oltmannd Sam1: henry6: It doesn't matter what Amtrak is supposed to be by defninition. By existance it is a toy, a pawn, a buracracy, a political entity under the charge of the Congress of the United States. Thus, no matter what it is, it can't be efficient and profitable, only a punching bag. This is the best argument that I have seen to date to eliminate Amtrak and replace it, where feasible, with privatized companies to operate passenger rail in corridors where they make sense. Even if the government has to subsidize the operators, as it surely would, it would be a better arrangement than a government run passenger rail system. Yes, but you better leave them incentive to provide good service. Either give them a chunk (or all!) of the revenue or bonuses around some tightly woven and non-game-able performance measures.
Sam1: henry6: It doesn't matter what Amtrak is supposed to be by defninition. By existance it is a toy, a pawn, a buracracy, a political entity under the charge of the Congress of the United States. Thus, no matter what it is, it can't be efficient and profitable, only a punching bag. This is the best argument that I have seen to date to eliminate Amtrak and replace it, where feasible, with privatized companies to operate passenger rail in corridors where they make sense. Even if the government has to subsidize the operators, as it surely would, it would be a better arrangement than a government run passenger rail system.
henry6: It doesn't matter what Amtrak is supposed to be by defninition. By existance it is a toy, a pawn, a buracracy, a political entity under the charge of the Congress of the United States. Thus, no matter what it is, it can't be efficient and profitable, only a punching bag.
It doesn't matter what Amtrak is supposed to be by defninition. By existance it is a toy, a pawn, a buracracy, a political entity under the charge of the Congress of the United States. Thus, no matter what it is, it can't be efficient and profitable, only a punching bag.
This is the best argument that I have seen to date to eliminate Amtrak and replace it, where feasible, with privatized companies to operate passenger rail in corridors where they make sense. Even if the government has to subsidize the operators, as it surely would, it would be a better arrangement than a government run passenger rail system.
Yes, but you better leave them incentive to provide good service. Either give them a chunk (or all!) of the revenue or bonuses around some tightly woven and non-game-able performance measures.
I agree! Whilst in Australia I became familiar with the contracts that were written by the relevant parties to govern the behavior of the contractors who were engaged to operate the trams and suburban rail. We supplied them with electric power and, therefore, needed to be familiar with the contracts. The contracts contained well defined performance standards; however, they were not perfect. That is beyond the capability of humans.
The performance standards appeared to be relatively straight forward, which tends to minimize the opportunities to game them, although there is no such thing as making them fool proof.
Following privatization of the trams, suburban rail, and V-Line, the size of the workforce was reduced significantly. Whereas the government had no incentive to better manage the workforce, a private contractor certainly did. Ultimately, if he stuffed it up, he would lose the contract. As a result of privatization, I believe the quality of the service improved significantly. This was my observation as well as that of many of by colleagues and friends.
As shown too often by Amtrak, which has many good people, government agencies don't have the same incentive as private business to perform at the top of their game. The drivers (motivators) are different.
Sam1 henry6: It doesn't matter what Amtrak is supposed to be by defninition. By existance it is a toy, a pawn, a buracracy, a political entity under the charge of the Congress of the United States. Thus, no matter what it is, it can't be efficient and profitable, only a punching bag. This is the best argument that I have seen to date to eliminate Amtrak and replace it, where feasible, with privatized companies to operate passenger rail in corridors where they make sense. Even if the government has to subsidize the operators, as it surely would, it would be a better arrangement than a government run passenger rail system.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
The two problems in the US are lack of integrity and need for accountability. Whether private or public there has to be total integrity of the operator for safety, reliabilty, and fair fares. To do this we need to hold one accountable with some kind of agency or bureau or whatever. Too often this all falls to pieces in a heap of graft and corruption at best, ineptitude or other non chalance and ignoring of property and service at worst with no reinvestment or maintenance.
