Any Changes so for under Mr. Moorman?

[ainamkartma]

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. .

Please please correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the current agreement with the freight railroads awards them a bonus if the time of arrival at the end point of a given train, averaged over some time period, is within some grace period of the scheduled time. The grace period is proportional to the length of the journey of the train. So for the EB, for example, the freight roads (BNSF in this case) get their bonus if the train arrives at its end point within approximately two hours of the scheduled time. And surprise, the average lateness of the EB each month is just a hair less than two hours. This bonus structure could help explain why stretching the schedule will not cure and has not cured chronic lateness: the freight roads will do what it takes to get their bonus (if that) and not one whit more.

So a possible (if pipe-dreamy) path forward would be for Moorman to renegotiate this bonus structure with the freight carriers, and replace it with something that parallels the pain to Amtrak and its customers due to very late trains: a full bonus only for actually on time (defined as arriving at or before the scheduled time) trains, and a penalty for late trains that increases exponentially with the amount of time the train is late.

There was a recent thread on this subject explaining the bonus structure much more clearly than I have done here, but I could not find it in a few minutes of hunting.

Take care,

Ainam "OK Google... I forget what I was going to ask" kartma

 

[niemi24s]

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

Most common? What is there that leads you to make such a broad and all-encompassing statement?

 

[Bob Dylan]

I agree that schedule juggling and padding are schemes that might work short-term, but leads to disasters like the Old Sunset Ltd. East ( 24.Hour Late Trains into Florida)

First Class Service and Amenities are what matter to most Sleeping Car Passengers that pay Hundreds, if Not Thousands of Dollars, for their tickets.

Even Healthier and Better Choices in the Cafe Cars would benefit ALL Train Passengers and Amtrak's bottom line as well!

This is a fix that Mr Moorman can implement Now! Mica and Boardman are in Retirement and the foolish promises about Food and Drink Profitability and the Nickel and Dime "Cuts" should be Deep Sixed!

 

[PVD]

I certainly wouldn't argue against improved food service offerings, but the most common type of traveler is on the NEC or a state supported corridor.It isn't even close.

 

[tricia]

I certainly wouldn't argue against improved food service offerings, but the most common type of traveler is on the NEC or a state supported corridor.It isn't even close.

I think Neroden meant "most common" type of Amtrak long-distance traveler. That's certainly what I meant, in the post he was responding to.

And I don't think anyone would dispute that food requirements for passengers on short-haul trains are very different from what's needed on long-distance trains, where your clientele really HAS to eat something, over the course of a longer trip. If you're on a train for 24 hours or more, something approximating "real food" is needed, not just frozen pizza, hot dogs, sodas....

 

[ainamkartma]

Those... who require a reasonable selection of reasonably fresh, nourishing, healthful, and tasty food [during time periods of overnight or longer].

This is the most common type of traveller

Most common? What is there that leads you to make such a broad and all-encompassing statement?

Neroden's statement seems pretty non-controversial to me. I'm sure there are some people who don't require decent food during long periods of time (those fasting for religious or moral purposes, maybe?), but it seems obvious that those travellers are quite rare. The fact that it is common for people to _choose_ to poison themselves with junk food instead of eating "reasonably fresh, nourishing, healthful, and tasty food" is irrelevant to the fact that they still _need_ decent food.

Ainam "Let them eat cake!" Kartma

 

[Ryan]

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

Most common? What is there that leads you to make such a broad and all-encompassing statement?

Technically his statement falls 49.99% short of being "all-encompassing".

 

[DSS&A]

Amtrak announced its new reorganization effective immediately that reduces senior management in half and reorganizes the company into six direct reports.

http://m.railwayage.com/index.php/passenger/intercity/amtrak-shakes-up-the-building-and-moves-it.html?channel=41

 

[Bob Dylan]

Wonder how many of his people he'll bring in to shake up the status quo?

If this is a true streamlining move and not just rearranging the deck chairs it could be very good for Amtrak and for us!

 

[west point]

.

How true just look at the Sunset's schedule lengthening. Now when it runs on time schedule time make up has long waits at stations. Experienced 40 minutes once in Houston.

