# Without additional funding, how can Amtrak improve the LD trains?



## Nick Farr (Aug 21, 2020)

Before we begin, please don't beat up on Flex Dining here, there's a nice 20 page thread for that already.

What I'm interested in discussing here are specific, actionable ideas that don't require a major increase in funding. 

How feasible they are is debatable. However, since we're in a do-more-with-less era where anything might go, I figured I'd throw some of these things out there:

*Have the Department of Justice go after host railroads that do not prioritize passenger traffic. Assess the fines and enforce the law.*
Computerize all the OBS systems. The conductors have handheld devices for scanning tickets, why not issue similar tech to the OBS staff that works with a localized mesh network on the train? From the call button on up.
Develop a better service culture with OBS. Hold OBS accountable using the same customer service metrics used everywhere else in the industry. Transition out bad OBS, reward good OBS.
Make the LSA actual management responsible for supervising all aspects of OBS staff
Cross-train OBS staff and change operating procedures to maximize the use of OBS hours.
Work with local food providers to offer different dining options at crew change stops.
Work with Private Car owners to develop "land cruise" options and develop special packages with better food and other items (to demonstrate demand for these services)
What are your ideas?


----------



## Qapla (Aug 21, 2020)

Find some room in the budget for advertising on "prime-time" TV - even if you have to take that money from executive bonuses. More exposure would put the idea of taking the train into more peoples plans - right now many (most) people don't think about it because they don't even realize it is a viable option. (out of sight - out of mind)

Remove the blatant ads from the Amtrak website and make the top of the page for booking trips with an easier to use interface (right now you have to "dig" to find the senior and handicapped discounts) with a clearer breakdown of the train choices. The interface they removed was better than the one currently on the site.

If they MUST go to a triweekly schedule, add the stops that some of the non-running trains would stop at ... case in point - some of the Florida stops are for the SM and others for the SS ... with only having one train each day have them both service ALL the stops (ie - Okeechobee)


----------



## Seaboard92 (Aug 21, 2020)

The problem about working with private car owners is if it's a regular service you have to 238 the car I believe which can be very costly. I'm not completely positive on whats involved in doing that to a car but I believe it might be required. I know when they 238ed the IPH Dome for the Hoosier State they had to remove the massive genset from the car, and associated items. And most owners don't want to remove their gensets. 

That being said I would be open to them working better with PV owners. 

Something I think could work is better fleet utilization. If you move the SM departure from NYP to just after Rush Hour going south you can drop down to three trainsets instead of the four used. Which means you could redeploy the three Viewliner Sleepers, Diner, Amfleet II cafe, and Four to five Amfleet II Coaches to other routes to either increase capacity. A train like the Crescent could use a third sleeper north of Atlanta usually. Or you could start the Thru cars from CHI-PGH-NYP with that fleet.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Aug 21, 2020)

Consistent customer service.

The LSA’s seem to be some of the worst in customer service and attitude in my experience. Making them “managers” would not be a good idea imho. 

Most of your ideas would cost money. How do you not spend money and still rent a bunch of private cars and staff them?


----------



## Sauve850 (Aug 21, 2020)

Would love to see a better OBS culture. Transition out the bad is a tough road but a good idea. With smart management it can be done.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 21, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Consistent customer service.
> 
> The LSA’s seem to be some of the worst in customer service and attitude in my experience. Making them “managers” would not be a good idea imho.
> 
> Most of your ideas would cost money. How do you not spend money and still rent a bunch of private cars and staff them?


The Train " Manager" needs to be an Exempt Person who is not a craft Union Member. 

The problem with this position before was buddy,buddy stuff by these people with lazy and incompetent OBS.


----------



## Sauve850 (Aug 21, 2020)

Bob Dylan said:


> The Train " Manager" needs to be an Exempt Person who is not a craft Union Member.
> 
> The problem with this position before was buddy,buddy stuff by these people with lazy and incompetent OBS.


I agree.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 22, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Most of your ideas would cost money. How do you not spend money and still rent a bunch of private cars and staff them?



They're all within the realm of possibility. Computerization is well within equipment maintenance budgets and would save paper/fuel. 

As far as the private cars go, I imagine if Amtrak provided the free advertising to their customers or allowed special packages for Guest Reward points, they could make something happen. The point is: Work with your potential fan base as opposed to cutting them out of the picture.


----------



## lyke99 (Aug 22, 2020)

Not truly no-cost items, but a decade ago a sleeping car space came with a lot more amenities - many of them relatively low cost such as toiletries, some sort of welcome "gift," a daily newspaper (although they are becoming harder to find), coffee and juice all day. Not everyone will utilize all of them, but they make a person feel they are gaining some value for their fare.

Improving the quality of the bedding would help too. VIA's sheets and blankets are so much nicer than Amtrak's. These are wear items that need periodic replacement. Again, not a no-cost item, but low cost.


----------



## John Bobinyec (Aug 22, 2020)

Run the SS and the SM 3 and 4 days a week, BUT NOT ALL IN A ROW.

jb


----------



## Qapla (Aug 22, 2020)

Or .... run the SM daily and run a separate train (could be called the Silver Star Express) from Tampa to Miami daily with connection to the SM in Miami and/or Lakeland - in fact, you could run the SS twice daily (MIA - TPA) and cost less than running two trains to NYP each day.


----------



## John Bobinyec (Aug 22, 2020)

Unacceptable. You're abandoning the S-line through the Carolinas.

jb


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 22, 2020)

Most important -- making the trains reliably on-time, so that a traveler can better plan their trip. That would require enforcement of the laws to prioritize passenger traffic. It's possible if this were done, some of the schedule padding could be removed, and the trains would be considered more useful as reliable transportation in competition with driving, especially for shorter trip segments.

Upgrade the national cafe car menu to be at least as good as the NEC cafe car menu. The cafe cars should also offer full meal plates.

I think anything else will cost additional money, but the returns in increased revenue would probably justify the spending.


----------



## Qapla (Aug 22, 2020)

John Bobinyec said:


> Unacceptable. You're abandoning the S-line through the Carolinas.



Not really. I'm sure someone could determine some changes that would make a daily train route available for the Cary-Savanah run ... I shouldn't have to fix all the problems


----------



## me_little_me (Aug 22, 2020)

Get rid of more executives.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Aug 22, 2020)

A simple two-way radio system, with an alert system when “call button” is pressed for the SCA or the Coach Attendant. The Train Manager could be easily and quickly contacted. The DC could notify attendants when orders were ready for pick up. Emergencies could be quickly responded to. Amenities in the Sleepers are inexpensive, and give the passengers a sense of being special. On Time Performance is critical to any success and a prerequisite to any of the above discussion making a difference.


----------



## John Santos (Aug 22, 2020)

Reliable WiFi on all the Long Distance trains would cost very little in the great scheme of things and would be very attractive for families and especially younger passengers who expect this.

SpaceX's Starlink should be available next year. It would probably be about $100-$300/month for each base station (I would think one for each LD train set would suffice, so the cost would be about 50*$200/month, or about $120,000 per year, for luxury-grade mobile WiFi.

The biggest cost would be installation labor, I think. The base stations are expected to be about $200-$300 each, plus one WiFi router per car ($50-$75 each, probably much cheaper in bulk.) They would need some way to tie the WiFi routers to the base station. I don't know what they use today (WiFi repeaters? Ethernet or Fiber between cars? Power-line Ethernet over the AC power (which works pretty well and is cheap, but something in the AC power distribution might interfere with it.) The could also use the rails themselves as a data transmission medium, but that would require special equipment.) Whatever they use, I expect it would be less than $100 in equipment per car. The cost to design and test the system would probably exceed the equipment cost (I would do it cheap, but it would require extensive testing on all routes (hint hint ). I expect by far the biggest cost would be the labor to install the equipment. They would also have to train a few maintenance personnel in installation, maintenance, and how to diagnose and replace broken equipment. They would need to train on-board personnel in how to reset or reboot the equipment and report problems if it breaks. This would only be a few hours at most of training, but there are lots of OBS to be trained.

Gold-plated service that worked in tunnels, especially in the wilderness out west, would require more on board equipment and much more installation costs to install repeaters in all the tunnels. It would be much cheaper and more cost-effective to design the apps uses by SCAs, LSAs, dining car staff and conductors to use store-and-forward messaging to ride out brief outages and a dead car. (Just by walking to another car, the OBS devices could transmit and receive and info entered in a dead zone, such as meal orders and reservations.

A checked-baggage tracking app could possibly make baggage handling more cost-effective, so the could restore baggage service on all trains (and put all those brand-new Viewliner II baggage cars to use!) and maybe even restore baggage service to more stations that haven't had it in years.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Aug 22, 2020)

Nick Farr said:


> As far as the private cars go, I imagine if Amtrak provided the free advertising to their customers or allowed special packages for Guest Reward points, they could make something happen. The point is: Work with your potential fan base as opposed to cutting them out of the picture.



Well they just sold off the parlour cars and the dome.... but if they wanted to do a 1st class sevice they could doll up a SSL and use it as a parlour car. Attach a recently refurbished sleeper and make sure Gul is the attendant and your done. 1st class service.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Aug 22, 2020)

Lonestar648 said:


> A simple two-way radio system, with an alert system when “call button” is pressed for the SCA or the Coach Attendant. The Train Manager could be easily and quickly contacted. The DC could notify attendants when orders were ready for pick up. Emergencies could be quickly responded to. Amenities in the Sleepers are inexpensive, and give the passengers a sense of being special. On Time Performance is critical to any success and a prerequisite to any of the above discussion making a difference.



VIA Rail Canada already uses a two way radio system for the OBS on all trains. It's a rather fascinating channel to listen to actually if you have a scanner. It's also used for what you mentioned notifying on pick up orders, when to call which call for the diner, if there is a disruptive passenger, or a medical emergency. It wouldn't be a cost free addition but low cost. And it would greatly aid in service. 




crescent-zephyr said:


> Well they just sold off the parlour cars and the dome.... but if they wanted to do a 1st class sevice they could doll up a SSL and use it as a parlour car. Attach a recently refurbished sleeper and make sure Gul is the attendant and your done. 1st class service.


They do have some spare SSLs sitting in Beech Grove right now. It would be doable.


----------



## IndyLions (Aug 23, 2020)

Summary:

1. On time emphasis
2. Fix the labor/management problem
3. Bring back product line managers.
4. Expanded cafe car menu
5. Pre-Covid Acela-style meals (eastern only)
6. Business Class / Quiet Car all LD routes

First of all, because long-distance service is very often used by point-to-point travelers, the on-time performance is critical for improvement. Absolutely the host railroads must be taken to task for not prioritizing passenger trains as is dictated. I personally sat on the siding for over two hours as *five* container trains were prioritized over our passenger train that was on time and in our time slot. That utter disregard must be punished. The current system obviously doesn’t work.

The next improvement is they must fix their labor problem. No, I’m not talking about firing everyone and rehiring at unlivable wages. They need to figure out how to aggressively retire with pension as many jaded old-timers as possible while retaining the ones who really care about their jobs. Put the cream of the (experienced) crop in positions of influence over new younger hires and change the culture.

The next fix to the labor problem is to eliminate a layer of management in there somewhere – and bring back the product line / route managers. During the short period they were in place, there was a lot of out-of-the-box thinking and innovation that resulted in real improvements to the individual routes. That happened because there were people who were thinking about the routes, taking customer feedback, and truly trying to improve them.

On the food side of things, I would greatly expand the lounge car menu. Oh, I would keep the concession stand standards that average America loves – the hotdogs, hamburgers, chips, and microwave pizza. But I would add more upscale options like high quality pre-packaged salads, more upscale sandwiches, craft beers, etc. The focus should be adding high revenue items that people have proven they will pay for.

For meal service, on the eastern routes I would experiment with the pre-Covid Acela first class food model. Unlike Acela, I would also give customers the option of eating in the dining car, their room or their seat. I can’t imagine that this is going to cost much more (if anything) than the current contemporary meal approach.

Finally, I would offer the equivalent of an Acela quiet car on all long-distance routes and call it business class. The additional perk could be that it also includes full meal service.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 23, 2020)

Seaboard92 said:


> That being said I would be open to them working better with PV owners.



There's clearly a demand for a luxury food product and a less crowded lounge. 

How feasible do you think it would be to demonstrate this market with a refurbished transition sleeper and a private dining/lounge/some sleeper car?


----------



## railiner (Aug 23, 2020)

John Santos said:


> They would need some way to tie the WiFi routers to the base station. I don't know what they use today (WiFi repeaters? Ethernet or Fiber between cars?


Not sure, but I believe each car has its own independent wifi...not as good as what you describe, but better redundancy if the main transceiver happens to fail...


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 23, 2020)

Seaboard92 said:


> They do have some spare SSLs sitting in Beech Grove right now. It would be doable.



Could you add enough temporary equipment downstairs and revive the upstairs bar in order to provide the dining experience in that car sufficient to meet the demands of this group?


----------



## Trogdor (Aug 23, 2020)

railiner said:


> Not sure, but I believe each car has its own independent wifi...not as good as what you describe, but better redundancy if the main transceiver happens to fail...



As of a couple of years ago, WiFi on trains used the cafe car as a “brain car” (with the modem) with the coaches having WiFi routers/repeaters that spread the connectivity to the rest of the train. Not sure if that has changed since then.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 23, 2020)

John Santos said:


> Reliable WiFi on all the Long Distance trains would cost very little in the great scheme of things and would be very attractive for families and especially younger passengers who expect this.



Putting a local wifi network on the train (for connecting OBS devices, offering cached entetrtainment on board, etc) is not terribly difficult. If the devices can't communicate directly you can adapt the IC on the train for the task.

Providing internet connectivity in areas not served well by existing cellular data is actually quite cost prohibitive. Just look at cruise ships, for example. Starlink is already oversold and I don't think we have equipment that would make it work reliably. The two networks available to airlines would be an option, but that's incredibly expensive as well.

I'm sure it's possible to get iffy service throughout with a combination of specialized antennas on the train and adding cells to the host railroads.

Also--it's not really a huge value add relative to cost on the trains. The best you could get without a substantial investment is iffy service for most of the routes.

Cell service is also getting better throughout the country. I never really feel totally disconnected on any LD train.


----------



## railiner (Aug 23, 2020)

Trogdor said:


> As of a couple of years ago, WiFi on trains used the cafe car as a “brain car” (with the modem) with the coaches having WiFi routers/repeaters that spread the connectivity to the rest of the train. Not sure if that has changed since then.


Thanks for that...I didn't know about how it worked, other than some cars seemed to have wifi, and other's did not, for whatever reason.
My Verizon data seems to work most places, as a backup....


----------



## Bjartmarr (Aug 23, 2020)

Reduce announcements on the PA. A quiet ride is one of the few luxuries Amtrak can still provide, but the constant stream of announcements makes it feel more like a subway train. In particular, diners should be called to dinner with a pager, like they do at restaurants that don't have table service, rather than by a PA announcement that all 300 people on the train have to listen to. Snack bar closures could be advertised via a light-up sign, similar to the lavatory sign on an airplane. The PA should be able to be switched to address just the sleepers, or just coach.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Aug 23, 2020)

Nick Farr said:


> There's clearly a demand for a luxury food product and a less crowded lounge.
> 
> How feasible do you think it would be to demonstrate this market with a refurbished transition sleeper and a private dining/lounge/some sleeper car?



I strongly doubt any owner would be interested in doing something like that. Now do I think there is a market for something above an Amtrak sleeper definitely. Iowa Pacific did prove that theory on one of the lines with cheaper sleepers the City of New Orleans. However I think the real route to try that out on would be the Lake Shore Limited, the Silver Meteor, and the California Zephyr. The Lake Shore Limited, and Silver Meteor are both blessed by having two great end cities, with a lot of traffic between them. While the Zephyr is known for the scenery. 

Amtrak has all but destroyed the relationship they had with car owners that I don't think many would sign up to do it. Especially if you have to 238 the car. If you have to 238 the car there is a zero percent chance. 




Nick Farr said:


> Could you add enough temporary equipment downstairs and revive the upstairs bar in order to provide the dining experience in that car sufficient to meet the demands of this group?



With the right amount of money you could fit any group. You could make the best Parlor car type car out there and someone will still complain. But yes its doable to do all of the interior needs to make it sufficient. That being said some of the cars that have been laying in storage at Beech Grove since the giant "Superliner" Script days probably aren't the best candidates either.


----------



## John Santos (Aug 23, 2020)

Nick Farr said:


> [...]Starlink is already oversold and I don't think we have equipment that would make it work reliably.[...]


By "oversold" do you mean they already have more customers than they can handle (even though it is no available yet, or only in an alpha test mode if you know somebody) or do you mean "over-hyped", that is it won't live up to the performance expectations?

The latest performance figures I've seen (within the last month) are that it is if anything higher throughput than promised, with very good latency. The latest prices I've seen put it well above wired broadband, and the base stations and antennas are too big and expensive for personal use, but perfectly suited for mobile use and much better latency than satellite Internet. It's also symmetric, i.e. approximately equal performance in both directions. (Satellite Internet, at least the last time I looked at it, which was some years ago, uses high band-width but also high latency satellite broadcasting for the downlink, but uses DSL or even traditional copper modems for the uplink.)

I believe one of the target applications of Starlink is long-distance trucking fleets, mostly for tracking location and dispatching, which requires very small total data transfer, but widely dispersed mobile ground stations. An Amtrak use case would require a lot more bandwidth, but roughly the same dispersion and mobility.

I do think the cost would be prohibitive using ground-based cell tech, because they would need to install hundreds if not thousands of cell repeaters (and uplinks) all along the passenger networks, many of them many miles from the nearest broadband service. The recent CZ re-route through Wyoming would get no coverage at all, but that would be automatic with Starlink.

BTW, there are competitors in the market (Bezos/Amazon, Iridium, O3B, OneWeb, etc.) but they are either much more expensive or won't be available for several years.

I think Starlink will be available before Amtrak could actually roll it out even if they started today.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 23, 2020)

Seaboard92 said:


> Amtrak has all but destroyed the relationship they had with car owners that I don't think many would sign up to do it. Especially if you have to 238 the car. If you have to 238 the car there is a zero percent chance.



Pardon my ignorance, but what is "238"ing a car? I presume it has something to do with meeting some sort of regulatory requirement, but what are the details?


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 23, 2020)

One more thing Amtrak can do is to finally implement the pre-ordering of meals -- for both sleeper and coach. Plus, passengers should be able to order special meals (kosher, whatever other special diets they offer, etc.) via the website and app and eliminate the need to call and agent.

They should also spend some time thinking about the meal quality, variety and pricing so that they can actually earn some net revenue on the service, even if it is simplified dining. (Encouraging coach passengers to buy more food should help with that.) Thinking doesn't cost anything, and the executives are getting paid anyway.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Aug 23, 2020)

Nick Farr said:


> Could you add enough temporary equipment downstairs and revive the upstairs bar in order to provide the dining experience in that car sufficient to meet the demands of this group?



When the ssl Cars were used to substitute parlour cars they used the 8 booths upstairs for dining. Don’t forget the traditional dining car would still be on the train in theory so you can use that kitchen as well. 



Seaboard92 said:


> Iowa Pacific did prove that theory on one of the lines with cheaper sleepers the City of New Orleans. However I think the real route to try that out on would be the Lake Shore Limited



You might already know this but that was Ed’s intention all along. Amtrak didn’t want him running cars to New York penn and basically made it impossible for him to do so on a regular basis.

Because I had been a previous passenger, Iowa Pacific sent me a killer deal for the one trip that they ran to Florida one year... I regret not taking it now.


----------



## allanorn (Aug 23, 2020)

This is a good question. Incremental improvement is the best one can hope for but I think there's a lot of room for that.

Without additional funding, it's going to be almost impossible to improve the hard product. I'd focus on ensuring the maintenance is spot on and sending out feedback requests after each LD trip within 24 hours, especially to sleeper pax. The technology's good enough to link the feedback survey email address to the room each sleeper pax was in, so they have an opportunity to identify maintenance problems that can be addressed before they become long term problems.

The soft product definitely could use an upgrade. Amenity kits cost a little money but it's possible they can save money by not overstocking the showers with additional product that ends up taking more space and/or gets destroyed by the shower. NightJet (ÖBB) goes with a continental breakfast for sleeper pax; you just fill out a form and hand it to the SCA/conductor before you go to bed. Kits are delivered at the time you request. I completely get a freshly-cooked hot breakfast on a train is amazing, but I'm guessing it might be easier to assemble and distribute a continental breakfast. Trash/recycling may be an issue though.

I would be more than happy to accept smaller meals if they're healthier and better quality. My last train trip was cross-country and I felt completely overstuffed by the third day with just the sheer amount of food being provided. I'm guessing nobody's burning 3000 calories a day by just sitting on the train, and most of us are probably bringing snacks on-board anyway. If boxed meals are to stay, international business-class flight food is probably the minimum standard to go for here. I really want traditional dining to come back, as I haven't had the Amtrak steak yet - but even then I think there's some room for improvement on how good lunch and dinner can become.

