Ever since seeing these trains featured on 'Great Railway Journeys of World' some 25+ years ago, I've been quite fascinated with these trains--especially the portion through nu arbor plain. They showed footage of train crossing it and after zooming out, it was this tiny sliver crossing this huge, flat desert area.

The host of that show commented on how the train seems to really attract senior citizens and that it was built out of the desire of the government to finally have a transcontinental railroad even though at that time (the late 70's) the rest of the world (names the US) was ripping up track. Again, this was many years ago.

Now, I just need to become independently wealthy to make this trip happen.... B)

 

[D.P. Roberts]

D. P. - Are you saying you want amtrak to provide something nicer than a refurbished deluxe bedroom? More of them sure, but I'm not sure how much nicer a room can get, without getting into gold sinks or something. I think that Amtrak should continue to refurbish there cars, and then keep them maintained to the level that you see on trains like the Empire Builder, but I don't think much is needed beyond that. I see the pictures, and honestly I don't see what your getting for your money, maybe thats just me though.
Not trying to argue here, more just trying to understand your point of view, you say Amtrak should aspire to this, but to what? What about the Indian Pacific is that much better than the Empire Builder or Coast Starlight? I of course know that there is room for amtrak to improve in many areas, but I'm trying to see exactly what you see in the accomodations of the I-Pacific.

For example, see this virtual tour:

Indian Pacific Super Big Deluxe Cabin

On a basic level, I'd like to see what many others have already said: all LD trains at the level of the CS or the EB. I've not ridden either one of those, although I hope to rectify that problem this summer. I have been on Superliner cars, and I must say they're a step up from the single-level cars I've ridden on commuter rails. I think it would be great if all Superliner cars were refurbished so they're sparkling new, & finished with quality materials, as the refurbished EB cars apparently are. Pacific Parlour Cars for first class passengers on all trains (if it increases ridership enough to the point where it pays for itself, as it apparently does on the CS, why not add them to other lines?). Add on more cars to actually meet demand.

So yeah, I'd like Amtrak to fix those things, without really "changing" anything in the existing levels of service. However, I think it would be great to add a new, separate class above Bedroom. Much like Amtrak has allowed Grand Luxe as a "separate" class as an experiment, I'd like to see something like that made permanent. Here's what I would like to see in my new, D.P. Roberts "Dream Class":

1) Sleeping rooms of two sizes. One would be roughly equivalent of the current bedroom (except maybe with a separate toilet and shower), and one somewhat larger, equivalent to the one in the tour above.

2) A lounge car for those passengers only, much like the Pacific Parlour Cars on the CS.

3) Finish these cars at a higher level than is currently available. For example, imagine if they looked and felt like a decent car does: leather(ish) seats, brushed aluminum, wood inlays, etc. Maybe not like a Lexus, but something more like a Honda Accord. They could have the following luxury-ish features: stereo systems w/ iPod connectivity (and well-insulated cabins), TV screens, Internet access as often as possible, great lighting, REAL climate controls, and an interactive screen that controls all of this, w/ GPS that shows current train information.

Sounds crazy, doesn't it? Maybe this should be in the "New Amtrak Cars!" thread, where we can all dream of these things. But remember that people take many of these things for granted in their cars, and more & more of these features are showing up on airplanes - even in coach. So in many ways, I'm just saying that taking a train in "first class" should be an experience similar to flying first class, or driving a first class car.

I know that the features I mentioned above are not available on Grand Luxe, or probably VIA or the Australian trains. On the other hand, Grand Luxe's amenities seem to cater to an exclusively older clienetle, who are trying to experience luxury trains the way they "used to be". If they went more towards the features I mentioned - and spent less effort on meticulously maintaining older cars - they might appeal to a younger generation of wealthy travelers.

As I stated before - if Amtrak cannot currently compete for speed on its overnight LD routes, it must be competitive in the areas where it CAN compete. Cost is one - if people ride LD trains in coach because it's cheaper, than Amtrak should certainly continue offering a competitive coach experience. But if some people are willing to pay more to ride in luxury vs. a fast but uncomfortable plane ride, then perhaps Amtrak ought to look at that market as well. The current Grand Luxe experiment shows that Amtrak management is at least considering the idea. If they can subcontract this sort of service to a private contractor like Grand Luxe, all the better.

