The average cost of all meals (as wells as coffee, soft drinks, bottled water, etc.) for two passengers is built into the price of each room.

Unfortunately, that means a sleeper passenger traveling solo on a 24 hour journey will eat three meals, but actually pay for six -- two breakfasts, two lunches, and two dinners.

On pre-Amtrak railroads, meals and drinks were almost invariably pay-as-you-go. Promoting Amtrak's food as gratis is a marketing trick borrowed from the airlines. Back in the days when TWA and American actually served food on every flight, those meals, too, were anything but free.

As much as I enjoy traveling by train, Amtrak's current practice is a major rip-off. I'd like to see the railroad lose the "complimentary" meals, lower sleeper prices accordingly, and allow passengers to simply purchase whatever meals they choose.

Since people have to eat, the dining cars would still be heavily patronized. And passengers would pay for only those meals they truly want or need -- nothing more and nothing less.

Even on coast-to-coast trips, the "rail fare" portion of the ticket is usually a reasonable value. It's the "room" portion that pushes the final tab into the stratosphere. And a major reason why the room portion is so high comes down to the built-in cost of the meals.

On the longest solo Amtrak sleeper trip I've taken (about 8000 miles), my rail fare portion came to $690. Yes, it's true Amtrak missed out on the additional $690 rail fare it would have collected had my girlfriend come along to occupy the other seat.

During the trip, however, I consumed 17 solo dining car meals. Since my ticket price included "meals for two," that means I paid for 17 phantom meals as well.

Did it help the railroad recoup that $690 in lost fare revenue? Big time.

According to my trusty calculator, I paid just over $40.58 apiece for EACH phantom breakfast, lunch, and dinner my non-traveling girlfriend didn't get to eat. ($40.58 x 17 meals = $690)

I like French Toast as much as the next guy. But 40 bucks for a plateful is a raw deal -- especially when I've paid for it, never see it (let alone eat it), and Amtrak gets to resell it to another passenger.

If you get the Salad which is listed for 6$ you will be paying for the 20$ steak..but its fun

quote:

---

Originally posted by dilly:
According to my trusty calculator, I paid just over $40.58 apiece for EACH phantom breakfast, lunch, and dinner my non-traveling girlfriend didn't get to eat. ($40.58 x 17 meals = $690)

---

Above and beyond the $690 I mentioned above (which covered only the rail fare part of the ticket), Amtrak's accommodations cost for my trip (with meals for two) was an additional $1500. Since I spent a total of 6 nights in a sleeper, my average accommodations cost was $250 per night (not including rail fare). Even if I'd brought someone along for the ride, the room price would have been the same.

My point is that the cost of 34 meals was built into that price. But since I traveled alone, I was actually served only 17. That's an awful lot of unserved (but paid for) food I never got to eat, which Amtrak was able to resell to other passengers.

I agree that Amtrak undoubtedly does this to recoup the rail fare revenue it "loses" whenever a sleeper room is only half-occupied.

But is it fair? I don't think so. When I travel by myself in coach, Amtrak doesn't make me pick up the tab for the empty seat next to mine -- or all the empty rows behind me.

That's why one-passenger SlumberCoach roomettes and pay-as-you-go meals are old ideas that deserve to be revisited.

Then again, we all have sore points. Some members of this forum become quite disturbed whenever the Coast Starlight runs without a Pacific Parlour Car. Others went into near-shock when Amtrak discontinued the "complimentary" chocolate chip cookies. And more than a few have gotten bent out of shape by the sight of an Amtrak consist sporting a long line of mismatched paint jobs.

Me? I get slightly perturbed when required to pay for goods or services I don't receive.

Some might argue that solo travelers should pay the extra premium without complaining, since the empty seat/berth in their room can't be sold to another potential passenger. However, outside of July and August, I've rarely been in a sleeping car where every room was occupied. I've traveled solo in cars where as few as four rooms were in use. Obviously, I didn't deprive a potential customer of the chance to buy a bed for the night. But I still "paid the price" as if I had.

