I finally got hold of a copy of the O.I.G.'s report on Amtrak food service and was appalled at the shoddy, incomplete research that was done, and some of the utterly ridiculous recommendations in the report. I first smelled a rat when I saw that the report ignores a significant fact that will probably always be with us: Dining cars are expensive to build, operate, and maintain. They have all the complexity of any other passenger car, plus extra plumbing, freezers, refrigerators, food warmers, steam tables, grills, convection ovens, dishwashing machines, etc. I believe the report reflects a political bias; and the O.I.G. seems to be of the opinion that those of us working in onboard service should be paid minimum wage. It's still a democracy, so I'm entitled to the opinion that the report contains so much misleading info that it is of almost no value at all and they don't deserve to be paid at all for their "efforts". Some may be surprised to hear that I think there are actually a few areas where they do make some worthwhile points, so maybe they should be paid something. Maybe $7.25 an hour (minimum wage).
They are right to address the failure of Amtrak to implement a useful point of sale accounting process. The cumbersome, byzantine 896 form, with its confusing format, should have been consigned to the trash can many years ago. A week or two ago, I mentioned that a point of sale system was proposed almost 20 years ago. The newest Superliners were only about a year or two old (mid '90's) when table 10 in the new diners was removed to make space for installation of equipment to facilitate this. Then the plan was dropped without much explanation. A better and more timely system of accounting would probably help a lot.
I found it interesting to read that the investigators visited several Amtrak sites, one of which was Lorton, VA. Absent from the list of visited sites was Sanford, FL. To me, this means they confined their Auto Train research to the Lorton operations and did not actually ride the Auto Train. If they had, they'd have found themselves in Sanford at the end of the trip. Nevertheless, they believe they are competent to comment on the delivery of service on that train. They are perfectly welcome to come aboard that train and shadow me as I work round trip. They can be on duty for the same hours I'm on duty; they can get as much rest as I get; they can eat when I eat; and they are welcome to keep up with me if they can. But they'll have to stay out of my way because I won't have time to play nursemaid to them.
On page 17 of their report, they say "Sleeper car passengers' transportation and meals are included in their ticket price." As long as I've worked on the Auto Train, I have understood that the same rule applied to coach passengers ON THAT TRAIN because the run is about 17 hours, overnight, and it's understood that there are no short hauls, so everybody needs meals. LSAD's keep careful account of all meals served to both coach and sleeper passengers, and submit that information with their paperwork at the end of the trip. At that point, onboard service personnel fall out of the loop. What is done with that info is out of our hands, and we have to presume that the separation of funds into separate "piles" for meal money and transportation money is done by somebody with garters on his sleeves & a pocket protector on his shirt & a green shade over his eyes. The funds for "complimentary" wine and cheese are also accounted for at our level in the same way. Nevertheless, on page 15 of the report, they say "...complimentary wine and cheese are offered to passengers on the Auto Train." The suggestion is that the passenger does not pay for it IN ANY WAY. Since those of us in onboard service have to account for these items in the same way as we account for the food, we have always understood that the passenger's ticket price was providing the money for the wine and cheese. We have never understood any of this to be a free gift to people who were not paying for it, although the payments have always been indirect. You can't have it both ways. Either the food & wine cost comes out of a portion of the ticket price, or it's free. I submit that it is misleading to suggest that it is free.
Actually, if you ask a sample group of Auto Train employees, many will say they would rather dispense with a lot of these complimentary extras, while retaining the idea of providing meals as part of the total experience on the train. I personally think every drop of alcohol consumed on the train should be paid for, separately from the ticket price. But that decision is made by folks considerably above my pay grade, so I do what I'm told to do.
