I think we did this topic to death here...time to lockity up the thread.
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
John WR You are right, Schlimm. It is my opinion. And I am aware that you and others here do not share my opinion. I have no problem with that. But it is still my opinion that a lot of people who are anti Amtrak as well as anti a lot of other things have a hidden agenda that it all about getting in or staying in political office. If I didn't believe that I would be a lot closer to you on this issue. John
You are right, Schlimm. It is my opinion. And I am aware that you and others here do not share my opinion. I have no problem with that. But it is still my opinion that a lot of people who are anti Amtrak as well as anti a lot of other things have a hidden agenda that it all about getting in or staying in political office. If I didn't believe that I would be a lot closer to you on this issue.
John
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Of course there is another thought: Maybe no really good caterer wants the business? And so we are stuck with unreasonable meal costs or lousy food service as an alternative?
If I knew people in the airline catering business, I'd ask the question. The business might be there if a caterer came up with a good workable proposal.
John WR So people who believe in a rational system have a choice: Fight for Amtrak as it is or see Amtrak, all of Amtrak, abandoned. John
So people who believe in a rational system have a choice: Fight for Amtrak as it is or see Amtrak, all of Amtrak, abandoned.
In your opinion. For some of us, the opposite is true. Adapt to the changing needs of current times 42 years post Amtrak creation or face extinction. And let me be totally clear about the financial question. I do not favor a user-fee system for many elements of infrastructure, whether passenger rail or interstate highways. I do favor user-fees to cover most above-the-rail costs, but I do see the public interest as being best supported by government assistance in infrastructure costs, as has been the case in so many projects historically.
daveklepperAnd I presented my reasons why LDT's should continue, and my advise concerning food service is intended to make them more cost-effective.
Yes you did, Dave.
As I see it, Joe Boardman is correct. Amtrak's current system was agreed to back in 1971. Congress should honor the agreement it made back then with the American people. So far Congress has done so but Congress does have a history of backing away from its own agreements so I am not optimistic that it will honor this one. But Congress may just continue to operate Amtrak.
To argue that Amtrak should be revised to a system that is better suited to today's needs is based on a false assumption that Congress is committed to a rational system of transportation for the country. But there is no evidence that such a commitment exists. Rather, we have many Members of Congress who are using Amtrak to fight personal political wars to secure their own renomination in the face of challenges in their own districts, challenges from single interest groups. Amtrak is one way to deflect these challenges. The good part of this is that the Congressmen who use Amtrak this way need Amtrak so they can have something to attack; they don't really want to loose that can to kick down the road. The back thing is that it is a hugh distraction for Amtrak and severely limits what the agency can do. But consider Amtrak's "suspension" (which seems to be a defacto abandonment) of the New Orleans to Jacksonville segment of the Sunset Limited. The money saved there has not been used to improve or add to any other Amtrak service. It has just been lost. There is no reason to believe that any other reduction in Amtrak service will result in anything but a loss.
In the meantime we continue to build roads that create problems rather than solve them. For example, the coast line of my state (New Jersey) suffered a lot of destruction due to Hurricane Sandy. Our Republican Governor, Chris Christie, went on TV to denounce the Republicans in the House for refusing to send money to rebuild fast enough. His attack worked and we are getting money to rebuild. The problem is that some areas should not be rebuilt because the danger of future storms is too great. But they are being rebuilt and the Federal Government is providing the money to rebuild the roads that were washed out and will be washed out again. And the new roads will not be smaller or less expensive. And they will be rebuilt to serve housing that does not qualify for Federal aid, second homes and rental property. No problem. Just build the roads until we have another storm.
And I presented my reasons why LDT's should continue, and my advise concerning food service is intended to make them more cost-effective.
Perhaps a Miami or Orlando - New Orleans train should be considered as a separate item from the Sunsset and scheduled to be most effective in the Florida-Louisiana market. New Orleans is not such a bad spot to lay over is it? I would suspect that much of the Sunset's throuogh business was vacation or leasure travel, not business travel. At Tallahassee, I bet more people connected at Jacksonville with trains to the NE than rode through beyond NO. A revived Gulf Coast Limited makes more sense.
John WR If long distance trains are not an acceptable use of public funds we should stop [snipped] some of them based on a rational consideration of the merits of the whole thing.
I agree!!
By all of the accounts I have read, Sam, the Sunset Limited east of New Orleans was lightly patronized.
But is Hurricane Katrina the reason to stop and established train that before that was part of a long distance train? I just don't see that. If long distance trains are not an acceptable use of public funds we should stop all of them or some of them based on a rational consideration of the merits of the whole thing. But to stop a train simply because the cities and towns were the unfortunate victims of a massive storm is, to my way of thinking, just not the way we should treat people.
The New Orleans to Mobile day train was a different train. Actually, I think the states involved would do themselves a favor to re-instate it. But I do not make transportation policy for Louisiana, Mississippi or Alabama.
Sam1 John WR blue streak 1Congressman MICA was in a meeting of the Transportation sub committee. John Robert Smith former mayor of Meridian and at one time on the Amtrak board testified. One important think Mayor Smith shows is that Congressman Mica does not represent responsible Republicans on this issue. The fact of the matter is that political leaders in the Florida panhandle, southern Alabama, southern Mississippi and Louisiana all want the Sunset Limited back and believe there areas have been harmed economically by taking it away. These areas are among the most conservative areas in the country and they support Amtrak. Congressman Mica has to play to the teapartiers in his own district who are unhappy with his positions on other issues and who can challenge him in the primaries. It would be nice to have a statistically valid poll re: whether people along the Gulf coast really want a return of the Sunset Limited. Moreover, it would be nice to have a before and after poll. The before poll would not mention the fact that the Sunset Limited lost $42.0 million before depreciation and interest in 2012; the after poll would be taken after the pollsters told the potential respondents of the potential loses. The Sunset Limited ran through the cities dotting the Gulf Coast in the wee hours of the night. I understand that it was lightly patronized. Moreover, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana sponsored a day train from Mobile to New Orleans. It was a flop. Some ideologies oppose or support government support for passenger rail irrespective of its merits, i.e. a viable solution in short corridors; a financial drain over long distances. Some opponents of long distance passenger trains believe honestly, with solid financial and operation support, that they are a wast of money, pious platitudes to the contrary notwithstanding, and the nation's resources, limited as they are, could better be devoted to higher payout solutions.
John WR blue streak 1Congressman MICA was in a meeting of the Transportation sub committee. John Robert Smith former mayor of Meridian and at one time on the Amtrak board testified. One important think Mayor Smith shows is that Congressman Mica does not represent responsible Republicans on this issue. The fact of the matter is that political leaders in the Florida panhandle, southern Alabama, southern Mississippi and Louisiana all want the Sunset Limited back and believe there areas have been harmed economically by taking it away. These areas are among the most conservative areas in the country and they support Amtrak. Congressman Mica has to play to the teapartiers in his own district who are unhappy with his positions on other issues and who can challenge him in the primaries.
blue streak 1Congressman MICA was in a meeting of the Transportation sub committee. John Robert Smith former mayor of Meridian and at one time on the Amtrak board testified.
One important think Mayor Smith shows is that Congressman Mica does not represent responsible Republicans on this issue. The fact of the matter is that political leaders in the Florida panhandle, southern Alabama, southern Mississippi and Louisiana all want the Sunset Limited back and believe there areas have been harmed economically by taking it away. These areas are among the most conservative areas in the country and they support Amtrak.
Congressman Mica has to play to the teapartiers in his own district who are unhappy with his positions on other issues and who can challenge him in the primaries.
It would be nice to have a statistically valid poll re: whether people along the Gulf coast really want a return of the Sunset Limited. Moreover, it would be nice to have a before and after poll. The before poll would not mention the fact that the Sunset Limited lost $42.0 million before depreciation and interest in 2012; the after poll would be taken after the pollsters told the potential respondents of the potential loses.
The Sunset Limited ran through the cities dotting the Gulf Coast in the wee hours of the night. I understand that it was lightly patronized. Moreover, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana sponsored a day train from Mobile to New Orleans. It was a flop.
Some ideologies oppose or support government support for passenger rail irrespective of its merits, i.e. a viable solution in short corridors; a financial drain over long distances. Some opponents of long distance passenger trains believe honestly, with solid financial and operation support, that they are a wast of money, pious platitudes to the contrary notwithstanding, and the nation's resources, limited as they are, could better be devoted to higher payout solutions.
Congressman MICA was in a meeting of the Transportation sub committee. John Robert Smith former mayor of Meridian and at one time on the Amtrak board testified. When Smith statred Mica showed his true colors. Although not the McCarthy era historinics it was close. Mica kept interrupting Smith and it was not pretty
See this link and use the Youtube link just below the picture to see actual video. http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/07/09/amtrak-foe-mica-meets-his-match-in-john-robert-smith/
This will certainly give fodder to any future opponent unless Mica can get the video redacted..
My experience with both Amtrak and the airlines is that whenever I ordered a Kosher fish meal when I made my reservation, the proper meal was served. My only problems occured when last-minute plans or a plane trip cancellation or missed connection changed plans.
Well, Dave, I have no experience with food service so I don't think I should go to the mat on this issue. Bluestreak actually does and what he says seems sound. That is why I deferred to him in the first place.
daveklepper Meals don't last forever, but they can when refrigorated and sealed properly last several days. Small stations would not be involved, only terminals and large intermediate cities, such as Denver. MY obervation was it was less work for a dining car waiter to serve me a prepackaged Kosher meal than a regular meal. Yes, banks of microwaves would be required, but no stoves. Utensils and plates would be throwaway plastic or paper. The caterer would mesh his Amtrak operation into his existing airline business. I think the whole matter should start with a request for proposal from the caterers.
