Why doesn't Amtrak advertise stopovers more?

[jebr]

One very nice thing about Amtrak, at least on the corridor services, is the 23.5 hour stopover rule. Essentially, as long as it's ticketed as such in advance, someone can make an unlimited number of stops between point A and point B as long as they're less than 23.5 hours each and only pay the through fare. I do think it defaults to the bucket of the most expensive leg of the trip, but other than that it can save quite a bit of money if someone wants to see a city for a day on their way to a destination, meet up with a friend for a few hours, or just take a break from traveling for a bit. I did it in October on the NEC, going WAS - PHL - NYP - BOS for $79, the same cost as going straight through WAS - BOS. I was able to see PHL for the day and spend an evening in NYP on my way to BOS, which was really nice. I'm also planning on doing it next month, stopping in MKE for a few hours before heading home on the Builder. For the same price as taking the Builder straight through from CHI to SCD, I'm going up on a Hiawatha to MKE that morning, meeting up with a friend for a few hours, and finishing my trip to SCD that afternoon.

To me, it's a huge competitive advantage for Amtrak. Most stops are in or near city centers, so tourist sites and landmarks are usually pretty easy to access. There's also typically no security lines, so compared to airlines you're not wasting a few hours of the layover leaving and re-entering security. I'm not even sure if airlines offer something comparable, though they might. I don't think Megabus, Greyhound, or any of the major bus companies do something similar, at least to the extent the Amtrak multi-city tool lets you (where you can choose what train and how long of a layover you want at specific stations of your choosing.) In fact, it's a major reason why I chose Amtrak both last month and next month...the ability to stop over offers enough added value that other transportation modes become a bit less appealing (as the same stopover would cost me two full tickets on other modes, versus one on Amtrak.)

Why doesn't Amtrak advertise this option more, and possibly even expand it on the long distance trains to 48 or 72 hours? Maybe I'm just an edge case that finds this option really useful, but I wouldn't be surprised if Amtrak could advertise it and get more business that way.

 

[Train2104]

It's not the Y fare, but the prevailing bucket.

 

[Anderson]

You're reminding me of UP's inclusion of a side-trip to the Boulder Dam on any trip from the Midwest to Los Angeles. I have to wonder how much business Amtrak might drum up if they advertised something like this to the Grand Canyon (either via GCRR or Flagstaff).

Part of the problem is that, with few exceptions, LD routes don't have "internal" options for something like this since the trains are once-a-day...so a day at Glacier Park, in Salt Lake City or Denver, or at the Grand Canyon doesn't work. You do get something like this in New Orleans, and it might do Amtrak some credit to allow next-day connections in Chicago as a matter of practice: It would make MSP-CHI-DAL (for example) a legal connection, it would ease coping with lousy OTP (you wouldn't have to engage in antics with split tickets and the like), and they could probably get a decent arrangement with 2-3 hotels in the city to host the stopovers. Los Angeles and Seattle might also be good for something like this, and New York and Washington almost assuredly would be as well.

 

[andersone]

how quickly we forget,, places like Wunderland (Yellowstone) Glacier, Grand Canyon were the forte of our forbearers. Imagine no Many Glacier, Old Faithful Inn or El Tovar because the RR Moguls didn't have the vision to see their attraction,,,

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

After watching several seasons of Hell On Wheels, I don't think the RR Moguls cared about such attractions.

 

[neroden]

You do get something like this in New Orleans, and it might do Amtrak some credit to allow next-day connections in Chicago as a matter of practice:

Amtrak will give you a guaranteed next-day connection in Chicago if you decide to schedule it that way rather than as a same-day. I've done it a gazillion times. You're right, it should be more widely and prominently advertised.
Works at Chicago and Los Angeles pretty well. It's a pity you can't do so when you're taking the same train out (such as at Denver), though; the way Amtrak's pricing works, stopping over in Denver adds a large amount to the fare.

This is simply an error in the pricing system. There shouldn't be such large discounts for going further that a stopover becomes uneconomical. I've said before that Amtrak needs to reduce their discounts on extra-long trips; Chicago-Sacramento should cost the same as Chicago-Denver + Denver-Sacramento, but it doesn't. It's one thing to jack up the prices for Chicago-Galesburg on CZ in an attempt to get people to take the Quincy trains instead of the long-distance trains, but this pricing anomaly has no such excuse. It's just a subsidy for the people who travel farthest.

Denver even has a hotel IN THE TRAIN STATION, which would make this even more attractive if the pricing were set up correctly.

 

[PVD]

You are spot on, although spending the night in the Crawford in Denver, while a beautiful place, is very expensive. Maybe they could set up and sell a mini package.

 

[neroden]

Yeah... I might spring for the Crawford because I'd feel I was *getting something* for it. And there are multiple other hotels within a long walking distance or a short bus ride.

But I don't like to feel like I'm getting gouged on the ticket price for no reason. It really is much more expensive to buy a roomette CHI-DEN + DEN-SAC than to buy CHI-SAC.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

... how much business Amtrak might drum up if they advertised something like this ...

