Amtrak Privatization Scenario

[Green Maned Lion]

The only problem is that while some of us RailFan types would definitely be fine with them, I don't know if someone would want the equivalent of an airlines ideas on coach seats applied to a private room accommodation. I mean these things were miniaturized to the absolute minimum on size they could take up.

 

[nr272]

The Slumbercoach had a staggered level room setup. This allowed it to fit more rooms into place. Some beds were up high and some lower. They basically made the floor of the upper rooms to the left and right the ceiling of the one between them, but with a space to stand in.

Interesting. Would the Viewliner be the modern day equivalent to this car?

No, not at all. The Viewliner roomette accommodates two people and occupies the full height of the car.

Each Slumbercoach compartment accommodated one person. It didn't go floor-to-ceiling of the car: some were "low" (accessed from hallway level) and some were "high" (accessed by climbing a few stairs, I think). And the high compartments weren't directly over the low compartments: they were offset (staggered) and overlapping. So walking down the corridor, you'd see doors for low, hi, low, hi, etc. The exterior of the car shows this, with the zig-zag pattern of windows. I gather it was hard to take interior pictures of the Slumbercoaches which gave a good feel for the overall layout, because the space was so tight?... I've seen a few photos from within a compartment, but I don't recall seeing one of the corridor, or looking into compartments from the corridor, which I think would help make the layout clearer.

Ok, thanks for the info. It's too bad these cars aren't still around, because I'd love to ride in one. After sleeping in a coach seat for 3 nights, I'm not going to be too picky about the room size and it's amentities!

 

[~guest~]

I think there is a question that needs to be addressed here, as it sounds like everyone is just talking about bringing back the past.

For rail to be viable, the average person has to accept that the time spent in transit is reasonable. For example, courtesy of air travel, passengers accept that Baltimore to Miami is 2.5 hours. That same trip on Amtrak is 24+ hours, over a day. The majority of the money spent on transportation comes from business. When comparing the two, times and costs, air is going to win in the business travelers mind.

Cross country trips on air are 4-5 hours, and 3 1/2 days on rail. To the average person today, that is simply too slow.

In order for Amtrak to succeed, 79 mph is not going to cut it. Yes, I know the capital costs of going faster are phenomenal, but if no one wants to use it, because it is too slow, you get what we have today.

Maybe with the coming energy crunch, people will change, and begin to accept a slower paced lifestyle... but I'm not seeing any signs of it yet.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The Windy City Flyer concept was actually a train I was thinking of creating and operating myself as a private venture. It took about 15 minutes researching the cost of running a train like that to nix the idea of doing it, as I could never capitalize such a project, and I'd have a hard time making a profit for it.

The route, however, eliminates a lot of your arguments. The route would run 945 miles. It could maintain a speed of close to 100 mph for the first 195 miles to Harrisburg, which it would accomplish in two hours. For the remaining 750 miles, it can run a speed of 70 mph on average. If doing so, it could make the trip in about 11 hours. Now, assuming we add another hour in there for a crew/engine change at Harrisburg as well as delays, the train could reach Chicago in 14 hours.

If the train leaves New York Penn at 6:00 (giving the average business man the chance to leave work and spend an hour getting to the station) it would arrive in Chicago the next morning at 8AM, giving the average business man an hour to get to a business meeting. The businessman enjoys a meal, a night cap, and goes to bed. He wakes up the next morning at 6:30, eats breakfast, and departs the train.

To one perspective, he's used up 14 hours of his life as opposed to two and a half. But lets modify that, because its inaccurate. First of all, that businessman would have to take 30 to 60 minutes to get to one of the New York airports, from his office. He needs to arrive there perhaps 2 hours before the flight leaves.

With the stricter baggage policy of airlines, it is more likely he will need to check baggage. If he does so, he can expect to wait another hour getting his bag. Now he needs to spend another 30-60 minutes getting from the airport to the meeting. So in reality, the flight takes between five and a half and seven and a half hours out of the man's life.

