# Could Amtrak Subcontract Dining



## VentureForth (Apr 23, 2009)

Could Amtrak contract its Diner car to a third party with the stipulations that they would get $x per sleeper car passenger (regardless of if they ate or not), then ran the dining car at whatever cost they felt necessary to be profitable? They wouldn't even have to kick back to Amtrak because that would still save 'em money.

Have they tried that, like the 24-hour diner, on any route as a trial?

Or would the Unions have a total fit over it and never let it happen?


----------



## battalion51 (Apr 23, 2009)

The Unions most definitely would have a fit. They tried using contract service on Empire Service a few years back and it failed miserably. The only place I'm aware of that an Amtrak train uses contract food service with success is the Downeaster. When you have trains that are moving for days at a time, and crews that are away from home even longer it gets very challenging.


----------



## Shanghai (Apr 23, 2009)

It looks good on paper, but in reality I don't think Amtrak could improve their profitability by contracting the dining service. It is likely that Amtrak would continue to provide the dining car and its maintenance, so about the only cost savings a contractor could reasonably achieve would be labor and materials (foods). I don't think a contractor could operate with less people, therefore to reduce labor costs they would need to reduce the wage rates. And to reduce food costs, one would have to serve less quanity of foods and/or less costly foods (quality). Amtrak may have to pay or guarantee the contractor an amount equal to their costs to attract a good company.

It might be worth a test case to determine if a contractor could operate the service with greater efficiency and cost performance over the present Amtrak service.


----------



## Sam31452 (Apr 23, 2009)

Sub-contracting is a highly stupid thing to do when thinking about how to make dining car services profitable.

Several railways have tried that in Europe, in Italy and Austria there is still a subcontractor whose losses are paid by the railways, in Germany and Switzerland there have been experminents (including having to competeting subcontractors at the same time in Switzerland) but all failed and nowadays the railways run the food services by themselves again.

If you want to avoid losses you either have to cut the food services (yes, i am speaking of a LD train without diner) and go back a hundred years.

This is working very well on some trains in the former Soviet Union, where the dining cars have a bad reputation anyway. Platform vendors sell all kind of stuff and food at most larger stations instead. The quality of the food is okay, the prices (at least for westerners) too.

Otherwise you just have to raise the prices (if you put in $20 more on a sleeper fare, this won't scare too many customers), but then you have to raise the quality too (and go back a hundred years when a diner was plain luxury)


----------



## volkris (Apr 23, 2009)

I read that at one point Amtrak contracted out its food service to someone like Quizno's, who was able to integrate the train service with its other operations in the area and thus provide good food at lower costs. The article claimed that everything worked out really well and customers loved it... until a union staged a demonstration en route.

It sounded like this happened on a non-long distance train, as if the deal allowed the restaurant to operate out of a snack car.

Does anyone know about the truth of this account?


----------



## MrFSS (Apr 23, 2009)

volkris said:


> I read that at one point Amtrak contracted out its food service to someone like Quizno's, who was able to integrate the train service with its other operations in the area and thus provide good food at lower costs. The article claimed that everything worked out really well and customers loved it... until a union staged a demonstration en route.
> It sounded like this happened on a non-long distance train, as if the deal allowed the restaurant to operate out of a snack car.
> 
> Does anyone know about the truth of this account?


I seem to remember hearing about something like this several years ago, but can't recall the details of which trains, etc.


----------



## volkris (Apr 23, 2009)

Aha:

Press Release

One account of the failure

There were other accounts as well, but this one seemed the most balanced.

Sounds like Subway leased the snack car from Amtrak and agreed to pay Amtrak a portion of the profits. Unions disagreed and staged protests aboard the train, handing out leaflets to passengers. The project was canceled after less than a week.

It sounds like Subway's service was far from perfect--walking through the train selling sandwiches sounds annoying and tacky to me--but then it was canceled before they could even begin to perfect it.


----------



## PRR 60 (Apr 23, 2009)

This is not a new idea. The Santa Fe contracted its dining car service to the Fred Harvey Company. This was the logical extension of the original Harvey restaurants located in prime AT&SF stations.


----------



## GG-1 (Apr 23, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> Could Amtrak contract its Diner car to a third party with the stipulations that they would get $x per sleeper car passenger (regardless of if they ate or not), then ran the dining car at whatever cost they felt necessary to be profitable? They wouldn't even have to kick back to Amtrak because that would still save 'em money.
> Have they tried that, like the 24-hour diner, on any route as a trial?
> 
> Or would the Unions have a total fit over it and never let it happen?


Aloha

I don't want to debate union positions, but if the company you worked for, wanted to hire another group of workers, to put more money in the company pocket. How would you feel, and what would you do in that situation?

Mahalo


----------



## volkris (Apr 23, 2009)

GG-1 said:


> I don't want to debate union positions, but if the company you worked for, wanted to hire another group of workers, to put more money in the company pocket. How would you feel, and what would you do in that situation?


At the least I would understand that the company is in business to make money, not to create or protect jobs, and has a responsibility to its various investors to do so. I would understand that this benefits the customers, the contractors, and a ton of other people through the interconnectedness of an economy, even if it didn't benefit me personally. On those grounds, at least, I would be happy for the company.

When Amtrak tried this it went one step better: nobody was replaced or fired, and it wasn't that more money was going into the company's pocket; the move was to keep money from being drained from the company's pocket. The proposal was leading to a healthier company with better customer service with no harm done to any workers. Everyone was to win... except, I suppose, union power structures who wouldn't be overseeing the new employees.

Anyway, as someone who studies economies and watches as unions very often (no, not every time!) gain at the expense of the companies, customers, and even employees it makes me sad how many union members fail to see the bigger picture, that their benefits come with a cost. The worker versus company mentality encouraged by many union heads seems to blind people to the real situation.


----------



## jmbgeg (Apr 23, 2009)

volkris said:


> GG-1 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't want to debate union positions, but if the company you worked for, wanted to hire another group of workers, to put more money in the company pocket. How would you feel, and what would you do in that situation?
> ...


From my casual observation, food preparation for long distance trains is not a process that would be made more economical through outsourcing because of low relative meal volumes per train and an absence of economies of scale. Airport based commercial kitchens handle infinitely higher volumes. I am not sure that industry giants like Aramark or Host Marriott would touch this type of contract. Absent a national contract you end up with a network of regional or local providers.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Apr 23, 2009)

jmbgeg said:


> From my casual observation, food preparation for long distance trains is not a process that would be made more economical through outsourcing because of low relative meal volumes per train and an absence of economies of scale. Airport based commercial kitchens handle infinitely higher volumes. I am not sure that industry giants like Aramark or Host Marriott would touch this type of contract. Absent a national contract you end up with a network of regional or local providers.


Aramark already handles the food on most LD trains, so in a way they are contracted into the system if not this exact position.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 23, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> Could Amtrak contract its Diner car to a third party with the stipulations that they would get $x per sleeper car passenger (regardless of if they ate or not), then ran the dining car at whatever cost they felt necessary to be profitable? They wouldn't even have to kick back to Amtrak because that would still save 'em money.


How would this save Amtrak any money? It seems to me that it would only save Amtrak money if the workers were paid less, there were fewer people working in the dining car, or cheaper food was used, and I don't see how any of those things is ultimately desireable. I certainly don't see how changing which company is running what part of the operation is likely to change the costs unless there's some legal technicality that can be exploited by playing that game.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Apr 23, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> How would this save Amtrak any money? It seems to me that it would only save Amtrak money if the workers were paid less, there were fewer people working in the dining car, or cheaper food was used, and I don't see how any of those things is ultimately desireable. ..


Didn't this happen already? With undesirable results?


----------



## volkris (Apr 23, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> How would this save Amtrak any money? It seems to me that it would only save Amtrak money if the workers were paid less, there were fewer people working in the dining car, or cheaper food was used, and I don't see how any of those things is ultimately desireable. I certainly don't see how changing which company is running what part of the operation is likely to change the costs unless there's some legal technicality that can be exploited by playing that game.


The desirable things are customer satisfaction and profit (or, at least, lack of cost). So long as customers are sufficiently satisfied (and what that means is certainly up for debate), then cheaper food, lower wages, and less staff are very desirable.

I'm a Cajun; we built our entire culture on cheap, very desirable food 

It's clear that, for better or worse, the union is hiking the wages of employees, so outsourcing to a company that's not bound to the higher union pay scales is going to lower costs. As someone above pointed out, Aramark is already involved on the back end, so we might as well let food-oriented companies bring the same success all the way to the customer if they think they can succeed.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 23, 2009)

volkris said:


> The desirable things are customer satisfaction and profit (or, at least, lack of cost). So long as customers are sufficiently satisfied (and what that means is certainly up for debate), then cheaper food, lower wages, and less staff are very desirable.


Are you trying to maximize the profitability / minimize the subsidy for the sleeping car experience as a whole, or are you focused just on the food service?

It wouldn't surprise me if spending an extra $5 per passenger on food means that more people are willing to pay the higher bucket sleeping car prices instead of taking an airplane or something, which may lead to $20 per passenger or more in revenue for Amtrak.



volkris said:


> It's clear that, for better or worse, the union is hiking the wages of employees, so outsourcing to a company that's not bound to the higher union pay scales is going to lower costs.


We have clear evidence of that in the specific case of Amtrak?

I've seen some arguments that UAW has managed to get much higher wages for its unions than competing non-unionized workers make working for other automakers in other states (though I'm not sure I've really seen the underlying data to support this argument from a reliable source), but it's really hard to find an example of non-unionized workers doing work which is similar to the work done by Amtrak's on board service crew.


----------



## sky12065 (Apr 23, 2009)

Without consideration about the feasibility of outsourcing food service on Amtrak, let me offer this one perspective on the outsourcing of food service.

During the 1970's I used to travel the New York State Thruway to be able to march with competitive drum & bugle corps. In the early part of the decade I traveled from the Albany area to Syracuse and in the latter part I traveled to and from the upper New Jersey area.

In returning home after a trying weekend I could stop at a rest area on the Thruway and have a reasonably nutritious meal that was more like the traditional dinner mom used to serve... meaning a protein, a carbohydrate and vegetable type meal. Several years later a major change took place and just about all (if not all) rest areas were completely replaced with new modern facilities, but the days of a balanced meal also became a thing of the past and the era of fast food arose.

Rather than my explain any further, I simply offer this web page of a 1990 article to give you a greater perspective of what outsourcing of food service can result in. *http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/10/nyregion/thruway-to-update-most-restaurants.html* I hope something similar to this never happens to Amtrak where fast food may be the only items on the menu!


----------



## Anthony (Apr 23, 2009)

sky12065 said:


> Without consideration about the feasibility of outsourcing food service on Amtrak, let me offer this one perspective on the outsourcing of food service.
> During the 1970's I used to travel the New York State Thruway to be able to march with competitive drum & bugle corps. In the early part of the decade I traveled from the Albany area to Syracuse and in the latter part I traveled to and from the upper New Jersey area.
> 
> In returning home after a trying weekend I could stop at a rest area on the Thruway and have a reasonably nutritious meal that was more like the traditional dinner mom used to serve... meaning a protein, a carbohydrate and vegetable type meal. Several years later a major change took place and just about all (if not all) rest areas were completely replaced with new modern facilities, but the days of a balanced meal also became a thing of the past and the era of fast food arose.
> ...


off-topic, but:

Having taken about ten round trips between Albany and Buffalo on the Thruway over the past year and a half, I actually enjoy the variety and amenities offered by these fast-food travel plazas. They are always clean, and if I don't like the franchises at a particular location, I can just drive half an hour longer and something else will probably appeal. I can also look up specific fare on the Thruway Web site and plan my meal break ahead of time. When on the toll road in the middle of nowhere, with few attractions at the roadside for five or six hours straight, I'd rather have a quick and unbalanced meal that will get me on the road and to my destination faster (where a better meal likely awaits). Amtrak's a little different - the travel times are longer between the same destinations, riding the train is a less active process/requires less concentration than driving a car, it's more leisurely, etc. - and I appreciate a longer mealtime in that environment.

Fast food would be a shame on Amtrak, but I'm not convinced that it's all bad on a controlled-access toll road where the goal is to get from A to B.


----------



## volkris (Apr 23, 2009)

It's all about customer satisfaction. If some subcontractor can do the job cheaper but only by dropping quality or service so much that it turns customers off to Amtrak, then that's not going to work.

In this case Amtrak found an established, well-liked company willing to bet that it could effectively offer food customers want in a financially positive way, The program was derailed not by bad food or service but by a union looking to protect itself.

At least, that's how it seems from the reports I've read. Anyone who knows different is welcome to correct me, of course.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 23, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > The desirable things are customer satisfaction and profit (or, at least, lack of cost). So long as customers are sufficiently satisfied (and what that means is certainly up for debate), then cheaper food, lower wages, and less staff are very desirable.
> ...


There is no subsidy for "the sleeping car experience", sleeping car passengers pay the fully allocated costs associated with traveling in a sleeper and getting meals in the diner. The only subsidy provided to a sleeping car passenger, is a portion of the rail fare that every passenger on the train pays. Even then, less subsidy is provided to the sleeping car patron's rail fare, than is provided to a coach passenger's rail fare.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 23, 2009)

PRR 60 said:


> This is not a new idea. The Santa Fe contracted its dining car service to the Fred Harvey Company. This was the logical extension of the original Harvey restaurants located in prime AT&SF stations.


If my memory is correct, the shoe started out on the other foot.

Fred Harvey began operating station area restaurants for ATSF before there were dining cars. Fred Harvey dinning cars were an outgrowth of that, so there never was any dining car service on the Santa Fe other than Fred Harvey.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 23, 2009)

volkris said:


> It's all about customer satisfaction. If some subcontractor can do the job cheaper but only by dropping quality or service so much that it turns customers off to Amtrak, then that's not going to work.
> In this case Amtrak found an established, well-liked company willing to bet that it could effectively offer food customers want in a financially positive way, The program was derailed not by bad food or service but by a union looking to protect itself.
> 
> At least, that's how it seems from the reports I've read. Anyone who knows different is welcome to correct me, of course.


What program was derailed by bad food or service?

Amtrak just switched to Amarak for it's food service. They went to Aramark with several well known chefs and created the menu now found on the LD's and asked Aramark to quote a price. Aramark did, and apparently Amtrak liked it. I know that I like the menu. IMHO it is a significant improvement over the old menus, using the old food service company.

Turning to staffing costs, first I doubt that the workers would say that the union has done a good job at anything. It took them almost 8 years to get a new contract and a halfway decent raise. Next, Amtrak already tried cutting the staff to the bone and learned that it doesn't work. While staffing levels aren't quite back to pre-SDS levels on all trains, on many trains they are, at least when the passenger loads are up.

Finally, while I suspect that perhaps a new company might be able to get away with paying its workers a bit less, they aren't going to be able to find a huge savings that way. One simply isn't going to find workers that will agree to work 15 to 16 hour days, three meals, on a moving bouncing train, who don't get to go home at night and have to sleep on that same moving bouncing train right next to the engine blowing its horn all night long, for 10 bucks an hour.


----------



## volkris (Apr 24, 2009)

AlanB said:


> What program was derailed by bad food or service?


The program wasn't derailed by bad food or bad service. That's what I'm saying.

See the links I posted earlier in this thread. Amtrak and Subway entered into a deal whereby Subway leased a snack car in return for giving Amtrak a share of the profit. The service began but was canceled within a week once union members began demonstrating on board the train, passing out leaflets to riders saying that Amtrak was doing very bad things.

Maybe there was another reason for the deal being dropped, but I've never seen it, and it seems unlikely to give up on such an arrangement after only a few days.


----------



## Mark (Apr 24, 2009)

Yes- the "evil unions" are to blame for Amtrak's woes, in fact the unions are to blame for everything wrong in this country if you ask certain people. Typically people who make these kinds of remarks have never been in a union or worked in a company that actually has union members working there.

First "the unions" should throw a fit if Amtrak tries to contract out the food service. It's their work and they, (whatever union/s the OBS crews belong to), have a contract with Amtrak so when the brass hats come up with another great plan to eliminate this or that in the name of saving costs, management conveniently forgets the contract that they signed with the workers. When the contract is up for renewal, _that_ is the time to negotiate. Amtrak food service can be complicated so it invites the accountants in by its nature to fool with it and try to save a buck. Take SDS or the CCC for example. The "unions" couldn't stop Amtrak from reducing the staff on those trains that have are equipped for those services. Talk to any line employee, they'll tell you its too much work for a full train.

Second, "the unions" on Amtrak and the other major RRs for that matter have substantially less power than most people believe. They can't _really_ strike, Ronald Regan saw to that and if they even get close the Federal Government passes some kind of emergency measure to keep everybody working. Amtrak workers went what, 8 years or so without a new contract? Whose fault is that? Oh yea, the "evil unions" who are responsible for all the bad in this country. I know for a fact, (on at least one RR), that while RR workers are getting laid off by the hundreds if not thousands all over this country not _one_ manager or company official has lost his or her job due to the present economy. The all powerful "evil unions" can't do much about that either.

I agree that some parts of typical union contracts aren't exactly great for either side particularly in terms of flexibility but the "evil unions" were no longer strong enough to stop corporate greed from shipping most of our "blue collar" jobs to China, India and who knows wherever else and look where we are now. America used to be strong, we used to make most everything here and you know what? We had strong unions during those times as well. Coincidence? I think not.

The bottom line is Congress needs to eliminate the "Amtrak must turn a profit" mantra. Then Amtrak could say, "X type of food service costs this much with X staff." Its the price of doing business, its what the passengers want, deal with it or we will lose those customers.


----------



## Guest_sldispatcher_* (Apr 24, 2009)

Look:

Having been fortunate enough to have flown in Continental's Business First Product....ready to warm meals, etc. can be VERY good when coupled with a few fresh items and appropriate service.....

A few more dollars and you could have some great items...all convection warmed.

Of course, Continental does own their own catering company, Chelsea Foods.

Peace out.


----------



## GoldenSpike (Apr 24, 2009)

Sam31452 said:


> Sub-contracting is a highly stupid thing to do when thinking about how to make dining car services profitable.Several railways have tried that in Europe, in Italy and Austria there is still a subcontractor whose losses are paid by the railways, in Germany and Switzerland there have been experminents (including having to competeting subcontractors at the same time in Switzerland) but all failed and nowadays the railways run the food services by themselves again.
> 
> If you want to avoid losses you either have to cut the food services (yes, i am speaking of a LD train without diner) and go back a hundred years.
> 
> ...


In 1997, several of us took the Trans-Siberian Express from Moscow to Vladivostok (6,100 miles/7 time zones/7 days (the milk run is 10 days).

It was a bad omen on the first meal out of Moscow. Presented a three page menu, but they only had basically one or two items.

As you say we supplemented our diet with the home cooking presented by many women lined up on the platforms with their dish, fruit, etc. Nobody had any ill effects by doing this. A roaring cottage industry at all the major stops.

After four days we got off at Irkutsk for a week. By now we learned. On rebroarding for the remaining three days, we brought bottled water, Raman-type soup fixings, and a loaf of bread. Thankfully somebody head the idea to bring a jar of peanut butter from the states with him. A bananna on bread with peanut butter was awesome!

The train/diner runs on Moscow time the whole trip so meal times got a little confusing after going through 3-4 time zones.


----------



## volkris (Apr 24, 2009)

Mark said:


> Yes- the "evil unions" are to blame for Amtrak's woes, in fact the unions are to blame for everything wrong in this country if you ask certain people. Typically people who make these kinds of remarks have never been in a union or worked in a company that actually has union members working there.


It's an interesting response.

The question was whether Amtrak could save money subcontracting dining and whether the unions would allow it. Based on the Subway incident it sounds like yes, Amtrak might have been able to save money subcontracting out some dining, but a union threw a fit--in a very unprofessional way--and the experiment was canceled immediately. Other explanations are welcome, but based on everything I can find, that seems to be the cause.

There was not really talk of evil unions, only a simple question and an example that seemed to provide an answer.

Meanwhile, boy, your response sure had an "evil management!" tone to it.


----------



## jmbgeg (Apr 24, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> jmbgeg said:
> 
> 
> > From my casual observation, food preparation for long distance trains is not a process that would be made more economical through outsourcing because of low relative meal volumes per train and an absence of economies of scale. Airport based commercial kitchens handle infinitely higher volumes. I am not sure that industry giants like Aramark or Host Marriott would touch this type of contract. Absent a national contract you end up with a network of regional or local providers.
> ...



