# Senate amendment to eliminate food/beverage on Amtrak (LD too)



## the_traveler (Jul 25, 2013)

Per NARP, Senate amendment #1764 (sponsored be Sen Jeff Flake of AZ) would eliminate all food and beverage service from Amtrak! 

Could you imagine going from CHI-LAX on the TE/SL (via SAS) and not have food or beverages available for 3 days? :huh: Even the CZ (2 days), EB (2 days) or SS/SM (1 day) is unbelievable!

Contact your Senators ASAP and tell them to oppose Senate amendment #1764!


----------



## JoeBas (Jul 25, 2013)

Finally, a politician who's aptly named!


----------



## gmushial (Jul 25, 2013)

What is the supposed logic behind this? Or just has his head where the sun don't shine and the lack of oxygen has aversely affected this cranial functions? [btw I search his site, the GPO site and found no references to s.1764 ?? is that the correct number ??]


----------



## Alexandria Nick (Jul 25, 2013)

That's not the bill number, its the amendment number.


----------



## BrianPR3 (Jul 25, 2013)

i have the bill #

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:s.1243:


----------



## sportbiker (Jul 25, 2013)

I really don't get the obsession (and I think that is the correct word) that some in Congress have with kneecaping Amtrak. There's no big anti-Amtrak lobby dispensing million of dollars in bribes contributions to members, or threatening to unseat members who vote to fund Amtrak. The subsidy Amtrak receives relative to the size of the budget is so small that even eliminating it wouldn't get the budget any closer to balance. I don't hear of any public uproar demanding that Amtrak be eliminated. Am I missing something? Where does this obsession come from?


----------



## Alexandria Nick (Jul 25, 2013)

People labor under the mistaken belief that cut a few billion here and a few billion there and bam problem solved.

People also don't understand how debt functions in the first place. They think its the same as their own debts and its not even close to the same thing.


----------



## NW cannonball (Jul 25, 2013)

There's not any such obsession. There are several lobbyist groups that want to distract attention from their own multibillion subsidies. Once in a while a congresscrittur puts up an Amtrak-related knee-cap amendement as requested by his/her supporters. These mostly fail. But to get into the politics of it -- off-topic here.

If you support Amtrak as it is, or a better future for rational national transport -- write your concresscrittur. And complain when that crittur proposes amendments that favor his/her biggest dollar supporters at the expense of sensible government policy.

But -- this is not a politics forum - very little so.


----------



## JoeBas (Jul 25, 2013)

Looks like he's gunning for the sleepers too...

SA 1764. Mr. FLAKE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1243, making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 52, after line 24, add the following:

Sec. 155. None of the funds made available under this Act may be used to subsidize costs related to food and beverage and first class services on any route operated by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Jul 25, 2013)

JoeBas said:


> Looks like he's gunning for the sleepers too...
> SA 1764. Mr. FLAKE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1243, making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
> 
> On page 52, after line 24, add the following:
> ...


That would essentially kill _*Acela *_which is _*Amtrak's*_ bread and butter. Don't worry-this will go nowhere.


----------



## Acela150 (Jul 25, 2013)

Just remember.. Amtrak doesn't serve his state, so says his co-senator John McCain..


----------



## Paulus (Jul 25, 2013)

OlympianHiawatha said:


> JoeBas said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like he's gunning for the sleepers too...
> ...


Doesn't kill Acela, that requires no subsidy.


----------



## Burrito Lady (Jul 26, 2013)

I'm al for this. More sales at stations !!!!


----------



## chakk (Jul 26, 2013)

I consider the key word in the proposed amendmentn to be "subsidize". Perhaps Sen. Flake is really saying that food and drink services and first class services need to be priced by Amtrak to recover all of their actual costs. I think it is certainly true that most airlines today price their first class services and food and (alcoholic) drink services to cover their costs -- and much more!


----------



## cirdan (Jul 26, 2013)

chakk said:


> I consider the key word in the proposed amendmentn to be "subsidize". Perhaps Sen. Flake is really saying that food and drink services and first class services need to be priced by Amtrak to recover all of their actual costs. I think it is certainly true that most airlines today price their first class services and food and (alcoholic) drink services to cover their costs -- and much more!


 It's all a question of cost allocation. As long as you don't have a plane that is all first class, you always have some wriggle room to move things around so it looks as if one part is paying its way and anothr part isn't. What percentage of the pilot's salary can you tag to first class passengers? What percentage of fuel? Of airport and security costs? I venture to say that most commercial flights would cease to be profitable if economy class passengers were suddenly eliminated.


----------



## Bus Nut (Jul 26, 2013)

cirdan said:


> chakk said:
> 
> 
> > I consider the key word in the proposed amendmentn to be "subsidize". Perhaps Sen. Flake is really saying that food and drink services and first class services need to be priced by Amtrak to recover all of their actual costs. I think it is certainly true that most airlines today price their first class services and food and (alcoholic) drink services to cover their costs -- and much more!
> ...


Before you even get to that point, it's not clear that airlines have priced first class services in a way that's favorable to them at this point. They are trying to reduce unpaid upgrades now with a lot of resistance. Some airlines made the decision not to borrow with FC at all. While not all Amtrak FC patrons paid full price (using points, for example) at least Amtrak has a much simpler and more rational rewards program. Airline upgrades on legacy carriers are much more capricious to the carrier and given their difficulties covering costs in the last few years it's not clear that it makes much economic sense.


----------



## JoeBas (Jul 26, 2013)

OlympianHiawatha said:


> That would essentially kill _*Acela *_which is _*Amtrak's*_ bread and butter. Don't worry-this will go nowhere.


I'm not worried, rather bringing full disclosure to the actual suggested impacts.


----------



## JoeBas (Jul 26, 2013)

cirdan said:


> chakk said:
> 
> 
> > I consider the key word in the proposed amendmentn to be "subsidize". Perhaps Sen. Flake is really saying that food and drink services and first class services need to be priced by Amtrak to recover all of their actual costs. I think it is certainly true that most airlines today price their first class services and food and (alcoholic) drink services to cover their costs -- and much more!
> ...


A northeastern Senator should bring a counter proposal, requiring the same of aircrafts, including subsidies for airports, ATC, etc.

I'm sure this amendment going after LD services has NOTHING to do with this...

US AirwaysFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*US Airways* is a major U.S. airline owned by the US Airways Group, headquartered in Tempe, Arizona.


----------



## gmushial (Jul 26, 2013)

JoeBas said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> > chakk said:
> ...


But doing such would be much too rational for small-brained corporate-owned "representatives." ... wish America would wake up and understand that our mega-billion dollar elections, inc., allow for only corporate sponsored candidates to run, resulting in the "representation" that we currently have - many many other democracies have long seen this failing and have banded political advertising / or severely limited it (the major cost item in elections), finding no loss in information flow to the electorate, but finding a vast improvement in the quality/representation of the candidates. ... climbing down off his soapbox.


----------



## Nathanael (Jul 26, 2013)

gmushial said:


> ... wish America would wake up and understand that our mega-billion dollar elections, inc., allow for only corporate sponsored candidates to run, resulting in the "representation" that we currently have - many many other democracies have long seen this failing and have banded political advertising / or severely limited it (the major cost item in elections), finding no loss in information flow to the electorate, but finding a vast improvement in the quality/representation of the candidates. ... climbing down off his soapbox.


At least with the rise of the open Internet, we have soapboxes (like this one!). In the Age of TV and Radio, we didn't, and advertising was completely dominant over, well, real information.

This is probably why so many companies are so hostile to "net neutrality", the idea that we should be able to get to whatever website we want at the same speed.


----------



## tonys96 (Jul 26, 2013)

JoeBas said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> > chakk said:
> ...


Cynic. :hi:


----------



## gmushial (Jul 26, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> gmushial said:
> 
> 
> > ... wish America would wake up and understand that our mega-billion dollar elections, inc., allow for only corporate sponsored candidates to run, resulting in the "representation" that we currently have - many many other democracies have long seen this failing and have banded political advertising / or severely limited it (the major cost item in elections), finding no loss in information flow to the electorate, but finding a vast improvement in the quality/representation of the candidates. ... climbing down off his soapbox.
> ...


Yes, being able to have a voice and realize that others are equally unhappy, is a step forward... but does nothing w/re the cost of getting elected (and the engendered deep pocket connections required to do such and the resulting servitude of "our" representatives). ... but, yes, one step at a time.


----------



## fulham (Jul 26, 2013)

I have another take on this...

Some experts believe that Amtrak's greatest expense is in maintaining the infrastructure of the NEC. What would it do to Amtrak's bottom line if they were not responsible for that actual upkeep of the corridor. They would continue to own it and operate it but would not have to pay to maintain it.

Who then were take on this expense. Simple, the mid-Atlantic and New England states the NEC serves. Mass/RI/CT/NY/NJ/PA/MD/DE and maybe even Virginia.

How would they pay for it? This is where it gets politically interesting. If it is fact true that the so called "blue-states" of which the NEC is located in pay out more in taxes than they receive in benefits, the Democratic reps in these states need to say, we want to keep more of our tax dollars here in our areas as oppossed to giving them to other parts of the country (ie the "red-states"...the Jeff Flake states). The NEC is a very crucial part of the economy in the northeast. If in fact these states are paying out more in taxes than they are receiving in benefits, they need to point this out to their Republican counterparts. If certain red states have some programs cut, they can simply raise there own taxes to make up the difference.

Without the expense of maintaining the NEC, it would be much easier to get a handle on Amtrak's actual finances, and determine if the LD trains are as much a drag on the system as some maintain.

This is a tough issue but one that needs to be had.


----------



## gmushial (Jul 26, 2013)

fulham said:


> I have another take on this...
> Some experts believe that Amtrak's greatest expense is in maintaining the infrastructure of the NEC. What would it do to Amtrak's bottom line if they were not responsible for that actual upkeep of the corridor. They would continue to own it and operate it but would not have to pay to maintain it.
> 
> Who then were take on this expense. Simple, the mid-Atlantic and New England states the NEC serves. Mass/RI/CT/NY/NJ/PA/MD/DE and maybe even Virginia.
> ...


Interesting and well thought out point of view.


----------



## Alexandria Nick (Jul 26, 2013)

gmushial said:


> JoeBas said:
> 
> 
> > cirdan said:
> ...


But at the same time, plenty of regular people are stockholders in those companies or their retirements depend on it. Why should their voice not carry weight just because they use a proxy mouthpiece?


----------



## ne52 (Jul 26, 2013)

JoeBas said:


> A northeastern Senator should bring a counter proposal, requiring the same of aircrafts, including subsidies for airports, ATC, etc.
> 
> I'm sure this amendment going after LD services has NOTHING to do with this...
> 
> ...


Well, you're probably not that far off base:

http://votesmart.org/candidate/campaign-finance/28128/jeff-flake#.UfMGfUDVBsk

My take on it was that it's coming from someone with zero professional experience outside of politics. Looking at his resume, it would seem that's also right.

The bill to require that pets be allowed to ride trains will make it farther than this trash.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 26, 2013)

"The Problem with Political Jokes is that too many get elected!" -- Will Rogers


----------



## D.P. Roberts (Jul 26, 2013)

I've got another suggestion for the Senator from Arizona: I think the US should stop subsidizing the state of Arizona. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state), Arizona collects $35.4 billion in federal taxes each year, but spends $48 billion, for a net loss of $12.6 billion per year, or $1976 per Arizona resident.

Here's my suggestion: let Arizona go free and become its own independent Republic. Pay for Amtrak's dining with the money the government would save by not supporting Arizona. Use the surplus to re-fund Amtrak properly. There would probably be enough left over to start building high-speed rail for the rest of the US.


----------



## gmushial (Jul 26, 2013)

Alexandria Nick said:


> gmushial said:
> 
> 
> > JoeBas said:
> ...


But why should they be awarded two or more votes - they already have a voice, ie, one vote like all other citizens... or, are you arguing that because they have retirement funds invested therefore they are super citizens? My recollections of the US Constitution awards a single vote per citizen, independent of status, or investments - no? ... sorry, but I suspect that _Citizens United v. FEC_ will prove to be the _Dred Scott v. Sanford_ of the 21st Century... and history will hold Chief Justice Roberts in approximately the same esteem and regard as Chief Justice Roger Taney of his era, ie, not very well or highly. [and if one bothers to read the actual text of the _Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific_ decision (118 US 394 (1886)) and not the clerk's synopsis - which is too often quoted - one will find that corporations are not citizens and as such do not enjoy the rights thereof.]


