copyright1997

Hi all - Long time flyer talk participant, but I only visit occasionally now that I'm retired. Anyway, I stumbled on this thread. I have an already existing reward reservation that I (a few weeks ago) changed to take the Silver Star northbound from Florida. There was NO MENTION at all about the diner being removed from the Silver Star from the rep nor was there anything in the reservation/ticket information.

Since reading this 20 or so minutes ago, I found the notice on the amtrak site in buried in the news/service alerts section, called amtrak rewards and confirmed that the train would not have diner service....and managed to change my northbound reservation to the Silver Meteor.

Being able to use a single zone reward between NY and FL has been my favorite way of using rewards points and has kept me a loyal Amtrak Master Card user. If this change goes into effect, it represents a major reduction in the value of the rewards program. (I confirmed that there was no reduction in the points required.)

What especially ticks me off is that no-one bothered to mention anything to me...if I hadn't stumbled upon this thread, I would have found out when I boarded the northbound train in July!

KDCAflyer

I really want this "experiment" to fail. I do not want to see dining cars being replaced with barely edible cafe food. If they expand this to the western LD routes, I'm done with sleeper travel altogether.

I definitely agree that the award ticket prices for the the Silver Star need to be reduced. Who in their right mind would pay the same number of points for an inferior product (assuming they have the choice)?

3Cforme

You're both being ridiculous. This is a minor reduction in an ancillary service - dinner, when sleeper transportation is the primary product. I wouldn't welcome it, either, but expectations of being notified and for award repricing are way over the top.

CMK10

That's a matter of opinion, isn't it? To me, the diner is almost as important as the sleeper. If I was on a 48 hour long distance trip I wouldn't want to eat microwaved, barely edible cafe food for two straight days.

copyright1997

Ridiculous? That's a mighty strong statement from someone who doesn't understand what I value in travel. Let's take my upcoming trip to Florida. I burning 15k points for a roomette each way for myself and my son, which is a good value. However, this is a one night trip, with at least four meals (NYP @ 11:02AM to FTL 5:17pm next day). I'd value the meals at at least $20/meal/person, so we are at $160 in value in terms of meals. That isn't trivial in terms of a $700-800 total spend. (Cost of seats for two plus roomette if it were paid for.) On top of this, it is more than the $ associated with the meal...it also is *different* to have a sit down meal, meet other people, and socialize as compared to paying for overpriced crappy food in the cafe car and bringing it back to your room to scarf down.

Look, you can't have it both ways. If it is "ancillary", then it doesn't cost them much. If it does cost them significant $ to provide, then taking it away should also mean *I* having to do less spend (in Amtrak travel or Amtrak MC spend) to achieve it.

Quite frankly, your attitude is pretty snarky. You can have your opinion, but I don't think the terms "ridiculous" and "way over the top" are exactly called for.

I know one thing. If the routes are permanently changed to remove diner car service for sleeper bookings, I will be very unlikely to continue using them. This is form someone who has done four of these Florida trips (including this one) and a cross country trip. Since I no longer travel for work (retired), I will be much more likely to just accumulate $ spend on my SPG Amex (and not transfer any points to Amtrak) and use my auto and/or airlines.

Armani

I totally agree. I take one long distance trip per year in a sleeper and the dining service is a key part of the experience. If my recent breakfast in the cafe car of the Cardinal is an indication of meal quality without a diner, I would not pay for a sleeper. The menu options were inedible. Each person at our table had a different menu item, and the cold cereal and yogurt was by far the best choice. A crepe, omelette and breakfast burrito were disgusting.

dilanesp

My best guess is that this reaction is one that Amtrak basically expects and is comfortable with.

Amtrak's numbers (i.e., the real numbers, not the ones that rail passenger advocacy groups throw around) show that sleepers and diners soak up the bulk of the subsidies that they receive. So if they ever want the railroad to lose less money, they have to figure out a way to run less sleepers and diners. And if that costs them customers who are probably recipients of large subsidies, that's not something they are going to lose sleep over. The ideal Amtrak for Amtrak management is probably one that still runs through all those congressional districts but which can stay viable even if the subsidies are cut. Reducing the number of sleepers and diners while maintaining long distance service would seem to be the route to get to that point.

AlanB

This is a false premise. One easily proved false using Amtrak's own numbers, not numbers from railfans or passenger advocacy groups.

In 2014 total Federal subsidies to Amtrak were $1.39 Billion. The total costs to operate all long distance trains, including the Palmetto with no sleepers was $1.072 Billion. And total revenue from all long distance trains was $564.2 Million.

