The Fall of Luxury Trains

[oltmannd]

 

.....One of my petpeeves....Amtrak certainly could use the lines of "dead" passenger cars waiting for repairs, renovation, etc. to supplement trains that are running now with more capacity at the certain times of the year they are needed and as suggested above for new runs in Corridors to "build" additional service.

But with the budget structure now available how does it happen....Do we just let them set there until they are completely ruined....What economy is that...Long term, running stock if not serviced and renovated properly the complete fleet will falter and then what....Finally through out the red signal.

To add cars to LD trains on seasonal basis make great sense.  But...

To do this, they'd have to hire extra trainmen and attendents for seasonal work.  Doubtful their contracts would allow anything but full time employment.  So, incremental benefit would likely not exceed the incremental cost.

Adding to exisiting corridors makes sense, but so far, states have had to go halvsies with Amtrak on all capital costs.  When the corridor in completely or mostly in on state, ala Maine, Penna, and IL, sometimes the money can be found.  But, if the corridor is multi-state, the funding coordination is too tricky to work out in most cases.  Hard enough to get one state to ante up.  Imagine trying to negotiate splitting the bill between 3 states?

[Anonymous]

Included in that total was $47 million for food and beverage sales in the diner and lounge cars on the 16 long distance trains. 

I have no information on the savings resulting from the use of plastic.  Could we guess as much as 10% of sales or $4.7 million?

 

Did they bother to state their cost  related to  that $47million in food sales?

If (for example) the cost was $48.5 million, the savings efforts might make sense.

For that matter, if the cost was only $35 million,  the extra cost savings of $4.7 million still seems like a golden ring worth reaching for. 

[vsmith]

In the meantime, the government is opening NEW passenger trains and routes in China.

-

Sad to say when it comes to a cohesive national transit policy, this country puts politics and corporate greed ahead of common sense and public service. Always remember, if Amtrak had deep pocket lobbiest like the airline industry has, we'd have a system to parallel to Japans by now

[jeaton]

Included in that total was $47 million for food and beverage sales in the diner and lounge cars on the 16 long distance trains. 

I have no information on the savings resulting from the use of plastic.  Could we guess as much as 10% of sales or $4.7 million?

 

Did they bother to state their cost  related to  that $47million in food sales?

If (for example) the cost was $48.5 million, the savings efforts might make sense.

For that matter, if the cost was only $35 million,  the extra cost savings of $4.7 million still seems like a golden ring worth reaching for. 

The monthly reports issued to the public by Amtrak doesn't details of costs, or for that matter any split between dining car and lounge car sales.  As I recall, the GAO report did provide gross cost figures and I am sure the loss was much more than a couple of million dolars.

Any company that can reduce quality and bring the all the resulting cost savings to the bottom line is probably going to reduce quality.  I think it is reasonable to assume that someone in Amtrak is recording and tracking the details of food and beverage service, especially in light of the fact that there is congressional interest.  The FY 2007 appropriation bill covering the Amtrak grant currently has a specific mandate to improve the revenue/cost ratio for F&B.  However, as you probably know, most of the Federal appropriation bills have languished in conference and I think all but State and Defense function under continue resolutions.

I, and others more involved, have suggested that a reduction in the quality of F&B service would have an impact on ridership, especially on sleeper class.  In a post above, Don suggest that a year over year ridership comparison might be somewhat telling.  I will not claim that there is any direct causal relationship here but a comparison of October 05 to October 06 sleeper class ridership is interesting.  There are 14 Amtrak long distance trains with sleeper service. Of the 14 eight were not impacted by unusual weather (Hurricane Katrina) or other detrimental conditions such as the terrible time performance record of the Coast Starlight.  Of the eight, six had ridership declines from 2.4 to 4.3%.  The Lakeshore limited was up 3.4% and most interesting, the Empire Builder was up 5.5%.  The EB is the only train to retain the full service dining car.

If the 6 losers had held ridership at the same year over year level ticket revenues for October 06 would have been $202,000 higher.  On the same year to year the Empire Builder recorded an increase in ticket revenue $130,000.  Again, this is just anecdotal, and I am not going to stake anything on it and argue that it proves a direct cause and effect between food service and ridership.

 

[Anonymous]

As I recall, the GAO report did provide gross cost figures and I am sure the loss was much more than a couple of million dolars.

 

Well, therein lies the rub . Personally, I suspect Amtrak was intended to "die" from square one, they just designed a several decade buffer  into the planned schedule, to allow apathy to form it's alliance.

