In Germany a private company handles the sleeper cars and diners. Lets just go with the Builder, and it has what 5 sets? So about 15 sleepers and 5 diners? Really not a lot of cars...
Now not that one person could do it on there own, but maybe 3 or 4 people could each get one diner, not like it be hard to make them nicer and have better food.
Sleepers would be a bit harder to do just because of how many there are, but making them nicer is easy. I was told that the the Builder could use at least 2 more sleepers per set. He said that 99% of the time if they had the extra cars they would be be sold out too, but Amtrak don't have the cars to do it.
Any way random idea, tell me what you guys think.
Like a modern version of what Pullman did -- privately-owned sleepers & diners attached to the passenger trains of the operating railroad (in this case, Amtrak)?
Have you looked at the economics? Operating costs (staff + "rent" to Amtrak), plus amortization of equipment acquisition costs, vs. fares that could be charged? I think that is where the answer is to be found.
By the way, who out there knows what Amtrak charges to haul a private car? That might be a good starting place to consider.
I bet Sam can crunch the numbers and tell you whether or not it could be profitable.
While Sam and I disagree philosophically, I never dispute the numbers.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Definitely and interesting concept. And yes, reflective of the Pullman Company's sleeping and parlor car services. But before we start piecemealing Amtrak apart, let's get a clearly defined and working model for Amtrak instead of the Congressionsal Lionel play set they think it is.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Your comment on Germany is not true. In Germany (and extending into other countries as well) City Night Line owns and operate the sleeping cars ans auto trains. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of DBAG (Deutsche Bahn) and has been integrated into DBAG since 2010. The food service cars (BordBistro and BordRestaurant) I believe are also part of DBAG, although I am not certain.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Is Wagon Lits still operating sleepers and diners in Europe? If they are still in business after all these years, they must have figured out a way to succeed.
Dragoman: It was a fast random idea I had before work, so no I have not really crunched any numbers. But for an idea here are the 2007 private car rates.
"Train Mileage Fees
$2.10 per car mile.
$1.60 per car mile for additional cars moving under the same movement request or reservation. Private cars that are on the same train that have not requested to move together on a movement request will be charged the full rate of $2.10 per mile. Train Mileage Frequent Traveler Option $1.90 per mile for a single car only, which operates between the same city pair (round trip) for five trips in a calendar year. Payable up front and there will be no refund if the car does not make these trips in the same calendar year.
Overnight Parking
$100 per car, per day. This applies when a private car is at a location/facility at 12:01 am. A grace period of up to 48 hours is granted when a private car is being delivered from a foreign railroad and an exact delivery date cannot be determined. Additionally, no charge will be made at transfer points or terminals when cars are being held for the earliest connecting train or when a car remains with the consist at a turn around location.
At certain locations, such as: Denver, Kansas City and Saratoga, Amtrak does not own the parking rights at those facilities. Therefore, the car Owner/Operator must contract with the owners of those facilities directly. The following exceptions also apply to parking at several Amtrak locations:
New Orleans 20% surcharge (City of New Orleans) on the total cost of parking while in NOUPT.
Boston - $300 fee (MBTA charges) per night.
Portland - $225 fee (City of Portland charges) per night.
Monthly Parking
$2,000 per each 30 day period.
Short Term Parking
$1,500 for each month, for a minimum of a three month period.
Long Term Parking
$1,000 for each month, for a minimum of a six month period.
Car Wash
$125 will be charged only if car is washed separately from the inbound or outbound train set.
Waste Tank Service
$75 will be charged, when a private car has its septic system serviced by Amtrak. If an outside contractor performs this service, the private car Owner/Operator must arrange payment directly with the contractor and they must comply with all of Amtrak s environmental and safety regulations.
Terminal Switching Charges
When Amtrak incurs any additional costs in order to switch a private car(s), these charges will be paid by the Owner/Operator. This includes, but not limited to crews on overtime or when an additional switch crew is required.
