Why is Amtrak coach more expensive than flying?

[Texan Eagle]

jis, 72" pitch is a huge amount of space, that is halfway between first class size and business in most airlines. I think 56" pitch, 'lie-flat at an angle' (business class 'lie flat') are probably the only way Amtrak would see it work profitably. Adding 6" to a 50" pitch gives a pretty comfortable 79" flat, albeit slanted, 'bed'. No herring-bone sort of arrangement needed. And since your feet would only go 9 or 10 inches under the seat in front and your seat back would go only 10 inches back from its upright position, you wouldn't intrude either in front or in back so all the seats wouldn't have to be 'turned down' at once. The top of the seat/bed would be 26" higher than the bottom, but it would be flat and it would be a decent way to sleep, much better than the standard Superliner seats now.

Heck, if you used 72" pitch you would be wasting at least a foot for each row.

I am sorry to disagree but I really would like to see Amtrak start to re-furb sections of the Superliners in a way that makes a decent sleep possible on LD routes without paying as much as a roomette costs. And it really looks like the only way that will ever happen is if Amtrak starts to buy 'lie-flat' 56" pitch seats from who ever makes them for business class travelers using American airlines. It would be cheap to try and the revenue would probably pay for itself in just a few years. And I would be able to get a decent nights sleep on the Empire Builder without paying double or triple the coach fare.

http://www.airlinequ...ts_americas.htm

I agree. Angled lie-flat Business class seats don't take up awful lot of extra space over the already quite-generous Superliner legroom. Are they the best way to sleep? Probably no. Are they very uncomfortable to sleep in? Probably no either. Several airlines use these type of seats and thousands of business travelers travel longhaul on these seats, if they were awful, they wouldn't be there on the planes in the premium class. Something similar to Lufthansa's angled lie-flat bed (see photo below) could nicely fit into Superliners without reducing capacity by a lot. Give me this and I'd happily pay 50% over coach fare, maybe twice the coach fare too if it is a long overnight journey, and sleep happily in it. I ain't need fancy rooms with private showers or in-built potty or meals included in fare. Just a place to lay my body flat in the night, and I am good to go

 

[Ryan]

That looks terribly uncomfortable to me.

Since you can get 40 lie-flat-AND-level seats in a coach car, I don't see any need to go with the crooked bed.

 

[George Harris]

Resurrect the section sleeper that for the most part disappeared after WW2? Put in bunks three high and perpendicular to the car with an aisle on one side? That you can see in China. Both will carry more people than the current sleeper, and the three high bunks probably as many as coach. As for this angled seat, forget it. It is minimal improvement over the current coach seat. They sell on airlines because the coach seat are appropriate to midgits.

 

[Anderson]

On the issue of airfares vs. Amtrak fares: It varies based on the route, the time of year, etc. For a "cheap" air market, Amtrak will tend to be more expensive; for an "expensive" air market, Amtrak will come in cheaper.

As to the number of lie-flat seats...how do you come up with 40, just out of curiosity? Is this assuming 10 rows of 4? 14 rows of 3 (well, 42, but close enough for government work)? Etc.

 

[jis]

I really would like to see Amtrak start to re-furb sections of the Superliners in a way that makes a decent sleep possible on LD routes without paying as much as a roomette costs. And it really looks like the only way that will ever happen is if Amtrak starts to buy 'lie-flat' 56" pitch seats from who ever makes them for business class travelers using American airlines. It would be cheap to try and the revenue would probably pay for itself in just a few years. And I would be able to get a decent nights sleep on the Empire Builder without paying double or triple the coach fare.

http://www.airlinequality.com/Product/seats_americas.htm

Where I disagree is that one can get decent sleep on those 15% slanted contraptions. Been there, done that, never again. Actually just two months back I had the pleasure of trying to sleep on one of those contraptions in a Lufthansa 747 from Delhi to Frankfurt, with not much success. Fortunately the Frankfurt to Newark leg was on Continental full lie flat and that allowed me to recover from the lost sleep in the previous leg.

Continuously slithering down the seat while trying to sleep is not my idea of getting a good sleep. Superliner seats are good enough if that is what one wants.

