Any Changes so for under Mr. Moorman?

[neroden]

Before talking of removing dining cars, there are a gazillion ways to improve dining car service so as to raise revenue. They really are not operated efficiently.

This business of closing way before the train arrives at the terminus is completely ridiculous, for instance, and is for the staff's convenience, not that of the passengers. It may take serious changes in internal procedures to get rid of this nonsense -- I have heard it rumored that this nonense is related to the lack of Point of Sale inventory tracking -- but it's worth fixing stuff like this before talking about removing dining car service. (By the way, where IS the point of sale inventory tracking? This is an embarassing case of Amtrak trying and failing to implement something which should have been implemented about 10 years ago. Can they assign the clever people who implemented e-ticketing to the project? They seemed to have the right attitude in terms of system design.)

Some crews properly advertise to coach passengers. Others don't, or even refuse to serve coach passengers, which is unacceptable.

The complete lack of ingredients lists could be fixed easily and would attract more customers. Obviously, since a number of us are basically unable to eat most of the food in the dining car due to this stupid omission.

Stocking the dining cars properly costs very little and would raise revenue and customer satisfaction greatly.

I guess the point I'm making is that dining car service *run well* is quite likely to be financially beneficial, even if dining car service the way Amtrak *mismanages it* is financially detrimental. I don't think you can do a fair comparison without running the dining car service competently.

 

[west point]

Actually observed the STAR over the Christmas holiday with 2 locos. That same Star Christmas eve had normal consist that only had enough passengers for one coach and one sleeper. On the other hand observed Meteor on Christmas eve with 6 Viewliners on end but was too far away to break down the consist as to type. Does that mean 4 sleepers ? Probably and why so many maybe the draw of a diner ?

 

[Thirdrail7]

Before talking of removing dining cars, there are a gazillion ways to improve dining car service so as to raise revenue. They really are not operated efficiently.

This business of closing way before the train arrives at the terminus is completely ridiculous, for instance, and is for the staff's convenience, not that of the passengers. It may take serious changes in internal procedures to get rid of this nonsense -- I have heard it rumored that this nonense is related to the lack of Point of Sale inventory tracking -- but it's worth fixing stuff like this before talking about removing dining car service. (By the way, where IS the point of sale inventory tracking? This is an embarassing case of Amtrak trying and failing to implement something which should have been implemented about 10 years ago. Can they assign the clever people who implemented e-ticketing to the project? They seemed to have the right attitude in terms of system design.)

Some crews properly advertise to coach passengers. Others don't, or even refuse to serve coach passengers, which is unacceptable.

The complete lack of ingredients lists could be fixed easily and would attract more customers. Obviously, since a number of us are basically unable to eat most of the food in the dining car due to this stupid omission.

Stocking the dining cars properly costs very little and would raise revenue and customer satisfaction greatly.

I guess the point I'm making is that dining car service *run well* is quite likely to be financially beneficial, even if dining car service the way Amtrak *mismanages it* is financially detrimental. I don't think you can do a fair comparison without running the dining car service competently.

While there is no doubt room for improvement, your analysis would indicate that every dining car service that operated in the past was also operated incompetently. Therefore, a fair comparison may not be possible since they are loss leaders.

Additionally, I think a comparison to past operations will not yield much since Amtrak makes no real effort to make the car worthwhile. The trains don't even car the ridership to support it. Look at the puny trains that are operated. A great deal of passengers on a given train aren't designated long haul passengers. Plus, there is a cafe car competing for funds.

Bring back the cafeteria car and call it a day.

Actually observed the STAR over the Christmas holiday with 2 locos. That same Star Christmas eve had normal consist that only had enough passengers for one coach and one sleeper. On the other hand observed Meteor on Christmas eve with 6 Viewliners on end but was too far away to break down the consist as to type. Does that mean 4 sleepers ? Probably and why so many maybe the draw of a diner ?