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.
henry6 It is probably the only thing George the Inept said that I agreed with: replace Amtrak with regional or other entities. Well, maybe not eliminate Amtrak so much as alter it. There are more and more interdependent city/markets or regions which need a sensible, comprehensive, and rational apporach to transportation matters. I have often thought that New Haven to probably Wilmington and west to Harrisburg and north to Albany might fit such a plan; also Milwaukee-Chicago-St.Louis and Detroit or Cleveland...regional needs, not flag stops on the way. Amtrak could be the "administrator", "overseeer", or "regulator" but not the operator. Getting it away from Congress is the trick....
It is probably the only thing George the Inept said that I agreed with: replace Amtrak with regional or other entities. Well, maybe not eliminate Amtrak so much as alter it. There are more and more interdependent city/markets or regions which need a sensible, comprehensive, and rational apporach to transportation matters. I have often thought that New Haven to probably Wilmington and west to Harrisburg and north to Albany might fit such a plan; also Milwaukee-Chicago-St.Louis and Detroit or Cleveland...regional needs, not flag stops on the way. Amtrak could be the "administrator", "overseeer", or "regulator" but not the operator. Getting it away from Congress is the trick....
George the Inept? Would that be George III or GW as in the founding father? Or are you referring to one of the prides of Texas?
By golly, it appears that we have common ground here. I agree wholly with your views on this issue. The Aussies, by the way, have done marvels by privatizing a significant portion of their intercity passenger rail system. Moreover, as if not to be outdone, in Melbourne, where I lived for nearly five years, they privatized the commuter rail system, trams (streetcars), and local bus routes. Whilst not perfect, they got a much better outcome than when the systems were run by a large, centralized government bureaucracy.
henry6:
henry6 It doesn't matter what Amtrak is supposed to be by defninition. By existance it is a toy, a pawn, a buracracy, a political entity under the charge of the Congress of the United States. Thus, no matter what it is, it can't be efficient and profitable, only a punching bag.
Sam1 commented that Amtrak is supposed to be a real business. I'm not sure that her statement was ever true, it was just window dressing on the Rail Passenger Service Act to make it somwhat palatable to the GOP. When you consider all the tinkering and meddling from both sides of the aisle, it's obvious that Amtrak is always been more of a political creation than a business.
The Department of Defense may not be a commercial enterprise, but the defense industry that it supports is probably the largest commercial enterprise in the world.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Amtrak is supposed to be a real business. It is an incorporated entity, and it is a commercial activity, i.e. it provides intercity passenger rail service in competition with other commercial carriers, i.e. bus companies, airlines, etc. The federal government holds the stock. No one else wants it. Given these characteristics, as well as the nature of its competitors, it should be operated as a business.
The Department of Defense is not a commercial activity. To put it in the same category as a passenger railroad is mixing apples and oranges.
The nation's streets, roads, and highways are avenues for commercial activities, in part, but they are not commercial entities, unless once considers the toll roads to be commercial activities. They are not expected to make a profit, but the users are expected to pay for them, which for the most part they have, although sometimes in ways that cannot be seen clearly.
I have said on numerous occasions, not to be remembered by many it appears, it is appropriate for governments to support R&D, provide incentives for infrastructure, and regulate commercial activities. But it should not engage in commercial activities. It is notoriously poor at doing so.
The federal government is not in the intercity bus, airline, or trucking business. If these companies fail, as they do periodically, the government does not take their place. So why should it be in the intercity railroad passenger business?
Every electric power company in the United States is regulated. A discussion of the merits of public vs. investor owned electric energy or the regulation thereof is beyond the scope of these forums.
In many instances, when a commercial activity cannot stand on its merits, its advocates claim that it is in the public interest. Clearly, many activities are in the public interest, i.e. defense, education, medical care, housing, amongst others, come to mind. But it's in the public interest has been stretched to the breaking point. Where I live the argument for using public monies to build sports venues, concert halls, etc. is always couched as being in the public interest. In each case the proponents of these projects or activities have claimed passionately that they are in the public interest. They take monies away from people who frequently do not or cannot use them and, thus, rob them of their freedom of choice, i.e. to control how they spend their money. This argument is as old as the republic, and it is not likely to go away anytime soon.
