Sleeper travel cuts: next on-the-list

[Sam Damon]

A DOT IG report from July 2005 (as far as I can tell) estimates Amtrak could realize

annual operating savings of between $75 million and $158 million, and an additional $79 million in planned annual capital expenditures that could be avoided by eliminating the highly-subsidized sleeper class service from its long-distance trains.

My question -- even if this sounds stupid -- how are sleepers more subsidized than any other part of the train? And how is coach less subsidized? Checked baggage? Dining service? Is it due to the labor costs of the car attendent that put the sleepers in the crosshairs?

(The report I'm reading cites "DOT IG, Analysis of Cost Savings on Amtrak's Long-Distance Services. CR-2005-068. July 22, 2005. p 2,9.")

 

[x-press]

I did read that report back when it came out. It's hard to argue with the facts in it, but the conclusions are a bit dubious.

To summarize, the report characterized long-distance trains as having a large number of employees, most of which are required only for "first class services," housed in a "dorm car" almost entirely for their use.

Now, that does sound somewhat like current fleet, and the DOT IG is correct: It's not cost-effective, and it needs changes. It's the conclusion that we should dump the sleepers entirely that I don't agree with (and I'm not entirely convinced the current Amtrak board does, either). Let's analyze this:

A) Dining car is characterized as labor intensive (which is true) and serving largely first class passengers (misleading, but we'll give them some leeway). The report suggested elimination. A more rational course of action would have simply had sleeper passenger pay for their own meals. Not a big deal. My next step would have been to make the dining car less labor intensive . . . which is exactly what they're doing. Now, they may be botching this whole thing, but that doesn't make it a bad idea.

B The report notes the absurd expense of keeping a separate "dorm car" in service for mostly crew members. No argument from me, but that doesn't mean we should eliminate sleepers. Amtrak had already started selling space in the superliner dorm car fleet, and with the lounge refurbishments already in progress for "diner lite," I would suggest making the lower level of the lounge the new crew area. The old dorm car is now a revenue sleeper! Aren't we always grumbling about limited sleeper capacity? Multiple problems solved!

C) Attendants. The labor cited by the report is by far the biggest item, and it's what's killing the sleepers' bottom line. I know this is dicey around here, but I would suggest that the new former-dorm-car-sleeper mentioned above NOT be given an extra attendant. Instead of having 2 attendants for 2 sleepers, have 2 attendants for 3 sleepers. If necessary, have extra help on hand at endpoints to get the beds ready for the next trip. If this is too extreme for superliners, we should at least be able to get by with two attendants for 3-viewliner trains.

The claim that Amtrak is based on "1950's trains" is not entirely true imo. It seems to be more based on the mid or late 1980's, before the rise of low-cost air carriers. Like it or not, folks, society has decided that cheap and no-frills is the way we want to travel. Airlines didn't just wake up one day and decide to cut perks; they thought that the lower prices were what the customer wanted. They were right, and it's time for Amtrak to do the same.

JPS

 

[Save Our Trains Michigan]

I did read that report back when it came out. It's hard to argue with the facts in it, but the conclusions are a bit dubious.
To summarize, the report characterized long-distance trains as having a large number of employees, most of which are required only for "first class services," housed in a "dorm car" almost entirely for their use.

Now, that does sound somewhat like current fleet, and the DOT IG is correct: It's not cost-effective, and it needs changes. It's the conclusion that we should dump the sleepers entirely that I don't agree with (and I'm not entirely convinced the current Amtrak board does, either). Let's analyze this:

A) Dining car is characterized as labor intensive (which is true) and serving largely first class passengers (misleading, but we'll give them some leeway). The report suggested elimination. A more rational course of action would have simply had sleeper passenger pay for their own meals. Not a big deal. My next step would have been to make the dining car less labor intensive . . . which is exactly what they're doing. Now, they may be botching this whole thing, but that doesn't make it a bad idea.

B The report notes the absurd expense of keeping a separate "dorm car" in service for mostly crew members. No argument from me, but that doesn't mean we should eliminate sleepers. Amtrak had already started selling space in the superliner dorm car fleet, and with the lounge refurbishments already in progress for "diner lite," I would suggest making the lower level of the lounge the new crew area. The old dorm car is now a revenue sleeper! Aren't we always grumbling about limited sleeper capacity? Multiple problems solved!