Meals don't last forever, but they can when refrigorated and sealed properly last several days. Small stations would not be involved, only terminals and large intermediate cities, such as Denver. MY obervation was it was less work for a dining car waiter to serve me a prepackaged Kosher meal than a regular meal. Yes, banks of microwaves would be required, but no stoves. Utensils and plates would be throwaway plastic or paper. The caterer would mesh his Amtrak operation into his existing airline business. I think the whole matter should start with a request for proposal from the caterers.
daveklepperWith the right caterer and the right program, this change could be a net plus, savings in cost, and a benefit to the traveler .
If you turn back to page 3 you can see what Bluestreak's experience was. However, a train is not a plane and it is easy to see some special problems that Amtrak would have with a catering program. First of all, meals are time sensitive; they don't last forever. Finding a caterer, especially around small stations, could be a problem. Then when a meal is ordered ahead of time you need to know which car and which seat the person who ordered the meal is in. But you don't know the seats until the person boards the train. And of course there are last minute customers and there are late trains. If you use frozen meals you need a whole bank of microwaves to thaw them out. And you may not have enough people aboard the train to handle the the carts; it could require a lot more people. And on and on.
Suppose Amtrak did try meals on a cart on one or a few long distance trains it it turned out being even more expensive than dining cars. What would Congressman Mica say then?
With the right caterer and the right program, this change could be a net plus, savings in cost, and a benefit to the traveler . 1. Uniformity, full meals would be available on many routes that now offer only snacks or nothing. 2. When reserving in advance, the traveler could specify the meals he or she wants from the caterer's full menu. 3. Price differentials can cater both to the economy minded and those wishing to purchase the best avalable.
The vender/caterer would be chosen on the basis of sampling existing food offerings on airlines, experience and ability to provide service to Amtrak at multiple locations, and of course price providing the first two requirements are met . A certain Congressman might be asked to serve on the caterer evaluation committee?
Nor do I, but the costs for food prep on Amtrak LD seem really high. But if you have a staff that gets paid for 48 hours on the CZ, I suppose that is part of the problem.
schlimm Sam1 For the six years prior to 2012, Amtrak lost $526 million on food service or an average of $87.6 million per year. In FY11 the loss was $84.6 million, of which $73.9 million or 87 per cent was incurred by the long distance trains. In the same year the short corridor trains recovered 95 per cent of their food service costs, compared to 78 per cent on the NEC and 44 per cent for the long distance trains. A major culprit appears to be the lack of coordination and accountability between operations and marketing for on-board food services. So if I ride coach on the Empire Builder and order the Amtrak Signature steak dinner for $25.75, it sounds like it isn't that the food is underpriced compared to a middling restaurant, it is that the costs to prepare, etc. apparently are $58.52. Utterly absurd.
Sam1 For the six years prior to 2012, Amtrak lost $526 million on food service or an average of $87.6 million per year. In FY11 the loss was $84.6 million, of which $73.9 million or 87 per cent was incurred by the long distance trains. In the same year the short corridor trains recovered 95 per cent of their food service costs, compared to 78 per cent on the NEC and 44 per cent for the long distance trains. A major culprit appears to be the lack of coordination and accountability between operations and marketing for on-board food services.
For the six years prior to 2012, Amtrak lost $526 million on food service or an average of $87.6 million per year. In FY11 the loss was $84.6 million, of which $73.9 million or 87 per cent was incurred by the long distance trains. In the same year the short corridor trains recovered 95 per cent of their food service costs, compared to 78 per cent on the NEC and 44 per cent for the long distance trains.
A major culprit appears to be the lack of coordination and accountability between operations and marketing for on-board food services.
So if I ride coach on the Empire Builder and order the Amtrak Signature steak dinner for $25.75, it sounds like it isn't that the food is underpriced compared to a middling restaurant, it is that the costs to prepare, etc. apparently are $58.52. Utterly absurd.
One of the points in the aforementioned study or audit that I left out relates to the long distance trains. The original study showed the food costs for each of the long distance train routes. However, the table was redacted. No reason was given. Why? I don't have a clue.
John WR schlimmAll the more reason to drastically reduce, if not eliminate all LD service so that the heart of Amtrak can continue. Well, Schlimm, I am not inclined to go down that road. My own powers of clairvoyance are not just limited; they are non existent. I just think we have to wait and see whether the House or the Senate prevails and if they compromise just where the the compromise is made.
schlimmAll the more reason to drastically reduce, if not eliminate all LD service so that the heart of Amtrak can continue.
Well, Schlimm, I am not inclined to go down that road. My own powers of clairvoyance are not just limited; they are non existent. I just think we have to wait and see whether the House or the Senate prevails and if they compromise just where the the compromise is made.
" I think the thread is also about Congressman MIca. He is on record as saying he wants a "Holy Jihad" against Amtrak. I think that is broader than food service. And it does seem to me the House of Representatives has moved toward his goal."
Sounds like a prediction or clairvoyance to me, but it is yours The difference is you and some others think keeping the biggest money drain in Amtrak, LD service (and dining cars) is the way to keep Amtrak alive, while some of us believe continuing to do that which has failed for 40 years is a death sentence for passenger rail in the US.
Sam1Since this thread is about food subsidies
The title of this thread is "Mica again going after food service." I think the thread is also about Congressman MIca. He is on record as saying he wants a "Holy Jihad" against Amtrak. I think that is broader than food service. And it does seem to me the House of Representatives has moved toward his goal.
John WRActually, right now the issue is not food service but rather Amtrak's continued operation. The House proposes a $950 million dollar budget for Amtrak. With that amount Amtrak cannot afford any new equipment. Speed may have to be cut back; it certainly cannot advance. And no money is proposed for the TIGER program which means no improvements.
All the more reason to drastically reduce, if not eliminate all LD service so that the heart of Amtrak can continue.
John WR Actually, right now the issue is not food service but rather Amtrak's continued operation. The House proposes a $950 million dollar budget for Amtrak. With that amount Amtrak cannot afford any new equipment. Speed may have to be cut back; it certainly cannot advance. And no money is proposed for the TIGER program which means no improvements. The Senate has proposed a higher budget. And of course the issue will need to go to a reconciliation committee so we will see what happens. NARP has a report of the current situation. http://www.narprail.org/news/hotline/2315-hotline-817-june-28-2013
Actually, right now the issue is not food service but rather Amtrak's continued operation. The House proposes a $950 million dollar budget for Amtrak. With that amount Amtrak cannot afford any new equipment. Speed may have to be cut back; it certainly cannot advance. And no money is proposed for the TIGER program which means no improvements.
The Senate has proposed a higher budget. And of course the issue will need to go to a reconciliation committee so we will see what happens.
NARP has a report of the current situation. http://www.narprail.org/news/hotline/2315-hotline-817-june-28-2013
Take out the long distance trains, which are used by approximately 15 per cent of Amtrak's passengers, or less than one per cent of intercity travelers in the U.S. and $950 million would be more than enough money to run the NEC. It would cover all the current charges on the NEC, as well as most of the charges on the short corridor trains.
Since this thread is about food subsidies, eliminating the long distance trains would wipe out most of the losses on Amtrak's food services, albeit the exact amount would be difficult to derive, back a back of the envelope calculation could get reasonably close.
Regardless, only 44% of LD food service cost is recovered Since the prices are not out of line (maybe a little low), it means the costs are absurdly high, even compared to Acela. And you are right, a lot of it is labor, labor which rides the entire 48 hours and is paid even while sleeping. So as Don Oltmann suggests, ditch the dining car staff, bring in food from an outside specialist, serve and depart at next stop.
schlimmSo if I ride coach on the Empire Builder and order the Amtrak Signature steak dinner for $25.75, it sounds like it isn't that the food is underpriced compared to a middling restaurant, it is that the costs to prepare, etc. apparently are $58.52. Utterly absurd
I believe you are making a linear interpolation assumption that is not valid. The reality is that there is a significant amount of fixed cost in just hauling a car around, around $3 a mile inclusive of depreciation but exclusive of onboard service labor, so it is a power law relationship probably.
So the real question is not the type of entree (I believe a signifcant portion of the meal is already precooked) or its relative cost but how to cover the fixed costs. Even a prepackaged meal is not going to cut down on costs too much, maybe take out a cook and dishwasher on the labor side.
However, if you loose the ability to offer a premium meal like the steak you are just cutting the sales volume on which you need to divide the fixed costs. You also loose higher price to cost travel revenue. The long run variable cross-subsidy (non-user) of the LD trains are already just about the average cross-subsidy to interstate highway users per person mile in automobiles.
I would think the answer might be something like using the seating area of dinning cars outside meal service times as a coffee shop with satellite WIFI or whatever to generate extra revenue, have the cook staff help in other duties such as cleaning, and perhaps figure out a way to get them off the train at night or short-turned back to home instead of also providing a dorm car with its costs. An IPad to order from might also make sense.
There is of course a trade off, but the "Rep. Mica Linear Ratio" of menu prices to loses is not a valid way to reach the tradeoff. Have a happy 4th! Safe Travels.
I agree, Dave. And a happy and safe 4th to you in Jerusalem.
I have given a lot of thought to this problem, and here is what I have come up with: Amtrak long distance is too small an operation to have economies of scale in good food service. The Airlines came to this conclusion long ago, and that is why there are firms that specialize in catering airline food. When I became more religious, I started ordering Kosher fish and vegetarian meals, and found the quality equal to the regular Amtrak food, despite the precooking and storage on the dining cars. There were times I had regular meals (no meat or seafood) so I continued to make the comparison. It seems to me that one of the better catering outfits that supplies first class and business class airline meals could do an adequate job for Amtrak with great cost savings and no real reduction in across-the-board quality. There can be special cases, like the Pacific Parlor car, but they should be priced appropriately and not loose money. And such a caterer has experienced with delayed flights and emergency restocking, etc.
I also believe that overnight coach travel should be made as comfortable as possible, with all the touches this requires, pillows, small toilet article kit giveaways. And sleepers must be priced so the subsidy is no greater than for coach passengers.
