York1Amtrak could provide one free trip on Amtrak, with rules about distance, times, etc., all taken into account. Maybe several percent of those free riders would be persuaded to ride in the future.
If you are shooting for only a few percent to ride AMTRAK LD in the future, you mind as well not bother. You need to get 15-20 percent to ride in the future and half of those need to become more than once a year or every 2 years riders. Otherwise, you are not even going to begin to save LD Amtrak.
n012944 York1 n012944 So the only way to have passenger train travel in the US is to deny the workers their collective bargaining rights? Did I say that? Did I say anything like that? I grew up in a union family. You said, "1. Don't require Amtrak to follow railroad union rules." "Railroad" union rules are no different than normal union rules. So yes, by not requiring Amtrak to follow union rules, you are denying them their collective bargaining rights. York1 Funny. Of course, again, I didn't say anything like that. You sure implied it. You mentioned wages needing to be discussed multiple times. Looking at Glassdoor.com, it appears that Amtrak's LSAs wages are right in line with a flight attendant, which is much more an apples to apples job comparison than a Subway sandwich artist.
York1 n012944 So the only way to have passenger train travel in the US is to deny the workers their collective bargaining rights? Did I say that? Did I say anything like that? I grew up in a union family.
n012944 So the only way to have passenger train travel in the US is to deny the workers their collective bargaining rights?
Did I say that? Did I say anything like that? I grew up in a union family.
You said,
"1. Don't require Amtrak to follow railroad union rules."
"Railroad" union rules are no different than normal union rules. So yes, by not requiring Amtrak to follow union rules, you are denying them their collective bargaining rights.
York1 Funny. Of course, again, I didn't say anything like that.
Funny. Of course, again, I didn't say anything like that.
You sure implied it. You mentioned wages needing to be discussed multiple times. Looking at Glassdoor.com, it appears that Amtrak's LSAs wages are right in line with a flight attendant, which is much more an apples to apples job comparison than a Subway sandwich artist.
1. I apologize for my statement, which is not what I intended. I meant that wages are one of many things to look at. Sorry. If the government is going to renegotiate contracts of the same size in the future, then in my opinion they need to change the prices to cover those contracts.
2. When I said, "I didn't say anything like that.", it was in response to your statement, "Railroad workers are not your personal servants so you have choo choos to ride on," My statements did not say that, and I don't think they even implied that. If that's what you got out of what I said, I will again apologize. I would never demean anyone, including railroad workers, to believe they are to be treated as 'personal servants'.
Back to the original poster's idea, I still think there is merit to it. I'm willing to bet that outside of the NEC, the vast majority of people have not ridden an Amtrak train.
Amtrak could provide one free trip on Amtrak, with rules about distance, times, etc., all taken into account. Maybe several percent of those free riders would be persuaded to ride in the future.
York1 John
Generally speaking, I don't think Unions have anything to do with Amtraks issues. Unions are flexible and reasonable if you work with them in most cases. It's when you refuse to work with them we get into a tit for tat situation that benefits nobody. I have not seen any track record of Amtraks unions being unreasonable to work with or causing financial issues. Amtrak has been able to cut labor back with absolute freedom and without any strikes.
In regards to food service, specifically on the Chicago to Milwaukee trains when it existed. Having an employee push a cart from car to car selling coffee, candy bars, and sweet rolls at no more than $3-4 a ticket is going to be a financial loser if you have a min wage person doing it or a union person doing it. It was a stupid management decision as are some of the dining car setups. I don't think the Union is to blame for either and again these people are traveling across the country at a min they should be paid well for that being away from home time along with a liveable wage. Business Consultants get a premium over regular market pay for travel, only fair Amtrak employees are paid likewise.
