# Diner-lounge 37000



## Trogdor (Dec 17, 2006)

As I noted earlier, I booked a ticket on train 29(16) from WAS to CHI to try out Amtrak's new diner-lounge, currently running on the Capitol Limited. As I understand it, the car will be running (in its current configuration) until the end of February, at which time the car will go in for modifications based on customer and employee feedback. Once that happens, I believe other cars will undergo modification as well.

Note that these are just the conversions of the existing dining cars. The conversion of sightseer lounges will occur later, and their configurations will be a bit different.

Originally, train 29(16) was supposed to have just the diner-lounge as the only food-service car. However, apparently, reservations for the train spiked at the last minute, and they decided to run a regular diner and the diner-lounge (though the mealtime menus were the same in both cars).

Anyway, the first indication of a different style of service came about 15-20 minutes after departure from Washington, when one of the LSAs took a cart through the train, selling snacks and drinks to passengers at their seats. This is currently done on the Hiawathas, and (I gather) the Acela Express, Pere Marquette, and perhaps a couple of other trains as well.

While the cart service was well-received by passengers (and I'm told they did about $58 in sales in the 10-20 minutes the cart was pushed through the coaches), my one concern is that it blocked the aisle quite a bit, especially as passengers were headed to the lounge. Perhaps they could build in a "passing siding" where the cart could duck out of the way to let others through. Otherwise, it's just like a few people trying to walk in opposite directions in the aisle (i.e. some folks will have to step out of the way and let the cart pass).

The lounge opened up right away, and dinner reservations were taken by the LSA that pushed the cart (reservations were required to eat in the regular diner, but not in the diner-lounge, which was serving the same menu). In fact, one extra nice touch was a "schedule" for the diner-lounge car, that was placed in the seat pockets of the coaches. It listed the scheduled departure time from DC (and Chicago), the time the car opened for service, when it closed, and when breakfast started and ended. It's always helpful to know when to expect the dining car to open, since it's not always announced the night before (and those that board in the middle of the night wouldn't necessarily hear those announcements anyway).

There were two service managers traveling on the train and actively soliciting passenger feedback. I spoke with both of them at length regarding their hopes and plans for the diner-lounge service.

As for the diner-lounge itself, there are two aspects: 1) the car, and 2) the service.

*The car*

When you walk in from the coaches, the cafe stand is on the upper level, facing right at you. This should help sales as it makes the cafe counter very visible. There are four tables on the cafe counter side, with seats alternating facing inwards (towards the aisle) and outwards (towards the windows).

If you walk past the cafe stand there's a narrow hallway that leads to the other side, where there are ten tables following the same alternating inwards/outwards pattern.

The car is very bright and inviting. However, the layout can lead to some confusion, as passengers from coach (assuming the car is facing the same direction) may not realize that there is additional lounge seating on the other side).

The alternating seating also can cause some issues, as the outwards- (window-) facing seats can seat two people for dinner comfortably (one on each side of the table), but four people would be a tough squeeze, given the semi-circular shape of the table. The inwards-facing seats have a table that is too small to be useful for anything other than holding drinks, and the table is also too far away from the seat, meaning you have to lean far forward in order to not spill stuff on your lap. In fact, there are already changes planned regarding the size of the tables and the angle of the seats facing the table, so that they can try and address these issues.

One sure-to-be crowd pleaser is the inclusion of plenty of electrical outlets for folks to charge their phones, computers, and other electronic devices. These are along the wall next to the tables of the window-facing seats. This could cause issues, though, as those are the best seats for dining car service, and the seats that are better for lounging (that face inwards) don't have outlets.

Another issue, which apparently they are already looking to address, is that the cafe counter window faces one way, and passengers coming from the other side (i.e. sleeper passengers) may not realize right away that there is a cafe counter on the other side. However, having an SA on duty in that car, in addition to the cafe counter LSA, can perhaps resolve that. Another solution is to move the entry door to the LSA's area, and put a dutch door/window in instead of a solid door and blank wall, as that would give passengers from the other end of the car a glimpse at what's available.

*The service*

One thing that pleased me was the return of steak to the menu. Ice cream has also made a repeat appearance, though it now comes in Haagen-Dazs single-serving tubs, rather than a scoop served in a dish. I ordered the steak ($21 on the menu), and it was very nicely done and quite tasty. However, the green beans served with it were somewhat rubbery.

Nevertheless, simplified dining service with the diner-lounge is sure to be better than SDS using the existing dining cars. The reason was explained to me by one of the service managers, in that the old dining cars were designed for the traditional service, whereas the diner-lounge was designed around SDS, and so it was designed to be run with a single chef, an LSA, and an SA. Apparently, that's why they were able to return steak to the menu.

The other, and primary, improvement in service/menu selection is that the car is basically open all day, with perhaps a slight break between breakfast and lunch. The diner-lounge features a breakfast menu, served from 6 am to 10 am, an "all-day" menu served from 11 am to 11 pm, and a dinner menu, served from 5-9 pm. Of course, the full benefits of this service can't be experienced on the Capitol Limited, which has a scheduled run of just 19 hours. However, when this service is rolled out on longer-distance trains, the all-day menu should prove to be more popular.

The all-day menu includes your basic "lunch" meals, such as the Angus Beef Burger and pizza, plus new "appetizers." I had the opportunity to try a couple of the appetizer selections, and they were very good. This should encourage more people to order food that are currently intimidated by the relatively high prices of the dining car.

The new style of service also means that you can just order a dessert, and don't have to order the full meal. Now, all we need to do is get them to reintroduce the chocolate mousse pyramid, and I'll be all set.

They are still working out the details regarding serving sleeping car passengers under the new service. Since there aren't strict meal periods, I'm not sure exactly how they'll handle sleeper passengers that decide to eat at 3:30 pm, and then again at 6:30 for dinner. Right now, appetizers are not included in the "free" meal for sleepers, but they are still reviewing many different options for how to handle that. Everything is subject to change as they get feedback from employees and passengers, as well as seeing how things are doing financially with the different menu options.

One "con" I can think of with the diner-lounge is that some folks may want a more "elegant" dining experience, while the diner-lounge is run more like a sports bar/grill. The food quality is as good as anything Amtrak has to offer, but, for example, last night for dinner, a friend and I were enjoying our steak (for me) and chicken (for him), while across the aisle, three or four younger folks were regaling us with their intimiate familiarity of the penal code in Virginia, on account of first-hand experience they or their friends had.

Having people that want to lounge around and play music may not set well with an elderly couple that wants to have a nice, quiet dinner. However, Amtrak does (even on other trains) offer a take-out option for the dining car menu, though it is perhaps "pushed" a bit more with the diner-lounge.

Overall, I'm very optimistic that the diner-lounge will be a successful experiment that should increase revenue while lowering costs. One good thing about the diner-lounge is the flexibility involved. During low-traffic periods, they could easily run with just one car and still serve the cafe and dining car customers. During busier periods, this car could be supplemented with a regular diner, a regular lounge, or another diner-lounge.

The managers said there was interest in returning the Cardinal to Superliner equipment and running it with a diner-lounge. In addition, there's also the potential (though nothing concrete) of putting a car like that on the Empire Builder, enabling the Portland section to have improved food-service, and also allowing the Seattle section to get a sightseer car. Any of those changes would be far in the future, though, as first they have to complete the current three-month experiment.

NARP has released the schedule for the diner lounge, which I'll include below.



> Hereare the correct dates for January operation:
> 
> SINGLE CAR OPERATION: Depart Washington--Thurs Jan 4; Sun Jan 7;
> 
> ...


However, in the case of my train, they were willing to serve coach passengers in the regular diner.

And, for those interested, here is the menu:

_Breakfast_

Today's Omelet -- $9.00

Quiche of the Day -- $9.00

Railroad French Toast -- $7.00

Bob Evans Breakfast Scramble - $8.00

Continental (mixed fruit has replaced with a banana) -- $6.75

Pork or Turkey Sausage -- $3.00

_Dinner_

New York Strip Steak -- $21.00

Roast Chicken -- $14.50

Tilapia Fillet -- $16.50

Meatloaf -- $12.50

Garden Lasagna -- $11.00

*ALL-DAY MENU OPTIONS (11 am to 11 pm or midnight, depending on which card you believe)*

_Appetizers_

Chicken & Cheese Quesadillas -- $5.00

Baked Potato Skins -- $5.00

Mozzarella Sticks -- $5.00

Spring Rolls -- $5.00

Buffalo Wings -- $7.00

_Burgers and More_

Angus Beef Burger -- $8.25

Add bacon -- $2.00

Grilled Chicken Sandwich -- $8.00

Gardenburger -- $7.75

Stone Fired Supreme Pizza -- $9.00

Beef Burrito -- $9.00

Caesar Salad -- $6.00

Today's Quiche -- $9.00 *(I'm not sure if this is the same as the breakfast "quiche of the day," but it comes with different side dishes)

_Desserts_

Sweet Temptations Chocolate Cake -- $5.00

New York Style Cheesecake -- $3.75

Ice Cream -- $3.75


----------



## battalion51 (Dec 17, 2006)

Great report Robert, detailed as always. The "All Day" menu looks like a great idea. It seems like it will bring in coach passengers during the dinner hours, when they wouldn't normally hit the Diner. I also like the addition of the appetizers, but of course the portion size will dictate how well those sell. It seems like overall Amtrak has really thought out this idea, and is doing good testing, and being willing to make changes using feedback from passengers. The only feedback I can seem to come up with based on what you've told us Robert is maybe they should stick with traditional booths on one side of the car and install Auto Train style booths on the other.


----------



## Guest (Dec 17, 2006)

Can't wait till somebody posts pictures.


----------



## AmtrakFan (Dec 17, 2006)

I am looking very foward to this car when it comes on to the 2 night Intercity Trains. I think this car will do good for Amtrak in there effort to lower operating costs.


----------



## The Metropolitan (Dec 17, 2006)

Very VERY interesting report, Robert! You certainly have me enthused about it, to the point where I was ready to find a way to book a weekend trip similar to yours, but since there's no departures on Saturday from either end in January to combine the train trip with a air (gasp) trip to make a weekend hop, I'll likely skip for now.

Glad to see you had a positive reaction to it all, and good to see Amtrak carefully observing the process and looking for ways to tweak it to improvement, instead of simply tossing it out there to sink or swim.

I guess my only question would be as to how the other passengers, coach and sleeper, seemed to react to this novel new operation.


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 17, 2006)

The comments were generally positive. I know the coach passengers seemed to enjoy it (though a few were slightly disappointed at the lack of a sightseer car; though on the westbound at this time of year, there's not much to really sightsee).

However, I'm not sure how many sleeper passengers used that car, as they still had a regular diner available. I'll have photos shortly.


----------



## Guest (Dec 17, 2006)

How could the cardinal use superliners without changing origin? Penn can't hold anything bigger than a LIRR double decker.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 17, 2006)

Guest said:


> How could the cardinal use superliners without changing origin? Penn can't hold anything bigger than a LIRR double decker.


It can't. It would have to be cut back to DC if it goes back to Superliners.


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 17, 2006)

Here's the link to my photos. I didn't take as many photos as I would have liked, as the car was a bit busy, and many folks don't like having their photo taken. However, you get the general idea.

http://rides.webshots.com/album/556468459iuhYGZ

Also, I spoke with the service managers regarding single-level diner-lounges, and they had no information at all on any implementation plan for those trains.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 17, 2006)

rmadisonwi said:


> Also, I spoke with the service managers regarding single-level diner-lounges, and they had no information at all on any implementation plan for those trains.


Which is crazy since one single level car has been done for months and another is nearing completion.


----------



## gswager (Dec 17, 2006)

Wow! That table is so tiny! That definitely needs to be fix and keep all tables in same size.