My bet is that even if their was a "cost" figure available for the meals served, there is such a whopping amortization figure for  the diner car, the cooking fixtures, and even the trucks that cart the food stuffs to trackside , that the announced figure is irrelavent

 If they've decided to depreciate that diner car in 5 years versus 15 , I'm sure has a bigger imact on the prescribed "cost" of each cheese burger served, than does the flatware.

 SO what they claim as cost, versus what the food served  actually cost them,  could be in two  seperate  universes 

 The cost they wanted to charge me for a sleeper from Chicago to LA seemed as though  a goodly share of the car's depreciation MUST be built in to the fare.   I just wanted to use it one night, not  buy stock in the company.

 And when they charge those rates, the offering of "meals included" really isn't much of an inducement.

 Made me wonder if buying the food, ala carte , would have saved me just how much.

 I guess it depends what the customer is looking for, transportation, or a dinner train?

 

And expecting the tax payer to make a "dinnertrain experience" available to even those just looking for transportation doesn't seem like a solution to me either. 

[jeaton]

I don't know about the depreciation schedule for the cars, but probably 20 to 30 years.  Sometime back a sale-lease back deal was done on the Superliner cars, I think I saw that it was a 20 year deal.  With the rebuilding of those cars as now in progress, they will probably have another 30 years of life making a total of about 60.

This thread refers to the LD Amtrak trains as "Luxury Trains".  I don't know about anybody else, but I know "Luxury" and Amtrak trains aren't.  And, the meals on Amtrak diners aren't anything near dinner train meals.  The price for the meals on an Amtrak diner will be more than for a comparable meal in a "family" restaurant, maybe $15- $20 as compared to $10 or so at the local sit-down restaurant. 

So anyway, each to his own.  Here is mine.

I will be taking Amtrak round trip Chicago to DC this spring.  My fare (coach) will be $75 less than the best available air fare.  The way I look at it is that the money I save will cover my share of taxes to cover the Amtrak grant for at least 5 years.  Three or four more trips like that and I will probably have my "extra" taxes covered for the rest of my life.

Still, if I have a meal in the diner, I would sure rather be able to eat with metal flatware.  I would even pay a couple of bucks more for the "privelege".

 Or, maybe I'll just bring my own.

[PBenham]

 We all have the ability to send amtrak a message, simply do not ride their trains if they do not meet your expectations! If they do, fine, if they do not and you choose to go on riding, then you've made your choice. The "Empire Service" trains are in deep,deep doo-doo! The NYSSR wants them DEAD! (Quote-Anthony Soprano) Their "solution", kept in a mayonnaise jar in the state capitol basement, is to have Metro-North (read NYMTA/NYDOT) to run the trains and then run them their way. They want trains for Albany-Rennsselaer to run into GCT again, which is OK with me, but they want trains west of Albany Rensselaer  DEAD! (quote Mr. Soprano again) This relates to a dispute over the "loss" of two Long Island tracks in Penn Station to Amtrak! NYDOT, amtrak, please put the political turf war to rest! Please.

[Anonymous]

I don't know about the depreciation schedule for the cars, but probably 20 to 30 years. 

 

I'd be very shocked if that was true

Admittedly the following is a foggy memory, but I have this vague recollection about mention in trains mag (2000-2004 thereabouts)  saying something like it was 12 (+/-) years between $$major$$ overhauls on a typical car.  I'd also be shocked if that cost was not "sank" into the cost of operations

[jeaton]

I am not a CPA, so I can't speak with any authority on how any money going into a car after the purchase is defined as capital or expense.  Amtrak is required to publish an annual report with the financials reported in line with general accepted accounting principles and an outside auditor, now KPMG, reports the findings of its audit in the annual report.

As for life, I may have over shot a bit.  The Superliner I's were delivered starting in 1979 and they are being rebuilt in a program that started a couple of years ago.  The Superliner II's were delivered starting in 1992.  I think a 50 life might be closer to the target.   

[Datafever]

From Amtrak's 2005 annual report:

"Locomotives, passenger cars and other rolling stock are depreciated using useful lives ranging up to 35 years."

Note the phrase "up to 35 years".  Actual times may be less, depending upon ??? 

[Anonymous]

From Amtrak's 2005 annual report:

"Locomotives, passenger cars and other rolling stock are depreciated using useful lives ranging up to 35 years."

