California Zephyr discussion

[stevie]

Hey, fans of the Zephyr! Question for those more experienced than I am.

I have a trip booked for May (SFC [EMR] - RNO and return). For the outbound train, I'm booked in Roomette 5. No problem there.

For the return trip, I downgraded from a Bedroom to a Roomette. I saved US$316. I don't need a Bedroom for a solo day trip. But I've been assigned Roomette 13.

I have never been in a first-floor room.

I can foresee advantages (e.g., fewer people walking down the hall, more and closer washrooms): and disadvantages (e.g., people congregating in the vestibule and futzing around with luggage at every stop, and the lack of an upstairs view).

For those who've travelled in a first-floor Roomette, how have your experiences been compared with those on the upper level?

 

[tomfuller]

15 minutes before you get to a station stop is a good time to head upstairs and go to the Viewliner car. A few minutes after the train leaves you can decide if you have a better view from the upper level. You may sleep better in the lower level with a little less sway but maybe more rail noise.

 

[jis]

15 minutes before you get to a station stop is a good time to head upstairs and go to the Viewliner car. A few minutes after the train leaves you can decide if you have a better view from the upper level. You may sleep better in the lower level with a little less sway but maybe more rail noise.

I think you meant to say Sightseer Lounge Car. California Zephyr does not have any single level Viewliner cars.

 

[jaturner193]

I will be taking train 5 from CHI - PRO early April. Train looks to be nearly sold out for most of the trip except for Lincoln - Denver and from SLC - EMY when I won't be on the train anymore. Was wondering if there is anyway I can guarantee myself a spot in the dining car as a coach passenger ahead of time? Is it a good idea to ask the conductor when boarding in Chicago? I heard there is very limited availability (and I assume its particularly bad on sold out trains), but I haven't done traditional dining in almost ten years so I am hoping I can check it out on my trip regardless of the insane prices.

 

[joelkfla]

I will be taking train 5 from CHI - PRO early April. Train looks to be nearly sold out for most of the trip except for Lincoln - Denver and from SLC - EMY when I won't be on the train anymore. Was wondering if there is anyway I can guarantee myself a spot in the dining car as a coach passenger ahead of time? Is it a good idea to ask the conductor when boarding in Chicago? I heard there is very limited availability (and I assume its particularly bad on sold out trains), but I haven't done traditional dining in almost ten years so I am hoping I can check it out on my trip regardless of the insane prices.

I don't think so; on the SWC, reservations were given out 1st come, 1st serve until all were gone. If you would talk to anyone about it, it would be the LSA in the diner, not the conductor. I don't think they would put you on a waiting list, but it might be worth a try.

If not, move quickly to the SSL when the LSA makes an announcement asking if there are any more sleeper passengers needing reservations. They will probably make the announcement for coach passengers shortly thereafter, and from the SSL you'll be in the car next to the diner and hopefully be at the front of the line when the call is made.

 

[zephyr17]

Conductor has nothing at all to do with diner reservations, that is the sole province of the diner LSA. He'll follow his process. Going to the SSL to wait for his "cleanup" of remaining sleeper passengers as @joelkfla suggests isn't a bad idea at all.

 

[jiml]

I have never been in a first-floor room.

I can foresee advantages (e.g., fewer people walking down the hall, more and closer washrooms): and disadvantages (e.g., people congregating in the vestibule and futzing around with luggage at every stop, and the lack of an upstairs view).

For those who've travelled in a first-floor Roomette, how have your experiences been compared with those on the upper level?

I prefer lower level roomettes for all the reasons you mentioned and I like to step outside at smoke/fuel stops to walk and take pictures. Having a smoker as a SCA usually guarantees the door will be opened even if no one is getting on or off your car. (I don't smoke.) The negatives you mentioned aren't usually a problem that I've noticed and the "upstairs view" is what the Sightseer Lounge is for. The main negative is getting forgotten for dining reservations until almost everything has gone. That has happened many times, but I'm usually flexible. When traveling as a couple (seniors not doing ladders) we try to get roomettes across the hall from each other, and that is much easier on the lower level IME yielding a view out both sides of the train.

 

[stevie]

I prefer lower level roomettes for all the reasons you mentioned and I like to step outside at smoke/fuel stops to walk and take pictures. Having a smoker as a SCA usually guarantees the door will be opened even if no one is getting on or off your car. (I don't smoke.) The negatives you mentioned aren't usually a problem that I've noticed and the "upstairs view" is what the Sightseer Lounge is for. The main negative is getting forgotten for dining reservations until almost everything has gone. That has happened many times, but I'm usually flexible. When traveling as a couple (seniors not doing ladders) we try to get roomettes across the hall from each other, and that is much easier on the lower level IME yielding a view out both sides of the train.

