AmNames

[Blackwolf]

Blackwolf:

Actually, the airline experience proves the opposite. Like it or not, food service is actually a great place to cut costs (I am speaking from a standpoint of what works, not whether I'd like it if they did it-- indeed, I hate the fact that you don't get a meal on a 6 hour flight from Boston to LA or an 8 hour flight from Chicago to Honolulu anymore, but as a cost cutting measure, it was effective).

In fact, I suspect that much of the grumbling here is bluster. People ride trains because they serve destinations, because the people like riding trains, because of cost competitiveness, because they don't like flying, etc. How many people stopped riding Amtrak when they went to SDS? When they started using the CCC? When they took the full diners off the Cardinal and LSL?

As long as we have long distance trains in this country, there will always and forever be a tension between what train enthusiasts would prefer in terms of service and what is cost effective. Food service is one of those areas where the tension plays out.

This has branched quite far from the original topic of discussion, but I believe you are wrong even with the airlines.

Airlines had food included in your Coach ticket price, even for small hop flights, until the early 2000's when things really went to H*ll in a handbasket for them financially. Now coach passengers are required to either buy food for purchase aboard or bring their own if they so wish to have a meal during their trip.

Amtrak has never offered food as part of your ticket while traveling in Coach. Passengers wishing to eat while on their trip are able to buy food for purchase aboard (both at the snack counter, which has a massive selection compared with airline options, and in a full-service diner aboard LD trains) or bring their own just the same. Train passengers have the added bonus of being able to carry fluids with their self-packed meals, an additional blessing over airlines which are bound by TSA limits on liquids from outside the security zone.

But here is where the similarities are still in play.

Airlines still do offer full-service food options for passengers traveling in higher (First) classes. These meals are included in your ticket cost, and many also include unlimited alcoholic beverages in addition to normal beverage choices. Below is current Domestic North American First-Class food service information from several airlines:

Delta: Business Elite Meals

USAir: First Class Menu

United: Premium Cabin Inflight Dining

Alaska: First Class Food & Beverage

And, as it should be, so does Amtrak. When traveling in Sleeper (First) class, your meals are also included in your ticket price. The only real difference, and this is just logistics because trains do have longer travel times, is that you may only get one meal during your flight but may get several days worth of meals on a train. Oh, and booze in on your dime.

As for SDS and the CCC? The answer is YES! Amtrak did see a major drop in revenue, a rise in complaints, and general heart-ache when they were implemented. Some trains saw a reduction of sleeper bookings, and many people just did not go to the diner (myself included!) when the roll-out for both was in full-swing. Let me also point out, the only reason the LSL lost its diner for a period of time was due to a lack of available dining cars; it has long since gotten the full diner back (and it has been rated as one of the best kitchens Amtrak has going on its system in recent months; I can personally agree, having experienced the LSL diner in February.) The Cardinal does not have a diner for a similar reason: not enough in the system to service the train. When the new Viewliner diners are out, the Cardinal will be getting its long-awaited full-service diner. SDS is on the way out, baring any foolish micromanaging from a Congress Critter that thinks they know better (they don't, instead they only know how to make things worse.) And the only train I know of with a CCC is the City of New Orleans. Amtrak scrapped the CCC program outside of that one route, considering it a failure, and many of the former full diners that were converted are either being used as lounges or have been rebuilt back into full diners.

Those are the facts. I'm rather finished on the subject, as this thread is not the proper place for a topic on food service. There are plenty of other threads on the forum to discuss food aboard our beloved Amtrak, and nothing is stopping you from signing on as a full member and starting a new one of your own.

 

[Lawdude]

Blackwolf:

I fly first class every now and then. Domestically, the meals stink. Seriously. The costs have been slashed to the bone.

As for the rest of your points, the Texas Eagle, Cardinal, and City of New Orleans all have degraded dining service. As far as I know, two of those train are extremely popular and the third (the Cardinal) does reasonably well for a three day a week train.

