# An Analysis Of SDS



## AlanB

x-press said:


> They've cut dining car costs, and it was way past time for that, too. I am a bit worried about sleeping car cuts, but there is no reason in the world for the feds to directly subsidize "first class" travel. I also can't see why, at the prices Amtrak charges, sleepers can't be self-sufficient "above the rails."
> JPS


Actually NARP just proved that there is a very good reason "for the feds to directly subsidize 'first class' travel." As this report indicates it costs the Fed $0.1888 per mile to transport a passenger in coach on an LD train. It only costs $0.1817 per passenger/per mile in a sleeper.

Combine the two and the average is $0.1870, so eliminating the sleepers would mean that the Fed would actually be paying more per passenger to move them 1 mile, than they are right now.

*Please note:* You'll need Adobe Acrobat Reader installed on your computer to view the report I linked to above.


----------



## x-press

AlanB said:


> Actually NARP just proved that there is a very good reason "for the feds to directly subsidize 'first class' travel." As this report indicates it costs the Fed $0.1888 per mile to transport a passenger in coach on an LD train. It only costs $0.1817 per passenger/per mile in a sleeper.
> Combine the two and the average is $0.1870, so eliminating the sleepers would mean that the Fed would actually be paying more per passenger to move them 1 mile, than they are right now.
> 
> *Please note:* You'll need Adobe Acrobat Reader installed on your computer to view the report I linked to above.


I disagree with the conclusion drawn from these facts. "Losing less" is not the same as "making more." If I was losing $20/day at my job, taking an extra job that loses "only" $10/day, making my average loss only $15/day would most definitely NOT be the answer!

What I do agree with the NARP report on: The DOT IG's singling out of first class services as the big money-losers was completely wrong. Eliminating would indeed save money, but, as you noted, not on a per-passenger basis.

I will go to my grave thinking that labor costs could be saved to make sleepers more financially viable, maybe even self-sufficient above-the-rails. I still am not remotely convinced of the need for 1 attendant per viewliner, and other solutions, such as basing attendants in major terminals to come aboard and help with the "busy" times at the end of a run, never seem to be mentioned around here.

If the trains themselves are considered useful and/or necessary to serve all the small communities along the way that don't have air access, then considering them a "sunk expense" and allowing the sleepers to "come along for the ride" and pay only their own expenses, seems reasonable to me.

JPS


----------



## Amtrak OBS Gone Freight

x-press said:


> I will go to my grave thinking that labor costs could be saved to make sleepers more financially viable, maybe even self-sufficient above-the-rails. I still am not remotely convinced of the need for 1 attendant per viewliner, and other solutions, such as basing attendants in major terminals to come aboard and help with the "busy" times at the end of a run, never seem to be mentioned around here.
> JPS


I have to agree with you to a point!! Cutting payroll costs? How bout we start with a lot of "unnecessary" management expenses? That is the best place to start right there!! Not gonna happen anytime soon! Cutting labor costs doesn't just mean sutting all the front line personel. As a former manager in my previous career, I had to cut my own hours back at times in order to meet the payroll costs for a certain week! I couldn't afford to cut back the front line personel because they were already too thin! That is Amtrak's situation pretty much systemwide! Service would be so much better if there was the proper amount of frontline help and it being properly manged. So my friend, the one attendant per sleeper deal is the best bet. And that is running tight when one looks at the responsibilities that individual is "supposed" to take on! At one time their job was easier being they were not required to serve meals in the room (for example) as that was the job of the "upstairs waiter" in the dining car! He/she handled room service as far as meals, etc.

As far as Amtrak's situation is concerned, we have to remember it takes a lot (and will take a lot) to perform a shut down of just one single route! It is actually cheaper to reorganize, truncate, and change routes around than to shut it down all togther. I can assure you all the long distance sector of the company has been placed into an evaluation phase. That phase started on the first day when each of the LD trains which were scheduled to switch to SDS had actually made the switch. I have to disagree with BNSF_1088 on the status of the "Empire Builder." That train as well as the "Auto Train" were not included into the SDS program. Therefore those two trains are not included in the study of SDS. However, this does not mean they are not in the process of evauating those two services. But I personally don't see 180 day notices for the "Builder" at this time or at all. I see the possibilty of the BNSF railroad operating that train as their own should they follow through with the "talked about" system split up. I see just the same with CSX and "Auto Train" service, too. I won't comment any farther than this on this part.

As far as an announcement regarding the LD trains and the few supposedly issuing 180 notices. I do see 180 notices being issued for portions of these certain routes! I would venture to say they are looking to truncate some service out there in the West. I can definitely see part of the plan just by what I have observed with the "Sunset Limited's" Florida leg of its trip. That is gone, and Amtrak at some point in time is going to have to either run a bus connection or issue a 180 day notice for that part of the route! This is a big part of the 180 notice thing! Only an area which is slated to lose its service is subject to the 180 day law. For instance, if the decision is made to cease the "Sunset" east of Houston (I'm not implying anything now), then those cities along the route East of the point must recieve their 180 notice of discontinuance of that particular service. And that is only if Amtrak ceases "ALL" service to those points! A "contracted" bus constitutes service! Another train route with a simple taxi service IS service! Amtrak has issued 180 day notices right here in the East around ten-twelve years ago. They were rescended, though. It appeared to me at the time they were used as a "threat" so to speak. But the purpose of the 180 law simply allows debate time for the local, state, and federal sectors to come up with a plan. It is not much time, but things can happen when folks are under pressure!

We shall see soon how all plays out regarding Amtrak's situation this year. I will be quite surprised if it is "business as usual!" It can't keep up. There are too many varibles which appear to be closing in on the company. Sleeper car reforms are on the horizon, too. Kinda something similar of what you specified here, x-press. OBS...


----------



## AlanB

x-press said:


> I disagree with the conclusion drawn from these facts.  "Losing less" is not the same as "making more."  If I was losing $20/day at my job, taking an extra job that loses "only" $10/day, making my average loss only $15/day would most definitely NOT be the answer!
> What I do agree with the NARP report on:  The DOT IG's singling out of first class services as the big money-losers was completely wrong.  Eliminating would indeed save money, but, as you noted, not on a per-passenger basis.
> 
> If the trains themselves are considered useful and/or necessary to serve all the small communities along the way that don't have air access, then considering them a "sunk expense" and allowing the sleepers to "come along for the ride" and pay only their own expenses, seems reasonable to me.
> 
> JPS


I can only assume that you didn’t fully read the report that I linked to. First your analogy isn’t really a fair comparison to the question at hand.

That said however, cutting the sleepers would not save one dime, unless all the people currently riding in a sleeper refused to ride in coach and therefore allowed Amtrak to stop running the extra coach cars that would be needed to otherwise accommodate those passengers. Additionally, because of contracts and other things, Amtrak would still be paying out money for three years after the loss of the sleepers. Money that would not be counter-balanced by income from those lost sleepers.

If you look at Table #1, it shows that the sleeper revenue is covering all the extra costs required to run that car over the costs required to run a coach, and then some. The incremental costs are those costs that are above and beyond running one coach instead of that sleeper. That means that when I or anyone else travels in a sleeping car, we are getting no more subsidy than any Amtrak passenger traveling in coach. In fact, we are getting less subsidy from the Fed by traveling in that sleeping car. We are paying more for our “basic” transportation from point A to point B, than any passenger in coach is. And we are covering all of the extra costs associated with the extra luxuries associated with the sleeping car.

I’m not a rich man, I may make a bit more than the average person here in the US, but I’m far from being a millionaire. I pay my taxes just like the vast majority of Americans do; hence I give my fair share of taxes to Amtrak just like everyone else does. Why should I not get the same benefit for my tax contribution that every other American can get by riding in coach, just because I prefer a sleeper? Just because I save my nickels and dimes for riding more comfortably shouldn’t penalize me and others like me.

I realize that this may be a thin line, but the Fed is not subsidizing “first class” travel. It is only subsidizing travel. We, the users of the sleeping cars, are subsidizing the extra amenities that we enjoy in First Class!


----------



## AlanB

x-press said:


> I will go to my grave thinking that labor costs could be saved to make sleepers more financially viable, maybe even self-sufficient above-the-rails.  I still am not remotely convinced of the need for 1 attendant per viewliner, and other solutions, such as basing attendants in major terminals to come aboard and help with the "busy" times at the end of a run, never seem to be mentioned around here.


I’m not trying to be flip here, so please don’t take this the wrong way, but do you know where to hire workers who want to work odd hours? Hours that change everyday based upon the delays encountered by the trains along the way? Most workers that I know of want a fixed schedule and they want to be able to count on the same amount of hours each week. The only way for Amtrak to do what you propose, unless you know where to find that type of worker, would be to pay people to be on duty 24/7 in three rotating 8 hour shifts. And half the time, they’ll just be sitting around doing nothing but waiting for the next train due in.

I suspect that will cost far more in the long run. Even worse would be the fact that too many late arriving trains could then end up overwhelming the crews at the station, since you don’t want to hire too many people to just sit around for half the day. That would mean that beds might not get made, linens changed, and so on.

As it is now, Chicago often finds the cleaning crews getting overwhelmed if too many trains arrive late. The cleaning crews only have to vacuum, take out the trash, and clean the restrooms and showers. Yet trains are often late out of Chicago because too many late arriving trains overwhelmed the staff’s ability to get those things done. These are things that can only be done at the end of the run.

But I don’t believe that adding more tasks that can be done onboard to these crews will save much more than the cost of 1 attendant per car. On a two car train, you’ll still need at least one attendant. So you save the salary of one attendant, penalize the passengers, and eat up most of the savings by needing to hire at least 4 people at each terminating station to make up the beds. You’ll need 4 for sure, since you’ll have to have at least 2 per shift during the typical hours that trains could arrive.

What Amtrak needs to be taking a long and hard look at OBS already mentioned management. It is a well known fact that Amtrak has too many managers. Many of us had high hopes that David Gunn was going to fix that, and initially it looked like he was going to. There was some headway made, but sadly not enough. And now it has just gotten worse since his departure.

Let’s just analyze Amtrak’s recent cost cutting initiative, SDS. Does food service loose money? Yes. It always has, even the history books will tell you that in their heyday, the Freight RR’s lost money on food service. Yet thanks to Congress’ mandate, here comes Amtrak to figure out how to cut loses on food service. Yet I just have to shake my head when I look at their grand plan.