A full lie flat seat should cost no more than 65% more than a Coach seat. It is nothing like 2 to 3 times, unless of course Amtrak chooses to load it up with extras.

BTW this is all whistling in the wind since Amtrak is not going to do anything of the sort. There simply are too many more important things that need to be done to keep things running with the limited budget available. Any additional type of accommodation is just not going to happen.

 

[Ziv]

jis, 72" pitch is a huge amount of space, that is halfway between first class size and business in most airlines. I think 56" pitch, 'lie-flat at an angle' (business class 'lie flat') are probably the only way Amtrak would see it work profitably. Adding 6" to a 50" pitch gives a pretty comfortable 79" flat, albeit slanted, 'bed'. No herring-bone sort of arrangement needed. And since your feet would only go 9 or 10 inches under the seat in front and your seat back would go only 10 inches back from its upright position, you wouldn't intrude either in front or in back so all the seats wouldn't have to be 'turned down' at once. The top of the seat/bed would be 26" higher than the bottom, but it would be flat and it would be a decent way to sleep, much better than the standard Superliner seats now.

Heck, if you used 72" pitch you would be wasting at least a foot for each row.

I am sorry to disagree but I really would like to see Amtrak start to re-furb sections of the Superliners in a way that makes a decent sleep possible on LD routes without paying as much as a roomette costs. And it really looks like the only way that will ever happen is if Amtrak starts to buy 'lie-flat' 56" pitch seats from who ever makes them for business class travelers using American airlines. It would be cheap to try and the revenue would probably pay for itself in just a few years. And I would be able to get a decent nights sleep on the Empire Builder without paying double or triple the coach fare.

http://www.airlinequ...ts_americas.htm

I agree. Angled lie-flat Business class seats don't take up awful lot of extra space over the already quite-generous Superliner legroom. Are they the best way to sleep? Probably no. Are they very uncomfortable to sleep in? Probably no either. Several airlines use these type of seats and thousands of business travelers travel longhaul on these seats, if they were awful, they wouldn't be there on the planes in the premium class. Something similar to Lufthansa's angled lie-flat bed (see photo below) could nicely fit into Superliners without reducing capacity by a lot. Give me this and I'd happily pay 50% over coach fare, maybe twice the coach fare too if it is a long overnight journey, and sleep happily in it. I ain't need fancy rooms with private showers or in-built potty or meals included in fare. Just a place to lay my body flat in the night, and I am good to go

Texan Eagle, that is exactly the type of seat that uses 56" to 60" instead of 50" that Amtrak uses now, but allows you to rest comfortably and sleep well. Amtrak would lose 11-20% of the passengers in any section that converted to lie-flat seats, but would gain passengers who would otherwise not use the train. If they can fit these seats into a space that is just 12% more than standard Superliner seats and charge 25% more, these seats would pay for themselves in a year or two and would be positive cash flow for years thereafter. Plus a car that has a section that has 12% fewer passengers uses less water, less electricity and needs less man-hours from the conductor and the attendant. These seats are not as comfortable as a horizontal, first class, 82" inch seat/bed, but they are a huge improvement over a standard Amtrak coach seat.

I hope Amtrak will give it a shot, these sort of seats are very comfortable for medium length trips, and I for one would pay nearly half again a regular coach fare to sit in one. But I won't pay double or triple for a roomette. And I would bet there are a lot of people that feel the same way about paying triple for a tiny compartment.

I love train travel, but I refuse to pay outrageous amounts for a modest upgrade.

These seats would rock!

People that can afford a bedroom may look down on the lie-flat sort of seat that is so popular in Business Class flights across the Pacific and the Atlantic, but most of us would love to have that level of luxury instead of tossing and twisting on a coach seat at 3 am.

 

[jis]

On the issue of airfares vs. Amtrak fares: It varies based on the route, the time of year, etc. For a "cheap" air market, Amtrak will tend to be more expensive; for an "expensive" air market, Amtrak will come in cheaper.

As to the number of lie-flat seats...how do you come up with 40, just out of curiosity? Is this assuming 10 rows of 4? 14 rows of 3 (well, 42, but close enough for government work)? Etc.

It is 10 rows of 4 or 12 rows of 3.

