I find this a little hard to fathom. Airports have terminal fees and checked baggage fees. Maybe a modest station or baggage fee could help retain the Amtrak station agent. People with loads of heavy baggage or handicapped passengers deserve more, I think.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Richard (Archie), I'm surprised the number(40%) is only that.
Even if a station is only manned one "trick" per day, we're talking $150K per year. There are enough alternate ways to obtain a ticket nowadays obviating that need for an Agent.
Even stations such as Green River UT have handicapped access nowadays, and as far as heavy baggage, my motto of "if you can't carry it, don't bring it" could be practiced a bit more in this life.
Funny how I have never checked a bag on Amtrak; funny how I can go overseas for a week without anything I can't carry or fit on board - at least in Business Class.
At airports, when I see people checking their bags (I'm sure @ $100 per flight), I wonder "really do you need all that crap?".
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you're going on the Empire Builder, to Montana, I think you need to take along something other than a shaving kit. One big bag for the luggage rack and a smaller one for the sleeper. However, sometimes the luggage rack is chock full and hence checked baggage, at the station, comes in handy. Also, even a small to large suitcase might be difficult for an elderly type.
I'm still surprised by how many stations don't have a station agent. I get in moods where I think it may be time for Amtrak to bite the bullet and discontinue, maybe, half of its LD trains. Have just 7 or 8 with real, live, station agents with some of the features that have been talked about on this forum (a 24 hr bistro car, dining room choices, barber shop, Starbucks, movie theater, bowling alley (just kidding).
Have the void created by the lost LD trains filled in with commuter or regional trains. Seven or eight really spiffy LD trains might make riding Amtrak no longer a joke (at least in many cases).
My 3 cents worth.
Archie Richard James J. Hill
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with Mr. Norman here on proportion manned, but not on ability to get away with carrying very little. I would also consider reducing the number of trains the absolutely wrong answer. At low volume stations if you can't lug it somebody will, member of crew or another passenger. As to reduction in number of trains, fewer trains means loss of connectivity which is already very small. Strongly doubt it would result in any worthwhile increase in passenger miles per train mile.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Harris makes a strong sociological point that all too many travelers are guided by taking too much stuff. They are not guided by my rules where if I take something on a trip (even if auto), I'm asking myself "why".
For domestic air travel, I can't think of when I needed more luggage than my over the shoulder flight bag. It can be "squished" so as to fit under a Coach seat. Now I'm a bit more liberal going overseas to Salzburg where there is "most definitely" a dress code to attend Festival performances. The code does get broken it seems by Asians (Mr. Harris, I defer to you who are the slobbiest tourists in this world), but I'm a guest in someone's else's country, and I will dress accordingly (but hardly means I going to get some "Lederhosen" to wear as I see some do).
Volks, if there was ever a way for Amtrak to commit funding suicide, it would be to reduce the "glue" - the LD system as Mr. Moorman refers to it - especially upgrading the amenities on those that remained. While the existing trains provide little in the way of amenities, they provide the legislative majority to keep the funding coming in.
Finally, I know many here "missed out on the Great Trains" (I only caught the '60's tail end), but the days of the "specialty" cars - the Lewis & Clark, the Ranch, the Sky tops - they're gone. And the one line of "Specialty Cars" Amtrak has, the "Parlours", will be gone soon enough when the 62 year old "antiques" drop.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I'm somewhere between Mr. Norman's bare bones approach (no pun intended) and those with all their worldly belongings. A carry on bag and a daypack takes care of all our needs whether it be one week or four. I think it's interesting that in Europe, judging by my current trip research, baggage cars are non existent and all just carry on.
With all of our electronic devices there is little need for an agent, although the friendly local agent will be missed. But if my encounters with the new breed of agent in Florence is any indication, maybe it's 'all for the best'. Suffice it to say my last encounter with that agent ended in him saying, 'don't you disrespect me'.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Oh dear, I had an encounter with an agent who had moved away from the counter to the rear of the ticketing area. When he asked me a question from back there I raised my voice so he would be sure to hear my answer and suddenly the issue became me "shouting" at him and how nobody was going to get away with that. Up to that point our transaction hadn't been a controversial at all.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
With so many travelers buying their tickets at Amtrak.com, with Amtrak working with travel agents, who sell its tickets, and with Amtrak's budget always being lean (to put it mildly), why spend in my opinion in such a wasteful way?
quote:Funny how I have never checked a bag on Amtrak; funny how I can go overseas for a week without anything I can't carry or fit on board - at least in Business Class.
At airports, when I see people checking their bags (I'm sure @ $100 per flight), I wonder "really do you need all that crap?".
My feelings exactly even when flying in airline economy class. There are laundries nearly everywhere, etc.
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: At airports, when I see people checking their bags (I'm sure @ $100 per flight), I wonder "really do you need all that crap?".
When you see and overseas plane loading up, it worth while to understand that there are probably quite a few people in the crowd that are going for way more than a week.
When we were living overseas we had a once a year "home leave" trip, and usually that was the only trans Pacific trip we made. Normally on our return we were carrying a years supply of certain items that were unobtainable on that end. We realized over time that we were becoming more and more acclimated to home there as we noticed that we were hauling less and less stuff going west and more and more stuff going east.