Note the phrase "up to 35 years".  Actual times may be less, depending upon ??? 

 

Thanks.

[jeaton]

From Amtrak's 2005 annual report:

"Locomotives, passenger cars and other rolling stock are depreciated using useful lives ranging up to 35 years."

Note the phrase "up to 35 years".  Actual times may be less, depending upon ??? 

...the actual useful life.

[Datafever]

Well, according to the IRS, locomotives and rolling stock (including passenger train cars) have a class life of 14 years.  (Asset class 40.1)

Using GDS (MACRS), depreciation is over 7 years.  Using ADS, depreciation is over 14 years. 

[jeaton]

Well, according to the IRS, locomotives and rolling stock (including passenger train cars) have a class life of 14 years.  (Asset class 40.1)

Using GDS (MACRS), depreciation is over 7 years.  Using ADS, depreciation is over 14 years. 

And those are the depreciation rates allowed when calculating income for tax purposes. 

The income calculated for the annual report can and very often is different than income for tax purposes.  If the Amtrak annual report says that equipment is depreciated over a time period equal to useful life, then that is the schedule used to report the depreciation expense on the income statement and to reduce the asset entry on the balance street.

Accelerated depreciation schedules are widely used by business for tax purposes.  In fact there is a section of the Federal Tax Law that allows smaller companies to write off up to $108,000 on most tangible property investments in the year of the investment.  That is a feature that I use for my business.

 

[eastside]

Luxury train? Surely a misnomer IMO.  As far as luxury goes, my opinion of 3 trains, all of which I've ridden:

1. The present Empire Builder (well, at least the 1997 version)
2. The pre-Amtrak EB
3. The Twentieth Century Limited

On a luxury scale of 1 to 10, I'd rate the Amtrak EB about a 5; the pre-Amtrak EB 9.5; and the TCL 10.  The staff on the latter two were numerous and  c o r r e c t, as were the people who rode them.  The amenities were kept spotless and in working order.  The TCL had a full dinner service.  I wonder how many people today would recognize let alone know what to do with a finger bowl.  I remember eating one of the best prime ribs of beef in my life on a trip going to Chicago on the TCL.  I also remember eating Lobster Newburg.  Both are in contrast to the lighter entrees featured today.  Unless you ride a charter train, I doubt you'll ever see a train like those two again.

Of course, when I booked tickets on the Amtrak EB from Chicago to Seattle I didn't expect the same level of service as on pre-Amtrak luxury trains.  It turned out to be just as I expected, a cross-section of middle-class America, passengers dressing as they saw fit, many dressed informally in leisure-wear.  The car porter was friendly and informal, a contrast to the NE corridor personnel, who are usually surly and abrupt.  Although I had a "Deluxe Bedroom," the bathroom/shower stank and had stains.  The ride on modern welded rails, however, was much quieter and smoother than on 1950s jointed rail.  Overall I did enjoy the trip, but I did get a bit restless near the end.  For the trip back from Seattle to New York, just for the sake of comparison, I rode first-class on American Airlines.  I think I enjoyed that in a different way.

[eastside]

Accelerated depreciation schedules are widely used by business for tax purposes.  In fact there is a section of the Federal Tax Law that allows smaller companies to write off up to $108,000 on most tangible property investments in the year of the investment.  That is a feature that I use for my business.

You are speaking of section 179 depreciation.  Although it was intended for smaller companies, many of them, especially start-ups, don't generate enough taxable profits to take advantage of it.  Nor can they take advantage of accelerated depreciation either.  Instead the tax code allows two straight-line methods as alternatives so that depreciation is deferred to later years when they may become more established, generating taxable profit.  Therefore the IRS tables are a compromise between economic estimation and politics.  Even so, if you look closely at some of the categories, you'll see that many of the IRS estimates of asset lives clearly don't make sense anymore, particularly technology assets.  This is bad because some here seem to confuse economic life with the tax code estimates of asset life.

In addition, I find the discussion of depreciation with regard to Amtrak amusing.  Amtrak's zombie state is way beyond the intricacies of the tax code.  Also, there seems to be some kind of presumption in this thread that the government should be underwriting "luxury" long-distance rail travel, as represented by the Empire Builder.  To me the ambiance is more like a decent long-distance bus.

[Datafever]

To me the ambiance is more like a decent long-distance bus.

Maybe it's just me, but I would pay more to take a long distance train than to take a long distance bus. 

