posted
This is second hand information but it came directly from two onboard CS employees on my 11/23-24 trip, one of whom had a copy an Amtrak memo just received in hand.
1) Pacific Parlour Cars will be out of service for some six weeks starting sometime in January.
2) Starlight sightseer lounge cars will be discontinued once the parlour cars return.
I find this second point shocking on what many consider Amtrak's most scenic route, but from a financial standpoint perhaps justified. This train currently pulls four non revenue cars (dining is non revenue), including a baggage car.
Much better, in my opinion, would be to
1) Keep the lounge cars with their snack service, 2) Install an airplane-like heating galley for prepared catered meals (from a company that serves airlines), and 3) Serve upscale meals to sleeping car passengers in the parlour car and regular ones to coach passengers in their seats IF they have prepaid for these prior to their trips (no waste).
Of course this being a train that may get delayed in areas without access, there would have to be emergency food onboard.
posted
Let us not lose sight that Amtrak again finds themselves short of equipment even if the fleet was restored to "state of good repair" thanks to ARRA 09 (Stimulus); what cars remain at Beech Grove and elsewhere "WD" (waiting disposition) are in "mighty bad shape".
But owing to traffic demands being placed on the Class I system, the Amtrak service delay issues have resulted in adding a sixth set of equipment to the Empire Builder and a fourth to the Capitol Limited.
While I realize here at the Forum this apparent Amtrak policy gets thumbs down, they clearly are standardizing LD consists at one Diner and Lounge each. If Auto Train's "ox got gored" how can Starlight expect to emerge unscathed?
Many rail services in the world, e.g., Northern Ireland Railways, have trolleys that go down the aisles of each coach. Hopefully, Amtrak will be creative enough to add something like that.
@ Mr. Norman -
(I always call you Mr. Norman because you call me Mr. Nadeau, but after this long perhaps we should be Don and Gil--your call.)
Every business, government service, and quasi government service like Amtrak must prioritize its resources in order to reach its full potential with what it has.
The Starlight travels one night and two full days through wonderful scenery. The City of New Orleans travels one night and a partial day via mostly farmland.
Surely, we don't need to sacrifice the enjoyment of all passengers on the Starlight in order to "standardize" consists.
That reminds me of a Costco I visited in the Valley of Sun that had no sunscreen. I was told Kirkland [headquarters] doesn't send us any in winter. Standardization! I wonder if it thinks every region of the U.S. has the same tastes and needs?
In my experience, the Starlight gets a lot of tour groups in coach. Try to sell these easily a diminished experience. Again, we come to the issue of properly prioritizing resources.
posted
In all honesty, it's surprising that the Parlours lasted as long as they did. Now considering the operating conditions under which any train moves over the Class I rails, the Parlours simply represent five more Lounge cars available for service
Brian Rosenwald, whom I once met along the way, conscientiously tried to make Starlight into a unique travel experience. But with "overseers" on the other side of the continent likely never to set foot on the Starlight, wanting Amtrak s on-board service "standardized", the service was simply on short leash.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
As i understand it, the Parlours will continue on the Starlight for sleeping car passengers at least for the near future.
However, I may be mistaken. I did not have the chance to read the Amtrak memo. Unknown are the goals of the six-week servicing.
Too many organizations do not culture their Brian Rosenwalds, much to their disadvantage. Historically, that's been especially true in the railroad industry, but in my opinion not so much now.
posted
This just doesn't sound right. Why would Amtrak eliminate lounge space for coach passengers (and be the only LD train to do that) but keep the high maintenance parlor cars just for sleeping passengers. Not complaining, but really!
Only way this might make some sense is to use CCC cars for coach lounge (with the lounge part staffed) but expand seating (in lieu of the buffet area) in the PPC for more sleeping car passenger dining with overflow to the CCC.
Perhaps the intent is, like A-T, to use the PPC for lounge for all passengers and everyone eats in the dining car. But the SSL cars are much better suited for high volume of passengers if coach passengers were included. It'll be interesting to see what really happens. One thought: Amtrak 'discovers' that the PPC needs more repairs than thought, so, gee whiz, guess the SSL will do the job.
