Datafever wrote: 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.
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.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Datafever wrote: 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 ???
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 wrote: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.
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.
jeaton wrote:I don't know about the depreciation schedule for the cars, but probably 20 to 30 years.
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
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.
jeaton wrote: 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.
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.
TheAntiGates wrote: jeaton wrote: 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.
jeaton wrote: 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?
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.
Have fun with your trains
Modelcar wrote: .....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.
.....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?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd wrote: spokyone wrote: StillGrande wrote:I still think they should contract out the food service, or bid it out to franchises. Maybe a Starbucks or McDonalds right on the train. They could run food out the way they do for large events (I remember when there were 300 of us and a McDonalds in the Austin area brought out 600 egg mcmuffins and orange juices in a small insulated trailer). You would probably get the same groups that go in airports, but I know there are California Pizza Kitchens, TGIFridays, and others there too. A similar situation was tried on the Albany to NY trains when food service was cancelled in 2005. SUBWAY was awarded a contract but was terminated after one week. Those people would not or could not work with a unionized train crew. So your idea, although a good one, has already been tried. You have it backwards. The union folk made noises about not working on the trains with non-union food service employees. There were even some hints that threats had been made against Subway. The service never got off the ground. Subway never served a single rider and those Empire trains remain without any food service!What a shame.
spokyone wrote: StillGrande wrote:I still think they should contract out the food service, or bid it out to franchises. Maybe a Starbucks or McDonalds right on the train. They could run food out the way they do for large events (I remember when there were 300 of us and a McDonalds in the Austin area brought out 600 egg mcmuffins and orange juices in a small insulated trailer). You would probably get the same groups that go in airports, but I know there are California Pizza Kitchens, TGIFridays, and others there too. A similar situation was tried on the Albany to NY trains when food service was cancelled in 2005. SUBWAY was awarded a contract but was terminated after one week. Those people would not or could not work with a unionized train crew. So your idea, although a good one, has already been tried.
StillGrande wrote:I still think they should contract out the food service, or bid it out to franchises. Maybe a Starbucks or McDonalds right on the train. They could run food out the way they do for large events (I remember when there were 300 of us and a McDonalds in the Austin area brought out 600 egg mcmuffins and orange juices in a small insulated trailer). You would probably get the same groups that go in airports, but I know there are California Pizza Kitchens, TGIFridays, and others there too.
You have it backwards. The union folk made noises about not working on the trains with non-union food service employees. There were even some hints that threats had been made against Subway. The service never got off the ground. Subway never served a single rider and those Empire trains remain without any food service!
What a shame.
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 throw out the red signal.
Quentin
Gee, Paul, your logical arguements are going to take all the fun out of arguing!
Paul Milenkovic wrote: The problem is that if Amtrak were a for-profit operation, forget about that aspect, suppose the subsidy were more off-the-books and out-of-sight in the manner of the airlines so you could isolate a piece of it that operated on a profit basis, you could say, let management make that choice about paper plates and see if the few pennies saved in cost are balanced against dollars in lost passenger revenues. On the other hand, when you are subsidized at 50 cents on the dollar, you are insulated not only from the rewards of success but the penalty of failure.
The problem is that if Amtrak were a for-profit operation, forget about that aspect, suppose the subsidy were more off-the-books and out-of-sight in the manner of the airlines so you could isolate a piece of it that operated on a profit basis, you could say, let management make that choice about paper plates and see if the few pennies saved in cost are balanced against dollars in lost passenger revenues. On the other hand, when you are subsidized at 50 cents on the dollar, you are insulated not only from the rewards of success but the penalty of failure.
I couldn't agree more! Some how, some way, they have to change the Amtrak "game" so that the managers have some profit motive, or at least some reward based on subsidy productivity. Passenger miles per subsidy dollar or some such.....