Special Terminal Switching Charges
$250 per switch for movement to and from the following specific locations or when a separate switch
crew is not required.
Boston South Station Boston North Station
Sunnyside Yard Hudson Yard
Sunnyside Yard New Rochelle
Additional Locomotive Fee
$3.25 will be assessed per mile, when an additional locomotive is required. This fee also includes the move(s) required to position the locomotive prior to the move or to return the locomotive to its original location after the completion of a trip.
Minimum Charge
$1,000 is the minimum charge per movement.
Annual Car Administrative Fee
$250 per car will be charged each year as an administrative fee. This is a per car fee that is due at the start of each calendar year.
30 Day Past Due Balance Fees
All Owners/Operators who have an outstanding balance of over 30 days will be charged a 2% per month late fee for each 30 day period that their payment is delinquent.
Railroad Fees
Will be based on switching, parking and other related fees that are associated with the movement or storageof a private/business car that is not directly billed to the Owner by the freight railroad. These fees will beadded to the Amtrak charges and itemized accordingly on the private car billing worksheet.
Additional Assistant Conductor Fees
Will be based on crew hours paid by Amtrak where an additional Assistant Conductor is required. Fees will be determined accordingly."
schlimm: I will admit my DB is a little dated... but the idea is still the same.
bedell: Yes they are but they go under "Newrest Wagons-Lits"'. It would be interesting to even have them do it too...
Anyone know what around trip would cost, say Seattle to Chicago for 2 people?
While this is how Amtrak handles their private cars, I don't think that this is how a pullman style service would work. Obviously, for private sleeper and diner service, there would be some sort of economies of scale aspect. There would be more than one private car being operated at a time, requiring larger facilities. A formal agreement would have to be made with Amtrak in order for them to contract out their sleeper and diner service.
That said, a private company that operates sleeper and/or service for Amtrak would be a major step in reducing Amtrak's cost on long distance trains, as well as increasing the quality of service. There would be no more arguments from the pork-exposing politicians that the taxpayer subsidizes such service for "the only people who ride it", i.e. wealthy retirees and leisure travelers.
A few other questions need to be answered:
1. How would the loss of revenue from sleeper and diner services affect a long distance train's bottom line?
2. How would private service affect sleeper fares and dining car prices?
To extrapolate: Could contracting out diner service work on shorter distance routes of 500 miles or less?
I wouldn't get too enthused right away that a private opreator of sleeping cars and diners would be a panacea for whatever ails Amtrak, Congress or not. Private investors could operate on the cheap with low wage labor, poor quality or amounts of food, and no amenities which, while keeping the price down would not be attractive enough to woo sleepers or diners. All that glitters is not gold....
Idea would just increase costs without bringing in more revenue . Today a car attendent can work either in coaches or in sleepers or in both. This is flexibility in work assignments. Then there is cleaning, maintenance, repair, etc.
henry6 I wouldn't get too enthused right away that a private opreator of sleeping cars and diners would be a panacea for whatever ails Amtrak, Congress or not. Private investors could operate on the cheap with low wage labor, poor quality or amounts of food, and no amenities which, while keeping the price down would not be attractive enough to woo sleepers or diners. All that glitters is not gold....
Wouldn't do it that way. I'd bid it out. Set service levels and then let the winner set fares and keep revenue. It would give the contractor the incentive to provide good service since they'd reap the reward.
Might still be a money loser, i.e. the bid winner actually gets paid instead of having to pay. But, it should lose less than the current set-up.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd Wouldn't do it that way. I'd bid it out. Set service levels and then let the winner set fares and keep revenue. It would give the contractor the incentive to provide good service since they'd reap the reward. Might still be a money loser, i.e. the bid winner actually gets paid instead of having to pay. But, it should lose less than the current set-up.
Good idea!! Why not take that to the logical conclusion: just contract out the various routes of the entire long distance service: sleepers, diner and coaches? If no takers, let that route go under.