----------



## Steve4031 (Dec 17, 2006)

Base on the photos, it looks like the traditional dining car tables are completely gone. Is that correct?

Assuming they keep one part of the car with the traditional tables, this actually looks like a great idea. The menu would be far superior to what I had on the Cardinal last summer. Without the traditional tables this would be a serious deterioration in service.


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 17, 2006)

They are looking into whether to include some traditional tables, or have all of the seating as it currently is. The prototype diner-lounge has no "traditional" tables.


----------



## rtabern (Dec 18, 2006)

Thanks for the detailed report there. Great job.

37000 seems a little more inviting than when I saw it being built in November back in Beech Grove.

(pictures from that are at www.rtabern.com and click on travels link)

I am going to have to try and get on a run of the Capitol sometime I think here and check it out in person.

My opinion... would be to have the diner/lounge, but then also keep a sight-seer lounge on it too (even if they have to un-staff it). I could bear eating my steak dinner with kids around, if I could go in the lounge car afterwards and have the nice windows and the single seat to relax in there.

What can ya do, huh?


----------



## rmgreenesq (Dec 18, 2006)

rtabern said:


> Thanks for the detailed report there. Great job.
> 
> 
> I am going to have to try and get on a run of the Capitol sometime I think here and check it out in person.


Please forgive what may be a silly question: How does one know that 37000 (or any particular car) will be on any particular train?

Or to put it another way, If I were to hop the Acela down to WAS with the intent of riding the Capitol Limited to CHI, how could I be sure car #37000 would be on the train?

Rick


----------



## eliyahu (Dec 18, 2006)

rtabern said:


> My opinion... would be to have the diner/lounge, but then also keep a sight-seer lounge on it too (even if they have to un-staff it). I could bear eating my steak dinner with kids around, if I could go in the lounge car afterwards and have the nice windows and the single seat to relax in there.


given the report above (and another over at flyertalk), i've really become enthusiastic about this concept. not so much because i prefer it over the traditional arrangement, but rather because it should help control costs and drive food revenues up by bringing in more coach passengers as well as continuous dining options throughout the day.

i am less enthused about the removal of the sightseer lounge cars, and hope that amtrak will put them back on consists unstaffed. perhaps they can reconfigure the lower level as a crew lounge so that the employees don't just end up taking over half of the dining car and hanging out there as i've seen on the texas eagle. and hey, maybe they could charge a nominal fee for its use to cover the extra fuel costs.

but mostly i'm pleased that amtrak is making a genuine effort to provide as much dining quality and choice as their funding levels and management constraints allow. they seem to be working hard to incorporate customer and employee feedback here, and that alone is something refreshing to see.

-- eliyahu

austin, tx


----------



## AlanB (Dec 18, 2006)

eliyahu said:


> i am less enthused about the removal of the sightseer lounge cars, and hope that amtrak will put them back on consists unstaffed. perhaps they can reconfigure the lower level as a crew lounge so that the employees don't just end up taking over half of the dining car and hanging out there as i've seen on the texas eagle. and hey, maybe they could charge a nominal fee for its use to cover the extra fuel costs.


Once things are finalized based upon the test runs of 37000, the remaining 11 diners in Beech Grove currently underway will be finished. After that, plans call for 40 of the Sightseer lounge cars to gradually be sent out to a private contractor for conversion to diner lite. So running an unstaffed Sightseer Lounge won't be possible, as they too will be converted to diner lite operations.

I understand that they will retain their big windows, but I can't imagine that finding a seat in one of these cars and holding on to it for any length of time will be possible. Most likely people will be asked to leave the car so that others can sit and eat in the car.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 18, 2006)

rmgreenesq said:


> Please forgive what may be a silly question: How does one know that 37000 (or any particular car) will be on any particular train?
> Or to put it another way, If I were to hop the Acela down to WAS with the intent of riding the Capitol Limited to CHI, how could I be sure car #37000 would be on the train?


Rick,

NARP has posted the tentitive schedule of when the car will run on the Capitol Limited. Tentitive because things could change due to bad ordered equipment or a very late running train. That schedule can be found in various places on the net, like OTOL.


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2006)

AlanB said:


> I understand that they will retain their big windows, but I can't imagine that finding a seat in one of these cars and holding on to it for any length of time will be possible. Most likely people will be asked to leave the car so that others can sit and eat in the car.


That is a little worrying, I'd hate to be kicked out, and I wouldn't like to have to get somebody thrown out so I could eat.


----------



## battalion51 (Dec 18, 2006)

I personally think there will be a change in attitude when it comes to the use of the lounge cars by passengers. For example, on the exsisting Amfleet II lounges folks generally get their food, eat, and peace out. Now granted there are ocassionally a few folks who sit around, play cards, etc. but not to the degree they do on Superliner trains. Hopefully that attitude and way of things working will translate to the Superliner fleet as well.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 18, 2006)

battalion51 said:


> I personally think there will be a change in attitude when it comes to the use of the lounge cars by passengers. For example, on the exsisting Amfleet II lounges folks generally get their food, eat, and peace out. Now granted there are ocassionally a few folks who sit around, play cards, etc. but not to the degree they do on Superliner trains. Hopefully that attitude and way of things working will translate to the Superliner fleet as well.


Well that may well be what has to happen under the new diner lite program.

I for one however don't consider that to be a desirable thing for Amtrak. Part of the charm of taking the train is the ability to "hang out" in the lounge car, especially those wonderful Sightseer lounges. I worry that the loss of that option may well hurt Amtrak in the long run in terms of reduced ridership.

Yes Amtrak may save money with Diner Lite, but if revenues also drop due to the changes, then nothing has been gained. Amtrak will still suffer from the same loss levels that it currently has. One must maximize revenue, while trying to cut costs where possible. The Empire Builder experiement proved that this is the way to go. Blindly trying to cut costs, while giving no consideration to how those cost cutting measures might affect revenue is not a good thing.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 18, 2006)

And one other consideration with the idea that people won't just be allowed to "lounge" around in the lounge car. What happens now on trains where for whatever reason, the train was oversold?

In the past, the lounge while perhaps not ideal, at least provided the relief valve as it were. The crew could put some extra passengers into the lounge, until seats opened up further down the line. Now if all those seats are needed for serving meals, where do those extra passengers go?


----------



## MrFSS (Dec 18, 2006)

AlanB said:


> Now if all those seats are needed for serving meals, where do those extra passengers go?


Many the time I rode the C&NW Flambeau 500 from Chicago to Green Bay as a kid in the 50's It was always oversold on Sunday night and we had to stand until Milwaukee many times. We stood in the aisle and held on to a seat back. Don't know if that is allowed these days or not.


----------



## EmpireBuilderFan1976 (Dec 18, 2006)

I think that at the very LEAST the Empire Builder, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief and Coast Starlight should retain the Sightseer Car. I think removing the Sightseer car from those routes is going to cause a spike in customer complaints and even lost ridership. Maybe as a compromise they could run the Sightseer Car on those routes during peak travel times, Summer/Fall, the week of Thanksgiving and the week of Christmas. I think removing these cars from the Long Distance West Coast to Chicago routes is going to lose Amtrak more than a few customers.


----------



## battalion51 (Dec 18, 2006)

Well then what the heck is the point of the whole program. If implemented as you suggest they will only be cutting the total number of cars used on four out of eight routes that run with Superliner equipment. The point of the program is to cut the number of cars used (and the mechanical expenses associated with them) and reduce staffing. Only one of the two major objectives is accomplished if you leave a car in the consist that's earning absolutely no revenue (food service or passenger seating wise).


----------



## AlanB (Dec 18, 2006)

EmpireBuilderFan1976 said:


> I think that at the very LEAST the Empire Builder, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief and Coast Starlight should retain the Sightseer Car. I think removing the Sightseer car from those routes is going to cause a spike in customer complaints and even lost ridership. Maybe as a compromise they could run the Sightseer Car on those routes during peak travel times, Summer/Fall, the week of Thanksgiving and the week of Christmas. I think removing these cars from the Long Distance West Coast to Chicago routes is going to lose Amtrak more than a few customers.


Well at the moment, at least according the info that Amtrak is releasing, the Empire Builder will not see any changes to its current consist that includes both a normal full diner and a Sightseer lounge car. And considering the rousing sucess that the EB has been for the last year, proving that the entire idea of SDS and Diner Lite is not the correct answer to cutting losses, I don't think that we will see a change on the EB in the near future. It may still happen down the line unless someone at Amtrak actually stops to think and look at the numbers though.

Turning to the other routes, the plan is that the more scenic routes as well as the busier routes, will actually get two Diner Lite cars. One of the converted dining car type, one of the converted Sightseer Lounge type. So in theory the big windows would still be there on the Zephyr and the Chief. The question is, will anyone actually be able to sit in the car and enjoy those windows if it's being used for meal service?


----------



## EmpireBuilderFan1976 (Dec 18, 2006)

battalion51 said:


> Well then what the heck is the point of the whole program. If implemented as you suggest they will only be cutting the total number of cars used on four out of eight routes that run with Superliner equipment. The point of the program is to cut the number of cars used (and the mechanical expenses associated with them) and reduce staffing. Only one of the two major objectives is accomplished if you leave a car in the consist that's earning absolutely no revenue (food service or passenger seating wise).


I don't think putting the lounge inside the dining car is a terrible idea, per say. I like the idea of the dining/lounge car serving from early in the morning until late at night. I think that it could be possible to break even or make a slight profit with the food service on the train with this new concept. However, as with somethings in business, there are certain costs that cannot be avoided and just have to be "absorbed". If Amtrak gets rid of the Sightseer cars they are going to lose some business. Maybe not a lot but some. They are suppose to be finding ways to cut costs and increase ridership. Not cut costs and ridership. Part of the draw of taking a train is to sit back and enjoy the scenery. And be able to get up walk around the train and stretch your legs. If you are only able to go from your coach seat to the dining car, get your food and be asked to return to your seat when you are done so that others can eat, you are effectively eliminating one of the big reasons to take the train. A lot of people also go to the Sightseer car to social. That is also something that is unique to the train. You socialize more on a train than on an airplane. I'm not saying that without the Sightseer car nobody will socialize. Hardly. I socialize plenty when I take the train and I hardly every go to the Sightseer car. But in that respect I am in the minority, as most people do visit the sightseer car.

Now the Cardinal does not have a sightseer car nor does it have a dining car. It has one of the cafe cars. And because it is not a "dining car" it is not very crowded and I have spent hours in that car talking to people and looking at the scenery. The windows are the same as in coach, but I don't feel I am missing anything going through the Corn Fields of Indiana. I think that Amtrak should hold off on converting the sightseer cars.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 18, 2006)

Since I've been a bit critical of Diner Lite in my past few posts in this thread, let me take a moment to add a few thoughts.

First, thanks to Robert for his report.

Second, while I personally believe that Amtrak is barking up the wrong tree with this program, I am relieved to see that at least Amtrak is taking some time with the implimentation of this program and testing things out. Hopefully those tests and their findings will result in changes to how the rest of the cars are converted.

Amtrak seems to be taking a much more hands on and careful approach to introducing Diner Lite to the riding public, than they did initially with SDS which no pun intended, was basically shoved down our throats.

That said, I still don't think that this is the correct idea. As I've mentioned several times in other posts, by Amtrak's own admission, the rebranded Empire Builder is a rousing sucess. It has proved that you can't cut your way to profit, something that by and large Amtrak seems to be trying to do.

Yes one always needs to look for ways to improve things and to cut expenses when possible. But preferably one wants to do that without cutting services and amenities. Sadly too many of the programs and ideas coming out of Amtrak headquarters seem to only have one goal in mind, cutting expenses.

That doesn't lead to happy workers, it doesn't lead to happy customers, and it doesn't lead to actually cutting the losses that Amtrak is currently experiencing. If revenues drop at the same time that costs drop, then no savings has really been achieved. The losses remain at the same level, since even though you've saved money, you've also made less money.

