CMStPnP henry6 Does anybody know how many customers make up a full evening at any 10 to 20 table restaurant? What the table turnover is? Not a five star fine dining restaurant an average mid range decent restaurant,? Many average probably 2 to 3 turns. So a dining car maybe has 15 tables and two seatings...with as many as 120 people out of a trainload of 200-300? They should be able to rationalize a menu and format that would at best break even. And, yes, it has to be operated as a restaurant like any other restaurant, but moving. So you minimize the menu offerings per meal per day but change every night or two; but you don't shortchange your customers with quality and service. Can't be that hard if planned right. Also, I would have to throw the BS flag at the comment that Dining Car services have always lost money. Unproven and hearsay in my view, prove that with something more than a lose comment from a disgruntled railroad employee during a train discontinuance.
henry6 Does anybody know how many customers make up a full evening at any 10 to 20 table restaurant? What the table turnover is? Not a five star fine dining restaurant an average mid range decent restaurant,? Many average probably 2 to 3 turns. So a dining car maybe has 15 tables and two seatings...with as many as 120 people out of a trainload of 200-300? They should be able to rationalize a menu and format that would at best break even. And, yes, it has to be operated as a restaurant like any other restaurant, but moving. So you minimize the menu offerings per meal per day but change every night or two; but you don't shortchange your customers with quality and service. Can't be that hard if planned right.
Does anybody know how many customers make up a full evening at any 10 to 20 table restaurant? What the table turnover is? Not a five star fine dining restaurant an average mid range decent restaurant,? Many average probably 2 to 3 turns. So a dining car maybe has 15 tables and two seatings...with as many as 120 people out of a trainload of 200-300? They should be able to rationalize a menu and format that would at best break even. And, yes, it has to be operated as a restaurant like any other restaurant, but moving. So you minimize the menu offerings per meal per day but change every night or two; but you don't shortchange your customers with quality and service. Can't be that hard if planned right.
Also, I would have to throw the BS flag at the comment that Dining Car services have always lost money. Unproven and hearsay in my view, prove that with something more than a lose comment from a disgruntled railroad employee during a train discontinuance.
My Grandfather was the head of the Dining Car Dept. for a major Eastern carrier for 20 years covering the War years to the late 50's. His stated goal from the President of the company was satisfy the customers and keep the losses to a minimum. I have no idea of the monetary amount of the losses, but in keeping his job for 20 years until retirement he must have been meeting the goals set for him. I might add that he was not a 'hands off' paper pusher type manager, routinely going to the departments various facilities all over the carrier to ferret out waste, inefficiency and incompetence as well as actual theft and embezelment and also to ensure that the service standards were being met or exceeded.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
schlimm From what others have observed, most of the patrons of the dining car on LD trains are sleeper passengers. Therefore the numbers are limited.
From what others have observed, most of the patrons of the dining car on LD trains are sleeper passengers. Therefore the numbers are limited.
Well not always. On my return from NOL to ATL this past friday over 60 coach passengers started for lunch ahead of us. we were seated at 2:10 PM ( 1410 ). Crew anticipated restocking lunch at WASH.
I reiterate....it is not 1930 or 1970 or even 1990. SO much has changed that you can't really measure everything by the past, that people's tastes and needs have changed, technology has changed, therefore marketing and thought has to change entirely or from anew.
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.
CMStPnPVending machine approach has been tried and has failed via Amtrak. I think Passengers expect more.
No, it really had not been tried.
AMTRAK's attempt to run vending machines has failed, but AMTK is rife with union labor, union work rules and premium prices.
Put Pepsi Machines in the cars, let Pepsi stock them at the terminals, it is just another stop for them, or let some other terminal based vendor provide and service the machines.
The lines to get mediocre stuff at the cafe car are not acceptable. How can crowds like this be served better?
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
henry6 So a dining car maybe has 15 tables and two seatings...with as many as 120 people out of a trainload of 200-300?
So a dining car maybe has 15 tables and two seatings...with as many as 120 people out of a trainload of 200-300?