C) Attendants. The labor cited by the report is by far the biggest item, and it's what's killing the sleepers' bottom line. I know this is dicey around here, but I would suggest that the new former-dorm-car-sleeper mentioned above NOT be given an extra attendant. Instead of having 2 attendants for 2 sleepers, have 2 attendants for 3 sleepers. If necessary, have extra help on hand at endpoints to get the beds ready for the next trip. If this is too extreme for superliners, we should at least be able to get by with two attendants for 3-viewliner trains.

The claim that Amtrak is based on "1950's trains" is not entirely true imo. It seems to be more based on the mid or late 1980's, before the rise of low-cost air carriers. Like it or not, folks, society has decided that cheap and no-frills is the way we want to travel. Airlines didn't just wake up one day and decide to cut perks; they thought that the lower prices were what the customer wanted. They were right, and it's time for Amtrak to do the same.

JPS

I don't want to start an argument but if you don't understand the Railway Labor Act which Amtrak has to follow then a lot of the proposed cut's can't be done with labor unless the whole Railway Labor Act is opened and no one on the RR want's that to happen.

 

[x-press]

Unfortunate if true. If unions prevent sleepers from being cost effective, then they probably really will be cut, and a lot of Union people will lose their jobs permananently.

Make them cost effective or cut them. There's really no other way.

JPS

 

[haolerider]

Why don't you try to give us a simple outline of the Railway Labor Act.? I think many of us understand it , but perhaps you can let us know what the stumbling blocks are - that you see.

 

[Windy City LSA]

B  The report notes the absurd expense of keeping a separate "dorm car" in service for mostly crew members.  No argument from me, but that doesn't mean we should eliminate sleepers.  Amtrak had already started selling space in the superliner dorm car fleet, and with the lounge refurbishments already in progress for "diner lite," I would suggest making the lower level of the lounge the new crew area.  The old dorm car is now a revenue sleeper!  Aren't we always grumbling about limited sleeper capacity?  Multiple problems solved!

This is news to me. There is discussion of somebody having a problem with the dorm car??? You gotta be kidding me. Where do they propose the crew sleep?? The lower level of a Lounge car can't possibly be an option for OBS employees who overnight on these long distance trains...unless I'm missing something. Geez. Why don't they just eliminate all OBS employees and let the Conductor and AC run the thing then. This is all so ridiculous. These bean counters need to get on these trains and understand how they operate instead of making uneducated proposals. (Stating the obvious I know.) From what I've encountered, the trains are not overstaffed. In fact, they've already made a reduction in Coach attandants. I can understand eliminating a Food Specialist in the Diner with the simplified foodservice, (sorry Chef's!) and maybe having just one SA when the passenger load is light. But other than that, I don't witness any OBS employees sitting around with nothing to do wasting Amtrak's money.

By the way...I will be attending a special union meeting being held this Thursday concerning the subject of foodservice in particular. If I find out anything interesting, I will report it here.

 

[x-press]

Hi WLSA,

I certainly didn't mean that they would sleep in the bottom of the lounge as it is configured today! The bottom would be refurbished into sleeper modules, and would basically be like the lower level of a superliner sleeper, only with a lounge on top instead of more rooms. The food service would then be handled by the diner. There ought to be enough room down there for a sleeper module for each onboard crew member, and maybe even a small lounge for breaks.

JPS

 

[trainboy325]

Sorry x-press, I understand your frustration but when it comes to Superliner trains, 42 beds per car is way too much for one person let alone splitting three cars among two people. As for your suggestion regarding no attendant for the trans-dorm: been there, done that. Both 58/59 and 21/22 had a job known as the 09/30 job. The job had a second coach attendant in the forward coach that also was the sleeper attendant for the revenue rooms in the trans-dorm. What ultimately happened is that the conductors made the coaches the priority for the TA and the sleeper passengers in the dorm car were abandoned. I worked the job twice, did my absolute best job to provide "service." Most of the sleepers were kind to me, but I knew they were unsatisfied, my tips made that clear. I asked my boss (who's Amtrak's #1 problem employee) how to improve the situation, she said I had to work both doors at one time, serve the beverages and provide room service. Needless to say the sleepers lost since the conductor demands the OBS crews serve the higher capacity car. "The needs of many outway the needs of the few" to quote Mr. Spock, but with the twist that "I don't care how much the sleepers pay" said my boss. Sorry, everytime you cut labor, you cut service. Sleepers are dead because labor cuts demand cut in service. No people mean no service offered. That's the Amtrak way! <_<

 

[AmtrakFan]

Mr. Henderson,

When they sell Dorm Space on other trains do they have the 1st Sleeping Car Line's Attendent staff the Dorm Space?