Providing intercity passenger rail (Amtrak) is not in the public interest. It may be nice to have, but if the riders will not pay for it through the fare box, it should be allowed to die. The shareholders in Greyhound, Southwest Airlines, etc. probably don't see it as a public interest, given that Amtrak (a government sponsored competitor) does not have to pay attention to the bottom line and thereby diminishes the value of their shares.
I don't know any Libertarians. Nor do I know anyone who believes that everything should be run as a business. Just commercial activities should be run like a business, with all of the attendant consequences.
henry6Then the question isn't "why do anything?" but "why do anything unless somebody makes a profit?". And if that is the case would Christopher Columbus ever have found the "new World"? Ok, there was a profit incentive even with that as there was a search for a better and faster trade route to the Far East from Europe which would have enriched whoever controlled it. Which means that total private enterprise has never happened because somewhere along the line some government or government type has put up the money and wherewithal to make something happen.
Then the question isn't "why do anything?" but "why do anything unless somebody makes a profit?". And if that is the case would Christopher Columbus ever have found the "new World"? Ok, there was a profit incentive even with that as there was a search for a better and faster trade route to the Far East from Europe which would have enriched whoever controlled it. Which means that total private enterprise has never happened because somewhere along the line some government or government type has put up the money and wherewithal to make something happen.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Sam1 Some folks seem to think that only the above the rail or operating results count. Unfortunately, this is not true. A business must recapture all of its costs, including depreciation, interest, extraordinary items, discontinued operations, etc., if it is to stay in business. Unless of course it is not a real business!
Some folks seem to think that only the above the rail or operating results count. Unfortunately, this is not true. A business must recapture all of its costs, including depreciation, interest, extraordinary items, discontinued operations, etc., if it is to stay in business. Unless of course it is not a real business!
Well then, passenger rail is not a real business. Neither is highway transportation, or national defense, or a whole lot of other things. Or regulated electric power companies where many rural customers are in effect subsidized that they have electric service at all.
On the other hand, I suppose with RFID tags, we could go over to a system of demand charges on roads. One of my brick-and-morter rail advocacy community friends claims that in the absence of cross-subsidy, "There would not be a road built in this state north of U.S. 10 (the road that connects Green Bay with St Paul)." Dunno, don't know if I am ready for that, but maybe we should have gone that route, leaving the vast expanses of even today sparsely populated portions of the U.S. as reserves for all those -- religious minorities, Native Americans, and others chosing to live according to traditional ways -- who would chose to live beyond where the roads end. Maybe a complete demand-charge system would alleviate traffic jams.
But until we enter the Libertarian Promised Land, there are many institutions and services that are not provided according to business principles, of pay your way or die.
I am of the mind that we have such institutions and services and always will, and that they should be run effectively. There is a segment of rail advocacy (or many other advocacies) that are of what I call the "just give use the money" school. Trains are brimming with such social goodness that we should just pay whatever money it takes to have them.
I am of the mind that there are social reasons for having trains, we will be subsidizing trains, but that it is reasonable to apply benchmarks, standards, cost controls, what have you, to see to it that they run efficiently. Yes, when trains are no longer a real business , then you start using all kinds of made-up benchmarks for their effectiveness. It is kind of like LEED, this "Green Building" thingy, where since you cannot use strict dollars and cents as a metric, you have this complicated scoring system of whether wood counts as a renewable or counts as a pillaging of the natural environment, when in the end you could charge costs against activities that harm the environment and simply build to the lowest cost.
And speaking of green building and LEED, the electric power industry is not a real business because they are tied up in that.
So. (clearing my throat from the lingering cold everyone around here has) Breaking even on "direct operating cost" or "above the rail cost" is one of these funny, LEED-ee, non-business, non-Libertarian metrics. But passenger trains come up way short on covering those costs, which suggests to me that not only is there no "business case" for trains, the "something other than a business" case for trains is also weak. I still think that covering such costs is a good benchmark for passenger rail, and I defend this both against the Libertarian argument that everything should be a business and against the "just give us the money" argument that trains are worth whatever money it takes. Even a non-profit or a governmental function has to satisfy some standard of wise use of money.