I do like the idea of a reorg to give individual lines more discretion for regional products to sell on board: beer, wine, soft drinks, maybe even some food ideas. Sure they'll be a strong contingent of Bud/Miller/Coors drinkers, but what I really like about the Surfliner and Cascades lines is that they put some thought into what they offer in the cafe car. The regional/state-sponsored lines seem to do well here from what I've seen, so maybe each individual line gets a regional manager who is empowered to take feedback and make decisions to improve sales. Tie their bonus performance to F&B sales.

At the end of the day though, what's Amtrak's mission? I feel like they have three: essential long-distance service, inter-regional mass transit (e.g. NEC), and exploration/slow travel. Each mission has different target markets and target customers, which makes consistent messaging and vision-handling extremely difficult. They may want to take a hard look at themselves to determine who they are, what they're trying to do, and what they want to do - so there's a better alignment and more consistent customer engagement.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 23, 2020)

Seaboard92 said:


> With the right amount of money you could fit any group. You could make the best Parlor car type car out there and someone will still complain. But yes its doable to do all of the interior needs to make it sufficient.



Assuming by some miracle Amtrak allowed it, I'm thinking lease a SSL and a SL sleeper from Amtrak and add it to the end of a CZ consist. (We would just not use the dining car on board at all). Absolutely deep clean and upgrade everything possible on board.

Sell out the sleeper car. 

Use the tables in the SSL to serve meals which have all been pre-ordered. They're heated and plated downstairs. Otherwise use the rest of the SSL as exactly that: a lounge.

The idea is testing partners along the route that can restock food and other items, along with building in the cost of better, custom bedding and amenities kits.

Pitch the trip to railfans. Everyone round trip from Chicago with several days in San Francisco.

How many OBS do you think it would take?


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Aug 23, 2020)

Nick Farr said:


> Assuming by some miracle Amtrak allowed it, I'm thinking lease a SSL and a SL sleeper from Amtrak and add it to the end of a CZ consist. (We would just not use the dining car on board at all). Absolutely deep clean and upgrade everything possible on board.
> 
> Sell out the sleeper car.
> 
> ...



If you’re suggesting a 3rd party do this it would be difficult. As I mentioned above, Amtrak management made it very difficult for Iowa Pacific to operate and that was BEFORE Amtrak got stricter with private car policies.

Of course, Anything is possible and maybe the right company could talk the new head of Amtrak into giving it a go.

As for staffing, if it was 1 sleeper and the ssl as parlor car that would only require 2 service staff members. When Iowa Pacific was operating on the back of the city of New Orleans they operated with 1 Pullman conductor, 1 porter, and 1 chef. 

That was with 1 sleeper and 1 diner / lounge / sleeper. So pretty much the same type of setup.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 23, 2020)

Bjartmarr said:


> Reduce announcements on the PA. A quiet ride is one of the few luxuries Amtrak can still provide, but the constant stream of announcements makes it feel more like a subway train. In particular, diners should be called to dinner with a pager, like they do at restaurants that don't have table service, rather than by a PA announcement that all 300 people on the train have to listen to. Snack bar closures could be advertised via a light-up sign, similar to the lavatory sign on an airplane. The PA should be able to be switched to address just the sleepers, or just coach.



This is a great idea! On some of the older Superliners, there's an option to switch channels that would disable the announcements in the room.

A very small touchscreen could fix the call button, announcement and thermostat and wouldn't be a terribly expensive retrofit.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 23, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> If you’re suggesting a 3rd party do this it would be difficult. As I mentioned above, Amtrak management made it very difficult for Iowa Pacific to operate and that was BEFORE Amtrak got stricter with private car policies.



How long ago did they run these services? Would it be any different if the services themselves were monthly as opposed to something approaching daily service?


----------



## dlagrua (Aug 23, 2020)

I believe that Amtrak has been receiving more funding of late but with many airline people on the management team they obviously know nothing about train travel. You cannot sell one against the other. Airline travel will almost always be faster than train LD sleeper service so you have to present Amtrak as a more comfortable way to get to your destination and see America in the process. They must restore the amenities driven by petty cost cutting to attract new customers. Things like full and more inclusive fresh prepared dining options, white tablecloths, a flower or two on the table, ice availability, and coffee and juice would make the service more desirable. The TV dinner style food that they are now serving is sickening. We are very reluctant to take more trips because of this. On this months three day trip that included 8 meals the reheated meals we very disappointing.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 23, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Pardon my ignorance, but what is "238"ing a car? I presume it has something to do with meeting some sort of regulatory requirement, but what are the details?



Refers to Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (i.e. Federal Law as passed by Congress), part 238 which sets the safety standards for Passenger Equipment on US Railroads.






eCFR :: 49 CFR Part 238 -- Passenger Equipment Safety Standards







www.ecfr.gov





"Tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion operations, whether on or off the general railroad system of transportation" are exempt under the law and AFAIK, most Private Car operation is exempt from 238 under this provision,.


----------



## MikeM (Aug 23, 2020)

My vote is to increase capacity and reduce some fares particularly for sleepers. If you can sell out 3 sleepers at 80 - 90% of the per room revenue that you'd get from only selling out two sleepers at current rates, I think revenue comes out ahead. I'd also like to see the diners run more efficiently, with more seatings, more tables used for revenue diners (eliminate the "crew tables" at peak times), and expand dining services to coach passengers aggressively. Maybe even split the diner with one side selling basic inexpensive meals (think burgers, hot dogs, pancakes, sandwiches) and the other side selling more deluxe items spun towards the sleeper clientelle.

Longer term, I'd love to see some experimentation with the dining cars, perhaps going to a lunch counter format on some trains, where most of the dining seats are at a counter that can be served by one or two servers easily. Think Waffle House on wheels. That wouldn't work so well with superliners, but maybe a test could be done with surplus single level equipment to try a proof of concept. Traditional railroads used this approach when they ran passenger service as a cost savings option successfully.

Last but not least, consider shifting one or more trains from superliner to single level equipment to use the viewliner sleepers that are piling up in Florida. Free up some Superliner equipment to extend the other trains. 

I do like the other comments in this thread about on train personnel improvements, at one time Amtrak had a "On Train Services Manager" position that managed the services crew which could be useful, but would require union negotiations and a additional salary. But it'd be worth it for the right person in those positions.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Aug 23, 2020)

Nick Farr said:


> How long ago did they run these services? Would it be any different if the services themselves were monthly as opposed to something approaching daily service?



November 2012 through December of 2015.

What you are describing is similar to what a few private car owners have done in the past. Friends of 261, Cincinnati Railway, LA rail and others.

At that point it’s just a “rail cruise” - it needs to operate somewhat regularly for people to be able to use it as transportation.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Aug 23, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Pardon my ignorance, but what is "238"ing a car? I presume it has something to do with meeting some sort of regulatory requirement, but what are the details?



It's basically a stricter regulation on what you can and can't do to a passenger carrying railcar. For instance you can't use wood, the upholstery must be flame retardant, the seats must be fixed, etc.... Most car owners would not want to 238 a car, nor do they want to pay for it. I've had a good conversation about it recently when I was planning the interior for a car. 



crescent-zephyr said:


> You might already know this but that was Ed’s intention all along. Amtrak didn’t want him running cars to New York penn and basically made it impossible for him to do so on a regular basis.



That was his plan and I think it was far better than doing the City of New Orleans. I think he started on the City of New Orleans just because he is the biggest Illinois Central fan I've ever met. The Lake Shore Limited the private car often times could have ended up being cheaper than the rooms, as it seams every time I want to use the Lake Shore it's in a high bucket. It's also well suited for business travelers, and historically minded passengers if you market it as the 20th Century Limited Experience. And Florida well it's a snowbird destination and it's just incredibly marketable. What Amtrak has done to the Florida trains since the 1990s is really next to criminal as those used to be packed trains with long consists. 



Nick Farr said:


> Assuming by some miracle Amtrak allowed it, I'm thinking lease a SSL and a SL sleeper from Amtrak and add it to the end of a CZ consist. (We would just not use the dining car on board at all). Absolutely deep clean and upgrade everything possible on board.
> 
> Sell out the sleeper car.
> 
> ...





crescent-zephyr said:


> If you’re suggesting a 3rd party do this it would be difficult. As I mentioned above, Amtrak management made it very difficult for Iowa Pacific to operate and that was BEFORE Amtrak got stricter with private car policies.
> 
> Of course, Anything is possible and maybe the right company could talk the new head of Amtrak into giving it a go.
> 
> ...



Crescent Zephyr said it very well but I wanted to add a few points so I'll add them below both of you. The first mistake is to pitch a trip to railfans, that's a bad idea. Railfans don't buy tickets, they go trackside with a camera to photograph something. You should always market to the general public more so because they are more likely to buy a ticket. Some railfans will still come as well but they will be a much smaller part of your demographic. For instance the Wine Train trips we used to run on a regular basis at another one of my tourist railroads was 95 percent general public. Yet we run it with vintage E8s and 19 matching Budd cars. 

Amtrak management did not like the Iowa Pacific experiment despite the fact it cost Amtrak no money and in fact made Amtrak at minimum five dollars and some change per mile if only two cars ran. And of course two cars trigger an extra locomotive charge of $5.94 per mile. I actually had a client call me once about running a trip for her boss's retirement party like the Pullman Rail Journey's and having to pay for the extra locomotive at that rate for two round trips (as they were laying over a few days in NOL before returning north) caused that trip to be too costly. Personally I think Amtrak set the number that low to hurt IPH's business by triggering the charge on every move. 

It should be noted the extra locomotive charge triggers on the Lake Shore Limited on car No. 14 and the train is listed as a normal consist of 13 cars with one locomotive. That being said the train almost always has two locomotives. But I wouldn't put it passed them to charge for it even if they normally run with two. Before Portland, OR was removed from the private car system they didn't require a second locomotive from Spokane to Portland, now however they do and it must come from Chicago. The train length has not changed on the Baby Builder however. But at least Portland has been added back. 

The point I'm trying to make is on the Iowa Pacific operation Amtrak did not like carrying their own competition on the rear of their own trains. Especially when that competition had a far superior soft and hard product to what Amtrak operates. Getting Amtrak to agree to allowing something on the Zephyr on a regular basis would not work. 

I would staff it differently than Crescent Zephyr actually and here is how I would and why. 

First off I'm going to assume we're using a 10/6 Sleeper because as far as I know no superliner sleepers have been sold. So you are looking at 20 beds from that car (Two rooms taken out for crew), plus from your observation with a car like Hickory Creek you have an additional 6 overnight guests to deal with. I would have one porter in charge of the 10/6, a lounge car attendant, a chef, and an additional utility who could help any of the other three in the event they need assistance. As someone who has worked these trips there are times when one person is really slammed and needs the extra hand but the other employees are busy. So having that fourth person really can help pull together the product. The other thing to remember is that when you are marketing a high end product like a PV trip you must be providing the best service possible. 

They can chose one of any 200 Amtrak certified private cars so we must provide the best service we can because without the customer we are all unemployed. So by having that fourth person you can provide that extra little bit of service to make the soft product better. 


Now there was one trip I was supposed to work on that was going to be a massive political charter tied to the 2020 Democratic Primaries. The train was supposed to run with 22 cars of which 10 were sleepers, 8 lounges (some also had sleeping space), 1 diner, 2 coaches, and 1 office car. There was one porter assigned for every two full sleepers, 1 for each lounge, 7 for the diner, 1 for the entire coach section, and for the candidate section had 8 staff members. That's not counting the mechanical crew, and the car owners representatives. Personally I think this staffing was too light for the actual crew need to provide a first class experience. That trip would have been one amazing trip had it actually been able to get off the drawing board, and it would have been a great pay day for me had it ran. I was to be assigned to the mechanical department on it.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Aug 23, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> November 2012 through December of 2015.
> 
> What you are describing is similar to what a few private car owners have done in the past. Friends of 261, Cincinnati Railway, LA rail and others.
> 
> At that point it’s just a “rail cruise” - it needs to operate somewhat regularly for people to be able to use it as transportation.



Exactly it is just a rail cruise at that point. There is nothing wrong with being a rail cruise but it is not a business Amtrak should be in. That would set a bad precedent for congress. Now there is a market for a rail cruise and that should be provided for by the private car owners, and Amtrak should be working harder to accommodate our unique needs. They are however getting better in recent days. Portland, OR was added back into the network and it looks like on 11/14, and 27/28. And they did offer a special Covid Summer special for car owners. So they are slowly realizing what they did under Mr. Anderson and are trying to rectify and make up for it. But till Mr. Gardner is gone there is only so much that can be done. 

Personally I think something like the American Orient Express would make a lot of sense today on their two most popular routes. The Great Pacific Northwest (SLC-SEA) via Glacier Park, Yellowstone, and Teton, and the National Parks of the West (ABQ-SLC) via Yellowstone, Teton, Arches, Grand Canyon. But it wouldn't be transportation. 

I've also heard rumors from sources close to Rocky Mountaineer that they were going to start running a train out of Denver in the 2020s. I don't know if Covid has put a halt to those plans.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 23, 2020)

Seaboard92 said:


> Exactly it is just a rail cruise at that point. There is nothing wrong with being a rail cruise but it is not a business Amtrak should be in.



Why not? For that matter, why not just privatize the sleeper segment?

There's a lot of folks here who, as far as I know, would never get to be your customer because those opportunities aren't (from what I've seen) ever marketed publicly.

There also appears to be a demand for those who want a higher level of food quality. I'm sure Amtrak could probably sell enough sleeper capacity to one-off passengers and their captive market. I don't see them growing the segment at all.

There's also the missed opportunity of marketing themselves as a safer alternative to flying in pandemic times.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Aug 23, 2020)

Seaboard92 said:


> I've also heard rumors from sources close to Rocky Mountaineer that they were going to start running a train out of Denver in the 2020s. I don't know if Covid has put a halt to those plans.



If they could buy the old depot in Grand Junction and run trains both east to Denver and west to Salt Lake City with an overnight in grand junction (similar to the Canadian operation) they would have a gold mine. They could do day trips from grand junction to arches, Durango, etc. 

Plus... they can use the same name... still the Rocky Mountains!


----------



## railiner (Aug 23, 2020)

MikeM said:


> I do like the other comments in this thread about on train personnel improvements, at one time Amtrak had a "On Train Services Manager" position that managed the services crew which could be useful, but would require union negotiations and a additional salary. But it'd be worth it for the right person in those positions.


What Amtrak used to have, was a "Chief of On Board Services", assigned to most of the long distance trains. That person was in a "partially exempt" union position, and was required to be a member of a supervisor's union. The Chief's on each route, reported to a specific Train Manager, who divided their time between the crew base, and riding the route assigned to them, to monitor the performance. This position was entirely management.


----------



## fdaley (Aug 24, 2020)

Wonderful discussion here. If there were a "superior sleeper" service on the back of the Lake Shore Limited and the California Zephyr, I'd definitely be a customer -- at least if it ran regularly, with departures at least once a week.

Better in my view if it were run by the private car owners, as the service standards would undoubtedly be higher, and it wouldn't be on Amtrak's books except for the fees paid to Amtrak by the private operators. But the Iowa Pacific experience is a real cautionary tale, and the more recent Amtrak management, especially under Richard Anderson, has seemed downright hostile toward the private car owners. Amtrak shouldn't view such services as competition to their regular sleeper service (in my own case, they've already lost me as a customer because of flex dining).

The possibility of using Amtrak equipment and crews for an upgraded sleeper experience could also work. But again, under Anderson, the company has gotten rid of its dome and parlor cars and seems to have no interest in anything that might distinguish long-distance trains through superior comfort and service. And I'm not sure why, if the company's management were willing to operate a higher-end sleeper service as a new offering, they wouldn't just upgrade their regular sleeper service in an effort to attract more travelers and to win back customers like me. If the issue of meal service could be resolved, upgrading and restoring other amenities -- new blankets and bedding, toiletries, daily newspapers, printed schedules -- would certainly add to the feeling that sleeper customers are receiving value for the price paid. All of these would have a cost, though it might be small when compared with the potential revenue generated by new and returning customers.

Apart from the sleeper experience per se, and the dining, which we've been asked to discuss elsewhere, I definitely support the suggestions made here for stronger emphasis on on-time performance, better WiFi, and a more user-friendly website (the latest iteration seems in many ways more cumbersome than the last).

But even more important for the long-distance trains, better, more consistent on-board services staffing would go a long way toward building and retaining ridership. There was a considerable improvement about 15 years ago (perhaps in the David Gunn era), but there still is too often a feeling on Amtrak that the train is being run for the crew's benefit. In reality, they are working in a competitive hospitality industry. Maybe they could take lessons from Via Rail?


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Aug 24, 2020)

My opinion on WiFi... my phone has unlimited data and it gets pretty good service throughout the Amtrak system. The Cascade mountains are the only long stretch without service that I can remember. 

I’m thinking in a few years it won’t be an issue so it would be a poor investment. Just my opinion of course.


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Aug 24, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Well they just sold off the parlour cars and the dome.... but if they wanted to do a 1st class sevice they could doll up a SSL and use it as a parlour car. Attach a recently refurbished sleeper and make sure Gul is the attendant and your done. 1st class service.


Streamline management and weed out the 'deadwood' ... and speaking of EB attendant GUL... he should be promoted to a management position of training and evaluation of SCA's because he understands the meaning of customer oriented service. Amtrak needs to reward those with promotions etc. who are so service oriented. In addition, heating and cooling, air circulation, and plumbing on the Superliners need extensive maintenance.


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Aug 24, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> One more thing Amtrak can do is to finally implement the pre-ordering of meals -- for both sleeper and coach. Plus, passengers should be able to order special meals (kosher, whatever other special diets they offer, etc.) via the website and app and eliminate the need to call and agent.
> 
> They should also spend some time thinking about the meal quality, variety and pricing so that they can actually earn some net revenue on the service, even if it is simplified dining. (Encouraging coach passengers to buy more food should help with that.) Thinking doesn't cost anything, and the executives are getting paid anyway.


And!!! Upgrade the technology so passengers can choose and pay for seating / rooms / online... just like the airlines. The agent driven system is costly, labor intensive, and outdated.


----------



## railiner (Aug 24, 2020)

20th Century Rider said:


> Streamline management and weed out the 'deadwood' ... and speaking of EB attendant GUL... he should be promoted to a management position of training and evaluation of SCA's because he understands the meaning of customer oriented service. Amtrak needs to reward those with promotions etc. who are so service oriented.


Next time you meet one of these 'star' attendants, ask them if they are interested in being promoted into management...their answer may surprise you...
Not everyone wants to be promoted, or wish to take on the added responsibility of being accountable for other's performance. Or to be a 'disciplinarian'...
Some just want to excel at their present position. And in some cases, taking a promotion can result in lower earnings, and worse working conditions.

And from the Company view, not everyone that excel's in their job performance may necessarily have the sometimes different skill set for being a manager or supervisor.


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Aug 24, 2020)

railiner said:


> Next time you meet one of these 'star' attendants, ask them if they are interested in being promoted into management...their answer may surprise you...
> Not everyone wants to be promoted, or wish to take on the added responsibility of being accountable for other's performance. Or to be a 'disciplinarian'...
> Some just want to excel at their present position. And in some cases, taking a promotion can result in lower earnings, and worse working conditions.
> 
> And from the Company view, not everyone that excel's in their job performance may necessarily have the sometimes different skill set for being a manager or supervisor.



Every time I am fortunate enough to be in Gul's car I mention a management position to him... his reply is that he loves his job just the way it is and doesn't want a promotion. He then opens up the table and sets it for dinner. He remembers the tobasco and steak sauce; pours the ginger ale into the ice filled glass, and then before he leaves he asks, "Is there anything else I can get for you?"

While it may not be a perfect world, folks like him make miracles. Here's his card... posted as an expression of respectful appreciation for his wisdom, kindness, and professionalism... and so that others on the forum will know of this amazing sleeping car attendant!


----------



## Qapla (Aug 24, 2020)

Here are a few things that would not cost any extra money ... just some actual common sense:

Quit treating a railroad like an airline - though they may both carry passengers, they serve two different markets
Quit lumping ALL LD trains into the same category. Those traveling from Miami to NY do not have the same concerns as those traveling from Chicago to Portland.
Each route should be examined and improved based on the ridership of that particular route
Quit thinking that removing services is a way to "save money" when it reduces ridership and actually loses money
Quit looking at the passengers as "cargo" and treat them like people - like the way the board members would want to be treated
Have the executives and board members ride each route as an "undercover passenger" so they receive the same service and food the rest of us get
For some of the things that actually do cost money:

Fix and/or refurbish the cars that are "out of service" instead of just letting them sit
Put back many of the small amenities that have been removed
Serve both Coke and Pepsi products so the passengers can choose - not the boardroom choosing
Include food selections people actually eat

I'm sure there are other things but that's what I have for now


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Aug 24, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Here are a few things that would not cost any extra money ... just some actual common sense:
> 
> Quit treating a railroad like an airline - though they may both carry passengers, they serve two different markets
> Quit lumping ALL LD trains into the same category. Those traveling from Miami to NY do not have the same concerns as those traveling from Chicago to Portland.
> ...


