Amtrak dining and cafe service

[jruff001]

What started out as basic agreement with your position in Post #1535, seems to have put me on the side of "privatize Amtrak" people. My position was that few buyers would be rushing to step in and that those who might would primarily be interested in "for-profit" routes such as the NEC, Auto Train and perhaps one experiential long-distance train in the style of the Canadian or Rocky Mountaineer - maybe the Zephyr? On that premise those routes could be considered lucrative. However, if a prospective buyer was also forced to operate "essential" routes, such as the freight railroads were prior to Amtrak, their interest would wane even more.

I think if the NEC or AT were truly lucrative or even profitable, they would - or at least should - already have been privatized. Let the Amtrak subsidies go just to the LD routes.

The best current example of this is Britain forcing private companies to operate "parliamentary" routes as a condition of their license to operate for-profit ones.

Yep, which (and you probably know this, but for the benefit who might not), didn't work and has been ended.

 

[jruff001]

You are, of course, assuming that the government would simply turn over Amtrak's equipment, routes, etc to a private organization.

On the other hand, the government could retain ownership and responsibility for everything including purchasing of new equipment except the operation and fund that separately from providing the contractor with a fixed fee for running everything. That could produce different results and get more bi-partisan support albeit would require the government to closely monitor things to insure a chance of success. There are successful cases of something like e.g. our National Park lodging and amenities are run privately but owned by the government.

I am only suggesting that there are other possible alternatives to selling to a private for-profit company outright and not saying it WOULD be better than what we have but as of now, Amtrak seems to have no more interest in what their customers want than the worst of the private companies and apparently are not answerable to those who are actually paying the bill - the taxpayers.

That is certainly one option. But even just focusing on operating expenses, I still don't think any or enough current routes are profitable enough to attract a company willing to take on one or more "other" routes (without degrading service even more as has been previously pointed out and which is what started this conversation).

 

[jiml]

Yep, which (and you probably know this, but for the benefit who might not), didn't work and has been ended.

Well aware, but the mandatory routes didn't go away - just the privatization!

 

[jis]

Yep, which (and you probably know this, but for the benefit who might not), didn't work and has been ended.

Train operation by private TOCs is not completely ending in Britain. Only how the entire thing is managed as far as letting contracts and terms of contracts goes is changing. So of the TOCs are even companies entirely owned by the government, but operating nominally "for profit", kind of like Amtrak. But the government in UK generally provides reliable subsidies for the term of the contract, unlike the unpredictable zoo that the US is.

This is why the unions and other supporters of nationalization are complaining loudly.

If you really want to learn about how things are moving from a very complex system to just a complex system, subscribe to reliable journals like Modern Railway and spend hours reading the detailed description of what is happening.

 

[joelkfla]

Even having the discussion of this page is acknowledging Gardner and Flynn have won. They haven’t and they won’t. Buttigieg isn’t a complicit empty suit like Elaine Choi was. Biden may literally have the weight of the world on his shoulders but Amtrak’s cleaning of the house can be done in an afternoon.

As far as talk of no suitable replacements left in this day and age? Come on. Any competent public transportation official for operations along with a competent person from the hospitality industry whether that be hotel, dining and yes even an airline. They could even poach someone from Via for that matter.

I’m sure someone like Brian Rosenwald with recent knowledge of Amtrak would be happy to consult part time as well. The fact of the matter is people in all walks of life like trains and train travel. it would be a personally rewarding job for the right set of people. Right now we just have bean counters in charge with no skin or interest in the game or train travel. These guys we have don’t even ride the trains they manage.

How do the Amtrak CEO & President get appointed? Is it a U.S. presidential appointment with congressional approval, or is by the BOD, or something else?

I see that Board members are presidential nominees with congressional approval, but do they serve for a fixed term, or at the pleasure of the President? Does the Board have any say in approving new Board members, or the CEO & Amtrak President?

 

[me_little_me]

That is certainly one option. But even just focusing on operating expenses, I still don't think any or enough current routes are profitable enough to attract a company willing to take on one or more "other" routes (without degrading service even more as has been previously pointed out and which is what started this conversation).

I don't think you understood the concept that I mentioned. The contractor gets paid for operation, not based on whether the route is profitable but on performance and based on how many tickets are sold. So they make money even if few are sold but make more money if more are sold - a concept that Amtrak has never discovered. So if the cars get full, there is an incentive to add more cars. This is the opposite of what Amtrak did during the pandemic - adding cars to handle more passengers - cars which just sat idle. They did the same thing by leaving VL2 sleepers idle even before the pandemic.

 

[jis]

How do the Amtrak CEO & President get appointed? Is it a U.S. presidential appointment with congressional approval, or is by the BOD, or something else?

The CEO and President are appointed by the Board. POTUS has no direct say in it and cannot fire the CEO or President either, only the Board can, and it better be for a cause unless they want to be forced by some court to pay a large golden parachute.

I see that Board members are presidential nominees with congressional approval, but do they serve for a fixed term,

Five year fixed term, extendable to serve until a replacement is appointed.

or at the pleasure of the President?

No.

