Amtrak’s Mar 2010 performance report
The report covers both Mar 2010 and the 1st half of FY 2010. There are some comparisons that are significant.
Money wise operating loss for 6 months $52.5M less the budget forecast. However Amtrak is being very conservative and predicts a loss $29.4 M more loss than forecast for the year. This comes from $14.6M more for 1st 6 months for Mechanical work and total FY 2010 mechanical $94.5M more. Another cost item is fuel that was $1.50 and Amtrak probably expects that cost to go way up.
Train miles were essentially the same as 2009 but available seat miles up 4% so that means some longer trains. Back of envelop measure means 1 extra car on every 25th train per day. On that metric longer trains mean the gallons/train mile was up to 2.4 from 2.3 in 2009 but as I have stated before that is almost a meaningless measure. At approximately 350 trains / day that means 14 extra cars in revenue service per day. Not a whole lot but at least a positive trend. (maybe 700 seats extra/day) (see below)
Locos out of service 15.3% improvement of 1.3
Cars OOS 12.3% improvement of 2.4%
Revenue seat miles up
Expenses /available seat mile down.
On time down due to WX worse since Jan 2009
The above reversed the downward trend for the FY 2010 shown on FEB stats and enabled those to be even with 2009.
Passenger miles up 18%. This overall figure is the only place noted as each train or route is not disclosed. This is higher than the # of passengers increase 14% overall and long distance up 16% so travelers are averaging a longer distance even with the loss of OT trips.
Largest % increase Carolinian 82.9% and Piedmont 37.5%. Missouri river runner up 24.2%.
Since Lynchburg not operating in 2009 month was 193% above forecast and FY 10 up 162% so almost 3 times as many riders in March as originally predicted. Every train/route showed increase with Heartland low boy – just 2.7%
Long distance – Again all trains up
Sunset up 26.2% , Eagle 24.1% so one is not taking from the other. Palmetto up 29.3%, Auto train up 25%. Silver trains also up above 15%
Sleepers Crescent 42.2%, Starlight 25.2%, Empire Builder 36.4, Silver star 39.4, and AutoTraiin 21.8% all up. Every sleeper route up including Cardinal and Capitol. May be because more sleepers now running.
Mechanical:
The fleet work is finally catching up with budget but would be more ahead if there was not the continuing lack of certain parts. FY 2010 to Mar 31,2010. Original budget figures do not include ARRA budget rebuilds and upgrades so we can see that it is difficult to get units out of shop as planned in a budget.
Amfleet YTD plan 71 Actual 77
ARRA 14 9 Total 86 upgraded vs 71
Superliners 57 44
ARRA superliners 6 5
SL Sanford Lvl 1 0 8 Exact budget of 57
Horizon 11 12
Surfliner 1 0
Viewliner 6 7
Hertiage Dinner 2 4
P-40 5 0 Still waiting on parts
AEM-7s 9 6 Delayed due to Wx repair of operating units
HHP-8 0 0
Other non rolling stock ARRA improvements are all behind except for back up signal power on NH – BOS segment. Also the spending on Wilmington station is ahead $1.9M.
Expenditure to budget comparisons should be taken with a grain of salt. Having spent a career developing and managing budgets, I know that gaming the budget is an important career enhancement tool. A more meaningful comparison is a year to year or longer comparison of verifiable expenditures.
Up ticks in Amtrak's performance is good news, but it is equally important to note the down ticks, i.e. Amtrak's is on track to lose more money per passenger mile this year than last year. The system operating loss was 14.4 cents per passenger mile for the first half of FY10 compared to 14.0 cents for the first half of FY09. The long distance trains lost 25 cents per passenger mile in FY10 compared to 24 cents in FY09. For the first six months of FY10 Amtrak lost $678.5 million compared to $607 million for the same period in FY09.
I just returned from a trip on the Southwest Limited from Albuquerque to Los Angeles, the San Joaquin from Lost Angeles to San Francisco, and the California Zephyr from San Francisco to Denver. The Limited and Zephyr had the same number of sleepers (3) and coaches (3) that they had in February when I made a similar trip. Moreover, the Texas Eagle and Sunset Limited, which I have ridden twice this year, are carrying the same number of sleepers as before hand. I have not seen any additional sleepers on the trains that I have used or observed.