BTW I don't know of any airline that is installing any new angled sleeper seats. It's time has come and gone. They are generally all getting replaced by full lie flat seats.

As I said in my previous message., IMHO the angled lie flats are horribly uncomfortable and I consider the Superliner seats or even the old Sleepy Hollow seats better than the angled lie flats, having experienced each of them many many times.

I agree with George that bringing back the old Sections would work well too, and would have about the same capacity per car as the lie-flat seats, and the berths would be much wider in that case. Since the number of seats would be the same as for lie-flat seats the fares should be about the same too, about 60% to 70% more than Coach.

However, if you want to use lie-flat seats, this is the sort of thing you want

However, as George says, the most preferable is the old Sections. And yes, 3 high will carry as many as in Coach quite easily though I find them a bit claustrophobic.

 

[Texan Eagle]

Resurrect the section sleeper that for the most part disappeared after WW2? Put in bunks three high and perpendicular to the car with an aisle on one side? That you can see in China. Both will carry more people than the current sleeper, and the three high bunks probably as many as coach.

Sleeper coaches with three high bunks are very popular in India too. A major part of all express trains consist of sleeping cars with three high bunks, some air-conditioned cars and some non-air conditioned cars. I have traveled about 40,000 km in these sleepers and I find them very comfortable and fun to travel.

Daytime configuration

Night time configuration

But I have been told by some members on this forum that for some cultural reasons, people in United States would not travel in such an arrangement because it falls short of their idea of privacy and personal space.

 

[Ziv]

On the issue of airfares vs. Amtrak fares: It varies based on the route, the time of year, etc. For a "cheap" air market, Amtrak will tend to be more expensive; for an "expensive" air market, Amtrak will come in cheaper.

As to the number of lie-flat seats...how do you come up with 40, just out of curiosity? Is this assuming 10 rows of 4? 14 rows of 3 (well, 42, but close enough for government work)? Etc.

It is 10 rows of 4 or 12 rows of 3.

BTW I don't know of any airline that is installing any new angled sleeper seats. It's time has come and gone. They are generally all getting replaced by full lie flat seats.

As I said in my previous message., IMHO the angled lie flats are horribly uncomfortable and I consider the Superliner seats or even the old Sleepy Hollow seats better than the angled lie flats, having experienced each of them many many times.

I agree with George that bringing back the old Sections would work well too, and would have about the same capacity per car as the lie-flat seats, and the berths would be much wider in that case. Since the number of seats would be the same as for lie-flat seats the fares should be about the same too, about 60% to 70% more than Coach.

However, if you want to use lie-flat seats, this is the sort of thing you want

However, as George says, the most preferable is the old Sections. And yes, 3 high will carry as many as in Coach quite easily though I find them a bit claustrophobic.

An angled lie-flat seat takes 56-60" and is pretty darned comfortable compared to a Coach seat. So it takes 11-20% more space, and probably costs 40-50% more, and it is more profitable than coach for Amtrak.

A full lie-flat like the first class seats you show in the photo take 78-96" according to SeatGuru, which is 50% to 95% more than Coach seats and would cost about 80-150% more than a Coach seat. I understand that angled lie-flat aren't quite as comfortable as a bed in a roomette or a first class lie-flat horizontally seat, but the cost difference is such that I simply will not pay that extra money for a LD train. I will fly instead. And that is what the vast majority of Americans are doing. If you want Amtrak to prosper, make an intermediate sort of sleeping arrangement that is less expensive than a Roomette or an airlines first class but more comfortable than a Coach seat. I am tired of not being able to sleep on Amtrak, while every country in Europe and Asia has decent sleeping arrangements for overnight trains.

I wish I could afford first class seats that lie flat horizontally, or to book a roomette, and I guess I could, but I would have to skimp on other aspects of my trip to make my vacation work financially. Lie flat at an angle is using less than 75% of the space that a first class lay flat horizontal uses. That kind of saving means I can spend more time where I want to go, and eat out more often, and feel more comfortable that I am not exceeding my budget. I understand that there are better options out there, but there don't seem to be better options that cost a reasonable amount.

