Cost of a roomette - are they kidding?

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have been writing that all along if anyone is reading it? I would bet that many long distance trains hauled at least 5 sleepers, and some were all sleepers.
Need more cars- more cars means more money. Which means raising prices or getting Congress to throw more money at them.
 
I have been writing that all along if anyone is reading it? I would bet that many long distance trains hauled at least 5 sleepers, and some were all sleepers.
Need more cars- more cars means more money. Which means raising prices or getting Congress to throw more money at them.
I swore I wouldn't prolong this discussion however I changed my mind again.. I thought we were supposed to be running a national rail passenger system. How else can we run it if we don't spend any money on it.. It seems to prove that some just don't get it.. We took over a passenger system where the common thing was to run consist that were easy twice to three times as long as currently run.. We have chosen to run it on a shoe string, or no string at all for way too long. That is why we don't have cars that should never have been discontinued in the first place. Of course to maintain and expand it as is so plainly necessary today we will have to throw more money at it.. Remember the amount thrown is about one 40th the highway budget and no one questions that..
 
the Govt. shouldn't be subsidizing sleepers. If you can afford to have a sleeper you shouldn't need the govt. subsidy.
One of the issues mentioned in the presidential debate this evening was the money we're borrowing from China so that we can buy foreign oil. I believe that's a problem that affects all Americans, and that we ought to have sleepers available on electric trains that are available at prices that are no more expensive than an airplane ticket for the same distance, since I'm really not sure how we can continue to fuel air transportation without importing oil unless the demand for air transportation and automobile transportation declines dramatically.
 
the Govt. shouldn't be subsidizing sleepers. If you can afford to have a sleeper you shouldn't need the govt. subsidy.
One of the issues mentioned in the presidential debate this evening was the money we're borrowing from China so that we can buy foreign oil. I believe that's a problem that affects all Americans, and that we ought to have sleepers available on electric trains that are available at prices that are no more expensive than an airplane ticket for the same distance, since I'm really not sure how we can continue to fuel air transportation without importing oil unless the demand for air transportation and automobile transportation declines dramatically.
Sleepers are the NEC? Are you kidding me? First class service, sure, BC, of course... but sleepers... nah uh.

Wouldn't those be put to better use... everywhere else in the country?
 
the Govt. shouldn't be subsidizing sleepers. If you can afford to have a sleeper you shouldn't need the govt. subsidy.
One of the issues mentioned in the presidential debate this evening was the money we're borrowing from China so that we can buy foreign oil. I believe that's a problem that affects all Americans, and that we ought to have sleepers available on electric trains that are available at prices that are no more expensive than an airplane ticket for the same distance, since I'm really not sure how we can continue to fuel air transportation without importing oil unless the demand for air transportation and automobile transportation declines dramatically.
Sleepers are the NEC? Are you kidding me? First class service, sure, BC, of course... but sleepers... nah uh.

Wouldn't those be put to better use... everywhere else in the country?
To really put a dent in foreign oil consumption, we'd be talking about electrifying tracks outside of the NEC. If it were possible to take sleepers on a fully electrified route from, say, BOS to LAX, I absolutely would not want there to be an economic incentive to the individual traveler to prefer a coach airplane seat over a sleeper; providing the extra comforts of the sleeper is necessary to convince the average traveler to put up with the longer travel time.

On the other hand, until we build some true high speed track that isn't full of curves, sleepers on #66/#67 (if we had a vastly larger supply of rolling stock than we do today) may be an option that some would find a lot more appealing than Acela First Class when they're trying to decide whether to take the airplane or the train from BOS to WAS.

Amtrak's current budget is not even 1% of what it needs to be if we want to seriously reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
 
the Govt. shouldn't be subsidizing sleepers. If you can afford to have a sleeper you shouldn't need the govt. subsidy.
One of the issues mentioned in the presidential debate this evening was the money we're borrowing from China so that we can buy foreign oil. I believe that's a problem that affects all Americans, and that we ought to have sleepers available on electric trains that are available at prices that are no more expensive than an airplane ticket for the same distance, since I'm really not sure how we can continue to fuel air transportation without importing oil unless the demand for air transportation and automobile transportation declines dramatically.
Sleepers are the NEC? Are you kidding me? First class service, sure, BC, of course... but sleepers... nah uh.