I do realize that the SDS and Diner Lite programs are an outgrowth of the Congressional mandate to cut the losses on food service. But I'm sure that there were other possibilities, other ideas that could have been considered and weren't. Either no one was visionary enough to suggest or think of them, or those in charge simply discarded them out of hand in favor of the mentality "cut staff, cut costs" that seems to exist. And one thing that hasn't been mentioned so far in most discussions is the cost of converting these cars to Diner Lite. The cost is considerable, and one must consider the fact that in many cases, we are converting cars that are 30 years old. That's a lot of money being spent on an old car, for an unproven idea.

I keep returning to the Empire Builder, but it has proved that it is the best way to cut losses. Let's consider the numbers:

In 2005 the EB pulled in about $4 million more than it had in 2004, in 2006 the EB had raised revenue by $6.5 million from the prior year. The FRA allocated loss for the EB went from $15.6 million in 2005 down to $12.9 in 2006, while total overall loss from operating the train went from $43.1M in 2005 down to $35.1M in 2006.

Yes the train still lost money, but thanks to the improved service that was introduced in I believe the second month of the 2006 fiscal year, the Builder increased ridership, increased revenue, and decreased losses, all without cutting services or staffing. Clearly this is the correct answer, not Diner Lite and/or SDS.


----------



## x-press (Dec 18, 2006)

I like anything that helps Amtrak's bottom line. If this helps it, as its creators think it will (despite certain conspiracy theorists), than I'm totally behind it. If customers run away screaming, then I'm not.

Hopefully we can all agree on one thing seen in the pictures: Isn't it WAY past time to get rid of the cardboard-box/magic marker "closed" signs? Geez, spend a few bucks on some professional looking signs ("cafe closed till __", "sorry, restroom out of order," etc).


----------



## Guest (Dec 19, 2006)

AlanB said:


> Turning to the other routes, the plan is that the more scenic routes as well as the busier routes, will actually get two Diner Lite cars. One of the converted dining car type, one of the converted Sightseer Lounge type. So in theory the big windows would still be there on the Zephyr and the Chief. The question is, will anyone actually be able to sit in the car and enjoy those windows if it's being used for meal service?



Won't that INCREASE costs over the current method? You would need two sets of staff, or have the chiefs doing twice the work, as well as asking waiters to carry food between cars (at high speeds this would probably cause spills at the least (wasted food=wasted money), and possably injury (medical bills or lawsuit)).

The other option would be to use the cars like they are being used now, only with a ton of usless features (kitchen in lounge, cafe in diner) which would obviously keep fuel usage steady, while reducing usable space.


----------



## Guest (Dec 19, 2006)

x-press said:


> Isn't it WAY past time to get rid of the cardboard-box/magic marker "closed" signs?


No kidding! Way over due. Tacky!


----------



## GG-1 (Dec 19, 2006)

rmadisonwi said:


> Tilapia Fillet -- $16.50


$16.50 we consider it a garbage fish as a bottom feeder, pond owners are always trying to get rid of them


----------



## AlanB (Dec 19, 2006)

Guest said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Turning to the other routes, the plan is that the more scenic routes as well as the busier routes, will actually get two Diner Lite cars. One of the converted dining car type, one of the converted Sightseer Lounge type. So in theory the big windows would still be there on the Zephyr and the Chief. The question is, will anyone actually be able to sit in the car and enjoy those windows if it's being used for meal service?
> ...


I'm not actually positive just how Amtrak will implement this, since all the details haven't been released. My belief is that one car will operate as a dining car, while the other operates as the cafe; as you surmised in your second paragraph. It is possible that they will operate both as Diner Lite's though and while that would increase staffing, the odds are that it would also increase revenue to offset that increased staffing. As it is now, far too many coach passengers never make it into the dining car thanks to the reduced capacity brought on by SDS.

As for carrying food from one car to another, while I don't believe that will happen in this case, you should know that Amtrak does this quite successfully on the Auto Train. The AT's lounge cars were specially remodeled for use on that train. They actually have 6 tables I believe, might be 8, in the lounge car for use by the dining car. On busy trips, passengers are often seated in the lounge car at those tables, and served from the dining car with the staff carrying everything between the two cars.


----------



## deimos (Dec 19, 2006)

Robert -

I'd also like to thank you for a great report. It appears Amtrak is taking the right steps to evaluate the effectiveness of the Diner-Lite/Lounge concept, but it also appears they want to reach a solution relatively soon. I just hope they allow sufficient time for the concept to prove its worth one way or the other before converting the other cars.

Granted, I do not have the depth of experience that others have, but it appears to me there should be additional standard table seating capacity. I certainly see the benefit of the new seating arrangement and it appears the seats are comfortable, i.e. more comfortable than the "hard" seats one finds in some cafe cars. For that matter, the car appears to have a more pleasant and modern decor than the "manufactured" decor of some cafe cars. In my opinion, I guess its a question of how practical the seating arrangements work out for folks sitting down to enjoy their meals. Too bad there is no practical way to rearrange the seating configuration while en-route.

I wonder if they can dim the overhead lights or if there are reading lights.

Cheers!

Deimos


----------



## printman2000 (Dec 19, 2006)

What I heard from this report is that the tables that are best for meal service can only hold two people comfortably. The tables that can hold more do not have a table big enough or close enough for eating a meal which makes them better for "lounging." However, those tables face IN and not out towards the windows.

Who is designing these things? I know they are already talking about changes, but how could such a bad design get all the way to a test car?


----------



## Everydaymatters (Dec 19, 2006)

Your pictures are nice. It looks like it will be a fun, comfortable place. My only hope would be that the dining/lounge car can be kept cleaner than the present lounge. Not everyone picks up after themselves and I wouldn't want to eat on a table that has stuff left there from previous occupants.


----------



## rmgreenesq (Dec 19, 2006)

AlanB said:


> As for carrying food from one car to another, while I don't believe that will happen in this case, you should know that Amtrak does this quite successfully on the Auto Train. The AT's lounge cars were specially remodeled for use on that train. They actually have 6 tables I believe, might be 8, in the lounge car for use by the dining car. On busy trips, passengers are often seated in the lounge car at those tables, and served from the dining car with the staff carrying everything between the two cars.



That sightseer car has eight tables instead of the seats that face the windows. I had one on the eastbound SWC over thanksgiving. I actually thought it was a good idea. Those tables were never used as overflow seating for the dining car. The dining car always had excess table space om my otherwise sold out train. It did give families and folks traveling together a place to sit and work or relax. My family used it to play board games. Another pulled out the chess set.







I like that car layout becasue it increases the overall number of seats in the car.

Rick


----------



## AlanB (Dec 19, 2006)

rmgreenesq said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > As for carrying food from one car to another, while I don't believe that will happen in this case, you should know that Amtrak does this quite successfully on the Auto Train. The AT's lounge cars were specially remodeled for use on that train. They actually have 6 tables I believe, might be 8, in the lounge car for use by the dining car. On busy trips, passengers are often seated in the lounge car at those tables, and served from the dining car with the staff carrying everything between the two cars.
> ...


I too have seen a few of those lounges where during a refurb, tables were added to the car on the upper level. I personally have mixed feelings about that, as overall I think that the older seats similar to what remains in the rest of the car, were a better choice. We certainly needed a normal Sightseer Lounge this past summer on the EB, as many people were not happy with sitting at those tables just to see the sights.

That said however, as a general rule, the AT does not use Sightseer Lounge cars. The AT has 5 converted ex-dining cars as its lounge cars. These cars are unique in their green seats and have no other comparisons in the Amtrak fleet. When one or more of these cars are bad ordered, or the AT is extremely busy, then you may occasionally see a Sightseer Lounge car running that route. But again, that is the rarity, not the norm.


----------



## rmgreenesq (Dec 19, 2006)

AlanB said:


> We certainly needed a normal Sightseer Lounge this past summer on the EB, as many people were not happy with sitting at those tables just to see the sights.


Your fellow EB passengers may not have been happy sitting in those seats to view the sights, but at least they were sitting. More than once on the westbound SWC (with a standard issue sightseer car) did I see all the seats or seating units occupied.

Rick


----------



## DaveKCMO (Dec 19, 2006)

EmpireBuilderFan1976 said:


> If Amtrak gets rid of the Sightseer cars they are going to lose some business. Maybe not a lot but some.


and these passengers will be flocking to the airlines or rental cars for their fabulouss sightseer lounges instead? people who ride trains will still ride trains regardless of whether there is a separate place to dine and sightsee.


----------



## yarrow (Dec 19, 2006)

DaveKCMO said:


> EmpireBuilderFan1976 said:
> 
> 
> > If Amtrak gets rid of the Sightseer cars they are going to lose some business. Maybe not a lot but some.
> ...


i agree that amtrak will lose some revenue by getting rid of the lounges. there are already rail journeys we don't make because amtrak doesn't offer the service in a manner we are willing to pay for. would love to go spk-emy but the return is only offered as a train/bus combo. no thanks. would like easier acess from spk to salt lake city for trips to the canyonlands but it isn't offered so we choose a different mode of transport. get rid of the lounges and there may well be more trips we do otherwise than by rail(would consider driving spk-pdx as a main reason to go by train are the views from the lounge car of the columbia from the north bank). also, travelling as a family we use the lounge car a lot(whether going first class or coach) for conversation, games and sightseeing


----------



## battalion51 (Dec 19, 2006)

AlanB said:


> I too have seen a few of those lounges where during a refurb, tables were added to the car on the upper level. I personally have mixed feelings about that, as overall I think that the older seats similar to what remains in the rest of the car, were a better choice. We certainly needed a normal Sightseer Lounge this past summer on the EB, as many people were not happy with sitting at those tables just to see the sights.
> That said however, as a general rule, the AT does not use Sightseer Lounge cars. The AT has 5 converted ex-dining cars as its lounge cars. These cars are unique in their green seats and have no other comparisons in the Amtrak fleet. When one or more of these cars are bad ordered, or the AT is extremely busy, then you may occasionally see a Sightseer Lounge car running that route. But again, that is the rarity, not the norm.


 Actually it was the Auto Train boys that pioneered the concept of putting tables in a Sightseer. Following the AT derailment 2 lounges went out of service, reducing their fleet to three, but they need four to run regular service, so a Sightseer was always running along with two Diners. A few years ago they tried installing booths in a Sightseer and run it as they would a typical lounge (the 33035), and the experiemnt stuck. This car sees fairly regular service on Auto Train (or at least it did before the 33100 came back, it may have been since reassigned).


----------



## Palmland (Dec 19, 2006)

rmadisonwi said:


> One "con" I can think of with the diner-lounge is that some folks may want a more "elegant" dining experience, while the diner-lounge is run more like a sports bar/grill. The food quality is as good as anything Amtrak has to offer, but, for example, last night for dinner, a friend and I were enjoying our steak (for me) and chicken (for him), while across the aisle, three or four younger folks were regaling us with their intimiate familiarity of the penal code in Virginia, on account of first-hand experience they or their friends had.
> Having people that want to lounge around and play music may not set well with an elderly couple that wants to have a nice, quiet dinner. However, Amtrak does (even on other trains) offer a take-out option for the dining car menu, though it is perhaps "pushed" a bit more with the diner-lounge.


Good report, but this comment reinforces my concern on the diner-lounges. I think diner-lounges are a good idea on trains with smaller passenger loads, but I hope Amtak learns from this.

For many of us, elderly or not, there is no fun in having to share experiences with good ol boys in the lounge when you are trying to enjoy a good dinner with your wife. Sort of like having someone's annoying cell phone conversation within earshot. Separate the dining and lounge areas! Also I gather the view is of 'loungers' across the aisle rather than the great scenery. Seems to me Amtrak is missing what train travel is all about.