Well said! Amen!


----------



## Seaboard92 (Aug 24, 2020)

Nick Farr said:


> Why not? For that matter, why not just privatize the sleeper segment?
> 
> There's a lot of folks here who, as far as I know, would never get to be your customer because those opportunities aren't (from what I've seen) ever marketed publicly.
> 
> ...



We do market our trips fairly regularly and the trips aren't really that much more expensive. Especially if it's a public charter the basic theory towards charter prices is the more you can pack in one car, the cheaper the overall price is. aaprco.com is where you need to look for trips that are available. Or check with the individual car owners websites. There is a large demand for our services actually and just like private jets received an above average amount of inquiries so have we. 



crescent-zephyr said:


> If they could buy the old depot in Grand Junction and run trains both east to Denver and west to Salt Lake City with an overnight in grand junction (similar to the Canadian operation) they would have a gold mine. They could do day trips from grand junction to arches, Durango, etc.
> 
> Plus... they can use the same name... still the Rocky Mountains!



Exactly and their brand is worth quite a lot already. They have a lot of name recognition which will help them in launching a new train. Now I don't know if it will come to pass but I would say based on the sources it's going to happen. It's a very reliable source. 



fdaley said:


> Better in my view if it were run by the private car owners, as the service standards would undoubtedly be higher, and it wouldn't be on Amtrak's books except for the fees paid to Amtrak by the private operators. But the Iowa Pacific experience is a real cautionary tale, and the more recent Amtrak management, especially under Richard Anderson, has seemed downright hostile toward the private car owners. Amtrak shouldn't view such services as competition to their regular sleeper service (in my own case, they've already lost me as a customer because of flex dining).
> 
> But even more important for the long-distance trains, better, more consistent on-board services staffing would go a long way toward building and retaining ridership. There was a considerable improvement about 15 years ago (perhaps in the David Gunn era), but there still is too often a feeling on Amtrak that the train is being run for the crew's benefit. In reality, they are working in a competitive hospitality industry. Maybe they could take lessons from Via Rail?



I agree with you it is definitely better to allow the PV owners to run any sort of service like this. We have much higher service standards because we are a higher priced product where service is the distinction. Why would you chose a private car for travel when Amtrak can take you on the exact same route at a tenth of the cost? What sets us apart is the hard product like the interior of the car, how comfortable the chairs, beds are, and how eye pleasing it is. Not every car is a dome car or an observation car. The next thing that sets us apart is our soft product which is our customer service. Generally we call you a week or two ahead of a trip to ask what type of food you like to eat so we plan our menu around your desires. On trips I've worked I've also been available at the destination to come and claim people's shopping bags and bring them back to the railcar. 

We really aren't competition to Amtrak when we aren't running regularly on one route because we are a completely different product than theirs. But what IPH was trying to operate was definitely a competitor to the Amtrak sleeper. They ran often enough for it to be used as normal transportation, they would take passengers at any stop, and it was ran to the public not groups. The difference IPH had was a far superior hard product, and a soft product that was light years ahead of Amtrak well really behind as they were striving for 1950s Pullman Company. 

I agree Amtrak would benefit if they were more like VIA Rail Canada. The VIA Rail Attendants are out of this world. I would put them up there with some of the best private car attendants in my opinion. I can't speak too much to VIA Rail coach travel but I can say that every sleeper, diner attendant, lounge car attendant, and other employees I've interacted with. I remember I took a charter into Montreal once and I was struggling with passenger luggage, a VIA employee walked by and asked if I needed help. So I said yes, she radioed someone and VIA employees came out of every direction to help me. It was amazing, an engineer, service manager, car attendants, and others. That's how good of a railroad VIA is. 



crescent-zephyr said:


> My opinion on WiFi... my phone has unlimited data and it gets pretty good service throughout the Amtrak system. The Cascade mountains are the only long stretch without service that I can remember.
> 
> I’m thinking in a few years it won’t be an issue so it would be a poor investment. Just my opinion of course.


----------



## fdaley (Aug 24, 2020)

Seaboard92 said:


> I agree Amtrak would benefit if they were more like VIA Rail Canada. The VIA Rail Attendants are out of this world. I would put them up there with some of the best private car attendants in my opinion. I can't speak too much to VIA Rail coach travel but I can say that every sleeper, diner attendant, lounge car attendant, and other employees I've interacted with. I remember I took a charter into Montreal once and I was struggling with passenger luggage, a VIA employee walked by and asked if I needed help. So I said yes, she radioed someone and VIA employees came out of every direction to help me. It was amazing, an engineer, service manager, car attendants, and others. That's how good of a railroad VIA is.



In fairness, I should note that I've seen and been helped by a lot of very good Amtrak station and onboard personnel over the years. And when I've traveled with elderly/disabled family members, quite a few at Amtrak have really gone far above and beyond expectations. But every now and then I run into a dud, and these are the employees who can really leave a bad taste, especially with first-time or occasional riders. On my first trip on the Cal Zephyr in 2002, the woman who ran the dining car was so miserable that I avoided that train for the next eight years before trying it again.

The VIA personnel, as you say, are just in a different league. The whole attitude there seems to be that train travel is a special experience -- and that the crew wants to show off how good it can be. They've created a service culture that's exceptional. Amtrak overall is a lot better than it was 20-30 years ago, but it's nowhere near the VIA level.


----------



## west point (Aug 24, 2020)

About amenities. What would a kit cost along with a bottle of water ? Mass produced maybe about $5.00 including distribution. If each trip required 30 - 40 units how often would that cause at least one more room sold ? Pays for itself.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Aug 24, 2020)

west point said:


> About amenities. What would a kit cost along with a bottle of water ? Mass produced maybe about $5.00 including distribution. If each trip required 30 - 40 units how often would that cause at least one more room sold ? Pays for itself.



According to how it was advertised, contemporary dining was to include an amenity kit and unlimited bottled water and other soft drinks.


----------



## fdaley (Aug 25, 2020)

west point said:


> About amenities. What would a kit cost along with a bottle of water ? Mass produced maybe about $5.00 including distribution. If each trip required 30 - 40 units how often would that cause at least one more room sold ? Pays for itself.



The same is true for a lot of the amenities that have been dropped from sleeper travel in the recent years. How much does it cost to provide a daily newspaper to every sleeper passenger -- a couple dollars apiece? For a comparatively small expense Amtrak could make its customers feel sufficiently well cared for that they are more likely to choose to travel this way next time or to make another trip sooner. That would help the bottom line. Instead, by eliminating amenities right and left and downgrading the food service, they're driving away customers. 

Worse, the economizing efforts seem to have fallen hardest on high-revenue customers on the long-distance trains. When I paid nearly $300 extra for a roomette on the Lake Shore in early 2018, I found there was no longer a daily newspaper provided. But when I paid $19 extra for business class on the Wolverine on the same trip, the price included a complimentary copy of that day's New York Times. It may not be fair to compare the two, but I came away feeling that Wolverine business class exceeded expectations, while the Lake Shore sleeper delivered less than before for the same high price. And that was before they killed dining service on the LSL.


----------



## Exvalley (Aug 25, 2020)

20th Century Rider said:


> Upgrade the technology so passengers can choose and pay for seating / rooms / online... just like the airlines.


This! You should be able to choose your seat/room and your meals online. When traditional dining returns, they should also allow you to reserve dining times online.

Allowing seat reservations would eliminate the anxiety and mad rush to the train when boarding is announced. It would also give couples traveling together peace of mind. And singles could lock in a window or aisle seat depending on their preference.


----------



## railiner (Aug 25, 2020)

We've had the debate over the pluses and minuses of reserved seating, several times. The main drawback is on trains that make a large number of stops, to allow full utilization of all seats, and "latecomer's" not having to change seats several times to pick from what seats are open on what segments, to make a thru trip on a heavily booked train.


----------



## joelkfla (Aug 25, 2020)

railiner said:


> We've had the debate over the pluses and minuses of reserved seating, several times. The main drawback is on trains that make a large number of stops, to allow full utilization of all seats, and "latecomer's" not having to change seats several times to pick from what seats are open on what segments, to make a thru trip on a heavily booked train.


They could at least allow seat selection at originating points (or stops "only to Receive passengers," like Miami thru West Palm.) That would eliminate the mad rush and have absolutely no affect on churn.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 25, 2020)

railiner said:


> We've had the debate over the pluses and minuses of reserved seating, several times. The main drawback is on trains that make a large number of stops, to allow full utilization of all seats, and "latecomer's" not having to change seats several times to pick from what seats are open on what segments, to make a thru trip on a heavily booked train.



Did that debate cover the German system where the default is no seat assignments, but passengers can elect a seat assignment for an additional fee?


----------



## me_little_me (Aug 25, 2020)

railiner said:


> We've had the debate over the pluses and minuses of reserved seating, several times. The main drawback is on trains that make a large number of stops, to allow full utilization of all seats, and "latecomer's" not having to change seats several times to pick from what seats are open on what segments, to make a thru trip on a heavily booked train.


God made computers precisely to alleviate this problem. A certain number of seats could be reserved for certain city boarding, or for short or long distances, for up to, say, 48 hours prior. Or the system could do what some LD attendants do - allow riders from certain places only in certain cars but it could free them up automatically based on passenger count.
This could also restrict seat assignments where all rows have a single person and couples/groups get locked out.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 25, 2020)

me_little_me said:


> God made computers precisely to alleviate this problem. A certain number of seats could be reserved for certain city boarding, or for short or long distances, for up to, say, 48 hours prior. Or the system could do what some LD attendants do - allow riders from certain places only in certain cars but it could free them up automatically based on passenger count.
> This could also restrict seat assignments where all rows have a single person and couples/groups get locked out.



While this partially a computer issue, it's also a big issue with the equipment and the service. Unlike planes, they don't have reliable data on the consists until sometimes right before the trip. They can't assign seats if they have no idea what kind of car will be on which routes.

On passenger services in Europe where seat reservations are allowed, they know exactly what kind of equipment will be on each train.


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Aug 25, 2020)

Nick Farr said:


> While this partially a computer issue, it's also a big issue with the equipment and the service. Unlike planes, they don't have reliable data on the consists until sometimes right before the trip. They can't assign seats if they have no idea what kind of car will be on which routes.
> 
> On passenger services in Europe where seat reservations are allowed, they know exactly what kind of equipment will be on each train.


My seating has been assigned for WAS - BOS on a regional for next January. Am wary about how that will turn out.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 25, 2020)

20th Century Rider said:


> My seating has been assigned for WAS - BOS on a regional for next January. Am wary about how that will turn out.



That's *awesome*! Did they give you a car and seat number?


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Aug 25, 2020)

Yup... I've noticed on regional they group seats according to destinations and length traveled... which I've experienced in Europe. But I'm assuming that business class is just one car at the front or end...?


----------



## Trogdor (Aug 25, 2020)

Nick Farr said:


> While this partially a computer issue, it's also a big issue with the equipment and the service. Unlike planes, they don't have reliable data on the consists until sometimes right before the trip. They can't assign seats if they have no idea what kind of car will be on which routes.
> 
> On passenger services in Europe where seat reservations are allowed, they know exactly what kind of equipment will be on each train.



There really isn't much, if any, variability in the equipment that operates a given route. Sure, you'll occasionally see an Amfleet I in place of an Amfleet II on an LD train, and in the Midwest, Amfleet and Horizon coaches sometimes intermix (but I think they have the same seat count and, for seating chart purposes, effectively the same layout).

Consist length does vary on LD trains, but even that is known ahead of time (that's how they know the capacity to which they can sell a train). The only real unknown (which is only "unknown" because Amtrak hasn't bothered to care until now) is which way the car is facing, which will affect whether a given seat is at the front or rear and on the left or right. However, even that can be overcome if they want to. After all, on single-level LD trains, the sleepers and coaches are almost always facing the same direction on every trip, because the Viewliners and Amfleet IIs only have one vestibule per car, and they have to ensure an exit at each end (and the single-level dining cars don't have entry doors at all, so the consists have to be made up to ensure a safe exit from the train from the adjacent car anyway). So, it's clearly possible to have everything facing the same way.

Further, a bit smarter consist planning would minimize the need to add/remove cars from a given consist all the time (e.g. not having one car in the middle due for heavy maintenance next week, and then another one in the same set due for maintenance three weeks later, and then another one two weeks after that, constantly needing to break up and reassemble trains in the yard; and if you still do...just wye the damn car).

While there may be reasons why assigning seats is difficult, "we don't know what the consist will be" is not one of them. And even if the consist does change (and it's only really a problem if the consist gets shorter), then you have to reseat people who were assigned to the affected car. Presumably that shouldn't be a problem, as the consist would only be shortened if the loads justified it anyway.


----------



## Qapla (Aug 25, 2020)

As was discussed before - one of the drawbacks for the LD trains is when someone buys an early ticket of an intermediate start and stop trip - someone who later buys the origin to destination ticket may not be able to reserve their "preferred" seat or even the "same seat" for the entire route.

Unlike LD planes, where practically all passengers keep their seat from beginning to end (non-stop flight) LD trains stop often adding and losing passengers along the way.

When I rode the Silvers (JAX-NWK) back in the early 2000's they handed out small pillows in coach for the overnight - They collected the pillows in the morning. When I rode the Silvers more recently (JAX-NWK) they no longer offered the pillows. When I asked about it I was told it was because too many people kept the pillows - no mention of the cost of laundry for the pillows. Since they collected them in the morning how is it that people were keeping them?

There are several things that can be done that do not cost ANY money:

Courtesy does not cost anything
Politeness does not cost anything
They are already on the train - being available to the passengers does not cost anything extra
Being patient does not cost anything


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 25, 2020)

20th Century Rider said:


> Yup... I've noticed on regional they group seats according to destinations and length traveled... which I've experienced in Europe. But I'm assuming that business class is just one car at the front or end...?
> 
> View attachment 18652


Yes, there's only one business class car on a Northeast Regional train, and it's on the end of the train.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 25, 2020)

Trogdor said:


> There really isn't much, if any, variability in the equipment that operates a given route. Sure, you'll occasionally see an Amfleet I in place of an Amfleet II on an LD train, and in the Midwest, Amfleet and Horizon coaches sometimes intermix (but I think they have the same seat count and, for seating chart purposes, effectively the same layout).



News flash: They don't. Very close, but no.

There's also other weird things like when they swap in Superliners on the Pere Marquette at Thanksgiving, etc.

Amtrak simply doesn't have that much equipment to provide the consistency you think it can.

The only reason they can assign roomettes is the equipment is always the same and the numbering is very consistent.

*Could* they do this? Sure. They could standardize numbering on all the train cars. 

The problem then becomes enforcing the issue with passengers used to unassigned seating.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Aug 25, 2020)

fdaley said:


> The VIA personnel, as you say, are just in a different league. The whole attitude there seems to be that train travel is a special experience -- and that the crew wants to show off how good it can be. They've created a service culture that's exceptional. Amtrak overall is a lot better than it was 20-30 years ago, but it's nowhere near the VIA level.



I definitely agree there are some amazing Amtrak attendants and it has been getting better over the course of my life. That being said VIA Rail Canada has created a corporate culture and service culture that is vastly superior. I actually talked with one of their trainers when I was in VCVR last time I was transiting the station and I think I've figured out why they are much better at it. They drill into their attendants that for many people the trip is a "Once in a Lifetime" experience so that whatever actions the crew takes are going to be remembered for all time. They also drill the fact that people are traveling for all sorts of different reasons honeymoons, retirement, medical appointments, funerals, graduations, and many others. Included in that is that you the employee don't always know the back story why someone is traveling so you should treat them with dignity and respect. Being mindful of any circumstances. 

A good read is to read the VIA Rail Service Standards Manual it is online in the public domain and it is fascinating. 




west point said:


> About amenities. What would a kit cost along with a bottle of water ? Mass produced maybe about $5.00 including distribution. If each trip required 30 - 40 units how often would that cause at least one more room sold ? Pays for itself.



The best place to look at to determine soft product amenities and their importance is the most competitive sleeping car market in the world. Moscow to Saint Petersburg in Russia. Between the two cities are nine overnight trains by three operators. 

Tverskoy Express operates the Metropolis with one brief stop in Tver. It looks like the Southern Pacific Daylight.

Grand Express operates the Grand Express and markets itself as the only luxury train on the market. Nonstop service. 

Of those the largest operator is Russian Railways who operates 2 locals, and 5 premium trains. Even in the public operator there is a distinct market segmentation between the various trains. You have the popular double decker train, then you have the "Express" which was originally the second section of the premier train the Red Arrow. Both the Express (Think MoPac Jenks Blue) and the Red Arrow wear their own special liveries (Red and Gold). Both of these include a VIP Sleeping car while the double deckers don't. 

Of note the Red Arrow also is the original Firmney (premium) train in the Russian system and since the 1960s the song "Hymn to Our City" plays as the train departs its end points on the loudspeaker of the station. 

Due to the fact it is such a competitive market all three operators on the premium trains (RZD on the Express and Red Arrow) offer world class amenities we could only dream about on Amtrak. 

Grand Express amenities
-Bathrobe
-Pair of Slippers
-Newspaper
-Travel kit with toothbrush and other vanity items
-hot breakfast, snacks, and soft drinks

Class dependent
-free transfer to any point in the city by a private driver. 

RZD Red Arrow
-Bathrobe
-Slippers
-Newspaper
-Travel Kit
-Hot Breakfast
-Chocolate Bar (with train on it)
-soft drinks

I can't find much info on the Metropolis but from what I can tell they equal both of the other trains mentioned. 

On all of the items that are provided for the passengers on those trains each item comes complete with the branding logo of the provider you are traveling with so on the Red Arrow it is the RZD logo. 

So if Amtrak were to do this you would see the Amtrak logo on the bathrobe, slippers, travel kit, and the chocolate bar. So to prove that this is relatively inexpensive when you are buying in bulk I priced out what it would cost online to order customized items. Keep in mind on a standard night when there is daily service Amtrak originates the following daily based on the consist listing on this forum for each route. 

Superliner
-14 Roomettes
-5 Bedrooms
-1 Family
-1 H Room
-8 TransDorm Roomettes 

Viewliner
-2 Bedrooms
-1 H Room
-12 Roomettes

Rooms Originated Per Day by Train
Viewliner Trains
Cres: 8 Bedrooms, 4 H Room, 48 Roomettes
LSL: 12 Bedrooms, 6 H Room, 72 Roomettes
CARD: 4 Bedrroms, 2 H Room, 24 Roomettes
SS: 8 Bedrooms, 4 H Room, 48 Roomettes
SM: 12 Bedrooms, 6 H Room, 72 Roomettes

Superliner Trains
SL: 44 Roomettes, 10 Bedrooms, 2 Family, 2 H Room
SWC: 72 Roomettes, 20 Bedrooms, 4 Family, 4 H Room
CZ: 100 Roomettes, 30 Bedrooms, 6 Family, 6 H Room
EB: 100 Roomettes, 30 Bedrooms, 6 Family, 6 H Room
CS: 100 Roomettes, 30 Bedrooms, 6 Family, 6 H Room
TE: 44 Roomettes, 10 Bedrooms, 2 Family, 2 H Room
CL: 72 Roomettes, 20 Bedrooms, 4 Family, 4 H Room 
AT: 128 Roomettes, 80 Bedrooms, 12 Family, 12 H Room
CONO:44 Roomettes, 10 Bedrooms, 2 Family, 2 H Room

Rooms Originated by Type 
-Viewliner Roomettes: 264
-Viewliner Bedrooms: 44
-Viewliner H Bedrooms: 22
-Superliner Roomettes: 704
-Superliner Bedrooms: 240
-Superliner Family Bedrooms: 44
-Superliner H Bedrooms: 44
-Total: 1,362
-Monthly Total (31 Days): 42,222: 
-Yearly Total: 497,130



So if we are going to use the Grand Express amenities because they are the easiest to get an accurate list on here are the costs. For prices I am using allibaba which is an internet wholesaler for items coming out of China unless otherwise noted. 

-Slippers: $1.96 Per Pair when order Quantities exceed 1,000 units. 
-Bathrobes: $8.33 Per Robe when order quantities exceed 1,000 units. 
-Travel Kit: $1.95 when order quantities exceed 1,000 units.($1.00 Per Bag when order exceeds 1,000 units, $0.30 for Shampoo, Conditioner, and Body Wash when order exceeds 5,000 units, $0.35 for Toothbrushes when over 500 units, $.10 for toothpaste containers for units greater than 1,000, $.20 for toothpaste in quantities great than 1,000.) 
-Chocolate Bar: $0.58 ($0.08 per package when quantity exceeds 5,000, $0.50 for the chocolate (Number pulled out of my head based on a .99 cent chocolate and the estimated markup)
-Newspapers: $3.00 per paper based on the national average. Granted not everyone wants a newspaper so Amtrak could come up with an algorithm to determine exactly how many newspapers they need on each train. 