Paul Milenkovic wrote: Taking away the profit motive, the level of dining car service on Amtrak is no longer a matter that Amtrak management manages but becomes something that the rail advocacy groups are going to lobby Congress on. Over on http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/, all manners of opinions are being offered by armchair industrialists on how the car companies need to change what they are doing to get out of the financial mess they are in. But ultimately the management of these companies will have to make the decisions, although Congress or perhaps the NHTSA is telling them they will have to had automatic stability control by a certain date, but Congress is not going to hold hearings on whether the cheapness of plastics on the interiors of cars is the undoing of the American auto industry or pass legislation on the optimal number of cup holders.My original comment was an observation that if you accept the government dollar, there will be political pressure to drive that activity in the direction of a utilitarian rather than a luxury service. I guess there is considerable government funding of those dens of political and corporate corruption known as stadium luxury skyboxes, and I once was in the company of a Professor of Economics when we walked by a Saturn automobile, who likened the Saturn car to a sports stadium, but as far as I can tell we don't have Federal money chasing after sports teams to keep them in country and not moving to Mexico or Canada and we seem indifferent to auto outsourcing to Mexico and Canada.But I guess the thing that gets to me is that there is a faction in the rail-advocacy community arguing that Amtrak, or their vision of Amtrak with "proper funding" represents a kind of ideal world (i.e. early 1950's Diesel streamliners of conventional two-axle truck non-articulated configuration along with the style of sleeping car and other services of that era), and any deviation from that represents people trying to kill off the passenger trains.
Taking away the profit motive, the level of dining car service on Amtrak is no longer a matter that Amtrak management manages but becomes something that the rail advocacy groups are going to lobby Congress on. Over on http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/, all manners of opinions are being offered by armchair industrialists on how the car companies need to change what they are doing to get out of the financial mess they are in. But ultimately the management of these companies will have to make the decisions, although Congress or perhaps the NHTSA is telling them they will have to had automatic stability control by a certain date, but Congress is not going to hold hearings on whether the cheapness of plastics on the interiors of cars is the undoing of the American auto industry or pass legislation on the optimal number of cup holders.
My original comment was an observation that if you accept the government dollar, there will be political pressure to drive that activity in the direction of a utilitarian rather than a luxury service. I guess there is considerable government funding of those dens of political and corporate corruption known as stadium luxury skyboxes, and I once was in the company of a Professor of Economics when we walked by a Saturn automobile, who likened the Saturn car to a sports stadium, but as far as I can tell we don't have Federal money chasing after sports teams to keep them in country and not moving to Mexico or Canada and we seem indifferent to auto outsourcing to Mexico and Canada.
But I guess the thing that gets to me is that there is a faction in the rail-advocacy community arguing that Amtrak, or their vision of Amtrak with "proper funding" represents a kind of ideal world (i.e. early 1950's Diesel streamliners of conventional two-axle truck non-articulated configuration along with the style of sleeping car and other services of that era), and any deviation from that represents people trying to kill off the passenger trains.
It makes me queasy to think that we might be subsidizing "luxury travel" with tax dollars. According to NARP, the sleepers & diners do pay there way on a incremental basis, unlike the GAO's version of the truth
Paul Milenkovic wrote: One of the advantages of the conventionally-coupled passenger train over the lightweight articulated trains was "you can add cars for peak times." It seems Amtrak is wedded to fixed consists. The Hiawatha service has such growth in passenger traffic that there is talk of increasing the fixed consists from 4 to 5 cars. This service, vaunted for its ridership, operates at somewhere around 30 percent load factor, and I am told that it is simply not cost effective to switch cars in an out of the consists, and when I suggested an arrangement with Metra to put suburban gallery cars into the consists to deal with weekend peaks (OK, maybe not with Hiawatha but with Illinois trains with weekend traffic), it was suggested to me that I wanted passengers to ride in open freight gondolas while I was at it.