With SDS, we have cut two workers per dining car, the assistant chef and one waiter/waitress. To do this Amtrak needed to do the following:

Eliminate glassware.

Eliminate a few more of the cooked to order foods. (Most food served was already cooked off the train, before SDS. Steaks, cooked to order eggs, French toast were a few of the things that were still cooked on board that are now gone.)

Seat passengers in groups of 8, every 15 minutes.

So let’s take a look at how well this works. First of course, we’ve now pissed off a few people who liked having those few cooked onboard foods, as well as those who liked having glassware.

Next, if we consider a Superliner Diner, it has a capacity of 72 people. I’m going to eliminate 8 from that number, since the crew usually keeps 1 or 2 tables to use as prep areas and for crew meals. That means under the old system on a busy train, a dining car could seat 64 people at once. With 3 potential seatings for dinner, that’s 192 meals that could be served.

Under the new plan, if they start seating for dinner at 5:00 PM and stop at 8:00 PM, that’s 13 seatings of 8 for a total of 104 meals served. If we assume a low average of say $15 per meal that means that the dining car now rings up $1,560 per night. Under the old system they rang up $2,880 per night, a difference of $1,320 per night.

Just taking quick random numbers, which may or may not be wholly accurate, Amtrak just shot itself in the foot. If we assume that Amtrak would have paid those two workers now laid off for 18 hours of work in one day, and if we assume that the assn’t cook got paid 40 bucks an hour and the waiter $30 an hour, their combined salaries were $1,260 for that day. If Amtrak actually has to pay those two workers for a full 24 hour day, then Amtrak has managed to save money, a whopping $360.

But remember my numbers only involve the income from dinner. That dining car still served breakfast and lunch in the 24 hour period, which would make up any short fall if indeed Amtrak must pay those two workers for the full day. And if my recent trip on the Empire Builder is any indication, that diner was full for each and every meal. The revenue that would be lost from taking that car to SDS would be huge!

Yes, there may be trains (City of NOL, perhaps) where SDS might make sense since the amount of people using the dining car I understand is less. Perhaps there are even routes where SDS should be used during the slow months, with a return to normalcy during the busy months. But there are trains where it doesn’t belong, like the SW Chief, the Coast Starlight, the Capitol Limited, the Lake Shore Limited, and the Silver Service.

Now I will grant you that as I alluded to above, that not every dining car manages three dinner seatings year round, so that would help to change the numbers some. But I’d bet that the lean times would come close to being cancelled out by the boom times during peak periods. When it doesn’t, then there’s a candidate for SDS at least part time.

Finally, in Amtrak’s infinite wisdom, what did they do to make sure that SDS works properly? They hired new managers to make sure that the crew that’s now left in the dining car works harder. Something tells me that those new managers are making a nice salary, one that is probably at least equal, if not surpassing the salary of the now laid off assn’t chef.

Yes, I will grant you that his salary doesn’t get charged to the dining car, so in that respect salary costs for that car have gone down. But at what cost? Amtrak is *not* saving any money overall by cutting those two positions, since the bottom line now includes the salaries of these new managers. And of course as I just proved, they are now taking in less revenue from the dining car.

IMHO all Amtrak has managed to do is juggle some costs, **** off its workers even more, inconvenience the passenger more (remember pissed off passengers mean less revenue), loose still more money, and therefore increase the subsidies that it will need in the coming years.

All that said I do believe that there are some work rule changes that Amtrak does need to get from its workers. But Amtrak cannot cut its front line workers to reduce the subsidies that it currently requires; it needs to look elsewhere to find those cuts, not on the front lines. But when was the last time a manager recommended firing himself?

Finally one of the most often overlooked things with Amtrak is that the bulk of the money that Congress gives it each year *is not* going towards operating costs, and hence the pockets of Amtrak’s front line employees. Three fourths of the annual appropriation is going towards capital costs, not operating costs.

No matter what Amtrak does, it will never be able to cover its capital costs. No passenger RR in the world does that. But with proper, regular capital investment, Amtrak just might be able to cover all of its operating expenses a few years down the road. But I hope that I just proved that we aren’t going to get there by cutting front line employees. Especially if Amtrak continues to do things like it did with SDS.


----------



## MrFSS

AlanB said:


> I’m not trying to be flip here, so please don’t take this the wrong way, but do you know where to hire workers who want to work odd hours?  Hours that change everyday based upon the delays encountered by the trains along the way?  Most workers that I know of want a fixed schedule and they want to be able to count on the same amount of hours each week.  The only way for Amtrak to do what you propose, unless you know where to find that type of worker, would be to pay people to be on duty 24/7 in three rotating 8 hour shifts.  And half the time, they’ll just be sitting around doing nothing but waiting for the next train due in.
> I suspect that will cost far more in the long run.  Even worse would be the fact that too many late arriving trains could then end up overwhelming the crews at the station, since you don’t want to hire too many people to just sit around for half the day.  That would mean that beds might not get made, linens changed, and so on.
> 
> As it is now, Chicago often finds the cleaning crews getting overwhelmed if too many trains arrive late.  The cleaning crews only have to vacuum, take out the trash, and clean the restrooms and showers.  Yet trains are often late out of Chicago because too many late arriving trains overwhelmed the staff’s ability to get those things done.  These are things that can only be done at the end of the run.
> 
> But I don’t believe that adding more tasks that can be done onboard to these crews will save much more than the cost of 1 attendant per car.  On a two car train, you’ll still need at least one attendant.  So you save the salary of one attendant, penalize the passengers, and eat up most of the savings by needing to hire at least 4 people at each terminating station to make up the beds.  You’ll need 4 for sure, since you’ll have to have at least 2 per shift during the typical hours that trains could arrive.
> 
> What Amtrak needs to be taking a long and hard look at OBS already mentioned management.  It is a well known fact that Amtrak has too many managers.  Many of us had high hopes that David Gunn was going to fix that, and initially it looked like he was going to.  There was some headway made, but sadly not enough.  And now it has just gotten worse since his departure.
> 
> Let’s just analyze Amtrak’s recent cost cutting initiative, SDS.  Does food service loose money?  Yes.  It always has, even the history books will tell you that in their heyday, the Freight RR’s lost money on food service.  Yet thanks to Congress’ mandate, here comes Amtrak to figure out how to cut loses on food service.  Yet I just have to shake my head when I look at their grand plan.
> 
> With SDS, we have cut two workers per dining car, the assistant chef and one waiter/waitress.  To do this Amtrak needed to do the following:
> 
> Eliminate glassware.
> 
> Eliminate a few more of the cooked to order foods.  (Most food served was already cooked off the train, before SDS.  Steaks, cooked to order eggs, French toast were a few of the things that were still cooked on board that are now gone.)
> 
> Seat passengers in groups of 8, every 15 minutes.
> 
> So let’s take a look at how well this works.  First of course, we’ve now pissed off a few people who liked having those few cooked onboard foods, as well as those who liked having glassware.
> 
> Next, if we consider a Superliner Diner, it has a capacity of 72 people.  I’m going to eliminate 8 from that number, since the crew usually keeps 1 or 2 tables to use as prep areas and for crew meals.  That means under the old system on a busy train, a dining car could seat 64 people at once.  With 3 potential seatings for dinner, that’s 192 meals that could be served.
> 
> Under the new plan, if they start seating for dinner at 5:00 PM and stop at 8:00 PM, that’s 13 seatings of 8 for a total of 104 meals served.  If we assume a low average of say $15 per meal that means that the dining car now rings up $1,560 per night.  Under the old system they rang up $2,880 per night, a difference of $1,320 per night.
> 
> Just taking quick random numbers, which may or may not be wholly accurate, Amtrak just shot itself in the foot.  If we assume that Amtrak would have paid those two workers now laid off for 18 hours of work in one day, and if we assume that the assn’t cook got paid 40 bucks an hour and the waiter $30 an hour, their combined salaries were $1,260 for that day.  If Amtrak actually has to pay those two workers for a full 24 hour day, then Amtrak has managed to save money, a whopping $360.
> 
> But remember my numbers only involve the income from dinner.  That dining car still served breakfast and lunch in the 24 hour period, which would make up any short fall if indeed Amtrak must pay those two workers for the full day.  And if my recent trip on the Empire Builder is any indication, that diner was full for each and every meal.  The revenue that would be lost from taking that car to SDS would be huge!
> 
> Yes, there may be trains (City of NOL, perhaps) where SDS might make sense since the amount of people using the dining car I understand is less.  Perhaps there are even routes where SDS should be used during the slow months, with a return to normalcy during the busy months.  But there are trains where it doesn’t belong, like the SW Chief, the Coast Starlight, the Capitol Limited, the Lake Shore Limited, and the Silver Service.
> 
> Now I will grant you that as I alluded to above, that not every dining car manages three dinner seatings year round, so that would help to change the numbers some.  But I’d bet that the lean times would come close to being cancelled out by the boom times during peak periods.  When it doesn’t, then there’s a candidate for SDS at least part time.
> 
> Finally, in Amtrak’s infinite wisdom, what did they do to make sure that SDS works properly?  They hired new managers to make sure that the crew that’s now left in the dining car works harder.  Something tells me that those new managers are making a nice salary, one that is probably at least equal, if not surpassing the salary of the now laid off assn’t chef.
> 
> Yes, I will grant you that his salary doesn’t get charged to the dining car, so in that respect salary costs for that car have gone down.  But at what cost?  Amtrak is *not* saving any money overall by cutting those two positions, since the bottom line now includes the salaries of these new managers.  And of course as I just proved, they are now taking in less revenue from the dining car.
> 
> IMHO all Amtrak has managed to do is juggle some costs, **** off its workers even more, inconvenience the passenger more (remember pissed off passengers mean less revenue), loose still more money, and therefore increase the subsidies that it will need in the coming years.
> 
> All that said I do believe that there are some work rule changes that Amtrak does need to get from its workers.  But Amtrak cannot cut its front line workers to reduce the subsidies that it currently requires; it needs to look elsewhere to find those cuts, not on the front lines.  But when was the last time a manager recommended firing himself?
> 
> Finally one of the most often overlooked things with Amtrak is that the bulk of the money that Congress gives it each year *is not* going towards operating costs, and hence the pockets of Amtrak’s front line employees.  Three fourths of the annual appropriation is going towards capital costs, not operating costs.
> 
> No matter what Amtrak does, it will never be able to cover its capital costs.  No passenger RR in the world does that.  But with proper, regular capital investment, Amtrak just might be able to cover all of its operating expenses a few years down the road.  But I hope that I just proved that we aren’t going to get there by cutting front line employees.  Especially if Amtrak continues to do things like it did with SDS.