I would like to see someone other than Amtrak providing first class meals and lounge service. Then maybe we could get some consistency of service and avoid the ongoing soap opera of Amtrak amenities and on board service. But no doubt that would come with a price tag like 'meals not included'.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: But with "overseers" on the other side of the continent likely never to set foot on the Starlight, wanting Amtrak s on-board service "standardized", the service was simply on short leash.
This "overseers on the other side of the continent I regard as being the long distance trains major management and operation problem from day 1. Moving headquarters to some place no further east that Chicago would be a good start to giving the long distance trains a fair shake. If the Northeast Corridor service is so critical to that part of the country, let these few postage stamp size states bring more money to the table in order to improve their glorified urban transit system.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand the reason why the Coast Starlight would want to remove the sightseer lounge car. It seems like the Starlight is constantly designing a new noose in which to hang itself.
I wonder if it would be possible, for the CS and other LD trains, for Amtrak to entirely contract out its food services. Not just catering, but have major restaurant and food chains run on-board food services.
Could major food outlets like Applebee's, Olive Garden, Black Bear Diner, Baskin-Robbins or Starbucks run their own dining and snack cars? Maybe even a sports bar car. Have Amtrak charge rental fees. Possibly, with the financial backing of such large food chains, they could even provide the rail car.
It would allow Amtrak to rid itself of money losing food services. Amtrak, then, could concentrate on coach, sleeper, lounge, and observation cars.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Richard, in view of the Subway experience, I highly doubt if any major food service outlet would touch a proposal to provide food and beverage service aboard Amtrak trains with a ten foot pole.
First, their on board staff would have to be covered by a labor agreement (want the various Amtrak crafts refusing to 'cross"?); the precedent would be too disconcerting for their managements confronted with the possibility that their land based outlets would become "union".
Second, given that the on board staff would be "union", I have to wonder how they could expect to make any $$$ at such a venture.
Possibly (and with respect I think this is your first concern), such an initiative could provide an enhanced travel experience for passengers; hard as it may be to accept, I don't think anyone back at 60 Mass is concerned with "enhancements", as their "overseers" surely are not.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
It is unfortunate but not surprising that we have seen a gradual decline in service on board LD trains. After all, Amtrak is primarily a government organization that depends on the whims of congress for funding. As such, it is probably appropriate that it becomes nothing more than a lower cost provider of mass transportation. For LD trains that means coaches and maybe a CCC or single level cafe car. No first class, no sit down dining. On intermediate routes, maybe an unstaffed BC car would be justified. All associated personnel would be laid off with presumably some kind of severance.
At that point, would it not make sense for the private operator to step in on a contract basis charging whatever the market would bear. Certainly the precedent is there with Iowa Pacific efforts to hitch a few cars on the back of the CONO, much like the ride a private car gets. Would that scenario fly?
I would think congress would be happy, the bean counters would be happy, the great majority of the public could care less, and those who could afford it would appreciate an improved service on routes where an operator could make a buck. As much as I like LD train rides, is there really an economic or social justification for a premium level of passenger service largely paid by the taxpayers?
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I may be ignorant, but isn't there a law somewhere requiring that if a common passenger carrier (bus, air, train) travels more than [x] number of hours, they are obligated to provide some kind of food/beverage service to their passengers? What am I thinking of?
Of course, since most single air flights are 4 hours or less, the law would not apply to that mode. And for long-distance bus routes (which I do not use), the periodic truck stop "food stops" are made to comply with this law, if the law actually exists.
Posts: 2428 | From: Grayling, MI | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Richard, you are correct, at least in Amtrak's early days. One of the requirements for Amtrak on A day was a sleeper on overnight trips. I'm not sure when or if that requirement was changed, but it apparently is no longer in effect, or else just ignored.