Part of the problem is that, with few exceptions, LD routes don't have "internal" options for something like this since the trains are once-a-day...so a day at Glacier Park, in Salt Lake City or Denver, or at the Grand Canyon doesn't work.

...

Why not tweak the rule? Allow stop-overs of, say, 25 hours instead of 23 1/2 hours. Or allow a 50 hour stop-over for an additional $25, or even $50. Then advertise the feature.

Advertise the feature in any case. Make an ad about it, replace the one about land cruises in the current set. (I hate giving ammunition to the haters who claim that the LD routes are only land cruises for the rich.)

It's a niche market, but a riche niche.

And sweet for many tourists: Chicago-Springfield (do the Lincoln stuff)-St Louis. How about NYC-Buffalo-Niagara Falls-Chicago? Tweak the rule and add: Dallas-Ft Worth-Austin-San Antonio, that's a good chunk of Texas. nd New Orleans-Memphis-Chicago.

You could sell Chicago-Dearborn (the Henry Ford museum)-Detroit. Yeah, some people are into disaster porn, if they think it's safe to view it. (It will be safer when the Light Rail runs down Woodward Avenue: Amtrak station-Detroit Institute of Arts-Downtown, by 2018, isn't it?) Chicago-Toledo-Cleveland-Pittsburgh-D.C. (Of course, Cleveland has the worst hours in the whole dayum system). But look, Art Institute of Chicago, the Toledo Museum of Art (very much off the beaten path but a great collection), the Cleveland Museum of Fine Arts, the National Gallery.

We often forget that art museums have fans. Millions of casual visitors as well as super serious members of the art cult. In NYC the Metropolitan Museum of Art outdraws the Mets MLB team. So marketing museum stop-overs could find a sweet spot in the market. Nobody is going to fly NYC or Philly to Cleveland then Toledo to Chicago. Anybody could take the train to visit these shrines.

Redoing the land cruise ad:

"We've done the British Museum, visited the Louvre, seen Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel. Now we're getting our art in America. Grant Wood's American Gothic in Chicago, the glass art and the Rubens masterpiece in Toledo, and in Cleveland, Boticelli's Virgin and Child with the Young John the Baptist. Amtrak lets us make stop-overs to spend a day at each city's museum for the same fare as riding non-stop to Chicago."

But while waiting for the rule to be tweaked, Amtrak should advertise stop-overs in Richmond, Savannah, and Jacksonville. NEC-Charlottesville (Montecello)-Atlanta. Et cetera. Once people knew about this feature, they'd study the timetables and find many ways to use it, more ways than we can do here. LOL.

Speaking of, put a note about this feature on the timetables. Some folks would find the info and use it, then tell friends about it, and Amtrak would get more riders at a cost of near zero.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Excellent ideas Woody, therefore they don't stand a chance @ 60 Mass, home of the Bean Counters!

 

[Anderson]

After watching several seasons of Hell On Wheels, I don't think the RR Moguls cared about such attractions.

They both did and didn't. It wasn't a major concern with the first railroads going through (at that time the main concerns were simply getting the lines built in such a way that the equipment at the time could use...if you want an example of this, look at the ex-Central Pacific line through Niles Canyon), but it did become one both for the later railroads (towards the turn of the century) and for the original ones as time continued and they sought to attract traffic which was either repeat traffic or "discretionary" traffic.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Excellent ideas Woody, therefore they don't stand a chance @ 60 Mass, home of the Bean Counters!

Make the feature a profit center.

Go to Amtrak.com, enter your request to ride the Cardinal D.C.-Chicago. An ad appears from the Charlottesville Convention & Tourism Bureau, letting you know that you can come down on the Lynchburger, arrive 7ish, stay in one of these nice hotels, the next morning this tour bus will pick you up early from your hotel, take you to the Univ of Virginia campus and Monticello, then get you back to the Amtrak station (or restaurant within walking distance), depart on the Cardinal at 1:52 p.m. The Charlottesville CVB (or a hotel or tour bus company) would pay Amtrak for every booking.

Of course, the stop-over works much better with 25 hours instead of 23 1/2, so it'd be off/on the same train.

Still, even if that stop-over would be hurried, even if Amtrak charged $50 for a 50-hour stop-over, a rushed visit to Monticello beats the heck out of no visit. Count me in!

O.K., the Cardinal is a birdie with a broken wing, operating only 3 days a week. Not sure that's enuff to support the dayum tour bus. And that bus would have to move!

A daily Cardinal would help a lot. And maybe things would work better when there's a Roanoker schedule in addition to the Lynchburger.

Further to the claim that the cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak.

 

[PVD]

Even if it was a nominal break even, even small numbers of added riders enhance utilization of the system, contributions to the tourism economies of most towns and cities are always welcomed, and another group of people, perhaps small in numbers but vocal advocates for rail travel could be created, both on the ridership side, and in local hospitality marketing groups. Should we make that station a little nicer, schedule a little better, connections to attractions more available? It never hurts to have a few more yesses in the mix.

 

[tommylicious]

It's good to get a break from the train food for a night on the 2 night trips.