A side note: Sorry, no I am really not, about those people who were taking vacations that had their flight disturbed by small kids on the plane. Guess what, most of these people were not traveling with small kids for the fun of it. This was their once every year, or for some once every 2 or 3 years trip back home to see family and deal with things on the US side of their lives.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
George Harris' story reminds me of a trip on the Sunset a few years ago. A single mom was traveling with her two infants. They were leaving an unpleasant home life in FL and heading to LA to start a new one. They were on Amtrak because of the liberal luggage policy and they did have all their worldly belongings.
It made me feel a bit guilty about criticizing the travel habits of others.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I try to only take clothing for a few days--even if I'm going to be gone for an extended period. Most destinations have stores that carry things like underwear, socks, shirts and toothpaste. And the things I bring from home are usually the oldest socks and underwear in my drawer. That way I won't feel bad about leaving a worn out pair of underpants in the garbage can of my Parisian hotel and replacing it with my brand new souvenir underpants from Paris when I return home.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel that that I may have sounded insensitive to those who have special needs in terms of getting help with luggage, etc.
Stations that are not staffed including many staffed ones that are not open for all trains do significantly impact those who would like to check luggage.
Nevertheless, other needs such as help getting physically challenged people and their non checked luggage on trains are handled in my experienced without complaint by onboard staff.
It becomes a question of how much does Amtrak want to deplete its budget in order to have less popular stations able to check. I say let them use Fedex or an alternative to ship.
posted
OK,that sound insensitive. Better to say that non-staffed stations should have much more generous carry on baggage allowances to-from than where there are staffed stations on both ends. It would also not be unreasonable to allow direct platform to baggage car transfers at the unstaffed stations.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
George, you may wish to forward your suggestions to Amtrak.
I respectfully suggest though that you should look deeply into the logistics of what you want.
Where will additional luggage be stored in the passenger cars? In my experience, the storage racks are often jammed.
Using the baggage car at these stations becomes even more problematic.
Currently at small stations passengers merely show their tickets before quickly boarding. Now time would have be taken to issue checked luggage tags.
Small station platforms are often short. Can luggage even reach the baggage car without an additional stop? Even without an extra stop, how much time would be needed for storage at each stop?
Moreover, two crew members would need to be taken away from other responsibilities. One to hand up the bags and one to store them in the proper place. (And, do the same in reverse at time of arrival.) In addition, Amtrak would have to make sure that two very strong crew members were on call 24 hours a day.
These are just some examples of the logistics involved. I cannot help but wonder how much time would be added to schedules over the course of a trip.
Call me insensitive if you wish, but I don't believe that allowing checked luggage at non staffed stations even begins to be worth it.
posted
I have a question. You check you baggage at Union Station, Chicago, for a trip to Rugby, ND. Rugby has no station attendant and no checked baggage service.
Upon arrival in Rugby, will a train attendant round up your baggage, take it off the train, and deposit it track side?
I wonder, in this situation, if you will be required to bring aboard all baggage, for the luggage rack and/or sleeper, and thus not be allowed to check your baggage in Chicago?
I'm not planning a trip to Rugby, but it's kind of exciting to know it's the geographical center of North America!
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I know you cannot check luggage to unstaffed stations.
However, car attendants will put the luggage on the train in your car and take it off for you. You need not do that yourself.
Have wondered how Rugby got its name. Did a Conestoga wagon full of former New Zealand All Blacks players and their spouses break down there?
Going back to earlier I've regularly traveled 15 to over 30 days with carryon only. That never kept me from being hygienic or lacking essentials. Soft-sided bags are one secret.
"RUGBY station, 201 W. Dewey Street. Elevation approximately 1560. Rugby was settled in 1886, and is an agricultural town, as well as the Pierce County seat. Rugby is the ”Geographical Center of North America,” as marked on the wall of the AMTRAK station. The actual geographic center, south of downtown, is marked by the Geographical Center Museum and a monument. The population of the town is largely Scandinavian; however, the name of this town and others in this area is decidedly English, named by a group of English bankers who invested in the townsite in the 1880’s. The town was originally named Rugby Junction after a famous railroad junction in Rugby, England.
Also at the Geographical Center Museum is the Prairie Village Museum, which contains 27 restored pioneer buildings."
Posts: 2428 | From: Grayling, MI | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I should ever plan a trip to the Dakotas, I think my stop would not be Rugby but would be Wall, South Dakota. I always wanted to visit the Wall Drug Store, home of free ice water. Wall is just north of Badlands National Park. Did the old Milwaukee Road ever go near there?
posted
Thank you so much for the Rugby history! Fascinating.
Wall Drug Store is really something. Expect that you will enjoy it immensely. It's one of those human made iconic tourist stops like the Big Texan Steak Ranch in Amarillo TX, where if can eat a 72 once steak you get it free (don't tell your doctor), or the Cadillac Ranch nearby.
posted
Wall Drug: "Did the old Milwaukee Road ever go near there?"
Chicago and Northwestern went through Wall on tracks that still exist. According to my Oct 1956 CNW Timetable, there was a "Dakota 400" from Chicago to Huron, SD (via Winona, Rochester and Mankato MN). Some cars, including a sleeper, went on to Pierre and Rapid City and stopped in every town, including Wall.
The Milwaukee Line to Rapid City (now abandoned) passed to the south of Wall, through the Badlands. As of the 1956 Milwaukee timetable, passenger service on "The Sioux" from Chicago ended at Mitchell, SD, and a bus was provided to Rapid City.
When I was 10, I collected timetables.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
