A fellow Amtrak rider and I were recently discussing the state of dining car standardized meals/selections, etc. The Silver Star diner has been dropped. The question was raised, "would Amtrak ever be able to lease the dining cars to private chefs?" Almost like the days of Fred Harvey and/or the Pullman Co. Is it even possible? Current Amtrak dining car staff could be given the first chance to hire on.
Could the result be more varied selections, daily chef specials, overall better quality at more reasonable prices? Overall lowered costs to Amtrak?
While it maybe possible, I am not sure how profitable. First issue would be the unions. The second the demand and level of service and lastly the pricing.
I don't think the railroads made as any money on their diners. Dining service often was the first thing to go when the railroads tried to reduce losses.
I don't think so.
And in fact no longer are dining cars held by private car owners as they cannot meet the cost of upkeep via renting them out for charters. Once upon a time via the American Association of Private Railway Car Owners (AAPRCO) website there was a dining car available for lease or charter. No longer. Business cars, Dome Cars, and Sleepers with a lounge area are what is Chartered and brings in the fees. Even fan groups like "Friends of 261" are not interested in dining cars for their collection, instead they go with combining the dining car with another car like the Super Dome car. Union Pacific Business Fleet, BNSF Business Fleet, etc...........no dining cars. BTW, you can still find old Lunch Counter Cars and Dining Cars languishing in the surplus passenger car market but nobody wants to buy and use them "as is", most folks that are interested in buying them would buy them with the intent to convert to something else.
Me thinks dining cars are too specialized and their time has passed. The best you can hope for in this modern era is a Cafe Car. Hence when I make a proposal for a new passenger train, I try to dump the dining car.............which doesn't go over well in these nostalgic based forums (every train running that is Long Distance MUST HAVE a Full Service Diner, Sleeping Car and of course a Baggage Car according to a lot of the readership here)..........it is a little silly to hold onto that given what has happened on the private sector side.
Also, another I forgot to mention, Rocky Mountaineer Railtours. Their dining car area is a much condensed area underneath their Ultra Dome cars........again not a seperate stand alone dining car if it can be helped or avoided. And lo and behold, no sleeping car on Rocky Mountaineer.
Amtrak business trains don't carry a diner in almost every case I have seen either, they either have the meals catered (sometimes box lunches) or use a cafe car. So I am pretty sure Amtrak management is fully aware of the costs.
CMStPnP I don't think so. And in fact no longer are dining cars held by private car owners as they cannot meet the cost of upkeep via renting them out for charters. Once upon a time via the American Association of Private Railway Car Owners (AAPRCO) website there was a dining car available for lease or charter. No longer. Business cars, Dome Cars, and Sleepers with a lounge area are what is Chartered and brings in the fees. Even fan groups like "Friends of 261" are not interested in dining cars for their collection, instead they go with combining the dining car with another car like the Super Dome car. Union Pacific Business Fleet, BNSF Business Fleet, etc...........no dining cars. BTW, you can still find old Lunch Counter Cars and Dining Cars languishing in the surplus passenger car market but nobody wants to buy and use them "as is", most folks that are interested in buying them would buy them with the intent to convert to something else. Me thinks dining cars are too specialized and their time has passed. The best you can hope for in this modern era is a Cafe Car. Hence when I make a proposal for a new passenger train, I try to dump the dining car.............which doesn't go over well in these nostalgic based forums (every train running that is Long Distance MUST HAVE a Full Service Diner, Sleeping Car and of course a Baggage Car according to a lot of the readership here)..........it is a little silly to hold onto that given what has happened on the private sector side. Also, another I forgot to mention, Rocky Mountaineer Railtours. Their dining car area is a much condensed area underneath their Ultra Dome cars........again not a seperate stand alone dining car if it can be helped or avoided. And lo and behold, no sleeping car on Rocky Mountaineer. Amtrak business trains don't carry a diner in almost every case I have seen either, they either have the meals catered (sometimes box lunches) or use a cafe car. So I am pretty sure Amtrak management is fully aware of the costs.
