Amtrak and Checked Baggage

[Ctim2]

Question, with the reduction in the number of trains now offering checked baggage and the new level of baggage control (Amtrak’s stricter enforcement of the 2 piece limit) I wanted to get a sense of how the average passenger felt about the following:

How important do you think it is for Amtrak to offer checked baggage service?

Has the Amtrak’s policy cause you any problems?

What station do you use the most and is cheked baggage offered?

Would you be willing to pay a fee to check bags if Amtrak were to add checked baggage at stations that do not have checked baggage?

How would you feel about train side baggage checking (similar to what is done with buses and commuter flights?

Tim

 

[Trogdor]

I think it is extremely important for Amtrak to offer checked baggage service if the railroad wishes to compete in the travel business (namely, those that will be away from home for more than a couple of days). Carrying bags can be a hassle, and I have taken advantage of checked baggage service in the past, especially when I had to change trains.

I'll leave some of the other questions to those that use the service more often (as a personal policy, I try to check bags as little as possible, whether I'm traveling by rail or by air). Train-side baggage check would be a great idea at smaller stations that do not have the facilities or staffing available for more formal checked-baggage service. However, just be careful not to do this on trains that are staffed with only a single conductor, as then you'd be basically screwed for helping passengers at station stops.

 

[EmpireBuilderFan1976]

Question, with the reduction in the number of trains now offering checked baggage and the new level of baggage control (Amtrak’s stricter enforcement of the 2 piece limit) I wanted to get a sense of how the average passenger felt about the following:
How important do you think it is for Amtrak to offer checked baggage service?

Has the Amtrak’s policy cause you any problems?

What station do you use the most and is cheked baggage offered?

Would you be willing to pay a fee to check bags if Amtrak were to add checked baggage at stations that do not have checked baggage?

How would you feel about train side baggage checking (similar to what is done with buses and commuter flights?

Tim

I think if Amtrak wants to be an attractive travel alternative to families, they need to offer more checked baggage service, not less. I've been on trains in which families of 4 have gotten on at a station with no checked baggage. What a fiasco for them and everyone in their path. I have been sitting on the lower level, when the conductors and car attendants had passengers stow their large bags down in the lower level seating area. As these people were going on vacations with family and were getting on the train at stations that did not offer checked baggage. As a result, those of us in the lower level had to constantly move suitcases and duffel bags out of the walkway to our door out of the lower level seating area, as the bags kept shifting and blocking our exit. I sit down their because of motion sickness not physical handicap, so I was able to move the luggage out of the way so the disabled and elderly down there could get out to use the restrooms.

 

[George Harris]

More, not less, and lose forever the two piece limit. This one (2 piece limit) is airline thinking at work.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

Not having checked baggage service hampers passenger count growth and makes for sometimes chaotic conditions in the passenger cars. They ought to be able to check baggage trainside at the baggage car if the station itself doesn't offer the service (unattended stations or whatever). Yes that will make those station stops take longer but it will keep baggage where it should be, in the baggage car, instead of being potentially piled in the aisles. I would also say that as long as there is room in baggage for more than two bags, they ought to allow it, because anything train travel can tout that airlines can't is something to keep, because it's a selling point.

 

[haolerider]

Not having checked baggage service hampers passenger count growth and makes for sometimes chaotic conditions in the passenger cars. They ought to be able to check baggage trainside at the baggage car if the station itself doesn't offer the service (unattended stations or whatever). Yes that will make those station stops take longer but it will keep baggage where it should be, in the baggage car, instead of being potentially piled in the aisles. I would also say that as long as there is room in baggage for more than two bags, they ought to allow it, because anything train travel can tout that airlines can't is something to keep, because it's a selling point.

I have to disagree with trainside baggage checking, since that would also mean trainside baggage delivery. With only a Conductor and Assistant conductor available to handle baggage, the delays along the route would be tremendous - not even considering the other duties of both of these positions. If you have the time, please go to a staffed station and watch the process of checking baggage and you may reconsider trainside baggage check-in. I do agree that the proper answer is more staffed stations, but if you take the route of the Crescent, which has 16 unstaffed stations and consider that it might take 5 minutes to off load and load baggage, you are now talking about an additional 80 minutes on the route and passengers are already complaining about being 30-45 minutes late. If you want to staff all these stations - many of which are in the middle of the night stops, you are now talking about a tremendous increase in labor costs, plus the cost of computers, wiring, and other remodeling expenses to make the station a staffed location. I am sure amtrak has looked at the potential costs and rejected the idea, based on return on investment. Several years ago many stations were unstaffed and the problems associated with this decision were enough to get the stations staffed again.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