Basically, the way the fare is structured is a variation of the "single supplement" solo vacationers are charged by package tour companies, cruise lines, and the like -- despite the fact that a solo traveler will use only half the amount of toilet paper and hot water, and eat only half the food that a couple traveling together will consume during the same trip.

So if you're a solo sleeper passenger? All I can say is. . . solidarity.

So, if we should happen to meet in coach and become friends, do you suppose it would be possible for both of us to buy a sleeper from the conductor and enjoy all its benefits for just one fare, instead of two?

Of course, we'd have to sleep in the same room, but not necessarily in the same bed.

The way many European trains go (not that I particularly like it, nor do I want Amtrak to do the same) is to pay for a berth. Meals are normally extra, although you might get a stale croissant if you're lucky. If you pay for one berth in a two-berth cabin, you get a same-*** companion for the night - unless you pay a supplement for solo occupancy.

And travel agents? Rip-off. I book all my holidays/vacations myself and "save" myself the solo supplement. Of course, I pay more on average per person than a couple would, but I save $$$ on the rate that travel agents charge as a supplement, not to mention their commission for doing very little. I'm a big fan of Expedia and the likes.

Incidentally, many smaller (ie non-chain) hotels in the UK charge per person rather than per room.

On several other trains, however, I've made similar requests, and received a very pleasant, "As long as you're willing to pay for it." When I pointed out that I had, indeed, already paid for it, the servers generally looked at me as if I had three heads.

Since I was dealing with the clueless, and I wasn't in a ranting mood, I didn't press the issue. I guess you have to work on the Lake Shore Limited to understand the concept.

Note to Chucky: Sure, provided you don't snore like my brother does.

Dilly said: "But is it fair? I don't think so. When I travel by myself in coach, Amtrak doesn't make me pick up the tab for the empty seat next to mine -- or all the empty rows behind me."

Yes, but no one can use the other bed in your room when you purchase it. Your buying a coach seat does not keep them from selling the seats next to you or behind you to someone else.

In truth, the unoccupied seat in my room would deprive Amtrak of rail fare revenue only if:

1) a potential passenger phoned the reservations line, went online, or approached the conductor in search of an available room.

and

2) that potential passenger had to be turned away because the car was completely sold out.

Since there are, typically, several empty rooms begging to be purchased, the railroad clearly doesn't lose a single customer (or the rail fare they would have generated) as a result of my traveling solo.

So why-oh-why doth Amtrak persecuteth me so?

Two of the three consists on the Montreal - Halifax "Ocean" use Renaissance equipment, but VIA can't be that generous on this longer run. But the single supplement is only 15% over the per person rate for double occupancy. On the third consist, which uses standard Budd-built sleepers, the single supplement for a double room is 50% for the obvious reason that roomettes are available. This is the same policy on all other sleeping car runs.

No offence is intended to Amtrak as I wouldn't tell them what to do, but I offer the above just for the information of anyone interested in travelling solo on a VIA overnight train.

David,
Mississauga, Canada

Prior to 1969, the railroad (particularly its Dining Car and Hotel Department (that's UP name, others had others, including "Fred Harvey")) ran the food service.

The Pullman Company ran the sleeper service.

There might have been a few "bundlings," but they were exceptions, not the rule.

ATSF is also a bad road for this kind of question ... remember that they put their dining operation in the hand of the Fred Harvey Company ... much as most roads put their sleeping operations in the hands of Pullman. (Most other roads had dining either as an integral element of the Passenger Traffic Department or as a separate corporate department.

The point is: ATSF/Fred Harvey was a DIFFERENT business model for dining and lounge operations than used by most other railroads.

Most railroads used one of two options:
- Dining and lounge operations were out of a "Dining Car Department." This operated at same level as the Passenger Traffic and Freight Traffic Departments.

- Dining and lounge operations were a branch of the Passenger Traffic Department.

John

The chefs of the Union Pacific Dining Car and Hotel Department, IMNSHO, in the late 60s, were the peer if not the better of those of ATSF/Fred Harvey.

Been there, ate their bills of fare.

John

------------------
The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations