John WR Amtrak publishes a fact sheet about its long distance service. You can see it here: http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/374/876/Long%20Distance%20Trains.pdf According to the fact sheet 15 per cent of passengers ride in sleeping cars but they produce 36 per cent of the revenue on those trains. The 85 per cent of people who ride in coaches produce the remaining 64 per cent of the revenue. No doubt there are extra expenses for sleeping car passengers. However, I suspect that the added revenue makes up for those extra expenses and adds a significant amount besides.
Amtrak publishes a fact sheet about its long distance service. You can see it here:
http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/374/876/Long%20Distance%20Trains.pdf
According to the fact sheet 15 per cent of passengers ride in sleeping cars but they produce 36 per cent of the revenue on those trains. The 85 per cent of people who ride in coaches produce the remaining 64 per cent of the revenue. No doubt there are extra expenses for sleeping car passengers. However, I suspect that the added revenue makes up for those extra expenses and adds a significant amount besides.
OK, I read the Amtrak Fact Sheet you linked to.
Sleeping cars carry 15 percent of passengers, but those passengers ride, according to Amtrak, twice as far on average. So by "passengers", Amtrak means what they say, that is, passenger boardings instead of passenger miles, because the rest of what they say doesn't make sense otherwise. This means sleeping car passenger account for 26 percent of passenger miles? And coach passengers account for 74 percent of passenger miles? And this means the revenue per passenger miles in sleeper is about 1.6 times that of coach?
I think this lays to rest the suspicion that there is a higher revenue yield on sleeping car passengers, that is, taking into the much lower passenger capacity of sleeping cars and the added crew costs.
As to "most riders" and even most passenger miles taking place in coach and the long-distance train being a defacto "intercity train" taking trips under 600 miles, of course, was the whole point of the infamous I.G. Kenneth Meade report. And the point of that report is that if you ditched the sleeping cars, you could do away with the baggage car, crew dorm, diner, lounge car, and second locomotive, turning the long-distance train into a corridor-train consist. And saving a lot of money. Or maybe freeing up a large number of train cars that could be reconfigured to provide a second daily train along many of the long-distance routes?
Amtrak's fact sheet rebutts the I.G. Meade Report suggestion, saying that even the day-tripping coach passengers are on the train for a long day and that you have to feed them something. Yes, but do you have to feed those passengers using two entire cars in the consist with their capital and maintenance expense -- a diner and also a lounge car that serves drinks and snacks?
That gets back to another consideration, that is, if trains are a slow mode of transportation, can you keep passengers in their seats all day or for an overnight, serving them food from carts, without giving the passengers a destination to "get up out of their seat and stretch their legs", namely two full train cars in the consist for that function. The seating density on long-distance coach, at least from the standpoint of legroom, is comparable to business class on trans-Pacific jets, where with some rare exceptions, passengers are served meals at their seats from carts. One acception I encountered was a coast-to-coast "red-eye" on United where they served a late night sandwich buffet, taking up no more room than a row of seats, if that. You had to stand in line for that sandwich, but the standing in line was a change in posture from being in the seat for however many hours.
And if you cut back on amenities, saying providing a grade of service comparable to business class on trans-Pacific jets, in pursuit of reduced cost (or providing more train service with the money you have), are people going to desert the train. Amtrak seems to think that a major role of the long-distance trains is as a "life-line" to the small communities along the line, who according to Amtrak don't have alternative choices.
One more thing. This Fact Sheet has a lot in it that is aimed at critics and particular criticisms leveled at Amtrak, including their use of limited capital resources to purchase new dining cars. The claim is that the new dining cars will "will produce additional cost efficiencies while enhancing customer service."