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 19, 2006)

Who said Amtrak was getting rid of sightseer lounges? Amtrak is *not* going to do away with the sightseer lounge.

Also, the sightseer lounges converted to a diner-lounge configuration will be different from the dining cars being so converted. I'm not sure how they'll be different, exactly, but I was told by at least one Amtrak service manager that they would be different.

As for the inward-facing seats in the lounge, those are good for folks that just want to sit down and chat, and perhaps munch on a snack or two. A larger table would also make them better for dining service. The tables that currently only seat two comfortably will be reconfigured to (hopefully) accommodate four.

I wouldn't be so quick as to condemn the design, and ask how "such a bad design" could make it onto a test car. The fact is, not everything can be anticipated based on a paper design. That's the whole purpose of the test. We should be glad that Amtrak is running a test and gaining feedback before going into production.

On the other hand, Airbus's $10+ billion A380 program is several years late, and the currently produced planes won't be delivered to airlines until late next year because of issues with certain parts of the design not quite fitting properly (primarily in the wiring). How could such a bad design make it all the way to production? How could Microsoft Windows (and Internet Explorer) be released with so many bugs and security holes, that require continuous patching?

If you've found the perfect design, please let us know.

Despite the diner-lounge's shortcomings, I think it is a positive step towards improving the efficiency of Amtrak's food-service operations. It should certainly improve the revenue of the car by making the service more inviting, especially to those that may feel intimidated by the existing dining car's style and prices. For those that want good dining car food, the diner-lounge is much more capable of providing that under simplified dining service than the existing dining car design (which was designed around a staff of 6 to 8 rather than a staff of 3 to 4).

The experience on train 29(16) exemplifies the benefits of the diner-lounge concept. When certain Amtrak managers noticed that bookings were fairly high on that train, they made the decision to run the regular dining car. If ridership on that train was fairly light, they could have done without the dining car, saved money, and still provided essentially the same level of service to the passengers (albeit in a different atmosphere).

Based on my conversations with those managers, as well as a friend on the customer advisory council, it seems that Amtrak desires to be much more customer-service focused than the company has in years past. They could have said "to hell with it" and ran only the diner-lounge on that train, but they took the extra step to add food-service capacity based on the loadings. There are people within Amtrak that want to see the company, and its long-distance services, succeed. If given half a chance, they'll certainly do well.


----------



## printman2000 (Dec 19, 2006)

rmadisonwi said:


> As for the inward-facing seats in the lounge, those are good for folks that just want to sit down and chat, and perhaps munch on a snack or two. A larger table would also make them better for dining service. The tables that currently only seat two comfortably will be reconfigured to (hopefully) accommodate four.
> I wouldn't be so quick as to condemn the design, and ask how "such a bad design" could make it onto a test car. The fact is, not everything can be anticipated based on a paper design. That's the whole purpose of the test. We should be glad that Amtrak is running a test and gaining feedback before going into production.


Let me just say that in a diner/lounge, there should not be ANY inward facing seats. On LD trains, people want to see out the windows. They should at least be booth style so you can look out fairly easily.

Just my 2 cents


----------



## AmtrakFan (Dec 19, 2006)

battalion51 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > I too have seen a few of those lounges where during a refurb, tables were added to the car on the upper level. I personally have mixed feelings about that, as overall I think that the older seats similar to what remains in the rest of the car, were a better choice. We certainly needed a normal Sightseer Lounge this past summer on the EB, as many people were not happy with sitting at those tables just to see the sights.
> ...


Sean,

33035 has since been reassigned it was running on 7/8 at the beginning of the new improvments. Not sure where it is now.


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 19, 2006)

printman2000 said:


> Let me just say that in a diner/lounge, there should not be ANY inward facing seats. On LD trains, people want to see out the windows. They should at least be booth style so you can look out fairly easily.
> Just my 2 cents


You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, passengers seemed to use the aisle-facing seats as well, even when window-facing seats were available. The advantage to those is that you can seat five people at one table. The window-facing seats can only seat two (comfortably) now, or perhaps four depending on the success of the redesign.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 20, 2006)

rmadisonwi said:


> Who said Amtrak was getting rid of sightseer lounges? Amtrak is *not* going to do away with the sightseer lounge.


Amtrak said that they were getting rid of the Sightseer Lounges, although not formally. But it was reported in Amtrak Ink, the employee newsletter, that 40 Sightseer Lounges would be converted to Diner Lite configurations once all 12 dining cars were finished. Amtrak only carries 45 Sightseer Lounges on its active roster, so if they are converting 40 of them, that pretty much spells the end of Sightseer Lounges for Amtrak.

The remaining 5 would most likely be assigned to Empire Builder service.



rmadisonwi said:


> Also, the sightseer lounges converted to a diner-lounge configuration will be different from the dining cars being so converted. I'm not sure how they'll be different, exactly, but I was told by at least one Amtrak service manager that they would be different.


Well at least a few of the differences will be that Amtrak is going to farm that work out, meaning it won't be done by Beech Grove and the cars will need a lot more work since they have none of the food prep equipment that the diner's do. Beyond that, other than the fact that the nice windows won't be replaced with diner type windows, I'm not aware of any other differences that are planned.



rmadisonwi said:


> I wouldn't be so quick as to condemn the design, and ask how "such a bad design" could make it onto a test car. The fact is, not everything can be anticipated based on a paper design. That's the whole purpose of the test. We should be glad that Amtrak is running a test and gaining feedback before going into production.
> Despite the diner-lounge's shortcomings, I think it is a positive step towards improving the efficiency of Amtrak's food-service operations. It should certainly improve the revenue of the car by making the service more inviting, especially to those that may feel intimidated by the existing dining car's style and prices. For those that want good dining car food, the diner-lounge is much more capable of providing that under simplified dining service than the existing dining car design (which was designed around a staff of 6 to 8 rather than a staff of 3 to 4).


On this point I whole heartedly agree with you Robert, Amtrak has at least been wise in taking baby steps with this idea, waiting for reactions both from crews and passengers, before rolling out dozens of cars that don't work.



rmadisonwi said:


> The experience on train 29(16) exemplifies the benefits of the diner-lounge concept. When certain Amtrak managers noticed that bookings were fairly high on that train, they made the decision to run the regular dining car. If ridership on that train was fairly light, they could have done without the dining car, saved money, and still provided essentially the same level of service to the passengers (albeit in a different atmosphere).
> Based on my conversations with those managers, as well as a friend on the customer advisory council, it seems that Amtrak desires to be much more customer-service focused than the company has in years past. They could have said "to hell with it" and ran only the diner-lounge on that train, but they took the extra step to add food-service capacity based on the loadings. There are people within Amtrak that want to see the company, and its long-distance services, succeed. If given half a chance, they'll certainly do well.


How sure of that are you? Amtrak released the schedule over a month ago, so I'm not sure just how stable the booking were at that point, such that they could properly decide which trains should get only Diner Lite, which trains got a Diner Lite car and a normal dining car, as well as which trains ran normally with both a regular diner and a regular Sightseer Lounge car.


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 20, 2006)

A sightseer lounge converted to diner-lounge configuration will still be a sightseer lounge.

As for the Capitol Limited getting both a diner and a diner-lounge, the managers on board said that the decision to add a regular diner was made within the last few days before the trip. The trip was originally scheduled to operate with only a diner-lounge, but a surge in bookings caused them to change their mind.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 20, 2006)

rmadisonwi said:


> A sightseer lounge converted to diner-lounge configuration will still be a sightseer lounge.


With all respect Robert, if a passenger can't remain in the car to enjoy the scenery because the LSA needs the seats for lunch, then a converted Sightseer Lounge in no longer serving it's primary function, which is to provide a place for a passenger to relax and enjoy the world.

It has instead become nothing more than a food service car, with some really nice windows that one can only take advantage of for about 3 hours a day during meal times.


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 20, 2006)

Again, if Amtrak is able to do what certain managers want to do with the diner-lounge concept, then this shouldn't be a problem. If the train is crowded to the point where you'd have an overflow of people in the car (either for lounging or for eating), Amtrak can add a second car. During periods when travel is lighter, a single car will suffice and still be able to accommodate most or all of the people that want to spend time in the lounge.

Also, since the busy periods for dining are around meal times, then passengers would be able to take advantage of the car outside of these meal times for lounging purposes. Or, if they are so inclined, they could order something off the all-day menu and have an excuse to stay even longer.


----------



## AmtrakWPK (Dec 20, 2006)

Or just go ahead and install parking meters at each seat, where you have to insert $5 every 30 minutes, which is what that suggestion amounts to. Well, probably more than $5. That is not a sightseer lounge. It's an attempt to extort more than the published fare for the privilege of enjoying what has always been one of the primary advantages of train travel - for everyone who has paid the fare - the advantage of having a panoramic view of America, from ground level, not from 40,000 feet, and to meet and converse with his/her fellow travelers, at their leisure, while so doing.


----------



## Guest (Dec 20, 2006)

AmtrakWPK said:


> Or just go ahead and install parking meters at each seat, where you have to insert $5 every 30 minutes, which is what that suggestion amounts to. Well, probably more than $5.



I can make a bag of chips and a soda last 3 hours. I like that idea better than some meter that costs more than $5.00 for 30 minutes and I don't even get anything to eat or drink.


----------



## gswager (Dec 20, 2006)

We already have two classes- sleeper and coach. We should add another class- sightseer class that comes with snack bar, not dining.


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2006)

gswager said:


> We already have two classes- sleeper and coach. We should add another class- sightseer class that comes with snack bar, not dining.


[cher] Now, that's a really good idea! [/cher]


----------



## rtabern (Dec 26, 2006)

Ok, I had to finally check this thing out myself -- even if it involved driving from Chicago to South Bend... riding the Capitol SOB-CHI... taking a commuter train from CHI back to SOB, and finally driving back to Chicago. But hey, I'm a railfan, and it was sooo worth it!

Check out my new pictures and review from riding on the diner/lounge Saturday morning 12/23.

www.rtabern.com/amtrak-29a.html


----------



## Guest_Avia_* (Dec 26, 2006)

The best thing Amtrak could do to convert the Lounges to revenue cars is to turn them into premium seating type cars. Seats 3-across that could recline for sleeping purposes. Charge more per seat and market the service between a sleeping car room and regular coach! To convert to a diner/lounge is a waste of money.


----------



## gswager (Dec 26, 2006)

rtabern said:


> Ok, I had to finally check this thing out myself -- even if it involved driving from Chicago to South Bend... riding the Capitol SOB-CHI... taking a commuter train from CHI back to SOB, and finally driving back to Chicago. But hey, I'm a railfan, and it was sooo worth it!
> Check out my new pictures and review from riding on the diner/lounge Saturday morning 12/23.
> 
> www.rtabern.com/amtrak-29a.html


Thanks for explaining about why there are two different tables! Glad that you made a history!


----------



## MrFSS (Dec 27, 2006)

As he did with his Beech Grove pictures, rtabern has allowed me to post direct in the thread, the picture from his web site showing the new car layout as he experienced it on the CL.


----------



## printman2000 (Dec 27, 2006)

The more pictures I see, the more I dislike this car. The pics with people sitting in the "booths" really disturbs me. The seating looks really awkward and uncomfortable.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 27, 2006)

printman2000 said:


> The more pictures I see, the more I dislike this car. The pics with people sitting in the "booths" really disturbs me. The seating looks really awkward and uncomfortable.


While I note that no one who has been in the car has so far reported that the seats are uncomfortable, I too have to agree that from the pictures they look like the most awkward and uncomfortable seats around.


----------



## Guest (Dec 27, 2006)

The seats actually look quite comfortable with a maximum capacity of only 2 persons per booth. Otherwise, it'll be a real knee knocker! :lol:


----------



## Guest (Dec 27, 2006)

I wonder how often you will get 5 people not from the same party to sit at a lounge table voluntarily?


