Realistically Amtrak is here to stay whether we like it or not. So we should try to make it better at what it is designed to, which is moving people from point a to point b.
Eliminate long distance trains or make them into land cruises. - Realistically with airplanes trains over very long distances don't make sense as a practical form of transportation. These routes should be either eliminated or they should be made into land cruises and tours for railfans. These trains should be operated like the Napa Valley Wine train, Alaska Railroads Passenger service, or the rockey mountaineer.
Meal Cars on Shorter Distance trains - You can eliminate meal cars or turn them into automats. Much of the meal cars on Amtrak trains are fancy convienience stores with microwaves and a guy standing there. These increase labor costs and don't offer much for the customer experience. You can also have food delivered to trains at stations and for many shorter distance routes you could simply have people buy and eat at stations.
Labor efficiency - From anecdotal experience Amtrak trains are atrocious when it comes to labor efficiency. An Amtrak train will have a meal car, an engineer who drives the train and often two, three or even more conductors. The conductor spends most of his time going up and down the train, opening doors and inspecting tickets. This job is basically unncessary with modern technology. Crew sizes should be no larger than 2 people, 1 engineer for driving the train and a 2nd conductor safety purposes, such as flagging crossings. Realistically many passenger routes could be done with 1 person crews without problems. Many of these conductors could be retrain to be engineers to enable more frequent service. Having fare/ticket gates would much more economical, though would require some upfront cost. You could also probably replace the ticket offices with e-ticketing and ticket machines.
This article explains the importance of labor efficiency.
https://pedestrianobservations.com/2015/07/26/why-labor-efficiency-is-important/
Improve the weight to passenger ratio of vehicles - Modern passenger trains, not just American ones, are using a lot weight and material to move people. A PCC Car or bus can move large numbers of people while using less weight than modern passenger trains. PCC and buses cars will use anywhere in the ballpark of 400 - 1000 pounds to move a human who is anywhere from 100 - 300 pounds, where as modern passenger trains will take anywhere from 1500 pounds to 3000 pounds to do the same job. This problem is made worse by trains with low load factors, many trains will often only be 25% or 50% full. The goal should not only be lighter weight trains but higher load factors and sweating equipment. Ouigo in France, and intercity buses and airplanes have how to make city to city travel more cost effective, implement some of these practices on passenger trains in the US.
US regulations make this problem particularly egregious.
https://bikeeastbay.org/rail/fra.html
Railroad to Freedom
Nice post! Some of us have made similar suggestions. But having people get food at station stops en route is 19th century Fred Harvey, a non-starter today.
I want to clarify something here because a lot of railfans presume incorrectly about the Alaska Railroad Passenger service. It would run regardless of the tourists or cruise ships and it did so prior to the cruise ships being popular with Alaska. So my point is the Alaska Railroad provides YEAR ROUND passenger service to residents in the State of Alaska that live near the tracks but not accessible by roads. So you cannot classify all their passenger trains as purely a "cruise" train service. They run regular passenger trains to carry regular passengers and goods some on a flagstop basis and they do so year round. If I am not mistaken I believe the state DOT subsidizes that year round service.