WOW - can we quote you when we write our congressmen? That word needs to be taken to the leaders in Washington.


----------



## AlanB

MrFSS said:


> WOW - can we quote you when we write our congressmen? That word needs to be taken to the leaders in Washington.


I guess that would depend on just what you want to quote, remember that my numbers are at best reasonable estimates. But otherwise, have at it!


----------



## x-press

Alan,

I appreciate the analysis; we need more of that and less "the sky is falling because I sense change" if we are to save something I think we all love.

A few responses:

- My understanding is that meal periods are longer by about an hour under SDS, thus the difference in dinners served won't be quite as great as you've indicated. Using a meal period of 5 to 9, another 32 people could be seated, reducing the difference in money collected to $840. The other two meals, in my experience, were not as busy as dinner (there have never been reservations required for lunch or breakfast on any of my travels), so assuming 2/3 the number of dinner patrons (~128), the number that could be served by SDS in a 3.5 hour meal period is quite close (120), and assuming a $10 lunch/breakfast cost, would only result in about an $80 dollar difference in those meals. I'm calculating about a $1000 difference in revenue for the trip. Wages? Who knows? Between pay, benefits, and lodging at non-home endpoints (which we'll get back to on sleeper attendants), I think $30-40 is probably somewhat low, but I won't venture a guess. In today's world, for better or worse, it seems one can simply not overstate the cost of labor. There are probably a lot of variables we are both missing, too. I don't know anything about the management positions you cite; I assumed they were already with the company and were just being sent to the field. If that's wrong, that's no good.

As for sleepers, my proposal WILL NOT WORK on super-long-distance trains like the Chief, Builder, or Zephyr. Those trains are SO long, and sleepers presumably turned over so many times, that it makes perfect sense to have one attendant per car, especially considering the number of beds in a superliner. My proposal is intended for trains that only have passengers aboard one night, maximum. Also, their terminals must be used by multiple trains with sleepers needing servicing. The Silver trains, for example, run within a few hours of each other each way. Now, I don't like that schedule, but we may be able to take advantage of it. I see no need to keep a 24 hour shift to service two trains that come in within a few hours of each other (late? sure, but not 24 hours late, generally). The basic idea is to take advantage of the economies of scale, and save lodging expenses. As for finding people who work weird hours, don't sleeper attendants already work crazy hours?

JPS


----------



## AlanB

x-press said:


> As for sleepers, my proposal WILL NOT WORK on super-long-distance trains like the Chief, Builder, or Zephyr.  Those trains are SO long, and sleepers presumably turned over so many times, that it makes perfect sense to have one attendant per car, especially considering the number of beds in a superliner.  My proposal is intended for trains that only have passengers aboard one night, maximum.  Also, their terminals must be used by multiple trains with sleepers needing servicing.  The Silver trains, for example, run within a few hours of each other each way.  Now, I don't like that schedule, but we may be able to take advantage of it.  I see no need to keep a 24 hour shift to service two trains that come in within a few hours of each other (late?  sure, but not 24 hours late, generally).  The basic idea is to take advantage of the economies of scale, and save lodging expenses.  As for finding people who work weird hours, don't sleeper attendants already work crazy hours?
> JPS


JPS,

While I still don't think that the gain in saved salaries is worth the loss in customer service, I'll conceded that on the Silver Service for trains arriving in Miami, your proposal might make sense. You are correct that the two remaining trains are supposed to arrive within a hour of one another. Therefore, even assuming delays, 1 - 8 hour shift should be able to deal with things.

However, your proposal is marginal at best on the other end at NYP. There the two trains 5 hours hours apart. Any serious delays to the second train, with none to the first, would result in the second train arriving outside a normal 8 hour shift. Then add in the LSL and its unpredictable arrival times, I just arrived last week at 8:30 pm.

Then finally factor in the Cardinal, with a scheduled arrival time of 11:10 PM and you are outside the 8 hour window from the first Silver Service train's scheduled arrival. So I don't believe that it makes sense on the NYP side and if you don't have the staffing on the NYP side, then you must run with 1 attendant per car.

Chicago IMHO is simply impossible to consider this idea, as there are far too many trains, coupled with your own admission that your proposal doesn't make sense for trains that are on the road for two nights.

Next up would be DC, where the Capitol ends. But as you've alluded to, this might not work with Superliner equipment where you have more beds than Viewliner equipment. And finally, since it won't work at the Chicago end, again we can't staff for just one direction.

So let's move next to New Orleans. Here you have the issue of the Crescent with a scheduled arrival time of 7:10 PM, the City on the other hand is due in at 3:32. So that is conceivably doable. That is until you consider that other ends of both of those trains are at terminals that your idea won't work. So again, we can't staff the train differently in one direction vs. the other. And of course the Sunset doesn't help us for several reasons, the first being its more that a 1 night train. The second reason being its upredictablity, the third being that technically its not supposed to end in NOL.

Our next terminal is San Antonio, where 3 days a week at least part of the train runs through, couple that with the fact that on the Chicago end it still doesn't work 7 days a week.

Finally we come to the Coast Starlight, which has terminals in LAX and SEA. First we bump into that bit about that this idea is probably not a good match with Superliner Equipment, which does have more beds than a Viewliner. Then factor in that you would then need to still hire 2 people in LA and 2 in Seattle whose sole job would be to make up the beds for the Coast Starlight, and one has to wonder where the savings kicks in. We don't need those people for the EB or the Chief, since they are fully crewed based upon your proposal.

Were something like this to be implimented, I suspect that the resulting loss of passengers would offset any savings. Remember as OBS pointed out, these men and women aren't just along for the ride. Their first job is the safety of all of the passengers in their car. They get special training just for this aspect.

Next, they've got at least 30 beds to put down at night and put up in the morning, and that's on a Viewliner. There are even more on a Superliner. Then they almost always have to serve 3 meals per day to the handicapped room, and often have to serve meals to at least one other room, sometimes more. They have to clean the shower and deal with towels and soap in there. On a Superliner they must also clean the bathrooms along the way. I wouldn't even be surprised if some people don't complain about their bathrooms in the Viewliners, although I'm not sure just how much the attendant can do. And as I noted in my trip report here on the forum, it would seem that they are even supposed to deal with non-functioning toilets.

Next, they are responsible for opening the door on the car at every major stop and even many minor stops. Certainly every stop where they have a passenger boarding or de-training. They also assist with luggage at every stop where a passenger is en-training or de-training. Next they have to have coffee, juice, and water available to their charges throughout the bulk of the day.

Finally, having taken plenty of LD's over the last few years, I can't tell you how many times I've heard the call buttons go off in sleepers during the middle of the day. I can only imagine what requests were being made of the attendant when those bells went off.

Last but not least, consider that the attendant is technically on duty 24 hours while the train is in motion. He/she is responsible for making sure that a passenger who needs to get off the train at 4:00 in the morning, does indeed get off the train at that stop. It's not the conductor's responsablity to do that.

Currently what happens for example, is that going north bound on the Silver Star, sleeping car attendant #1 remains awake all night covering both his/her sleeper as well as the sleeper for attendant #2 who gets to sleep. On the way south, it's reversed with #2 remaining awake, while #1 gets to sleep. If we eliminate #2, then who does #1 get to trade off with?

If there is not trade off, then that one over-worked attendant gets to be on duty for almost 31 hours, assuming an on time arrival. Then they get to rest for approximately 17 hours in a hotel room, before returning to work another 31 hour shift, again assuming an on time arrival.

I for one am not sure that I want such a sleep deprived employee to be responsible for my safety and to ensure that I don't miss my stop. Add to that the fact that I'm simply not sure how one person is supposed to handle all of those duties that I outlined above for a potential 60 passengers needing 60 beds.

Please don't mis-understand me, I for one am glad to see people thinking and trying to make Amtrak a better company.  I'd for one would love to see such creative thinking within the ranks of management, but I'm still not convinced that this is one proposal that should fly. Sadly Amtrak may still try to make something like this fly, but I don't think that it is the correct answer IMHO.


----------



## AlanB

x-press said:


> - My understanding is that meal periods are longer by about an hour under SDS, thus the difference in dinners served won't be quite as great as you've indicated.  Using a meal period of 5 to 9, another 32 people could be seated, reducing the difference in money collected to $840.  The other two meals, in my experience, were not as busy as dinner (there have never been reservations required for lunch or breakfast on any of my travels), so assuming 2/3 the number of dinner patrons (~128), the number that could be served by SDS in a 3.5 hour meal period is quite close (120), and assuming a $10 lunch/breakfast cost, would only result in about an $80 dollar difference in those meals.  I'm calculating about a $1000 difference in revenue for the trip.  Wages?  Who knows?  Between pay, benefits, and lodging at non-home endpoints (which we'll get back to on sleeper attendants), I think $30-40 is probably somewhat low, but I won't venture a guess.  In today's world, for better or worse, it seems one can simply not overstate the cost of labor.  There are probably a lot of variables we are both missing, too.  I don't know anything about the management positions you cite; I assumed they were already with the company and were just being sent to the field.  If that's wrong, that's no good.


JPS,

I'm not quite sure that longer is the correct word to use here. Amtrak’s dining car hours for dinner have always technically been 5 to 9, with variations depending on train origination times, for example the late departing LSL out of CHI. Yes, typically whenever possible the last seating would be in the range of 7:30 to 8:00 PM whenever possible under the old system.

In any event, when I counted the number of passengers that could be accommodated in the dining car under the new program for dinner, I counted from 5 to 8. I must admit however that I made a mistake in my calculations, my number is too high. Your extra 32 above my number sadly doesn’t exist at all, despite that extra hour.