I did not know that. Interesting.


----------



## jis (Apr 24, 2009)

volkris said:


> The question was whether Amtrak could save money subcontracting dining and whether the unions would allow it. Based on the Subway incident it sounds like yes, Amtrak might have been able to save money subcontracting out some dining, but a union threw a fit--in a very unprofessional way--and the experiment was canceled immediately. Other explanations are welcome, but based on everything I can find, that seems to be the cause.


My recollection (and this is subject to verification since my recollection by no measure is infallible) is that the root problem at that time, this was on the Empire Corridor as I recall, was that Amtrak management chose to ignore an existing contract which was sitting dormant as a result of discontinuance of food service on the Empire Corridor NYP - ALB service, and tried to enter into a different contract with Subway. This is what caused the dust up. In those situations where Amtrak management has played by the rules and contracted with food providers from elsewhere the unions have not been effective at blocking such at all. I am not even sure that they tried. For example did they try to block the Aramark contract?

As a matter of full disclosure I am not a union employee and have as a matter of fact been known to have opposed unionization at my workplace for my category of employees. OTOH as a matter of principle I am not anti-union under all circumstances. There are circumstances where I would be supportive of unionization in my workplace even for my category of work. But that is a separate discussion better done elsewhere.


----------



## Mark (Apr 24, 2009)

volkris said:


> Mark said:
> 
> 
> > Yes- the "evil unions" are to blame for Amtrak's woes, in fact the unions are to blame for everything wrong in this country if you ask certain people. Typically people who make these kinds of remarks have never been in a union or worked in a company that actually has union members working there.
> ...


Well, I realize my reply was harsh but I'm not anti-management at all, just anti-stupidity. I have worked on both "sides", in Management and presently on the Union side. It has been my experience that Management loves to sign a contract then simply toss it aside when some issue comes up that it, (or they), failed to forecast or predict. This is not helped by the nearly constant media bashing of the unions in this country. Students can go from Undergraduate to Doctorate studies in the US and never learn one thing about a union, how it works or why they even exist.

I think some money _could_ probably be saved by contracting out some services but my point was not so much the contracting out but the way it tends to be implemented.


----------



## Ispolkom (Apr 24, 2009)

jis said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > The question was whether Amtrak could save money subcontracting dining and whether the unions would allow it. Based on the Subway incident it sounds like yes, Amtrak might have been able to save money subcontracting out some dining, but a union threw a fit--in a very unprofessional way--and the experiment was canceled immediately. Other explanations are welcome, but based on everything I can find, that seems to be the cause.
> ...


Jis, the version of events you remember would certainly put a different color on it. If there were a valid contract, Amtrak was in the wrong to violate it without compensation. In this case I would read "unprofessional" as "effective." On the other hand, the end-result is no food service on Empire trains, which seems suboptimal.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 24, 2009)

volkris said:


> The question was whether Amtrak could save money subcontracting dining and whether the unions would allow it. Based on the Subway incident it sounds like yes, Amtrak might have been able to save money subcontracting out some dining, but a union threw a fit--in a very unprofessional way--and the experiment was canceled immediately. Other explanations are welcome, but based on everything I can find, that seems to be the cause.


Just to make sure that things are clear here, I think that you need to define or pin down the word "dining."

To me in conjunction with Amtrak, the use of that word indicates sitting down in a dining car for a meal. I don't consider the cafe foods sold on Empire service to be dining.

In that context, I agree that Amtrak possibly could have saved money had the Subway experiment worked on the Empire Corridor. And while I'm at it, it should be noted that the Empire Service trains that go beyond Albany still do have food service and were not part of the Subway experiment. I suspect that had the Subway experiment been sucessful that we might well have seen a futher expansion of that type of service to other short haul and state sponsored trains.

However, as I sort of pointed out in a pervious post in this topic, having a Subway employee who rides 2+ hours north and then returns to go home and sleep in their bed is a very different type of job than someone who spends 2+ days working, eating, sleeping on the train, then spends a night in a hotel room before repeating everything on the return trip. Not to mention that the sole choice of Subway sandwiches for a 2+ day journey simply is unacceptable on so many levels.

I will also mention, although I can no longer find said article, that I once read that while the dining cars do loose money Amtrak actually takes a bigger bath on cafe services. While it certainly wouldn't be an ideal choice, the article seemed to indicate that eliminating all cafe cars on short haul trains that aren't State sponsored, would have cut 2/3rds to 3/4th's of Amtrak's food service losses. I've never seen any hard proof of that, so take it with a grain of salt please.

But the fact that David Gunn did cut food service on the short Empire Service runs would seem to indicate at least some truth to that claim.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 24, 2009)

jis said:


> My recollection (and this is subject to verification since my recollection by no measure is infallible) is that the root problem at that time, this was on the Empire Corridor as I recall, was that Amtrak management chose to ignore an existing contract which was sitting dormant as a result of discontinuance of food service on the Empire Corridor NYP - ALB service, and tried to enter into a different contract with Subway. This is what caused the dust up. In those situations where Amtrak management has played by the rules and contracted with food providers from elsewhere the unions have not been effective at blocking such at all. I am not even sure that they tried. For example did they try to block the Aramark contract?


Your recollection is correct, Jishnu. Amtrak laid off several cafe attendants when the stopped food service on the short haul Empire Corridor trains, not to mention closing the commissary in ALB which saw still more jobs disapear. Then a few months later, along came the Subway idea.

The workers immediately protested on many different fronts, and had it gone to court/arbitration, I've no doubt that Amtrak would have lost on the grounds of Union busting.

There was also the issue of the fact that all Amtrak employees receive safety and evacuation training and the Subway workers got none of that.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 24, 2009)

Ispolkom said:


> On the other hand, the end-result is no food service on Empire trains, which seems suboptimal.


And that is a problem. It's a problem that NY State keeps trying to get Amtrak to fix, although the state always somehow seems to have its head turned the wrong way when ever Amtrak sticks out its hand and asks for help in funding the abundance of service that NY State gets for free. No other state sees as many daily Amtrak trains that never leave the state as NY does, without helping to pay for them. NY helps pay for one train, the Adirondack.

Even less optimal than the lack of food service on the shorter haul EC trains, is the lack of a commissary at ALB. Back when that commissarry still operated, it was possible for a cafe car attendant to be restocked in ALB. This was very useful for the longer haul trains, like the cafe car on the Boston section of the LSL, the Adirondack, the Maple Leaf, the Ethan Allen, and even the long haul EC trains.

The first time I rode the Maple Leaf home from Toronto, the cafe attendant was out of many things by the time we got to Syracuse, still many hours from NYC. But thankfully he was able to get a partial restock at ALB, which allowed myself and many others to get something for dinner during the 2 and a half hour ride down the Hudson. When I rode the Leaf two summers ago, there was no restocking in ALB and the attendant had no substantial foods left to sell during the run down the Hudson.


----------



## Ispolkom (Apr 24, 2009)

AlanB said:


> ...
> Not to mention that the sole choice of Subway sandwiches for a 2+ day journey simply is unacceptable on so many levels.
> 
> I will also mention, although I can no longer find said article, that I once read that while the dining cars do loose money Amtrak actually takes a bigger bath on cafe services. While it certainly wouldn't be an ideal choice, the article seemed to indicate that eliminating all cafe cars on short haul trains that aren't State sponsored, would have cut 2/3rds to 3/4th's of Amtrak's food service losses. I've never seen any hard proof of that, so take it with a grain of salt please.
> ...


Oh, gosh, I'd rather buy pickled cabbage and boiled eggs from Russian peasant women at station stops than eat Subway sandwiches for every meal.

If you replaced the cafe car with a cart, as I've seen on British trains, would that be a significant savings? Is it the cafe cars that are the expense or is it cafe service in general?


----------



## oldtimer (Apr 24, 2009)

I believe that cart snack and beverage service is offered on some if not all Chicago-Milwaukee trains by Amtrak employees.


----------



## jis (Apr 24, 2009)

oldtimer2 said:


> I believe that cart snack and beverage service is offered on some if not all Chicago-Milwaukee trains by Amtrak employees.


It is also offered on select Acela Express services.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Apr 24, 2009)

jis said:


> oldtimer2 said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that cart snack and beverage service is offered on some if not all Chicago-Milwaukee trains by Amtrak employees.
> ...


With those in First Class enjoying full at-seat service.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 24, 2009)

Ispolkom said:


> If you replaced the cafe car with a cart, as I've seen on British trains, would that be a significant savings? Is it the cafe cars that are the expense or is it cafe service in general?


I'm sure that it would help some, as one has to consider the extra fuel expended to move the cafe car, not to mention of course repairs and maintenance on the car.

But you also have considerable expenses associated with staffing the cars, buying the items for sale, and storing, boarding, detraining, and inventorying the items. Those expenses would not go away with cart service, although they would be reduced, since you'd have less inventory on a cart compared to a cafe car.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Apr 24, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Ispolkom said:
> 
> 
> > If you replaced the cafe car with a cart, as I've seen on British trains, would that be a significant savings? Is it the cafe cars that are the expense or is it cafe service in general?
> ...


Where do they store all the stuff for the cart? Amcans barely have enough room for the pax heads and feet much less a cart and stuff for it...


----------



## Sam31452 (Apr 24, 2009)

Carts are very widely used in Europe, on trains which don't have enough passengers for a dining car (which means a number between 50 and 500).

An ideal candidate for such a service would be a under 4hr run. You don't even need much space to store the cart and the stock, in Europe the cart is then usually fixed near the last door of the train or in the baggage car.


----------



## p&sr (Apr 24, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Those expenses would not go away with cart service, although they would be reduced, since you'd have less inventory on a cart compared to a cafe car.


Just what we DON'T need is "less inventory". The Snack Cars are running out of things all the time, especially on the longer trips. If this were replaced by carts, then we'd just have to COUNT on going hungry!


----------



## volkris (Apr 24, 2009)

So it sounds like an alternative question to whether unions would block subcontracting is whether unions' CONTRACTS would block it. Might as well drop the word "unions", then, and just ask if existing contracts prevent Amtrak from attempting such things. The answer seems to be a resounding "Well, it doesn't help"


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Apr 24, 2009)

p&sr said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Those expenses would not go away with cart service, although they would be reduced, since you'd have less inventory on a cart compared to a cafe car.
> ...


Um dude-- he's talking about Empire Service trains that only operate on short runs. The ones that run to Buffalo have snack cars, but the ones that only go up to ALB or so have no food service. The argument is over whether its worth it to put a whole car on the consist for a 3-4 hour trip as opposed to a cart. Currently Amtrak doesn't run any food service-- bit it cars or carts. So even a cart would be an improvement over nothing!


----------



## AlanB (Apr 24, 2009)

volkris said:


> So it sounds like an alternative question to whether unions would block subcontracting is whether unions' CONTRACTS would block it. Might as well drop the word "unions", then, and just ask if existing contracts prevent Amtrak from attempting such things. The answer seems to be a resounding "Well, it doesn't help"


That I would agree with.

And the big question that still remains is, just how much could be saved by replacing the dining car crew via some other alternative when those contracts expire. Personally I believe that some money could be saved, but I'm not sure that it would be a huge amount and I'm not sure that it would be in the best interests of the passengers.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 24, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> p&sr said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


Actually Amtrak still runs the cafe cars to/from ALB, since it's those very same cafe cars that provide the business class seating on those trains. The cafe just runs unstaffed and with no inventory. Perhaps yet another argument for restoring cafe service, since the costs of hauling said cars are still there, but now the only revenue that is collected from the car is the BC fares.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Apr 24, 2009)

AlanB said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > p&sr said:
> ...


I didn't notice a club car on my last time to Yonkers, granted, I didn't tour the train-- but usually my eye is trained to look at the consist before I board.

I'll trust you.

In that case, they may as well put some food and an employee inside the car, or at least run a cart and store the food in the cabinets.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 25, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> I didn't notice a club car on my last time to Yonkers, granted, I didn't tour the train-- but usually my eye is trained to look at the consist before I board.
> I'll trust you.
> 
> In that case, they may as well put some food and an employee inside the car, or at least run a cart and store the food in the cabinets.


If the train has business class, then it most likely has a Club-Dinette at one end or the other, never in the middle. It would be very rare to see a standard full length BC car on the Empire Service.

Note: The Adirondack doesn't have BC service, so you'll never see a Club-Dinette on that train.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Apr 25, 2009)

AlanB said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't notice a club car on my last time to Yonkers, granted, I didn't tour the train-- but usually my eye is trained to look at the consist before I board.
> ...


Yeah must have just missed it on the consist. Two different trains though-- the one I took out was going to be a medium-haul and the one coming back in was short hall. There were six cars in the consist of the outbound, and only four on the inbound.


----------



## Ispolkom (Apr 25, 2009)

AlanB said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > p&sr said:
> ...


It seems odd that Amtrak is saving money by running the car without service, but I don't know the economics of such things. My thought with the cart was merely based on my experience on British railroads, where I've been impressed by the variety of products for sale. Perhaps I'm easily impressed.

In any case, living in the Land of Superliners (all my recent trips to DC have been on the Capitol Limited), I my memories of east coast trains are vague at best.


----------



## volkris (Apr 25, 2009)

Actually, I'd be interested in seeing Amtrak move toward farming out an LD line (in baby steps, perhaps) just to get some fresh ideas in the process.

When I look around at the big, established chain restaurants I see more than food that I generally don't respect, I see dynamic, diverse shops catering very well to their target audiences while managing state of the art inventory control on the back end. Meanwhile I look at Amtrak dining and see about the opposite: the only dynamism they seem to embody is based on cost cutting to satisfy bureaucratic efforts.

I wonder how well Amtrak dining is serving the customers that Amtrak as a whole should be targeting, and I wonder what different ideas an Applebee's, a Chile's, or a McDonald's (who, let's not forget, spun off Chipotle) could bring to the table. Maybe given a dining car to customize from scratch they'd come up with something drastically different from what we have now... and maybe it's time for that.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 25, 2009)

So you don't consider Amtrak's Culinary Advisory Team that is responsible for the new menus dynamic?

Frankly I'd much rather be eating food dreamed up by the guys on that list, than someone at McDonalds.


----------



## volkris (Apr 25, 2009)

AlanB said:


> So you don't consider Amtrak's Culinary Advisory Team that is responsible for the new menus dynamic?
> Frankly I'd much rather be eating food dreamed up by the guys on that list, than someone at McDonalds.


No, I'm not nearly as informed about the inner workings of Amtrak as the rest of you. But no matter who might be advising the company, I see what I see.

How much sway does the advisory team really have, though? With all of the complaining about SDS that I see going on here, and the general lack inspired change that I see on the trains, what are they really doing? And what role does Aramark play in the decision-making operation? In the end all the advisors in the world don't mean anything unless they're listened to, and it takes an army of non-chefs working with chefs to make a really successful dining service.

And you say you'd rather have food from one of these guys than from someone at McDonalds... but that's the point: McDonalds makes a particular type of food not because they can't think of anything else, but because they know how to serve their customers who want that particular food. As bad, low class, and whatever else McDonalds may be, it seems that they've managed to reinvent themselves a number of times in response to changing customer attitudes while Amtrak dining has stayed relatively still.

Maybe that's for the best--I'm not suggesting that we change for the sake of change--but then I suspect a drastic slate may be just what we need in this era of change.


----------



## jackal (Apr 25, 2009)

As tempted as I am to get involved in the union debate, I'll abstain from this round.

I would like to make a datapoint, though, that contracted dining seems to work perfectly fine on the Alaska Railroad. Currently, a company by the name of EDS runs the ARR's dining operations, and they do a darn good job of it. The food is very good.

Then again, our OBS staff are not unionized (in fact, they're mostly high school students serving as attendants/tour guides, with a just-out-of-high-school former guide as the OBS supervisor), so there is no existing infrastructure with which to run a dining operation. I suppose the idea is that the railroad shouldn't waste energy trying to do something that's not in its area of expertise when there are others who can do it more efficiently and more effectively.


----------



## Hamhock (Apr 25, 2009)

volkris said:


> And you say you'd rather have food from one of these guys than from someone at McDonalds... but that's the point: McDonalds makes a particular type of food not because they can't think of anything else, but because they know how to serve their customers who want that particular food. As bad, low class, and whatever else McDonalds may be, it seems that they've managed to reinvent themselves a number of times in response to changing customer attitudes while Amtrak dining has stayed relatively still.
> Maybe that's for the best--I'm not suggesting that we change for the sake of change--but then I suspect a drastic slate may be just what we need in this era of change.


No, God, no. Just no. The last thing we need is further degradation of food service in the diner car because a majority of the wide-rumped like eating swill. Sometimes it's more important to cater to the snob rather than the slob. If I wanted a high-school cafeteria cheeseburger, well, that's what the lounge car menu is for.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 25, 2009)

volkris said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > So you don't consider Amtrak's Culinary Advisory Team that is responsible for the new menus dynamic?
> ...


They have considerable sway, since they first totally revised the Acela First class menus and even influenced some changes in what the cafe car on Acela sells, and then they turned to the dining car menus.

Regarding Acela, the food has gone way upscale from where it was 4 years ago. There are those who might not like some of the offerings these days, as they prefer say a simple dish of chicken and carrots or string beans. But since Acela caters to business people the food is appropriate for the majority of the clientel that patronize the FC car. You can view some of the menu samplings here.

Turning to the LD's, again the team had considerable input into the new menu that was introduced last October. Most of the complaints about SDS that you read here either predate that change, are from a rider who hasn't traveled since October, are related to the problems associated with the diner-lite cars, or involve concerns about staffing and service. But most people that I've spoken with who have tried the new menus have been quite pleased with the improvements brought about by the culinary advisory team and the change of the vendor from Gate Gourmet to Aramark.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Apr 25, 2009)

Amtrak will never sell out to chains... that would be the stupidest idea ever. They need a caterer who specializes in food that can be prepared on-site and transported onto the trains and kept fresh for three days while it is being served while enhancing the taste and experience to the pax.

IMHO there are two things that will stunt an otherwise perfectly good dining car-- consistency and atmosphere.

The consistency of dining cars between trains is whack. You can get a perfectly great three days of meals on the EB then transfer to the CL and eat dinner that night and its crap... and the menu items could be the same darn things. Now I compare this to chains like Denny's where food can vary greatly from location to location. But this is even worse on Amtrak which sometimes seems to have really REALLY bad days. One great day on the EB can turn sour the next.

The second thing-- atmosphere. I have had bad meals in good establishments and found them tolerable. I have had great meals in horrible establishments and said "Never coming back." It's not just a matter of the OBS crew, but a matter of the decor, which seems to have taken a turn for the worse. The CCC is nice design visually, perhaps not practical, but it looks nice. The plates, the dinnerware, who wants to eat off of plastic and use a plastic cup for your wine? Those things can easily be crushed without much pressure--

Think of it, would you still go to Gordon Ramsay's At The London if they served the same food, but on styrofoam plates and used Dixie cups?

You make the experience better and believe me you'll psych the mind into making the food taste better.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 25, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Those things can easily be crushed without much pressure--


This might be a feature from the perspective of those who have to take out the trash.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Apr 25, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > Those things can easily be crushed without much pressure--
> ...


Yeah, well sorry I want my wine served in a glass I'm sure isn't going to crack in my palm.


----------



## volkris (Apr 25, 2009)

This "I'll be damned if my precious Amtrak is going to cater to the unwashed masses, serving commoner swill" attitude is just what I'm talking about. I may not like the atmosphere and food of the big chains--I find it really depressing, personally--but all of the people going to those chains, planning their weeks around their trips to the local soul-less establishment, sure do.

I once worked for a small startup company that had such an attitude. Despite our struggling to break even and start turning a profit, the owner of the place refused to meet the wants of potential customers. "If they don't like having my giant, scary dog lunge at their children when they walk through the door, then I don't want their business anyway!"

The potentially very lucrative business never managed to bring in much money and failed in a year.

Maybe the swill that passes for food in modern America would more efficiently and effectively serve passengers even on LD trains. Maybe it would increase ridership, knowledge of, and demand for Amtrak's services if people who aren't psyched about train travel itself could get psyched about hip casual dining en route to their destination. I don't think we should turn our backs on that opportunity just because it involves choices that we, personally and individually, would not like.