ontheBNSF Realistically Amtrak is here to stay whether we like it or not. So we should try to make it better at what it is designed to, which is moving people from point a to point b. Eliminate long distance trains or make them into land cruises. - Realistically with airplanes trains over very long distances don't make sense as a practical form of transportation. These routes should be either eliminated or they should be made into land cruises and tours for railfans. These trains should be operated like the Napa Valley Wine train, Alaska Railroads Passenger service, or the rockey mountaineer. Meal Cars on Shorter Distance trains - You can eliminate meal cars or turn them into automats. Much of the meal cars on Amtrak trains are fancy convienience stores with microwaves and a guy standing there. These increase labor costs and don't offer much for the customer experience. You can also have food delivered to trains at stations and for many shorter distance routes you could simply have people buy and eat at stations. Labor efficiency - From anecdotal experience Amtrak trains are atrocious whe n it comes to labor efficiency. An Amtrak train will have a meal car, an engineer who drives the train and often two, three or even more conductors. The conductor spends most of his time going up and down the train, opening doors and inspecting tickets. This job is basically unncessary with modern technology. Crew sizes should be no larger than 2 people, 1 engineer for driving the train and a 2nd passenger routes could be done with 1 person crews without problems. Many of conductor safety purposes, such as flagging crossings. Realistically many passenger routes could be done with 1 person crews without problems. Many of these conductors could be retrain to be engineers to enable more frequent service. Having fare/ticket gates would much more economical, though would require some upfront cost. You could also probably replace the ticket offices with e-ticketing and ticket machines. This article explains the importance of labor efficiency. https://pedestrianobservations.com/2015/07/26/why-labor-efficiency-is-important/ Improve the weight to passenger ratio of vehicles - Modern passenger trains, not just American ones, are using a lot weight and material to move people. A PCC Car or bus can move large numbers of people while using less weight than modern passenger trains. PCC and buses cars will use anywhere in the ballpark of 400 - 1000 pounds to move a human who is anywhere from 100 - 300 pounds, where as modern passenger trains will take anywhere from 1500 pounds to 3000 pounds to do the same job. This problem is made worse by trains with low load factors, many trains will often only be 25% or 50% full. The goal should not only be lighter weight trains but higher load factors and sweating equipment. Ouigo in France, and intercity buses and airplanes have how to make city to city travel more cost effective, implement some of these practices on passenger trains in the US. US regulations make this problem particularly egregious. https://bikeeastbay.org/rail/fra.html
Labor efficiency - From anecdotal experience Amtrak trains are atrocious whe n it comes to labor efficiency. An Amtrak train will have a meal car, an engineer who drives the train and often two, three or even more conductors. The conductor spends most of his time going up and down the train, opening doors and inspecting tickets. This job is basically unncessary with modern technology. Crew sizes should be no larger than 2 people, 1 engineer for driving the train and a 2nd passenger routes could be done with 1 person crews without problems. Many of conductor safety purposes, such as flagging crossings. Realistically many passenger routes could be done with 1 person crews without problems. Many of these conductors could be retrain to be engineers to enable more frequent service. Having fare/ticket gates would much more economical, though would require some upfront cost. You could also probably replace the ticket offices with e-ticketing and ticket machines.
Amtrak has to redo the single use speciality cars that were invented well over 100 years ago. Seems to me Amtrak realizes this and is experimenting with the concept. Sightseer lounge by itself was great back in the day when streamliners were competing against each other for traffic but in this day and age I think they need to replace it with a muli-purpose or multi-role car. I think you can take the Superliner Diner, shrink the kitchen on the bottom as it no longer needs to be that size if your not cooking from scratch. Put the employee lounge on the first floor with the kitchen or prep area. Second floor you need to do what Friends of 261 does with their Super Dome. Use the second floor as a combo buffet diner and sightseer lounge. Have at least one of the attendents be a trained mixologist and serve mixed drinks. Have the same car serve snacks in between meals. It should really never close to passengers. Eliminate the dedicated baggage cars in favor of combination Coach / Baggage cars as was done in the past. I have my doubts Amtrak ever uses the full 85 foot length of the current baggage cars it uses and you could probably easy shrink it by half or 2/3 and use the remainder for coach or premium coach to make up for the space the baggage compartment uses. So now your down two cars in every Amtrak consist that I think are highly inefficient in use. The sleeping cars I think they need to import the design from Europe with the smaller economy sleeping space and the larger deluxe sleeper sleeping space. They likewise I think can build a few combo coach / sleeper cars where just half the car is sleeper and the other half coach for use on trains where they need a little extra capacity of both but not a whole new car.
ontheBNSFEliminate long distance trains or make them into land cruises.
A dozen private rail cruise operations have tried this since Amtrak, and all have gone out of business.
ontheBNSFYou can eliminate meal cars or turn them into automats
SP tried this, and it was a failure.
ontheBNSFImprove the weight to passenger ratio of vehicles - Modern passenger trains, not just American ones, are using a lot weight and material to move people. A PCC Car or bus can move large numbers of people while using less weight than modern passenger trains.
GM created the Aerotrain using bus architecture, and it was so rough that it was unrideable.
The long-distance luxury cruise/vacation train seems to work in Australia, what do the operators of the modern Indian Pacific and Ghan have that the American Orient Express did not?