 

[AlanB]

On a basic level, I'd like to see what many others have already said: all LD trains at the level of the CS or the EB. I've not ridden either one of those, although I hope to rectify that problem this summer. I have been on Superliner cars, and I must say they're a step up from the single-level cars I've ridden on commuter rails. I think it would be great if all Superliner cars were refurbished so they're sparkling new, & finished with quality materials, as the refurbished EB cars apparently are. Pacific Parlour Cars for first class passengers on all trains (if it increases ridership enough to the point where it pays for itself, as it apparently does on the CS, why not add them to other lines?). Add on more cars to actually meet demand.

The PPC's don't pay for themselves at all, unless one considers that perhaps it helps to sell out the sleepers more often than they otherwise would. The old operating procedures saw some revenue being generated in the PPC, but no where near what would be needed to actually pay for the car. The current operation to my knowledge generates no revenue, since the car's run unstaffed.

But adding cars to meet demand is a good idea, as long as Amtrak isn't doing it last minute. In other words Delta Shuttle used to claim that if their plane filled up on a run between NY and DC that they would roll out another plane. Amtrak of course can't just roll out another train, but what I mean is that they also shouldn't be adding on another car at the last minute either. If they see that a run is selling out in the coaches and/or the sleepers more than 2 weeks prior to departure of that run, then they should look towards whether it makes sense to add another car.

But this still isn't as easy as it seems, since one doesn't really want to add another car for just 1 or 2 people. You want a reasonable expectation that you can sell at least half the car, if not more. You also need to look at the other side, that being can you sell that car on it's return too. Remember that the car has to come back also and hauling around an empty car doesn't generate revenue.

As I stated before - if Amtrak cannot currently compete for speed on its overnight LD routes, it must be competitive in the areas where it CAN compete. Cost is one - if people ride LD trains in coach because it's cheaper, than Amtrak should certainly continue offering a competitive coach experience. But if some people are willing to pay more to ride in luxury vs. a fast but uncomfortable plane ride, then perhaps Amtrak ought to look at that market as well. The current Grand Luxe experiment shows that Amtrak management is at least considering the idea. If they can subcontract this sort of service to a private contractor like Grand Luxe, all the better.

First, I applaud both Amtrak and Grand Luxe for thinking out of the box. It was a good idea and a bold experiment!

Unfortunately it appears that it was a huge failure. While I've not seen any reports or numbers, the simple reality is that GL cancelled probably 90% - 95% of all of its planned runs. They never turned one wheel on the Silver Service at all, I believe that all the planned runs on the Chief were also cancelled, and only a handful of runs planned for the Zephyr actually ran.

Interestingly they actually ran a survey of Amtrak riders to see if people might be interested in this type of service. I never saw those results, so I don't know if they were positive or if the powers just ignored them. Personally I think two things led to the failure. One, I think that GL was still priced a bit too high for the service. I don't know if they could have gone lower and still made a profit or not, but I do think that they were still priced out of the market.

Two, they picked the wrong time of the year, especially with the prices that they choose. Most people vacation during the summer months, not in the late fall & winter.

I don't know if they'll try this again or not based upon the results that GL got, but I do think that they should try again if they can get the prices down some.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I disagree with you, D.P. About 3 years ago, my service advisor told me that he "couldn't stress enough" that my '95 Mercedes C220 had reached "the end of its useful life" at about 350k miles. At the time, which was before I lost way too much money on Fiat stock when GM shunted them, and then was dumb enough to sell them before Fiat managed to fix itself, I happened to have a nice pile of money, primarily in Fiat stock. So I went into the dealer, and I test drove the only car that Mercedes offered at the time that I could afford and interested me: (I couldn't afford the G-class) The E320 CDi. I had almost planned to test drive it and close the deal that day, to be honest with you.

But you know what? The car was an awful let down. Sure, it had tons of features that my older C-class didn't. I mean, it had the navigation, the onboard computers, the sky-light roof, the headlamp washers, and even computer-controlled drive-by-wire brakes. And it was fast, would have been the fastest car I'd ever owned (even faster than my '83 Maserati Bi-turbo). And on top of that, it got 35 mpg. But the plastics were cheap, the seats uncomfortable, the car handled too loosely- it didn't even feel very "German". I wasn't sticker-shocked, per se. Mercedes have always been expensive cars, and I wasn't surprised that the price came to a little over 60 grand. But it really felt, well, over priced. My dads Honda Accord feels better built, and cost about a quarter the price. Told the salesman "I'd think about it". I was surprised, I really had planned to just buy it.

