blue streak 1 oltmannd A business class seat between Philadelphia and Atlanta? I'd try it. Particularly if they'd let me pick the seat. DON: Hope you can give us a ride report.
oltmannd A business class seat between Philadelphia and Atlanta? I'd try it. Particularly if they'd let me pick the seat.
A business class seat between Philadelphia and Atlanta? I'd try it. Particularly if they'd let me pick the seat.
DON: Hope you can give us a ride report.
I may try an Atlanta to B'ham round trip, just for fun.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
DragomanTwo minor nuances I would like to point out, however. Regarding a long corridor vs. several (possibly contiguous) corridors: Corridors A-B, B-C, and C-D might each be successful each on its own. But A-D can cover these, plus A-C, A-D, and B-D. (Of course, some service might not have to go the full length.) And, even in a 16-18 hour corridor, there need not be any middle-of-the-night stops. Regarding your CHI - DEN example, if you are actually leaving from and going to somewhere near the downtowns, with transit and check-in/security/baggage pick-up times, your "under 3 hours" could actually be closer to 5-6 hours. Still less than 16-18, but little of that 5-6 hours is productive or comfortable. (How much work can you really get done in the cab, or in the security line or while waititng for baggae, or even in that tight little airline seat?)
1. Check my remarks about the problems with a long corridor A-B-C-D.
2. Assuming most traffic is downtown to downtown is true for Europeans and makes the argument stronger for trains in the US. But it ignores the American demographics. For most travelers here, the suburbs are on the origination or destination end or even both.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
When I went to France, the TGV from Paris to Marseille took 3 hr nonstop (456 mile) and was almost full. On the same route 10 min behind us was a non stop to Lyon. And there were more trains all day long leaving Paris on this route. So this was one corridor that was well served and utilized. Almost all of Europe is served in a similar manor. However when we left France, we chose to fly from Marsielle to Paris (Charles DeGaulle) since we were flying back to Chicago. Flight took 1:15 hour. I think the California example of the Capitol Corrider and the San Diego Corrider show that the public will ride. Quote "If you build it, they will come". California built it and they came. I also noted that they started with single level TGV's and then mu'ed two as the load grew, then went to double decker TGV's. If the political will was there, the US could do it but that story has been beat to death so I won't go there.
schlimm ... To go back to the example of a long corridor, if there are several midpoints with large populations, it is far better to divide the route into segments so that frequent, fast services could be run between those points and/or an endpoint at times people can use. Eg., CHI-DEN. Depending on trackage acquired or built, middle points could include some/all of the following: the Quad Cities, Iowa City, Des Moines, Omaha, Lincoln. If analysis showed that by air and road there is a market for various segments, they could be tried. But running a train the entire length always means many of those midpoints are served at inconvenient times in the middle of the night, unless you run many trains. And with length, delays compound. Bottom line is this. If I can fly to Denver from Chicago in under 3 hours, for under $90 RT (looking for bargains), why would I want to spend 18 hours on a train and spend $336 coach ($1200) roomette)? Or drive in ~15 hours?
...
To go back to the example of a long corridor, if there are several midpoints with large populations, it is far better to divide the route into segments so that frequent, fast services could be run between those points and/or an endpoint at times people can use. Eg., CHI-DEN. Depending on trackage acquired or built, middle points could include some/all of the following: the Quad Cities, Iowa City, Des Moines, Omaha, Lincoln. If analysis showed that by air and road there is a market for various segments, they could be tried. But running a train the entire length always means many of those midpoints are served at inconvenient times in the middle of the night, unless you run many trains. And with length, delays compound.
Bottom line is this. If I can fly to Denver from Chicago in under 3 hours, for under $90 RT (looking for bargains), why would I want to spend 18 hours on a train and spend $336 coach ($1200) roomette)? Or drive in ~15 hours?