Sam1 Expenditure to budget comparisons should be taken with a grain of salt. Having spent a career developing and managing budgets, I know that gaming the budget is an important career enhancement tool. A more meaningful comparison is a year to year or longer comparison of verifiable expenditures. . Sam I agree. However the item I looked at was a projection to spend by Sep 30 a higher capital amount than was in the budget. Personally more capital expenditures may mean lower operating expenses in the future. And I mean only MAY! Absolutely year to year comparisons are needed. One item in the report I did not mention much was Amtrak"s use of ARRA capital funds. Not knowing how soon work is paid for (could it be 90 days?) the funds are not being used at the budget rates that are projected except for the 60Hz backup NH - BOS. Do you have any idea how that is determined? Up ticks in Amtrak's performance is good news, but it is equally important to note the down ticks, i.e. Amtrak's is on track to lose more money per passenger mile this year than last year. The system operating loss was 14.4 cents per passenger mile for the first half of FY10 compared to 14.0 cents for the first half of FY09. The long distance trains lost 25 cents per passenger mile in FY10 compared to 24 cents in FY09. For the first six months of FY10 Amtrak lost $678.5 million compared to $607 million for the same period in FY09. That is certainly a worry. We have no idea how much the rotten Wx this year compared to last year affects that figure? Also that is even though passenger revenues were substantially up. I just returned from a trip on the Southwest Limited from Albuquerque to Los Angeles, the San Joaquin from Lost Angeles to San Francisco, and the California Zephyr from San Francisco to Denver. The Limited and Zephyr had the same number of sleepers (3) and coaches (3) that they had in February when I made a similar trip. Moreover, the Texas Eagle and Sunset Limited, which I have ridden twice this year, are carrying the same number of sleepers as before hand. I have not seen any additional sleepers on the trains that I have used or observed. to ABQ: Did you have time to check out the NM RailRunner? Thanks for the trip report. The one bright spot I note is that both the SW and SFZ had 3 sleepers each because last time I rode them they only had 2. However the 3 coaches each is discouraging. Do you recall if the coaches were full on any leg? That would indicate if capacity (available cars) is still constrained. Did you notice if another coach was added to CAL Z in DEN east bound? How was the San Joaquin trip especially the bus portion? Still have not ridden that one except from Stockton to Emeryville.
Expenditure to budget comparisons should be taken with a grain of salt. Having spent a career developing and managing budgets, I know that gaming the budget is an important career enhancement tool. A more meaningful comparison is a year to year or longer comparison of verifiable expenditures. .
Sam I agree. However the item I looked at was a projection to spend by Sep 30 a higher capital amount than was in the budget. Personally more capital expenditures may mean lower operating expenses in the future. And I mean only MAY! Absolutely year to year comparisons are needed. One item in the report I did not mention much was Amtrak"s use of ARRA capital funds. Not knowing how soon work is paid for (could it be 90 days?) the funds are not being used at the budget rates that are projected except for the 60Hz backup NH - BOS. Do you have any idea how that is determined?
That is certainly a worry. We have no idea how much the rotten Wx this year compared to last year affects that figure? Also that is even though passenger revenues were substantially up.
I just returned from a trip on the Southwest Limited from Albuquerque to Los Angeles, the San Joaquin from Lost Angeles to San Francisco, and the California Zephyr from San Francisco to Denver. The Limited and Zephyr had the same number of sleepers (3) and coaches (3) that they had in February when I made a similar trip. Moreover, the Texas Eagle and Sunset Limited, which I have ridden twice this year, are carrying the same number of sleepers as before hand. I have not seen any additional sleepers on the trains that I have used or observed. to
ABQ: Did you have time to check out the NM RailRunner?
Thanks for the trip report. The one bright spot I note is that both the SW and SFZ had 3 sleepers each because last time I rode them they only had 2. However the 3 coaches each is discouraging. Do you recall if the coaches were full on any leg? That would indicate if capacity (available cars) is still constrained. Did you notice if another coach was added to CAL Z in DEN east bound?
How was the San Joaquin trip especially the bus portion? Still have not ridden that one except from Stockton to Emeryville.