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Most of the postings suggest an ambiance to the luxury trains that existed during the pre-WW2 era and up to the late 1950's.  Let us consider that this ambiance existed almost solely on the premier trains such as the Super Chief, 20th Century Ltd, Panama Ltd, Lark, etc.  These were top-notch trains that were oriented to the carriage trade, which traded the station for the airport a long time ago.  I would suggest that a fairer comparison would be between Amtrak's long-distance trains and the coach streamliners such as the El Capitan, Trail Blazer, Pacemaker, Starlight, etc., which were more oriented to the masses.

Most of the postings also seem to ignore the hundreds of long-haul runs that existed primarily for their mail contracts and lost (or never had) any semblance of luxury.

[spokyone]

Food and service (bar car) on the El Capitan was on par to the Super Chief. I enjoyed both.

[jeaton]

Accelerated depreciation schedules are widely used by business for tax purposes.  In fact there is a section of the Federal Tax Law that allows smaller companies to write off up to $108,000 on most tangible property investments in the year of the investment.  That is a feature that I use for my business.

You are speaking of section 179 depreciation.  Although it was intended for smaller companies, many of them, especially start-ups, don't generate enough taxable profits to take advantage of it.  Nor can they take advantage of accelerated depreciation either.  Instead the tax code allows two straight-line methods as alternatives so that depreciation is deferred to later years when they may become more established, generating taxable profit.  Therefore the IRS tables are a compromise between economic estimation and politics.  Even so, if you look closely at some of the categories, you'll see that many of the IRS estimates of asset lives clearly don't make sense anymore, particularly technology assets.  This is bad because some here seem to confuse economic life with the tax code estimates of asset life.

In addition, I find the discussion of depreciation with regard to Amtrak amusing.  Amtrak's zombie state is way beyond the intricacies of the tax code.  Also, there seems to be some kind of presumption in this thread that the government should be underwriting "luxury" long-distance rail travel, as represented by the Empire Builder.  To me the ambiance is more like a decent long-distance bus.

I know about Sec. 179 as I often advise my sole proprietorship clients on the pluses and minuses of that provision.  Value of a tax dollar defered for payment at a later time and all that.  As you probably realize tax code accelerated depreciation provisions are set up more as an incentive to increase capital investments, thus providing some boost to the economy.  The prospect of Amtrak ever having a taxable profit is zero, so there is obviously no point for them to report financials using anything other than useful life straight line depreciation.

I think the EB is better than a bus, but it is far from luxury. 

[wallyworld]

 In regard to the term luxury when applied to trains, I am most certainly in eastside's camp. In a world of diminished expectations, the comparitive experiences I have had on both pre-Amtrak and many an Amtrak train-this is really a matter of oranges and apples. Whether it's service level, meals, appointments, the case goods..what have you-there is simply no way for anyone who rode the luxury trains of yore to seriously consider any comparitive basis for using the term luxury unless you are referring to the American Orient Express, private cars or some tour operations-you could stretch this to include some dinner trains-but Amtrak?-ugh. From waiting at an Amshack for the train-to the Greyhound interiors to the long dead zone time in sidings-You could be hoisted on the nearest tree if the first class train was delayed-these days...it's par. No comparison.

[Anonymous]

so there is obviously no point for them to report financials using anything other than useful life straight line depreciation.

 

 

I'm shocked that you would say that.  Given a business that has to pitch it's case for survival funding, adjusting the rate at which long term expenses are realized would certainly have an impact on the claimed cost of doing business.

 

wouldn't it?

 

Interesting things I've found show that Amtrak has been very creative in using "sale /lease back" arrangements with it's rolliing stock, where the proceeds of the sale have been used to offset 'other depreciation' , while the leasing expense is written off as a current expense

 

I also see where they did start reporting amortization to congress differently in  Nov 2001 , which while not what I thought I recalled, may be the source of that foggy memory moment I had.

[jeaton]

I am bringing this back up because I found the original piece and an article on the subject on the ABC  News site.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Travel/story?id=2777294&page=1

When this topic first came up, I checked Google News and found a couple of conservative media watch dog groups that screamed that the ABC report was another example of liberal bias.  I don't claim to be an unbiased critic of the media, but I don't think this is a report that should get anybody's shorts in a knot. 

While there is plenty of comment that the full service dining on the Empire Builder is a great part of the train riding experience, there is also much said about the size of the Amtrak food/beverage deficit, the changes being made and how much is being saved by the changes.  There is also a specific note of the $1.3 billion total federal grant for Amtrak.