The Star vs Meteor consist comparison is not a good measurement since the Star is almost dead train for connections. In other words, it barely connects to trains while the Meteor connects to points east, west, north and even south. For long haul passengers, the ride is 4 hours faster from Mia to points north of RMT. As such, the Meteor is going to have more riders.

 

[TiBike]

I tend to agree with that in principle. The problem is designing an experiment that provides an apples to apples comparison. IMHO even the Star experiment does not,since the train consists are not the same or even close. and the routes are sufficiently different, and even before the change it was known that the travel profile on the Star was measurably different from that on the Meteor.

Real world experiments are messy. But combined with targeted market research, it can produce useful insights – better than going on gut feeling alone. Any changes that are implemented as a result have to be monitored and evaluated with the same degree of diligence. The best you'll ever get is the "one eyed man in the land of the blind", and even that's a reach. The most important thing is to be willing to let objective data challenge what everyone "knows is true".

 

[jis]

On the matter of how the cost and revenue of Dining Cars should be handled in general, I think it is wrong headed to separate it out from the overall train revenue and cost, as in treating the F&B as a separate P&L center. Just like the Sleeping Car Attendants are not treated as a separate P&L center, the F&B business should not be either. Indeed even a single train should not be treated as a separate P&L Center when there are multiple trains serving a corridor. But that is a separate more complex subject matter. Amtrak has, under political pressure been remiss in trying to slice and dice things too finely to the detriment of its overall ability to provide meaningful improvement to service, and the sooner they can get out of that mode the better.

 

[TiBike]

I agree. That strikes me as accounting based on bureaucratic fiefs rather than on the service provided to customers - what does it cost to deliver the service, what does the customer value and what is he/she willing to pay for it?

 

[west point]

One way to break down the diner costs may be to compare what the all Pullman trains of the past did. Such as Florida special, Broadway, 20th Century limited, UPs, Super Chief. Today the closest would be taking Auto train and breaking down the sleeper diner and coach diner when both are on that train.

Lets look at how costs and revenues may be applied to diners.

Question. On Amtrak's trains today is each sleeper passenger's diner portion of fare allocated to the diner or just the ones who eat there ? As well is a second , third, or fourth passenger in the same compartment have some of their coach fare allocated to the diner; again if they eat or do not ?

Then we can also say that the coach passengers who eat in the diner might have part of their coach fare allocated to a diner assuming they might not have traveled if no diner ? Wow that would take some market research on each route.

In conclusion these costs and allocations are really complicated. This poster has no idea.

IMO there are 3 types of travelers on Amtrak trains today. Those who do not really care for a diner or on a strict budget. Those who do care but dining fare is not an over riding factor. Those who want fine dining. Unfortunately with the present single or at most two short LD trains a day on parts of a route that is now impossible.

Then of course maybe only the actual revenue from each person who eats is allocated to revenue ?

These are all question IMO Moorman should be asking.

 

[jis]

Question. On Amtrak's trains today is each sleeper passenger's diner portion of fare allocated to the diner or just the ones who eat there ? As well is a second , third, or fourth passenger in the same compartment have some of their coach fare allocated to the diner; again if they eat or do not ?

Then we can also say that the coach passengers who eat in the diner might have part of their coach fare allocated to a diner assuming they might not have traveled if no diner ? Wow that would take some market research on each route.

In conclusion these costs and allocations are really complicated. This poster has no idea.

Then of course maybe only the actual revenue from each person who eats is allocated to revenue ?

These are all question IMO Moorman should be asking.

Only the menu price of the actual food (included in the fare) consumed by Sleeper passengers is allocated to the Diner, from the fare collected from the Sleeper passengers. Nothing is allocated to the Diner from the fares collected from the Coach passengers. Whatever they actually pay to purchase food in the Diner goes to the Diner account. Additionally Sleeper passengers also purchase things like alcohol in the Diner which they pay for and is credited to the Diner account.

I think Mr. Moorman already knows the details of what is transferred to the Diner account from fares. It is not a deeply held secret or an unknown fact.