The reason? The SDS plan does not seat 8 passengers every 15 minutes during that 4 hour period 5-9. To prevent overwhelming the only chef in the kitchen, as well as the reduced wait staff, there are 5 intervals that are blacked out on the reservation sheet; they are 5:30, 6:15, 7:00, 7:45, and 8:30. So that cancels out the extra 32 that you figured on, as well as another 8 that I had mistakenly counted.

Sadly this makes for even more lost revenue that I had originally accounted for.

Now while I will agree that one has never needed reservations for the other two meals, I’m not sure that’s a valid indication that they are significantly less busy than the dinner meal. I would concede that they aren’t quite a busy as dinner, but again the EB that I just rode had a pretty full diner for the other two meals. So much so, that the LSA was taking names for a waitlist for the other meals during the prime eating times.

Continuing on however, SDS now requires reservations for all meals, breakfast, lunch, and dinner. And once again those reservations are at 15 minute intervals, with certain times blacked out. Breakfast now has 12 blocks, with the possible addition of a 5:00 AM block and a 10:00 AM block if needed. Lunch has 11 blocks, with 4 blackout times and no extra blocks available upon demand.

Considering that on most trains that I’ve taken, with the possible exception of the City of NOL, that the diner was usually full at one point or another for both breakfast and lunch, I’ve no doubt that Amtrak is still pulling in less revenue from those meal periods too.

So even if I were to accept that with benefits and hotel costs that the salaries of the cut workers were higher than what I quoted, I think that any savings is still negated by the lost revenue from all three meals. Especially since any savings just based upon what I considered to be a generous wage is wiped out on the dinner meal alone, without factoring in benefits and hotel costs.

Now in the interests of fairness I must tell you that SDS does have an alternative plan that allows for seating either 12 or 16 passengers per time block. However, those plans only go into effect when Amtrak increases staffing in the dining car. That of course brings us right back to square one, where there is no savings in salaries, even though it does increase revenue. I have no idea however if Amtrak is actually allowing the increased staffing that would be necessary for those plans. If they are, I certainly didn’t see it during my recent trip.

Finally, turning back to the new managers, it’s my understanding that they are all new hires. Perhaps someone else can prove me wrong, but my info, as well as my observations on the Capitol, the LSL, the Chief, and the Coast Starlight would indicate that they are all newly recent hires. Certainly their distinct uniforms with epaulets on their shoulders are new, as I’ve never seen anyone in such a uniform before.

They were hired to some extent in the role that used to be the Onboard Service Chief’s job, to be in charge of every service member on the train. And they do have that responsibility to lead the entire OBS team. However, after the dismal failure of the OSC program, one has to wonder why Amtrak would try that again. Couple that with the fact that all of these new manager’s during my travels were doing nothing but watching what was going on in the diner and I have to conclude that they were hired simply to make sure that the dining car crews weren’t deliberately sabotaging SBS.

I will say that on the Chief, the new manager did do more than just watch. He made most of the announcements for the various seatings and he did call a staff meeting to warn all the OBS staff about the derailment issue west of ABQ. And he did help to some extent to coordinate things and the passengers during the transfer, but then so did all the rest of the OBS crew.

However on the CS, I saw the new manager once and he wasn’t doing much of anything at all. The one on the Capitol wasn’t much better. The manager on the LSL did help with seating in the diner and he did cover for the LSA when she wasn’t around by handing out the checks. But he didn’t do much more than that. The LSA on the other hand worked very hard IMHO, she was a real credit to Amtrak.


----------



## allan thomas

Wow! you guys have this all figured out! I just wish it were that simple!

As far as sleepers, sleepers are turned several times along the route. Rooms are quickly remade to accomadate paxs boarding all along the route. If the rooms were cleaned at the endpoints they could only be sold once. Savings?

Management cost and labour cost are computed differently. Amtrak can cut labour cost and increase management cost and satisfy Congress. Congress is not concerned about managenent, they have an ax to grind with labour.

After 14 years as a Chef I get paid $22.00 an hour a far cry from $40.00. About the highest wage on the train in OBS. We pay largely for benefits and RRB deducts more than SS. We get paid an extra 4 hours for holidays and go into overtime after 180 hours. We are not paid on layovers. Remember we were black unions and are treated as such when compared to T&E

Superliner dining cars were designed for a crew of 3 or 4 in the kitchen, now1 person is operating that kitchen, an ergomomic disaster. Just the cost of disposible materials would pay the cost of the dish washer. And somebody has to wash all that new silver with the "three sheets to the wind" logo. Our hottest new collector item!

Check the fat and cholesteral content of the new meals. You guys only eat while traveling, we have no other choice.

We do appreciate you and the work you do. I only ask you to do what Amtrak doesn't do. Consider us on board as humans also.

Chef Allan Thomas

the "the City of New Orleans"


----------



## Save Our Trains Michigan

As far as RR work pay i would make $3,500 and after RRR and taxes i get around $2,220-2,300 Railroad Retirment takes out about 35%-40% out of each pay check most Railroaders only get around $500-1,500 evrey 2 weeks you have to hold the top jobs to make the money that i make and that takes years of seniority.

Amtrak employees are paid evrey week

Freight RR are paid evrey 2 weeks


----------



## GG-1

allan thomas said:


> Congress is not concerned about managenent, they have an ax to grind with labour.


Aloha

What a Shame but all over America, LABOR is treated as a LIABILTY, not an ASSET. Japan did well untill they copied us.

Thats all getting off the soap box

Mahalo


----------



## AlanB

allan thomas said:


> After 14 years as a Chef I get paid $22.00 an hour a far cry from $40.00. About the highest wage on the train in OBS. We pay largely for benefits and RRB deducts more than SS. We get paid an extra 4 hours for holidays and go into overtime after 180 hours. We are not paid on layovers. Remember we were black unions and are treated as such when compared to T&E


Allan,

Thanks for that insight. If you'd be so kind, might I ask you to answer the one question that I left hanging? That being, for example if you were to work the SW Chief, on the second day out of Chicago would you get paid for a full 24 hour day, or does Amtrak assume a certain amount of downtime for which there is no pay?

As for the actual salary, I didn't really expect that people were making the numbers that I picked. I picked those numbers in part simply to over shoot the mark just in case I was wrong in my assumptions, and I picked them in part since I considered the fact that Amtrak is still paying some taxes/benefits on the employee's behalf coupled with the fact that they are paying for the hotel room when your not at your home base and on a train.



allan thomas said:


> Superliner dining cars were designed for a crew of 3 or 4 in the kitchen, now1 person is operating that kitchen, an ergomomic disaster. Just the cost of disposible materials would pay the cost of the dish washer. And somebody has to wash all that new silver with the "three sheets to the wind" logo. Our hottest new collector item!


It's interesting that you mentioned the plastic stuff. Just yesterday I spent sometime fixing a few mistakes that I found in my numbers, as well as rephrasing things and reorganizing my original post. I did that because I wanted to post it over at Railfan.net, which I did manage to do yesterday before heading out to dinner with my wife. I didn't get a chance to post it here, and I will do so after this post.

However, one thing that I had pointed out in my rewrite, was the cost of all that plastic, as well as what I have to assume must be a huge increase in the amount of garbage now needed to be hauled off the train and disposed of at the major station stops.



allan thomas said:


> Check the fat and cholesteral content of the new meals. You guys only eat while traveling, we have no  other choice.


One reason that I tend to have the fish when on board, although I have to say that the chicken didn't seem like it was too bad either when it comes to the above.


----------



## AlanB

As I mentioned in my post above, I spent part of yesterday reworking my original piece analyzing the SDS idea. I did find a few errors in my original math. Additionally I cleaned some things up and added some info to that post. So without further ado, here is the revised analysis that I also posted on Railfan.net yesterday:



> Does food service loose money?  Yes.
> It always has, even the history books will tell you that in their heyday, the Freight RR’s lost money on food service.  In their infinite wisdom Congress mandated that a change be made, however it was up to Amtrak to decide how to do that.  Simplified Dining Service or SDS was Amtrak’s grand plan for saving money on food service and to do that, they basically cut workers.
> 
> They may have achieved a slight savings on the actual food, but it hard to see how they could have saved much.  However, I have no access to those numbers, so I can’t quantify them.  Even if they did save money on food contracts, that could still have been done without cutting workers.
> 
> I just completed a long round the country trip on Amtrak, using the Capitol Limited, SW. Chief, Coast Starlight, Empire Builder, and the Lake Shore Limited.  I can tell you that overall the food hasn't changed much at all, so again I don’t think that Amtrak has saved very much in this area.  Most of the food served under the old system was also prepared offsite.  I had a piece of Salmon on the CS that was every bit as good as any I've ever had on Amtrak in the past.  It all comes back to how good and caring the crew is that’s doing the prep work.
> 
> So let’s just analyze Amtrak’s plan, at least that part that I can see.   Personally, I just have to shake my head when I look at their grand plan and what my numbers show.
> 
> With SDS, we have cut two workers per dining car, the assistant chef and one waiter/waitress.  To do this Amtrak needed to do the following:
> 
> - Eliminate glassware. (Beyond the salary cost, we save on water costs and soap, but increase costs by buying disposable plastic and creating more garbage.)
> 
> - Eliminate a few more of the cooked to order foods.  (Most food served was already cooked off the train, before SDS.  Steaks, cooked to order eggs, French toast, pancakes were a few of the things that were still cooked on board that are now gone.)
> 
> - Seat passengers in groups of 8, every 15 minutes.
> 
> So let’s take a look at how well this works.  First of course, we’ve now pissed off a few people who liked having those few cooked onboard foods, as well as those who liked having glassware.
> 
> Next, if we consider a Superliner Diner, it has a capacity of 72 people.  I’m going to eliminate 8 from that number, since the crew usually keeps 1 or 2 tables to use as prep areas and for crew meals.  That means under the old system on a busy train, a dining car could seat 64 people at once.  With 3 potential seatings for dinner, that’s 192 meals that could be served.
> 
> Under the new plan, if they start seating for dinner at 5:00 PM and stop at 9:00 PM, that’s 12 seatings of 8 for a total of 96 meals served.  Yes, I know my numbers don't add up, but Amtrak basically has one 15 minute block blacked out each hour, so as to not overwhelm the kitchen.  If we assume a low average of say $15 per meal that means that the dining car now rings up $1,440 per night.  Under the old system they rang up $2,880 per night, a difference of $1,320 per night.  The actual numbers are probably higher since most entrees now start at $12 and go higher, many people order dessert and wine, and coach pax have to buy any liquid refreshment.
> 
> Just taking quick random numbers, which may or may not be wholly accurate, it would appear that Amtrak just shot itself in the foot.  If we assume that Amtrak would have paid those two workers now laid off for 18 hours of work in one day, and if we assume that the assn’t cook got paid 40 bucks an hour and the waiter $30 an hour, their combined salaries were $1,260 for that day.  That would realize a savings of $60, lost revenue of $1,320 minus salary savings of $1,260.  If Amtrak actually has to pay those two workers for a full 24 hour day, then Amtrak has managed to save a whopping $360 per dining car/per day.
> 
> But remember my numbers only involve the income from dinner.  That dining car still served breakfast and lunch in that same 24 hour period.  The lost revenue from those meals, since they also seat 8 people every 15 minutes, would more than cover any short fall.  And if my recent trip on the Empire Builder is any indication, that diner was full for each and every meal.  The revenue that would be lost from taking that car to SDS would be huge!  I’m betting that it’s been pretty significant for several other trains that have gone to SDS.
> 
> Yes, there may be trains (City of NOL, perhaps) where SDS might make sense since the amount of people using the dining car is less.  Perhaps there are even routes where SDS should be used during the slow months, with a return to normalcy during the busy months.  But there are trains where it doesn’t belong, like the SW Chief, the Coast Starlight, the Capitol Limited, the Lake Shore Limited, and the Silver Service.
> 
> Now I will grant you that as I alluded to above, that not every dining car manages three dinner seatings year round, so that would help to change the numbers some.  But I’d bet that the lean times would come close to being cancelled out by the boom times during peak periods.  When it doesn’t, then there’s a candidate for SDS at least part time.  Plus as I just pointed out in another post on the board, 333 average passengers per train/per day isn’t exactly lean times.
> 
> Finally, in Amtrak’s infinite wisdom, what did they do to make sure that SDS works properly?  They hired new managers to make sure that the crew that’s now left in the dining car works harder.  Something tells me that those new managers are making a nice salary, one that is probably at least equal, if not surpassing the salary of the now laid off assn’t chef.
> 
> Yes, I will grant you that the manager's salary doesn’t get charged to the dining car, so in that respect salary costs for that car have gone down.  But at what cost?  Amtrak is *not* saving any money overall by cutting those two positions, since the bottom line now includes the salaries of these new managers.  And of course as I just proved, they are now taking in less revenue from the dining car.  Less revenue means less money to offset the actually running of the dining car, things like buying the food, wear and tear, maintenance, cleaning, and so on.
> 
> IMHO all Amtrak has managed to do is juggle some costs, **** off its workers even more, inconvenience the passenger more (remember pissed off passengers mean less revenue), loose still more money, and therefore increase the subsidies that it will need in the coming years.


----------



## Guest_Gyuri_FT_*

Alan, thanks for the numbers. Picking food service and try to "fix" where it's not broken won't certainly help Amtrak. I have more questions:

1) Do bi-level cars make sense? How many passengers Superliners can seat on both levels? A modern single-level car can seat 60-70 passengers in great comfort and provide an economical sleeping for roughly same number. A modern single-level T2 sleeper can sleep 34 people in acceptable comfort (doubles) and about 18 people in great comfort.

2) Aren't bi-level cars more expensive, more tough on tracks, more dangerous if there is an accident?

IMHO Rail Administration's policy does greatly contribute to Amtrak's difficulties and equipment shortage. I believe, there was not much study how, say, a bi-level Superliner versus cars running overseas would behave in a crash scenario. I am affraid, Talgo passengers would fare better than the ones on the upper level of a Superliner.

Why do I write it here? Because I am not just agreing with you regarding the food service, but also believe, somebody who suffers from a cancer and a moscito bite in his leg should take care of cancer first.


----------



## AlanB

I can't address the questions of wear and tear on the tracks, although I'd have to believe that a bi-level puts a little more stress on the tracks than does a single level car. However, either car would seem to put far less stress on the tracks than any engine and most freight cars.

They certainly do cost more to buy, but I don't believe that the added cost is that much more than a single level car. It's not like one can buy two single level cars for the price of one bi-level.

Now to the numbers that I can provide you with:

Amfleet II - 59 passengers

Superliner Coach - 75 passengers

Viewliner sleeper - 30 passengers

Superliner sleeper I/II - 44/46 passengers

The Amfleet I coaches, which are not used for long distance running can seat more people, since less room between seats is provided. This would not be advisable for the LD's, as it would make it much harder to sleep IMHO.


----------



## Trogdor

AlanB said:


> I can't address the questions of wear and tear on the tracks, although I'd have to believe that a bi-level puts a little more stress on the tracks than does a single level car. However, either car would seem to put far less stress on the tracks than any engine and most freight cars.
> They certainly do cost more to buy, but I don't believe that the added cost is that much more than a single level car. It's not like one can buy two single level cars for the price of one bi-level.
> 
> Now to the numbers that I can provide you with:
> 
> Amfleet II - 59 passengers
> 
> Superliner Coach - 75 passengers
> 
> Viewliner sleeper - 30 passengers
> 
> Superliner sleeper I/II - 44/46 passengers
> 
> The Amfleet I coaches, which are not used for long distance running can seat more people, since less room between seats is provided. This would not be advisable for the LD's, as it would make it much harder to sleep IMHO.


Additional points to consider when comparing the capacity of a Superliner to that of an Amfleet:

*Superliners provide more legroom than Amfleet II coaches do. I don't know the exact details offhand, but I believe I looked them up somewhere in the past. IIRC, it turned out to be about 3-4 inches per row (I certainly noticed the difference between the two when traveling long distances in coach). This roughly amounts to an extra row of seats on the upper level of a Superliner car.

*Superliners have more restroom facilities, and a higher ratio of restrooms per passenger, than do Amfleet IIs. The single-level cars have two restrooms per car. Superliners have four or five.

*Superliners have a baggage rack downstairs, that takes up a bit of room (and the stairs themselves do, as well). Some single-level cars have baggage racks at one end. Others don't.

When comparing Superliners to Viewliners, remember:

*Superliners have restrooms that are separate from the roomettes. This takes up additional space.

Ultimately, I think when I did a brief analysis some time ago, I determined that if a Superliner and an Amfleet were configured to similar specs (i.e. same legroom, same passengers-to-restrooms ratio, etc.), a Superliner would have 50% more capacity. Since they "only" have a 25% greater seating capacity, the rest of the capacity goes to passenger comfort.

As far as safety goes, I'm not sure where, but I believe I read somewhere that a Superliner's center of gravity was lower than that of an Amfleet coach (in an online discussion regarding the tendency of a Superliner to tip over in a derailment). I'll include the disclaimer that I don't remember where I read this, nor do I know the credibility of the person that made the claim. Take it for what it's worth. YMMV, etc. Moderators, please don't ban me for posting something that could, potentially, be untrue.


----------



## Guest_Gyuri_FT_*

Thanks for the numbers. I wasn't comparing the Amfleet with Superliners but rather contemporary non-American equipment (Talgo, etc.) with Superliners. "Non-American" is actually a little lie since much of equipment made today overseas is made at factories with substantial U.S. interest and in the world of "globalization" the opposite is also true.

What I do see is that Superliner does not transfer proportionally more people to it's size and weight neither does it offer a substantially better level of comfort compared with what Bombardier and others manufacture overseas.

It is also unfair to compare them with each other since Superliners are much older. I can imagine, in a real-world crash test a 20+ year old Superliner will fare much worse than a brand new Spanish or even Chinese passenger car, if not for other reason, but for material fatigue.

My point is: due lobby-factor with Rail Administration, due incompetence and so on there is a critical shortage of equipment. Since U.S. is the only country in the world which has such standards and I do not expect Amtrak placing a large enough order soon to justify all modifications - there won't be any "off-shelf" equipment for the American market to shop for.

This is a much bigger problem than meal issues and needs to be addressed much sooner.

FYI: I did read recently on a Russian-language forum some engineer provided an estimate of a very fuel-effcient B-777 versus a very fuel-inefficient, 30 year old Russian M62 diesel pulling a string of 15 Russian streamliners. The result was pretty shocking: the diesel burned 20 times(!) less fuel pro passenger than B-777. If that's true, U.S. needs to address this issue sooner or later and the later it will, the more expensive it will be. The air travel became everything but fun and it is going to be just worse.


----------



## Sam Damon

Guest_Gyuri_FT_* said:


> It is also unfair to compare them with each other since Superliners are much older. I can imagine, in a real-world crash test a 20+ year old Superliner will fare much worse than a brand new Spanish or even Chinese passenger car, if not for other reason, but for material fatigue.


Maybe.

You see, Gyuri, in the USA the railroad bureaucrats have long memories. IIRC, US passenger railcars were reengineered after the CB&Q's _Exposition Flyer_ smashed the rear end of the _Advance Flyer_ back in 1946. The ICC report -- still available online at the DOT Special Collections website -- advocated the use of tightlock couplers and end buffing resistance strength standards. Since then, US passenger railcars tend to be of the "SUV" variety. They probably would hold up well. Look at how many 50+ year old Budd built cars are still around -- they were built to last.

Only problem with this approach, are the laws of physics. This will become more important as energy costs grow dearer. We shall see.


----------



## Guest_Gyuri_FT_*

Sam Damon said:


> This will become more important as energy costs grow dearer. We shall see.


Indeed. I returned from a 2000+ miles trip in poorer and less traveled part of Europe. It was amazing to see, how some railroads despite being in difficult financial situation still manage do things right. Like, for instance for the summer season(!) smashing sleeper prices on most popular destinations and putting automobile-transport railcars behind some international trains or trains going to sea coast. The goal is obviously to avoid long car lines and waste of fuel at the border crossings and on the highways leading to sea resorts. This is just the opposite what was happening here this Summer when the sleeper prices went out of control.


----------



## AlanB

Guest_Gyuri_FT_* said:


> Like, for instance for the summer season(!) smashing sleeper prices on most popular destinations and putting automobile-transport railcars behind some international trains or trains going to sea coast. The goal is obviously to avoid long car lines and waste of fuel at the border crossings and on the highways leading to sea resorts. This is just the opposite what was happening here this Summer when the sleeper prices went out of control.


