Privatization of Dining Car Service may be the answer

[Train2104]

Serving more meals means extending the hours, which means adding more staff. Standalone restaurants have shifts of employees to cover breakfast, lunch and dinner. A chef, an LSA and two waiters cannot cover 6:30 am - 10:00 pm! Add extra staff, you get more wages, more benefits and more revenue rooms for staff. It just doesn't work! I would agree that the existing staff is not motivated to serve more passengers, but that needs to be addressed by the operational management, who are mostly silent and invisible on the trains. It's not that the staff want to work extra hard to provide the level of service that the passengers expect, it's simply that there is no one there to get them to add extra revenue. How many restaurants/bars do you know that don't have a full time management person on the premises?

Seems a bit counterintuitive that staff would discourage coach passengers from eating in the diner. More people served means more tips!

 

[haolerider]

I don't like generalizations, but it is rumored that coach passengers don't tip as much as sleeping car passengers, probably based on the fact that the sleeping car pax feel,as though the meal,is free - which it isn't - but they aren't presented with a bill - while the coach passengers are! I have seen coach passengers enter the dining car, take a look at the menu and leave, based on the prices! Perhaps, as has been suggested, a coach menu with more reasonable prices would attract more coach passengers - or maybe a moderately priced special for each meal. So, again, based on generalizations, more coach passengers would not necessarily mean more tips!

 

[Lonestar648]

The DC staff is paid no matter how many or how few hours they work. 2 1/2 hours for Breakfast, 90 minutes for lunch, 2 seatings for Dinner (occasionally 3). The LSA on my recent trips sat in the booth the entire time reading while the single server did everything. Agree Amtrak management needs what we used to know as the management "AIC" program. Until management really knows what is happening, things will only degrade.

 

[haolerider]

Believe me, management knows what is happening, there simply is no action taken to correct the issues. I would love to know how many management staff actually ride the trains. Given the ability to work remotely, there is really no reason for an operations management person to not be on the trains on a regular basis & not hiding out in a sleeper!

 

[FormerOBS]

I have seen many high level managers who rode the trains and that's all. Just rode. Ate the food. Slept in the berths at night. Paid no attention to what was being done, how it was being done, why it was done that way, whether it could be done differently, etc. etc. etc. There were some who were more proactive. W. Graham Claytor paid attention to everything. So did David Gunn. There are some who may or may not have been proactive, but I can't say for sure because my experience with them was limited. So it they didn't make my "top" list, don't jump to negative conclusions. I suspect some of the others may have been OK in that regard; but I certainly did observe some who seemed to have their feet planted in concrete. No, I won't mention the names of the worst ones.

Tips: I don't usually discuss this. On the Auto Train, both coach and sleeper passengers get meals included with the cost of the ticket. The sleeper diner always used to have service that was upscale in comparison with the coach diner. Tips in the sleeper diner were always better than those in the coach diner. A little over a year ago, the sleeper diner service was downgraded to be more in line with the coach service. Tips continued to be better in the sleeper diner. As far as I know, this is probably still true. Coach passengers are probably more likely to be traveling on a tighter budget.

Tom

 

[Train2104]

I don't like generalizations, but it is rumored that coach passengers don't tip as much as sleeping car passengers, probably based on the fact that the sleeping car pax feel,as though the meal,is free - which it isn't - but they aren't presented with a bill - while the coach passengers are! I have seen coach passengers enter the dining car, take a look at the menu and leave, based on the prices! Perhaps, as has been suggested, a coach menu with more reasonable prices would attract more coach passengers - or maybe a moderately priced special for each meal. So, again, based on generalizations, more coach passengers would not necessarily mean more tips!

In terms of a coach menu, do we have any news from the coach at seat meal pilot on the Starlight?

 

[neroden]

To the distinguished poster neroden above who claims that meal costs would go higher with privatization of the dining car service.

You misinterpreted me; I meant that Amtrak's *federal subsidies* devoted to the dining car service would go higher. "Privatization" deals routinely *increase* taxpayer subsidization, because there are more middlemen demanding their cut.

 

[fillyjonk]

The tip thing is interesting to me because I've seen a lot of sleeper pax who don't tip....even a couple who walked off after ordering alcohol and either the SCA or one of the diner crew had to track them down.