Total Cost per passenger (Excluding food service because that is a much harder metric to determine, however I could determine it if probed): $15.82. 

It isn't overly expensive to provide a first class product that truly is first class when you originate the number of rooms that Amtrak does annually. It would be something worth looking into in my honest opinion. 

Now while I couldn't tell you exactly how much business these added extras would add, but the value is not in the cost but in the good first impression it adds. Our fellow member NSC1109 and I agree a lot when it comes to having a unified brand. And by placing your logo on everything you have a unified branded product, that offers decent quality items, and provides a good first impression. 

For a private car owner the amenities I would propose would be significantly higher because they don't have the economies of scale that Amtrak has. Amtrak can put out an order for every year for probably 750,000 of these items and get the margins fairly small. While it costs money lets not forget the old adage it costs money to make money.


----------



## me_little_me (Aug 25, 2020)

Nick Farr said:


> News flash: They don't. Very close, but no.
> 
> There's also other weird things like when they swap in Superliners on the Pere Marquette at Thanksgiving, etc.
> 
> ...


All it takes is patience and a little time (and some enforcement) to convert to assigned seating. And if they made a concerted effort to put cars in the same direction every time, it would be easier (and be a help to this thread).

Moreover, they can label each and every station very cheaply with position letter signs and put that position letter on the ticket so even at unmanned stations, people know where to stand. Then, for unmanned or manned stations with a waiting room, they could use the TV displays to update last minute information to have people stand by a corrected letter. Would speed up boarding at little cost. They could also text passengers at all station with that capability any updates to loading position, necessary room and seat changes, etc.

As to other inexpensive changes, any sleeper passenger/room can have cards made prior to initial departure and given to SLA to put in the room prior to the passengers' boarding welcoming the passengers by name.

The SLA can consistently greet boarding passengers by name since they have that information.

For Tier members (I have only been one once and that was a few years ago), the welcome card can mention their tier status like they do at hotels.

Electronic key locks can be provided tp sleeper passengers so rooms can be locked (and thus won't pop open when the train hits bad track) when passengers are out of the room. Amtrak could advertise this as a big safety thing even though it's not, in reality, a big issue. The SLA would have a key that unlocks all rooms in the car that also reprograms locks and a machine accessible by the SLA to program/reprogram keys when key is lost or when it goes brain dead. It also insures unused rooms are not improperly used by passengers who might sit in them for the view (Covid cleaned) or use the toilet (after having been cleaned by SLA).

The passenger key can be used to identify the passenger in the "diner" to verify their room/car instead of the 18th century paper version, charge for alcohol and options, identify pre-selected meals where applicable, get free drinks or food in the cafe as appropriate, etc.


----------



## fdaley (Aug 25, 2020)

Seaboard92 said:


> So if Amtrak were to do this you would see the Amtrak logo on the bathrobe, slippers, travel kit, and the chocolate bar. So to prove that this is relatively inexpensive when you are buying in bulk I priced out what it would cost online to order customized items. Keep in mind on a standard night when there is daily service Amtrak originates the following daily based on the consist listing on this forum for each route.



Great job of giving us some real numbers for the sake of discussion. If I am reading them correctly, the cost to provide this amenity package systemwide for every room would be 497,130 (the number of sleeper spaces annually) x $15.82 (the cost per passenger), or about $7.8 million a year if every room were fully occupied? Of course, the bathrobes and other items can be saved if the train isn't full, so the actual cost might be considerably less given that some rooms are empty or not fully occupied.

Another way to look at is this: If the upgraded service leads to the sale of one additional low-bucket bedroom or one higher-bucket roomette per departure on the Lake Shore, for example, that likely would generate enough revenue to cover the cost of the amenity package for everyone on that train.


----------



## railiner (Aug 25, 2020)

Seaboard92 said:


> I definitely agree there are some amazing Amtrak attendants and it has been getting better over the course of my life. That being said VIA Rail Canada has created a corporate culture and service culture that is vastly superior. I actually talked with one of their trainers when I was in VCVR last time I was transiting the station and I think I've figured out why they are much better at it. They drill into their attendants that for many people the trip is a "Once in a Lifetime" experience so that whatever actions the crew takes are going to be remembered for all time. They also drill the fact that people are traveling for all sorts of different reasons honeymoons, retirement, medical appointments, funerals, graduations, and many others. Included in that is that you the employee don't always know the back story why someone is traveling so you should treat them with dignity and respect. Being mindful of any circumstances.
> 
> A good read is to read the VIA Rail Service Standards Manual it is online in the public domain and it is fascinating.
> 
> ...


Sounds like you are a bit 'obsessed' with amenity details... If so, you would have loved dining in PRR's Broadway Limited twin unit diner....even the butter pats had keystones molded in.....


----------



## Trogdor (Aug 26, 2020)

Nick Farr said:


> News flash: They don't. Very close, but no.



Fine. Three seats off. They can sell to the lower capacity and use the extra three seats as overflow. Or they can only assign up to a certain point, and leave the rest unassigned. They already (well, pre-COVID) sold coach to about 103% of planned capacity anyway, assuming a certain level of no-shows. Business class and sleepers were always capped at the exact capacity of the car.




> There's also other weird things like when they swap in Superliners on the Pere Marquette at Thanksgiving, etc.



Those consist changes are planned in advance. The reservation system likewise has adjusted capacity for the planned holiday consist changes.



> Amtrak simply doesn't have that much equipment to provide the consistency you think it can.



They absolutely can provide that consistency. There’s a consist book that gets updated seasonally that details the number and type of cars on each train, and what the next train is that it turns to when it arrives at its destination. Often a given consist will stay solid (except for the engines) for weeks at a time. Years ago there was a bit more randomness when there were several more fleet configurations, but since then most of those cars have either been retired or refitted.



> The problem then becomes enforcing the issue with passengers used to unassigned seating.



Well, we have real-life experience now on the NEC, both Acela and regular regional, with assigning seats on routes that used to be open seating. So, I don’t really see it as a big deal. Folks will adjust. Then in a few years, most passengers will forget that there ever was open seating.


----------



## me_little_me (Aug 26, 2020)

fdaley said:


> Another way to look at is this: If the upgraded service leads to the sale of one additional low-bucket bedroom or one higher-bucket roomette per departure on the Lake Shore, for example, that likely would generate enough revenue to cover the cost of the amenity package for everyone on that train.


Which brings us back to the problem with Amtrak management - when you look to cut costs instead of generating revenue, everyone loses.


----------



## jloewen (Aug 26, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Courtesy does not cost anything
> Politeness does not cost anything
> They are already on the train - being available to the passengers does not cost anything extra
> Being patient does not cost anything


Amen to the four points above. -- Jim Loewen


----------



## jruff001 (Aug 26, 2020)

fdaley said:


> Great job of giving us some real numbers for the sake of discussion. If I am reading them correctly, the cost to provide this amenity package systemwide for every room would be 497,130 (the number of sleeper spaces annually) x $15.82 (the cost per passenger), or about $7.8 million a year if every room were fully occupied? Of course, the bathrobes and other items can be saved if the train isn't full, so the actual cost might be considerably less given that some rooms are empty or not fully occupied.


Don't forget to add in the costs of employee pilferage, which unfortunately would be significant (plus the costs of getting the supplies to the train).

Also some of those prices (especially bathrobe, slippers and travel / amenity kits) sound like they would be pretty low-end in terms of quality.


----------



## tricia (Aug 26, 2020)

I might be in the minority here (perhaps a minority of one  ), but I wouldn't want to see Amtrak moving in the direction of handing customers even more disposable crap. 

There are better ways to make customers feel welcome. Some of them (some noted above in this thread, including more customer-friendly staff) don't add any cost. Others (like the complimentary drink now offered sleeping car passengers) don't cost much and don't add whole new categories of trash to be landfilled. 

And some amenities (shampoo, toothpaste, etc) might be better handled by a note to passengers similar to what some hotels offer: Forgot something? Ask your SCA if you need a complimentary bottle/tube of X, Y, or Z.


----------



## fdaley (Aug 26, 2020)

tricia said:


> I might be in the minority here (perhaps a minority of one  ), but I wouldn't want to see Amtrak moving in the direction of handing customers even more disposable crap.
> 
> There are better ways to make customers feel welcome. Some of them (some noted above in this thread, including more customer-friendly staff) don't add any cost. Others (like the complimentary drink now offered sleeping car passengers) don't cost much and don't add whole new categories of trash to be landfilled.
> 
> And some amenities (shampoo, toothpaste, etc) might be better handled by a note to passengers similar to what some hotels offer: Forgot something? Ask your SCA if you need a complimentary bottle/tube of X, Y, or Z.



You do have a point there, especially if the items are of poor quality. Better to do it well if they're going to try it. When Amtrak first switched to "contemporary dining" on the Lake Shore in June of '18, they started giving everyone in the sleepers a toiletry kit with soap, shampoo, etc. I don't think it lasted very long, and it seemed like a gesture of appeasement for customers who were likely to be put off by the huge downgrade in food service. But the stuff in the toiletry kit seemed of fairly good quality and nicely packaged, so we did take ours, added it to our travel kits and used it on subsequent travels. Of course, the loss of dining service, plus various problems with our bedroom, were what we remembered most about that trip. (The shower flooded the carpet in the room, and the headboard above the sofa, which runs the length of the room, kept falling off the wall onto our heads -- and onto the bed at night.)

The food service, to me, is still the elephant in the room. Even if you give every sleeper passenger a nice robe and slippers and toiletry kit to take home, if the meal service is embarrassingly bad, it's the latter that's going to leave the lasting impression.

So before we get to the amenity kits, fix the food problem, and figure out a better way to report defects/problems in sleeper rooms so they don't get sent out on the next run without getting repaired. If you're paying $700 a night for a bedroom for two, you shouldn't be encountering leaky/broken shower doors, clogged sink drains, burned-out light bulbs, broken seating and in-room controls that don't work -- all of which I've seen on trips in the past 3-4 years.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 26, 2020)

Trogdor said:


> Fine. Three seats off. They can sell to the lower capacity and use the extra three seats as overflow. Or they can only assign up to a certain point, and leave the rest unassigned. They already (well, pre-COVID) sold coach to about 103% of planned capacity anyway, assuming a certain level of no-shows. Business class and sleepers were always capped at the exact capacity of the car.



The point you're missing here is that outside of the NEC, the equipment isn't as standardized as you'd think. I believe we're both in agreement that they need to standardize it. You can't fix these problems with the computer, the real world doesn't function like Minecraft.

Further, if you offer customers a seat facing one way, and it happens to be facing another way on that particular car, you're in for a lot of problems. Setting high expectations and not delivering is worse than offering nothing.

The fix for this is actually standardizing the equipment. Second, improving communications between the yard and the reservations system. Third, upgrading all the systems so that the customer preference is preserved and adjusted for as equipment changes. (Like what the airlines do.)

Until all those things happen, you're just setting people up for disappointment.

Most of this has already happened on the NEC.



Trogdor said:


> They absolutely can provide that consistency. There’s a consist book that gets updated seasonally that details the number and type of cars on each train, and what the next train is that it turns to when it arrives at its destination. Often a given consist will stay solid (except for the engines) for weeks at a time. Years ago there was a bit more randomness when there were several more fleet configurations, but since then most of those cars have either been retired or refitted.



Great, but you're still missing the fact that the yard needs to talk to the reservations system in the event of a change.

You're also making HUGE assumptions about this very fact. The yard has to deal with what the reservations system tells them to do, as far as I know the information does not flow back the other way.

The one thing airlines have to their advantage is that they have a centralized system that monitors all of these things and (generally) keeps everyone informed.



Trogdor said:


> So, I don’t really see it as a big deal. Folks will adjust.



Really underselling the difficult things the conductors have to deal with goes to show how little you actually know/care about the situation.


----------



## Qapla (Aug 26, 2020)

Nick Farr said:


> The one thing airlines have to their advantage is that they have a centralized system that monitors all of these things and (generally) keeps everyone informed.



Another thing the airlines don't have to deal with is the "consist" - a plane does not get reconfigured during booking, taxiing and/or flight - like a train can and does.

This comes to part of the root problem ... there is already more than enough "airline" people trying to run/dictate/change how a rail service is operating and attempting to run it the same way airlines are run - it seems it should be obvious by now that approach does not work


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 26, 2020)

Seaboard92 said:


> I definitely agree there are some amazing Amtrak attendants and it has been getting better over the course of my life. That being said VIA Rail Canada has created a corporate culture and service culture that is vastly superior. I actually talked with one of their trainers when I was in VCVR last time I was transiting the station and I think I've figured out why they are much better at it. They drill into their attendants that for many people the trip is a "Once in a Lifetime" experience so that whatever actions the crew takes are going to be remembered for all time. They also drill the fact that people are traveling for all sorts of different reasons honeymoons, retirement, medical appointments, funerals, graduations, and many others. Included in that is that you the employee don't always know the back story why someone is traveling so you should treat them with dignity and respect. Being mindful of any circumstances.
> 
> A good read is to read the VIA Rail Service Standards Manual it is online in the public domain and it is fascinating.
> 
> ...


One thing you would also have to keep in mind when costing this sort of thing is extra labor costs involved in ordering, storing, and distributing all of these amenities. I don't know what Amtrak's procurement policies are like, hopefully they're not as complicated as the government, but you still need a process to review multiple vendors and decide which provides the best value and and be assured that the selection is fair, and nobody's skimming of money anywhere. Then, after the stuff is ordered, it needs to be sent to where it can be stored and loaded on to trains. The stuff would probably need to be stored at all of the termini of trains with sleepers, so at each of those locations, someone would need to spend time keeping track of it. It might not required a full time person at each terminus, but it's still work that has to be done by somebody. Then the stuff has to be brought out to the sleepers before each departure in quantities that would include provision for passengers boarding at intermediate stations. Who's going to do that? The SCAs? Are they going to authorize overtime for them to do it? Somebody's going to have to do it. Providing these extras will require additional FTE or some sort, and that needs to be calculated before one can really talk about how expensive they are. If they don't get the extra FTE, then the current work force will have to not do something else if they're expected to dole out amenities. And, to be quite frank, the experience of the airlines has shown that most customers don't really care about these extras; they are riding a transportation service to travel somewhere.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 26, 2020)

Trogdor said:


> Well, we have real-life experience now on the NEC, both Acela and regular regional, with assigning seats on routes that used to be open seating. So, I don’t really see it as a big deal. Folks will adjust. Then in a few years, most passengers will forget that there ever was open seating.



Let's also not forget that until about 2004 or so (not that long ago), the Northeast Regionals not only had open seating, the trains were unreserved.


----------



## Trogdor (Aug 26, 2020)

Nick Farr said:


> The point you're missing here is that outside of the NEC, the equipment isn't as standardized as you'd think. I believe we're both in agreement that they need to standardize it. You can't fix these problems with the computer, the real world doesn't function like Minecraft.



The point you're missing is I'm well aware of how the operation works. I worked with the consist planners on a couple of projects when I was there. The equipment is plenty standardized. Most of the non-standard equipment was retired or reconfigured in the mid 2000s or early 2010s.

My raw memory was off about Horizons and Amfleet Is having the same coach capacity (a difference of 3), but the solution to that is to hold a few seats back from pre-assignment, which is something I would expect them to do anyway since many of the corridor trains offer multi-ride tickets which wouldn't have seat assignments to begin with.

As of right now, the Hiawatha operates with Amfleets or Horizons. The St. Louis trains operate with Amfleets or Horizons. The Quincy trains operate with Amfleets or Horizons. The Carbondale trains operate with Amfleets or Horizons. The Pontiac trains operate with Amfleets or Horizons. The Port Huron train operates with Amfleets or Horizons. I haven't paid attention to what the Pere Marquette is running lately, but that's the only one that has regularly run with Superliners in recent years, and the swap between Superliners and Amfleet/Horizon is planned in advance, not on a whim. And all (non-California) Superliner coaches have 62 seats upstairs.

The California corridors have a mix of fleets (but the Surfliner and Capitol Corridor also operate unreserved anyway, so seat assignments wouldn't even be an issue), but even then, the trains that get the single-level cars are planned in advance, and for the bi-level sets that run with a Superliner coach mixed in with regular CA cars will almost always have that Superliner in the same relative position in the consist anyway. And those trains never wye. The Surfliners are always push to LA, pull from LA, the San Joaquins and Capitol Corridor trains always run locomotive facing Oakland/San Jose, cab car the other way, so the cars never have any reason to change direction. The Cascades is the one route I'm not current on for equipment rotation, because they just pulled their old Talgos out of service and are replacing them with Horizons. Even still, I would be shocked if they didn't have a consist rotation plan in place knowing which trains will be Talgos and which will be Horizons (since they need to know the capacity of the business class section, which would be different for Talgo vs. Horizon; and if you know how many business class seats can be sold, then you know the type of cars you're planning to run).

I'm just not seeing this wildly varied collection of car configurations that you're claiming. Yes, the different regions have their own cars, but (notwithstanding the sudden replacement of Talgos) they never mix.

I've never played Minecraft so I couldn't speak to the relevance of it in terms of railroad operation.



> Further, if you offer customers a seat facing one way, and it happens to be facing another way on that particular car, you're in for a lot of problems. Setting high expectations and not delivering is worse than offering nothing.



And the solution to that is to have the cars facing the same way, which really isn't all that difficult for most of the operation (again, it's already done that way on eastern long-hauls; the primary reason it isn't done that way elsewhere is because there hasn't been a reason to do so). Or it could be as simple as having "reversible" seat assignment identifiers so that seat 1A is always front-left in the car (the conductor could just walk through the car flipping the ID card over).


----------



## Trogdor (Aug 26, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Another thing the airlines don't have to deal with is the "consist" - a plane does not get reconfigured during booking, taxiing and/or flight - like a train can and does.



Adding/removing cars is already something accounted for in the reservation system. How else do you get a 421 sleeper and a 1 sleeper on the same train?

As for planes being "reconfigured" during booking, you'd be surprised how many different internal configurations of the same type of plane some carriers have. And often, they won't know until 2-3 days out (and still subject to change until departure time) exactly which configuration they'll be using on a given flight.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Aug 26, 2020)

me_little_me said:


> All it takes is patience and a little time (and some enforcement) to convert to assigned seating. And if they made a concerted effort to put cars in the same direction every time, it would be easier (and be a help to this thread).
> 
> Moreover, they can label each and every station very cheaply with position letter signs and put that position letter on the ticket so even at unmanned stations, people know where to stand. Then, for unmanned or manned stations with a waiting room, they could use the TV displays to update last minute information to have people stand by a corrected letter. Would speed up boarding at little cost. They could also text passengers at all station with that capability any updates to loading position, necessary room and seat changes, etc.
> 
> ...



What your proposing is actually very similar to what Deutsche Bahn does in a way. Instead of telling you on your ticket what boarding location to stand by they have giant posters along the platform that dictate which car stops where and for the most part it always stops in the same place. But when it is in reverse order due to operational problems there are multiple announcements on the PA, and the TV Screen. 

A few years ago on the Silvers they were posting welcome cards on all of the beds, I even have one of mine still. It was a very nice touch. 

Russian Railways, VIA Rail's Renaissance and Prestige, and the OBB Nightjet all have room keys on their trains. I honestly think a key would be a fantastic function to have, and it would be a nice thing to market. 



fdaley said:


> Great job of giving us some real numbers for the sake of discussion. If I am reading them correctly, the cost to provide this amenity package systemwide for every room would be 497,130 (the number of sleeper spaces annually) x $15.82 (the cost per passenger), or about $7.8 million a year if every room were fully occupied? Of course, the bathrobes and other items can be saved if the train isn't full, so the actual cost might be considerably less given that some rooms are empty or not fully occupied.
> 
> Another way to look at is this: If the upgraded service leads to the sale of one additional low-bucket bedroom or one higher-bucket roomette per departure on the Lake Shore, for example, that likely would generate enough revenue to cover the cost of the amenity package for everyone on that train.



Thank you I am very much a detail freak. So if I'm going to make an argument I'm going to give the best details I can give in order to prove it. I also really enjoy researching things. I love researching things. 

Now it should be noted I was using Allibaba which is a direct line to Chinese companies so that also could be reflected in the price. But that being said any company you go to for ordering. The more you buy the better price you get because of economies of scale. And you are exactly right one roomette sold in any bucket would be enough to pay for the entire trains worth of amenities. The upgraded service is also highly marketable and provides a good first impression and hopefully would lead to an increase in sales. 



railiner said:


> Sounds like you are a bit 'obsessed' with amenity details... If so, you would have loved dining in PRR's Broadway Limited twin unit diner....even the butter pats had keystones molded in.....