Yes, but that is the fundemental difference between Europe and the US. In Europe their passenger RR's are considered an important national resource. Here in the US we seem to think of our passenger RR as a profit center. This despite the fact that history and every expert will tell you that Amtrak cannot and will not ever become a profit center.


----------



## Guest

AlanB said:


> Yes, but that is the fundemental difference between Europe and the US. In Europe their passenger RR's are considered an important national resource. Here in the US we seem to think of our passenger RR as a profit center. This despite the fact that history and every expert will tell you that Amtrak cannot and will not ever become a profit center.


Alan,

This is mostly the case, but there are important exceptions, like Russian railway which is currently very much profit-oriented and amazingly it is among the least money-losing passenger services in the world. Not that I am happy, but currently that's the case.

In other countries it's a mixed thing, there myth of "profitable passenger rail" is still alive and if it dies in one country, an other country will pick it up.

The bad thing is, if really Amtrak would be a "profit center" - that it won't be too bad either. Now I think, it's neither a "profit center" nor a "public service" - but a toy in hands of irresponsible and/or ignorant ones. And the ones who have good intentions have little imagination, what to do. I also think and I am saying it repeatedly, Amtrak should hire foreign (= European, Asian) experts and completely re-build its philosophy baised on experience of what works under similar circumstances as in the U.S. (Russia, China, India), rather than trying to figure out on it's own. And of course some rules set by Railroad Administration (see car "safety") need to be based on scientific data and real-world crash test scenarios.


----------



## haolerider

Guest said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but that is the fundemental difference between Europe and the US. In Europe their passenger RR's are considered an important national resource. Here in the US we seem to think of our passenger RR as a profit center. This despite the fact that history and every expert will tell you that Amtrak cannot and will not ever become a profit center.
> 
> 
> 
> Alan,
> 
> This is mostly the case, but there are important exceptions, like Russian railway which is currently very much profit-oriented and amazingly it is among the least money-losing passenger services in the world. Not that I am happy, but currently that's the case.
> 
> In other countries it's a mixed thing, there myth of "profitable passenger rail" is still alive and if it dies in one country, an other country will pick it up.
> 
> The bad thing is, if really Amtrak would be a "profit center" - that it won't be too bad either. Now I think, it's neither a "profit center" nor a "public service" - but a toy in hands of irresponsible and/or ignorant ones. And the ones who have good intentions have little imagination, what to do. I also think and I am saying it repeatedly, Amtrak should hire foreign (= European, Asian) experts and completely re-build its philosophy baised on experience of what works under similar circumstances as in the U.S. (Russia, China, India), rather than trying to figure out on it's own. And of course some rules set by Railroad Administration (see car "safety") need to be based on scientific data and real-world crash test scenarios.
Click to expand...

No matter who runs Amtrak it will not be a profit center and I could not disagree more with the comment about "irresponsible and/or ignorant" people running Amtrak. There has certainly been a history of ups and downs - and poor funding from the government, but anyone who has the least bit of knowledge about the professional people running Amtrak would not characterize them as irresponsible or ignorant. Given the limited amount of money and support from the government, I think Amtrak has made remarkable strides in the past several years.


----------



## Guest_Gyuri_FT_*

haolerider said:


> No matter who runs Amtrak it will not be a profit center and I could not disagree more with the comment about "irresponsible and/or ignorant" people running Amtrak. There has certainly been a history of ups and downs - and poor funding from the government, but anyone who has the least bit of knowledge about the professional people running Amtrak would not characterize them as irresponsible or ignorant. Given the limited amount of money and support from the government, I think Amtrak has made remarkable strides in the past several years.


I strongly disagree. The entire framework set for Amtrak - the way it operate, how it does operate - is the key of failure. It was set by ignorant and irreponsibe people and they cannot jump over own shadow. Within that framework, the amount of money needed to do the job is by a magnitude more, than it gets. But who said, that framework shouldn't be questioned? $1 Billion is a serious money, some functioning railroads with similar network length as Amtrak would be happy to get it yearly.

I am questioning both the approach and also the framework. I am in big pain to see, how Amtrak is doing. I don't think there is a light at the end of tunnel regardless who is the president, regardless how U.P. is handling the passenger trains and so on. There is beed of change on some key issues:

1) equipment from overseas sould be allowed if it passes certain crash tests besed on science, not on "pork" and lobby.

2) if you run a hotel and you stuff 20 guests in a room built only for occupancy of 4 guests - you will be fined and if it happens repeatedly, you probably will kiss you business licence "good bye". How about U.P. running more trains than their tracks can handle? If they can handle dayly 5 freight and two passengers, than that's it. If the Railroad Administration decides that running 15 freight trains where only 5 can run satisfactory is less safe than having a Spanish or Croatian - built sleeping car - well, they certainly can act. That perhaps will take care about some of the worst delays.

3) How funny: a French PRIVATE business ( http://www.accor.com/gb/groupe/accor_monde/carte.asp ) runs Austrian sleeping cars http://www.wagons-lits.com with expensive Austrian crew between Vienna and Belgrade. You can buy a bed in an equivalent of de-luxe sleeper for 22 Euro. They are not losing money. Maybe we can ask, why? Maybe we can ask them to run Amtrak sleepers and diners? They are running Motel 6 and some other stuff in the U.S.: http://www.accor.com/gb/groupe/accor_monde/usa.asp

Here is their web site about sleepers: http://www.wagons-lits.com/autriche_voitures_lits.html

OK. I ave to admit, we decided to "side" with Bulgarian State-run older sleepers and did purchase EUR 11 upgrade rather than EUR 22 upgrade on wagons-lits on the same train - just to save roughly 50 Euro ($65) for us five. But even an "expensive" 110 Euro (=$130) sleeper upgrade for five people would cost at least three, maybe five times more on www.amtrak.com on the same distance. We can argue, the French company can be profitable because of different business environment they face between Vienna and Belgrade. And exactly that's the point.

4) The success of the rail is usually in simplicity. Everyone who is traveling more-less frequently knows exactly what is the price. "Buckets" are rarely used - people like the simplicity.

5) Wo wants to save money and rather go in a somewhat run-down but State-sponsored sleeper rather than in a historic wagon-lits sleeper - they are welcome to do. Who does not have even that money, they can take either a section sleeper in CIS countries + China or a "couchette" in Europe. Everyone has right to *** some *** acceptable, reasonably priced sleeping place.

6) If there is an obvious reason to start a train service and there are even tracks - it's a no-brainer. Restricting Amtrak from starting new services (SF to LAS, LAX to LAS and so on) is an idea belonging to a madhouse.

It's just what came into my mind, not necessary in the order of importance and by far not a complete list of issues.


----------



## Dan Avon

Hate to sound ignorant, but what is SDS?

Are not all forms of transportation federally subsidized? Anybody put the pencil to how much the taxpayer forks up for the FAA, the shoe inspectors, the million dollar x ray machines that cost more each than a new locomotive would? And do you think your miserable 18 cents a gallon federal tax on gasoline actually pays for the roads you drive over?

If SDS is a concept like what I think it might be, it should be applied to all forms of government spending, not just the poor Amtrak dining car.


----------



## AlanB

Dan Avon said:


> Hate to sound ignorant, but what is SDS?


Dan, I'm a firm believer that no question is too silly, when one does not know the answer. That's how we learn.  And it's certainly no indication of ignorance.

Now to answer you question, SDS is *S*implified *D*ining *S*ervice. It was part one of Amtrak's grand plan in response to the mandate from Congress to cut the $100+ Million annual loss from food service on Amtrak. As mentioned in some of the earlier posts I believe in this topic, the changes wrought by SDS were the elimination of the Assistant Cook position, as well as one waiter/waitress in the dining car. Additionally, they dumped glass in favor of plastic and basically removed the last few meals that were still being cooked on board in favor of everything being pre-cooked and just reheated in a convection over.

As I noted in my analysis, they basically shot themselves in the foot with this idea, since they also halved the revenue that a diner could take in. And that was just for dinner, I didn't even try to quantify the additional losses from breakfast and lunch.

Yet another part of the equation that I never even talked about, is the fact that part of that $100 M loss each year comes from the cafe cars. I seen one unsubstantiated report that suggested more than half of the loss comes from the cafe cars and of that almost 3/4's comes from cafe cars running on short haul trains & corridor trains, not the cafe cars running on the long distance trains.

Part two of this grand plan is called Diner Lite, which is supposed to combine the dining car and the lounge car into one car. IMHO, a wholly misguided idea, but hey what do I know? :unsure: Beach Grove has to date turned out one Amfleet car in this configuration, but that's it. I've never heard that anymore are even on the production line, but I cannot confirm that. And of course no mention is being made of the millions that will need to be spent if indeed BG were to turn out dozens of these cars.


----------



## RailFanLNK

I just had SDS this weekend on the CZ. It wasn't terrible at all. The food was good. Little disapointed in the paper table cloths, but at least we had silverware. SDS was better than what I was lead to believe. I'm sure there was some grand meals in the Dining Car way before I came along. But this weekend, the food was definately good.


----------



## rmgreenesq

AlanB said:


> Yet another part of the equation that I never even talked about, is the fact that part of that $100 M loss each year comes from the cafe cars. I seen one unsubstantiated report that suggested more than half of the loss comes from the cafe cars and of that almost 3/4's comes from cafe cars running on short haul trains & corridor trains, not the cafe cars running on the long distance trains.


Not to doubt your source, but I just can't imagine that Amtrak is loosing money with the cafe car. Unless they are buying the food from DoD ($150 hammer?) the markup on the microwave food in the cafe car must be tremendous.

Unless nobody is buying the food, (which could be true in the NEC), I just can't see how they could not make money on this stuff.

Rick


----------



## Sam Damon

The stock answer from many is, "It's the labor costs." However, Amtrak's accounting is opaque, IMO. We also never hear about how much airlines and cruise ships lose on food service, for that matter.

Also kindly note that dining car losses are not Something New, as  this 50+ year old document attests.


----------



## Dan

Thanks for your reply, that is kinda what I thought it was. Under the philosophy, the red states with the most mileage and fewest boarding passengers get hit the hardest, with Florida already eliminated, and Texas, Arizona next on the chopping block.