Second, the time taken out of his life on that plane, assuming he leaves the morning of the meeting, is from the hours of 4 in the morning (who wants to get up that early? O_O) and 8:30, assuming best times. If he leaves the night before, the hours taken out of his life are between 5:00 and 9:30 at best, 5:00 and 11:30 at worst. He then gets to spend money on a hotel room in Chicago, sleeps the night there, and is back where we started. He is not going to do anything useful between 9:30 and going to bed, he is not going to do anything useful between the time he wakes up and the meeting.

After the meeting, he can take the plane again. It will take him at least an hour to get from downtown Chicago to O'Hare in traffic. He can then fly home on an 8:30 flight, arriving in New York at about 11:00. He then has to once again get his bags, and travel home. He will arrive home at best at 1:00 in the morning and fall straight asleep. He most likely won't be up before 9:00. Alternatively, he decides not to get home at that ungodly hour, and sleeps over again. He can fly out really early to get home by 9:00, again, but it means he will need get up at 4:00 AM once again. A more reasonable time gets him home around noon.

Alternatively, he can take the Windy City Flyer. He once again leaves his office at 5:00. He boards the train at 6:00, checks into his room, and heads to the dining car. He eats a meal, has a night cap, and goes to bed. He wakes up again at 6:30 and eats breakfast, disembarking at 8:00. He gets to the meeting, and goes about his business. He leaves again at 5:00, boards the 6:00 train, and leaves. Eats dinner, has his night cap, sleeps, eats breakfast, gets off the train, and is home around 9:00.

He can do it in less time on a plane, sure. It means he has to get up at 4:00 in the morning, or earlier, and it means he has to get home at 1:00 in the morning. It is inconvenient, uncomfortable, and a lot of people wouldn't do it. He can do it in a similar time on a plane, with less of the getting up at 4 in the morning. To do so with comfort and convenience of not getting up at ridiculous hours, nor getting home at them, it will take him about 3 hours more, and he is still arriving in Chicago late at night.

In sum, the train is not as time inefficient as it at first seems.

 

[jphjaxfl]

Each Slumbercoach compartment accommodated one person. It didn't go floor-to-ceiling of the car: some were "low" (accessed from hallway level) and some were "high" (accessed by climbing a few stairs, I think). And the high compartments weren't directly over the low compartments: they were offset (staggered) and overlapping. So walking down the corridor, you'd see doors for low, hi, low, hi, etc. The exterior of the car shows this, with the zig-zag pattern of windows. I gather it was hard to take interior pictures of the Slumbercoaches which gave a good feel for the overall layout, because the space was so tight?... I've seen a few photos from within a compartment, but I don't recall seeing one of the corridor, or looking into compartments from the corridor, which I think would help make the layout clearer.]

Most of the Slumbercoaches had 24 Single rooms and 8 double room. They had a capacity of 40 almost twice the normal standard sleeping car like a 10/6 which had a capacity of 22. All the Slumbercoaches there built as Slumbercoaches were built by Budd. The NYC had some Slumbercoaches that had 16 Single Rooms and 10 Double rooms which were converted from 22 roomette Sleeping Cars. Seaboard Coast Line's Slumbercoaches were 16 Duplex roomettes and 4 Double Rooms which were converted from B&O Sleeping cars with the same layout.

 

[TVRM610]

I think there is a question that needs to be addressed here, as it sounds like everyone is just talking about bringing back the past.
For rail to be viable, the average person has to accept that the time spent in transit is reasonable. For example, courtesy of air travel, passengers accept that Baltimore to Miami is 2.5 hours. That same trip on Amtrak is 24+ hours, over a day. The majority of the money spent on transportation comes from business. When comparing the two, times and costs, air is going to win in the business travelers mind.

Cross country trips on air are 4-5 hours, and 3 1/2 days on rail. To the average person today, that is simply too slow.

In order for Amtrak to succeed, 79 mph is not going to cut it. Yes, I know the capital costs of going faster are phenomenal, but if no one wants to use it, because it is too slow, you get what we have today.