Even if Amtrak were authorized to privatize some or all of its long distance train services, e.g. sleepers, on-board food service, etc., there are likely to be few takers. The probability of earning a decent return on the investment is very low.
As I remember it Pullman bailed out of the sleeping car business because it was losing its shirt. And the railroads got out of the passenger business because it was killing them financially. So why should we believe that the economics of long distance trains or any segment of them has changed since the inception of Amtrak, which was a political response to a failed business model?
The Great Southern Railway, which is a private consortium, operates three of Australia's long distance trains, i.e. The Indian Pacific, The Gahn, and The Overland. I have ridden all three of them. They are first class. GSR gets a substantial subsidy from the Australian government to help cover the costs of the services and provide a reasonable return for the operators. They may also own the equipment; I am not sure.
The last time that I checked the Indian Pacific runs two days a week between Sydney and Perth during the high season and only one day a week during the off season. The same is true for The Gahn, which runs from Adelaide to Darwin. The Overland runs three days a week between Adelaide and Melbourne. The Overland is a coach only train featuring business class and coach class. When I rode the train two years ago it had a dinning car.
The Inspector General's 2005 Analysis of Long Distance Services showed that sleeping car passengers required a substantially higher subsidy than that required for coach passengers. Whether this is still the case is unknown. Amtrak appears to have increased the sleeping car accommodations charges substantially, but its costs undoubtedly have increased as well. I suspect that the subsidy required to transport a sleeping car passenger is still higher than the subsidy required to haul a coach passenger. Not to worry, the patricians can say that they deserve the higher subsidy because they pay more in taxes than the plebes roughing it in the coaches.
The best answer for the long distance train problem is to discontinue them. Unfortunately, given the political inertia associated with them, they will probably be around for the foreseeable future. They are like entitlements. Talk about getting rid of them produces a flurry of emotionalism that has little to do with rational decision making. And Amtrak will probably continue to run them because only a government entity has the money, our taxpayer dollars, to keep them going.
Sam1 Even if Amtrak were authorized to privatize some or all of its long distance train services, e.g. sleepers, on-board food service, etc., there are likely to be few takers. The probability of earning a decent return on the investment is very low. As I remember it Pullman bailed out of the sleeping car business because it was losing its shirt. And the railroads got out of the passenger business because it was killing them financially. So why should we believe that the economics of long distance trains or any segment of them has changed since the inception of Amtrak, which was a political response to a failed business model? The Great Southern Railway, which is a private consortium, operates three of Australia's long distance trains, i.e. The Indian Pacific, The Gahn, and The Overland. I have ridden all three of them. They are first class. GSR gets a substantial subsidy from the Australian government to help cover the costs of the services and provide a reasonable return for the operators. They may also own the equipment; I am not sure. The last time that I checked the Indian Pacific runs two days a week between Sydney and Perth during the high season and only one day a week during the off season. The same is true for The Gahn, which runs from Adelaide to Darwin. The Overland runs three days a week between Adelaide and Melbourne. The Overland is a coach only train featuring business class and coach class. When I rode the train two years ago it had a dinning car. The Inspector General's 2005 Analysis of Long Distance Services showed that sleeping car passengers required a substantially higher subsidy than that required for coach passengers. Whether this is still the case is unknown. Amtrak appears to have increased the sleeping car accommodations charges substantially, but its costs undoubtedly have increased as well. I suspect that the subsidy required to transport a sleeping car passenger is still higher than the subsidy required to haul a coach passenger. Not to worry, the patricians can say that they deserve the higher subsidy because they pay more in taxes than the plebes roughing it in the coaches. The best answer for the long distance train problem is to discontinue them. Unfortunately, given the political inertia associated with them, they will probably be around for the foreseeable future. They are like entitlements. Talk about getting rid of them produces a flurry of emotionalism that has little to do with rational decision making. And Amtrak will probably continue to run them because only a government entity has the money, our taxpayer dollars, to keep them going.