In FY09 Amtrak had a net operating loss of $1,264,355,000. Passenger miles were 5,897,441,000. The loss is covered by federal and state subsidy payments. Dividing the net operating loss, which includes fully allocated operating expenses, depreciation, and interest, as well as adjustments, results in an average system loss of 21.44 cents per passenger mile. The average loss (subsidy) per passenger was $46.54.
In FY10 the net operating loss was $1,335,449,000. Passenger miles were 6,320,740,000. The average system loss per passenger mile was 21.13 cents. The average loss (subsidy) per passenger was $46.15.
The average operating losses for the NEC, when they were incurred, were smaller than the average losses for the system as a whole. However, if Amtrak allocated depreciation and interest to each route, which it claims that it cannot do because it does not have the required methodology, although it is working on it, the NEC, including the Acela, would show substantial losses for each annual accounting period. Most of Amtrak's depreciation and embedded interest charges lie in the NEC. They were incurred to support the higher speeds associated with Acela operations.
Deggesty 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.
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.
Johnny
Although a lot of what Paul M. says is spot on, his continued reference to the subsidy of 21 cents per passenger mile needs to be put in context.
In the Amtrak Monthly report for Jan. 2011, the facts are these (quite different) from Paul's continued inaccurate assertions about how high Amtrak costs are):
Revenue in cents per passenger mile
Acela 24.6
Regional NEC 0.1
Short Distance -11.6
Long Distance -22.9
Overall -10.5
So the overall loss per PM is half of what was claimed. Perhaps he was referring to the LD trains? As one can see, if we strip out the long distance trains and focus on shorter corridors and the NEC. Amtrak comes close to covering operating expenses. Labor expenses in terms of wages still seem rather high, but would be cut considerably by elimination of the extremely labor-intensive long distance cruise trains.
OK, so if we include depreciation and interest system wide (not available for specific routes or categories), then we get a loss of 21 cents per passenger mile. However, most of the discussions have assumed coverage of above the rail OE as Amtrak states.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
My point about labor is that American business and society lauds automation and eliminating labor in any given industry then cries that there is so much unemployment. So, is the lack of employment and decreased ability to buy products worth industries' laying off people since they don't have a market to sell to? This may sound harsh on one hand, but it is a problem nonetheless and an increasing one at that. I am just pointing out the irony.
henry6 So yes, rail cars for people are expensive...but are they any more expensive (comaratiavely) to advances and needs of air or bus? Even my own automobile is no longer cheap to maintain as I can't do the normal upkeep on it myself anylonger because of onboard computers and other high falutten stuff. So, it all is realative. I also get a kick out of our fear of things being labor intensive. Then we complain that we have unemployment. So if a job can be done by a person, and it make something work well and correctly, then why not employ a person to do the job? We contradict ourselves all the time on this.
So yes, rail cars for people are expensive...but are they any more expensive (comaratiavely) to advances and needs of air or bus? Even my own automobile is no longer cheap to maintain as I can't do the normal upkeep on it myself anylonger because of onboard computers and other high falutten stuff. So, it all is realative.
I also get a kick out of our fear of things being labor intensive. Then we complain that we have unemployment. So if a job can be done by a person, and it make something work well and correctly, then why not employ a person to do the job? We contradict ourselves all the time on this.
Apparently rail cars are more expensive than alternatives. A particular airplane maintenance task may be costly, but not when it is spread out over the large number of passenger miles a fast-travelling airplane covers. A while back when we had the big 'tis 'taint argument about whether one could compare the staffing of Beech Grove with that of Norfolk Southern's main maintenance place, I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation on the numbers that were presented, and passenger trains require multiples of the maintenance per passenger mile of aircraft.
I mean, tell me it is different. Tell me Southwest purchases a 737 jet for X dollars, it takes Y dollars to operate it, and that jet generates Z passenger miles. Do the same for me on an Amtrak train set.
Tell me I am just making this up. Tell me why Southwest more or less covers their operating cost on that jet out of fares where as Amtrak needs 21 cents/passenger mile to make up the difference?