Although I totally agree, you are preaching on here (as you said) to a tone-deaf choir of time travelers. The sooner Amtrak stops playing to the small and declining niche of folks who demand baggage cars (for their steamer trunks?), sleeping cars and full service diners on LD trains at 1950-60s prices, the better off passenger train service in the US will be.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Funny, I am no time traveler, as I am still approaching my second decade of work, but when I describe to a friend a full diner as was around even in a portion of the Claytor years and a Bedroom accomodation, this meets with interest as to how much a trip costs, in others words conversion thinking toward a purchase. This is amongst professionals, who you know purchase transportation.
Descriptions of 10 hour trips in a coach seat to meet the average trip lengths of Amtrak travelers along with cafe type foods, not so much. Sometimes the question in reply is something like can't you eat like on a resturaunt on board.
It seems what is going on is that Amtrak is picking the easier crowd to sell the product to for the most money, which is now largely baby boomers, but the underlying consumer preference does not seem to change for lower aged individuals. Imagine what some advertising could do. Also, trains have to have volumes above about 200 passengers a mile to start covering costs and the easiest way to get there without large infrastructure investment is simply a longer route with more overlapping city pairs.
As to private operation, yes their would be labor hurdles. But the FAST act actually had provisions for experiments in locally sourced (fresh) food to be tried, which is another preference amongst youngish or mid-age professionals.
Perhaps, Amtrak could provide the car and let a contract staff board with almost ready to be plated food in a Cambro. NC has private food contractors on its trains.
There is one New Jersey restoration group that has two ex EL-diners, one almost completely restored, ex-Lackawanna, and one in restorable condition, ex-Erie. They plan to use them on fan-trips and/or museum dinner-train operations, one place where the traditional dining car still has a place. There are lots of full dining cars operated on tourist trains throughout North America, both with on-board food preparation as traditional and food brought onboard just before departure.
Privatising dining cars for Amtrak LD and corridor operations makers zero sense, since you loose economies of scale and make the costs of doing business even greater with very little additional incentive for the customer to pay the high prices to make the business profitable.
I have been mainaining now for years that the way out of the food service economics quandry is adoption of the Acela type meal service nationwide, with off-train food initial preparation done by Skysheffs or some national restaurant chain where further economies of scale in purchasing and preparation of food can be realized.
Many people, currently dubbed "millennials," seem to think that they will never age and that "old people" have always been in that state! There are about 75 million "boomers," (those so named millennials of the 1960's) who are now retiring, controlling about 75% of the wealth of the nation and busy traveling to their kids, grandchildren and just having fun spending their hard earned money. If,when you are boarding a long distance train, you would look around you, you would see the younger folks hauling lots of baggage and even having bicycles stored in those new baggage cars (which Amtrak designed to have bicycle storage racks because of demand). It is not the boomers hauling bikes. You may also notice many older people traveling fairly light, because after years of living, most have learned to travel practically with loads they can handle and have learned that Amtrak sleepers tend not to have much room for bags in the compartments.
As the Millennials age and acquire "pre existing conditions," they will perhaps come to appreciate how their bodies do not bend so easily or find that their diets now call for regular meals at certain times rather than a gobbled down hot dog or vegie smoothie. Perhaps, some have been in one of our many military actions and can no longer leap over buildings in a single bound and therefore find 12 hours in a bus seat or 3 hours in 18 inches of plane seat to be basically unbearable.
We all, if we are lucky, will get old, lose degrees of physical ablities and have new appreciation for civilized travel. It is not a longing for the good old days, today's trains can be as modern and fast as possible and still be a preferred means of travel as an option suitable for a large share of the population. You have only to look at a US Census Bureau population projection "pyramid" for the year 2050 to realize that there is a massive market coming down the track for a totally different US population than what is now. Unlike certain "business models" which call for a profit from every minute segment of the business, other models call for the effective use of having certain segments offered to customers at a loss, being in fact, another form of advertising to attract said customers: thus the dining car and the baggage car. Incompetent and/or lazy senior management always blames someone else for poor performance.