Schlimm --
You arefar too intelligent and articulate to argue with, and I won't even try. I cetainly cannot present "a coherent, persuasive argument as to why large numbes of passengers would switch to the train", other than my own feeble thought processes and observations of what has happened elsewhere now and in the past, and drawing what appear to me to be logical conclusions. It's sort of a "build it and they will come" leap of faith, which (I know well) is not a reasonable basis to undertake a new enterprise.
Two minor nuances I would like to point out, however.
Regarding a long corridor vs. several (possibly contiguous) corridors: Corridors A-B, B-C, and C-D might each be successful each on its own. But A-D can cover these, plus A-C, A-D, and B-D. (Of course, some service might not have to go the full length.) And, even in a 16-18 hour corridor, there need not be any middle-of-the-night stops.
Regarding your CHI - DEN example, if you are actually leaving from and going to somewhere near the downtowns, with transit and check-in/security/baggage pick-up times, your "under 3 hours" could actually be closer to 5-6 hours. Still less than 16-18, but little of that 5-6 hours is productive or comfortable. (How much work can you really get done in the cab, or in the security line or while waititng for baggae, or even in that tight little airline seat?)
Seems to me that half day productive and half day stressed and minimally productive (flying), or nearly all day relaxed and productive (on the train) -- or part of a day and a night, which would probably be in a hotel room anyway), I would lean towards the train (assuming workable schedules and fares).
But, a lot of "if's" there, and it is all speculative.
DragomanYes, Don, that is what happened then. But air travel today is not what it was in the '50s and '60s, when it was stealing away all of those rail passengers. Between the tighter sqeezes and less (or zero) service on board, and the hastles (long lines, long walks, long waits) at airports which are further and further from where people are going to and coming from, the comfort possible on downtown-to-downtown rail service might produce a different calculus, even in the LD realm (if done properly).
With closer, time-competitive endpoints, HSR and maybe even HrSR can almost certainly do so. But where the distances and time are greater, I fail to see (or have ever seen) a coherent, persuasive argument as to why large numbers of passengers would switch to the train. There's places for modern passenger rail in the US, but not universal.
oltmannd Dragoman And I don't think we can say that we had that "vote" in the '50s and '60s, because travel dynamics and demographics are very different today than they were then. Completely disagree. In the late 1940s, the RRs invested heavily in streamliners and speed. In less than a decade, they lost the businessman to the airlines and the family traveller to the automobile. It happened fast and dramatically. RRs then tried to do the fast, corridor thing with all sorts of experimental lightweight trains. Train X, Aerotrain, Roger Williams, Talgo, Keystone to name a few. All failed - many because the RRs couldn't capture enough interest to justify any more investment. Only the Metroliner - because of Federal investment and being inserted into the most viable corridor in the land - managed to turn the tide - and stave off total extinction for intercity rail service.
Dragoman And I don't think we can say that we had that "vote" in the '50s and '60s, because travel dynamics and demographics are very different today than they were then.
Completely disagree. In the late 1940s, the RRs invested heavily in streamliners and speed. In less than a decade, they lost the businessman to the airlines and the family traveller to the automobile. It happened fast and dramatically.
RRs then tried to do the fast, corridor thing with all sorts of experimental lightweight trains. Train X, Aerotrain, Roger Williams, Talgo, Keystone to name a few. All failed - many because the RRs couldn't capture enough interest to justify any more investment.
Only the Metroliner - because of Federal investment and being inserted into the most viable corridor in the land - managed to turn the tide - and stave off total extinction for intercity rail service.
Yes, Don, that is what happened then. But air travel today is not what it was in the '50s and '60s, when it was stealing away all of those rail passengers. Between the tighter sqeezes and less (or zero) service on board, and the hastles (long lines, long walks, long waits) at airports which are further and further from where people are going to and coming from, the comfort possible on downtown-to-downtown rail service might produce a different calculus, even in the LD realm (if done properly).
And corridor services have become quite successful -- where they have been made available.