One of the advantages of the conventionally-coupled passenger train over the lightweight articulated trains was "you can add cars for peak times." It seems Amtrak is wedded to fixed consists. The Hiawatha service has such growth in passenger traffic that there is talk of increasing the fixed consists from 4 to 5 cars. This service, vaunted for its ridership, operates at somewhere around 30 percent load factor, and I am told that it is simply not cost effective to switch cars in an out of the consists, and when I suggested an arrangement with Metra to put suburban gallery cars into the consists to deal with weekend peaks (OK, maybe not with Hiawatha but with Illinois trains with weekend traffic), it was suggested to me that I wanted passengers to ride in open freight gondolas while I was at it.
The PRR used to add and drop cars at Phila all the time - on NY to DC trains! They used to slam a few P70s on the rear end with a switcher during the station stop. Has the balance of the cost of equipment versus labor changed that radically since the 60s that it's no longer worth the effort to do such things.
Another example. The NJDOT U34CHs were puchased with the idea that the EL could use them in freight service on the weekends. I don't know how often this occurred, but it was a worthy idea.
I wonder if lack of profit motive has made Amtrak lazy and dimmed their imagination.
Even in the 1970s, Amtrak could do an engine change at Harmon and New Haven in about 5 minutes (even on HEP equipment). Last time I rode the Crescent, the engine change at DC took over 30 minutes - for no discernable reason other than thing just moved very slowly.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: Folks are going to come back at me about the lack of passenger cars and the dead line at Beech Grove and how this represents the "inadequate funding of passenger service." The infamous Inspector General Meade report gives rather high operating costs numbers of maintenance, and with what Amtrak charges in fares and gets in subsidies, that such amount of money can hardly pay for the maintenance to keep Superliner cars out on the road speaks to some problems with the economics of running passenger trains.Amtrak is subsidized, yes, but it is so politicized and hamstrung by the advocacy community and Congress and everyone else with an opinion that there is not a thing they can do to manage costs. For gosh sakes people, it is not written into the United States Consitution that the Federal Government shall insure that train food is served on china plates instead of on paper plates, and we should be concerned about development and improvement of corridor train service to alleviate highway and road congestion instead whether the standards of the 1950's "name trains" are upheld. The luxury standards of the famous trains were 1) not representative of service of the run-of-the-mill trains across the railroads, 2) were in some ways a rearguard action against dwindling passenger train patronage, and 3) were a form of corporate image polishing for the railroads, 4) were probably never justified on economic grounds.
Folks are going to come back at me about the lack of passenger cars and the dead line at Beech Grove and how this represents the "inadequate funding of passenger service." The infamous Inspector General Meade report gives rather high operating costs numbers of maintenance, and with what Amtrak charges in fares and gets in subsidies, that such amount of money can hardly pay for the maintenance to keep Superliner cars out on the road speaks to some problems with the economics of running passenger trains.
Amtrak is subsidized, yes, but it is so politicized and hamstrung by the advocacy community and Congress and everyone else with an opinion that there is not a thing they can do to manage costs. For gosh sakes people, it is not written into the United States Consitution that the Federal Government shall insure that train food is served on china plates instead of on paper plates, and we should be concerned about development and improvement of corridor train service to alleviate highway and road congestion instead whether the standards of the 1950's "name trains" are upheld. The luxury standards of the famous trains were 1) not representative of service of the run-of-the-mill trains across the railroads, 2) were in some ways a rearguard action against dwindling passenger train patronage, and 3) were a form of corporate image polishing for the railroads, 4) were probably never justified on economic grounds.
After having read Kaufmann's "Leaders Count", that is exactly why GN/BN kept the Empire Builder going - corporate image.
I don't understand the bru-ha-ha over paper vs. china. It&nb
Taking away the profit motive, the level of dining car service on Amtrak is no longer a matter that Amtrak management manages but becomes something that the rail advocacy groups are going to lobby Congress on. Over on www.thetruthaboutcars.com, all manners of opinions are being offered by armchair industrialists on how the car companies need to change what they are doing to get out of the financial mess they are in. But ultimately the management of these companies will have to make the decisions, although Congress or perhaps the NHTSA is telling them they will have to had automatic stability control by a certain date, but Congress is not going to hold hearings on whether the cheapness of plastics on the interiors of cars is the undoing of the American auto industry or pass legislation on the optimal number of cup holders.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I was going to say "Pulleeez" If you have ever seen a McDonalds or other chain restaurant located in a market population of 300-500 people, I'll bet the doors were locked and the windows boarded up. Those stores live on volume and they aren't going to find it on a train.
