Amtrak Community Dining

[Amfleet]

Folks, here me out on this one. First off, the Diner/Lounge concept would not replace a Diner and Lounge on one train. It would more be used for trains that split at certain stations. For instance the Lake Shore Limited splits in Albany so the Boston section could have a Diner Lounge, therefore able to provide fully cooked meals, while at the same time offer snack items. Much improved over a crummy snack bar I would think one would agree? Between Chicago and Albany, the Diner Lounge would then operate as a full service Lounge and the full Diner from New York would provide the whole train. The New York section could even carry a Lounge so there can be two Lounges between Albany and Chicago, provide more Lounge capacity for the whole train.

This is my idea (and I've drawn up plans for it too) on how the Diner Lounge will be set up. Starting at one end will be a small kitchen (about 15' long), followed by a standard foyer area, then a dining room with 6 tables, next to that would be a snack bar in the same design as found in an Amfleet Cafe, then there would be about 15' of bench seating on each side facing into the isle with small tables (about 8" so not to block isle space), and at the end of the car would be a crew office and an electrical locker holding a TV for entertainment. The Diner part of the car would have one chef and two attendants and the snack bar would have its standard one attendant. That is actually the same amount of crew members needed to man a full diner and the second attendant may or may not even be needed. Thus, with the same amount of crew, or less, you are brining in revenue from both a Diner and a Lounge.

 

[Amfleet]

Here's what I've been working on.

 

[Amtrak OBS Employee]

I am appologize to inform you, but I must do so. Though your version is a bit different, some silly Amtrak manager (who I will not name though they are no longer employed) came up with the same "similar" concept. Which the results were the screwing up of a few perfectly good Heritage Diners (now known as the 40seat bar-stoolers) which if left as they were, could be more worker friendly thus more efficient, and accomodate up to eight more passengers than they currently do now being they are used in regular dining car service.

And furthermore, any concept that could result in the loss of jobs when we have the knowledge of how food service was handled in the past, I am not for in any way whatsoever! If the concept may create jobs, go for it! But this is Amtrak, and managment doesn't think that way! h34r:

 

[Amtrak OBS Employee]

Amfleet, adding to my previous post, most people don't understand how Amtrak would try to use this concept! Yeah, the way you have it set up (not to replace any food service cars i.e. diner and lounge) is a good concept in a sense. But Amtrak managment would not (actually won't) look at the concept that way. They would see a way to cut the service even more to the bare necessities than they already have. They believe in saving their managment jobs (not necessarily all the managers think this way but the majority)!!! If they want to provide good service, there has to be plenty of staff in proportion to the number of passengers, and it scares me to think what may occur when these types new ideas are implemented! I have seen it before, and I am sure these types of ideas will be proposed again and again!! It is just a plain "bad idea" in my opinion!

 

[Guest]

I can see the Amtrak way of doing that now. The kitchen would never be staffed and the car would end up being a lounge car full time.

 

[Bill Haithcoat]

Folks, here me out on this one. First off, the Diner/Lounge concept would not replace a Diner and Lounge on one train. It would more be used for trains that split at certain stations. For instance the Lake Shore Limited splits in Albany so the Boston section could have a Diner Lounge, therefore able to provide fully cooked meals, while at the same time offer snack items. Much improved over a crummy snack bar I would think one would agree? Between Chicago and Albany, the Diner Lounge would then operate as a full service Lounge and the full Diner from New York would provide the whole train. The New York section could even carry a Lounge so there can be two Lounges between Albany and Chicago, provide more Lounge capacity for the whole train.

There is a lot of historical precedent for ideas such as Amfleet's. In the pre-Amtrak past there were quite a few diner-lounges (also names like grill-lounge, coffee shop lounge etc).

They were usually used in one of two ways,

1.A short train which did not have enough passengers to jusitfy a full diner and a full lounge(such as LSL between Boston and Albany).

2.They could also be used to supplement the full diner and full lounge on an especially long train.

There is an example from my childhood of a train which went overnight from CHI to ATL with 3 coaches and 3 pullmans. It had one full diner and one full lounge between CHi and ATl

But it had a branch from STL to ATL(joined the CHI train at Evansville, Ind.)Just one pullman and one coach STl to ATL. It just had a diner-lounge from STL to Evansville.(there was also a local coach that just went from STL to Evansville, plus one pullman from STL to Montgomery, transferrd to a completely different train in Evansville).