northeaster Many people, currently dubbed "millennials," seem to think that they will never age and that "old people" have always been in that state! There are about 75 million "boomers," (those so named millennials of the 1960's) who are now retiring, controlling about 75% of the wealth of the nation and busy traveling to their kids, grandchildren and just having fun spending their hard earned money. If,when you are boarding a long distance train, you would look around you, you would see the younger folks hauling lots of baggage and even having bicycles stored in those new baggage cars (which Amtrak designed to have bicycle storage racks because of demand). It is not the boomers hauling bikes. You may also notice many older people traveling fairly light, because after years of living, most have learned to travel practically with loads they can handle and have learned that Amtrak sleepers tend not to have much room for bags in the compartments. As the Millennials age and acquire "pre existing conditions," they will perhaps come to appreciate how their bodies do not bend so easily or find that their diets now call for regular meals at certain times rather than a gobbled down hot dog or vegie smoothie. Perhaps, some have been in one of our many military actions and can no longer leap over buildings in a single bound and therefore find 12 hours in a bus seat or 3 hours in 18 inches of plane seat to be basically unbearable. We all, if we are lucky, will get old, lose degrees of physical ablities and have new appreciation for civilized travel. It is not a longing for the good old days, today's trains can be as modern and fast as possible and still be a preferred means of travel as an option suitable for a large share of the population. You have only to look at a US Census Bureau population projection "pyramid" for the year 2050 to realize that there is a massive market coming down the track for a totally different US population than what is now. Unlike certain "business models" which call for a profit from every minute segment of the business, other models call for the effective use of having certain segments offered to customers at a loss, being in fact, another form of advertising to attract said customers: thus the dining car and the baggage car. Incompetent and/or lazy senior management always blames someone else for poor performance.
On my last trip, I found it necessary to twice spend a large part of a day on buses, with one stop for a meal each day, and was cramped for leg room. There is now bus service only twice a day between the two cities--and one is overnight (shudder)--and both require a change in each direction; fifty years ago, there were several schedules each day with through service. The only improvement I can name is the presence of restrooms on the buses.
edited for clarity-jbd
Johnny
Deggesty northeaster Many people, currently dubbed "millennials," seem to think that they will never age and that "old people" have always been in that state! There are about 75 million "boomers," (those so named millennials of the 1960's) who are now retiring, controlling about 75% of the wealth of the nation and busy traveling to their kids, grandchildren and just having fun spending their hard earned money. If,when you are boarding a long distance train, you would look around you, you would see the younger folks hauling lots of baggage and even having bicycles stored in those new baggage cars (which Amtrak designed to have bicycle storage racks because of demand). It is not the boomers hauling bikes. You may also notice many older people traveling fairly light, because after years of living, most have learned to travel practically with loads they can handle and have learned that Amtrak sleepers tend not to have much room for bags in the compartments. As the Millennials age and acquire "pre existing conditions," they will perhaps come to appreciate how their bodies do not bend so easily or find that their diets now call for regular meals at certain times rather than a gobbled down hot dog or vegie smoothie. Perhaps, some have been in one of our many military actions and can no longer leap over buildings in a single bound and therefore find 12 hours in a bus seat or 3 hours in 18 inches of plane seat to be basically unbearable. We all, if we are lucky, will get old, lose degrees of physical ablities and have new appreciation for civilized travel. It is not a longing for the good old days, today's trains can be as modern and fast as possible and still be a preferred means of travel as an option suitable for a large share of the population. You have only to look at a US Census Bureau population projection "pyramid" for the year 2050 to realize that there is a massive market coming down the track for a totally different US population than what is now. Unlike certain "business models" which call for a profit from every minute segment of the business, other models call for the effective use of having certain segments offered to customers at a loss, being in fact, another form of advertising to attract said customers: thus the dining car and the baggage car. Incompetent and/or lazy senior management always blames someone else for poor performance. Thank you, northeaster, for attempting to dispel the notions of some about who travels by train, and why they prefer such travel to other modes of travel. I, myself, am older than the boomers, and I much prefer the roominess of trains to the lack of roominess on buses and airplanes. Also, as to food, I have found that the snack food that is offered for breakfast and other meals in lounge cars comes short of being really satisfactory. On my last trip, I found it necessary to twice spend a large part of a day on buses, with one stop for a meal each day, and was cramped for leg room. There is now bus service only twice a day between the two cities--and one is overnight (shudder)--and both require a change in each direction; fifty years ago, there were several schedules each day with through service. The only improvement I can name is the presence of restrooms on the buses. edited for clarity-jbd
Thank you, northeaster, for attempting to dispel the notions of some about who travels by train, and why they prefer such travel to other modes of travel. I, myself, am older than the boomers, and I much prefer the roominess of trains to the lack of roominess on buses and airplanes. Also, as to food, I have found that the snack food that is offered for breakfast and other meals in lounge cars comes short of being really satisfactory.
