Of note is the article on the Superliner Diner/Lounge that is the next phase of Simplified Dining. The car is due out next month.
It contains several interesting clues about what the interior of these cars will be. I presume there will be a "cafe" area on the upper level, much like what is seen on any Amtrak cafe car. The lower level might stay off-limits to passengers, and still remain a galley-only area.
They are still going ahead with "intermixing lounge seating with dining seating." This really frosts me. I don't want to be eating my dinner while some boozer tells everyone his opinions, or listen to the endless complaints about the cost of "snack" food. I've experienced a drunk in the lounge on every long-distance trip recently. Another big minus is that this car will presumably retain its standard-size windows instead of larger or wrap-around windows.
I'll probably ride this car while it's on its two-month jaunt just to say "I did it." But if the dining "experience" is as I fear, I don't think I'll be riding Amtrak long-distance as long as these cars are around.
Posts: 286 | From: Knee deep in the retention tank | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Read the Ink, very interesting. By the way, wait a while before ordering the new schedule book. I ordered it on line two days ago thinking they would send me the new one but they sent me the old one instead. Very promptly but it is the old one. Will I see this new lounge diner thing on the Sunset Limited in January?
-------------------- Vicki in usually sunny Southern California Posts: 951 | From: Redondo Beach, CA | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I heard about Amtrak Ink becoming available online a month ago to cut costs because they would no longer be mailing to to all employees. It was deffinetly very intereasting to see the pictures of the new timetable, and the scoop on the diner/lounges. Any guess on which route the first diner/lounge will be placed on?
Posts: 1082 | From: Los Angeles, CA. USA | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Be careful not to write this off as a failed project just yet. First, remember that this conversion only affects Superliner I lounges and diners, and will only be assigned to certain trains (yet to be determined) designated as "basic service" trains. Superliner II lounges and diners will continue on "full service" trains as they do now.
I notice that the first conversion will be a diner, and will be in service 2 months to see how riders react to it before doing any more. It looks like the design will be somewhat more plush in appearance going for a "completely padded look" to feel more like a restaurant or bar.
It is also my understanding that converted lounges will feature reserved seating dining tables on the lower level. Converted diners will only have service on the upper level. Both designs will allow continuous food service from 6:00am-11:00pm, so you can eat on your schedule and not Amtrak's
Amtrak has also said that when traffic warrants it, two such cars will be in a consist. I can see how this will offer greater flexibility and efficiency. Trains that are less crowded during off peak times need not carry two cars when one will do.
Of course, the jury is still out on the quality of simplified dining service, and this rebuild program really depends on the new food program being successful in its own right. Thus if simplified dining service proves to be a blunder, this car conversion program will only magnify the error.
posted
If done right, the diner-lounge could be a good move for Amtrak. Many secondary trains prior to Amtrak had diner-lounges and they worked well. That seems to be the intent here. I guess the question is, what is secondary or 'basic service'. My guess would be those with only one night out where there is not as much demand for lounge space during that second day since it will be arriving the destination. For instance, the City of New Orleans arriving Chicago at 9AM with relatively modest ridership south of Memphis.
The ability to add a second one if demand warrants is also good news as that would probably allow a diner-lounge for sleeping car passengers and one for coach.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eighteen cars - anyone care to place their bets where they will be assigned?
Mine:
City/Eagle 4 cars Sunset 3 cars Chief/Capitol 7 cars Protect: CHI 1 car LAX 1 car NOL 1 car Shop: BEE 1 car
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like to spend most of my time in the lounge car to see the scenery. It allows a different option than a forward-only facing seat with limited visibility. It is also a place you can stretch out and sleep under the stars at night. Looks like this might not be what Amtrak wants me to do anymore. But, they must know what's good for me.
Somehow I see a vacation in Canada in my future.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Best be prepared to dig deep if you plan to travel North of the 49th, Mr.Twin Star. Lest we note, Red White Blue and Faresaver have long since been relegated to the history books.
But I think here is an appropriate place to share thoughts I posted at another railforum, so what follows is adapted from that material.
Passenger train advocates must be mindful that the Administration now controls Amtrak affairs to the same extent they do any agency within the Executive Branch's organization chart. The dictum is out from the DOT's Inspector General, who let us be mindful reports to the Secretary of Transportation who in turn reports to and serves at the pleasure of the President; and that dictum is cut costs. Case in point is the reported upcoming removal of the Transition Dorm cars. I think it must be recognized that considering the Food & Beverage crew consist reductions owing to Simplified Dining Service, it is 'a bit" of a waste to operate a car that will be used by now six employees. The only employees requiring by Agreement a berth are those assigned to the Dining and Lounge cars - and I believe that, with the SDS crew reductions, totals six employees. While Amtrak cannot award positions by gender i.e. assign an all male or all female crew, to my best knowledge, they can 'double up' employees so long as gender is respected. Therefore, even a three male three female OBS F&B crew would only require four Roomettes.