Followers of this thread will not be surprised when I say again that I do not apologize for making a living wage in 2013, nor for anticipating a reasonably secure retirement next year, so I won't belabor that point. However, the actual pay for onboard service employees is not fairly represented in the report. I won't repeat the details of our work schedule, but I will remind everybody that the "hours worked" is not at all the same as the hours when we are on the road, away from friends and family, and subject to being called to duty at any time. In a normal month, I am paid for 180 hours' work. I make 6 round trips, or 12 one-way trips per month. For each round trip, I report to work at 11:30 A.M. on day 1 and sign out at 9:30 A.M. on day 3. That's 46 hours per round trip, or 276 hours per month when my time is Amtrak's and not my own. They have my body for 96 more hours per month than they are paying me. So I am actually paid for only 65.22% (rounded) of the hours that I am tied to that train. This discrepancy has always been discussed (never in print) as a "generous" wage that is being given because there is no other way to compensate us for those hours of being held away from home without pay.The figures cited by the O.I.G. indicate that onboard service employees receive $41.19 per hour in full benefits. To arrive at this figure, they used a formula that, strangely, does not factor in Auto Train or Palmetto Service figures. According to their own footnote, this $41.19 is the total of hourly wages plus medical insurance, railroad retirement, post-employment benefits (which are unspecified), dental insurance, disability insurance, life insurance, unemployment, railroad workers compensation, and administrative fees (I wonder how it is that an administrator has to justify his paycheck by charging his pay against mine). Take-home pay is considerably less. Many of these things are legally mandated anyway, so it's not up to me or the O.I.G. to challenge the validity of these extra benefits. However, the O.I.G. (pages 19-23) suggests that smart lawyers might find a way to get around these inconvenient benefits to which all workers should be entitled (my opinion, of course).
The report is unabashedly biased against the notion that ordinary people should be able to make a decent living. They actually suggest that the $7.75 per hour (with no benefits) that is paid to contract workers on the Downeaster (and other similar operations) could provide a model for future o.b.s. pay scales. I have a different view. I think it is scandalous that anybody, in 2013, could actually suggest that anybody can live on such a paltry sum, and it is absurd to think a stable, reliable, committed work force can be maintained that way. Workers who are forced to get by on wages like that are just going to qualify for money from the federal government in other ways, such as food stamps etc. Either way, the money has to be provided. I suggest it's better to do it with programs that allow people to maintain some shred of their pride and dignity.
Just ask yourself one simple question: Could you live on that?
I could say a lot more, but I think maybe I've made a point or two.
Tom
To analyze the Amtrak "food service" two key metrics would be: 1. labor cost per customer served on a specific route and compare them with other routes along with restaurant chains offering similar menus; and 2. Average time for patron service at a table, from sitting to leaving.
Why does Amtrak feel it is necessary to provide service in scheduled 1.5 to 2.0 hour "seatings?" Given the nature of limited preparation, why not use a come and go system with reservation slots every 30 minutes?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Dakotafred ---
The Classic Trains item was pretty good, although a couple errors crept in. Watch for a significantly larger publication of interest, some time next year. I'm heavily involved in that.
A person does not have to be a CPA to understand finance. Nor a mathematician to understand business mathematics. Nor a statistician to understand business statistics. But modern managers understand how these disciplines impact decision making and importance of beginning with quantitative analysis. Without a quantified, verifiable baseline, they are flying blind.
Even marketing people use quantitative analysis and sophisticated statistics to assess the market potential for the company's outputs and how to price them.
Anyone can lodge an opinion about any subject. But whether it is properly supported is another matter.
At the Fortune 250 company where I spent most of my working career, the IRS camped out in dedicated offices. That GM was not audited by the IRS is suspect. The IRS would need to have the numbers for any negotiations that it participated in.
Sam1 ACY, I don't have access to Amtrak's books. Therefore, without it, I don't have a basis for making any practicable suggests on how to reduce the losses on the Company's food and beverage services. Neither do any of the other participants in these forums. The key to participation in these forums is not to take them too seriously. That is not to say that you should not state your opinions robustly. You should. But it is important to recognize that no one participating in these forums, as far as I know, is associated with Amtrak's accounting and finance functions or is a member of Amtrak's senior management team. They would have the information regarding the Company's food and beverage operations and what improvements might be possible. Accordingly, what we have is a lot of opinions (that's OK), some information from Amtrak's public documents, including the IG reports, and heaps of conjecture. I appreciate your participation. You have give us some very valuable insights. Hopefully, you could encourage some of your co-workers to participate in these forums. I would love to hear from some car attendants, conductors, engine personnel, etc.
ACY,
I don't have access to Amtrak's books. Therefore, without it, I don't have a basis for making any practicable suggests on how to reduce the losses on the Company's food and beverage services. Neither do any of the other participants in these forums.
The key to participation in these forums is not to take them too seriously. That is not to say that you should not state your opinions robustly. You should. But it is important to recognize that no one participating in these forums, as far as I know, is associated with Amtrak's accounting and finance functions or is a member of Amtrak's senior management team. They would have the information regarding the Company's food and beverage operations and what improvements might be possible.