 

[I always rode the Southern]

I really wish they would bring back the All Aboard America Fares where you could go coast to coast and return($299 in 1998 and you could upgrade to a sleeper at booking, giving dates for your stops) with 3 stopovers plus train endpoints allowed and length of stop over not restricted. I just can't remember how long you had to complete the trip, but I think it was 30 days. Sounds much better marketing wise than usa rail pass with limited segments which replaced it. I was hooked by All Aboard advertising, never by rail pass; course that could be because I never see any advertising for it except on the forum.

 

[BCL]

I really wish they would bring back the All Aboard America Fares where you could go coast to coast and return($299 in 1998 and you could upgrade to a sleeper at booking, giving dates for your stops) with 3 stopovers plus train endpoints allowed and length of stop over not restricted. I just can't remember how long you had to complete the trip, but I think it was 30 days. Sounds much better marketing wise than usa rail pass with limited segments which replaced it. I was hooked by All Aboard advertising, never by rail pass; course that could be because I never see any advertising for it except on the forum.

It used a zone map and was $175/$225/$299 back in 1983 when it first became available. I think the price went up and down several times and may have had off-peak pricing that was even cheaper. I read that the three zone may have gone up to $429 on one message board.

http://history.amtrak.com/archives/all-aboard-america

 

[Bob Dylan]

The North American Rail Pass was even better, it allowed Unlimited riding on Amtrak and VIA for up to 30 days with Sleeper Upgrades and Stopovers.

I last used one in 2004 and spent 30 days touring the US and Canada for $325, plus a few Sleeper upgrades.

 

[BCL]

The North American Rail Pass was even better, it allowed Unlimited riding on Amtrak and VIA for up to 30 days with Sleeper Upgrades and Stopovers.

I last used one in 2004 and spent 30 days touring the US and Canada for $325, plus a few Sleeper upgrades.

I think someone boarding at my house at the time rode one one of them. She was in the US on a special assignment (taking technical classes for her employer) but I don't think she ever went into Canada on it.

 

[KauaiJohn]

I don't get the point of a 23.5 hour stop over rule when most trains only pass once every 24 hours

 

[fairviewroad]

I don't get the point of a 23.5 hour stop over rule when most trains only pass once every 24 hours

"Most" trains, as measured on a per-departure basis, run in corridors with multiple daily trains. The 23.5 hour rule, for whatever reason, is intentionally designed to prevent stopovers on once-a-day long-distance trains. I'm sure there's a "good" reason for that rule, but it's surely no accident.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

I'd be happy to buy a 25-hour stop-over on any route for $25 per stop. Back in the day that would have meant more bookkeeping. Today it would just tickle Julie.

 

[neroden]

Even if they just straightened out the price buckets so that CHI-SAC price was the same as CHI-DEN + DEN-SAC -- even if they simply did it by *raising CHI-SAC prices* -- if this was done across the system, it would allow them to advertise that stopovers are generally about the same price as going straight through.

Furthermore, there's no sanity to the current pricing. A customer from CHI-DEN and a customer from DEN-SAC are as good as a customer from CHI-SAC; why is the latter customer getting a substantial discount?

For a random day, November 19th (& 20th) in coach:

CHI-DEN 118 + DEN-SAC 133 = 252

CHI-SAC = 160

$92 premium, or *58% more* to stop over

In roomette:

CHI-DEN 318 + DEN-SAC 410 = 728

CHI-SAC = 580

$148 premium, or *26% more* to stop over

These are *literally the same trip* (scheduled to get off and on at the same day in Denver), just to avoid any fluctuations in price from day to day.

This is insane pricing. Amtrak is subsidizing the longer trips for no obvious reason while discouraging the shorter trips. I understand that there's some value to getting a commitment to the entire trip, versus having to get two separate customers, but this pricing scheme vastly overvalues that. CHI-DEN is the most crowded segment. If the "correct" revenue-maximizing price for CHI-DEN is $118 and for CHI-SAC is $160, then the correct revenue-maximizing price for DEN-SAC is $160-118 = $42. Yet Amtrak is actually charging $133. One of these three prices is set wrong, simply wrong.

If Congress wants something to investigate, I would suggest this. Amtrak's pricing scheme here is specifically subsidizing people taking the longest possible trips at the expense of, well, everyone else -- and that doesn't make any sense as public policy, and it is revenue-minimizing behavior.

 

[PVD]

Longer trips being cheaper per mile is pretty standard in the transportation industry. I don't think that is likely to change much. Selling the same seat twice is part of the game. But that should be focused on selling the same seat to two different people. It is different when it is the same person. Without changing any pricing models or radically altering business practices, add a small and reasonable stopover charge and almost everyone should be satisfied.

 

[jis]

Not passing any judgement on the desirability or lack thereof of selling longer distance trips for a lower per unit distance price, this seems to be standard practice in passenger railroads all across the world. Amtrak is not unique in that respect.

 

[PVD]

And buses and airlines also. It is pretty typical in transportation across the board. Even a metered cab gets a "meter drop" + distance charges. That always results in a higher total fare per unit of distance for a shorter ride.