Lets say, on a given route, Amtrak loses $5M per year on the sleepers and diner and they decide to bid out the service.
Service level: Must operate a 2 sleepers and one diner every day. Cost - $2/car mile. Can operated up to 2 additional sleepers at $5/car mile. Must give 5 days notice on consist size over minimum.
Operation: Contractor sets and collects fares. Integration with Amtrak res. system free of charge. Operator responsible for all housekeeping.
No staffing levels specified. No min or max fares specified. No menu for diner specified.
It goes out for bid. I'd guess that cruise ship lines and hoteliers might be interested since they already a have the corp competencies for this kind of business and it would be incremental business that would fit into their existing product line. No need to run a commissary, laundry, occupy dorm space in sleepers, etc. So, they calculate to make a good return, they'd need a subsidy of $2M per year from Amtrak. They win. Amtrak pays them the $2M in monthly installments and now we have a service-sensitive operator.
Sam1 {snip} As I remember it Pullman bailed out of the sleeping car business because it was losing its shirt. And the railroads got out of the passenger business because it was killing them financially. {snip}
{snip}
As I remember it Pullman bailed out of the sleeping car business because it was losing its shirt. And the railroads got out of the passenger business because it was killing them financially.
That is not quite how it happened. In 1940 the Feds brought an antitrust suit against Pullman in federal court in Philadephia. As a result of that action, the court ordered Pullman to get out of either the car construction business or the car ownership and operation business. The upshot was that ownership and operation was sold to a new company jointly owned by 40-odd railroads.
Dakguy201 Sam1: {snip} As I remember it Pullman bailed out of the sleeping car business because it was losing its shirt. And the railroads got out of the passenger business because it was killing them financially. {snip} That is not quite how it happened. In 1940 the Feds brought an antitrust suit against Pullman in federal court in Philadephia. As a result of that action, the court ordered Pullman to get out of either the car construction business or the car ownership and operation business. The upshot was that ownership and operation was sold to a new company jointly owned by 40-odd railroads.
Sam1: {snip} As I remember it Pullman bailed out of the sleeping car business because it was losing its shirt. And the railroads got out of the passenger business because it was killing them financially. {snip}
Thanks for the insight. Nevertheless, if I remember correctly, the company that was jointly owned by the 40 odd railroads folded in the early to mid 60s and those railroads that still hoisted sleeping cars took over their operation. Is this not correct? Also, what was the name of the company that was owned by the railroads and operating the sleeping cars post 1940?
By the mid 60s the 40 or so railroads were trying to get out of the passenger business or were being forced out by loss of mail contracts, the Eisenhower Highway System, and municipal owned airports. IT was a loss of business more than a lack of service. There was no name to the company but a mutual consortium operation with the cars owned by the individual railroads and assigned to routes by them rather than by Pullman. Pre 1960 was a different world than we know today and few understand it all. Even us old farts who lived it.
Quoting Sam1: "Thanks for the insight. Nevertheless, if I remember correctly, the company that was jointly owned by the 40 odd railroads folded in the early to mid 60s and those railroads that still hoisted sleeping cars took over their operation. Is this not correct? Also, what was the name of the company that was owned by the railroads and operating the sleeping cars post 1940?"
In 1947, the Pullman Company, which was the division of Pullman that operated first class service was separated from the parent company, and was sold to a consortium of fifty-seven railroads. It continued to operate under the name "the Pullman Company," with headquarters at 165 North Canal Street in Chicago.
From time to time, one railroad or another began operating the sleeping car service on its own lines, and on 1 January 1969 all roads which still had first class service began to operate the cars themselves. I have stubs of Pullman tickets dating into November of 1968, and stubs of railroad first class accomodations dating from April of 1969 (no first class travel for me in between). For a short time, Pullman continued to provide supplies to the railroads; I do not remember just how long this practice lasted.