But, I'm sorry -- I did not intend to divert this discussion to a re-hash of the question of the successes/failures and potentials of corridor/LD/HrSR/HSR services. Bottom line, I agree with those who beleive that there could be a place for a properly-marketed level of service between coach and private compartment, whether it be on corridor or LD services.
schlimm 1. The thread was about LD trains, i.e., >500 miles endpoints. Barring an unlikely upgrade of those routes to VHSR, relatively few people will "vote" to ride the train from CHI-DEN (currently 18 hours) or CHI-NYC (currently almost 20 hours), as examples. The only ones that would will be seeking a leisurely land cruise, which seems to be a poor use of subsidized transportation funding. Trying to run anything approaching an HSR service as an unwanted, incompatible tenant on freight lines is a non-starter. 2. OTOH, fast, frequent, convenient and on-time HSR on congested corridors will display a shifting of "votes" just as it already has long since done in the quasi-HSR NEC.
1. The thread was about LD trains, i.e., >500 miles endpoints. Barring an unlikely upgrade of those routes to VHSR, relatively few people will "vote" to ride the train from CHI-DEN (currently 18 hours) or CHI-NYC (currently almost 20 hours), as examples. The only ones that would will be seeking a leisurely land cruise, which seems to be a poor use of subsidized transportation funding. Trying to run anything approaching an HSR service as an unwanted, incompatible tenant on freight lines is a non-starter.
2. OTOH, fast, frequent, convenient and on-time HSR on congested corridors will display a shifting of "votes" just as it already has long since done in the quasi-HSR NEC.
1) LD trains: Point taken -- though don't forget that it is not just endpoints, but as amny as dozens of city-pair combinations, given intgermediate stops. Would be interesting to have a decent daytime service on the routes you mention, and see the response ...
2) We agree on the success possible in corridors.
DragomanAnd I don't think we can say that we had that "vote" in the '50s and '60s, because travel dynamics and demographics are very different today than they were then.
Dragoman schlimm CJtrainguy s for flying, that's just a miserable experience, especially at night. Coach on Amtrak is way, way better any day or night. Most travelers would disagree with that remark. They vote by flying far more than they use trains. Outside the NEC, most people have never ridden a train. The "vote" by "most travelers" is most frequently like voting on a ballot with only one candidate listed, and no write-ins allowed! Most travelers don't have a rail option. Many others only have a once-a-day option (if that), frequently at absurdly inconvenient times. If fast, frequent, comfortble rail service was available, then the travelers' "vote" might actually signify a true choice. And I don't think we can say that we had that "vote" in the '50s and '60s, because travel dynamics and demographics are very different today than they were then.
schlimm CJtrainguy s for flying, that's just a miserable experience, especially at night. Coach on Amtrak is way, way better any day or night. Most travelers would disagree with that remark. They vote by flying far more than they use trains. Outside the NEC, most people have never ridden a train.
CJtrainguy s for flying, that's just a miserable experience, especially at night. Coach on Amtrak is way, way better any day or night.
Most travelers would disagree with that remark. They vote by flying far more than they use trains. Outside the NEC, most people have never ridden a train.
The "vote" by "most travelers" is most frequently like voting on a ballot with only one candidate listed, and no write-ins allowed!
Most travelers don't have a rail option. Many others only have a once-a-day option (if that), frequently at absurdly inconvenient times.
If fast, frequent, comfortble rail service was available, then the travelers' "vote" might actually signify a true choice.
And I don't think we can say that we had that "vote" in the '50s and '60s, because travel dynamics and demographics are very different today than they were then.
And he looks like a real bartender, not some attendant. Running a liquor service or bar, even with limited choices (little individual bottles), has always been a way to increase revenue at relatively low cost. Restaurants have done so for years. Amtrak?
BaltACD To my experience, diners and lounge cars that sold adult beverages never used full size liquor bottles. All liquor was dispensed from single serve minature bottles. Personnel also had to be aware of when they were in 'wet' or 'dry' jurisdictions in selling adult beverages - state & local inspectors would ride the trains from time to time to ensure compliance.
To my experience, diners and lounge cars that sold adult beverages never used full size liquor bottles. All liquor was dispensed from single serve minature bottles. Personnel also had to be aware of when they were in 'wet' or 'dry' jurisdictions in selling adult beverages - state & local inspectors would ride the trains from time to time to ensure compliance.