----------



## Anderson (Jul 27, 2013)

fulham said:


> I have another take on this...
> Some experts believe that Amtrak's greatest expense is in maintaining the infrastructure of the NEC. What would it do to Amtrak's bottom line if they were not responsible for that actual upkeep of the corridor. They would continue to own it and operate it but would not have to pay to maintain it.
> 
> Who then were take on this expense. Simple, the mid-Atlantic and New England states the NEC serves. Mass/RI/CT/NY/NJ/PA/MD/DE and maybe even Virginia.
> ...


Well, the rub here is that Amtrak isn't the only user of the NEC. Ignoring folks only operating on a mile or two of the NEC, you've got MARC, SEPTA, NJT, MNRR, SLE, and MBTA running commuter trains on the NEC. Add in the LIRR and VRE for "minor" operators (the LIRR only shares tracks in and around NYP; VRE only at WAS), and possibly the Cape Cod folks as well if that train is counted separately (since IIRC it departs from BOS). So either everyone would get to "ride for free" (not the worst idea in the world, frankly) or you'd need some mess of a cost-sharing agreement (good luck hashing _that_ out!). Of course, on top of that, CT owns the New Rochelle-New Haven segment of the line...


----------



## NW cannonball (Jul 27, 2013)

Perhaps the Senate could cut back on its own dining subsidies? http://radining.compass-usa.com/ussenate/Pages/Home.aspx


----------



## Anderson (Jul 27, 2013)

You know, I think you just hit on something slick for some pro-Amtrak folks to do: If it's allowed in the rules, move an amendment to these sorts of amendments to slash that stuff as a poison pill. Granted, it might be non-germane, but it would be some fun showboating.


----------



## Bus Nut (Jul 27, 2013)

Alexandria Nick said:


> But at the same time, plenty of regular people are stockholders in those companies or their retirements depend on it. Why should their voice not carry weight just because they use a proxy mouthpiece?


Recent history has shown that stockholder (ie pensioner) interests are not in any way aligned with those of the corporate boards.

Why do you think C-class fights so hard these days to prevent shareholders from voting at annual shareholder meetings?

Most of the 20% who own stocks own funds which are diversified and which engage in balancing, which means as industries die they gradually invest in other things. The main exceptions are those whose retirement was essentially purchasing discounted shares in their own employer's stock through a 401K.

PS: the US no longer holds the secular advantage it held among industrialized nations after WWII and simply does not exist in a vaccuum. As the car industry has proven, throwing up walls to protect moribund industries or failing to invest in R&D will only lead to an eventual punishment by countries which follow clear, well-managed, goal-oriented industrial policies. You can cry about the Chinese stealing your IP all you want. Our biggest exports are resources and agricultural, the latter industry we've already done massive amounts of harm to. Time will tell.


----------



## the_traveler (Jul 27, 2013)

Anderson said:


> fulham said:
> 
> 
> > I have another take on this...
> ...


You also have to add in the freight companies that operate on the NEC. Among them are the P&W, CSX, Conrail and I think NS. Plus you also must consider all the other Amtrak trains that use the NEC, including the SM/SS, Crescent, Cardinal, Keystones, Pennsylvanian, Vermonter and of course all the Regionals! And to a certain extent, the CL, LSL and all trains going thru upstate NY use parts of the NEC too!


----------



## Bus Nut (Jul 27, 2013)

NW cannonball said:


> Perhaps the Senate could cut back on its own dining subsidies? http://radining.compass-usa.com/ussenate/Pages/Home.aspx


I'm sure they'll get right on it after they freeze their salaries, institute energy savings plans in their offices, take away franking privileges, and start buying their health insurance through the Exchange.


----------



## Bus Nut (Jul 27, 2013)

D.P. Roberts said:


> I've got another suggestion for the Senator from Arizona: I think the US should stop subsidizing the state of Arizona. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state), Arizona collects $35.4 billion in federal taxes each year, but spends $48 billion, for a net loss of $12.6 billion per year, or $1976 per Arizona resident.


Most of that money over is probably Social Security payments but... anyway... here's my modest proposal: Okay, AZ, you can keep getting that 12B$ surplus that your residents are entitled to, but we're going to require that X amount of your transportation grants go to transit. You can use them on local transit or Amtrak. We suggest Amtrak to fund Ambuses around the state so more of your residents will have access to transportation that doesn't include unhealthy amounts of driving for distinguished ladies and gentlement of their age or a nauseating sojourn in a turboprop or small jet. Another portion could go to feasability studies to make SSL improvements. Since it's a busy freight corridor maybe you can bribe UP with grade crossing closures and suchlike.


----------



## gmushial (Jul 27, 2013)

Bus Nut said:


> Alexandria Nick said:
> 
> 
> > But at the same time, plenty of regular people are stockholders in those companies or their retirements depend on it. Why should their voice not carry weight just because they use a proxy mouthpiece?
> ...


99% agree... the only disagreement I'd offer is: those that own the stock, own the company, ie, the funds which own 70-90% of the shares of the SPX companies, typically have multiple positions on the board - so, by definition they are coincident in their views/goals... the biggest problem is the quarter to quarter earnings goals of the funds, vs, the longer term view, eg, Buffet et al... but again, some of that is forced in that a fund that underperforms for a couple quarters (even if with a longer term view), will be downrated by Morningstar etc, and funds will flow out - and where compensation is percentage of on balance funds + gains, that aversely affects the pay of the managers, hence they become q-to-q oriented. That is also why I manage our portfolio one position at a time, and would like to think that's why we've done so much better than matching the market/SPX etc.


----------



## the_traveler (Jul 27, 2013)

Bus Nut said:


> D.P. Roberts said:
> 
> 
> > I've got another suggestion for the Senator from Arizona: I think the US should stop subsidizing the state of Arizona. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state), Arizona collects $35.4 billion in federal taxes each year, but spends $48 billion, for a net loss of $12.6 billion per year, or $1976 per Arizona resident.
> ...


But remember that according to AZ Senator John McCain, "Amtrak doesn't serve Arizona"! So why should AZ "waste" money on Amtrak or Ambuses? :huh:


----------



## gmushial (Jul 27, 2013)

the_traveler said:


> Bus Nut said:
> 
> 
> > D.P. Roberts said:
> ...


And as a corollary: AZ doesn't (really) serve the rest of the country (actually kind of an embarrassment and a net financial liability), then why should the rest of the country serve AZ?


----------



## Palmland (Jul 27, 2013)

I did not read in the amendment that it would do away with dining and first class services, rather it said that it would stop subsidy of any losses associated with these services. While this may have the same result, I think the difference is worth noting. So, I wonder if this is an attempt to do away with those service provided by Amtrak and open the door for some private entity (Iowa Pacific's Pullman subsidiary perhaps) to charge whatever was necessary to make those services at least break even.

Regardless of the intent, I wrote Mr. Flake and said congress has no business micro managing Amtrak. When the government is involved it often makes things worse (ie. diner lite/CCC initiative). Rather, congress should look at a long term solution for Amtrak including funding and a more effective management/labor force. Since we have in-laws in Arizona I thought I could claim some vested interest in what that state's representatives do.


----------



## the_traveler (Jul 27, 2013)

While other companies may (if they chose - but no one seems to be in line) want to operate the Dining Car services, are you willing to pay $30 for breakfast or $80 for dinner? :huh: After all, they must cover their expenses (food, supplies, rent, employees, benefits, etc...) and still make a profit! And if not enough passengers purchase that $30 breakfast, they may have to raise the price to $40!


----------



## gmushial (Jul 27, 2013)

Palmland said:


> I did not read in the amendment that it would do away with dining and first class services, rather it said that it would stop subsidy of any losses associated with these services. While this may have the same result, I think the difference is worth noting. So, I wonder if this is an attempt to do away with those service provided by Amtrak and open the door for some private entity (Iowa Pacific's Pullman subsidiary perhaps) to charge whatever was necessary to make those services at least break even.
> Regardless of the intent, I wrote Mr. Flake and said congress has no business micro managing Amtrak. When the government is involved it often makes things worse (ie. diner lite/CCC initiative). Rather, congress should look at a long term solution for Amtrak including funding and a more effective management/labor force. Since we have in-laws in Arizona I thought I could claim some vested interest in what that state's representatives do.


Or, said differently: sometimes business will lose money providing one service in exchange for making even more on another associated service... it's the net at the bottom line that counts. It's pure political correctness to go after the food "subsidy" - got to keep those tea baggies happy - when doing such might just worsen the bottom line, ie, as you said: Congress has no business interfering. [A corollary: our company does not charge for tech support - and in fact providing it for free is quite expensive - but on the otherhand, we know and have heard that quite a few of our customers spend more in products as a result - because they know they'll be supported, and their initial outlay is all they'll be asked to put out; and likewise, they don't like being asked to pay for tech support with the competition.... sometimes one loses a little here, to make quite a bit more there.]


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 27, 2013)

the_traveler said:


> While other companies may (if they chose - but no one seems to be in line) want to operate the Dining Car services, are you willing to pay $30 for breakfast or $80 for dinner? :huh: After all, they must cover their expenses (food, supplies, rent, employees, benefits, etc...) and still make a profit! And if not enough passengers purchase that $30 breakfast, they may have to raise the price to $40!


Sounds like New York City to me!


----------



## dlagrua (Jul 28, 2013)

the_traveler said:


> While other companies may (if they chose - but no one seems to be in line) want to operate the Dining Car services, are you willing to pay $30 for breakfast or $80 for dinner? :huh: After all, they must cover their expenses (food, supplies, rent, employees, benefits, etc...) and still make a profit! And if not enough passengers purchase that $30 breakfast, they may have to raise the price to $40!


Back in the 1940's The Fred Harvey Company ran the diners on a few trains going West.. I believe that the Santa Fe Super Chief and the Californian offered Harvey service but the service was heavily subsidized by the railroad company. From what I read in the history books, dining cars on every railroad,( even during the Golden Years) never made any money. Snack cars, café cars and dining cars today cannot make money. As a accommodation, primarily for the sleeping car passengers, they are necessary. If you remove the dining service, you effectively shut down all the long distance routes.

What I do not understand is why anyone in Washington would want to harm a public service that does so much good and only accounts for 3% of the transportation budget.


----------



## gmushial (Jul 28, 2013)

dlagrua said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> > While other companies may (if they chose - but no one seems to be in line) want to operate the Dining Car services, are you willing to pay $30 for breakfast or $80 for dinner? :huh: After all, they must cover their expenses (food, supplies, rent, employees, benefits, etc...) and still make a profit! And if not enough passengers purchase that $30 breakfast, they may have to raise the price to $40!
> ...


1) political expediency,

2) ignorance,

3) has head where sun doesn't shine.

BTW if one is interested: there two books specifically about The Fred Harvey Company and its history in association with the railroads:

_ The Southwestern Indian detours : the story of the Fred Harvey/Santa Fe Railway experiment in detourism _

ISBN 9780918126115

_ Appetite for America: How Visionary Businessman Fred Harvey Built a Railroad Hospitality Empire That Civilized the Wild West_

 ISBN 9780553804379

and two about the "Harvey Girls" the company employed

_ The Harvey Girls: The Women Who Civilized the West_

ISBN 9780802783028

_ The Harvey Girls: Women Who Opened the West_

ISBN 9781557784612


----------



## Paulus (Jul 28, 2013)

dlagrua said:


> From what I read in the history books, dining cars on every railroad,( even during the Golden Years) never made any money. Snack cars, café cars and dining cars today cannot make money. As a accommodation, primarily for the sleeping car passengers, they are necessary. If you remove the dining service, you effectively shut down all the long distance routes.


You shut down the sleepers, but the sleepers are not the long distance train and coach does perfectly well with a cafe car, as the Palmetto demonstrates. Kill the full diners and the sleepers, and you start losing a lot less money.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 28, 2013)

People that ride in coach use the diners, too.

Also, nearly every LD run is longer than the 15 hour daytime run of the Pamletto.

Using that as a model for the rest of the system is woefully shortsighted. You should run for Senate, sounds like you'd fit in nicely.