So lets say you have a dining car attendent getting paid $60-70,000 a year. You should be able to cover the costs of that salary on a dining car with proper service and duties assigned to that person. It's not impossible, it just has not been achieved with the Amtrak model. The biggest issue on Amtrak LD trains for Dining Car viability is you just do not have the headcount in most cases on a LD train at meal time that would make the dining car viable financially. For a stand alone franchise you need at least 200-250 tickets a meal to make a profit. Amtrak does not even hit that figure on most LD trains. Exception being Auto Train which has two diners and averages 350 to 500 passengers I think? So given Amtrak does not have the ridership levels to support a dining car LD, I think it should expand slightly what the CAFE car offers and drop the Dining car from the consist. If they have a train with ridership levels approaching Auto-Train then add the dining car back.
The only other solution I see is charge folks a surcharge for food and include it in the ticket sale when the train travel is longer than 4 hours. Problem there is that is still not going to be enough for trains carrying less than 200 passengers for that distance at meal time. I think if Amtrak Management really focused on this issue they could hit the ball out of the ballpark and come up with an outstanding solution here that would satisfy everyone. They have not done so yet.
Look at what Rocky Mountaineer carries, easily over 500 and sometimes up to 1100 (my estimate) per train and meals are included in the price of their tickets weather you eat the meal or not. So I'm pretty confident they are not losing money on dining car services.
JPS1--It appears that the number of hours worked in the UK is quite a bit lower than US freight railroads operate with much less away domicile time.
Work rules as stated in union contracts were negotiated between the parties involved in the contract. They are not 'cloth' that the unions created out of thin air an imposed in the contract. The contract itself is a promise for the parties involved in negotiations it to live up to the provisions that are stated within the contract, nothing more and nothing less.
Unions came into existance in the first place because of the regal dementia of business ownership that they owe nothing to their employees beyond the 'bird dropping' of pay that the owners want to offer. Why do you think so many industries relied on undocumented labor sources - the businesses could pay them a pittance of their works value with the knowledge that those undocumented laborers could only object at the risk of being deported.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Backshop What are the wages of EU passenger train crews?
An "expensive model collector"
The 500 mile and under market is where Amtrak would be most successful. LD trains should not operate in the winter season. LD trains should be operated as tourist trains, with all the amenities of days gone by, in the mild weather months perhaps thrice weekly. Commuter type service to large urban areas from the suburbs could take up the void created by the cessation of LD service.
n012944So the only way to have passenger train travel in the US is to deny the workers their collective bargining rights?
There's one thing you said that I do agree with:
n012944If that is the case, then shut them down
If we as a country think that it's necessary to run a passenger train system, especially long distance trains, and we are not willing to make the changes to make it work, then shut it down and quit wasting tax dollars.
n012944Railroad workers are not your personal servants so you have choo choos to ride on.
York1 If the country truly wants passenger rail transportation, then fundamental changes will have to take place, including wages, track rights, court injunctions, property challenges -- virtually everything.
If the country truly wants passenger rail transportation, then fundamental changes will have to take place, including wages, track rights, court injunctions, property challenges -- virtually everything.
So the only way to have passenger train travel in the US is to deny the workers their collective bargining rights? If that is the case, then shut them down. Railroad workers are not your personal servants so you have choo choos to ride on.
JPS1Has there been an increase in freight train breakdowns over the last three or four months? Where would find the data?
Could it be that UP cutting back on HP per ton as per PSR, is causing more train stalls?
Backshop York1 Backshop What are the wages of EU passenger train crews? Add Quote t I don't know that info. Maybe someone else has some idea. So you really don't know whether their wages are out of line?
York1 Backshop What are the wages of EU passenger train crews? Add Quote t I don't know that info. Maybe someone else has some idea.
Backshop What are the wages of EU passenger train crews? Add Quote t
I don't know that info. Maybe someone else has some idea.
So you really don't know whether their wages are out of line?
No, I don't. And I didn't claim that.
I pointed out that one of the premiere trains in North America, with great food, pays their food and beverage workers quite a bit less than Amtrak.
I'm trying to point out that there are a variety of issues Amtrak faces. For 50 years they've struggled by, and if we keep doing more of the same, nothing will change.