 

[trainboy325]

I don't know the answer to AmtrakFan's question. With the Sunset Limited right now, it's my understanding the only TA on the train handles both the coaches and the few revenue rooms in the trans-dorm. It may have been a vacant job when I saw the train leave the other day, but it seemed that the crew was only four OBS crew members. The conductor boarded the coaches and grumbled as if he had to do it all the way to Beaumont. :unsure:

 

[x-press]

Sorry x-press, I understand your frustration but when it comes to Superliner trains, 42 beds per car is way too much for one person let alone splitting three cars among two people. As for your suggestion regarding no attendant for the trans-dorm: been there, done that. Both 58/59 and 21/22 had a job known as the 09/30 job. The job had a second coach attendant in the forward coach that also was the sleeper attendant for the revenue rooms in the trans-dorm. What ultimately happened is that the conductors made the coaches the priority for the TA and the sleeper passengers in the dorm car were abandoned. I worked the job twice, did my absolute best job to provide "service." Most of the sleepers were kind to me, but I knew they were unsatisfied, my tips made that clear. I asked my boss (who's Amtrak's #1 problem employee) how to improve the situation, she said I had to work both doors at one time, serve the beverages and provide room service. Needless to say the sleepers lost since the conductor demands the OBS crews serve the higher capacity car. "The needs of many outway the needs of the few" to quote Mr. Spock, but with the twist that "I don't care how much the sleepers pay" said my boss. Sorry, everytime you cut labor, you cut service. Sleepers are dead because labor cuts demand cut in service. No people mean no service offered. That's the Amtrak way! <_<

Hi Trainboy,

Your insider comments are appreciated. I guess to understand my viewpoint, you need to understand my perspective:

- I'm in Baltimore, just a few blocks from Penn Station and the Northeast Corridor.

- Most of my friends fly everywhere over 200 miles (can't understand why), and drive everywhere less than 200 miles, including New York City (NO idea why that thought would cross their minds, I swear they seem like reasonable people). This is in spite of nightmare stories they tell from all their trips, especially those via automobile. Yet every time I mention a train I get the "too expensive" response.

- My idea of good train service is a train that arrives within 15 minutes of ontime, gets me where I'm going without crashing, and a seat that is "significantly more comfortable than an airline seat" (read: not too hard to accomplish).

- There are no "coach attendants," no dining car (unless you count a cafe), and certainly no sleepers unless they bring back the Federal (which I've been begging for). By current long-distance train standards, this service would be disastrous . . . but I don't think it's so bad. Hear me out:

- Conductors/Assistant Conductors open the doors and make sure that all the passengers are off at their appropriate stops. Passengers seat themselves, and except at the absolute peak times do a fine job of it.

- Compared to either sardine-can airline service, or driving yourself through beltway traffic (and parking in New York, Philly, or Washington), it is PARADISE. It's not just "adequate" or something we'd "be better off with than without," it's AWESOME. The sold out trains every rush hour are backing me up.

Now to long distance trains. OBVIOUSLY the needs are different . . . I just don't think they're SO different as to require such different expenses. You need food service. Maybe not 4-star restaurant service as has been provided in the past, but better than Amcafe, to be sure. You need more train attendants than, well, NONE, as provided on the NE corridor (long distance trains have low level platforms and can't simply open every door at the push of a button). Sleeper service is a necessity for overnight trips . . . without it, maybe I WOULD cram myself on a Southwest flight . . .