So tell me, what are the possible cost efficiences in a brand new dining car that offset the capital cost of its purchase (as opposed to a rebuild). Is there some new dining car technology in terms of kitchen or tables and seating that cannot be incorporated into a Heritage dining car? Or is it all about getting 125 MPH dining cars on the Silver Service trains so they don't choke traffic on the NEC?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
John WR henry6But a rationalization of services, income, and pricing can serve both the provider and the customers wel Henry, One thing I have noticed is that Amtrak doesn't provide open sleeping cars. They were popular for many years and VIA Rail still uses them but Amtrak does not. In Europe you can get a couchette--the European version of an open sleeper--for very little. I wonder why Amtrak does not use them and if it should. With best regards, John
henry6But a rationalization of services, income, and pricing can serve both the provider and the customers wel
Henry,
One thing I have noticed is that Amtrak doesn't provide open sleeping cars. They were popular for many years and VIA Rail still uses them but Amtrak does not. In Europe you can get a couchette--the European version of an open sleeper--for very little. I wonder why Amtrak does not use them and if it should.
With best regards, John
There were two variations on the open section: the private section and the enclosed section. The enclosed section had a wall between the berth and the aisle (and I am sure that the porter despised having to make such up), and the private section also had a washroom that was for the use of the occupants of that section--but the occupants had to go into the aisle to reach the washroom. The first City of Portland had enclosed sections. Cars with private sections were operated on the Crescent Limited.
Having ridden (and slept) in all types of sleeper accomodations (except the upper berth in a Slumbercoach double room) in this country and in Canada, I really prefer having toilet facilities in my room (though if you had to get up in the night in a roomette, you had to be quick with getting the berth up and out of the way).
Johnny
DeggestyOpen sections were popular for many years--because that was the type of accomodation that Pullman provided.
Johnny,
Thanks for all of the information. You have a lot more experience with sleeping cars than I do. But it does seems to me that the open section cars (and perhaps the enclosed section cars) did carry more people than other kinds of sleeping cars and there costs were relatively modest. That makes me wonder if they really ought to have a place on long distance trains today.
Best regards,
John
Following this forum for the last couple of days I have not seen anyone mention the Budd Slumbercoach. Here was the car that could sleep forty passengers in reasonable comfort and each room provided its own washbasin and toilet facilities. Remember these cars were introduced in 1956 and many railroads were still buying or converting other cars into 44 seat leg rest coaches. The 10-6 sleeper had a capacity of 22 and the Slumbercoach nearly twice as many. I have traveled the North Coast Limited, Mainstreeter and Denver Zephyr all in Slumbercoaches and though I was much younger found them to be quite comfortable. If Amtrak had kept the Slumbercoaches and converted there toilet facilities I am sure they would still be in service.
CN rebuilt many cars to Daynighters and these also were quite comfortable. Personally I do not care for the new eastern long distance sleeping cars as they seem noisier than the Budd products of years ago. We were too quick to scrap the old and bring out the new. And Amtraks bottom line would sure be in better shape than it is now.
Al - in - Stockton
Paul,
I was simply trying to address the question of numbers of sleeping car passengers and amounts they contributed to Amtrak. I took the published statistics at face value.
I don't begin to have the information to answer the questions you raise. I attempted to find the IG's report you refer to but could not do so. However, I did find a report of it in the Washington Post. According to the article Inspector General Kenneth Meade was criticizing Amtrak for investing in sleeping cars rather than replacing infrastructure such as deteriorating bridges. Then President David Gunn responded to the report. He agreed Amtrak was not making the capital improvements it needed to because Congress had not appropriated the funds Amtrak needed. He pointed out that members of Congress expected sleeping car service for trains traveling through their states so Amtrak was not really free to discontinue it. For the same reason Amtrak was not free to abandon routes of sections of routes. Also, were Amtrak to convert its long distance all service trains to corridor service coach only trains as Meade suggested they would not realize savings because of costs involved in contractual agreements.
Interestingly, Amtrak did about this time replace a bridge over the Thames River in New London CT. Senator John McCain noted that and praised Amtrak for it. He had been a critic of Amtrak.
The big issue of costs is the added revenue balanced against the cost of an additional engine, the baggage car and one of the two dining cars. I don't know this cost breakdown or where to find it. You may.