Thanks to jiml and all for your replies. I decided to treat myself to Bedroom A after all. I've never been in that room; I've only been in C, D, and E. Research in this forum suggests that Bedroom A is great for a solo traveller. I don't need much space, and I can do without the rattling connection door and adjacent toilet flushing. We'll see.

By the way, jiml, I lived in Detroit in the late 90s, and I rode VIA from Windsor to Toronto many times. Great ride, if not the most scenic.

 

[Flyaway]

Waiting to board in Chicago—there is a delay with no estimated time according to what they are telling Metropolitan Lounge staff, due to an equipment issue.

 

[Flyaway]

We are underway! The conductor, or whoever makes the announcements, said they had to switch out three of the seven cars for mechanical issues.

 

[Asher]

I don't think so; on the SWC, reservations were given out 1st come, 1st serve until all were gone. If you would talk to anyone about it, it would be the LSA in the diner, not the conductor. I don't think they would put you on a waiting list, but it might be worth a try.

If not, move quickly to the SSL when the LSA makes an announcement asking if there are any more sleeper passengers needing reservations. They will probably make the announcement for coach passengers shortly thereafter, and from the SSL you'll be in the car next to the diner and hopefully be at the front of the line when the call is made.

That’s a shame one has to jump through all those hoops just to get a chance for a seat in the dinner.

 

[jis]

That’s a shame one has to jump through all those hoops just to get a chance for a seat in the dinner.

That is the way it always was for Coach passengers. It was first come first serve as ling as there was availability. The question always was what will be the total inventory on that train that day

Before the inclusion of food in Sleeper tickets even the Sleeper passengers were theoretically in the same situation but they always took Sleeper reservations first and there always was enough inventory to serve the Sleepers and some Coach. But on a heavily loaded train Breakfast could become a dicey exercise for even Sleeper pasangers.

 

[Asher]

That is the way it always was for Coach passengers. It was first come first serve as ling as there was availability. The question always was what will be the total inventory on that train that day

Before the inclusion of food in Sleeper tickets even the Sleeper passengers were theoretically in the same situation but they always took Sleeper reservations first and there always was enough inventory to serve the Sleepers and some Coach. But on a heavily loaded train Breakfast could become a dicey exercise for even Sleeper pasangers.

Thanks for pointing that out. It is hard to plan on how many coach passengers are going to want to eat in the dining car and only so much food available.

 

[west point]

Thanks for pointing that out. It is hard to plan on how many coach passengers are going to want to eat in the dining car and only so much food available.

That is why I prefer pre paid coach meals. Then if any left over meals offer to non paying coach passengers.

 

[jimdex]

That is the way it always was for Coach passengers. It was first come first serve as ling as there was availability. The question always was what will be the total inventory on that train that day

It wasn't that way until Amtrak started offering complimentary meals to sleeping car passengers. It used to be first come, first served for everyone. If it were up to me, I'd decouple the sleeping car fares from dining car purchases, allowing a prepayment option for all passengers.

 

[joelkfla]

It wasn't that way until Amtrak started offering complimentary meals to sleeping car passengers. It used to be first come, first served for everyone. If it were up to me, I'd decouple the sleeping car fares from dining car purchases, allowing a prepayment option for all passengers.

How were dining reservations handled back then? Did everyone have to go to dining car to make a reservation? Or were people just put on a waiting list when they showed up at mealtimes?

 

[zephyr17]

How were dining reservations handled back then? Did everyone have to go to dining car to make a reservation? Or were people just put on a waiting list when they showed up at mealtimes?

You know, I really don't recall. I was riding then, and I clearly remember when the meals got included in the fare (they were never "complimentary" the fares went up by almost precisely the cost of two meals for each meal period scheduled for the duration of the trip).

I think they were largely first come, first serve, but the capacity was higher then, as they were staffed sufficiently to run all tables in both ends of the then-new Superliner diners simultaneously. But I think if reservations were required, the sleepers still got first crack.

Just to note, almost the entire reason the meals got included was to preserve the dining cars. It was a way to guarantee higher revenue credited to the dining car, which were in trouble even then.

The current system is a rip-off for single travelers, as the costs of two meals is pretty much built into the sleeper accommodation charges. However, I understand why they did it, and ultimately accept it. I do think if they decouple it, the diners will disappear within a few years unless they change their accounting.

 

[jimdex]

I do think if they decouple it, the diners will disappear within a few years unless they change their accounting.