Henry6: Interesting number. The EB I was on had 15 available tables.but a total of 18 tables. 3 of the tables had to be taken up by stacked high dry goods suplys for the next day's meals. 1st night had 3 - 1/2 seatings and next day 4 ? I believe. The diner sold out their first day's allotment and many coach passengeers had to settle for the lounge fare. Breakfast the next day the same occurrence. For second's days suppr crew ordered some take out from a couple fast food joints at a stop. The passengers were not very happy. I suppose east bounds are the same.
The proposed additions to the consists of an additional sleeper and 1 - 2 coaches would just make a poor situation much more difficult. My suggestion of using the new baggage cars to transport supplies & refrigerated meals might be one solution. A fork lift at Havre could rapidly transport dining items from baggage to diner service door.
The Starlight is the only train that I know of that restocks at the intermediate station of Oakland thereby avoiding the supply problem.
An additional consideration is that some un named routes stock a frozen emergrency food meal in case of delays that occurr at inaccesible areas. Can any of us really imagine the fall out of a stranded train in a snow storm ? ? ? ? .
The airlines realized people do not fly to eat meals. And most people do not ride a train so they can have a meal. Amtrak should stick to running trains: fast, frequent, convenient. Contract food service out to experts who know what they are doing.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Airlines average passenger time is probably under 5 hours...they don't have sleeping cars for overnight runs, either. So forget airline standards. Right, people don't fly to eat but fly to get somewhere fast, not eat and sleep; so airlines are not trains, definitely not long distance or overnight trains.
Vending machines were tried several times unsuccessfully. So why bother mentioning them especially for long distance services. And you can't depend on the Pepsi or Coke truck to meet the train and the train take the time to stock.
But if 15 tables in a dining car get turned 4 times during a meal period, you have a viable restaurant situation, a chance to do something, maybe even make some money. Forget how dining cars were in the close and distant past. Start with nothing and build from there. Maybe you have to start by Amtrak creating Amtrak Restaurants Inc. and make each dining car a location; maybe give out franchises by routes or by cars. Maybe you have regional menu stocked at common terminal or location. Maybe you sort things out by distance train travels, or by the clientele of each train; maybe have a four item standard menu with an allowance for one or two regional dishes. Most important: leave Congress out of it.
henry6Right, people don't fly to eat but fly to get somewhere fast, not eat and sleep; so airlines are not trains, definitely not long distance or overnight trains.
So what are LD and overnight trains for? By your own admission, not to get anywhere quickly. So that leaves LD trains as essentially land cruises or an alternative for those who will not or cannot fly.
I strongly believe the government should provide basic transportation to aleve air and road congestion and avoid the huge expense of building more lanes of interstate in expensive, congested areas.
However, I do not see any justification for the government's subsidizing land cruises, anymore than it should subsidize ocean and river cruises. We already have private long distance buses which use the federally built interstates that fulfil the function of an alternative to flying..
My experience with the diners on a train such as the California Zephyr is that only about half the tables are served for each seating; thus those who eat are not rushed to finish their meals. As I recall from my trip last month, the second seating came about a half hour after the first seating, and there was a longer time span before the third seating. This practice may reduce the actual usage of the diner.
I do wonder about the long wait for the food to be heated and served. To give the people time to make conversation before eating?
Johnny
So, Shlimm, do you think there should be seats and commodes on trains? Do you understand what I mean by service and services? If you go to a restaurant do you bring your own table, chair, china and silverware? Do you buy a car is there an engine, steering wheel, seat and headlights? What I am getting at is that for something to be valuable to somebody, it has to have the necessary appurtenances plus the extras that make it attractive and usable.. If you don't want to run Amtrak like a passenger railroad service, then urge your Congressman to let it be run by Amtrak instead of by Congress or get rid of it if you can get the permission of the Class Ones by assuring them that no one has to run a passenger train.
I'm bound to wonder, as NKPGuy did months ago, what people like Schlimm and Sam1 are even doing on here. They're opposed to what Amtrak was chartered to do ... run LD trains. Nobody, including Congress, has revoked that charter. All the rest of which they are enamoured -- the high-density, short-distance stuff, which depends on state funding, and so probably going away soon -- is incidental to the original business.