Yet there is a disparity between what I, at 28 years old, expect of my train services, and what is being provided. The biggest example follows:

I had NO IDEA that Amtrak attendants would still make a bed for you while you were in the dining car until about two years ago. I always just made them myself. I thought that had gone the way of pullman porters shining shoes, and the Capitol Limited serving meals on their own, custom-made blue china (a piece of which I own from an antique dealer). Don't get me wrong, I think this service is really neat, and ever since I learned of it I've been using it and tipping quite well (I never used to tip, since the sleeper attendants did virtually nothing for me). But would its absence be enough to make me swear off sleeper travel? Not even remotely close!

To me, a sleeper attendant's job during the trip includes saying hello to pasengers (not hard), making up beds FOR THOSE WHO CANNOT (eg elderly or handicapped), giving tips to anyone confused by the bed-making process (its really not that hard), handling complaints (no towels in the shower, no ice for drinks, toilet blowing up . . . tedious, but not that labor intensive). Basically, for most of the trip, they'd just be there to "keep an eye on things."

It's not lost on me that for the last 2-3 hours into the terminal, sleeper attendants work as hard as an old-time coal miner. They currently have to make more beds than I would for all the money in the world. My point is, couldn't that be done AT the terminal? Have help on hand to make up the beds, instead of paying someone to ride hundreds of miles from home?

People tend to see any change in service as the end of the world. In the end, it's not necessarily worse . . . just different. What you see as "neglecting sleeper passengers" might simply mean passengers making their own beds. If they're 80 years old and in wheel chairs, maybe not. But that's not a large enough segment of the population to sustain Amtrak anyway. I'm still trying to figure out what a "coach attendant" does . . . are the conductors/assistant conductors not doing their jobs?

I know some of my ideas/comments are not going to be popular around here. I understand why. The problem is this: We are all living in a Southwest Airlines world. It's not my choice. I think I was born a century too late, and I yearn for a time when "getting there cheap" wasn't the ultimate goal. Amtrak has to realize they are not competing for the "Twentieth Century Limited's" passengers. They're competing for the family sweltering in a station wagon in nightmare traffic, or the vacationer sitting in confusion at a Southwest Terminal whose flight's been cancelled due to "low demand." I guarantee you, a superliner coach with legrest and footrest, plus "diner-lite" would seem like paradise to them. A sleeper, even if they have to make their own beds, would simply seem too good to be true. These travelers could care less about home-cooked meals, mints on the pillows, and the "attendant" button. They DO care about trains running four hours late (much less 24 hours late), or cancelled trains due to equipment shortages, or prices that are more than a 3-hour flight. That's where the resources ought to go. If we truly can't solve those problems, than why are we wasting our time? The rail enthusiasts could be riding steam choo-choos, and the Amtrak employees could be working at far more secure jobs and lowering their blood pressure.

I'll attend the next NARP meeting, re-iterate to my reps that I support a national rail network (though they're already in favor of it), and continue booking trips on a network that may or may not exist when trip time comes around. There's not much more I can do.

Keep supporting rail, but TRY to be flexible.

Best Regards,

JPS

 

[cbender]

I'm going to chime in here in support of everything "x-press" just said. I'm a similar age, and also live near the NE corridor (on Long Island). I generally ride corridor trains (typically the Regional, but occasionally Acela) down to DC about once per month. Riding the train, regardless of service and how many people are packed into the coaches, is vastly better than driving. It is slightly more expensive, but I'll gladly pay that premium and be able to work during the trip instead of drive and have to concentrate on that.

I think that the serious question of 'What kind of passengers should Amtrak, both corridor and LD trains, be trying to attract?' needs to be addressed if Amtrak is going to survive in the current society. I see that there are two possible answers:

1) The vacationer/rail-fan who is on the train because they enjoy taking the train. They look forward to the 'first-class' amenities on the train (e.g. prime-rib for dinner) because for them the train trip is like a land cruise and is the vacation. Without higher end service, they are disappointed (and rightly so, if they are expecting a cruise).

2) The business traveler who needs to get from point a to point b in a reasonable amount of time, in reasonable comfort. Also in this class is the leisure traveler who needs to 'travel' but doesn't care so much how they get there.

It seems to me that most travelers on this BB fall into the first category. While I think it's great that so many people ride trains because they 'enjoy riding the train, regardless of where they are heading or their end destination', Amtrak can never survive on these types of travelers. There just aren't enough to generate any substantial revenue. Also, there are other railroads that specifically cater to people who want to ride a train for the sake of riding a train (e.g. American Orient Express).

