Senate amendment to eliminate food/beverage on Amtrak (LD too)

[jis]

I don't think the major airlines have an axe to grind with Amtrak. Even if Amtrak disappeared tomorrow, the extra passengers the airlines would see (other than the NEC) would hardly be noticeable.

I agree. I don't think airlines worry too much about how many passengers Amtrak carries on its LD network too much. This will affect LD service disproportionately. Furthermore, I don't think it will affect Corridor service as much, specially on corridors like the NEC. It will affect some. It will affect longer distance corridor passengers more than shorter distance ones. Perhaps they will have to compensate by extending stops at New York and Washington DC allowing through passengers to go up into the station to purchase food.
But on the whole this is a bad idea and should be opposed every which way one can.

Have you talked to the office of your Senators yet? If not, I suggest you make the time and do so.

 

[tonys96]

Which means half of passengers go further than that on a train.* It also ignores connections people may be making which require the use of multiple trains, but not having enough time between trains to have a sit-down meal.
*Assuming either a bell-shaped or even distribution of passenger trip-miles. Median would be more useful here, but not sure if that's available.

It also means that if it is perfectly acceptable on the Palmetto, it's perfectly acceptable on similar trains such as the Starlight or CONO.

Who says it is "perfectly acceptable?" Just because that is the way it is, does not mean that there are not pax who would like a diner, does it? Or have you asked every passenger if they would make use of a diner or diner lite?

You keep tossing the Palmetto out as the best way to operate....since it is an all coach train, and there are higher subsidies for coach pax, I would say it is the worst example. How you figure it to be the best example is beyond my pay grade.

 

[jis]

You keep tossing the Palmetto out as the best way to operate....since it is an all coach train, and there are higher subsidies for coach pax, I would say it is the worst example. How you figure it to be the best example is beyond my pay grade.

The reason he brings it up is because it is one of the better financial performers among the LD trains.
Having lower subsidy per Sleeper passenger does not do a heck of a lot of good if proportionately they are a small minority of the total number of passengers on a train. That whole computation also depends on how the cost of the seemingly mostly sleeper specific additional costs like the cost of a Diner is allocated. That might be the point that Paulus is making, though I do not completely agree with that approach at all myself.

 

[Paulus]

Which means half of passengers go further than that on a train.* It also ignores connections people may be making which require the use of multiple trains, but not having enough time between trains to have a sit-down meal.

*Assuming either a bell-shaped or even distribution of passenger trip-miles. Median would be more useful here, but not sure if that's available.

It also means that if it is perfectly acceptable on the Palmetto, it's perfectly acceptable on similar trains such as the Starlight or CONO.

Who says it is "perfectly acceptable?" Just because that is the way it is, does not mean that there are not pax who would like a diner, does it? Or have you asked every passenger if they would make use of a diner or diner lite?

You keep tossing the Palmetto out as the best way to operate....since it is an all coach train, and there are higher subsidies for coach pax, I would say it is the worst example. How you figure it to be the best example is beyond my pay grade.

The Palmetto is the best performing long distance train and the apparent costs for diner and sleeper are significant. If coach really had higher subsidies, the Palmetto would be the worst performing. And quite frankly, it's fairly obvious that a diner is going to be significantly more expensive to run. Amtrak's single greatest expenses is wages and while a cafe car requires only a single person, diners employ 3-4. Unless you are tripling or quadrupling F&B revenue, which is terribly unlikely, there is no call for them unless you can prove that they make up for it with increased ticket revenue, something doubtful given that sleepers were already patronized prior to getting free meals in the diner. To quote myself from somewhere else:

Sleepers and diners add immensely to the cost of a train. It's no surprise that the all-coach Palmetto is the cheapest train in the entire long distance train network, by a significant fraction. Comparing it to the Silver Meteor, a coach seat-mile costs $0.164 while the cost for a sleeper appears to be $0.394 per mile (2.4 times the expense of the coach). This does attribute all diner costs to the sleeper.
Meanwhile, fares are ridiculously low on the long distance trains. The Palmetto, despite a lack of sleepers, is tied for highest revenue per passenger mile with the Crescent (ignoring the Auto Train which has significant extra revenue from hauling the automobiles). Average fares on the long distance trains can range down as low as 11¢ per passenger mile for coach and sleepers generally bounce around the 20s.