Each generations has it's own belief that they will never age - until the do. Boomers never featured getting old, now they are.
I have attened two HS reunions - 25th & 50th. At the 25th most everyone was recognizable from the in school appearance and personae. At the 50th - who are all these unrecognizable old people (and I am sure they felt the same about me).
What is the saying - 'Too soon old, too late smart!'.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
In response to the original question, it will always be expensive. There may be effective measures to keep these expenses at some level of control, but they will always be there.
* Interstate dining car service is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration --- not by State regulators. The general understanding is that FDA regulations are more stringent (and, of course, costly) than State regulations.
* Workers on such cars will be required to be eligible for Railroad Retirement. Many (perhaps most) stationary restaurants don't pay for any retirement benefits other than Social Security. I understand this was a major contributing factor when an Amtrak/Contractor experiment failed in New York State several years ago, but I don't know the details.
* Competent, reliable staff will not be retained unless the pay is considerably higher than that in a comparable stationary restaurant, because of the demands of the work schedule and conditions. These staff members must be accommodated with sleeping accommodations away from home on long trips, and that costs money.
* Dining cars are expensive to construct and maintain because of their unique architecture and configuration. You don't just waltz into the Home Depot and buy off-the shelf components to put one together, or to maintain it. A competent and experienced repair crew must be available to provide service for this unique equipment.
* A reliable source of supply is essential, meaning a comprehensive Commissary system and consistent resupply at whatever locations are appropriate.
* A reliable source of potable water is absolutely essential. Amtrak has this. Any other operator would have to be sure it can get this from Amtrak or the host railroad. It costs money, no matter who provides it.
* In addition to the costs enumerated above, there is the predictable cost of maintenance of the brakes, running gear, air conditioning, etc. associated with the operation of any railroad car. This far exceeds the normal cost of operating a stationary restaurant.
I have only scratched the surface. If you think you can operate a dining car at a profit at less cost than Amtrak does under these conditions, have at it!
Tom
ACY In response to the original question, it will always be expensive. There may be effective measures to keep these expenses at some level of control, but they will always be there. Even then, privatization's supposed benefits are often lacking. * Interstate dining car service is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration --- not by State regulators. The general understanding is that FDA regulations are more stringent (and, of course, costly) than State regulations. * Workers on such cars will be required to be eligible for Railroad Retirement. Many (perhaps most) stationary restaurants don't pay for any retirement benefits other than Social Security. I understand this was a major contributing factor when an Amtrak/Contractor experiment failed in New York State several years ago, but I don't know the details. * Competent, reliable staff will not be retained unless the pay is considerably higher than that in a comparable stationary restaurant, because of the demands of the work schedule and conditions. These staff members must be accommodated with sleeping accommodations away from home on long trips, and that costs money. * Dining cars are expensive to construct and maintain because of their unique architecture and configuration. You don't just waltz into the Home Depot and buy off-the shelf components to put one together, or to maintain it. A competent and experienced repair crew must be available to provide service for this unique equipment. * A reliable source of supply is essential, meaning a comprehensive Commissary system and consistent resupply at whatever locations are appropriate. * A reliable source of potable water is absolutely essential. Amtrak has this. Any other operator would have to be sure it can get this from Amtrak or the host railroad. It costs money, no matter who provides it. * In addition to the costs enumerated above, there is the predictable cost of maintenance of the brakes, running gear, air conditioning, etc. associated with the operation of any railroad car. This far exceeds the normal cost of operating a stationary restaurant. I have only scratched the surface. If you think you can operate a dining car at a profit at less cost than Amtrak does under these conditions, have at it! Tom
Even then, privatization's supposed benefits are often lacking.
All true. However, without a modification waiver, the labor costs (including RRRB) would be the killer for any privatized opration.
The proponents of privatization make a lot of promises, but the reality is often quite different.
Who the hell cares that conventional dining cars don't pay for themselves? Does the locomotive make money, or only help pull the train, like the dining car?