 

[tricia]

IMO there are 3 types of travelers on Amtrak trains today. Those who do not really care for a diner or on a strict budget. Those who do care but dining fare is not an over riding factor. Those who want fine dining. Unfortunately with the present single or at most two short LD trains a day on parts of a route that is now impossible.

May I add another "type of traveler" here? Those on long distance trains, overnight or longer, who require a reasonable selection of reasonably fresh, nourishing, healthful, and tasty food. Neither the diner nor the cafe car menus currently accomplish that.

I'm not a terribly fussy eater, but after 24 hours eating out of Amtrak's diner on a cross-country trip earlier this year, I had round-the-clock indigestion. (I suspect high levels of psuedo-food additives, since nearly everything served in the diner is highly processed. Even the luncheon salad.) Availability of decent food--not necessarily "fine dining"--is a real requirement for the captive clientele on long-distance trains. I LOVE long train trips, but am reluctant to sign up for another unless/until Amtrak's food improves.

 

[Palmetto]

How does one process a lunch salad? The thought intrigues me.

 

[Ryan]

I process it like this:

 

[Palmetto]

Funny, very funny! I asked for that, and I got it. So let me ask it a different way:

What's the processed food in a lunch salad?

 

[neroden]

May I add another "type of traveler" here? Those on long distance trains, overnight or longer, who require a reasonable selection of reasonably fresh, nourishing, healthful, and tasty food. Neither the diner nor the cafe car menus currently accomplish that.

This is the most common type of traveller. I am a particular example who needs, most of all, a reasonable selection of items with *ingredients lists* so that I can choose something I'm not allergic to while still getting a balanced (according to the USDA recommendations) meal.
This shouldn't be difficult, and seems like a really low standard to me, frankly, but is currently impossible on Amtrak.

 

[neroden]

(I suspect high levels of psuedo-food additives, since nearly everything served in the diner is highly processed. Even the luncheon salad.)

Actually, the only four reliable "100% food" items on the entire dining car menu are:-- eggs in the morning

-- omelete == eggs + vegetables (which are 100% vegetables) in the morning

-- lunch salad, no dressing (Dressings at least do have ingredients lists, but are full of additives)

-- steak, no sauce

These are the four menu items I could verify to contain only the listed ingrediants, and as a result have been the only things I can eat in the Amtrak dining car for years.

Of these, the omelette is by far the nicest. The better crews do their best with the salad and steak, but it's really not much fun.

 

[Larry H.]

I don't understand why dining car service can't be evaluated like any other product Amtrak offers. If it turns an operating profit by itself, great, keep it. If reducing dining car costs cutting back on service or scrapping it altogether has a disproportionate impact on ticket review (e.g. for every $1 of food service expense cut, ticket revenue drops by $2, say), then keep it as is. If raising prices brings it into the black, raise away. But if it's a money loser, can't be fixed and it doesn't have a meaningful impact on ticket revenue, cut it, scrap it or contract it out and take it off the books.

With that mentality.. All Amtrak long distance trains will be scrapped. None make a profit.

Actually, 6 out of the 15 long distance trains make a PROFIT, in terms of revenues minus actual running costs. More of them make a profit each year as ridership goes up. They don't cover fixed overhead costs because there aren't enough of them. Congress doesn't even understand *this*, though Boardman did attempt to explain it to them. It's even harder to explain that the Capitol Limited feeds passengers to other trains, so even though it doesn't make a direct profit, if it were cancelled Amtrak would probably lose more money due to lost ticket sales on other trains.
(If you're curious: all the Viewliner trains except the Cardinal make a profit. The Cardinal would too if it were daily. The Auto Train makes a profit. Based on recent trends I expect the Coast Starlight to make a profit next year, and the Empire Builder probably in 2018. Of the remainder, it's harder to predict which train will go into profit next: the CZ and the SWC have been seeing the fastest growth in revenues-minus-direct-costs; the CONO and CL start with smaller deficits to make up but have seen low growth. The Texas Eagle and Sunset Limited will take longer.)