Of course, even NARP acknowledges that sleepers are significantly more expensive than coach on the Silver Service.

 

[jebr]

Which means half of passengers go further than that on a train.* It also ignores connections people may be making which require the use of multiple trains, but not having enough time between trains to have a sit-down meal.

*Assuming either a bell-shaped or even distribution of passenger trip-miles. Median would be more useful here, but not sure if that's available.

It also means that if it is perfectly acceptable on the Palmetto, it's perfectly acceptable on similar trains such as the Starlight or CONO.

Who says it is "perfectly acceptable?" Just because that is the way it is, does not mean that there are not pax who would like a diner, does it? Or have you asked every passenger if they would make use of a diner or diner lite?

You keep tossing the Palmetto out as the best way to operate....since it is an all coach train, and there are higher subsidies for coach pax, I would say it is the worst example. How you figure it to be the best example is beyond my pay grade.

The Palmetto is the best performing long distance train and the apparent costs for diner and sleeper are significant. If coach really had higher subsidies, the Palmetto would be the worst performing. And quite frankly, it's fairly obvious that a diner is going to be significantly more expensive to run. Amtrak's single greatest expenses is wages and while a cafe car requires only a single person, diners employ 3-4. Unless you are tripling or quadrupling F&B revenue, which is terribly unlikely, there is no call for them unless you can prove that they make up for it with increased ticket revenue, something doubtful given that sleepers were already patronized prior to getting free meals in the diner. To quote myself from somewhere else:

Could part of it also be that it's a lot cheaper labor-wise to run a train during the day than overnight? I'm not sure how it works for labor, but for an overnight train I'd imagine union rules require a dorm on the train for the night, which has a completely sunk cost (unless you sell a couple of the rooms in the dorm to customers.)

Plus, sleeper passengers do require less subsidy than coach passengers.

 

[fillyjonk]

Sleepers are necessary for overnight trains for me. As are dining cars.

I'd grudgingly eat lounge-car food or box meals, but if the sleepers go, I'd stop using Amtrak also.

I'm too much of a misanthrope to be happy being crammed in an overnight coach any more. (And I've had a few bad experiences with people with NO concept of personal space or leaving their seatmate alone....)

 

[tonys96]

Comparing overnight routes to Palmetto is a fake comparison. Like comparing oranges to tricycles.

 

[TVRM610]

The crews could change at savannah if the Palmetto was extended. The Carolinian switches car attendants and LSA at Raleigh.. So this process could work on other trains too.

 

[Cooley47]

This can't even be legal, can it?

 

[Paulus]

This can't even be legal, can it?

I'm fairly sure that Congress is allowed to set the law generally how they please and "The rights of the sleeper passenger to subsidized fares shall not be infringed" appears nowhere in the Constitution.

 

[amamba]

This can't even be legal, can it?

I'm fairly sure that Congress is allowed to set the law generally how they please and "The rights of the sleeper passenger to subsidized fares shall not be infringed" appears nowhere in the Constitution.

Can you explain to me how you are calculating that sleeper pax are receiving subsidized fares?

 

[jis]

This from NARP, just FYI....

We are hearing through backchannels that some Democrats may be leaning toward supporting the Flake amendment to the Senate Transportation-HUD appropriations bill. This amendment would bar the use of funds to subsidize Amtrak food and beverage service.
These Senators may be leaning wrong on this amendment because they face reelection or have not heard from their constituents about it. I’m including a list of critical talking points. Please reach out and contact your Senator to let them know you oppose this amendment—especially if they’re a Republican or on this list. (I’ve underlined the Senators who are up for reelection in 2014).

Begich Mark (D-AK)

Hagan Kay R. (D-NC)

Landrieu Mary L. (D-LA)

McCaskill Claire (D-MO)

Merkley Jeff (D-OR)

Nelson Bill (D-FL)

Pryor Mark L. (D-AR)

Udall Mark (D-CO)

Udall Tom (D-NM)

Warner Mark (D-VA)

Talking Points

o There are 1,125 Amtrak jobs engaged in providing food & beverage service

o Amtrak estimates that elimination of food service would cut ridership by 4.5% and ticket revenue by 9.9%

o This would result in a net loss of $184 million – which would leave Amtrak in a situation where its dependence on Federal and state funding is larger than it is today

o In FY 2012, Amtrak’s F&B service cost the corporation $72 million (net loss). However, this represents a 22% improvement over the 2006 level, and Amtrak expects to improve cost recovery by another 13-20% by FY 2015

 

[Cooley47]

This can't even be legal, can it?