In more recent years, under Amtrak, there was a train called the Gulf Breeze which branched off from the Crescent at BHM and went to Mobile. The train had a full diner and full lounge NY to BHM. At BHM the diner went to New Orleans and the lounge went to Mobile. I always felt it would make better sense to have had the full diner and full lounge continue on to New Orleans and have a true complete meal service diner lounge on from BHM to Mobile.

 

[Viewliner]

The thing is this, in theory, its a great concept, and as Bill showed, worked well for quite some time. The thing is, if you do that, you complicate the pool food service cars. You can wind up with one of the following scenarios as I see it (would depend on fleet sizes of Diners and Lounges vs. Diner/Lounges):

1. The Diner/Lounge is B/O'd, and you don't have enough cars in the fleet to replace it, so the train winds up with either

a)Diner, but no lounge b)Lounge, but no diner c)both

2. A train that uses both a Diner and Lounge has one or both cars B/O'd, out for PM, etc. so you wind up with either a Diner and Diner/Lounge (you lose lounge seating), or Diner/Lounge and Lounge (reduce Diner seating, which could result in more seatings, less happy crews).

Also, Amfleets plan, while again a good concept drives up cost. You have to pay for that BOS Diner/Lounge Crew, as well as the NYP Diner and Lounge Crews on the LSL. Which would mean that you'd have to either have the crew layover, add a dorm, or make the schedules to allow enough time for the Diner Staff to return to BOS. The bottom line is you want to keep it simple and try not to add more costs.

 

[Amfleet]

My thoery is NOT to replace a full diner and lounge with a diner/lounge, that's just not functional given the passenger loads on trains like the Silver Star, Crescent, etc (if this is the way Amtrak management thinks, then they need to take a hard look on how these trains are operated). I'm merely saying that diner/lounges could be used on trains that split, like the LSL. Thus once the LSL is a full train in Albany then it will have a Diner, Lounge, and Diner/Lounge (with the kitchen shut down and the tables opened up for Lounge seating as well as keeping the snack bar open). Viewliner, BO cars should not have to be an issue as in the future there will hopefully be extra cars on hand at origin stations of all trains. So for the LSL there should be an extra diner/lounge in Boston and Chicago at all times, even when other cars are going through PM. Also one wants to consider that the Boston section of the LSL in the future should really have 2 sleepers and maybe 3 coaches and a diner/lounge will only draw passengers and increase revenue.

You also want to consider that diner/lounges may be an excellent concept on all day trains like the Carolinian, Pennsylvanian, even BOS-NPN regionals. The amount of revenue drawn into the cars used on those trains would probably be very high.

 

[Jeff O]

I have been on the Pennsylvanian and I would love to have gotten a chance to have a hot meal! Also the Adirondack would be a good candidate for this. I think there is a definate chance for Amtrak to make some revenue on the trains that have trips of 6 or 8 hours.

Incidentally when I was interning in NY in the 70's there used to be a lounge card on the old North Jersey Coast Line-Let me tell you it was GREAT!

 

[Bill Haithcoat]

On the issue of bad-ordered cars, the point was made that that would be a problem not having enough spares around. Good point, as the last thing Amtrak has today is gobs of spare equipment sitting around. But the point was further made that in the future there may be more spares, for which we sincerely hope.

FWIW in the past, like in the example I gave of one of my two childhood favorites, there sometimes were a limited number of cars sitting around fairly similar to the one which needed temporarily replacing. If often meant dragging an old heavyweight out of the mothballs to use on a streamliner, but it happened all the time.

In fact, that is one of the services the Pullman Company provided with sleeping cars, (to change the type of equipment for the moment), when such railroads as cooperated with the Pullman Company could, with limited red tape, borrow and/or scatter cars around the country as needed. Such a concept is unneeded today since Amtrak is its own self sufficient company and does not need permission to borrow from itself.

So, sure, hopefully one day we will have ample spares, diners, lounges, perhaps diner-lounges, etc, sitting around. But keeping in mind that having spares is expensive when they sit there earning nothing. With the Pullman Company concept, it meant borrowing other lines spares if you did not have an enough of your own.

 

[Guest_Carolg]

I have to admit that communal dining can be an awkward experience. The first time I ever took a long distance train and was seated with strangers was an agonizing part of the trip and I dreaded each meal call. I was seated with people that refused to talk or only talked to each other and ignored anyone else.