I was sitting at home that night, idly trying to get my mind around the idea of spending $60k on a car that didn't particularly impress me, primarily with "they are all built like this nowadays". And then it struck me, so I went in search of an older car, which I found. A '95 E300 Diesel with only 106k miles on it, not more than 10 miles from my house, in "immaculate condition" for $10k. I went out to look at it the next morning. I test drove it, loved it. Called up my service adviser, and scheduled an appointment to give the car a thorough going over, and put down a deposit. Took it to be inspected, and while it needed some work, (Primarily small wear items that you could expect on a 10 year old car) they told me it was a good car in great condition, mileage definitely genuine. I bought it that afternoon.

The car isn't particularly luxurious. Vinyl seats, manual driver-side mirror, no gizmology whatsoever. The only luxuries it has are the mechanical climate control, the seat heaters, and the power seats. Spartan would be a pretty good word for the interior. Its slow- it can take 16 seconds to get from 0 to 60, although it can hit 125 mph if you keep your foot down for a long long (long long long) time. And the whole thing reeks of diesel fuel. But I'd rather have bought this car, which I still have and will NEVER sell, for $60k than the other car for $10k. Its built like a tank, and you can feel it, it can be taken around corners at ridiculous speeds with complete confidence, and I remember the time I was adjusting something with my left hand, my right hand where it always is (gear knob) and realized I was going 105 mph without a hand on the wheel, and didn't even think about it.

I don't want all kinds of technological rubbish in the train car. Want to make it a luxury train? Ok, put in planks of fine wood, inlayed, hand carved, and unique. Put in hand woven wool carpets. Make the whole thing have the solidity of a bank-vault (or an old-school Mercedes-Benz, your pick). Put it together with the quality and solidity that allow Budd streamliners to still be in regular revenue service on dozens of trains 60 years after they were built. But don't fill crap with garbage and call it luxury.

 

[D.P. Roberts]

I disagree with you, D.P. ...I don't want all kinds of technological rubbish in the train car. Want to make it a luxury train? Ok, put in planks of fine wood, inlayed, hand carved, and unique. Put in hand woven wool carpets. Make the whole thing have the solidity of a bank-vault (or an old-school Mercedes-Benz, your pick). Put it together with the quality and solidity that allow Budd streamliners to still be in regular revenue service on dozens of trains 60 years after they were built. But don't fill crap with garbage and call it luxury.

My point was not that I think those are necessarily GOOD things (I, for one, can't imagine watching TV on a train. Why bother?). I'm just saying perhaps Amtrak should give the people what they want. Yes, everything needs to be built like a tank, & ought to last many decades. Cars should definitely be built in a modular way, so that as tastes change and people want new features, Amtrak has the ability to change them.

I could very well be wrong about the features I mentioned. I'm just saying that there's a large group of untapped customers out there - upper & upper/middle class customers who can afford to take a train, & might be willing to pay more than current sleeper prices to get a more luxurious experience. I'm talking about families & couples who aren't old enough to remember the "golden age" of rail travel, & don't care about hand-carved & unique details, or much in the way of tradition. Instead of the items I mentioned, perhaps they're currently looking for high-thread-count sheets & luxury bath products from their hotels, & hookups for their computers. And no offense, but most people who are thinking of spending $60,000 on a Mercedes will not decide to spend $10,000 on a used car - they'll spend the $60,000 on Mercedeses, or BMWs, or a Lexuses (Lexi?). So, appeal to this group, and the features that are important to them. I think Amtrak needs to look at who's NOT riding LD trains, and why, and focus on those groups - especially if they might be able to get more revenue from them.

I have never taken a long-distance train before, so I'll gladly admit that I have no idea what I'm talking about. However, because I'm planning my first trip, I've been reading every book, web site, & blog I can find. In my readings, the authors have come across four groups of people:

1) The first group are those who cannot afford to travel by plane, or to drive across country. Amtrak appeals to them by having cheaper fares.

2) The second group travels because they're afraid to fly. Amtrak appeals to them by having their trains not leave the ground.

3) The third group consists of railfans, who- either for the scenery or equipment - take trains whenever and wherever they can. Amtrak appeals to them by broadcasting on channels that can be overheard on a scanner, and by installing builder's plates in car vestibules for them to steal.