----------



## Guest (Dec 30, 2006)

One specific problem that hasn't been mentioned yet- the little oval tables on the inward-facing booths are very exposed to traffic up and down the aisles. A lot of drinks and snacks will be spilled when folks walk past, swinging their arms and toting shoulder bags. I can't recall ever eating a meal facing a traffic aisle on the back side of the table. And I wonder if there won't be a queasiness factor for some to eat while staring sideways out the window?

I like some of the styling details here, but the overall concept stinks. It's neither a diner nor a lounge, but a half-baked hybrid of the two. This may be the last straw that makes me abandon Amtrak and start saving for that trip on VIA or the Alaska RR.


----------



## gaspeamtrak (Dec 31, 2006)

Guest said:


> One specific problem that hasn't been mentioned yet- the little oval tables on the inward-facing booths are very exposed to traffic up and down the aisles. A lot of drinks and snacks will be spilled when folks walk past, swinging their arms and toting shoulder bags. I can't recall ever eating a meal facing a traffic aisle on the back side of the table. And I wonder if there won't be a queasiness factor for some to eat while staring sideways out the window?
> I like some of the styling details here, but the overall concept stinks. It's neither a diner nor a lounge, but a half-baked hybrid of the two. This may be the last straw that makes me abandon Amtrak and start saving for that trip on VIA or the Alaska RR.


Good luck!!! I hope you can afford Via's out of this world fares :angry: :angry: for the Canadian!!!...


----------



## rtabern (Dec 31, 2006)

That's a good point about drinks getting knocked over... it didn't happen when I was on it (I'm the one in the pictures posted on page 3 of this topic), but it could easily happen. Look closely at the picture of the chef eating his cereal and milk... someone could easily walk by and knock it over.

I wish there was some way they could just keep the Sightseers on there --- and then take the current configuration and make them all just larger "dining tables". But it wouldn't make much sense them because that wouldn't save much money.

Why not just scrap the idea and just leave things alone?


----------



## The Metropolitan (Dec 31, 2006)

I would almost think that trapezoidial (sp?) booths / / on one side of the aisle would work better, at say a 15 to 20 degree angle off of perpendicular to the aisle.

The forward facing seat would angle slightly toward the window, while the rear facing seat would angle towards the aisle. Thus, parties of strangers could easily socialize if they pleased, or instead focus their attention on the window scene or rest of the car.

By using the offsetting angle, the booths could be slightly narrower, thus offering a few more inches of space space for the more lounge-like setting on the other side of the aisle.


----------



## frychikn (Dec 31, 2006)

DaveKCMO said:


> EmpireBuilderFan1976 said:
> 
> 
> > If Amtrak gets rid of the Sightseer cars they are going to lose some business. Maybe not a lot but some.
> ...



Well, it depends. Most things people do involve tradeoffs. You take the train from say Chicago to San Francisco, it takes a little over 2 days. To fly it takes a little over four hours. Big difference. The tradeoff is that by taking the train you get to relax and enjoy a lot of nice scenery which you would not be able to on the plane. Take that away and people will opt for the 4 hour flight rather than the 2 day train trip, except for those who are just afraid to fly.


----------



## RailThunder (Jan 1, 2007)

I would agree with the comments about the lounge tables on the aisle side. Not very practical and more work for the attendant/LSA to keep clean. On the safety side with typical swaying motion of the train and passenger walking dynamics I wouldn't be surprised to see upper thighs and lower hips getting bruised when walking by/passing/letting someone else in the aisle by. The other dilemna is human nature and I'm quite confident there will be times when one passenger takes a whole "5 people" booth to him or herself leaving a family of 5 to try and fit in a two seated one. I can also visualize sleepy coach passengers coming to the car in the middle of the night to lay on the 5 person booth for some "horizontal" rest.


----------



## VT Hokie (Jan 2, 2007)

It reminds me a lot of the short lived Acela-style Amfleet cafe conversions. Amtrak quickly realized that the standard table seating worked better.

Removing the Sightseer Lounge and trying to combine diner and lounge functions into a single car will be a disaster, imo.


----------



## Guest (Jan 2, 2007)

RailThunder said:


> I can also visualize sleepy coach passengers coming to the car in the middle of the night to lay on the 5 person booth for some "horizontal" rest.


That already happens anyway. :lol:


----------



## Guest (Jan 2, 2007)

VT Hokie said:


> It reminds me a lot of the short lived Acela-style Amfleet cafe conversions. Amtrak quickly realized that the standard table seating worked better.
> Removing the Sightseer Lounge and trying to combine diner and lounge functions into a single car will be a disaster, imo.


Ya, that was stupid of them. Designing a car with the intent to discourage people from using it is asking for problems.


----------



## frj1983 (Jan 3, 2007)

I still wonder:

Why they can't use the old dining cars and just do SDS using them. After all, they have the cars why not use them? It seems to me that a little creative thinking could work out the ways and means of using them with the new SDS service, or perhaps even a little revamping of the kitchen areas to work it out. I'm thinking of the millions being spent, that could have been used to repair cars sitting in the dead line at Beech Grove!

Sigh...OK diatribe off.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 3, 2007)

frj1983 said:


> I still wonder:
> Why they can't use the old dining cars and just do SDS using them. After all, they have the cars why not use them? It seems to me that a little creative thinking could work out the ways and means of using them with the new SDS service, or perhaps even a little revamping of the kitchen areas to work it out. I'm thinking of the millions being spent, that could have been used to repair cars sitting in the dead line at Beech Grove!
> 
> Sigh...OK diatribe off.


Because in today's world if you tell a manager to cut costs, most will take that to mean cut labor. Granted labor is one of the biggest costs of doing business in today's world, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other alternatives to cutting costs. Unfortunately though it seems that those put in charge of following Congress' mandate to cut food service costs have mainly focused on "how do we cut staffing", without consideration of other possible alternatives or the possible consequences of their decisions.


----------



## frj1983 (Jan 3, 2007)

AlanB said:


> frj1983 said:
> 
> 
> > I still wonder:
> ...


While I agree Alan, that most managers would think cost cutting=cutting labor, that's not what I meant and I was probably imprecise in my thoughts. You can only cut labor so much before service begins to suffer and I think that Amtrak reached that point long ago.

Couldn't an SDS type menu be set up that could use the current configuration of an Amtrak diner car? Couldn't hours be increased, prices for meals decreased, portions shrunk, and passengers encouraged to use the diner? I don't see how they can possibly save money if they are spending millions on redoing these cars. Sure, you might have less labor(staff), but it will be a long time before you recapture the money spent on the cars. Meanwhile cars that need repair sit and rust at Beech Grove. Imagine how many cars could have been refurbished and repaired for the same amount of money.

It seems that Amtrak is cutting off it's nose to spite it's face!


----------



## Chi_Train_Fan (Jan 3, 2007)

Photos from my recent trip aboard the Capitol Limited that used car 37000 as a lounge only, behind a "normal" dining car.

Photos of Diner Lounge 37000

A full written trip report with impressions and obvervations will follow.

Cheers,

David Z

Chicago, IL


----------



## AmtrakWPK (Jan 3, 2007)

With the new makeup of Congress one would assume it will be at least somewhat more sympathetic to labor. It will be interesting to see if that has any effect on the focus of Amtrak's "cost-cutting".


----------



## Rafi (Jan 3, 2007)

CHI_Amtrak_Fan said:


> Photos from my recent trip aboard the Capitol Limited that used car 37000 as a lounge only, behind a "normal" dining car.
> Photos of Diner Lounge 37000
> 
> A full written trip report with impressions and obvervations will follow.
> ...


Thanks for those pictures, David.

At the risk of just repeating what a bunch of other folks have been saying, I'll say this:

The more pictures I see, the more I really get a feeling that this kind of arrangement is great for a "bistro" car: a car you go to grab something to eat, sit down for ten minutes, slurp a soda, and maybe hang out for another 10 minutes, and then leave.

That's it.

And I feel almost...guilty...to feel this way, because I really wanted to see this thing work. But this layout.... if it's the only "eating" car on the train—even if there are two of them on a long route—is just not going to cut it. When I go to eat dinner, I go for a meal, and frankly, this arrangement just doesn't feel like it's conducive to eating real meals. It'd make a fantastic replacement for a Cafe/Lounge car, I think, but as a replacement for a diner? I'm just really getting a sinking feeling when I imagine what the trip would be like. Am I making any sense?

-Rafi


----------



## AlanB (Jan 3, 2007)

frj1983 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > frj1983 said:
> ...


I wouldn't argue Frj that Amtrak IMHO has already cut staff beyond where it should have been cut. But that however doesn't seem to be the opinion of those in charge of cutting the costs of food service, so first we got SDS, which has been running now for almost one year in the current/normal dining car. That however apparently wasn't enough savings, so further cuts are being made by marrying SDS into the Diner-Lite car. Now they can once again cut at least one, if not two more OBS positions and as an added benefit reduce fuel costs by about 4% whenever they can run just one Diner Lite car instead of either 2 Diner Lite cars or 1 diner and one lounge.

As for the money being spent, which by the way for the first 18 cars should total around $4.7 million assuming no cost overruns, that comes out of the capital budget since it's a car improvement and it of course can be depreciated. Since it comes out of the capital budget and not the food service budget, those tasked with cutting food service costs don't care. Their job is to cut the food service costs as mandated by Congress.

The rest of us of course see this for what it really is, just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as it slowly sinks into the waves. But it satisfies the Congressional mandate to cut food service losses, even though it does nothing to cut the overall funding provided to Amtrak by Congress. :blink: The next part of the Diner-Lite program however will cost quite a bit more, since converting the 40 Sightseer Lounges will cost considerably more because they don't have any of the kitchen equipment already in place on the 18 Dining cars that are currently being converted.

I will say that having Diner-Lite cars does simplify things for the crews putting the trains together, since they don't need to find a lounge car when one is bad ordered, or a diner when one is B/O'd. They only have to find a Diner Lite car when one is bad ordered.

Of course the really sad thing in all of this remains the fact that no one at Amtrak has learned from the SDS experiment this year. According to Amtrak's own end of fiscal year numbers, there is what's called the FRA contribution. In simple terms, this is the number based upon FRA allowed costs that the Federal government gives to each route that Amtrak runs to keep the trains running. In other words, it is the amount of subsidy needed for that train over the income generated by that train minus the allowed expenses to run that train. Anyone want to guess which train reduced its subsidy the most last year? :unsure:

If you said Empire Builder, you're right. While the EB still lost money, it was one of only three* LD trains that actually reduced its subsidy and it did the *best* of the three reducing its subsidy by $2.7 million dollars. In second place was the City on NOL which reduced subsidies by $900M, followed by the Cardinal which reduced its subsidy by $400M. All other LD's despite running with SDS for almost 6 months, required more subsidy monies in 2006 than they did in 2005.

Just to be clear, the train that did the best at reducing its overall subsidy last year, was one of only two trains that did *not* cut services by implementing SDS.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*To be fair I will say that it does appear that the Silver Service may also have cut its subsidies last year, however due to the way that Amtrak presented the numbers in 2004, 2005, and 2006 I can't be sure. Some years they broke out the costs of all three trains and in other years they combined them, so it makes it hard to be sure what the real numbers are.


----------



## Guest (Jan 4, 2007)

Shiney, new, clean, and empty, they do look nice. Once it looses its coolness because it is not run down like most of the fleet, it will just be another missguided amtak/congressional mistake.


----------



## Chi_Train_Fan (Jan 5, 2007)

CHI_Amtrak_Fan said:


> A full written trip report with impressions and obvervations will follow.


Just to beat this dead horse some more, I've finished my trip report.