As to maintaining an automobile, your automobile has a computer, and a computer-reader (called a scan tool) can be connected to a plug right underneath your steering wheel. A scan tool can be purchased from any auto part store. It gives you a number, and you can look up what that number means, and then you can log on to the Internet to forums for cars as Kalmbach runs this forum for train and model railroad questions to get a better idea of what is wrong than your dealer service people. The only hard thing about fixing a car is everything is so tightly packed in these days (shades of the Pennsy T1) that it requires Harry Houdini to get at it. I am thinking about opening a service place and hiring slender women with skinny arms and small hands to work on the cars.
What is this kick you get our of a fear of labor intensive? You can throw all the labor hours you want at a problem if 1) you are willing to employ slave labor (i.e. China) or 2) subsidize the heck out of a thing. The idea of not making something labor intensive is that you can pay what they call in the biz "a living wage" to people instead of starvation wages. The U.S. has a high cost for even the basic necessities meaning wages are high unless you are exploiting people for their youth, lack of experience, or lack of immigration documents, which means labor intensive doesn't fly anymore.
Paul Milenkovic ...What the steel-wheel on steel-rail mode has different from the rubber tire and air modes is a high shock and vibration environment. Is that what makes passenger trains intrinsically expensive, that is, a door, or a seat, or an air conditioner, or a whatever that is suitable for a bus or an airplane won't hold up in the railroad environment?
...What the steel-wheel on steel-rail mode has different from the rubber tire and air modes is a high shock and vibration environment. Is that what makes passenger trains intrinsically expensive, that is, a door, or a seat, or an air conditioner, or a whatever that is suitable for a bus or an airplane won't hold up in the railroad environment?
I would say higher shock for railway vehicles is untrue. Railway and highway vehicles generally moderate speed for rough roads and track; and their suspension is scaled to the respective weight. While aircraft at high altitudes can avoid turbulence, severe turbulence and stress on airframes may be unavoidable departing or approaching airports - and it's scary. Part of the issue may be the design life of a vehicle before being extended with rebuilding.
Paul your questions are good ones and show the confusion that enters these discussions. The cost of doors is the one that intrigues me the most. Hate to use the term "in the old days" but...well doors used to be doors, maybe heavier duty than your bedroom or even front door, but a door nevertheless. I opened with a latch and on hinges. Manually. The most blatent and graphic example of what happened is demonstrated in the difference between the Budd RDC's and the Budd SPV's. RDC's had normal, manual, hinged and latched doors. The SPV had automatic sliding and I believe interlocked, doors controlled from a central locaction, not unlike mass transit subway cars and designed by aircraft engineers. But it became the focal point of the failure of the SPV's when they didn't work and couldn't be manually overridden (or someother inconvenience). Add to the door thie high platform/low platform needs, and so you've got problems. Yeah, today's passenger doors are much better than the SPV, less critical than an airplane door, but definitely not passenger operable. Air conditioning is a must, today, and is more expensive. So yes, rail cars for people are expensive...but are they any more expensive (comaratiavely) to advances and needs of air or bus? Even my own automobile is no longer cheap to maintain as I can't do the normal upkeep on it myself anylonger because of onboard computers and other high falutten stuff. So, it all is realative.
Paul Milenkovic What is there about passenger trains that requires high levels of maintenance, apart from "someone in the know" scolding us "arm chair railroaders who think railroading is easy"? Paul: I have been involved in aircraft "C" checks and they are expensive. A freighter may require as much as $600,000 to do one which can occurr every 9 months. Passenger interiors are about what you would expect in a RR car. What the steel-wheel on steel-rail mode has different from the rubber tire and air modes is a high shock and vibration environment. Is that what makes passenger trains intrinsically expensive, that is, a door, or a seat, or an air conditioner, or a whatever that is suitable for a bus or an airplane won't hold up in the railroad environment? The Doors are anywhere from $20,000 - $40,000 depending on size and if an emergency slide is built into the door. Have seen 8 - 10 replaced over my time. Air conditioning is much more expensive in aircraft as they use an air cycle machine and any A/C current is 400 Hz. Aircraft
What is there about passenger trains that requires high levels of maintenance, apart from "someone in the know" scolding us "arm chair railroaders who think railroading is easy"?
