To follow this "discussion" it's as though nobody can ask questions, pose rational options, or say anything if it doesn't fit into some vague and shifting notion of service, whether food service or passenger train service.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Here is a thought for Mr. Boardman if pushed to the wall. Where coach only service is now provided, let there be two classes, business class, always all reserved on all trains, and regular coach which can remain non-reerved where it is currently non-reserved. The business class has the standard amenities that business class travelers enjoy now. But the price should be raised and meals included and the additional price should cover the cost of meals. The third level sleeping car, should cover both the cost of meals and the costs of the addiitonal service. And every attempt should continue to be made to increase quality and variety and lower costs. For those traveling basic coach, upgrades to business should be sold on train as available, box lunches available at stations, etc. The only problem is for business class and sleeper passengers who pay for a meal they don't want. Probalby a minority.
I like and understand what you are saying, Dave, but wonder about the total number of passengers in each class being enough for doing it this way. I have a feeling it would have to be rationalized by train and by route.
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.
Why should travelers in coach be forced to pay for a food service they may not want in order to get a reserved seat?
You're right, they shouldn't. But it is one way of spreading the cost of the service (in this case the operting of the train with dining services) rather than take a huge loss or have to charge such a high price for food that no one would buy. From a business point it makes sense to get as much from the gate to support the whole as possible. Again, all the questions and opinions here are just conjecture....there will be no decision here which all will accept nor which would fit every situation.
warren wilson The report is available here: http://www.amtrakoig.gov/sites/default/files/reports/08022012____amtrak_oig_food__beverage_testimony.pdf
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Warren Wilson
Good find! Nobody listening? That's par for the course for most of the public hearings that I have attended. It is why I almost never attend a public hearing. Instead, I work behind the scenes to get it done. Out of the spotlight where people are not forced to be defensive.
travelingengineerThank you, "schlimm," for your succinct re-focus. May I respectfully add (amused, if not elucidated, by some prior posts) that a repast in the Dining Car (not "dinning" car as spelled by another) is more than, say, eating a hamburger. Unless one is a true iconoclast, one can connect and perhaps even enjoy the at-table company of fellow travelers, always finding topics of common interest. For example, I have coincidentally shared meals thereon with Marcus J. Ruef (BofLE VP) - delightful, well worth my cost and I have totally forgotten the meal and its cost but not forgotten Mr. Ruef. The pleasure of eating out anywhere with one's family or friends, for example, is worth whatever its cost. For Amtrak, meal service is simply part of the "cost of doing business," like air-conditioning in a supermarket with the doors always open, whether a customer wants frozen food or firewood. Finally (as mentioned in a concurrent thread), may I opine that the cost of a Sleeping Car Bedroom may be more than that of a 1st class hotel room, but I can't imagine looking out the window of any hotel room all day for a week!
I wouldn't argue for a second that eating in the dining car and travelling in a sleeper are a wonderful thing to do. I love doing it, too! And, I'd like to do it in the future, too.
But, I don't think it's fair to ask the taxpayers of this country to subsidize my room and board on the train. I would like to travel on the SS United States to Europe on scheduled service rather than fly, but I sure wouldn't suggest the gov't subsidize the service just because it's a wonderful experience and people who don't like flying have no other way to get to Europe.
The subsidy per passenger mile on the LD trains is so high, it threatens to send all of Amtrak down the drain. This is the "elephant in the room" that Amtrak chooses to ignore. They have been "inside the box" so long they don't have a clue that there an "outside" where good ideas come from.
If we want there to be LD trains to ride, then we need to push to make them better economically. I'm not talking about "profitability", just some continued improvement that would take the focus and heat off them. They can probably survive on some combination of political will and "essential service" rationale (no matter how weak) if only they did better economically.
It is apparent we have three views: don't subsidize trains, subsidize trains, don't understand what subsidizing is all about. The only one's who will change their minds are the latter and they will eventually, when understanding, drift to one or the other of the two former. What has to be understood is how all governments deal with transportation and define "subsidy". If you subscribe to the concept that traffic cops, canal locks and waterways, airports, highways and roadways, air traffic controllers, passenger trains, bus stations, are all the same when it comes to subsidies, then you can move forward with a rational and intermodal transportation system in an efficient and hopefully intelligent manor. If you deny any one of those items as subsidy, then you will continue with the system we have now for whatever it is and it is worth.