3) The fourth group is simply taking the train for the experience. They're usually first timers, and traveling in sleepers.

It's this fourth group I'm talking about. I've been planning on taking a train trip for two years now, and I've talked to LOTS of people about it. Many have expressed interest in it, and are eager to hear about my experiences. Yet I've never talked to anyone who has actually taken a long distance train trip. They all love the idea of traveling by train, but they've been scared off by the horror stories they've heard about Amtrak. Not the lateness, not the track conditions, but the trains themselves. I know that this is not entirely Amtrak's fault, that years of underfunding has put off many needed repairs.

Let me give you one example. I used to live in Southern California, and have many friends and family members there. Southern California is a very wealthy place, at least for the people I'm talking about. People there could easily afford to book a sleeper on Amtrak, & probably pay more than Amtrak currently charges. They often vacation in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, or Montana, right along the line of the EB or the CS (I was planning a trip to meet them there on the EB last year, but it fell through). They usually fly, but at times they'll drive too, so time isn't necessarily the issue. It's true here in Ohio too, even though there's no train service to this area.

But none of these people have never taken a trip on Amtrak, and probably never will, unless Amtrak does something that really grabs their attention. So, why not make a car or two that demonstrates a "new" Amtrak, with headlining features that will draw attention to people who haven't yet even considered taking a train?

It seems like almost everyone wants to take a train trip at least ONCE in their lives. For some, it may mean saving up for years. For others, it could be part of their regular summer vacations. So, target a select few trains - the EB, the CS, maybe the Zephyr from Colorado westwards. Maybe 1-2 luxury sleepers and a diner/lounge per train. And perhaps it needs to be done by a private company, as many of these travelers may be leery of dealing with Amtrak directly.

As AlanB said, maybe Grand Luxe experiment demonstrated that the whole idea is flawed. However, perhaps GL does charge way too much, and they did run the trains during the wrong time of year. However, I think the cars (& their marketing strategy) are wrong - for the crowd of people I'm talking about, "private varnish" cars full of blue-haired old ladies is NOT what they're looking for. They're looking for a high-class adventure. And there are a lot of them. Think about how many cruise ships leave American ports every day, carrying hundreds if not THOUSANDS of passengers. If traveling by Superliner to see the Great American West is already 90% of what Americans would expect in a "land cruise" of their beautiful native country, why not go for the remaining 10% and make a few cars on a few routes that will appeal to these people?

I know Amtrak cannot and should not veer from its strategy of providing basic transportation, but if they're looking to increase revenue & ridership, as well as appealing to a group that doesn't traditionally ride Amtrak, I think my suggestion may work better than the "glory days" approach of Grand Luxe.

 

[TVRM610]

D.P. Thanks so much, now I understand what you are talking about! I completely respect your opinion, but I think I would like to hear from you after your long distance trip and see how your opinion is then. I know the people you are talking to, it never ceases to amaze me how many people want to travel by train, but not amtrak. I really believe the stories they hear are way outdated, even amtraks older equipment is in pretty good shape on the l-distance trains, and most of the cars have been refurbished lately.

I feel like the demographic you are talking about is so small, it really would not be worth anybody's time or money. Your talking about people that dont want to ride amtrak because the equipment is not at there level of luxury (honestly if spending a night or two in a deluxe bedroom is beneath you, you need a reality check anyways) but do not want to ride the Grande Luxe because it is too classic luxury and not modern luxury. I just feel like that group of people is not gonna ride a train no matter what. If they can't be satisfied with Amtrak or GrandeLuxe (certainly the idea your talking about would have to be close to the Grande Luxe prices to turn a profit).

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Ah. The key here is that you've never ridden Amtrak. Amtrak's trains are pretty luxurious. They are in relatively good shape compared to what they were 10 years ago. Some of the Heritage sleepers from the mid-90s were horror shows on wheels, seriously. They had the symptoms that a lot of things get when they are about to be replaced. I've seen it in old cars, on Amtrak, in older buildings- this is going to be replaced soon, so lets not waste money fixing it. Sadly, they probably wish they had done a better job maintaining them such that it would justify the expense to convert them to non-direct-dump now. They could really use their capacity right now.