I figured it was that the cost of the meal was "invisible" to them (and probably they don't tip the full price in restaurants when they have a coupon or something, or there's a BOGO type deal....). But I can see coach passengers being on a tighter budget and finding it hard to afford both a tip and a dining car meal. (When I was younger and broke, I either tried to grab a quick dinner before getting on the train, or I bought something cheap in the lounge car...now that I have more money I can have the sleeper experience which is more pleasant. And yes, I tip.)

Also, I would be sad if the "dining car" was devolved to Subway or something similar. The dining car food isn't as good as it used to be but it's still better than the typical fast-food place. I'd also be sad to be handed a bag and have to take it back to my room to eat....

 

[Anderson]

To the distinguished poster neroden above who claims that meal costs would go higher with privatization of the dining car service. This is unlikely. The costs are already far in excess of what like items cost in a restaurant. How many passengers would pay $5.00 for a can of soda, $35 for a hamburger or $85 for a flat iron shoulder steak dinner? I wouldn't and neither would most passengers. Point is that costs can only go so high until people walk away.

Currently the cost of car maintenance, salaries and benefits of the staff in the dining cars exceeds the profit that Amtrak makes on selling the food. Add in the cost of giving the staff a roomette with meals and it's an expensive proposition. I don't know whether or not privatization makes sense but higher turnover would reduce the losses. How do you get it when some of the dining car staff often discourages coach passengers from going to the dining car? There is no reason why the dining car cannot have restaurant hours as in the private sector. If it is full you go on a waiting list. Serving more meals would greatly increase revenues and maybe get congress off the back of Amtrak.

The problem with these examples is that they refer to the "fully costed" cost of the soda, burger, and steak. The best way I can think of to explain it is with a more simple example...

Let us say that a kid operates a lemonade stand. It costs him $50 to put the stand together and $5 per batch for the lemonade mix, water, etc. He runs the stand for a week and sells five batches of lemonade for $12.50/batch. His incremental fixed cost is $50 and his variable cost is $25 for a total cost of $75 (or $15/batch), losing $37.50. However, if he goes on for another week and sells another five batches his incremental fixed cost is $0 and his variable cost is $25...which will turn his loss of $37.50 into an overall profit of $25. If the kid had simply looked at his total costs and revenue at the end of week one he'd have seen a loss and might have given up because he didn't account for his operating profit against capital losses.

Most of the costs of the dining car are for all intents and purposes fixed, so selling more food with approximately the same crew, car, etc. doesn't lose money (even if the accounting makes it look otherwise). The next steak sold does not cost $85 to sell...it costs likely below the price on the menu.

 

[cirdan]

I have seen many high level managers who rode the trains and that's all. Just rode. Ate the food. Slept in the berths at night. Paid no attention to what was being done, how it was being done, why it was done that way, whether it could be done differently, etc. etc. etc.

How do you know they were not paying attention?

Good managers don't shame their employees in front of customers, but that doesn't mean they don't take note and raise issues in one to one meetings fterwards.

 

[VentureForth]

The tip thing is interesting to me because I've seen a lot of sleeper pax who don't tip....even a couple who walked off after ordering alcohol and either the SCA or one of the diner crew had to track them down.

I figured it was that the cost of the meal was "invisible" to them (and probably they don't tip the full price in restaurants when they have a coupon or something, or there's a BOGO type deal....). But I can see coach passengers being on a tighter budget and finding it hard to afford both a tip and a dining car meal. (When I was younger and broke, I either tried to grab a quick dinner before getting on the train, or I bought something cheap in the lounge car...now that I have more money I can have the sleeper experience which is more pleasant. And yes, I tip.)

Also, I would be sad if the "dining car" was devolved to Subway or something similar. The dining car food isn't as good as it used to be but it's still better than the typical fast-food place. I'd also be sad to be handed a bag and have to take it back to my room to eat....

Yeah - I think haolerider argued against his own point. I think coach pax tip more because they are fully aware of the menu and ticket prices. You can't give coach passengers one menu and sleeper pax another menu and expect harmony in the dining car. Sleeper pax are WELL aware of the costs of the meal, 'cause they're listed right on the same menu they are ordering from.

