Enzoamps SO my Capitol Limited from CHicago to Washington DC should become a two day trip with a hotel stay in the middle?
SO my Capitol Limited from CHicago to Washington DC should become a two day trip with a hotel stay in the middle?
Yes. The LSL might be the one train to leave in one piece. The Capitol should be be a DC to Cleveland train. The other half of it should be a Cleveland to Chicago day train. If you want to play "thru sleeper" game to LSL at Cleveland, go ahead, but that's not a cheap thing.
Doing this you wind up with on time (or very close), daylight Cleveland to Chicago service and decent DC to Pittsburgh and Cleveland service. You could even mix in a connection to/from the Pennsylvanian at Pittsburgh at a reasonable hour of the day.
The rule is "run trains where the people are when they are awake". Everything else is a waste of time and treasure.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd Enzoamps SO my Capitol Limited from CHicago to Washington DC should become a two day trip with a hotel stay in the middle? Yes. The LSL might be the one train to leave in one piece. The Capitol should be be a DC to Cleveland train. The other half of it should be a Cleveland to Chicago day train. If you want to play "thru sleeper" game to LSL at Cleveland, go ahead, but that's not a cheap thing. Doing this you wind up with on time (or very close), daylight Cleveland to Chicago service and decent DC to Pittsburgh and Cleveland service. You could even mix in a connection to/from the Pennsylvanian at Pittsburgh at a reasonable hour of the day. The rule is "run trains where the people are when they are awake". Everything else is a waste of time and treasure.
You can still do DC to Chicago on the LSL with a quick trip up the NEC...
(I'd chop the Cardinal in Cincinnati)
York1 Backshop What are the wages of EU passenger train crews? Add Quote t I don't know that info. Maybe someone else has some idea.
Backshop What are the wages of EU passenger train crews? Add Quote t
I don't know that info. Maybe someone else has some idea.
Backshop York1 Backshop What are the wages of EU passenger train crews? Add Quote t I don't know that info. Maybe someone else has some idea. So you really don't know whether their wages are out of line?
So you really don't know whether their wages are out of line?
No, I don't. And I didn't claim that.
I pointed out that one of the premiere trains in North America, with great food, pays their food and beverage workers quite a bit less than Amtrak.
I'm trying to point out that there are a variety of issues Amtrak faces. For 50 years they've struggled by, and if we keep doing more of the same, nothing will change.
If the country truly wants passenger rail transportation, then fundamental changes will have to take place, including wages, track rights, court injunctions, property challenges -- virtually everything.
If we aren't willing to make deep changes, then we should drop the idea of long distance train travel in the U.S.
York1 John
I asked my doctor if I gave up delicious food and all alcohol, would I live longer? He said, "No, but it will seem longer."
JPS1Has there been an increase in freight train breakdowns over the last three or four months? Where would find the data?
Could it be that UP cutting back on HP per ton as per PSR, is causing more train stalls?
York1 If the country truly wants passenger rail transportation, then fundamental changes will have to take place, including wages, track rights, court injunctions, property challenges -- virtually everything.
So the only way to have passenger train travel in the US is to deny the workers their collective bargining rights? If that is the case, then shut them down. Railroad workers are not your personal servants so you have choo choos to ride on.
An "expensive model collector"
n012944So the only way to have passenger train travel in the US is to deny the workers their collective bargining rights?
Did I say that? Did I say anything like that? I grew up in a union family.
There's one thing you said that I do agree with:
n012944If that is the case, then shut them down
If we as a country think that it's necessary to run a passenger train system, especially long distance trains, and we are not willing to make the changes to make it work, then shut it down and quit wasting tax dollars.
n012944Railroad workers are not your personal servants so you have choo choos to ride on.
Funny. Of course, again, I didn't say anything like that.
The 500 mile and under market is where Amtrak would be most successful. LD trains should not operate in the winter season. LD trains should be operated as tourist trains, with all the amenities of days gone by, in the mild weather months perhaps thrice weekly. Commuter type service to large urban areas from the suburbs could take up the void created by the cessation of LD service.
York1 n012944 So the only way to have passenger train travel in the US is to deny the workers their collective bargaining rights? Did I say that? Did I say anything like that? I grew up in a union family.
n012944 So the only way to have passenger train travel in the US is to deny the workers their collective bargaining rights?
You said,
"1. Don't require Amtrak to follow railroad union rules."