-David Z


----------



## printman2000 (Jan 14, 2007)

CHI_Amtrak_Fan said:


> CHI_Amtrak_Fan said:
> 
> 
> > A full written trip report with impressions and obvervations will follow.
> ...


Here is a pic of #30.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=171291

Notice what is missing?


----------



## rmgreenesq (Jan 14, 2007)

printman2000 said:


> Here is a pic of #30.
> http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=171291
> 
> Notice what is missing?


The diner?

Rick


----------



## printman2000 (Jan 14, 2007)

rmgreenesq said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a pic of #30.
> ...


Nope. The Sightseer Lounge. This one must be running with the new Diner-Lounge car only.


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2007)

I'm a huge supporter of Amtrak but I cannot understand their constant conversions of cars. Just a few years ago the sightseer lounges (some of them at least, I don't know if all) were converted to have tables on one end of the car. Now after these remodeled cars are just a few years old this design is history? This doesn't make much fiscal sense. Amtrak seems to never have a hard time coming up with money for diner/lounge conversions.


----------



## railfangns (Jan 20, 2007)

gswager said:


> rtabern said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, I had to finally check this thing out myself -- even if it involved driving from Chicago to South Bend... riding the Capitol SOB-CHI... taking a commuter train from CHI back to SOB, and finally driving back to Chicago. But hey, I'm a railfan, and it was sooo worth it!
> ...


Amtrak please change the 3 letter code for South Bend.SBD STB would be a nicer code than SOB!

I have seen people carrying their bags they had checked to South Bend and im sure they had rather

not had a tag marked SOB on them.


----------



## D.P. Roberts (Jan 20, 2007)

One thought on a possible purpose behind Diner Lite.

Most of you have ridden LD trains before, and are comfortable with the dining arrangements as they are. However, for a lot of people who are new to Amtrak, dining with strangers sounds weird. I've not done it myself, and I must say I thought it was strange before I really started reading about it here.

It sounds more like a neighborhood bar/grill - like an Applebee's or Outback Steakhouse - rather than a formal, sit down dinner. To me, Diner Lite sounds more the types of places most couples and families are choosing for their meals today. Perhaps Amtrak is looking to expand its passenger base, rather than catering to those who are already fans of the current methods.

This may or may not be a good idea (there's no point in spending money to attract new riders with an idea that turns off the old one), and the current implementation may or may not be successful. However, I think it is in keeping with how a lot of people live today.


----------



## had8ley (Jan 21, 2007)

D.P. Roberts said:


> One thought on a possible purpose behind Diner Lite.
> Most of you have ridden LD trains before, and are comfortable with the dining arrangements as they are. However, for a lot of people who are new to Amtrak, dining with strangers sounds weird. I've not done it myself, and I must say I thought it was strange before I really started reading about it here.
> 
> It sounds more like a neighborhood bar/grill - like an Applebee's or Outback Steakhouse - rather than a formal, sit down dinner. To me, Diner Lite sounds more the types of places most couples and families are choosing for their meals today. Perhaps Amtrak is looking to expand its passenger base, rather than catering to those who are already fans of the current methods.
> ...


Unfortunately the "community dining" aspect goes back many years before Amtrak even existed. Seating strangers together was the brain child of pre-Amtrak railroads when diners stayed full during the times they were open. Some were diner-lounges that took more tables away from meal service and thus encouraged strangers meeting strangers.


----------



## Ken (Jan 21, 2007)

If they want to cut food service costs, perhaps they need to employ cheaper food service workers. What do private restaurants pay food service workers? How much are Amtrak food service workers paid. In the 1940's & 50's what did the private railroads pay the food service workers in relation to the wage of non-railroad food service workers or in relation to the wage of the railroad engineer or conductor? If the cooks and waitstaff are being paid $50,000 per year, there is no way that you will ever be able to break even on food service. Perhaps they need to hire illegal aliens or recent immigrants for these positions and pay lower wages.


----------



## haolerider (Jan 21, 2007)

Ken said:


> If they want to cut food service costs, perhaps they need to employ cheaper food service workers. What do private restaurants pay food service workers? How much are Amtrak food service workers paid. In the 1940's & 50's what did the private railroads pay the food service workers in relation to the wage of non-railroad food service workers or in relation to the wage of the railroad engineer or conductor? If the cooks and waitstaff are being paid $50,000 per year, there is no way that you will ever be able to break even on food service. Perhaps they need to hire illegal aliens or recent immigrants for these positions and pay lower wages.


Ken:

First you have a union to deal with and secondly, unless you have an idea as to how long these employees are on the job for a 2-3 day train ride, you are not going to find qualified illegal aliens, immigrants or any other person to be away from home for 5-7 days, live in a small cubilce for 2-3 days at a time, work all three meal shifts, set-up, clean-up, stock and re-stock and wait on the passengers. The $50,000 you quote is not a typical figure, but even if it was, the conditions under which they work call for some sort of extra benefit. Now, having said all that, there definitely are changes that have to be made. Perhaps leasing out the equipment to a food service company who would provide all the services as noted above for a set fee, or as they are trying to do now, become more efficient. All change takes time and there are changes being made constanly to how this service is provided. I can assure you illegal immigrants are not the answer.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 21, 2007)

haolerider said:


> Ken said:
> 
> 
> > If they want to cut food service costs, perhaps they need to employ cheaper food service workers. What do private restaurants pay food service workers? How much are Amtrak food service workers paid. In the 1940's & 50's what did the private railroads pay the food service workers in relation to the wage of non-railroad food service workers or in relation to the wage of the railroad engineer or conductor? If the cooks and waitstaff are being paid $50,000 per year, there is no way that you will ever be able to break even on food service. Perhaps they need to hire illegal aliens or recent immigrants for these positions and pay lower wages.
> ...


I agree 100% with Haolerider, and in fact we've had this same discussion here on the board many times already in the past. Despite efforts by some in government to blame the losses in food service on the high paid workers, one simply cannot compare your average waiter/waitress to a worker in a dining car on Amtrak.

As noted above, your average resturant worker does not work all three meals each day and they get to go home and sleep in their own bed. Your average resturant worker doesn't have to carry a tray full of hot coffee while the floor of the resturant is bouncing and jerking around. Next $50,000 is not a typical salary for a food service worker on Amtrak, it is lower than that. Additionally when they compare the salary of a resturant worker to an Amtrak worker, they only compare the base salaries. That is the portion that the resturant actually pays the worker.

They are not comparing tips, which is what most resturant workers relay upon for their total income. Most Amtrak workers don't get 15% of the total check in tips. Especially since most diners in the dining car are sleeper pax and therefore don't get a check. So if they even bother to leave a tip at all, and many don't since they believe it's included in the free meals, they leave a buck or two since they can't calculate the correct tip without the check.

Finally your average resturant worker doesn't have to undergo safety training and is not responsible for the safety of their patrons. An Amtrak worker is responsible and must know what to do in an emergency, things like where are the emergency exits, how do you open them, how to properly evacuate the car and when to evacuate.


----------



## D.P. Roberts (Jan 21, 2007)

AlanB said:


> haolerider said:
> 
> 
> > Ken said:
> ...



So really, an Amtrak food service worker is much like a flight attendant, in terms of schedule, job requirements, etc. According to salary figures I've seen, flight attendants start in the upper teens, but easily get to $30-$40000 after 6+ years.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 21, 2007)

D.P. Roberts said:


> So really, an Amtrak food service worker is much like a flight attendant, in terms of schedule, job requirements, etc. According to salary figures I've seen, flight attendants start in the upper teens, but easily get to $30-$40000 after 6+ years.


That might be a slightly more favorable comparison, but even then most flight attendants go to sleep in a hotel room, not a roomette. And most flight attendants aren't basically on duty for 3 days straight.

And I sure hope that starting salaries for flight attendants are higher than upper teens, that's almost poverty level.  Like 8 bucks an hour or so, these days even McDonalds pays almost that much an hour.


----------



## rmgreenesq (Jan 21, 2007)

D.P. Roberts said:


> So really, an Amtrak food service worker is much like a flight attendant, in terms of schedule, job requirements, etc. According to salary figures I've seen, flight attendants start in the upper teens, but easily get to $30-$40000 after 6+ years.


Flight Attendants start out better than that.



> From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
> Online Wage Library - FLC Wage Search Results
> 
> Sunday, January 21, 2007 New Quick Search New Search Wizard
> ...


----------



## AlanB (Jan 21, 2007)

rmgreenesq said:


> D.P. Roberts said:
> 
> 
> > So really, an Amtrak food service worker is much like a flight attendant, in terms of schedule, job requirements, etc. According to salary figures I've seen, flight attendants start in the upper teens, but easily get to $30-$40000 after 6+ years.
> ...


Hmm, very interesting. Thanks for those numbers Rick. 

It would be helpful to know what one has to do to move up one level. However based upon that, I'd almost say that Amtrak food service workers aren't paid enough for the jobs that they perform. I don't believe that there are many, if any, Amtrak food service workers who are making as much as a level 4 flight attendant.

I recall a post by one Amtrak cook, the highest paid food service position with Amtrak, whom after 14 years of service was making money in the area of the level 2 numbers for flight attendants.


----------



## Steve4031 (Jan 21, 2007)

railfangns said:


> Amtrak please change the 3 letter code for South Bend.SBD STB would be a nicer code than SOB!I have seen people carrying their bags they had checked to South Bend and im sure they had rather
> 
> not had a tag marked SOB on them.



Who ever did this must not be a Notre Dame fan. Maybe they were from Miami or USC.


----------



## D.P. Roberts (Jan 21, 2007)

rmgreenesq said:


> D.P. Roberts said:
> 
> 
> > So really, an Amtrak food service worker is much like a flight attendant, in terms of schedule, job requirements, etc. According to salary figures I've seen, flight attendants start in the upper teens, but easily get to $30-$40000 after 6+ years.
> ...



I got my information here:

http://www.cabincrewjobs.com/salarycomparison.html

Looking at it again, the numbers are a few years old.


----------



## rmgreenesq (Jan 21, 2007)

AlanB said:


> Hmm, very interesting. Thanks for those numbers Rick.
> It would be helpful to know what one has to do to move up one level. However based upon that, I'd almost say that Amtrak food service workers aren't paid enough for the jobs that they perform. I don't believe that there are many, if any, Amtrak food service workers who are making as much as a level 4 flight attendant.


Generally speaking level one is entry level or less than two years of experience. Level two is two to five years of expereince, level 3 is over five years of expereince and level four is over ten years or requiring something that is not normally requied (like a masters degree for a job that typically requires a BA/BS.

That's an oversimplification of this system, but for my practice it works.

Rick


----------



## AlanB (Jan 21, 2007)

rmgreenesq said:


> Generally speaking level one is entry level or less than two years of experience. Level two is two to five years of expereince, level 3 is over five years of expereince and level four is over ten years or requiring something that is not normally requied (like a masters degree for a job that typically requires a BA/BS.


Then based upon that, the cook who once posted here with 14 years of experience is underpaid for the job he's performing, since he makes no where near a level 3 salary.


----------



## PRR 60 (Jan 22, 2007)

No airline occupation has been as hard hit as flight attendant. Today's average salary is in the low $30K range. Flight attendants at some major airlines make less today than they did in the mid-1980's. The BLS figures are simply not supported by today's airline labor environment. I am sure today's flight attendants would be thrilled to get even the Level 2 wage listed by the BLS.

And when we compare a flight attendant with an Amtrak food service worker, lets remember that a flight attendant has a defined safety role. Although Amtrak workers get some safety training, for a flight attendant passenger safety is an integral part of the job. If an evacuation is needed, the FA is responsible to make it happen. If the cabin loses pressure, the FA is responsible to ensure everyone is on oxygen. If there is turbulence the FA is responsible to ensure the passengers are seated and belted in. The role of a FA goes way beyond that of an Amtrak snack seller. To compare the salary of a FA and an Amtrak food service worker and conclude that the Amtrak worker is underpaid is not accurate.