I'll tell you, TBike, what the problem is. The problem is that it is very hard to *demonstrate* the degree to which crappy food service is driving away customers and reducing ticket income. There are so many variables affecting ticket income that the best you can do is make an educated guess. I'm quite certain that crapifying the food service is losing more money in tickets than it saves in costs, but how do I *prove* it?

FWIW I don't feel that it's appropriate to ask train service to make enough of a profit to cover overhead. Drivers do not cover the overhead of the roads; that's paid for out of general taxation, which covers road repairs, maintenance, police (traffic cops), snowplowing, etc. etc. Trains cover a ridiculous amount of overhead already, more than they should. The long-distance trains already have part of the overhead of track maintenance included in "direct costs"; it's part of the contracts with the freight railroads. So they don't cover an arbitrary allocated percentage of the cost of having a national reservations system; why should they cover any of that? Airlines don't cover the full cost of Air Traffic Control and never have, airports are generally paid for by local governments, etc.

I for one have pretty much stopped riding Amtrak due to the lousy food services and reduced amenities while higher and higher cost are the norm in first class. Who ever wrote that the dinner experience is a way to encourage repeat customers was right. Too many bad ones and you no longer want to ride.

 

[Larry H.]

I hope he looks at the need for more "Hubs" that allow for reasonable connections for way more locations. That to my mind is the only way things can really grow. Its very irritating having to pay to travel a day out of your way and then back again in distance to get where you want to go. You shouldn't have to travel across half the nation to go somewhere your in need of traveling too. That to me is one reason the so called Long Distance trains may not be carrying enough passengers along with the amount of people turned down by limited sleeping cars. When you see weeks or a month without a way to get a sleeper then its pretty obvious your running away business. That should stop.

 

[neroden]

While there is no doubt room for improvement, your analysis would indicate that every dining car service that operated in the past was also operated incompetently.

Nonsense. Most dining car services prior to the 1950s were operated in entirely reasonable manners. I actually have talked to people who remember them, y'know?

Additionally, I think a comparison to past operations will not yield much since Amtrak makes no real effort to make the car worthwhile.

This is rather my point.

The trains don't even car the ridership to support it. Look at the puny trains that are operated.

Explain to me why I've repeatedly been on an LSL where the dining car was turning customers away due to overcrowding. A few years back on the Empire Builder it was even more extreme; they ran a very tight ship and were very efficient and they were still having trouble turning tables fast enough to feed everyone. I've seen packed dining cars on the CZ repeatedly as well. And I've heard stories of the CS diner being sufficiently packed on one trip that they were really pushing sleeper passngers to eat in the PPC to free up space.
Sure, *some* trains don't carry the ridership to support it. Based on my experience the Texas Eagle certainly doesn't. Based on stats, the CONO and Cardinal don't at the moment. The Crescent doesn't south of Atlanta.

But it's just wrong to claim that the longer trains don't carry the ridership to support it.

 

[neroden]

On the matter of how the cost and revenue of Dining Cars should be handled in general, I think it is wrong headed to separate it out from the overall train revenue and cost, as in treating the F&B as a separate P&L center. Just like the Sleeping Car Attendants are not treated as a separate P&L center, the F&B business should not be either. Indeed even a single train should not be treated as a separate P&L Center when there are multiple trains serving a corridor. But that is a separate more complex subject matter. Amtrak has, under political pressure been remiss in trying to slice and dice things too finely to the detriment of its overall ability to provide meaningful improvement to service, and the sooner they can get out of that mode the better.

I have to agree entirely. I do think it's worth breaking out "avoidable costs" or "incremental costs" at various levels, but of course Amtrak doesn't actually do that! So the result is accounting nonsense.

I have to think of the cautionary tale of the Milwaukee Road, whose accounting was such a mess that it claimed that the Pacific Extension was losing money and the grain branches were making money, *when in fact the reverse was true*. Management actually believed the bogus accounting and wrecked the company quite spectuacularly as a result.

It's not good that Amtrak's accounting is bogus. There is the danger that management will take it seriously.