Wouldn't those be put to better use... everywhere else in the country?
To really put a dent in foreign oil consumption, we'd be talking about electrifying tracks outside of the NEC. If it were possible to take sleepers on a fully electrified route from, say, BOS to LAX, I absolutely would not want there to be an economic incentive to the individual traveler to prefer a coach airplane seat over a sleeper; providing the extra comforts of the sleeper is necessary to convince the average traveler to put up with the longer travel time.

On the other hand, until we build some true high speed track that isn't full of curves, sleepers on #66/#67 (if we had a vastly larger supply of rolling stock than we do today) may be an option that some would find a lot more appealing than Acela First Class when they're trying to decide whether to take the airplane or the train from BOS to WAS.

Amtrak's current budget is not even 1% of what it needs to be if we want to seriously reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
I don't think that Amtrak could ever put a dent in foreign oil consumption... we'd half to give them a few hundred billion and it would take about a half a century, and the electric power would have to come from "clean" sources...

I don't think we're going to do that. Sorry.
 
I don't think that Amtrak could ever put a dent in foreign oil consumption... we'd half to give them a few hundred billion and it would take about a half a century, and the electric power would have to come from "clean" sources...
If your goal is merely to eliminate foreign oil consumption, you actually don't need ``clean'' sources of electricity. On the other hand, I do think the United States ought to build about 5,000 copies of Cape Wind, and I think when you consider the labor savings of not having to manually bring fuel to wind farms the way fuel needs to be brought to a coal plant, wind might actually be cheaper in the long run in addition to being cleaner. Also, building those wind farms would reduce the amount of coal on the freight tracks, freeing up some capacity to move some other goods off the highways.

I was thinking a trillion or three in intercity rail construction would actually be a lot better, and would make it possible to have all the 1.6 million+ primary census areas be a part of a national high speed rail system. If we diverted half our present military spending (an awful lot of which seems to be spent fighting wars in countries that seem to have a lot of oil, oddly enough) to intercity rail, we'd be able to spend that money within a decade. If California thinks they can convert money into high speed railroad tracks in well under 20 years, why would you think the process would take 2-3 times as long in the rest of the country?
 
the Govt. shouldn't be subsidizing sleepers. If you can afford to have a sleeper you shouldn't need the govt. subsidy.
One of the issues mentioned in the presidential debate this evening was the money we're borrowing from China so that we can buy foreign oil. I believe that's a problem that affects all Americans, and that we ought to have sleepers available on electric trains that are available at prices that are no more expensive than an airplane ticket for the same distance, since I'm really not sure how we can continue to fuel air transportation without importing oil unless the demand for air transportation and automobile transportation declines dramatically.
Sleepers are the NEC? Are you kidding me? First class service, sure, BC, of course... but sleepers... nah uh.

Wouldn't those be put to better use... everywhere else in the country?
Sleepers on the NEC used to be quite successful, at least on trains 66/67. I don't think that I ever took a ride on that train in the sleeper where 90% of the rooms were sold. I seem to recall reading somewhere once, back when the Twilight Shoreliner still had a sleeper, that Amtrak averaged around an 80 to 85% occupancy rate.

I'd bet that it would be even higher today with the inreased fuel costs, the hassles to ride a plane, and the nickle and dime affair that planes have become now.

This would be very attractive to business people now, board a sleeper at 9:00 PM in Boston, wake up in DC in the morning take a quick shower and head to your meeting. No hotel required, no removing your shoes, and no TSA hassles.
 
the Govt. shouldn't be subsidizing sleepers. If you can afford to have a sleeper you shouldn't need the govt. subsidy.
One of the issues mentioned in the presidential debate this evening was the money we're borrowing from China so that we can buy foreign oil. I believe that's a problem that affects all Americans, and that we ought to have sleepers available on electric trains that are available at prices that are no more expensive than an airplane ticket for the same distance, since I'm really not sure how we can continue to fuel air transportation without importing oil unless the demand for air transportation and automobile transportation declines dramatically.
Sleepers are the NEC? Are you kidding me? First class service, sure, BC, of course... but sleepers... nah uh.