Seems to me that it is fairly balanced.  What else might be necessary?  Is the reporter supposed to stand up and in a serious tone scream at how the goverment funding is a is a big taxpayer rip-off?

[daveklepper]

If any of you sample Acela 1st class regularly, you might want to comment on this thread.   I ask, because when I rode Amtrak regularly, over 10-1/2 years ago, I would occasionally have a client who would be willing to treat me to 1st Class Metroliner between New York and Philly, "Balimor" and DC.   I found that generally the special meal I ordered was delivered as was at least as good (usally better) as 1st-class Air, if not the gourmet Panama Lmtd, TCL, BL, SC, EC quality.   I found the attendants 1st class in every way.   I found the single swiveling reclining seats on one side comfortable.  Temperture perfect.  The ride varied from smooth and quiet to some moderate roughness, and the on-time performance generally good.   I wonder how Acela compairs today?   This standard was not kept up in regular Metroliner (upgraded Amfleet with Snackcar service) equipment, but that was OK.

 

Regarding the other comparisons, I agree.   But in addition to the streamliners, there were plug runs that on some railroads were downright terrible, although some railroads like the AT&SF treated EVERY passenger well.  

[hobojoe]

Ok, Let's be real. I work for a living and get to travel by train maybe once a year. So when I do I want the biggest bang for money I can get. Last September I rode the Coast Starlight to PDX from LAX. On my way to the station, Amtrak called to say that the Parlour Car, a popular spot and amenity for sleeping car passengers would not be operating, no discount, just tooo bad. Ok, stuff happens. Then it's into the diner for lunch, blah, but again, OK, it's a cheeseburger and what should one expect. But here comes dinnertime, what a thrill. Horrible food served on plastic plates by a filthy waiter (dirty uniform). Now I know I was travelling in a "sleeper" so the "food" was included, but if that is what I had received for the $19.00 price of it, things would gotten ugly. I ordered a bottle of wine, $12.00, two sips, I'm done, horrible. There's NO excuse for that kind of poor provisioning and planning. Amtrak charges plenty to ride in the sleeping cars and at was time the ever-present was an expected perk for popping that kind of money.

The truth of it is that Amtyrak needs to look at the total picture. Sure cutting dining car costs may save some money in the short run, but they're losing the high paying passenger in the process. "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water". Where Amtrak needs to begin is with customer service on board the trains. Get rid of the attitudes that some of these high priced crew members have. If they're going to be paid $15+ per hour, then earn it. I even stiffed the car attendant on the return trip because I NEVER saw her again after leaving Portland. No make down the beds, no make up the beds, no clean or tidy the high priced room, nothing. When I did see her enroute, she was in her room with a headset on. I'm really glad Geo. M. Pullman isn't around to be a part of this mess.

Yes, in the day, the railroads used their diners to lure travellers, and most (save SP) took pride in their service, some up til the end. Diners serve a purpose. I doubt seriously that given an option, lifestyles permitting, that most people wouldn't much rather suffer through 4 hours LAX to CHI on United Airlines with no food, than pay a high dollar on Amtrak, sit the the bedroom for 40+ hours, and dread going to the diner.

Snap out it Amtrak, like it or not, you're in a business. Get your "house" in order. Good marketing cannot replace customer satisfaction. You're fine until the customer gets on the train. 

 

[RXRon]

And  what do you  make  an hour?   and  do you think  everybody  else  thinks  your  worth  it?  Lay off  bashing  the  worker,  it's  a  fair wage

[jeaton]

And  what do you  make  an hour?   and  do you think  everybody  else  thinks  your  worth  it?  Lay off  bashing  the  worker,  it's  a  fair wage

I don't think he is bashing the pay scale, but at that scale (more, as it turns out) one should expect good performance.

[jeaton]

hobojoe

You conclusions are exactly what other supporters of Amtrak, including NARP, have said about service levels on the long distance trains.

While he was still Amtrak president, Dave Gunn initiated the refurbishing of the Empire Builder and established some upgrades for the food and beverage offering.  Gunn had in mind to do the same thing on the other "two night" trains, such as the CZ and Southwest Chief.  The EB and the Auto Train are now the only LD trains to retain on board fresh food preparation. 

At the same time, he had his people looking at ways to improve the cost situation on the trains where dining car patronage was relatively low.  At the time he was fired, the reduced staff, plated meal program was going to be tried on one of the "one night" trains such as the City of New Orleans.