I'm fairly sure that Congress is allowed to set the law generally how they please and "The rights of the sleeper passenger to subsidized fares shall not be infringed" appears nowhere in the Constitution.

I would think failing to provide proper amenities to passengers would be illegal in some form. Do they plan on allowing people to bring along three days worth of food for entire families, along with the families luggage? Depending on the trips? Might as well toss out the bathrooms too.

 

[ATXEagle]

I really don't think the legislative supporters of this or similar legislation care one way or the other if Amtrak (especially long distance trains) survives. I think they would be just as happy for America's Railroad to go out of business as a national carrier and to allow the NEC and other corrider operations to continue on in some new form. I wholly disagree with this philosophy, and think that America needs to invest far more in our national railroad network. Unfortunately, those who attack Amtrak are adept at packaging their criticisms and micromanagement in ways that seem reasonable until one considers the issue more carefully. If one compares the vast subsidies the airline industry enjoys with that given to Amtrak it becomes clear that the attacks on Amtrak are out of all proportion to its actual chunk of the federal budget. (I think it really has more to do with the concept of Amtrak being in some way "government-owned." This is the same mindset that leads some folks to oppose PBS, NPR, the Postal Service, Medicare, Medicaid, public schools, etc. It's not always about the actual dollar figures, but about one's views regarding government. I disagree with this viewpoint, but I think it's the motivating factor here.) NARP constantly encourages us to contact our senators with input, but living in Texas that would mean expecting Mr. Cruz and Mr. Cornyn to miraculously decide to start supporting Amtrak. I know that's not going to happen.

I would be quite willing to try various means of food service on board. But if it becomes necessary to pack food for a long distance trip, or to eat only the current cafe car options while enroute, I'll have to give up long distance travel on Amtrak. (And if the sleepers were to go, there's no way I'd be onboard overnight.)

 

[Cooley47]

Just sent Mark Warner an email. We'll see if I ever get something back or not. Will post the response here if he does.

 

[chakk]

(There's also the sightseer lounge on the top floor of the cafe, but if we're trying to cut costs, I'd imagine that'd be converted to revenue coach space instead of non-revenue space.)

An interesting concept. If Amtrak converted the Superliner Sightseering Lounge Cars to coach seating and charged extra fare for them, would enough passengers choose that option when ticketing to make it worth the cost of conversion?

How much of a percentage increase in price over regular coach would be practical/feasible?

 

[tonys96]

This can't even be legal, can it?

I'm fairly sure that Congress is allowed to set the law generally how they please and "The rights of the sleeper passenger to subsidized fares shall not be infringed" appears nowhere in the Constitution.

I'm fairly sure that Congress is allowed to set the law generally how they please and "The rights of the sleeper coach passenger to subsidized fares shall not be infringed" appears nowhere in the Constitution.

 

[Blackwolf]

Just finished writing my letter to Dianne Feinstein. She likely opposes this amendment, but she is my Senator.

 

[crescent2]

Sleepers are necessary for overnight trains for me. As are dining cars.

For me as well.

I doubt we'd have even taken the all day segment (ATL or ATN--NOL and return), which we've done many times, of the Crescent if there'd been no dining car. We don't care for vending-type food and wouldn't have wanted to try to bring food for two meals for two people. Trips of that length and longer need decent meal service, and overnights need the choice of sleeper service.

 

[Nathanael]

Which means half of passengers go further than that on a train.* It also ignores connections people may be making which require the use of multiple trains, but not having enough time between trains to have a sit-down meal.
*Assuming either a bell-shaped or even distribution of passenger trip-miles. Median would be more useful here, but not sure if that's available.

It also means that if it is perfectly acceptable on the Palmetto, it's perfectly acceptable on similar trains such as the Starlight or CONO.

The Starlight is not remotely similar. Do you actually know anything about Amtrak, Paulus?