Best regards, John
Here is the IG report http://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/dot/files/pdfdocs/CR-2005-068.pdf
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Don,
Thank you for providing Kenneth Meade's 2004 report about the proposals to end sleeping car service, food service and checked baggage service on Amtrak's long distance trains. It does provide the data I asked about. I don't know if David Gunn's response is available to round out the picture. It would appear that some members of Congress found Gunn persuasive as no action was taken to require Amtrak to end these services in the years since the report was prepared.
PS
I don't want to weigh in on a response to the IG report as it seems to me David Gunn has already done that. However, one of the assumptions almost jumped off the page because it seemed so questionable. The report assumes there would be no decline in coach passengers if the dinning car, lounge car and baggage car were dropped. The dinning car, "a restaurant on wheels," is a significant part of the cost savings. It requires cooks and other food preparation personnel as well as wait staff and also requires a crew dormitory. That, with the baggage car, are three non revenue cars. But without these amenities would the number of coach passengers not decline? Coach passengers do eat and they do travel with luggage just like sleeping car passengers do. On average, coach passengers stay on board long enough so that they need one or two meals. Why in the world would we assume coach passengers would not respond to this decline in service? I do think this assumption is a bit of a stretch.
Food carts. The subsidy level for sleeper passengers as you can see in the IG report is obscene.
The trains are designed more for sleeper class and high-end amenities. Existing long-distance train makeup is disproportionately geared to sleeper service and other higher-end amenities. Continuing with our example on the California Zephyr, there are two sleeper cars and half of a transition dorm, as well as specialized sleeper car personnel, dedicated solely to the 17 percent of riders who are in sleeper class. Compare this with three coaches dedicated solely to the 83 percent who are coach passengers. The train consist also includes a diner car. Diner cars are staffed by one chef, one or two food preparation assistants, and three to five attendants. Half of the transition dorm car is used to house On-Board Services (OBS) personnel, the majority of whom are associated with diner service. Thus, it is not surprising that the loss per sleeper class passenger substantially exceeded the loss per coach passenger.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmFood carts. The subsidy level for sleeper passsngers as you can see in the IG report is obscene.
Schlimm,
If you break out the subsidized services -- sleeping car service, food service and baggage service -- then the subsidy for sleeping car service is not so obscene. And since we all equally need to eat and, as a group, bring bags with us it seems to me there are three issues here rather than one.
After all, if food cars are sufficient for coach passengers why aren't they sufficient for sleeping car passengers too? Sleeping car passengers have more room and their own table. You posted a link to German Railroads which showed breakfast being delivered to sleeping car passengers. Why couldn't Amtrak do the same thing?
As you point out, "Diner cars are staffed by one chef, one or two food preparation assistants, and three to five attendants. Half of the transition dorm car is used to house On-Board Services (OBS) personnel, the majority of whom are associated with diner service." But neither you nor I nor anyone who posts here decides on the level of subsidy that is appropriate. Congress does and back in 2004 it was Congress that decided this subsidy was not out of bounds.
Coach Sleeper Total
rev. expenses rev. expenses (loss)
Capitol Limited 49 214 155 507 (352)
Get ride of sleeper cars and you reduce by one engine, the dorm car , dining car, maybe the baggage car and all that personnel. Maybe then the coach subsidy would be even less.
If you carefully read the report, you would see that the dining (only 2 'n's' not 3) was used mostly by coach passengers. The coach passengers used the cheaper service. The German CNL's have breakfast brought in near the morning destination on carts, a much cheaper arrangement.
And since this is a nation where we elect Congress, our opinion does matter.
I think you and I pretty much agree here except for one point: The spelling of dinnning car. But we don't run Amtrak. The board of directors does and their decisions are subject to Congressional oversight. Kenneth Meade's report was completed in 2004. If it has not yet been adopted I think Congress has decided to support the current level of service.
But nothing is forever. Perhaps Congress will change its position on Amtrak funding. We still have a Republican majority in the House and many of those Republicans are very conservative. Who knows what the future will bring?
Not sure why you continue to defend the continuance of a ridiculously expensive service for the few.