If we aren't willing to make deep changes, then we should drop the idea of long distance train travel in the U.S.
oltmannd Enzoamps SO my Capitol Limited from CHicago to Washington DC should become a two day trip with a hotel stay in the middle? Yes. The LSL might be the one train to leave in one piece. The Capitol should be be a DC to Cleveland train. The other half of it should be a Cleveland to Chicago day train. If you want to play "thru sleeper" game to LSL at Cleveland, go ahead, but that's not a cheap thing. Doing this you wind up with on time (or very close), daylight Cleveland to Chicago service and decent DC to Pittsburgh and Cleveland service. You could even mix in a connection to/from the Pennsylvanian at Pittsburgh at a reasonable hour of the day. The rule is "run trains where the people are when they are awake". Everything else is a waste of time and treasure.
Enzoamps SO my Capitol Limited from CHicago to Washington DC should become a two day trip with a hotel stay in the middle?
SO my Capitol Limited from CHicago to Washington DC should become a two day trip with a hotel stay in the middle?
Yes. The LSL might be the one train to leave in one piece. The Capitol should be be a DC to Cleveland train. The other half of it should be a Cleveland to Chicago day train. If you want to play "thru sleeper" game to LSL at Cleveland, go ahead, but that's not a cheap thing.
Doing this you wind up with on time (or very close), daylight Cleveland to Chicago service and decent DC to Pittsburgh and Cleveland service. You could even mix in a connection to/from the Pennsylvanian at Pittsburgh at a reasonable hour of the day.
The rule is "run trains where the people are when they are awake". Everything else is a waste of time and treasure.
You can still do DC to Chicago on the LSL with a quick trip up the NEC...
(I'd chop the Cardinal in Cincinnati)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
BackshopWhat are the wages of EU passenger train crews? Add Quote t
York1 I don't know if the workers on the Rocky Mountaineer are unionized. JPS1 posted in a thread a while back about the hourly wages of Amtrak food & beverage workers compared to Rocky Mountaineer's food & beverage workers' hourly wages. Amtrak's wages were about double RM's. Before someone yells at me -- I know that is not a fair comparison. But it does point out an issue that faces an American rail system. If we truly want a passenger rail system that is world class, wages have to be in the discussion.
I don't know if the workers on the Rocky Mountaineer are unionized.
JPS1 posted in a thread a while back about the hourly wages of Amtrak food & beverage workers compared to Rocky Mountaineer's food & beverage workers' hourly wages. Amtrak's wages were about double RM's.
Before someone yells at me -- I know that is not a fair comparison.
But it does point out an issue that faces an American rail system. If we truly want a passenger rail system that is world class, wages have to be in the discussion.
I think the main reason for out-sourcing the food and beverage service would be to cut (union) labor costs on trains and eliminate the provisioning centers completely. Only secondarily to improve quality.
BaltACD "The question being 'who said it improved'? Outsourcing is not a panacea - you tend to get what you pay for and you no longer control what that is. Once you have outsourced a function and eliminated that segment of the work force you play hell in reestablising that segment once you have decided the outsource provider IS NOT delivering what they promised - and in many cases outsourcer's don't deliver. That is just the nature of the lowest bidder world." I remember that the article said the workers were polled and they were generally happy with the new food services. I'm familiar with Outside food vendor contracts and similar for companies. Its pretty rare that the company outsourcing the food service is looking to make a profit off of it so "low bid" is not a factor in selecting an Outside food vendor--you mainly go by other's experience with them. It can be a national vendor or a local one. The Outside vendor can sometimes also get the vending machine franchise which is where the company does have some bargaining room for its cut of the vending sales. The companies taking this route are almost always looking to rid themselves of something that is draining money from them so their main object is to keep the employees happy while cutting their costs. Its standard contract procedure that if there are problems with the quality of product or service, the vendor is given a short time-frame to correct the issues or the contract is void--sometimes as little as 30 days. Its also common that the vendor only pays for utilities and any maintenance/repairs/renovations paid for by the company. That allows the Outside food vendor more room to make a profit without having to cut corners or increase prices beyond inflation. In a few cases I was aware of, the company elected to subsidize the Outside vendor a little as the company was still saving money by doing so. This is the approach Amtrak should take when, if ever, it outsources its food service. Namely, it shouldn't try to make any money off of it--just recover its expenses connected to the outside vendor.