"Railroad" union rules are no different than normal union rules. So yes, by not requiring Amtrak to follow union rules, you are denying them their collective bargaining rights.
York1 Funny. Of course, again, I didn't say anything like that.
You sure implied it. You mentioned wages needing to be discussed multiple times. Looking at Glassdoor.com, it appears that Amtrak's LSAs wages are right in line with a flight attendant, which is much more an apples to apples job comparison than a Subway sandwich artist.
Backshop What are the wages of EU passenger train crews?
n012944 York1 n012944 So the only way to have passenger train travel in the US is to deny the workers their collective bargaining rights? Did I say that? Did I say anything like that? I grew up in a union family. You said, "1. Don't require Amtrak to follow railroad union rules." "Railroad" union rules are no different than normal union rules. So yes, by not requiring Amtrak to follow union rules, you are denying them their collective bargaining rights. York1 Funny. Of course, again, I didn't say anything like that. You sure implied it. You mentioned wages needing to be discussed multiple times. Looking at Glassdoor.com, it appears that Amtrak's LSAs wages are right in line with a flight attendant, which is much more an apples to apples job comparison than a Subway sandwich artist.
Work rules as stated in union contracts were negotiated between the parties involved in the contract. They are not 'cloth' that the unions created out of thin air an imposed in the contract. The contract itself is a promise for the parties involved in negotiations it to live up to the provisions that are stated within the contract, nothing more and nothing less.
Unions came into existance in the first place because of the regal dementia of business ownership that they owe nothing to their employees beyond the 'bird dropping' of pay that the owners want to offer. Why do you think so many industries relied on undocumented labor sources - the businesses could pay them a pittance of their works value with the knowledge that those undocumented laborers could only object at the risk of being deported.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
JPS1--It appears that the number of hours worked in the UK is quite a bit lower than US freight railroads operate with much less away domicile time.
Generally speaking, I don't think Unions have anything to do with Amtraks issues. Unions are flexible and reasonable if you work with them in most cases. It's when you refuse to work with them we get into a tit for tat situation that benefits nobody. I have not seen any track record of Amtraks unions being unreasonable to work with or causing financial issues. Amtrak has been able to cut labor back with absolute freedom and without any strikes.
In regards to food service, specifically on the Chicago to Milwaukee trains when it existed. Having an employee push a cart from car to car selling coffee, candy bars, and sweet rolls at no more than $3-4 a ticket is going to be a financial loser if you have a min wage person doing it or a union person doing it. It was a stupid management decision as are some of the dining car setups. I don't think the Union is to blame for either and again these people are traveling across the country at a min they should be paid well for that being away from home time along with a liveable wage. Business Consultants get a premium over regular market pay for travel, only fair Amtrak employees are paid likewise.
So lets say you have a dining car attendent getting paid $60-70,000 a year. You should be able to cover the costs of that salary on a dining car with proper service and duties assigned to that person. It's not impossible, it just has not been achieved with the Amtrak model. The biggest issue on Amtrak LD trains for Dining Car viability is you just do not have the headcount in most cases on a LD train at meal time that would make the dining car viable financially. For a stand alone franchise you need at least 200-250 tickets a meal to make a profit. Amtrak does not even hit that figure on most LD trains. Exception being Auto Train which has two diners and averages 350 to 500 passengers I think? So given Amtrak does not have the ridership levels to support a dining car LD, I think it should expand slightly what the CAFE car offers and drop the Dining car from the consist. If they have a train with ridership levels approaching Auto-Train then add the dining car back.
The only other solution I see is charge folks a surcharge for food and include it in the ticket sale when the train travel is longer than 4 hours. Problem there is that is still not going to be enough for trains carrying less than 200 passengers for that distance at meal time. I think if Amtrak Management really focused on this issue they could hit the ball out of the ballpark and come up with an outstanding solution here that would satisfy everyone. They have not done so yet.
Look at what Rocky Mountaineer carries, easily over 500 and sometimes up to 1100 (my estimate) per train and meals are included in the price of their tickets weather you eat the meal or not. So I'm pretty confident they are not losing money on dining car services.
1. I apologize for my statement, which is not what I intended. I meant that wages are one of many things to look at. Sorry. If the government is going to renegotiate contracts of the same size in the future, then in my opinion they need to change the prices to cover those contracts.