Not to sound like the grammar police, but I suggest you look in a dictionary. "Dining" is the participle of "dine" to eat. "Dinning" the participle or gerund form of "din" which refers to a "loud, confused noise; a continued loud or tumultuous sound; noisy clamor." So your dinning car would be a loud, raucous place to eat.
John WR PS Don, I don't want to weigh in on a response to the IG report as it seems to me David Gunn has already done that. However, one of the assumptions almost jumped off the page because it seemed so questionable. The report assumes there would be no decline in coach passengers if the dinning car, lounge car and baggage car were dropped. The dinning car, "a restaurant on wheels," is a significant part of the cost savings. It requires cooks and other food preparation personnel as well as wait staff and also requires a crew dormitory. That, with the baggage car, are three non revenue cars. But without these amenities would the number of coach passengers not decline? Coach passengers do eat and they do travel with luggage just like sleeping car passengers do. On average, coach passengers stay on board long enough so that they need one or two meals. Why in the world would we assume coach passengers would not respond to this decline in service? I do think this assumption is a bit of a stretch. John
That was a bit of a stretch, but was needed to prove the point, I think.
There were two assumptions I would question. One is feeding passengers at their seats from a food cart - which would be the alternative to no diner or lounge. The other is no coach attendant. The coaches do need someone to take care of housekeeping on a long trip.
But, you don't need a diner or sleeping space for attendants in order to solve these problems.
For food, you sell pre-plated meals loaded on board en-route - sort of like what a lot of the dinner trains do. Keep the lounge cars, but put in tables. Amtrak tried this, but they really botched it. Remember the attempt at "diner-lite" Superliner diner/lounges? They didn't work out, so Amtrak gave up trying, resorting to "see? we told you!"
For on board attendants, you simply have them rotate with the engineer and trainmen. One or two per train, depending on time of day. They would help with the food and keep the train tidied up. You could even have local cleaning companies do some cleaning, SWAT team style, mid-route.
You could probably net a good chunk of the savings stated in the report.
The one thing the report does not consider is what the ridership would do if you reoriented the schedule toward coach passengers.
John wondered about service on DB ICE and other trains. One ICE's some have a restaurant car; some only the Bord Bistro car. IC's just some food service, but both have attendants with snacks and beverages pushing carts the length of the train. They generally work between some stations and then another person(s) boards with a new, full cart or two. There are no car attendants, just conductors. No wasted space for staff. CNL's (sleepers) have several attendants , but berths, etc are already set on boarding, which is late evening/night. The breakfast is brought on board early in morning and distributed to the 1st class passengers only by carts. And certainly no baggage cars. These services are just fine, because the emphasis is on fast, convenient transportation services, not some land cruise.
I think you make a good point about food on carts. Amtrak is in the transportation business, not the restaurant business.
And I agree with you too, Schlimm, about food on carts being a better way to provide food on trains. Generally I think Amtrak is a system and decisions should be make after due deliberation about the impact on the whole system. However, Amtrak is a transportation system and not a food service system. I think Amtrak might realize that and decide it really doesn't want to be in the restaurant business. They might even consider contracting out serving food on carts.
As far as car attendants are concerned, almost all of my travel is on the Northeast Corridor where there are none and there never have been any in the coaches. A year ago November I rode the Cresent from New Orleans to Newark, NJ. I was in the coach and their was a coach attendant. He was a pleasant fellow but I didn't really see a need for him.
schlimm Not sure why you continue to defend the continuance of a ridiculously expensive service for the few. Not to sound like the grammar police, but I suggest you look in a dictionary. "Dining" is the participle of "dine" to eat. "Dinning" the participle or gerund form of "din" which refers to a "loud, confused noise; a continued loud or tumultuous sound; noisy clamor." So your dinning car would be a loud, raucous place to eat.