And that's entirely predictable, because MOST LONG DISTANCE RIDERS RIDE POINT TO POINT WITHIN THE LINE. And those people are far less likely to care about food service.

Amtrak is not a cruise line. A cruise line makes money on its operations and uses high end food service as a loss leader to sell cabins (and gambling and alcohol) where it makes a huge profit. Amtrak, in contrast, loses money on every passenger other than on the NEC/Acela and the Auto Train, but loses far less on coach point to point passengers than it does on the sort of folks who like sit down dining cars. The premise of a "loss leader" is that your losses on a service lead to profits selling something else. On Amtrak, food service is not a loss leader. It's a cost. If it really did drive train enthusiasts away (and there is no evidence it would), that would reduce Amtrak's losses anyway.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Please stop falling for the idiotic nonsense of the per passenger marginal loss. The marginal number per passenger is positive.

 

[Lawdude]

It's completely invalid to pretend that none of the fixed costs of operating sleeping and dining car service is attributable to the passengers therein. If dining car cost cutting resulted in a significant decrease in sleeping car demand, Amtrak could pull sleepers offline and lay off porters. That would, in fact, save Amtrak money. In contrast, if sleeping car demand did not fall, then the cost cutting itself will save Amtrak money.

This is, fundamentally, what it means to say that longer distance sleeping car passengers receive a bigger subsidy (which they do).

The case for Amtrak's existence depends on the role the trains have in providing basic point to point transportation. And that function doesn't cost all that much, comparatively. Indeed, in the longer term, cost cutting could allow Amtrak to expand its long distance network.

Meanwhile sleeping car passengers who like sit down dining service not only cost Amtrak a lot of money, but really don't provide any compelling justification for subsidized transportation.

In the long term, the former model is sustainable. It will require subsidies, but it is sustainable. The latter model is not. Over time, Amtrak, as a matter of budgetary reality, will find ways to feed its long distance passengers more cheaply. And railfans will actually swallow their objections and continue to ride, because there is no alternative other than the private land cruise model which is far more expensive and far slower.

Enjoy the dining cars (and the sleepers, but that's longer term) while you can. Long term, that's where the cost savings are.

 

[NE933]

cut costs by cutting food... cut costs by cutting air..

The one who volutarily disposes of his own life by surrendering to an eternal empty plate shall be the first one to go before me; how many others it will take before I follow is the great unknown.

 

[AlanB]

Amtrak scrapped the CCC program outside of that one route, considering it a failure, and many of the former full diners that were converted are either being used as lounges or have been rebuilt back into full diners.

While I concur that Amtrak scrapped the CCC program and it stopped further planned conversions of dining cars, as well as Sightseeer Lounges, into CCC's; I'm aware of no CCC's that have been converted back into full dining cars.

 

[AlanB]

This is, fundamentally, what it means to say that longer distance sleeping car passengers receive a bigger subsidy (which they do).

Incorrect.

As a study by NARP showed a few years back, sleeping car passengers pay all of their above the rail costs. The only subsidy that sleeping car passengers get, is the same subsidy that coach passengers get, the railfare. And in fact, as the NARP study showed, were Amtrak to operate the LD's with only coach, the 2004 subsidy per passenger mile would have been $0.1888. The subsidy per sleeper passenger is $0.1817. Which makes the combined subsidy $0.1870, and means that thanks to the sleeper passenger, the subsidies provided overall are less thanks to those sleeper passengers.

And seeing as how the prices for sleepers have soared since then, it's a pretty safe bet that the sleeper pax are actually covering even more of the coach subsidies than back in 2004. Back in 2004 a roomette from NY to LA low bucket cost $368. Today that's over $500.

http://www.narprail.org/index.php/resources/white-papers/1767-sleeping-car-revenues-are-pure-gravy-for-amtrak

 

[Anderson]

It's completely invalid to pretend that none of the fixed costs of operating sleeping and dining car service is attributable to the passengers therein. If dining car cost cutting resulted in a significant decrease in sleeping car demand, Amtrak could pull sleepers offline and lay off porters. That would, in fact, save Amtrak money. In contrast, if sleeping car demand did not fall, then the cost cutting itself will save Amtrak money.