AND HAPPY 4TH OF JULY
Without access to Amtrak's books, including its pricing and costing models for food service, it is impossible to know for certain how much money the company loses on its food service program. Moreover, without access to the Marketing Department's objectives for food service, it is difficult to compare Amtrak's food service strategies with other like kind providers.
The next best thing to access to the books would be an Audit Report on Food Service. Coming right up! How would you like it cooked?
Report No. OIG-A-2012-020 | September 7, 2012 contains a wealth of information regarding Amtrak's food and beverage program. Here are some of the key findings that struck me:
"As noted, two departments share responsibility for food and beverage service, but neither is accountable for improving service and/or reducing direct operating losses — let alone eliminating them. Moreover, initiatives to improve cost‐recovery are not well coordinated."
"According to Marketing and Product Development’s Chief of Food and Beverage Service, cost‐recovery is the most important metric for measuring food and beverage results. However, no cost‐recovery goal has been established for this metric in Amtrak’s five‐year financial plan."
"A key management best practice for helping reduce food and beverage service losses is a program‐wide plan for improving cost‐recovery while maintaining service levels. However, such a plan does not exist at this time."
schlimmAll things being equal with the food, whether on a train or your table or a restaurant, it is only in the train dining car where you do not fully pay. If I or you or anyone else eats in a restaurant, the food used to prepare got some small subsidy in the roads used, etc. But if they charge me $30 for a steak, I am paying their cost for the food, the labor, rent and utilities and a profit. But if I get a meal on Amtrak, what I pay (or what portion of my sleeper pays) does not come close to covering the meal's cost. And the same is true of the sleeper. So my question remains
But you are using the wrong analogy. A more appropriate comparison would be to hotels, and more specifically European-plan hotels.
Assigning a pro-rata share of the overall 'meal cost' as part of the expense of providing sleeper space -- if the meals are 'part' of that charge -- is legitimate in that context. This does presuppose that the pro-rata cost is not so great as to make sleeper service overall not cover the right percentage of its costs -- but even if it does, the argument is then properly established that meals that are intended as part of the sleeper 'experience' should have their cost allocated to the 'sleeper experience.'
To the extent that pro-rata expense for *coach* meals exceeds revenue from sales, there is an issue. But I would -- perhaps hesitantly -- note that almost all the 'sunk cost' outside of marginal expense is already required for the (subsidized) sleeper meals, and therefore need not be included in 'general' costing and therefore subject to general penny-pinching,
daveklepperI agree completely that my subsidy as a sleeping car passenger with food included going from point a to point b should not be greater than the coach passsenger buying a ticket under similar circumstances. If that is the point you are making, I must agree with you, and it is the only moral position. An exception would be if I were handicapped, because handicapped people traditionally have received special subsidies in the USA and most western democracies.
I agree. Challenged is a special case. The food service should pay its way as a separate concern from the sleeper. The room space charges do appear as though they should cover cost. [CHI-LAX roomette $707]. The actual train fare seems unrealistically low, only $169.
I agree completely that my subsidy as a sleeping car passenger with food included going from point a to point b should not be greater than the coach passsenger buying a ticket under similar circumstances. If that is the point you are making, I must agree with you, and it is the only moral position. An exception would be if I were handicapped, because handicapped people traditionally have received special subsidies in the USA and most western democracies.
If Amtrak's current fare structure does not reflect that moral position, it should indeed be changed. I stopped riding Amtrak in early 1996 and have not had the opportunity to do so since. My impression, from the huge difference in fares between sleeper and coach, at the time, was that the subsidy for both kinds of passengers was similar. Possibly the fare difference has narrowed since that time?
And there were times I rode coach overnight, including one LA - Chicago El Capitan trip before Amtrak.
schlimm On another thread you gave figures as to who rides LD. Sounds like it is a shrinking group because of age. They rode private rail passenger service when younger. But in 10-15 years, there will be very few left.
Interesting you should mention that Schlimm.
Today we have fewer younger drivers:
Age Per Cent with Drivers License
1983 2010
16 46 28
17 69 46
18 80 61
19 87 70
20 - 24 92 81
35 - 39 95 87 (sic) but I wonder if it is a misprint and should be 25 to 29.
From Elizabeth Rosenthal, The End of Car Culture, The New York Times Week in Review June 30, 2013 p 3.
Young people are not exactly abandoning cars but there is a marked decrease in the number of licenses being issued.
John WR schlimmWithin the realm of Amtrak, why should you feel entitled ("I demand") to get your food subsidized by both the general taxpayer and also the riders of Acela? But Schlimm, all of us, every single one of us who lives in the United States, get our food subsidized. That is because most food is delivered to supermarkets by truck over roads where the trucks do not pay their share of the costs. It is true food subsidy is not simple. In some cases price supports enacted by Congress add to the price of food and some producers are subsidized. I don't know who comes out ahead with price supported foodl However, much of the food we eat is subsidized. John
schlimmWithin the realm of Amtrak, why should you feel entitled ("I demand") to get your food subsidized by both the general taxpayer and also the riders of Acela?
But Schlimm, all of us, every single one of us who lives in the United States, get our food subsidized. That is because most food is delivered to supermarkets by truck over roads where the trucks do not pay their share of the costs.
It is true food subsidy is not simple. In some cases price supports enacted by Congress add to the price of food and some producers are subsidized. I don't know who comes out ahead with price supported foodl However, much of the food we eat is subsidized.
blue streak 1 schlimm 1. None of those are government corporations, so your comparisons are irrelevant. 2. Those entities largely have a net profit on operations, probably also on paying depreciation, etc. in their cases, a loss leader can be considered to increase business overall. In Amtrak's case, dining cars and sleepers add to the operating loss. But they can be government companes when the buy outs and bankruptcies for the likes of Crysler & Pen Central What net profit in the long run ? Since the beginning of airlines they have a net loss not profit. Every major airline has gone thru bankruptcy and the taxpayers subsidize them with tax write-offs. As well any bond holders , stockholdeers, loan holders all get that subsidity thru tax write offs.
schlimm 1. None of those are government corporations, so your comparisons are irrelevant. 2. Those entities largely have a net profit on operations, probably also on paying depreciation, etc. in their cases, a loss leader can be considered to increase business overall. In Amtrak's case, dining cars and sleepers add to the operating loss.
1. None of those are government corporations, so your comparisons are irrelevant.
2. Those entities largely have a net profit on operations, probably also on paying depreciation, etc. in their cases, a loss leader can be considered to increase business overall. In Amtrak's case, dining cars and sleepers add to the operating loss.
But they can be government companes when the buy outs and bankruptcies for the likes of Crysler & Pen Central
What net profit in the long run ? Since the beginning of airlines they have a net loss not profit. Every major airline has gone thru bankruptcy and the taxpayers subsidize them with tax write-offs. As well any bond holders , stockholdeers, loan holders all get that subsidity thru tax write offs.
The makers of aircraft engines. I am told that the engine makers extend the airlines lines of credit.
With regard to tax write-offs as a subsidy, there has to be some earnings against which to take the write-off. Would a passenger train company given "the same deal" as the airlines even be able to offer service?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
The relative subsidy (rails, roads and airways) issue has been debated here and elsewhere. The results seem pretty fuzzy. But you fail to answer the question and seem to have totally missed the essential part of the analogy. it wasn't a case of the road subsidy. It is the lodging and food. And unless one has a travel account, it is not subsidized at all. Within the realm of Amtrak, why should you feel entitled ("I demand") to get your food subsidized by both the general taxpayer and also the riders of Acela? If "bed and meals are an essential part of providing decent rail long distance transportation" then why can't you pay fully the cost for that portion above what the poor passengers in coach do? And I mean pay the full cost of your meals and bed. You are already getting a subsidy just riding the train.
In a private auto I have the freedom to choose where I can stop off an eat and where I can sleep. On a train, I have to eat what is provided and I demand it be decent, at least up to the quality of a New Haven grille car or a Great Northern Frontier Lounge (similar food). And I want a good nights sleep while traveling. And I claim that on a passenger mile basis with present Amtrak long distance service, my subsidy from the tax-payers, overall subsidy is LESS than the subsidy you are receiving by driving your pdrivate car over the same distance, because of the land your interstate highway is occupying wihout paying real-estate taxes, costs of medical care due to the far higher highway accident rate, police and highway patrol, motor vehical bureau offices and staff, and the fact that the highway trust fund has failed to cover maintenance and has needed infusion from general tax revenues.
The bed and the meals are simply essential parts of providing decent rail long-distance transportation.
That's why.
I will make an exception if you are driving a wife and a full car of kids!
Let's see. --- The OIG and congress are the cost accoountants that determine that Amtrak food service is a money loosing cost center so it should be discontinued, ?.
Now the Cruise industry cost accountants probably also determine that their ship food service is a money loosing cost center.
I guess the airline also have cost accountants that have determined their food service on long distance flights are a loosing cost center. And maybe $1.00 peanuts on the discount airlines ae also a loosing cost center.
The same for the the cruise river boats such as the Delta Queen ? Or the evening cruise boats ?
The same for long distance limo services ? I guess the ones I've been on do ?
schlimmJohn you frequently bring up Amtrak's mission in its charter (and also Boardman's comment) as a justification for Amtrak. But that cannot possibly be interpreted as a basis for providing meals far below the cost to the passengers.
Schlimm,
On the subject of food service I would like to yield the floor to my distinguished colleague Mr. Klepper. I realize that you are not fully persuaded by his arguments. However, I don't know of any better arguments than he makes.
daveklepperI think Schhlimm's posting above was thoroughly answered by my earlier post and by the one just previous to mione.. Decent food is absoluteley necessary for long distance travelers and cannot be considered a luxury.
