What should Amtrak change?

[TheCrescent]

There are so many competing demands for new Amtrak equipment that prioritizing a first class lounge, with or without a bar, for sleeping car passengers ought to be a low priority. What sells sleepers is inherent in the name--you get a private place to sleep lying down. (For what it's worth, I think it's lie-flat seating that sells business class on long haul flights, too.) Access to the dining cars with traditional (or in some ways better) food is also a sales plus for Amtrak in selling sleeper space.

Don't get me wrong--I'd love a Via Park Car equivalent for sleeper passengers, but given the other serious needs for new equipment, I'm willing to share the SSL (and drink from my private bar in my room. )

I believe the rationale for investing in products and services for sleeping car passengers, even if there are other needs, is that the sleeping cars are highest-profit (or least-loss) part of the long-distance train, so the rate of return per dollar spent for sleeping car passengers is much higher than for coach-class passengers. That's not meant to be elitist or classist or offensive, and it does not mean that coach passengers deserve anything less than the best, though.

When I pay approximately $400 for a 700-mile overnight trip on the Crescent, it really makes little sense: I could fly first class at lower cost and have a better onboard experience on a plane. If I, as someone who likes train travel, can hardly justify it (in large part due to Flexible Dining, run-down equipment and no dining car, and a gritty 1970s-era lounge on board), how can someone who doesn't like trains?

 

[Qapla]

As someone who doesn't smoke or drink - I sometimes think too much emphasis is put on these "amenities". I think better service, better equipment and reasonable/affordable prices are more important than a bar, a lounge or smoke stops.

I'm not so sure that those who "don't like trains" is a real problem. I do think those who don't even know LD passenger trains still exist is. In addition to an aggressive advertising campaign - we should start texting/tweeting/blogging/posting or whatever method we use to put pressure on The Weather Channel to give daily mention and status of Amtrak like they do for air travel. They rarely mention Amtrak unless trains are cancelled - but they give daily airport status even if there are no problems.

 

[flitcraft]

I very much agree that sleeper passengers deserve and may expect better than they are getting. The problem is that sleepers are in high demand, so much so that it is often hard to book one when you want to travel, despite eye-popping fares. Myself, I would prefer that Amtrak invest in more sleepers to enhance availability. Oh, and returning the SSL and traditional dining to the TE. YMMV, of course.

 

[TheCrescent]

I very much agree that sleeper passengers deserve and may expect better than they are getting. The problem is that sleepers are in high demand, so much so that it is often hard to book one when you want to travel, despite eye-popping fares. Myself, I would prefer that Amtrak invest in more sleepers to enhance availability. Oh, and returning the SSL and traditional dining to the TE. YMMV, of course.

Yes, Amtrak could certainly fill a lot more sleeping cars if it had them. I think that:

* adding a bunch of "budget" sleeping cars to its long-distance trains (and perhaps adding a super-premium sleeping car, or half a car), and
* marketing them and
* giving out frequent-flier miles linked to an airline, and
* having schedules that have a departure from a big city in the evening and an arrival in another big city early in the morning and
* having a guaranteed Lyft or Uber ride to and from the station

would result in much higher revenues from the sleeping-car business than Amtrak gets now.

For the Crescent, surely advertising an evening departure from DC and a morning arrival in Atlanta, and giving out United or American frequent flyer miles, would get some business.

 

[Cal]

I don't know who keeps track of information such as that, other than Amtrak Guest Rewards internally. Regardless of how you measure it, I'm not seeing that smaller stations necessarily have a higher percentage of overall trips, or a higher percentage of the population (measured by rides vs. the total population), taking Amtrak than NEC stations do.

Let's look at one station in a small town far from an airport: Clemson, SC.

The station is in a very prominent location right next to downtown, and on the main commercial strip. Trains are very visible; almost everyone in town sees them and hears them.

The station is a little over a mile from Clemson University (about 25,000 students) and its football stadium (81,500 seats).

Amtrak COULD have a big business taking students home on vacation and bringing fans to the stadium on Saturdays in the fall, since those are large numbers of people needing transportation, the station is so close and football game day traffic is really bad. Even a shuttle train starting in Spartanburg, running to Clemson, and on to Seneca, and back, could do a big business on football Saturdays.