I suspect the mini-bottles were a creation for the airline industry and then later adopted by passenger trains but I don't know for sure. I have seen pictures of both. For example on Lounge Car requisition forms on the internet from the 1960's to 1970's the form clearly indicated the serving of the bottle was individual (small bottles). However, also remember seeing full bottles of open liquor.
Check out the below pictured of a Milwaukee Road Tip-Top Lounge car (prior to 1952), the bottle on the counter by the guys elbow on the left......clearly a liquor bottle (the rest of the folks are drinking beer). Also look on the shelf in the background under the mirror. There are other pictures out there that show full bottles and small ones.
http://digitalcollections.lib.washington.edu/utils/ajaxhelper/?CISOROOT=transportation&CISOPTR=63&action=2&DMSCALE=80&DMWIDTH=512&DMHEIGHT=470&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=&DMROTATE=0
When Amtrak still operated the upstairs Superliner lounge bar with an attendent, they did use the mini-bottles same with the Dome Lounge Cars on the Empire Builder back in the day when they still had Dome cars on that train.
CJtrainguyThen where did the idea that people shouldn't be allowed to get a sleeper unless they travelled on that train for 2 nights or more come from?
You misunderstood. I said on LD trains that traveled only one overnight in duration. Such as the Capitol Limited, Southern Crescent, City of New Orleans, etc. The restriction would be at the train level not the passenger level based on how long the train operated (one over night). California Zephyr would continue to have Sleeping Cars.
CJtrainguys for flying, that's just a miserable experience, especially at night. Coach on Amtrak is way, way better any day or night.
It would appear that if a LD train had 4 sleepers or say 3 sleepers and a business class or 4 sleepers and business car then why cannot at least 2 sleeper / business class attendants work the diner ? That way only maybe one additional person in kitchen for diners that way lowering loss per passenger .
CMStPnP CJtrainguy I find it questionable to make a blanket statement that sleepers aren't needed for one night of travel, meaning let's drop them entirely from all trains traveling only overnight, and on trains traveling multiple nights, block passengers who would like to get a sleeper for their one night travel from doing so. That's just confusing and arbitrary as far as the passenger is concerned. So your argument is sleeping cars are needed for trains for a single overnight because of.......???? I have no problem attaching them to a train as long as they cover all their costs. The sleeper seat suggestion was a way for Amtrak to offer passengers similar comfort at far less cost than a seperate car with seperate compartments.
CJtrainguy I find it questionable to make a blanket statement that sleepers aren't needed for one night of travel, meaning let's drop them entirely from all trains traveling only overnight, and on trains traveling multiple nights, block passengers who would like to get a sleeper for their one night travel from doing so. That's just confusing and arbitrary as far as the passenger is concerned.
So your argument is sleeping cars are needed for trains for a single overnight because of.......???? I have no problem attaching them to a train as long as they cover all their costs. The sleeper seat suggestion was a way for Amtrak to offer passengers similar comfort at far less cost than a seperate car with seperate compartments.
Then where did the idea that people shouldn't be allowed to get a sleeper unless they travelled on that train for 2 nights or more come from?
I'm simply saying that from a customer perspective, that is totally arbitrary. I would have no understanding of why I would be allowed to travel in a sleeper on the California Zephyr from Chicago to Emeryville, but not if I only travelled to Denver.
And I don't see how that policy would improve the load factor, since most people traveling on the LD trains are not actually going end point to end point.
If something that costs between the least expensive sleeper compartment fare and coach and provides better rest than the coach seats can be found, I'm all for it, but don't limit access based on how many nights a passenger is on the particular train.
As for flying, that's just a miserable experience, especially at night. Coach on Amtrak is way, way better any day or night.
1. With few exceptions, passenger operations made little or no profit even in the 'Golden Age' nor did dining cars, which lost some. All this was tolerated for the goodwill value it had for core business.