 

[Seaboard92]

I've arrived in Indianapolis an hour and a half early prior to scheduled departure(not arrival time) and the conductor said that was normal but usually they came in earlier. I used the time to walk around downtown Indy at night.

 

[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

Most common? What is there that leads you to make such a broad and all-encompassing statement?

Unlike *some* people, I'm not crazy.

How many travelers do NOT require a reasonable selection of reasonably fresh, nourishing, healthful, and tasty food?

Seriously, even some travellers who think they don't require that *do in fact require that* and their doctors will tell them so!

 

[keelhauled]

It doesn't matter what people need, what pays the bills is what people buy.

 

[niemi24s]

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

Most common? What is there that leads you to make such a broad and all-encompassing statement?

Unlike *some* people, I'm not crazy.

I wonder what gave me the silly notion that personal attacks were not permitted on this forum. My mistake. Must have been some other forum.

 

[Ryan]

What makes makes you think that he's talking about you?

Either way, the correct course of action remains to contact the staff if you feel someone is in the wrong, not try to play passive aggressive armchair moderator in every thread that you get your feelings hurt in. The results are far more effective than crapping up the thread with your complaints.

 

[Thirdrail7]

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?

No, I didn't know....but I do now. Did they make a profit, cover their costs or were they loss leaders?

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.

Look at the stations the Lake Shore serves and the time of day it passes through them. 49 is ideal for capturing the dinner crowd traveling between the busy NYP-BUF corridor since it leaves NYP in the late afternoon while 48 is good for capturing the lunch crowd heading to NYP from. Therefore, you have a significant group of "local" passengers in addition to the "long haul" passengers that will be in the position to utilize the dining car. The train typically has 3 sleepers and 6 coaches. Even when they cut it down, it will still have 3 sleepers and 4 coaches on a populated route with a large amount of intrastate travel and connecting long distance passengers, all competing for the dining car. 97 is another example. It has decent times to Virginia and 3 sleepers.

Meanwhile, you have the other trains that are not on a densely populated route, operating with less equipment with only one coach designated for long distance travel. The trains may have ridership but is it ridership that will use a dining car?

 

[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?

No, I didn't know....but I do now. Did they make a profit, cover their costs or were they loss leaders?

Now, that's a complicated question, because, believe it or not, Amtrak is not the first railroad to have suspicious accounting!
I can tell you that the first dining cars were most certainly profitable -- they were run as an independent service by Mr Pullman and *had* to make a profit on their own, while paying the host railroads for haulage!

This depended absolutely on having a really large number of people on the train to which the car was attached, make no mistake about that.

 

[afigg]

Amtrak announced its new reorganization effective immediately that reduces senior management in half and reorganizes the company into six direct reports.

http://m.railwayage.com/index.php/passenger/intercity/amtrak-shakes-up-the-building-and-moves-it.html?channel=41

Just for the record, the January 4 Amtrak news release that the Railway Age article expands on: Amtrak Announces Streamlined Corporate Structure. New CEO, another management reorganization reshuffle.

 

[Thirdrail7]

I can tell you that the first dining cars were most certainly profitable -- they were run as an independent service by Mr Pullman and *had* to make a profit on their own, while paying the host railroads for haulage!

This depended absolutely on having a really large number of people on the train to which the car was attached, make no mistake about that.

That is exactly the point I'm trying to make about puny consists. Here is a post I made when the plan to cut the dining car off the Starvation was finally announced officially:

Re: Silver Star Downgrade ?

Postby ThirdRail7 » Wed Jul 08, 2015 10:02 pm

I think what is left out of the questions is what Jp1822 mentioned a long time ago combined with the economics mentioned by Arlington. Can the model be viable? I say it can if you have enough faces in front of the plates and actually marketed the train for long distance travel.

Lost in the conversation is how Amtrak has continually cut the available seats on these trains over the years. If the consist was expanded, you would likely reduce your losses. Years ago, you may have had 300-360 coach passengers, 20-30 bedroom passengers, 18-24 roomette passengers and 32-64 slumbercoach passengers on the train.