----------



## tonys96 (Jul 28, 2013)

I guess I still have a problem figuring.out how sleepers lose money. My upcoming trip is $424 for coach. Adding a roomette is $1113 more. Meals would cost me (if I ate in the diner) about 50 a day, so say 150 total. That is still about 975 dollars extra fare for the roomette.......multiply by 14 per car + say, conservatively 100 extra fare for 5 bedrooms = 18,000 extra fare not counting family and H bedrooms.........Does it cost Amtrak more than 18,000 to add a sleeper to a consist?

(Assumes full house, that is why I left out the Family and H rooms, to reflect possibly two rooms vacant, which on CS and EB are a bit rare here lately)

Where is my thought process off the rails? (pun intended)


----------



## Nathanaelh (Jul 28, 2013)

dlagrua said:


> Back in the 1940's The Fred Harvey Company ran the diners on a few trains going West.. I believe that the Santa Fe Super Chief and the Californian offered Harvey service but the service was heavily subsidized by the railroad company. From what I read in the history books, dining cars on every railroad,( even during the Golden Years) never made any money.


History lesson follows.

Originally, long-distance trains *stopped for meals*. Everyone got off the train and it sat still for an hour while people got their meal at the Fred Harvey (or other) restaurant. (In practice this currently actually happens for the eastbound Lake Shore Limited at Albany, but not really for any other train.)

Obviously, this slows the train down. Therefore the dining car was invented. The dining cars lost money on food service from day one, but they allowed the train to *run faster*, because it no longer had to stop for an hour for breakfast, an hour for lunch, and an hour for dinner. The amount of money saved by running the train faster, combined with the added revenue from higher prices which could be charged for faster running, paid for the dining car.

The economics are exactly the same today.

Perhaps Amtrak should figure out how to estimate the cost of running each of the trains on a schedule several hours slower (I believe it would be six hours slower for the California Zephyr), and should credit that much money from ticket revenue to the diner. The trouble is that you're just guessing how much revenue you'd lose by making meal stops. A lot of revenue, definitely.


----------



## Nathanael (Jul 28, 2013)

Paulus said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > From what I read in the history books, dining cars on every railroad,( even during the Golden Years) never made any money. Snack cars, café cars and dining cars today cannot make money. As a accommodation, primarily for the sleeping car passengers, they are necessary. If you remove the dining service, you effectively shut down all the long distance routes.
> ...


Try it and you'd lose a *lot* more money. Both the sleepers and the diners add to Amtrak's bottom line -- there's a reason why Amtrak is buying more sleepers and new diners *out of operating profits*; they'll pay for themselves. The diners are necessary for ridership on the long runs, and the sleepers are simply profitable (if you can sell the berths, adding a sleeper to a train increases the train's net profit).

It may be hard to see the sleeper profits due to the fact that Amtrak doesn't publish avoidable costs. And the diner economics are pretty hard to pin down in numbers without doing stupid experiments. The best way to prove that diner economics still work the way they always have, would be to reschedule the Lake Shore Limited to start serving dinner eastbound, eliminate the hour-long stop at Albany, and watch revenues increase.

Now, you want to get rid of diners? *Make the trains so fast that you don't need diners*. If a train is only running across one mealtime, it'll do fine with a cafe. If it's running across three, many people demand a diner. If it's running across *no* mealtimes, you don't need food service. I've said this before: the key is *always* making the trains run faster. Always always always. It lowers staffing costs and increases ticket revenues, simultaneously.


----------



## gmushial (Jul 28, 2013)

Nathanaelh said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > Back in the 1940's The Fred Harvey Company ran the diners on a few trains going West.. I believe that the Santa Fe Super Chief and the Californian offered Harvey service but the service was heavily subsidized by the railroad company. From what I read in the history books, dining cars on every railroad,( even during the Golden Years) never made any money.
> ...


I'm wondering if this was entirely dead-time, ie, wasn't at least part of that time used to replenish water, reload the tender and do minor servicing of the engine, trucks/bearings etc?


----------



## Rail Freak (Jul 28, 2013)

Ryan said:


> People that ride in coach use the diners, too.
> Also, nearly every LD run is longer than the 15 hour daytime run of the Pamletto.
> 
> Using that as a model for the rest of the system is woefully shortsighted. You should run for Senate, sounds like you'd fit in nicely.


Beautifully said!!!!


----------



## Nathanael (Jul 28, 2013)

Anderson said:


> Well, the rub here is that Amtrak isn't the only user of the NEC. Ignoring folks only operating on a mile or two of the NEC, you've got MARC, SEPTA, NJT, MNRR, SLE, and MBTA running commuter trains on the NEC. Add in the LIRR and VRE for "minor" operators (the LIRR only shares tracks in and around NYP; VRE only at WAS), and possibly the Cape Cod folks as well if that train is counted separately (since IIRC it departs from BOS). So either everyone would get to "ride for free" (not the worst idea in the world, frankly) or you'd need some mess of a cost-sharing agreement (good luck hashing _that_ out!). Of course, on top of that, CT owns the New Rochelle-New Haven segment of the line...


By all accounts the cost-sharing agreements for the NEC are already extremely complicated and acrimonious! Even negotiations just between NY and NJ, trying to get a single project done ("Access to the Region's Core", originally) have broken down repeatedly. The real problem is that the state borders don't make sense but I don't think that will be fixed in my lifetime.


----------



## Nathanael (Jul 28, 2013)

gmushial said:


> I'm wondering if this was entirely dead-time, ie, wasn't at least part of that time used to replenish water, reload the tender and do minor servicing of the engine, trucks/bearings etc?


Well, obviously, if you already had to stop, you did your best to do the other things which you had to stop for at the same time. But none of that other stuff took an hour. The meal did.

I believe there were a few attempts made to run long-distance trains without diners or meal stops. *Very* unpopular.


----------



## Nathanael (Jul 28, 2013)

Now, there are out-of-the-box ideas which might work in the future, which wouldn't have worked then.

One is this:

Have all the passengers who want sit-down meals order their food in advance, from their seats. Electronically transmit the orders to a restaurant located at an upcoming station. Pick up the food there, then serve it on the train.

There are several problems with this -- one of which is the multiple seatings and the problem of keeping the food hot while people are "waiting their turn". But the one which makes it completely untenable at the moment is the inability of the Class Is (and to be fair the Class IIs and Class IIIs and commuter railroads) to run the Amtrak trains on time. If this core problem of trains not running on schedule could be addressed, this might allow for the elimination of on-board cooking, which is the really problematic part of on-board train service. Heck, it might allow for food service all day long, with a contract with a restaurant at every station. But it won't work as long as the trains can't keep to schedule.


----------



## Paulus (Jul 28, 2013)

Ryan said:


> People that ride in coach use the diners, too.


Yes, and? They're perfectly happy with cafe cars as well, so why not get rid of the sleepers and the diners and simply go to those?



> Also, nearly every LD run is longer than the 15 hour daytime run of the Pamletto.
> Using that as a model for the rest of the system is woefully shortsighted. You should run for Senate, sounds like you'd fit in nicely.


Compare the average trip distances, not the total run length.



Nathanael said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > dlagrua said:
> ...


Amtrak has been criticized by the OIG, quite accurately, for not actually studying fleet needs and it's been a recurrent theme for luxury train equipment to be purchased simply because it is the done thing without regard as to whether it is the appropriate thing to do (such as the massive purchases of luxury trains post-WWII when basic studies would've clearly shown, and later did show, that only the short distance routes even had the potential to be profitable).


----------



## Ryan (Jul 28, 2013)

Paulus said:


> Yes, and? They're perfectly happy with cafe cars as well


Citation desperately needed here. I'm not sure where this fallacy that the dining car is the exclusive realm of the sleeper passenger and the cafe care is the exclusive realm of the coach passenger, but it's false.



> Compare the average trip distances, not the total run length.


Because people don't ride the train from end to end? False. At least until this harebrained scheme is implemented, then it'll be true. And average trip length will be way down (along with ridership and revenue, but hey who cares, right?).


Paulus said:


> Amtrak has been criticized by the OIG, quite accurately, for not actually studying fleet needs and it's been a recurrent theme for luxury train equipment to be purchased simply because it is the done thing without regard as to whether it is the appropriate thing to do


You must have missed the 3 years running fleet strategy plans that do exactly that. Since when are sleepers and diners "luxury train equipment"?
You should run for Senate, sounds like you'd fit in nicely.


----------



## gmushial (Jul 28, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> gmushial said:
> 
> 
> > I'm wondering if this was entirely dead-time, ie, wasn't at least part of that time used to replenish water, reload the tender and do minor servicing of the engine, trucks/bearings etc?
> ...


What I was thinking was more along the lines of chicken or egg question: if one has to resupply the loco anyway, then might as well call it a meal break [thinking w/re steam era]. And yes, taking on water and coal doesn't take an hour, but likewise, probably a meal break doesn't either... but if one has it stopped, then one can plan/schedule bearing lubes etc... just part of getting a train from a to b.... but either way, would reduce that tasks on the train and a railside meal would always be better than a train-board one. I guess the other model is the one one sees in India - where 45 mins before a meal orders are taken, (then) telegraphed ahead, prepared, and when the train gets 45 minutes down the route all the cooked meals are brought on board - works amazingly well.


----------



## jebr (Jul 28, 2013)

Sleepers require less subsidy per passenger than a coach passenger does on a per-mile basis. Thus, whatever extra services a sleeper requires are more than paid for by the increased fare.

Plus, I would not be terribly pleased if Amtrak went to cafe-only on LD runs. It'd be okay on shorter runs, but even on a full day trip with three meals, I much prefer diner food when I can have it/afford it. (I'll usually eat in the diner for breakfast and lunch and get something from the cafe car for dinner.) Take that away, and the only difference between Amtrak and bus service is the extra legroom in coach and the worse OTP, at least in the West. (There's also the sightseer lounge on the top floor of the cafe, but if we're trying to cut costs, I'd imagine that'd be converted to revenue coach space instead of non-revenue space.)

Yes, Amtrak should find savings where it can. But at the same time, let's make sure that we're not cutting things that will over-adversely impact passengers for the money that's "being saved" and, ultimately, its usefulness as a transportation mode.


----------



## jebr (Jul 28, 2013)

gmushial said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> > gmushial said:
> ...


On the flip side, having scheduled meal breaks results in a couple of downfalls:

1. What if a train is a fair amount late? For example, if the EB was mostly on-time, MSP would be a decent place to have breakfast, but when it may not arrive until 9, 10, or even later, it suddenly becomes unacceptable. Right now Amtrak is nowhere near close enough to on-time to have dedicated restaurants/seating areas for specific meals, or even to arrange for a caterer to take meal orders and serve the meals on the train.

2. Even if trains were always on-time, you'd probably have to have the meals ordered on-board and cooked in such a fashion so that they're fresh but ready-to-eat when the train arrives at the station. You're then still restricting the time that a person can eat without having to move back on the train to eat at their seat or berth.

3. It eliminates different preferences for meal times. This is somewhat of a moot point for dinner (reservations are required,) but for breakfast especially this is a consideration. People wake up at different times, and while some people want to eat right away at 6 - 6:30am, some may not wake up until 8 or so and want to eat then. That flexibility is lost with off-train meal times.


----------



## Paulus (Jul 28, 2013)

Ryan said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, and? They're perfectly happy with cafe cars as well
> ...


Are passengers desperately unhappy with the Palmetto's food service?



> > Compare the average trip distances, not the total run length.
> 
> 
> Because people don't ride the train from end to end? False. At least until this harebrained scheme is implemented, then it'll be true. And average trip length will be way down (along with ridership and revenue, but hey who cares, right?).


Oh please. With the exception of the Southwest Chief, all long distance routes with information available are in the realm of 400-600 miles. Most are 400-500. The SWC is probably affected by long distances between anything like major origin destination locales; their average coach lengths are longer than the average sleeper lengths on the Crescent, LSL, and CONO. The lower fares, half the price per mile of the Palmetto, probably don't hurt either.

Average Coach Passenger Miles

City of NO 425

Coast Starlight 445

Palmetto 450

Lake Shore Ltd 483

Silver Star 499

Crescent 526

Empire Builder 574

Silver Meteor 575

Southwest Chief 798



> > Amtrak has been criticized by the OIG, quite accurately, for not actually studying fleet needs and it's been a recurrent theme for luxury train equipment to be purchased simply because it is the done thing without regard as to whether it is the appropriate thing to do
> 
> 
> You must have missed the 3 years running fleet strategy plans that do exactly that. Since when are sleepers and diners "luxury train equipment"?