Accordingly, what we have is a lot of opinions (that's OK), some information from Amtrak's public documents, including the IG reports, and heaps of conjecture.
I appreciate your participation. You have give us some very valuable insights. Hopefully, you could encourage some of your co-workers to participate in these forums. I would love to hear from some car attendants, conductors, engine personnel, etc.
In other words, it is an opinion forum not an Auditors Report from a Big 5 Accounting Firm. Which I presume most people know already. In your direction I don't necessarily agree with your point of view that a person has to be a CPA and have access to the numbers all the time to make and educated decision. No matter what size business...........just doesn't operate that way. My Father was a CPA and he would only refer to the books on complex problems in which he could not see the issue standing on his feet. When I worked in support of GM top mangement, they were never audited by the IRS, in fact the IRS would negotiate with GM over what taxes they would pay because in the 1990's the company was too large to effectively audit and arrive upon a number to get taxed.
So in my view, your view that you always must have access to the books to make an educated decision is not always the case in the real world. I realize that is your point of view though and I respect it as your point of view. I just do not agree with it.
ACYTo CMStPnP, I have to ask if the animosity began when I corrected your notions of crew basing on the Capitol Limited on Sept. 29 at 1:44am (discussion "Removing Passengers From Trains")?
It's a pretty one sided argument as I haven't engaged that much and I am not going to waste my time.
No animosity on my end. It's mostly your interpretations. You staged the drama about being insulted and not posting anymore.........which I have seen on other websites when someone doesn't get his way in a forum (certainly not my issue). Discussion forums are give and take. If you don't agree with someone just say so and leave the drama at home.
I already have my answer I was seeking on how much you knew or were willing to find out. Also, have my answer on how you view a passenger. I am sure schlimm does too. As I said before we will have to agree to disagree and we are carrying on the discussion. Not sure why that offends you so much but I am not going to stop posting because one poster is upset with my point of view and disagrees with me. It would not be a free and open discussion if I did.
ACY Dakotafred --- Yes. The "Delphos Bullet" never had a diner, though. There are others who probably have a stronger claim to the use of those letters than I do, but it was the first thing that came to mind when I signed up. Born in Akron shortly before the road committed to dieselization, but have lived a lot of places since. Now in Maryland, but a charter member of the AC&Y Society (member no. 009) and still active. Involved in several articles for the Society's magazine, as well as Sunshine's HO Mather boxcar kit. Thanks for injecting the lighter note. Sometimes I'm not interested in shop talk. Tom
Yes. The "Delphos Bullet" never had a diner, though. There are others who probably have a stronger claim to the use of those letters than I do, but it was the first thing that came to mind when I signed up. Born in Akron shortly before the road committed to dieselization, but have lived a lot of places since. Now in Maryland, but a charter member of the AC&Y Society (member no. 009) and still active. Involved in several articles for the Society's magazine, as well as Sunshine's HO Mather boxcar kit.
Thanks for injecting the lighter note. Sometimes I'm not interested in shop talk.
Thanks, ACY -- always a pleasure to meet another Buckeye. I was born and raised in Cleveland, but like you have strayed far, since. You drive me back to the Classic Trains of an issue or two ago that, I believe, had a piece on the AC&Y. I must give it a closer reading this time.
Sam1 ---
For most onboard service employees I know, they are working on the train to support themselves and their families. I believe many have the railroad in their veins but won't admit it. Most really enjoy the train, the passengers, and their coworkers, just as I do. But at the end of a trip, everybody is tired and unwilling to devote their free time to discussing --- or even thinking about --- that "great silver snake" that made them so tired. For me, I was interested in railroads and railroad history long before I hired out. If my color vision hadn't been an issue, I might have gone into one of the Operating crafts, but you have to accept what you have to accept, and do what you need to do. For most of the employees, they don't want to get involved in this type of thing. Much as I love the train, I have recently had reason to wonder whether it was worth the effort, as you have seen. So I doubt that I can talk any of them into joining us on the forum.
If there are any practicing onboard service people out there who want to prove me wrong, please be my guest!
Sam1 dakotafred Sam1 If we want to have a discussion of the merits of long distance vs short corridor trains, which don't really belong in a discussion of food service losses, except to the extent that most of them, according to Amtrak's senior management, attach to the long distance trains, we should open another thread. There Sam1 goes again, trying to boss us around, as if she were a moderator. Thank you, Sam1, we will let these discussions range as they will, subject to someone who has the authority to shut us down. My point is simple. The merits of long distance trains is beyond the scope of this topic, expect to the extent that they are the biggest contributor to Amtrak's food and beverage services losses. It is my opinion. If you want to range all over the map, in an undisciplined fashion, that is your choice.
dakotafred Sam1 If we want to have a discussion of the merits of long distance vs short corridor trains, which don't really belong in a discussion of food service losses, except to the extent that most of them, according to Amtrak's senior management, attach to the long distance trains, we should open another thread. There Sam1 goes again, trying to boss us around, as if she were a moderator. Thank you, Sam1, we will let these discussions range as they will, subject to someone who has the authority to shut us down.
Sam1 If we want to have a discussion of the merits of long distance vs short corridor trains, which don't really belong in a discussion of food service losses, except to the extent that most of them, according to Amtrak's senior management, attach to the long distance trains, we should open another thread.
If we want to have a discussion of the merits of long distance vs short corridor trains, which don't really belong in a discussion of food service losses, except to the extent that most of them, according to Amtrak's senior management, attach to the long distance trains, we should open another thread.
There Sam1 goes again, trying to boss us around, as if she were a moderator.
Thank you, Sam1, we will let these discussions range as they will, subject to someone who has the authority to shut us down.
My point is simple. The merits of long distance trains is beyond the scope of this topic, expect to the extent that they are the biggest contributor to Amtrak's food and beverage services losses. It is my opinion. If you want to range all over the map, in an undisciplined fashion, that is your choice.
Thank you, Sam1 -- that is MY point.
ACY, God bless you, your contributions and insights have been invaluable. It may be hard, but try to shrug off the snipers/trolls who are really enemies of what we are all supposed to be about on this forum. They win only if you walk away.
On a lighter note ... does ACY stand for Akron, Canton and Youngstown, sacred to memory?
Boy, this is nearly unbelievable. To CMStPnP, I have to ask if the animosity began when I corrected your notions of crew basing on the Capitol Limited on Sept. 29 at 1:44am (discussion "Removing Passengers From Trains")? To Schwimm, I don't know how much clearer I can be. To Don, Dave, Dixie Flyer, CSSHEGEWISCH, Johnny D., Matthewsaggie, Sam1, dakotafred, NKP Guy, V. Payne, Paul, and anybody I missed, I'd like to thank you for trying to keep this thing cordial. Sometimes I've disagreed with some of your ideas, but you've shown that we don't have to agree in order to be respectful.
To recap:
10/25/13 8:16 PM - My first contribution to this discussion.
10/25/13 10:14 PM - I gave a general outline of food service with no mention of passenger counts, nor duration of each seating. Mentioned that I do not have all the answers.
10/27/13 9:14 AM - Mentioned that I thought the dining car staffing on the Capitol Ltd. had been reduced, but I wasn't sure.
10/28/13 10:33 PM - Question from V. Payne re. his idea for "step-on/step-off" schedule for diner staff.
10/29/13 12:30 AM - I pointed out problems with this plan. In this, I made first mention of Auto Train's meal schedule, which provides 3 dinner seatings. "First dinner seating is at 5:00; second is at 7:00; and third is at 9:00. We can usually finish about 11:00 PM....." Do the math. That's 2 hours per seating.
10/31/13 11:53 AM - First mention of 3-400 passengers in 5 seatings was by Dixie Flyer (not me). I don't know where he got his figures, but he seemed to sincerely believe this was a feasible schedule.
11/2/13 11:07 PM - I explained that I disagreed with the numbers cited above and pointed out the impracticality of 3-400 people in 5 - 7 seatings, which is the number of seatings this plan would actually require. Dixie Flyer did not respond, so I inferred that he understood my explanation. I don't know whether he agreed, but he was civil.
There was further discussion, but no actual proposed times were offered until
11/3/13 12:11 AM - From me: "OK, Schlimm, how much time do you suggest?
11/3/13 8:27AM - I don't really understand Schlimm's response. I think he doesn't understand that we have separate diners for the coach and sleeping car portions of the train. He also still seems to think we have 5 seatings, even though I have explained the impracticality of this in my posting to Dixie Flyer.
11/3/13 9:14 AM - CMStPnP complains about slow service on the Capitol Limited but offers no suggestions re. the 3 seatings at 2 hr. intervals that I have outlined.
11/3/13 12:08 PM - I explain that Auto Train has separate diners for coach & sleepers. I repeat "...three seatings at 5:00, 7:00, and 9:00. Everybody eats at their scheduled time, so there is no reason anybody should think of having a 'two hour wait'." This was followed by a more detailed account of the way we spend the two hours. Then, in order to illustrate that it was impractical, I offered a hypothetical 90-minute-per-seating schedule, and showed its flaws. I DID NOT say that is what we do. In the meantime, I talked with personnel at the Crew Management Center (the equivalent of old-time crew callers), and determined that the Capitol Limited's dining crew staffing had indeed been reduced, and I added that information. See 10/27/13, 9:14 AM.
11/3/13 - I pointed out the error of CMStP&P's suggestion that our passengers are kept prisoner in the diner for 2 hours.
11/4/13 2:36PM - Schlimm's comment seems to indicate that he still doesn't understand that seatings are on 2-hour headway. His argument wasn't very specific but I think he was implying or stating that 45 minute headway is possible.
11/4/13 4:57 PM - This is when I finally said the discussion was getting too tedious. In some detail, I tried to explain the utter impracticality of 45 minute seatings. I have a feeling that my giving this idea any attention at all was interpreted as an acknowledgement that it IS possible. Are we all speaking English here? IT'S NOT PRACTICABLE. ANY MORE QUESTIONS? I also explained that I was getting tired of the insults, both veiled and blatant, and said I could use my hobby time more productively than to engage in this nonsensical excuse for a dialogue.
11/5/13 - CMStPnP says "Interesting and I knew I would provoke that reaction." So FINALLY it comes out. CMStPnP was never interested in dialogue or problem-solving or civility. He was just wasting all of our time trying to provoke. As Tom Lehrer once said, "If people can't communicate, the very least they can do is shut up." By the was, CMStPnP, your punctuation is as bad as your spelling. CMStPnP also suggests that I said "Amtrak can't change because that's just the way things are." I don't believe it and never said it.
11/5/13 - Schlimm said to me "You have changed the numbers in your account several times." ABSOLUTELY NOT. I have repeatedly and consistently said 3 seatings of 60 passengers each is the practical maximum for one Superliner diner, and that's what we do on the Auto Train. Exercises with other numbers have been based on suggestions from other participants, and I have NEVER accepted them as being practical.
11/5/13 10:33 PM - CMStPnP concurs with Schlimm, above. If I tell you "the higher ups decide that", then --- guess what --- the higher ups DO decide that. Until you, or somebody, gives me a big promotion, I can't respond any other way. Of course, I could resort to fiction, but then I'd be trespassing on YOUR territory.
For the record, CMStPnP introduced the word "obese" (actually "obeese") into the discussion. The word I used was "large". His term is judgmental; mine is a statement of fact.
I'd love to get this conversation back on the subject of practical suggestions for reducing the cost of providing meal service on Amtrak's trains, both long distance and short. Maybe some of the things we do on Auto Train can be incorporated in other services. I think there are things we could do to reduce expenses on the Auto Train too. One of my most important points seems to have been lost: Overhead costs are going to be significant, no matter what you do. Ignoring fixed, unavoidable overhead costs would be like trying to run a train across Lake Ponchartrain without building a bridge first. Nothing happens without a foundation --- the equipment, staffing, supplies, training, time, etc. that underpins the whole effort.
I thought I had laid this nonsense to rest 11/4 at 4:57. Guess not. I offer my apologies to those who have been civil. Thank you.
OK. I accept that argument. And I am not in favor of restoring equipment converted from steam heat. Although note that Amtrak's one full dome seems to function quite well despite its age. You woiuld probably hasten to point out that is because it gets tender loving care and is not in continujal use. But rather than continiue to use Amfleet equipment in corridor service and buy new single level coaches for long distancevservice, I would favor reconfiguring Amfleet for comfortable long distance service and buy new corridor coaches capable of high speed operatoin. Just a matter of emphasis, everything studied on a case by case basis. And I have given my veiws on food, and I have not seen any real contrary arguments.
daveklepper Amtrak started business with a hodgepodge of equipment, some in excellent shape but not universally maintainable, some not in good shape but understood by most shop crews, some new technology with unsolvable bugs, and some decent stainless steel equipment with maintainable features. Now nearly all corridor and long distance service is provided by stainless steel bodied equipment whose basic structure should hold up almost indefinitely with the Canadian as proof. Overhaulding existing equipment economically to make it fresh from the passenger perspective makes sense to me. Investment in brand new equjpment should aim toward the markets where new equjpment will do the most good, and that means increasing speeds in the corridors.