Wouldn't those be put to better use... everywhere else in the country?
Consider your time as unequal. The time you spend asleep is not as valuble as the time you spend awake. So instead of spending 6:30 minutes on an Acela from Washington to Boston, awake, you go to the Thunder Grill in WUS, have a nice dinner, and board the Twilight Shoreliner at 8:25. You have a night cap, and perhaps some cheese and crackers. Go to your roomette, settle into bed, and fall asleep. You wake up at 6:30, shower, dress, and eat breakfast. Arriving in Boston at 7:52.

Where would you have spent that time of day? Sleeping in your bed at home. Now you are sleeping in the bed on the train. I admit it isn't your own bed, but so what?

The 9 hours that takes are less valuable to you than the 6:30 of waking hours the Acela takes.

Sleepers are better than high speed trains when the journey can be completed almost entirely overnight.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If $206 is the accommodation upgrade price, then it covers all people staying in that accommodation. In other words, for a roomette, it would be $206 total for two people.
Amtrak doesn't agree.
You are being charged the accommodation upgrade price, per person?

One roomette should be one accommodation upgrade charge.
 
...This would be very attractive to business people now, board a sleeper at 9:00 PM in Boston, wake up in DC in the morning take a quick shower and head to your meeting. No hotel required, no removing your shoes, and no TSA hassles.
You sleep on Amtrak with your shoes on? :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
the Govt. shouldn't be subsidizing sleepers. If you can afford to have a sleeper you shouldn't need the govt. subsidy.
One of the issues mentioned in the presidential debate this evening was the money we're borrowing from China so that we can buy foreign oil. I believe that's a problem that affects all Americans, and that we ought to have sleepers available on electric trains that are available at prices that are no more expensive than an airplane ticket for the same distance, since I'm really not sure how we can continue to fuel air transportation without importing oil unless the demand for air transportation and automobile transportation declines dramatically.
Sleepers are the NEC? Are you kidding me? First class service, sure, BC, of course... but sleepers... nah uh.

Wouldn't those be put to better use... everywhere else in the country?
Consider your time as unequal. The time you spend asleep is not as valuble as the time you spend awake. So instead of spending 6:30 minutes on an Acela from Washington to Boston, awake, you go to the Thunder Grill in WUS, have a nice dinner, and board the Twilight Shoreliner at 8:25. You have a night cap, and perhaps some cheese and crackers. Go to your roomette, settle into bed, and fall asleep. You wake up at 6:30, shower, dress, and eat breakfast. Arriving in Boston at 7:52.

Where would you have spent that time of day? Sleeping in your bed at home. Now you are sleeping in the bed on the train. I admit it isn't your own bed, but so what?

The 9 hours that takes are less valuable to you than the 6:30 of waking hours the Acela takes.

Sleepers are better than high speed trains when the journey can be completed almost entirely overnight.
You're taking it awful slow to go from BOS to WAS and that's the problem. Consider:

Most people going between the two are on business of some sort. They have reports to file, emails to send, charts to make, copies done, all of which is completely pointless in attempting on a train... Not to mention thats nice for the people in BOS, but what about the people en route? We're talking about getting into NYP around, what? Between midnight and 2AM? Newark, Trenton, and every city in between gets on somewhere in the middle of the night.

Not practical, at all. Only for the people in BOS going to WAS. If you got on or off in between those two stations you're screwed.
 
If $206 is the accommodation upgrade price, then it covers all people staying in that accommodation. In other words, for a roomette, it would be $206 total for two people.
Amtrak doesn't agree.
You are being charged the accommodation upgrade price, per person?