One more thing: airline flight attendants are prohibited from accepting tips.


----------



## frj1983 (Jan 22, 2007)

So it is quite obvious that salary comparisons limp.

None-the-less, I agree with the many who have brought up the issue of Amtrak staff who spend many days away from home and have to sleep, eat, and work, in a rocking and rolling passenger coach, lounge, diner. That many do it and are good at it...I say God bless 'em and thanks for doing a job I would never want to do!

I just wish that Amtrak would look more at it's management and administration side. Why keep cutting your On-Board Staff when one could make Administration much more lean and save money there as well? Just my 2 cents.


----------



## had8ley (Jan 22, 2007)

frj1983 said:


> So it is quite obvious that salary comparisons limp.
> None-the-less, I agree with the many who have brought up the issue of Amtrak staff who spend many days away from home and have to sleep, eat, and work, in a rocking and rolling passenger coach, lounge, diner. That many do it and are good at it...I say God bless 'em and thanks for doing a job I would never want to do!
> 
> I just wish that Amtrak would look more at it's management and administration side. Why keep cutting your On-Board Staff when one could make Administration much more lean and save money there as well? Just my 2 cents.


Well I guess I'll open a can of worms but here we go. _IF _ some of the on board crews were grossly under paid do you not think that they would try and hustle for tips? A good example is rolling as I write. The Downeaster has a contracted caterer in the cafe car and the lady comes to your seat asking the business class people what they would like to have BEFORE leaving Portland or North Station Boston. Yes, I'm not being overly nice about some Amtrak crews but to deny that there are slouchers would be a distinct lie and anyone who denies their existence is legally blind. I have stood at cafe counters waiting in excess of five minutes while the Amtrak employee wrapped up a cell phone call. (Yes, I know what some will say; "Maybe they were ordering supplies." but I don't think they tell the commissary "I love you and I'll see you tonight.") The contract worker on the Downeaster is working for way less than any Amtrak employee. (Yes, I did ask her as I am a union member.) Just wishing there was a better way of accountability for the actions, or lack thereof, of the people who have to make 2 or 3 day journeys without being home. The LA based Sunset crew used to be on the train for a full week when they went all the way to Orlando. If you left on a Sunday evening you got back the following Sunday morning. Not the ideal way of life. Why not make the best of it and make the journey enjoyable for all including yourself ???


----------



## haolerider (Jan 22, 2007)

frj1983 said:


> So it is quite obvious that salary comparisons limp.
> None-the-less, I agree with the many who have brought up the issue of Amtrak staff who spend many days away from home and have to sleep, eat, and work, in a rocking and rolling passenger coach, lounge, diner. That many do it and are good at it...I say God bless 'em and thanks for doing a job I would never want to do!
> 
> I just wish that Amtrak would look more at it's management and administration side. Why keep cutting your On-Board Staff when one could make Administration much more lean and save money there as well? Just my 2 cents.


Despite some claims on other boards, Amtrak has, in fact, cut management substantially over the past several years. Even the recent senior level staff cuts have resulted in savings, since all the positions have not been filled and departments have been merged. As far as I can see, the ratio of Amtrak management to agreement workers is on par with most major companies with nationwide operations. I know someone will bring up one particular location or department that they think needs to be cut, but that is prevelant in all major companies. Almost everyone has an axe to grind.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 22, 2007)

frj1983 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > D.P. Roberts said:
> ...


Forgive me for rearanging some of the past posts, but as I've been saying all along, there really is no favorable comparison to an Amtrak food service worker. This despite my statement that if the flight attendant salaries are what Rick reported, that the Amtrak cook is underpaid. That statement was simply made because of the huge disparity between the potential salaries.

Being an Amtrak food service worker, or for that matter a sleeping car attendant is a rather unique job. Yes, there are certain similarities between those jobs and other occupations (like a maid who makes up the beds), but there are also far too many differences to achieve any kind of a fair comparison.

Yes there are places where Amtrak can cut things, places where Amtrak wastes money, things that could be done more efficiantly. That is true of almost any large organization in today's world I believe. But it is also a proven fact that one can't cut one's way to profit. The first rule of business is that you must spend money to make money.

I for one don't believe that Amtrak will ever be able to make a profit no matter what it does. At best it could hope to cover operating expenses, but it will always need help with the capital expenses from Congress. However the only way that Amtrak has a hope of ever covering operating expenses isn't by cutting service. It needs the money and the permissions to increase service, all forms of service. That means more corridor services and more long distance services, including multiple frequencies on many of the current routes. But that means Amtrak needs the bucks right now for new equipment to replace the aging fleet and to expand the size of the fleet.

And to return to the original topic of this thread, I for one don't believe that Diner Lite is the correct answer for Amtrak. Yes there might be a few routes where Diner Lite makes sense, especially in off peak times. I could potentially see running the cars on the Cardinal, the Palmetto, and the Pennsylvanian full time, and perhaps even the Carolinian. And while I'd like to see some real numbers first, with what info I do have at hand I could perhaps see the City of NOL and the Eagle running with Diner Lite during off peaks times. But for any other route I believe that this is the wrong move.

It is interesting to note that the route that reduced it's FRA contribution the most for last fiscal year was the Empire Builder, the only route to not impliment SDS other than the Auto Train.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 22, 2007)

had8ley said:


> Well I guess I'll open a can of worms but here we go. _IF _ some of the on board crews were grossly under paid do you not think that they would try and hustle for tips? A good example is rolling as I write. The Downeaster has a contracted caterer in the cafe car and the lady comes to your seat asking the business class people what they would like to have BEFORE leaving Portland or North Station Boston. Yes, I'm not being overly nice about some Amtrak crews but to deny that there are slouchers would be a distinct lie and anyone who denies their existence is legally blind. I have stood at cafe counters waiting in excess of five minutes while the Amtrak employee wrapped up a cell phone call. (Yes, I know what some will say; "Maybe they were ordering supplies." but I don't think they tell the commissary "I love you and I'll see you tonight.") The contract worker on the Downeaster is working for way less than any Amtrak employee. (Yes, I did ask her as I am a union member.) Just wishing there was a better way of accountability for the actions, or lack thereof, of the people who have to make 2 or 3 day journeys without being home. The LA based Sunset crew used to be on the train for a full week when they went all the way to Orlando. If you left on a Sunday evening you got back the following Sunday morning. Not the ideal way of life. Why not make the best of it and make the journey enjoyable for all including yourself ???


I'm not sure that anyone here is denying that there are slouchers within the Amtrak organization, just like any major corporation in America. Alas there are workers out there who seen to think that they should be allowed to stand in the corner talking to their friends and get paid for it. :blink:

On the other hand, working for tips doesn't guarentee hard workers either. I've seen resturants where a waiter just didn't seem to care if he took care of me or not. Then I've seen resturants where I can even ask a waiter who's not my waiter for something and they bring it with a smile knowing full well that they won't get anything for it. It all comes down to finding the right people and properly managing those people.

Now I'll admit that the company that runs the Downeaster's service seems to have done a much better job with finding those "right" people and properly managing them. But I have seen one worker there who could use a bit of retraining, and failing that needs to be dumped off the train. On the other hand, it's a whole lot easier to achieve those goals when you have such a small organization covering such a small area. Those Downeaster employees are much easier to manage because it's a small work force and because you don't have to pay a manager to overnight someplace just to check up on them.

In closing, do I think that Amtrak can do better? Absolutely, and resoundingly *YES*. Will Amtrak ever be able to weed out all of the bad apples? Alas, no. But we can hope that things will continue to improve. And personally I do think that they have improved in the past few years. While I still hear reports of bad workers today, I think that I'm hearing/seeing less reports than I was 5 years ago.


----------



## had8ley (Jan 22, 2007)

AlanB said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> > Well I guess I'll open a can of worms but here we go. _IF _ some of the on board crews were grossly under paid do you not think that they would try and hustle for tips? A good example is rolling as I write. The Downeaster has a contracted caterer in the cafe car and the lady comes to your seat asking the business class people what they would like to have BEFORE leaving Portland or North Station Boston. Yes, I'm not being overly nice about some Amtrak crews but to deny that there are slouchers would be a distinct lie and anyone who denies their existence is legally blind. I have stood at cafe counters waiting in excess of five minutes while the Amtrak employee wrapped up a cell phone call. (Yes, I know what some will say; "Maybe they were ordering supplies." but I don't think they tell the commissary "I love you and I'll see you tonight.") The contract worker on the Downeaster is working for way less than any Amtrak employee. (Yes, I did ask her as I am a union member.) Just wishing there was a better way of accountability for the actions, or lack thereof, of the people who have to make 2 or 3 day journeys without being home. The LA based Sunset crew used to be on the train for a full week when they went all the way to Orlando. If you left on a Sunday evening you got back the following Sunday morning. Not the ideal way of life. Why not make the best of it and make the journey enjoyable for all including yourself ???
> ...



I only wish that someone at Amtrak might take a closer look at what the Downeaster company is doing right. As previously posted the short haul cafes seem to be the financial drain in Amtrak's pocket book. If they employed some of the contractor's ideas (locally made clam chowder, a wide variety of different food choices) then perhaps Amtrak could stop the needless negative flow of funds. With just four short haul round trips a day they are certainly doing something a whole lot different (and better) than Amtrak has in the past 35 years. Sure beats watching the crowd that invades the cafe car tables on Empire Service with no one to serve and no food behind the counter.


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2007)

had8ley said:


> I only wish that someone at Amtrak might take a closer look at what the Downeaster company is doing right. As previously posted the short haul cafes seem to be the financial drain in Amtrak's pocket book. If they employed some of the contractor's ideas (locally made clam chowder, a wide variety of different food choices) then perhaps Amtrak could stop the needless negative flow of funds. With just four short haul round trips a day they are certainly doing something a whole lot different (and better) than Amtrak has in the past 35 years. Sure beats watching the crowd that invades the cafe car tables on Empire Service with no one to serve and no food behind the counter.


Maybe you're on to something here - outsourcing. Look how many organizations - for example, many college food services - have outsourced their food preparation. I'm not talking about having a McDiner, but maybe a nationwide table-service restaurant could figure out how to make food service profitable.


----------



## had8ley (Jan 22, 2007)

Guest said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> > I only wish that someone at Amtrak might take a closer look at what the Downeaster company is doing right. As previously posted the short haul cafes seem to be the financial drain in Amtrak's pocket book. If they employed some of the contractor's ideas (locally made clam chowder, a wide variety of different food choices) then perhaps Amtrak could stop the needless negative flow of funds. With just four short haul round trips a day they are certainly doing something a whole lot different (and better) than Amtrak has in the past 35 years. Sure beats watching the crowd that invades the cafe car tables on Empire Service with no one to serve and no food behind the counter.
> ...


Fred Harvey did a very succesful run at station restaurants. So much so there are actually a few left.


----------



## Railbender (Feb 1, 2007)

All I know is that there just has to be a way to do foodservice well at reasonable prices. It can't be as difficult as it is made out to be, can it? Good restauranteurs know how to make it work...its usually either high volume at value prices or high prices for low volume, right?

Long Distance trains have follow some of the best-practices of the EB here.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2007)

Railbender said:


> All I know is that there just has to be a way to do foodservice well at reasonable prices. It can't be as difficult as it is made out to be, can it? Good restauranteurs know how to make it work...its usually either high volume at value prices or high prices for low volume, right?
> Long Distance trains have follow some of the best-practices of the EB here.



The problem is that A) by the constraints of being in an 80X10 foot box you can only serve so many people at a time, and there is a limited number of people. and B) that this box requires diesel fuel to be successful, as well as staff being away from home.