If the cost cutting reduces revenues to the extent that the bottom line is adversely affected, so be it as such is not of concern. After all, the constituency that elected the incumbent President has little need for LD, and not really all that much for Corridor, rail passenger service.
Possibly, this will change during '09 but I would not be placing my bets on such. President Clinton (apparently her handlers have decided it is in her interest that she and Bill stay married; if that changes then it's President Rodham) would be elected by a Northeast and West Coast constutuency with a little help from the industrialized Midwest. Her administration would obviously favor Corridors. However, if there is to be a President McCain, it is a safe assumption that "same same today' will continue for a while, but before he leaves office, an initiative to simply discontinue LD's will move forth. For that matter, I would not even rule out same occurring during a Clinton administration.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the only hope is for the administration to say we're going to use LD trains to connect the expanding corridor services, but no dining car or sleeping services and associated costs. Then have some outfit do this as a premium service offering for trains that would support it. Colorado Railcar would be a good candidate since they operate the AOE aka Grand Luxe and can build good equipment.
I am not suggesting a service (and price) on the level of the Grand Luxe, but rather a good service that is not over the top on amenities and accomodations. Rather, something on the order of what the Starlight used to be and demonstrated that there was a market for this level of service.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your point is well taken, Mr. Palmland, but the circa 1990 predecessor to AOE was an outfit named American European Express. This was a private sector "luxo" operation attaching cars to consists of the Broadway Limited and Capitol Limited.
It flopped.
There have been other "luxocars" coming to mind such as the Princess Tours Oak-LA, a Roaring Fork Express attached to the Zephyr Den-GlenW, and a Pittsburgh-NY operation. All of these flopped as well.
Remember AOE has been an "apparently adequate' success, but this is essentially a package tour as distinct from A to B transport. Possibly a "middle class" service product as Mr Palmland suggested and priced in line with Amtrak's existing Sleeper fare structure as well as the knowledge that Amtrak was "out", could help, but I doubt if enough to entice a private sector operator.
A well meaning idea, but for which I would not be filled with optimism.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Norman: "Best be prepared to dig deep if you plan to travel North of the 49th, Mr.Twin Star."
But with off-season fares and VIA's 'take a companion for free' for those of us over 60, the fare becomes competitive with Amtrak's. Throw in a dome, traditional LD service, multiple options for sleeping, and better food -and the deal looks even sweeter.
I often drive 300 miles south now to catch the Chief. I could also drive 400 miles north to catch VIA. The only drawback is that it's colder in Canada for any destination I might choose.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: The only employees requiring by Agreement a berth are those assigned to the Dining and Lounge cars
Train attendants, coach and sleeper, are to be provided sleeping accomodations also, with guaranteed hours of downtime.
LSA's are guaranteed single accomodations by the Agreement.
I believe the union would strongly oppose any effort to go back to the "bad old days" of doubling up crew members.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TwinStarRocket: Mr. Norman: "Best be prepared to dig deep if you plan to travel North of the 49th, Mr.Twin Star."
But with off-season fares and VIA's 'take a companion for free' for those of us over 60, the fare becomes competitive with Amtrak's. Throw in a dome, traditional LD service, multiple options for sleeping, and better food -and the deal looks even sweeter.
I often drive 300 miles south now to catch the Chief. I could also drive 400 miles north to catch VIA. The only drawback is that it's colder in Canada for any destination I might choose.
Additionally, there's the Canrailpass offering 12 days (extendable up to 3 more) of unlimited travel in a 30-day period, and the North American Rail Pass, good for 30 days of travel on both VIA and Amtrak. Via's website offers other specials as well.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TwinStarRocket: Mr. Norman: "Best be prepared to dig deep if you plan to travel North of the 49th, Mr.Twin Star."
But with off-season fares and VIA's 'take a companion for free' for those of us over 60, the fare becomes competitive with Amtrak's. Throw in a dome, traditional LD service, multiple options for sleeping, and better food -and the deal looks even sweeter.
I often drive 300 miles south now to catch the Chief. I could also drive 400 miles north to catch VIA. The only drawback is that it's colder in Canada for any destination I might choose.
Your obvious solution then would be to drive to Winnipeg in early to mid-April (just before the off-season fares expire), catch VIA number 1 to Vancouver, and then take the Pacific Coach bus (via BC Ferries) to Victoria for your vacation. I think you'll find Victoria surprisingly mild for Canada at that time of year.
(Wow......my next post is the BIG ONE - 0 - 0 - 0. Better make it count.)