The operative term here is "subsidized." If you want decent food (whatever that is in your opinion) then you should pay for the entire expense of it. If you were driving, you could pack food, eat fast food, or eat and sleep at the Ritz-Carlton and you would pay entirely for YOUR choice. Why should the taxpayer or the fare-paying patrons of Acela service or the riders of the coaches on your LD train be expected to partially pay for you to have a bedroom and meal in the diner?
Dave, I agree with you that the level of food service now available on the long distance trains is far below that of the service available on the trains you mention. It is also below that of the service available on the Amtrak long distance trains I traveled on in the first ten years of Amtrak existence. It is above that which I found when I traveled in the srping of 1982.
Johnny
I think Schhlimm's posting above was thoroughly answered by my earlier post and by the one just previous to mione.. Decent food is absoluteley necessary for long distance travelers and cannot be considered a luxury. Ditto for a decent sleep. I don't think Amtrak does provide the excellence of meal experience that we used to get on the Suuper Chief, El Capitan, 20th Century, Broadway Limited, Panama Limited, Rio Grande and California Zephyrs. It is more akin to what was served in the lower priced New Haven Grill Cars, rather than the Merchants limited dining car. But it is good enough to be an enjoyable experience, not like a Penn Central cafe car or a an SP Automat. And I think that is the way it should be, and that amount of subsidy is justified. If the existing level of quality can be maintained and greater efficiency and savings found, I am all for it.
The problem with outside catering is assured timelly delivary under all conditions.
The subject of this thread was Amtrak's subsidized food services. John you frequently bring up Amtrak's mission in its charter (and also Boardman's comment) as a justification for Amtrak. But that cannot possibly be interpreted as a basis for providing meals far below the cost to the passengers. Amtrak is for transportation. It is not a restaurant, nor should it provide subsidized food. That activity is legitimate for government to do, for those in need, through SNAP, school lunch programs, etc. Providing restaurant-quality food to folks who choose to ride an LD train, who may well be quite well-off is not . Nor, for that matter, is providing subsidized sleeping accommodations.
oltmanndWhat if she needs or wants to get to Mt. Rushmore?
As I understand your perspective, Don, you point out that Amtrak does not now serve many places in the US that people might want to travel to. One such place is Mount Rushmore. In fact, Amtrak does not enter any city in South Dakota. It is one of the few states without Amtrak.
But I don't recall seeing your conclusion to your observation.
oltmannd John WR V.Payne What of the people that can drive but just not at night or not can't make it a long time in the car without frequent stops for medical reasons. To what extent do we provide for people with impairments that make using other kinds of transportation difficult? Some years ago I knew a lady who rode Amtrak. She worked full time but had a back injury that made flying simply too confining for her. She had been on one flight that was so crowded that at the end she was unable to get up from her seat and had to be carried off the plane. For a few days she had do deal with a lot of pain. The ability to get up and walk around on a train and to move freely about was important to her. As we get older many of us loose certain abilities we once had. The extra room a train provides can be important. This can be particularly important on long trips. There are people who, if they can not take a train to a distant place, really cannot get there at all. What if she needs or wants to get to Mt. Rushmore?
John WR V.Payne What of the people that can drive but just not at night or not can't make it a long time in the car without frequent stops for medical reasons. To what extent do we provide for people with impairments that make using other kinds of transportation difficult? Some years ago I knew a lady who rode Amtrak. She worked full time but had a back injury that made flying simply too confining for her. She had been on one flight that was so crowded that at the end she was unable to get up from her seat and had to be carried off the plane. For a few days she had do deal with a lot of pain. The ability to get up and walk around on a train and to move freely about was important to her. As we get older many of us loose certain abilities we once had. The extra room a train provides can be important. This can be particularly important on long trips. There are people who, if they can not take a train to a distant place, really cannot get there at all.
V.Payne What of the people that can drive but just not at night or not can't make it a long time in the car without frequent stops for medical reasons.
To what extent do we provide for people with impairments that make using other kinds of transportation difficult? Some years ago I knew a lady who rode Amtrak. She worked full time but had a back injury that made flying simply too confining for her. She had been on one flight that was so crowded that at the end she was unable to get up from her seat and had to be carried off the plane. For a few days she had do deal with a lot of pain. The ability to get up and walk around on a train and to move freely about was important to her. As we get older many of us loose certain abilities we once had. The extra room a train provides can be important. This can be particularly important on long trips. There are people who, if they can not take a train to a distant place, really cannot get there at all.
What if she needs or wants to get to Mt. Rushmore?
Or Brownsville, Texas? Or the hundreds of Texas communities that don't have passenger train service? Because there is no viable market for it!
Some suburbs were "built" by streetcars, some by commuter railroads, and some by the auto. I there is great congestion, it is usually more economical to make the investment in some sort of rail transportation and subsidize it than taking the land for new or expanded roads. That is the situation today yewhere there is great congestion. Otherwise, even if streetcars or commuter railroads "built" the suburb, relying on the auto probably makes the most sense. But the congestion neet not be only in the suburb itself, but in the work-study-shopping-entertainment destination. And obvioiusly improved bus transportation can be an intermediate solution, in many cases.
But again, if government, uses taxes to subsidize the commuter in order aleviate congestion and allow the city to function, I think it is also fare to subsidize the woman who wishes to cross the country once a year without great backpains, the college student graduate who wants a lifetime trip to see the country, etc., and insure they have some decent food and even a place to sleep while doing so.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Paul MilenkovicWhere the Interstate highway is carrying a goodly amount of common carrier and private carrier intercity freight.
I would say that the vast majority of the US will not be served in the next one hundred years by a dedicated passenger main. So most of the lines will be mixed use intermodal freight and passenger trains. I can see the breakeven point for trailer based intermodal coming down to a bit less than 300 miles. The two would be a good fit together and give economies of scale with close to 24 hour use.
Now I still think that the two systems will coexist, if you want to haul a boat, your probably going to get a SUV (Like mine) and a trailer but if you are looking to make a one way trip or like me get tired of wasting 10 hours a week driving the exact same road you will look to intercity rail and figure out a way to get around on the other end. I still see intercity rail users being a minority of total people miles but a pretty good chunk of trips over 200 miles.
I would also like to make the counter argument to how will existing interstate users make use of a rail... for perspective. What of the people that can drive but just not at night or not can't make it a long time in the car without frequent stops for medical reasons. There is some evidence of frustrated demand that is not met. We have catered to one set of users only.
My solution to mediating the coexistence, is a per mile financial equivalency for the user cross-subsidy. If you have just a bit of users wanting to participate then you run a few trains over moderately upgraded existing infrastructure, yielding a higher ratio of operations to capital, same nominal dollar value. If you have a lot of users you build a mix of new and upgraded lines, more higher capital to operations.
oltmannd John WROnce out in the suburbs families that had found one car quite sufficient now found they needed two or more cars due to the lack of public transit. Why would you supply transit for something specifically built for automobile use? Suburbs were designed around automobiles. That wasn't a drawback, that was a selling point!
John WROnce out in the suburbs families that had found one car quite sufficient now found they needed two or more cars due to the lack of public transit.
Why would you supply transit for something specifically built for automobile use? Suburbs were designed around automobiles. That wasn't a drawback, that was a selling point!
oltmanndYes, and so things are not "fair"?
Basic to the idea of government services, Don, is the fact that some public necessities by their nature benefit some people much more than others but their costs cannot be allocated strictly based on use. Yet they are so important that the society as a whole needs them and so using tax monies to pay for them is justified.
During the snow storm I described there were people who were trapped in their cars and died there or died walking to try to get help. I do not begrudge my property taxes that were used and which, in some cases, saved lives simply because I was safe at home. Fairness does not necessarily mean each person will pay for what he or she uses and only for what he or she uses. Fairness means equal consideration of all people's needs.
However, we do need to know how much we spend for transportation, where we spend it and why we spend it.
oltmanndWhy would you supply transit for something specifically built for automobile use? Suburbs were designed around automobiles. That wasn't a drawback, that was a selling point!
Mainly, Don, because all suburbs are not the same. Some suburbs do have transit although not as much as cities do. Then there are the 5 acre lot suburbs.
According to Joseph Kile's prepared testimony before the Committee on Finance, United States Senate, May 17, 2011, the total U.S. spend on roadways (local, county, state, and federal) is approximately $160 billion per year. Of this amount, approximately $40 billion is from the federal government.
All the monies spent on highways in the United States ultimately come from the taxpayers or the overseas folks foolish enough to keep lending us money. It does not arise from thin air, although it can be created with the touch of a computer key and ultimately monetized away.
The core problem for transportation (all modes) is the users don't see the true cost of their mode at the price point, i.e. pump, ticket counter, etc., and, therefore, depending on the mode, tend to over or under use it. The best fix is to stop subsidizing all modes.
V.Payne schlimmOne simple question, which the dining car enthusiasts duck is this: Why should taxpayers subsidize your meal on a train? Same reason taxpayers pick up about three and a half cents of uncompensated medical care on average when you use the roadways. Even individuals with automobile and medical insurance may not really have the insurance they need if they become seriously disabled. That typically falls to Medicare or Medicaid. That would be about $14 a meal period per party. More important is the leveraging of the interstate road routes off the local road system paid for by property taxes. All told about $0.125/automobile vehicle mile of cost is not recovered by a user charges (gas tax) that is variable per mile of interstate travel. The current Long Distance trains are operating at a direct cost and equipment capital cost deficit of about that level. The real question is what to do with the fixed costs for NEC infrastructure.
schlimmOne simple question, which the dining car enthusiasts duck is this: Why should taxpayers subsidize your meal on a train?
Same reason taxpayers pick up about three and a half cents of uncompensated medical care on average when you use the roadways. Even individuals with automobile and medical insurance may not really have the insurance they need if they become seriously disabled. That typically falls to Medicare or Medicaid. That would be about $14 a meal period per party. More important is the leveraging of the interstate road routes off the local road system paid for by property taxes.