2. Amtrak is subsidized services by various taxpayers to varying degrees. Why should some patrons receive a larger subsidy to ride the same distance on the same train so they can have a private room?
3. Since goodwill is not an offsetting value on Amtrak, food services should break even, no less, no more. Ditto with services beyond coach. The deluxe services should be offered, where appropriate and priced to cover the costs.
4. Far more taxpayers would like more frequent, modern, faster services than attempting to replicate the deluxe trains from the 1950s. Times have changed.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR I'll repeat this again, even though dining cars are not the main subject, but cost somehow has become mostly the topic here. Return back to cooking the food onboard and charge actual cost for the service, but include no profit...just break even. Taking the same concept to sleeping car service, because MOST of those that use sleepers are not big families or others that price would be a consideration for, charge at least break-even levels. Of course, AMTRAK could continue to use the yield pricing structure they have now, which they adopted from the airlines, it just needs to be fine tuned to be more responsive and with quicker flexibility.
I'll repeat this again, even though dining cars are not the main subject, but cost somehow has become mostly the topic here. Return back to cooking the food onboard and charge actual cost for the service, but include no profit...just break even. Taking the same concept to sleeping car service, because MOST of those that use sleepers are not big families or others that price would be a consideration for, charge at least break-even levels. Of course, AMTRAK could continue to use the yield pricing structure they have now, which they adopted from the airlines, it just needs to be fine tuned to be more responsive and with quicker flexibility.
That would reduce the dining car deficit but not eliminate it. The missing component is passengers or dining car clients. In order to get to a manageable price you have to be able to spread the fixed and variable costs over the number of clients that use the dining car. Perhaps this is possible with 600-800 passengers on the train along with other revenue enhancements but thats not a typical Amtrak load.
I agree with Schlimm that past passenger train diner food prices would be 25-30% higher today if inflation was taken into account. However, restoring prices to the levels they should be at would be just one area of service that needs to be addressed.
However, also if you remember the revenue of the diner wasn't just restricted to seatings of people back then to just eat food, there were other services. I seem to remember the conductor or porter carrying food out of the diner to different locations on the train, in exchange for a tip. Also, seem to remember that mixed drinks were a lot more prevelant back then than they are today and those were another serve at your seat item............a service that Amtrak has almost abandoned entirely......interestingly, the most profitable part of running a dining or lounge car has been almost eliminated by Amtrak. Let me know the next time you see a bartender on Amtrak that can mix drinks from full size liquor bottles. I even seem to remember when the dining car was closed you could put in a special request to the onboard chef after hours to an extent for a late night snack, also in exchange for a tip. Try that one on Amtrak......someone will female dog at or lecture you. Amtrak is more rules based than service based. Railroad carriers of old were more service based and had a whole range of revenue enhancements for services onboard. Did Santa Fe offer the Turquiose Room for free to large groups of people or was there a surcharge for it? I would suspect the latter.
The flip side of the coin of course is dining car staff in the private railway dining car days was not paid as well as they are today. In some cases they did not even have crew car accomodations. I remember reading the story from the 1930's or 1940's of a dining car steward that once the dining car was closed spread out a spacer between tables and slept on the table tops of the dining car because the railroad did not provide a sleeping car compartment for them. That practice is gone for good as well as the low pay but just mentioning it for illustration that a lot has changed. Another area Stewards in Parlor cars would depend more on the tips for compensation than what the railroad paid them......they could not survive on just the railroad base pay, they needed tips. Another area which we would never permit these days and another example on how costs have risen.
CJtrainguyI find it questionable to make a blanket statement that sleepers aren't needed for one night of travel, meaning let's drop them entirely from all trains traveling only overnight, and on trains traveling multiple nights, block passengers who would like to get a sleeper for their one night travel from doing so. That's just confusing and arbitrary as far as the passenger is concerned.
The logic has proven to work with just a seat for a flight of the same duration of an average overnight train. I think Emirates has compartmentalized seats but they charge a small fortune for it.....I think it's $20-25,000 to fly to Dubai in one. Not anywhere near what Amtrak charges for a bedroom. Of course a lie flat seat on a airline for overnight travel is not as cheap as an Amtrak sleeping compartment either.........that maybe part of the issue.