 

[jis]

The picture that I show is of a 60" pitch Business-First seat in ex Continental United 777-200ERs. It is not a First Class seat. As I said you can fit 36 such seats in a standard Amtrak car. Compared to a 66 seater the fare would be about 80% higher, not more. If narrower beds are acceptable then upto 40 can fit in 4 abreast and then fares would be about 65% higher.

So your contention about full lie flat is incorrect. Yes it is true that the First Class lie-flats would take more space. But I am not talking about First Class lie-flats. I thought I made it clear in my previous message in which I included several references to specific seat types in Seatguru, which you probably missed.

For your reference, one more time in Seatguru I am referring to this page, and check the 60" pitch BusinessFirst Class seats. They are 60" pitch and 22" wide. Nothing like 78" to 96" pitch as you suggest, and that is the picture I included in my previous message.

So I believe you are arriving at incorrect conclusions because you are using incorrect data about these seats.

An angled lie-flat seat takes 56-60" and is pretty darned comfortable compared to a Coach seat. So it takes 11-20% more space, and probably costs 40-50% more, and it is more profitable than coach for Amtrak.

A full lie-flat like the first class seats you show in the photo take 78-96" according to SeatGuru, which is 50% to 95% more than Coach seats and would cost about 80-150% more than a Coach seat.

On the issue of airfares vs. Amtrak fares: It varies based on the route, the time of year, etc. For a "cheap" air market, Amtrak will tend to be more expensive; for an "expensive" air market, Amtrak will come in cheaper.

As to the number of lie-flat seats...how do you come up with 40, just out of curiosity? Is this assuming 10 rows of 4? 14 rows of 3 (well, 42, but close enough for government work)? Etc.

It is 10 rows of 4 or 12 rows of 3.

BTW I don't know of any airline that is installing any new angled sleeper seats. It's time has come and gone. They are generally all getting replaced by full lie flat seats.

As I said in my previous message., IMHO the angled lie flats are horribly uncomfortable and I consider the Superliner seats or even the old Sleepy Hollow seats better than the angled lie flats, having experienced each of them many many times.

I agree with George that bringing back the old Sections would work well too, and would have about the same capacity per car as the lie-flat seats, and the berths would be much wider in that case. Since the number of seats would be the same as for lie-flat seats the fares should be about the same too, about 60% to 70% more than Coach.

However, if you want to use lie-flat seats, this is the sort of thing you want

However, as George says, the most preferable is the old Sections. And yes, 3 high will carry as many as in Coach quite easily though I find them a bit claustrophobic.

 

[RRUserious]

Why can't American rail have cars like those in other countries? Why must ours be so peculiar? When my wife did a tour of Europe, she only took night trains between countries and got all her sleep on the train. Have no idea what the cars looked like, but they obviously were suitable for sleeping because that's what she did. She was between college years, so I know she wasn't popping for luxury accommodations. Sure the train was started here, but the rest of the world developed it so much. I wish our manufacturers would consider finding the most popular blueprints and making them.

 

[Anderson]

Why can't American rail have cars like those in other countries? Why must ours be so peculiar? When my wife did a tour of Europe, she only took night trains between countries and got all her sleep on the train. Have no idea what the cars looked like, but they obviously were suitable for sleeping because that's what she did. She was between college years, so I know she wasn't popping for luxury accommodations. Sure the train was started here, but the rest of the world developed it so much. I wish our manufacturers would consider finding the most popular blueprints and making them.

Part of the problem is that in Europe, you've got lots of economies of scale and shorter train routes for the most part. 900 miles is CHI-NYP. By contrast, Warsaw-Paris is only about 1000 miles, and that's a long trip within Europe. There's no real comparison outside of Russia for something like the Empire Builder or the Sunset Limited.

 

[George Harris]

I think some of this is getting into the realm of opinion. As to the 15 degree sloped seat, if someone tries to call that a "lie flat" I would regard them as being guilty of false advertising. "Lie flat" means exactly that, horizontal. I would not spring for whatever the difference would be between a standard Amtrak long distance coach seat and a 15 degree sloped seat. I can sleep fine with the deep reclined coach sleep. The sloped lie flat leaves you nothing to hook either your butt or your feet, so you are constantly sliding down. To me the sloped imitation bed would be a step down from a reclining seat. That would be particularly true with the bumping of a train. With the plane, baring turbulence, there is no bumping, plus you are most unlikely to spend over 12 hours on a plane going anywhere without getting off and back on.

