Passenger Trains > Wonderful Trip on "The Canadian"

We just returned from taking "The Canadian" from Winnipeg to Vancouver. It was a wonderful trip. Heavy freight interference caused us to be five hours late by the time we left Edmonton, and we missed some of the entrance to the Rockies because of darkness. However, we were rewarded the next morning with views of the Fraser River and its canyons that are in the dark when the train is on schedule.

Can anyone tell me why "The Canadian" experience is so dramatically different from that on Amtrak's long distance trains? Of course, the equipment's different, VIA Rail's system is smaller, and they may receive more government money, proportionally. However, VIA Rail goes out of its way to pamper its higher paying sleeper passengers (and bring them back). The diner meals were wonderful and the Park Car drinks, snacks and fruit were always available. Amtrak seems to do everything "on the cheap" and appears to try ignore the significantly higher fares of sleeper car passengers.

Amtrak simply cannot manage details, standardize service delivery, and effectively condones surly behavior, be it from station ushers or coach attendants.

VIA gives the lie to the commonly-held view here on TO that Amtrak's troubles are due to its government support or its being unionized.

It's also worth remembering that VIA has eliminated most of its service over the years--when it started there was double daily transcontinental service and many feeder lines.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/14 17:22 by Ptolemy.

Via runs only a third or less of what Amtrak runs so thus it is easier to provide great service.


Chris

Amtrak has slashed long distance routes in many iterations since 1979. That has never lead to better customer service, and likely made it worse. Is the CZ better run with the Pioneer and Desert Wind gone, as well as consist cut ? No it is not.

Posted from Android

VIA vs. Amtrak, no comparison. However, VIA lost all credibility when they 1.) Gave up the CP Rail route, and 2.) Went less than daily frequency for the Canadian.

I did not mean to suggest that reduced service on VIA meant there should be better on-board service. I just meant to point out that VIA is just a shadow of what it was when it was founded in 1978, and the Canadian has wonderful service, but most places have no service. Amtrak has cut some LD trains--and this should not have happened--but most trains that were in place in 1971 are still operating, and many routes have more service than they did at that time.

Because it is so difficult for Amtrak to fire incompetent, rude, or lazy terminal maintenance and on board employees.

mp51w Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> VIA vs. Amtrak, no comparison. However, VIA lost
> all credibility when they 1.) Gave up the CP Rail
> route, and 2.) Went less than daily frequency for
> the Canadian.


Not only that, having those cuts, especially the ones back in 1990!

UP951West Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because it is so difficult for Amtrak to fire
> incompetent, rude, or lazy terminal maintenance
> and on board employees.

If they had any backbone at all, they could do it. The files on some of these useless employees (and we all know of at least one if not many) have to be a mile thick. And they are not letters of compliment.

VIA on board staff are also union. So probably equally difficult to dismiss. So that can't be the difference? So what is it? Better screening when hiring? Canadian culture of better service? Ethnic make up of staff? Better management? I honestly don't know. One thought that does come to mind. In peak season (as was the case with your trip, there are many Summer only staff made up of temporary younger people. Perhaps they are more eager to please than their full time counterparts. Any thoughts?

Frankly, the difference I saw was not necessarily a "people" issue. Our Park Car attendant was very pleasant and hard working but I've encountered many similar Amtrak employees. To me, VIA management simply has a better attitude toward its higher paying customers, and applies resources as if it wants them to have a favorable experience and come back again.

Posted from Android

WETSU Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ............................. To me, VIA
> management simply has a better attitude toward its
> higher paying customers, and applies resources as
> if it wants them to have a favorable experience
> and come back again.

And it’s not just for the higher paying sleeper passengers.

Service Manger upon entering a coach: “Hi folks....plenty of room so spread out and make yourself comfortable. If I need space later I might have to ask you to move”

Until around 1980, many Amtrak coach attendants I encountered were law school grad students. They were polite, courteous considerate, and intelligent. Now their replacements simply order you where to sit because "there are families getting on down the line" (Translation: "I want 1/3rd of the car to myself").

