Amtrak Diner and Food Service Discussion

gokeefe wrote:

Tadman wrote:I have heard he was behind this.

Even better then. He has a lot of support within the railroad. All good signs.

Wonder how he feels about the Star diner "experiment"?

That might change IF and WHEN CAF finally ships the Diners out.

So here I am on the northbound Autotrain coming into Lorton, and I have to ponder the dining car situation. This train has always been considered one of Amtrak's best performers. Can I even say profitable?

However, it has TWO dining cars and all meals are FREE to both coach and first Class passengers!

What's the secret and can it be implemented elsewhere?

Mr. Train Guy, first can we expect when your relo is complete, a change of your handle to "floridatrainguy"?

Auto Train loses, but the loss is considered "manageable", and even if some amenities, such as a predeparture happy hour, were whacked about three years ago, it still remains a "best foot forward" operation.

It is not a "price sensitive" operation; no one, even in Coach, considers it the most economical way to travel, so why not build in the cost of dining service in both classes?

They know how many meals to prepare, and I would guess their condemmage is likely less than other full-service Diners about the System, even though I'm of thought that Lunch third day out (too long for my "overnight is enough" mentality) is pretty much a "Chef's Choice" - otherwise known as leftovers.

Finally, "could it be implemented" elsewhere? Well, save the Star "experiment" it is Systemwide for Sleepers. Coach? I doubt it; too many are "traveling on the cheap".

bostontrainguy wrote:So here I am on the northbound Autotrain coming into Lorton, and I have to ponder the dining car situation. This train has always been considered one of Amtrak's best performers. Can I even say profitable?
However, it has TWO dining cars and all meals are FREE to both coach and first Class passengers!
What's the secret and can it be implemented elsewhere?

Meals are never FREE, those meals are paid for by the fares charged to every passenger.
There are several, reasons why the Auto Train performs better profit wise than other long distance trains.

They charge an extra fare for unique baggage, the autos.

Every seat and cabin sold is sold for the entire trip. There aren't some passengers riding 10%, or 50% of the way. There's no need to calculate seat or cabin turnover. Therefore it's easier for Amtrak to calculate fares to charge to match costs.

All the facilities used by the Auto Train are not located in higher taxed central business districts. All the facilities are located in the sticks, even further out than suburbs. This lowers costs some.

The cost of food delivery and preparation is the same as on other trains - but with everyone aboard using the service it's easier to spread those costs over the fares of the entire train. On your average long distance train, far less than 20% use the dining car.

Then add that the Auto Train is usually twice as long as other trains as far as passengers, there's more riders per train to spread the costs of operations to.

And those are just the reasons I could think of quickly, there are probably many others to add.

^ That's a great list. Thanks!

I'm curious as to why Amtrak doesn't run its other LD trains with much longer lengths than it does.

For example, the Crescent has 2 locomotives but only 5 or 6 sleepers and coaches. If a few more coaches were added, I'd expect that the additional costs would be very little.

SouthernRailway wrote:I'm curious as to why Amtrak doesn't run its other LD trains with much longer lengths than it does.

For example, the Crescent has 2 locomotives but only 5 or 6 sleepers and coaches. If a few more coaches were added, I'd expect that the additional costs would be very little.

There has to be paying customers to provide the demand for Amtrak to provide the coaches to meet the demand. Amtrak has been providing these services for several decades and knows what the demand is. Just about all of Amtrak's long distance trains lengths vary by season, in accordance to what they have seen demand to be from the past.

SouthernRailway wrote:I'm curious as to why Amtrak doesn't run its other LD trains with much longer lengths than it does.

For example, the Crescent has 2 locomotives but only 5 or 6 sleepers and coaches. If a few more coaches were added, I'd expect that the additional costs would be very little.

In our opinion Amtrak prices its present trains according to the available inventory. Single level LD trains are mostly 9 cars. Why not more cars. They are not available. It comes down to the non sexy fact more equipment needed last year not 3 years in the future. Write your congressman.

electricron wrote:

SouthernRailway wrote:I'm curious as to why Amtrak doesn't run its other LD trains with much longer lengths than it does.

For example, the Crescent has 2 locomotives but only 5 or 6 sleepers and coaches. If a few more coaches were added, I'd expect that the additional costs would be very little.

There has to be paying customers to provide the demand for Amtrak to provide the coaches to meet the demand. Amtrak has been providing these services for several decades and knows what the demand is. Just about all of Amtrak's long distance trains lengths vary by season, in accordance to what they have seen demand to be from the past.

The Crescent is often sold out, yet it hasn't been lengthened.

The Crescent was longer when it was a Heritage Fleet train.

Demand can vary based on pricing. Perhaps Amtrak thinks that it is the most profitable to have a short train with high prices, instead of a longer train with perhaps lower prices?

As noted, the Crescent or any of the other long-distance (LD) trains really can't be lengthened at this point - the additional equipment required simply does not exist. The car supply was somewhat looser back when the Heritage Fleet was still around.
At least in the busier seasons, demand arguably does outstrip supply; So long as the number of available seats is artificially constrained, it also makes sense to price those seats (and, particularly, sleeper accommodations) at a premium.

With the stillborn Nippon-Sharyo order a bust, and only a handful of sleepers and baggage-dorms on the horizon, the situation isn't going to improve anytime soon.

Another issue with lengthen the Crescent is south of Atlanta, its patronage drops a lot.

Amtrak would love to be able to add/drop cars (such as a sleeper) at Atlanta, but there's no real trackage to do so.

<cough> diners <cough>

This is Diners Mr. Smith.

It doesn't appear Amtrak is moving any closer to a cash-free Diner, I'm sure that my fellow CPA colleagues around here have wondered same; in fact I know several have.

Airlines have eliminated in-flight cash; what's holding up Amtrak?

Revised thoughts, Messrs. Gold, JP, anyone?

Gilbert B Norman wrote:This is Diners Mr. Smith.
...

Just making sure we've got our eyes on the ball... we've got a good Crescent topic here: viewtopic.php?f=46&t=109522" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;