2. When I said, "I didn't say anything like that.", it was in response to your statement, "Railroad workers are not your personal servants so you have choo choos to ride on," My statements did not say that, and I don't think they even implied that. If that's what you got out of what I said, I will again apologize. I would never demean anyone, including railroad workers, to believe they are to be treated as 'personal servants'.
Back to the original poster's idea, I still think there is merit to it. I'm willing to bet that outside of the NEC, the vast majority of people have not ridden an Amtrak train.
Amtrak could provide one free trip on Amtrak, with rules about distance, times, etc., all taken into account. Maybe several percent of those free riders would be persuaded to ride in the future.
York1Amtrak could provide one free trip on Amtrak, with rules about distance, times, etc., all taken into account. Maybe several percent of those free riders would be persuaded to ride in the future.
If you are shooting for only a few percent to ride AMTRAK LD in the future, you mind as well not bother. You need to get 15-20 percent to ride in the future and half of those need to become more than once a year or every 2 years riders. Otherwise, you are not even going to begin to save LD Amtrak.
A free trip is tough. What do you do when you get there? There will not be a return train waiting. And unless your free trip is a round trip, you'd have to pay for a return ride. That makes it a half price deal, not a free trip. Plus you'd have to stay in a hotel or otherwise wait for tomorrow's return.
If you were not aware, earlier this season, Amtrak was offering buy a ticket, companion rides free offers. I had not planned travel, but it made me stop and consider it.
PNWRMNM This will not bring traffic, but it will bring deadheads. More work, no money, what a plan! If you read between the lines of the cited article, this seems to have been imposed by the govt, as opposed to being some kind of railroad marketing inititive. ATK serves no transportation purpose. Kill it and give the NEC to the states that it operates in.
This will not bring traffic, but it will bring deadheads. More work, no money, what a plan! If you read between the lines of the cited article, this seems to have been imposed by the govt, as opposed to being some kind of railroad marketing inititive.
ATK serves no transportation purpose. Kill it and give the NEC to the states that it operates in.
Tell that to the people of North Dakota and Montana who rely on the Empire Builder and the people in SE Colorado who rely on the SW Chief as their only form of public transportation.
And what will be the response of those states plus New Mexico when NEC states request Federal help fr any transportation or environmenqal problem?
Blackmailing? Pork barrelling?
Southwest Airlines is one of our most successful airlines today.
When they started, they filled up vacant seats with $10 tickets from Dallas to Houston.
All through their early years, they had $16 flights to other cities, and I think it was $26 round trips.
The thinking was that a filled seat was better than an empty seat, and it won customers.
I'm not a proponent of long distance trains in the U.S.
But if we're going to run trains with empty seats, maybe free or $10 tickets is the answer to fill those seats. Maybe it will win customers in the long run.
daveklepper And what will be the response of those states plus New Mexico when NEC states request Federal help fr any transportation or environmenqal problem?
+1
The same status holds true for other corridor states, including the state-subsidized ones like Illinois. In 2019, the net flow was minus $364 per resident while in Montana it was plus $3808 per resident. So those folks in Montana and other states screaming for maintaining their subsidized train, kick in your share as Illinois residents do.
Enzoamps A free trip is tough. What do you do when you get there? There will not be a return train waiting. And unless your free trip is a round trip, you'd have to pay for a return ride. That makes it a half price deal, not a free trip. Plus you'd have to stay in a hotel or otherwise wait for tomorrow's return. If you were not aware, earlier this season, Amtrak was offering buy a ticket, companion rides free offers. I had not planned travel, but it made me stop and consider it.
OK, BAckshop, here is your free ticket from your town to some large city 300 miles away. WHat would you do with it? And what would it cost out of pocket?