All told about $0.125/automobile vehicle mile of cost is not recovered by a user charges (gas tax) that is variable per mile of interstate travel. The current Long Distance trains are operating at a direct cost and equipment capital cost deficit of about that level. The real question is what to do with the fixed costs for NEC infrastructure.
Here is the problem I have with claims "well, highways are subsidized too."
The billion and a half subsidy to Amtrak "buys" about one tenth of one percent of the total passenger miles carried by automobiles. If the auto mode receives direct or indirect subsidy in a proportional amount, there must be then a trillion and a half dollars of government money going to highways and autos in one form or another. I can see our system of automobile transportation being in the low trillions when you add up all of what is spent, but I just don't see a trillion and a half dollars being spent by the government on cars and highways.
As to economies of scale, that if Amtrak "weren't underfunded" it would be much more cost efficient, well, no one has any evidence of that.
OK, OK, there is the cross-subsidy argument. Interstates and especially rural Interstates are a particularly capital-intensive form of transportation. When you drive to the corner grocery store and pay tax on the gas, you are cross-subsidizing the rural interstates that certainly don't pay their way on the tax collected on gasoline for motorists on that segment of road.
So, maybe instead of having built the Interstates, forget that, instead of building expensive lanes on I-95, let's build that new passenger train "backbone" in the Northeast, build another in Texas, and certainly see to it tha the California one gets built. OK, so instead of a person driving the whole way, they would drive and park their car, take the HSR, and then "work out" some mode of transportation (transit, ride from friend or family they are visiting, rental car, "Community car", etc.)
But then you are thinking that the passenger train line (such as an HSR that runs fast enough to make up for the lost time at the "mode changes") is fully equivalent to the Interstate highway. Where the Interstate highway is carrying a goodly amount of common carrier and private carrier intercity freight. Where people aren't just driving their car, they are driving their RV and maybe trailering a boat to go to their favorite vacation spot.
Ultimately, and especially because the HSR won't raise its own private capital and pay its own way, the HSR (or near high-speed rail, the 110 MPH thing?) has to justify itself politically. The people who are using the Interstate to drive to Grandma or spend some time at the vacation home or any of a gadzillion reasons why people drive from some spread out suburban home, drive part of their journey on the Interstate, and then drive to some destination spread out among possible destinations at the other hand, that the people would prefer to have a train or perhaps an HSR spliced into the middle of that trip. Which may or may not work, especially when a boat is involved.
And then when people don't want this train because they like their unitary car trip thank-you-very-much (the president of our local train advocacy group in opposing the Madison mayor's downtown train station plan that he rather liked his suburban home and desired a train station with adequate parking so he could drive their and park for the duration of his trip, and the mayor's idea of a downtown-to-downtown intercity trains so people could live without having to own a car was too radical)? Do we talk about the "concrete and oil lobby"? Do we scold they very people are train is supposed to serve, the very people we are trying to persuade to direct tax money towards the train, do we scold them as having "a love affair with the automobile"?
John WR Meanwhile, the motor fuels tax doesn't begin to pay for repairs to our interstate highways so Congress appropriates large amounts of money from general funds to do so. And still it isn't enough. Two years ago New Jersey had a severe snow storm. The Federal government doesn't pay for snow plows. The state sent out plows but between state and federal highways there were not nearly enough. So local towns sent out plows to clear the interstate and police officers to pick up stranded motorists. The burden of paying for it all fell on the homeowners who pay property taxes. Our interstate highways might have been routed around cities rather than through them. That decision was a massive and costly mistake and we will never stop paying for it as long as the highways run through our cities.
Meanwhile, the motor fuels tax doesn't begin to pay for repairs to our interstate highways so Congress appropriates large amounts of money from general funds to do so. And still it isn't enough. Two years ago New Jersey had a severe snow storm. The Federal government doesn't pay for snow plows. The state sent out plows but between state and federal highways there were not nearly enough. So local towns sent out plows to clear the interstate and police officers to pick up stranded motorists. The burden of paying for it all fell on the homeowners who pay property taxes.
Our interstate highways might have been routed around cities rather than through them. That decision was a massive and costly mistake and we will never stop paying for it as long as the highways run through our cities.
Yes, and so things are not "fair"?
That's interesting, but it doesn't inform us of "now what?"
V.Payne More important is the leveraging of the interstate road routes off the local road system paid for by property taxes.
I wonder if it is even possible to begin to estimate the costs to our society of the massive destruction of our cities caused by interstate highways that run through the cities instead of running around the cities. There is, of course, loss of property taxes previously collected from the homes and businesses that are destroyed. Also, the people turned out of their homes are forced out of the cities. City dwellers are the people who are most likely to use public transit and who are most likely to go downtown to work and to shop. But interstate highways force them to move out to the suburbs and the lack of public transit in the suburbs forces them to use cars to get to suburban shopping centers.
I don't argue that after World War II no one chose to leave the cities for the suburbs. Many people did just that. But when the cities were gutted to make room for highways many more were forced out. And employers with city locations were also forced out. And ultimately had to follow their customers. Once out in the suburbs families that had found one car quite sufficient now found they needed two or more cars due to the lack of public transit. And the remaining transit required increasing subsidies from a narrowing tax base.
The equivalency argument.
I have yet to see any evidence that it is actually a better financial move to operate a train currently operating as a long distance train as a series of short corridors during the daytime. After all buses don't have overnight stops but roll right through as most people find it hard to transfer.
I believe the realities of Amtrak's current SAP_APT accounting method is that revenue attracts cost assignment.
http://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/dot/files/Amtrak%27s%20New%20Cost%20Accounting%20System%20Report%5E3-27-13.pdf
"Amtrak assigns only about 20 percent of its costs, and allocates the rest. APT increased the percentage of assigned costs from RPS’s 5 percent to 20 percent."
"According to Amtrak officials, Amtrak has not yet implemented FRA’s methodology for estimating avoidable costs because of time and resource limitations. However, the methodology—meant to provide Amtrak and Congress with information on the financial impact associated with eliminating any route—has significant limitations because it relies to a substantial extent on statistical estimation"
"However, some aspects of Amtrak operations will inevitably have allocated components because routes that share all or most of their facilities with other routes generate about half the company’s train-miles and expenses. At the same time, Amtrak’s organizational structure and complexity necessitate some level of allocation. About two-fifths of Amtrak expenses (corporate overhead and shared facilities) must be allocated and another fifth (maintenance of equipment) must be substantially allocated as they concern assets that are, in most cases, rotated among routes (Figure 1). Even the transportation operations accounts include support activities, such as dispatching, that necessitate allocation."
Translation... Amtrak and FRA haven't really agreed on how much it costs. If you want my take look at the paper I posted on the Intercity Marketplace thread. I ran the Crescent route as a model.
I think, Schlimm, there is a large overlap in your opinion and mine about Amtrak.
But I don't want to loose Amtrak. I see sleeping cars, dining cars and similar things as the price we must pay to keep it. And I am willing to pay that price.
But you see the costs of such luxuries as weakening Amtrak. You would eliminate them to have a stronger Amtrak.
So I think we can only agree to disagree on that particular issue. But the essence of your vision, that Amtrak should be about providing the best passenger service to move the most people we can for the money we spend is something I very much agree with.
If you agree with all three points, then you should understand that addressing #1 takes care of most of the LD problems, which contribute a huge percentage of the operating loss. But even handling the "low hanging fruit" of the absurd 2% food service improves its image.
As far as opinion goes, much of the general public has no awareness of Amtrak. That is why, in henry6's words, a real "passenger service" is needed in identified corridors. That means frequent service throughout the day, such that people start to consider the train as a viable option for transportation distances under 500 miles.
As far as Congress goes, Amtrak should be able to get more cooperation if they don't have to come to the House each year begging for money to cover operating losses. Maybe then they can even get the funding through bond issues for infrastructure.
schlimmI believe the essence of what some of us are saying about dining cars on LD trains is basically as follows.
I agree with your three points, Schlimm. The only point I would make is that beyond this website I don't know of anyone who is calling for similar changes to Amtrak. Do you know of anyone who is?
My own assessment of where the country is when it comes to Amtrak is that most people are just not engaged in the issue. Of those who are some are pro Amtrak and some are anti Amtrak. However, neither the pros nor the antis are big enough to make much of a difference.
As far as the cost of food service is concerned, Joe Boardman has pointed out that is about 2 per cent of Amtrak's budget. I suspect those people who are engaged in Amtrak look at broader issues.
I believe the essence of what some of us are saying about dining cars on LD trains is basically as follows.
1. LD trains should be pruned to keep the ones that actually serve the most LD passengers, i.e. folks riding most of the length of the route. For others, divide into segments served by day trains, i.e., no sleepers.
2. Where food service is needed, outsource it to food service specialists and have patrons pay the true costs of their meals.
3. Various delivery modes can be used: aisle service, lounge snack/bistro cars, actual dining cars. "Gourmet" meals are not primarily why a person rides a train and taxpayers or Acela surpluses should not be subsidizing their continuance or that of sleeping cars. Boardman said that quite clearly to the Midwest HSR group..
One simple question, which the dining car enthusiasts duck is this: Why should taxpayers subsidize your meal on a train?
oltmanndThe thing I can't swallow is that Amtrak appears to view themselves as some sort of innocent bystander in the whole process.
I'm not sure of what you mean here by "Amtrak," Don.
First of all, there is Joe Boardman. In his testimony to the Congress he certainly presents a strong argument for long distance trains. We all know his arguments or at least those of us who bother to read his testimony know them.
Also, when you get below the board of directors, every single Amtrak employee, both labor and management, is represented by a labor organization. These organizations all lobby the Congress. We generally don't know what they say but they all publish newsletters for their members which would show their positions. But I think it is safe to believe that they do not argue against Amtrak as it now exists and they oppose any diminution of Amtrak.
However, none of these entitles make the law. They simply administer the law that Congress has made. They can do only what the law authorized and they cannot do anything not authorized in law.
