Overmod That is not the "Deluxe", it is the "de Luxe" thank you very much! Some of the worst examples of the wacky advertising of the period were used for the snob appeal. If you thought the hair style in 'Hardware Wars' was amusing, how's this for the peak of high-dollar couture" And then there is this, how evocative of snobbery (and the reverse snobbery implied in the intentionally slipshod arts-n-crafts typography) For some reason, I'm thinking the 36 people was the original Pennsylvania Special, the four-car train. And the staff (as on an ocean liner) was an appreciable fraction of the passenger count; it would be interesting and instructive to see exactly what it was, and how the instructions to the staff were worded in that era.
That is not the "Deluxe", it is the "de Luxe" thank you very much!
Some of the worst examples of the wacky advertising of the period were used for the snob appeal. If you thought the hair style in 'Hardware Wars' was amusing, how's this for the peak of high-dollar couture"
And then there is this, how evocative of snobbery (and the reverse snobbery implied in the intentionally slipshod arts-n-crafts typography)
For some reason, I'm thinking the 36 people was the original Pennsylvania Special, the four-car train. And the staff (as on an ocean liner) was an appreciable fraction of the passenger count; it would be interesting and instructive to see exactly what it was, and how the instructions to the staff were worded in that era.
Is that the dining car steward in the lower picture?
Johnny
ACY In response to the original question, it will always be expensive. There may be effective measures to keep these expenses at some level of control, but they will always be there. * Interstate dining car service is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration --- not by State regulators. The general understanding is that FDA regulations are more stringent (and, of course, costly) than State regulations. * Workers on such cars will be required to be eligible for Railroad Retirement. Many (perhaps most) stationary restaurants don't pay for any retirement benefits other than Social Security. I understand this was a major contributing factor when an Amtrak/Contractor experiment failed in New York State several years ago, but I don't know the details. * Competent, reliable staff will not be retained unless the pay is considerably higher than that in a comparable stationary restaurant, because of the demands of the work schedule and conditions. These staff members must be accommodated with sleeping accommodations away from home on long trips, and that costs money. * Dining cars are expensive to construct and maintain because of their unique architecture and configuration. You don't just waltz into the Home Depot and buy off-the shelf components to put one together, or to maintain it. A competent and experienced repair crew must be available to provide service for this unique equipment. * A reliable source of supply is essential, meaning a comprehensive Commissary system and consistent resupply at whatever locations are appropriate. * A reliable source of potable water is absolutely essential. Amtrak has this. Any other operator would have to be sure it can get this from Amtrak or the host railroad. It costs money, no matter who provides it. * In addition to the costs enumerated above, there is the predictable cost of maintenance of the brakes, running gear, air conditioning, etc. associated with the operation of any railroad car. This far exceeds the normal cost of operating a stationary restaurant. I have only scratched the surface. If you think you can operate a dining car at a profit at less cost than Amtrak does under these conditions, have at it! Tom
In response to the original question, it will always be expensive. There may be effective measures to keep these expenses at some level of control, but they will always be there.
* Interstate dining car service is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration --- not by State regulators. The general understanding is that FDA regulations are more stringent (and, of course, costly) than State regulations.
* Workers on such cars will be required to be eligible for Railroad Retirement. Many (perhaps most) stationary restaurants don't pay for any retirement benefits other than Social Security. I understand this was a major contributing factor when an Amtrak/Contractor experiment failed in New York State several years ago, but I don't know the details.
* Competent, reliable staff will not be retained unless the pay is considerably higher than that in a comparable stationary restaurant, because of the demands of the work schedule and conditions. These staff members must be accommodated with sleeping accommodations away from home on long trips, and that costs money.
* Dining cars are expensive to construct and maintain because of their unique architecture and configuration. You don't just waltz into the Home Depot and buy off-the shelf components to put one together, or to maintain it. A competent and experienced repair crew must be available to provide service for this unique equipment.