John Mica won't be in Congress forever. In the meantime, it ill behooves alleged friends of the passenger train to lend him aid and comfort by constantly sniping at one of the things that makes it a passenger train and still relevant in this day.
If we're going to run 'em, let's keep them passenger trains. Otherwise, what's the point?
We've already got buses on the highway. Do we need them on rails, too?
dakotafred Who the hell cares that conventional dining cars don't pay for themselves? Does the locomotive make money, or only help pull the train, like the dining car? John Mica won't be in Congress forever. In the meantime, it ill behooves alleged friends of the passenger train to lend him aid and comfort by constantly sniping at one of the things that makes it a passenger train and still relevant in this day. If we're going to run 'em, let's keep them passenger trains. Otherwise, what's the point? We've already got buses on the highway. Do we need them on rails, too?
If you had to pay (in today's dollars) what people paid to ride the City of Los Angeles RT from Chicago in 1957, would you?
The City charged (in today's dollars) $1774.36 RT for a Roomette + $143.97 for 5 meals. Total = $1981.41
Currently you pay $994.40 RT on the SWC with a Superliner roomette.
Folks who want nostalgia service should pay today's equivalent of what the charges were in the golden era.
CMStP&P:
I take your point about marketing to feature tourist destinations served by Amtrak. They do this to a certain extent. If the schedule were more convenient, I'm sure they could initiate a marketing drive to foster a destination such as Sandusky, Ohio, home of the very large Cedar Point amusement park.
However, this does not address the economics of operating dining cars.
ACYHowever, this does not address the economics of operating dining cars.
It's kinda, sorta, acceptable drift, if it doesn't drift entirely away from the hospitality and 'passenger cohort' theme.
The kind of 'dining experience' is likely to vary dramatically depending on train "clientele", perhaps even down to distinctive ranges of origin-destination pairs for given route attractions. It might follow that some privatization connected with hotel or amusement destinations -- perhaps even including just the kind of loss-leader dining 'experience' often encountered at casinos -- might become perceived as cost-effective over 'centralized' attempts like those now being tried in the East. Or, alternatively, provide greater patronage for other relatively high-margin 'food services' that might underwrite some of the cost of more traditional dining experience...
This discussion is not just about different ways to serve food in a car, and likewise is not just about ways to serve food cheaply enough to satisfy present critics like Mica. I, personally, welcome any discussion that provides an approach -- no matter how peripheral in itself -- to increasing food-service patronage or some aspect of food service profitability (or even loss minimization).
ACY CMStP&P: I take your point about marketing to feature tourist destinations served by Amtrak. They do this to a certain extent. If the schedule were more convenient, I'm sure they could initiate a marketing drive to foster a destination such as Sandusky, Ohio, home of the very large Cedar Point amusement park. However, this does not address the economics of operating dining cars. Tom
The point I was trying to get across is that if we are to keep any kind of dining service the service has to be allowed to innovate or change and folks have to accept change rather than fight against it.
BTW, note in the Trans-Russian Express thread in the videos that the food is brought to the sleeping car compartment in the morning. The patrons have the choice of eating in the dining car (and must do so if they want to consume alchol) but they do not have to. Germans and Swiss also serve a light breakfest in the sleeping car compartment or at least did the last time I rode. Amtrak / VIA does not, even though it has become common in Europe. Perhaps one innovation would be that Amtrak and VIA start serving to compartments light breakfests then make the sleeping car passengers pay for extra fare in the Diner if they want it.
Also, a little off topic here but....
I don't know why the overt hostility towards Rep Mica (R-FL), I know he is abrasive and sometimes exaggerates but he is at least doing his job that the folks elected him to do, he is trying to get the best bang for the taxpayers buck using a somewhat highly abrasive approach but I think his efforts are helping more than hurting Amtrak management because the CEO of Amtrak seems to not care one whit on any financial performance metric based on the CSPAN footage I have seen, which is also unacceptable. So I can see why Rep Mica gets upset at least. Amtrak Management needs the kick in the pants that Rep Mica is giving them because they do not seem to be getting that treatment from anywhere else and most of them stay secure in their jobs regardless of how crappy Amtrak runs.
CMStPnPGermans and Swiss also serve a light breakfest in the sleeping car compartment or at least did the last time I rode. Amtrak / VIA does not, even though it has become common in Europe.