I have slept in section style sleepers in other countries, and have no problem with it, but then, my thought is you adjust to where you are to the greatest extent you can manage. The difference in distance is very much part of the equation. With one exception, all my night trains overseas were of no more than around 10 hours duration. For some of my trips, I wish they would have grasped the old American concept of "Sleepers may be occupied until 7:30", or 8:00, or whatever, rather than having to roll out at to be ready to get off at 6:00am because that is the train's arrival time. I have also spent a night, once, in a section sleeper in the US, but that was a long time ago.

It is probably not by accident, and not solely because they were lower priority trains that the section sleepers survied longest in the US on the shorter runs.

 

[Ziv]

Why can't American rail have cars like those in other countries? Why must ours be so peculiar? When my wife did a tour of Europe, she only took night trains between countries and got all her sleep on the train. Have no idea what the cars looked like, but they obviously were suitable for sleeping because that's what she did. She was between college years, so I know she wasn't popping for luxury accommodations. Sure the train was started here, but the rest of the world developed it so much. I wish our manufacturers would consider finding the most popular blueprints and making them.

Part of the problem is that in Europe, you've got lots of economies of scale and shorter train routes for the most part. 900 miles is CHI-NYP. By contrast, Warsaw-Paris is only about 1000 miles, and that's a long trip within Europe. There's no real comparison outside of Russia for something like the Empire Builder or the Sunset Limited.

I would agree that few trips abroad rival the length of the Empire Builder, but it is also true that the Trans-Mongolian (Beijing to Moscow) is over 4700 miles and is done with a lot of rolling stock that uses 4 bunk sleeping cabins that are pretty cool. Even the Kunming to Beijing route is over 1200 miles if memory serves and it uses a mixture of cars but a lot of them are 4 and 6 bunk soft and hard sleepers, again a very cool way to travel. I have never done the true Trans Siberian from Vladivostok to Moscow, but it must be incredibly long at 5700+ miles.

What the US needs is a San Diego to New York route, direct, to get us up there in the longest railroad route record hunt. We wouldn't win, but we would be close! And yes, that was supposed to be a joke.

 

[Ziv]

jis, it is quite likely that I am in error. I thought that all the 'lie-flat horizontally' seats took up more than 60" of pitch or were too wide to fit 4 across in a Superliner. I would much rather lie-flat horizontally if it would fit into a space small enough that the pitch would only increase 6 or 10" while still fitting into a width of less than 22". That would be like having your cake and eating it too! Which was part of the reason I thought it wouldn't work.... I have to admit, I don't understand HOW it would work, but if it does, that would be what I would wish for Amtrak to install in a limited amount of Business Sleeper Seats. Charge enough of a premium that Amtrak makes a slightly better profit on the upgrade seats while pricing them between coach and roomettes.

I like having more choices and I have a feeling if Amtrak did have seats that were more comfortable than regular coach but cheaper than roomettes, they would attract even more LD travelers.

And since we are working my way down my wish list, how about faster speed limits where it is possible, say, most of Montana and North Dakota? And having the Empire Builder hit Glacier Park during the day both ways? Or is that just being unrealistic?

On edit: jis, the more I look at your photo and at seatguru, I think we are talking about two different sizes of seats. I think Amtrak could make as much money or more if they used a slightly longer pitch and the same width to give a lie-flat at an angle sleeping seat. It wouldn't be as nice as the seat you pictured, not by a long shot, but I really do not think that those seats could fit a 6'5" guy into a 60" pitch without herringboning which would mean losing a seat in width, ie going from 4 seats across to 3 across in a Superliner. Going to 3 across would make the cost of these seats so high that they would be little cheaper than a roomette and have less privacy. Think about it, a 60" pitch is 5', how are you going to fit a row of people into 5' if they are laying flat? You simply cannot do it without angling them and losing the 2 + 2 width that Superliners have. I understand your thoughts regarding how an inclined bed wouldn't be as comfortable as a flat bed, but the inclined bed would be an order of magnitude better than a coach seat for sleeping.