However, by the time my second long distance train trip came along I was determined to learn from my first experience. I don't know if I was just more relaxed and smiled more or what but at every meal I truly was interested in my tablemates and met some very interesting people. Everyone started out more or less tense but I found by asking questions such as how they were enjoying the trip and whether it was their first train trip or not and where they were headed, before you knew it we had a good conversation going.

You don't go on a train trip to stay closed up in your compartment all day. I think most people respond to a smile and a genuine interest in their lives.

I look forward to my next trip and the fascinating people I'll have the opportunity of meeting onboard.

 

[steve_relei]

If some people are that against sharing tables--whether on a train or a cruiseship, they should choose a more comfortable (for them) means of travel (transportation). Not only do such people spoil the trips for themselves but for the other people who are trying to enjoy themselves on their trips. There is the privacy of the automobile, where people can stop and start and eat what and where they want. Planes require people to stay in their seats; meals (where they are served, still) are served at people's seats and there is no other choice of where and when to get it. They only person they might be sharing the dining experience with is their neighbor. But, I wouldn't usually call a meal on a plane a culinary experience.

Me, I love to travel--on many different types of conveyances (car, bus, train, ship, cable car, plane, space shuttle would be fun) and enjoy meeting and talking with other people. I frequently ride the ferries on Puget Sound and have ridden the steamers in Switzerland. If I went on a game show and won a cruise to somewhere, I'd take it and enjoy it for all it would be worth--including the dinig experiences. To me, meeting new people is part of the travel experience. Of course, some people like to be left alone; that's fine too.

As far as sleeping car passenger versus coach passengers: I would LOVE to be able to ride in a sleeping car (I got to do that in Italy from Florence to Paris) if I had to money to do it. I may not have as much money as some people, but I have no less intelligence or appreciation of life, the arts, nature, scenery, music, cities, food, politics, the train, or any other subject as they do. In fact, I probably know more about classical music, the arts, the scenery, cities, the train--among other subjects--than most any or everyone else on the train--coach or sleeper. I am affiable to most everyone, and that would not change whether I am in a coach or sleeping car. In a sleeping car, I am sure I might be more demanding of some things (after all, I worked extra hard or long to be able to afford to ride in a sleeper) and services, but I would still be the approachable, talkative, personable person to other passengers as I always am.

Of course, I can be demanding about such things as where I sit (which side of the train and/or which seat--especially one not blocked by a window beam), so I can see the things I want to see and have refused (nicely) to give up my seat because of that, but I still like riding trains and am usually still nice to the other passengers. I have ridden in the Business Class section of Amtrak Cascades trains, and that is a nice service: it's usually a little quieter than in regular coach (usually few kids) and you get $3 off on food/beverage purchases, and I believe the headsets are free for Business Class travelers.

 

[Guest]

You don't go on a train trip to stay closed up in your compartment all day.

Maybe some people do.

 

[Guest]

If some people are that against sharing tables--whether on a train or a cruiseship, they should choose a more comfortable (for them) means of travel (transportation). Not only do such people spoil the trips for themselves but for the other people who are trying to enjoy themselves on their trips.

Maybe this IS the most comfortable means of travel for these people and if they want to stay closed up in their compartment all day and all night, so what? Who are you to say that they're spoiling the trip for themselves and if they don't bother anybody else, how are they spoiling it for anyone?

 

[battalion51]

Agreed. If you are an intrevert, and keep to yourself than what the heck difference does it make if your content to just stay in your room and stay in only the company of you and your travelling companion. I personally am an intrevert in most social situations, except on the rails. I'm very outgoing on the railraod and have met some great individuals thanks to that. But, for others they want peace and quiet, if they're happy in their room or seat, who cares?

 

[steve_relei]

In Sleeping cars, don't people have the option of having the meal brought to them so they can eat in the privacy of their rooms? Also, mobility-limited people on the lower levels of the coaches can have meals brought to them. Perhaps, too, people can wait until the last sitting of the meal and if they ask the steward nicely (perhaps explain their situation), maybe they will be accommodated at being allowed to have a table all to themselves. Keep in mind that there is a practicality issue here: there is simply not the luxury of space in a dining car on a train as there is in a regular restaurant; some "sacrifices" have to be made somewhere. And there isn't going to be two or three different dining cars on the same train to appeal to two or three different kinds of dining car patrons.