"The question being 'who said it improved'?
Outsourcing is not a panacea - you tend to get what you pay for and you no longer control what that is. Once you have outsourced a function and eliminated that segment of the work force you play hell in reestablising that segment once you have decided the outsource provider IS NOT delivering what they promised - and in many cases outsourcer's don't deliver. That is just the nature of the lowest bidder world."
I remember that the article said the workers were polled and they were generally happy with the new food services. I'm familiar with Outside food vendor contracts and similar for companies. Its pretty rare that the company outsourcing the food service is looking to make a profit off of it so "low bid" is not a factor in selecting an Outside food vendor--you mainly go by other's experience with them. It can be a national vendor or a local one.
The Outside vendor can sometimes also get the vending machine franchise which is where the company does have some bargaining room for its cut of the vending sales.
The companies taking this route are almost always looking to rid themselves of something that is draining money from them so their main object is to keep the employees happy while cutting their costs. Its standard contract procedure that if there are problems with the quality of product or service, the vendor is given a short time-frame to correct the issues or the contract is void--sometimes as little as 30 days. Its also common that the vendor only pays for utilities and any maintenance/repairs/renovations paid for by the company. That allows the Outside food vendor more room to make a profit without having to cut corners or increase prices beyond inflation. In a few cases I was aware of, the company elected to subsidize the Outside vendor a little as the company was still saving money by doing so.
This is the approach Amtrak should take when, if ever, it outsources its food service. Namely, it shouldn't try to make any money off of it--just recover its expenses connected to the outside vendor.
Enzoamps I hear people carping about the train, especially when it runs late.
Speaking of running late, the Texas Eagle - No. 21 - did not arrive in San Antonio until 7:43 this morning. It was more than 9 hours late. Apparently it was stuck behind a stalled freight train north of Marshall, TX for nearly five hours. And from there the situation got worse.
Although the on-time performance for the Eagle has improved in FY20 compared to FY19, due in part to reduced freight traffic during the spring and early summer, it has been seriously late on three occassions during the last three weeks. Stalled freight trains and/or mechanical issues were the reasons as per Amtrak's alerts.
Has there been an increase in freight train breakdowns over the last three or four months? Where would find the data?
EnzoampsI hear people carping about the train, especially when it runs late. I hear them say "I'll never take a train again." To them it is just a slow airplane, and they are thinking about just getting there. For people like me the trip IS the fun. My vacation starts when I walk onto the train, not when I reach my destination.
You point out one of the main dividing points in the whole Amtrak discussion.
Should the U.S. government and taxpayers underwrite a long distance train program so that people can enjoy a train vacation?
There are good arguments supporting both sides.
alphasHaving some experience dealing with unions I can telll you they will fight as hard as they can against any change in work rules, even to agreeing to smaller wage increases. As for Amtrak food service employees and their very high pay, Amtrak needs to do what many of the larger corporations did some years ago when they contacted their on-site food service operations (and sometimes their janatorial and grounds operations) out to independent contractors while the rest of the work force retained their union status. I remember reading somewhere that in many of those cases the quality of the food service improved as a result.
As for Amtrak food service employees and their very high pay, Amtrak needs to do what many of the larger corporations did some years ago when they contacted their on-site food service operations (and sometimes their janatorial and grounds operations) out to independent contractors while the rest of the work force retained their union status. I remember reading somewhere that in many of those cases the quality of the food service improved as a result.
The question being 'who said it improved'?
Outsourcing is not a panacea - you tend to get what you pay for and you no longer control what that is. Once you have outsourced a function and eliminated that segment of the work force you play hell in reestablising that segment once you have decided the outsource provider IS NOT delivering what they promised - and in many cases outsourcer's don't deliver. That is just the nature of the lowest bidder world.
I have experienced unions on both sides of the equation. Companies want to make 'promises' and not deliver. Unions want those 'promises' made in writing and then work to insure that the company delivers on thos 'promises'.
Having some experience dealing with unions I can telll you they will fight as hard as they can against any change in work rules, even to agreeing to smaller wage increases.