But Clemson has 1,489 passengers a year.

People drive to football games and either drive or fly home on vacation; the university runs shuttles to the airport (about 40 miles away).

It's a big business that Amtrak makes little effort to get.

That's true, but the current and former Crescent scheduels have served the station ebtween the hours of 9PM and 6AM. Changing it to cater to this small town would put the Atlanta-DC overnight service (the biggest market on the route I believe) to a poor schedule (although it is a poor schedule now anyway). Maybe if South Carolina sponsored a train they could get more service to cater to games and the university, but I don't think Amtrak could do it on their own.

 

[TheCrescent]

That's true, but the current and former Crescent scheduels have served the station ebtween the hours of 9PM and 6AM. Changing it to cater to this small town would put the Atlanta-DC overnight service (the biggest market on the route I believe) to a poor schedule (although it is a poor schedule now anyway). Maybe if South Carolina sponsored a train they could get more service to cater to games and the university, but I don't think Amtrak could do it on their own.

Both times on the former Crescent schedule (around 10pm before the recent changes, and around 6am now) would work OK (not great, but OK) for getting students home on vacation. The current northbound schedule does not work.

Maybe if Amtrak actually marketed the train and offered shuttles around the Clemson campus and various apartment complexes to pick up students and their luggage (for a small fee, maybe), and from the Atlanta station to the airport (or showed how it could be done on Marta), that would surely get riders.

Maybe block off a coach and call it the "Tiger Express" and have Clemson decor all around it? Travel with your friends in Clemson style?

For football game days, surely some spare equipment in Charlotte could be used for extra trains. Clemson University already funds some local mass transit (a line to Greenville), so surely thinking outside the box could be done; perhaps Clemson U. + the SCDOT could chip in in case funds were needed for football trains, but hopefully they could be priced so as not to require any subsidy at all. Local politicians have zero interest in transit, but Clemson football has a huge fan base in the Atlanta-Charlotte corridor so anything that makes it easier for people to get to Clemson football games would get a more receptive audience.

Amtrak makes absolutely zero effort in Clemson, where it has a huge pool of potential riders and great visibility- the train station has a great location and the trains are very visible to the entire town. Amtrak couldn't ask for a better place to do business, but it does nothing and gets very few riders.

 

[Cal]

For football game days, surely some spare equipment in Charlotte could be used for extra trains.

I'm not sure if there is any spare equipment, and if there was I think the state would have to pay for it.

Does Amtrak pay for the Winter Park Ski Train? Or is that state funded?

 

[MARC Rider]

I believe the rationale for investing in products and services for sleeping car passengers, even if there are other needs, is that the sleeping cars are highest-profit (or least-loss) part of the long-distance train,

They won't be if you're spending millions and millions of dollars on non-revenue rolling stock.

 

[Cal]

They won't be if you're spending millions and millions of dollars on non-revenue rolling stock.

And we have to remember that sleeping care fares also have to cover (most of) the diner.

 

[TheCrescent]

They won't be if you're spending millions and millions of dollars on non-revenue rolling stock.

Both sleeping car and coach car passengers use baggage cars.

Coach passengers use the lounge.

I would think that Amtrak could double or triple its sleeping car business. If the only nonrevenue car, in addition to what trains currently have, would be a small lounge that takes up half a car or so, I think that would likely be a good investment.

And we have to remember that sleeping care fares also have to cover (most of) the diner.

That's another reason to significantly expand the sleeping car business--the overhead of running the train could be allocated among a larger group of high-dollar passengers.

I'm not sure if there is any spare equipment, and if there was I think the state would have to pay for it.

There is spare Piedmont equipment. Someone would have to pay for it. But having it rolling around with passengers in it is surely more lucrative than having it sit there.

 

[joelkfla]

I would think that Amtrak could double or triple its sleeping car business.

That's your opinion. Facts and studies would be required to back it up.

If the only nonrevenue car, in addition to what trains currently have, would be a small lounge that takes up half a car or so, I think that would likely be a good investment.