CJtrainguy ... I find it questionable to make a blanket statement that sleepers aren't needed for one night of travel, meaning let's drop them entirely from all trains traveling only overnight, and on trains traveling multiple nights, block passengers who would like to get a sleeper for their one night travel from doing so. That's just confusing and arbitrary as far as the passenger is concerned.
I find it questionable to make a blanket statement that sleepers aren't needed for one night of travel, meaning let's drop them entirely from all trains traveling only overnight, and on trains traveling multiple nights, block passengers who would like to get a sleeper for their one night travel from doing so. That's just confusing and arbitrary as far as the passenger is concerned.
+1. As a sleeper user, Business Class is not a substitute for a sleeper.
+1 to Dakotafred also.
You know, folks, before you dispense with sleeping cars, which in my experience usually run full -- just try to reserve a roomette nearer than months in advance -- why don't you fill up the coaches? Problem solved!
Diners are part of the LD package. Unless you're persuaded by John Mica that Amtrak's modest operating subsidy is a lot of money -- Washington spills more than that every day, before lunch -- why not stand up for the right instead of going over to the dark side?
Necessity? I think not. The SOBs haven't killed Amtrak in 45 years, and there's no prospect of them doing so now. The danger is that, with our cooperation, they'll pervert it into something that's unrecognizable to even you and me, as well as unattractive to the general public.
Who needs Greyhound or Megabus on rails (except slower, less frequent and in odd hours)?
CMStPnP 1. Two night min train travel for sleeper usage. … I just think overnight trips on most trains...........you don't really need a sleeping car.
1. Two night min train travel for sleeper usage.
…
I just think overnight trips on most trains...........you don't really need a sleeping car.
That's an interesting statement. So people traveling from New York, Washington DC and the like to Chicago don't "need" a sleeper, but people traveling from LA to Chicago do.
In the past year I've travelled
Little Rock - Washington DC via Chicago (so 2 nights, but change of train in Chicago),
New York - Chicago (1 night),
Chicago - Little Rock (1 night with arrival at 3:10am) a few times,
Little Rock - Los Angeles (2 nights) and
Los Angeles - Chicago (2 nights).
By choice, I did that all in coach and personally did fine. That said, I don't think that proves that sleepers aren't needed or are only needed for a certain trip duration. Obviously many of the fine people I dined with on each train who were sleeper passengers felt the need for sleeper accomodations.
A number of your other points make sense to me.
I'm actually fine with the one sleeping car attendent per sleeping car and I have no issues with that labor cost because you need it for service. I would make a couple of amendments to it though:
2. Sleeping Car attendent must have the opportunity and motivation to sell additional items and boost his/her salary above current via commissions. Definitely would add products and services that the Sleeping Car attendent could sell to the passengers to boost revenue or service based on a commission. Also, think they should get a portion of the commission if the Conductor makes a sale for an empty sleeping car compartment in their car. They should allow on train upgrades of sleeping car compartments as well. Sleeping Car attendent should be able to upgrade a frequent Amtrak user to Bedroom from Economy, if it means more sleeping space can be sold on the train.
3. Sleeping Car attendent and union contract should permit in my view that the sleeping car attendent should be supplimented by neighboring cars via peak periods of need by passengers or Car attendent trained on how to balance the workload of the car over time. I have seen some sleeping car attendents that just sit on their backsides the whole trip waiting for the porter call button to be pushed. Thats really bad, in my opinion.
In my view the sleeping car attendent should make several rounds and schedule when best to make the beds for nightime sleep and when best to recover them from same via coordination with the passengers (most do but not all of them do). Also should periodically check in on passengers when they are awake (once a day min) to see how they are doing and if he /she can make the trip better. I do see there are peak times when the car attendent is swamped with cleaning compartments and/or making beds. I don't know why that is or why that happens but I suspect it can be mitigated somewhat or avoided with better procedures.
