Interesting and I knew I would provoke that reaction.
It's OK for a Amtrak employee to refer to paying passengers as too fat for a table in a dining car but if you turn around and point out the same is true of a large percentage of the on board service staff and they have troubles performing because of it...........it's insulting and has nothing to do with the discussion. Do airline attendants have similar issues with body weight and job performance?
It's a fair point, IMO.
As for the perspective that Amtrak can't change because that's just the way things are. Not a unique perspective, it's one held by a great many rail fans as well. Not sure how that helps Amtrak improve or set the bar higher though. I think if we want to see Amtrak survive, we need to embrace change vs resisting it. Some of it may be radical change. Some might be minor changes. Change has to happen though.
ACY: I also greatly appreciate your participation in this forum. To answer, to refer to a supervisor as obese has nothing to do with her performance as a supervisor, just as commenting that she or he has movie star looks has nothing to do with the performance. Mentioning that a person is too fat to have someone forced to sit next to her/him is an entirely different matter because it affects the capacity of the dining car, it relates to function and is not intended as an insult. I think a general policy of trying to keep insults to a minimum is a wise one, both between ouselves and when referring to passengers or train crew or supervision or management or law enforcement or anyone else.
But I do think the Acela approach is the most applicable for most Amtrak long distance trains. I'd start with the Lake Shore LImited and the California Zephyr. There are sure to be exceptions, and obviously the Autotrain is one.
ACY I guess these comments are mostly for CMStPnP and Schlimm --- First, Schlimm, when you asked about how large numbers are served, I presume you meant on the Auto Train. As I've tried to explain, the Auto Train carries two diners for the coach section at the south end of the train. The extra seating is needed, but these meals can be prepared using one working kitchen. At the north end, the sleeping car section (serving 6 sleepers) is adjacent to the sleeper lounge. When passengers drop off their automobiles at the station, they choose when to eat: 1st, 2nd, or 3rd seating. Seating in the coach section is adequate to serve whatever number of passengers can fit in the coaches. Sometimes the count in the sleepers is over 180, which means seats in the adjacent lounge car will be needed. In those cases, one additional server is assigned. Blue Streak should like this, but sometimes it prompts complaints from people who either don't want to eat in the lounge "annex" or from people who are not eating dinner, but want access to the lounge seats. So, we can get everybody served in 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". If we begin seating in the Sleeper diner precisely at 5:00, we can get everybody seated by about 5:00 - 5:10 or 5:15. We have placed salads & bread on the tables in advance, so passengers can begin eating right away. Usually we can take all orders for drinks and entrees by about 5:20 - 5:25. If any passenger arrives late, this interrupts the work flow and slows things down. The first meals start to come up from the kitchen around 5:30 - 5:35, and we try to collect the empty salad bowls by then. All 60 meals are usually delivered by about 5:50. If the lounge car is needed for seating, there may be 80 or so meals to prepare, so it may take longer. As people finish their dinner, those dishes are cleared and desserts delivered. People begin to finish around 6:15. We try to start changing tablecloths and resetting the car by around 6:30. New salads from the kitchen are sent up and we get them on the tables around 6:40. Bread comes up around 6:55 and we put it on the tables just before the second dinner seating is announced. These various tasks are interrupted frequently by the need to put away clean dishes that come up from the dishwasher in the kitchen; clean up spills; refill salad dressing caddies; remove full trash bags; refill beverages; serve coffee/tea/decaf with dessert; respond to various requests from passengers; etc. etc. etc. It is rare that a server can begin a task and complete it without an interruption. The second and third seatings follow the same pattern. There is no designated meal time for the crew. We have our dinner whenever we have the chance. At my age, if I don't get to eat fairly early I usually have a piece of bread & maybe a dessert because I can't sleep well on a full stomach. When I asked how much time we should take to seat seven dinner seatings in one Superliner diner, nobody volunteered a number. Let's say it can be done in 90 min. per seating, which is very doubtful. Then the 7 seatings could be scheduled for 1:30, 3:00, 4:30; 6:00, 7:30, 9:00, and 10:30, finishing at midnight. Still not practical. Schlimm says 2 hours is "indefensible" because Amtrak is "not the Ritz". One of the reasons people take the train is that they don't want to be rushed. They also like the pleasant ambience. Maybe we're not the Ritz, but none of our passengers wants us to become an assembly line either, and that's the logical conclusion to what you're suggesting. CMStPnP: Was there really an onboard services chief on your train? I'm surprised because in the year 2001 all chief positions were abolished nationwide except for those on A-T. There are a few "step-on/step-off" supervisors at various locations, but very rarely do they stay with the train for any significant distance/time. Also, you say "Your (sic) expecting way too much of an Amtrak onboard service employee to make the decision to open both sides of the dining car to service the train faster. Instead they would rather....." Frankly, it doesn't matter what the o.b.s. staff would rather. Management makes that decision --- not o.b.s. As for staffing on the Capitol Limited's diner, they used to have a staff of seven: Three in the kitchen and four upstairs. That has been reduced to two and three respectively. And CMStPnP, it's possible that some o.b.s. employees are not so good as they could be, but your general, sweeping indictment of "untrained, incompetent staff" is just a plain, flat-out insult & doesn't deserve further comment. But I am glad to see that you've finally realized we use convection ovens. Refer to General Longstreet's comment. It's still mathematical after all. Tom
I guess these comments are mostly for CMStPnP and Schlimm ---
First, Schlimm, when you asked about how large numbers are served, I presume you meant on the Auto Train. As I've tried to explain, the Auto Train carries two diners for the coach section at the south end of the train. The extra seating is needed, but these meals can be prepared using one working kitchen. At the north end, the sleeping car section (serving 6 sleepers) is adjacent to the sleeper lounge. When passengers drop off their automobiles at the station, they choose when to eat: 1st, 2nd, or 3rd seating. Seating in the coach section is adequate to serve whatever number of passengers can fit in the coaches. Sometimes the count in the sleepers is over 180, which means seats in the adjacent lounge car will be needed. In those cases, one additional server is assigned. Blue Streak should like this, but sometimes it prompts complaints from people who either don't want to eat in the lounge "annex" or from people who are not eating dinner, but want access to the lounge seats. So, we can get everybody served in 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".
If we begin seating in the Sleeper diner precisely at 5:00, we can get everybody seated by about 5:00 - 5:10 or 5:15. We have placed salads & bread on the tables in advance, so passengers can begin eating right away. Usually we can take all orders for drinks and entrees by about 5:20 - 5:25. If any passenger arrives late, this interrupts the work flow and slows things down. The first meals start to come up from the kitchen around 5:30 - 5:35, and we try to collect the empty salad bowls by then. All 60 meals are usually delivered by about 5:50. If the lounge car is needed for seating, there may be 80 or so meals to prepare, so it may take longer. As people finish their dinner, those dishes are cleared and desserts delivered. People begin to finish around 6:15. We try to start changing tablecloths and resetting the car by around 6:30. New salads from the kitchen are sent up and we get them on the tables around 6:40. Bread comes up around 6:55 and we put it on the tables just before the second dinner seating is announced. These various tasks are interrupted frequently by the need to put away clean dishes that come up from the dishwasher in the kitchen; clean up spills; refill salad dressing caddies; remove full trash bags; refill beverages; serve coffee/tea/decaf with dessert; respond to various requests from passengers; etc. etc. etc. It is rare that a server can begin a task and complete it without an interruption. The second and third seatings follow the same pattern. There is no designated meal time for the crew. We have our dinner whenever we have the chance. At my age, if I don't get to eat fairly early I usually have a piece of bread & maybe a dessert because I can't sleep well on a full stomach.
When I asked how much time we should take to seat seven dinner seatings in one Superliner diner, nobody volunteered a number. Let's say it can be done in 90 min. per seating, which is very doubtful. Then the 7 seatings could be scheduled for 1:30, 3:00, 4:30; 6:00, 7:30, 9:00, and 10:30, finishing at midnight. Still not practical.
Schlimm says 2 hours is "indefensible" because Amtrak is "not the Ritz". One of the reasons people take the train is that they don't want to be rushed. They also like the pleasant ambience. Maybe we're not the Ritz, but none of our passengers wants us to become an assembly line either, and that's the logical conclusion to what you're suggesting.
CMStPnP: Was there really an onboard services chief on your train? I'm surprised because in the year 2001 all chief positions were abolished nationwide except for those on A-T. There are a few "step-on/step-off" supervisors at various locations, but very rarely do they stay with the train for any significant distance/time.
Also, you say "Your (sic) expecting way too much of an Amtrak onboard service employee to make the decision to open both sides of the dining car to service the train faster. Instead they would rather....." Frankly, it doesn't matter what the o.b.s. staff would rather. Management makes that decision --- not o.b.s.
As for staffing on the Capitol Limited's diner, they used to have a staff of seven: Three in the kitchen and four upstairs. That has been reduced to two and three respectively.
And CMStPnP, it's possible that some o.b.s. employees are not so good as they could be, but your general, sweeping indictment of "untrained, incompetent staff" is just a plain, flat-out insult & doesn't deserve further comment. But I am glad to see that you've finally realized we use convection ovens.
Refer to General Longstreet's comment. It's still mathematical after all.
Tom
Tom-
Really enjoy reading your posts from the "inside"! Rode the AT a couple years ago. Service was very good from start to end!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
CMStPnP As for the perspective that Amtrak can't change because that's just the way things are. Not a unique perspective, it's one held by a great many rail fans as well. Not sure how that helps Amtrak improve or set the bar higher though. I think if we want to see Amtrak survive, we need to embrace change vs resisting it. Some of it may be radical change. Some might be minor changes. Change has to happen though.
I second the above. My sentiments exactly.
Once again, Dakotafred, you speak for me. I entirely concur with your comments on trains as TRAINS, not just accounting theories.
ACY: Don't be too discouraged. Your comments are enjoyed and appreciated by many of us coming, as they do, from someone who knows both the business as well as what customers are looking for in a LD train experience.
"Sleepers and dining cars, now and forever, one and inseparable!" as Daniel Webster said.
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?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
dakotafredToo much of what we hear on many of these passenger threads, in my opinion, involves taking away for the sole purpose of saving money. Such as suggestions (on other threads) to do away with sleeping cars and/or on-board dining altogether ... things that make trains TRAINS as opposed to buses on rails.
You attempt to reframe and distort what has been said by folks critical of Amtrak. This is also known as the fallacious "straw man argument." You define passenger service as running nostalgia trains of 50 plus years. Times have changed. I and others would like to see the money spent wisely on modern corridor services that serve far more people. Trains today are (can be) fast, frequent, convenient services serving 100's of millions of passengers, competive with air and highway, not rolling museum trains running through 1000's of miles of sparsely populated areas.
Irrespective of whether one believes the long distance trains are an effective investment, as long as they exist, people who like to travel by rail should ride them if they are a practicable alternative. Everyone is paying for them. Riding them, however, does not make them an optimum investment.
In FY12 Amtrak's average cost per federal income tax filer was $14.68. Not much!. The average taxpayer would not even recognize it. But on-going losses have a nasty feature. They add up over time. Amtrak had lost $29.2 billion as of the end of FY12. Moreover, when adjusted for constant dollars, i.e. inflation, the loss is north of $40 billion. That's real money.
In FY12 the long distance trains were responsible for 119 per cent of Amtrak's losses before depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges. Why is it more than 100 per cent? Because the long distance trains consumed all of the operating profit margin turned in by the NEC, which reduced the overall losses. Embedded in these losses are Amtrak's food and beverage service losses, most which are incurred on the long distance trains. In FY12 they were approximately $75 million.
Highlighting the losses incurred by Amtrak's food and beverage services does not detract from the good job that most of Amtrak's food and beverage service providers render.
Understanding accounting and finance can be challenging. But it is a critical factor in any political, social, and economic decision. Those who don't take the time to understand fundamental finance are subject to being whipsawed by special interest advocates. Especially those who argue for a service that the supporters don't come close to paying for.
Those 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. The 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.
Sam1 Irrespective of whether one believes the long distance trains are an effective investment, as long as they exist, people who like to travel by rail should ride them if they are a practicable alternative. Everyone is paying for them. Riding them, however, does not make them an optimum investment. In FY12 Amtrak's average cost per federal income tax filer was $14.68. Not much!. The average taxpayer would not even recognize it. But on-going losses have a nasty feature. They add up over time. Amtrak had lost $29.2 billion as of the end of FY12. Moreover, when adjusted for constant dollars, i.e. inflation, the loss is north of $40 billion. That's real money. In FY12 the long distance trains were responsible for 119 per cent of Amtrak's losses before depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges. Why is it more than 100 per cent? Because the long distance trains consumed all of the operating profit margin turned in by the NEC, which reduced the overall losses. Embedded in these losses are Amtrak's food and beverage service losses, most which are incurred on the long distance trains. In FY12 they were approximately $75 million. Highlighting the losses incurred by Amtrak's food and beverage services does not detract from the good job that most of Amtrak's food and beverage service providers render. Understanding accounting and finance can be challenging. But it is a critical factor in any political, social, and economic decision. Those who don't take the time to understand fundamental finance are subject to being whipsawed by special interest advocates. Especially those who argue for a service that the supporters don't come close to paying for. Those 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. The 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.
You must be new around here
But seriously, your point about the accumulated losses/spending/investment is what could have been done with the money -- on trains -- in its place.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!)
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Thank you, Sam1 -- that is MY point.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.