You'd be diverting capital funds from rolling stock that is actually needed. And if the demand for sleeping car space is as great as you're saying, and the desire for private lounge space is as great as you're saying, a half-car lounge would be as crowded as the SSL out of Denver, and everyone would just be frustrated with not being able to get a seat.

 

[TheCrescent]

And we have to remember that sleeping care fares also have to cover (most of) the diner.

That's your opinion. Facts and studies would be required to back it up.

You'd be diverting capital funds from rolling stock that is actually needed. And if the demand for sleeping car space is as great as you're saying, and the desire for private lounge space is as great as you're saying, a half-car lounge would be as crowded as the SSL out of Denver, and everyone would just be frustrated with not being able to get a seat.

Yes, studies should be done before any car order. I agree.

When the Crescent was privately run, it had 4 or 5 sleeping cars and a half-car lounge for sleeping car passengers. I see no reason why that wouldn’t work today.

“Need” is subjective. I say that Amtrak “needs” rolling stock (sleeping cars) that will generate revenues to help it end the need for operating subsidies. Others may say that Amtrak “needs” rolling stock that will replace outdated equipment. Others may say that it “needs” equipment that will help provide transportation to riders from small towns. All of those “needs” are valid.

 

[Qapla]

to help it end the need for operating subsidies

And some would say Amtrak needs to quit having the Gov't money labeled as "subsidies". Amtrak is Gov't owned and should be budgeted the same as Highways and given a sustained cash flow that can be "offset" by the fares but not treated like an unwanted stepchild, like Amtrak and the Post Office are now.

 

[TheCrescent]

And some would say Amtrak needs to quit having the Gov't money labeled as "subsidies". Amtrak is Gov't owned and should be budgeted the same as Highways and given a sustained cash flow that can be "offset" by the fares but not treated like an unwanted stepchild, like Amtrak and the Post Office are now.

It’s actually owned by the government and private railroads (or, in the case of Penn Central, its successor) but that’s not the question, or the issue.

 

[Nick Farr]

Going back to the original thread, if I were to just change three things:

1) Change the "Here to serve me" attitude to "Here to serve you". While there are exceptional Amtrak staff, they seem to be more the exception than the rule.

2) Standardization: Make one set of operating rules for all staff and all service types. Simplify the ticketing and reticketing process. Deny the ability for train crews to set their own rules as they see fit.

3) New Equipment: New cars throughout the entire fleet and a plan for continual upgrading. For example, why not just adopt the ICE Bordrestaurant (Cafe/Kitchen/Restaurant) concept across the board? (This was the dream of the CCC I believe)

 

[joelkfla]

Going back to the original thread, if I were to just change three things:

1) Change the "Here to serve me" attitude to "Here to serve you". While there are exceptional Amtrak staff, they seem to be more the exception than the rule.

2) Standardization: Make one set of operating rules for all staff and all service types. Simplify the ticketing and reticketing process. Deny the ability for train crews to set their own rules as they see fit.

3) New Equipment: New cars throughout the entire fleet and a plan for continual upgrading. For example, why not just adopt the ICE Bordrestaurant (Cafe/Kitchen/Restaurant) concept across the board? (This was the dream of the CCC I believe)

Finally, a list of demands with which I can totally agree!

Putting a service manager on LD trains could go a long way towards accomplishing those 1st 2.

 

[jis]

Finally, a list of demands with which I can totally agree!

Putting a service manager on LD trains could go a long way towards accomplishing those 1st 2.

I agree. Nick put up a pretty practical and doable list.

BTW, last time they tried the train manager thing they could not come to an agreement on whether it should be a Union person or a Management person, and that was the end of that.

 

[Joe from PA]

Yes, Amtrak could certainly fill a lot more sleeping cars if it had them. I think that:



* giving out frequent-flier miles linked to an airline

My Amtrak Master Card has gotten me over $2,000. in no cost trips since I got it 4 years ago. We are leaving again in a Silver sleeping car to Florida in March...free.

 

[TheCrescent]

My Amtrak Master Card has gotten me over $2,000. in no cost trips since I got it 4 years ago. We are leaving again in a Silver sleeping car to Florida in March...free.

Same, I've used AGR points for a roomette. I like AGR and think it's a good program.

