It's an interesting concept and, as presented, makes a lot of sense. But two things struck me: there's no discussion of why the experiment was reckoned a failure and the concept wasn't implemented, and the bio line at the end – "In the late 1990s, Richardson’s prior company operated the Sunset Limited and City of New Orleans Promotional Office under contract to Amtrak’s Gulf Coast Business Group".
I supposed one explanation could be "Amtrak always makes the wrong decision", but I don't buy it. I think there's more to the story than what a guy who was in charge of marketing the experiment might be inclined to include, or even know in the first place.
Bruce Richardson runs (or ran?) a group called United Rail Passenger Alliance. I don't know what their purpose ever was, other than to post weekly rants about everything they hated about Amtrak. They always made all sorts of fantastic claims about how long-distance trains were profitable, but never managed to produce any actual evidence supporting their claims. They just "said so" and expected the rest of the world to believe it.
Years ago, I read a discussion about the 24-hour dining car experiment (wish I could remember where I read it), and someone had some very good points about why it failed. Basically, I believe the long and short of it was that it required more staff (i.e. someone has to cover that overnight shift, and that means they probably won't be available for lunch/afternoon), and the actual demand for food at 3 a.m. is (unsurprisingly) not very high.
One thing that's telling (and, in fact, typical of Bruce Richardson/URPA's notes) is that he keeps saying it was "financially successful" but never, ever cites any actual numbers. We just have to take his word for it. Unfortunately, years ago I read his stuff on a regular basis (he posted to other online groups), and the only thing I got out of it was that he had an agenda, and he wouldn't back up any of his claims with citations.
It's funny that you mention them because they have been actively trying to recruit me because of how dissatisfied with RPA I am. The issue I see on the splinter groups is people a kin to where I am are disenfranchised by being left on the fringe of the group. Which builds up a resentment over time and eventually they just splinter away.
While the best way to combat splinter groups is to nip them in the bud before they start by not allowing people especially the disenfranchised and minority members of RPA to hit the fringe. Bring them into the group, and teach us the supposed ways and maybe there won't be people going about it in their own way. That or maybe the minority members might have something right that changes how the group runs as a whole.
So while people like Bruce are supporting the long distance cause maybe they aren't going about it in exactly the right way. I still support a lot of RPAs economic arguments, and issues yet even I'm on the verge.
To get back to the dining car 24 hour thread in this I believe that there is a way that you could say it's financially successful. Keep in mind I do not know the hourly rate of an LSA but let's say it is twenty an hour which I honestly hope is lower than what it is for that demanding customer facing job. If one sells a bag of chips, and a soda if I'm recalling he menu right that's around five dollars.
If you have four sales you are covering the direct cost of the staff member and still lose money on the actual product. However if you do six sales in the hour like that you should be covering the direct cost of the staff member and the product. However you can still spin it to unprofitability by counting in the employees benefit package, shipping the products, and the crews it takes to stock the train.
Also remember the initial statements were made when the train had a significantly higher load factor so it is quite possible it could have been barely breaking even. And as long as something is barely turning a profit it can be considered a money maker.
It's just like RPA's transit oriented development theory that passenger rail is beneficial to the economy because of developments around stations, or the staff members who work on trains supporting economies. There is a lot of truth behind this theory but it can be spun to not be as well.
If I wanted to say that passenger rail didn't make economic sense to communities I can point to several cities that do not have passenger rail and are experiencing building booms. Or just say that people were already flocking to such and such city because that's where the jobs went, so the people followed.
Whereas passenger rail mostly has nothing to do with where the jobs are being created. So if I can easily spin one of RPA's biggest theories I've heard at two events then yes you can spin the 24 hour diner into being a money maker.
The key though to getting the change you want is to bring all of the diverse characters who ride the rails into RPA so it better represents them. That includes my generation, private car owners, the crafts at the railroad itself, women, people of color, a variety of people on the socioeconomic scale, students, and the retired. And once RPA truly embodies the characters of passenger rail and embraces them (not leaving them on the fringe) maybe just maybe they can bring everyone in. I'm sure there are plenty of things that both RPA and URPA agree on.
Work on the agreements between both, and we will see change because now is not a time for infighting between advocates.