Paul: I have been involved in aircraft "C" checks and they are expensive. A freighter may require as much as $600,000 to do one which can occurr every 9 months. Passenger interiors are about what you would expect in a RR car.
What the steel-wheel on steel-rail mode has different from the rubber tire and air modes is a high shock and vibration environment. Is that what makes passenger trains intrinsically expensive, that is, a door, or a seat, or an air conditioner, or a whatever that is suitable for a bus or an airplane won't hold up in the railroad environment?
The Doors are anywhere from $20,000 - $40,000 depending on size and if an emergency slide is built into the door. Have seen 8 - 10 replaced over my time. Air conditioning is much more expensive in aircraft as they use an air cycle machine and any A/C current is 400 Hz. Aircraft
oltmannd You may be able to improve here and there around the edges but a passenger car requires a lot of maintenance and always will. Mac
You may be able to improve here and there around the edges but a passenger car requires a lot of maintenance and always will. Mac
If passenger trains require high levels of maintenance, why bother with passenger trains in today's high labor-cost economy? Steam locomotives required high levels of maintenance, and apart from some tourist or enthusiast operations, we have done away with them.
There are intrinisc features of steam locomotives that make them high maintenance, especially in the low-volume tourist and enthusiast operations. A biggy is the boiler. Not only are we in a high labor-cost economy, we are in a high value placed on human life economy, and operating steam locomotive boilers in conformance with safety regs costs coin.
PNWRMNM John, How about equipment maintenance? You may be able to improve here and there around the edges but a passenger car requires a lot of maintenance and always will. Remember the last technological breakthrough was stainless steel in the 1930's. Mac
John,
How about equipment maintenance? You may be able to improve here and there around the edges but a passenger car requires a lot of maintenance and always will. Remember the last technological breakthrough was stainless steel in the 1930's.
Mac
Maybe more than you think. Tilting suspension. Electronic air brake. Better metallurgy and method of casting wheels. Long-lived wiring insulation. Better wiring connectors. HEP. Modular interiors. Single shoe composition brake rigging. etc. etc.
John Bredin oltmannd: Amtrak has had little incentive to investigate ways to change 50 year old traditions. Really?! Congress and various Presidential administrations slashing Amtrak's budget and sometimes calling for its demise hasn't given it incentive to change and find new ways of doing things?! Amtrak hasn't made any significant changes from private railroad days, found any cost savings?
oltmannd: Amtrak has had little incentive to investigate ways to change 50 year old traditions.
Really?! Congress and various Presidential administrations slashing Amtrak's budget and sometimes calling for its demise hasn't given it incentive to change and find new ways of doing things?! Amtrak hasn't made any significant changes from private railroad days, found any cost savings?
They have, but typically not in on board services - and not until they are threatened or pushed. They have very long crew districts and lots of one man in the cab operation. All very good. But, other than car designs that pack more people into each car, nothing much on the the on board staffing. Some nibbling around the edges such as plastic instead of china - but that's mostly for show.
But, in Amtrak's defense, why should they look for cost savings? That would bring all pain and no gain to the organization and it's individuals. You figure out how to cut costs and all you'll get is next year's subsidy chopped by the same amount, so why spend the effort and risk to try something?
The game is rigged against them. If you could fix the game, maybe there could be different results.
Such as, why do car attendants have space to sleep on the train? Why not swap them out with the operating crew and create more revenue space? Why cook on the train? Why not "cater" the dining car from fixed facilities using existing restaurant kitchens? Why not hire Darden or Marriot or Norwegian to run this side of the business? Bid it out. Let them do the marketing, set the fares and keep the revenue. See how low you can get the subsidy and then share the savings with the employees. The lower the subsidy, the higher the corp. bonus.
PNWRMNM Think about it seriously. What options for change are there. If you are going to have a dining car then you need cooks, a steward, and waiters to do it. Since you have relatively few seats it would be wise to overstaff with waiters to speed up seat turnover. Dining car staff and sleeper attendents work the entire rote, Chicago to Seattle and return. Do you think there is anything to be gained by changing them out periodically as has to be done with operating crews? . Mac
Think about it seriously. What options for change are there. If you are going to have a dining car then you need cooks, a steward, and waiters to do it. Since you have relatively few seats it would be wise to overstaff with waiters to speed up seat turnover. Dining car staff and sleeper attendents work the entire rote, Chicago to Seattle and return. Do you think there is anything to be gained by changing them out periodically as has to be done with operating crews?