.
henry6 It is apparent we have three views: don't subsidize trains, subsidize trains, don't understand what subsidizing is all about. The only one's who will change their minds are the latter and they will eventually, when understanding, drift to one or the other of the two former. What has to be understood is how all governments deal with transportation and define "subsidy". If you subscribe to the concept that traffic cops, canal locks and waterways, airports, highways and roadways, air traffic controllers, passenger trains, bus stations, are all the same when it comes to subsidies, then you can move forward with a rational and intermodal transportation system in an efficient and hopefully intelligent manor. If you deny any one of those items as subsidy, then you will continue with the system we have now for whatever it is and it is worth.
Part of the problem with subsidies lies in the definition of subsidy. The biggest problem, however, is the distortion of the pricing mechanism caused by subsidies. When people don't know what an item or service costs, as reflected in the pricing mechanism, they tend to make sub-optimum choices.
Prior to the opening of the Texas electric utility market to competition, the rates for residential customers were subsidized by commercial and industrial users. This kept the residential price artificially low, which resulted in their using more electricity, with a variety of attendant downside consequences, than otherwise would have been the case. Once the market was opened to competition, the argument against subsidies was shown to be valid.
Ok..here's an excercise which might or might not clear up the question of subsidy. Name one program, business, service, or publicly performed actvity that is not subsidized by any level of government. directly or indirectly.
I see little rationale possibility for most LD routes to continue without impairing the rest of Amtrak's stated function - providing a transportation service for the greatest number of passengers. On corridors the concept can lead to a real transportation service. In those situations, we should look to Europe as a model to see what works, since in corridors, the concept is directly comparable. Some of the posters here (Don, Beaulieu, Sir Madog, et al.) are quite familiar with food services on the trains in Germany and France and Italy. We don't need to reinvent the wheel.
CMStPnP To answer an earlier question. Once upon a time there was a food and beverage cart on the Chicago to Milwaukee run that was used by Amtrak and pushed up and down the isle. No idea what happened to it. As for continuing the conversation I don't see why not. A lot of railfans in this thread are really not vigilant against taxpayer waste and any money thrown at passenger train service is OK. Thats fine and my suggestion is they cover the cost then out of their wallet instead of using other folks money and shrugging their shoulders at waste. If you don't want to read the topic then don't click on it. I don't think shutting down conversation because you think your point of view is the only valid one is acceptable or very adult like. I would like to see the fine print of this contract because I am fairly confident there is significant graft in it. Makes no sense to me why Amtrak needs 12 seperate commissaies open. Makes no sense to me why they have not moved to cashless vending as the airlines have to reduce fraud. Amtrak is clearly wasting money with this contract. I don't think onboard food and beverage will ever be profitable either BUT losing this much money.....it needs to be looked at again why and where the money is being spent in detail. It is very telling that joe citizen can't even get the details of this contract. Might just ask my Congress Critter to obtain it for me for further analysis.
To answer an earlier question.
Once upon a time there was a food and beverage cart on the Chicago to Milwaukee run that was used by Amtrak and pushed up and down the isle. No idea what happened to it.
As for continuing the conversation I don't see why not. A lot of railfans in this thread are really not vigilant against taxpayer waste and any money thrown at passenger train service is OK. Thats fine and my suggestion is they cover the cost then out of their wallet instead of using other folks money and shrugging their shoulders at waste. If you don't want to read the topic then don't click on it. I don't think shutting down conversation because you think your point of view is the only valid one is acceptable or very adult like.
I would like to see the fine print of this contract because I am fairly confident there is significant graft in it. Makes no sense to me why Amtrak needs 12 seperate commissaies open. Makes no sense to me why they have not moved to cashless vending as the airlines have to reduce fraud. Amtrak is clearly wasting money with this contract.