CMStPnP A few more observations: As a supporter of good conscientious Unions, IMHO Amtrack's union is a bit out of hand. In some respects, I agree that Amtrak shouldn't exist as it is. My (possibly flawed) understanding is that every few years congress proposes to stop funding Amtrak but the cost of paying the exorbitant severance pay dictated by the union contract when everyone is laid off is far more than the savings so the can gets kicked down the road. A good union doesn't want to kill it's host company like a parasite but rather create better workers through fair pay, working conditions etc thereby benefiting everyone. (possibly a discussion for another time). Unfortunately the Federal Government won't fiscaly get killed (also a discussion for another time) easily so some of the contract points are a bit over the top (again IMHO). Since the Feds are by far and away Amtrak's biggest stakeholders, possibly they should demand some re-negotiation (If they went on strike, would it hurt our economy much?) maybe grandfathering in some seniority. Over time the costs could come down, and it just "might" become a profitable business and the government could get out. It IS important to maintain some passenger rail in this country but at what cost? I believe some of the eastern corridor routes are profitable. FWIW I love riding Amtrak (at least before covid-19) but it's obviously not an efficient system as it stands. Change is inevitable. Planning ahead just makes sense. BTW I'm with York1 in getting better managment. Tons of smart folks out there that could probably do a better job. York1 Everything concerns the whole issue of government involvement. Amtrak is in the worst possible position, being between a profit-making company and a government-run entity. I don't think Amtrak should exist that way. I want Congress to finally decide one way or another. I don't think the U.S. should be underwriting train travel unless it is a necessary means of transportation. If Congress decides that it is necessary, then let's do it. Some ideas: 1. Don't require Amtrak to follow railroad union rules. To pay food workers or custodians two or three times the rate that normal workers get won't work. 2. Charlie's idea (with which I don't agree) is to nationalize the tracks and run them like we do highways. Amtrak as a business can't operate if they have to provide track maintenance. It also can't operate as a profit-making business by relying on tracks run and maintained by other companies that don't really want it there. 3. Relax certain environmental laws and limit court injunctions on building new tracks. We have crippled any attempts to build HSR in our country. I don't have time to come up with more. One issue I will mention is sure to bring the wrath of many on this forum: Hire another CEO like Anderson, who does not have a railroad background. We need new thinking to run a 21st Century transportation system. We don't need someone who wants to run the system using 1950s thinking. Personally? I don't think Amtrak should exist if the government has to pay for it. I also think U.S. highways should be toll-based, airlines should pay for airports and air traffic control, and shipping companies should pay for port construction and maintenance. A couple of comments: 1. A balanced transportation system is in the interest of everyone including a productive economy. In many cases in this country traveling from downtown to downtown.....rail transportation is the fastest method. Rail transportation with high frequency and easy of ticketing / check-in even more so. To sit on the sidelines and just ignore that fact means for Congress to accept a lowered standard of living and a lower GDP than we otherwise could have. 2. Union rates of pay are not really the issue. It's productivity of the unionized worker that usually is to blame. Give me a cross trained unionized worker any day of the week over one I pay by the hour who isn't and I will wow the public with that person. Further, people deserve a liveable wage for rail service jobs, I don't agree with the idea we should lower their wages down to where they cannot afford to support a family. You do that and your going to pay via customer service and probably safety as well as your not going to attract a very high caliber of employee or one that is necessarily smart. 3. Long Distance trains are a luxury but I think some should be retained for the economic impact they have on small communities with large attractions such as National Parks, Popular camping / hiking areas, rural areas with little or no other service including Bus. I think the National LD network should be pared back more. I see no reason for the Sunset Limited, the Cardinal, and maybe one or two others. Would keep the California Zephyr and Empire Builder West of Chicago as a minimum. Southwest Chief and Texas Eagle open to debate but I think the Texas Eagle could be argued is cheaper to run than the Southwest Chief. So I would favor the Texas Eagle over the Southwest Chief as well.
A few more observations:
As a supporter of good conscientious Unions, IMHO Amtrack's union is a bit out of hand.
In some respects, I agree that Amtrak shouldn't exist as it is. My (possibly flawed) understanding is that every few years congress proposes to stop funding Amtrak but the cost of paying the exorbitant severance pay dictated by the union contract when everyone is laid off is far more than the savings so the can gets kicked down the road.
A good union doesn't want to kill it's host company like a parasite but rather create better workers through fair pay, working conditions etc thereby benefiting everyone. (possibly a discussion for another time). Unfortunately the Federal Government won't fiscaly get killed (also a discussion for another time) easily so some of the contract points are a bit over the top (again IMHO).
Since the Feds are by far and away Amtrak's biggest stakeholders, possibly they should demand some re-negotiation (If they went on strike, would it hurt our economy much?) maybe grandfathering in some seniority. Over time the costs could come down, and it just "might" become a profitable business and the government could get out. It IS important to maintain some passenger rail in this country but at what cost? I believe some of the eastern corridor routes are profitable.
FWIW I love riding Amtrak (at least before covid-19) but it's obviously not an efficient system as it stands. Change is inevitable. Planning ahead just makes sense. BTW I'm with York1 in getting better managment. Tons of smart folks out there that could probably do a better job.