I stand corrected on the wage rates for dining car personnel. Higher than I had thought.
Dug up some numbers for Amtrak's Fiscal Year that ended September 30, 2006. Total revenue from trains was $1.565 billion. 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? I think that is a stretch, but even so, given that the total federal grant for Amtrak was $1.2 billion, that savings is sort of nibbling around the fringes.
I think that customer satisfaction is a far greater consideration. Passengers with sleeper accomidations pay fares averaging 3 times as much as coach fares. Food, excluding alcoholic beverages, is included in the sleeper accomidation fare. Seems to me that use of plastic in the diner may be enough to drive off some of that business. Lose 5% of the those passengers and the savings for use of plastic has been blown in lost revenue.
The "picture" might actually be bigger than most of us realize, too.
Paper table cloths eliminate the laundry service and the on and off loading handling of linen table cloths, two cases of paper cloths probably go a long way.
China and silverware not only require washing, but they also require more care in busing dirty tables, require an inventory system be maintained, and probably suffer from shrinkage due to souvenier hunters
Wonder how much amtrak spent in a typical year, just replacing broken and "lost" dinnerware?
....If we don't have the money to properly run passenger trains in this country......and now making these {half baked}, changes in the diner and other areas to save pennys and probably which will cause more ridership to leave......Stop running all the passenger trains.....!! including the NEC....Quit...Stop this madness....!
If it continues, it will be argued back and forth for the next 35 plus years just as it has been so far in this installment.....Just quit...! Throw the red signal....
jeaton wrote: There is a general rule of thumb for the restaurant business. The revenue/cost ratio are 1/3 for food and beverage costs, 1/3 for labor and 1/3 for spoilage, rent, utilities, miscellaneous expenses and, out of that slice, profit. Keeping the labor cost at 1/3 of revenue is accomplished by having the service staff at the "wage plus tips" wage rates, which, last I knew, was at $2.35 an hour. Amtrak is faced with different cost ratios. The biggest difference is in the labor cost. I don't have exact numbers, Amtrak dining car personnel are paid somewhere around the wage rates of the other non-operating on board personnel, somewhere around $15 per hour. In addition, Amtrak covers the lay-over expenses, covers the cost of a very good benefit package and pays the rates for Railroad Retirement coverage that are higher than Social Security. I don't know how the numbers work out for the cost of the dining"facility", but it isn't hard to imagine that the "rent" and other facility costs for a rail car are much higher than those for land based restaurant of comparable seating capacity and style.The numbers I have seen indicate that the labor costs for Amtrak's dining operation take most of the dining revenue. The obvious obstacle to reducing the wage rates is that they are the result of a collective bargaining agreement. (Darn unions!) But even absent that constraint, how far down could the rates go before Amtrak would have to deal with the kind of labor turnover experience of the restaurant business.I suspect that the efficiency or cost savings of using plastic comes from the elimination of the labor for dishwashing. The dining cars are equiped with dishwashing machines, but there is still labor involved.My bottom line is that I could accept a hard plastic plate, but plastic knives and forks suck. Beyond that, if I want to eat on the cheap, I'll stop at the local fast food place.The bottom line is that I suspect that the savings will be chicken feed and, while there is no way to measure the overall result, no doubt it will result in more "Amtrak? Never again!!!"
There is a general rule of thumb for the restaurant business. The revenue/cost ratio are 1/3 for food and beverage costs, 1/3 for labor and 1/3 for spoilage, rent, utilities, miscellaneous expenses and, out of that slice, profit. Keeping the labor cost at 1/3 of revenue is accomplished by having the service staff at the "wage plus tips" wage rates, which, last I knew, was at $2.35 an hour.