The fleet strategy plans are not an actual study. And sleepers and diners have always been luxury train equipment.



> You should run for Senate, sounds like you'd fit in nicely.


Would be hilarious, but not realistic I'm afraid.


----------



## jebr (Jul 28, 2013)

Paulus said:


> > > Compare the average trip distances, not the total run length.
> >
> >
> > Because people don't ride the train from end to end? False. At least until this harebrained scheme is implemented, then it'll be true. And average trip length will be way down (along with ridership and revenue, but hey who cares, right?).
> ...


Which means half of passengers go further than that on a train.* It also ignores connections people may be making which require the use of multiple trains, but not having enough time between trains to have a sit-down meal. That also ignores sleeper passengers, which likely have longer trips overall and some of which would still take coach on those longer trips if sleeper service was eliminated.

*Assuming either a bell-shaped or even distribution of passenger trip-miles. Median would be more useful here, but not sure if that's available.


----------



## Paulus (Jul 28, 2013)

jebr said:


> Which means half of passengers go further than that on a train.* It also ignores connections people may be making which require the use of multiple trains, but not having enough time between trains to have a sit-down meal.
> *Assuming either a bell-shaped or even distribution of passenger trip-miles. Median would be more useful here, but not sure if that's available.


It also means that if it is perfectly acceptable on the Palmetto, it's perfectly acceptable on similar trains such as the Starlight or CONO.


----------



## gmushial (Jul 28, 2013)

jebr said:


> gmushial said:
> 
> 
> > Nathanael said:
> ...


All cogent points.


----------



## jebr (Jul 28, 2013)

Paulus said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> > Which means half of passengers go further than that on a train.* It also ignores connections people may be making which require the use of multiple trains, but not having enough time between trains to have a sit-down meal.
> ...


The Palmetto runs a single-day, no overnight operation, so the absolute longest trip one could take is 829 miles. Almost every station served by the Palmetto also has at least one other train with full diner service on it for customers that want that, so Amtrak can still keep those customers if a customer really wants a train with diner service. There's no similar service for the CONO or the Starlight, so Amtrak would lose those passengers, however many those may be.

The Palmetto also has no sleeper service, which means most customers are coach passengers already, inflating the average mileage there compared to coach-only passengers on the CONO or the Starlight. Both of them run an overnight, which makes sleeper berths an attractive option for longer trips, but the coach-only mileage won't reflect those passengers and their distance traveled. (And yes, even if we eliminated sleeper service, some of those longer passengers would transfer to coach service, thus increasing the average mileage.)


----------



## jis (Jul 28, 2013)

I think the issue of Diner service on trains is a complicated one. It sure would be nice to be able to continue it.

Back in the 80's there was an attempt to put an end to them during the Stockman inspired raid on Amtrak. Before that Food charges were not included in the Sleeper tickets, and not enough Sleeper passengers were using Diners to make it worthwhile. The solution then for increasing Diner revenues was to include Food in the Sleeper fares, thus effectively increasing the revenues that could be booked against Diner service, in that as soon as a Sleeper ticket was sold a certain amount of revenue went to the Diner irrespective of whether the service was used or not. I have no idea whether it was implemented that way or not. Only Slumbercoaches were not included in this save the Diners fare scheme.

Looks like we have come full circle back to the same discussion again.

BTW, Amtrak has given an estimate of what percentage of passengers they expect to lose if Dining/Food service is discontinued. To quote the NARP article on this matter:



> Amtrak estimates that elimination of food service would reduce ridership by 4.5%, cut ticket revenue by 9.9%, and increase the size of its required operating grant—even before considering labor protection costs associated with mass lay-offs.


So clearly even Amtrak does not believe that all its passengers will disappear, OTOH it also believes that the hit will be substantial, more so on revenue than ridership, which is natural since presumably more longer distance riders will be lost.


----------



## benjibear (Jul 28, 2013)

I don't think you can get rid of food service. However, what is Amtrak doing to improve food service and possibly reduce cost/increase revenue. I read about Amtrak chef's and culinary advisors. I think the keep it simple approach should be used.

For café food, a friend that was just on a train made a comment it was like eating out of a vending machine. There has to be improvements that can be made with the café cars to increase the amount of people that want to use them.


----------



## jebr (Jul 28, 2013)

benjibear said:


> For café food, a friend that was just on a train made a comment it was like eating out of a vending machine. There has to be improvements that can be made with the café cars to increase the amount of people that want to use them.


That may be because it's essentially vending machine food in the cafe, just heated up a bit better (sometimes.)

I've always thought the cafe car would be better served by being contracted out to another company or becoming a franchise of sorts for another company. Starbucks seems to be the most likely (they do have some sandwiches and such,) but I've been to the Target cafes and they would seem to be a decent option if you limit the options somewhat (for example, no popcorn or slushies.) Heck, even Kwik Trip has better food, and they're just a convenience store.

The problem is always space, though, but keeping it simple would help that quite a bit...less items means that the remaining space can be used more efficiently (or even have storage elsewhere and just restock each night.)


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jul 28, 2013)

Since I live in Jacksonville, FL, I most often use the Silver trains. If Dining Car service were eliminated, I doubt I would use Amtrak. Since most of my trips are long distance via Sleeping car, I expect dining service. I have traveled by passenger train for many year and some sort of Dining service has always been part of the trip. If traveling by plane, meal service is not as important because the trip are not that long unless traveling over seas. If Dining service goes, long distance service will go.


----------



## TVRM610 (Jul 28, 2013)

Dining cars are not necessary for Long Distance trains. There are other options.

Meals can be served in room, catered by outside sources. For those that say "that won't work" look at the Empire Builder Portland Section.. it serves Dinner on the East bound, and Breakfast on the West bound. Both meals are catered from 2 different sources. You know what.. it works! For those of you that say "it won't be good quality" I've read multiple reports on this site that say the best meal they have been served on Amtrak is the catered dinner on the Empire Builder. This is a real legitimate option.

I feel like the dining cars should be kept on select routes... but if Amtrak would get out of the mindset that Dining Cars are necessary for sleepers, and that sleepers are necessary for over night trains... then I think we could have more service and a more profitable railroad. If the Palmetto was extended to Miami... people would still ride it. I wish we could have overnight coach trains in addition to the sleeper trains.


----------



## amamba (Jul 28, 2013)

Sleepers are necessary for overnight trains for me. As are dining cars.


----------



## jebr (Jul 28, 2013)

TVRM610 said:


> Dining cars are not necessary for Long Distance trains. There are other options.
> Meals can be served in room, catered by outside sources. For those that say "that won't work" look at the Empire Builder Portland Section.. it serves Dinner on the East bound, and Breakfast on the West bound. Both meals are catered from 2 different sources. You know what.. it works! For those of you that say "it won't be good quality" I've read multiple reports on this site that say the best meal they have been served on Amtrak is the catered dinner on the Empire Builder. This is a real legitimate option.



What do they serve for breakfast on the Portland section?

My biggest concern with that is that, if we're catering, diner/sleeper car food will consist almost entirely of cold food options. If the trains ran on-time (like they should,) warm catering could work, but not when trains (especially the Empire Builder) run late, especially in intermediate points. If we're reheating food, then we're back to having staff to at least reheat food, and then why not just have a diner?

I'm not sold most passengers will like having only cold food options or convenience-store level hot food items on journeys of longer than a few hours.



TVRM610 said:


> I feel like the dining cars should be kept on select routes... but if Amtrak would get out of the mindset that Dining Cars are necessary for sleepers, and that sleepers are necessary for over night trains... then I think we could have more service and a more profitable railroad. If the Palmetto was extended to Miami... people would still ride it. I wish we could have overnight coach trains in addition to the sleeper trains.



Sleepers, last I remember hearing, require less subsidy per passenger mile than a coach passenger. People will still be able to ride coach overnight, but unless there's an equipment shortage of just sleepers and that's the only reason Amtrak isn't extending a service, sleepers should at least be an option. (If we're subsidizing them significantly more than we are coach passengers, then we should re-evaluate it, but right now that isn't the case.)

EDIT: Source for subsidy difference


----------



## cirdan (Jul 29, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> At least with the rise of the open Internet, we have soapboxes (like this one!). In the Age of TV and Radio, we didn't, and advertising was completely dominant over, well, real information.
> 
> This is probably why so many companies are so hostile to "net neutrality", the idea that we should be able to get to whatever website we want at the same speed.


Back in the day we had some decent newspapers that were put together by seasoned and undaunted journalists who still earned that job title. They asked critical questions and sought to cut through the smoke and mirrors. Of course not everybody had a soapbox, but some pretty intelligent people had a good soapbox. The erosion of print media and the move from user-payed media to advertising-payed media means that everything is done as cheaply as possible and good journalism is ancient history.


----------



## cirdan (Jul 29, 2013)

ne52 said:


> JoeBas said:
> 
> 
> > A northeastern Senator should bring a counter proposal, requiring the same of aircrafts, including subsidies for airports, ATC, etc.
> ...


I don't think the major airlines have an axe to grind with Amtrak. Even if Amtrak disappeared tomorrow, the extra passengers the airlines would see (other than the NEC) would hardly be noticeable.


----------



## dlagrua (Jul 29, 2013)

Almost all of the sleeper passengers use the dining car. On the Autotrain, everyone on the entire train uses the dining cars. If you pull the dining cars I would estimate that fare revenues would be substantially reduced. Many travelers, including ourselves, would stop traveling long distance and really now how much money will be saved? Will it have a noticeable effect on reducing the deficit? In the grand scheme of things we are talking about chump change.


----------



## jis (Jul 29, 2013)

cirdan said:


> I don't think the major airlines have an axe to grind with Amtrak. Even if Amtrak disappeared tomorrow, the extra passengers the airlines would see (other than the NEC) would hardly be noticeable.


I agree. I don't think airlines worry too much about how many passengers Amtrak carries on its LD network too much. This will affect LD service disproportionately. Furthermore, I don't think it will affect Corridor service as much, specially on corridors like the NEC. It will affect some. It will affect longer distance corridor passengers more than shorter distance ones. Perhaps they will have to compensate by extending stops at New York and Washington DC allowing through passengers to go up into the station to purchase food.
But on the whole this is a bad idea and should be opposed every which way one can.

Have you talked to the office of your Senators yet? If not, I suggest you make the time and do so.


----------



## tonys96 (Jul 29, 2013)

Paulus said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> > Which means half of passengers go further than that on a train.* It also ignores connections people may be making which require the use of multiple trains, but not having enough time between trains to have a sit-down meal.
> ...


Who says it is "perfectly acceptable?" Just because that is the way it is, does not mean that there are not pax who would like a diner, does it? Or have you asked every passenger if they would make use of a diner or diner lite?

You keep tossing the Palmetto out as the best way to operate....since it is an all coach train, and there are higher subsidies for coach pax, I would say it is the worst example. How you figure it to be the best example is beyond my pay grade.


----------



## jis (Jul 29, 2013)

tonys96 said:


> You keep tossing the Palmetto out as the best way to operate....since it is an all coach train, and there are higher subsidies for coach pax, I would say it is the worst example. How you figure it to be the best example is beyond my pay grade.


The reason he brings it up is because it is one of the better financial performers among the LD trains.
Having lower subsidy per Sleeper passenger does not do a heck of a lot of good if proportionately they are a small minority of the total number of passengers on a train. That whole computation also depends on how the cost of the seemingly mostly sleeper specific additional costs like the cost of a Diner is allocated. That might be the point that Paulus is making, though I do not completely agree with that approach at all myself.


----------



## Paulus (Jul 29, 2013)

tonys96 said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > jebr said:
> ...