 

[tricia]

Funny, very funny! I asked for that, and I got it. So let me ask it a different way:

What's the processed food in a lunch salad?

At the time I went cross-country, the salad was marinated vegetables on a bed of lettuce. Don't know what the marinade was, but it was pretty intense and sort of "cooked" the veggies, rather like ceviche. And the optional chicken breast also tasted like it was soaked in something, rather like sliced deli meats.

 

[west point]

Question. ?

Then of course maybe only the actual revenue from each person who eats is allocated to revenue ?

Only the menu price of the actual food (included in the fare) consumed by Sleeper passengers is allocated to the Diner, from the fare collected from the Sleeper passengers. Nothing is allocated to the Diner from the fares collected from the Coach passengers. Whatever they actually pay to purchase food in the Diner goes to the Diner account. Additionally Sleeper passengers also purchase things like alcohol in the Diner which they pay for and is credited to the Diner account.
I think Mr. Moorman already knows the details of what is transferred to the Diner account from fares. It is not a deeply held secret or an unknown fact.

If the diner is only getting the price of the meal allocated from the sleeper then something is terribly wrong. Example. The meteor serves 4 meals NYP - MIA. A 3 day check check of roomette prices of it and Star were different by $260,183,203. There is no way even two persons per roomette could eat that much food Either the STAR fares are too low or Meteor too high. If sleeper passenger fare differences were allocated even half to diner the F & B becomes a significant difference.

This doesn't seem to pass a smell test. No wonder all of our posters say Amtrak accounting sucks ?

 

[A Voice]

Question. ?

Then of course maybe only the actual revenue from each person who eats is allocated to revenue ?

Only the menu price of the actual food (included in the fare) consumed by Sleeper passengers is allocated to the Diner, from the fare collected from the Sleeper passengers. Nothing is allocated to the Diner from the fares collected from the Coach passengers. Whatever they actually pay to purchase food in the Diner goes to the Diner account. Additionally Sleeper passengers also purchase things like alcohol in the Diner which they pay for and is credited to the Diner account.
I think Mr. Moorman already knows the details of what is transferred to the Diner account from fares. It is not a deeply held secret or an unknown fact.

If the diner is only getting the price of the meal allocated from the sleeper then something is terribly wrong. Example. The meteor serves 4 meals NYP - MIA. A 3 day check check of roomette prices of it and Star were different by $260,183,203. There is no way even two persons per roomette could eat that much food Either the STAR fares are too low or Meteor too high. If sleeper passenger fare differences were allocated even half to diner the F & B becomes a significant difference.

This doesn't seem to pass a smell test. No wonder all of our posters say Amtrak accounting sucks ?

The presence (or lack) of onboard amenities (dining car) is not the only factor driving a difference in price between the Silver Star and Silver Meteor. Differences in demand alone could account for much of the price differential; The two trains serve rather different markets on different routes, and rooms on one will often be priced in a different fare bucket than the other, even for the same day of travel, and booked at the same point. A quick check of March 21, 2017 from Washington to Orlando shows bedrooms just $23 apart for the two trains (one dinner for one person!), but next September 21st, the Meteor bedroom is $418 more expensive than the Silver Star (no kidding!).

 

[jis]

Question. ?

Then of course maybe only the actual revenue from each person who eats is allocated to revenue ?

Only the menu price of the actual food (included in the fare) consumed by Sleeper passengers is allocated to the Diner, from the fare collected from the Sleeper passengers. Nothing is allocated to the Diner from the fares collected from the Coach passengers. Whatever they actually pay to purchase food in the Diner goes to the Diner account. Additionally Sleeper passengers also purchase things like alcohol in the Diner which they pay for and is credited to the Diner account.
I think Mr. Moorman already knows the details of what is transferred to the Diner account from fares. It is not a deeply held secret or an unknown fact.