.
As to changing on-board service personnel here and there, do you change diner personnel (who may also be coach/sleeper attendants) in the middle of a meal? (VIA may do this in Winnipeg on the westbound Canadian, which is scheduled to arrive at 0800 and to depart at 1200 (the eastbound train is scheduled to arrive at 2030 and to depart at 2330--all on board service personnel change in Winnipeg.)
Mac: Good analysis that I would like to expand.
PNWRMNM John, . As did the freight railroads ATK was able to lengthen some operating crew districts. That definitely helped the bottom line and the use of only one on locos of less than 6 hrs. Think about it seriously. What options for change are there. If you are going to have a dining car then you need cooks, a steward, and waiters to do it. Since you have relatively few seats it would be wise to overstaff with waiters to speed up seat turnover. The extra staff in the dining cars will become more important as certain trains increase their ridership and need to speed turnover. Of course at a certain point there will be the need of a second dining car or at least a lounge car dining can be done in. Dining car staff and sleeper attendents work the entire route, Chicago to Seattle and return. Do you think there is anything to be gained by changing them out periodically as has to be done with operating crews? That would maybe increase costs as the check in and checkout times of an attendant would add to total time on duty. How about equipment maintenance? You may be able to improve here and there around the edges but a passenger car requires a lot of maintenance and always will. Remember the last technological breakthrough was stainless steel in the 1930's. For those who know the availability of aircraft is much less than a RR passenger car. You will find that a 12hr / day availability of an aircraft is about maximum. Overhauls ( C checks ) will also take anywhere from 5 days to 45 days depending on the level. Amtrak publishes an availability of about 85% I am no fan of ATK, but they are working within a small box of possibilities. Mac
. As did the freight railroads ATK was able to lengthen some operating crew districts.
That definitely helped the bottom line and the use of only one on locos of less than 6 hrs.
Think about it seriously. What options for change are there. If you are going to have a dining car then you need cooks, a steward, and waiters to do it. Since you have relatively few seats it would be wise to overstaff with waiters to speed up seat turnover.
The extra staff in the dining cars will become more important as certain trains increase their ridership and need to speed turnover. Of course at a certain point there will be the need of a second dining car or at least a lounge car dining can be done in.
Dining car staff and sleeper attendents work the entire route, Chicago to Seattle and return. Do you think there is anything to be gained by changing them out periodically as has to be done with operating crews?
That would maybe increase costs as the check in and checkout times of an attendant would add to total time on duty.
For those who know the availability of aircraft is much less than a RR passenger car. You will find that a 12hr / day availability of an aircraft is about maximum. Overhauls ( C checks ) will also take anywhere from 5 days to 45 days depending on the level. Amtrak publishes an availability of about 85%
I am no fan of ATK, but they are working within a small box of possibilities.
Good points MAC!!
Alan
PNWRMNM ...Think about it seriously. What options for change are there. If you are going to have a dining car then you need cooks, a steward, and waiters to do it. Since you have relatively few seats it would be wise to overstaff with waiters to speed up seat turnover. Dining car staff and sleeper attendents work the entire rote, Chicago to Seattle and return. Do you think there is anything to be gained by changing them out periodically as has to be done with operating crews?
...Think about it seriously. What options for change are there. If you are going to have a dining car then you need cooks, a steward, and waiters to do it. Since you have relatively few seats it would be wise to overstaff with waiters to speed up seat turnover. Dining car staff and sleeper attendents work the entire rote, Chicago to Seattle and return. Do you think there is anything to be gained by changing them out periodically as has to be done with operating crews?
Suggesting buffet food service, I hadn't considered the need to turn over limited seating. A buffet would encourage people to linger and over-eat. Good point; still I don't know about the over-staffing with waiters.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.