Maybe with the coming energy crunch, people will change, and begin to accept a slower paced lifestyle... but I'm not seeing any signs of it yet.

I don't think the average person is going to want to travel from Chicago to Seattle by train vs. air in the nearby future. Sure some people like to do it for the relaxation, and experience, and we all like to do it because we enjoy amtrak. But the average person will fly every time.

Which is why in my proposal, Amtrak should continue creating corridors linking major cities. As an example Atlanta GA - Charlotte NC. Atlanta to Charlotte takes 4 hours to drive by car, currently the crescent takes 4.5 hours to make that same journey. If the track was in such a condition as to run an average speed of 90 mph (110 max speed) then you could make the entire journey in 3 hours or so. (Realistically in this country, your never gonna get better than 3.5 hours probably though).

Now, not only is that saving time vs. driving, but flying too! By the time you get to the airport 2 hours early, and ride your 1 hour flight, you have spent 3 hours on your travel. (Not including waiting for your luggage after the flight, riding trams to your gate/car etc. etc.)

Many more corridors like the NEC could be quite sucessful in my opinion. As these corridors expanded, long distance service could also gain, as people get used to taking the train, and realize the comfort.

In this scenario, the Carolinian and the Atlanta-Charlotte Corridor could be combined and take the place all together of the crescent. (One through train running NYP-ATL), then one daily train could run from Atlanta to New Orleans with Atlanta being a change point, or a thru coach.

I'm sure many more examples like this could be found in the amtrak system.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

If we create these corridors, sleeper service will be history. No way.

 

[TVRM610]

If we create these corridors, sleeper service will be history. No way.

Haha... I know where your coming from!

The good news is amtrak won't listen to me anyways! The sleepers are safe!

I'm not saying eliminate all sleepers. Perhaps under this theory the Crescent would still run as the crescent, but in more high speed territory, so in less time (but still overnight).

In my mind, the corridors enhance the long distance trains, not completely replace them.

 

[Galls]

If we create these corridors, sleeper service will be history. No way.

That is a rather selfish outlook on amtrak if you consider to be a public service.

I say that good heartedly by the way.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Sleeper service trains are essential to their making sense over airplanes. The concept of sleeping while moving is what allows a train to work better than faster planes.

 

[Galls]

Sleeper service trains are essential to their making sense over airplanes. The concept of sleeping while moving is what allows a train to work better than faster planes.

This is a sound theory, and on overnight trips, not multi night trips but clearly there is a market. But if amtrak is a public service, then does it have a right to compete with private industry in what I personally consider a luxury market?

 

[George Harris]

Sleeper service trains are essential to their making sense over airplanes. The concept of sleeping while moving is what allows a train to work better than faster planes.

This is a sound theory, and on overnight trips, not multi night trips but clearly there is a market. But if amtrak is a public service, then does it have a right to compete with private industry in what I personally consider a luxury market?

This question was actually answered about 80 years ago with the shoe on the other foot with the beginning of the huge public expenditure for airports, air mail subsidies and other goodies to encourage the airline industry. It has been non-stop ever since. Now that we are talking about essentially nickel and dime assistance for railroad passenger service the descendants of same people that benefited from the air subsidies are howling. Sorry, no sympathy.

 

[Galls]

Sleeper service trains are essential to their making sense over airplanes. The concept of sleeping while moving is what allows a train to work better than faster planes.

This is a sound theory, and on overnight trips, not multi night trips but clearly there is a market. But if amtrak is a public service, then does it have a right to compete with private industry in what I personally consider a luxury market?

This question was actually answered about 80 years ago with the shoe on the other foot with the beginning of the huge public expenditure for airports, air mail subsidies and other goodies to encourage the airline industry. It has been non-stop ever since. Now that we are talking about essentially nickel and dime assistance for railroad passenger service the descendants of same people that benefited from the air subsidies are howling. Sorry, no sympathy.

Well that seems to be a different argument about nationalized rail infrastructure. While amtrak running a luxury service, in its current funding state and a de facto monopoly, is the conflict I was hinting at.