As far as I am concerned, if people want to spend the entire trip in their rooms to the exclusion of other parts or services of the train, they are more than welcome to do that. If a person is just not going to be satisfied not matter what anyone else does or says or tries to do to appease him, then perhaps he should stay to himself or at home or choose a situation that is more attuned to his way of life and not ruin his or others' vacation. If some people find out they HAVE to sit with other people at a table in the dining car and all they do is get into a big snit and complain about it while sitting with other people who don't want to hear it and/or who are trying to enjoy THEMSELVES and their meal, then there is a point when these unhappy people are affecting the happiness of their fellow passengers.

When people come out among the rest of the population, there is a certain amount of compromise and etiquette that is required of all of us. Some people may not know of all the etiquette about riding trains. They aren't going to learn by being shunned or yelled at; we can show them, let them interact with us to find out the proper way to "behave."

Me, I just have no problem sitting with other people, talking to them (or perhaps leaving them alone and not talking to them, if that's what they want), sharing travel experiences, etc. with them. Perhaps seeing what they order and seeing what it looks like; maybe that's what I'll order next time. To me, having dinner (or other meal) in the dining car is part of the experience of riding the train and always look forward to it. I am more concerned about the quality of the food itself than with whether or not I am seated with other people. On my last trip on the Starlight, the food was excellent, I could see riding the train just to ride in the dining car and enjoy a meal on it. That's the way a dining experience on a train should be.

Don't forget all the land-based restaurants--Benihana's and family-style Italian restaurants, for example--that have community-type of seating, as on trains (I did that at a restaurant in Italy).

And as far as having much in common with other people of other "classes" or accomodations: part of the fun of meeting different people is to meet people have different occupations, different talents and mindsets and opinions, from parts of the country or world, from different aspects of society. I'll talk to anyone about anything. I' m a good converstationalist and am well-read and traveled on many subjects. I am interested in what other people have to say regardless of their economic or social status. We all have something to offer at the "dinner table."

 

[Guest]

My guess is that most of the "introverts" we're talking about simply want some solitude so they can have some peace and quiet and enjoy seeing the countryside unfold out their window as they ride along. They're not anti-social, they're not going to fly off the handle if forced to sit with other people if they choose to eat in the diner, and they're not snobs. Maybe they deal with tens or hundreds of different people every day of their lives and they'd prefer to not have to deal with any more for a while. Maybe they simply want to relax without any pressure, maybe even meditate or reflect on their lives-- where they've been, where they are now, and where they're going. This is part of what makes long-distance train travel so great.

If you find meeting new people to be the highlight of traveling by train, that's great. If you travel by train because you want to see America out your window and block out everything else, that's great, too. Neither person is better or worse than the other. Trains aren't perfect and each of these people has to compromise in some way but as long as they're willing to do that in such a way that they don't bother the other person, who cares where they eat or don't eat or who they do or don't talk to.

Can we drive the spike on this subject now?

 

[Yellowstonetim]

Bottom line: People are different. There is no right and wrong. Some people are naturally gregarious and some want peace and quiet while on the train. Some want adventure - and meeting new people can provide that - and some want relaxation and introspection. Not only that, but the same person may want something different due to circumstance: Maybe the outgoing person wants quiet for a change. Maybe the shy person wants to try the adventure of being forced to eat with people you don't know. Both are fine. That's America and that's freedom.

I would never eat all my meals in the room. Probably only a few. I don't want to eat them all in the diner, either. If you like either extremes; good!

It is good to know that Amtrak does accommodate both. This needs to be communicated clearly to encourage more riders. Almost everyone knows the situation for eating in the diner, but few know they can have meals in their room. From some comments, this may very well discourage many potential passengers. While I guess it is possible this service could be abused, it IS a service OFFERED BY AMTRAK! If you want to partake of it do so, just be understanding, patient, try to work with the attendants schedule and TIP WELL!

I have enjoyed this thread very much. It has been very informative and shows the how differently people think about certain things.

Have a great day!

 

[Am-fan]

Has anyone ever met someone in the diner that turned into a life long friend? One time in the diner I met a guy from Chicago. To this day whenever I am in town for a few hours or longer, me and him always go out for drinks.