One roomette should be one accommodation upgrade charge.
You should have read more than the first three words: "Amtrak doesn't agree. They charge per passenger in addition to the accommodation charge." Accommodation + per person charge (ie. coach fare).
 
If $206 is the accommodation upgrade price, then it covers all people staying in that accommodation. In other words, for a roomette, it would be $206 total for two people.
Amtrak doesn't agree.
You are being charged the accommodation upgrade price, per person?

One roomette should be one accommodation upgrade charge.
You should have read more than the first three words: "Amtrak doesn't agree. They charge per passenger in addition to the accommodation charge." Accommodation + per person charge (ie. coach fare).
Not withstanding something I might have missed from an earlier post, and presuming that the upgrade occurs on board, the rail fares have already been paid and the accom upgrade charge is singular and not per passenger. I've never seen an accomodation charge showing on the second persons ticket including the tickets I have before me as I type this message.
 
Most people going between the two are on business of some sort. They have reports to file, emails to send, charts to make, copies done, all of which is completely pointless in attempting on a train... Not to mention thats nice for the people in BOS, but what about the people en route? We're talking about getting into NYP around, what? Between midnight and 2AM? Newark, Trenton, and every city in between gets on somewhere in the middle of the night.
Not practical, at all. Only for the people in BOS going to WAS. If you got on or off in between those two stations you're screwed.
How about {BOS,PVD,NHV} - {BAL, WAS}? 66/67, with the current schedule, but with sleepers, would be plenty useful on those pairs. Another option would be to run four sloooowww sleepers from NYP (to WAS and BOS and back). One could also have sleeper cars waiting in NYP that could be boarded at 10pm or so and which would be connected to 66/67 at 2AM (66/67 stop for at least an hour at NYP.) Amtrak did this in the past, with the Executive Sleeper NYP-WAS trains.

Many years back my dad took the Twilight Shoreliner from the NYC area to WAS. To make it work he got a ride to STM (or NHV) and boarded there. :)

As far as working on the train, I'm more productive on the train than pretty much anywhere else. Modern wireless communications allows email to be sent from the train. Notebook computers can be used to create reports and charts. Much of my dissertation was written while I was on train 141.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're taking it awful slow to go from BOS to WAS and that's the problem. Consider:
Most people going between the two are on business of some sort. They have reports to file, emails to send, charts to make, copies done, all of which is completely pointless in attempting on a train... Not to mention thats nice for the people in BOS, but what about the people en route? We're talking about getting into NYP around, what? Between midnight and 2AM? Newark, Trenton, and every city in between gets on somewhere in the middle of the night.

Not practical, at all. Only for the people in BOS going to WAS. If you got on or off in between those two stations you're screwed.
Didn't the Night Owl drop off a sleeper at Penn Station? Where passengers could sleep till 6-7 a.m.?

IIRC the sleepers were slumbercoaches. I'm not sure that a Night Owl would work well with a Viewliner.

I read an article that claimed that sleepers from Paris to the south of France are better than the TGV because you don't waste a day each way in transit.
 
Just took the 5 & 6, sleepers completely sold out almost the whole trip. So they are getting their money--people were even bunked in the transition car.
 
IIRC the sleepers were slumbercoaches. I'm not sure that a Night Owl would work well with a Viewliner.
I read an article that claimed that sleepers from Paris to the south of France are better than the TGV because you don't waste a day each way in transit.
Why wouldn't a Viewliner work? If you believe Wikipedia the problem Amtrak had was that the pipes would freeze (I guess when the car sat at South Station during the day). I'm sure that could be fixed. I imagine most riders would be alone, but that shouldn't be too big a deal. A $300 one-way walk-up fare would be reasonable (less than the shuttle, about as much as full-price Acela Express 1st class).

Unless the ride is less than three hours or so, a sleeper can almost always have better timing (just go slowly). Even if the Acela Express had a 2 hour NYP-WAS trip time, it would still not be great for day trips. Get up at 5AM, take a 6AM train, arrive a bit before 9AM (after a taxi ride), take a 6PM train, get home at 8:30 or 9. Works, but not too nice in the morning. Getting to NYP at 11PM and arriving at 7AM leaves much more time in WAS and would provide for a much less stressful trip.