I don't think onboard food and beverage will ever be profitable either BUT losing this much money.....it needs to be looked at again why and where the money is being spent in detail. It is very telling that joe citizen can't even get the details of this contract. Might just ask my Congress Critter to obtain it for me for further analysis.
When I lived in Denver I was forced to pay a sales tax to build our $4.8 billion dollar airport. Burger King, McDonalds, etc. has a store there without a roof that uses the roof I paid for. Therefore, I am subsidizing your lunch when you eat at Burger King. I therefore insist that no restaurants be allowed to operate at DIA, because it amounts to my buying someone's lunch.
See how ridiculous and obtuse this argument is? That is why those of us who support food service as an accompaniment to passenger travel think the arguments of the opponents are disingenuous, that you just oppose Amtrak in general and are grasping at straws to try to end it.
travelingengineerTrying to keep this simple, let me carry further my previous example of government-paid ("subsidized") capital improvements for those people who choose to walk. The sidewalks and walk-wait signals at cross-streets are rarely if ever used by those who only drive cars, but the elderly, disabled, children and those without cars must have them for their personal safety and mobility. So local governments have deemed these capital improvements to be a necessary expenditure for the general public (some of whom might or might not actually require them). Talk about subsidization!
Don't agree at all. Pedestrians pre-date autos. With roads, we needed a way to allow cars and pedestrians to share rights of way. Walkers preceded autos, so autos have to pay the freight for access to roads. Intersection signalling comes out of the highway budget predominantly funded from gas tax.. Walkers remain unsubsidized.
henry6 Ok..here's an excercise which might or might not clear up the question of subsidy. Name one program, business, service, or publicly performed actvity that is not subsidized by any level of government. directly or indirectly.
There are none. But, there is the order of magnitude of the subsidy. We could provide subsidized rides into space because it would be "fun" or fund a rehab of the SS United States - but neither would give much bang for the subsidy buck.
DwightBranch CMStPnP To answer an earlier question. Once upon a time there was a food and beverage cart on the Chicago to Milwaukee run that was used by Amtrak and pushed up and down the isle. No idea what happened to it. As for continuing the conversation I don't see why not. A lot of railfans in this thread are really not vigilant against taxpayer waste and any money thrown at passenger train service is OK. Thats fine and my suggestion is they cover the cost then out of their wallet instead of using other folks money and shrugging their shoulders at waste. If you don't want to read the topic then don't click on it. I don't think shutting down conversation because you think your point of view is the only valid one is acceptable or very adult like. I would like to see the fine print of this contract because I am fairly confident there is significant graft in it. Makes no sense to me why Amtrak needs 12 seperate commissaies open. Makes no sense to me why they have not moved to cashless vending as the airlines have to reduce fraud. Amtrak is clearly wasting money with this contract. I don't think onboard food and beverage will ever be profitable either BUT losing this much money.....it needs to be looked at again why and where the money is being spent in detail. It is very telling that joe citizen can't even get the details of this contract. Might just ask my Congress Critter to obtain it for me for further analysis. When I lived in Denver I was forced to pay a sales tax to build our $4.8 billion dollar airport. Burger King, McDonalds, etc. has a store there without a roof that uses the roof I paid for. Therefore, I am subsidizing your lunch when you eat at Burger King. I therefore insist that no restaurants be allowed to operate at DIA, because it amounts to my buying someone's lunch. See how ridiculous and obtuse this argument is? That is why those of us who support food service as an accompaniment to passenger travel think the arguments of the opponents are disingenuous, that you just oppose Amtrak in general and are grasping at straws to try to end it.
Sure, but there a difference from bleeding from a scraped knee and opening up an artery. You cannot just say "blood is blood".
henry6 It is apparent we have three views: don't subsidize trains, subsidize trains, don't understand what subsidizing is all about. The only one's who will change their minds are the latter and they will eventually, when understanding, drift to one or the other of the two former. What has to be understood is how all governments deal with transportation and define "subsidy". If you subscribe to the concept that traffic cops, canal locks and waterways, airports, highways and roadways, air traffic controllers, passenger trains, bus stations, are all the same when it comes to subsidies, then you can move forward with a rational and intermodal transportation system in an efficient and hopefully intelligent manor. If you deny any one of those items as subsidy, then you will continue with the system we have now for whatever it is and it is worth. .