Anyway, AlanB, as I said there is far more to dining than the menu. Subcontracting dining wouldn't be about mainly about the menu, it would be about all of the infrastructure behind serving food, which is where SDS failed.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 25, 2009)

volkris said:


> This "I'll be damned if my precious Amtrak is going to cater to the unwashed masses, serving commoner swill" attitude is just what I'm talking about. I may not like the atmosphere and food of the big chains--I find it really depressing, personally--but all of the people going to those chains, planning their weeks around their trips to the local soul-less establishment, sure do.


But how many of those people eat every single meal at the same chain for a few days in a row?


----------



## volkris (Apr 25, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> But how many of those people eat every single meal at the same chain for a few days in a row?


What's your point?

These restaurants don't sell food, they sell a dining experience tailored to their customers' wants. THAT's what they're good at.

Obviously they can't just jam an Applebee's in a dining car. Even if it was physically possible it wouldn't serve the wants of a customer who'll be eating there meal after meal. They would instead propose something entirely new that would target whatever customers Amtrak wants to attract, just as they engineer their own restaurants to attract the customers they identify as their target market.

That these chains are so successful with such mediocre food is testament to how good they are at their jobs, and shows the level of expertise they have to offer Amtrak.

Maybe these folks would look at the requirements for serving food on trains and decide they don't have any ideas, the current methods are the best there is. That's fine. But I'd at least be interested in see if they could come up with anything.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Apr 25, 2009)

volkris said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > But how many of those people eat every single meal at the same chain for a few days in a row?
> ...


His point is that if you're going transcon you're only choice in dining option will be some flakey cheesy joint YOU wanna stuff inside a diner for at least three days two nights, maybe more if you're going across three AGR zones.

Do I like TGI Fridays? Yeah, sure. Would I eat breakfast lunch and dinner there for three days straight? Not on my life.

Amtrak's diners need to offer a variety of basic dining options that everybody can enjoy for three meals. I don't see any of your chains offering all three meals by the way, what would you suggest, "Cracker Barrel on the Rails"?


----------



## volkris (Apr 25, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Amtrak's diners need to offer a variety of basic dining options that everybody can enjoy for three meals. I don't see any of your chains offering all three meals by the way, what would you suggest, "Cracker Barrel on the Rails"?


Again: these chains don't sell food, they sell the experience demanded by their customers. Amtrak's customers demand the experience of meals that that they can eat for days on end. Ergo, the chains, when operating in conjunction with Amtrak, would provide the type of food that customers would need.

Heck, if it helps you get your mind around it, let's just assume the subcontractors would be using the exact same menu. What's on the plate is only a small part of the equation... just look at the trash served at the chains.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Apr 25, 2009)

volkris said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak's diners need to offer a variety of basic dining options that everybody can enjoy for three meals. I don't see any of your chains offering all three meals by the way, what would you suggest, "Cracker Barrel on the Rails"?
> ...


But not everybody likes Cheeseburger in Paradise... I'd love to see the couples on their 50th Anneversary celebrating it with a Jimmy Buffet song.

Where do you think the word "diner" as in the type of food-service outpost comes from? Old converted rail cars... diners. People don't go to a dining car for cheap thrills, they go to eat.

Does the atmosphere need tweaking? Yeah-- but do I want stupid 80's music and 16 pieces of flair? No. I want good food served on good plates in a proper diner.


----------



## jmbgeg (Apr 25, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > This "I'll be damned if my precious Amtrak is going to cater to the unwashed masses, serving commoner swill" attitude is just what I'm talking about. I may not like the atmosphere and food of the big chains--I find it really depressing, personally--but all of the people going to those chains, planning their weeks around their trips to the local soul-less establishment, sure do.
> ...


It would be nice if Amtrak did not serve the same identical dinner menu (including specials) on consecutive nights of a long distance train like EB. At least (1) vary the specials night to night; or (2) vary the entire menu night to night; or (3) at the very least, vary the eastbound menu from the westbound. You can say that restaurants usually don't vary menus night by night, but they usually have more than five or six selections. All in all, dinner is usually enjoyable on the EB, but they could add variety and do better. Also, why don't they add a parlour car like the CS to the EB (with special menu selections)? I know that is more overhead, but how does it work on the CS but not the EB?


----------



## p&sr (Apr 25, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> But not everybody likes Cheeseburger in Paradise... I'd love to see the couples on their 50th Anneversary celebrating it with a Jimmy Buffet song.


Buffet! Of course! Hey, Dude, you've found the Answer! Buffet Dining on the Train is just the Rail Experience America has been waiting for. Just help yourself to all your favorite items, then sit down and enjoy it in spacious comfort while watching the scenery roll by past your Window.

Lots of the better quality Casinos across America offer delicious Buffets, and they are experts at hosting special events and occasions as well. What could be more natural than to welcome them On Board in your Local Dining Car?

PS -- Maybe they could host a little Card Action in the Lounge Car for the evening hours. Anyone for 21?


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Apr 25, 2009)

p&sr said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > But not everybody likes Cheeseburger in Paradise... I'd love to see the couples on their 50th Anneversary celebrating it with a Jimmy Buffet song.
> ...


They tried that pre-Amtrak, and IIRC some Amtrak trains continued for awhile with it. It isn't cost-effective or clean... or sanitary sometimes.


----------



## p&sr (Apr 25, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> p&sr said:
> 
> 
> > ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> ...


----------



## volkris (Apr 25, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Where do you think the word "diner" as in the type of food-service outpost comes from? Old converted rail cars... diners. People don't go to a dining car for cheap thrills, they go to eat.


That's simply not the case.

Look around at how people here are talking about the dining. It's about the experience, about the utensils, about the way people dress, and everything else. Clearly what's happening in the dining car goes far beyond basic utilitarian need to eat.

And why shouldn't that be the case? What's wrong with creating a dining environment that effectively feeds AND provides some "cheap thrills" while the passenger is there? Obviously some people look forward to on-train dining, what if it could be a matter of focus that more people book Amtrak instead of driving or flying because the dining experience is just that much of an event?

Peoples' attitudes have changed tremendously in the past decades, while other than an updated menu or two Amtrak's dining seems to be standing still on the customer-facing side. If one of these chains can do a better job connecting with the target customer base, then that should be encouraged.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Apr 25, 2009)

volkris said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > Where do you think the word "diner" as in the type of food-service outpost comes from? Old converted rail cars... diners. People don't go to a dining car for cheap thrills, they go to eat.
> ...


Yes, it is about the decor and such... but RAIL dining isn't like TGI Fridays. It has china, it has a certain bygone feeling to it-- it is graceful. Why would you want to dump all that in favor of cheap songs, cheap everything... Amtrak has to serve people from all over America and tourists from overseas. It must provide an industry standard. That's why the rooms are the same size, the seats are the same size, the colors are all un-offensive enough that nobody objects.

You make the diners into a frilly nonsense then you'll get some people who go "cool" some who go "what the f---" and some who just refuse to eat there costing Amtrak money.

Your plans amount to nothing more than spending a lot of money Amtrak doesn't have and steering customers away. Why can't "Amtrak" be its own brand? Why do we need a Ruby Tuesdays? Amtrak stands on its own.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 25, 2009)

jmbgeg said:


> It would be nice if Amtrak did not serve the same identical dinner menu (including specials) on consecutive nights of a long distance train like EB. At least (1) vary the specials night to night; or (2) vary the entire menu night to night; or (3) at the very least, vary the eastbound menu from the westbound. You can say that restaurants usually don't vary menus night by night, but they usually have more than five or six selections. All in all, dinner is usually enjoyable on the EB, but they could add variety and do better.


I would prefer to have the same items available every night, actually. If I'm in the mood for a steak the first night of a multi-day trip, but that night's special also sounds appealing, why shouldn't I be able to have the steak the first night and the special the following night?

And, if they had different items eastbound than westbound, what do they do with any unconsumed meals at the end of each run? Should they make a point of having those eating dinner at the last seating on the last day of the trip not getting any choice in dinner so that they won't have the problem of leftover food at the end of the run?

I do think a wider variety of menu choices might well be a good thing. Having a burger for lunch has worked for BOS<->CHI/SOB trips where I only get one lunch on the round trip; I'm really not sure what I'll do if I end up getting lunch in both directions. Maybe a burger for lunch twice, a week apart, will be OK.



jmbgeg said:


> Also, why don't they add a parlour car like the CS to the EB (with special menu selections)? I know that is more overhead, but how does it work on the CS but not the EB?


The Pacific Parlor Cars are a part of the Heritage fleet. IIRC, there are exactly five of them, and there are four CS trainsets. Given the set of equipment Amtrak happens to have, it would not be possible to move the PPCs to the Empire Builder and have a PPC on every Empire Builder departure.

You can certainly write to your Congresspeople asking them to fund the construction of special lounge cars for sleeping car passengers on the Empire Builder.


----------



## volkris (Apr 25, 2009)

You don't get it.

These corporations don't put out silly songs and froofy decor and then hope that customers show up for it; they study the customer base and engineer a dining experience that the customers want. That's their business. Why would you think they would throw froofy decor at Amtrak service if the Amtrak customers wouldn't respond to it? You don't give them nearly enough credit.

If "wistful song of the past" is determined to be the right atmosphere for the dining car, OF COURSE that's what would be provided.

These companies are experts at satisfying customers, feeding them cost effectively, and getting them in and out quickly. Unsurprisingly, that's precisely what Amtrak has to do in its dining cars. So why not seek to combine the food services expertise of the national chains with the train expertise of Amtrak? You're slamming the door in the face of people who do nothing but deal with crafting dining experience day in and day out. In computer circles we call that NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome.

There's no way Amtrak has, internally, the expertise that these chains have at running dining services, and from what I've seen, Amtrak lacks the PR and consumer analysis resources as well. But that's what these corporations have in spades; again, that's their entire business.

And finally, it's likely that a deal would be brokered whereby Amtrak would have to pay very little of the cost, much like the Subway deal.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Apr 25, 2009)

No YOU don't get it. Amtrak isn't about the ruddy dining car. It's a mode of travel! People want to have a relaxing trip with a quality standard universal service.... You start painting cars and making Amtrak into a rolling billboard for a cheesy dive and you're selling out the brand.

Yes, Amtrak has a brand. It's called Amtrak.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 25, 2009)

volkris said:


> Actually, I'd be interested in seeing Amtrak move toward farming out an LD line (in baby steps, perhaps) just to get some fresh ideas in the process.
> When I look around at the big, established chain restaurants I see more than food that I generally don't respect, I see dynamic, diverse shops catering very well to their target audiences while managing state of the art inventory control on the back end. Meanwhile I look at Amtrak dining and see about the opposite: the only dynamism they seem to embody is based on cost cutting to satisfy bureaucratic efforts.
> 
> I wonder how well Amtrak dining is serving the customers that Amtrak as a whole should be targeting, and I wonder what different ideas an Applebee's, a Chile's, or a McDonald's (who, let's not forget, spun off Chipotle) could bring to the table. Maybe given a dining car to customize from scratch they'd come up with something drastically different from what we have now... and maybe it's time for that.


I know of three chains that serve food that actually qualify as edible. Giordano's, Five Guys Burgers, and Wawa. And Wawa isn't even a restaurant chain. Other than those three, and I would love to see Wawa running Cafe/Lounge cars on Amtrak, I have yet to find any chain that creates livable, let alone good, food. I eat 90% of my meals at home because nobody does it better, and the other 10% are at local independent places.



volkris said:


> And you say you'd rather have food from one of these guys than from someone at McDonalds... but that's the point: McDonalds makes a particular type of food not because they can't think of anything else, but because they know how to serve their customers who want that particular food. As bad, low class, and whatever else McDonalds may be, it seems that they've managed to reinvent themselves a number of times in response to changing customer attitudes while Amtrak dining has stayed relatively still.


McDonalds succeeds because of two things: 1) they have good marketing. 2) they cater to smoking, beer drinking white trailer trash. They aren't known for the functionality of their tastebuds. They have to be dysfunctional not to barf at the smell, let alone the taste. They have never reinvented themselves. They merely change names and re-do their marketing campaign.

A good burger is a delicious dish. Its about 3/4 of an inch thick, made out of buffalo and lamb, properly spiced, served with goats cheese, port cheddar and thick slices of bacon. A McDonalds burger is about 40% Grade C beef, 60% pureed prunes, some kind of cheap tasteless American cheese, a few slices of cardboard colored to look sorta like bacon, and a bunch of crappy condiments to mask the taste. If Amtrak hired them as a consultant, I wouldn't want Boardman fired. No, I'd want him committed and given a solid and deserved lobotomy.



p&sr said:


> Buffet! Of course! Hey, Dude, you've found the Answer! Buffet Dining on the Train is just the Rail Experience America has been waiting for. Just help yourself to all your favorite items, then sit down and enjoy it in spacious comfort while watching the scenery roll by past your Window.
> Lots of the better quality Casinos across America offer delicious Buffets, and they are experts at hosting special events and occasions as well. What could be more natural than to welcome them On Board in your Local Dining Car?
> 
> PS -- Maybe they could host a little Card Action in the Lounge Car for the evening hours. Anyone for 21?


They had them. For coach passengers on the _Auto Train_, and for other passengers on the _Silver Meteor_ and _Silver Star_


----------



## volkris (Apr 25, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> No YOU don't get it. Amtrak isn't about the ruddy dining car. It's a mode of travel! People want to have a relaxing trip with a quality standard universal service.... You start painting cars and making Amtrak into a rolling billboard for a cheesy dive and you're selling out the brand.
> Yes, Amtrak has a brand. It's called Amtrak.


Whoever said word one about rebranding? Whoever said Amtrak was about the dining car?

All this is about is Amtrak making use of the expertise and resources provided by organizations that do nothing BUT run dining to improve their own dining offerings, not only to cut costs but also to match the wants of customers today.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Apr 25, 2009)

Agreed on ALL points with GML.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Apr 25, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> No YOU don't get it. Amtrak isn't about the ruddy dining car. It's a mode of travel! People want to have a relaxing trip with a quality standard universal service.... You start painting cars and making Amtrak into a rolling billboard for a cheesy dive and you're selling out the brand.
> Yes, Amtrak has a brand. It's called Amtrak.


Dang it ALC, I like where you're coming from. I'd rather it was left as is.

I never rode a LD train or had a Amtrak meal experience until a year ago. I didn't know what to expect. Know what? I liked it. And like you say, I didn't book the trip for the food.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Apr 25, 2009)

volkris said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > No YOU don't get it. Amtrak isn't about the ruddy dining car. It's a mode of travel! People want to have a relaxing trip with a quality standard universal service.... You start painting cars and making Amtrak into a rolling billboard for a cheesy dive and you're selling out the brand.
> ...


Exactly it's NOT about the dining car you thus totally make your argument pointless. Those who will travel on Amtrak will do so and eat Amtrak food or not-- those who won't travel aren't going to be convinced because some sloppy cheeseburger joint is making the meals.

Amtrak needs to work on making the whole Amtrak experience match up, certainly the food is part of this, but it should be Amtrak plates with Amtrak napkins and SA's wearing Amtrak name tags!

And for the record NONE of any of the establishments you mentioned have ANY experience in the travel industry. I'm sorry, you want experience you go to one of the big catering companies. Amtrak is contracted with Aramark which IIRC is the second largest in the entire States. They already have the system in place-- Amtrak just screws it up-- no rebranding or TGI Fridays is going to fix that. Esp. because they wouldn't have a clue how to anyway!



> Dang it ALC, I like where you're coming from. I'd rather it was left as is.
> I never rode a LD train or had a Amtrak meal experience until a year ago. I didn't know what to expect. Know what? I liked it. And like you say, I didn't book the trip for the food.


Exactly, thank you. That is the bottom line. End of discussion on that topic.


----------



## sunchaser (Apr 25, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I'd be interested in seeing Amtrak move toward farming out an LD line (in baby steps, perhaps) just to get some fresh ideas in the process.
> ...


Dude! Surely you are not saying that because someone likes a certain brand of burger that they are trailer trash? :lol:

I thought you were more tolerant than that!

I like a decent burger just as much as the next person. In fact, I make a pretty mean one myself. But every once in a while I will eat a big mac. Not very often though. But I'm definitely not trailer trash. I don't even drink beer!!!

I've never had a Lamb burger though. I prefer sharp Cheddar & blue cheese to goat cheese. But not everyone likes the same thing. We have pastrami cheeseburgers here-they are yummy!!! You must eat out lot more than we do.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 25, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> Dude! Surely you are not saying that because someone likes a certain brand of burger that they are trailer trash? :lol: I thought you were more tolerant than that!
> 
> I like a decent burger just as much as the next person. In fact, I make a pretty mean one myself. But every once in a while I will eat a big mac. Not very often though. But I'm definitely not trailer trash. I don't even drink beer!!!
> 
> I've never had a Lamb burger though. I prefer sharp Cheddar & blue cheese to goat cheese. But not everyone likes the same thing. We have pastrami cheeseburgers here-they are yummy!!! You must eat out lot more than we do.


I don't eat out often at all. My girlfriend is an exceptional cook, I'd be stupid to pay more money to have inferior food. Although the burger recipe is my own.

I'm generalizing about the white trailer trash, I admit.


----------



## sunchaser (Apr 25, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > Dude! Surely you are not saying that because someone likes a certain brand of burger that they are trailer trash? :lol: I thought you were more tolerant than that!
> ...


I guess you get a pass-this time :lol: :lol: just kidding w/you! It is not a good idea to spend more for 'inferior food'. But people do it all the time. If you go to a convience store & buy snacks/drinks, you spend too much. At the movies, too. Sounds like you & my hubby would like the same kinds of food. He likes just about everything-especially if it is exotic. I like almost everything, but not as adventurous in the food area.

It would be great if Amtrak could figure out a way to provide tasty, hot meals that would appeal to their captive audience. But the problem is that you cannot please every person on the train. So you have to try to find the happy medium. Some people don't like seafood-we love it.


----------



## volkris (Apr 25, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Exactly it's NOT about the dining car you thus totally make your argument pointless. Those who will travel on Amtrak will do so and eat Amtrak food or not-- those who won't travel aren't going to be convinced because some sloppy cheeseburger joint is making the meals.


Again: These companies serve whatever it is the customers want. If they want sloppy cheeseburgers, then they serve sloppy cheeseburgers. If they want lo mein they serve lo mein. If they want flat iron steak with potatoes they serve that. I keep saying this over and over: we're talking about bringing in the expertise and the resources of companies that live on researching what diners need and giving it to them, not any menu that the company might have at a particular restaurant.

Are you sure that people wouldn't be swayed by a special meal on the train? People are certainly swayed by elsewhere, enough that many with disposable income plan their weeks around Chilie's night. If they're traveling anyway but have the choice between a cramped airplane and a fun casual dining experience en route, it might just make the difference.

But here's a salient point: you don't have the data to back your claims. You insist that nobody's going to choose Amtrak because of the meal... how do you know? You're just making an educated guess. You're also insisting that the "wistful past" theme is the right way to go, and that Amtrak branding of the plats is what the customers want.

So where's the data? I doubt even Amtrak has conducted the market research needed to analyze that question. On the other hand, know who are experts at answering such issues? The national chains who do it every single day.

Which brings back to the big point: we should partner with the big chains not for their existing menus, but to bring their expertise in satisfying dining customers in with Amtrak's knowledge of operating trains. THEY have data, resources, and experience that Amtrak simply doesn't have, and we shouldn't be afraid of using that.

I'm starting to think that you're just afraid of the changes that might come if Amtrak actually was positioned to be more in line with the needs of most Americans.


----------



## jackal (Apr 25, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> We have pastrami cheeseburgers here-they are yummy!!! You must eat out lot more than we do.


Oh, no! I was doing well ignoring my craving. Now you've ruined it for me--I'm craving a Crown Burger! And don't forget the fry sauce!

Funny story--I was driving through Eastern Washington on a wine-tasting tour with some friends last fall and ran across an Arctic Circle in Yakima. Of course I had to stop! (I do prefer Crown Burgers to Arctic Circle, though...)


----------



## sunchaser (Apr 25, 2009)

jackal said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > We have pastrami cheeseburgers here-they are yummy!!! You must eat out lot more than we do.
> ...


Yes I'm talking Crown Burger!!!!! But you must have onion rings too!!! And of course a milkshake!!!  

We eat one about every 6 months or so-way too many calories to have it on a regular basis.

We have a place called Mad Greek that makes them as well, less pricey but not as good. Not as gooey.

You could always make one at home!! (Sorry about the craving!)


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Apr 25, 2009)

volkris said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly it's NOT about the dining car you thus totally make your argument pointless. Those who will travel on Amtrak will do so and eat Amtrak food or not-- those who won't travel aren't going to be convinced because some sloppy cheeseburger joint is making the meals.
> ...


Okay wow. You think people are going to be whisked off of planes and into the seats of the SWC because Chili's is handling the food preparation? Tell me you're joking.... Oh my lord people my plan their dat-to-day weeks around a Chili's but they are NOT going to plan their vacations around them! You don't plan a vacation around Gordon Ramsay much less a chain place serving up stodge.

HERE's the facts: You don't have any either. You're making an educated guess of you own, one that demonstrates a lack of knowledge about the Amtrak system. Try these on for size:

You didn't know under what circumstance somebody would be forced into eating at an establishment for three straight says. Answer: The EB, the SWC, CZ, SSL, TE... That means THREE DAYS breakfast lunch and dinner at a Chili's on wheels--

You said Amtrak needs to benefit on the experience of proper eateries. Here's the truth: Those eateries have NO, NONE, ZERO, ZIP experience in the travel industry. You expect them to come up with a plan? They sell burgers and tacos, not meals that need to be prepped on-site transfered to trains kept for three days and re-heated and served for three days. NONE I REPEAT NONE OF YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS KNOW HOW TO DO THIS AND HAVE NEVER ATTEMPTED SOMETHING LIKE THIS. Can I be any more clear? Yes I can--

Currently Amtrak has a contract with one of the largest on-site catering companies in the US... Aramark. I find it surprising that you haven't even mentioned Aramark though I have brought them up at least three times. Aramark provides on-site catering to most (if not all) of Amtraks LD trains. They also supply college campuses, company cafeterias, and the airline industry. They have the greatest experience of any food preparing industry in the United States and have their system down pat. (A) you think that they're going to walk away quietly when Amtrak hires Ruby Tuesday's? and (B) you honestly think Red Lobster can replace their experience?

You have this pipe dream that people are going to WANT to eat at a rolling Red Robin for three days... Seriously, let's go out on a WILD ASSUMPTION and say the EB diner is replaced with one-- you eat something cool, okay day one was fun. Day two... wakey wakey eggs and a cheesy outfit! Lunch... dinner... day three... have YOU ever eaten three days worth of meals at the same chain? Really, you like their food that much?

I eat out on occasion, maybe at most twice a week. I don't go to the same place. You're contention is that they're serving up what Americans are eating up-- that may be true but that doesn't I repeat does NOT equate to "they are serving up what travelers want to eat for a three days straight on a transcon trip". I don't care what the hell it is that works for them IT IS A TOTALLY SEPARATE INDUSTRY with a totally separate business model.

I am not afraid of change-- what I know is what Amtrak does, what they do wrong, and what they got right. Amtrak is in the travel industry, not the fast-food or casual-dining industry. They don't cross over. Never have. Never will.


----------



## volkris (Apr 25, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> You didn't know under what circumstance somebody would be forced into eating at an establishment for three straight says. Answer: The EB, the SWC, CZ, SSL, TE... That means THREE DAYS breakfast lunch and dinner at a Chili's on wheels--


It seems I have to keep repeating this: you're not buying the menu, you're buying the expertise, the research, the knowhow, and the data. You're looking into getting the best system for the customers, WHATEVER THAT MAY END UP LOOKING LIKE.

These companies have that experience. Amtrak doesn't. These companies are very experienced in the dynamic world of providing a dining experience that caters to the needs of the customer--whatever those needs are! Amtrak... has SDS.

Does Amtrak build its own trains? No. It farms that out to companies with the engineering expertise, experience, and resources to do it. Does it smelt the iron for the rails? No, for the same reason. And for the same reason Amtrak should probably look to the experts at the forefront of dining trends for suggestions on how to improve its offerings.

At this point we're going around in circles. I keep saying we should ask the experts for advise, you keep saying you don't like cheeseburgers. You see the disconnect here?

The world is changing and Amtrak is being left behind right when we should be surging ahead. Dining isn't the entire company, no, but it's one front where Amtrak could probably do better.


----------



## volkris (Apr 25, 2009)

jackal said:


> I would like to make a datapoint, though, that contracted dining seems to work perfectly fine on the Alaska Railroad. Currently, a company by the name of EDS runs the ARR's dining operations, and they do a darn good job of it. The food is very good.
> Then again, our OBS staff are not unionized (in fact, they're mostly high school students serving as attendants/tour guides, with a just-out-of-high-school former guide as the OBS supervisor), so there is no existing infrastructure with which to run a dining operation. I suppose the idea is that the railroad shouldn't waste energy trying to do something that's not in its area of expertise when there are others who can do it more efficiently and more effectively.


I just wanted to draw attention to jackal's comment here, in case it flew under the radar.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Apr 25, 2009)

volkris said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't know under what circumstance somebody would be forced into eating at an establishment for three straight says. Answer: The EB, the SWC, CZ, SSL, TE... That means THREE DAYS breakfast lunch and dinner at a Chili's on wheels--
> ...


Here is the disconnect:

THESE COMPANIES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH TEH TRAVEL INDUSTRY.

They have no experience. You obviously don't understand the implications making this argument futile.

Good luck.

P.S. As for Amtrak getting left behind-- I would say a fourth straight year of increased ridership, public awareness, and federal stimulus PROVES that Amtrak is in the public conscious again, something it hasn't been since Big Bayou Canot, and only then it was because people died.

You want data. Try that on for size bub.


----------



## volkris (Apr 26, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> P.S. As for Amtrak getting left behind-- I would say a fourth straight year of increased ridership, public awareness, and federal stimulus PROVES that Amtrak is in the public conscious again, something it hasn't been since Big Bayou Canot, and only then it was because people died.


How's that half full glass working out for ya?

Amtrak's increases are relative to the bad place it has been in in the past, and due to external factors like political tides and energy prices, not so much due to their house being in order.

You rightly talk about Amtrak's brand... a brand that has been poorly managed for decades with slow if any change in management now.

On the other hand, the corporations I refer to have been surviving even in economically unfavorable times, providing service that meets customer needs amazingly well and leveraging their brands. They are successful precisely where Amtrak is not.

That's precisely why their input is so valuable: they grew their brands without the need for political handouts, and they can probably help Amtrak do the same.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Apr 26, 2009)

You really don't ever answer the main contention here:

How do you expect chain establishments to enter into the travel industry? Just because they're growing (and that is debatable, just grab their FY 2008 profit reports to stockholders and compare them to FY 2007) doesn't mean they are even REMOTELY capable of entering into the travel industry.

Short answer: they aren't.

The have no input to give Amtrak because they do not have not and will not be involved in the same industry.


----------



## jackal (Apr 26, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> You could always make one at home!! (Sorry about the craving!)


Well, working 50 hours a week and attending school full time on top of that pretty much cuts out any time I have to actually cook to nil. Besides, I don't know that I'd even be able to find decent pastrami here!

I will be graduating (hopefully!) one week from tomorrow. After that, maybe I'll start cooking more! 



ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> You don't plan a vacation around Gordon Ramsay


Well, I would, but I'm a bit of a gourmand. 

Actually, you're right, though. I wouldn't plan an entire vacation around a specific restaurant. But availability of good food definitely factors in where I choose to go: I enjoy going to New York because of the wide variety of great food (in all budget ranges!), and the legendary food of Burgundy was a strong factor in my choice to go to Dijon last December.

Also, the level of food served in an international premium carrier's First Class cabin is a strong factor in me deciding to use my airline miles for such trips.

But on the other hand, I don't know that the kind of food served on Amtrak would do much to either persuade or dissuade me from utilizing that mode of travel. Unless the food were abhorrent, it wouldn't dissuade me, and unless it were Gordon Ramsay on wheels at 10% of his normal prices, it wouldn't persuade me. It just sort of _is,_ so I'm not sure this whole debate is really even worth having.



ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> You said Amtrak needs to benefit on the experience of proper eateries. Here's the truth: Those eateries have NO, NONE, ZERO, ZIP experience in the travel industry. You expect them to come up with a plan? They sell burgers and tacos, not meals that need to be prepped on-site transfered to trains kept for three days and re-heated and served for three days. NONE I REPEAT NONE OF YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS KNOW HOW TO DO THIS AND HAVE NEVER ATTEMPTED SOMETHING LIKE THIS. Can I be any more clear? Yes I can--


No, but these companies do have experience in creating prepared foods that are cooked quickly and efficiently at their destinations. Most of what you eat at Chili's, Red Robin, or any other chain is basically shipped ready-to-cook to the individual restaurant, where it is grilled/reheated/fried/whatevered and assembled on your plate. Doesn't take a lot of stretching to apply that idea to a moving kitchen, where it's actually already being done. So while I'm not sure it's the right solution, don't discount volkris's idea so quickly.



ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Currently Amtrak has a contract with one of the largest on-site catering companies in the US... Aramark. I find it surprising that you haven't even mentioned Aramark though I have brought them up at least three times. Aramark provides on-site catering to most (if not all) of Amtraks LD trains. They also supply college campuses, company cafeterias, and the airline industry. They have the greatest experience of any food preparing industry in the United States and have their system down pat. (A) you think that they're going to walk away quietly when Amtrak hires Ruby Tuesday's? and ( B) you honestly think Red Lobster can replace their experience?


They're honestly more similar than different: both specialize in creating a consistent product where much of the work can be done ahead of time and only last-minute preparation is needed at the delivery point. The one thing that Brinker International, Darden Restaurants, and OSI Restaurant Partners have that Aramark doesn't is what volkris points out: massive consumer data research to determine what will most appeal to the target audience.



volkris said:


> It seems I have to keep repeating this: you're not buying the menu, you're buying the expertise, the research, the knowhow, and the data. You're looking into getting the best system for the customers, WHATEVER THAT MAY END UP LOOKING LIKE.
> These companies have that experience. Amtrak doesn't. These companies are very experienced in the dynamic world of providing a dining experience that caters to the needs of the customer--whatever those needs are! Amtrak... has SDS.


You make a good point. It is entirely possible that all of that research would conclude that the current product Amtrak offers is exactly what the most appropriate and attractive thing is. However, I highly doubt that. I'd bet some sort of retro rail diner offering comfort food would be one of the top things that pops up (perhaps something like our local City Diner, which was started by a local gourmet/celebrity chef as a return-to-roots kind of thing, and it's doing very well).



volkris said:


> Does Amtrak build its own trains? No. It farms that out to companies with the engineering expertise, experience, and resources to do it. Does it smelt the iron for the rails? No, for the same reason. And for the same reason Amtrak should probably look to the experts at the forefront of dining trends for suggestions on how to improve its offerings.
> At this point we're going around in circles. I keep saying we should ask the experts for advise, you keep saying you don't like cheeseburgers. You see the disconnect here?
> 
> The world is changing and Amtrak is being left behind right when we should be surging ahead. Dining isn't the entire company, no, but it's one front where Amtrak could probably do better.


As I mentioned earlier, the Alaska Railroad contracts out its dining operations, and they do a VERY good job. The food is at least as good as the better Amtrak items I've encountered and is possibly even better. (I haven't dined enough on either to do a true comparison, but from the few times I've sampled both, the ARR's seemed to have the edge over Amtrak.) So not only is it doable, it can be done very well.

And actually, the new contract operation by EDS replaced a previous contractor, who got out of the contracting business to start a restaurant that was very well regarded up here, called The Bridge (he took an old covered bridge and renovated it into a high-end restaurant). Unfortunately, the location wasn't prime and so business suffered, and he ended up closing down after only a year in business, but I had the opportunity to eat there numerous times and thoroughly enjoyed it. Assuming the food he served on board was even half as good (I never got the chance to take the ARR while the dining operation was under his direction), I'd have been very happy with the food in the dining car. This sort of echoes your point above, though: why should the ARR invent its own infrastructure to handle dining when they can outsource it to someone who either has experience in that area or can provide it without the ARR incurring the expense of training, hiring, maintaining, etc.? This could also be applicable to Amtrak.

I think, though, the whole argument between you and ALC isn't really going to do much. As I indicated above, most people (myself included) are not going to consider the dining car's offering when deciding whether to take the train (barring that the food is either gross or phenomenal). The reason this subject came up in the first place was not because Amtrak needs to improve its dining product (outside of the poorly executed parts of SDS and CCC) but really because Amtrak is looking to cut costs. And if a contractor can come in and provide substantially the same (or better!) service at a lower cost because they don't have to pay union wages, then that's the real motivation to outsource.

But as I said before, I'm not going to get into the debate of whether union wage protectionism is a good or bad thing--we've already gone there in other threads and have agreed to disagree.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Apr 26, 2009)

Remind me, how many miles of track does the AAR have and how many people does it serve?

Comparing the AAR to Amtrak is like comparing, well, a Class II with a Class I...


----------



## jackal (Apr 26, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Remind me, how many miles of track does the AAR have and how many people does it serve?
> Comparing the AAR to Amtrak is like comparing, well, a Class II with a Class I...


The Association of American Railroads? Several hundred thousand, after you combine UP, BNSF, CSX, NS, and KCS and the other railroads that make up the AAR... 

Oh, you mean the A_R_R!  (Sorry, couldn't resist...)

About 500 miles. Last numbers I had (2005), income was $94.5 million in freight revenue and $19.5 million in passenger revenue. For passenger revenue, that's about 1.4% of Amtrak's revenue for the same year (on 2.4% of Amtrak's mileage). Of course, the vast majority (95%, probably) of that passenger revenue is earned between May 15 and September 15 of each year, so if Alaska's tourist season were year-long, that would represent 4.2% of Amtrak's revenue on 2.4% of Amtrak's mileage. I'd say they're running a pretty good operation.

And sure, Amtrak has a larger scale and therefore a larger operation to spread the costs of running their own dining operation over, but the principles of outsourcing can scale, too. Even massive companies outsource large portions of their operation. Just because Crown Burgers (to keep this on topic with earlier posts!  ) has 9 locations to McDonalds' 31,000+ doesn't mean that the way Crown Burgers runs their operation should be ignored.


----------



## volkris (Apr 26, 2009)

jackal said:


> And sure, Amtrak has a larger scale and therefore a larger operation


I'd say Amtrak's larger operation also means that it's likely to be more risk adverse and distracted. ARR gets to focus and make its smaller operation the best it can be, taking risks and forging paths that Amtrak might find uncomfortable... not to mention ARR's fewer bureaucratic and (I'm guessing) contractual complications.

It's not unusual at all for small operations to blaze trails that larger operations later find success following.


----------



## Neil_M (Apr 26, 2009)

Having done several LD Amtrak trips (and eaten on the UK VSOE twice!) I think that all things being taken into the equation that the food is ok, but just ok. Surely decently cooking a steak, vegetables and potato should be not beyond the realms of possibility, yet getting all 3 right at the same time seems to be a problem. I think that most people tolerate it because if you go sleeper its 'free' but if I was paying for it then I would think I would not feel that I was getting value for money.

On my recent CS tip I used the PPC for all 3 meals simply because it was different to the normal diner menu, and you can get tired of seeing the same thing. Surely some different dishes a few days a week might make a difference to regular travellers?

A meal isn't just about food, the people you are with and the surroundings all play a part and things like proper crockery and glasses all make a little difference. If the EB can have 'real' plates, why not the other trains? I like the set up in the diner with the chance to meet new people and chat awhile, unless you are a terminal social cripple then that's a plus point for me, the scenery is ever changing and is sometimes amazing, so just a little effort on the part of management and crews could make all the difference without costing loads of money.


----------



## had8ley (Apr 26, 2009)

Just to add fuel to the fire the LSA in the lounge car on the Sunset would have to scrounge ice from the diner before Houston going westbound because the contractor commissary would only provide 3 bags of ice when he had tried to requisition 10 or more depending on the pax #'s. Now Amtrak has added a supervisor's position in NOL to monitor the commissary!#$%^&


----------



## JayPea (Apr 26, 2009)

jackal said:


> Funny story--I was driving through Eastern Washington on a wine-tasting tour with some friends last fall and ran across an Arctic Circle in Yakima. Of course I had to stop! (I do prefer Crown Burgers to Arctic Circle, though...)



Crown Burgers over Arctic Circle??? Blasphemy!!!! :lol:


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Apr 26, 2009)

volkris said:


> I keep saying this over and over: we're talking about bringing in the expertise and the resources of companies that live on researching what diners need and giving it to them, not any menu that the company might have at a particular restaurant.


I don't think many major restaurant companies really do have any of the right expertise. For must one example, McD's successful model of hiring teens and seniors at near minimum wage, would never work on Amtrak.

I had given some thought to possibly the Cruise industry, because they do have a business model that is successful with employees who work continually for the entire journey, and mostly on back-to-back journeys. The Cruise industry also doesn't look for their dining room all by itself to bring in a profit. However, I don't think their menu model, where there numerous entries offered for every dining time, would work on Amtrak.

I also think of Amtrak's past offering of Bob Even's breakfast, and I can personally say it was horrible. :huh: The Bob Even's Bake served on Amtrak was nothing at all like the Bake served in Bob Even's restaurants. I must ponder the "why" and I think it would be safe to assume that such deterioration of menu item quality would happen regardless of who Amtrak would partner with.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 26, 2009)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> I had given some thought to possibly the Cruise industry, because they do have a business model that is successful with employees who work continually for the entire journey, and mostly on back-to-back journeys. The Cruise industry also doesn't look for their dining room all by itself to bring in a profit. However, I don't think their menu model, where there numerous entries offered for every dining time, would work on Amtrak.


On the train, what is required to have a half dozen different frozen meals that can be reheated in a convection oven instead of two? It seems to me that the only cost is a bit more freezer space (and that only if you want a low probability of running out of each menu selection).


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 26, 2009)

volkris said:


> Does Amtrak build its own trains? No. It farms that out to companies with the engineering expertise, experience, and resources to do it. Does it smelt the iron for the rails? No, for the same reason. And for the same reason Amtrak should probably look to the experts at the forefront of dining trends for suggestions on how to improve its offerings.


Amtrak has not only built a few of their own cars, but they have re-built every last one of their cars enough times that they may as well build them themselves. The Viewliner? Its an Amtrak design, and a damned good one. The fact that MK couldn't assemble them properly is a different story. Amtrak converted coaches into diners. Real diners. And what about _Beech Grove_? I don't know if you saw that car prior to its conversion, but I will tell you they pretty much built that sucker from the ground up.

Amtrak isn't in the mass production business, but they do engineer, design, and build rail cars. They consult with companies, or they did, most notably Edward G. Budd Company.

As ALC pointed out, Amtrak works with Aramark who provides the food for their diners. The chefs they have are highly trained chefs. In the beginning, some of them had worked preparing gourmet meals on trains for most of their lives. That they can't make money doing this has more to do with the reality that railway food sevices have never been profitable. Even the famous name trains took baths on their food service.

You know nothing about how to sell these trains. They aren't tourist traps on wheels, they are functional transportation devices, transporting people from point A to point B. Advertise me with the comfort and lack of stress, not the presence of American over-marketing, something that is generally lacking from Amtrak trains. And they are better off for it. Amtrak is a public utility for moving people from point A to point B. They do not have to make money, and asking them to do so is Quixotic. A governments job is to provide for its people. Amtrak is one of the things our government provides us- reasonably priced rail service with the option of premium service at a cost-covering price.

Amtrak, despite being underfunded for all 38 years of its life, despite being a political football, a favorite whipping boy, and a victim of unreasonable demands, provides service. They provide damned good service. In terms of domestic transportation, their service is not only good, it is nonpareil. What they provide is in general a miracle, a display of what can happen when a company is propelled forward by a dedicated workforce, most of which give 110% most of the time. They are broken for one reason, and that is they haven't been given the resources to do a good job. They do an exceptional job without the resources, imagine what they can do if they had them.


----------



## volkris (Apr 26, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Amtrak isn't in the mass production business, but they do engineer, design, and build rail cars. They consult with companies, or they did, most notably Edward G. Budd Company.


Funny thing is all you said pretty much supports my argument: Amtrak CAN do stuff, but they often find others to do it when the others have the resources, expertise, and experience that make it worthwhile to do so.

For example, the national chains who have that expertise with regard to serving dining customers, targeting market segments with what they want to eat, and plotting strategies of message.