Amtrak's problems do not lie in the basic luxuriousness of their sleepers or their on board amenities. Sure, the food could be improved by restoring on-board prep, and dumping the peerless fatuity of the single level "Diner-Lite" cars- but its still plenty good. The Sightseers are all the lounge a train needs. Building more of them with leather seats and wood paneling and the like as first-class lounges would easily boost first-class service to a level any person of means would consider acceptable. The sleeping cars are comfortable, attractive, and generally nice.

Amtrak's problem is a lack of funding and the freight railroads. The freight railroads do not like Amtrak, not one little bit. They delay trains to hilarious degrees which makes it almost useless as a mode of transportation on certain routes. But the funding is the main thing. Cars are not as nice inside as they should be. Duct-tape is far too often a method of repairing various things, or correcting small problems, such as vibration rattles. They aren't serviced as often as they should be, and they develop problems that honestly should not exist. Bad-ordered cars is more of a problem than it really ought to be.

The engines aren't maintained the way they should be, and break-downs of P42s is a sufficiently frequent problem that CSX will not allow Amtrak to operate trains without two locomotives anymore. Locomotives can and do last 3 decades or more in revenue service. There is no reason in hell they should be unreliable at 10 years of age.

They have problems with some employees who really are not assets to the company- some are major assets to the company and would fit in at any 5-star hotel you could name. Some of them would be tossed out by Motel 6 on their first day.

And lastly, they don't have money for broad marketing.

Amtrak doesn't need to build super-luxury cars to get high-end clientle. They just need to keep what they have in good condition.

 

[AlanB]

Some of the Heritage sleepers from the mid-90s were horror shows on wheels, seriously. They had the symptoms that a lot of things get when they are about to be replaced. I've seen it in old cars, on Amtrak, in older buildings- this is going to be replaced soon, so lets not waste money fixing it. Sadly, they probably wish they had done a better job maintaining them such that it would justify the expense to convert them to non-direct-dump now. They could really use their capacity right now.

It wasn't just the expense of converting them to retention toilets that led to the retirement of the hertiage sleepers. It was the expense of their needing a general overhaul of the interior furnishings, the expense of an FRA mandated overhaul of the exterior workings on the cars (like new trucks), as well as the expense of needing to have many of the replacement parts for the cars manufactured from scratch.

Supplies of many of the standard parts had long been exhausted and there were no companies still making those parts. Therefore Amtrak basically had to go to a custom machine shop to have parts made, and that is a very expensive thing to do.

This is not to say that the loss of those cars hasn't hurt Amtrak's capacity, but it was a very tough call to make IMHO. Spend several hundred million dollars on 60+ year old cars that they didn't have or cut capacity and hope that maybe one day they'd get some money for new cars.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

As I was saying, had they kept them in better condition through the 80s and periodically did such overhauls as they started to be needed, it wouldn't have been so hard to justify, as all that expense at once for cars that were older than most of the employees manning them.

 

[D.P. Roberts]

Thanks to all of you for your replies. On one hand, I still think Amtrak needs to make some fundamental changes - to be a "new Amtrak" - to appeal to a broader variety of Americans who, because of the stories they've heard, are currently too afraid to take a train.

I think both of you are right, in that the needed changes would happen over time if Amtrak got the funding it needed to refurbish all their rolling stock, & keep it in good shape. Then, if enough "occasional" riders had great experiences, & told everyone they knew about their great experiences, Amtrak's reputation would change. As it is, Amtrak only gets press when something bad happens, so most of what everyone hears about Amtrak is negative.

However, AFAIK Amtrak hasn't had that level of funding at any point in its 36 year history. Even on a "pro-Amtrak" forum like this one, I've heard recommendations to bring the following on a long-distance trip:

A small flashlight

3 or 4 large pins like the diaper pins or safety pins (this is to keep the curtains closed at night)

A roll of transparent tape

A few rubber bands

12" or so of duct tape, wrapped around a ballpoint pen. Use the tape to silence any squeaky panels or fixtures

some heavy folder-type paper & more duct tape to cover excessive vents.

Wire - 16 or 18 gauge, to hold door shut

Snacks, water, etc. in case they run out of food or water

It would be great if rooms were always in great condition, and none of this stuff was needed. And I'm sure MANY people have had great experiences on LD trains without needing any of this stuff. On the other hand, please remember that I got this list from regulars on this forum.