While it's true that many coach passengers are turned off by dining room prices, that's a poor generalization. Many times coach passengers CAN'T eat in the diner because it's full of sleeping car pax or coach pax who board well before dinner time and get their reservations in. Whereas $30 for a a steak dinner that costs $10 at Waffle House (same quality, IMHO, more so now than 5 years ago), it's not out of the realm of single passengers and still a HUGE savings over paying for a room. I've mentioned before that at breakfast and lunch, you can almost eat in the diner for about the same price as the Café.

 

[FormerOBS]

Cirdan:

That's a fair question. I know they were not paying attention because they did not show up early to observe the preparation of the train. They did not bother to go downstairs to the kitchen to ask questions of the kitchen staff. They didn't ask questions of anybody. I don't mean to suggest that they should ask embarrassing "gotcha" questions, or try to embarrass anybody. At detraining, they left immediately, paying no attention to the servicing of the train. I don't suggest that they should have done all of these things, but I would have thought they would do some of them. Claytor and Gunn did.

Tom

 

[Bob Dylan]

I've ridden Amtrak since "A Day" and through the years have seen and met many Managers, Execs etc. riding the trains.

Too many of them ride around in Beech Grove and the other Business Cars. They need to be on the LD Trains including the Silver Star and CONO, to experience what their schemes actually do to customer service, and to observe the crews performance so as to retrain or de-train the duds and sore heads that give the good Amtrak employees (the vast majority) a bad name!

Depending on the person, some I've seen actually on the Trains were just along for the ride (eat and hide out in their room),others interacted with the crew and passengers and were highly visible except when asleep.

The last suit I saw that actually interacted with passengers and crew was on the Re- Reroute of the Texas Eagle on the old Mopac Route last Fall between Taylor and Longview, for the dedication of the remodeled Longview Depot.

The guy ate in the Diner with passengers,went downstairs to talk to the kitchen crew, hung out in the Sightseer Lounge, got off @ the one stop in Hearne and talked with crew members during the crew change there.

He also visited in the Coaches and Sleeper asking questions and I saw him making lots of notes on his lap top.

He attended the Dedication the next morning @ the nicely remodeled Depot and talked with waiting passengers and those arriving on the Thruways from Shrevport and Houston.

When I boarded #21 to return to Austin ( it too was rerouted to Taylor but on a different route than #22)he was in the Sightseer Lounge talking with passengers and crew, ate in the Diner ( Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner).

A couple of weeks later I received a custom survey/questionnaire from Amtrak asking about this trip, the best one I ever received!

Ever since that trip all the Amtrak suits I've seen were free loading furniture. They would eat in the Diner and go back to their room without talking to anyone.

I think it's time to return to the Chief of On Board Services and make this a Management, not a Union job, so the crews level of services is observed, and consistency of good service can become a standard @ Amtrak.

 

[Mystic River Dragon]

Jim, do you happen to know the name of the person who was doing such a conscientious job and interacting with the passengers? Was he local? Or from Amtrak? He sounds like the sort of person we need to get involved in Amtrak management.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Jim, do you happen to know the name of the person who was doing such a conscientious job and interacting with the passengers? Was he local? Or from Amtrak? He sounds like the sort of person we need to get involved in Amtrak management.

He was from 60 Mass and I let CR know how impressed I was that he was doing an excellent job, but in all honesty I have forgotten his name, it happens @ my age!
I always let CR know when I receive outstanding or poor service on my Amtrak trips, as I've said the overwhelming majority of Amtrak's OBS and T&E crews in my experience have been good to great, with only a few invisible people,ez riders jerks, and soreheads!

Its the suits that are Amtrak's biggest current problem along with the Mica Managers in Congress! YMMV

 

[Mystic River Dragon]

Was it by any chance Joseph McHugh, Amtrak Vice President, Government Affairs? I looked up the Longview Depot Dedication, and he was listed as "one of the dignitaries in attendance."

Don't feel bad about the memory--it happens to all of us (at any age, too!)

 

[FormerOBS]

Another good one (now departed) was Emmett Fremaux, who was (I think) V. P. of Passenger Services.

I used to have a memory myself, but I don't remember what happened to it.

Tom

 

[Bob Dylan]

Was it by any chance Joseph McHugh, Amtrak Vice President, Government Affairs? I looked up the Longview Depot Dedication, and he was listed as "one of the dignitaries in attendance."

Don't feel bad about the memory--it happens to all of us (at any age, too!)

Sorry, I just can't remember and don't want to give credit to the wrong person but whoever it was, Amtrak needs more like him!