Johnny
Deggesty In 1947, the Pullman Company, which was the division of Pullman that operated first class service was separated from the parent company, and was sold to a consortium of fifty-seven railroads. It continued to operate under the name "the Pullman Company," with headquarters at 165 North Canal Street in Chicago. From time to time, one railroad or another began operating the sleeping car service on its own lines, and on 1 January 1969 all roads which still had first class service began to operate the cars themselves. I have stubs of Pullman tickets dating into November of 1968, and stubs of railroad first class accomodations dating from April of 1969 (no first class travel for me in between). For a short time, Pullman continued to provide supplies to the railroads; I do not remember just how long this practice lasted.
Deggesty: You have it right:
The pictures I have seen post WW-2 show cars labeled Pullman with only a car name; As one RR ( SOU ) took over it painted over the Pullman and added a car number on the right ends of the car looking at the car. Sometimes if Pullman not painted over the ends would have SOU and a car number under SOU. Still kept the car name pullman had assigned.
SOU #s 2000 - 2020 10 rmts-6 bedrooms pullman standard light weights.
2100 & 2200 series unknown.
2400 series -- Heavyweight section sleepers
Some RRs just painted over Pullman with Norfolk and Western and did not have a car number just the car name.
Without looking at a Passenger Car Register, I would say that the 2100 and 2200 series cars were 14 roomettes & 4 double bedrooms, and 11 double bedrooms. The Crescent sleeper-lounges and the observation cars may also have been in one series or the other.
I recall seeing the Southern sleepers with "Southern" on the letterboard, and "Pullman" over the doors.
In the post-WW2 period, it was not unusual for lightweight sleepers to have the railroad name centered on the letterboard with the name "Pullman" in smaller lettering next to the door.
SP assigned only numbers to its postwar lightweight sleeping cars and they were listed in Pullman Company manuals as such. Most other lightweight Pullman sleeping cars and parlor cars had names and numbers, with numbers not always applied to the car itself.
And I believe pre and post WWII Pulman would supply cars for trainsets in railroad's colors. Sometimes railroad name on the board, sometimes Pullman, etc.
One thing missing is that privatization of sleeping & dining would take these costs off the books for Amtrak while generating revenue in car-mile and other charges, leaving money for elsewhere. However, the same question needs to be answered whether a market would exist at substantially higher fares.
As for long-distance coach, a high percentage of travel seems to be between intermediate points even with higher fares rates for shorter distances.
"One thing missing is that privatization of sleeping & dining would take these costs off the books for Amtrak while generating revenue in car-mile and other charges, leaving money for elsewhere. However, the same question needs to be answered whether a market would exist at substantially higher fares."
I dont see why fares would have to go up by that much. Remodeling car interiors would not cost much, and its a one time per 10 or so years. It would pay for it self over time. Plus its not like it be hard to make it nice, and to keep it reasonable.
Plus by freeing up all of there cost on sleepers and diners, they could concentrate more on there coach service adding cars and just improving them.
SP4460
You seem to be trying to make 2+2=6. Your begining assumption seems to be that these services loose money, which I also beleive is true.
How does changing management either reduce costs or increase revenues? The big cost is the capital cost of the equipment, the cost of maintaining all those moving parts, and the costs of cleaning the cars. Do you really think a mythical new operator will be able to buy cars cheaper than ATK? That it can maintain them cheaper than ATK? That ATK will haul them around free? That a new operator will have a lower cost of capital than a US Government grant?
For the new operator to do any better on the revenue side they will have to increase the price. Do you think ATK is today not charging all the market will bear?
These services loose money because they cost more to provide than people are willing to pay for them. Changing the operator will not change that fact. ATK taking over from the railroads did not change it. Having Hilton Hotels manage the service will not change it.
Mac
PNWRMNM How does changing management either reduce costs or increase revenues? The big cost is the capital cost of the equipment, the cost of maintaining all those moving parts, and the costs of cleaning the cars. Do you really think a mythical new operator will be able to buy cars cheaper than ATK? That it can maintain them cheaper than ATK? That ATK will haul them around free? Mac
How does changing management either reduce costs or increase revenues? The big cost is the capital cost of the equipment, the cost of maintaining all those moving parts, and the costs of cleaning the cars. Do you really think a mythical new operator will be able to buy cars cheaper than ATK? That it can maintain them cheaper than ATK? That ATK will haul them around free?