On one hand, food service should be a revenue cash cow, can't imagine any restaurant staying in business that would give away food at a loss. If Amtrak food service is not generating a positive cash flow, something is definitely wrong. Surely it isn't rent, insurance, marketing, advertising, or any of the other things that a normal restaurant has to pay, because there is none of that cost on a train, just the amortization and pulling of a 60 year old rail car, some water tanks that have to be filled and hauled around, and a little bit of locomotive electricity that would be burned anyway. You can't tell me that with the purchasing clout a government corporation has in making mass=purchase of food, that they can't vend and serve it at a cost that generates profit. There aren't that many employees on a dining car, so where is this notorious labor overhead coming from? I see fast food establishments daily that have 15-20 employees working at minimum wage, so it must be volume of food that is lacking rather than quality. The food service model today is like wal mart, buy it cheap, use part time employees, and push as much of the product as you can. But, hotels and cruise ships don't follow that model, they go for the high priced spread, and do just fine, thank you.

Suppose the time has come to start accounting for the food as part of the first class ticket, much as sleeping car is currently billed separately from coach fare on most first class tickets. The sleeping car portion of the first class fare is only worth a portion of the difference between coach, with the food and other services accounting for the rest. Right now the food portion of the trip is getting under-billed.

Have no problem with accounting on this basis, but the net result is always that the rural area (red states) are receiving a disproportionate share of federal subsidy. If you apply this same approach to the highway system, there could be no roads in North Dakota, it isn't financially possible without support from the rest of the country pumping funds into the red states. If Montana or Alaska had to fund their projects without being a "receiving" state from subsidy of the rest of the country, there would be no infrastructure in those states at all. Isn't that what the "United" States is all about anyway, joining together for the common good?

I find it really ironic that a red state Republican controlled congress wants to shoot the red states off the map, and esentially leave the US with only a truncated blue state commuter rail system where everyone brings brown bags and sports drinks on board with them. I wonder if these same red state congresspeople will carry this philosophy forward, and turn back or cut all other forms of federal subsidy to their rural constituents.


----------



## DaveKCMO

we experienced SDS on the SWC from KC to chicago this weekend. our one meal was fine (the burger), and i don't see any problem with the changes. as long as they still offer a place to sit and eat and the food is better than mcdonald's, i'm fine.


----------



## VentureForth

So long as this thread is pinned and so long as no one has posted to it for a few months, I'd like to bring up the cafe cars.

I'm 100% FOR a first class dining experience in the dining car. Get a great meal for a fair price, and the rest of the value is in the company you meet and the experience.

That being said, GET RID OF THE CAFE CAR! That is one over priced position that is infested with many problems.

First, the Diner is open during the most popular dining times. These are the times that the crew eat, too...at least the cafe car attendant (based on last couple of trips on TE, SC, etc). That means that he is eating, in the dining room, while the Cafe is closed, when others who want dinner have to wait for him to finish eating.

He is paid (and tips expected) to microwave food that you successfully remove from a glass-door refridgerator.

His food is expensive. A cheeseburger with a bag of chips is within a dollar or so of the Black Angus burger in the Diner.

On the Pacific Surfliner, I sat in the cafe car for over an hour and not ONE person bought anything (including me - I just like the perspective of flying at high rates of speed close to the ground).

This is a job that could easily be replaced by vending machines and monitored by the coach crew (sorry guys and gals!) Those same folks can also push "PLAY" on the video of the night.

I've lived 18 years in Japan - those who have completely exploited every aspect of the vending machine. You can buy a burger that is heated IN THE MACHINE, thus avoiding external microwaves that are abused by passengers for their own personal use.

Dining car was completely eliminated on the bullet train in Japan somewhere between 5th grade and HS graduation. But that was because the speeds were increased so much that most folks didn't have the _time_ to eat. It's a problem I'd like to have, but with 2,000 - 3,000 miles of contiguous routes across this fruited plain, I pray that we will ALWAYS have diners.

By the way, there was a post somewhere up there where the cost of a 777 was compared to 15 streamlined Russian railroad coaches pulling the same number of passengers. That's a crazy example. Even a Cessna 172 compared to my Suburban costs more, but price paid and the fuel used is for SPEED.

Jim


----------



## TransAtlantic

rmgreenesq said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another part of the equation that I never even talked about, is the fact that part of that $100 M loss each year comes from the cafe cars. I seen one unsubstantiated report that suggested more than half of the loss comes from the cafe cars and of that almost 3/4's comes from cafe cars running on short haul trains & corridor trains, not the cafe cars running on the long distance trains.
> 
> 
> 
> Not to doubt your source, but I just can't imagine that Amtrak is loosing money with the cafe car. Unless they are buying the food from DoD ($150 hammer?) the markup on the microwave food in the cafe car must be tremendous.
> 
> Unless nobody is buying the food, (which could be true in the NEC), I just can't see how they could not make money on this stuff.
> 
> Rick
Click to expand...

Catering services (up to but excluding delivery to the consumer) is handled by a private company, not Amtrak...this was a "cost-saving" measure which pretty much everyone agrees ended up costing more, but Amtrak can't back out of, due to a multi-year contract...


----------



## AmtrakWPK

The cafe car on the Silver Service (NY-Miami) trains do a pretty good amount of business. If you want a pepsi or a snack or a deck of cards to play some solitaire, and then if you want someplace to sit at a table big enough to spread out a newspaper, or play some cards, that's the only place you can do that. And if you're only on board for a few hours or are on a lower budget, that's still a lot cheaper than a complete meal in the diner, by a considerable amount. We really enjoy spending time in that cafe car. And if you are always on the west coast, remember that the east coast is not bilevel equipment. Even the times I've been on Sunset Limited (while it was still running east of NOL), I recall that the attendant downstairs in the observation car was doing ok sales-wise as well. And I don't think you can buy a blanket or playing cards in the diner. They weren't on the menu as I recall.............

And, by the by, I would expect to get better gas mileage on the Cessna 172 than on your Suburban for a decent trip length, assuming you are flying at economy cruise at a decent altitude. If mountainous terrain is involved, I can guarantee a fuel savings using the 172, since it also flies direct point to point. Not to mention the savings in meals, motels, etc. (and reduced wear and tear on the nerves)....


----------



## Guest

Why not hire one of the British train operating companies (First Great Western, Virgin, etc.) to run some Amtrak routes. Why not start them out with the Northeast Corridor. Let them see how much more reliable and even more profitable they can make it. If they can't do any better, then maybe the critics will quit complaining about Amtrak.


----------



## AmtrakWPK

I seem to recall some of our British compatriots indicating the privatizing over there to have been something of an unmitigated disaster that they have had to at least partially reverse already.



> even more profitable


? It ain't profitable now, so how can it be "even more profitable"?


----------



## JAChooChoo

Guest said:


> Why not hire one of the British train operating companies (First Great Western, Virgin, etc.) to run some Amtrak routes. Why not start them out with the Northeast Corridor. Let them see how much more reliable and even more profitable they can make it. If they can't do any better, then maybe the critics will quit complaining about Amtrak.


*Great idea, wrong forum. As far as I know, the people on this forum exert no control over Amtrak operation and spending.*

*You should immediately convince the 535 members of U.S. Senate and House of Representatives that control the purse strings.*


----------



## Bosworth Johnson

Three diner lites arrived in New Orleans over the weekend on train 59 (37002,03,04), and one went from New Orleans back to Chicago (37001) on train 58. Supposedly crew training was to begin today.


----------



## Bosworth Johnson

The first CCC (latest Amnomenspeak for diner lite) to run on the City of New Orleans today is 37002. The regular diner and lounge car deadheaded on the rear (bye bye!).


----------



## VentureForth

Any photos of the CCC?


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL

Here's a question why can't dining on Amtrak be run like a regular restaurant? i.e. It be open regular hours and passengers come and go as they please. When I was on the Crescent in July there were never more than 12 passengers in the dining car and never saw more than 2 employees at a time in the dining car. One was making reservations the other seating and taking orders.

Something else I would like to see is for the Service Attendants be responsible for keeping the train clean en-route. It would lessen the load on cleaning staff at terminals. The restrooms were clean when they left New Orleans but by North Carolina they were in bad shape. It seemed like there were too many employees that weren't doing anything. The conductor seemed overly busy and the attendants were doing hardly anything.


----------



## AlanB

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> Here's a question why can't dining on Amtrak be run like a regular restaurant? i.e. It be open regular hours and passengers come and go as they please. When I was on the Crescent in July there were never more than 12 passengers in the dining car and never saw more than 2 employees at a time in the dining car. One was making reservations the other seating and taking orders.


Simply because with the huge staffing cut that was made when SDS was implimented, the staff can't handle more than 10 to 12 passengers at one time. Therefore they have to control how many come to the diner at one time by issuing reservations.

And by the way, if the second employee was only making reservations, then he/she was in violation of Amtrak policy. Both workers are required to take orders and serve the passengers.



Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> Something else I would like to see is for the Service Attendants be responsible for keeping the train clean en-route. It would lessen the load on cleaning staff at terminals. The restrooms were clean when they left New Orleans but by North Carolina they were in bad shape. It seemed like there were too many employees that weren't doing anything. The conductor seemed overly busy and the attendants were doing hardly anything.


Actually the attendants are supposed to be cleaning the restrooms while enroute. Some do, and some don't do their job. It is important to know though that even when they are doing their job, with 75 people per car it doesn't take very long for them to get dirty. And the attendants do have more duties beyond just cleaning the restrooms. They are responsible for assigning seats, catering to the elderly and handicapped (in particular bringing them meals), handing out pillows, answering questions, and ensuring that passengers get off at their correct stop.


----------



## had8ley

AlanB said:


> Crescent ATN & TCL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a question why can't dining on Amtrak be run like a regular restaurant? i.e. It be open regular hours and passengers come and go as they please. When I was on the Crescent in July there were never more than 12 passengers in the dining car and never saw more than 2 employees at a time in the dining car. One was making reservations the other seating and taking orders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And by the way, if the second employee was only making reservations, then he/she was in violation of Amtrak policy. Both workers are required to take orders and serve the passengers.
Click to expand...