INMO There has not been a proper accounting of the food service draw.. Maybe Amtrak needs to break out on each train its food revenue.
1. When a sleeping car passenger uses the dining car then that cost should be fully accounted for by making it a food revenue from the sleeping car accomodaation charge. May be as well some transfer of the fare ( either one may already be done ) .
2. Each time a coach passenger uses the dinning car then there would be a flat subtraction from the fare paid to food revenue.
3. A lounge car / cafe, etc use could be transferred in the same way.
For example only: a coach pass uses dinning car then $7.00 of fares collected transferred to food service. Purchase of several items from lounge maybe $4.00, Drinks $1.00 These figures are not meant to be actual numbers..
John WR Sam1The cruise lines don't get taxpayer subsidies for their food service. So tell me again why the taxpayers should subsidize food service on Amtrak. Since you ask, Sam, here is the reasoning behind it as I understand that reasoning. Back in 1970 the American Public and Congress arrived at an agreement. Congress would allow the private railroads to abandon their passenger service. In return Congress would fund a national rail passenger system. That rail passenger system is not nearly as big as the one the public had to give up and Congress's support of it has been grudging at best. However, Congress has never refused to fund it. Ever since 1970 many individuals have questioned our rail passenger system. Some find it too expensive and want it eliminated. Some find it inadequate and want it expanded. And some feel it is unsuited to the needs of today's traveling public and it should be modified. However, there has never been a new consensus that we should either eliminate it or modify it. Thus it carries on at it was originally structured. It is not completely static. Amtrak has made some changes over its history. But it still is pretty much the same as it was in the beginning. Improvements in service have generally been funded by the states with the exception of the Northeast Corridor where the Federal Government has funded them. If Amtrak were to withdraw long distance trains as being unsuited to today's needs I cannot see any reason for Congress to do substitute anything in their place. But never say never. I really do not know what the future will bring. John
Sam1The cruise lines don't get taxpayer subsidies for their food service. So tell me again why the taxpayers should subsidize food service on Amtrak.
Since you ask, Sam, here is the reasoning behind it as I understand that reasoning.
Back in 1970 the American Public and Congress arrived at an agreement. Congress would allow the private railroads to abandon their passenger service. In return Congress would fund a national rail passenger system. That rail passenger system is not nearly as big as the one the public had to give up and Congress's support of it has been grudging at best. However, Congress has never refused to fund it.
Ever since 1970 many individuals have questioned our rail passenger system. Some find it too expensive and want it eliminated. Some find it inadequate and want it expanded. And some feel it is unsuited to the needs of today's traveling public and it should be modified. However, there has never been a new consensus that we should either eliminate it or modify it. Thus it carries on at it was originally structured.
It is not completely static. Amtrak has made some changes over its history. But it still is pretty much the same as it was in the beginning. Improvements in service have generally been funded by the states with the exception of the Northeast Corridor where the Federal Government has funded them.
If Amtrak were to withdraw long distance trains as being unsuited to today's needs I cannot see any reason for Congress to do substitute anything in their place. But never say never. I really do not know what the future will bring.
The thing I can't swallow is that Amtrak appears to view themselves as some sort of innocent bystander in the whole process.
Paul Milenkovic schlimm I, too, enjoyed meals on trains. In my case, they were on the dining (one "N") cars on the Burlington, Sante Fe, Pennsy or NYC of old, . Asking about "N" train cars? Try the Model Railroader section of the Forum . . .
schlimm I, too, enjoyed meals on trains. In my case, they were on the dining (one "N") cars on the Burlington, Sante Fe, Pennsy or NYC of old, .
I, too, enjoyed meals on trains. In my case, they were on the dining (one "N") cars on the Burlington, Sante Fe, Pennsy or NYC of old, .
Asking about "N" train cars? Try the Model Railroader section of the Forum . . .
I, too, enjoyed meals on trains. In my case, they were on the dining (one "N") cars on the Burlington, Sante Fe, Pennsy or NYC of old, . I also enjoyed a light meal recently on a Bord-Restaurant car on an ICE (HSR intercity express) on German Rail. In all cases, the meals were not subsidized by taxpayers, American or German. It is possible to have decent food on trains, whether prepared on board or brought aboard at stops, as Don Oltmann has suggested. Since Amtrak hasn't been able to figure that out in its 40+ year history, perhaps it is time to outsource?
cjn282 I think though, Sam, that the amenities offered on LD trains , going back to CN and CP, Via and Amtrak, still makes a difference as to who will buy a ticket. Having ridden a number of long distance trains over the years, I can truly say that my transportation would have been something else had decent food service not been available
I think though, Sam, that the amenities offered on LD trains , going back to CN and CP, Via and Amtrak, still makes a difference as to who will buy a ticket. Having ridden a number of long distance trains over the years, I can truly say that my transportation would have been something else had decent food service not been available
Mica's concern is with so-called gourmet meals on Amtrak trains that don't command a price sufficient to cover their cost. Some meal service on long distance trains, or short corridor trains for that matter, should be offered. Does it need to be in sit down, table serviced dinning cars or could it be offered in lounge cars? And should it be priced to cover the cost or should the taxpayers subsidize the eats?
I just returned from a one week Caribbean cruise. The cost of my meals was priced into the cruise ticket, although I could have opted for somewhat better eats in one of the specialty restaurants. It would have cost me more. The cruise lines don't get taxpayer subsidies for their food service. So tell me again why the taxpayers should subsidize food service on Amtrak.
I agree for most, but not all, of my long distance travel. When faced with an overnight run leaving just before dinner time, I probably would have been willing to brown-bag it. But a day and a night on a train with no good dining car, or anything longer, I probably would have flown despite my real love for rail travel.
This what happens when fools who need help to get dressed are elected to Congress.
BonasA outside food contractor could be greasing Con. Micas skids
I'm not sure what you mean, Bonas. It would be beyond inappropriate for Amtrak to even seem to be trying to influence an election, though.
A outside food contractor could be greasing Con. Micas skids
I understand. But again, my point wasn't so much the impact a PR fiasco like the $15 burger had on politicians or right wingers. I am referring to the impact it had on the general population which is largely apolitical and outside those living near the NEC, has probably never ridden Amtrak. This is especially true with the under 30 crowd, who mostly regard trains as some relic from the past. So jokes about the burger or for that matter, trains running into each other, offset all the good PR from Amtrak commercials (boring) or the talking GE train.
Actually a good cost accountant takes into account the very things you mention when determining the contribution margin that a unit makes when deciding whether to discontinue the unit. So in the case of Amtrak food service or sleeper service, a good cost accountant tries to quantify how much revenue direct and indirect gets lost and how much expenses truly get saved.
So dropping a diner may cause some riders to not take the train at all. Same is true for the sleeper. Now these indirect revenue losses are harder to quantify but not impossible to estimate. It's also important to identify which costs are truly saved. Allocating overhead to diners or sleepers is bad accounting if you are trying to decide whether to drop a diner or sleeper because you won't actually save the overhead. It would just get allocated somewhere else.
Amazingly management nonetheless makes these mistakes everyday in all types of businesses from airlines to auto making, and that's why companies fail to shrink to profitability (or less losses).
schlimmConsequently, when something becomes a joke like the $15 hamburger, it seriously damages Amtrak's image in the eyes of the general public, far beyond Mica's district. That's the point.
And I take your point, Schlimm. I did some web surfing trying to make some assessment of how damaging it was. What has happened is that it generated some discussion and that discussion has not been good for Amtrak. A fair amount of discussion was by people who were already predisposed to dislike Amtrak so it didn't change their opinions but it gave them a new chance to explain why Amtrak is unconstitutional. It kept their issues alive. So I have to agree you are right.
I also found some pro Amtrak backlash which could help Amtrak. But there was not a lot of it.
Finally, you don't have to look far beyond this forum to know that a lot of people are anti government, especially anti Federal government. They will link on to any issue they can to spread their anti government message. But the Federal government has been dealing with this for a very long time and is remarkably robust. Amtrak seems typical. So yes, I think the issue is damaging but I also think Amtrak can and will absorb the damage and go on.
John WR The $15 hamburgers have gotten him a lot of national exposure. (See your comment about David Letterman). So among the conservatives in his district the Congressman has succeeded and he intends to continue to succeed. But among Americans as a whole I doubt his attacks are more than an amusing diversion. John
The $15 hamburgers have gotten him a lot of national exposure. (See your comment about David Letterman). So among the conservatives in his district the Congressman has succeeded and he intends to continue to succeed. But among Americans as a whole I doubt his attacks are more than an amusing diversion.
A lot of Americans pay more attention to comedians like Letterman, Leno, Fallon, Conan O'Brien, etc. and pundit comedians like Stewart and Colbert than they do to serious news. Consequently, when something becomes a joke like the $15 hamburger, it seriously damages Amtrak's image in the eyes of the general public, far beyond Mica's district. That's the point.
John WR oltmanndYou can rent a private car and invite your friends to come along. Might cost a bit more than $100 a head, though. I'll put this on my "Things to do when I win the lottery" list. Along with your name as a guest.
oltmanndYou can rent a private car and invite your friends to come along. Might cost a bit more than $100 a head, though.
I'll put this on my "Things to do when I win the lottery" list. Along with your name as a guest.
I'll be there!
blue streak 1 oltmannd Stop the train? What for? Just load the meals on with the passengers. In a perfect world that would work. Being in the airline business for 30+ years lots of luck. Catering locations fall into 2 distinct operatioons. 1. At smaller locations as long as you are on time the caters will show up on time sbout 90% of the time. For every minute the plane is late expect a 1 - 2 % increase of them not showing up at your arrival. So if your plane is 30 minutes up late then caters showing upon your arrival goes down to about 60 % of time. Since a late train would not be affected by another train unless the opposite trains arrive at the same time who knows ? That would depend on capacity of catering truck. If caters also serve a small airport ( usually unlikely ) then lack of trucks could be a factor. 2. Large stations ? Even with the large amount of trains served at LAX, CHI , WASH, NYP, Bos delays happen though infrequently. But again late trains get later ( usually ). Whenever there are disruptins to service delays in catering were completely unpredictible. 3. No matter how tight performance contracts were there were always mistakes by the caterers in about 10 - 20 % of the time. Many times we woulld just have to leave without some missing items.
oltmannd Stop the train? What for? Just load the meals on with the passengers.