> Advertise me with the comfort and lack of stress, not the presence of American over-marketing, something that is generally lacking from Amtrak trains.


This is something a few on these forums don't seem to fully recognize: Amtrak ISN'T selling to just you or just people who share the perspectives of those here. In fact, GML, your perspectives are particularly divergent from the majority in the country: If Amtrak fashioned its advertising to you, perhaps running advertisements with jackbooted soldiers confiscating peoples' cars, it wouldn't be particularly effective with the general public.

Amtrak needs to do a better job tapping new markets. The current group of rail fans isn't going to be around forever, and I don't think "take us because you can't afford the price of gas" (or take us to help overthrow the evil automobile) is the best marketing strategy moving forward... but those are about the only messages I ever see hitting the general population.

What message do you want to send college kids graduating right now? Hipper dining services would, I think, go a surprisingly long way toward advertising Amtrak in general to these folks, and these national chains know how to craft that message.


----------



## Ispolkom (Apr 27, 2009)

volkris said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak isn't in the mass production business, but they do engineer, design, and build rail cars. They consult with companies, or they did, most notably Edward G. Budd Company.
> ...


I've been reading this exchange with increasing amusement. realizing much against my better nature that I was starting to, well, agree with volkris.

It's not something I'm entirely comfortable with, but on the other hand I can rest assured that no national restaurant chain would want to take on a penny-ante business like Amtrak dining cars. How many are we talking about anyway?

What would I like Amtrak to be like? I'd like the lounge car attendant to go through 18 separate steps to make my Tom Collins. I'll grant you that it ain't gonna happen, but a boy can dream. (Hmm, do I have a lemon in the fridge? I feel like a 20th Century cocktail.)

Given that my fantasies aren't going to fulfilled, I think Amtrak should be in the business of providing transportation, and that seems to be enough to take up their talents. The more they can pawn off on others, the better. It is pretty damning that Aramark has done so much to improve diner car food, giving Aramark's generally poor reputation as a caterer.

Not that this in the end really matters to me. As long as I can get a steak and a baked potato, and the quality of their half bottles of wine holds up, I'm a satisfied sleeper passenger. I'd like things better in the dining car, and I'm happy that they are improving (I recommend the crab cakes), but it's not a deal-breaker for me, the way security theater at airports was. I travel by rail for my own (mostly aesthetic) reasons.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 27, 2009)

volkris said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak isn't in the mass production business, but they do engineer, design, and build rail cars. They consult with companies, or they did, most notably Edward G. Budd Company.
> ...


First of all, I want to let out there that I _*HATE*_ people like you. I hate people like you with a passion I can not begin to put into words. You sicken me, physically. You take my arguments for a variety of societal changes and then, with the kind of childish illogic depicted by Amelia Bedelia, use it to thrust words and concepts into my mouth, such as:



volkris said:


> If Amtrak fashioned its advertising to you, perhaps running advertisements with jackbooted soldiers confiscating peoples' cars, it wouldn't be particularly effective with the general public.


I mean, I don't agree with your position at all, but I can't imagine it being so indefensible as to you needing to resort to such tactics to counter mine! I do not advocate the kind of world depicted in 1984. Indeed, I wish I was born about a hundred years ago because, frankly, I wouldn't have to see the U.S. Government and its Constitution becoming a poster child for the second law of thermodynamics!

Now that I have pointed out the fallacy in your mechanism for countering my arguement, let me counter what you were actually saying:

In fact, Amtrak should be advertising to people like me. People with time on their hands, people who don't mind spending 3 days going NYC-LAX when it can be done in 6 hours. People who want to relax and enjoy life on a pace they set, and to hell with what other people want. Traditional train transportation has few audiences that are even interested in utilizing something with its parameters. LD trains, particularly the western LD trains, have a limited market in their current format. Amtrak meets that market properly.


----------



## volkris (Apr 27, 2009)

Ispolkom said:


> It's not something I'm entirely comfortable with, but on the other hand I can rest assured that no national restaurant chain would want to take on a penny-ante business like Amtrak dining cars. How many are we talking about anyway?


And, you know, I'm perfectly willing to accept such an answer. If the national chains pull their levers, crunch their numbers, and decide that they wouldn't be successful partnering with Amtrak, then that's perfectly reasonable. Amtrak's business model is such a ball of glue, with its constant reliance on political state and other irrationalities, that I wouldn't be surprised if national chains were leery of involvement even if a small profit was projected.

That reflects both problems that Amtrak has inflicted on itself (existing contracts, past marketing, internal mindsets) and problems that have been inflicted on it (political maneuvering). Sometimes businesses have actually used this sort of partnership as an opportunity to work on their internal problems: if rough edges CAN be evened out, a mutually beneficial partnership with an external entity can provide good incentive to get to work.

At the same time, as Aramark's current partnership, Subway's attempt at providing service, and ARR's experience all seem to suggest, there is reason to believe such partnerships can forged, and that's not even getting into the various non-food service benefits that Amtrak might realize.

A few people in this thread have expressed outright hostility at the idea and (I suspect) change itself. I think that's a really poor way to go about discussing the path to success of an organization we all want to succeed.


----------



## Neil_M (Apr 27, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> You know nothing about how to sell these trains. They aren't tourist traps on wheels, they are functional transportation devices, transporting people from point A to point B. Advertise me with the comfort and lack of stress, not the presence of American over-marketing, something that is generally lacking from Amtrak trains. And they are better off for it.


So why does it matter where the passengers come from? Tourist or local, why should it matter?

Selling the western LD trains as mere means of A to B transportation is a none starter, especially from end to end, so why not use the leisurely journey, potentially decent food and amazing scenery to get people to travel?


----------



## Tony (Apr 27, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> The Viewliner? Its an Amtrak design, and a damned good one. The fact that MK couldn't assemble them properly is a different story.


Agreed, 110%. 



Green Maned Lion said:


> That they can't make money doing this has more to do with the reality that railway food services have never been profitable. Even the famous name trains took baths on their food service.


I like the analogy to Cruise ships. I am sure that their dining rooms don't make an independent profit, nor is anyone expecting them to. Cruise ship meals are included in the passenger's general fare, just like with Amtrak sleepers. However, unlike Amtrak, Cruise ships seem to understand that dining rooms are expenses. Well, except for the "extras" like beer, wine, cocktails, etc, but then again, Amtrak charges extra for those too.

Maybe Amtrak needs to hire come Cruise line food service executive, and have them apply their experience to Amtrak's dining cars. Sorry, but IMHO, such a person would have an applicable and fresh perspective, over say, an executive from a company like amamark who's real specialty is in company and college cafeterias.

Going off on a tangent, wasn't the purpose of dining cars to save passenger railroads time, not money? It was cheaper to simply feed passengers on the moving train, then to stop at stations every 4 hours and wait while passengers got off to eat at local restaurants.


----------



## Ispolkom (Apr 27, 2009)

Tony said:


> Going off on a tangent, wasn't the purpose of dining cars to save passenger railroads time, not money? It was cheaper to simply feed passengers on the moving train, then to stop at stations every 4 hours and wait while passengers got off to eat at local restaurants.


According to "Dining Car to the Pacific" most railroads had to be dragged into furnishing them. As I recall the argument, railroads preferred passengers eating at stations. It was cheaper and easier, and the trains had to stop to take on coal and water. It was the passengers who wanted a more leisurely, higher quality dining experience and the Northern Pacific capitalized on this, using their dining cars as a selling point for their route. The Northern Pacific still maintained a network of lunchrooms at stations, in part to allow dining cars to pick up needed supplies en route.


----------



## VentureForth (Apr 27, 2009)

The reason I brought up the topic is several fold. First, I heard that the 24-hr dining room was a success - hired more people and had more revenue to pay for them. Don't know why it wasn't ever implemented other than it was tried on the Sunset Limited just at about the time of Katrina...

Another reason I brought it up is because I'm very disappointed every time I hear that after all the sleeping car attendants got their dining car meal, the coach pax were left with ZIP. That just ain't right. Revenue totally out the door. I would speculate that the more who buy a dinner with a credit card or cash looks better on the dining car expense report than serving 100% sleeping car passengers. I'm sure that the LSAs get tipped better, too.

It was mentioned here about Aramark. I could care less who actually provides the food - so long as it is good. What my main concern continues to be is how that food is properly and consistently prepared and delivered. *I currently like food and the way it is presented right now* - I just cringe when I hear that not everyone has equal opportunity to experience it.

As far as the Union aspect of it goes, it was mentioned that "Who would work 16 hour days..."? I would venture to suggest that there are plenty of folks who would be very willing at 9% unemployment to wait tables at $3 + tips with a guaranteed table count over a 36 hour time frame, especially when provided room, board, and layover.

As for the attempt at using Subway, I think that would be suitable for a medium distance train, where there is a need for a cafe car, but not a diner. I would NEVER expect to see Subway replace the dining car on the Texas Eagle or the Silvers.

When I worked at Walt Disney World, Aramark took over the employee dining program. The level of success was varied across the company but that's because the existing service varied. The Parks has really crappy food service, and the hotels had awesome food for cheap prices. Aramark came in and hit it right about in between. Since I've moved on, I've seen Aramark at other companies and you can tell the level of service they are contracted to provide. I've also had other companies like Sodexho. They can all serve the Queen of England or run a soup line - depends on what you expect them to do. They'll even wear your uniform so that the end user (ie: passengers) will never know that they are getting anything but Amtrak service. Of course, Amtrak better train them in a way to make Amtrak proud...

As there have been discussions about how to increase revenue on the LDs, one of the big answers has been to increase service. I think that premise holds true for dining as well. When you hit a certain level of service, there is a point that your overhead stops climbing as fast as your revenue stream. Make less money per meal, but sell a heckuva lot more meals.


----------



## volkris (Apr 27, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> Another reason I brought it up is because I'm very disappointed every time I hear that after all the sleeping car attendants got their dining car meal, the coach pax were left with ZIP. That just ain't right. Revenue totally out the door. I would speculate that the more who buy a dinner with a credit card or cash looks better on the dining car expense report than serving 100% sleeping car passengers. I'm sure that the LSAs get tipped better, too.


I'd also reevaluate the services included with a sleeper ticket (gasp! is nothing sacred?).

Why are meals included in all sleeper tickets? Many times I'd rather have had the $5/meal/person back and just brought my own sandwiches. With the meals included, though, the passengers are encouraged to eat whether they're actually hungry or not, and whether they'd prefer their own food or not.

It speaks, I think, to the need for an intermediate level of sleeper service that we occasionally mention here.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 27, 2009)

volkris said:


> Ispolkom said:
> 
> 
> > It's not something I'm entirely comfortable with, but on the other hand I can rest assured that no national restaurant chain would want to take on a penny-ante business like Amtrak dining cars. How many are we talking about anyway?
> ...


In addition to the above problem being touched upon, I think that you're missing/overlooking one other important thing. You've mentioned many times that these various chains have figured out how to cater to their customers; and you're right, they have. I wouldn't argue that at all. They've each established their plans on their market and catered to it.

The problem is that they all focus on one market, be it the market that wants 13 pieces of flair or the market that wants cheap, quick food like McDonalds. Amtrak on the other hand has to cater to all of the possible markets out there. You've got people who would love to see 13 pieces of flair, you've got people who miss and lament for the days of old where you dressed up or at least saw everything cooked fresh onboard, you've got people that want McD's and right across the entire spectrum.

Now of course the McD customer could probably be better satisfied by the cafe car. rather than the dining car. But the problem still remains of trying to cater to all those differing markets within the dining car. That's an almost impossible task IMHO, as there is no way to be everything to everyone, even if you had the space and the staff to do it. And my worry would be that bringing in one of the entities that you've mentioned might settle on trying to hit one market, probably the one that they are most familiar with, and neglect the other markets.

Personally, while I'd still like to see the staffing come up a bit more than it has already done so, I think that Amtrak has gone in the right direction in the past year or so. They've rolled out a new menu for Acela, based upon input from top chefs, that has resulted in decent food that is a major improvement over what had been there 3 years ago when we were getting a sandwich from the commissary thrown into a fancy basket with a bag of chips. Then they turned to the dining cars and in addition to changing the caterer and getting a better deal with Aramark than they had with Gate, once again put those top chefs to work to come up with a menu that not only travels well and reheats well, but actually tastes pretty darn good.

I'm not sure that with the complexities of doing all of this while traveling in a rail car, that one of the national chains could have done any better, without risking leaving behind those who don't like the market being targeted.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 27, 2009)

volkris said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > Another reason I brought it up is because I'm very disappointed every time I hear that after all the sleeping car attendants got their dining car meal, the coach pax were left with ZIP. That just ain't right. Revenue totally out the door. I would speculate that the more who buy a dinner with a credit card or cash looks better on the dining car expense report than serving 100% sleeping car passengers. I'm sure that the LSAs get tipped better, too.
> ...


Let's first get the fleet replaced, then if there's enough money left over we can start talking about a new type of sleeping car that provides less.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 27, 2009)

Finally I want to take a minute here and remind everyone that this is supposed to be a friendly place to come and discuss our favorite hobby. Some of the most recent posts have come very close to crossing the line, and a few actually have. I've even edited a few of them already.

I'm not sugesting that people can't disagree and have different view points. But please keep those view points civil and polite!


----------



## Tony (Apr 27, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> When I worked at Walt Disney World, Aramark took over the employee dining program. The level of success was varied across the company but that's because the existing service varied. The Parks has really crappy food service, and the hotels had awesome food for cheap prices. Aramark came in and hit it right about in between. Since I've moved on, I've seen Aramark at other companies and you can tell the level of service they are contracted to provide. I've also had other companies like Sodexho. They can all serve the Queen of England or run a soup line - depends on what you expect them to do. They'll even wear your uniform so that the end user (ie: passengers) will never know that they are getting anything but Amtrak service. Of course, Amtrak better train them in a way to make Amtrak proud...


Sticking with Aramark, again I think the issue is just how much experience they have, as a food service company, with running a restaurant/dining room/cafeteria that is constantly moving? Yea, they might be able to eventually learn the basics, but I would rather Amtrak not hire a company that has to learn from scratch.

Aramark does have the menu variety experience range to deal with serving the Queen of England, and with serving soup lines. However, they don't have the experience with dealing with with a moving food service, where one has to deal with a "captured" employee staff, and the additional logistics of supply.

Hay, I was at a Outback a few weeks ago where they ran out of lettuce (how could that happen?), and the kitchen simply sent someone over to the supermarket next door to buy more. One can't do that from a speeding (79MPH  ) Amtrak LD train. So, one needs to contract wth a company that has experience in successfully dealing with such situations.

I got bashed the last time I mentioned this. I was on a Silver that was stuck for 24 hours. Does a food service company have the resources to deal with that, by having a plan to get food to that train?

IMHO, the issue is to bring in a food service company that can always do batter than Amtrak does now. If it can't do that, why bother?


----------



## sportbiker (Apr 27, 2009)

Tony said:


> IMHO, the issue is to bring in a food service company that can always do batter than Amtrak does now.


Sometimes adding a bit of margarine can make a batter light, crispy and not greasy. Let's not be bitter over a better butter batter.


----------



## haolerider (Apr 27, 2009)

Tony said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > When I worked at Walt Disney World, Aramark took over the employee dining program. The level of success was varied across the company but that's because the existing service varied. The Parks has really crappy food service, and the hotels had awesome food for cheap prices. Aramark came in and hit it right about in between. Since I've moved on, I've seen Aramark at other companies and you can tell the level of service they are contracted to provide. I've also had other companies like Sodexho. They can all serve the Queen of England or run a soup line - depends on what you expect them to do. They'll even wear your uniform so that the end user (ie: passengers) will never know that they are getting anything but Amtrak service. Of course, Amtrak better train them in a way to make Amtrak proud...
> ...


This is a very interesting discussion - to a point - however the union is not going to let this happen. They have too much invested in their dues and while I am not an expert on labor relations, I fail to see the opportunity to make this kind of move.


----------



## Neil_M (Apr 27, 2009)

Tony said:


> Hay, I was at a Outback a few weeks ago where they ran out of lettuce (how could that happen?), and the kitchen simply sent someone over to the supermarket next door to buy more. One can't do that from a speeding (79MPH  ) Amtrak LD train. So, one needs to contract wth a company that has experience in successfully dealing with such situations.
> I got bashed the last time I mentioned this. I was on a Silver that was stuck for 24 hours. Does a food service company have the resources to deal with that, by having a plan to get food to that train?


What is Amtrak's plan now when the train is hours late and food is running out? An emergency helicopter drop of French Toast and Garden Burgers?

Seems what happens if you read the trip reports are true is the local fast food place gets a bulk order.

No doubt the private company would use similar methods.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Apr 27, 2009)

AlanB said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > VentureForth said:
> ...


maybe have the dining car open longer so more coach pax can get something to eat and give there money to amtrak.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Apr 27, 2009)

AlanB said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > VentureForth said:
> ...


All hail the slumbercoach!


----------



## sunchaser (Apr 27, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > volkris said:
> ...


The slumbercoach was discussed on another thread not too long ago.

I don't see any reason that there shouldn't be an opt out on meals w/sleepers, other than they may be trying to emulate cruises by being all inclusive.

I noticed last Monday the westbound CZ was delayed 10 hours in Denver from a snowstorm. I'm not sure if they were in Denver proper, or on the track somewhere in between. There should be some way of carrying extra food for situations like that & to keep from those people in sleepers gobbling down all the food & leavinng the coach customers hanging. 

Maybe add it after the first day, that way they would not have to change storage space around in the kitchen.


----------



## volkris (Apr 27, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Let's first get the fleet replaced, then if there's enough money left over we can start talking about a new type of sleeping car that provides less.
> ...


Right. Other than a few bookkeeping issues (that shouldn't be TOO hairy), is it that much of an expense to create a slightly cheaper, non-first class sleeper option? It would tend to save the food for those who are actually hungry. Maybe the updated computer system will make adding such an option easier.

Anyway, here's a new question: is there a ballpark estimate on the cost of pulling a diner, not counting on-diner labor or the cost of the car itself? As in, purely hypothetically because yes, there are plenty of other considerations, if a company wanted to tack it's own dining car to the end of a train, how much would it have to clear in order to recoup the cost of pulling and powering the thing? Again, yes, this is only the start of the costs, but I'm curious as to where it starts.


----------



## jmbgeg (Apr 27, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


Since sleeper passengers on long distance trains get first shot at dinner reservations, with coach passengers given reservation opportunities on a space available basis (which it not always is), why not allow sleeper passengers to use thir dinner allowance in the lounge car for food (attendents would hand out exchange vouchers with a stated dollar value when they were going sleeper to sleeper taking reservations and a passenger declines a reservation). That would free up more reservation space for coach passengers. Not sure I would take that option but some would.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 27, 2009)

KISS_ALIVE said:


> maybe have the dining car open longer so more coach pax can get something to eat and give there money to amtrak.


The dining car is already open until 9:00 PM for the last seating, I'm not sure that staying open much later will increase business all that much. Most people don't want to eat dinner that late. Not to mention the horrible toll it would take on the crew to extend their day by a few more hours.

That said I do agree with you that Amtrak needs to get more coach passengers back into the diner. But I think that the correct way to do that is to increase staffing, so that more people can be served at one time. Seating 32 people in one hour and a half when the Superliner diners used to serve 60 or more in that same time period is the problem. The only way to fix that problem is to increase staffing levels as the trains fill up.


----------



## sunchaser (Apr 27, 2009)

jmbgeg said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> ...


Great idea. But would that solve the issue of running out of food? I've been watching that subject for a while, & even reading other trip reports elsewhere. Seems to be a recurring issue, but usually because a train is late. Which seems to be pretty regular even now, just more like 1-3 hours.

I think whatever changes they make for food provided, they should also consider the 'just in case' factor.

I would expect, whether I ride coach or a in a sleeper, edible food should be available. I don't mean fast food unless there is no other way to do it.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 27, 2009)

volkris said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


The current problem is that ARROW can't handle having some sleepers that include meals, while others don't. It would also be quite confusing to the dining car staff, and I suspect that even passenger would have a hard time understanding things. Yes, many would realize that they booked a room that did not include meals, but others would not notice that. I can see big arguements coming in the diner if that were the case.

The best answer IMHO remains that Amtrak needs a new type of sleeper car, like say a slumbercoach or some type of business class car with seats that almost fully recline. This class would not include meals and it would be easy to keep things straight.