The killer for these trains is very high operating costs, primarily high labor. Possibly a private operator could reduce labor costs that ATK can not, for a variety of reasons.
oltmannd: ...No staffing levels specified. No min or max fares specified. No menu for diner specified.
Alternatively, maybe one of the airlines would be interested. With no specification of staffing levels, fares, or menu, they could underbid the cruise ship lines and hoteliers. Then they could make their profit by charging an extra fee if the passenger wants bedding and a blanket; or wants to bring luggage onto the train; or wants to take a shower. They could offer boxed-lunch meals at fine-dining prices once you're captive on the airplane--oops, I mean the train.
The belief that privatization improves service is so pervasive, but the evidence for that belief is so inconclusive. :-)
Anyone able to find out what typical 1970's era airfares (before deregulation) would be today (adjusted for inflation)? Would be interesting to compare with today's airfares+fees.
ecoli oltmannd: ...No staffing levels specified. No min or max fares specified. No menu for diner specified. It goes out for bid. I'd guess that cruise ship lines and hoteliers might be interested since they already a have the corp competencies for this kind of business and it would be incremental business that would fit into their existing product line. No need to run a commissary, laundry, occupy dorm space in sleepers, etc. So, they calculate to make a good return, they'd need a subsidy of $2M per year from Amtrak. They win. Amtrak pays them the $2M in monthly installments and now we have a service-sensitive operator. Alternatively, maybe one of the airlines would be interested. With no specification of staffing levels, fares, or menu, they could underbid the cruise ship lines and hoteliers. Then they could make their profit by charging an extra fee if the passenger wants bedding and a blanket; or wants to bring luggage onto the train; or wants to take a shower. They could offer boxed-lunch meals at fine-dining prices once you're captive on the airplane--oops, I mean the train. The belief that privatization improves service is so pervasive, but the evidence for that belief is so inconclusive. :-)
Wouldn't happen that way because of the fundamental difference between why people fly and a why people ride sleepers on trains. One is about getting from A to B. Period. The other is about the trip. It's why cruise ships aren't like airlines.
jclass Anyone able to find out what typical 1970's era airfares (before deregulation) would be today (adjusted for inflation)? Would be interesting to compare with today's airfares+fees.
Looks like fares have gone down about 60% and passenger count up about 350%. Found on Wikipedia (I know, I know, but it does have a reference) Note that it's total revenue - which would be fares + fees.
In 2011, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer (who worked with Senator Ted Kennedy on airline deregulation in the 1970s) wrote:
What does the industry's history tell us? Was this effort worthwhile? Certainly it shows that every major reform brings about new, sometimes unforeseen, problems. No one foresaw the industry's spectacular growth, with the number of air passengers increasing from 207.5 million in 1974 to 721.1 million last year. As a result, no one foresaw the extent to which new bottlenecks would develop: a flight-choked Northeast corridor, overcrowded airports, delays, and terrorist risks consequently making air travel increasingly difficult. Nor did anyone foresee the extent to which change might unfairly harm workers in the industry. Still, fares have come down. Airline revenue per passenger mile has declined from an inflation-adjusted 33.3 cents in 1974, to 13 cents in the first half of 2010. In 1974 the cheapest round-trip New York-Los Angeles flight (in inflation-adjusted dollars) that regulators would allow: $1,442. Today one can fly that same route for $268. That is why the number of travelers has gone way up. So we sit in crowded planes, munch potato chips, flare up when the loudspeaker announces yet another flight delay. But how many now will vote to go back to the "good old days" of paying high, regulated prices for better service? Even among business travelers, who wants to pay "full fare for the briefcase?"[2]
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.