At this point, the average eastern consist holds roughly 20 roomettes, 6 bedrooms and capacity for 240 coach passengers. Additionally, there are only a limited amount of seating designated for actually long distance travel so out of the 240 seats, you may have 120 that may be on the train long enough to choose the dining car over the cafe. it more seats were actually designated for longer travel, you may see the dining car receiving more patronage.

However, the cars aren't available so it is a moot point. Additionally, as Arlington pointed out, when the converted the Palmetto from a NYP-JAX day train to a dining car/sleeping car train from NYP-MIA named the Silver Palm, it tanked financially.

The diner lite seemed like it would have solved these problems, yet people revolted. I'm not in favor of throwing in the towel on the dining cars. However, I'm not in favor of running them for the sake of running them. There is something to be said for choosing your market.

I think you can get away with killing the diner on some trains because the market will support it. We'll find out which ones soon enough.

Since I've made this post, the available numbers on the train have dropped. When the Pigeon is running around with one sleeper and two coaches, that doesn't say opportunity. When the Starvation drops sheds another coach, you'll have even less people in it for (pardon the pun) the long haul. The same goes for the Capitol Punishment, even though that carries a large amount of through/connecting passengers. The cafe may be enough for some people while others will just carry their own stuff. It becomes easier when you only allocate some many long distance passengers per train.

You also need good food at a reasonable price. It is my opinion that the prices are prohibitive especially for what you are receiving. You're less likely to splurge.

However, you ultimately need numbers on your side and with these puny consist tethered with a regional travel base that hogs through traffic, the dining car model may have run its length on quite a few trains.

 

[Palmetto]

Amtrak announced its new reorganization effective immediately that reduces senior management in half and reorganizes the company into six direct reports.

http://m.railwayage.com/index.php/passenger/intercity/amtrak-shakes-up-the-building-and-moves-it.html?channel=41

You'll notice, though, that no one was named for Chicago. Maybe nobody wants to take over the morass that exists there.

 

[neroden]

I seem to agree with you on everything, ThirdRail.

You may have noted my promotion of longer trains.

The Star/Meteor situation... well, honestly, if it weren't for the Tampa issue, it would make a hell of a lot of sense to have one train with a dining car targeted at longer-distance customers and have the second train with no dining car as the "local". This was a very common arrangement in the pre-WWII period.

The situation with Tampa, served only by the Star, is the problem. I really wish the Tampa-Orlando high speed rail hadn't been cancelled, as it would have resolved this all rather neatly.

 

[west point]

You may have noted my promotion of longer trains.

Precisely this poster's view. If Amtrak could double the number of passengers on any train and staffed the diner accordingly how much would that reduce the food and Beverage losses for that train by double patronage ?.

Operating mileage costs believe have been published of about $.20 per mile for a car on any train. Average fares non NEC are about $.23 per mile and NEC about ~$.50 mile. Sleeper revenues are all over the page but any where from #.35 - 1.10 per mile. So 20 additional LD coach passenger to 8 passengers for Regionals to 4 - 10 passengers for sleepers meets the mileage charges.

Then we have the costs of OBS ( 1 for every 2 - 3 coaches and future 2 for every 3 sleepers ) and if train long enough another Assistant conductor.

Longer train may require another loco(s) which will be ordered with additional cars :

There should (?) be no additional charge by RR for longer trains. Timekeeping may become more critical if the train(s) have to make more 2,3 or 4 stops at a station. But we believe that Moorman will get station dwell time reduced for each stop whether single or multiple ?

 

[haolerider]

Anyone have any insight on the individual's named in the corporate reorganization - other than the "deck chairs on the Titanic" comments?

 

[neroden]

Based strictly on rumor and innuendo, I'm happy about DJ Stadtler, and unhappy about Gerald Sokol, so I'm happy that Procurement is being moved from Sokol to Stadtler. I can't really say much about any of the other people involved.

 

[jis]

Anyone know anything about the new Operations guy? As I recall he was brought on board by Moorman from NS. Or am I remembering wrong?