----------



## sunchaser (Apr 27, 2009)

AlanB said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > sunchaser said:
> ...


Again, a nod to the wise one! What about adding more 'quiet cars'? I actually thought that the trains we will take (CZ & CS) had them available until I looked atwhich trains actually had them. Since they have manufactured them before, maybe they would not have a longer lead time for production?


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Apr 27, 2009)

AlanB said:


> KISS_ALIVE said:
> 
> 
> > maybe have the dining car open longer so more coach pax can get something to eat and give there money to amtrak.
> ...


how about making the dining cars longer so they can serve 64 sense i doubt amtrak will convert the cars back to real dining cars. just make the cars twice the length of a normal car and have it hinged in the middle. they did this with auto carriers called auto-max.



> Railroads of today are still grappling with the problem of loading more and larger vehicles onto autoracks. One popular solution is to create a double-length car that is articulated over a single middle truck so that each half of the car is about the same length as a conventional autorack. These cars, which can be seen in operation on many of the railroads of the western US (but also seen occasionally in the Great Lakes and Southern Ontario), are brand named AutoMax cars. These cars, built by Gunderson (a subsidiary of The Greenbrier Companies) measure 145 ft 4 in (44.3 m) long and 20 ft 2 in (6.15 m) tall; they feature adjustable interior decks to carry up to 22 light trucks and minivans.


just apply the same technology to the dining cars.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 28, 2009)

KISS_ALIVE said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > KISS_ALIVE said:
> ...


Actually if one doesn't use the cafe side as a cafe, but instead uses it for dining car seating, then the CCC's can seat 64 people. Take away the cafe side and I believe you loose 16 seats, but I'm not positive on that. But that still leaves almost 50 seats in the dining section, and even now Amtrak seats no more than 8 to 12 people at one time on that side of the car.

The problem isn't the car's seating capacity, the problem is the lack of staff to prepare the food and serve it. Converting cars back to full diners or making them longer at considerably greater costs isn't going to change the fact that Amtrak can't serve 60 people at once in the dining car with 1 SA, 1 LSA, and 1 cook. To serve 60 people all at once you'd need at least 2 SA's, maybe 3, 1 LSA, and 2 cooks.


----------



## VentureForth (Apr 28, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> Tony said:
> 
> 
> > Hay, I was at a Outback a few weeks ago where they ran out of lettuce (how could that happen?), and the kitchen simply sent someone over to the supermarket next door to buy more. One can't do that from a speeding (79MPH  ) Amtrak LD train. So, one needs to contract wth a company that has experience in successfully dealing with such situations.
> ...


A good food service provider with a national network would not have to necessarily run out to KFC. If you had a productive staff on board, you can actually get your supplies from a grocery store instead of a fast food restaurant.



AlanB said:


> KISS_ALIVE said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


I don't think that I could agree more. Unfortunately, Amtrak has taken a slippery slope with the CCC that will make it much more expensive to revert to a full-up dining experience.

How does dining on the Acela work? Are ALL 1st Class pax broght their meals, or do some choose to sit in the Bistro car? Can BC pax buy the same meals that FC gets? Do they run out of food? The Bistro Car seems to have a similar capacity and layout as a CCC....


----------



## Tony (Apr 28, 2009)

AlanB said:


> The current problem is that ARROW can't handle having some sleepers that include meals, while others don't. It would also be quite confusing to the dining car staff, and I suspect that even passenger would have a hard time understanding things. Yes, many would realize that they booked a room that did not include meals, but others would not notice that. I can see big arguements coming in the diner if that were the case.


I would have to agree (wow, Alan and I in agreement  ). It would be especially true for, say, passengers who might focus on the lowest cost room option (the option w/o meals) and not even notice that they weren't getting their meals included until the dining car attendant hands them a check.

Isn't it the case now, that the on-line reservation system doesn't even point out refundable vs. non-refundable tickets? I could all too easily foresee meals vs. non-meals being the same way.

Also, I would really not like it, if Amtrak started emulating the Airline industry, taking away "perk" after "perk". IMHO, since Sleeper Class is basically the LD train's First Class, all the "perks" of going First Class must remain part of it; all meals included, use of First Class lounge (Acela, etc), priority boarding, a shower, etc.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Apr 28, 2009)

jmbgeg said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> ...


A problem I see with that is purely the consist of most LD trains where you have the sleepers, diner, lounge, coaches. If the sleeper pax are getting meals during meal service from the lounge they have to cross through the diner to get to the lounge and back again if they want to eat in their compartments. No problem with this for the sleepers, but I can't imagine the SA's would be very pleased by the disruption.


----------



## VentureForth (Apr 28, 2009)

I don't think that addresses the crux of the problem. Heck, they can eat in their room and that would open up dining table space. But that doesn't reduce the amount of food consumed.

Maybe that's a start, though. Add an SA to provide room service.


----------



## sunchaser (Apr 28, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> I don't think that addresses the crux of the problem. Heck, they can eat in their room and that would open up dining table space. But that doesn't reduce the amount of food consumed.
> Maybe that's a start, though. Add an SA to provide room service.


Amtrak already provides some level of room service.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServe...79&ssid=352

From what I understand, if you are in the H bedroom, it is fairly routine for the SCA to bring meals to you if you ask.

I also understand that they will bring your meal to any room if you ask, but I could be wrong. It may depend on the how busy the SCA is. This may not be a rule carved in stone, but just a service.

Of course, you wouldn't want to require sleeper pax to eat in their room.

This would help thin out the diner crowd, but not deal with the issue of food available for coach. If the trains are routinely running out of food, then Amtrak needs to bring more food onboard at the start point. If there is not enough storage space, then maybe they could replenish the food down the line at another station, maybe after 3 meals have been served.


----------



## had8ley (Apr 28, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think that addresses the crux of the problem. Heck, they can eat in their room and that would open up dining table space. But that doesn't reduce the amount of food consumed.
> ...


It is a mandate that pax in the H room be served in their room if mobility impaired. Only time they wouldn't be is if the room was sold under the 15 day out rule.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 28, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> > Tony said:
> ...


Yes, let's delay the train in a station while the LSA runs out to the local supermarket to buy a bunch of supplies with his own money, suplies for meals that the lone cook won't be able to prep on his own and still feed everyone. 



VentureForth said:


> How does dining on the Acela work? Are ALL 1st Class pax broght their meals, or do some choose to sit in the Bistro car? Can BC pax buy the same meals that FC gets? Do they run out of food? The Bistro Car seems to have a similar capacity and layout as a CCC....


All FC pax are brought their meals to their seat. If you choose to go sit in the Bistro car, you won't see your meal as the attendants aren't going to carry it through two BC coaches to reach you in the cafe car. Not to mention that the FC attendants actually frown on people walking from the FC car to the rest of the train when they are serving meals, since you have to walk right through the galley where they are busy moving hot dishes, as well as drinks that are easily spilled.

BC pax cannot buy the same meals that FC pax get. I've never seen Acela FC run out of all food, but I have seen them run out of one of the menu choices. A lot depends on how many last minute tickets were sold, as well as the passenger's personal tastes. Sometimes orders cover the entire spectrum of the choices, other times it seems like everyone wants the same thing.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 28, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> Amtrak already provides some level of room service.
> http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServe...79&ssid=352
> 
> From what I understand, if you are in the H bedroom, it is fairly routine for the SCA to bring meals to you if you ask.
> ...


The SCA is required to serve a meal in room to any passenger who requests it, regardless of what room they occupy. That said, if you are able bodied and you've got an attendant whose not real into doing his/her job, you may get some nasty stares if you ask for room service, in rare cases even an outright refusal. And in the later case, take names and report the SCA.

Turning to the issue of food availability, perhaps on the single level train if they had to run the western two night routes, storage space would be a huge problem. But the Superliner cars can easily carry enough food for a 4 day trip across the country, if such a route existed. Storage space isn't the issue.

The issue is the cost of all the spoiled food that would occur if they did load an entire extra days worth of food on board every train betting against delays that would actually require them to use the food up.


----------



## battalion51 (Apr 28, 2009)

The only train that ever had the "moving a lot of food across the country" issue was the Sunset Limited. With its extended stop in NOL for inspections and a power change, the Diner was able to hit the commissary if any items needed to be topped off before continuing the trip.


----------



## sunchaser (Apr 28, 2009)

AlanB said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak already provides some level of room service.
> ...


But isn't most of the food already frozen? I'm speaking of frozen foods. I'm not sure of the ratio of frozen to fresh, just thinking of availability. I assumed that it was a storage issue, otherwise why would you run out of food except in the case of extreme lateness? Any decent caterer or food manager should know how much food to load on the trains based on passengers expected.

Of course you would rotate thru the food available to avoid as much spoilage/waste as possible.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Apr 28, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > sunchaser said:
> ...


Little if anything brought into the diner is frozen (save for the ice cream) it is cooked at stations and brought on board, reheated in convection ovens. For the MILLIONTH time it isn't microwaved TV dinners.


----------



## Tony (Apr 28, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Yes, let's delay the train in a station while the LSA runs out to the local supermarket to buy a bunch of supplies with his own money, suplies for meals that the lone cook won't be able to prep on his own and still feed everyone.


Well, a delay of like 24 hours (major track damage), I would say a well run railroad would indeed have a train remain stopped at a station, rather than having it proceed to a siding.

Possibly my view it a bit skewed, but my employer empowers me to make reasonable choices during an unusual situation, and that includes making necessary charges with my business AmEx card. There is no reason that an LSA could not be empowered similarly. And if the LSA doesn't have a business AmEx card, then the simple thing to do, is to have the LSA use cash out of their onboard working cash. There are lots of options, if any planning happens at all, before the LSA would have to use their own money. 

Also, Aramark should have a large enough of an operational base, that it should be able to pull basic supplies from its numerous other operations in the event of an emergency on a LD Amtrak train they are the contracted food service provider.


----------



## sunchaser (Apr 28, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


Oh, I thought more of the food was frozen & then reheated in the convection ovens for ease on the cook/chef. I was not in any way inferring that they were TV dinners! I know they do use the convection ovens instead of conventional or microwave ovens.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Apr 28, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > Little if anything brought into the diner is frozen (save for the ice cream) it is cooked at stations and brought on board, reheated in convection ovens. For the MILLIONTH time it isn't microwaved TV dinners.
> ...


No, the food is not frozen. It is refrigerated and frozen if the food calls for freezers, see ice cream. For the most park it stays in refrigerators or in warm trays if it is being used the same day.


----------



## sunchaser (Apr 28, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> ...


Got it! I would think that would be a better way to go, but then again it could affect the quality, depending on the food.

Slightly unrelated question:

I have read travel reports about sleeper pax being offered sparkling apple juice or champagne upon boarding in the afternoon/evening. Does anyone know if they still do that? And if so, which trains?


----------



## volkris (Apr 28, 2009)

Tony said:


> Also, I would really not like it, if Amtrak started emulating the Airline industry, taking away "perk" after "perk". IMHO, since Sleeper Class is basically the LD train's First Class, all the "perks" of going First Class must remain part of it; all meals included, use of First Class lounge (Acela, etc), priority boarding, a shower, etc.


Yes, but I don't like having to pay for something I don't want, and others don't like Amtrak running out of food before hungry coach customers got a shot. Requiring all sleeper customers to buy all meals on the train, paid in advance, (which is the glass half empty way of looking at it) has some downsides worth considering.

I don't think it would be too complicated to have "roomette" and "first class roomette" as separate options on the amtrak.com in the same way that they handle "coach" and "lower level coach." Maybe they could even leave all of the more expensive room options as automatic first class.


----------



## Neil_M (Apr 28, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> I have read travel reports about sleeper pax being offered sparkling apple juice or champagne upon boarding in the afternoon/evening. Does anyone know if they still do that? And if so, which trains?


Empire Builder. On my trip in November the flow of Champagne and Orange Juice to mix it with was fairly constant. All very pleasant......


----------



## AlanB (Apr 28, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> Slightly unrelated question:I have read travel reports about sleeper pax being offered sparkling apple juice or champagne upon boarding in the afternoon/evening. Does anyone know if they still do that? And if so, which trains?


That happens on the Empire Builder only.

On the LSL out of Chicago, sleeping car pax are offered a free wine tasting in the dining car, and sparkling apple juice is also an option.

Finally the Auto Train has a free wine tasting in the cafe car shortly before departure from the originating stations.


----------



## VentureForth (Apr 28, 2009)

AlanB said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > A good food service provider with a national network would not have to necessarily run out to KFC. If you had a productive staff on board, you can actually get your supplies from a grocery store instead of a fast food restaurant.
> ...


As Tony replied, my comment didn't refer to how things work right now. If the diner was well staffed (ie: 24-hr Diner), then fresh ingredients can be arranged to meet the train. The entire premise of serving fast food in the dining car in the event of an emergency would then go out the window.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Apr 28, 2009)

AlanB said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > Slightly unrelated question:I have read travel reports about sleeper pax being offered sparkling apple juice or champagne upon boarding in the afternoon/evening. Does anyone know if they still do that? And if so, which trains?
> ...


And of course the EB and CS have wine tastings en route in the diner and PPC respectively.


----------



## sunchaser (Apr 28, 2009)

AlanB said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > Slightly unrelated question:I have read travel reports about sleeper pax being offered sparkling apple juice or champagne upon boarding in the afternoon/evening. Does anyone know if they still do that? And if so, which trains?
> ...


Thanks Alan! I thought they did on the CS last year, maybe that was only for the relaunch of the PPC?

I'll still bring my own anyway. Thought it was a nice touch though!


----------



## gswager (Apr 28, 2009)

AlanB said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > Slightly unrelated question:I have read travel reports about sleeper pax being offered sparkling apple juice or champagne upon boarding in the afternoon/evening. Does anyone know if they still do that? And if so, which trains?
> ...


I did received a can of soda and a bottle (small) of apple champange on SWC last March, westbound from ABQ to LAX. I've never got those before! Maybe that car was from Empire Builder because it still has the EB timetables, along with SWC timetable. Or maybe the sleeper attendant is adverstising...


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 28, 2009)

You know, while I love Slumbercoach cars, I'm kinda thinking that in todays world, a section sleeper would be more effective. People aren't as privacy oriented when traveling anymore. If you use one roomette space worth for a attendants room on one side, and a pair of bathrooms on the other, a Viewliner could handle 20 sections, which means 40 passengers, 10 more than they currently handle, and probably 15-20 more than they handle on average.

A Superliner could handle 28 sections, with 4 bathrooms (lower level, two each where the Family and Handicapped rooms are) and an attendants room, which would handle a total of 56 passengers, 16 more than the normal sleeper capacity, and probably 25 more than they normally handle. If you were to manufacture these out of transdorms, they could handle 26 sections, an attendants room, and four bathrooms. So you could have a theoretical Southwest Chief of 3 P42s, a Viewliner Baggage-dorm, a Trans-Slumbercoach, 4 coaches, lounge, diner, and 2 regular sleepers. Full capacity would be 80 First Class passengers, 52 Slumbercoach passengers, and 300 Coach passengers, total 432. A typical loading during peak season would be more like 58, 52, and 300 respectively, total 410.

A Viewliner train so equipped, lets say the Silver Meteor. Lets also say they buy 25 sectionals, planning on one per train. That would place a bag-dorm, 3 sleepers, a slumbercoach, a diner, a lounge and 5 coaches? That would be maximum of 90 First Class, 40 Slumbercoach, 300 coach, total 430. More typical loading 75, 40, 300, or 415. Compared to todays train, which is 84 and 240 max, 324, with 310 being more typical. So you'd increase capacity to 430 from 324, which is 106 people per train, two trains per day (one each direction) and 365 days a year. You've increased capacity by 78,000 riders annually.


----------



## MrFSS (Apr 28, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> You know, while I love Slumbercoach cars, I'm kinda thinking that in todays world, a section sleeper would be more effective. People aren't as privacy oriented when traveling anymore. If you use one roomette space worth for a attendants room on one side, and a pair of bathrooms on the other, a Viewliner could handle 20 sections, which means 40 passengers, 10 more than they currently handle, and probably 15-20 more than they handle on average.
> A Superliner could handle 28 sections, with 4 bathrooms (lower level, two each where the Family and Handicapped rooms are) and an attendants room, which would handle a total of 56 passengers, 16 more than the normal sleeper capacity, and probably 25 more than they normally handle. If you were to manufacture these out of transdorms, they could handle 26 sections, an attendants room, and four bathrooms. So you could have a theoretical Southwest Chief of 3 P42s, a Viewliner Baggage-dorm, a Trans-Slumbercoach, 4 coaches, lounge, diner, and 2 regular sleepers. Full capacity would be 80 First Class passengers, 52 Slumbercoach passengers, and 300 Coach passengers, total 432. A typical loading during peak season would be more like 58, 52, and 300 respectively, total 410.
> 
> A Viewliner train so equipped, lets say the Silver Meteor. Lets also say they buy 25 sectionals, planning on one per train. That would place a bag-dorm, 3 sleepers, a slumbercoach, a diner, a lounge and 5 coaches? That would be maximum of 90 First Class, 40 Slumbercoach, 300 coach, total 430. More typical loading 75, 40, 300, or 415. Compared to todays train, which is 84 and 240 max, 324, with 310 being more typical. So you'd increase capacity to 430 from 324, which is 106 people per train, two trains per day (one each direction) and 365 days a year. You've increased capacity by 78,000 riders annually.


Not bad ideas - I agree with the sections. I only rode in one once back in the early 60's and don't have a lot of memories (I was on my way to basic training in the service and had other things on my mind). When I last rode *The Canadian* our bedroom car had three or four sets of sections on each side of the aisle at the other end of the car. No one ever used them on that trip, but they looked pretty wide and I'll bet two people would fit fine in a lower berth. The upper wasn't as wide as the lower. That might increase passenger load, too.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Apr 28, 2009)

how about this. have a option on whether you want meals included with your sleeper. lets say something like a option like for $100 more add meals to your sleeper. if you choose not to have meals included to keep the cost of the room down then you have to pay for the meals.


----------



## sunchaser (Apr 28, 2009)

KISS_ALIVE said:


> how about this. have a option on whether you want meals included with your sleeper. lets say something like a option like for $100 more add meals to your sleeper. if you choose not to have meals included to keep the cost of the room down then you have to pay for the meals.



Alan already replied to this on pg 7-



> The current problem is that ARROW can't handle having some sleepers that include meals, while others don't. It would also be quite confusing to the dining car staff, and I suspect that even passenger would have a hard time understanding things. Yes, many would realize that they booked a room that did not include meals, but others would not notice that. I can see big arguements coming in the diner if that were the case.
> The best answer IMHO remains that Amtrak needs a new type of sleeper car, like say a slumbercoach or some type of business class car with seats that almost fully recline. This class would not include meals and it would be easy to keep things straight.
> 
> --------------------
> ...


After reading his answer I would have to agree the Staff would have a terrible time keeping track of who paid or didn't pay for meals.

Sorry, I must be doing the quote function wrong- I had to copy/paste this in.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 28, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Lets also say they buy 25 sectionals, planning on one per train.


How do you deal with the Empire Builder and LSL splits?


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 28, 2009)

KISS_ALIVE said:


> > Railroads of today are still grappling with the problem of loading more and larger vehicles onto autoracks. One popular solution is to create a double-length car that is articulated over a single middle truck so that each half of the car is about the same length as a conventional autorack. These cars, which can be seen in operation on many of the railroads of the western US (but also seen occasionally in the Great Lakes and Southern Ontario), are brand named AutoMax cars. These cars, built by Gunderson (a subsidiary of The Greenbrier Companies) measure 145 ft 4 in (44.3 m) long and 20 ft 2 in (6.15 m) tall; they feature adjustable interior decks to carry up to 22 light trucks and minivans.
> 
> 
> just apply the same technology to the dining cars.


I don't think you even need to do that much to serve meals to passengers in an adjacent car. Isn't it possible to get a meal in the upstairs of a PPC which is cooked in the kitchen of an adjacent dining car on the Coast Starlight?


----------



## jackal (Apr 28, 2009)

Tony said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, let's delay the train in a station while the LSA runs out to the local supermarket to buy a bunch of supplies with his own money, suplies for meals that the lone cook won't be able to prep on his own and still feed everyone.
> ...