The immediate question I'd have is whether the additional crew time (and perhaps extra planning and aggravation) involved in delivering the light breakfast to all the ones who want it, and cleaning up all the leftovers afterward, is worth the gains. I don't see how it could possibly be better than having a 'hotel-style' breakfast spread in one (or more) lounge cars: put the extra crew dollars into food cost and you might really have something. Admittedly you'd have to work out something with the 'packaging' to make it safe to get your food back to your accommodation, but that's a minor detail (and probably at least equal to what you'd have to provide the individuals doing the "European-style light breakfast delivery').
It would then remain to be seen whether the 'rest' of the passengers expecting a full breakfast service at a sit-down restaurant table will justify the additional cost of legacy-style dining car operation. (For the sake of argument we will assume that any prep for the 'breakfast' alternatives is done with dining-car-capable facilities, so that extent of overhead and labor wouldn't be charged to diner operations...)
Oh, yes: if you want a light breakfast brought to you, ask your attendant sweetly. And tip accordingly when they bring it to you, with more for a sunny smile...
Breakfast: On CityNightLine between Berlin and Paris in 2013, I was the recipient of one of those box-type cold breakfasts you mention. A few slices of a crossiant, a thin slice of ham, a piece or two of cheese, maybe an M&M or a Hershey kiss or something. No thanks! Plus I ate alone in my room as I passed through places like Chateau-Thierry. Honestly, the food wasn't very good, and I tried to enjoy it.
No, I much prefer a hot American breakfast with fresh scrambled eggs and sausage (even if they are probably microwaved); as far as grits or hash browns, I don't care for either, but I poke at them because they're hot and filling. Toast, of course.
Generally when I travel on the Lake Shore Limited I'm eating breakfast as we pass through Erie ("look at all those locomotives!") or close to the shore of Lake Erie in western New York. Frequently there are foreign tourists seated with me who want to know about the country they've paid a lot of money to see by train. We talk politics, trains, personal lives, observations, etc. If there are young folks on a budget at the table they get to tell their stories, too. I remember a number of people I've met and conversations I've had in the dining car with fellow travelers over the years. Seriously, who'd want to remember anything about eating a dreary, cold, boxed "breakfast" alone and as if in a cell?
Let me say this, and I hope dakotafred and others will agree with me: A nice dining car experience is a significant part of what people expect from a LD train. If we had wanted boxed food eaten in solitary silence we'd have taken a plane.
Everyone knows that dining cars never turned a profit for the companies that operated them; they were simply a part of the cost of doing business if you operated passenger trains.
Until Mr. Mica came along, like a character out of Dickens.
I wish I could agree that he's only doing his disagreeable job of cleaning out the Augean stables as a service he offers to a grateful nation, who needs his gimlet eye going over the books to prevent waste and fraud at the socialist-communist State-run Government Railroad.
But I don't. Mr. Mica is simply a bully. Not having any voice on important committees, where he could be trying to defund Obamacare, or privatize Social Security, or deny women control over their bodies, or supporting tin-horn dictators abroad, or perhaps trying to deport all Latin Americans, he is instead stuck on a 3rd rate committee that oversees...passenger trains! Therefore, So Be It! He sees his role as being God's Avenging Angel when it comes to all the waste, fraud and corruption at a notorious, hated, Democrat-favored quasi-government corporation that costs us innocent taxpayers about $1.5 or $2.0 billion a year, a YUUUGE part of the federal deficit. Well, Mr. Mica thinks, I have my job cut out for me.
I can't wait for the day Mr. Mica is forced to return to the general population and live like the rest of us citizens and train travelers, who'd simply enjoy a cooked breakfast in a nice dining car with other people, without having to pay twice for the privilege.
I don't agree 100% with what NKP Guy says about Mr. Mica. Maybe it's more like 98%. I think many of Mr. Mica's suggestions for Amtrak arise out of a stubborn insistence on the rightness of his preconceived notions, rather than a willingness to accept reality and deal with it as it is. I have pointed out several factors that make dining car service an expensive proposition, yet Mr. Mica insists on applying the standards that hold true for stationary restaurant providers. When you hold fast to disproven ideas, your tenacity doesn't make them magically become valid.