I've been to checked-baggage stations, lots of times, and have seen quite a few un-staffed stations as well. WPK is staffed, with baggage handling. The question, it seems to me, is passenger count at these unstaffed or non-checked-baggage station stops. If you typically have a small passenger count at a particular stop, then there shouldn't be that much of a delay. Perhaps add one person to the train crew to handle the baggage for the whole trip if you don't have somebody there to start with. Even two people, per train, is still going to be a heck of a lot cheaper than the huge overhead of staffing a bunch of otherwise unstaffed stations, plus all the additional equipment overhead at those stations.

If you regularly have enough passengers at a particular station that you are delaying the train by 5-10 minutes, then it's time to consider staffing the station stop. But be flexible about it - could you hire some part-time folks to act as baggage handlers without having to put in the additional "conveniences" at that station stop (for ticketing etc.), or could you just add part-time baggage handlers and nothing else.

The only real problem I see there is what do you do if baggage arrives with no passenger to claim it, or what do you do with a bag erroneously offloaded at that stop? You've got to have some way to securely store it. You could probably eliminate that problem if passengers would be immediately directed to the baggage car (perhaps put it at the back end instead of the front end) to claim their bags, with baggage handling personnel and perhaps an AC to assist in expediting it, matching claim checks, etc. If baggage handlers would be given baggage check numbers, and only bags matching those numbers would be offloaded, with all other bags remaining on the train, then no unclaimed bags would be left on the ground. And while the AC and baggage handlers are handling those bags, the Conductor and other OBS folks could be organizing and entraining new passengers. And if they had blank baggage checks, they could do a quick job of putting station IDs on those checks, putting them on the bags, and giving the stubs to the passengers entraining. AGAIN, this is for LOW PASSENGER VOLUME stops, with just a low typical passenger count. That's the only way this could work.

To save a little time, you could offload the passengers at those stops, then do a quick re-spot of the train to put the baggage car where the offloaded passengers were. The baggage handlers would already have the bags tagged for that stop ready for claim check verification and offloading.

The bottom line, I think, is that they could make something like this work if they had the will to do it. And again, this would be for station stops with a low passenger volume, where it is manifestly a huge waste of money to staff a station.

 

[haolerider]

I've been to checked-baggage stations, lots of times, and have seen quite a few un-staffed stations as well. WPK is staffed, with baggage handling. The question, it seems to me, is passenger count at these unstaffed or non-checked-baggage station stops. If you typically have a small passenger count at a particular stop, then there shouldn't be that much of a delay. Perhaps add one person to the train crew to handle the baggage for the whole trip if you don't have somebody there to start with. Even two people, per train, is still going to be a heck of a lot cheaper than the huge overhead of staffing a bunch of otherwise unstaffed stations, plus all the additional equipment overhead at those stations. If you regularly have enough passengers at a particular station that you are delaying the train by 5-10 minutes, then it's time to consider staffing the station stop. But be flexible about it - could you hire some part-time folks to act as baggage handlers without having to put in the additional "conveniences" at that station stop (for ticketing etc.), or could you just add part-time baggage handlers and nothing else.

The only real problem I see there is what do you do if baggage arrives with no passenger to claim it, or what do you do with a bag erroneously offloaded at that stop? You've got to have some way to securely store it. You could probably eliminate that problem if passengers would be immediately directed to the baggage car (perhaps put it at the back end instead of the front end) to claim their bags, with baggage handling personnel and perhaps an AC to assist in expediting it, matching claim checks, etc. If baggage handlers would be given baggage check numbers, and only bags matching those numbers would be offloaded, with all other bags remaining on the train, then no unclaimed bags would be left on the ground. And while the AC and baggage handlers are handling those bags, the Conductor and other OBS folks could be organizing and entraining new passengers. And if they had blank baggage checks, they could do a quick job of putting station IDs on those checks, putting them on the bags, and giving the stubs to the passengers entraining. AGAIN, this is for LOW PASSENGER VOLUME stops, with just a low typical passenger count. That's the only way this could work.

To save a little time, you could offload the passengers at those stops, then do a quick re-spot of the train to put the baggage car where the offloaded passengers were. The baggage handlers would already have the bags tagged for that stop ready for claim check verification and offloading.