In the long run, it might be politically reasonable to have the gov't subsidize the capital costs and expect the operations to cover the operating costs, particularly if the capital gets you more capacity than it would doing any other alternative.
That might pass the "smell test"
e.g. an upgraded NEC might be cheaper than building more lanes on I-95 or an airport in NJ.
DwightBranchSee how ridiculous and obtuse this argument is? That is why those of us who support food service as an accompaniment to passenger travel think the arguments of the opponents are disingenuous, that you just oppose Amtrak in general and are grasping at straws.
Please do not make sweeping such generalizations or assumptions. I, and several others here, favor a real passenger rail network, which would mean modern fast frequent services in the many corridors where it is rational. Opposition to the pathetic "food service" and long distance trains of an era 60 years ago is not disingenuous.
daveklepper Here is a thought for Mr. Boardman if pushed to the wall. Where coach only service is now provided, let there be two classes, business class, always all reserved on all trains, and regular coach which can remain non-reerved where it is currently non-reserved. The business class has the standard amenities that business class travelers enjoy now. But the price should be raised and meals included and the additional price should cover the cost of meals. The third level sleeping car, should cover both the cost of meals and the costs of the addiitonal service. And every attempt should continue to be made to increase quality and variety and lower costs. For those traveling basic coach, upgrades to business should be sold on train as available, box lunches available at stations, etc. The only problem is for business class and sleeper passengers who pay for a meal they don't want. Probalby a minority.
Most of the privately run LD trains prior to Amtrak had three or more classes of service. Amtrak decided on the two classes of service on the LD trains for who knows whatever reason. They used to have business class in the NE Corridor but I think they got rid of it. Even on the Chi-Milwaukee Corridor they had two classes at one time but then got rid of it. Either their computer reservation system can't handle multiple classes or they can't market it properly.
DwightBranch See how ridiculous and obtuse this argument is? That is why those of us who support food service as an accompaniment to passenger travel think the arguments of the opponents are disingenuous, that you just oppose Amtrak in general and are grasping at straws to try to end it.
Well unlike most of the posters here I do ride Amtrak LD and average about once a year. I'll ride the Texas Eagle up to Chicago and back for Christmas from Dallas. Believe it or not my Airline FF miles are used for both the rail fare and the sleeper accomodations, so I usually pay little cash or nothing at all. I think they should keep the LD trains but I think the Food Service loss is ridiculous and while I might be able to look the other way if it was a small gap. This is a huge gaping hole in Amtraks subsidy that should be filled with better management.
henry6 And what will that prove? Few here are involved enough in food service to give an honest answer and few are professional railroad managers to give an honest answer. A poll here is noting more than fanati's exuberance for beloved trains or political POV. McDonald pocketbooks will vote one way, gourmonds will vote another way, Libertarians will say flat no, Republicans will say privatize,and Democrats will say yes. And it still will mean nothing. I'll vote yes from a nostalgic standpoint but side with the Republican viewpoint if it were truley researched and planned and well executed if privatized and yes also from a business service point of vew, too, if that's what a Democrat stands for here. No, this poll will prove nothing, I'm afraid. The arguements have been made and heard,minds have been made up. Those with points of view political or othewise, are dug in and holding their forts. This merry-go-round has run its many circles and the machine is out of brass rings.
And what will that prove? Few here are involved enough in food service to give an honest answer and few are professional railroad managers to give an honest answer. A poll here is noting more than fanati's exuberance for beloved trains or political POV. McDonald pocketbooks will vote one way, gourmonds will vote another way, Libertarians will say flat no, Republicans will say privatize,and Democrats will say yes. And it still will mean nothing. I'll vote yes from a nostalgic standpoint but side with the Republican viewpoint if it were truley researched and planned and well executed if privatized and yes also from a business service point of vew, too, if that's what a Democrat stands for here. No, this poll will prove nothing, I'm afraid. The arguements have been made and heard,minds have been made up. Those with points of view political or othewise, are dug in and holding their forts. This merry-go-round has run its many circles and the machine is out of brass rings.