I just figure that there are plenty of people (I am one) who will fly their preferred airline only, in order to be sure that they meet the threshold for requalifying for elite status each year (usually 25,000 or 50,000 or 75,000 or 100,000 miles flown per year). If those people could get elite-qualifying miles on their airline by traveling Amtrak instead, that would help wean them away from flying. I figure that airlines would be happy to sell miles to Amtrak just as they sell them to banks, particularly for routes dominated by their competitors (e.g., airlines other than Delta would be happy to give miles for trips to Atlanta, which is Delta's fortress hub).

 

[MARC Rider]

2) Standardization: Make one set of operating rules for all staff and all service types. Simplify the ticketing and reticketing process. Deny the ability for train crews to set their own rules as they see fit.

I disagree with this entirely. Service standards for a 50 hour transcontinental run in sleeper (or even coach) requires completely different standards from that of a 2-hour ride in a corridor. Also, operational situations may make it impossible for staff to meet the guidelines outlined in the service standards manual, so there's no point in waving it around and saying it's some sort of universal entitlement for passengers. I suspect that the actual "contract of carriage" that a passenger agrees to when they buy their ticket just says that Amtrak will do everything in its power to get you from point A to point B, and this contract probably supersedes any "service standard" guidelines. And that's probably true for every other mode of transportation. Even the state highway departments reserve the right to shut down the interstates if conditions require it, thus stranding motorists in unpleasant situations.

While Amtrak management may need to do more to ensure that all service staff have a commitment to making their passengers happy, as I think most do, they can't do it by imposing inflexible rules and disempowering staff from making adjustments, as may be necessary from time to time due to operational reasons. Based on the complaints I've read on this forum and my experience, I think they need to (1) keep staff from tying up space in public areas like lounges, cafes and dining cars, (2) deploy more OBS staff per train (perhaps based on anticipated passenger lead -- the trains are all reserved, so that should be easy to figure out) so that services are performed quickly and efficiently, and (3) restore the position of on-board service supervisor, or whatever they called it to the long-distance trains. This would not be needed for corridor service, obviously.

 

[MARC Rider]

My Amtrak Master Card has gotten me over $2,000. in no cost trips since I got it 4 years ago. We are leaving again in a Silver sleeping car to Florida in March...free.

How does the use of AGR points affect train revenues? I mean, maybe the trains are full, but it's from people cashing in their points, so no cash is actually coming into Amtrak's coffers.

 

[Trogdor]

How does the use of AGR points affect train revenues? I mean, maybe the trains are full, but it's from people cashing in their points, so no cash is actually coming into Amtrak's coffers.

Drifting off topic, but if points are earned through the credit card, then the bank paid Amtrak for it already. And presumably, if there was no travel benefit to be obtained, people would use that particular card, and thus the bank wouldn't pay Amtrak for any of those points.

If the points were earned through travel, then it effectively represents a "discount" on the paid ticket to be applied in the future, diverting some of that revenue into a points liability account to be used later.

So recognizing revenue for a train from a ticket purchased with points works by assigning the value of the points.

 

[joelkfla]

I disagree with this entirely. Service standards for a 50 hour transcontinental run in sleeper (or even coach) requires completely different standards from that of a 2-hour ride in a corridor. Also, operational situations may make it impossible for staff to meet the guidelines outlined in the service standards manual, so there's no point in waving it around and saying it's some sort of universal entitlement for passengers. I suspect that the actual "contract of carriage" that a passenger agrees to when they buy their ticket just says that Amtrak will do everything in its power to get you from point A to point B, and this contract probably supersedes any "service standard" guidelines. And that's probably true for every other mode of transportation. Even the state highway departments reserve the right to shut down the interstates if conditions require it, thus stranding motorists in unpleasant situations.

While Amtrak management may need to do more to ensure that all service staff have a commitment to making their passengers happy, as I think most do, they can't do it by imposing inflexible rules and disempowering staff from making adjustments, as may be necessary from time to time due to operational reasons. Based on the complaints I've read on this forum and my experience, I think they need to (1) keep staff from tying up space in public areas like lounges, cafes and dining cars, (2) deploy more OBS staff per train (perhaps based on anticipated passenger lead -- the trains are all reserved, so that should be easy to figure out) so that services are performed quickly and efficiently, and (3) restore the position of on-board service supervisor, or whatever they called it to the long-distance trains. This would not be needed for corridor service, obviously.