They have basically nothing constructive to say about Amtrak as it was constituted 40 years ago and is supposed to be today ... with (horrors!) diners (not dinners, Sam1) and sleepers. Yeah, it loses a little money, which it has in common with every other operation of government. However, unlike so many other operations of government, it actually delivers a product that does not end up in the cemetery or the wastewater treatment plant.
Amtrak is the kind of product, like highways and space exploration -- which also seem beyond us now -- that is the hallmark of a civilization that aims, or used to aim, at being something above.
So out come the knives when you are unable to make a cogent argument. I will say it one more time: I favor a modern 21st century passenger rail system, not some pathetic attempt to preserve a travel option that was dying 50 years ago. And I remember the "Golden Age" with fondness, but it simply is not a viable mode today, as can be seen by the miniscule numbers who use LD trains. But if we have to continue LD trains, then run them as basic transportation.
As to why i am here, i suggest you read the heading for the passenger forum, in case you forgot.
"The place to discuss Amtrak, the future of passenger rail, and high speed proposals."
Even when Amtrak started, most of it was the NEC. Given your desire to ignore HSR, HrSR and corridors and concern only with preservation of LD services, perhaps you might consider Classic Trains. "Like Classic Trains magazine itself, this forum celebrates the "golden years of railroading." Covering the railroad scene from the late 1920s to the late 1970s, this forum section is everything from giant steam locomotives and colorful streamliners."
Why do we need trains as "basic transportation," when we already have planes and busses?
dakotafred I'm bound to wonder, as NKPGuy did months ago, what people like Schlimm and Sam1 are even doing on here. They're opposed to what Amtrak was chartered to do ... run LD trains. Nobody, including Congress, has revoked that charter. All the rest of which they are enamoured -- the high-density, short-distance stuff, which depends on state funding, and so probably going away soon -- is incidental to the original business. They have basically nothing constructive to say about Amtrak as it was constituted 40 years ago and is supposed to be today ... with (horrors!) diners (not dinners, Sam1) and sleepers. Yeah, it loses a little money, which it has in common with every other operation of government. However, unlike so many other operations of government, it actually delivers a product that does not end up in the cemetery or the wastewater treatment plant. Amtrak is the kind of product, like highways and space exploration -- which also seem beyond us now -- that is the hallmark of a civilization that aims, or used to aim, at being a world leader.
Amtrak is the kind of product, like highways and space exploration -- which also seem beyond us now -- that is the hallmark of a civilization that aims, or used to aim, at being a world leader.
You found a mistake in one of my postings, i.e. dinners instead of diners. Wow! If you are focused on finding spelling errors, you probably have missed most of what I have argued for years on these forums.
"Amtrak was initially created as a for-profit enterprise with common stock issued only to railroads, though only four chose to become stockholders. The law also charged the federal transportation secretary with choosing the metropolitan areas that would constitute the basic system of service. The initial plan was for lines radiating out from Chicago and New York, with routes chosen based on a set of clear criteria including cost effectiveness. However, once the plan was released for comment, “political resource allocation abounded through the system” and additional routes were added." A New Alignment: Strengthening America's Commitment to Passenger Rail by Robert Puentes, Adie Tomer, and Joseph Kane, Background, Page 2, Brookings Institution, March 2013.
As per the above referenced paragraph, there is nothing in the National Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 that requires Amtrak to run long distance trains. They were and remain the outcome of Congressional politics.
At no time in Amtrak's history have the long distance trains come close to meeting the cost effectiveness criteria.
Amtrak would have covered its operating costs in FY12 and made a significant contribution to the fixed costs if it had not been for the losses racked-up by the long distance trains. Those losses, which were acerbated by the food and beverage loses, wiped out all the operating profits and contributed to more than half of Amtrak's annual loss of $1.3 billion. This for a service line that carries approximately 15 per cent of Amtrak's system passengers.
If you believe that the hallmark of a great nation is to operate money losing long distance trains, which are used by less than one per cent of the nation's intercity travelers, that is your choice. That's a poor commercial decision. And Amtrak is supposedly a commercial operation.
One of the hallmarks of a great nation, however, is to allow different points of view to be presented in the public square. This is a public square of sorts, and I will continue to express my views irrespective of what you or anyone else thinks.