It is encouraging people to think outside the box vs "maintain the status quo". I hope you are familar with that management paradigm and how it benefits us all.
oltmannd henry6 Ok..here's an excercise which might or might not clear up the question of subsidy. Name one program, business, service, or publicly performed actvity that is not subsidized by any level of government. directly or indirectly. There are none. But, there is the order of magnitude of the subsidy. We could provide subsidized rides into space because it would be "fun" or fund a rehab of the SS United States - but neither would give much bang for the subsidy buck.
The investor owned electric utility that I worked for received no direct subsidies, i.e. cash payments from any government entity or any other source.
If you stretch the definition of subsidies to mean police and fire protection, streets and sanitation, schools, etc., a look at the company's financial records would show that the taxes it paid (federal and state income, sales, excise, franchise, inventory, property, etc.) to all levels of government not only covered its footprint but the footprints of numerous other activities. Not only did the company cover the cost of all these services, it even covered the cost of its numerous regulators.
People frequently confuse the tax code provisions that allow a business to deduct its legitimate business expenses as a subsidy. That is incorrect. However, if only one business gets a deduction, one might claim that it is getting a subsidy, but it is different than a direct cash payment. Our company took claimed no business expenses or took no deductions that were not available to every investor owned electric utility in the United States and, in fact, were available to an over whelming majority of businesses.
But it had to be chartered and made exclusive by a government somewhere along the way....and the rights of way were possibly easements rather than purchase of land...and a lot of other indirect government incursions.
CMStPnP DwightBranch See how ridiculous and obtuse this argument is? That is why those of us who support food service as an accompaniment to passenger travel think the arguments of the opponents are disingenuous, that you just oppose Amtrak in general and are grasping at straws to try to end it. Well unlike most of the posters here I do ride Amtrak LD and average about once a year. I'll ride the Texas Eagle up to Chicago and back for Christmas from Dallas. Believe it or not my Airline FF miles are used for both the rail fare and the sleeper accomodations, so I usually pay little cash or nothing at all. I think they should keep the LD trains but I think the Food Service loss is ridiculous and while I might be able to look the other way if it was a small gap. This is a huge gaping hole in Amtraks subsidy that should be filled with better management.
I too am a frequent train traveler. To date this year I have taken the Eagle from Temple to Dallas (3), and Temple to San Antonio (2). I have ridden the Pacific Surfliner from Anaheim to San Diego (2) and Anaheim to Los Angeles (2). Also, I have taken the Coast Starlight from Los Angeles to San Francisco and the Silver Star from Jacksonville to Miami. I support passengers trains by ridding them. Having said that, if I were in charge, I would discontinue the long distance trains in a minute and focus the resources on short corridor trains.
How do you use your frequently flyer miles on Amtrak. I have Southwest miles, and I am a Guest Rewards member?
henry6 But it had to be chartered and made exclusive by a government somewhere along the way....and the rights of way were possibly easements rather than purchase of land...and a lot of other indirect government incursions.
The company was not charted by the government; it was incorporated in accordance with Texas law. To that extent you could say that it was granted a state charter. Its ability to operate was due to being granted a franchise (usually by the city) to serve an area, for which it paid and is paying franchise taxes. How anyone could view this as a subsidy is beyond me.
The company's rights-of-way were secured in part by eminent domain. It paid the landowners for the rights-of-way. In most instances the company (shareholders) pay the owners what they asked, which arguably was above the fair market value of the land. How anyone could view this as a subsidy akin to the cash subsidies received by Amtrak is beyond me.
I keep telling myself not to respond to the postings about subsidies. They are irrelevant. It does not matter whether a particular form of transport got a subsidy or was mistreated by the government. It is done and over with. The key questions is where does passenger rail makes sense, how should we pay for it, and what form should it take? But sometimes I read a posting that I cannot help but respond to.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.