passengerfan Following this forum for the last couple of days I have not seen anyone mention the Budd Slumbercoach. Here was the car that could sleep forty passengers in reasonable comfort and each room provided its own washbasin and toilet facilities. Remember these cars were introduced in 1956 and many railroads were still buying or converting other cars into 44 seat leg rest coaches. The 10-6 sleeper had a capacity of 22 and the Slumbercoach nearly twice as many. I have traveled the North Coast Limited, Mainstreeter and Denver Zephyr all in Slumbercoaches and though I was much younger found them to be quite comfortable. If Amtrak had kept the Slumbercoaches and converted there toilet facilities I am sure they would still be in service. CN rebuilt many cars to Daynighters and these also were quite comfortable. Personally I do not care for the new eastern long distance sleeping cars as they seem noisier than the Budd products of years ago. We were too quick to scrap the old and bring out the new. And Amtraks bottom line would sure be in better shape than it is now. Al - in - Stockton
As to the "new eastern long distance sleeping cars," I presume you mean the Renaissance sleepers. I, too, was not really happy the three nights that we slept in them (Montréal to Halifax and back, and Moncton to Montréal); going to Moncton, we had a drawing room in one of the Chateau sleepers (just as we had, on the same trip, a drawing room from Vancouver to Jasper and from Jasper to Toronto--on the second leg, we discovered that we had disappointed another couple, who had hoped to get the drawing room on the Canadian).
As to food carts, VIA uses these in the economy class in the Quebec-Windsor Corridor trains. In what used to be the VIA I (now business) class cars, the carts are also used, to bring a complete meal to each passenger in that class. The passenger is given a small menu to choose from, and the cost is covered in the cost of the accommodation. But, these are all day service trains, with no trip more than about five or six hours long; these include service, east and west, to/from Ottawa.
oltmanndThey probably shouldn't be in the hotel business, and either...
I have the impression you would prefer that Amtrak be out of all business all together. Am I correct?
From reading your posts I gather you have a lot more experience in dining cars than I do. I do suspect they are very popular with passengers. And, as expensive as they are to operate, I also suspect Amtrak believes that given its mandate to operate on freight railroad lines and the delays this can cause plus the generally slow schedules dining cars are one of the few things they can offer that will draw passengers to their trains. Do you have any insight on the issue?
John, it is true that I have eaten a few meals in railroad diners, beginning in the summer of 1951, and continuing, so far, through last year ( there were a few years in which I did not eat in a diner, but since I finished my formal education going on 51 years ago I have taken few lengthy rides that did not have a meal in a diner--and I have eaten breakfast on the Panama Limited when taking the two and a half hour trip from Brookhaven, Mississippi, to New Orleans).
I would say, as has been said, that when real food is offered the journey is more enjoyable than simply being able to eat the snacks that are offered in a lounge car. It is true that sandwiches are available, but to have the same limited choice for three or four meals is not enticing. It is also true that currently there is little difference in the menu from train to train, but there is some difference (you can call the menus for the long distance trains up on Amtrak's site). I am thankful that Amtrak does not feel as limited in offering sustenance as it was when I traveled in 1982--plastic cutlery,cups and plates, limited menu--and you paid up front as though you were in a fast food place. This was my experience on the long distance trains except on the City of New Orleans and the Rensselaer-Boston diner section of the Lake Shore Limited; these two trains had service that approached what used to be found in diners. Twice on that trip I ate dinner in a station before boarding to avoid having to eat from the same menu that had been presented on previous trains. Two years later the meal service was better, even better than what is available today.
I trust that Amtrak will not be reduced to taking orders for box meals to be bought at certain stations--I encountered this meal service several times in the late sixties.
John WRFrom reading your posts I gather you have a lot more experience in dining cars than I do. I do suspect they are very popular with passengers. And, as expensive as they are to operate, I also suspect Amtrak believes that given its mandate to operate on freight railroad lines and the delays this can cause plus the generally slow schedules dining cars are one of the few things they can offer that will draw passengers to their trains. Do you have any insight on the issue?
I suggest you give the IG report a careful read. The dining cars are used primarily by the sleeper patrons, and are one reason for the enormously high operating costs to run sleeper cars on LD trains. The focus should properly be on coach. Sleeper fares should be raised to cover their expenses above that of the coach passengers' subsidy. It is quite absurd to subsidize sleeper passengers at a level well beyond the subsidy for coach on LD trains.