US homeless estimate in 2018, according to the White House was actually 532,830.
That was a typo on my part as I meant to say "around 533,000" which is why my statement that they were about the same percentage of the population. I need to remember to wear my glasses when I do this.
SO my Capitol Limited from CHicago to Washington DC should become a two day trip with a hotel stay in the middle? Just so all the stops were during the day? Even when I pick ut up at Toledo near midnight, it still gets in like 1PM the following afternoon. If the train left Chicago at 6AM, it might reliably get to Toledo by noon, leaving me say 8 hours of track time, might get to Pittsburgh, get off, hotel and still next day? Even if they made Toldeo the overnight stop, I'd barely fit the 13 hour ride into the next day. This sure isn't selling it to me.
I hear people carping about the train, especially when it runs late. I hear them say "I'll never take a train again." To them it is just a slow airplane, and they are thinking about just getting there. For people like me the trip IS the fun. My vacation starts when I walk onto the train, not when I reach my destination. But making my train ride twice as long and requiring hotel stays in the middle is pushing it too far.
York1Everything concerns the whole issue of government involvement. Amtrak is in the worst possible position, being between a profit-making company and a government-run entity. I don't think Amtrak should exist that way. I want Congress to finally decide one way or another. I don't think the U.S. should be underwriting train travel unless it is a necessary means of transportation. If Congress decides that it is necessary, then let's do it. Some ideas: 1. Don't require Amtrak to follow railroad union rules. To pay food workers or custodians two or three times the rate that normal workers get won't work. 2. Charlie's idea (with which I don't agree) is to nationalize the tracks and run them like we do highways. Amtrak as a business can't operate if they have to provide track maintenance. It also can't operate as a profit-making business by relying on tracks run and maintained by other companies that don't really want it there. 3. Relax certain environmental laws and limit court injunctions on building new tracks. We have crippled any attempts to build HSR in our country. I don't have time to come up with more. One issue I will mention is sure to bring the wrath of many on this forum: Hire another CEO like Anderson, who does not have a railroad background. We need new thinking to run a 21st Century transportation system. We don't need someone who wants to run the system using 1950s thinking. Personally? I don't think Amtrak should exist if the government has to pay for it. I also think U.S. highways should be toll-based, airlines should pay for airports and air traffic control, and shipping companies should pay for port construction and maintenance.
A couple of comments:
1. A balanced transportation system is in the interest of everyone including a productive economy. In many cases in this country traveling from downtown to downtown.....rail transportation is the fastest method. Rail transportation with high frequency and easy of ticketing / check-in even more so. To sit on the sidelines and just ignore that fact means for Congress to accept a lowered standard of living and a lower GDP than we otherwise could have.
2. Union rates of pay are not really the issue. It's productivity of the unionized worker that usually is to blame. Give me a cross trained unionized worker any day of the week over one I pay by the hour who isn't and I will wow the public with that person. Further, people deserve a liveable wage for rail service jobs, I don't agree with the idea we should lower their wages down to where they cannot afford to support a family. You do that and your going to pay via customer service and probably safety as well as your not going to attract a very high caliber of employee or one that is necessarily smart.
3. Long Distance trains are a luxury but I think some should be retained for the economic impact they have on small communities with large attractions such as National Parks, Popular camping / hiking areas, rural areas with little or no other service including Bus. I think the National LD network should be pared back more. I see no reason for the Sunset Limited, the Cardinal, and maybe one or two others. Would keep the California Zephyr and Empire Builder West of Chicago as a minimum. Southwest Chief and Texas Eagle open to debate but I think the Texas Eagle could be argued is cheaper to run than the Southwest Chief. So I would favor the Texas Eagle over the Southwest Chief as well.