Food service on a train will never, and has never, been profitable. You have little control over who you can serve to. My experience is, assuming coach riders know they can use the dining car, it is usually full or close to. The only control railroads have is over service and quality. That is what they are adjusting. Personally, I disagree with what congress and Amtrak are doing. I guess we do have to give them credit for trying though.


----------



## AmtrakWPK (Feb 2, 2007)

Consider that running the food service in the diner on a train is the equivalent of running the food service in a regular restaurant through a continuous earthquake of between magnitude 3 and magnitude 6 with occasional jolts to magnitude 8. That's probably a rough equivalent. Next, your water supply is very limited because you carry it with you, and the electrical power supply can be tenuous. You are also more limited in space for food prep than in many if not most restaurants, and your seating area is small by most restaurant standards. Next, the restaurant staff has to live on premises at the restaurant, during the continuing earthquake conditions, and they frequently have to work much longer hours than a "40 hour week". If you are requiring your restaurant staff to be basically on duty plus on call for 48-72 hours at a time (or more, depending on the sort of turnaround you may be requiring them to make to the next train going the other direction), you're not going to be allowed to pay minimum wage, and anybody that WOULD work for that would not be able to do the job. They also have to be trained in the mechanics of this very unusual combination transportation device and food service device called a diner-on-a-train, i.e., what happens in an emergency situation, where the staff also are the "first responders" in case of a serious accident. Finally, you can't call the food supply company and arrange a delivery on an hour's notice, because the restaurant has no fixed address.

And, beyond the issue of food service and staff entirely, you also have to pay for the upkeep for all the moving parts, and for the fuel to move the diner, and for maintenance and repair on the engine that uses that fuel to move the diner. If all you had to worry about was selling and serving food, it could indeed be a whole lot cheaper.

What really gets me is that we keep having this same argument. YOU CAN'T SAY "This is just a restaurant, why is it so expensive, why can't it make money?" BECAUSE IT IS NOT "JUST A RESTAURANT". Maybe we should just ask KFC or Wendy's or McD's to build some specialized drive-through, with a really, really long pickup window every couple of hundred miles, and make coach windows that you could open.

Meals for astronauts on the orbiting space station probably cost many hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) for each meal, if you consider all the costs from the original farm where the raw materials were grown/produced, to research to develop the foods, then research to develop packaging, manufacturing costs, testing for stability and shelf life, testing for safety, testing and modification for aesthetics and taste, testing for nutrition, testing and quality control costs, transportation and delivery costs (a biggie), to finally you are consuming the food on the space station. But at the point where they are actually eating it, "it's just a restaurant, why is it so expensive?".


----------



## TransAtlantic (Feb 2, 2007)

haolerider said:


> frj1983 said:
> 
> 
> > So it is quite obvious that salary comparisons limp.
> ...


Sorry to disappoint you, but at least in the Southwest region, there has been an INCREASE in management level - a whole group totaling some two dozen individuals whose job is supposedly quality assurance, including one very "memorable" former LSA who was notorious for NEVER getting off his cellphone to help either diner staff (anyone ever have to wait 20 minutes to pay for your meal?) or passengers (likewise with the seating). Total OBS jobs have been cut, T and E jobs have increased only marginally (despite major increases in train service, even taking into account the loss of Metrolink and Coaster contracts - which, by the way, have since been resold to other organizations, as the buyers discovered what Amtrak already knew, that commuter rail does NOT produce profit); but managment level jobs in the SW Div. (especially at the LA crew base) have nearly doubled....


----------



## Railbender (Feb 2, 2007)

AmtrakWPK said:


> Consider that running the food service in the diner on a train is the equivalent of running the food service in a regular restaurant through a continuous earthquake of between magnitude 3 and magnitude 6 with occasional jolts to magnitude 8. That's probably a rough equivalent. Next, your water supply is very limited because you carry it with you, and the electrical power supply can be tenuous. You are also more limited in space for food prep than in many if not most restaurants, and your seating area is small by most restaurant standards. Next, the restaurant staff has to live on premises at the restaurant, during the continuing earthquake conditions, and they frequently have to work much longer hours than a "40 hour week". If you are requiring your restaurant staff to be basically on duty plus on call for 48-72 hours at a time (or more, depending on the sort of turnaround you may be requiring them to make to the next train going the other direction), you're not going to be allowed to pay minimum wage, and anybody that WOULD work for that would not be able to do the job. They also have to be trained in the mechanics of this very unusual combination transportation device and food service device called a diner-on-a-train, i.e., what happens in an emergency situation, where the staff also are the "first responders" in case of a serious accident. Finally, you can't call the food supply company and arrange a delivery on an hour's notice, because the restaurant has no fixed address. And, beyond the issue of food service and staff entirely, you also have to pay for the upkeep for all the moving parts, and for the fuel to move the diner, and for maintenance and repair on the engine that uses that fuel to move the diner. If all you had to worry about was selling and serving food, it could indeed be a whole lot cheaper.
> 
> What really gets me is that we keep having this same argument. YOU CAN'T SAY "This is just a restaurant, why is it so expensive, why can't it make money?" BECAUSE IT IS NOT "JUST A RESTAURANT". Maybe we should just ask KFC or Wendy's or McD's to build some specialized drive-through, with a really, really long pickup window every couple of hundred miles, and make coach windows that you could open.
> 
> Meals for astronauts on the orbiting space station probably cost many hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) for each meal, if you consider all the costs from the original farm where the raw materials were grown/produced, to research to develop the foods, then research to develop packaging, manufacturing costs, testing for stability and shelf life, testing for safety, testing and modification for aesthetics and taste, testing for nutrition, testing and quality control costs, transportation and delivery costs (a biggie), to finally you are consuming the food on the space station. But at the point where they are actually eating it, "it's just a restaurant, why is it so expensive?".


I guess I want to assure you that I am not asserting that the diner has to MAKE money. It should, however, be a draw for LD trains, not a detrement. ("I hate those diners with their cranky staff, their mediocre food, the high prices for the value, etc.") If the diners aren't packed on every run (assuming the food and service are good) I will never understand why. A $20.00 meal in the diner beats at $15.00 a la carte, platic-wrapped meal in the cafe any day. Folks don't get that. Are there commissions offered to dining car staffs based on how many meals they serve?

I want to hear more folks reason like me...

Hey, I can drive to Florida with my fighting kids, hotel stays, meals, gas, tolls, see nothing by endless interstate and billboards, etc. and wear-and-tear OR

I can fly at full price for the four of us (no kids discounts), show up at the airport 2 hours early, switch planes somewhere that may or may not happen, have no food on-flight, have flights overbooked or canceled, wait in line in the airport for expensive food OR

I can take the train, move around while moving, enjoy a beer or a glass of wine while moving, have a relaxing delicious meal while moving...see the country I am traveling through at ground level

The bottom line seems to be that if travelers feel well-cared for and see the value in their money spent they will continue to do it and tell others! Amtrak should totally be this. I can't prove it, but it seems that the Empire Builder is doing this, right?


----------



## D.P. Roberts (Feb 2, 2007)

Railbender said:


> The bottom line seems to be that if travelers feel well-cared for and see the value in their money spent they will continue to do it and tell others! Amtrak should totally be this. I can't prove it, but it seems that the Empire Builder is doing this, right?


Part of the problem is that while the Empire Builder is doing better than other LD trains, it's still losing money - just not as quickly as the other trains.

If it's just an increase in ridership they're after, adding more LD trains on popular summer routes - or more cars to the existing trains - would do it. However, when specifically talking about the dining cars, even the EB is losing money. Railfans may point to the EB as a success story, but it still may not be the success that the people in Washington want it to be. That's what many in Congress can't stand, and why dining is specifically an area they attach strings to.

I haven't been on an LD train in Europe for many years. For those of you who have, is the dining experience similar to the EB (china, service, etc.) on most European trains? I'm just curious as to whether the Congresscritters' expectations are way off. For example, I've heard that most European countries subsidize their trains without all the fuss that goes on in our country (similar to the way we pour billions into new freeways without batting an eyelash). If their dining car costs, etc. are similar to ours, you would expect to achieve similar results here (all things being equal). In other words, maybe our government should be looking at areas of France, Germany, England, etc. that have similar population densities and rail needs, and see if we could achieve similar levels of service for similar costs, instead of blanket and arbitrary cuts.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 2, 2007)

D.P. Roberts said:


> Railbender said:
> 
> 
> > The bottom line seems to be that if travelers feel well-cared for and see the value in their money spent they will continue to do it and tell others! Amtrak should totally be this. I can't prove it, but it seems that the Empire Builder is doing this, right?
> ...


You are correct that the EB is indeed still loosing money, at least based upon the numbers provided by Amtrak. I say it that way as there are many who believe that Amtrak is sticking the LD's with extra costs that really shouldn't be allocated to the LD's. This however is not a discussion about that aspect of things.

What I do want to point out though, is that while the EB is loosing money and it is loosing less than most other routes, the most important thing to note is that since it's make over the amount of loss dropped substantially. Put another way, by not cutting services but instead improving them, the Empire Builder now looses $2.7 million dollars less than it used to. In a year where only 2 other LD's lost less than the year before (and their improvement was minor in comparison) and 11 lost more than the year before, the EB is a shining example of how to improve the LD system in such a way as to help *cut* the Federal subsidy required each year. The EB's revenue shot up by $6.5 Million last fiscal year, more than double the increase of the next best train the SW Chief.

For an example that shows the opposite side of things one only need to look at the Coast Starlight. Yes, upfront I'll admit that part of the CS's problems are the horrible time keeping last year, which no doubt hurt ridership. But that alone can't account for the huge increase in the annual loss that this train suffered. It's loss increased last fiscal year by $9.3 Million to $26.6 Million annually. An increase of that magnatude is without a doubt at least partly due to the cutting of service on the CS. Parlour cars that were out of service for months on end, the reduction of service in the dining car thanks to SDS. Both of these I'm sure played a role, coupled with the delay factor, to create such a tremendous increase in the loss this train now suffers from.

Yet Congress and because of it, Amtrak, are instead looking for ways to cut service which clearly based upon the EB's example, is *not* the correct way to cut the subsidy. According to the Amtrak official quoted in that recent ABC News Story, Amtrak has saved $15 M by going to SDS. But at what cost? The Coast Starlight now looses $9.3 Million dollars more in revenue than it used to. Yes, again, SDS isn't to blame for all of that loss. But on the other hand, the EB which did not convert to SDS, now bring in $6.5 Million revenue dollars per year more than it used to. While not quite half of that $15M, one can clearly see what the correct answer is.

But, oh wait! I'm expecting common sense and logic from those in Congress, most of whom probably never actually look at the individual numbers and only look at Amtrak's bottom line. My bad.


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2007)

just to bring up an old topic, the second superliner diner/lounge, car number 37001, should be arriving on the rear of the capitol limited into washington union station in about twenty minutes. while i'm up in new york at the moment, if anyone happens to be around -- or better yet, knows of someone detraining off of #30(14) today -- please let us know if you see it.

i'm especially curious to see if anyone knows of any interior changes made from car 37000.

-- eliyahu

waterbury, ct


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2007)

Guest said:


> just to bring up an old topic, the second superliner diner/lounge, car number 37001, should be arriving on the rear of the capitol limited into washington union station in about twenty minutes. while i'm up in new york at the moment, if anyone happens to be around -- or better yet, knows of someone detraining off of #30(14) today -- please let us know if you see it.
> i'm especially curious to see if anyone knows of any interior changes made from car 37000.


just to follow up, you can see a few early photos of the conversion of this car in one of chris guenzler's reports over at trainweb.com.

*LINK*

-- eliyahu

waterbury, ct


----------



## AmtrakFan (Aug 15, 2007)

It came in on the Hoosier State on Sunday, I did see it, sorry no pics.


----------