Amtrak could even put showers in WAS, NYP, and BOS so that roomette pax could get more sleep and wouldn't have to share access to the on-board shower.

Sleepers also have a built-in economic advantage in that they save many riders a night's hotel stay.
 
Most people going between the two are on business of some sort. They have reports to file, emails to send, charts to make, copies done, all of which is completely pointless in attempting on a train... Not to mention thats nice for the people in BOS, but what about the people en route? We're talking about getting into NYP around, what? Between midnight and 2AM? Newark, Trenton, and every city in between gets on somewhere in the middle of the night.
As far as working on the train, I'm more productive on the train than pretty much anywhere else. Modern wireless communications allows email to be sent from the train. Notebook computers can be used to create reports and charts. Much of my dissertation was written while I was on train 141.
Agreed. About the only thing I can't do on the train is make copies, not that I have much need for that anyhow. As I type this reply I'm on the Lake Shore Limited coming home.
 
Most people going between the two are on business of some sort. They have reports to file, emails to send, charts to make, copies done, all of which is completely pointless in attempting on a train... Not to mention thats nice for the people in BOS, but what about the people en route? We're talking about getting into NYP around, what? Between midnight and 2AM? Newark, Trenton, and every city in between gets on somewhere in the middle of the night.
As far as working on the train, I'm more productive on the train than pretty much anywhere else. Modern wireless communications allows email to be sent from the train. Notebook computers can be used to create reports and charts. Much of my dissertation was written while I was on train 141.
Agreed. About the only thing I can't do on the train is make copies, not that I have much need for that anyhow. As I type this reply I'm on the Lake Shore Limited coming home.
they'd have to leave early enough in BOS to pick up passengers at NYP at a reasonable hour- then go slow as possible through onto DC. You simply can't ignore NYC if you would want a route like this. I also venture to say that you'd need new cars too- suited for the business class passenger. No family bedrooms, just roomettes and bedrooms. As for the roomettes- many of these people are singles. Could there be a roomette option with just one bunk?

Either way, arguing this seems pointless.
 
they'd have to leave early enough in BOS to pick up passengers at NYP at a reasonable hour- then go slow as possible through onto DC. You simply can't ignore NYC if you would want a route like this. I also venture to say that you'd need new cars too- suited for the business class passenger. No family bedrooms, just roomettes and bedrooms. As for the roomettes- many of these people are singles. Could there be a roomette option with just one bunk?
The point of the overnight train is to service Boston and DC, not NYC. NYC to either BOS or WAS is basically a reasonable distance to travel in reasonable amount of time. Now perhaps if Amtrak returned the setout sleeper to NYC, it might make some sense for the business traveler. But running slow so as to not arrive too early isn't practical.

Back when Amtrak ran the sleeper on 66/67 it's market as mentioned was Boston and DC, and as I mentioned earlier, that lone sleeper car ran pretty full most times. So it was a hit and I'm certain it would be a hit once again if they were to ever return the sleeer to the overnight run.

As for the type of bedrooms, remember that they have to use the single level Viewliners on this route. There are no family rooms, only bedrooms and roomettes. If such a service were to show up elsewhere, then one might well see a family room in the car. I'm not sure that it would make sense to eliminate it, as you're just making more work for the builder to change things.
 
they'd have to leave early enough in BOS to pick up passengers at NYP at a reasonable hour- then go slow as possible through onto DC. You simply can't ignore NYC if you would want a route like this. I also venture to say that you'd need new cars too- suited for the business class passenger. No family bedrooms, just roomettes and bedrooms. As for the roomettes- many of these people are singles. Could there be a roomette option with just one bunk?
The point of the overnight train is to service Boston and DC, not NYC. NYC to either BOS or WAS is basically a reasonable distance to travel in reasonable amount of time. Now perhaps if Amtrak returned the setout sleeper to NYC, it might make some sense for the business traveler. But running slow so as to not arrive too early isn't practical.