On the other hand, business and most leisure travelers care about getting to where they are going, and the method of travel is secondary. For business travelers to consider using a LD train, it must get them there at a reasonably predictable time (the same level of predictability as flying) and make the trip comfortable enough that they can work along the way. For leisure travelers, the train must get them there on-time (or reasonably close), in a level of comfort greater than they experience in their car, at a cost similar to driving. They wouldn't have multiple attendents if they were driving (or flying coach for that matter), and they wouldn't be eating prime-rib. Most people I know (of my age) who travel long distances in the car stop for food when they are hungry, at whatever fast food joint is around, and quickly get back on the road. We're not looking for a high-end sit down dinner. In that light, what Amtrak provides is more than reasonable (and next time you're on the NE corridor, try the brat, it is quite tasty).

That was probably a mostly an incomprehensible rant, so here is the summary. If we want train service (Amtrak or otherwise) to survive in this 'cost-is-everything' society, getting passengers from point A to point B must be the first priority. Amenities are nice, but not really necessary for most travelers.

One other unrelated topic I'll get off my chest - Often on this BB people state that 'Amtrak coach seats are similar to first class seats on an airplane'. While I haven't flown first class, I do fly business class quite often, and I must say that this statement is not really true. While the seat width and seat pitch may be similar, the 'quality' level of the seats can't really compare. The seat can be as wide as a garden bench, but I'm not going to be happy sitting on it if it is hard as a rock and makes my back hurt. Don't misinterperate this - I do think Amtrak coach seats are more than adequate. However, they are not the equivalent of first or even business class airplane seats.

 

[trainboy325]

Both x-press and cbender are right: the new travel market in the United States, and for the world as a whole, these days is to get from here to there quickly, safely and on a dependable schedule. I'll be the first to admit that I wish to see Amtrak national system evolve into a system that had excellent service and amenities, not superior, but good, that caters to those seeking an alternative to no-frills aviation and auto travel.

As far a business travelers are concerned, the overall stagnation of the business traveler market has been a major factor behind the callapse of the big time airlines like Delta, Northwest, United, etc. A transportation system must rely on a dependable and frequent clientle to pay the monthly bills and vacationers are gravy that come during holiday and peak vacation time periods. Amtrak has evolved into a company that has only been a benefit to those who aren't on a fixed schedule and that travel is part of the vacation experience. The Northeast Corridor is an example of that, with product lines like Acela and Metroliners that cater directly to the business clientle. Regional trains provide service to commuters and the high volume traveling population that is living paycheck to paycheck in a part of the country that is historically mobile in its lifestyles commuting between New York and other cities along the Eastern Seaboard. Outside the corridor on federally sponsored routes, Amtrak benefits very few people compaired to the number of Americans who travel as a whole (plane, train, bus, boat, etc.). With single daily and some tri-weekly frequencies, the use of rail only benefits those seeking a RAIL experience, not a mode to get from A to B. That primarily is done by private automobile. Second is by air, but that is a substantailly less than auto and rail is not even measured by the US Government.

As for the state-sponsored stuff, well it was created to compete with the automobile and offered services and amenities to lure those reluctant to give up the freedom that comes with private transportation. This is the future of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation if it going to survive into the 21st Century. The long distance trains are relatively popular, but with so few frequencies they are useless for the vast majority of the country in the few corridors they exist anymore. Cutting service is a part of the modern transportation culture and using rail in Europe and Japan is about solely getting from point A to B. No frills and no "traditional" services. Some trains have bistro cars that have a food service system that is popular on American trains like the Cascades and the California-sponsored product lines.

The long distance trains that we know are coming to an end. That's inevibable. It has nothing to do with Bush or the conservative agenda, it's not about Democrats and a liberal agenda, it's about a country that is changing its values when it comes to the way the American labor system operates today. Amtrak provides some of the best health care benefits in the country for its employees and families. In addition, Amtrak has a payroll roster that is massive for a company its size, labor and management (especially management!). Amtrak is being shut down by the facts and figures that David Gunn brought to Congress' attention. Things like high labor versus fare-box collection, food service losses and the poor contracts Amtrak has been involved with in the last few years have given even those members of Congress on the fence with Amtrak appropriation to understand that the company has done very little for their customers for the money recieved. With Congressman fighting to save "pork" projects that were easy to get just a few years back, the fight to "save" the traditional long distance trains with their "first class" services is a hard sell to even the most liberal legislator trying to preserve fundamental programs like welfare, unemployment and other social service programs in their districts.