The bottom line, I think, is that they could make something like this work if they had the will to do it. And again, this would be for station stops with a low passenger volume, where it is manifestly a huge waste of money to staff a station.

It all sounds so easy, but take a look at your suggestions about:

1. an extra person on the train - to do what? to travel the whole length of the route to service a few stops? this is not going to happen.

2. an additional spotting of the train? again, a time waster and something that would have to involve the conductor. - not going to happen!

3. volunteers to help with luggage? risk management is not going to let this happen for liability reasons and for reliability reasons as well. What happens when the volunteer decides they can't make it on time - or if the train is late? not going to happen!

4. Unclaimed baggage? where to store and how to get it to the correct location/passenger?

This is not something that Amtrak is not doing becaue they don't have the will to do it. It is not going to happen because it doesn't make sense and will involve additional expense and take more time.

I am simply not convinced that Amtrak is losing money or passengers because of the lack of checked baggage currently. As I mentioned before, several years ago, there were some changes made that caused a loss of business - specifically group business - where checked baggage is essential and the changes were made to correct the situation.

 

[Save Our Trains Michigan]

The only way you can have checked baggage is if you have a staffed station.

Like haolerider has said go down to the station where there is checked baggage and watch what has to be done by the Ticket Agent or some big stations will have a baggage clerk that just checks bags.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

1. Cheaper than equipping AND staffing a bunch of currently unequipped and unstaffed stations, and would allow universal checked baggage on those routes.

2. Quite a few trains routinely double-spot anyway, for sleeper and then for coach, on short platforms. It's not as if they don't know how.

3. What volunteers? I didn't even mention the word. I said

hire some part-time folks to act as baggage handlers without having to put in the additional "conveniences" at that station stop (for ticketing etc.),

4. What do they do with unclaimed baggage now? This would not be a new concept.

 

[Save Our Trains Michigan]

At this time Amtrak is trying to do away with part time employees.

 

[frj1983]

Out of an intense sense of curiosity:

Does anyone on the Forum have an idea of how many reliable baggage cars Amtrak has left? A few years ago, I seem to remember an Amtrak rep talking about the baggage cars being unreliable(said to be some of the oldest cars in the fleet) and needing to be replaced??

If the Baggage Cars are disappearing or totally unreliable, I don't see the Amtrak Board authorizing replacements anytime soon. I wonder where they'll put the luggage?

 

[battalion51]

Well they've already started to put luggage in Superliner Baggage Coaches (re-converted Smoking Coaches that were originally Baggage Coaches to begin with). As far as trains in the east are concerned I'm wondering if they won't take some mothballed Amfleets and cut em up to be baggage cars. This would be really good for trains like the Carolinian, Palmetto, and Regional 66/67 as it would allow them to run at 125 MPH on the corridor rather than 110.

 

[haolerider]

1. Cheaper than equipping AND staffing a bunch of currently unequipped and unstaffed stations, and would allow universal checked baggage on those routes.2. Quite a few trains routinely double-spot anyway, for sleeper and then for coach, on short platforms. It's not as if they don't know how.

3. What volunteers? I didn't even mention the word. I said

hire some part-time folks to act as baggage handlers without having to put in the additional "conveniences" at that station stop (for ticketing etc.),

4. What do they do with unclaimed baggage now? This would not be a new concept.

1. There are not going to be any additional expenses related to baggage - checked or unchecked. That is simply the reality of the situation - whether it is cheaper than staffing stations is not the issue.

2. Some trains do double spot, but it is not desirable and takes more time - and if they had to triple spot for baggage it would be a major time waster.

3. part time employees are not going to happen either - especially since they would be subject to the delays on most long distance routes and I can't imagine a part time person who would be willing to come in for such a short period of time - 15 minutes? for each train? could turn into 2-3 hours depending upon the delays.

4. Unclaimed baggage that is off-loaded by mistake or left on the trains is returned to the owner, based on the name and address on the name tag. Sometimes it is sent on the next train to the correct location and if there is no address it is kept at the station and then disposed of if no one claims it.

This is probably 'nuff said on the issue!

 

[AlanB]

As far as trains in the east are concerned I'm wondering if they won't take some mothballed Amfleets and cut em up to be baggage cars. This would be really good for trains like the Carolinian, Palmetto, and Regional 66/67 as it would allow them to run at 125 MPH on the corridor rather than 110.

No need to cut up potentially useful Amfleets, just cut up some of those Warrington box cars that haven't already been sold off.