ACY I don't agree 100% with what NKP Guy says about Mr. Mica. Maybe it's more like 98%. I think many of Mr. Mica's suggestions for Amtrak arise out of a stubborn insistence on the rightness of his preconceived notions, rather than a willingness to accept reality and deal with it as it is. I have pointed out several factors that make dining car service an expensive proposition, yet Mr. Mica insists on applying the standards that hold true for stationary restaurant providers. When you hold fast to disproven ideas, your tenacity doesn't make them magically become valid. Tom
Unfortunately you have discribed Congress in a nut shell. With each side holding fast to disproven ideas, with tenacity that doesn't make them magically become valid.
I regard Mica as a TP wannabee. However, Amtrak undercharges for dining car service. As it is, on most trains, it is pretty mediocre. My opinion is that the bulk of sleeping car LD customers object to being forced to pay for that food in their fare. Hardee's would be an upgrade. If it were not bundled, my guess is there would be far more disgruntled customers who would join their coach brethren in boycotting.
If you want a good dining experience, try being willing to pay a lot more to equal 1957 prices on a City train (as in earlier post). Even at those prices it would be a loss leader today as it was then.
I don't agree...
It's only a one way conversation because nobody he has that appears in front of him rebuts the charges effectively including Mr Boardman. If I saw someone in front of him from Amtrak attempting to make a case I would have more sympathy but honestly from my point of view, Amtrak doesn't care to make a case, which I feel is kind of arrogant. A Claytor vs Mica pairing would have been interesting.
I've said it before and I'll say it again- market pricing. Serve real food, cooked onboard and charge the market price...trust me, if it's good, word will get around quickly, and you won't be losing any money on the service. The cars/staffing will pay for themselves, priced correctly and you can even turn a little profit.
Don't even consider using a service such as SkyChefs or Marriot as the airlines do, most of that food isn't even palatable to a canine.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR I've said it before and I'll say it again- market pricing. Serve real food, cooked onboard and charge the market price...trust me, if it's good, word will get around quickly, and you won't be losing any money on the service. The cars/staffing will pay for themselves, priced correctly and you can even turn a little profit.
Couldn't agree more. Provide upscale quality food and service, and charge what you have to charge to break even (or better), even allowing for the fact that you will lose some of the lower-end clientele.
If appropriate, add cafe or lounge service (with simpler, lower cost items) to serve those who don't want to pay upscale prices.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JRI've said it before and I'll say it again- market pricing. Serve real food, cooked onboard and charge the market price...trust me, if it's good, word will get around quickly, and you won't be losing any money on the service. The cars/staffing will pay for themselves, priced correctly and you can even turn a little profit.
You have my attention. Break down for me, if you would, exactly how you define "market price" for a service that has the clientele, capital, and human-factors restrictions imposed by typical LD Amtrak operation (assume for this whatever combination of Heritage or new-construction diner and lounge equipment is practical for the route(s) involved) in such a way that 'you can even turn a little profit'. You might also indicate when, defined in months after introduction, you will get to that profitability.
I sympathize with the idea, believe me I do. But until I see actual numbers that substantiate it, I have to wonder if all the other posters here, a few of whom have actual restaurant experience, know more about the situation.
Once we get that far, we can discuss how to run this past Congress (and the other forces which will want to influence Congress) so that it is not perceived as elitist, and then how to implement it long-term in such a way that temporary adverse conditions don't cause discontinuation of the service. (In my experience very few restaurants in New York, a much better nominal market for food service, succeed more than 6 months before they are 'flipped' to the next set of owners, and this usually results in very random changes in food choices and quality...)
I agree that Mr. Boardman failed to make any kind of reasonable case to rebut the ideas that underlie the arguments against Amtrak's current dining car practices, and in favor of privatization. But our legistative representatives have an obligation to educate themselves broadly. If they listen to only one ineffectual speaker, they are obviously going to miss a lot. Boardman's inadequacies are no justification for Mica's.
Mr. McFarlane:
I respectfully disagree with your assertions, for reasons that I have spelled out above. I see no reason to repeat myself except to say that if you think it can be done, have at it.
If all the first class passengers, as well as an equal number of coach passengers, were willing to pay for a first class dining experience on these two trains, which are just examples, the market for an on-board up-market dining experience appears to be pretty thin.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.