I support the abolishment of NRPC because the secret to success for passenger rail is to have a lobbying force in Washington. Amtrak is viewed as a "drain" to the treasury, but bailing out the airlines in viewed as an investment in the transportation network. Only when pure private enterprise is involved with passenger railroading, only then will moderate to conservative legislatures view "subsidizing" trains as "investing" in private business that operates trains. Yes, routes will be lost. Yes, services will be lost. No, it's possible that private business will seek to operate passenger rail for a subsidy. No, it's possible to have a train and eat prime rib too. Just not with NRPC at least. Make piece with concessions. X-press is right, without them, all rail is doomed. No time to waste hoping, time to ride your favorite train. There's no telling what will happen. You can't use logic with Amtrak politics. History has told that throughout its history. Never assume anything or take any concept or service for granted. Nothing or no one person is sacred at Amtrak: CEO to train attendant. They're all expendible to the cause of shutdown and change. <_<

 

[x-press]

You know, I can't say I totally understand this trend toward what another poster called "walmart" travel.

This country's population has relatively high income. Super-deluxe cruises are more popular than ever in history, even leading Cunard to build another transatlantic liner (Queen Mary II), which had previously been considered impossible. Hotel rooms are far larger than they used to be, requiring grand 1920's places like the Waldorf and Chicago Hilton to refurbish and make rooms larger. Americans live it up on vacations; they pay crazy hotel rates in New York, pack national parks to capacity, and pay big bucks for Disneyworld.

It's strange, then, that once they start talking about the JOURNEY to these destinations, they become the biggest tightwads in the world.

:blink:

JPS

 

[printman2000]

It's strange, then, that once they start talking about the JOURNEY to these destinations, they become the biggest tightwads in the world.

Most people do not consider the journey part of the vacation. Since most people have only been exposed to air travel, I don't blame them. I want the cheapest airfare I can get, too. Even 1st class air travel stinks and is not worth the costs.

Myself, I consider rail travel PART of the vacation.

 

[trainboy325]

I don't know what the case is. However, with the rising cost of actual vacation destinations versus the overall stagnation and reduction in disposible income for vacations, people are making choices and having a nice train trip to Disney World isn't one of them. It's not cheap for a family of four to take the train round trip in a sleeper. Most families would rather put their kids in the back of the mini-van and let them read and watch

DVD's. And they won't consider Amtrak coach. No service, not real cheap either versus coach on a major airline and this important fact: Do I deal with a 3 hour plane trip with a baby, todler and preteen or a 30 hour train ride? I know what my parents think. I was a good kid, so was my sister. I didn't take my first long distance train trip until I was in college. And they knew I loved rail and the concept of taking the train. It just wasn't an option they'd consider.

Another thing to consider is that working families aren't traveling as they used to. With a middle class that is disappearing and the vast majority of those who are crowding parks, cruises, etc. being the retiring baby-boomers that dominate the travel industry clientle. They grew up and traveled by rail during a time when passenger trains were something prestigous and high class, not the bus on rails Amtrak has made traveling on long-distance trains these days. Just a thought! <_<

 

[cbender]

I can't say I totally understand this trend toward what another poster called "walmart" travel.

I don't think that most travelers are looking or require walmart travel. Granted, there are those who will always fly Southwest because they think it is crazy cheap (which it really isn't to most markets). But I think that the majority of travelers, business, leisure, or vacationing, are willing to pay a reasonable price for their travel. They don't necessarily expect, or even want, premium service. But they do want to get there on time.

Myself, I consider rail travel PART of the vacation.

That's all well and good when you're running a railroad whose purpose is to provide a land cruise (with or without intermediate stops and stayovers). However, I don't feel that this is Amtrak's goal, nor should it be. You're assuming that most passengers are traveling for a vacation, and time is not an issue. This may be the case for some passengers, but probably not for most.