I have been participating in these forums for more than five years. My views, if nothing else, have been consistent. Passenger rail makes sense in relatively short, high density corridors where the cost to expand the highways and airways is prohibitive. I have seen nothing to cause me to change my mind.
Hey, Sam1, don't jump on me for trying to correct your spelling. Your sometimes-ally Schlimm has been working on that for years. I have to think "dinning" is somehow a point of pride with you.
dakotafred Hey, Sam1, don't jump on me for trying to correct your spelling. Your sometimes-ally Schlimm has been working on that for years. I have to think "dinning" is somehow a point of pride with you.
Agreement on passenger trains doesn't necessarily make folks allies. And BTW, although "busses" is correct, the vastly preferred spelling is "buses."
http://grammarist.com/spelling/buses-busses/
BroadwayLion CMStPnPVending machine approach has been tried and has failed via Amtrak. I think Passengers expect more. No, it really had not been tried. AMTRAK's attempt to run vending machines has failed, but AMTK is rife with union labor, union work rules and premium prices. Put Pepsi Machines in the cars, let Pepsi stock them at the terminals, it is just another stop for them, or let some other terminal based vendor provide and service the machines. The lines to get mediocre stuff at the cafe car are not acceptable. How can crowds like this be served better? ROAR
Several Private Railways tried it as well prior to Amtrak. The most notorious at using vending machine cars was Southern Pacific......I believe. They failed as well.
schlimm The airlines realized people do not fly to eat meals. And most people do not ride a train so they can have a meal. Amtrak should stick to running trains: fast, frequent, convenient. Contract food service out to experts who know what they are doing.
dakotafred Why do we need trains as "basic transportation," when we already have planes and busses?
Good question, really. And the answer is that each mode offers something or things the others don't in any given situation. In commuter service or in tight corridors, planes may not be as efficient or inexpensive as driving or rail; but highways can become congested, even gridlocked, and is puts a lot of pollutants into the atmosphere and need a lot of land for traffic lanes; trains can move a lot of people quickly and efficiently, but don not give door to door service. So you choose what is best for you.
Long distances, planes are definitely faster, trains take a lot longer but are more relaxing, and automobiles will also take longer but you can't put them on auto pilot so cannot be moving 24/7.
The cost vs. benefit for each is different in each application, but each application is different making the need for air, highways, and rail each an important component of an overall transportation system
And, BTW all, "buses" is plural of bus and "busses" is many buss or kisses.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
henry6And, BTW all, "buses" is plural of bus and "busses" is many buss or kisses.
Kisses are generally preferable to buses.....
Depends upon if its a blonde or a PCC. Certainly not a Kawasaki!
Oltmann...I don't think #5 has any merit while the others are shaky at best. If trains had no merit there would be no reason for urban and other planners to include and promote them. The point is that for efficiencies in fuel usage, in environmental safety, volume loadings, bad weather operations, etc, railroads do provide a superior mode. Building cost factors may be higher than highway and air but otherwise there is a real efficiency and priority need for railroads for both freight and passengers. What is the most shaky thing is use of railroads. For freight, even the trucking companies are turning to rail to reach customers and markets quickly, safely, and less expensively. For passengers, the "freedom" of owning a car and cruising the open road has been imbedded in our lifestyle that we've ignored the good of other modes including trains and buses. What is really needed is a national transportation policy which utilizes and applies the best mode to any given job or market.