Back when Amtrak ran the sleeper on 66/67 it's market as mentioned was Boston and DC, and as I mentioned earlier, that lone sleeper car ran pretty full most times. So it was a hit and I'm certain it would be a hit once again if they were to ever return the sleeer to the overnight run.

As for the type of bedrooms, remember that they have to use the single level Viewliners on this route. There are no family rooms, only bedrooms and roomettes. If such a service were to show up elsewhere, then one might well see a family room in the car. I'm not sure that it would make sense to eliminate it, as you're just making more work for the builder to change things.
I still say you're missing out on a lot of revenue by ignoring New York businessmen. But current service is somewhat okay, the earliest train of the day and latest train of the day are good enough if you have only a couple quick meetings.
 
Sleepers on the NEC used to be quite successful, at least on trains 66/67. I don't think that I ever took a ride on that train in the sleeper where 90% of the rooms were sold. I seem to recall reading somewhere once, back when the Twilight Shoreliner still had a sleeper, that Amtrak averaged around an 80 to 85% occupancy rate.
I'd bet that it would be even higher today with the inreased fuel costs, the hassles to ride a plane, and the nickle and dime affair that planes have become now.
The occupancy rate can be adjusted by adjusting the fares. An 80% occupancy rate might imply that the fares are too low, or that Amtrak decided they wanted roomettes to be available to walk-up customers on the day of departure, and not a lack of interest in the service.
 
Sleepers on the NEC used to be quite successful, at least on trains 66/67. I don't think that I ever took a ride on that train in the sleeper where 90% of the rooms were sold. I seem to recall reading somewhere once, back when the Twilight Shoreliner still had a sleeper, that Amtrak averaged around an 80 to 85% occupancy rate.
I'd bet that it would be even higher today with the inreased fuel costs, the hassles to ride a plane, and the nickle and dime affair that planes have become now.
The occupancy rate can be adjusted by adjusting the fares. An 80% occupancy rate might imply that the fares are too low, or that Amtrak decided they wanted roomettes to be available to walk-up customers on the day of departure, and not a lack of interest in the service.
I never suggested that there was a lack of interest in this service. To my knowledge it was very popular when it ran, and that was before the price of gas went up, the costs of flights, and even some of the newer TSA security measures at the airport.

This service was discontinued because of equipment shortages, not because of lack of ridership.
 
Most people going between the two are on business of some sort. They have reports to file, emails to send, charts to make, copies done, all of which is completely pointless in attempting on a train... Not to mention thats nice for the people in BOS, but what about the people en route? We're talking about getting into NYP around, what? Between midnight and 2AM? Newark, Trenton, and every city in between gets on somewhere in the middle of the night.
As far as working on the train, I'm more productive on the train than pretty much anywhere else. Modern wireless communications allows email to be sent from the train. Notebook computers can be used to create reports and charts. Much of my dissertation was written while I was on train 141.
Agreed. About the only thing I can't do on the train is make copies, not that I have much need for that anyhow. As I type this reply I'm on the Lake Shore Limited coming home.
they'd have to leave early enough in BOS to pick up passengers at NYP at a reasonable hour- then go slow as possible through onto DC. You simply can't ignore NYC if you would want a route like this. I also venture to say that you'd need new cars too- suited for the business class passenger. No family bedrooms, just roomettes and bedrooms. As for the roomettes- many of these people are singles. Could there be a roomette option with just one bunk?

Either way, arguing this seems pointless.
One idea I've harbored for when I have lots of seed money is to start a new Pullman company and start running a lot of set out sleepers.

Whats a set out sleeper?

Its a sleeper that is left in a place, and picked up by a train as it passes through. If I was running this service, and had 50+ sleepers I converted from Amfleets or Comets, or whatever, I could have train 66 leaving Boston with two sleepers, picking up two more in New Haven, dropping one of the New Haven and Boston sleepers off in New York, picking up a sleeper in New York, another in Philly, and arriving in Washington with the various sleepers. There, I pick up the whole market.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top