I am not trying to be confrontational, but I do think Amtrak should try to do an intermediate step between coach seats and roomettes, and the inclined lie flats may be the best option we can aspire to.

I just don't see how we can fit a 79" flat bed into 60" without herringboning or inclining it. If you look at seatguru, the Continental/United Business Class lie flat 60" pitch looks to be angled toward the windows by 10-15 degrees, which there simply isn't room to do in a Superliner. Herringboning or angling to the side simply won't work due to the lack of space side to side. The airlines business classes take up the nearly the same space with 2 business seats that fits 3 seats in coach.

 

[jis]

Why can't American rail have cars like those in other countries? Why must ours be so peculiar? When my wife did a tour of Europe, she only took night trains between countries and got all her sleep on the train. Have no idea what the cars looked like, but they obviously were suitable for sleeping because that's what she did. She was between college years, so I know she wasn't popping for luxury accommodations. Sure the train was started here, but the rest of the world developed it so much. I wish our manufacturers would consider finding the most popular blueprints and making them.

The popular inexpensive sleeping accommodation in Europe is 2nd Class Couchette which has 4 or 6 berths in compartments shared with others. They are quite comfortable. I have traveled quite a bit on those on the old Eurocity Expresses with interesting names.

 

[Ryan]

The picture that I show is of a 60" pitch Business-First seat in ex Continental United 777-200ERs. It is not a First Class seat. As I said you can fit 36 such seats in a standard Amtrak car. Compared to a 66 seater the fare would be about 80% higher, not more. If narrower beds are acceptable then upto 40 can fit in 4 abreast and then fares would be about 65% higher.

So your contention about full lie flat is incorrect. Yes it is true that the First Class lie-flats would take more space. But I am not talking about First Class lie-flats. I thought I made it clear in my previous message in which I included several references to specific seat types in Seatguru, which you probably missed.

For your reference, one more time in Seatguru I am referring to this page, and check the 60" pitch BusinessFirst Class seats. They are 60" pitch and 22" wide. Nothing like 78" to 96" pitch as you suggest, and that is the picture I included in my previous message.

So I believe you are arriving at incorrect conclusions because you are using incorrect data about these seats.

Agreed completely. I'm not sure why one would ever advocate for those uncomfortable-looking (and thanks for providing your perspective) flat-but-not-horizontal seats, when for 4 more inches you can get flat-and-horizontal.

 

[jis]

jis, it is quite likely that I am in error. I thought that all the 'lie-flat horizontally' seats took up more than 60" of pitch or were too wide to fit 4 across in a Superliner.

Again, as I said earlier, the 60"x22" requires to be placed in a herringbone pattern to have sleeping space length of about 72". Only 3 such will fit per row not 4, hence my estimate that 36 = 3 x 12, will fit in the typical passenger space in 85 footers. If you can accept 19" width then 72"x18" can be fit longitudinally 4 per row and 10 rows which adds up to 40. I suppose in an alternative arrangement the Continental 60" pitch style seats, could probably be fit logitudinally 4 per row (becomes 72" pitch). The passagemway would even probably be adequate at about 2' wide.

I would much rather lie-flat horizontally if it would fit into a space small enough that the pitch would only increase 6 or 10" while still fitting into a width of less than 22". That would be like having your cake and eating it too! Which was part of the reason I thought it wouldn't work.... I have to admit, I don't understand HOW it would work, but if it does, that would be what I would wish for Amtrak to install in a limited amount of Business Sleeper Seats. Charge enough of a premium that Amtrak makes a slightly better profit on the upgrade seats while pricing them between coach and roomettes.

I like having more choices and I have a feeling if Amtrak did have seats that were more comfortable than regular coach but cheaper than roomettes, they would attract even more LD travelers.

As I said, it is very very unlikely that anything of this sort will happen anytime soon. There is way too much other more pressing stuff that needs allocation of funds than this sort of thing.

And since we are working my way down my wish list, how about faster speed limits where it is possible, say, most of Montana and North Dakota? And having the Empire Builder hit Glacier Park during the day both ways? Or is that just being unrealistic?

Unlikely, unless someone comes up with a pot of money to hand to BNSF to make it worth their while. BTW, during summer months it does hit Glacier in daylight both ways if running on time, no? It is winter that is the problem.