Well I did work on a EX PRR Broadway Limited 21 Roomette car in PV service. I'm very much obsessed with the small details because its the small things that add up that provide a good experience. And anything a person takes home with the logo is free marketing. This is one reason when stores give us a bag with their logo to carry our items out it has their logo. For the sole reason of when you are walking down the street people can see the brand. I'm very much a fan of branding, and having continuity in the brand. Hence Amtrak really needs to do something about having three paint schemes right now on the national network trains. 



MARC Rider said:


> One thing you would also have to keep in mind when costing this sort of thing is extra labor costs involved in ordering, storing, and distributing all of these amenities. I don't know what Amtrak's procurement policies are like, hopefully they're not as complicated as the government, but you still need a process to review multiple vendors and decide which provides the best value and and be assured that the selection is fair, and nobody's skimming of money anywhere. Then, after the stuff is ordered, it needs to be sent to where it can be stored and loaded on to trains. The stuff would probably need to be stored at all of the termini of trains with sleepers, so at each of those locations, someone would need to spend time keeping track of it. It might not required a full time person at each terminus, but it's still work that has to be done by somebody. Then the stuff has to be brought out to the sleepers before each departure in quantities that would include provision for passengers boarding at intermediate stations. Who's going to do that? The SCAs? Are they going to authorize overtime for them to do it? Somebody's going to have to do it. Providing these extras will require additional FTE or some sort, and that needs to be calculated before one can really talk about how expensive they are. If they don't get the extra FTE, then the current work force will have to not do something else if they're expected to dole out amenities. And, to be quite frank, the experience of the airlines has shown that most customers don't really care about these extras; they are riding a transportation service to travel somewhere.



That is true those are costs I did not add into it because that's a lot harder to figure out for the sake of an argument. Now if I was going to write a formal proposal for it I would definitely take the time to go into the entire procurement process. I agree the quality sounds cheap mostly because I was using Alibaba for just getting fast numbers. Hopefully if Amtrak were to go into procurement for something like I've proposed I would hope they would go to better suppliers and go for brands with good name recognition. 

Now to answer your questions. I would store them and have the procurement done by the commissary at the end terminals because they already have the infrastructure in place to deliver items to the trains in the yard. Just have each cars worth of items labeled by car and dropped off in the vestibule for the SCA when they come to the car. Then as far as getting them dole out the amenities it is rather simple to place the items in each room as you are making it up, or checking to make sure its fully provisioned. I know when I've worked sleepers I've always made sure before leaving the yard I had everything in each room that I would need. 

From the videos I've seen of the RZD trains the amenities are laid out prior to boarding. I don't know if that is done by their SCA or if it is done by someone in catering in the yard either way it is a nice presentation. And in customer service presentation is something that is very valuable. A good example of that is how much money Disney puts in ensuring their hotels, and parks are presentable. It is all a part of branding and when you think of Disney you think of a company that has their stuff together. 

Now as far as on the trains I don't know what Amtrak's SCAs do when they receive a consist in the yard but I would assume they count their supplies, and make sure each room is well provisioned.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Aug 26, 2020)

it’s odd to me that in this and other threads there are members who act like things that used to be done everyday are somehow impossible. 

Like loading amenity kits onto the train and distributing them. How was it done on the empire builder and coast starlight in the past?

And loading meals en-route from local caterers ala the empire builder.

And yes even serving entree salads from a superliner dining car!


----------



## Sidney (Aug 26, 2020)

I was on the EB in July. Several pizzas were picked up in Shelby and offered to sleeper passengers. We also had a choice of cafe car food in addition to the flex dining. I ve been on several trains since then and that was the only time that happened.


Really,if flexible dining is here to stay and I think it is,we need more variety and stuff like sandwiches and healthier food to sustain a journey of more than one night.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Aug 26, 2020)

Sidney said:


> I was on the EB in July. Several pizzas were picked up in Shelby and offered to sleeper passengers. We also had a choice of cafe car food in addition to the flex dining. I ve been on several trains since then and that was the only time that happened.



Were you informed that this was going to happen?

I think doing so is a good idea. But, as a Sleeping Car guest whose fare ought to include a surf/turf dinner--if I so chose--a "pizza" does not quite meet the expectations for dining that I have on Amtrak. 

The whole world is SCREWY and that includes Amtrak!


----------



## tgstubbs1 (Aug 26, 2020)

Sidney said:


> I was on the EB in July. Several pizzas were picked up in Shelby ...
> 
> 
> Really,if flexible dining is here to stay and I think it is,we need more variety and stuff like sandwiches and healthier food to sustain a journey of more than one night.



Yes we do! Healthier food like pizza (Pizza Hut double stuffed crust), Po' Boy Shrimp Sandwiches, Philly Cheese Steaks, Onion Rings, Double Bacon Cheeseburgers. Stuff people eat to sustain themselves everyday.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 26, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> it’s odd to me that in this and other threads there are members who act like things that used to be done everyday are somehow impossible



It's equally odd to me that there are members who think all they need to do is complain on an Internet forum loud enough and the specific meal they liked will just magically be offered again.

Anything is possible. But to get there you need to acknowledge the reality of the situation and the limitations embedded in the current system, including Congressional mandates.

Reform of the product is possible, but not if you give up on it.

Amtrak's customer base is divided between the states, the Federal government, its passengers and ultimately services that are consistently profitable.

In this situation, saying "If I don't get my entree salad, I'm never going Amtrak again" just plays into the part of Amtrak that wants to kill off the LD network or reduce it to a capacity level that doesn't care how bad the service gets.

They know they have a captive market. They would rather 3x weekly with self-loading cargo that doesn't complain and makes a profit over daily service that demands dinner salads and loses money against congressional mandates.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Aug 27, 2020)

Nick Farr said:


> In this situation, saying "If I don't get my entree salad, I'm never going Amtrak again" just plays into the part of Amtrak that wants to kill off the LD network or reduce it to a capacity level that doesn't care how bad the service gets.



I never said that. It's doubtful I would ride Amtrak for multiple overnights with the current menu offerings but I had already slowed that down when they started making other cuts.


----------



## fdaley (Aug 27, 2020)

Amtrak has never had any service that was truly profitable, and it never will, in large part because it functions within a transportation marketplace that's dominated by publicly funded highway and air systems that have much larger economies of scale. The real questions at this point are whether, as a matter of public policy, the federal government wants to use Amtrak as a means to maintain and perhaps expand passenger rail's role in the national transportation system (i.e., by making investments that allow it to serve more travelers) -- and whether the long-distance trains continue to be a part of that.

In terms of the food issue, if the U.S. Senate changes hands as a result of the November election, as now appears more likely than not, the congressional mandate that Amtrak not lose money on food service (the so-called "Mica amendment") could soon be history. The House already passed a transportation authorization bill last month that eliminates the Mica language on dining service. If the Mica language is gone, we'll quickly find out whether Amtrak's current management is really as hostile to the long-distance trains as some of us fear. Of course, if we have a new president, he'll be choosing some new Amtrak board members who might steer the management in a new direction, at which point lots of things might become possible.

I'd certainly like to see Amtrak's long-distance trains managed in a way that makes them more useful and attractive to more travelers, including me. But if Amtrak's management is intent on running these trains into the ground, I'm sorry, but I don't feel I'm under some obligation to continue to support them by spending hundreds of dollars a night for sleeper rooms that offer the same few TV-dinner meals day after day. I would prefer to travel by train if decent service were offered, but a captive I'm not.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 27, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I never said that. It's doubtful I would ride Amtrak for multiple overnights with the current menu offerings but I had already slowed that down when they started making other cuts.


It really doesn't matter because the vast majority of Amtrak passengers don't ride on multiple-night trips, and Congress didn't establish and appropriate taxpayer money to Amtrak so they could service the needs of people who make multiple-night trips and who demand white-glove service.


----------



## fdaley (Aug 27, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> It really doesn't matter because the vast majority of Amtrak passengers don't ride on multiple-night trips, and Congress didn't establish and appropriate taxpayer money to Amtrak so they could service the needs of people who make multiple-night trips and who demand white-glove service.



Nobody is demanding white-glove service, nor has Amtrak ever provided such. And most Amtrak passengers don't travel overnight period, because the vast majority of its trains are day runs on clusters of corridors in the Northeast, Midwest and California. But Congress created Amtrak to run a passenger rail system that's national in scope, and I think there are a lot of members of Congress who understand that, if they want rail service that connects all parts of the country, overnight trains are the most efficient way to provide that. And if you're going to run overnight trains that people ride for 20 or 30 hours, you need to be able to feed people onboard and treat them well enough that they're willing to use the service, because most people really do have other choices.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Aug 27, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> who demand white-glove service.



Lol. A diner that serves food on par with a Denny’s or maybe an applebees is not white glove service. 

If so few people are riding these trains overnight they need to be discontinued because they are not serving their purpose.


----------



## Qapla (Aug 27, 2020)

Decent food and decent service should exist on LD trains.

However, it does not require "white table cloths and 'real' silverware" to serve decent meals. If more attention was given to the actual food and less to the "bells and whistles" passengers would feel much better about the food service. Surely, people would be happy if they were served a filling, tasty, nutritious well prepared meal even if the table did not have a table cloth.

Limiting the meals to just a couple TV diner selections leaves much room for complaint - especially with the cost of a sleeper on Amtrak.

Shopping for better quality and selection of meals should be able to be done at minimal expense. Surely there are vendors who would be willing to offer a better selection than the current eating fare - at the same, or possibly lower, cost. It is a very competitive market.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 27, 2020)

[QUOTE="crescent-zephyr, post: 855973, member: 10983"

If so few people are riding these trains overnight they need to be discontinued because they are not serving their purpose.
[/QUOTE]

Tell that to the folks who ride the train between, say, Toledo and Chicago, or Trinidad and Albuquerque, or Minot and Havre, etc. Look at the RPA data tables on LD train ridership. Most trips are a few to a couple of hundred miles or less. The percentage of Amtrak passengers actually traveling all the way across the country and spending 3 nights on the train is minuscule relative to total ridership. The only reason for a taxpayer-funded transportation company to provide premium service is that it boosts revenue, but the cost of providing the premium service shouldn't be so high that the _*net *_revenue boost disappears. We really don't know how much it costs to provide traditional sleeping car and dining car service, and its possible that it's not as ruinously expensive as the anti-LD people say it is. However, if Amtrak can cut the cost of providing the premium service and not lose that many riders, they'll rake in even more net revenue, thus possibly reducing the need for a taxpayer subsidy for the coach service, which is where most of the ridership is.

I suspect that most overnight passengers would be perfectly satisfied with a flex-dining-like product if the meals were better quality and the menu had a some more variety. (And it was also available to coach passengers) Yeah, it would still suck (well, not be the finest dining experience) for three nights and 4 days on the rails, but why should the company cater to a small, demanding subset of its total customer base? Anyway, much as I enjoy the dining car experience, I don't ride the train primarily to eat, I save that for when I arrive at my destination.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 27, 2020)

fdaley said:


> Nobody is demanding white-glove service, nor has Amtrak ever provided such. And most Amtrak passengers don't travel overnight period, because the vast majority of its trains are day runs on clusters of corridors in the Northeast, Midwest and California. But Congress created Amtrak to run a passenger rail system that's national in scope, and I think there are a lot of members of Congress who understand that, if they want rail service that connects all parts of the country, overnight trains are the most efficient way to provide that. And if you're going to run overnight trains that people ride for 20 or 30 hours, you need to be able to feed people onboard and treat them well enough that they're willing to use the service, because most people really do have other choices.


Most people riding the long distance trains don't travel overnight, either.


https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3435/ld.pdf


----------



## Qapla (Aug 27, 2020)

It takes 17-19 hours to travel from JAX to NYP (28 from MIA and 25 from Tampa). To justify the difference in the cost between coach and sleeper (about $360 difference) more is needed than a "horizontal sleeping mat" that is used less than half that travel time. By degrading the service - removing amenities, lousy food, no coffee/soda available at the rooms - it makes it much harder to justify the price differential.

Perhaps, if the sleeper cost was not so much greater than coach - more people would opt for a sleeper.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Aug 27, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> I suspect that most overnight passengers would be perfectly satisfied with a flex-dining-like product if the meals were better quality and the menu had a some more variety.



I agree. That’s what I’ve been asking for. Better quality entrees or take the service away and just let people buy from the lounge.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 27, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Shopping for better quality and selection of meals should be able to be done at minimal expense. Surely there are vendors who would be willing to offer a better selection than the current eating fare - at the same, or possibly lower, cost. It is a very competitive market.



⬆⬆ THIS ⬆⬆

While it's more work on management's part, there's lots of opportunities to win over Congress AND support communities along the way. Why can't Amtrak offering catering contracts to independent providers in smaller communities along the routes.

Why not just start small and offer pre-ordered specials along each route for dinner, prepared and delivered by a local provider? The Big Sky Chicken Dinners is a good precedent for this. This is also a great way to put restaurants in need back to work.

*I started this thread to explore actionable solutions Amtrak management could take given COVID and Congressional constraints.*

Personally, I'm against those amenities kits, but it's still a great idea and very well thought out.

The Frozen Dining meals will always be a backup option in the event of a service disruption (late train, etc.)


----------



## jis (Aug 27, 2020)

I don't think frozen dining meals will ever be an option to handle service disruptions. It costs too much in resources to carry around a bunch of frozen meals just in case there is a disruption. For disruptions it will be Dinty Moore or equivalent that does not require fancy refrigerated storage etc.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Aug 27, 2020)

jis said:


> I don't think frozen dining meals will ever be an option to handle service disruptions. It costs too much in resources to carry around a bunch of frozen meals just in case there is a disruption. For disruptions it will be Dinty Moore or equivalent that does not require fancy refrigerated storage etc.



Disruptions also get easy to cater quickly options like KFC or Chik-fil-a.


----------



## Sidney (Aug 27, 2020)

I agree with Qapla. I find the cost of a roomette on the Silver service to be outrageously high. It's a one night trip,the food is very average and there are no other amenities. On the other hand,low bucket roomettes on the Empire Builder Chi-Sea are about $50 more and are two nights and until the pedemic offered full service dining.

When I traveled on the Star between Fort Lauderdale and Philly I would go Coach to Okeechobee ,a roomette to Raleigh and back to Coach for the rest of the trip saving about $100.


----------



## jis (Aug 27, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Disruptions also get easy to cater quickly options like KFC or Chik-fil-a.


Yup that works uless you are stuck in the boonies a hundred miles from the closest fast food joint with no real roads around. That is why a stock of Dinty Moore is carried on each train.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Aug 27, 2020)

jis said:


> Yup that works uless you are stuck in the boonies a hundred miles from the closest fast food joint with no real roads around. That is why a stock of Dinty Moore is carried on each train.



Is it still? Can the lsa open a can and cook it? (That’s a serious question... union rules are weird).


----------



## Seaboard92 (Aug 27, 2020)

Qapla said:


> It takes 17-19 hours to travel from JAX to NYP (28 from MIA and 25 from Tampa). To justify the difference in the cost between coach and sleeper (about $360 difference) more is needed than a "horizontal sleeping mat" that is used less than half that travel time. By degrading the service - removing amenities, lousy food, no coffee/soda available at the rooms - it makes it much harder to justify the price differential.
> 
> Perhaps, if the sleeper cost was not so much greater than coach - more people would opt for a sleeper.



This is exactly what I'm trying to say. If the only difference is a horizontal sleeping mat, and a door for privacy what makes it worth the upgrade. Amtrak's sleeper soft product stinks and everyone knows it. The hard product is slightly better but it is not as good as VIAs hard product. 

And in coach Amtrak's soft product is non existent. Even though you had to pay for meals in the diner that does count as part of the soft product, that was till Amtrak took that away. 

Now me personally I will do a sleeper for anything above four hours on the east coast because I like my privacy and I value that. But on a superliner as long as their is a sightseer lounge and it's a day trip I wouldn't mind on coach. 




jis said:


> I don't think frozen dining meals will ever be an option to handle service disruptions. It costs too much in resources to carry around a bunch of frozen meals just in case there is a disruption. For disruptions it will be Dinty Moore or equivalent that does not require fancy refrigerated storage etc.



If you could get someone to modify the 238 rules just for the diners it would make a lot of sense to have a generator on board. Almost all PVs have a generator for times they are running without head end power during switching, or on shortlines where it isn't available. It keeps your chilled items chilled, and it keeps the HVAC running. There are some cars with a large enough genset under them they can power up to three cars including themselves. Now those were the IPH Full Domes which had a massive genset on the car. But even a standard single level can sometimes have a Genset good enough to power itself and a neighbor. If you could just modify those rules you could easily throw a genset under the car which would be used only for when the HEP is dropped to keep food cold. If that's its only purpose chances are you could get away with a 10-20kw unit. But if you are wanting to power everything in the car 60-70kw would be needed.


----------



## fdaley (Aug 27, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Most people riding the long distance trains don't travel overnight, either.
> 
> 
> https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3435/ld.pdf



When I follow this link, it says the average trip length for a sleeper passenger in FY19 was 990 miles, which almost certainly would involve an overnight ride, and the average length of trip for coach passengers was 457 miles, which at Amtrak speeds likely translates to a ride of 8-10 hours if on time. Either way, we're probably talking two meal periods for a coach passenger and three meals for the average sleeper passenger. At those distances, the food starts to become important.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 27, 2020)

Qapla said:


> It takes 17-19 hours to travel from JAX to NYP (28 from MIA and 25 from Tampa). To justify the difference in the cost between coach and sleeper (about $360 difference) more is needed than a "horizontal sleeping mat" that is used less than half that travel time. By degrading the service - removing amenities, lousy food, no coffee/soda available at the rooms - it makes it much harder to justify the price differential.
> 
> Perhaps, if the sleeper cost was not so much greater than coach - more people would opt for a sleeper.


I'm not much of a math whiz, but I would guess that there's some sort of optimization function that would be able to calculate the net revenue from premium service on the basis of (1) the cost of providing service amenities at varying levels, (2) the accommodation charge, and (3) the expected passenger load expected on the basis of the amenity level and the accommodation charge. It's possible that Amtrak has done this and their calculations show that they will make more net revenue in the end by having fewer sleeper passengers paying higher fares for fewer service amenities than they would get from filling up the sleepers and providing high quality service or filling up the sleepers with low fares and low service levels. Of course, it's also possible that the company leadership has a story in its head about what train service is all about, and they don't want to be bothered with the facts.

Given that the extra revenue from the premium service, like sleepers, does a lot to cross-subsidize the total operations of the train and reduce the need for taxpayer subsidies, if I were in an oversight position (GAO, IG, Member of Congress, etc.), I'd pay very close attention to the accounting for the premium services and be very demanding to Amtrak management to reveal how they make decisions about service levels and fares. Sure, it's possible that sleepers are mainly used as a land cruise by retirees (probably not true, at that), but if such passengers actually contribute to the bottom line, then so what? I've always thought that the trains should be run primarily as transportation and not as "hospitality," but but if the financials can show otherwise, I might be wrong.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 27, 2020)

Seaboard92 said:


> If you could get someone to modify the 238 rules just for the diners it would make a lot of sense to have a generator on board. Almost all PVs have a generator for times they are running without head end power during switching, or on shortlines where it isn't available. It keeps your chilled items chilled, and it keeps the HVAC running. There are some cars with a large enough genset under them they can power up to three cars including themselves. Now those were the IPH Full Domes which had a massive genset on the car. But even a standard single level can sometimes have a Genset good enough to power itself and a neighbor. If you could just modify those rules you could easily throw a genset under the car which would be used only for when the HEP is dropped to keep food cold. If that's its only purpose chances are you could get away with a 10-20kw unit. But if you are wanting to power everything in the car 60-70kw would be needed.


Why do the 238 rules ban gensets? They're widely mounted on long-haul trucks (for hotel power during driver rest breaks) and RV's, and I've never heard of them being a safety menace on the highways. How about back-up batteries? We had some vendors tell us that they have backup batteries that can provide 8 hours plus hotel power for an 18-wheeler sleeper cab. Is the technology developed enough for rail use? Would backup batteries be in compliance with the 238 rules?


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Aug 27, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Why do the 238 rules ban gensets?



Why does it matter, lots of rules don’t make sense. But if they are a rule, they are a rule.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 27, 2020)

fdaley said:


> When I follow this link, it says the average trip length for a sleeper passenger in FY19 was 990 miles, which almost certainly would involve an overnight ride, and the average length of trip for coach passengers was 457 miles, which at Amtrak speeds likely translates to a ride of 8-10 hours if on time. Either way, we're probably talking two meal periods for coach passenger and three meals for the average sleeper passenger. At those distances, the food starts to become important.


Of course most sleeper passenger are traveling overnight, but they're a small percentage of the total passengers. As far as coach passengers, yes, for all day trips, food service is important, but the cafe car can provide that. I know, because I take a lot of ~300 - 400 mile day trips on the Palmetto, Carolinian, and Vermonter and I'm fine with the stuff from the cafe car, and it seems that these trains are doing fine without dining cars.