Amtrak started business with a hodgepodge of equipment, some in excellent shape but not universally maintainable, some not in good shape but understood by most shop crews, some new technology with unsolvable bugs, and some decent stainless steel equipment with maintainable features.
Now nearly all corridor and long distance service is provided by stainless steel bodied equipment whose basic structure should hold up almost indefinitely with the Canadian as proof. Overhaulding existing equipment economically to make it fresh from the passenger perspective makes sense to me. Investment in brand new equjpment should aim toward the markets where new equjpment will do the most good, and that means increasing speeds in the corridors.
Stainless steel equipment does not last forever that's a myth in the same category as the airline myth that airliners last forever at some point maintenence costs exceed what the carrier should be paying out. If the myth was true then Deloreans would be hand me downs instead of becomming increasingly rare. The fact that this decision of purchase new vs refurbish cost/benefit...... is ignored on VIA Rail (a political government entity) means nothing other than they made a decision of keeping a rolling museum or watching their routes and subsidy diminish after equipment retirement because they have an ICE CUBES chance of getting new equipment in the current political climate for long distance trains.
Anyways, lets get back to the food service loss discussion.
V.Payne "Had the approximately $19 billion lost on the long distance trains been spent on corridors, where trains make economic sense, I along with others might have better passenger rail service along the I-35 and other potential corridors." Assuming the money was available upfront from Congress...big assumption...why don't you consider as well the operational effects of investing some of it three decades ago to get the Eastern LD trains up to 16 cars of matched, easily maintained, equipment? This is the same argument, invest in capital to decrease operational costs. Maybe the 1950's dinners could have been replaced two decades ago at a minimum and enough positive net revenue sleepers be out on the line to offset the high costs of running any size train, corridor or otherwise. On the infrastructure side how many years... decades... was the northern end of the NEC operated with diesels before funding electrification, why do you think the I-35 corridor would be different? From 1916 to 1991's ISTEA, or some would say till the present day, the concept was that only roadways deserved/warranted to have capital invested, and everything else was begrudgingly given at less than the needed levels because it was privately held, or once taxed to death and the competion subsidized, "didn't make money", like the half done NEC upgrades. The reality is so much of the system has been limping along with higher than they should be operational cost simply because enough rolling stock is not available to generate revenue to offset the fixed costs of a train start. This directly affects the operational point of the food service. The main thing standing in the way of changing this politically are unsupported ideas about fuel taxes. My point has been to figure out what the level is of the Interstate highway cross-subsidy on a per mile basis and apply it equally to corridor or long distance type operations, buying capital or operations at the efficient point for the existing geography.
"Had the approximately $19 billion lost on the long distance trains been spent on corridors, where trains make economic sense, I along with others might have better passenger rail service along the I-35 and other potential corridors."
Assuming the money was available upfront from Congress...big assumption...why don't you consider as well the operational effects of investing some of it three decades ago to get the Eastern LD trains up to 16 cars of matched, easily maintained, equipment? This is the same argument, invest in capital to decrease operational costs.
Maybe the 1950's dinners could have been replaced two decades ago at a minimum and enough positive net revenue sleepers be out on the line to offset the high costs of running any size train, corridor or otherwise.
On the infrastructure side how many years... decades... was the northern end of the NEC operated with diesels before funding electrification, why do you think the I-35 corridor would be different? From 1916 to 1991's ISTEA, or some would say till the present day, the concept was that only roadways deserved/warranted to have capital invested, and everything else was begrudgingly given at less than the needed levels because it was privately held, or once taxed to death and the competion subsidized, "didn't make money", like the half done NEC upgrades.
The reality is so much of the system has been limping along with higher than they should be operational cost simply because enough rolling stock is not available to generate revenue to offset the fixed costs of a train start. This directly affects the operational point of the food service.