 

[WICT106]

The station that I have used most frequently the past few seasons (Saint Cloud, MN) has not had an agent since 1995. Having written that, I have used checked baggage whenever I had the opportunity be it flying or aboard the train. That has meant in the past going to Chicago and checking the bags there.

I vote for keeping checked baggage. Most travelers have come to expect it whereever they travel, and it has come to some train travelers in the past as a surprise that many of Amtrak stations are unstaffed, meaning no checked baggage, so I would keep checked baggage where Amtrak has it. Any more reductions will result in a reduction of patronage, and the trains need all the passengers they can garner.

 

[battalion51]

No need to cut up potentially useful Amfleets, just cut up some of those Warrington box cars that haven't already been sold off.

I see the point and joke you're trying to make but that wouldn't make sense. The MHC's were limited to 110 on Amtrak property IIRC and 60 off property in their later years. As for the standard Express Trak box cars those never had HEP and Comm installed on them, so that would require them to be on the bottom of every train with a FRED. Also, they were excess height cars so they wouldn't make it through Baltimore or New York.

 

[AlanB]

As for the standard Express Trak box cars those never had HEP and Comm installed on them, so that would require them to be on the bottom of every train with a FRED. Also, they were excess height cars so they wouldn't make it through Baltimore or New York.

Well I can't speak to the height issue, although I can't say as I recall any reaching the height of a Superliner. So I'd guess that as long as they are at least a foot shorter they'd fit in the tunnels. And if you're going to do work on them to make them into bags, then adding HEP and Comm wouldn't be that much more effort or expense.

 

[battalion51]

Excess Height Cars aren't allowed in the Baltimore or NY area. Simply too tall.

 

[George Harris]

Southern had on-train Baggagemasters into the 60's, at least. Don't recall the checking system, but on more than one occasion claimed baggage at track side striaght out of the baggage car. How about Athens TN at 5:00 am off the Tennessean?

Since the Superliners have the checked baggage go into a part of one coach, this would seem dead easy to do on the western trains. Put a sign on the platform that says "Passengers with baggage to check, wait here" For the eastern trains, if baggage cars are becoming a problem, then make a 20 foot section or so of one end of an Amfleet coach into a baggage section.

Amtrak has got to work on making their system more people-friendly, not less so.

 

[battalion51]

Oh George, you just hit a sore spot with me. Just ask one of our old members, Amfleet. With the volume of bags passengers check these days a large baggage car is almost required for any route that does sizeable business, like Silver Service or the LSL.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

Amen, George. Let's try to see how we CAN do something, not just come up with endless arguments why we can't. We don't need to mess with the system used for staffed, baggage-equipped stations. All we need is to add something that allows us to provide baggage service for low-passenger-volume unstaffed stations. A small number of bags at any one place.

 

[RailFanLNK]

I took a 12 day vacation to CA early this year aboard the CZ and I took two carryons. I HATE checking baggage so I always travel "light". I'm going to the FL Keys in about a month and I will pack everything in the carryon and I'm flying for this trip. I've had my luggage lost, sent to the wrong planes, smashed, inspected by the TSA's etc and hate checking stuff. I'm a single guy so I can pack and travel light. Take your worst underwear and a crappy pair of jeans and then discard them through the trip making the carryon lighter or more room for things you purchase as souvenirs. I've even UPS'ed luggage before for one trip and that was so much easier to do than jackin' around at the airports (or train stations).

 

[George Harris]

rail Rookie, it is nice to travel light, but you can't always do that. People travel for many reasons, and sometimes those reasons entail bringing a bunch of stuff along.

The problem here is, instead of thinking of how something can be done to make life easier for the traveling public, they are thinking of reasons to quit doing stuff that they already are.

If the problem is baggage cars, fix them up. If they want to use Warrignton's folly materials handling cars as baggage cars, cut them down a foot or two so they will fit into Baltimore and the Hudson Tubes, add high speed trucks, communication lines, etc. It will still be a lot cheaper than new cars. But, what ever you do, provide the service, and provide it everywhere.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

RailRookie, If that works for you, GREAT! I don't think a family of four or five heading out for a vacation or a holiday visit with family, perhaps taking some Christmas presents, or the like, is going to have much luck with your strategy, however....... I've never had a problem with Amtrak's baggage handling for the two of us. Fortunately, while we've seen a number of non-baggage-handling station stops, we haven't had to travel to or from one yet.