----------



## fdaley (Aug 27, 2020)

Nick Farr said:


> While it's more work on management's part, there's lots of opportunities to win over Congress AND support communities along the way. Why can't Amtrak offering catering contracts to independent providers in smaller communities along the routes.
> 
> Why not just start small and offer pre-ordered specials along each route for dinner, prepared and delivered by a local provider? The Big Sky Chicken Dinners is a good precedent for this. This is also a great way to put restaurants in need back to work.



My first inclination reading this is to imagine how quickly it could descend into a logistical nightmare with Amtrak, which isn't exactly known for its organizational nimbleness. But if it could be done reliably and well, there would be real advantages. Chief among them would be the possibility of regional variety in the dining menus, depending on the train or even the meal. Even with the traditional dining in recent years, one of the big complaints of people on cross-country trips was that the same dinner entrees, side dishes and desserts were repeated night after night on train after train. All of that has gotten much worse with flex dining, given that the lunch and dinner choices are now identical and cooked breakfasts have basically been eliminated. And of course, the quality of the meals provided by en-route caterers would likely be vastly better than the flex meals.

Perhaps a pilot project on one or two trains could test the potential. I nominate Seaboard92 to help us work up a proposal.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 27, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Why does it matter, lots of rules don’t make sense. But if they are a rule, they are a rule.


That's not the attitude to have. As an EPA alumnus, I believe in strong government regulation, but not arbitrary rules for the sake of rules. If this is part of the Code of Federal Regulations, the agency involved (FRA?) had to do a "rulemaking," a long and involved process that requires, among other things, that the agency has to have a reason for making the rule. Usually all kinds of technical analysis and justification is required and must be presented for public comment. If the people who are negatively affected are annoyed enough, they can sue the agency to have the rule overturned. Presumably, this was done for these 238 rules, and there are reasons for each and every one of them. However, things can change over time, and perhaps the reasons for the rule no longer apply. In that case, there's certainly no reason why those affected by the rule can't agitate to the Agency or its political overseers that a review of the rule is in order. Who knows? Maybe the rule will be changed.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 27, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I agree. That’s what I’ve been asking for. Better quality entrees or take the service away and just let people buy from the lounge.



I don't think taking the service away entirely is feasible--there are plenty of people who find the available options acceptable. They're not as awful as people make them out to be, I'm sure most passengers will be OK with them.

However, I do agree that sleeping car passengers should be given the option to pick items from the lounge instead. Implementing this change is definitely possible, but it would be much easier to do if we gave the OBS devices to process these changes.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 27, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Presumably, this was done for these 238 rules, and there are reasons for each and every one of them. However, things can change over time, and perhaps the reasons for the rule no longer apply.



The 238 rules are actually quite sound. If anything, they should probably be enhanced as Amtrak contemplates new equipment. They're far from arbitrary safety standards.

The reason that Private Cars are exempt is because most of those cars are historical pieces kept around for pleasure cruise purposes. They're generally more fancy toys than transit. Things like generators and fuel they need to run IS a big fire hazard and thus make most of these cars unsuitable for the general public.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Aug 27, 2020)

Nick Farr said:


> I don't think taking the service away entirely is feasible--there are plenty of people who find the available options acceptable. They're not as awful as people make them out to be, I'm sure most passengers will be OK with them.
> 
> However, I do agree that sleeping car passengers should be given the option to pick items from the lounge instead. Implementing this change is definitely possible, but it would be much easier to do if we gave the OBS devices to process these changes.



Amtrak has proven that it is feasible. I don’t suggest things that aren’t possible. The silver star operated for years without a diner. I prefer that vs. the flex dining. 

We do agree on the lounge issue. Hey I can even get my famous entree salad there!! Win win


----------



## jiml (Aug 27, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> We do agree on the lounge issue. Hey I can even get my famous entree salad there!! Win win


Unless they don't have any - like my last 9+ hour trip in Amtrak Business Class. Of the three listed sandwich choices they had only one and no salads, which my wife wanted.


----------



## railiner (Aug 27, 2020)

Prior to the Amtrak conversion of Heritage cars to Head End Power, besides the full dome lounges, the entire former Santa Fe 'Hi-Level' fleet were equipped with individual Enginator's, IIRC...it did not seem to be a hazard back then...
Of course, they did not run under the North River tunnels into New York, where even propane tanks were banned in diner's, hence the use of archaic Pres-to-logs to fuel the diner stoves....


----------



## jis (Aug 28, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Is it still? Can the lsa open a can and cook it? (That’s a serious question... union rules are weird).


Since I have pretty recently had a treat of tasty Dinty Moore when stuck somewhere in the middle of nowhere, I would assume that at least on that run they still had them, unless an unexpected use of teleporter or something happened


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Aug 28, 2020)

jis said:


> Since I have pretty recently had a treat of tasty Dinty Moore when stuck somewhere in the middle of nowhere, I would assume that at least on that run they still had them, unless an unexpected use of teleporter or something happened



What’s “pretty recently” ? Since the flex dining meals?


----------



## jis (Aug 28, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> What’s “pretty recently” ? Since the flex dining meals?


Yes.

Dinty Moore is provided to not only to Sleeper passengers. They go to Coach passengers too, since the Cafe does run out of regular fare too. So whether it is flex dining or not is somewhat irrelevant.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Aug 28, 2020)

jis said:


> Yes.
> 
> Dinty Moore is provided to not only to Sleeper passengers. They go to Coach passengers too, since the Cafe does run out of regular fare too. So whether it is flex dining or not is somewhat irrelevant.



It’s relevant to my question which was - do they still cary it since the change to flex. I was just wondering if the lsa could cook it on board because of union issues. 

But if you were served the emergency stew on a train that has switched to the flex meals than that answers my question.


----------



## me_little_me (Aug 28, 2020)

jis said:


> Yes.
> 
> Dinty Moore is provided to not only to Sleeper passengers. They go to Coach passengers too, since the Cafe does run out of regular fare too. So whether it is flex dining or not is somewhat irrelevant.


It is relevant as it tastes better than much of the flex menu. Since crew have to pay big bucks for flex "food", they might trade me a Dinty for a flex that they then can eat for free.


----------



## jimdex (Aug 28, 2020)

I have mixed emotions about the food issue. To the extent that Amtrak is taxpayer funded, the prime consideration needs to be transportation, not food presentation, but on the other hand, I understand that inadequate food service can cut into ridership and revenue, especially over longer distances. My recommendation would be to divide diners into two sections: a casual dining/lounge section where patrons would seat themselves and order their food from a counter, and a formal section staffed by a waiter. A single kitchen would support both sections, and where it is practical, casual diners would be able to order some of the entrees offered in the formal section.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Aug 28, 2020)

Just my opinion, of course, but there is nothing wrong with a Dinty Moore Beef Stew dinner once in awhile. Wouldn't want it for every meal and certainly would expect a better lunch/dinner than that as an Amtrak passenger. 

Based on what I have learned on this thread and photos posted of Amtrak's current offerings, I'd choose a Dinty Moore Beef Stew dinner.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 28, 2020)

Dakota 400 said:


> Just my opinion, of course, but there is nothing wrong with a Dinty Moore Beef Stew dinner once in awhile. Wouldn't want it for every meal and certainly would expect a better lunch/dinner than that as an Amtrak passenger.
> 
> Based on what I have learned on this thread and photos posted of Amtrak's current offerings, I'd choose a Dinty Moore Beef Stew dinner.


Too much Sodium and Chemicals! Homemade is the way to go on Soups and Stews!


----------



## Seaboard92 (Aug 28, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Why do the 238 rules ban gensets? They're widely mounted on long-haul trucks (for hotel power during driver rest breaks) and RV's, and I've never heard of them being a safety menace on the highways. How about back-up batteries? We had some vendors tell us that they have backup batteries that can provide 8 hours plus hotel power for an 18-wheeler sleeper cab. Is the technology developed enough for rail use? Would backup batteries be in compliance with the 238 rules?



I don't know the exact reason it bans gensets but I believe it probably has something to do with carrying a tank of flammable liquid on the car in the event of an accident. Now backup batteries are in compliance with 238 regulations. As I'm sure you've noticed in your travels every passenger car has a bank of batteries that provide emergency lights and keep the markers on without electricity. However I think they are only designed for shorter outages and completely fade after 45 minutes. In fact I just removed 10 lead acid backup batteries off a former Amtrak car just a few weeks ago. So if there is a battery that can provide hotel power for an 18 wheeler which has a significantly lighter load than an 85 foot passenger car I don't see why it wouldn't work. At least to keep the food from spoiling. It all depends what you are trying to do with the back up batteries as to how many KW you need to keep up and running. 




Nick Farr said:


> The 238 rules are actually quite sound. If anything, they should probably be enhanced as Amtrak contemplates new equipment. They're far from arbitrary safety standards.
> 
> The reason that Private Cars are exempt is because most of those cars are historical pieces kept around for pleasure cruise purposes. They're generally more fancy toys than transit. Things like generators and fuel they need to run IS a big fire hazard and thus make most of these cars unsuitable for the general public.



Honestly I think where the rules are is good enough. I don't want to see Amtrak keep rewriting the book to keep a car compliant.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Aug 28, 2020)

jimdex said:


> My recommendation would be to divide diners into two sections: a casual dining/lounge section where patrons would seat themselves and order their food from a counter, and a formal section staffed by a waiter. A single kitchen would support both sections, and where it is practical, casual diners would be able to order some of the entrees offered in the formal section.



That is exactly what the original "Cross Country Cafe" was. (It only operated as designed for about 9 months I think?). Even if you take out the table service and keep the 1 LSA and 1 Chef you would have a MUCH better product without paying 1 cent more for staffing. (1 LSA and 1 Chef vs. 2 LSA's currently.) 

I agree, I think the original CCC idea was very good and the car was well designed for that use provided a SSL car was still available for seating next door.


----------



## tgstubbs1 (Aug 29, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> That is exactly what the original "Cross Country Cafe" was. (It only operated as designed for about 9 months I think?). Even if you take out the table service and keep the 1 LSA and 1 Chef you would have a MUCH better product without paying 1 cent more for staffing. (1 LSA and 1 Chef vs. 2 LSA's currently.)
> 
> I agree, I think the original CCC idea was very good and the car was well designed for that use provided a SSL car was still available for seating next door.



This is pretty much how a lot of fast food restaurants operate, isn't it? Self serve with optional seating. Some fast food places will take your name and deliver to your seat if they are busy and some do that on a regular basis.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Aug 29, 2020)

tgstubbs1 said:


> This is pretty much how a lot of fast food restaurants operate, isn't it? Self serve with optional seating. Some fast food places will take your name and deliver to your seat if they are busy and some do that on a regular basis.



Yeah... it would be more similar to “fast casual” restaurants like Panera Bread, Pei Wei, Zoe’s Kitchen.

Now the original version of the CCC you could order and pick up from the counter, or you could sit down and have table service. Not sure what the staffing was, most likely 2 server, 1 lsa, 1 chef but it may have even been 1 server.


----------



## junebug (Aug 29, 2020)

I love these ideas. My opinion is on how we can bring in first class service, catering to retired boomers. Democrats brought us Amtrak. For years Republicans' long time goal has been to trash it into oblivion. Let them bankrupt it. Then we can fix this. Band together as investors. Buy it for 3 cents on the dollar. We privatize it just like anti-big government did to the prison systems and what they would love to do next, the postal system. We got this. 

Sincerely, Junebug
--Retired boomer


----------



## junebug (Aug 29, 2020)

AND, still dreaming. Soon Congress will be Democrat. Let government pitch in so we can expand routes to less profitable rural areas. The original train service was formed by Capitalists, right? I'm a highly Capitalistic Democrat. Maybe we will be so profitable from Boomer Dollars, we can do it ourselves.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 29, 2020)

Nick Farr said:


> Things like generators and fuel they need to run IS a big fire hazard and thus make most of these cars unsuitable for the general public.


It should be pointed out that the vast majority of the American "general public" travels in motor vehicles on public highways. The vast majority of these motor vehicles, from motorcycles, to passenger cars to 18-wheeler tractor trailers are all carrying around tanks of flammable fuel. Yet, despite this fire hazard, regulators are not rushing to ban mobile internal-combustion engines. They even allow them tunnels. 

Gensets are mounted on tractor trailers mostly to reduce idling emissions. Before they started using them, truckers just idled their main engines while at rest to provide hotel power. This is really overkill in terms of the power generated and caused noise, smog-causing emissions, particulates and wasted fuel. The genset is a smaller engine, more efficient, and they generally are diesel, so the fuel isn't as flammable as gasoline that might be found on some gensets. Are PV gensets gasoline or diesel?


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Aug 30, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Are PV gensets gasoline or diesel?



Diesel.


----------



## me_little_me (Aug 30, 2020)

Private cars could always replace the gensets with on-board nuclear reactors! Or, better yet, giant windmills that will create electricity as the train moves. Or fold-out solar panels like satellites have, on posts at the end of the car as one wouldn't want to change a historic car by using roof-mounted ones.
Okay, so an accident with choice one would render the track unusable for 10,000 years or so but there's always alternate routing. And the latter two would require stopping the train for every bridge, tunnel, overhead wire and other obstacle to lower them but the train stops every mile for freights anyway.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 30, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> It should be pointed out that the vast majority of the American "general public" travels in motor vehicles on public highways. The vast majority of these motor vehicles, from motorcycles, to passenger cars to 18-wheeler tractor trailers are all carrying around tanks of flammable fuel. Yet, despite this fire hazard, regulators are not rushing to ban mobile internal-combustion engines. They even allow them tunnels.



It should also be pointed out that those tanks and fuel systems in automotive vehicles have been continuously redesigned for nearly for 75 years to not explode during an accident.

The other thing to remember is that the physics of rail car accidents are much different than the physics of automotive crashes. An automobile typically sheds its kinetic energy in a few moments after an incident where a derailing incident can last up to a minute before the train comes to a stop.

Also: In many tunnels, CNG and others like it common to campers *are banned* because their explosive force is amplified in a tube. It's assumed most automotive crashes won't cause any explosion, whereas a car careening at 60 MPH into a stationary propane tank will.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 30, 2020)

Nick Farr said:


> It should also be pointed out that those tanks and fuel systems in automotive vehicles have been continuously redesigned for nearly for 75 years to not explode during an accident.
> 
> The other thing to remember is that the physics of rail car accidents are much different than the physics of automotive crashes. An automobile typically sheds its kinetic energy in a few moments after an incident where a derailing incident can last up to a minute before the train comes to a stop.
> 
> Also: In many tunnels, CNG and others like it common to campers *are banned* because their explosive force is amplified in a tube. It's assumed most automotive crashes won't cause any explosion, whereas a car careening at 60 MPH into a stationary propane tank will.


Well, true, but separate gensets on 18-wheelers haven't been around all that long, and, as far as I know were allowed without any sort of regulatory review when we at EPA began toencourage truckers to use them.  Anyway, auxiliary power units are usually powered by diesel, not propane. (And there are CNG and Propane powered commercial vehicles. I guess they can't use tunnels.)

As far as the 238 rules go, had the regulator been doing it right (and they may well have done so, as I've never seen the rulemaking), They would have conducted a technical analysis that would have considered the physics of rail car accidents, the risk of rail car accidents, the flammability of the fuel, the way the genset and fuel system were mounted, etc. From that they would figure out the number of deaths and injuries avoided and estimated the property damage avoided by banning gensets. Because accidents also disrupt the rail lime and impose more costs, they'd have to estimate any additional costs resulting from accidents with genset-equipped cars. 

From all this, the agency could decide whether it was worthwhile to ban gensets or that the extra risks are so small that it wouldn't make enough of a difference to bother everybody. If they were going to exempt private cars, they should estimate PV mileage and risks of accidents, there, too. Of course, PV car miles are probably a small fraction to total passenger rail car-miles, which probably makes the total risk lower, but I'm speculating. If I were doing a rulemaking, I'd have to make an estimate based on hard evidence. 

After the agency makes a decision, it gets published as a proposal with all the technical analysis. Then the general public (or more usually, the interested stakeholders) get a chance to comment on the proposal, and the agency has to respond to the comments. Once all that's done, the rule can go final. Of course, that's when disappointed stakeholders will sue the agency to get what they want. I should have gone to law school, after all. 

According to policy, EPA requires all of the technical analyses they conduct to have outside peer review before they're incorporated into the rulemaking documents. This is not always followed, as the policy has a few ways to weasel around its intent, and some managers believe that the public comment period is suitable peer review. I'm not sure what the DOT policy on peer review of technical documents.

The bottom line is that while it seems reasonable that gensets on passenger rail cars entails increased risks, I haven't seen any analyses on how much they increase the risks. I would be interested in seeing the original rulemakings for these 238 rules and see how the agency justified them. I sort of shudder at having to dig through the Web to find them, though. I was recently looking for a couple of EPA rulemakings I was involved with 10-15 years ago, and, boy, is that website designed to make it hard to find things!


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 30, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> As far as the 238 rules go, had the regulator been doing it right (and they may well have done so, as I've never seen the rulemaking), They would have conducted a technical analysis that would have considered the physics of rail car accidents, the risk of rail car accidents, the flammability of the fuel, the way the genset and fuel system were mounted, etc. From that they would figure out the number of deaths and injuries avoided and estimated the property damage avoided by banning gensets. Because accidents also disrupt the rail lime and impose more costs, they'd have to estimate any additional costs resulting from accidents with genset-equipped cars.



They did consider all these things when writing the regulations, which are somewhat outdated now. The other fact to consider is that gensets on private cars are such a remote use case. Every car on the train should be using HEP in normal revenue service because it's much, much safer than having flammable gas in weird locations on the train. 

A lot of the regulations contemplate the accident itself, long with the realities of fighting fires on rail lines. On Freeways, emergency vehicles have a roadway they can access vehicle accidents from. Even on the NEC, there's parts of the rail corridor that are very hard for emergency services to access.

Finally, as opposed to the 70s and 80s, the past decade has been a very safe one for Amtrak and is likely to get much safer now that PTC is here. 

That being said, the Genset one is a matter of convenience for Private Car owners vs. safety for the general traveling public. In these cases, the safety of the general public should always win out.


----------



## Qapla (Aug 30, 2020)

Gas tanks on cars are not engineered to "remain in tact" during a car crash - have you ever pulled a car gas tank? I have ... several times. They are nothing more that a "glorified gas can" held under the vehicle with a couple metal straps. Not only are they not "crash proof", they are filled with an extremely volatile fuel ... gasoline.

On a train car - instead of banning gensets ... they could very easily have required all gens to be diesel (much less volatile than gas) and the tanks be secluded in a protected area under the train and built to endure the type of impact a train might face during a crash. They could be built to crash ratings similar to LP tanks which are designed to survive a crash. They could be equipped with an "antiflow valve" that would stop the flow of fuel should the tank be separated from the train car (these valves already exist - they have them on gas pumps). Someone who can afford to own a private railcar can afford to install such a tank. Such an equipped genset could be for use only when HEP is not available.

There is no need to ban something that can be made safe unless you are trying to discourage private cars.

Other than gensets - what other things are private cars not allowed to have?


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 30, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Gas tanks on cars are not engineered to "remain in tact" during a car crash - have you ever pulled a car gas tank? I have ... several times. They are nothing more that a "glorified gas can" held under the vehicle with a couple metal straps. Not only are they not "crash proof", they are filled with an extremely volatile fuel ... gasoline.



Nothing is "crash proof". However, there's a lot in the tank and the stem and energy management around the tank that keeps the fuel from exploding or burning in the most likely crash configurations.

The other point you're missing is that there's literally no reason for a dedicated public passenger car to have a fuel tank at all. If they're in service, they should have HEP.


----------



## Qapla (Aug 30, 2020)

Nick Farr said:


> there's a lot in the tank and the stem and energy management around the tank that keeps the fuel from exploding or burning in the most likely crash configurations



Are referring to the gas tank in a typical passenger automobile? Have you ever pulled on from under a car? I have.



Nick Farr said:


> there's literally no reason for a dedicated public passenger car to have a fuel tank at all



I thought we were talking about privately owned passenger railcars. I can see that one my sit overnight on a "siding" not connected to HEP where they would need power ... I see no reason that should not be allowed.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 30, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Are referring to the gas tank in a typical passenger automobile? Have you ever pulled on from under a car? I have.



I've seen at least 100 vehicle wrecks and took note of the gas tank in most of them. Almost all of them were still intact. Still haven't seen one that exploded. They sure don't look like much but they're not designed to look pretty...and most of that design is around the tank not in it. You're looking at the egg, when you need to be looking at the carton.



Qapla said:


> I thought we were talking about privately owned passenger railcars. I can see that one my sit overnight on a "siding" not connected to HEP where they would need power ... I see no reason that should not be allowed.



That's totally allowed. That's the use case for them, why they're there.

What's not allowed is for these cars to carry regular passengers in revenue service.