The main thing standing in the way of changing this politically are unsupported ideas about fuel taxes. My point has been to figure out what the level is of the Interstate highway cross-subsidy on a per mile basis and apply it equally to corridor or long distance type operations, buying capital or operations at the efficient point for the existing geography.
Might is the past tense of may. It is used in auxiliary function to express permission, liberty, probability, possibility in the past. A possibility in the past is just that: a possibility.
My reference to long distance trains in this post was only included in response to a poorly veiled swipe made by another participant.
This whole thread was started by an observation that Amtrak was going to trim the costs of food service on long-distance trains by making some management changes.
This is not about long-distance vs corridor trains. This is about that if Amtrak tries to be more cost efficient, say, to serve more customers with the limited subsidy dollars they get, such ignites a firestorm of controversy -- among people who are passenger train enthusiasts.
I just don't get it. Why don' t we advocate for Amtrak to revert to 6-axle Heavyweight cars, steam-ejector air conditioning, and coal-fired steam locomotives while we are at it?
Given that the patronage of trains is largely driven by enthusiasm
daveklepper (But of course one time my watching the engine change completely changed my plans when an old friend offered me a cab ride in a GG1 to Penn Station, with all thoughts of a good sleep out the window!)
(I just completed a trip on flying stock cars to get to Florida and back, so yes, I know what air travel is like, but I simply didn't have 4 days to take off from work to make this trip by long-distance train), maybe the full 1920's travel experience would draw in ridership?
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 kind of corridor service that Sam1 keeps talking about as a better use for subsidy, in his case really capital expenditures rather than operating costs, still cost money and will require support from the barren wasteland that still had USA citizens living it who do vote and expect their representatives to deliver to them. A national system that includes long distance trains can probably, at least in the long term, garner the support that will be needed to make the corridors that Sam1 sees as efficient use of rail technology, but rural people seeing their one train a day eliminated in favor going from 79 mph and five trains a day to 125 mph and 16 trains a day elsewhere are not likely to support such a program. Again, what Sam1 thinks is fair, I do not think is fair. The corridor commuter who travels 250 times a year and gets a subsidy, all things considered, of only ten dolllars a trip, is still getting a whopping bigger subsidy than the other USA citizen whose only use of Amtrak is two long distance journey a year with a subsidy of two hundred dollars a trip. From his point of view his two trips a year are as important as the corridor commuter's 250. I can live with that, but Sam1says, up to now, he cannot. He wants to deprive citizen number 2 of his subsidy completely in the hopes of reducing that of citizen number 1 in the long run but increasing it by capital expenditures in the short run.
I still think we need a national rail system. I do not want to deprive the elderly and handicapped of one of their existing options for mobilitiy, as well as the one of the best tourist drawing cards the USA can offer. But I do welcome any suggestions Sam1 or anyone else has to reduce the losses without reducing service and to improve service without increasing losses. And i do agree with Sam that the investments should be made primiarily in corridors, with long distance services using what is available, rehabilitating and preserving to the maximium extent possible. Possibly a lot of effort and intelligent thinking can make such a reduction in subsidy for the long distance services that even Sam1 will not object to its continuation.
I also do not favor trying to take away all Megabus business by increasing crowding to allow fare reductions, even on short distance corridor trips. There is a place for Megabus. Possibly some day the citizens of New York State will decide to extend Metro North's operations from Poughkeepsie to Albanay, and with Conn Dot from New Haven to New London and Hartford. Then commuter train fares will apply and Megabus will find other markets. But Amtrak does provide a certain amount of civilized comfort on all its trains, and I thing that is part of the brand and should be kept.
I recall weekends at the Shore Line Trolley museum, and a trip back to my Manhattan Apartment, with a New Haven - Harrison Metro North ticket in my pocket, and a GCT - N. White Plaiins monthly in my wallet, good on the NH Division from Harrison to GCT. I'd not only run streetcars, served as tour guide, collected tickets, but also helped move ties, possibly even a line pole, possibly even some heavy rolling stock parts, and I was tired. I wanted to sleep my way back to New York. So I bought a relatively expensive Amtrak NH - Penn Sta.ticket, boarded the next Amfleet corridor train, and had a comfortable doze and felt rested when arriving back in NY. I could use the NH - Harrison ticket for Harrison - NH the next weekend. (But of course one time my watching the engine change completely changed my plans when an old friend offered me a cab ride in a GG1 to Penn Station, with all thoughts of a good sleep out the window!)