It would be a challenge... I was thinking more along the lines a national contract with very local administration. Perhaps each train would make it's own arrangements and adjust en route as conditions change.
We're only talking a couple hundred meals per train, per meal.
daveklepperCorrection: The NYNH&H did not even cover costs on the dining cars per se. The dining and lounge cas were under one budget, and the money was recouped by the high prices chaged for drinks in the bar cars on commuter trains. And the higih prices did not stop people from using thse cars and using them steadly. They were often jammed, all seats taken and peoplel three deep at the bar-counter.
There may be a lesson here....
Sell snacks and soda from on board vending machines and "to go" meals at the stations on the NEC. Sell high margin stuff at manned stations - drinks, gourmet coffee, smoothies in manned cafe cars.
schlimmThe infamous $15 hamburger (cost to Amtrak to serve it for $8.95) is the sort of nonsense Amtrak does that Letterman and others joke about. And it is a symbol of what's wrong with Amtrak. Guys like Mica use it to tear Amtrak apart.
Even as I agree with you about this statement I am not sure that Amtrak is lying in shreds over its hamburger expenses, Schlimm.
David Letterman is an entertainer and his job to to find comedy where ever he can. But I doubt that entertainers will bring Amtrak down.
Congressman Mica is caught in a political paradox typical of America. His constituents like him a lot; there is no danger of his losing his seat as long as he wants to run. However, active Republicans in his district are a lot closer to Teaparty candidates and would prefer a more conservative candidate. The primary is where his challenge really lies. And one way for him to appeal to the conservatives in his district is to attack Amtrak. The $15 hamburgers have gotten him a lot of national exposure. (See your comment about David Letterman). So among the conservatives in his district the Congressman has succeeded and he intends to continue to succeed. But among Americans as a whole I doubt his attacks are more than an amusing diversion.
Correction: The NYNH&H did not even cover costs on the dining cars per se. The dining and lounge cas were under one budget, and the money was recouped by the high prices chaged for drinks in the bar cars on commuter trains. And the higih prices did not stop people from using thse cars and using them steadly. They were often jammed, all seats taken and peoplel three deep at the bar-counter.
Should Amtrak start charging for luggage people bring on board, too? Dining cars provide what Amtrak's competition can't.
schlimmFood service (read: dining cars, $15 hamburgers) are an easy target, low-lying fruit for the Micas of the world. But the way to disarm them is take away the targets.
blue streak 1 So if a train had to make a 45 minute stop to feed passengers would that save mone ? Not likely. That would cause what at least 6 crew members another 2 hrs + pay per day. That does not count the idle time of the train & m possible blocking a freight train. Seems like AT&SF did it with Harvey houses and went to dinner cars to speed up train. A 6 meal LD trip will make a train schedule 4:30 more and train set might not be able to make turn times + maintenance issue..
So if a train had to make a 45 minute stop to feed passengers would that save mone ? Not likely. That would cause what at least 6 crew members another 2 hrs + pay per day. That does not count the idle time of the train & m possible blocking a freight train. Seems like AT&SF did it with Harvey houses and went to dinner cars to speed up train. A 6 meal LD trip will make a train schedule 4:30 more and train set might not be able to make turn times + maintenance issue..
John WR oltmanndFull disclosure: I did have a steak in an old NH grill car riding along the Shorline on an Amtrak train in 1973. Great experience! Since you have been so candid, Don, I too feel the urge to confess. In the early 60's I was in the Army going home on leave. I met a pleasant companion and we both sat in the grill car on the New Haven looking out over the shore. I could only afford a hamburger. But I still remember how much I enjoyed it. I would willingly have $100 a year added to my taxes to see those grill cars run again. John
oltmanndFull disclosure: I did have a steak in an old NH grill car riding along the Shorline on an Amtrak train in 1973. Great experience!
Since you have been so candid, Don, I too feel the urge to confess.
In the early 60's I was in the Army going home on leave. I met a pleasant companion and we both sat in the grill car on the New Haven looking out over the shore. I could only afford a hamburger. But I still remember how much I enjoyed it. I would willingly have $100 a year added to my taxes to see those grill cars run again.
You can rent a private car and invite your friends to come along. Might cost a bit more than $100 a head, though.
DeggestyI'm sure that the news butchers made money in the fifties and perhaps in the sixties.
Johnny,
I think you mean those guys who walked through the trains with a basket under their arm and a coffee pot hanging down. That was definitely the most horrible food I ever had in my life. On the other hand, they also sold literature. If you talked to them in the vestibule there was a little privacy to discuss your purchase.
PNWRMNM With the possible exception of the NEC it [Amtrak] is a net burden on society and should be eliminated. Period. End of story.
With the possible exception of the NEC it [Amtrak] is a net burden on society and should be eliminated. Period. End of story.
What I like about you Mac, and I am sincere in saying this, is that you mean what you say and say what you mean. But let me suggest that things might improve if Amtrak burdened the society a little more. In the midwest and around Texas if we were to have some higher speed rail transportation than we now do it might be impossible to share it with freight railroads. Amtrak might then have to pay to improve its own track and leave the freight railroads, at least in some places.
Henry,
If we take individual comments about Amtrak food or bike hooks or similar things I can agree with them.
But I think we have to be careful about how we discuss them. There are people both in Congress and out of government who take a "starve the beast" perspective not only on Amtrak but also on many other government expenditures. They will attack pretty much anything government does. But their real agenda is to simply reduce government without any assessment of the value of the programs they want to close down.
Beyond that, Amtrak is a Republican legacy. Republicans traditionally favor internal improvements and beneficial to the economy as a whole and support them. Abe Lincoln, the first Republican President, understood that when he signed the Pacific Railroad Acts And Richard Nixon understood it when he signed the act to create Amtrak. Dwight Eisenhower understood it when he created the Interstate Highway System. These were controversial and the controversies were resolved in favor of the internal improvement.
Democrats oppose internal improvements because they believe all of the people of a society will be taxed for the benefit of a few relatively well off people. Thomas Jefferson, for example, refused to fund the Erie Canal for that reason. The people who oppose New Jersey Transit building to Scranton tend to be Democrats who incorrectly argue that only Wall Street people ride our commuter trains.
The people in Congress who oppose Amtrak do call themselves Republican and run on a Republican ticket. But many of them come from the southeast and still have their old anti internal improvement beliefs. Eventually I hope their beliefs will evolve.
oltmanndSo, you can buy good food in the stations at "for profit" joints, or you can buy not-as-good food on the train and help Amtrak lose money? And this is a good situation because....???
Don,
This is one of your comments I find it hard to understand. I am reporting a personal practice; I'm not evaluating anything Amtrak does or does not do. And at most I comment on food at the snack bar, not food in a dining car.
For what it's worth, Amtrak's coffee and soft drinks as pretty much the same as you can get anywhere else. Rolls, breakfast food and sandwiches I find far better at the station. For example, I fine Zaro's in both New York and Newark Penn Stations excellent. When I buy something to eat I try to buy what I like. That is all.
When I have brought food in the snack bar on the train I find it typical of similar food sold in for profit places. I don't see any valid comparison between Amtrak snack bar food and food at similar businesses.
Finally, to suggest that an Amtrak issue should revolve around the bagel or croissant I eat on the train going up to Providence seems a little short sighted.
Complaints and attacks about food and service aboard Amtrak should not be taken seriously. Those who favor McDonald's fare and costs would be against anything better than that. Those who prefer Delmonico's will be totally disappointed. Those who are bottom line feeders will complain against the cost of providing the service ignorning how it supports the service in ways other than financial, Those who over worry the total value of the service will lose track and go too far beyond what is really needed. Politicians, pick your sides and your weapons...the food fight is still in full battle.
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.
John WR Sam1 Based on several reports critical of the company's food service practices, it appears that the activity is ripe for reform. Would it be possible to share the sources of these reports with us, Sam? The only reports I know of are Congressman Mica's. I ride Northeast Regional trains. Long ago Amtrak stopped operating the dining cars that the New Haven and Penn Central railroads operated. And I avoid Amtrak's snack bars because I prefer the food available in the stations. John
Sam1 Based on several reports critical of the company's food service practices, it appears that the activity is ripe for reform.
Would it be possible to share the sources of these reports with us, Sam? The only reports I know of are Congressman Mica's.
I ride Northeast Regional trains. Long ago Amtrak stopped operating the dining cars that the New Haven and Penn Central railroads operated. And I avoid Amtrak's snack bars because I prefer the food available in the stations.
Numerous reports regarding Amtrak's food services practices have been issued by a variety of sources over the last ten years. I have read five or six of them.
The two reports that I had in mind are the DOT Inspector General's Report CR-2005-068, July 25, 2005, and the Amtrak Inspector General's Report E-11-03, June 3, 2011. The DOT IG report dealt with the issue of sleepers and dinners on long distance trains. The Amtrak IG's report dealt with food service fraud. I have not read recently either report, and I am not quoting from them. We have beat them to death in our discussions.
Food service on passengers trains, down through the years, has tended to be a loss leader. Ironically, if I remember correctly, one exception was the New Haven, which made money on its dinning cars longer than any other carrier while it was losing a ton of money on its passenger operations.
Mica has a valid point. If Amtrak were a profitable commercial operation, then running a loss leader would be acceptable. But it is not profitable. It requires significant federal and state subsidies for its existence. Given its dependence on taxpayer subsidies, especially with respect to the long distance trains, I am hard pressed to understand why a train rider's eats should be subsidized.