I can't prove it, but I bet that even most people who would be considered leisure travelers are not traveling for a traditional extended 'vacation'. They may be traveling to meet family, or traveling to a particular event. Or, for that matter, have lodging and/or car reservations at their destination. For these people, getting there on-time is the priority.

For business travelers, time is certainly an issue. Not only arrival time, but also departure time and total travel time. For example, New York to Chicago are a pair of cities (outside the corridor) that are popular with business travelers (evidenced by the number of flights between them leaving out of LGA). If Amtrak could provide train service (ie. Lake Shore Limited) that left Penn around 5:00pm and arrived in Chicago first thing in the morning (say, 9:00am), and could offer a roomette with a reasonable comfortable bed, I imagine that many business travelers would utilize the service. What better than to get on a train right after work, have a place to sleep, arrive at your destination the next morning showered, shaved, and in time for your meeting, and not have to be up at 3 in the morning to leave for an airport! Amtrak's current LSL schedule comes close to meeting these times, although leaves a bit earlier than most travelers would want (I imagine). For some reason, the return trip doesn't leave until well into the evening, and doesn't get back to NY until the following afternoon.

Based on the roomette price for the LSL, the demand must be high. Wouldn't Amtrak benefit by shifting sleepers from other routes with lower demand to routes with higher demand. The route would also benefit if the total time was slightly faster. What would be the result of cutting service to some of the smaller intermediate stations? I can't imagine they produce a whole lot of revenue. Would that significantly speed up the train?

I could be completely wrong, but it seems to me that by targeting potential passengers who could provide significant revenue (can't say I've ever seen an ad pushing LD train business travel), while letting some other costly things (premium diner service, small stations, bed turn-down service) slip would be a prudent business decision. In the end, most people just want to get from A to B, and don't really care how they do it. If you can claim "we can get you there when we say we will, for a competitive price, we'll do the driving, and we have foot rests", then that is all most people need.

The days of premium service rail travel are NOT over. They just may (should) be over for Amtrak.

 

[Sam Damon]

That's all well and good when you're running a railroad whose purpose is to provide a land cruise (with or without intermediate stops and stayovers).  However, I don't feel that this is Amtrak's goal, nor should it be.  You're assuming that most passengers are traveling for a vacation, and time is not an issue.  This may be the case for some passengers, but probably not for most.  
<snip>

I could be completely wrong, but it seems to me that by targeting potential passengers who could provide significant revenue (can't say I've ever seen an ad pushing LD train business travel), while letting some other costly things (premium diner service, small stations, bed turn-down service) slip would be a prudent business decision.  In the end, most people just want to get from A to B, and don't really care how they do it.  If you can claim "we can get you there when we say we will, for a competitive price, we'll do the driving, and we have foot rests", then that is all most people need.

The days of premium service rail travel are NOT over.  They just may (should) be over for Amtrak.

I beg to differ.

I'm not trying to start a platform war here, but compare and contrast the Amtrak situation with the one Apple faces.

Think a minute. How does Apple survive? There are sites keeping track of how many times Apple has been declared "dead". I'm sure there are some reading this right now who positively detest Apple and everything the company's ever built, and some who wouldn't use anything else. The point is this. Apple survives by 1) innovating and 2) positioning. The original Macintosh positioning statement was, "Macintosh is an advanced productivity tool for knowledge workers." That statement still holds true today; Apple produces fun, friendly, relevant tools.

Amtrak could become the fun, friendly, relevant transportation alternative. But we're a long way from getting there to that point. Money is only part of the problem; lack of brains at Amtrak is perhaps the largest part of the problem.

Anyway, keep the debate going folks; I'm learning all the time, and I think many others are as well.

 

[printman2000]

Myself, I consider rail travel PART of the vacation.

That's all well and good when you're running a railroad whose purpose is to provide a land cruise (with or without intermediate stops and stayovers). However, I don't feel that this is Amtrak's goal, nor should it be. You're assuming that most passengers are traveling for a vacation, and time is not an issue. This may be the case for some passengers, but probably not for most.

I was not assuming anything. I was merely pointing out why people "that once they start talking about the JOURNEY to these destinations, they become the biggest tightwads in the world." Why spend a lot on airfare?

The part you quoted was a side note my own personal reasons for taking rail.