That leaves a deficit of $529.6 Million; meaning that the entire long distance system coach & sleeper doesn't "soak up the bulk of the subsidies that they receive." The entire long distance system didn't even soak up half of the subsidies.

It is impossible to drill down further with the numbers provided by Amtrak to figure out how much of that loss is the result of sleepers, diners, or any other aspect of the long distance operation. But remember that many of the costs are fixed without regard to whether or not a sleeper or diner runs on the route. Costs like operating crews, stations, station personnel, waste removal, etc. And even some of the variable costs wouldn't vary too much with the loss of sleepers & diners; things like fuel and car maintenance.

NovaEngr

A clarification: the FY2015 $1.39 billion grant to Amtrak is for both subsidy of operations ($250 million) and capital improvements ($1.14 billion). The losses you quoted for long distance trains are only operating losses. The $530 million operating loss of the long distance trains is more than twice the federal operating subsidy. The balance of the long distance train losses is funded by the operating surplus of the NEC.

AlanB

Yes, this is true.

But the OP didn't specify operations vs. capital; he simply said that they "soak up the bulk of the subsidies that they receive", which would clearly indicate that he was talking about Amtrak's total subsidy.

AlanB

And as yet another data point, Amtrak's own studies ordered by Section 210 of PRIIA wouldn't all be recommending adding rooms to the Trans/Dorm cars, an extra sleeper to the Empire Builder, as well as a Cross Country Diner to the EB if those cars were "soaking up the bulk of the subsidies".

After all, the point of Section 210 of PRIIA is how to improve the bottom line performance of the trains; not how to lower it.

fairviewroad

Award repricing isn't going to happen for a limited duration experiment simply because Amtrak and AGR don't have the IT chops to handle it. You'd have to come up with a Silver Star only award, and for a short-term experiment that just isn't going to happen, fair or not. I suppose one could plead their case with AGR, but good luck with that.

As far as an expectation of being notified: Well, this change is currently the subject of an Amtrak Service Alert. That Service Alert is indicated with a logo on the Amtrak.com booking engine next to the train selection. Subtle, yes. But it's there. So if you book online and pay cash, you've technically been notified.

However, someone booking a sleeper with AGR points cannot, by definition, use the Amtrak.com website. It must be done over the phone with a live agent. And it's inexcusable for that live agent to fail to notify the customer that there is a Service Alert for the train they are booking.

dilanesp

It is entirely possible that some long distance trains do better than other ones. It is specifically possible that the Builder, which goes through North Dakota's oil boom country, could be doing well enough to justify a different strategy than the rest of the long distance trains.

However, certainly in general, Amtrak's OPERATING (so you don't complain about my choice of language) subsidies basically get soaked up by the sleepers and diners on most of the long distance routes.

The key point, however, is that Amtrak knows the real numbers. They would not be doing this cutback if sleeping cars and dining cars weren't huge money pits for them. No matter what they say, and certainly no matter what NARP and their ilk say, actions speak louder than words.

AlanB

Let's go look at the SW Chief to dispel this idea. The SWC took in $44.6 Million in revenue in 2014. Of that, $19.8 Million came from the sleepers. So put rather simply, the two sleepers on the train each earned Amtrak $9.9 Million in revenue.

That leaves $24.8 Million earned by the coaches in fare revenue. With 3 coaches, that means each coach netted Amtrak $8.3 Million in revenue.

So once again, sleepers cover their above the rails cost. Even with the cost of linens and the perks like free coffee & juice. Yes, diners lose money, as do the cafe cars. But sleeper's earn more money per car than coaches do.

And for the record, these are numbers direct from Amtrak. I took them directly from the September 2014 monthly report found on Amtrak's website. So unless Amtrak is lying to both Congress and We The People; this is the reality.

Amtrak is doing this because this is what some in Congress believe; not because it is true! Note that Amtrak cut the diner; not the sleepers!

ibrandsguest

Amtrak's operating subsidies certainly do not "basically get soaked up by the sleepers and diners on most of the long distance routes".

Railroad.net has detailed analyses of long distance trains' income and expenses, from PRIIA reports and otherwise. The infrastructure and supporting services necessary to run passenger trains, and even things such as insurance, account for a large portion of those trains' losses. Imagine running an airline, and paying for airports, if you just had 1 flight a day per airport; it would be a financial disaster no matter what class of service were offered. That's what Amtrak basically does with its long distance trains.

Yes, Amtrak's "actions speak louder than words". Amtrak just spent tens of millions of dollars ordering new sleeping and dining cars, even though Amfleet III coaches, which are the backbone of its long-distance fleet, are approaching retirement age. If the true numbers were as you say, Amtrak wouldn't have done that.