The Palmetto is the best performing long distance train and the apparent costs for diner and sleeper are significant. If coach really had higher subsidies, the Palmetto would be the worst performing. And quite frankly, it's fairly obvious that a diner is going to be significantly more expensive to run. Amtrak's single greatest expenses is wages and while a cafe car requires only a single person, diners employ 3-4. Unless you are tripling or quadrupling F&B revenue, which is terribly unlikely, there is no call for them unless you can prove that they make up for it with increased ticket revenue, something doubtful given that sleepers were already patronized prior to getting free meals in the diner. To quote myself from somewhere else:



> Sleepers and diners add immensely to the cost of a train. It's no surprise that the all-coach Palmetto is the cheapest train in the entire long distance train network, by a significant fraction. Comparing it to the Silver Meteor, a coach seat-mile costs $0.164 while the cost for a sleeper appears to be $0.394 per mile (2.4 times the expense of the coach). This does attribute all diner costs to the sleeper.
> Meanwhile, fares are ridiculously low on the long distance trains. The Palmetto, despite a lack of sleepers, is tied for highest revenue per passenger mile with the Crescent (ignoring the Auto Train which has significant extra revenue from hauling the automobiles). Average fares on the long distance trains can range down as low as 11¢ per passenger mile for coach and sleepers generally bounce around the 20s.


Of course, even NARP acknowledges that sleepers are significantly more expensive than coach on the Silver Service.


----------



## jebr (Jul 29, 2013)

Paulus said:


> tonys96 said:
> 
> 
> > Paulus said:
> ...


Could part of it also be that it's a lot cheaper labor-wise to run a train during the day than overnight? I'm not sure how it works for labor, but for an overnight train I'd imagine union rules require a dorm on the train for the night, which has a completely sunk cost (unless you sell a couple of the rooms in the dorm to customers.)

Plus, sleeper passengers do require less subsidy than coach passengers.


----------



## fillyjonk (Jul 29, 2013)

amamba said:


> Sleepers are necessary for overnight trains for me. As are dining cars.


I'd grudgingly eat lounge-car food or box meals, but if the sleepers go, I'd stop using Amtrak also.

I'm too much of a misanthrope to be happy being crammed in an overnight coach any more. (And I've had a few bad experiences with people with NO concept of personal space or leaving their seatmate alone....)


----------



## tonys96 (Jul 29, 2013)

Comparing overnight routes to Palmetto is a fake comparison. Like comparing oranges to tricycles.


----------



## TVRM610 (Jul 29, 2013)

The crews could change at savannah if the Palmetto was extended. The Carolinian switches car attendants and LSA at Raleigh.. So this process could work on other trains too.


----------



## Cooley47 (Jul 29, 2013)

This can't even be legal, can it?


----------



## Paulus (Jul 29, 2013)

Cooley47 said:


> This can't even be legal, can it?


I'm fairly sure that Congress is allowed to set the law generally how they please and "The rights of the sleeper passenger to subsidized fares shall not be infringed" appears nowhere in the Constitution.


----------



## amamba (Jul 29, 2013)

Paulus said:


> Cooley47 said:
> 
> 
> > This can't even be legal, can it?
> ...


Can you explain to me how you are calculating that sleeper pax are receiving subsidized fares?


----------



## jis (Jul 29, 2013)

This from NARP, just FYI....



> We are hearing through backchannels that some Democrats may be leaning toward supporting the Flake amendment to the Senate Transportation-HUD appropriations bill. This amendment would bar the use of funds to subsidize Amtrak food and beverage service.
> These Senators may be leaning wrong on this amendment because they face reelection or have not heard from their constituents about it. I’m including a list of critical talking points. Please reach out and contact your Senator to let them know you oppose this amendment—especially if they’re a Republican or on this list. (I’ve underlined the Senators who are up for reelection in 2014).
> 
> Begich Mark (D-AK)
> ...


----------



## Cooley47 (Jul 29, 2013)

Paulus said:


> Cooley47 said:
> 
> 
> > This can't even be legal, can it?
> ...


I would think failing to provide proper amenities to passengers would be illegal in some form. Do they plan on allowing people to bring along three days worth of food for entire families, along with the families luggage? Depending on the trips? Might as well toss out the bathrooms too.


----------



## ATXEagle (Jul 29, 2013)

I really don't think the legislative supporters of this or similar legislation care one way or the other if Amtrak (especially long distance trains) survives. I think they would be just as happy for America's Railroad to go out of business as a national carrier and to allow the NEC and other corrider operations to continue on in some new form. I wholly disagree with this philosophy, and think that America needs to invest far more in our national railroad network. Unfortunately, those who attack Amtrak are adept at packaging their criticisms and micromanagement in ways that seem reasonable until one considers the issue more carefully. If one compares the vast subsidies the airline industry enjoys with that given to Amtrak it becomes clear that the attacks on Amtrak are out of all proportion to its actual chunk of the federal budget. (I think it really has more to do with the concept of Amtrak being in some way "government-owned." This is the same mindset that leads some folks to oppose PBS, NPR, the Postal Service, Medicare, Medicaid, public schools, etc. It's not always about the actual dollar figures, but about one's views regarding government. I disagree with this viewpoint, but I think it's the motivating factor here.) NARP constantly encourages us to contact our senators with input, but living in Texas that would mean expecting Mr. Cruz and Mr. Cornyn to miraculously decide to start supporting Amtrak. I know that's not going to happen.

I would be quite willing to try various means of food service on board. But if it becomes necessary to pack food for a long distance trip, or to eat only the current cafe car options while enroute, I'll have to give up long distance travel on Amtrak. (And if the sleepers were to go, there's no way I'd be onboard overnight.)


----------



## Cooley47 (Jul 29, 2013)

Just sent Mark Warner an email. We'll see if I ever get something back or not. Will post the response here if he does.


----------



## chakk (Jul 29, 2013)

jebr said:


> (There's also the sightseer lounge on the top floor of the cafe, but if we're trying to cut costs, I'd imagine that'd be converted to revenue coach space instead of non-revenue space.)


An interesting concept. If Amtrak converted the Superliner Sightseering Lounge Cars to coach seating and charged extra fare for them, would enough passengers choose that option when ticketing to make it worth the cost of conversion?

How much of a percentage increase in price over regular coach would be practical/feasible?


----------



## tonys96 (Jul 29, 2013)

Paulus said:


> Cooley47 said:
> 
> 
> > This can't even be legal, can it?
> ...


I'm fairly sure that Congress is allowed to set the law generally how they please and "The rights of the sleeper coach passenger to subsidized fares shall not be infringed" appears nowhere in the Constitution.


----------



## Blackwolf (Jul 29, 2013)

Just finished writing my letter to Dianne Feinstein. She likely opposes this amendment, but she is my Senator.


----------



## crescent2 (Jul 30, 2013)

amamba said:


> Sleepers are necessary for overnight trains for me. As are dining cars.


For me as well.

I doubt we'd have even taken the all day segment (ATL or ATN--NOL and return), which we've done many times, of the Crescent if there'd been no dining car. We don't care for vending-type food and wouldn't have wanted to try to bring food for two meals for two people. Trips of that length and longer need decent meal service, and overnights need the choice of sleeper service.


----------



## Nathanael (Jul 30, 2013)

Paulus said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> > Which means half of passengers go further than that on a train.* It also ignores connections people may be making which require the use of multiple trains, but not having enough time between trains to have a sit-down meal.
> ...


The Starlight is not remotely similar. Do you actually know anything about Amtrak, Paulus?

And for reference, Amtrak has stated that half the passengers in the diner of the Lake Shore Limited are in coach.


----------



## Nathanael (Jul 30, 2013)

jis said:


> BTW, Amtrak has given an estimate of what percentage of passengers they expect to lose if Dining/Food service is discontinued. To quote the NARP article on this matter:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


10% revenue loss is pretty substantial.

I don't take people seriously who suggest cutting food service on many-hour trains. It's stupid. The thing to do is to make the trains run faster. If you could cut four hours off of the Lake Shore Limited schedule -- which is possible given enough money -- then people would ride it without food service. It's all about runtimes.


----------



## Nathanael (Jul 30, 2013)

gmushial said:


> I guess the other model is the one one sees in India - where 45 mins before a meal orders are taken, (then) telegraphed ahead, prepared, and when the train gets 45 minutes down the route all the cooked meals are brought on board - works amazingly well.


I totally approve of this model, but it can't be done until Amtrak trains run consistently on time.


----------



## cirdan (Jul 30, 2013)

Cooley47 said:


> I would think failing to provide proper amenities to passengers would be illegal in some form. Do they plan on allowing people to bring along three days worth of food for entire families, along with the families luggage? Depending on the trips? Might as well toss out the bathrooms too.


And what about the locomotive? That just causes costs and earns no revenue directly. Why can't the passengers just get out and push. Do they think they're on a land cruise or something?


----------



## gmushial (Jul 30, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> gmushial said:
> 
> 
> > I guess the other model is the one one sees in India - where 45 mins before a meal orders are taken, (then) telegraphed ahead, prepared, and when the train gets 45 minutes down the route all the cooked meals are brought on board - works amazingly well.
> ...


Given the fact that the food is prepared in a stationary kitchen and not one with limited space, the quality of the food turns out to be very good, and quite cost effective, ie, not out of line with an upper mid-class restaurant [quality on par with; price quite a bit better]. The one aspect that I've always marveled at has been the matching up of orders and people - this is with maybe 300 meals being on-loaded at 45 minutes later - in that even if one is not in the same seat at the time of being served as one was at the time of placing the order, one always seems to end up with the correct order. ... w/re the timeliness: whereas the Japanese railways run on clockwork, the Indian ones are somewhere btwn Japan and Amtrak, ie, being an hour late somewhere is not unusual, but being 4 hours late is rare [except during the monsoon]... but as long as the time btwn the order taking point an the on-loading point is pretty consistent, then, although lunch or dinner might be a half-hour or hour late, the model works, ie, the kitchen is staffed 24/7, and an order is prepared given the nominal timing btwn order taking and on-loading pts.


----------



## jis (Jul 30, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> gmushial said:
> 
> 
> > I guess the other model is the one one sees in India - where 45 mins before a meal orders are taken, (then) telegraphed ahead, prepared, and when the train gets 45 minutes down the route all the cooked meals are brought on board - works amazingly well.
> ...


This works quite well in India which has a very dense network of stations with service capabilities to support such.

For single night journey Rajdhani Expresses and day journey Shatabdi Expresses where food is included in all tickets, all the needed food is loaded into a Pantry Car or two at the point of origination. In case of undue delay requiring additional meals, the fallback is to use the dense network of service stations on the way to load the necessary additional food. Since there is ample food storage capacity for the train in the Pantry Cars there is no need for the loading to happen precisely before a meal time. It can be done where most convenient.

I would beg to disagree on just 4 hour delays on IR. During winter fog season even the prestigious Rajdhani Express between Kolkata and New Delhi runs 12 or 14 hours behind schedule on many occasions. I have experienced such more than once, including on that fateful day in early January when there were three collisions in the same day on that route, and we had to thread our way around the remnants of those collisions to make it to New Delhi just `15 hours late, on a journey that is scheduled for a shade under 17 hours. But even that day no one went without food for any meal on that train, and the Sealdah - New Delhi Rajdhani which was following its marker, equally late.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Jul 30, 2013)

I just called Sen. Mark Warner's office, to express myself -  politely  - about Flake's Amendment.


----------



## saxman (Jul 30, 2013)

At this point, emails probably won't suffice. You should call your senators today! Just ask that they vote against the amendment. Apparently there is a vote this afternoon!


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 30, 2013)

Hopefully all Members of AU and other Rail Supporters are letting their members of congress know their feelings on this piece of garbage amendment! I think all of us hope that it will not pass the Senate! And remember Amtrak Joe is still Vice president of the US and very influential in the Senate, the biggest Club in America! This Amendment will not stand! 

Unfortunately for Texas and Amtrak we lost Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, one of the Saviors of Amtrak, to Retirement! She was a real Friend and Supporter of Amtrak and Rail and was heavily involved in the Heartland Flyer coming into existence and the Texas Eagle continuing to operate!  Our two current Senators Vote according to Leadership Instructions (although Sen. Cruz does go Rogue on Occasion)and I received a Form e-mail from their offices when I expressed my thoughts on this Amendment! (Dear Constituent Blah! Blah! Blah! etc. etc. etc.  )


----------



## Paulus (Jul 30, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > jebr said:
> ...


Coach passengers on the Starlight average almost the exact same distance as on the Palmetto.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 30, 2013)

How many coach passengers on the Palmetto travel for 36 hours and 1400 miles?


----------



## cirdan (Jul 30, 2013)

jis said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> > gmushial said:
> ...


I've never been to India, so forgive me if this is a stupid remark.

But normally when I order, I order the entree and main dish, but don't pick a dessert until after finishing the main course as its always a bit risky to chose a dessert on an empty stomach. So even if the waiter radios my order to the next station, how are they to know what I'm going to order for dessert.