Amtrak is faced with different cost ratios. The biggest difference is in the labor cost. I don't have exact numbers, Amtrak dining car personnel are paid somewhere around the wage rates of the other non-operating on board personnel, somewhere around $15 per hour. In addition, Amtrak covers the lay-over expenses, covers the cost of a very good benefit package and pays the rates for Railroad Retirement coverage that are higher than Social Security. I don't know how the numbers work out for the cost of the dining"facility", but it isn't hard to imagine that the "rent" and other facility costs for a rail car are much higher than those for land based restaurant of comparable seating capacity and style.
The numbers I have seen indicate that the labor costs for Amtrak's dining operation take most of the dining revenue. The obvious obstacle to reducing the wage rates is that they are the result of a collective bargaining agreement. (Darn unions!) But even absent that constraint, how far down could the rates go before Amtrak would have to deal with the kind of labor turnover experience of the restaurant business.
I suspect that the efficiency or cost savings of using plastic comes from the elimination of the labor for dishwashing. The dining cars are equiped with dishwashing machines, but there is still labor involved.
My bottom line is that I could accept a hard plastic plate, but plastic knives and forks suck. Beyond that, if I want to eat on the cheap, I'll stop at the local fast food place.
The bottom line is that I suspect that the savings will be chicken feed and, while there is no way to measure the overall result, no doubt it will result in more "Amtrak? Never again!!!"
"the average Amtrak food service worker earns about $20 an hour and another $10 to $12 an hour in benefits." (from http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Travel/story?id=2777294&page=1)
Not a new problem. Read this: http://prr.railfan.net/documents/TrainTalks_Aug1950.html Even talk of microwave ovens....in 1950!
My last Amtrak trip was on the Cardinal - one of the first trains to convert to plastic. The food was not bad but definately better than airline food (when they served anything). However, I was most impressed, when a tragic delay caused us to be 5+ hours behind schedule. The dining car reopened and served an unplanned meal because we would not get into Chicago until late afternoon. The staff was very accomodating - even though they did not have sufficient for their full menu - they were able to offer several choices. That trick would be hard to do with pre-plated food.
dd
jeaton wrote: TheAntiGates wrote: Paul Milenkovic wrote: the question is whether the government should be subsidizing some higher level of service beyond some utilitarian function. . FWIW, I think that is the most practical answer anyone has offered. Makes perfect sense Paper plates and plastic flatware to you, too!It would make sense if it actually reduced the business deficit. Ponder this. Would you pay $10 to $20 for a meal served to you on plastic? More than once??
TheAntiGates wrote: Paul Milenkovic wrote: the question is whether the government should be subsidizing some higher level of service beyond some utilitarian function. . FWIW, I think that is the most practical answer anyone has offered. Makes perfect sense
Paul Milenkovic wrote: the question is whether the government should be subsidizing some higher level of service beyond some utilitarian function. .
the question is whether the government should be subsidizing some higher level of service beyond some utilitarian function. .
FWIW, I think that is the most practical answer anyone has offered.
Makes perfect sense
Paper plates and plastic flatware to you, too!
It would make sense if it actually reduced the business deficit. Ponder this. Would you pay $10 to $20 for a meal served to you on plastic? More than once??
People pay MORE than that for a burger, pretzel and a beer at a ball game, served at a walk-up window on a cardboard tray!
jeaton wrote:Paper plates and plastic flatware to you, too!It would make sense if it actually reduced the business deficit. Ponder this. Would you pay $10 to $20 for a meal served to you on plastic? More than once??
LMAO!!
As a taxpayer, I have misgivings about paying for someone else's white tablecloth moment.
The Amtrak travel packages I've always encountered state meals are included in the fare . Those would be the meals the govt need only provide a basic food service for.
As for ala carte food service, pay as you go, well, I think the customers deserve whatever they are willing to pay for.
If they want chez ritz, then they should have that opportunity.
Maybe leasing a kitchen/diner to some operator such as Shoney's would be a solution.
My bet is that Shoney's would either balk outright, or exit soon
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.