Rocky Mountaineer has been by far the most successful and profitable private operator on this continent, but they don't run sleeping cars and the mountain scenery is their big draw.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
LD trains already are cruises to me. I really hate to fly, and my wife refuses to, but if I had to get somewhere fast, I could. But to me, my vacation starts when I step on the train, not when I get to the other end. I can sit in a comfortable seat, I can walk around, I can visit the club car for a drink or snack. Try doing those on a plane. And no middle seats. I can watch beautiful scenery out my window. don't market it as getting from A to B. Market it as a leisure form of travel.
Amtrak is a quasi-government, subsidized passenger operation chartered to provide transportation. Land cruises are not basic transportation. They should be private operations. If they mostly have failed, it is because not enough people are willing to pay the cost plus profit.
charlie hebdoAmtrak is a quasi-government, subsidized passenger operation chartered to provide transportation. Land cruises are not basic transportation. They should be private operations. If they mostly have failed, it is because not enough people are willing to pay the cost plus profit.
People aren't willing to pay land cruise prices for commuter train service.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
SD70Dudewhat do the operators of the modern Indian Pacific and Ghan have that the American Orient Express did not?
I can answer that. American Orient Express was never a scheduled service that ran once a day. It only ran on specified dates similar to the Rocky Mountaineer.
Now then why does the Rocky Mountaineer still survive when the American Orient Express failed. For starters the American Orient Express was only one class of service, all luxury. Number 2 I would suspect is AOE never sold the packages that Rocky Mountaineer does (like a cruise ship), significantly more profitable than passage on the train if you ask me but thats just an opinion I have. Rocky Mountaineer uses pre-prepped dishes for the dining service that just require final assembly and serving. So their dining car chef is largely supervisory over the rest of the kitchen staff. AOE I believe attempted to prep and cook things entirely on board like the old streamliner passenger trains.....requiring more skilled and much higher paid dining car staff.
I rode Rocky Mountaineer twice and partook in two of their packages. Their hotel add a night was at their negotiated rate with their added markup, so they made money on that even though it was not their hotel. Their tour of icefields parkway was pretty expensive and again they used the hotel facilities for that (again probably negotiated) for the pickup, provision of box lunches, movement of baggage, etc. The price they charged for that add-on was probably three times what it cost them to provide it......plus they used their own bus fleet vs charter.....additional money to their bottom line. You would never see Amtrak take on business like that. The AOE was only interested in the train ride and hotel packages along the way and the hotel packages it provided were again one class vs offering a cheaper and expensive option. So the market for AOE was fairly narrow.
BTW, on some of the so called "land cruise trains" specifically the Cruise Ship Contracts run by Alaska Railroad. Their onboard service crews live in apartments provided by the Cruise Line so you can take it to the bank they are paid a LOT lower than Amtrak would pay it's crew. Not sure about the Alaska Passenger Service crews but it's true of the Cruise Ship part of the train. They hire their seasonal employees for the summer and pay for their flight up there to stay in their own apartments. Significantly saving on what they need to pay the person to be on the crew.
charlie hebdoLand cruises are not basic transportation
The intent of Congress was to preserve the model of the privately run passenger train as it existed in 1969-1970 not run a stripped down service with no frills and nothing but seats. People want to eat on the train if the train trip is over a few hours and they want to sleep on the train if the trip takes a few days. Even the state DOT's realize this when they pay for a subsidized trains. So I have no clue where your getting that interpretation from. "Basic Transportation" does not appear anywhere in Amtraks Charter nor have I heard anyone from Congress use it when talking about Amtrak.
Amtraks idea of converting the Long Distance trains to "Experience Trains" should be tried or attempted with at least one train I think. Amtrak has never had any funds to experiment with on a LD train scale and I think it would be an intelligent use of money to see if they could bring LD train running costs down. If nothing else perhaps they pick up on some money making innovations that can be applied to the corridor trains.
MidlandMike ontheBNSF Eliminate long distance trains or make them into land cruises. A dozen private rail cruise operations have tried this since Amtrak, and all have gone out of business. ontheBNSF You can eliminate meal cars or turn them into automats SP tried this, and it was a failure. ontheBNSF Improve the weight to passenger ratio of vehicles - Modern passenger trains, not just American ones, are using a lot weight and material to move people. A PCC Car or bus can move large numbers of people while using less weight than modern passenger trains. GM created the Aerotrain using bus architecture, and it was so rough that it was unrideable.
ontheBNSF Eliminate long distance trains or make them into land cruises.
ontheBNSF You can eliminate meal cars or turn them into automats
ontheBNSF Improve the weight to passenger ratio of vehicles - Modern passenger trains, not just American ones, are using a lot weight and material to move people. A PCC Car or bus can move large numbers of people while using less weight than modern passenger trains.