York1 Everything concerns the whole issue of government involvement. Amtrak is in the worst possible position, being between a profit-making company and a government-run entity. I don't think Amtrak should exist that way. I want Congress to finally decide one way or another. I don't think the U.S. should be underwriting train travel unless it is a necessary means of transportation. If Congress decides that it is necessary, then let's do it. Some ideas: 1. Don't require Amtrak to follow railroad union rules. To pay food workers or custodians two or three times the rate that normal workers get won't work. 2. Charlie's idea (with which I don't agree) is to nationalize the tracks and run them like we do highways. Amtrak as a business can't operate if they have to provide track maintenance. It also can't operate as a profit-making business by relying on tracks run and maintained by other companies that don't really want it there. 3. Relax certain environmental laws and limit court injunctions on building new tracks. We have crippled any attempts to build HSR in our country. I don't have time to come up with more. One issue I will mention is sure to bring the wrath of many on this forum: Hire another CEO like Anderson, who does not have a railroad background. We need new thinking to run a 21st Century transportation system. We don't need someone who wants to run the system using 1950s thinking. Personally? I don't think Amtrak should exist if the government has to pay for it. I also think U.S. highways should be toll-based, airlines should pay for airports and air traffic control, and shipping companies should pay for port construction and maintenance.
A couple of comments:
1. A balanced transportation system is in the interest of everyone including a productive economy. In many cases in this country traveling from downtown to downtown.....rail transportation is the fastest method. Rail transportation with high frequency and easy of ticketing / check-in even more so. To sit on the sidelines and just ignore that fact means for Congress to accept a lowered standard of living and a lower GDP than we otherwise could have.
2. Union rates of pay are not really the issue. It's productivity of the unionized worker that usually is to blame. Give me a cross trained unionized worker any day of the week over one I pay by the hour who isn't and I will wow the public with that person. Further, people deserve a liveable wage for rail service jobs, I don't agree with the idea we should lower their wages down to where they cannot afford to support a family. You do that and your going to pay via customer service and probably safety as well as your not going to attract a very high caliber of employee or one that is necessarily smart.
3. Long Distance trains are a luxury but I think some should be retained for the economic impact they have on small communities with large attractions such as National Parks, Popular camping / hiking areas, rural areas with little or no other service including Bus. I think the National LD network should be pared back more. I see no reason for the Sunset Limited, the Cardinal, and maybe one or two others. Would keep the California Zephyr and Empire Builder West of Chicago as a minimum. Southwest Chief and Texas Eagle open to debate but I think the Texas Eagle could be argued is cheaper to run than the Southwest Chief. So I would favor the Texas Eagle over the Southwest Chief as well.
Enzoamps OK, BAckshop, here is your free ticket from your town to some large city 300 miles away. WHat would you do with it? And what would it cost out of pocket?
EnzoampsA free trip is tough. What do you do when you get there? There will not be a return train waiting. And unless your free trip is a round trip, you'd have to pay for a return ride. That makes it a half price deal, not a free trip. Plus you'd have to stay in a hotel or otherwise wait for tomorrow's return.
I guess I was thinking more along the lines of actual travel rather than just an outing.
If I need to get to Dallas for a family reunion, I can fly, drive, or take a train. I will probably drive or fly. However, if there's a free ticket to get me there on a train, I might be tempted to take it for my first train trip ever. I could fly back, or buy a train ticket back.
With that, if the experience is a good one, I might be more tempted to take the train in the future.
It's just an idea.
Y'know, I am as interested as anyone in finding ways to promote the train. If it offends you that I find problems with certain approaches, I am sorry. You have every right to disagree with my thoughts. But I see no reason to make snide personal remarks.
But I will say, here locally a few years ago they had a contest where they gave away a free new $200,000 home. SOunds great, some poor family can have a home without a lot of money. I asked the reporter who wrote about it, what does the free house actually cost. New owner has to pay property taxes, insurance, tax on the value of the home as winnings, and some other costs. Turns out the family would need to come up with about $70,000. Hey, that is a great deal for someone, but only if they can afford it.
Amtrak already has an equivalent to the miles programs of airlines, and I suspect that appeals more to regular travellers than to first timers. And mentioned before, they were promoting buy a ticket, companion gets free ride. I like that better than just a free ticket.
Does Amtrak have sales people like airlines do who develop travel accounts with corporate clients?
Enzoamps, I did not mean to demean your remarks in any way. I appreciate your views.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.