I don't think anyone would be against flexibility in special circumstances. But things like, "You can't sit in the lounge," or "No room service, you have to get your own meal and carry it back to your room," or snack/no snack, drink/no drink differences in business class on different services, should not be tolerated.

And sure, corridor service is different from LD, but there should be a minimum standard of service and procedures on corridors, too. If funding states want to add something extra, that's OK.

 

[jis]

From my experience in coutries with enormous passenger rail systems, I think it quite unrealistic to have a single standard for all trains. What is realistic and what is done quite often is to have a single standard for a class of trains.

For example in India there are multiple classes of LD trains with very distinct quality differences in services offered in each class of trains. That is leaving aside the other classes of passenger trains, which again have their own set of standards. When you buy a ticket you know which class of train you are getting yourself into and have expectation of standards set by that.

I believe something similar to that was obtained in the US too in the heyday of passenger service.

 

[rs9]

I disagree with this entirely. Service standards for a 50 hour transcontinental run in sleeper (or even coach) requires completely different standards from that of a 2-hour ride in a corridor. Also, operational situations may make it impossible for staff to meet the guidelines outlined in the service standards manual, so there's no point in waving it around and saying it's some sort of universal entitlement for passengers. I suspect that the actual "contract of carriage" that a passenger agrees to when they buy their ticket just says that Amtrak will do everything in its power to get you from point A to point B, and this contract probably supersedes any "service standard" guidelines. And that's probably true for every other mode of transportation. Even the state highway departments reserve the right to shut down the interstates if conditions require it, thus stranding motorists in unpleasant situations.

While Amtrak management may need to do more to ensure that all service staff have a commitment to making their passengers happy, as I think most do, they can't do it by imposing inflexible rules and disempowering staff from making adjustments, as may be necessary from time to time due to operational reasons. Based on the complaints I've read on this forum and my experience, I think they need to (1) keep staff from tying up space in public areas like lounges, cafes and dining cars, (2) deploy more OBS staff per train (perhaps based on anticipated passenger lead -- the trains are all reserved, so that should be easy to figure out) so that services are performed quickly and efficiently, and (3) restore the position of on-board service supervisor, or whatever they called it to the long-distance trains. This would not be needed for corridor service, obviously.

Here's a different way to put it. I have admittedly not taken Amtrak a ton to this point in life. Most has been corridor service out of or to Chicago. As an irregular passenger, I often don't know what I should be doing or where I should be going. Here's a couple examples:

- On my first-ever Amtrak trip, I took the Wolverine from Chicago. There was no information on my ticket, via email or text, or upon arriving at Union Station as to where passengers gather for the Wolverine. I knew that there were Amtrak gate areas. But it turns out you gather in the Great Hall. I guess I was just supposed to know that? Now I'm the type that is comfortable to just go find an Amtrak employee and ask them, but I don't think everyone is going to take that step.

- On that same first trip, we did the kindergarten walk from the Great Hall to the entryway to the tracks. At the start of the tracks, an Amtrak employee checked our tickets. I was headed to Ann Arbor. The employee made a vague guttural noise and point signifying I was to board one of the cars further down the platform. Now, every single car had open doors. So...I had no idea where to go. There was another Amtrak employee toward the front of the train on the platform, so I walked forward to him, who instructed me I could board the car where he was standing. Again, this is not a catastrophe of any sort, but my very first impression of Amtrak travel was that I was somehow responsible on my own to know where to be and where to go.

- I've read here that some train crews group people by destination, regardless of whether there are open seats elsewhere. I don't agree with that personally, but again, you could communicate that info beforehand. You'll be in the Washington DC car, which is car #3 forward from the back of the train.

I can't be alone in this as a first time/irregular traveler. I think part of any customer service experience is customers know what to expect. So rather than a rigorous set of standards for employees to follow, set a rigorous set of customer expectations, and empower your employees to meet those expectations to the best of their abilities.