I have ridden the NM RailRunner on two prior occasions, although not on this trip. It is a first class commuter operation. Last year, when I was in Albuquerque for a concert, I took the train from Albuquerque to Santa Fe and from Albuquerque to Belen. The trains were clean, comfortable, and on time. Equally important, the on-board personnel were pleasant and helpful. And the information required to ride the trains is readily available and easy to follow.
The SWL and CZ had three sleepers. But upon reflection a little clarification is in order. It is more accurate to say that they had 2.5 sleepers. The first sleeper behind the baggage car, which had been designated as a transition sleeper, was labeled like the other sleepers, i.e. Sleeping Car. Approximately half of the rooms in the first sleeper are reserved for on-board crew members, whilst the other half are available for paying passengers. Approximately 70 per cent of the sleeping car spaces, including those available to the public in the first sleeper, were occupied for some portion of the trip from Albuquerque to Los Angeles and San Francisco to Denver.
As I do on every trip I walked through the coaches. The occupancy rate appeared to be between 45 and 60 per cent, depending on the leg of the trip. On the CZ out of Emeryville the last coach was reserved for Reno passengers. East of Reno it was blocked off and only the first two coaches behind the lounge car were occupied.
Ironically, although I always book a roomette on an overnight train, I spend a portion of each trip sitting in a coach seat. It provides a better view of both sides of the right of way. Moreover, the coach seats are more comfortable than the roomettes. If it were not for the privacy issue, I would book a coach class seat instead of a roomette.
Having traveled in Superliner roomettes since 1976, I have finally come to the conclusion that they are a poor design. The roomettes in the old 10 and 6 sleepers were much better. If one has to get up in the middle of the night in a Superliner roomette to use the toilet, which most of us older folks find ourselves needing to do, becoming presentable enough to walk to the potty room is a challenge.
Assuming that Amtrak will remain in the long distance train business, which it would be difficult to exit because of the politics, I would like to see it develop a long distance business class car in place of the traditional sleeper. As I have expressed to President Boardman, it could be equipped like the business class section of Qantas' 747-400s and Airbus 380s (I am familiar with Qantas, but it is not the only airline with modern business class seating). They have seats that can lie nearly flat, and they make for a good overnight option. They offer passengers some privacy. Since most of Amtrak's long distance passengers are only on the train for one night, I suspect that this type of accommodation would be satisfactory. Moreover, the car would be much simpler than the traditional sleeping car and, therefore, more economical to build and maintain. For example, a Superliner sleeping car has 10 toilets and sinks, plus a shower, that cost a pretty penny to install and maintain. A business class car could probably get by with four toilets for public use, as well as one special toilet for a handicapped passenger, and a shower.
No coaches were added to the CZ in Denver. However, another sleeper was added to the SWL in Albuquerque. At Flagstaff a tour group from England boarded the car. It appeared that they had enough people to fill it. In fact, several of their members took the empty spaces in my car.
As I noted on two previous trips on the CZ, Amtrak keeps a spare locomotive in Denver. I presume that it is positioned there as a relief engine in case one of the assigned engines fails. Or it may be there to assist a larger than normal train over the mountains west of Denver.
Speaking of the CZ and the mountains, the ride through Gore Canyon, Glenwood Canyon, and Ruby Canyon, amongst others, is the most spectacular scenery that I have seen from a train. As I commented to a fellow passenger, the Royal Gorge train and the Durango to Silverton train have nothing on the CZ when it comes to scenery.
The San Joaquin is the best rail option from LA to the Bay Area. It is considerably quicker than the Coast Starlight. The bus from LA to Bakersfield is nearly as comfortable as the train. It runs quickly from LAUT to Glendale, where it may pick-up a few passengers, although it never has on the three times that I have taken it, and then runs over the mountains to Bakersfield. It has always arrived on time when I have been aboard. The mountains between LA and Bakersfield are nothing to sneeze at.
The San Joaquin's have four cars, i.e. three coaches and a café car. My car was clean and comfortable. The train departed on time and arrived in Emeryville on time. The crew was friendly, courteous, and helpful. And the sandwich I bought in the café car was good. Having experienced the Coast Starlight's predecessor many years ago, I don't have a strong need to see the sights from it. I would rather arrive at Fisherman's Warf in San Francisco at approximately 8:00 p.m. as opposed to nearly 10:30 p.m. on the Coast Starlight connecting bus, assuming the Coast Starlight is on time into Oakland, which is not always the case.