John WR oltmanndThey probably shouldn't be in the hotel business, and either... Don, I have the impression you would prefer that Amtrak be out of all business all together. Am I correct? John
Not correct. I want to fix Amtrak. My latest blog tells how I think they ought to go about it.
I would hope all posters on here who have an interest in developing a modern passenger rail service in the US would carefully read Don's blog, particularly the latest. Some comments:
1. Although appropriating money for Amtrak on a five year basis would be helpful, that is not the Washington way and is unlikely to happen except for capital for infrastructure and equipment investments.
2. Although a total examination of existing routes is necessary and many "legacy" routes should be eliminated or turned into shrt corridors, that probably won't happen either. So find ways to trim the operating losses on those trains by requiring sleeper passenger to pay fares that cover the difference between the coach subsidy and the sleeper subsidy. Even better, focus entirely on coach, which requires a minimal staffing (contracted fast food car?).
3. Reexamine labor agreements and compare with those of comparable freight lines and transit lines.
oltmanndMy latest blog tells how I think they ought to go about it.
I read your blog, Don.
I completely agree that we are not going to have private passenger railroads in the foreseeable future. And I cannot imagine why any freight railroad would want to take on passenger service. If history is any guide at all passenger service lost money beginning in the 1930's or earlier and a big reason is government roads which, while they are not free to taxpayers, have costs which are largely unrelated to actual road use and as our cars get better milage there is increasing subsidy of roads from property taxes, sales taxes and general revenues. No private railroad would be likely to try to compete with such a subsidized transportation system. You are correct. Either we have Amtrak or we have no rail transportation at all.
Much of your criticism seems to be better directed at the operation of the United States Government. Amtrak is embedded in our government. Amtrak cannot change the government which created it and which controls it; Amtrak can only live within the environment that our government allows it.
Amtrak exists because within government there is a consensus that it should not be abolished. I'm not sure how long that consensus will last but so far it has held. However, as you point out, beyond that consensus there is no real agreement that Amtrak should be allowed to do anything beyond maintain its operations. Given government rigidity I'm surprised that Amtrak has been able to do what it has with the Northeast Corridor.
Were Amtrak to get rid of its long distance routes the current consensus it has would be eroded. Were Amtrak to get rid of sleeping car service and dinning car service that too would erode the consensus. If Amtrak is to do anything at all it must first exist. And to continue to exist it must maintain and, it is to be hoped, increase the consensus to support it.
Amtrak has had some success in California where the state is willing to share funding of its trains. There are some other states where shared funding has also worked. Those states seem the best candidates for the kind of intercity service you propose and I hope Amtrak is able to continue with these projects.
I don't know how Amtrak employee wages are determined. You believe they are higher than freight railroad wages. I agree that Amtrak wages should be comparable to wages on other US railroads for comparable work.
schlimmAlthough a total examination of existing routes is necessary and many "legacy" routes should be eliminated or turned into shrt corridors, that probably won't happen either. So find ways to trim the operating losses on those trains by requiring sleeper passenger to pay fares that cover the difference between the coach subsidy and the sleeper subsidy. Even better, focus entirely on coach, which requires a minimal staffing (contracted fast food car?).
I did read Don't blog and you can read my response if you want.
I would only emphasize one point. Amtrak depends of a consensus in the Congress. The fragility of this consensus is shown by past Transportation Committee Chairman John Mica's comment that he wishes to conduct a "Holy Jihad" against Amtrak. This is the philosophy of the man who the House of Representatives entrusted with oversight of Amtrak. I cannot imagine anything more threatening to Amtrak's existence. Now especially the very worst thing Amtrak could do is to undertake changes which would further erode the consensus that does exist.
I think there might well be more, not less consensus for Amtrak in Congress if it did take steps to reform. You seem to think continuing a very unfocused mission garners support? You think the lifeblood of Amtrak depends on continuing to throw a bone to key congressmen by running Nostalgia Expresses in their districts? What about continuing most of the LD services in the manner of modification suggested?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.