We've heard many recent complaints on this forum about high sleeper fares, and removing the dining car surcharge would be one of the few practical ways to reduce those fares. While it is undoubtedly true that fewer sleeper passengers would eat in the diner after such a decoupling, lower diner demand from sleeping car passengers would create more capacity to serve coach passengers. Yes, the diners may end up serving fewer meals in total, but Congress has already instructed Amtrak to provide dining car service regardless of profit or loss, and reimaging dining car service in response to lower demand could open up some new opportunities. For instance: if the Lake Shore Limited carried two diner-lounges instead of one diner and one lounge, one diner-lounge could go to Boston while the other could go to New York. The diner portion of each diner-lounge could be staffed with one waiter providing traditional sit-down service to passengers who want to pay for it, while the lounge counter could provide many of the same foods at lower prices on paper plates. Same goes for the Empire Builder, or any future Amtrak train with multiple destinations.

 

[zephyr17]

It isn't the meal costs that cause the high fares, it is lack of capacity and aggressive yield management. Chances are the fares would stay high regardless of whether or not meals got decoupled. The reason for high sleeper fares has little or nothing to do with meal service.

Also, Congress is fickle. The House will likely vote to defund Amtrak entirely in the upcoming budget. It won't go anywhere, the Senate won't support it. But depending on Congress for more than the bare minimum to hang on is asking for trouble. Anyway, Congressional micromanagement has usually not been a good thing (remember John Mica?). I wouldn't depend on them saving Amtrak from its own management team again.

 

[BlackDiamond]

The diner portion of each diner-lounge could be staffed with one waiter providing traditional sit-down service to passengers who want to pay for it, while the lounge counter could provide many of the same foods at lower prices on paper plates.

Sounds like resurrecting the Cross Country Cafe, which didn't seem that popular among Amtrak aficionados.

 

[LongHauler]

It isn't the meal costs that cause the high fares, it is lack of capacity and aggressive yield management. Chances are the fares would stay high regardless of whether or not meals got decoupled. The reason for high sleeper fares has little or nothing to do with meal service.

I may be completely wrong, but I wonder how much the benefit of provided meal service on LD is in lessening the range of clean up variation. Knowing you're a lot less likely to encounter a dropped tub of marinara, the smell of 3-day old short ribs or at the extreme someone who thought "maybe I'll bring a hot plate" might make the turn-around time on prepping cars to go back out more knowable.

 

[jimdex]

Chances are the fares would stay high regardless of whether or not meals got decoupled.

Well, that gets to a question that has always intrigued me. Do the sleeper fares really reflect the cost of providing meals, or do they just reflect the highest price the market will bear, regardless of whether meals are included or not? If it is indeed the latter, then we would have to conclude that sleeper revenues are being used to subsidize dining car service. That may be fine from one standpoint, but a revenue transfer of this kind could make appear that sleepers are poor financial performers, making them more vulnerable to budget-cutters. If it can be established that sleeping cars make a "profit," i.e., add more revenue than expenses to their trains, it should be easier to retain and expand sleeping car service. That's harder to do if the sleepers are being used to subsidize the diners.

 

[jimdex]

Sounds like resurrecting the Cross Country Cafe, which didn't seem that popular among Amtrak aficionados.

I don't know if I've ever actually been in a train with a Cross Country Cafe, so that makes it hard to respond to this observation. What I am advocating is a diner-lounge car like many pre-Amtrak trains had, offering full sit-down waiter service in the dining room, and counter service in the other half of the car. There would be kitchen in the middle of the car, making it possible to provide at least some of the dining car to food to counter patrons.

 

[zephyr17]

Well, that gets to a question that has always intrigued me. Do the sleeper fares really reflect the cost of providing meals, or do they just reflect the highest price the market will bear, regardless of whether meals are included or not? If it is indeed the latter, then we would have to conclude that sleeper revenues are being used to subsidize dining car service. That may be fine from one standpoint, but a revenue transfer of this kind could make appear that sleepers are poor financial performers, making them more vulnerable to budget-cutters. If it can be established that sleeping cars make a "profit," i.e., add more revenue than expenses to their trains, it should be easier to retain and expand sleeping car service. That's harder to do if the sleepers are being used to subsidize the diners.

Sleeper fares are aggressively yield managed. Therefore, they are clearly based on what the market will bear. However, that product does include meals.

The meal inclusion was specifically done to subsidize dining cars when it was implemented in the 1980s.

Amtrak accounting is hopelessly screwed up and deliberately opaque. The RPA did an extensive analysis of it a couple of years ago. It is a dumpster fire. If their accounting truly captured the above the rail costs, sleepers would almost certainly break even and might well show a profit, even after deducting the costs of meals transferred to F&B from the sleeper revenue.

 

[jis]

The meal inclusion was specifically done to subsidize dining cars when it was implemented in the 1980s.

Yeah. It was done to induce people to make greater use of the Diner, since afterall they already paid for it notionally, so that more revenue could be transferred to the F&B account. That was the mechanism for getting a bit more of the F&B funded while also fattening the Transport account since the fares were raised by an amount to cover the most two people could eat in any room and then some.