And honestly, it would probably be better for everyone involved if they had grid tie-ins and a platform for these cars to use in a lot of places.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Aug 30, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> It should be pointed out that the vast majority of the American "general public" travels in motor vehicles on public highways. The vast majority of these motor vehicles, from motorcycles, to passenger cars to 18-wheeler tractor trailers are all carrying around tanks of flammable fuel. Yet, despite this fire hazard, regulators are not rushing to ban mobile internal-combustion engines. They even allow them tunnels.
> 
> Gensets are mounted on tractor trailers mostly to reduce idling emissions. Before they started using them, truckers just idled their main engines while at rest to provide hotel power. This is really overkill in terms of the power generated and caused noise, smog-causing emissions, particulates and wasted fuel. The genset is a smaller engine, more efficient, and they generally are diesel, so the fuel isn't as flammable as gasoline that might be found on some gensets. Are PV gensets gasoline or diesel?



Diesel. The best maker of gensets is Stadco and they are the only company that I know of that also specializes in PV gensets. Fantastic pieces of equipment. 



Nick Farr said:


> They did consider all these things when writing the regulations, which are somewhat outdated now. The other fact to consider is that gensets on private cars are such a remote use case. Every car on the train should be using HEP in normal revenue service because it's much, much safer than having flammable gas in weird locations on the train.
> 
> A lot of the regulations contemplate the accident itself, long with the realities of fighting fires on rail lines. On Freeways, emergency vehicles have a roadway they can access vehicle accidents from. Even on the NEC, there's parts of the rail corridor that are very hard for emergency services to access.
> 
> ...



We do use HEP when we are connected to the train almost 99 percent of the time. I do remember a trip where we did not use HEP because the train couldn't provide enough HEP for the PVs and the Amtrak consist so the PV owners ran with the gensets on the entire way. Cars without a genset would be tied into a car that has one, as several cars have a large enough KW load that they can power 2+ cars. I also remember another trip that had a power car when the power car wasn't fueled. We ended up running every genset on the consist, and were powering out of some gensets four cars. 

And trust me we would much rather be on HEP because it costs us to run the genset by the hour when you factor in fuel consumption and wear and tear on the motor. So if we can be on HEP we will be on HEP. We use our gensets mostly for times when we are switching to keep our fridge cold, and the HVAC system on, or if we are operating on a shortline where there is not a power car present. 

I remember last time I worked a trip into Chicago we ran our genset all night because Metra (we weren't on Amtrak for this trip) didn't bother to plug us in the night before. While we could have plugged ourselves into their ground plug that is not our job. Not our railroad, and without a blue flag none of us are willing to chance our lives and livelihoods to plug ourselves in. So we ran our genset all night. 




Nick Farr said:


> The other point you're missing is that there's literally no reason for a dedicated public passenger car to have a fuel tank at all. If they're in service, they should have HEP.


I think you are missing the point that brought the topic of gensets up in the first place. The dining car and it's freezers, and refrigerators needs to be powered in the event of a long delay without HEP available. For instance from personal experience. A few years back when I was riding No. 91 the Silver Star we stopped in Rocky Mount, NC for six hours to assist the Auto Train No. 53 due to locomotive issues. So they took one of our three engines to the broken down train. For most of that time the train sat without head end power because the locomotives were taken off while the crew wyed one to get it oriented properly for No. 53. By the time they took the power off, waited for CSX to clear the wye, wyed the engine they needed to wye, and returned to 91 the cool cycle had been broken. 

And in the hot Carolina summer it can quickly become unbearable on the cars, and the items in cold storage can spoil and then not be usable. But had the car been equipped with a Stadco Genset under it the cool cycle could have been maintained. And if you had a large enough one by KW load to power the diners HVAC system you could have one car that is cooled for senior citizens who might have adverse health effects in the hot climate. Railcars are greenhouses basically so having one car that would be cooled for people with health problems could be of benefit in a long delay. 

Now imagine it is the Southwest Chief broken down somewhere in the desert or the Sunset Limited how great having a genset on the diner would be. 


Another point I want to make too is HEP isn't completely fool proof it can and will fail from time to time. This is what makes the Canadian version of HEP in my opinion a far better system. There are two HEP lines on VIA's fleet and each car alternates which locomotive it draws it's HEP from. Now if there is a problem with HEP coming from one of the locomotives all of the cars automatically shift to the system that is still up and running. Whereas Amtrak's is one and done. The two systems are both 480 volts and compatible with an adapter kit provided the USA HEP car runs rearmost. 

That is also one reason thinks VIA doesn't take PVs which they actually do from what I've been told. You just aren't allowed to run rearmost when there is a Park Car so that eliminates the Ocean, Skeena, and Canadian. However it would still be allowed on the Hudson Bay, Corridor, and Quebec Rural services if my source is correct.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 30, 2020)

Seaboard92 said:


> I think you are missing the point that brought the topic of gensets up in the first place. The dining car and it's freezers, and refrigerators needs to be powered in the event of a long delay without HEP available.



For Private Cars, absolutely agree on the genset. It's a shame Amtrak and the other railroads treat you that badly. 

I stupidly brought it up pitching private cars as a way of providing upscale service on Amtrak. It would be nice for Amtrak to make it easier for partners to provide services but that doesn't seem like a solution.

I'm pretty sure we're going to disagree on this, but if it's a choice between lugging around a bunch of fuel and creating a preventable safety hazard versus letting food rot--I say let the food rot.

If a train loses A/C for long enough to create a safety hazard, then they need to evacuate the passengers to safety.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Aug 30, 2020)

Nick Farr said:


> For Private Cars, absolutely agree on the genset. It's a shame Amtrak and the other railroads treat you that badly.
> 
> I stupidly brought it up pitching private cars as a way of providing upscale service on Amtrak. It would be nice for Amtrak to make it easier for partners to provide services but that doesn't seem like a solution.
> 
> ...



I wouldn't say it is stupid at all to come up with that type of idea. I do think Amtrak should work with us more. One of the big problems now with the elationship between PV owners and Amtrak is the mistrust that PV owners feel towards Amtrak. After what Amtrak has done to the industry in 2018 and raising the rates multiple times there is a mistrust from us towards Amtrak. It will take a lot of work to get that trust back. Not saying it is impossible as it is very doable. But it will take some time and work. 

Amtrak actually is trying to a degree as they are running a special for PVs this summer however not many people have taken them up on it either due to Covid concerns, or the fact a lot of owners were ran out of business by Amtrak back in 2018. Amtrak has added back Portland, OR as a place we can go which it previously wasn't and they did so for all of the national network trains there. However they have made things difficult going there as well. But that is more for another thread where I can gripe about it without dragging too far off the topic.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Aug 30, 2020)

@Seaboard92 I was in the Cedar Rapids on the #261 trip to Duluth that had NO diesel because Amtrak couldn't find a spare diesel that actually worked. The attendant ( I forget his name but I'm sure you know him.. ) was telling me they were glad it was cool and cloudy weather since the Cedar Rapids and Super Dome generators could potentially overheat and shut down in extra hot weather. Of course... with no diesel I spent much of my time in the baggage car listening to the locomotive... foamers gonna foam .


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 31, 2020)

railiner said:


> Prior to the Amtrak conversion of Heritage cars to Head End Power, besides the full dome lounges, the entire former Santa Fe 'Hi-Level' fleet were equipped with individual Enginator's, IIRC...it did not seem to be a hazard back then...



Just because it never killed anyone doesn't mean it wasn't hazardous. HEP is more efficient and safer than individual gensets on cars.


----------



## Exvalley (Aug 31, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Are referring to the gas tank in a typical passenger automobile? Have you ever pulled on from under a car? I have.


Apparently none were from a Ford Pinto.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Aug 31, 2020)

crescent-zephyr said:


> @Seaboard92 I was in the Cedar Rapids on the #261 trip to Duluth that had NO diesel because Amtrak couldn't find a spare diesel that actually worked. The attendant ( I forget his name but I'm sure you know him.. ) was telling me they were glad it was cool and cloudy weather since the Cedar Rapids and Super Dome generators could potentially overheat and shut down in extra hot weather. Of course... with no diesel I spent much of my time in the baggage car listening to the locomotive... foamers gonna foam .



It's funny the Super Dome was one of the generators we were using that day. I believe we had it powering it and one other car. I probably do know him especially if he was one who traveled with the car with charters. That group is amazing.


----------



## railiner (Aug 31, 2020)

Nick Farr said:


> Just because it never killed anyone doesn't mean it wasn't hazardous. HEP is more efficient and safer than individual gensets on cars.


480 volts of HEP flowing thru a train can be a hazard as well...
Perhaps we should go back to the era of batteries on each car, charged by axle generator's, and producing 74 volts?


----------



## tgstubbs1 (Aug 31, 2020)

I rode on one of those "rail buses" one a two hour trip to Nanimo BC by VIA. I found the drone of the diesel a bit tedious, not like the Cadillac quiet ride of the Superliners.


----------



## railiner (Aug 31, 2020)

tgstubbs1 said:


> I rode on one of those "rail buses" one a two hour trip to Nanimo BC by VIA. I found the drone of the diesel a bit tedious, not like the Cadillac quiet ride of the Superliners.


That was a "Dayliner" in CP parlance...(Railiner is the CN version of the Budd Rail Diesel Car)...


----------



## neroden (Aug 31, 2020)

Nick Farr said:


> Before we begin, please don't beat up on Flex Dining here, there's a nice 20 page thread for that already.
> 
> What I'm interested in discussing here are specific, actionable ideas that don't require a major increase in funding.
> 
> ...



A number of these things actually require capital expenditures. The point-of-sale systems for the OBS are an example, and yes, it is important. Fixing Amtrak's antiquated reservations system is another one on the list of "really valuable one-time expenditures".

Fixing Amtrak's notorious accounting system would be more capital expenditures well spent.

Hiring a full-time supervisor to dog the irresponsible people in Chicago maintenance who keep sending cars out broken while claiming they're "repaired", and building up files to sack them, would be valuable. It would become clear that more real maintenance workers were needed, though. It's an improvement to honestly admit that the cars were still broken rather than falsifying paperwork, but it requires more work and spending to make sure they actually get fixed.

One which doesn't require any spending and would save money is firing Stephen Gardner immediately and appointing someone who has a clue about railroad economics to replace him.

One which requires very little spending is getting a higher grade of pre-packaged meals, with *less salt*. Preferably a different local provider at each "origination station". 

One which requires almost NO spending is publishing the ingredients lists for these on the website.


----------



## neroden (Aug 31, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Tell that to the folks who ride the train between, say, Toledo and Chicago, or Trinidad and Albuquerque, or Minot and Havre, etc. Look at the RPA data tables on LD train ridership. Most trips are a few to a couple of hundred miles or less. The percentage of Amtrak passengers actually traveling all the way across the country and spending 3 nights on the train is minuscule relative to total ridership. The only reason for a taxpayer-funded transportation company to provide premium service is that it boosts revenue, but the cost of providing the premium service shouldn't be so high that the _*net *_revenue boost disappears. We really don't know how much it costs to provide traditional sleeping car and dining car service, and its possible that it's not as ruinously expensive as the anti-LD people say it is. However, if Amtrak can cut the cost of providing the premium service and not lose that many riders, they'll rake in even more net revenue, thus possibly reducing the need for a taxpayer subsidy for the coach service, which is where most of the ridership is.
> 
> I suspect that most overnight passengers would be perfectly satisfied with a flex-dining-like product if the meals were better quality and the menu had a some more variety. (And it was also available to coach passengers) Yeah, it would still suck (well, not be the finest dining experience) for three nights and 4 days on the rails, but why should the company cater to a small, demanding subset of its total customer base? Anyway, much as I enjoy the dining car experience, I don't ride the train primarily to eat, I save that for when I arrive at my destination.



Last time I looked into it, the Lake Shore Limited was the most profitable dining car of all of them, getting the most actual paid-for meals from coach passengers -- because people from New York and Chicago *expect* to pay high prices in restaurants. This was before the first round of idiotic stupid quality cuts, many years ago, which has sabotaged diner revenues on the LSL. If the only choices were "some trains get full diners, some don't", the numbers say that the LSL gets the full diner first. Of course Amtrak did the opposite.

If I were operating Amtrak in a businesslike fashion, I'd have a wide selection of much-higher-quality pre-made "picnic" meals from local caterers operating at the train's origin station, with a selection of price points, pre-ordered and delivered to Amtrak's commissary with individual customers' names and train numbers on them. You'd have a different selection eastbound and westbound on each train, with local food, and onboard cooking not required. And crucially, *quality* would be an option people could pay for. A lot of people would just order a nice picnic breakfast from Toledo to Chicago -- it would come onboard at New York City (or Boston) and be delivered to the customer the next morning in Indiana -- and that would work out fine. Right now you can't get a decent breakfast on Amtrak unless you bring it yourself.


----------



## Qapla (Aug 31, 2020)

With today's technology there is probably a way to make a much quieter, safer and affordable alternate "emergency/standby" power source for a private car - but trying to get an old rule changed would probably be more difficult than retrofitting the railcars with such a power source


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 31, 2020)

Nick Farr said:


> The other point you're missing is that there's literally no reason for a dedicated public passenger car to have a fuel tank at all. If they're in service, they should have HEP.



Actually, there is a reason -- to maintain power in the cars when the HEP malfunctions. 

Back in my MARC riding days, we had a notorious incident where an engine broke down and hundreds of passengers were stuck in very hot railcars with no A/C on a blazing hot Maryland summer day. It was so bad, I believe the state secretary of Transportation, and maybe the president of AMTRAK, too, wrote a groveling apology to the passengers, which was placed on our seats the next morning.

Also, and this is more germane to LD service, food service cars should have a backup to ensure uninterrupted power to keep perishable foods cold.

So there are actually two reasons for a dedicated public passenger car to have a backup auxiliary power unit, even if they usually use HEP. Diesel powered APUs are widely used on heavy-duty long-haul trucks, so worries about gasoline explosions (though not fires) are irrelevant. However, they can probably be designed to minimize the risk. In the end, battery technology is moving along such that I suspect that backup batteries (maybe even with solar charging) will soon become more practical and would really reduce fire risk.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 31, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Back in my MARC riding days, we had a notorious incident where an engine broke down and hundreds of passengers were stuck in very hot railcars with no A/C on a blazing hot Maryland summer day.



The hell train is why MARC ended up running diesel trains on electrified lines, right?

It's actually way better to just put the backup generator equipment or batteries on the locomotive in the first place. The energy waste of lugging around an extra genset on each passenger car isn't worth the...once in a decade loss of A/C?

A/C can turn into a life safety issue, but cooling food is no reason to introduce extra risk.


----------



## jiml (Sep 1, 2020)

railiner said:


> That was a "Dayliner" in CP parlance...(Railiner is the CN version of the Budd Rail Diesel Car)...


They used to be a staple of daily operation. I quite liked them. Before the recent upheaval VIA was having several re-engined and refurbished for various purposes. Two are in service on the White River route - not sure what happened to the rest of the project. These are some of the "new" ones:


----------



## tgstubbs1 (Sep 1, 2020)

jiml said:


> They used to be a staple of daily operation. I quite liked them. Before the recent upheaval VIA was having several re-engined and refurbished for various purposes. Two are in service on the White River route - not sure what happened to the rest of the project. These are some of the "new" ones:



Could Amtrak use these to fill in days where they think a full train is uneconomical?


----------



## Willbridge (Sep 1, 2020)

tgstubbs1 said:


> Could Amtrak use these to fill in days where they think a full train is uneconomical?


For [insert choice of fallacious reasons] some reason Amtrak has a 49-year history of loathing RDC's or their potential successors. In the years when RDC's were still fairly available, Amtrak also could put on trains over any distance more than 75 miles without requiring state support. When I was working for Oregon DOT I began to suspect that there were too many routes that would be feasible with RDC's and that they would have faced pressure to expand. Unavailability of rolling stock has always been a way to avoid expansion.

The best use of mu equipment in relation to long-distance service is as feeders that generate interline revenue beyond their shorter distance routes. My dad rode the _Zephyrette _once between Oakland and Salt Lake City, and for most customers that was more than enough RDC mileage.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Sep 1, 2020)

Willbridge said:


> For [insert choice of fallacious reasons] some reason Amtrak has a 49-year history of loathing RDC's or their potential successors. In the years when RDC's were still fairly available, Amtrak also could put on trains over any distance more than 75 miles without requiring state support. When I was working for Oregon DOT I began to suspect that there were too many routes that would be feasible with RDC's and that they would have faced pressure to expand. Unavailability of rolling stock has always been a way to avoid expansion.
> 
> The best use of mu equipment in relation to long-distance service is as feeders that generate interline revenue beyond their shorter distance routes. My dad rode the _Zephyrette _once between Oakland and Salt Lake City, and for most customers that was more than enough RDC mileage.



I think that might be the longest RDC run of them all at 928 miles one way. If you can think of a longer one I would be curious.


----------



## railiner (Sep 1, 2020)

Second longest was the _Choctaw Rockette _between Memphis and Amarillo on the Rock Island, at 761 miles. If they had run it to the end of the Rock at Tucumcari, it still would be a little less....


----------



## jiml (Sep 2, 2020)

Willbridge said:


> Unavailability of rolling stock has always been a way to avoid expansion.


That basically sums up the problem in one line. Although those RDC's look great and are mechanically sound, they're still 50-70 years old and no one builds a similar product currently. Amtrak also doesn't look at refurbishing old equipment the same way as other railroads, other than when they're forced into it (inception, initial HEP conversion, Amfleet interiors). My VIA LD trip last fall was on a 70 year-old Park car not long out of the shop with a one year-old interior. VIA has a long history of refurbishing and most passengers don't seem to mind 50-70 year-old rolling stock as long as it's reliable and clean. Even though they still hope to acquire the new Siemens trainsets for the corridor, they just spent a fortune pre-Covid on new LRC interiors.


----------



## MARC Rider (Sep 2, 2020)

Nick Farr said:


> The hell train is why MARC ended up running diesel trains on electrified lines, right?


No, I believe it's because Amtrak is charging MARC too much for electric power. They only electrified line is the Penn Line, they need to have diesels for the other 2 lines, so it's diesels all the way. And I think that the "hell train" was pulled by a diesel. After the incident, all the MARC Penn Line trains leaving Washington on hot summer afternoons were pulled by 2 locomotives for redundancy.


----------



## Nick Farr (Sep 2, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> No, I believe it's because Amtrak is charging MARC too much for electric power. They only electrified line is the Penn Line, they need to have diesels for the other 2 lines, so it's diesels all the way. And I think that the "hell train" was pulled by a diesel. After the incident, all the MARC Penn Line trains leaving Washington on hot summer afternoons were pulled by 2 locomotives for redundancy.



I'm just floored at the circumstances where running Diesels on electrified lines ends up being the better option. This is backwards in so many different ways.


----------



## railiner (Sep 2, 2020)

Amtrak has done that itself thru the years...primarily between Harrisburg and Philadelphia...


----------



## Willbridge (Sep 3, 2020)

Seaboard92 said:


> I think that might be the longest RDC run of them all at 928 miles one way. If you can think of a longer one I would be curious.


I think it was the longest. My dad's 8mm of it is short, but it was a longgg trip, to be done one time only.

Zephyrette at Elko


----------



## railiner (Sep 4, 2020)

railiner said:


> Second longest was the _Choctaw Rockette _between Memphis and Amarillo on the Rock Island, at 761 miles. If they had run it to the end of the Rock at Tucumcari, it still would be a little less....


If you add on the segment from Tucumcari to Santa Rosa, that was originally run by the Rock Island, but later by the SP, it would be close to a tie in mileage with the WP....


----------



## Qapla (Sep 4, 2020)

How long was the Sunset Limited when it ran all the way to Miami between 1993-1996? Or even when it only ran to Orlando?

BTW - looks like someone will need to update Wikipedia


> This train is one of only two of Amtrak's 15 long-distance services which run only three days a week (the other being the Cardinal).


----------



## railiner (Sep 4, 2020)

Qapla said:


> How long was the Sunset Limited when it ran all the way to Miami between 1993-1996? Or even when it only ran to Orlando?


...
Irrelevant...we are comparing longest RDC runs, not longest Amtrak runs.
But the extended Sunset ran 3,066 miles, Los Angeles to Miami....


----------



## joelkfla (Sep 4, 2020)

Question: Are RDC & DMU synonymous?


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 4, 2020)

I dont remember the Specifics, but do remember that various Cars, Coaches and Sleepers, were added/ cutout @ various times ( IIIRC in San Antonio, NewOrleans and Jacksonville)during the long trip, similar to what the Sunset/Eagle does now in San Antonio and St.Louis.


----------



## jiml (Sep 5, 2020)

joelkfla said:


> Question: Are RDC & DMU synonymous?


I guess some could make that comparison, but by definition DMU is more than one unit connected whereas RDC's in their prime ran as singles more often than not. There was also a recent thread here about the logistics of running DMU's sharing tracks with heavy freight - regulations, crash-worthiness, etc. AFAIK that was never a consideration with RDC's, with many running on freight lines that saw no other passenger service. That's still the case with one remaining route in Ontario.