Maybe LD trains should die off then. I don't see why an automat wouldn't work, the level of service would be the same as what they offer today. I see no problem with eliminating that feature. Bus like train designs have succeeded, Germany's railbus was very successful.
ontheBNSF MidlandMike ontheBNSF Eliminate long distance trains or make them into land cruises. A dozen private rail cruise operations have tried this since Amtrak, and all have gone out of business. ontheBNSF You can eliminate meal cars or turn them into automats SP tried this, and it was a failure. ontheBNSF Improve the weight to passenger ratio of vehicles - Modern passenger trains, not just American ones, are using a lot weight and material to move people. A PCC Car or bus can move large numbers of people while using less weight than modern passenger trains. GM created the Aerotrain using bus architecture, and it was so rough that it was unrideable. Maybe LD trains should die off then. I don't see why an automat wouldn't work, the level of service would be the same as what they offer today. I see no problem with eliminating that feature. Bus like train designs have succeeded, Germany's railbus was very successful.
The German Schienenbus (bustrain) was strictly for very short local trains, primarily in rural areas. It was rough running. None are used today except with museums.
CMStPnPThe intent of Congress was to preserve the model of the privately run passenger train as it existed in 1969-1970 not run a stripped down service with no frills and nothing but seats.
I suggest you read the Wiki history of Amtrak's beginning. Bare bones at best. I rode some of their eastern LD trains in the early 70s, a pale shadow of the trains of the 60s, in scheduling, numbers and interior amenities.
Here is the original act:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-84/pdf/STATUTE-84-Pg1327.pdf
charlie hebdo CMStPnP The intent of Congress was to preserve the model of the privately run passenger train as it existed in 1969-1970 not run a stripped down service with no frills and nothing but seats. I suggest you read the Wiki history of Amtrak's beginning. Bare bones at best. I rode some of their eastern LD trains in the early 70s, a pale shadow of the trains of the 60s, in scheduling, numbers and interior amenities. Here is the original act: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-84/pdf/STATUTE-84-Pg1327.pdf
CMStPnP The intent of Congress was to preserve the model of the privately run passenger train as it existed in 1969-1970 not run a stripped down service with no frills and nothing but seats.
OK so you mention Wikipedia which is only as good as the smarts of the last person that updated it. And you provide a link that basically repeats what I said in my post on page 1329 of the linked document.
So I am confused. Are you trying to refute what I said or are you agreeing? If your attempting to refute, read page 1329 where the amenities of Long Distance trains are mentioned specifically as components to be taken into account of the basic system. To me that sounds like preserve what we had running at the time. Nowhere does it say basic transportation it says basic system or in my interpretation framework system.
Some of the trains including the Twin Cities Hiawathas were run very well until Amtrak turnover. Show me a train today with a skytop lounge and Super Dome that runs regularly. Same deal with the Super Chief and several other trains. they were not all crap in 1971. Amtrak was cash strapped at startup and even though it attempted to do so, really did not have standardized equipment with standardized interior accomodations. They did the best they could with what they inherited. Had they been properly funded in 1971 you would have seen orders for new equipment from Pullman in 1971 or 1972 vs 1978. I remember Amtrak in the early 1970's, no phone reservation system, paper and hand written tickets with carbons between. You had to call the local train depot to get tickets set aside then purchase them there or at a local travel agency.
I suggest you read more carefully.
I've ridden a German scheinenbus- they do ride rough and are noisy. There is much better equipment running over there like the Talent railcars that are both electric and diesel powered. They have a nice comfortable ride, large windows and a drinks/snacks trolley. Quite pleasant and I think they would do well in North America.
54light15 I've ridden a German scheinenbus- they do ride rough and are noisy. There is much better equipment running over there like the Talent railcars that are both electric and diesel powered. They have a nice comfortable ride, large windows and a drinks/snacks trolley. Quite pleasant and I think they would do well in North America.
Yes.
ontheBNSFMaybe LD trains should die off then. I don't see why an automat wouldn't work, the level of service would be the same as what they offer today. I see no problem with eliminating that feature. Bus like train designs have succeeded, Germany's railbus was very successful.