His departure left persons in charge, mainly the Amtrak Chairman, who carried the idea that the reduction in costs from cutting corners would save the day.  With that came the roll-out of the plated meal and other changes associated with the food and beverage business.

Not to excuse the performance of the on-board people on your last train ride, but I am not too surprised at their behavior.  Replace a boss admired for his understanding the value of top quality service with someone just trying to save a buck; change dining service from freshly prepared meals to "frozen dinners"; run a train that has the worst never "on-time" record imaginable and I guarantee that you will have employees with a first class "Who gives a..." attitude.

While it is still wait and see time, the new leadership at Amtrak, DOT and in Congress suggest the prospect that maybe they will get right.   One can hope.

 

[G3GRon]

"Canadian" is usually 100% X Canadian Pacific equipment. Occassionally

there is an X U.S. coach or baggage car in the consist. VIA has a few dozen X U.S. Budd built mostly coach & some baggage cars essentailly

remanufactured in the early '90's ..actually impressively done. All VIA's

loco's were bought "new" . BTW there is I believe around 5 X'Amtrak Budd sleepers (10-6) which were on lease maybe now bought in the

Churchill Manitoba service. This is in response to a thread I noticed about "Canadian" & F40's being all X U.S..

I don't think even the "Canadian" (shich comes close) or any Amtrak

LD train qualifies for "luxury". In North America ; the American Orient

Express & Canadian Pacific's "Royal Canadian Pacific" are examples.

The downgrading of Amtrak's dining car service will only serve to steer

away sleeping car and some coach trade. I think in the U.S. as well as Canada, if the LD trains are degraded and eliminated so should the

Corridor services as well. I don't see why one portion of the population should subsidize another without something in return. In Canada's case

our "corridor" service actually expanded after the 1990 cuts, while the

Western service never recovered.

Depreciation , who cares? It's only relevant if a write off is needed to reduce taxable income. I noticed on one of the threads the reason was

to set $ aside for when the usefull life of the equipment came to an end.

I don't buy that. VIA rebuilt there 1950's equipment, and it's in better

maintained shape than Amtrak's. Apparently in the U.S. it's easier to get $ for new equipment than $ for maintenance which largely explains the

different approaches between the two countries.

[MichaelSol]

I ride the Empire Builder into Seattle fairly regularly. I have to drive three hours to the nearest station, but I enjoy the trip. The train splits at Spokane, and if you have a reason to go to Portland, the journey down the Columbia River in the early morning (and the evening on the return) is one of the most magnificent train trips I can think of. The dome/lounge/snack car goes that route.

The formal Dining Car takes the Seattle portion of the EB.

I will say this, the train is nothing like the North Coast Limited, Olympian Hiawatha, or ... the Empire Builder.

Compared to airline employees, Amtrak employees apparently have no particular standards of behavior or attitude. They vary all over the place from cheerful and helpful to surly and resentful. The Dining Car is run on the apparent principle that they will save money by using it as little as possible. Meals are rigidly set within certain hours, customers are packed in under the "community seating principle" as tightly as possible, and the idea of actually being able to sit and enjoy a leisurely meal and watch Stevens Pass roll past has not occured to the management as a "feature."

Nor does food appear to have occured to them as a reason that people might actually want to eat in the Dining Car. The Dining Car menu I find to be surprisingly thin on offerings and nothing special. Aside from the generally indifferent staff, there is simply no effort at "branding" anything on the menu that might make Amtrak a memorable experience. Where's George Rector?

I prefer the lounge car, because at the least I can control the timing of my meal, who I am sitting with, where I am sitting -- and that lounge car rolling along the Columbia River is just fabulous.

Even at that, a plastic sealed burger, encased in a hard plastic case, microwaved, represents to me the very minimum that Amtrak could figure out. The local 7-11 has better variety. And those guys sure let you know that they expect money in the tip jar for microwaving your burger for you.

It's not that people won't pay more for better food, they are reluctant to pay more for pure crap that is below the worst fast food standards and so, yes, Amtrak loses money on food services because it operates a system designed to lose money on food services.

I use Amtrak with the ambivalent perception that I very much enjoy the experience, but that I would enjoy it much more if it weren't for Amtrak policies that seem to me designed to make it as minimally enjoyable an experience as possible.

BNSF gets very high marks for reliability. I've rarely been more than a few minutes late either way.