IIRC, Amtrak used to actually put management-level staff on trains, and these managers could actually authorize company funds to be spent. I'm not sure that I'd put that kind of power in the hands of someone who isn't in a management-level position--as good, experienced, and loyal as most LSAs are, there's a chance that one bitter about labor relations or something could spend the company's money just out of spite.



sunchaser said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > sunchaser said:
> ...


Indeed, sunchaser, your memory is correct. I as well was served a champagne upon departure from LAX heading north in a roomette last year. 10:15am is normally a bit early for champagne...but since my body clock was all screwed up from working a 10-hour shift and then departing on a five-hour flight (on which I only slept for a couple of hours, despite receiving an upgrade to first class), I was perfectly happy to have one! Besides, I had just had "lunch" in the form of two french dip sandwiches from Phillippe's! :lol:

I do not know if they are still doing this or if this was special to the relaunch, as you say, as I have (sadly) not traveled on Amtrak since then.


----------



## sunchaser (Apr 28, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> KISS_ALIVE said:
> 
> 
> > how about this. have a option on whether you want meals included with your sleeper. lets say something like a option like for $100 more add meals to your sleeper. if you choose not to have meals included to keep the cost of the room down then you have to pay for the meals.
> ...


Thanks for the fix!!


----------



## Ispolkom (Apr 29, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> You know, while I love Slumbercoach cars, I'm kinda thinking that in todays world, a section sleeper would be more effective. People aren't as privacy oriented when traveling anymore. If you use one roomette space worth for a attendants room on one side, and a pair of bathrooms on the other, a Viewliner could handle 20 sections, which means 40 passengers, 10 more than they currently handle, and probably 15-20 more than they handle on average.


I'm having difficulty with the idea that people aren't as privacy oriented when traveling. When I look at advertising for traveling, I find constant emphasis on privacy. Private balconies on cruise ships. Private pods in first class on airliners. Goodness, the flack I get from the ladies at work when I mention that we stayed in a hotel with the bathroom down the hall. (How often do you use the bathroom, I ask.)

Look at MrFSS's description of the Canadian: "No one ever used them on that trip."

I've traveled in something like a section several times, platskarnyi klass on Soviet trains. It seemed a bit communal to sell to Americans, and I'd be hard-pressed to imagine how Amtrak could offer it for less than the equivalent airfare.


----------



## volkris (Apr 29, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> You know, while I love Slumbercoach cars, I'm kinda thinking that in todays world, a section sleeper would be more effective. People aren't as privacy oriented when traveling anymore.


That's a sort of bizarre thing to say.

Privacy is becoming more and more of an expectation in American society; what have you seen that leads you to believe travel is exempt from this?

If nothing else, the generation of kids beginning to graduate from college right now are extremely concerned with their physical privacy (online... that's another matter, interestingly enough), with seems to put an expiration date on travel options that deemphasize privacy. Even if the current crop of riders are less concerned with privacy, eventually it will be time for the new generation to take their place, and I believe they'd respond much better to Slumbercoaches.


----------



## jackal (Apr 29, 2009)

volkris said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > You know, while I love Slumbercoach cars, I'm kinda thinking that in todays world, a section sleeper would be more effective. People aren't as privacy oriented when traveling anymore.
> ...


Agreed. I read that and was a bit confused.

Actually, many colleges are redesigning their dorms because kids these days expect privacy, and the communal bunk buddy-type rooms of old are no longer appealing. My university built its first dorms about 10 years ago, and the doubles feature two separate bedrooms (one person per room) with a common sitting area and bathroom for each double and the quads feature four separate bedrooms (still one person per room) with a common sitting area and bathroom for each quad (no showers down the hall, either!). They're almost like mini apartments (albeit with no kitchen facilities).

Even universities with 30-year-old dorms (or older!) are beginning to tear them down and build new ones because college kids get to the school and are horrified they have to actually share sleeping quarters with other people. Many kids these days don't like to expose their bodies to others and want a private room where they can go about their business without interference from others. Comment on these social developments as you will (I can just see what some people are going to say!), but it's reality these days, and no amount of kvetching here is going to change it.


----------



## sunchaser (Apr 29, 2009)

volkris said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > You know, while I love Slumbercoach cars, I'm kinda thinking that in todays world, a section sleeper would be more effective. People aren't as privacy oriented when traveling anymore.
> ...


GML,

You know, it's funny that you think people aren't as privacy oriented when traveling. Even when I was young, there were certain things done in private. I am positive that my kids would disagree with you about privacy while traveling. They are just a few years older than you. We have a teenage grandchild that would disagree too. I am sure given the choice, you would not want to share compartments with strangers unless they were close to your age. Or you might want to avoid the same for the same reasons. There are some things you just don't want to hear or see.


----------



## VentureForth (Apr 29, 2009)

I think that both need to be incorporated. Note that there are WAY more hotels out there than youth hostels. However, there is a demand for the hostel business model. I would love to see something like 3 full-sleepers, a sectional, AND business class as well as coach on the real long distance trains. Like the Sunset. Before Katrina. With good, fresh food.


----------



## Tony (Apr 29, 2009)

jackal said:


> Even universities with 30-year-old dorms (or older!) are beginning to tear them down and build new ones because college kids get to the school and are horrified they have to actually share sleeping quarters with other people. Many kids these days don't like to expose their bodies to others and want a private room where they can go about their business without interference from others. Comment on these social developments as you will (I can just see what some people are going to say!), but it's reality these days, and no amount of kvetching here is going to change it.


IMHO, some of this is due to the fact that few kids today ever even shared a bedroom at home with a sibling. They grow up with their bedroom at home being their own, very private, space, and expect that to continue to be true at collage. Sorry, but what I have observed from this, is a complete lack of "social skills" in knowing how to successfully live with another person.

Add to that, that most high schools don't require students to take showers after gym anymore, and you have created a generation of kids who freak out at the thought of taking a shower in a locker room as adults.


----------



## volkris (Apr 29, 2009)

Tony said:


> IMHO, some of this is due to the fact that few kids today ever even shared a bedroom at home with a sibling. They grow up with their bedroom at home being their own, very private, space, and expect that to continue to be true at collage.


The research agrees with you: the shift toward kids having their own bedrooms lead to the higher want for private space in college. But regardless of WHERE the attitude came from, it's here and colleges across the country have had to adapt. At some point Amtrak will have to as well.


----------



## jis (Apr 29, 2009)

volkris said:


> Tony said:
> 
> 
> > IMHO, some of this is due to the fact that few kids today ever even shared a bedroom at home with a sibling. They grow up with their bedroom at home being their own, very private, space, and expect that to continue to be true at collage.
> ...


Amtrak already does not have any open sleeping accommodation. Are you suggesting that Amtrak will need to get rid of Coach seating and replace it with seating in small compartments?


----------



## sunchaser (Apr 29, 2009)

volkris said:


> Tony said:
> 
> 
> > IMHO, some of this is due to the fact that few kids today ever even shared a bedroom at home with a sibling. They grow up with their bedroom at home being their own, very private, space, and expect that to continue to be true at collage.
> ...


When I was growing up, for a number of years I shared a room (and bed) with my older sister.

When our kids were growing up, they had to share rooms and sometimes beds, but not always.

My grandkids as well have to share bedrooms. Just not enough bedroom in their house & they can't afford a bigger one.

I think in America, privacy & the lack thereof will always be a sticking point for many reasons.

I still share a bed-with my hubby!

In regards to cheaper sleeping quarters on trains, we have discussed it before. While I have never rode in one, I've seen old movies with what I would call a sleeperette-it looked like a roomette set up for night, but was closed by curtains. Each bunk was a separate compartment. They were designed for sleeping only. It didn't look like they folded up. I saw them in the old movie 'some like it hot' (Marilyn Monroe, Tony Curtis, Jack Lemmon).

I think that would address cost and privacy issues, but not necessarily the food issues. Maybe if they gave an opt out on meals for sleepers, & then require all pax to present their ticket at mealtimes to verify, it may eliminate confusion.


----------



## Tony (Apr 29, 2009)

jis said:


> Are you suggesting that Amtrak will need to get rid of Coach seating and replace it with seating in small compartments?


I what sunchasher mentions, is what we are talking about. Not getting rid of coach, but develop something between Sleeper Class and Coach Class.



sunchaser said:


> In regards to cheaper sleeping quarters on trains, we have discussed it before. While I have never rode in one, I've seen old movies with what I would call a sleeperette-it looked like a roomette set up for night, but was closed by curtains. Each bunk was a separate compartment. They were designed for sleeping only. It didn't look like they folded up. I saw them in the old movie 'some like it hot' (Marilyn Monroe, Tony Curtis, Jack Lemmon).


I thought it was that the Coach seats folded down into the lower bed, and an upper bed pivoted down. Kind of like a Superliner Roomette, but w/o the walls/doors.

BTW, for me, it was in one of the I Love Lucy travel episodes. 



sunchaser said:


> I think that would address cost and privacy issues, but not necessarily the food issues. Maybe if they gave an opt out on meals for sleepers, & then require all pax to present their ticket at mealtimes to verify, it may eliminate confusion.


Well, I think the tangent we went off onto here, was that Sleeper Class would still get included meals included, but the new Bunk Class (anyone have a better term?) would offer a flat bed to sleep on, possibly a common shower, but no meals and no daytime privacy.


----------



## sunchaser (Apr 29, 2009)

Tony said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Are you suggesting that Amtrak will need to get rid of Coach seating and replace it with seating in small compartments?
> ...


No, don't get rid of coach. Just another form of sleeper at hopefully a lower price with less amenties.

It looked like a car with bunks lining each side of the car. It had walls on each side of the bunks. It did not look like they were moveable at all. Not like a pullman 'coach' which had couches that folded out into beds. Much like roomettes & bedrooms now. Picture a roomette set up as beds, not movable, with curtains for both bunks, no door, & not sold as a set. I think there was actually more like 3 bunks.


----------



## Tony (Apr 29, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> Not like a pullman 'coach' which had couches that folded out into beds. Much like roomettes & bedrooms now. Picture a roomette set up as beds, not movable, with curtains for both bunks, no door, & not sold as a set. I think there was actually more like 3 bunks.


You mean a "Bunk Class" car that was dedicated only for night-time use, and went completely unused during the day? Well, unless you had passengers wishing to sleep thru the day. Now that might be possible if such a car had no windows at all, and therefore, was pretty much dark even at noon.

Anyway, I don't think Amtrak would ever approve a new car that had such limited, night time only, use.


----------



## sunchaser (Apr 29, 2009)

Tony said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > Not like a pullman 'coach' which had couches that folded out into beds. Much like roomettes & bedrooms now. Picture a roomette set up as beds, not movable, with curtains for both bunks, no door, & not sold as a set. I think there was actually more like 3 bunks.
> ...


Yes, if this video is historically accurate they already did in the past. It shows the bunks at about 50 secs in,

take a look. I am pretty sure there were windows too. Bathroom was at the end of the car.



Compared to a Pullman (scroll down for photos)

http://www.trainweb.org/carl/GrandLuxe/Trainmaster.html

This is one BEAUTIFUL train-way out of most person's price range, but still beautiful.


----------



## Bigval109 (Apr 29, 2009)

GG-1 said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > Could Amtrak contract its Diner car to a third party with the stipulations that they would get $x per sleeper car passenger (regardless of if they ate or not), then ran the dining car at whatever cost they felt necessary to be profitable? They wouldn't even have to kick back to Amtrak because that would still save 'em money.
> ...


Try working for Walmart on what little walmart pays. Then add in a salary cap to keep your wages low. The union wage is their people only hope. They had a salary realignment a few years back many got a nickel others got nothing plus a salary cap. Managers pay increased about $20,000 to $30,000 a year. New worker loss the 90 day pay raise. So you are stuck at a low wage for a year before you can get a raise of .60 hour max. If that were you I think you would feel differently instead of being on the high horse looking down on the little guy with poor wages trying to take care of his family. I was on the room once when they told this guy how little he was going to make he looked like he was in shock. He was hollering wow that all, mind you the work is hard. After a while he did take the job but I heard him say his unemployment was more that what they were offering. But being a man, a man doesn't feel good about himself if he is not working.


----------



## sunchaser (Apr 29, 2009)

Bigval109 said:


> GG-1 said:
> 
> 
> > VentureForth said:
> ...


Exactly what does Walmart pay? I've heard varying wages. Most of the jobs I had did not give a .60 hour raise. When I go to walmart, there is always plenty of employees, usually the same people. If it wasn't a good place to work, they would find something else. Most of them do not seem unhappy to be there.

I have several relatives that were union. Generally vastly overpaid, & rarely worked a full shift while clocked in. If the Union didn't like the bennie pkg, they threaten strike. One relative was planning to retire recently from his union job, & he said he would get close to 5k/mo. Plus more from disability. He asked me our income, & he was shocked.

Very unlikely that your coworker's unemployment was more than his pay.

I do not know if the union is an issue for the food service on Amtrak. I know that sleepers provide more revinue. Food service usually is shoestring at best & always on the edge of profitability.

If at all possible, Amtrak should add more sleepers. sleepers=revinue. And of course more food to go with the added sleepers.

I am not sure if they have an issue with spoilage of food. I do know, in most states, in commercial settings you must throw out cooked food that is leftover. Unless they've changed that law. Most food if properly cooled, will stay fresh for at least 4-5 days.


----------



## EB_OBS (Apr 29, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Little if anything brought into the diner is frozen (save for the ice cream) it is cooked at stations and brought on board, reheated in convection ovens. For the MILLIONTH time it isn't microwaved TV dinners.



Hi ALC,

Actually your description is close but not totally correct. Vendors that supply Aramark and Amtrak with products prepare and package the products at their manufacturing facilities and the goods are shipped ready to re-heat to Aramark distribution centers in a frozen state.

So basically, for products that are pre-cooked or partially cooked, the vendors do the cooking and packaging. A perfect example is the baked chicken. It is fully cooked and packaged then flash frozen and boxed for delivery. The chicken is then thawed and re-heated in convection ovens on the train.

In the case of Amtrak, Aramark does not perform any food preperation per say. Aramark functions as a receiving, storage and distribution point. Aramark managers work closely with Amtrak Food & Beverage in order to maintain stock levels, establish a par for trains, meet FDA regulations, account for stock distributed to trains and returned at the end of a trip, and to manage condemnage or spoilage.

In reply to the general discussion;

Aramark does not determine what foods or products that Amtrak may or may not serve on-board. Any decisions to add or to delete a product from the menu are solely Amtrak's.

Amtrak's Executive Chef Daniel Malzhan came to Amtrak after the implementation of SDS. I've met him. He's correcting some of the mistakes that SDS introduced. This can be verified by referring to the menu changes that rolled out last October and by more changes coming.

Unfortunately, Amtrak management is committed, by the numbers, to continue using plastic on many trains. Even though the quality and thus cost of the plastic was increased a few times, the savings vs. the labor and benefits cost of the second cook do skew towards using the plastic.

IMO, Amtrak's OBS labor could never be contracted out at any cost savings. You simply are not going to get quality employees to work 16 to 20 hour days, gone from home for 3 to 6 days at a time and required to maintain the kind of training and emergency preparedness that Amtrak employees possess for anything less than is currently standard wages for OBS employees. Amtrak waiters and train attendants start out around $15 and top out at I think $20. I'm not exactly sure what the last contract's wage increases were to the penny. LSA make between $15 and $25 with about a $2 premium for working a diner over a cafe. While these are damned good wages for sure, no Amtrak OBS employees are getting rich working on-board.

I could probably write more but at the moment I'm out of time.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 29, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Lets also say they buy 25 sectionals, planning on one per train.
> ...


The Empire builder, last time I checked, Joel, does not use Viewliner equipment. In any case, the Boston section just got back having a sleeper. They can live without the Slumbercoach.



Ispolkom said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > You know, while I love Slumbercoach cars, I'm kinda thinking that in todays world, a section sleeper would be more effective. People aren't as privacy oriented when traveling anymore. If you use one roomette space worth for a attendants room on one side, and a pair of bathrooms on the other, a Viewliner could handle 20 sections, which means 40 passengers, 10 more than they currently handle, and probably 15-20 more than they handle on average.
> ...





volkris said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > You know, while I love Slumbercoach cars, I'm kinda thinking that in todays world, a section sleeper would be more effective. People aren't as privacy oriented when traveling anymore.
> ...


To the above and others, I reply that you are wrong. How am I suggesting we sell this? I am suggesting Amtrak sells this as a per-seat upgrade for about the same as Business class. For this you get a bed on which you can lay horizontal. People would be willing to pay for the chance to sleep horizontally. If you want privacy, that costs extra. You pay $113 for coach, $165 for a section, $303 for a roomette, and $582 for a Bedroom. Two people would make more sense in a roomette, I admit- $330 for a section verses $416 in a roomette.

Bet you Amtrak can fill the car every time.

University? Puh-lease. There is a VERY different dynamic staying in a curtained-off section for a night on a train and sharing a room for months on end in university!


----------



## sunchaser (Apr 30, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...



$582 for a bedroom? Ouch! Of course with the bucket system that is very possible. I prefer a bit lower start price.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 30, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> $582 for a bedroom? Ouch! Of course with the bucket system that is very possible. I prefer a bit lower start price.


No, the bedroom is $469. That's the accommodation plus one rail fare. $469 is low bucket. All prices are. Sample paring, which I should have mentioned, is New York to Orlando.


----------



## sunchaser (Apr 30, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > $582 for a bedroom? Ouch! Of course with the bucket system that is very possible. I prefer a bit lower start price.
> ...


oh, ok. Makes more sense now. I'm sure at least one of the bedrooms we booked was close to that, but it was not low bucket. I watched the prices climb steadily as we saved for the trip. If we had booked 11 months ahead, I know it would have been much cheaper. But we didn't decide back then.


----------



## volkris (Apr 30, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


Great. How about some facts to back up your disagreement?

We have reams and reams of data, studies, polling, and research showing that the culture is becoming more and more privacy oriented, expecting more and more privacy, and growing up with much more privacy than they had in the past... So based on what, exactly, do you claim that "People aren't as privacy oriented when traveling anymore"?

It's one thing to say that with prices low enough people will put up with a lack of privacy; it's quite another to suggest that they won't mind.


----------



## VentureForth (Apr 30, 2009)

Quick non-scientific, purely capitalistic research shows that San Francisco has at least 323 overnight accomodation facilities. Of those, 29 (9%) of the properties are considered "Specialty Lodging" which is where the less-private Hostels are lumped. Considering that there are a vastly larger volume of beds in traditional hotel/motel and B&Bs, I would guess that the actual number of "less privacy oriented" beds is less than 1%.

For another data point, NYC is much more progressive that San Francisco (if you can believe that) with 100 out of 566 properties (18%) considered "Specialty Lodging".

I'd venture to say that personal space and privacy is still the overwhelming majority preference in the US.


----------



## Hamhock (Apr 30, 2009)

Regardless of how much or little people want privacy, shared "curtained-off" or "door/wall compartment" accommodations with strangers on Amtrak would last until the first rape, assault, or lawsuit based on either occurred. It's just easier not to bother with the trouble. Slumbercoaches sleeping one, however, offer little chance of said happening, as do roomettes/bedrooms shared by traveling partners.


----------



## frj1983 (Apr 30, 2009)

volkris said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > volkris said:
> ...


Volkris,

Who is we?

And despite your contention, I don't see the airlines doing anything to make seats more private for their customers...too expensive. So if people want to fly/ride, they'll have to get over themselves! I think, what we might see, is that the younger generation will travel less on public transportation because of their "privacy" phobia! That's OK with me, more seats/rooms available for the rest of us!!!


----------



## sunchaser (Apr 30, 2009)

Hamhock said:


> Regardless of how much or little people want privacy, shared "curtained-off" or "door/wall compartment" accommodations with strangers on Amtrak would last until the first rape, assault, or lawsuit based on either occurred. It's just easier not to bother with the trouble. Slumbercoaches sleeping one, however, offer little chance of said happening, as do roomettes/bedrooms shared by traveling partners.


Point taken. I really did not consider that as a possibility.

Well, whatever choice would be made by Amtrak, I assume that would be a consideration as well.

Now we are back to Slumbercoaches again! 

I have seen a few photos of them, but who knows how many are left or if Amtrak would want to reinstate them.

Maybe the other alternative could be just adding more sleepers (refurb/repair to start) & then dropping the prices a bit.

They would still generate extra revenue.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 30, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> Point taken. I really did not consider that as a possibility.