----------



## MARC Rider (Sep 5, 2020)

Nick Farr said:


> I'm just floored at the circumstances where running Diesels on electrified lines ends up being the better option. This is backwards in so many different ways.


Oh, and I also saw on another thread that when MARC Penn Line trainsets arrive in Washington, they are sometimes routed out to the Camden or Brunswick lines, which are not electrified.


----------



## MARC Rider (Sep 5, 2020)

joelkfla said:


> Question: Are RDC & DMU synonymous?


I think an RDC ("Rail Diesel Car" a product of the Budd Company) is a type of DMU ("diesel multiple unit.").


----------



## Seaboard92 (Sep 6, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> I think an RDC ("Rail Diesel Car" a product of the Budd Company) is a type of DMU ("diesel multiple unit.").



It is a type of DMU yes.


----------



## jis (Sep 6, 2020)

Seaboard92 said:


> It is a type of DMU yes.


Agreed. RDCs are a type of DMU.


----------



## Qapla (Sep 6, 2020)

I guess, since RDC's were commercially successful and more profitable to operate, they were discontinued for use by Amtrak - no sense keeping cars around that generate a profit.


----------



## jiml (Sep 6, 2020)

Now this is an RDC DMU:


----------



## Sparky (Sep 6, 2020)

Computerize all the OBS systems. The conductors have handheld devices for scanning tickets, why not issue similar tech to the OBS staff that works with a localized mesh network on the train? From the call button on up.
Develop a better service culture with OBS. Hold OBS accountable using the same customer service metrics used everywhere else in the industry. Transition out bad OBS, reward good OBS.
Cross-train OBS staff and change operating procedures to maximize the use of OBS hours.
Work with local food providers to offer different dining options at crew change stops.
Great ideas, mostly, especially the computerization. That would make things much easier. As far as OBS, it's actually impossible to transition out the bad OBS. Because of the union, it's all based on seniority and seniority alone. I work my butt off to provide great service because I have a good personal work ethic. I get the same reward as the attendant who doesn't get up until 10 am, never cleans the bathroom, and spends most of the time in their sleeper room. There is NO reward other than an occasional attaboy letter from passengers. To get a bad attendant out, a passenger must complain about something egregious (whether true or not) and the person complained about seems to need to fit a particular demographic.

Not sure what you mean about maximizing OBS hours. On the long hauls, OBS often have 22+ hour days and are running on empty. The overwhelming majority are working very hard to provide the best service with what they're given, service with a smile even when exhausted and caring for those there's-one-every-trip passengers that expects to have a private butler. Passengers do need to complain loudly (and in writing) about those that are lazy. Otherwise, they'll be on there until retirement age.

Food could definitely be better. Those flex-dining meals are not too bad when they're in the oven before served, though they do need a low-sodium option. It's the microwaved ones that are not so good. That requires LSAs to take orders beforehand; not that difficult, but not required. Goes back to work ethic and reasonable expectations (expecting the LSA to also be the cook is, imho, ridiculous.)

Amenities may not be a big deal, but they should be provided to the deluxe rooms (B,C,D,E -- A is not included because it's so small!) as a perk. Because of lawyers, OBS cannot even provide their *own* mints on the pillows any more, let alone have Amtrak pay for them.

Good ideas in this thread. I hope someone from Amtrak management is actually reading.


----------



## Sparky (Sep 6, 2020)

>>Upgrade the technology so passengers can choose and pay for seating / rooms / online... just like the airlines. <<

Not possible. The reason is that not all cars stop at each station (IOW, the doors don't all open at each stop -- doing so would add considerable time to the route, and be an expensive proposition.) Conductors don't actually know until that morning's manifest is out which cars are stopping where. It's driven by the sleeper cars and the lower level passengers. Only half of the coach cars have lower level seating (the other half have baggage compartments), so if there's a mobility-impaired or other ADA passenger in the lower level riding to Stop A, then that car will be open for that stop, and all other passengers riding to Stop A will be loaded into that car. 

For the sleeping car, the rooms get turned over. Let's say John wants Room D (the best room), but he's only traveling 400 miles. The computer, right now, will maximize use of that room so that it's empty as little as possible, even if it means turning it over several times. Passengers choosing their own rooms who aren't traveling the whole way might mean the room is empty for long stretches. Maybe, though, passengers who are making the whole trip could have the choice as a bennie. That could work.


----------



## NES28 (Sep 6, 2020)

jiml said:


> Now this is an RDC DMU:
> 
> View attachment 19025


The New Haven RR was the only buyer of this variant of the RDC.


----------



## Willbridge (Sep 7, 2020)

jiml said:


> I guess some could make that comparison, but by definition DMU is more than one unit connected whereas RDC's in their prime ran as singles more often than not. There was also a recent thread here about the logistics of running DMU's sharing tracks with heavy freight - regulations, crash-worthiness, etc. AFAIK that was never a consideration with RDC's, with many running on freight lines that saw no other passenger service. That's still the case with one remaining route in Ontario.


Operations with multiple RDC's included two and three car trains in Canada and the U.S. In the early 1970's a two-car train on the CN out of Edmonton split en route into one-car trains for Drumheller and Calgary. There was at least one operation like that in the northeastern U.S.

The RDC fit well into the goal of making major routes successful where strong feeder routes can be set up. However, by the time it was introduced some railways had already gone sour on passengers and others remembered struggles with earlier motor cars. B.F. Biagini of the SP told me that their one unit, bought because Cal PUC made them try it instead of discontinuing the Oakland<>Sacramento _Senator._ "always seemed to sitting in the shop." Later in my transportation career I learned that has more to do with the oddball status of a small subfleet than anything to do with the Budd Corporation.

The photo shows a three-car RDC train. This ran Edmonton<>Saskatoon on the CN main line, replacing the _Super Continental_. The redundant RDC-4 was required to be certain to trip track circuits.


----------



## MARC Rider (Sep 7, 2020)

Sparky said:


> As far as OBS, it's actually impossible to transition out the bad OBS. Because of the union, it's all based on seniority and seniority alone.


It should be pointed out that back in the "good old days" when service was supposed to be so excellent, all the OBS employees were unionized.


----------



## MARC Rider (Sep 7, 2020)

Willbridge said:


> Operations with multiple RDC's included two and three car trains in Canada and the U.S. In the early 1970's a two-car train on the CN out of Edmonton split en route into one-car trains for Drumheller and Calgary. There was at least one operation like that in the northeastern U.S.
> 
> The RDC fit well into the goal of making major routes successful where strong feeder routes can be set up. However, by the time it was introduced some railways had already gone sour on passengers and others remembered struggles with earlier motor cars. B.F. Biagini of the SP told me that their one unit, bought because Cal PUC made them try it instead of discontinuing the Oakland<>Sacramento _Senator._ "always seemed to sitting in the shop." Later in my transportation career I learned that has more to do with the oddball status of a small subfleet than anything to do with the Budd Corporation.
> 
> ...


Back in the late 60's/early 70s I used the ride the RDCs on the Reading on the Pottsville - Reading - Philadelphia route. The trains were all at least 2 cars long, sometimes they were 4 cars.


----------



## jis (Sep 7, 2020)

Qapla said:


> I guess, since RDC's were commercially successful and more profitable to operate, they were discontinued for use by Amtrak - no sense keeping cars around that generate a profit.


Since you are making specific claims and using it to disparage Amtrak, perhaps you can provide some credible references to support your claims?


----------



## Qapla (Sep 7, 2020)

Sorry to have disparaged Amtrak - I will henceforth defer to your expertise and discontinue commenting in this thread ... enjoy


----------



## railiner (Sep 7, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Back in the late 60's/early 70s I used the ride the RDCs on the Reading on the Pottsville - Reading - Philadelphia route. The trains were all at least 2 cars long, sometimes they were 4 cars.


One of the longer RDC runs in the East, was on the Reading...
The RDC equipped "Wall Streeter" would leave Newark Penn Station on its evening run to the Reading Terminal in Philadelphia. Upon reaching its destination, it would make a brief stop, and then (under a different train number), change direction, and run all the way to Pottsville. While not carded as a "thru train", passenger's did not have to disembark, and could stay aboard for the entire trip, which I did a couple of times...


----------



## jis (Sep 7, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Sorry to have disparaged Amtrak - I will henceforth defer to your expertise and discontinue commenting in this thread ... enjoy


You don't need to stop posting. All that is being is to provide supporting documentation for a somewhat serious claim for which there is little evidence as far as I can tell. I am sure B&M would have loved it if your claim were true, since they pretty much bet their passenger service on the Budd RDCs.



railiner said:


> One of the longer RDC runs in the East, was on the Reading...
> The RDC equipped "Wall Streeter" would leave Newark Penn Station on its evening run to the Reading Terminal in Philadelphia. Upon reaching its destination, it would make a brief stop, and then (under a different train number), change direction, and run all the way to Pottsville. While not carded as a "thru train", passenger's did not have to disembark, and could stay aboard for the entire trip, which I did a couple of times...



Ahh! Post Aldene plan but before discontinuance of service to Philly via West Trenton. I envy you. That was a little before I came to this country as a poor graduate student who could barely afford an LIRR ticket to get to NYC from Stony Brook and back.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Sep 7, 2020)

Sparky said:


> wants Room D (the best room),



Why do you believe Bedroom D is the best bedroom?


----------



## Qapla (Sep 7, 2020)

jis said:


> You don't need to stop posting.



Thanks.

I'm not sure why, when others engage in what looks to be satire they are allowed - but, for some reason, if I engage in some satire I seem to get challenged or called upon to "substantiate" whatever I say.

Be that as it may, satire or not ... as you requested:



> RDCs proved much less costly to operate than regular consists and were well received by railroads throughout North America as well as some overseas lines. An RDC cost approximately 50 per cent less to operate than a conventional locomotive-hauled train.
> 
> The RDC was visually attractive, easy to maintain, lightweight, flexible and powerful. The stainless-steel exterior was almost maintenance free. Operating controls were positioned at each end of the car to eliminate costly and time-consuming trips to turn the car at stub-ended terminals. The units could be used singly or in multi-car trains. The RDCs had a high power/weight ratio providing fast pick-up. Twin compact six-cylinder diesel engines produced 550 horsepower enabling the car to accelerate to 44 mph in 60 seconds, 54 miles per hour in 90 seconds and 80 miles per hour in under four minutes. The RDC had a top speed of 83 mph on level track.
> 
> ...





> The cars were primarily adopted for passenger service in rural areas with low traffic density or in short-haul commuter service, and were less expensive to operate in this context than a traditional diesel locomotive-drawn train with coaches. The cars could be used singly or coupled together in train sets and controlled from the cab of the front unit. The RDC was one of the few DMU trains to achieve commercial success in North America.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now, if they were "commercially successful", less costly to operate (50% seems like a nice savings) and could save time on end turns - can you substantiate a "good" reason the design was abandoned for use

In the meantime - I do not wish to start a debate or sidetrack this thread ... I may still post here but I do not wish to continue to discuss/defend any comments on the advantage/disadvantage of Amtrak's desire/use of RDC's.


----------



## Sparky (Sep 7, 2020)

>>Why do you believe Bedroom D is the best bedroom? <<

B,C,D,E are the same size. It depends on which end is facing forward, but more often than not, D has the bench seating facing the same way the train is going, which matters to some. E is nice, too, but it's closest to the upstairs bathroom that all the roomettes are using and occasionally you can hear/smell the proximity. B is typically closest to dining room and facing same as D. However, A is about 1/3 smaller and difficult for two people to comfortably be in so B gets to hear their dissatisfaction. D is closer than B to the service attendant in Room 1. YMMV, just my opinion.


----------



## Sauve850 (Sep 7, 2020)

Sparky said:


> >>Why do you believe Bedroom D is the best bedroom? <<
> 
> B,C,D,E are the same size. It depends on which end is facing forward, but more often than not, D has the bench seating facing the same way the train is going, which matters to some. E is nice, too, but it's closest to the upstairs bathroom that all the roomettes are using and occasionally you can hear/smell the proximity. B is typically closest to dining room and facing same as D. However, A is about 1/3 smaller and difficult for two people to comfortably be in so B gets to hear their dissatisfaction. D is closer than B to the service attendant in Room 1. YMMV, just my opinion.


How does B get to hear their dissatisfaction?


----------



## Ziv (Sep 8, 2020)

3,066 miles? That would have been a sweet trip, though a bit long! Did it take 5 nights to get from LA to Miami? I googled it and tried Wiki but I must be looking past the time it took. Back when the dining car served good food and had very good service a 5 day trip wouldn't have been too bad. It would have had a nice variety of views you travel through, too.
I did the Trans-Mongolian twice, and at 4735 miles (5 night journey on #3) it was almost TOO long. The dining car in China was fairly decent but in Russia it was only fair. We bought smoked fish and cheese at Lake Baikal but that just made the compartment smell worse. By day 4 we were ready to get off, ASAP.

On edit: Thanks for the great link, railiner! That was a fairly quick trip. 3066 miles / 72.33 hours = 42.4 mph. I don't know why I thought it would take so long. 



railiner said:


> ...
> Irrelevant...we are comparing longest RDC runs, not longest Amtrak runs.
> But the extended Sunset ran 3,066 miles, Los Angeles to Miami....


----------



## railiner (Sep 8, 2020)

Ziv said:


> 3,066 miles? That would have been a sweet trip, though a bit long! Did it take 5 nights to get from LA to Miami? I googled it and tried Wiki but I must be looking past the time it took. Back when the dining car served good food and had very good service a 5 day trip wouldn't have been too bad. It would have had a nice variety of views you travel through, too.







__





The Museum of Railway Timetables (timetables.org)






www.timetables.org


----------



## jis (Sep 8, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Now, if they were "commercially successful", less costly to operate (50% seems like a nice savings) and could save time on end turns - can you substantiate a "good" reason the design was abandoned for use


The same article in Wikipedia suggests that it was obsolescence, unavailability of new units as Budd stopped manufacturing them. The followup that Budd came up with the SPVs were beset with issues from which they never recovered, and the technical expertise for manufacturing DMUs moved almost irrevocably to Europe.

As for Amtrak, demonstrably Amtrak would have been stuck with a small and progressively more expensive to operate, fleet which were more suitable for routes that Amtrak was not picking up and in the process, drained scarce resources away from fleet modernization for both LD service and corridors with more dense traffic.

In the matter of current fleet modernization, I am sure Amtrak is looking closely at modern DEMUs.


----------



## Qapla (Sep 8, 2020)

jis said:


> I am sure Amtrak is looking closely at modern DEMUs.



Do you have a source for this or is this just what you think?


----------



## jis (Sep 8, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Do you have a source for this or is this just what you think?











Amtrak fleet plan would replace Amfleet I cars, prepare for replacement of Superliners | Trains Magazine


$3.5 billion plan considers possibilities of dual-model, self-propelled multiple-unit equipment




 trn.trains.com





Mentioned in this article, specifically:


> — Replacement of Amfleet I cars, either with railcars, self-propelled multiple-unit equipment, or other trainsets. These could be diesel, electric or dual-mode.


----------



## Siegmund (Sep 8, 2020)

I have wondered why Amtrak seemed to be so anti-RDC. Seems some conscious decision was made back at startup time to use them only New Haven-Springfield and to get rid of those as soon as circumstances permitted. If Amtrak had wanted them it could have bought more than 100 but chose to buy only 24. 

Eventually they would have worn out and needed replaced, yes. But they did get used all over Canada for several more decades. VIA discarded them as they discontinued routes but many of the ex-VIA units ran elsewhere at least into the 90s. Alaska owned 4, and in 2000-08 timeframe cannibalized parts from the others to keep one or two of them running on the Hurricane Turn.

The failure of the SPV-2000 certainly made everybody gunshy of buying more in the 70s, and Im not sure there were new models to choose from for a while after that.

The Colorado Railcar DMUs looked like they had real potential, then went belly up before any made it into service. I thought that it made a lot of sense to be able to run Pere Marquette-type trains with DMUs, rather than running a 100-ton 4000HP locomotive back and forth with two cars.


----------



## jis (Sep 8, 2020)

Siegmund said:


> I have wondered why Amtrak seemed to be so anti-RDC. Seems some conscious decision was made back at startup time to use them only New Haven-Springfield and to get rid of those as soon as circumstances permitted. If Amtrak had wanted them it could have bought more than 100 but chose to buy only 24.


My speculation is that the reduction in emphasis for things like RDCs at Amtrak had more to do with a couple general factors:

1. Desire to standardize equipment to as few types as possible. 

On the single level side they basically settled for Amfleet, F40PH, P30s AEM-7, and lived with that for a time while progressively getting rid of the inherited fleet, before embarking on the Viewliner and Acela adventures. They did add Horizons a little later, but that was really the standard stuff available off the shelf from the NJT Comet program. On the Western side they settled for Superliners and F40s. When F40s aged they standardized on P40/42s with a few stopgap units from GE while P40/42s were developed.

2. Allegedly reducing maintenance costs, since for RDCs and similarly EMUs, each motorized unit would be considered to be a locomotive as far as FRA was concerned and would have to go through the locomotive maintenance schedule rather than simple passenger car schedule. 

NJT explicitly stated this to be the reason they went with push-pulls rather than EMUs (even though they more than Amtrak really needed EMUs), and as we know there has been a bit of a revolving door going between NJT and Amtrak at executive levels in the early days and even a decade back. We from NJ-ARP fought it tooth and nail with NJT and lost. Now NJT, after eating some delicious Crow, is converting their MLV trailers to MLV EMUs by acquiring MLV power cars. While of course Amtrak is considering the possibility of getting distributed power train sets.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Sep 8, 2020)

Sparky said:


> >>Why do you believe Bedroom D is the best bedroom? <<
> 
> B,C,D,E are the same size. It depends on which end is facing forward, but more often than not, D has the bench seating facing the same way the train is going, which matters to some. E is nice, too, but it's closest to the upstairs bathroom that all the roomettes are using and occasionally you can hear/smell the proximity. B is typically closest to dining room and facing same as D. However, A is about 1/3 smaller and difficult for two people to comfortably be in so B gets to hear their dissatisfaction. D is closer than B to the service attendant in Room 1. YMMV, just my opinion.



Thanks for answering my question. Your reasons make sense. I have been in A and B with 2 people; maybe one of the other 3, not certain. A is "tight", particularly in the space between the window and the rear of the bathroom. A has the disadvantage, in my opinion, of having the bathroom door opening facing the corridor. But, if the sleeper is the last car on the train and the Bedrooms are at the end of that car, A is closest to the railfan window!


----------



## Qapla (Sep 8, 2020)

@jis Thanks for the link - I guess I missed that link before

What you say makes sense - there doesn't seem to be any one solution to any of Amtrak's woes

A concerted effort needs to be made by the Gov't and those running Amtrak to make things better even if it takes additional funding instead of making the bottom line so all important


----------



## Siegmund (Sep 9, 2020)

The desire-to-standardize argument isn't quite ringing true for me in 1971. They could have (for instance) bought more coaches and not had RDCs at all. (It's certainly true in the mid-late 70s, when Amfleet was bought.)

The engine maintenance regime may well be part of the reason for avoiding them - though I can't help thinking that same argument would have applied as well in 1969 as it did later.

And a look at the early Amtrak route map suggests they didn't expect to be in the short-haul business at all. Aside from New Haven-Springfield there is pretty much only Seattle-Portland and possibly Chicago-Milwaukee in a duration and demand regime where RDCs are appealing (am assuming LA-San Diego and NYC-Albany required more capacity) Probably that is where the 'conscious decision' was made - to cut all the low volume trains rather than operate them as cheaply as possible.

Within a few years' time that seems to have turned around, with lots of short-distance lightly-patronized trains added, often with state support (Ann Arbor-Detroit, Altoona-Pittsburgh, and some longer distance lines like Chigago to Peoria and Dubuque). At that time it would have been very handy to have a new low-cost low-capacity RDC equivalent.


----------



## jis (Sep 9, 2020)

There was a program called 403b in the original Amtrak enabling legislation (Railpax Bill), that allowed Amtrak to contract with states to run services for them. This is what brought in quite a bit of the short distance service.

NY State though managed to get its intra-state service grandfathered in as part of the national system. But the Adirondack was always a 403b train. And surprisingly, the Lake Shore Limited when it was introduced was a 403b train and it later got incorporated into the national system On A Day there was no through train from New York to Chicago on the NYC route. The New York - Chicago trains was the ex PRR Broadway Limited.

The SPVs that Amtrak bought were partly funded by ConnDOT. The other big SPV customer was NYSDOT and they were operated by Metro North on the sections beyond electrification. They were to be found a lot on runs on the Upper Hudson Line between Croton Harmon and Poughkeepsie,

The problem with 403b was the same as the problem with PRIIA 209. States can be fickle, and one never knows when they will pull funding. So I suspect Amtrak was loath to acquire specialized equipment for state service unless the States put some skin in the game.

Again, mostly speculation on my part based on observing things as they unfolded.


----------