oltmannd dakotafred Why do we need trains as "basic transportation," when we already have planes and busses? That gets right to the "nut" of this whole discussion, doesn't it! There are a few answers to pick and chose from. 1. Because, we really don't - at least most places. The NEC is the single exception since it provides capacity that can't be replaced by road or air except at great cost. Easy to demonstrate. 2. Because, in other "emerging corridors", trains are the most cost effective way to increase capacity in areas that have constrained air/road capacity (So. Cal and routes in/out of Chicago are good examples). Have to do total cost/benefit to show return. This can get rather fuzzy. 3. Because, trains really aren't cost-ineffective. The proof on this one is really shaky. 4. Because trains spur economic development. This one is really hard to show since the alternatives to trains have some effect, too. I'd call this one "fuzzy and shaky". 5. Because trains are our heritage and we should retain them "as rolling museums" or "kinetic art". Their value is not calculable. This one is supported as a tenet of faith. 6. Because "The People" want them. Voters vote. Legislators legislate...and occasionally authorize taxes and spending. No further analysis necessary! Personally, I'd like to see the trains do "useful" work, as efficiently as possible. I'd like to see the whole argument about LD trains become a moot point. The only way that can happen is if the corridor growth is great enough that the LD trains just have to bridge the gaps in the corridors. This increases the base of potential passengers and spreads the cost of fixed facilities out over more traffic. Secondly, I'd like to see the LD trains "bottom line" improve as much as possible. You can't do this running the current 1950s schedules and service arrangements. Its' time for some fresh thinking. ...or even argument #6 will fail.
But Sam1, et al., Amtrak will never get it right as long as Congress has control over what is and isn't done. Amtrak has to be even more independent than the USPS! But Congress is between a rock and a hard place because the public has indicated they want and need passenger rail service and transportation and urban planners urge it while big business and Class One railroads don't want it. Add to the fact that Class One railroads wanted Amtrak so whey would not be responsible for passenger services but fear altering Amtrak would throw rail passenger services back in their laps. So we circle the tree like a Lionel train at Christmas instead of operating on an efficient layout. If we can unpoliticize Amtrak then we may get the right service efforts needed.
The problem would lie in defining a "properly regulated" market. There are those who would tightly regulate a market, similar to the Interstate Commerce Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board or state Public Utilities Commissions in years gone by. On the other end of the spectrum are those who believe that the only proper regulation is no regulation. There is probably a happy medium at some point but defining that point is going to be a political exercise that will probably continue without providing a real answer.
Too much all or nothing thinking. A limited LD network can be retained, since it could connect developing corridors as Don mentioned. But they need to be operated as basic transportation minus the 60 year old-style dining services and without sleeping cars. By trimming those major cost centers, the losses would be much smaller. And the fare structures need to be designed to cover the much higher labor costs of LD trains.
But how can you say that out of hand......"operated as basic transportation minus 60 year old dining cars"? If you put people aboard a train for five, ten, fifteen, twenty, twenty four or more hours, how are you going to control them or how can you ask them back if you don't take care of them? Have you ever been in the retail sales or service industry? Do you know what it takes to get a customer and keep him? Your way, yes, you'll have smaller loses but you may also have smaller or no income. Or worse yet, you might have to pay more for the alternatives. I agree "60 year old dining" cars and service need be updated. But not thrown away; rather altered, changed, updated, revised, made attractive and useful by today's standards and needs.
henry6 But how can you say that out of hand......"operated as basic transportation minus 60 year old dining cars"? If you put people aboard a train for five, ten, fifteen, twenty, twenty four or more hours, how are you going to control them or how can you ask them back if you don't take care of them? Have you ever been in the retail sales or service industry? Do you know what it takes to get a customer and keep him? Your way, yes, you'll have smaller loses but you may also have smaller or no income. Or worse yet, you might have to pay more for the alternatives. I agree "60 year old dining" cars and service need be updated. But not thrown away; rather altered, changed, updated, revised, made attractive and useful by today's standards and needs.
Yes, in retail management long ago. What do you mean by "control them?"
I was not referring to the dining cars. I was referring to providing anything beyond a basic service and contracted out to professionals in the food service industry. And sleepers' fares should either cover their full additional cost or they should be dropped.
A basic concept in retail is determining what market niche you are serving. For Amtrak LD, it is supposed to be basic transportation between points, not a luxury land cruise, which seems to be what you and a few others want. There are/have been other providers for that, though most have tried and failed. Reason? The concept is not appealing to enough people at a price they are willing to pay. And what are that market's demographics? Senior citizens. Would many of them pay the real cost for a sleeper on the CZ or EB with a really good restaurant car? Apparently not. They want the service, but only if it is (apparently) heavily subsidized. That is why I suggested the need to have a study that breaks out the costs and compares with the fares. My hunch is that the sleeper/diner feature is responsible for 75% of the loss on LD trains.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.