They've lost some really good, experienced railroaders in the past few years and the new blood coming in seems to be MBAs and Bean Counter types!

Management riding a desk without getting out in the field where the steel wheels meet the rails, so to speak, is never good for any business or industry!

 

[jis]

Another good one (now departed) was Emmett Fremaux, who was (I think) V. P. of Passenger Services.

I used to have a memory myself, but I don't remember what happened to it.

Tom

Yes Emmett Fremaux who was VP of Business Development or some such, which included passenger service in a big way naturally, was really good. He is the one that redirected funding into fixing parked Amfeet Is to start increasing the length of Northeast Regionals from 4 and 5 cars eventually to 8 cars and well on its way to make Regionals cash positive above rail.

 

[neroden]

Yes Emmett Fremaux who was VP of Business Development or some such, which included passenger service in a big way naturally, was really good. He is the one that redirected funding into fixing parked Amfeet Is to start increasing the length of Northeast Regionals from 4 and 5 cars eventually to 8 cars and well on its way to make Regionals cash positive above rail.

Economies of scale, the key to the bottom line in railroading...

 

[haolerider]

While management from 60 Mass does need to get on the trains and interact with the crew, it is really the Operarional staff, in the various locations around the country, who actually supervise the on-board crew, that need to get on the trains and see what their crews are doing....or not doing! They are the ones who can correct bad behavior, but they can't do it from their offices, they need to be on the trains.

I also wonder how members of this forum know so much about 60 Mass management; ie "MBAs and bean counters"? Do they go to DC and interview 60 Mass management; have access to resumes; or conduct field research in Union Station?

 

[Bob Dylan]

haolerider: good question. I wrote an explanation for you but decided never mind,to sum up my view on the current Management @ Amtrak:

"Too many Chiefs, not enough Indians!"

The view from Beech Grove rolling down the tracks us great! Let them eat cake is the mindset @ 60 Mass! YMMV

 

[jis]

In other words people think what they think based not much on anything other than a few personal observations and anecdotes, which is not unusual, but a bad basis for making any serious decisions?

 

[FormerOBS]

True, much of this is speculative. If the top level management people don't make themselves available to be asked, then it's hard to ask them a question and get their take on things. So we have to draw conclusions from whatever evidence we can find. Maybe a biblical reference will explain it: "By their fruits will you know them. A good tree bears good fruit; a bad tree bears bad fruit."

There is nothing wrong with making changes when the circumstances demand it, but those changes must be tailored to address problems as they actually exist, and correct them. That means management must understand the actual predictable consequences of their actions, as opposed to the desired consequences. You can't understand what the actual consequences will be if you don't have a good understanding of the whole picture.

A little over a year ago, management imposed changes on the Auto Train. There was lots of wringing of hands by worry-warts like me. People with extensive onboard experience expressed serious misgivings, but were ignored, often insultingly. Others said the changes seemed to be working because money was being saved. I said it was too soon to tell, because Amtrak's cyclical ridership is such that the true consequences wouldn't show up for many months, and maybe over a year. Well, now it's been about 18 months. I don't have exact figures; maybe somebody else does. Previously, summertime ridership on the Auto Train was generally about 400-500 passengers (one way) per trip. I understand this summer's numbers are about 2/3 to 3/4 of those previous numbers. This fall's numbers will probably tell the tale. We naysayers were told we were wrong because the short-term gains looked so good. Yep. They looked good as long as you didn't look too far down the road. Now we're a ways down the road and things seem to be looking less rosy.

You can't understand your market and your operation by looking out from your window at 60 Mass. Ya gotta ride the trains, meet the passengers and employees, and keep your eyes and ears wide open. When the new changes were put into effect, one of the managers rode the train, ostensibly to observe, but stayed in the sleeper room the entire trip, even taking meals in the room. If it's bad to make decisions based on "a few personal observations and anecdotes". then it may be even worse to make no observations and ignore the anecdotes.

Tom

 

[FormerOBS]

Haloerider:

We are looking at this from very different perspectives. Your latest post suggests that the primary reason for management oversight is to correct bad behavior on the part of the O.B.S. staff. I suggest that their most important reason for direct oversight is to examine the consequences of their own actions. Yes, there ore some O.B.S. personnel who less than they ought to be, but it's Management's own bad behavior that needs correcting.

Tom