 

[AlanB]

Sleeper service trains are essential to their making sense over airplanes. The concept of sleeping while moving is what allows a train to work better than faster planes.

This is a sound theory, and on overnight trips, not multi night trips but clearly there is a market. But if amtrak is a public service, then does it have a right to compete with private industry in what I personally consider a luxury market?

This question was actually answered about 80 years ago with the shoe on the other foot with the beginning of the huge public expenditure for airports, air mail subsidies and other goodies to encourage the airline industry. It has been non-stop ever since. Now that we are talking about essentially nickel and dime assistance for railroad passenger service the descendants of same people that benefited from the air subsidies are howling. Sorry, no sympathy.

Well that seems to be a different argument about nationalized rail infrastructure. While amtrak running a luxury service, in its current funding state and a de facto monopoly, is the conflict I was hinting at.

Well that luxury service is not only paying for itself, it's actually helping to reduce the subsidies needed for coach service.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Amtrak has not stopped people from competing with it if they felt a desire to do so.

 

[Amtrak OBS Gone Freight]

Step 1 - Unions
Bust the unions. I don't mind compensating employees well, but the work rules have to change, big time. Amtrak needs more flexibility in how to use the available employees.

Aloha

Before deciding to "Bust the Unions" how about defining the job of unions, and exploring the reasons they exist. With very few exceptions, Companies with Good Labor/Management do not have unions, Why? Companies with Difficult union relations probably result from management/labor relations with little honesty or respect.

You mentioned "work rule changes", What would you like to see changed, would you consider a similar change in your work rule?

Before deciding on success the Management/Union process, one must understand the goals and needs of both sides of an issue.

Hey GG-1.... very well said!

OBS gone freight...

 

[Kramerica]

Step 1 - Unions
Bust the unions. I don't mind compensating employees well, but the work rules have to change, big time. Amtrak needs more flexibility in how to use the available employees.

Aloha

Before deciding to "Bust the Unions" how about defining the job of unions, and exploring the reasons they exist. With very few exceptions, Companies with Good Labor/Management do not have unions, Why? Companies with Difficult union relations probably result from management/labor relations with little honesty or respect.

You mentioned "work rule changes", What would you like to see changed, would you consider a similar change in your work rule?

Before deciding on success the Management/Union process, one must understand the goals and needs of both sides of an issue.

I'm not backing down from my statement, but you're right in that I should have included "Bust the Management" as well. Management problems have been well-documented on this forum too. Both in terms of too many layers, and in terms of being ineffective. They cost money and reduce customer satisfaction.

A century ago, unions were needed because of the awful working conditions and hours. But now we have government regulations over workplace conditions, and there are so many more job options for people now, that if you don't like the hours, you can get a different job.

I would consider any change in my "work rules". That's because I don't have work rules. I'm an engineer (not of the train type, sorry!) and I've been hired to do engineering and I've got a set amount of pay. But in reality I do whatever my boss tells me I should do. For the most part I do engineering, but my duties include other stuff, like spare parts sales. And if I don't like it, I'm free to find another job.

So that's where I'm coming from about Amtrak employees. They've agreed to work certain shifts for a certain amount of pay with general expectations of what they'll be doing. But if their boss on the train tells them they need to do something different (as long as it is safe and within their skill set), they should do it. And if they don't like it, find another job.

In a perfect workplace, labor needs to be flexible to serve customers in an efficient manner, and management need to balance the needs of the workers and the customers. It appears that at Amtrak we have neither.

Here are some ideas for work rules changes, courtesy of AlanB:

There are many different work rule changes that Amtrak is seeking and quite honestly I'm not sure what they all are. However, one example is that currently Amtrak cannot call a sleeping car attendant in to work for example in the dining car as a waiter/waitress. That's considered a different craft. This hurts flexibility in scheduling and forces Amtrak to hire more people just to cover the schedules.
Oddly enough, the Autotrain operates under a different contract and there they can and do regularly swap jobs between coach attendant, dining car attendant, sleeping car attendant, and cafe attendant. This is one reason, although not the only reason that the AT does rather well financially. It still doesn't turn a profit, but it does come much closer than most of the other LD's.

 

[Amtrak OBS Gone Freight]

Step 1 - Unions
Bust the unions. I don't mind compensating employees well, but the work rules have to change, big time. Amtrak needs more flexibility in how to use the available employees.

Aloha

Before deciding to "Bust the Unions" how about defining the job of unions, and exploring the reasons they exist. With very few exceptions, Companies with Good Labor/Management do not have unions, Why? Companies with Difficult union relations probably result from management/labor relations with little honesty or respect.

You mentioned "work rule changes", What would you like to see changed, would you consider a similar change in your work rule?

Before deciding on success the Management/Union process, one must understand the goals and needs of both sides of an issue.

I'm not backing down from my statement, but you're right in that I should have included "Bust the Management" as well. Management problems have been well-documented on this forum too. Both in terms of too many layers, and in terms of being ineffective. They cost money and reduce customer satisfaction.

A century ago, unions were needed because of the awful working conditions and hours. But now we have government regulations over workplace conditions, and there are so many more job options for people now, that if you don't like the hours, you can get a different job.

I would consider any change in my "work rules". That's because I don't have work rules. I'm an engineer (not of the train type, sorry!) and I've been hired to do engineering and I've got a set amount of pay. But in reality I do whatever my boss tells me I should do. For the most part I do engineering, but my duties include other stuff, like spare parts sales. And if I don't like it, I'm free to find another job.

So that's where I'm coming from about Amtrak employees. They've agreed to work certain shifts for a certain amount of pay with general expectations of what they'll be doing. But if their boss on the train tells them they need to do something different (as long as it is safe and within their skill set), they should do it. And if they don't like it, find another job.

In a perfect workplace, labor needs to be flexible to serve customers in an efficient manner, and management need to balance the needs of the workers and the customers. It appears that at Amtrak we have neither.

Here are some ideas for work rules changes, courtesy of AlanB:

There are many different work rule changes that Amtrak is seeking and quite honestly I'm not sure what they all are. However, one example is that currently Amtrak cannot call a sleeping car attendant in to work for example in the dining car as a waiter/waitress. That's considered a different craft. This hurts flexibility in scheduling and forces Amtrak to hire more people just to cover the schedules.
Oddly enough, the Autotrain operates under a different contract and there they can and do regularly swap jobs between coach attendant, dining car attendant, sleeping car attendant, and cafe attendant. This is one reason, although not the only reason that the AT does rather well financially. It still doesn't turn a profit, but it does come much closer than most of the other LD's.

Well I have stayed quiet on this, but I am getting in on you now! Allow me to educate you on a few things. This example Alan points out is only partially true! It is true in the sense that Amtrak can't pull someone out of their current job to do another job! An employee holding a regular bulletined position has the right to hold that job and perform the duties within in it without worry of reassignment! And that is the way it should be everywhere! Now on the extra board, every effort is already made to have each employee qualified in the other crafts so they may be used with more flexibilty. So it is possible an employee can be called as a waiter/waitress for this trip, and on the next trip be called for the sleepers! If they are not qualified in that craft then they cannot be used. Amtrak knows this, and instructs each new employee in the OBS dept in all the crafts it can to qualify them. The employee also gets paid for the highest craft they work even if they work a lower wage craft unless they were hired after 2004. "Auto Train" on the other hand as Alan states, has a provison in their contract where even regular posted positions are swapped around depending on their rotation in the job cycle. And all that is fine and dandy because it has been agreed upon by Amtrak and the Union.

So this business you state of "busting the unions" as well as "busting the management" is a load crap (though there is room for some reform on both sides)! If it weren't for the unions, Amtrak would be paying close to minimum wage or around eight dollars per hour for the same if not more work placed on the employees! And in case you don't realize it, Amtrak employees (actually all agreement covered railroad employees) know they signed the agreement as outlined between the union and Amtrak (or another employer) pertaining to their employment. And I find most employees and management will follow the provisions in each contract in good faith with a few exceptions. And we cannot rely solely on the government to enforce their regulations!

So in closing I am sure your mind is set, but it is always easier for someone who is on the outside to make a judgment call or come up with all the answers! I'd like to see how you would handle it if you were one of us! If you really didn't like your current job, would you then do what it takes to find that new job you so freely say you can go find? I did. Amtrak furloughed me and I crossed over to the freight sector. It took a while, but it happened and I couldn't be happier. But I don't want to work in a non-unionized situation again unless I am working for myself! I see too much where the benefits help all parties involved in the long run (union, employees, and management). Even though I left Amtrak for better opportunity, I would still go back to them before I would ever take a different job which was non-unionized or which the conditions weren't stregnthen due to a past union's involvement!

OBS gone freight...

 

[Galls]

I am assuming that OBS means on board services?

 

[Kramerica]

Some good ideas here, but we have to figure out how to finance the whole thing.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on my ideas, or expanding upon them.

Financing - a 1 penny/gallon gas tax should do the trick. I'm a highway proponent too (actually I'm a transportation proponent - air, rail, sea, road), and I think improved Amtrak would be a boon for motorists as well. Less wear on our roads, fewer cars on the roads, less congestion. We cannot rely on one mode of transport. The more modes we have, the better our chance of having and using the right one for the particular situation.

 

[George Harris]

Concerning our "Bust the Union" guys: While I am not a big fan of Unions as they normally operate, they are a necessity in a lot of businesses. Otherwise conditions would approach slavery in the situation where they guy does not care whether the slave lives or not.

In most businesses and industires with strong unions, the strong unions were developed due to one primary factor: Bad Management.

I am sure that there are a lot of us here that could come up with numerous examples of bad, stupid, uncaring, and underhanded management without much effort. Dilbert management is all too real in many places. Sometimes inept and ignorant is much easier to deal with than the malicious character who is trying to prop up his buddies and deflect blame for his screw-ups on someone else.

Kramerica: You need to realize that, even ignoring "global warming" which I regard as more politics and a power grab than anything else, we are not going to keep being able to find and burn oil forever. Therefore, we have got to figure out methods that where ever people are moving in significant numbers to provide very low energy consuming methods of hauling them, and that means rail. In freight it is even more critical. We should in this country be doing our utmost to find methods of generating electricity that do not involve burning oil, gas, or coal and stringing wires over railroads. Both short haul flights and long haul trucking should be discouraged with an eye toward their ultimate elimination.

 

[AlanB]

I am assuming that OBS means on board services?

Correct.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Both OBS gone Freight and Kramerica are right and wrong for different reasons. Unions make a lot of sense, assuming the employer is of the mind to justify the need for one. Unions are, however, also massive buearucratic monoliths, and as such are inherently inefficient. They cost money, time, and effort that has no effect, although they do have an effect. A good deal of the time, money, and effort spent on them accomplishes nothing more than cutting through red tape. A more efficient system ALWAYS runs without red tape, although efficiency is not always possible due to the selfish nature of human beings.

 

[George Harris]

Both OBS gone Freight and Kramerica are right and wrong for different reasons. Unions make a lot of sense, assuming the employer is of the mind to justify the need for one. Unions are, however, also massive buearucratic monoliths, and as such are inherently inefficient. They cost money, time, and effort that has no effect, although they do have an effect. A good deal of the time, money, and effort spent on them accomplishes nothing more than cutting through red tape. A more efficient system ALWAYS runs without red tape, although efficiency is not always possible due to the selfish nature of human beings.

Exactly. Too many times you find that you have changed from dealing with the boss's incompetent friends and relatives to dealing with the union official's incometent friends and relatives, and the second class of no-counts seem to be harder to get rid of.

 

[Galls]

I am assuming that OBS means on board services?

Correct.

So besides the unpredictable schedule on the less than prompt long distance trains, how do the staff requirements for on board services differ from other hospitality jobs?

If there is no major difference and amtrak were allowed to hire at market rates, not union rates then their operating costs would be much, much lower.