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: The dictum is out from the DOT's Inspector General, who let us be mindful reports to the Secretary of Transportation who in turn reports to and serves at the pleasure of the President; and that dictum is cut costs. Case in point is the reported upcoming removal of the Transition Dorm cars. I think it must be recognized that considering the Food & Beverage crew consist reductions owing to Simplified Dining Service, it is 'a bit" of a waste to operate a car that will be used by now six employees.
So those six employees will now be taking revenue space? That would be cutting costs to spite the income. What they should be doing is opening up the added Transition sleeper space for paying customers. But that would be increasing income, not cutting costs, so it doesn't count towards Amtrak's bottom line in Washington DC. The Inspector General's office may know something about cutting government costs, but it knows nothing about running a business.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: The dictum is out from the DOT's Inspector General, who let us be mindful reports to the Secretary of Transportation who in turn reports to and serves at the pleasure of the President; and that dictum is cut costs. Case in point is the reported upcoming removal of the Transition Dorm cars. I think it must be recognized that considering the Food & Beverage crew consist reductions owing to Simplified Dining Service, it is 'a bit" of a waste to operate a car that will be used by now six employees.
So those six employees will now be taking revenue space? That would be cutting costs to spite the income. What they should be doing is opening up the added Transition sleeper space for paying customers. But that would be increasing income, not cutting costs, so it doesn't count towards Amtrak's bottom line in Washington DC. The Inspector General's office may know something about cutting government costs, but it knows nothing about running a business.
Another factor which I've yet to see mentioned in the discussion of elimination of the transition sleepers is the location of the conductor's "office". If the transition cars are eliminated, the conductor will have to either use a vacant room in a sleeping car(the possibilities of which are reduced greatly by having the OBS crew occupying however many rooms) or use a table in the dining car/diner-lounge car. The sleeper room choice is not a good one, as few conductors use earpieces for their radios and many would have their radio volumes high enough to disturb passengers in the sleeper. If they use the diner/diner-lounge, there's another table, maybe two, out of service.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I've seen, they either use a table in the diner, or use a table downstairs in the transition dorm. So I guess it's off to the diner/louge for them.
Posts: 286 | From: Knee deep in the retention tank | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I noted above, Mr. Toy, If the cost cutting reduces revenues to the extent that the bottom line is adversely affected, so be it as such is not of concern.
Naturally, any prudent individual, passenger train advocate notwithstanding, knows such an approach from a business standpoint is folly, but at times political objectives can only be met with imprudence.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
By removing the transition dorm Amtrak will have less inventory for sale to the public, so applying the lessons of Econ 101, the price of the commodity should rise. But then factor in the loss of the sightseer lounge to reduce demand and it seems we end up right where we started.
Posts: 78 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first of the new Diner/lounge equipment will be assigned to The Capitol Ltd, and theoretically will turn in Chicago the same day. This will be done for both management and OBS crews to have the opportunity to both become familiar with the equipment and also to figure out exactly what and how the service will be offered in this car. It will become a test train is how it was explained.
I was told this project is approximately 2 months from happening. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Posts: 332 | From: Long Island, NY USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I note that INK refers to the cars having a Teal decor. That is the decor of the 1999 outside contractor rebuilt A-I Cafe's as well as the Heritage Diners rebuilt by a Mexican outside contractor (names of both concerns I hath a Senior Moment)
posted
How full does a baggage car get on a train like the City of New Orleans or the Texas Eagle? I ask because instead of dropping the transition dorm, could Amtrak convert the bottom of the t-dorm to baggage hauling and use the top for crew rest and a few revenue passengers or possibly a first class lounge? Another benefit would be the retirement of some rather tired looking baggage cars.
Posts: 78 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been wondering the same thing with Pacific Surfliner 798/799. It runs with Horizons, and not only has a cabbage, but a full baggage car! Posts: 286 | From: Knee deep in the retention tank | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Pullman-- I suppose you're giving me the buck rogers line. Fair enough, but if the Transition Dorms are on lease versus owned outright by Amtrak they'll be costing bucks every month--whether they're rolling or they're rusting.
Posts: 78 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Pullman uses the tagline "No bucks? no Buck Rogers". I use "No Yuma?, no moolah".
Both express the same thought.
Continuing, the T-Dorms were originally acquired and owned outright by means of appropriations. However, along with any other piece of rolling stock on the property, were "leased" during the Warrington administration after they entered into a series of "sale-leaseback' transactions. Mr. Hill is quite correct in noting the lease payments must be made whether "rolling or rusting" (well corroding, and stainless steel does little of that - otherwise the point is made).
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I should adopt a tagline that goes something like this:
"Minot before Mars!"
meaning that if GWB wants to send a man to Mars, but won't fund long distance rail service, then his priorities are backwards, IMO.
Posts: 78 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
This really frosts me. I don't want to be eating my dinner while some boozer tells everyone his opinions, or listen to the endless complaints about the cost of "snack" food. I've experienced a drunk in the lounge on every long-distance trip recently.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