* A reliable source of supply is essential, meaning a comprehensive Commissary system and consistent resupply at whatever locations are appropriate.
* A reliable source of potable water is absolutely essential. Amtrak has this. Any other operator would have to be sure it can get this from Amtrak or the host railroad. It costs money, no matter who provides it.
* In addition to the costs enumerated above, there is the predictable cost of maintenance of the brakes, running gear, air conditioning, etc. associated with the operation of any railroad car. This far exceeds the normal cost of operating a stationary restaurant.
I have only scratched the surface. If you think you can operate a dining car at a profit at less cost than Amtrak does under these conditions, have at it!
Tom
So, the traditional dining that was born in an era where the food had to be loaded at origin and the staff bunked on the train is dead. It's been dead for quite a while.
Sucessful food service on a train would have to look a good bit different. Maybe pre plated meals that are heated en-mass and served by car attendants or trainmen (why not? Flight attendents serve food....) No food prep on wheels. No chef on the car. No bunk space for dining car staff.
Food and commercial kitchens are everywhere. Leverage them.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
The Wiki article says the Deluxe ran 1911-17 and had a surcharge of $25 ($606.07 in today's money) one way. It carried 60 passengers.
Separately in Electrical West, Vol. 26 , a special round trip fare CHI-LA was mentioned as $72.50 + 18.50 for a lower berth. One way would have been $91.00/2 = $45.50 ($1103.05).
So possibly the fare was as low as $1709.12, likely higher.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
So I might mention that on Amazon if your a PRIME member you can watch some passenger train videos for free. Anyway I recently learned that on the Super Chief, Santa Fe did not employ the dining car employees, including the chef they were all employees of the Fred Harvey company. The Chefs were sourced from Germany and France according to the Micheal Gross narrated video. Santa Fe only provided the Dining Car and most of the Dining Car equipment. Likewise all of their sleeping cars were PULLMAN. Now I am not sure if there were run by the PULLMAN company or just purchased from PULLMAN and staffed by Santa Fe employees.
Another interesting item was the predecessor train to the Super Chief was the Extra Fare Santa Fe Delux........was limited to a MAX of only 36 passengers and was all First Class...........man, I would be curious what the "Total Fare" was for the Delux that had to cost an arm and a leg, a whole train's operational cost spread over just 36 passengers.........Chicago to LA?? Cha-Ching.
Overmod GERALD L MCFARLANE JR I've said it before and I'll say it again- market pricing. Serve real food, cooked onboard and charge the market price...trust me, if it's good, word will get around quickly, and you won't be losing any money on the service. The cars/staffing will pay for themselves, priced correctly and you can even turn a little profit. You have my attention. Break down for me, if you would, exactly how you define "market price" for a service that has the clientele, capital, and human-factors restrictions imposed by typical LD Amtrak operation (assume for this whatever combination of Heritage or new-construction diner and lounge equipment is practical for the route(s) involved) in such a way that 'you can even turn a little profit'. You might also indicate when, defined in months after introduction, you will get to that profitability. I sympathize with the idea, believe me I do. But until I see actual numbers that substantiate it, I have to wonder if all the other posters here, a few of whom have actual restaurant experience, know more about the situation. Once we get that far, we can discuss how to run this past Congress (and the other forces which will want to influence Congress) so that it is not perceived as elitist, and then how to implement it long-term in such a way that temporary adverse conditions don't cause discontinuation of the service. (In my experience very few restaurants in New York, a much better nominal market for food service, succeed more than 6 months before they are 'flipped' to the next set of owners, and this usually results in very random changes in food choices and quality...)
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR I've said it before and I'll say it again- market pricing. Serve real food, cooked onboard and charge the market price...trust me, if it's good, word will get around quickly, and you won't be losing any money on the service. The cars/staffing will pay for themselves, priced correctly and you can even turn a little profit.
You have my attention. Break down for me, if you would, exactly how you define "market price" for a service that has the clientele, capital, and human-factors restrictions imposed by typical LD Amtrak operation (assume for this whatever combination of Heritage or new-construction diner and lounge equipment is practical for the route(s) involved) in such a way that 'you can even turn a little profit'. You might also indicate when, defined in months after introduction, you will get to that profitability.
I sympathize with the idea, believe me I do. But until I see actual numbers that substantiate it, I have to wonder if all the other posters here, a few of whom have actual restaurant experience, know more about the situation.
Once we get that far, we can discuss how to run this past Congress (and the other forces which will want to influence Congress) so that it is not perceived as elitist, and then how to implement it long-term in such a way that temporary adverse conditions don't cause discontinuation of the service. (In my experience very few restaurants in New York, a much better nominal market for food service, succeed more than 6 months before they are 'flipped' to the next set of owners, and this usually results in very random changes in food choices and quality...)
I'd love to give you the numbers, presuming of course I could the current numbers out of Amtrak for the cost of provisions, salaries and average car maintenance. First off there would be no Heritage diners, all replaced with new builds(a twin-unit diner would be better imo, one car with all the kichen/storage equipment and a separate car for service in single level service, the Superliners could be as is[lower level kitchen/storage, upper seating)...keep in mind that under Claytor all Chefs went the Culinary school in NY, the food was actually cooked on board and you had much higher quality food, the problem was Amtrak never raised the prices after that. I never said it would up-market food, it would have to be more like 'national' sit-down restaruant type fare, but with menus designed for each LD train. I'm talking like a rolling Olive Garden, etc., etc.,....if they want to see it done, hell, put me in charge of Amtrak, I'm not afraid of a bunch of Congressman/Senators.
Overmod njrickfrommn Also to note, I seriously doubt Congressman Mica has ever riden a LD train or eaten in the dining car. He's an airplane guy. You won't convince him with 'the romance of the rails' particularly when he sees said romance is decidedly lacking in objective terms ... and its half-assed implementation might be costing taxpayers money perhaps far better used elsewhere.
njrickfrommn Also to note, I seriously doubt Congressman Mica has ever riden a LD train or eaten in the dining car.
He's an airplane guy. You won't convince him with 'the romance of the rails' particularly when he sees said romance is decidedly lacking in objective terms ... and its half-assed implementation might be costing taxpayers money perhaps far better used elsewhere.
Run a nicely controlled study. Implement the privatized scheme on one LD train and compare the results of many metrics with a similar LD train with the conventional Amtrak food service. To make more equivalent, in both cases eliminate the inclusion of meals in the sleeper fare.
njrickfrommnAlso to note, I seriously doubt Congressman Mica has ever riden a LD train or eaten in the dining car.
If all the first class passengers, as well as an equal number of coach passengers, were willing to pay for a first class dining experience on these two trains, which are just examples, the market for an on-board up-market dining experience appears to be pretty thin.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
CMStP&P:
I agree that Mr. Boardman failed to make any kind of reasonable case to rebut the ideas that underlie the arguments against Amtrak's current dining car practices, and in favor of privatization. But our legistative representatives have an obligation to educate themselves broadly. If they listen to only one ineffectual speaker, they are obviously going to miss a lot. Boardman's inadequacies are no justification for Mica's.
Mr. McFarlane:
I respectfully disagree with your assertions, for reasons that I have spelled out above. I see no reason to repeat myself except to say that if you think it can be done, have at it.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JRI've said it before and I'll say it again- market pricing. Serve real food, cooked onboard and charge the market price...trust me, if it's good, word will get around quickly, and you won't be losing any money on the service. The cars/staffing will pay for themselves, priced correctly and you can even turn a little profit.
I've said it before and I'll say it again- market pricing. Serve real food, cooked onboard and charge the market price...trust me, if it's good, word will get around quickly, and you won't be losing any money on the service. The cars/staffing will pay for themselves, priced correctly and you can even turn a little profit.
Couldn't agree more. Provide upscale quality food and service, and charge what you have to charge to break even (or better), even allowing for the fact that you will lose some of the lower-end clientele.
If appropriate, add cafe or lounge service (with simpler, lower cost items) to serve those who don't want to pay upscale prices.
Don't even consider using a service such as SkyChefs or Marriot as the airlines do, most of that food isn't even palatable to a canine.
ACY I don't agree 100% with what NKP Guy says about Mr. Mica. Maybe it's more like 98%. I think many of Mr. Mica's suggestions for Amtrak arise out of a stubborn insistence on the rightness of his preconceived notions, rather than a willingness to accept reality and deal with it as it is. I have pointed out several factors that make dining car service an expensive proposition, yet Mr. Mica insists on applying the standards that hold true for stationary restaurant providers. When you hold fast to disproven ideas, your tenacity doesn't make them magically become valid. Tom
I don't agree 100% with what NKP Guy says about Mr. Mica. Maybe it's more like 98%. I think many of Mr. Mica's suggestions for Amtrak arise out of a stubborn insistence on the rightness of his preconceived notions, rather than a willingness to accept reality and deal with it as it is. I have pointed out several factors that make dining car service an expensive proposition, yet Mr. Mica insists on applying the standards that hold true for stationary restaurant providers. When you hold fast to disproven ideas, your tenacity doesn't make them magically become valid.
I don't agree...
It's only a one way conversation because nobody he has that appears in front of him rebuts the charges effectively including Mr Boardman. If I saw someone in front of him from Amtrak attempting to make a case I would have more sympathy but honestly from my point of view, Amtrak doesn't care to make a case, which I feel is kind of arrogant. A Claytor vs Mica pairing would have been interesting.
I regard Mica as a TP wannabee. However, Amtrak undercharges for dining car service. As it is, on most trains, it is pretty mediocre. My opinion is that the bulk of sleeping car LD customers object to being forced to pay for that food in their fare. Hardee's would be an upgrade. If it were not bundled, my guess is there would be far more disgruntled customers who would join their coach brethren in boycotting.
If you want a good dining experience, try being willing to pay a lot more to equal 1957 prices on a City train (as in earlier post). Even at those prices it would be a loss leader today as it was then.
Unfortunately you have discribed Congress in a nut shell. With each side holding fast to disproven ideas, with tenacity that doesn't make them magically become valid.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Breakfast: On CityNightLine between Berlin and Paris in 2013, I was the recipient of one of those box-type cold breakfasts you mention. A few slices of a crossiant, a thin slice of ham, a piece or two of cheese, maybe an M&M or a Hershey kiss or something. No thanks! Plus I ate alone in my room as I passed through places like Chateau-Thierry. Honestly, the food wasn't very good, and I tried to enjoy it.
No, I much prefer a hot American breakfast with fresh scrambled eggs and sausage (even if they are probably microwaved); as far as grits or hash browns, I don't care for either, but I poke at them because they're hot and filling. Toast, of course.
Generally when I travel on the Lake Shore Limited I'm eating breakfast as we pass through Erie ("look at all those locomotives!") or close to the shore of Lake Erie in western New York. Frequently there are foreign tourists seated with me who want to know about the country they've paid a lot of money to see by train. We talk politics, trains, personal lives, observations, etc. If there are young folks on a budget at the table they get to tell their stories, too. I remember a number of people I've met and conversations I've had in the dining car with fellow travelers over the years. Seriously, who'd want to remember anything about eating a dreary, cold, boxed "breakfast" alone and as if in a cell?
Let me say this, and I hope dakotafred and others will agree with me: A nice dining car experience is a significant part of what people expect from a LD train. If we had wanted boxed food eaten in solitary silence we'd have taken a plane.
Everyone knows that dining cars never turned a profit for the companies that operated them; they were simply a part of the cost of doing business if you operated passenger trains.
Until Mr. Mica came along, like a character out of Dickens.
I wish I could agree that he's only doing his disagreeable job of cleaning out the Augean stables as a service he offers to a grateful nation, who needs his gimlet eye going over the books to prevent waste and fraud at the socialist-communist State-run Government Railroad.
But I don't. Mr. Mica is simply a bully. Not having any voice on important committees, where he could be trying to defund Obamacare, or privatize Social Security, or deny women control over their bodies, or supporting tin-horn dictators abroad, or perhaps trying to deport all Latin Americans, he is instead stuck on a 3rd rate committee that oversees...passenger trains! Therefore, So Be It! He sees his role as being God's Avenging Angel when it comes to all the waste, fraud and corruption at a notorious, hated, Democrat-favored quasi-government corporation that costs us innocent taxpayers about $1.5 or $2.0 billion a year, a YUUUGE part of the federal deficit. Well, Mr. Mica thinks, I have my job cut out for me.
I can't wait for the day Mr. Mica is forced to return to the general population and live like the rest of us citizens and train travelers, who'd simply enjoy a cooked breakfast in a nice dining car with other people, without having to pay twice for the privilege.
CMStPnPGermans and Swiss also serve a light breakfest in the sleeping car compartment or at least did the last time I rode. Amtrak / VIA does not, even though it has become common in Europe.
The immediate question I'd have is whether the additional crew time (and perhaps extra planning and aggravation) involved in delivering the light breakfast to all the ones who want it, and cleaning up all the leftovers afterward, is worth the gains. I don't see how it could possibly be better than having a 'hotel-style' breakfast spread in one (or more) lounge cars: put the extra crew dollars into food cost and you might really have something. Admittedly you'd have to work out something with the 'packaging' to make it safe to get your food back to your accommodation, but that's a minor detail (and probably at least equal to what you'd have to provide the individuals doing the "European-style light breakfast delivery').
It would then remain to be seen whether the 'rest' of the passengers expecting a full breakfast service at a sit-down restaurant table will justify the additional cost of legacy-style dining car operation. (For the sake of argument we will assume that any prep for the 'breakfast' alternatives is done with dining-car-capable facilities, so that extent of overhead and labor wouldn't be charged to diner operations...)
Oh, yes: if you want a light breakfast brought to you, ask your attendant sweetly. And tip accordingly when they bring it to you, with more for a sunny smile...
Also, a little off topic here but....
I don't know why the overt hostility towards Rep Mica (R-FL), I know he is abrasive and sometimes exaggerates but he is at least doing his job that the folks elected him to do, he is trying to get the best bang for the taxpayers buck using a somewhat highly abrasive approach but I think his efforts are helping more than hurting Amtrak management because the CEO of Amtrak seems to not care one whit on any financial performance metric based on the CSPAN footage I have seen, which is also unacceptable. So I can see why Rep Mica gets upset at least. Amtrak Management needs the kick in the pants that Rep Mica is giving them because they do not seem to be getting that treatment from anywhere else and most of them stay secure in their jobs regardless of how crappy Amtrak runs.
ACY CMStP&P: I take your point about marketing to feature tourist destinations served by Amtrak. They do this to a certain extent. If the schedule were more convenient, I'm sure they could initiate a marketing drive to foster a destination such as Sandusky, Ohio, home of the very large Cedar Point amusement park. However, this does not address the economics of operating dining cars. Tom
I take your point about marketing to feature tourist destinations served by Amtrak. They do this to a certain extent. If the schedule were more convenient, I'm sure they could initiate a marketing drive to foster a destination such as Sandusky, Ohio, home of the very large Cedar Point amusement park.
However, this does not address the economics of operating dining cars.
The point I was trying to get across is that if we are to keep any kind of dining service the service has to be allowed to innovate or change and folks have to accept change rather than fight against it.
BTW, note in the Trans-Russian Express thread in the videos that the food is brought to the sleeping car compartment in the morning. The patrons have the choice of eating in the dining car (and must do so if they want to consume alchol) but they do not have to. Germans and Swiss also serve a light breakfest in the sleeping car compartment or at least did the last time I rode. Amtrak / VIA does not, even though it has become common in Europe. Perhaps one innovation would be that Amtrak and VIA start serving to compartments light breakfests then make the sleeping car passengers pay for extra fare in the Diner if they want it.
ACYHowever, this does not address the economics of operating dining cars.
It's kinda, sorta, acceptable drift, if it doesn't drift entirely away from the hospitality and 'passenger cohort' theme.
The kind of 'dining experience' is likely to vary dramatically depending on train "clientele", perhaps even down to distinctive ranges of origin-destination pairs for given route attractions. It might follow that some privatization connected with hotel or amusement destinations -- perhaps even including just the kind of loss-leader dining 'experience' often encountered at casinos -- might become perceived as cost-effective over 'centralized' attempts like those now being tried in the East. Or, alternatively, provide greater patronage for other relatively high-margin 'food services' that might underwrite some of the cost of more traditional dining experience...
This discussion is not just about different ways to serve food in a car, and likewise is not just about ways to serve food cheaply enough to satisfy present critics like Mica. I, personally, welcome any discussion that provides an approach -- no matter how peripheral in itself -- to increasing food-service patronage or some aspect of food service profitability (or even loss minimization).
dakotafred Who the hell cares that conventional dining cars don't pay for themselves? Does the locomotive make money, or only help pull the train, like the dining car? John Mica won't be in Congress forever. In the meantime, it ill behooves alleged friends of the passenger train to lend him aid and comfort by constantly sniping at one of the things that makes it a passenger train and still relevant in this day. If we're going to run 'em, let's keep them passenger trains. Otherwise, what's the point? We've already got buses on the highway. Do we need them on rails, too?
Who the hell cares that conventional dining cars don't pay for themselves? Does the locomotive make money, or only help pull the train, like the dining car?
John Mica won't be in Congress forever. In the meantime, it ill behooves alleged friends of the passenger train to lend him aid and comfort by constantly sniping at one of the things that makes it a passenger train and still relevant in this day.
If we're going to run 'em, let's keep them passenger trains. Otherwise, what's the point?
We've already got buses on the highway. Do we need them on rails, too?
If you had to pay (in today's dollars) what people paid to ride the City of Los Angeles RT from Chicago in 1957, would you?
The City charged (in today's dollars) $1774.36 RT for a Roomette + $143.97 for 5 meals. Total = $1981.41
Currently you pay $994.40 RT on the SWC with a Superliner roomette.
Folks who want nostalgia service should pay today's equivalent of what the charges were in the golden era.
ACY In response to the original question, it will always be expensive. There may be effective measures to keep these expenses at some level of control, but they will always be there. Even then, privatization's supposed benefits are often lacking. * Interstate dining car service is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration --- not by State regulators. The general understanding is that FDA regulations are more stringent (and, of course, costly) than State regulations. * Workers on such cars will be required to be eligible for Railroad Retirement. Many (perhaps most) stationary restaurants don't pay for any retirement benefits other than Social Security. I understand this was a major contributing factor when an Amtrak/Contractor experiment failed in New York State several years ago, but I don't know the details. * Competent, reliable staff will not be retained unless the pay is considerably higher than that in a comparable stationary restaurant, because of the demands of the work schedule and conditions. These staff members must be accommodated with sleeping accommodations away from home on long trips, and that costs money. * Dining cars are expensive to construct and maintain because of their unique architecture and configuration. You don't just waltz into the Home Depot and buy off-the shelf components to put one together, or to maintain it. A competent and experienced repair crew must be available to provide service for this unique equipment. * A reliable source of supply is essential, meaning a comprehensive Commissary system and consistent resupply at whatever locations are appropriate. * A reliable source of potable water is absolutely essential. Amtrak has this. Any other operator would have to be sure it can get this from Amtrak or the host railroad. It costs money, no matter who provides it. * In addition to the costs enumerated above, there is the predictable cost of maintenance of the brakes, running gear, air conditioning, etc. associated with the operation of any railroad car. This far exceeds the normal cost of operating a stationary restaurant. I have only scratched the surface. If you think you can operate a dining car at a profit at less cost than Amtrak does under these conditions, have at it! Tom
Even then, privatization's supposed benefits are often lacking.
All true. However, without a modification waiver, the labor costs (including RRRB) would be the killer for any privatized opration.
The proponents of privatization make a lot of promises, but the reality is often quite different.
Deggesty northeaster Many people, currently dubbed "millennials," seem to think that they will never age and that "old people" have always been in that state! There are about 75 million "boomers," (those so named millennials of the 1960's) who are now retiring, controlling about 75% of the wealth of the nation and busy traveling to their kids, grandchildren and just having fun spending their hard earned money. If,when you are boarding a long distance train, you would look around you, you would see the younger folks hauling lots of baggage and even having bicycles stored in those new baggage cars (which Amtrak designed to have bicycle storage racks because of demand). It is not the boomers hauling bikes. You may also notice many older people traveling fairly light, because after years of living, most have learned to travel practically with loads they can handle and have learned that Amtrak sleepers tend not to have much room for bags in the compartments. As the Millennials age and acquire "pre existing conditions," they will perhaps come to appreciate how their bodies do not bend so easily or find that their diets now call for regular meals at certain times rather than a gobbled down hot dog or vegie smoothie. Perhaps, some have been in one of our many military actions and can no longer leap over buildings in a single bound and therefore find 12 hours in a bus seat or 3 hours in 18 inches of plane seat to be basically unbearable. We all, if we are lucky, will get old, lose degrees of physical ablities and have new appreciation for civilized travel. It is not a longing for the good old days, today's trains can be as modern and fast as possible and still be a preferred means of travel as an option suitable for a large share of the population. You have only to look at a US Census Bureau population projection "pyramid" for the year 2050 to realize that there is a massive market coming down the track for a totally different US population than what is now. Unlike certain "business models" which call for a profit from every minute segment of the business, other models call for the effective use of having certain segments offered to customers at a loss, being in fact, another form of advertising to attract said customers: thus the dining car and the baggage car. Incompetent and/or lazy senior management always blames someone else for poor performance. Thank you, northeaster, for attempting to dispel the notions of some about who travels by train, and why they prefer such travel to other modes of travel. I, myself, am older than the boomers, and I much prefer the roominess of trains to the lack of roominess on buses and airplanes. Also, as to food, I have found that the snack food that is offered for breakfast and other meals in lounge cars comes short of being really satisfactory. On my last trip, I found it necessary to twice spend a large part of a day on buses, with one stop for a meal each day, and was cramped for leg room. There is now bus service only twice a day between the two cities--and one is overnight (shudder)--and both require a change in each direction; fifty years ago, there were several schedules each day with through service. The only improvement I can name is the presence of restrooms on the buses. edited for clarity-jbd
northeaster Many people, currently dubbed "millennials," seem to think that they will never age and that "old people" have always been in that state! There are about 75 million "boomers," (those so named millennials of the 1960's) who are now retiring, controlling about 75% of the wealth of the nation and busy traveling to their kids, grandchildren and just having fun spending their hard earned money. If,when you are boarding a long distance train, you would look around you, you would see the younger folks hauling lots of baggage and even having bicycles stored in those new baggage cars (which Amtrak designed to have bicycle storage racks because of demand). It is not the boomers hauling bikes. You may also notice many older people traveling fairly light, because after years of living, most have learned to travel practically with loads they can handle and have learned that Amtrak sleepers tend not to have much room for bags in the compartments. As the Millennials age and acquire "pre existing conditions," they will perhaps come to appreciate how their bodies do not bend so easily or find that their diets now call for regular meals at certain times rather than a gobbled down hot dog or vegie smoothie. Perhaps, some have been in one of our many military actions and can no longer leap over buildings in a single bound and therefore find 12 hours in a bus seat or 3 hours in 18 inches of plane seat to be basically unbearable. We all, if we are lucky, will get old, lose degrees of physical ablities and have new appreciation for civilized travel. It is not a longing for the good old days, today's trains can be as modern and fast as possible and still be a preferred means of travel as an option suitable for a large share of the population. You have only to look at a US Census Bureau population projection "pyramid" for the year 2050 to realize that there is a massive market coming down the track for a totally different US population than what is now. Unlike certain "business models" which call for a profit from every minute segment of the business, other models call for the effective use of having certain segments offered to customers at a loss, being in fact, another form of advertising to attract said customers: thus the dining car and the baggage car. Incompetent and/or lazy senior management always blames someone else for poor performance.
Many people, currently dubbed "millennials," seem to think that they will never age and that "old people" have always been in that state! There are about 75 million "boomers," (those so named millennials of the 1960's) who are now retiring, controlling about 75% of the wealth of the nation and busy traveling to their kids, grandchildren and just having fun spending their hard earned money. If,when you are boarding a long distance train, you would look around you, you would see the younger folks hauling lots of baggage and even having bicycles stored in those new baggage cars (which Amtrak designed to have bicycle storage racks because of demand). It is not the boomers hauling bikes. You may also notice many older people traveling fairly light, because after years of living, most have learned to travel practically with loads they can handle and have learned that Amtrak sleepers tend not to have much room for bags in the compartments.
As the Millennials age and acquire "pre existing conditions," they will perhaps come to appreciate how their bodies do not bend so easily or find that their diets now call for regular meals at certain times rather than a gobbled down hot dog or vegie smoothie. Perhaps, some have been in one of our many military actions and can no longer leap over buildings in a single bound and therefore find 12 hours in a bus seat or 3 hours in 18 inches of plane seat to be basically unbearable.
We all, if we are lucky, will get old, lose degrees of physical ablities and have new appreciation for civilized travel. It is not a longing for the good old days, today's trains can be as modern and fast as possible and still be a preferred means of travel as an option suitable for a large share of the population. You have only to look at a US Census Bureau population projection "pyramid" for the year 2050 to realize that there is a massive market coming down the track for a totally different US population than what is now. Unlike certain "business models" which call for a profit from every minute segment of the business, other models call for the effective use of having certain segments offered to customers at a loss, being in fact, another form of advertising to attract said customers: thus the dining car and the baggage car. Incompetent and/or lazy senior management always blames someone else for poor performance.
Thank you, northeaster, for attempting to dispel the notions of some about who travels by train, and why they prefer such travel to other modes of travel. I, myself, am older than the boomers, and I much prefer the roominess of trains to the lack of roominess on buses and airplanes. Also, as to food, I have found that the snack food that is offered for breakfast and other meals in lounge cars comes short of being really satisfactory.
On my last trip, I found it necessary to twice spend a large part of a day on buses, with one stop for a meal each day, and was cramped for leg room. There is now bus service only twice a day between the two cities--and one is overnight (shudder)--and both require a change in each direction; fifty years ago, there were several schedules each day with through service. The only improvement I can name is the presence of restrooms on the buses.
edited for clarity-jbd
Each generations has it's own belief that they will never age - until the do. Boomers never featured getting old, now they are.
I have attened two HS reunions - 25th & 50th. At the 25th most everyone was recognizable from the in school appearance and personae. At the 50th - who are all these unrecognizable old people (and I am sure they felt the same about me).
What is the saying - 'Too soon old, too late smart!'.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.