----------



## jis (Jul 30, 2013)

Ryan said:


> How many coach passengers on the Palmetto travel for 36 hours and 1400 miles?


Fortunately if the Palmetto were traveling 1400 miles it would take almost 8 hours less than the Starlight  Miami is 1389 miles from New York, and the Meteor does it in a shade under 28 hours. Just throwing in something that is vaguely related but has nothing to do with the basic point being made by Ryan


----------



## jis (Jul 30, 2013)

cirdan said:


> I've never been to India, so forgive me if this is a stupid remark.
> 
> But normally when I order, I order the entree and main dish, but don't pick a dessert until after finishing the main course as its always a bit risky to chose a dessert on an empty stomach. So even if the waiter radios my order to the next station, how are they to know what I'm going to order for dessert.


You get to order everything together. The food is served at your seat since there is no Restaurant (Dining) Cars on any trains in India except on the Deccan Queen, which is a short haul corridor train between Mumbai CST (ex Bombay Victoria Terminus) and Pune. It is there purely as a matter of nostalgia I think.
So clearly it is not as luxurious an experience as eating in a Dining Car. If anyone claims so s/he is not being honest. But other than that it is quite adequate and quite good food.

On the Rajdhanis only the meals for the AC First Class Passengers are cooked on board in the Pantry Car. But there is usually only one AC First car with 20 something passengers, so that is quite manageable. The Kolkata Rajdhani is unique in carrying two AC First cars.


----------



## Paulus (Jul 30, 2013)

Ryan said:


> How many coach passengers on the Palmetto travel for 36 hours and 1400 miles?


None I imagine. Nor do I imagine very many coach passengers do so on the Starlight.


----------



## gmushial (Jul 30, 2013)

cirdan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Nathanael said:
> ...


Just a tangential comment: but if you love your trains, India and Japan are special countries (in that they still believe in their trains).... Indian trains are about as 'industrial strength" as they come - but delightful in their rawness; Japan is at the opposite end of the spectrum (where one might ride with three baskets of chickens), but in an ever so refined manner.


----------



## gmushial (Jul 30, 2013)

jis said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> > I've never been to India, so forgive me if this is a stupid remark.
> ...


Or, wherever one is standing, trying to find some breeze... eating off your stainless steel tray... but delightfully/amazingly good food none the less.


----------



## tonys96 (Jul 30, 2013)

Just told by my Senator's office that they will vote FOR the amendment, and that it also included the snack sales in the Lounge. Either these would have to become a profit center, or disappear also. This Senator was in favor of completely dissolving Amtrak, and thought this amendment was the perfect way to do it.

So, to the poster who continually touts the "value" of the Palmetto.......how about if it had no food service at all? Still be the greatest thing on the rails?


----------



## pennyk (Jul 30, 2013)

I called Senator Nelson and Representative Webster today.


----------



## VentureForth (Jul 30, 2013)

I have been end to end on the Palmetto and had quite a conversation with the Cafe car attendant. Basically, he has to load his whole train for both the Southbound AND the next day's Northbound in New York at around 5 AM. There is little to no opportunity to restock - even in Savannah. They often run out of food, but on lightly travelled days, they still sell quite a bit.

I would LOVE to see a diner on the Palmetto, though it would never happen. The train runs almost 15 hours - covering breakfast, lunch and dinner.

As for the amendment proposal, these politicos need to ride overnight on the train with no food - or even just cafe food.


----------



## RRUserious (Jul 30, 2013)

I rode an off-schedule EB. The shock to me was that a Subway in Wisconsin Dells was where they resupplied. Made me very dubious about Amtrak management. MSP has lots of large-scale catering. Resupply could have been done more high quality there.


----------



## tonys96 (Jul 30, 2013)

VentureForth said:


> I have been end to end on the Palmetto and had quite a conversation with the Cafe car attendant. Basically, he has to load his whole train for both the Southbound AND the next day's Northbound in New York at around 5 AM. There is little to no opportunity to restock - even in Savannah. They often run out of food, but on lightly travelled days, they still sell quite a bit.
> I would LOVE to see a diner on the Palmetto, though it would never happen. The train runs almost 15 hours - covering breakfast, lunch and dinner.
> 
> As for the amendment proposal, these politicos need to ride overnight on the train with no food - or even just cafe food.


According to one Texas senator's office...they read the amendment to say ALL food service will no longer be subsidized, including snacks in the lounge. So there may be no cafe car food anymore either!

All food and beverage will become BYO.


----------



## ATXEagle (Jul 30, 2013)

tonys96 said:


> Just told by my Senator's office that they will vote FOR the amendment, and that it also included the snack sales in the Lounge. Either these would have to become a profit center, or disappear also. This Senator was in favor of completely dissolving Amtrak, and thought this amendment was the perfect way to do it.


At least his office is being honest that the intention of this amendment is to destroy Amtrak.

I appreciate that many folks on here are spelling out all the reasons this amendment is impractical, and I agree that if these senators spent any time at all on a long distance train they would realize the need for quality and affordable food service. But they are not offering this amendment because they think it will work, but because they know it will force Amtrak to fail.

I don't believe Amtrak will ever be profitable (any more than airlines would be profitable if they had to pay for air traffic control, airport infrastructure, etc.; or trucking companies would be profitable if they had to pay for interstate highways and the repair crews to maintain them). The senators who back this amendment don't want Amtrak to become as financially healthy as it can be, they want it to go away. I just hope that the pro-transportation funding senators don't fall for it. We need to invest more in quality transportation options in this country.


----------



## tonys96 (Jul 30, 2013)

ATXEagle said:


> tonys96 said:
> 
> 
> > Just told by my Senator's office that they will vote FOR the amendment, and that it also included the snack sales in the Lounge. Either these would have to become a profit center, or disappear also. This Senator was in favor of completely dissolving Amtrak, and thought this amendment was the perfect way to do it.
> ...


Yes, and I really believe the sentiment is shared by the other senator of OUR state. Amtrak misses Kay Bailey......


----------



## VentureForth (Jul 30, 2013)

Is that Cornyn's office? I've spoken in person with the Senator (we went to the same high school - about 20 years apart) and he was, at least at that time, on Kay Bailey's side of the fence with regards to Amtrak. Maybe not as far in the field, but at least on the same side. Right up against the fence. Ready to flop.


----------



## tonys96 (Jul 30, 2013)

VentureForth said:


> Is that Cornyn's office? I've spoken in person with the Senator (we went to the same high school - about 20 years apart) and he was, at least at that time, on Kay Bailey's side of the fence with regards to Amtrak. Maybe not as far in the field, but at least on the same side. Right up against the fence. Ready to flop.


No, it was the other guy's office. But I believe Cornyn would be happy to see Amtrak fail, also.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 30, 2013)

Paulus said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > How many coach passengers on the Palmetto travel for 36 hours and 1400 miles?
> ...


You must not have a very good imagination, then.

Averages are great, but they don't tell the whole story.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jul 30, 2013)

These anti-amtrak senetors must be bribed by the airlines and auto manufactures who want people to use more gas and fly more.


----------



## ATXEagle (Jul 30, 2013)

I think that more and more "true believers" are entering the Senate and (especially) the House. They don't need to be bribed or lobbied by anyone to make them want to defund Amtrak. They are philosophically opposed to any federal government involvement in industry and won't listen to reason or compromise.

It used to be that even conservative politicians like Senator Hutchison were willing to compromise and make deals for the greater good of the country. But I think many of them are now so scared of a Tea Party primary challenge from the right that they feel unable to make any compromise.

The issue isn't really airline lobbying, the oil/gas industry, or the deficit. It is a fundamental belief that the federal government should be removed from as many facets of life as possible.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 30, 2013)

Exactly.

Gerrymandering run amok has removed pretty much all of the swing seats from play, so it's a race to the right to avoid losing out in the primary.

When the Democratic candidates receive more votes nationwide by nearly 2 million votes but win 34 less seats, something is seriously messed up.


----------



## amamba (Jul 30, 2013)

Ryan said:


> Exactly.
> Gerrymandering run amok has removed pretty much all of the swing seats from play, so it's a race to the right to avoid losing out in the primary.
> 
> When the Democratic candidates receive more votes nationwide by nearly 2 million votes but win 34 less seats, something is seriously messed up.


Yup. It's called gerrymandering and its disgusting. Of course it does occur on both sides of the aisle, but what they have done recently in Texas is especially heinous.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 30, 2013)

amamba said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly.
> ...


True this!


----------



## pennyk (Jul 30, 2013)

jimhudson said:


> amamba said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


agreed


----------



## Paulus (Jul 30, 2013)

Ryan said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


And if you have a statistical breakdown, I'd love to see it.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 30, 2013)

Ok, although things are remaining polite, I'd like to put on my mod hat for a moment and ask for y'all to keep the discussion on the bill at hand rather than discussing tangentially-related political things (gerrymandering, etc.)...which also have no effect on a Senate amendment since those "districts" are limited by state.


----------



## jis (Jul 30, 2013)

Anderson said:


> Ok, although things are remaining polite, I'd like to put on my mod hat for a moment and ask for y'all to keep the discussion on the bill at hand rather than discussing tangentially-related political things (gerrymandering, etc.)...which also have no effect on a Senate amendment since those "districts" are limited by state.


I second that motion....
So the vote on that amendment apparently did not come up today. The Senate ran through a whole bunch of appointments and such other matters, and spent a very brief time on the Bill in question, and considered only one amendment on the HUD portion of the bill which passed, and then went into a bit of procedural gymnastics and then moved onto other matters.


----------



## TVRM610 (Jul 30, 2013)

jis said:


> So the vote on that amendment apparently did not come up today. The Senate ran through a whole bunch of appointments and such other matters, and spent a very brief time on the Bill in question, and considered only one amendment on the HUD portion of the bill which passed, and then went into a bit of procedural gymnastics and then moved onto other matters.


I would see this as good news correct? Or too early to get hopes up?


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Jul 30, 2013)

Roll Call reported yesterday that "Railroad Bill Likely to Be Pushed Off Until Next Year"

And I don't think they are talking about *OUR* Railroad Bill! 

And today Roll Call had this to say: "Rail Authorization Delay May Aid Amtrak's Bid for Funds"

Interesting reading. Lets hope there is some truth in it! Unless they are talking about 'our' Railroad Bill, of course.  Getting pushed off a train has got to hurt! hboy:


----------



## jis (Jul 30, 2013)

We'll see. An attempt to refer the whole bill back to the Committee in Senate failed. It did get Cloture vote today, and as I said one amendment was considered and passed, but on the HUD part of the bill.

I think Roll Call is talking more about the House bill.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 30, 2013)

Paulus said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Paulus said:
> ...


I don't. But I do know that people do it from end to end, so your comparison to the Palmetto doesn't hold any water. As Jis already posted, people that actually do have the numbers have crunched them and come to the conclusion that the losses would be significant.


----------



## amamba (Jul 30, 2013)

I called both my senators and congressman today. They are all three pro-rail.


----------



## afigg (Jul 31, 2013)

The Davy Crockett said:


> Roll Call reported yesterday that "Railroad Bill Likely to Be Pushed Off Until Next Year"
> And I don't think they are talking about *OUR* Railroad Bill!
> 
> And today Roll Call had this to say: "Rail Authorization Delay May Aid Amtrak's Bid for Funds"
> ...


I have not followed what is in the House Reauthorization draft bill, that is if details have even been made public, but I figure there have to be a couple of poison pills in it for Amtrak and LD trains. A continuing resolution that extends the 2008 PRIIA act for a year would probably be the best outcome for Amtrak. As discussed in the Roll Call article, the rail reauthorization would then come up at the same time MAP 21 expires, which could provide an opening for a bigger transportation deal. Or they kick the whole thing into 2015 with more continuing resolutions.

Another advantage to a continuing resolution, if it is not blocked, that it should allow Amtrak to continue the direct transfers from the Treasury to pay for Early Buyout (EBO) of equipment leases. In FY2014, Amtrak was asking for $197 million to exercise EBOs in the budget request. Since it could be very difficult to get the $197 million in the appropriations on top of everything else, getting the money from the Treasury would keep it out of the line item budget and close out lease payments on 7 Superliners, 83 P-42s, 29 Surfliners (source 5 year financial plan). Continue to reduce the debt load so the company will get into a better position to take out loans to buy new rolling stock later.