Automat service would fail for the simple reason that it can't server alchoholic drinks. You need a person for that (at least in the USA).
Also, since nobody has brought it up, many long distance trains provide service to locations with little or no other nondriving alternative. The fact that they include not very luxurious sleeper accomidations and food service does not make them land cruises.
ontheBNSF Labor efficiency - From anecdotal experience Amtrak trains are atrocious when it comes to labor efficiency. An Amtrak train will have a meal car, an engineer who drives the train and often two, three or even more conductors. The conductor spends most of his time going up and down the train, opening doors and inspecting tickets. This job is basically unncessary with modern technology. Crew sizes should be no larger than 2 people, 1 engineer for driving the train and a 2nd conductor safety purposes, such as flagging crossings. Realistically many passenger routes could be done with 1 person crews without problems. Many of these conductors could be retrain to be engineers to enable more frequent service. Having fare/ticket gates would much more economical, though would require some upfront cost. You could also probably replace the ticket offices with e-ticketing and ticket machines. This article explains the importance of labor efficiency. https://pedestrianobservations.com/2015/07/26/why-labor-efficiency-is-important/
I would like to see how the contractual changes required in any change in crew sizes would be negotiated. Labor efficiency, whatever that means, is not something that will be imposed unless union busting is considered to be a valid tactic.
I've ridden PCC cars and they are quite nice honestly. Plus the weight to passenger ratio is good and comparable to buses.
Up the pay for engineers. On many trains conductors become redundant.
charlie hebdoUp the pay for engineers. On many trains conductors become redundant.
Engineer only crews are so efficient when it is necessary to hand throw switches.[/sarcasm]
The fact that you don't see why rail automats wouldn't work is irrelevant. They still failed. Not only did they fail on railroads, but they have also disappeared from land based food service. The rail bus has been discussed elsewhere on this thread.
I recall the Horn and Hardart automat restuarants in New York when I was a kid. I remember that nothing in the little glass boxes looked to be worth eating. I really don't see how that would work on a train.
54light15 I recall the Horn and Hardart automat restuarants in New York when I was a kid. I remember that nothing in the little glass boxes looked to be worth eating. I really don't see how that would work on a train.
Why do we need to subsidize this feature at all? It's a luxury not a public good.
spsffan ontheBNSF Maybe LD trains should die off then. I don't see why an automat wouldn't work, the level of service would be the same as what they offer today. I see no problem with eliminating that feature. Bus like train designs have succeeded, Germany's railbus was very successful. Automat service would fail for the simple reason that it can't server alchoholic drinks. You need a person for that (at least in the USA). Also, since nobody has brought it up, many long distance trains provide service to locations with little or no other nondriving alternative. The fact that they include not very luxurious sleeper accomidations and food service does not make them land cruises.
ontheBNSF Maybe LD trains should die off then. I don't see why an automat wouldn't work, the level of service would be the same as what they offer today. I see no problem with eliminating that feature. Bus like train designs have succeeded, Germany's railbus was very successful.
If there's a need to provide transportation to lower density rural areas then the government can subsidize intercity buses to provide service there. Amtrak already runs charter buses, they use bustitution to replace service in critical communities; Japan railways has proposed something similar for their low density lines that don't turn a profit. Or you can use low capacity rail vehicles like the budd rdc. But there's zero justification for maintaining failed business models and economic basket case routes. Roomettes and dining cars basically are land cruises, even if the quality is low.
BTW, just a personal observation. The new 19 inch wide contoured coach seating in the Siemens coaches, down from 22 inch wide bench seating from Amfleet. Probably is going to eliminate a lot of railfans from riding Amtrak in the future for any length of time unless they lose some heft.
1) Defund it
2) When it goes bankrupt, sell the peoperty and rolling stock to anyone who wants it
3) Returns those funds to the Treasury
QED
BEAUSABRE1) Defund it 2) When it goes bankrupt, sell the peoperty and rolling stock to anyone who wants it 3) Returns those funds to the Treasury QED
If it goes bankrupt - there won't be a market for the rolling stock except for scrap and scrap prices won't fund the debts the corporation is responsible for and in all likely hood the Treasury would have to expend funds on a Amtrak bankruptcy not gain funds from its dissolution.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.