schlimm It isn't just me. It is a simple matter of serving the most people. As to your contention that Illinois is getting oodles of federal money, some facts. For every dollar paid to the feds, ND gets back $1.07 and SD gets back $1.21 (2012) Meanwhile Illinois only gets $ .92. If you look at the 20-year period from 1990-2009, ND had a net gain of $48.7 bil., SD net gain of $45.3 bil., while Illinois paid out a whopping $700.9 bil. more to the feds than it and its citizens got back. So how about getting off the subsidy wagon out there?
It isn't just me. It is a simple matter of serving the most people.
As to your contention that Illinois is getting oodles of federal money, some facts. For every dollar paid to the feds, ND gets back $1.07 and SD gets back $1.21 (2012) Meanwhile Illinois only gets $ .92.
If you look at the 20-year period from 1990-2009, ND had a net gain of $48.7 bil., SD net gain of $45.3 bil., while Illinois paid out a whopping $700.9 bil. more to the feds than it and its citizens got back. So how about getting off the subsidy wagon out there?
Assuming you have the right figures:
I'm from N.D., with 2 Air Force bases and a good share of the ICBMs and B-52s that deter our nuclear-armed enemies from interrupting your train ride. I'm sure they account for at least the 7 cents of our "subsidy." If you'd like to take them over, have at it -- but be aware that this about wipes out the 8 cents that lets you feel superior.
Sam1Those who don't like the numbers usually fall back on the everyone gets a subsidy argument. So we need to have one too. That is irrelevant.
As are the other "red herring" arguments such as "...if we hadn't gone into Iraq/Afgahnistan...", ...."its much less than highways get...", "...it's just pennies per day per person...", "...it saves energy/is green...", "...provides mobility for rural America...", "...promotes tourism...", "...transport for those who can't/won't fly/ride bus/drive..."
Sam1The key question is whether the long distance trains are the optimum use of the limited dollars available for passenger rail. Clearly, I don't think so.
Which raises the question, "What to do about it?" Change it? Improve it? Kill it? ...or Nothing?
Congress just overwhelmingly passed an $8B porky water bill....and patted themselves on the back for it. The problem runs deeper that just Amtrak...but I'm still in favor of advocates keeping Amtrak's feet to the fire.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
schlimm ACY: You have changed the numbers in your account several times. So let me see what it is. In the dining service for sleeping car passengers, how many passengers are there and how many seats in the dining car? How many seatings? 3,4, 5, 6, 7? How long for each seating? 1:30 or 2:00?
ACY: You have changed the numbers in your account several times. So let me see what it is. In the dining service for sleeping car passengers, how many passengers are there and how many seats in the dining car? How many seatings? 3,4, 5, 6, 7? How long for each seating? 1:30 or 2:00?
From my read of his posts, he is not really sure. A good portion of his answers when pressed were: "The higher ups decide that" which to me says he is not really interested in asking to find out. I could be wrong but I tend to read people pretty well.
As for the drama and the folks that support it, used to be a Moderator myself on another website. Thats not going anywhere or getting any mileage here.
schlimm I and others would like to see the money spent wisely on modern corridor services that serve far more people ... not rolling museum trains running through 1000's of miles of sparsely populated areas.
I and others would like to see the money spent wisely on modern corridor services that serve far more people ... not rolling museum trains running through 1000's of miles of sparsely populated areas.
Paul MilenkovicBut seriously, your point about the accumulated losses/spending/investment is what could have been done with the money -- on trains -- in its place.
+2 (according to the Oltmann system)
As sam1 points out, even that huge $19 billion accumulated deficit (from retaining the LD routes) could have developed some corridors that would be now serving many more people today.
You must be new around here New! Nope! Hard headed! That's the view of many of the people who disagree with me!
Have held to my view that the long distance trains are not a good investment for the nation's limited passenger rail dollars since the get go. Open to being persuaded otherwise by a realistic argument, i.e. analytics, politics, etc. Rants and emotionalism won't cut it. Come to think of it, rants are vented emotions.
Had the approximately $19 billion lost on the long distance trains been spent on corridors, where trains make economic sense, I along with others might have better passenger rail service along the I-35 and other potential corridors.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.