All the trains were on time. Equally important, they were comfortable and remain a great way to see the country, even if they don't make any economical sense.
The food on the SWL and CZ was OK but just OK. I had the pasta every night and the Continental Breakfast every morning. I had the Veggie Burger for lunch. The pasta was good, but the green beans that came with it were rubbery, probably because they are heated in a microwave on the same plate as the pasta. Because of this arrangement, one of the items is going to be overcooked or undercooked. The Veggie Burger was good, but the roll that it was served on was stale. The breakfast was good - it's hard to screw up cold cereal, yogurt, and milk.
The service in the dinning cars was a mixed bag. On the SWL the dinning car crew and lounge car attendant were friendly, attentive, and efficient. On the CZ it was a different story. One of the wait persons in the dinner was so unfriendly that had she worked for a land bound restaurant, they would have fired her in the minute. And the lounge car attendant, while friendly, appeared to a few bricks short of the full load. Amtrak's on-board crews, at least on the long distance trains, are a mixed bag. Some of them are good enough to warrant a letter of commendation to the President of Amtrak. But others are so bad that they would never be able to hold a job in a truly competitive business.
Amtrak should consider contracting its food service to a fast food organization, i.e. McDonalds, KFC, Chiles, etc. I'll bet that they would get a better outcome, although it may cost the passengers a bit more.
I experienced two unpleasant instances on this trip. On the SWL one of the passengers, who was drunk as a skunk, became very abusive in the lounge car. He was shouting at the other passengers and was a real threat. The conductors called in the local sheriff's posse, or so it seemed; they boarded the train at Williams Junction and removed him from the train. On the San Joaquin three teens were playing a radio very loud. The conductor asked them nicely to use their ear phones. Apparently they thought that he was kidding, and they ignored him, although they would turn down the radio when they saw a crew member approaching them. After several unpleasant exchanges between the teens and the crew, they were bounced from the train in Fresno. The crew got a round of applause from the passengers.
Sam1 thanks for this comprehensive report.
Sam1 I have ridden the NM RailRunner on two prior occasions, although not on this trip. It is a first class commuter operation. Last year, when I was in Albuquerque for a concert, I took the train from Albuquerque to Santa Fe and from Albuquerque to Belen. The trains were clean, comfortable, and on time. Equally important, the on-board personnel were pleasant and helpful. And the information required to ride the trains is readily available and easy to follow. Great scenery around Santa Fe from what I have heard. The SWL and CZ had three sleepers. But upon reflection a little clarification is in order. It is more accurate to say that they had 2.5 sleepers. The first sleeper behind the baggage car, which had been designated as a transition sleeper, was labeled like the other sleepers, i.e. Sleeping Car. Approximately half of the rooms in the first sleeper are reserved for on-board crew members, whilst the other half are available for paying passengers. Approximately 70 per cent of the sleeping car spaces, including those available to the public in the first sleeper, were occupied for some portion of the trip from Albuquerque to Los Angeles and San Francisco to Denver. Now I remember that using the transtion sleepers were proposed for sale. Guess it has happened. As I do on every trip I walked through the coaches. The occupancy rate appeared to be between 45 and 60 per cent, depending on the leg of the trip. On the CZ out of Emeryville the last coach was reserved for Reno passengers. East of Reno it was blocked off and only the first two coaches behind the lounge car were occupied. Interesting. Wonder if that blocked off coach is counted in the available seat miles. If not as far as I am concerened that is fudging the stats for load factor. Ironically, although I always book a roomette on an overnight train, I spend a portion of each trip sitting in a coach seat. It provides a better view of both sides of the right of way. Moreover, the coach seats are more comfortable than the roomettes. If it were not for the privacy issue, I would book a coach class seat instead of a roomette. My wife and I agree with you. It certainly helps her to be able to lie down if she is tired out though. Having traveled in Superliner roomettes since 1976, I have finally come to the conclusion that they are a poor design. The roomettes in the old 10 and 6 sleepers were much better. If one has to get up in the middle of the night in a Superliner roomette to use the toilet, which most of us older folks find ourselves needing to do, becoming presentable enough to walk to the potty room is a challenge. Assuming that Amtrak will remain in the long