By next year, Amtrak will have completed the agreements with all the states that are going to provide the corridor train subsidies and should be getting the state subsidy and capital charge payments (well maybe on the capital charges). Should be less uncertainty as to how much Amtrak will be getting from the states and provide a buffer against the whims of the House and Senate. A combination of the Senate appropriation and a CR on the 2008 PRIIA act may be the best possible realistic outcome, given the situation in the House. If that is how it plays out.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Jul 31, 2013)

amtrakwolverine said:


> These anti-amtrak senetors must be bribed by the airlines and auto manufactures who want people to use more gas and fly more.


Not really. Amtrak only carries 31 million passengers a year. The airlines carry over 700 million, and the bus lines over 800 million. I don't even know how much it is for cars, but I know automobiles make over 90% of all intercity travel. Cutting Amtrak entirely wouldn't affect the competitors much.

This does comes to backfire against Amtrak because this means that many people would honestly (no bribery) argue that Amtrak is a "nearly useless and non-vital transport service only used by a small fraction of the population for transport and otherwise for land-cruises or railfan obsessions".


----------



## RRUserious (Jul 31, 2013)

The system is arguably useless. But not all local components are. Obviously the freight carriers are far more crucial to the nation than most of the long distance passenger trains.


----------



## jebr (Jul 31, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> > These anti-amtrak senetors must be bribed by the airlines and auto manufactures who want people to use more gas and fly more.
> ...


Curious about the bus lines figure...does that include commuter buses and/or city bus service?

A better comparison may be Greyhound (or those services that receive subsidies, such as Jefferson Lines) from the feds. I know there's a few subsidized routes still out there, just like there are a lot of commuter rail lines that probably carry more passengers than Amtrak does itself.


----------



## ATXEagle (Jul 31, 2013)

I think that all bus lines are subsidized to an extent because they rely on federal, state, and local spending to build and maintain roads. The construction of the interstate highway system in particular is essential to the current business model of the bus companies (especially the discount lines). They also rely on state and local spending for police to enforce the laws and make these roads safe places for them to travel. Of course, bus companies pay taxes and in that way contribute to highway infrastructure. But Amtrak uses its subsidies to maintain the NEC and to pay the freight companies to use their tracks. The bus companies don't have to do anything of the sort because the government provides the roads.


----------



## afigg (Jul 31, 2013)

jebr said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > Not really. Amtrak only carries 31 million passengers a year. The airlines carry over 700 million, and the bus lines over 800 million. I don't even know how much it is for cars, but I know automobiles make over 90% of all intercity travel. Cutting Amtrak entirely wouldn't affect the competitors much.
> ...


800 million for bus passengers has to include commuters, possibly charter buses, and so on. According to the Greyhound Facts and Figures webpage:



> Greyhound operated nearly 5.5 billion passenger miles last year. The U.S. operation, as well as its operating subsidiaries and Greyhound Canada, carried nearly 18 million people


 So 18 million passengers a year for Greyhound & subsidiaries and in the US and Canada. The list of subsidiaries on the website does not include Boltbus or Trailways, so the passenger counts from them may not be included. Found a newspaper article from last October that Megabus was approaching 6 million passengers a year, or about 1/2 of Amtrak carries on the NEC.

As for the commuter railroads, yes, LIRR, Metro-North, NJT, Metra all carry many more passengers in a year than Amtrak. Of course, the NYC subway system with 1.6 billion total passengers in 2012 blows away all the other rail transportation operators in the US in sheer numbers.


----------



## cirdan (Jul 31, 2013)

It seems to me that this micro management goes much too far.

What about state-supported corrdiors with food or cafeteria service for example.

Surely if states pay the subsidy, they can more or less ask for what they want on those trains, as long as they also pay for it.

And now Congress is telling them, you can't do that?


----------



## Paulus (Jul 31, 2013)

cirdan said:


> It seems to me that this micro management goes much too far.
> What about state-supported corrdiors with food or cafeteria service for example.
> 
> Surely if states pay the subsidy, they can more or less ask for what they want on those trains, as long as they also pay for it.
> ...


Congress is only forbidding the use of Federal dollars for it. Likely result is that it will only affect the long distance trains.


----------



## boxcarsyix (Jul 31, 2013)

Did anyone notice that the House has rejected an attempt to cut off subsidized air travel to rural towns and cities where taxpayer costs exceed $250 per ticket. Many Dems voted against the measure. Essential Air Service subsidies make AMTRAK's subsidy look like the pittance it is. Some of those airports serve less than 300 passenger flights a year. :angry2:


----------



## RRUserious (Jul 31, 2013)

Well, isn't this just an anti-Amtrak vote? If they cut off service, then travelers are forced to support other modes of transport. By subsidizing air travel, they put another dagger in ground transportation so they can say "travelers don't like it". I don't think the two things are unrelated, they are an organized campaign on behalf or the airline industry.


----------



## jis (Jul 31, 2013)

Anti-Amtrak amendments that were offered to the House Bill - one was defeated and the other did not get enough momentum to even get to the floor.

http://www.narprail.org/news/narp-blog/2332-rail-passengers-help-beat-back-anti-train-amendments


----------



## Cooley47 (Jul 31, 2013)

Well that's a start.


----------



## PaulM (Jul 31, 2013)

> Sec. 155. None of the funds made available under this Act may be used to subsidize costs related to food and beverage and first class services on any route operated by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.


Just a dumb question. I thought money was fungible. If so, how would Congress know whether "funds made available under this Act" or Amtrak revenue were being used to subsidize food service? If not, if there really are two pots, why not just use funds from the revenue pot to subsidize food service?

If that steals money from spare parts, then simply fund them from Congress's pot. Will Flake introduce an amendment next year that says "Sec. 156. None of the funds made available under this Act may be used to subsidize costs related to spare parts purchased by any unit of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation."

My question assumes the above quote is the gist of the matter, that the amendment doesn't specifically forbid Amtrak from staffing, provisioning, and hooking a dining car onto a train. If it does, what is the penalty for disobedience?


----------



## RRUserious (Jul 31, 2013)

The Amtrak haters in Congress might be waiting in ambush. Given how the trains run, I'm inclined to wonder how efficiently they use the money they have. Do they manage the system with any goals of betterment?


----------



## Anderson (Aug 1, 2013)

Can someone get me a link to the relevant roll call vote? The Washington Post roll call list is a bit vague as to what a bunch of votes are (not to mention...are we looking at HR2610 or something else?).


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Aug 1, 2013)

As far as this food service goes, I think that the Cafe car is not always useful on the shortest routes, which Diners are almost essential on LD routes. By the shortest routes, I mean that Amtrak could cut fod service on the Hiawatha, the shortest Surfliners, the Downeaster, the Pere Marquette, and maybe the NYP-ALB Empire Service.

This is fromm a practical standpoint, I'm obviously not an Amtrak hater and I do enjoy eating in the Diner despite continued arrogance from some other passengers. But please, let us not talk about that again.


----------



## BrianPR3 (Aug 1, 2013)

Anderson said:


> Can someone get me a link to the relevant roll call vote? The Washington Post roll call list is a bit vague as to what a bunch of votes are (not to mention...are we looking at HR2610 or something else?).


your welcome  go to all congressional action with amendments and shows as unfinished business

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:H.R.2610:


----------



## Anderson (Aug 1, 2013)

Thanks a bunch. Looks like it was quite the...interesting evening with all of those amendments.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Aug 1, 2013)

"Amtrak could cut food service on the Hiawatha, the shortest Surfliners, the Downeaster, the Pere Marquette, and maybe the NYP-ALB Empire Service."

Surfliners, the Downeaster are state supports services.

NYP-ALB lost there food service several years ago, but it does seem NY will be paying to have it return.

Hiawatha service was a cart that was just cut a few months ago.


----------



## jis (Aug 1, 2013)

Anderson said:


> Can someone get me a link to the relevant roll call vote? The Washington Post roll call list is a bit vague as to what a bunch of votes are (not to mention...are we looking at HR2610 or something else?).


If you want it from the proverbial horse's mouth then ....

House: http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/legvotes.aspx

Senate: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm


----------



## afigg (Aug 1, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> As far as this food service goes, I think that the Cafe car is not always useful on the shortest routes, which Diners are almost essential on LD routes. By the shortest routes, I mean that Amtrak could cut fod service on the Hiawatha, the shortest Surfliners, the Downeaster, the Pere Marquette, and maybe the NYP-ALB Empire Service.


These all are or will be state supported corridor services where it is up to the state to decide what type of food service to have on the train. The Downeaster is a 2.5 hour trip from BON to Portland. That is a long enough trip that people will want to get sodas, snacks, meals. In general, if it was up to me, any Amtrak train service that has trips longer than 90 minutes to 2 hours should have food and beverage service of some type on board, whether it be vending machines or a café car. If you want people to take the train, should take advantage of the space and offer food service that the bus services can't.
The Pere Marquette is a 4 hour trip end to end, pretty long trip if you didn't bring something to drink with you or are hungry. The Hiawathas are around 90 minutes trips, so they are really extended commuter trains. But it is up to the states to decide if they want to pay for food and beverage service losses.


----------



## jis (Aug 1, 2013)

Just in case Charlie has not already posted this somewhere....

http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/fred-frailey/archive/2013/07/31/the-tragedy-of-john-mica.aspx


----------



## cirdan (Aug 1, 2013)

Anderson said:


> Thanks a bunch. Looks like it was quite the...interesting evening with all of those amendments.



I wonder if anybody has ever costed what an hour of debate in Congress on a non-issue costs in terms of salaries, staff costs, security etc and whether anybody would confront these time wasters with the true costs of their actions.


----------



## RRUserious (Aug 1, 2013)

That would be an interesting mathematical function. The value of one variable is approaching zero right now, which is why polls give Congress a rating of 12 percent.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 1, 2013)

cirdan said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks a bunch. Looks like it was quite the...interesting evening with all of those amendments.
> ...


Well, the problem with such analysis is that almost all of the "main" staff in Congress are salaried, not hourly, and at least some of the security, etc. is going to be running 24/7 (since you occasionally get staff in the buildings all night, etc.). So the net cost of adding an hour of debate is going to be fairly limited as a result when compared with the overall operating cost of things. An amusing analysis going the other way would be showing how Congress, by staying in session more, reduces the per-day/per-hour cost of operating by spreading out those fixed costs over more operating time.


----------



## BrianPR3 (Aug 1, 2013)

looks like something happened? :blink:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00199


----------



## jis (Aug 1, 2013)

Cloture Motion was rejected, which means they cannot vote on the bill, which means there will be no vote on the Senate THUD bill before the August break.

The House has already kicked the can down the road on their THUD bill, when Cantor realized he did not have the votes to pass the House Bill.

So stay tuned...... come back in September to watch the continuing circus brought to you by the most do nothing Congress in years.

Roll Call speculates that this will all just land up into another continuing resolution and the can will be kicked out to next year.


----------



## ATXEagle (Aug 1, 2013)

cirdan said:


> I wonder if anybody has ever costed what an hour of debate in Congress on a non-issue costs in terms of salaries, staff costs, security etc and whether anybody would confront these time wasters with the true costs of their actions.


That would be awesome. For some reason, just reading this brightened my whole day!


----------



## RRUserious (Aug 1, 2013)

I wonder if they'd pick up the pace if they had to pay for health care like everyone else.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 1, 2013)

TVRM610 said:


> Meals can be served in room, catered by outside sources. For those that say "that won't work" look at the Empire Builder Portland Section.. it serves Dinner on the East bound, and Breakfast on the West bound. Both meals are catered from 2 different sources. You know what.. it works! For those of you that say "it won't be good quality" I've read multiple reports on this site that say the best meal they have been served on Amtrak is the catered dinner on the Empire Builder. This is a real legitimate option.


I've not had the dinner, but have heard good things about it. But the breakfast is horrible IMHO!

And one uncooked meal over a 3 day trip might fly well with the 30 or so passengers in that Portland sleeper, it isn't going to work for all the passengers on a combined train for 3 days and a bunch of meals.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 1, 2013)

jis said:


> Cloture Motion was rejected, which means they cannot vote on the bill, which means there will be no vote on the Senate THUD bill before the August break.
> The House has already kicked the can down the road on their THUD bill, when Cantor realized he did not have the votes to pass the House Bill.
> 
> So stay tuned...... come back in September to watch the continuing circus brought to you by the most do nothing Congress in years.
> ...