Train 66/67 makes a 14 hr, 20 min. overnight trip from Boston to Newport News. It originally ran as the Night Owl to Washington, with a sleeper. It was then extended to Newport News and enhanced with a specialized cafe car and sleeper renamed the Twilight Shoreliner. More recently, it's just another NEC train but does have a combination cafe/BC car.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
At that point, would it not make sense for the private operator to step in on a contract basis charging whatever the market would bear. Certainly the precedent is there with Iowa Pacific efforts to hitch a few cars on the back of the CONO, much like the ride a private car gets. Would that scenario fly?
***************************
Mr. Palmland - I was thinking along the same lines. If Pullman Rail Journeys can hook up to the back of Amtrak, why not a private food service outfit? Maybe the difference is that PRJ is entirely autonomous from Amtrak passengers, which would not be the case with an Applebee or Black Bear Diner car. Hence union problems as cited by Mr. Norman. None-the-less, would there not be a profit potential with over 1300 miles of captive dining patronage, as with the Starlight route?
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
From Fred Frailey's Trains.com post yesterday:
quote:Coast Starlight: The crew sleeper, one of three sleeping cars, the Pacific Parlour lounge and two of the four coaches get a rest through February. The Pacific Parlour and one of the coaches return starting March 1. The crew sleeper is back April 1. The former consist presumably is in place starting April 16.
Nothing about the Sightseer lounges gone when the Pacific Parlours come back.
Full post outlining other LD train winter consists
posted
Sadly I don't think these reductions in winter consists are mostly about having the equipment to populate extra consist sets and not so much about making major repairs.
-------------------- 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 |
posted
The Pacific Parlor Cars will be taking a "rest" mid-January to mid-March.
As noted - other passenger and baggage car reductions are planned for other LD routes.
The Superliner Sightseer Lounge is NOT being taken off.
If Amtrak is taking cars off to cycle them in for repairs - I have a bridge in Manhattan that I'd like to sell you. The Parlor Cars are slated to return.....
Likewise, if you think there was a FOURTH train set for the Capitol Limited ever created - I have another bridge to sell you.
Amtrak is doing this because they think they will achieve various cost reductions. I'd love for that to be quantified on what is known as a "fully loaded" cost basis.....
Ironically how "baggage cars" are being removed for a few months and Amtrak just re-distributed the count to get more baggage cars over Viewliner Bagg/Dorm Cars......
EDIT - to clarify reductions.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Surprising, they didn't try to get away with only one unit; I'd guess Messrs. Buffet, Cajon, and Raton had different ideas.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Palmland, let us not give 60 Mass ideas. With 17 of those wastes rostered and with only 6 assigned to 58-59, City, and 21-22, Eagle, or CONO & TE in Forumese, there are certainly enough available for assignment to either Chief or Zephyr as well as the planned assignment to Capitol Limited.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jp1822: Amtrak is doing this because they think they will achieve various cost reductions. I'd love for that to be quantified on what is known as a "fully loaded" cost basis....
One must wonder if Amtrak's Responsibility Accounting system is so arbitrary and archaic that a train's ResLoc (Amtrakese: Responsibility Location) is charged some arbitrary amount for each car assigned to the consist. Therefore a manager has the incentive to rid the consist of ostensibly unneeded cars.
All of the "Final Four" (the major accounting firms; EY, KPMG, Deloitte, PWC) have surely told their clients "we can give you a responsibility accounting system that will manage revenue and costs so you know who is generating the profit". Gotta tell you: HAHAHAHA - LOL.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: [QB] [QUOTE]
All of the "Final Four" (the major accounting firms; EY, KPMG, Deloitte, PWC)
/QB]
I go back to the days when we spoke of the "Big Six" accounting firms and, you're right, cost accounting is where all the rabbits are pulled out of the hats in any firm.
Posts: 1530 | From: Ocala, FL | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come on, Mike; you and I are the same age. Big Eight (AA, E&E, AY, PMM, PW, H&S, TR, LR&M).
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:One must wonder if Amtrak's Responsibility Accounting system is so arbitrary and archaic . . ..
Must wonder? Ha. LOL +2
This is the company that allegedly prorates per line costs (station maintenance and personnel, etc.) to each new train added to it, in spite of these services having to be there anyway.