distance train business, which it would be difficult to exit because of the politics, Agreeded 100% I hope it develops a business class sleeping car in place of the traditional sleeper. As I have expressed to President Boardman, it could be equipped like the business class section of Qantas' 747-400s and Airbus 380s. They have seats that can lie nearly flat, and they make for a good overnight option. They offer passengers some privacy. Since most of Amtrak's long distance passengers are only on the train for one night, I suspect that this type of accommodation would be satisfactory. That is a expansion of what I have thought. That type of business sleeper might be a great item to experiment on the Sunset from SAS to NOL; if Sunset becomes a separate train NOL - SAS. Moreover, the car would be much simpler than the traditional sleeping car and, therefore, more economical to build and maintain. For example, a Superliner sleeping car has 11 toilets and sinks that cost a pretty penny to install and maintain. A business class car could probably get by with four toilets for public use, as well as one special toilet for a handicapped passenger. That maintenance and build costs reductions are certainly a plus. Business class is usually only one car on all NEC regionals and Acela business, Newport News, Downeaster. Pennsylvanian, most Empire trains inc Maple leaf, Vermonter, Ethan Allen, Palmetto, Carolinian, Lynchburg, all Chicago regionals except Pierre and MKE, all Cascades services, all Surfliners. These except Acelas seem to sell out first in Business Class. Eventually as trains a lengthened maybe there will demand for a second car? Do not know reason northern California does not have that service. (maybe lack of equipment ?) If there was a Business Class overnite car on heavy long distance trains first I feel that it might work and draw more passengers. So our ideas could be called regular Business Class and Overnite Business. Of course it again goes to the present lack of equipmen!!!!!!! That set up might attract many disillusioned airline passengers. No coaches were added to the CZ in Denver. However, another sleeper was added to the SWL in Albuquerque. At Flagstaff a tour group from England boarded the car. It appeared that they had enough people to fill it. In fact, several of their members took the empty spaces in my car. As I noted on two previous trips on the CZ, Amtrak keeps a spare locomotive in Denver. I presume that it is positioned there as a relief engine in case one of the assigned engines fails. Or it may be there to assist a larger than normal train over the mountains west of Denver. Yes i had an experience with the extra loco. Westbound at Denver another P-42 was added to the head end of the train because the now 3rd loco had problems into Denver. On the east range climbing up the second and third units completely failed so HEP turned off until into the tunnel at a staggering - 10MPH . #2 &3 finally came back on going back down hill. Myself and a couple other knowlegeable passengers approached the new conductor at Grand Jct suggesting a UP helper(s) be added before climbing the helper grade. Told 2 failures won't happen. Well they failed going up helper grade and because of roadrailer on end UP helper could not push. 4 hrs later finally made it to summit.(long story). Conductor appologized to each of us and gave us a complimentary chit for some libations and was really peaved no proper hand off given to him at Grand Jct. Ended up arriving about 6 hrs late at Emeryville after leaving DEN on time. Speaking of the CZ and the mountains, the ride through Gore Canyon, Glenwood Canyon, and Ruby Canyon, amongst others, is the most spectacular scenery that I have seen from a train. As I commented to a fellow passenger, the Royal Gorge train and the Durango to Silverton train have nothing on the CZ when it comes to scenery. The San Joaquin is the best rail option from LA to the Bay Area. It is considerably quicker than the Coast Starlight. The bus from LA to Bakersfield is nearly as comfortable as the train. It runs quickly from LAUT to Glendale, where it may pick-up a few passengers, although it never has on the three times that I have taken it, and then runs over the mountains to Bakersfield. It has always arrived on time when I have been aboard. The mountains between LA and Bakersfield are nothing to sneeze at. The San Joaquin's have four cars, i.e. three coaches and a café car. My car was clean and comfortable. The train departed on time and arrived in Emeryville on time. The crew was friendly, courteous, and helpful. And the sandwich I bought in the café car was good. Having experienced the Coast Starlight's predecessor many years ago, I don't have a strong need to see the sights from it. I would rather arrive at Fisherman's Warf in San Francisco at approximately 8:00 p.m. as opposed to nearly 10:30 p.m. on the Coast Starlight connecting bus, assuming the Coast Starlight is on time into Oakland, which is not always the case. Yes the even the Starlight's arrival at San Jose and connecting to CalTrain will only give you an hour earlier at the Warf. All the trains were on time. Equally important, they were comfortable and remain a great way to see the country, even if they don't make any economical sense. The food on the SWL and CZ was OK but just OK. I had the pasta every night and the Continental Breakfast every morning. I had the Veggie Burger for lunch. The pasta was good, but the green beans that came with it were rubbery, probably because they are heated in a microwave on the same plate as the pasta. Because of this arrangement, one of the items is going to be overcooked or undercooked. The Veggie Burger was good, but the roll that it was served on was stale. The breakfast was good - it's hard to screw up cold cereal, yogurt, and milk. The service in the dinning cars was a mixed bag. On the SWL the dinning car crew and lounge car attendant were friendly, attentive, and efficient. On the CZ it was a different story. One of the wait persons in the dinner was so unfriendly that had she worked for a land bound restaurant, they would have fired her in the minute. And the lounge car attendant, while friendly, appeared to a few bricks short of the full load. Amtrak's on-board crews, at least on the long distance trains, are a mixed bag. Some of them are good enough to warrant a letter of commendation to the President of Amtrak. But others are so bad that they would never be able to hold a job in a truly competitive business. That is what I thought the on board service manager was supposed to prevent. Guess complacency sets in everywhere. Amtrak should consider contracting its food service to a fast food organization, i.e. McDonalds, KFC, Chiles, etc. I'll bet that they would get a better outcome, although it may cost the passengers a bit more. I experienced two unpleasant instances on this trip. On the SWL one of the passengers, who was drunk as a skunk, became very abusive in the lounge car. He was shouting at the other passengers and was a real threat. The conductors called in the local sheriff's posse, or so it seemed; they boarded the train at Williams Junction and removed him from the train. On the San Joaquin three teens were playing a radio very loud. The conductor asked them nicely to use their ear phones. Apparently they thought that he was kidding, and they ignored him, although they would turn down the radio when they saw a crew member approaching them. After several unpleasant exchanges between the teens and the crew, they were bounced from the train in Fresno. The crew got a round of applause from the passengers. Hooray!!!!!!
Great scenery around Santa Fe from what I have heard.
Now I remember that using the transtion sleepers were proposed for sale. Guess it has happened.
Interesting. Wonder if that blocked off coach is counted in the available seat miles. If not as far as I am concerened that is fudging the stats for load factor.
My wife and I agree with you. It certainly helps her to be able to lie down if she is tired out though.
Assuming that Amtrak will remain in the long distance train business, which it would be difficult to exit because of the politics,
Agreeded 100%
I hope it develops a business class sleeping car in place of the traditional sleeper. As I have expressed to President Boardman, it could be equipped like the business class section of Qantas' 747-400s and Airbus 380s. They have seats that can lie nearly flat, and they make for a good overnight option. They offer passengers some privacy. Since most of Amtrak's long distance passengers are only on the train for one night, I suspect that this type of accommodation would be satisfactory.
That is a expansion of what I have thought. That type of business sleeper might be a great item to experiment on the Sunset from SAS to NOL; if Sunset becomes a separate train NOL - SAS.
Moreover, the car would be much simpler than the traditional sleeping car and, therefore, more economical to build and maintain. For example, a Superliner sleeping car has 11 toilets and sinks that cost a pretty penny to install and maintain. A business class car could probably get by with four toilets for public use, as well as one special toilet for a handicapped passenger.
That maintenance and build costs reductions are certainly a plus.
Business class is usually only one car on all NEC regionals and Acela business, Newport News, Downeaster. Pennsylvanian, most Empire trains inc Maple leaf, Vermonter, Ethan Allen, Palmetto, Carolinian, Lynchburg, all Chicago regionals except Pierre and MKE, all Cascades services, all Surfliners. These except Acelas seem to sell out first in Business Class. Eventually as trains a lengthened maybe there will demand for a second car? Do not know reason northern California does not have that service. (maybe lack of equipment ?)
If there was a Business Class overnite car on heavy long distance trains first I feel that it might work and draw more passengers. So our ideas could be called regular Business Class and Overnite Business. Of course it again goes to the present lack of equipmen!!!!!!! That set up might attract many disillusioned airline passengers.
Yes i had an experience with the extra loco. Westbound at Denver another P-42 was added to the head end of the train because the now 3rd loco had problems into Denver. On the east range climbing up the second and third units completely failed so HEP turned off until into the tunnel at a staggering - 10MPH . #2 &3 finally came back on going back down hill. Myself and a couple other knowlegeable passengers approached the new conductor at Grand Jct suggesting a UP helper(s) be added before climbing the helper grade. Told 2 failures won't happen. Well they failed going up helper grade and because of roadrailer on end UP helper could not push. 4 hrs later finally made it to summit.(long story). Conductor appologized to each of us and gave us a complimentary chit for some libations and was really peaved no proper hand off given to him at Grand Jct. Ended up arriving about 6 hrs late at Emeryville after leaving DEN on time.
Yes the even the Starlight's arrival at San Jose and connecting to CalTrain will only give you an hour earlier at the Warf.
That is what I thought the on board service manager was supposed to prevent. Guess complacency sets in everywhere.
Hooray!!!!!!
The Chief of on Board Services has been removed from Amtrak's long distance trains. The person in charge of the dinning car is called the lead wait person.
My proposal, which I sent to President Boardman, is to eliminate all sleeping cars when the long distance trains are reequipped and replace them with overnight business class cars. The current configuration of the long distance trains, i.e. coaches, dinning car, lounge car, and sleeping cars stems from the 19th century when most business people, as well as others, traveled by train. Today most of Amtrak's long distance passengers are retirees, vacationers, or people who don't want to fly or drive.
Most of today's long distance passengers, unlike business people, are paying for their travel out of their own pocket. They are not on an expense account. Their needs are different from business travelers. Yet Amtrak, as well as many passenger rail advocates, seem to think that nothing has change. Amtrak's management and supporters need to shift their paradigm. They need to assess the current long distance passenger market and respond to it with 21st century solutions. Reequipping the long distance trains as if the needs are just like they were 100 years ago is not a good idea.
Oddly enough, I agree with Sam.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Sam has the right idea, as long as Amtrak is going to be stuck with long-distance trains, why not equip them for the market as it is. An overnight business class similar to that used by the trans-Pacific airlines might attract more of the expense account trade than the current roomettes and bedrooms. Unfortunately, many of the advocacy groups seem to be stuck in a time warp and would strongly oppose such a concept.
CSSHEGEWISCHSam has the right idea, as long as Amtrak is going to be stuck with long-distance trains, why not equip them for the market as it is. An overnight business class similar to that used by the trans-Pacific airlines might attract more of the expense account trade than the current roomettes and bedrooms. Unfortunately, many of the advocacy groups seem to be stuck in a time warp and would strongly oppose such a concept.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Sam1 The Chief of on Board Services has been removed from Amtrak's long distance trains. The person in charge of the dinning car is called the lead wait person.
If that is true why did Amtrak employment advertise for about 12 onboard supers in MIA a couple months ago?
blue streak 1 Sam1 The Chief of on Board Services has been removed from Amtrak's long distance trains. The person in charge of the dinning car is called the lead wait person. If that is true why did Amtrak employment advertise for about 12 onboard supers in MIA a couple months ago?
I have not seen a Chief of on Board Services for a many years. More often than not they were identifiable by their youth and blue blazer. Initially, he or she was the train supervisor for the service crew, but I believe the position was eliminated in a cost saving move. Of course, it is possible that Amtrak plans to restore it, but given its dire financial constraints, I doubt it.
On the SWL and CZ the dinning car had a cook, two wait persons and a lead wait person. The lounge car had one attendant, who works a pretty long day, as do all the on-board personnel. There were two sleeping car attendants to service the sleepers, except on the CZ, which had a trainee in addition to the two regular attendants. There was one coach attendant.
Irrespective of how you think Amtrak should structure its long distance trains, i.e. routes, equipment, schedules, etc., I hope the participants in these forums will share their thoughts with Amtrak management. I have written to the President of Amtrak on a variety of subjects, including long distance passenger train equipment issues, and I have received a reply to each letter. In fact, on two occasions, I was called by the President's office assistant to thank me for my thoughtful comments. The operative word is thoughtful. Rants won't cut it. Neither will completely off the wall recommendations.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.