That's because it's not a realistic possibility. You don't hear of that happening on trains now because crime on a train is colossally stupid. Say you are raped or assaulted. You report it to someone (problably not likely, because there's nowhere on a train where that will go unnoticed). Guess what happens then? Your assailant is trapped inside a metal tube with you traveling at 79 MPH. The conductor walks the train with you, you point out the assailant and he's handed to the cops at the next grade crossing.


----------



## volkris (Apr 30, 2009)

frj1983 said:


> Who is we?


The most visible of the "we" might be the colleges around the country who, based on analysis of the data from a range of people including academics, politicians, bean counters, and other businesspeople--have decided to invest billions of dollars to change the way they operate in part to give people the increased privacy they're demanding.

So that's a lot of smart people putting real money on the line based on their confidence in the data that people are increasingly interested in privacy. What do you have showing that they're not?



> And despite your contention, I don't see the airlines doing anything to make seats more private for their customers...too expensive. So if people want to fly/ride, they'll have to get over themselves! I think, what we might see, is that the younger generation will travel less on public transportation because of their "privacy" phobia! That's OK with me, more seats/rooms available for the rest of us!!!


Believe it or not, there are some differences between air flight and rail services...

Anyway, there won't be more seats and rooms available for long once they start cutting services due to lack of demand. Turning away customers is no way to run an organization.


----------



## Hamhock (Apr 30, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> That's because it's not a realistic possibility. You don't hear of that happening on trains now because crime on a train is colossally stupid. Say you are raped or assaulted. You report it to someone (problably not likely, because there's nowhere on a train where that will go unnoticed). Guess what happens then? Your assailant is trapped inside a metal tube with you traveling at 79 MPH. The conductor walks the train with you, you point out the assailant and he's handed to the cops at the next grade crossing.


No assault/rape victim ever gets rendered unconscious beforehand? Or encounters a "they held a knife to my throat and said if I made a sound..." situation?

Also, that's why I added lawsuits to the list, to cover alleged crimes that may not actually have occurred... "I was assaulted by unknown passenger I was 'forced' to share accommodations with; Amtrak is at fault", etc...


----------



## jis (Apr 30, 2009)

Hamhock said:


> No assault/rape victim ever gets rendered unconscious beforehand? Or encounters a "they held a knife to my throat and said if I made a sound..." situation?
> Also, that's why I added lawsuits to the list, to cover alleged crimes that may not actually have occurred... "I was assaulted by unknown passenger I was 'forced' to share accommodations with; Amtrak is at fault", etc...


I just wonder why such problems do not already occur in Coach. Afterall, one is forced to share a pair of seats with a stranger if one is traveling alone and the train is full. How far would a coach seat have to recline back before it becomes an issue in this regard? Would installing lie flat reclining seats like in planes cause this problem to arise, even though it appears to be absent in Coach today? Just curious. I don't know the answer.


----------



## Neil_M (Apr 30, 2009)

jis said:


> Hamhock said:
> 
> 
> > No assault/rape victim ever gets rendered unconscious beforehand? Or encounters a "they held a knife to my throat and said if I made a sound..." situation?
> ...


Maybe people just feel more vulnerable when sleeping in a confined sleeping space like a roomette, and they are probably wearing less clothing anyway,maybe its just all in the mind.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 30, 2009)

Hamhock said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> > That's because it's not a realistic possibility. You don't hear of that happening on trains now because crime on a train is colossally stupid. Say you are raped or assaulted. You report it to someone (problably not likely, because there's nowhere on a train where that will go unnoticed). Guess what happens then? Your assailant is trapped inside a metal tube with you traveling at 79 MPH. The conductor walks the train with you, you point out the assailant and he's handed to the cops at the next grade crossing.
> ...


Any of that could happen in coach (in a bathroom) or in a sleeper now, yet we see that it doesn't.

The bottom line is that a train is a confined space where the identity of all onboard is known. It's a crappy place to commit a crime, and criminals are smart enough to realize that fact.


----------



## sunchaser (Apr 30, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> Hamhock said:
> 
> 
> > HokieNav said:
> ...


Duh on my part. You are on a train! Where can they go? Even if something like that did occur, they will not manage to escape unless they did it right before a stop & was able to exit the train. The average criminal is not that organized to time something like that. I realize it can be more common on a bus or subway, I don't think I've ever heard of anything like that on the train. Except of course, 'Murder on the Orient Express'!


----------



## AlanB (Apr 30, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> I realize it can be more common on a bus or subway, I don't think I've ever heard of anything like that on the train. Except of course, 'Murder on the Orient Express'!


It's not very common on a subway either, in fact I'm not sure that I've ever heard of a report in the NYC subway where someone was raped on the train. There have been gropings and improper touching and such, but usually any one whose been raped in association with a subway was followed off the train and raped some place else, be it the station or a park or a dark alley or their own apartment.


----------



## jackal (Apr 30, 2009)

frj1983 said:


> And despite your contention, I don't see the airlines doing anything to make seats more private for their customers...too expensive. So if people want to fly/ride, they'll have to get over themselves! I think, what we might see, is that the younger generation will travel less on public transportation because of their "privacy" phobia! That's OK with me, more seats/rooms available for the rest of us!!!


That's because in an airline coach seat (or in an Amtrak coach seat, for that matter), you're still in a semi-upright position, probably not sleeping very heavily, and fully clothed and visible to everyone else in the car.

In a curtained-off sleeping compartment, you're lying down flat, very well could be sleeping quite heavily, at least semi-undressed, and with all of the curtains closed, no one could see what anyone else does to you.

And actually, airlines _are_ doing things to make their seats more private for their customers. My British Airways First Class seat was actually a semi-enclosed sleeping pod, and the seats were arranged in such a way that no one else could see me unless I stood up or poked my head out from around the side of the seat. Some even nicer airlines are actually installing fully enclosed suites for their first-class passengers (Singapore, I believe, on their new A380s, and possibly Emirates, too). Granted, these come at a price far above any Amtrak bedroom (in the tens of thousands per trip)...


----------



## jis (Apr 30, 2009)

jackal said:


> And actually, airlines _are_ doing things to make their seats more private for their customers. My British Airways First Class seat was actually a semi-enclosed sleeping pod, and the seats were arranged in such a way that no one else could see me unless I stood up or poked my head out from around the side of the seat. Some even nicer airlines are actually installing fully enclosed suites for their first-class passengers (Singapore, I believe, on their new A380s, and possibly Emirates, too). Granted, these come at a price far above any Amtrak bedroom (in the tens of thousands per trip)...


True about First Class. But all of them offer lie flat seats in Business Class which are much less "protected and private". The number of Business Class seats on any given flight is at least 2 to 3 times in number compared to First Class seats, so clearly there are 2 to 3 times the number of people willing to be exposed in such ways. And of course I have never heard of anyone undressing to go to sleep on those lie flat seats.

Also, having traveled a lot in couchettes and open sections in other parts of the world, I have never come across people who undress before going to sleep in such accommodation, and yet they prefer such over coach seats. As a matter of fact sagging ridership on overnight air-conditioned trains was reversed in India only after coaches were completely gotten rid of and replaced with open sections, or their equivalent. People simply refused to be stuck in seats for the overnight. Of course the original idea of coach for overnight was borrowed from the US, and it did not work at all. I guess it is all in how people relate totheir fellow human beings in a culture.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 30, 2009)

You are thinking of this wrong. Its not a downgrade from a roomette, its an upgrade from a coach seat. How many of you people who actually think I am wrong frequently overnight in coach?


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Apr 30, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> You are thinking of this wrong. Its not a downgrade from a roomette, its an upgrade from a coach seat. How many of you people who actually think I am wrong frequently overnight in coach?


I overnight in coach often and rarely can justify the cost of a roomette unless I have a second traveling with me-- which I never do... so I do agree, your idea sounds (at the very least) intriguing.


----------



## jackal (Apr 30, 2009)

jis said:


> jackal said:
> 
> 
> > And actually, airlines _are_ doing things to make their seats more private for their customers. My British Airways First Class seat was actually a semi-enclosed sleeping pod, and the seats were arranged in such a way that no one else could see me unless I stood up or poked my head out from around the side of the seat. Some even nicer airlines are actually installing fully enclosed suites for their first-class passengers (Singapore, I believe, on their new A380s, and possibly Emirates, too). Granted, these come at a price far above any Amtrak bedroom (in the tens of thousands per trip)...
> ...


Well, BA gave me pajamas (pyjamas, I suppose I should say!  )...and I'd say pretty much everyone in the cabin changed into those before going to bed!


----------



## jis (Apr 30, 2009)

jackal said:


> Well, BA gave me pajamas (pyjamas, I suppose I should say!  )...and I'd say pretty much everyone in the cabin changed into those before going to bed!


In Business Class? I was not talking of First Class.


----------



## volkris (May 1, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> You are thinking of this wrong. Its not a downgrade from a roomette, its an upgrade from a coach seat. How many of you people who actually think I am wrong frequently overnight in coach?


No, it's not about upgrades or downgrades. It's about perceptions of value and the number of people who would pay for the various options versus their costs.

Given that overnighting in coach isn't a horrible experience, how much more could you charge for the slight upgrade to a flat bed? Would you be able to charge enough people a big enough premium to justify the cost of offering the option? Then consider the option of a slumbercoach type setup: the premium can be higher since you're offering not only the slight upgrade to a flat bed but also the increased perception of privacy, the perception of safety, and the perception of ownership of an area. Yes, those are only perceptions, but in the end perception is all that matters. Anyway, it's a very different equation.


----------



## jackal (May 1, 2009)

jis said:


> jackal said:
> 
> 
> > Well, BA gave me pajamas (pyjamas, I suppose I should say!  )...and I'd say pretty much everyone in the cabin changed into those before going to bed!
> ...


Ah, sorry. No, it was in First Class. I don't know what the minions back in Business Class (Club World) do--I don't ever lower myself down to that level!


----------



## Konrad (May 1, 2009)

jackal said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > jackal said:
> ...


Qantas and BA offer pyjamas to Business travellers. I have even seen them change in the lounge pre-flight (Qantas Club privileges allow one to watch the ruling classes). Of course, these are 10 to 14 hour flights leaving well after sunset.


----------



## jis (May 1, 2009)

Konrad said:


> Qantas and BA offer pyjamas to Business travellers. I have even seen them change in the lounge pre-flight (Qantas Club privileges allow one to watch the ruling classes). Of course, these are 10 to 14 hour flights leaving well after sunset.


Ah! Good to know. Interesting that as ridership levels off and they teeter slowly towards larger losses service improves! 

So whatever is provided is clearly enough clothing so as not to require much of privacy even when you have those on?


----------



## jackal (May 1, 2009)

jis said:


> Konrad said:
> 
> 
> > Qantas and BA offer pyjamas to Business travellers. I have even seen them change in the lounge pre-flight (Qantas Club privileges allow one to watch the ruling classes). Of course, these are 10 to 14 hour flights leaving well after sunset.
> ...


I'll be happy to post a picture of me wearing them when I get my computer up and running. Yes, they are a two-piece set with full-length pants and a long-sleeve shirt. Dark blue/navy with a little embroidered "First" logo on the front. Light and quite comfortable. By flying six segments on BA, I managed to snag six pairs, and I still use them to this day.


----------



## jis (May 1, 2009)

jackal said:


> I'll be happy to post a picture of me wearing them when I get my computer up and running. Yes, they are a two-piece set with full-length pants and a long-sleeve shirt. Dark blue/navy with a little embroidered "First" logo on the front. Light and quite comfortable. By flying six segments on BA, I managed to snag six pairs, and I still use them to this day.


So now you can do an experiment. You can wear one on Amtrak and see if some unsavory character tries to accost you. :lol:


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 2, 2009)

volkris said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > You are thinking of this wrong. Its not a downgrade from a roomette, its an upgrade from a coach seat. How many of you people who actually think I am wrong frequently overnight in coach?
> ...


A Viewliner (or even Amfleet) Section sleeper would be quite easy to build. After all, a section is basically a Superliner Roomette without the door and wider seats and beds. A slumbercoach, because of the design, would eschew the modular construction of the Viewliner and Superliner cars, and be impossible to do on an Amfleet. My advocated use for the Amfleets is to be turned into section sleepers for long distance trains and for use as section sleepers for through cars. New York - LAX, New York - EMY, etc.

So given my preference to use Amfleets for the cars, well, rebuilding them as section sleepers would be a hell of a lot cheaper the engineering, designing, and building a whole new class of car for a Slumbercoach- it might look like a Viewliner, but structurally it would have to be a different car.


----------



## George Harris (May 2, 2009)

I realize that much has chaned over the last 60 years, but before getting all wound up about section type sleepers, there should be serious thought about why they died out in this country fairly promptly right after WW2. I know they still exist in may other parts of the world. Have ridden one in Malaysia and in Japan. Also seen them in China, where the sections are three bunks high. But in this country? Very few post-WW2 sleepers were built with sections, and where they existed the usage tended to be mosty by those traveling on expenses where that was what would be paid by your employer.

For one night, if I don't want privacy a reclining seat will do nicely.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (May 2, 2009)

If the average rail car lasts 30 years, and is in revenue service 300 nights a year, it should be in revenue service for roughly 9000 nights in its lifetime.

If the cost per car is $4 million, and a $4 million single level car has space for 18 revenue roomettes if it was built without bedrooms (ignore for this discussion the ADA compliance problems that might cause), that's a little over $200,000 per roomette. We'll call it $200,000, which I suspect is still an overestimate after we account for $4 million probably being somewhat higher than the real cost.

If the benefit of a sectional car over a roomette car is that single travelers don't waste the upper bunk, that means each single traveler in the sectional saves their 9000th of the $100,000. That's somewhere around $11.

Even if there is money borrowed to pay for the car, the real savings in car construction is probably somewhere around $30 per passenger after that passenger helps to chip in on the interest payments.

So the real question is, how many single travelers are only $30 per night away from being able to afford a roomette?

Also, I've never understood how a sectional car works for daytime seating if you don't have a seat elsewhere on the train, and the stranger in the bunk above you wants to sleep three hours later than you do.


----------



## MrFSS (May 2, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Also, I've never understood how a sectional car works for daytime seating if you don't have a seat elsewhere on the train, and the stranger in the bunk above you wants to sleep three hours later than you do.


As I understand it, they came through and changed from night to day configuration at a specific time. You had no choice to but to arise from your slumber and get on with the day in the upright position.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (May 2, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> So the real question is, how many single travelers are only $30 per night away from being able to afford a roomette?


Except that's only the difference in the cost of constructing the rail car initially, and doesn't factor in the operating costs and maintenance costs.

On the other hand, that also assumes a single level sleeper costs $3.6 million. If the car costs less than that, a passenger's share of the construction costs is also going to be less.

And having fewer accomodation types also saves Amtrak a little bit, something else which needs to be factored into the equation.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 3, 2009)

You're not thinking about it from an operating perspective. See, operating and capital are totally separated. The whole Cross Country Cafe thing is a eye-popping example of this.

If a Viewliner 12-2-1 brings in $225 per roomette on average, some of that is meal cost. If the average room gets 1.6 passengers, and the average passengers gets one of each meal, then: $12+18+30 = $60 x 1.6 = $96 for meals. So on average, a roomette makes a gross profit of $129.

Now if you have an attendant on call for the total of 20 rooms in a theoretical all-roomette Viewliner, and the attendant works a 29 hour schedule (thats probably about average between the various Viewliner trains) at $20 an hour, that costs $580. If we divide that by the number of rooms, thats $29 a room. $100.00. Then you have the expenses involved in the Metrolounge for some passengers, the coffee, the sugar, the orange juice, the shower soap, the water, yadda yadda. I'd say thats another $10. So you are down to a net operating profit of $90 a roomette, not including fuel which I am not qualified to judge.

So if we had a theoretical 20-roomette Viewliner that train would be making a total of $1800.

If a section sleeper brings in $50 per section, and it has 40 sections. Meals are not included. The attendant could easily be someone from coach or another sleeper- all they do is make beds. $5 a passenger would be fair. $45 profit per passenger. $1800. Same profit per car.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (May 3, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> If a Viewliner 12-2-1 brings in $225 per roomette on average, some of that is meal cost. If the average room gets 1.6 passengers, and the average passengers gets one of each meal, then: $12+18+30 = $60 x 1.6 = $96 for meals. So on average, a roomette makes a gross profit of $129.


I have never been able to buy a BOS to CHI one way ticket with any time in a roomette for anything as low as $225 counting both railfare and accomodation charge. I think if I'd somehow managed to pay exactly 1.6 railfares, I never would have been able to get a ticket for a roomette for less than $350ish. And I don't think I've ever been assigned a roomette number higher than 4, so I'm probably nearer the low bucket than the average.

I've also been known to skip eastbound breakfast.

And I think you will find that the typical railfare for the second passenger invariably exceeds the food cost for that passenger.

If you really want to decouple the food from the room, there should be cheaper ways to do it than introducing a new car type.

I also suspect that looking at the menu prices as the costs is only a rough approximation. Hauling a dining car at all costs a lot of money, regardless of whether you fill it to capacity or only serve half as many passengers as you could serve. Having an extra server does cost something. I doubt Aramark collects more than $10 for anyone's included-with-the-sleeper dinner. So I'm not really sure Amtrak would save more than $20 per passenger if some sleeping car passengers elected to bring their own food. And those sleeping car passengers who did elect to bring their own food would probably still pay $5 or $10 for it, so the real savings might only be $10-$15 per night.



Green Maned Lion said:


> not including fuel which I am not qualified to judge.


Not to mention that 20 years from now, if we decide we don't want to be still burning diesel, the incremental cost of paying indirectly for the construction of another wind turbine will be smaller than today's cost of paying for more oil drilling. I'm starting to suspect that lithium ion battery powered locomotives will end up being cheaper to run 20 years from now than diesel locomotives.



Green Maned Lion said:


> If a section sleeper brings in $50 per section, and it has 40 sections. Meals are not included. The attendant could easily be someone from coach or another sleeper- all they do is make beds. $5 a passenger would be fair. $45 profit per passenger. $1800. Same profit per car.


So in Green Maned Lion Math, a sleeping car attendant from a traditional sleeping car can also take care of a sectional sleeper, but it would be impossible to have two sleeping car attendants cover three traditional sleeping cars?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 4, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> I have never been able to buy a BOS to CHI one way ticket with any time in a roomette for anything as low as $225 counting both railfare and accomodation charge. I think if I'd somehow managed to pay exactly 1.6 railfares, I never would have been able to get a ticket for a roomette for less than $350ish. And I don't think I've ever been assigned a roomette number higher than 4, so I'm probably nearer the low bucket than the average.


The profit from a sleeper comes from the additional charge, which is the number I used. The rail fare is different and irrelevant- I used accomodation numbers for both roomette and section.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> I've also been known to skip eastbound breakfast.


With Amtrak's accounting system, that is a moot point.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> And I think you will find that the typical railfare for the second passenger invariably exceeds the food cost for that passenger.


So? Rail fare covers rail fare. Accommodations cover accommodations.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> If you really want to decouple the food from the room, there should be cheaper ways to do it than introducing a new car type.


Obviously, but I don't. I want to create a totally separate second-class accommodation.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> I also suspect that looking at the menu prices as the costs is only a rough approximation. Hauling a dining car at all costs a lot of money, regardless of whether you fill it to capacity or only serve half as many passengers as you could serve. Having an extra server does cost something. I doubt Aramark collects more than $10 for anyone's included-with-the-sleeper dinner. So I'm not really sure Amtrak would save more than $20 per passenger if some sleeping car passengers elected to bring their own food. And those sleeping car passengers who did elect to bring their own food would probably still pay $5 or $10 for it, so the real savings might only be $10-$15 per night.


Actually, the way their accounting system works, which is naturally ridiculous, each sleeping passengers meal is logged as a full-paid-meal. If we used a different system, the diners would be even less profitable, and would disappear in short order.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> So in Green Maned Lion Math, a sleeping car attendant from a traditional sleeping car can also take care of a sectional sleeper, but it would be impossible to have two sleeping car attendants cover three traditional sleeping cars?


Considering the relatively low-time required to quickly convert the sections to beds, and the lack of need for making the bed to be done while the train is enroute on Viewliner trains, and the fact that section sleepers only attendant function would be bed-conversion (actually, we could probably eliminate that entirely with reasonable ease, but whatever), yes, yes I do.


----------