Not that Amtrak's prepared to add many trains, but this policy screws up any analysis of their financial viability.
posted
Unfortunately not much of an issue for LD service as very few routes are more than 1 a day.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's time to accept that the LD's are run for the convenience of the Congressional overseers, and what they want is what they get. At the moment, they want cost cutting, but if their in-boxes fill up with too much "Congressman, I want to tell you about this terrible trip I had on Amtrak...", if it is the right Representative, ceramic ware and metal flatware would be instantly restored to the Diners as would Sleeper amenities.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
True enough, Gil, but you have far more accounting "chops" than me. Prior to about 1990, I earned my keep in fields other than pure accounting.
Posts: 1530 | From: Ocala, FL | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of consists, November Monthly Performance Report notes that Auto Train bookings have been "soft". Could the amenity cuts to what arguably has been the Premier Long Distance service be a factor?
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Time to take off the extra coach on A-T (those that are most likely sensitive to the price of gas) and introduce a premium service level (eg. extra fare) with an upgraded lounge and dining. Whats not to like: fewer customers for Amtrak to deal with, stabilize revenue, satisfied first class passengers.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have changed my winter vacation plans because of the Starlight's changes. No Parlour car and a bus bridge between Portland and Eugene during the time I was looking to ride! No thanks, I'll take advantage of the low airfares between Seattle and SoCal and fly. I'll still be using Amtrak, however, but only between San Diego and Los Angeles, not for an overnight segment.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Speaking of consists, November Monthly Performance Report notes that Auto Train bookings have been "soft". Could the amenity cuts to what arguably has been the Premier Long Distance service be a factor?
Sounds EXTREMELY plausible! Word will travel fast on that train on what is and what is not included - or what amenities it has and what amenities it does not have. The AT has had pretty constant service offerings - I think - in the past, and adding change to this particular train is not going to go over well!
Posts: 337 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
An interesting observation of #5(19). The consist was seven cars - the six plus a Baggage Car.
Now what interesting (troubling; some might say) is that the Lounge was immediately behind the Baggage. Positioned such, I have to wonder if it was in service and that all Food & Beverage was being served from the mid-train Diner.
No Dome on the Zephyr? Someone is taking consist reduction to the extremes.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unless the sleepers -- sleeper -- were positioned at the rear of the train, normal procedure on Via but not on Amtrak, it certainly seems like the sightseer was out of service.
The question then is why have it run at all, especially if heading away from Beech Grove?
posted
Well, being optimistic (and totally unrealistic) lets hope the sleepers were up front. That would mean the lounge was there for first class passengers only and, while I'm at it, the lounge was modified to resemble a PPC.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Optimism has become an essential prerequisite for Amtrak travel.
Just read two theories on another forum.
1) The CZ's consist, without its sightseer. continues to and from the CL and the sightseer in its new position facilitates that.
However, it's hard to imagine that being same day, especially eastbound and especially since the cutbacks Amtrak shouldn't need to so aggressively utilize equipment.
2) With no transition cars, the sightseer positioned behind the baggage car reduces the diesel fumes that reach the other cars.
posted
For all we know, the whole consist had to be scrounged. Baggage Car because they couldn't find a 310XX Coach Baggage and the 330XX Lounge was scrounged off an inbound train such as 29, Capitol Limited - and with no time to spare for more than "slam it on the head".
Unfortunately, I had only non prescription shades and was unable to read the car's road numbers (since the surgeries, my eyes are considerably more light sensitive).
But the Chicago Sub certainly can be railfan paradise. On my half hour 2mi walk, there was METRA/BNSF 1233, Amtrak 5, a WB Container, and, blocked from view by the freight, either #4 or #6
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Multiple CA Zephyr train sets have been spotted with lounge upfront. Frankly, CA Zephyr sleepers have sold out roomettes on some trains coming up. For this train, it might have been better served with the Trans/Dorm left in place.
Placement of SSL does seem odd......
Posts: 337 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
(Son of a CPA ... first IRS (65-68), then an independent regulator agency (68-80), finally in private practice (80-04))
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
-- were positioned at the rear of the train, normal procedure on Via but not on Amtrak, it certainly seems like the sightseer was out of service.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