If the diner is only getting the price of the meal allocated from the sleeper then something is terribly wrong. Example. The meteor serves 4 meals NYP - MIA. A 3 day check check of roomette prices of it and Star were different by $260,183,203. There is no way even two persons per roomette could eat that much food Either the STAR fares are too low or Meteor too high. If sleeper passenger fare differences were allocated even half to diner the F & B becomes a significant difference.
This doesn't seem to pass a smell test. No wonder all of our posters say Amtrak accounting sucks ?

You are merely suffering from trying to reconcile reality with your own delusional assumptions. Who said that the fare difference has anything to do with the cost of food? The difference is basically whatever the market will bear.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Mr. Moorman has introduced a consolidated reporting structure. Let's see how it turns out.

 

[Skyline]

As someone who has worked in customer service for forty years, I can tell you that it is impossible to give good service if you do not have a good product delivered on time. Without costly infrastructure additions, the best way to improve the product is with better on-time performance, and this would be accomplished by negotiating with the freight railroads for better dispatching. Perhaps it is realistic for us to look to Mr. Moorman to try to achieve this.

While we/Amtrak are waiting for infrastructure or maintenance improvements to happen, at least for non-corridor intercity trains including the LD favorites, making schedule adjustments would be better than the current late-train debacle.

Most LD train passengers aren't that worried that it takes X number of hours to reach a destination, compared to Y for autos or Z for flight. They made a decision to take the train for reasons other than speed. But they do want to arrive, consistently, on the advertised or close to it.

Amtrak should, therefore, change its arrival times sufficiently at key points along LD routes to allow for the predictable delays now experienced regularly. On the rare days a train arrives ahead of the (new) schedule, that train will have to wait to proceed but the rest of the time trains could be pretty much on-time. The freight railroads will need to sign off on changes of this magnitude, and during those negotiations perhaps Amtrak can try to establish better performance through a combo of sticks and carrots. They should at least try on the routes that need them most.

The only real problems I see with this are work-hours, connection times, and fewer equipment turnaround hours at terminals/commissaries. But with the current late-train syndrome we already have these issues. Wouldn't it be better to revamp schedules to better reflect realities, and have fewer late arrivals/missed connections/inadequate turnarounds? The biggest unanswered issue is: Does Amtrak's current equipment roster allow for this?

 

[A Voice]

As someone who has worked in customer service for forty years, I can tell you that it is impossible to give good service if you do not have a good product delivered on time. Without costly infrastructure additions, the best way to improve the product is with better on-time performance, and this would be accomplished by negotiating with the freight railroads for better dispatching. Perhaps it is realistic for us to look to Mr. Moorman to try to achieve this.

While we/Amtrak are waiting for infrastructure or maintenance improvements to happen, at least for non-corridor intercity trains including the LD favorites, making schedule adjustments would be better than the current late-train debacle.

Most LD train passengers aren't that worried that it takes X number of hours to reach a destination, compared to Y for autos or Z for flight. They made a decision to take the train for reasons other than speed. But they do want to arrive, consistently, on the advertised or close to it.

Amtrak should, therefore, change its arrival times sufficiently at key points along LD routes to allow for the predictable delays now experienced regularly. On the rare days a train arrives ahead of the (new) schedule, that train will have to wait to proceed but the rest of the time trains could be pretty much on-time. The freight railroads will need to sign off on changes of this magnitude, and during those negotiations perhaps Amtrak can try to establish better performance through a combo of sticks and carrots. They should at least try on the routes that need them most.

The only real problems I see with this are work-hours, connection times, and fewer equipment turnaround hours at terminals/commissaries. But with the current late-train syndrome we already have these issues. Wouldn't it be better to revamp schedules to better reflect realities, and have fewer late arrivals/missed connections/inadequate turnarounds? The biggest unanswered issue is: Does Amtrak's current equipment roster allow for this?

Past experience has shown that stretching out schedules to remedy persistently late trains doesn't really work in the long term. It just creates more opportunities for a less disciplined operation. You likely see a (generally short lived) immediate benefit from the lengthened timetable only for the train to gradually grow tardy once again.

Longer schedules are sometimes necessary, but such an approach does nothing to solve the real source(s) of the delays. .