Does the Board have any say in approving new Board members,

No. Not directly as a matter of statute. Of course anyone can go and bend anyone else's ears through back channel and have some influence on those that are statutorily responsible I suppose.

or the CEO & Amtrak President?

Yes. It is their job to appoint those.

 

[jruff001]

Train operation by private TOCs is not completely ending in Britain. Only how the entire thing is managed as far as letting contracts and terms of contracts goes is changing. So of the TOCs are even companies entirely owned by the government, but operating nominally "for profit", kind of like Amtrak. But the government in UK generally provides reliable subsidies for the term of the contract, unlike the unpredictable zoo that the US is.

This is why the unions and other supporters of nationalization are complaining loudly.

If you really want to learn about how things are moving from a very complex system to just a complex system, subscribe to reliable journals like Modern Railway and spend hours reading the detailed description of what is happening.

Yes I am aware of what is going on in the UK (I used to live there and have kept up my interest). But the "new" UK model is nothing like what was being discussed here (at least as I understood it), having a for-profit company operate the "lucrative" routes in exchange for operating one or more other routes, presumably at its own financial risk. Apologies if I misunderstood.

 

[jis]

Yes I am aware of what is going on in the UK (I used to live there and have kept up my interest). But the "new" UK model is nothing like what was being discussed here (at least as I understood it), having a for-profit company operate the "lucrative" routes in exchange for operating one or more other routes, presumably at its own financial risk. Apologies if I misunderstood.

Companies are still going to get the responsibility to operate in a certain area, which may contain some lucrative and some not so lucrative routes. I am not sure what has changed as far as that goes.

 

[jruff001]

I don't think you understood the concept that I mentioned. The contractor gets paid for operation, not based on whether the route is profitable but on performance and based on how many tickets are sold. So they make money even if few are sold but make more money if more are sold - a concept that Amtrak has never discovered. So if the cars get full, there is an incentive to add more cars. This is the opposite of what Amtrak did during the pandemic - adding cars to handle more passengers - cars which just sat idle. They did the same thing by leaving VL2 sleepers idle even before the pandemic.

You are right, I missed that you said "fixed fee," sorry. But see my post immediately above, I thought we were talking about an operator taking over at its own financial risk.

Sounds like that would require even MORE of an operating subsidy if the current routes and level of services were kept intact.

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

Worse case could their contracts be bought out or have them forcefully pushed out the door for going against the Administrations and in effect our nations transportation goals? If I’m not mistaken all involved are making rather modest sums in the big picture. The highest paid would be Flynn at around 500,000, followed by Gardner and then a normally amount for Board members..

Obviously Buttigeg would have to get involved for it to come to this..

The CEO and President are appointed by the Board. POTUS has no direct say in it and cannot fire the CEO or President either, only the Board can, and it better be for a cause unless they want to be forced by some court to pay a large golden parachute.

Five year fixed term, extendable to serve until a replacement is appointed.

No.

No. Not directly as a matter of statute. Of course anyone can go and bend anyone else's ears through back channel and have some influence on those that are statutorily responsible I suppose.

Yes. It is their job to appoint those.

 

[user 14106]

The only way the cross country LD trains would be profitable in a privatization setting would be if you ran them seasonally with as much capacity as possible during peak months and then suspended service altogether during slower months - basically making them tourist trains - but that would negate the point of why we fund the trains federally. And that would only work for the ones with big time views.

 

[me_little_me]

You are right, I missed that you said "fixed fee," sorry. But see my post immediately above, I thought we were talking about an operator taking over at its own financial risk.

Sounds like that would require even MORE of an operating subsidy if the current routes and level of services were kept intact.

Absolutely, IMHO. Given that Amtrak and a private OPERATOR (not owner) were equally efficient, one would expect more inefficiency in Amtrak but I think that would be more than offset by the need to pay for the profit.

The remaining costs would be the same if government owned or owned by Amtrak.

The only benefit IMHO is that it would be more palatable to those who want to "privatize" passenger service giving a wider base of support.

 

[jis]

Companies are still going to get the responsibility to operate in a certain area, which may contain some lucrative and some not so lucrative routes. I am not sure what has changed as far as that goes.

https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/g...-leadership-for-the-rail-sector/59147.article

 

[flitcraft]

Thanks, jis, for your timely links to the current British government plan for their railway network. Moaning about British Rail was a sport in the UK as popular once as is moaning about Amtrak in the US, and I think that was one reason why the damn-the-torpedoes-full-speed-ahead privatization of the British railway system didn't raise more hackles at the time. My husbands relatives were probably typical in that regard, "Well, it can't get worse and it might be better." Sadly, they were wrong, and now the government is trying to put the 'system' back into their railway system. I wish them luck, and yes, I do miss British Rail myself...hope things get aligned better if and when we're ever permitted back in the country!

 

[west point]

Questions about the Amtrak Board of directors.
1. Who are they ?
2. Do each have rail experience or broad knowledge of passenger rail ?
3. How active are they with their dealings with Management ? What time is spent in studying Amtrak ?
4. What is salary ?
5. How many other organizations does each work for by time spent ?
6. Are they really interested in passenger satisfaction ?