York1 JPS1 What do you think is the problem(s) of Amtrak and solution(s) that the Congress could fix? Everything concerns the whole issue of government involvement. Amtrak is in the worst possible position, being between a profit-making company and a government-run entity. I don't think Amtrak should exist that way. I want Congress to finally decide one way or another. I don't think the U.S. should be underwriting train travel unless it is a necessary means of transportation. If Congress decides that it is necessary, then let's do it. Some ideas: 1. Don't require Amtrak to follow railroad union rules. To pay food workers or custodians two or three times the rate that normal workers get won't work. 2. Charlie's idea (with which I don't agree) is to nationalize the tracks and run them like we do highways. Amtrak as a business can't operate if they have to provide track maintenance. It also can't operate as a profit-making business by relying on tracks run and maintained by other companies that don't really want it there. 3. Relax certain environmental laws and limit court injunctions on building new tracks. We have crippled any attempts to build HSR in our country. I don't have time to come up with more. One issue I will mention is sure to bring the wrath of many on this forum: Hire another CEO like Anderson, who does not have a railroad background. We need new thinking to run a 21st Century transportation system. We don't need someone who wants to run the system using 1950s thinking. Personally? I don't think Amtrak should exist if the government has to pay for it. I also think U.S. highways should be toll-based, airlines should pay for airports and air traffic control, and shipping companies should pay for port construction and maintenance.
JPS1 What do you think is the problem(s) of Amtrak and solution(s) that the Congress could fix?
Everything concerns the whole issue of government involvement. Amtrak is in the worst possible position, being between a profit-making company and a government-run entity. I don't think Amtrak should exist that way.
I want Congress to finally decide one way or another.
I don't think the U.S. should be underwriting train travel unless it is a necessary means of transportation.
If Congress decides that it is necessary, then let's do it. Some ideas:
1. Don't require Amtrak to follow railroad union rules. To pay food workers or custodians two or three times the rate that normal workers get won't work.
2. Charlie's idea (with which I don't agree) is to nationalize the tracks and run them like we do highways. Amtrak as a business can't operate if they have to provide track maintenance. It also can't operate as a profit-making business by relying on tracks run and maintained by other companies that don't really want it there.
3. Relax certain environmental laws and limit court injunctions on building new tracks. We have crippled any attempts to build HSR in our country.
I don't have time to come up with more.
One issue I will mention is sure to bring the wrath of many on this forum:
Hire another CEO like Anderson, who does not have a railroad background. We need new thinking to run a 21st Century transportation system. We don't need someone who wants to run the system using 1950s thinking.
Personally? I don't think Amtrak should exist if the government has to pay for it. I also think U.S. highways should be toll-based, airlines should pay for airports and air traffic control, and shipping companies should pay for port construction and maintenance.
I'll pile on...
A long distance train is a hotel and restaurant on wheels. Get hoteliers and restaurant outfits to partner with Amtrak and/or actually run that part of the service. Sell, sell, sell from the moment folks board until the train rolls to a stop at the final terminal.
Having precious space on the train for staff to sleep and eat is a waste. Rotate them off the train with the crew. (and stop letting the conductor take up lounge car space!).
Chop up most east coast routes into day trains. End to end is accomplished with a hotel stay in the middle. Fare includes hotel and transfers. Atlanta for the Crescent, Memphis for the City of NOLA. YMMV with the others. New stations serving suburbia that have grown up over the past 40 years would be helpful. The rule should be "run trains to places where people are when they are awake."
Stop the "buy American" provision for railcars. It hasn't "saved" or "created" a domestic rail car industry. All it's done is given us transplanted foreign manufacturers who bake the high cost of one-off production facilities into the cost of their equipment. So, so, so dumb....and costly.
blue streak 1The card ID number would be the ticket along with regular ID easily controlling the type of riders. This would just fill up the empty seats
I agree. This wouldn't involve just opening up the doors and letting people crowd in to spend the day.
With today's technology, a system for ticketing could be set up to avoid the problems some posters mentioned.
Some of these arguments appear specious. First the travel cars could be issued much as the medicare cards were. I have reconsidered and would propose no reservations would be made more than 24 hours departure time at boarding station..This would allow regular passengers to get seats until 24 hours before departure.
The card ID number would be the ticket along with regular ID easily controlling the type of riders. This would just fill up the empty seats with proper Covid-19 separation.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.