And for reference, Amtrak has stated that half the passengers in the diner of the Lake Shore Limited are in coach.

 

[Nathanael]

BTW, Amtrak has given an estimate of what percentage of passengers they expect to lose if Dining/Food service is discontinued. To quote the NARP article on this matter:

Amtrak estimates that elimination of food service would reduce ridership by 4.5%, cut ticket revenue by 9.9%, and increase the size of its required operating grant—even before considering labor protection costs associated with mass lay-offs.

So clearly even Amtrak does not believe that all its passengers will disappear, OTOH it also believes that the hit will be substantial, more so on revenue than ridership, which is natural since presumably more longer distance riders will be lost.

10% revenue loss is pretty substantial.

I don't take people seriously who suggest cutting food service on many-hour trains. It's stupid. The thing to do is to make the trains run faster. If you could cut four hours off of the Lake Shore Limited schedule -- which is possible given enough money -- then people would ride it without food service. It's all about runtimes.

 

[Nathanael]

I guess the other model is the one one sees in India - where 45 mins before a meal orders are taken, (then) telegraphed ahead, prepared, and when the train gets 45 minutes down the route all the cooked meals are brought on board - works amazingly well.

I totally approve of this model, but it can't be done until Amtrak trains run consistently on time.

 

[cirdan]

I would think failing to provide proper amenities to passengers would be illegal in some form. Do they plan on allowing people to bring along three days worth of food for entire families, along with the families luggage? Depending on the trips? Might as well toss out the bathrooms too.

And what about the locomotive? That just causes costs and earns no revenue directly. Why can't the passengers just get out and push. Do they think they're on a land cruise or something?

 

[gmushial]

I guess the other model is the one one sees in India - where 45 mins before a meal orders are taken, (then) telegraphed ahead, prepared, and when the train gets 45 minutes down the route all the cooked meals are brought on board - works amazingly well.

I totally approve of this model, but it can't be done until Amtrak trains run consistently on time.

Given the fact that the food is prepared in a stationary kitchen and not one with limited space, the quality of the food turns out to be very good, and quite cost effective, ie, not out of line with an upper mid-class restaurant [quality on par with; price quite a bit better]. The one aspect that I've always marveled at has been the matching up of orders and people - this is with maybe 300 meals being on-loaded at 45 minutes later - in that even if one is not in the same seat at the time of being served as one was at the time of placing the order, one always seems to end up with the correct order. ... w/re the timeliness: whereas the Japanese railways run on clockwork, the Indian ones are somewhere btwn Japan and Amtrak, ie, being an hour late somewhere is not unusual, but being 4 hours late is rare [except during the monsoon]... but as long as the time btwn the order taking point an the on-loading point is pretty consistent, then, although lunch or dinner might be a half-hour or hour late, the model works, ie, the kitchen is staffed 24/7, and an order is prepared given the nominal timing btwn order taking and on-loading pts.

 

[jis]

I guess the other model is the one one sees in India - where 45 mins before a meal orders are taken, (then) telegraphed ahead, prepared, and when the train gets 45 minutes down the route all the cooked meals are brought on board - works amazingly well.

I totally approve of this model, but it can't be done until Amtrak trains run consistently on time.

This works quite well in India which has a very dense network of stations with service capabilities to support such.

For single night journey Rajdhani Expresses and day journey Shatabdi Expresses where food is included in all tickets, all the needed food is loaded into a Pantry Car or two at the point of origination. In case of undue delay requiring additional meals, the fallback is to use the dense network of service stations on the way to load the necessary additional food. Since there is ample food storage capacity for the train in the Pantry Cars there is no need for the loading to happen precisely before a meal time. It can be done where most convenient.

I would beg to disagree on just 4 hour delays on IR. During winter fog season even the prestigious Rajdhani Express between Kolkata and New Delhi runs 12 or 14 hours behind schedule on many occasions. I have experienced such more than once, including on that fateful day in early January when there were three collisions in the same day on that route, and we had to thread our way around the remnants of those collisions to make it to New Delhi just `15 hours late, on a journey that is scheduled for a shade under 17 hours. But even that day no one went without food for any meal on that train, and the Sealdah - New Delhi Rajdhani which was following its marker, equally late.