This is, fundamentally, what it means to say that longer distance sleeping car passengers receive a bigger subsidy (which they do).

The case for Amtrak's existence depends on the role the trains have in providing basic point to point transportation. And that function doesn't cost all that much, comparatively. Indeed, in the longer term, cost cutting could allow Amtrak to expand its long distance network.

Meanwhile sleeping car passengers who like sit down dining service not only cost Amtrak a lot of money, but really don't provide any compelling justification for subsidized transportation.

In the long term, the former model is sustainable. It will require subsidies, but it is sustainable. The latter model is not. Over time, Amtrak, as a matter of budgetary reality, will find ways to feed its long distance passengers more cheaply. And railfans will actually swallow their objections and continue to ride, because there is no alternative other than the private land cruise model which is far more expensive and far slower.

Enjoy the dining cars (and the sleepers, but that's longer term) while you can. Long term, that's where the cost savings are.

Eh, we're on the topic...may as well run with it. So, here's what I run into:

1) The diners are, always have been, and always will be something of a loss leader because of the staffing and capital requirements involved in operating them. However, it is worth noting that the language Amtrak used when discussing the LSL's diner situation last year seemed almost flabbergasted that coach passengers were grabbing at least breakfast or lunch in the diner, and making up something like half of the business overall.

2) With that said, since the fixed costs (operating the car and so forth) are a large enough share of things, there are ways to shrink the marginal losses. For example, assume that we carry out an exercise on a train...keep roughly the current size diner and feed as many tables with it. How many tables of four could you feed at a reasonable pace? I'm guessing at least 12 (48 seats), and possibly 14-16 (56/64 seats)...which is a far cry from the 8 tables (32 seats) that you get stuck with on occasion when a 40-seat dining car (since the staff often takes up two tables for paperwork). I would also point out that the dining car staff can often take take-out orders even when the tables are full, pointing to sub-optimal utilization of staff.

3) Moving on to sleeping car passengers, my understanding is that (with a few "bad route" exceptions...Cardinal and Sunset Limited, I'm looking at you) sleeper passengers pay their full weight as far as the cost of operating the train, and in fact usually wind up effectively cross-subsidizing the coach folks.

4) Following up on this, there's an old report called "Amtrak 90" that got linked to on here today. I won't get into the details, but if you can add capacity to an existing train, you tend to shrink the per-passenger losses (and generally the overall losses) by a noticeable amount. Look at the cost recovery on the Empire Builder, the Coast Starlight, or the Auto Train (hint: Which trains haven't gotten reviewed yet because they're in the upper third of LD trains? Those three plus the SW Chief and the CONO). I forget the exact numbers, but I think it was something like adding two sleepers and a coach to a Superliner train added 18% to operating costs but 45% to operating revenue.

What's the takeaway? No, the diners aren't going to make money...but you can push them further and close those per-passenger losses noticeably, and if you can do this plus add more sleeper space, you can dramatically improve train performance. A mid-bucket Silver Service train that adds a sleeper, filled at an average of $300/roomette [assuming 10 are filled] and $600/bedroom [assuming 3 are filled] (trust me, this tends to be on the low side once you factor in the coach fares for double occupancy), you add just over $3.5 million to the revenue of that train per year.

At this point, it's not cost-cutting that Amtrak needs...it's capacity expansion. If the former can permit the other, that is great...but right now, what Amtrak needs above all else is more space on many trains. Between 2005 and 2011, Amtrak posted the following gains on the Silvers:

Star:

2005: 405/train

2011: 581/train (+43.5%)

Meteor:

2005: 395/train

2011: 512/train (+29.6%)

What does this tell me? On the one hand, the trains are increasingly popular; on the other hand, that without new equipment, capacity is a problem. Without capacity, it is hard to push revenue up but /so/ much (since fare increases, however ambitious, can only take so much of the load). I'll say it again: Amtrak needs more cars to run on the existing trains so it can reduce losses.