As I read what Mica supposedly said, his focus appears to be on so-called gourmet meals or Amtrak's contracts with gourmet chefs for food advice.
No, I'm not over the top. I believe in a total and balanced transportation system in which all forms and modes are treated to rationalize and convenient and efficient system. Highway, air, water, and rail in a planned, coordinated system. What we have now is one which each mode has its supporters at the expense of supporters of other modes.
I'm sure that the news butchers made money in the fifties and perhaps in the sixties. The last one I remeber seeing was on the Man O' War, in the early sixties.
henry6 Destroying the transportation system by not supporting it reduces the quality of life we have so gallantly fought for and developed is shortsighted, greedy, and unpatriotic.
Destroying the transportation system by not supporting it reduces the quality of life we have so gallantly fought for and developed is shortsighted, greedy, and unpatriotic.
You are more than a little over the top on this one. ATK is not "the" transportation system, it is barely a transportation system and a **** poor one at that. With the possible exception of the NEC it is a net burden on society and should be eliminated. Period. End of story.
Mac
Florida has become one of the most backward states, poitically, in our nation, trying not to be a part of the US today and hoping not to be in the tuture. Steps its politicians have taken to step backward are working hard to make the US a Fourth World country and not the first class leader our forefathers...especially the Greatest Generation..fought for and gave us. Mica and his ilk seem to want to take us back to the 19th Centruy ignoring all the Industrial Revolution and the political programs that helped create our country's greatness. Destroying the transportation system by not supporting it reduces the quality of life we have so gallantly fought for and developed is shortsighted, greedy, and unpatriotic.
So, you can buy good food in the stations at "for profit" joints, or you can buy not-as-good food on the train and help Amtrak lose money? And this is a good situation because....???
Amtrak need to figure out how to make money selling snacks on trains - plain and simple. Whether it's a manned food car or vending machines or a manned "bar cart" plus vending machines - something, anything!
Full disclosure: I did have a steak in an old NH grill car riding along the Shorline on an Amtrak train in 1973. Great experience!
Food service (read: dining cars, $15 hamburgers) are an easy target, low-lying fruit for the Micas of the world. But the way to disarm them is take away the targets.
Paul Milenkovic Y'know, you could even save the delay of a station stop or the added time loading food carts at a station if you used one of those old-fashioned RPO car "mail hooks." You put the pre-plated (actually this requires padded boxes) food into a stout canvas bag, and a train crew person operates this hook to grab that bag set up on a post. Don't tell me it can't be done -- this is 1920's era railroad tech. Woo-hoo, just when eating that food, you will have to use a plastic spoon to scoop it off the sides of the styrofoam container . . .
Y'know, you could even save the delay of a station stop or the added time loading food carts at a station if you used one of those old-fashioned RPO car "mail hooks."
You put the pre-plated (actually this requires padded boxes) food into a stout canvas bag, and a train crew person operates this hook to grab that bag set up on a post. Don't tell me it can't be done -- this is 1920's era railroad tech. Woo-hoo, just when eating that food, you will have to use a plastic spoon to scoop it off the sides of the styrofoam container . . .
haha!!
Paul MilenkovicY'know, you could even save the delay of a station stop or the added time loading food carts at a station if you used one of those old-fashioned RPO car "mail hooks."
I was thinking of a trebochet set up to launch the food at "track speed" at a slight angle to the track so it would accelerate gently and land softly thru an open baggage car door.
Baggage car! Oops. Forget it...
oltmannd schlimm oltmannd DeggestySam, I agree with you that you will not find "gourmet" food in an Amtrak diner. I agree, too! It's on par with a lower end chain restaurant, like Applebees. I would say that food service is not one of Amtrak's core competencies and they should subcontract the whole thing out. Run the food service like a dinner train. The people who use LD trains as transportation don't use it because for the "dining experience." Only the land cruise and nostalgia folks and neither are part of Amtrak's mission. Lose the dining car and use subcontracted food service in the lounge car on Western LD trains. On single level trains use seat service. By, "run it like a dinner train" I mean, cook the food offsite and deliver hot, pre-plated meals to the train. Space is a very valuable asset on a train, don't use it up having a kitchen.
schlimm oltmannd DeggestySam, I agree with you that you will not find "gourmet" food in an Amtrak diner. I agree, too! It's on par with a lower end chain restaurant, like Applebees. I would say that food service is not one of Amtrak's core competencies and they should subcontract the whole thing out. Run the food service like a dinner train. The people who use LD trains as transportation don't use it because for the "dining experience." Only the land cruise and nostalgia folks and neither are part of Amtrak's mission. Lose the dining car and use subcontracted food service in the lounge car on Western LD trains. On single level trains use seat service.
oltmannd DeggestySam, I agree with you that you will not find "gourmet" food in an Amtrak diner. I agree, too! It's on par with a lower end chain restaurant, like Applebees. I would say that food service is not one of Amtrak's core competencies and they should subcontract the whole thing out. Run the food service like a dinner train.
DeggestySam, I agree with you that you will not find "gourmet" food in an Amtrak diner.
I agree, too! It's on par with a lower end chain restaurant, like Applebees.
I would say that food service is not one of Amtrak's core competencies and they should subcontract the whole thing out. Run the food service like a dinner train.
By, "run it like a dinner train" I mean, cook the food offsite and deliver hot, pre-plated meals to the train. Space is a very valuable asset on a train, don't use it up having a kitchen.
"Run it like a dinner train...." Where is the food to be delivered?--and when the train is running late, when do the passengers eat?
I remember one instance in which the steward had to buy food at a stop. One trip of the Coast Starlight was delayed en route when a freight train derailed in one of the Cascade tunnels, and the steward bought food in Chehalis so the passengers could eat dinner, and the food was prepared on board. We arrived in Seattle ten hours late.
I generally did use dining cars on long distance trains. Sometimes I would have a fish-Kosher meal ordered in advance, sometimes I would settle for purely vegetarian out of what was normally provided. In my long distance travels up to the start of Amtrak, I had not adopted a religiouslife-style.
I usually found the dining car experience one of the highlights of the trip and would have been very dissapointed if the service was not avaiable. I found meals ranging from better than just satisfactory to gourmet and memorial. I am speaking about Amtrak. The best meals were on Amtrak on AT&SF, UP (D&RGW) and SCL-CSX (RF&P) tracks. Admittadly, the experience was not only the good-to-excellent food, but also the converstation with new friends with scenery passing by.
Before Amtrak, one reason I switched from NYC-PC Detroit - Chicago to GTW's Mowhawk was the diner. I would say it was the main reason.
I ride the Texas Eagle from Taylor, TX to Dallas and back approximately eight to ten times a year. I like to have lunch in the dinning car going and coming. It is a train thing to do. The food on the Eagle is OK most of the time. But not all the time!
On my last trip I passed up eating in the dinner and instead opted for a turkey and cheese sandwich, along with a Diet Coke, in the lounge car. The sandwich was excellent, and it cost four or five dollars less than the veggie burger in the dinner. And a Diet Coke is a Diet Coke is a Diet Coke.
If Amtrak discontinued dinning cars and upgraded the food selection in the lounge car, I would be a happy camper irrespective of whether I was traveling from Taylor to Dallas or Taylor to LA. Now I do insist on a glass of wine or two with my evening meal. And Amtrak serves a reasonably good drop providing one is not a connoisseur.
On another note, I have taken the Acela from NYC to Philadelphia or Washington three times. I did not eat on the train, and I did not observe anyone in my car race to the bistro car for anything substantial. Coffee and a roll seemed to be the choice of most passengers. Don't know about the folks in first class. I suspect most business travelers on the Acela wait until they get to their destination and opt for a meal in a good restaurant, or they eat at a good restaurant before boarding the train.
Sam, I agree with you that you will not find "gourmet" food in an Amtrak diner. The food is better than it was when I traveled in 1982--and then I found the best food on the lesser trains.
Now, if there is a diner on a train, there is only a little difference between what you find in the diner on one train and in the diner on another train. If yu are a vegetarian (which I am not), you have very little choice.
VIA is a bit different on the Canadian--you have a different menu each day. And there are variations in the menus for the VIA 1 service.
Back in the fifties, there was an article in Trains which pointed out the fact that diners lost money no matter what the roads did to reduce the loss, short of discontinuing meal service; and the situation is no better today.
“With a total $1.4 billion Amtrak taxpayer subsidy in just the past year, extravagant chef-designed dishes need to be considered for the chopping block,” the Florida congressman said.
It does not sound like he is going after all food service. He appears to be focusing on the high end (gourmet) meals served on the long distance trains. Frankly, I have never had what could be classified as a gourmet meal on any of Amtrak's trains, and I have ridden most of them over the past decade.
Approximately 2.2 per cent of Amtrak's system wide passengers book sleeping car space. Meals are included in their fares. According to the IG the cost of the meals is not covered by the implied meal component in the first class fares. By the same token, although the data is getting long in the tooth, again according to the IG's report, sleeping car passengers actually received a larger per passenger subsidy than coach passengers. Admittedly, I don't know if this is still true, but I suspect that it is.
Amtrak could discontinue the dinning cars and provide food service in the lounge cars. The Superliner lounge cars have the capacity to serve relatively decent eats, I am not so sure about the lounge cars on the single level trains. They have tables for folks to enjoy their eats. Moreover, if the dinning cars were eliminated, at considerable potential cost savings, the quality and variety of the meals offered in the lounge cars could be enhanced.
As long as Amtrak just keeps on keeping on as if there is no reason to change, it will never improve its efficiency and effectiveness. Based on several reports critical of the company's food service practices, it appears that the activity is ripe for reform.
Congressman Mica has said publicly he wants to conduct a "Holy Jihad" against Amtrak. He is a bitter opponent and no one is going to persuade him to be anything else. He'll just on on and on.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.