If some BOD members might not meet the above requirements the best way to replace them is to offer
them another government job and nominate persons who will put passengers first.

 

[joelkfla]

The CEO and President are appointed by the Board. POTUS has no direct say in it and cannot fire the CEO or President either, only the Board can, and it better be for a cause unless they want to be forced by some court to pay a large golden parachute.

Five year fixed term, extendable to serve until a replacement is appointed.

No.

No. Not directly as a matter of statute. Of course anyone can go and bend anyone else's ears through back channel and have some influence on those that are statutorily responsible I suppose.

Yes. It is their job to appoint those.

So it seems like it's really the Board members who determine the future direction of Amtrak, via their selection of the executives. If they're typical corporate board members, they're likely to be more interested in the bottom line than in service level or customer satisfaction.

 

[toddinde]

What "competitor" is interested in taking over Amtrak?

None. The constant pipe dream of the conservative railroad buffs. The privately operated 20th Century Limited rides again providing a land cruise for wealthy retirees. Amtrak is needed transportation, and is a public service. Food needs to be quality but need not be opulent. There is nothing wrong with Amtrak that good management can’t fix.

 

[Bostontoallpoints]

None. The constant pipe dream of the conservative railroad buffs. The privately operated 20th Century Limited rides again providing a land cruise for wealthy retirees. Amtrak is needed transportation, and is a public service. Food needs to be quality but need not be opulent. There is nothing wrong with Amtrak that good management can’t fix.

Union Pacific and BNSF have the tracks, infrastructure, personel and most importantly the money if they wanted to get back into passenger rail. As long as they show no interest in running passenger trains then I can't see anyone else getting into the game. I am watching Brightline to see how it shakes out. I'm not against Amtrak or a nationalized railway. I don't want a land cruise type trains like The Canadian. Just want decent meals, service and an expanded network.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

I don't want a land cruise type trains like The Canadian.

Canadian still serves as public transportation. When I rode the canadian I met many Canadians traveling for non-vacation reasons (work, school, moving, visiting family, etc.) just like on Amtrak.

Land cruise trains would be Rocky Mountaineer and the former American Orient Express. Even Iowa Pacific’s Pullman me and another passenger were traveling for work and would have been on the Amtrak train anyways that day.

 

[Bostontoallpoints]

Canadian still serves as public transportation. When I rode the canadian I met many Canadians traveling for non-vacation reasons (work, school, moving, visiting family, etc.) just like on Amtrak.

Land cruise trains would be Rocky Mountaineer and the former American Orient Express. Even Iowa Pacific’s Pullman me and another passenger were traveling for work and would have been on the Amtrak train anyways that day.

I have ridden the Canadian as well. It's very slow, expensive and does not provide daily service. The scenery is great, the service is excellent , the accomadations are top notch and the food is excellent. It's not quite the Rocky Moantaineer but you can't deny that the Canadian is more a land cruise when compared to the Zephyr and Chief. Yes, the Canadian does have coach seats and a cafe but the sleeper part of the train is a land cruise.

 

[Cal]

[QUOTE="Bostontoallpoints, post: 896659, member: 14865"
Just want decent meals, service and an expanded network.
[/QUOTE]
I could live with the first two.

Again, it's a shame that we're even dreaming of decent food..

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Yes, the Canadian does have coach seats and a cafe but the sleeper part of the train is a land cruise.

I still disagree. The college students I dined with had a section - they were returning to school after visiting family over their winter break. I did eat dinner with a Canadian family traveling in coach, but I’m pretty sure everyone else I had a conversation with was in the sleepers.

 

[jiml]

I still disagree. The college students I dined with had a section - they were returning to school after visiting family over their winter break. I did eat dinner with a Canadian family traveling in coach, but I’m pretty sure everyone else I had a conversation with was in the sleepers.

Regrettably those days are long gone and unlikely to return. All sleeping accommodation on the Canadian (and Hudson Bay for that matter*) during peak and shoulder seasons is pretty much unaffordable. You can safely use the comparison with Business/First Class air being applied in another thread. As a land cruise for those with the resources it's great and an average person could consider it off-peak, as I do every year. The Ocean was the last great bargain in Canadian long distance trains and it does provide a transportation service to several mid-points. Hopefully it returns in the form and price range it was pre-Covid.

*The Hudson Bay train does provide an essential transportation link, which is why it has continued through most of the pandemic. Sleeping accommodation, which is currently suspended, had gotten prohibitively expensive for service not on-par with the Canadian.

 

[zephyr17]

How they are going to make the case that the Canadian is an essential service when they didn't run it at all for well over 6 months and then didn't run it in Northern Ontario where there are places with NO other transportation until this month eludes me. How essential can it be when you just drop it?

At least Amtrak retained service through the whole pandemic, even if it wasn't daily. And most places on Amtrak are at least reachable by road, which you can't say about a lot of places it served in northern Ontario (looking at you, Ottermere).

VIA ought to have a lot of explaining to do to Transport Canada. If Amtrak did that, those trains would be as dead as the Sunset East.