4. Amtrak Passengers should be reminded at the end of the trip that tipping a Sleeping Car attendent for great service and also told approx amount to tip.
Sooooo, I feel the Sleeping Car attendent if more animated during the day could sell more and offset their salary somewhat as well as provide better service. Hence I do not view them as such a bad idea or a cost that should be avoided. I just think overnight trips on most trains...........you don't really need a sleeping car.
JPS1Sleeping cars and dining cars require more on-board employees than a business class car and a lounge car. The number of employees that could be terminated if sleeping cars and dining cars are eliminated is unknown.
I'll bet union agreement would make this number "small at best" - and in my opinion not only is that the wrong word, but shows the wrong general mindset about how to go about building a 'consensus' for more efficient operations at Amtrak.
When all the waste is out of other areas of operations -- the commissary 'waste' we've discussed on other threads, for example -- and some of the new business-class amenities and plans now under consideration have shown their worth in practical terms -- AND when all the current employees have been given the shot at reassignment, or retraining, or whatever... then is the time we can start thinking about handing out the 'terminations' ... and while we're at it then, we could consider how to amend the current labor agreements so that seniority of the crabby doesn't necessarily require their retention during 'force adjustment' or whatever you want to call it.
According to a study dated March 6, 2015, by the Manhattan Institute, the average compensation package for an on-board Amtrak employee in 2012 was $41.19 per hour. Presumably this includes base pay, overtime, benefits and miscellaneous overheads. Whether this includes the compensation packages for the operating crew, i.e. engineer, conductor, and assistant conductor, is unclear. These numbers indicate that Amtrak’s on-board labor costs are high. Reducing the number of on-board employees could have a dramatic impact on the long distance train cost structure.
Yes, it does; yes, it would; yes, long-term ways in which the number of on-board employees per train could be "right-sized" are likely to be important to Amtrak's operation and perhaps its survival. But you put the structures in place to 'replace' their current suboptimal utilization, busy-work, wasted time and poor working conditions or atmosphere first when deciding on reductions, otherwise you're likely to make a poor and arduous situation even poorer and more arduous for the now-victims who remain. And, I would argue, you 'lead' with incentives for early retirement or reassignment outside of train operations first, rather than coldly figuring whose heads will ... ever so regrettably, but alas! t'was necessary! ... have to roll when we get around to telling them.
The long distance train’s operating losses decreased from $575.6 million or 21 cents per passenger mile in 2010 to $514 million or 19 cents per passenger mile in 2015, a decrease of 10.7 per cent.
Substituting business class accommodations for private room accommodations could reduce even more the operating losses of these trains. So too could elimination of the full service dining cars. These changes could help ensure the survival of the long distance trains for the small number of patrons that depend on them or want them.
Approximately 85 per cent of the long distance train rider’s ride coach class. The average distance traveled in FY10 – latest published figures – was approximately 600 miles. Sleeping car passengers averaged approximately 1,000 miles. The FY15 numbers probably are close to these and suggest most passengers are only on the train for one night, if that, and for two or three meals.
An improved business class service could satisfy the needs of most of the overnight passengers that want better accommodations than those in coach. Also, an expanded menu in the lounge cars and quicker service could meet the needs of most long distance passengers.
Because of their complexity sleeping cars are costly to buy, maintain, and service. According to a study by the federal DOT IG in 2005, which admittedly is dated, the subsidy for sleeping car passengers, which reflects the spread between revenues and costs, was noticeably greater than the subsidy for coach passengers. Whether the same relationship exists today is unknown.
Business class cars, as opposed to room cars, probably would be less costly to purchase, maintain, and service, although how much less is unknown.
According to Amtrak’s IG, 87 per cent of Amtrak’s annual loss on food and beverage services is attributable to the long distance trains. The loss on the long distance trains in FY15 was approximately $65 million.
Sleeping cars and dining cars require more on-board employees than a business class car and a lounge car. The number of employees that could be terminated if sleeping cars and dining cars are eliminated is unknown.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.