I hate to say this, but I think I'd be happy if Amtrak and TIGER just got CRed for the next few years. Yes, I'd like some more funding for them, but Amtrak clearly has enough money in their operating account (especially with losses in the national train system _down _by about $100m YTD) to keep on running. The feeling at the present, at least to me, is that we're "on the bubble"...that with capacity additions (the multi-state order and the Viewliner IIs) and cars getting moved around as a result Amtrak is in very good shape. Add in the added state support for next year and the picture gets even better. I'd also point out that per the June MPR, June saw *99%* cost recovery; YTD we're at 88% vs. 83% last year. Yes, some of this is payment timing and the like, but we're getting there slowly. And with things like the new POS systems and whatnot, it looks like things should improve on that front as well.

At the moment, what Amtrak seems to need above all is time to implement reforms. The PIP elements that were not implemented were, in several cases, held up not by Amtrak but by needing funding and some agreements to come into place (the Cap-Penny cars), third-party legal issues (the FEC runs), or Amtrak futzing negotiations (the Sunset Limited stuff). A lot of it is just taking time, for the simple fact that Amtrak has to deal with a lot of people. It's not a cultural issue that's causing trouble, it's practical implementation issues and capacity limits preventing some things from happening, and the fact that others simply take time to make come to pass holding up others.


----------



## RRUserious (Aug 1, 2013)

Based on my experience in Union Station in Chicago, they really need to shape up their management. They badly mishandled it when my EB came in 6 hours late.


----------



## ATXEagle (Aug 1, 2013)

I know what you mean... I've encountered really excellent Amtrak employees, but others haven't been so great. As a passenger, from a customer service standpoint, it seems to me like consistency of product could be improved across the board. I know it's a far-flung operation that's got to be difficult to manage. But I still think that effective oversight and enforcement of company policies would go a long way to improving the passenger experience and Amtrak's financial bottom line.

I'm about to leave on a three night sleeper trip on the Texas Eagle, Capitol Limited, and Silver Star. I'm excited and thrilled, of course. But I always get this unease about the possibility of encountering abysmal service in the dining car or a disappearing sleeping car attendant. (Back in June, it was a dreadful dining car crew on the Capitol Limited that cast a pall on my trip.) For the price that Amtrak charges for a sleeper, no passenger should have to worry about bad service. I love Amtrak, but the unevenness of the experience and the occasional ineptitude has made me very hesitant to recommend it to all but a few friends and family.

Contrast that with my favorite airline, Southwest. It has never once crossed my mind to worry about hostile or rude service on a flight. I know it's got to happen from time to time. Yet the experience is so infrequent that the possibility doesn't even occur to me.

I wish Amtrak continued success, but sometimes it doesn't seem like all their employees are willing to do what it takes to achieve success.


----------



## afigg (Aug 2, 2013)

Anderson said:


> I hate to say this, but I think I'd be happy if Amtrak and TIGER just got CRed for the next few years. Yes, I'd like some more funding for them, but Amtrak clearly has enough money in their operating account (especially with losses in the national train system _down _by about $100m YTD) to keep on running. The feeling at the present, at least to me, is that we're "on the bubble"...that with capacity additions (the multi-state order and the Viewliner IIs) and cars getting moved around as a result Amtrak is in very good shape. Add in the added state support for next year and the picture gets even better. I'd also point out that per the June MPR, June saw *99%* cost recovery; YTD we're at 88% vs. 83% last year. Yes, some of this is payment timing and the like, but we're getting there slowly. And with things like the new POS systems and whatnot, it looks like things should improve on that front as well.


I think Boardman would disagree with you on the capital grant amount if there is a continuing resolution with sequestration. If you look at the June report, capital and maintenance expenditures were cut and will come in less than budgeted; all due to the cuts. He has issued direct warnings about the inadequate capital funding to maintain and modernize the NEC. There is a dire warning in his column in the July Amtrak Ink on the NEC infrastructure. If the FY2013 capital grant level stays the same at $642 million, that means no replacement of the Portal Bridge, no advancement beyond limited studies for the Gateway project, no rolling stock purchases. The operating surplus from the NE Regionals is going to be used up in part to pay for the ACS-64s.
Having said that, a CR for both the FY2014 budget and 2008 PRIIA act would be preferable to the House draft bills. However, I think a bigger deal may be struck after a lot of shouting and posturing that does away with sequestration. The House Republican caucus is showing serious cracks with the more reasonable Republicans getting tired of trying to satisfy the hardliners and ideologues.

In the Senate, I wonder how close the cloture vote to vote on the THUD bill really was. It was 54 to 43, needing 60 votes to break the filibuster. If the head count ahead of the vote showed the count was just shy of 60 votes, several Republicans might change their vote to nay for political cover. In the Thursday Wash Post, there was a mention of Sen McConnell working to get the Republicans who had broken the impasse on the recent batch of nominations back in line to block the THUD bill. It was a party line vote, except for Sen Collins (R-ME) who voted yes. McCain did not vote, neither did Landrieu (D-LA). The Democrats are down one vote in the Senate with interim Sen Chiesa (R-NJ) voting against cloture, presumably following Gov. Christie's instructions to vote however the Senate Republican leadership wants him to. Cory Booker (D) is expected to become the NJ Senator after the mid-October special elections.

The Senate Democrats will try again in September to get their THUD bill passed. If the House Republicans can't pass their own THUD bill with the draconian cuts, Boehner may have no choice but to bring the Senate version to the House floor where it could pass. Lot of political maneuvering and fighting yet to come.


----------



## Bus Nut (Aug 2, 2013)

Anderson said:


> or Amtrak futzing negotiations (the Sunset Limited stuff).


Please explain what Amtrak did wrong here. It's Unca Pete, they're in the driver's seat in negotiations, and it's a busy one-track line. What I've heard is that UP is going to double track out of necessity on their own and that Amtrak is going to attempt round two after that happens, but basically UP can name their price to run another train now and that price was in the stratosphere. UP is entitled to compensation for the economic cost of putting extra trains out there.

Just don't see what Amtrak could have done differently.


----------



## Bus Nut (Aug 2, 2013)

boxcarsyix said:


> Did anyone notice that the House has rejected an attempt to cut off subsidized air travel to rural towns and cities where taxpayer costs exceed $250 per ticket. Many Dems voted against the measure. Essential Air Service subsidies make AMTRAK's subsidy look like the pittance it is. Some of those airports serve less than 300 passenger flights a year. :angry2:


The TOTAL spent on this program (EAS) is $199mill/year, so it's not a budget buster in the overall scheme of things.

The current cut-off is $1000/passenger to have service discontinued. (The subsidy is also ended if an airline runs service out of that airport for a profit, too.) Currently there are a number of carriers that pretty much rely on EAS subsidy payments to operate, a sort of public bus of the skies.

That per passenger subsidy ought to be flogged loudly and widely every time someone complains that this or that Amtrak trip is subsidized.

And remember, that's operating expenses only. It doesn't even count air traffic control or capital investments in ground infrastructure.

Amtrak ALSO provides essential service to rural communities, clearly a lot more cost effectively than EAS!

Here's some info on appropriations levels: http://www.nado.org/final-faa-reauthorization-deal-modifies-essential-air-service/


----------



## afigg (Aug 2, 2013)

Bus Nut said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > or Amtrak futzing negotiations (the Sunset Limited stuff).
> ...


There are reports from those on the inside that one or more managers at Amtrak mishandled the negotiations with UP in meetings and ticked off UP management. So UP asked for $750 million for a daily Sunset Limited, probably the cost of completing the double tracking project between Colton and El Paso. UP is not "going to double track", but has been installing a second track and upgrading the line between El Paso and SoCal for years. As of the start of 2011, according to the Texas Eagle & Sunset Limited PIP report, 62% of the Sunset route had been double tracked. UP has been continuing the double tracking work since then.

Amtrak's agreement with UP that allowed the schedule change for the SL but in return Amtrak would not request a daily SL is only for 2 years. So in 2014, when more of the route is double tracked. Amtrak could take another run at UP for a daily SL.


----------



## tonys96 (Aug 2, 2013)

boxcarsyix said:


> Did anyone notice that the House has rejected an attempt to cut off subsidized air travel to rural towns and cities where taxpayer costs exceed $250 per ticket. Many Dems voted against the measure. Essential Air Service subsidies make AMTRAK's subsidy look like the pittance it is. Some of those airports serve less than 300 passenger flights a year. :angry2:


Maybe these folks should just take the Palmetto?


----------



## afigg (Aug 2, 2013)

Politico has the details on what happened in the Senate on Thursday with the failure of the vote to invoke cloture which would override the filibuster and this allow the Transportation and Housing bill to come to a floor vote: Senate THUD battle pitted Mitch McConnell against Susan Collins. Senator McConnell made a major effort to block the vote.


----------



## PaulM (Aug 2, 2013)

RRUserious said:


> Based on my experience in Union Station in Chicago, they really need to shape up their management. They badly mishandled it when my EB came in 6 hours late.


My experience was just the opposite when we missed a connection recently. They seemed very well organized. Not that they shouldn't be with all the experience handling mis-connects off the EB.


----------



## RRUserious (Aug 2, 2013)

PaulM said:


> RRUserious said:
> 
> 
> > Based on my experience in Union Station in Chicago, they really need to shape up their management. They badly mishandled it when my EB came in 6 hours late.
> ...


That was my thought that night. It being a typical night, everything should have been in place. Of course, I think the normal late EB doesn't miss _everything_ like it did that night. But they had dozens and dozens of people, it was midnight, and they had one person trying to hand out paper work. In the end, when it finally got moving there were four Amtrakers. But it took 3 hours after the EB arrived to get people in the various directions they were to go. 3 hours. And people who boarded east of Minot ate cold sandwiches because all the food on the train was fed to those already on the train. Even the compartment passengers didn't get the meal they paid for. That's why I say maybe Amtrak needs to figure out how to manage what it has.


----------



## PaulM (Aug 2, 2013)

RRUserious said:


> PaulM said:
> 
> 
> > RRUserious said:
> ...


More on EB mis-connects. Yeh, ours was only 3 hours late and only the Midwest corridor trains were affected. When I said organized I, meant the van was ready to go immediately and we were told right away where to find it.

Just curious. When you say 3 hours to get people in the various directions, I presume you are referring to getting to a hotel since it missed all the connections. A few years ago when I arrived at 1:00AM, I already had space rebooked for the next night and cash vouchers in hand because Amtrak had put two agents on board at Wisc. Dells. When we arrived, everyone was told to get in line at the presumably lightly staffed ticket counter to pick up the new tickets and exchange the vouchers for cash. Knowing I had all the next day to take care of that, I immediately walked to the hotel, saving a lot of time.

That brings up another question. This time I asked the conductor if they would be putting an agent on to handle the mis-connects and he said not unless the train were much later (like yours?). He later announced each missed train and said we would be "bussed". So, was a rep put on board?


----------



## RRUserious (Aug 2, 2013)

PaulM said:


> RRUserious said:
> 
> 
> > PaulM said:
> ...


Wish my experience had been like that. The "different directions" were taking different trains to connect at another place, getting on buses, or collecting vouchers to stay 24 hours till the next train for the next leg of the trip would leave the following evening. We came in at 11, and it was at least 2am when the handling was completed. I guess people could have taken long naps in the compartments, but who expects to stand in a line 3 hours? I was alone, but some travelers were families with very small children. Can't imagine what attitude the Amtrak people had making these families wait that long to know where they were bound next. I suppose a well-managed operation would have prioritized the processing to get those out first for whom some conveyance was waiting. That would have put me in my hotel in wee hours, but at least you'd go away with the impression of *some human intelligence *at work! If anyone from Congress is unfortunate enough to take this mode of travel, I'd suspect they'd say "no additional money as long as they can't get the little things right". You don't want to pour money down a hole where the layers of management seem out of their depth. That has nothing to do with preferring planes over trains. It is bad enough that the Pentagon places its head routinely up the wrong orifice, it has to do with the concept that most subsidies are a mistake we can't get out of. We should, but for 50 years I've watched every attempt to rein in subsidies that are full of waste. I'm not a partisan about which subsidies. Pretty much all pork is government failure.


----------