Alan;

I can second the lone SA serving the entire car from our trip of two weeks ago. (They used to turn the second SA at Birmingham but now the lone SA doesn't get help until Atlanta; I imagine by then the diner is swamped.) The LSA sat at the table next to the kitchen and talked on his cell phone while he seated everyone at the north end of the diner which was the furthest from the kitchen. Just to get coffee or a straw the lone SA had to walk the entire length of the car; she was very good and worked very hard while her LSA hardly worked.(And I never saw over 5 tables occupied; the LSA kept the door propped open in 30 degree weather and snow outside.) The only thing the LSA lifted was his cell phone. When you talk to Amtrak they'll be quick to tell you that the diner is staffed out of NYP and is not their responsibility. I cut that act out after graduating from high school. Making the entire train NOL crew based would make too much sense and would probably cut off numerous supervisors in NYP.


----------



## Guest

Is there a crew base in Atlanta?


----------



## had8ley

Guest said:


> Is there a crew base in Atlanta?


Atlanta is a crew base for operating crafts (engineer, fireman, conductors and A/C's.) They run south to Meridian (with a fireman) and the next northern crew base (and I'm only guessing) is probably Charlotte. (help me with this one Bill.)

The second SA that staffs the diner comes into Atlanta on #19 and lays over during the day and catches #20 back to NYP that same night.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL

had8ley said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a crew base in Atlanta?
> 
> 
> 
> Atlanta is a crew base for operating crafts (engineer, fireman, conductors and A/C's.) They run south to Meridian (with a fireman) and the next northern crew base (and I'm only guessing) is probably Charlotte. (help me with this one Bill.)
> 
> The second SA that staffs the diner comes into Atlanta on #19 and lays over during the day and catches #20 back to NYP that same night.
Click to expand...

From what I could tell when I took it in July the crew change points are NOL-Meridian-Atlanta-Charlotte-Washington-NYP I might have missed on between Charlotte and WAS but according to the schedule there are no significant layovers to allow for a crew change. I am a little surprised at that the layover at BHM is a few minutes longer than at Meridian where a crew change occurs. Of course this layover could have just stayed on after the Crescent stopped crew changing there and stopped its short lived split move between BHM and Mobile. Of course it might just be for padding since there is a hand thrown switch to get in and out of the station.


----------



## haolerider

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a crew base in Atlanta?
> 
> 
> 
> Atlanta is a crew base for operating crafts (engineer, fireman, conductors and A/C's.) They run south to Meridian (with a fireman) and the next northern crew base (and I'm only guessing) is probably Charlotte. (help me with this one Bill.)
> 
> The second SA that staffs the diner comes into Atlanta on #19 and lays over during the day and catches #20 back to NYP that same night.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From what I could tell when I took it in July the crew change points are NOL-Meridian-Atlanta-Charlotte-Washington-NYP I might have missed on between Charlotte and WAS but according to the schedule there are no significant layovers to allow for a crew change. I am a little surprised at that the layover at BHM is a few minutes longer than at Meridian where a crew change occurs. Of course this layover could have just stayed on after the Crescent stopped crew changing there and stopped its short lived split move between BHM and Mobile. Of course it might just be for padding since there is a hand thrown switch to get in and out of the station.
Click to expand...

The crew change city you missed is Charlottesville. Birmingham is a bit longer based on the fact that it is a two level station and baggage has to be moved up on the elevator for the boarding passengers, loaded and then baggage off-loaded for the detraining passengers.


----------



## Tony

Sorry to be late to the table (a pun?), but I read through this tread with great interest. I do have a question.

What exactly is the financial relationship between the sleepers and the dining car? Does the dining car get a fixed cut of the sleeping car accommodation charge?

And more than anything, I wonder what happens when a train runs late (like that never happens  )? The dining car has to feed all the sleeping car passengers an additional meal for every 4 hours the train is late. Does the dining car have to eat (another pun?) that cost?


----------



## had8ley

haolerider said:


> Crescent ATN & TCL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a crew base in Atlanta?
> 
> 
> 
> Atlanta is a crew base for operating crafts (engineer, fireman, conductors and A/C's.) They run south to Meridian (with a fireman) and the next northern crew base (and I'm only guessing) is probably Charlotte. (help me with this one Bill.)
> 
> The second SA that staffs the diner comes into Atlanta on #19 and lays over during the day and catches #20 back to NYP that same night.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From what I could tell when I took it in July the crew change points are NOL-Meridian-Atlanta-Charlotte-Washington-NYP I might have missed on between Charlotte and WAS but according to the schedule there are no significant layovers to allow for a crew change. I am a little surprised at that the layover at BHM is a few minutes longer than at Meridian where a crew change occurs. Of course this layover could have just stayed on after the Crescent stopped crew changing there and stopped its short lived split move between BHM and Mobile. Of course it might just be for padding since there is a hand thrown switch to get in and out of the station.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The crew change city you missed is Charlottesville. Birmingham is a bit longer based on the fact that it is a two level station and baggage has to be moved up on the elevator for the boarding passengers, loaded and then baggage off-loaded for the detraining passengers.
Click to expand...

Some of that extra time might be left over from when the Mobile section broke away from #19 at Birmingham and #20 picked up the Mobile section.


----------



## AlanB

Tony said:


> What exactly is the financial relationship between the sleepers and the dining car? Does the dining car get a fixed cut of the sleeping car accommodation charge?


Yes, but I've no clue just what the cut is.



Tony said:


> And more than anything, I wonder what happens when a train runs late (like that never happens  )? The dining car has to feed all the sleeping car passengers an additional meal for every 4 hours the train is late. Does the dining car have to eat (another pun?) that cost?


My guess is that the dinner takes that loss on the chin, but I'm not positive.


----------



## Tony

AlanB said:


> My guess is that the dinner takes that loss on the chin, but I'm not positive.


That is one of the reasons, therefore, that when Amtrak claims they loose money on the dining car, my reaction is "duh!". Amtrak runs it such that the dining car has to eat it (I just love puns) when LD trains run late.

Let's face it, Amtrak trains run late more often than not. And with them running late, sleeper passengers many times get yet another meal. I know for me on 92, that if the train is running its usual lateness, we get an extra free lunch before getting off in Orlando.

IMHO, it is operating/bookkeeping policies like that, and not the number of servers or cooks on board, or using china over plastic, that cost the diner car to loose money.


----------



## haolerider

Tony said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that the dinner takes that loss on the chin, but I'm not positive.
> 
> 
> 
> That is one of the reasons, therefore, that when Amtrak claims they loose money on the dining car, my reaction is "duh!". Amtrak runs it such that the dining car has to eat it (I just love puns) when LD trains run late.
> 
> Let's face it, Amtrak trains run late more often than not. And with them running late, sleeper passengers many times get yet another meal. I know for me on 92, that if the train is running its usual lateness, we get an extra free lunch before getting off in Orlando.
> 
> IMHO, it is operating/bookkeeping policies like that, and not the number of servers or cooks on board, or using china over plastic, that cost the diner car to loose money.
Click to expand...

There is a set amount of the Sleeper passengers fare that is allocated to the food & beverage department. The extra food that might be served during a late train does not get charged back to the food & beverage department, it is a passenger incovenience allocation that is generally absorbed by the operating division. Labor is the single largest contributor to the loss in the food & beverage department. Food costs are basically the same as a stand alone restaurant, but the wages paid are nothing like the wages paid to a waiter, cook or other food service person in a regular restaurant. Of course, that is based on the fact that the dining car staff is working tremendously long shifts, away from home for days on end and conducting business on a moving piece of equipment.


----------



## had8ley

haolerider said:


> but the wages paid are nothing like the wages paid to a waiter, cook or other food service person in a regular restaurant. Of course, that is based on the fact that the dining car staff is working tremendously long shifts, away from home for days on end and conducting business on a moving piece of equipment.


Try telling that to an airline stewardess who is on duty from the time the plane fills and until the last pax has deplaned. They have taken 30-50% pay cuts, multiple fringe benefit cuts and perform much the same duties except at 5 miles above ground and are away from home for days at a time. The ironic part of all this is the airline industry is covered by the Railway Labor Act !


----------



## EB_OBS

had8ley said:


> haolerider said:
> 
> 
> 
> but the wages paid are nothing like the wages paid to a waiter, cook or other food service person in a regular restaurant. Of course, that is based on the fact that the dining car staff is working tremendously long shifts, away from home for days on end and conducting business on a moving piece of equipment.
> 
> 
> 
> Try telling that to an airline stewardess who is on duty from the time the plane fills and until the last pax has deplaned. They have taken 30-50% pay cuts, multiple fringe benefit cuts and perform much the same duties except at 5 miles above ground and are away from home for days at a time. The ironic part of all this is the airline industry is covered by the Railway Labor Act !
Click to expand...


I've taken four flights this year involving getting on and off an airplane nine times due to connecting flights. On every single one, there were three or occasionally only two flight attendants. They did the usual FAA required safety instructional stuff at the beginning of the flight, served some beverages once, collected the garbage and sat for the rest of the majority of the flight. All of the legs of my flights were from 3 to 4.5 hours long. I imagine the crew works two or three hops a day but I'm not sure.

That may be an oversimplification but it's not even remotely close to the amount of work done by attendants on a train.


----------



## DET63

Guest_Gyuri_FT_* said:


> Alan, thanks for the numbers. Picking food service and try to "fix" where it's not broken won't certainly help Amtrak. I have more questions:
> 1) Do bi-level cars make sense? How many passengers Superliners can seat on both levels? A modern single-level car can seat 60-70 passengers in great comfort and provide an economical sleeping for roughly same number. A modern single-level T2 sleeper can sleep 34 people in acceptable comfort (doubles) and about 18 people in great comfort.
> 
> 2) Aren't bi-level cars more expensive, more tough on tracks, more dangerous if there is an accident?


I think the main drawback to bi-level cars in their loading gauge. In the western (and southern) U.S., Superliners are used because loading gauges are generous, and the same numbers of passengers can be carried on shorter trains. In the northeastern U.S., as well as Europe, clearances (esp. low bridges and tight tunnels) preclude their use. However, in Europe TGV bi-level Duplex trainsets are used for some services, so clearance issues have been resolved (probably because they're used on new LGV lines that were built with a larger loading gauge).

Safety doesn't seem to be a serious issue with 2-level trains.


----------