So it is managerial problem at Amtrak of poor screening, inability to manage details, apathy, and victim-mentality. If you think the latter is induced by our House of Rep, try the one in the Great White North run by PM Harper. That is not a valid excuse. VIA does it better with their people and with 60 year old Budd equipment.

< VIA vs. Amtrak, no comparison. However, VIA lost all credibility when they 1.) Gave up the CP Rail route, and 2.) >

I don't know if I agree with that. IMO, the North Coast Hiawatha and Pioneer had longer lasting daytime and therefore better, scenery, than the Empire Builder, and Glacier Park westbound is totally after dark.

If only those pesky union members would disappear, Amtrak and America would be so much better. Right?
Union membership has been on the decline since 1979. We can all see the country benefiting from this. Right?
The rich are getting richer, the middle class is disappearing. Think there's a correlation?

I've been a union member in transportation companies all my adult life. The companies I've worked for
provide impeccable customer service to this day. And they're union to this day.

If a company has service issues, lay the blame at the top down, not the bottom up.

Flame away..........

rfprr

rfprr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If only those pesky union members would disappear,
> Amtrak and America would be so much better.
> Right?
> Union membership has been on the decline since
> 1979. We can all see the country benefiting from
> this. Right?
> The rich are getting richer, the middle class is
> disappearing. Think there's a correlation?
>
> I've been a union member in transportation
> companies all my adult life. The companies I've
> worked for
> provide impeccable customer service to this day.
> And they're union to this day.
>
> If a company has service issues, lay the blame at
> the top down, not the bottom up.
>
> Flame away..........
>
> rfprr

We know that unions are not the issue regarding Amtrak service, in part because VIA is also unionized. We also know that something went desperately wrong with Amtrak customer service in its early years, as long-time railroad employees retired and were replaced with Amtrak hires. I can suggest two issues: the airline model that Amtrak adopted, which also manifested itself in an end-point mentality, as well as the standardizing of equipment and menus, an attempt to eliminate all train names, and hiring an airline president as the first president of Amtrak. The second thing is training. In the 1980s one of the last active Pullman porters told me that he got two weeks' training; Amtrak gave new OBS people one day. This may be exaggerated but is demonstrable of the problem.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/14 08:39 by Ptolemy.

rfprr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If only those pesky union members would disappear,
> Amtrak and America would be so much better.
> Right?
> Union membership has been on the decline since
> 1979. We can all see the country benefiting from
> this. Right?
> The rich are getting richer, the middle class is
> disappearing. Think there's a correlation?
>
> I've been a union member in transportation
> companies all my adult life. The companies I've
> worked for
> provide impeccable customer service to this day.
> And they're union to this day.
>
> If a company has service issues, lay the blame at
> the top down, not the bottom up.
>
> Flame away..........
>
> rfprr


I agree, it is a top down situation. The argument that the system is too big can be invalidated with one example--Chik-fil-a has 10 time the total number of employees that Amtrak has, yet tell me the last time one of their employees has not said "it's my pleasure" when you thank them or told them you're welcome.

These are the results from a company having an effective corporate training policy and enforcing it. Amtrak obviously does not have an effective training program and does not follow up with enforcing what meager training they do provide.

I was going to state that another issue is that a political organization such as Amtrak can not have corporate pride--too much turnover at the top and focus on developing fiefdoms seem to prevail, However, VIA is just as much of a political animal as Amtrak. May be the difference of the structure of government agencies between the two countries.

Jay

There is such a thing as learning on the job. Did the law school students Amtrak hired out in the 1970's get a whole lot of training ? Be nice to have them back, but most must be nearing retirement age, or are Partners now and forget they ever worked for Amtrak.

Today, management does not spend much time screening, and they are awake even less.

rfprr, you're exactly right. It doesn't matter if the workforce is unionized or not. If the management fails to manage properly, the result will be poor.

Mudrock, I've liked a lot of your posts, but your opinion on this subject is beneath contempt.