So, I guess what I'm proposing is as much a marketing tool as anything. If Amtrak can't fix ALL its stock and KEEP it running well, a small investment (especially if a private company took most of the risk) in the type of service I'm talking about might make people take a look at Amtrak when they might not have considered it before. It might also counteract a lot of the negative publicity out there. It might serve as a positive example of what Amtrak could do, if only it wasn't so hampered with funding & maintenance issues.

 

[Guest_TransAtlantic_*]

Government Subsidies.

Explain

Well fine dining is not a service the government should be paying for. Regardless of the effect it has on ridership.

anyone who feels that Amtrak provides "fine dining" has never eaten at a good restaurant! the quality is on par with Denny's (somwhat tasty, won't kill you, but in no danger of a Michelin star), the prices only slightly more than that, and the service is only as solicitous as the physical environment can accommodate.

 

[AlanB]

As I was saying, had they kept them in better condition through the 80s and periodically did such overhauls as they started to be needed, it wouldn't have been so hard to justify, as all that expense at once for cars that were older than most of the employees manning them.

Keeping them in better condition would have helped the interior upgrades and perhaps reduced costs there. It would do nothing to help with the FRA's major overhaul requirements, which are based on miles traveled by the cars. For example replacing the trucks a year earlier than mandated by the FRA only means that the next time they have to replace the trucks comes a year earlier than it would have.

Additionally keeping them in better condition still has no affect on getting parts that no one makes anymore.

 

[Galls]

Government Subsidies.

Explain

Well fine dining is not a service the government should be paying for. Regardless of the effect it has on ridership.

anyone who feels that Amtrak provides "fine dining" has never eaten at a good restaurant! the quality is on par with Denny's (somwhat tasty, won't kill you, but in no danger of a Michelin star), the prices only slightly more than that, and the service is only as solicitous as the physical environment can accommodate.

I hold the highly un popular view here that if any routes have food dedicated cars they should be limited to self seating and order at counter affairs. And as for the fine dining comment it was an assault on the idea that american rail should be a subsidized luxury trip, as that is the only way many think it can compete with the other modes. If that turns out to be true and the only way it can survive is via what I consider luxury service in combination with government subsides then I will be glad to see passenger rail die. In my defense I have never eaten at a Denny's, my company pays for a good portion of my fine dining.

 

[AlanB]

I hold the highly un popular view here that if any routes have food dedicated cars they should be limited to self seating and order at counter affairs. And as for the fine dining comment it was an assault on the idea that american rail should be a subsidized luxury trip, as that is the only way many think it can compete with the other modes. If that turns out to be true and the only way it can survive is via what I consider luxury service in combination with government subsides then I will be glad to see passenger rail die. In my defense I have never eaten at a Denny's, my company pays for a good portion of my fine dining.

Well interestingly enough according to Amtrak it is the very type of food service car that you want, the cafe car, which requires the highest level of subisdy. That's why for example, cafe cars were removed from all Empire service runs that don't go north or west of Albany. It's also why you see Amtrak trying to marry the dining car with the cafe car, rather than just cutting the dining cars.

The full service dining cars on most routes seem to actually cover most of their costs.

Additionally as I mentioned before in this forum, the sleeping cars do cover their above the road costs and actually help to reduce the needed subsidies for all passengers carried by Amtrak. Since most people riding in a sleeping car currently expect that they are getting meals in the dining car, dropping the dining cars might result in lower ridership in the sleeping cars. That in turn would require higher subsidies overall for Amtrak.

So if reducing subsidies is your goal, then you may have to reevaluate your position on dining cars.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Added money spent does not mean and increase in the amount of money lost. Lets say the government spent $3,000,000 upgrading a diner into a "Parlour Diner" or something like that which offered find 5-course meals the likes of witch the worlds great chefs would envy. Now, over the next 5 years, the car consumes another $2 million in servicing, salaries, food, wine, maintenance, and so forth. As a result of this service, Amtrak brings in $4,950,000 in revenues. That makes them lose $50,000.

And let us assume that the standard diner brings in a loss of $100,000 on that train. Therefore, by improving the service, you are cutting losses by 50%. Is cutting losses, and reducing the needed subsidiary as a result, bad? If providing the high-end luxury service ends up saving money, is that improper?

Lets say we create two new cars, the Grand Sleeper Superliner, and the Diner/Observation car. The Grand Sleeper offers 4 Deluxe Bedrooms on each side of the stairs, (as opposed to the Bedrooms now offered) and 2 Drawing Suites, one taking up the Shower/Bathroom/Accessible Bedroom on one side, and the other taking up the 4 Roomettes and Family Bedroom. Give both of them accessible-width doors, naturally. The Diner/Observation provides a first-class meal on the front side, and a rounded-observation lounge complete with bar on the other. Now, let us assume that one of these Deluxe Bedrooms costs about $500 a day low-bucket to $1500 a day high-bucket, while the Drawing Suite, which contain a bedroom, a sitting room, and a bathroom with separate shower, costs $1000 low bucket to $3000 high-bucket.

Tack these two onto the back of classier trains, such as the Coast Starlight. Restrict access into the cars from the rest of the train by key or pass code, but let them wonder out into the rest of the train if they desire.

Now, lets say Amtrak loses $100 per person for coach, $50 per person for sleepers, and makes $100 per person for these luxury sleepers, all total included overall costs. Why is this inappropriate?

 

[Galls]

I hold the highly un popular view here that if any routes have food dedicated cars they should be limited to self seating and order at counter affairs. And as for the fine dining comment it was an assault on the idea that american rail should be a subsidized luxury trip, as that is the only way many think it can compete with the other modes. If that turns out to be true and the only way it can survive is via what I consider luxury service in combination with government subsides then I will be glad to see passenger rail die. In my defense I have never eaten at a Denny's, my company pays for a good portion of my fine dining.

Well interestingly enough according to Amtrak it is the very type of food service car that you want, the cafe car, which requires the highest level of subisdy. That's why for example, cafe cars were removed from all Empire service runs that don't go north or west of Albany. It's also why you see Amtrak trying to marry the dining car with the cafe car, rather than just cutting the dining cars.

The full service dining cars on most routes seem to actually cover most of their costs.

Additionally as I mentioned before in this forum, the sleeping cars do cover their above the road costs and actually help to reduce the needed subsidies for all passengers carried by Amtrak. Since most people riding in a sleeping car currently expect that they are getting meals in the dining car, dropping the dining cars might result in lower ridership in the sleeping cars. That in turn would require higher subsidies overall for Amtrak.

So if reducing subsidies is your goal, then you may have to reevaluate your position on dining cars.

I am genuinely surprised if that is true. I have however read in other places that the sleepers do not cover their cost, only require less subsidy and if I remember correctly Amtrak does not have an accounting model that represents true costs, but that should change soon. Now the cafe cars do not have the same food quality of the Dining cars, I agree with Amtrak in consolidating the two. However I do not believe that waiting service is needed, especially with convection ovens. Hence why I spoke of self seating and counter service.

Added money spent does not mean and increase in the amount of money lost. Lets say the government spent $3,000,000 upgrading a diner into a "Parlour Diner" or something like that which offered find 5-course meals the likes of witch the worlds great chefs would envy. Now, over the next 5 years, the car consumes another $2 million in servicing, salaries, food, wine, maintenance, and so forth. As a result of this service, Amtrak brings in $4,950,000 in revenues. That makes them lose $50,000.
And let us assume that the standard diner brings in a loss of $100,000 on that train. Therefore, by improving the service, you are cutting losses by 50%. Is cutting losses, and reducing the needed subsidiary as a result, bad? If providing the high-end luxury service ends up saving money, is that improper?

I believe that would be a fundamental violation of the purposes of government, which goes beyond profit. It is just my philosophy that if the government has to provide a direct service it should it should be a minimal service that does not price discriminate via offering luxury services. I don't even believe they should be in the sleeper business, or even transportation business to be honest. I believe the government should be limited to infrastructure, but you make do with what you got.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

If the sleeping passengers require less subsidy than the coach passengers, then having sleeping cars makes sense. Its cutting the cost per passenger that matters.

 

[AlanB]

I am genuinely surprised if that is true. I have however read in other places that the sleepers do not cover their cost, only require less subsidy and if I remember correctly Amtrak does not have an accounting model that represents true costs, but that should change soon. Now the cafe cars do not have the same food quality of the Dining cars, I agree with Amtrak in consolidating the two. However I do not believe that waiting service is needed, especially with convection ovens. Hence why I spoke of self seating and counter service.

Check out the analysis done by NARP in this report, which shows that the sleepers bring an incremental profit of at least $40 million a year.

 

[TVRM610]

I believe that would be a fundamental violation of the purposes of government, which goes beyond profit. It is just my philosophy that if the government has to provide a direct service it should it should be a minimal service that does not price discriminate via offering luxury services. I don't even believe they should be in the sleeper business, or even transportation business to be honest. I believe the government should be limited to infrastructure, but you make do with what you got.

Then take the government out of the airline business, and the interstate business and we will see what happens. Government owned airports have first class lounges, I mean in theory what you are saying is a lovely idea of everyone being treated the same regardless of money but that is just not true in the real world.

I have no problem with Amtrak providing first class services, but I think that if Amtrak spends extra money on items on the Empire Builder (like full wait staff linens etc.) they should be able to justify the costs by showing they make more money. (Which the Builder has done fully!)

Is it not a luxury that some trains travel over 79MPH, should the government not pay for the in-cab signalling required on many routes that need it? Why is providing cafe service not a luxury, but providing table service is? Should we not have any food served on board? Or only vending machines (unfortunately some people think thats a great idea!).

 

[D.P. Roberts]

If that turns out to be true and the only way it can survive is via what I consider luxury service in combination with government subsides then I will be glad to see passenger rail die.

What do you consider to be "luxury service"? What you consider to be "luxury" might be "basic transportation" to somebody else - and vice versa.

In air travel, "basic transportation" is nearly unanimously decided by Boeing, Airbus, and the airlines. It's a 18" wide seat with a 32" pitch. Everyone agrees that it's important to subsidize this industry, at this level of service.

However, you never hear anyone complaining about the "luxury" of traveling first class. If the government is not in the business of supporting "luxuries", why don't we insist that all flights should be coach only? If first class didn't exist on airlines, each plane would have more seats. More seats per plane means fewer flights, which would lead to less noise, less air traffic, less pollution, etc. Instead, the government helps supply the basic service, and it's up to the individual airlines to decide what features & levels of service to provide on each individual plane and flight. Why can't it the same for Amtrak?

 

[Galls]

I believe that would be a fundamental violation of the purposes of government, which goes beyond profit. It is just my philosophy that if the government has to provide a direct service it should it should be a minimal service that does not price discriminate via offering luxury services. I don't even believe they should be in the sleeper business, or even transportation business to be honest. I believe the government should be limited to infrastructure, but you make do with what you got.

Then take the government out of the airline business, and the interstate business and we will see what happens. Government owned airports have first class lounges, I mean in theory what you are saying is a lovely idea of everyone being treated the same regardless of money but that is just not true in the real world.

I have no problem with Amtrak providing first class services, but I think that if Amtrak spends extra money on items on the Empire Builder (like full wait staff linens etc.) they should be able to justify the costs by showing they make more money. (Which the Builder has done fully!)

Is it not a luxury that some trains travel over 79MPH, should the government not pay for the in-cab signalling required on many routes that need it? Why is providing cafe service not a luxury, but providing table service is? Should we not have any food served on board? Or only vending machines (unfortunately some people think thats a great idea!).

Well in principle the government represents all, social contract 101, making any government sponsored accommodation based on any criteria fundamentally illegal. I did say that the government should provide indirect subsidies when I said they should be limited to infrastructure, as that prevents regional monopolies and allows private competition to operate without a large obstacle of fixed cost. As for infrastructure management which would allow higher than 79 mph trains, that does not conflict with what I have said, just a continuation of government function to provide non discriminatory, quality of life increasing, interstate commerce such as the internet, interstates and FAA.

I too think vending machines are a great idea (between NY and Phily), besides that as I said you make do with what you have, they should only subsidize a minimal service, which I believe is cafe service.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

A government can provide premium services to those who can afford it, so long as that does not cost the people- in otherwords, it makes a profit.

If they conclude that Amtrak is a public service, and stop requiring it to operate "for profit", then your arguments might offer some validity in my mind.

 

[D.P. Roberts]

The great thing about subsidizing Amtrak is that relative to other federal expenditures, Amtrak's subsidy is rather small. For example, regardless of whether you think it's "worth it" or not, we're spending $200 million per day in Iraq. In other words, what we spend in Iraq in just one week would pay for Amtrak for a year. What we've spent in Iraq since mid December would have paid for Amtrak for a decade. It also costs only about $6 per American citizen per year. So, if you think Amtrak is worth the tax subsidies, you're getting a pretty good deal. If not, you're only out about $6.