 

[Ziv]

jis, I didn't note your comment earlier that the 60" pitch required a herringbone pattern, my error.

I know Amtrak has no funds to spare, I just wish they could do inexpensive stuff that would help their bottom line and I thought that re-furbing a handful of Superliners to put 14 business class lie-flat at an angle in the section behind the stair whre there are 16 coach seats might be something that could be done cheap enough that it might get funded. My first wish for a couchette car is simply too expensive to actually happen, plus it may not be as welcome here in the States.

I still have high hopes for PTC helping to raise the speed limits in as many places as is possible, especially out west. But even there, I don't know how much of the BNSF line through ND and MT is double tracked, so Amtrak might encounter more delays if they increase the speed. That is something I know I just don't know enough about to speak of with any degree of knowledge. But anything that costs much money is probably not going to happen anywhere outside the NEC.

To stay positive, it would seem that record ridership for each of the past several years might just jar some funding increases loose, hopefully. And the increase in energy prices hits the other transportation modes harder than it does rail so that advantage will continue to grow over time.

 

[jis]

jis, I didn't note your comment earlier that the 60" pitch required a herringbone pattern, my error.

No problem. Using herringbone layout is how they get actual bed length of 70"-72" while keeping pitch at 60".

BTW, you will probably be able to get one or two more rows into a Superliner upper deck since the space lost to the vestibule and toilets in single levels is not lost in Superliner upper deck. Only the space for the stairs is lost, which is much less of a lossage.

To stay positive, it would seem that record ridership for each of the past several years might just jar some funding increases loose, hopefully. And the increase in energy prices hits the other transportation modes harder than it does rail so that advantage will continue to grow over time.

Not until LD service starts getting close to breaking even above the rails, and that will require significant fare hikes or significant growth in ridership. I am not even sure that mere growth in ridership can get us there. CASM is way too high compared to RASM at present.

 

[Ziv]

jis, I didn't note your comment earlier that the 60" pitch required a herringbone pattern, my error.

No problem. Using herringbone layout is how they get actual bed length of 70"-72" while keeping pitch at 60".

BTW, you will probably be able to get one or two more rows into a Superliner upper deck since the space lost to the vestibule and toilets in single levels is not lost in Superliner upper deck. Only the space for the stairs is lost, which is much less of a lossage.

To stay positive, it would seem that record ridership for each of the past several years might just jar some funding increases loose, hopefully. And the increase in energy prices hits the other transportation modes harder than it does rail so that advantage will continue to grow over time.

Not until LD service starts getting close to breaking even above the rails, and that will require significant fare hikes or significant growth in ridership. I am not even sure that mere growth in ridership can get us there. CASM is way too high compared to RASM at present.

I hear you about CASM, but with wages and benefits nearly 5 times the amount that fuel costs Amtrak, and the trains not over-staffed by any stretch of the imagination, I just don't know how to reduce cost appreciably. I see my conductors pretty much all day, and they do, what, 2 fourteen hour days on a two day trip? I have no idea what crew rest consists of.

Adding more cars to the busier trains would gain some revenue but the costs would rise too, though perhaps not as much.

Obviously this is something that the older hands have discussed at length in other posts and I have nothing new to add, other than about the only way I can see to add revenue is to put in slot machines! It seems to work on the reservations. LOL!

 

[Anderson]

jis, I didn't note your comment earlier that the 60" pitch required a herringbone pattern, my error.

No problem. Using herringbone layout is how they get actual bed length of 70"-72" while keeping pitch at 60".

BTW, you will probably be able to get one or two more rows into a Superliner upper deck since the space lost to the vestibule and toilets in single levels is not lost in Superliner upper deck. Only the space for the stairs is lost, which is much less of a lossage.

To stay positive, it would seem that record ridership for each of the past several years might just jar some funding increases loose, hopefully. And the increase in energy prices hits the other transportation modes harder than it does rail so that advantage will continue to grow over time.

Not until LD service starts getting close to breaking even above the rails, and that will require significant fare hikes or significant growth in ridership. I am not even sure that mere growth in ridership can get us there. CASM is way too high compared to RASM at present.

I hear you about CASM, but with wages and benefits nearly 5 times the amount that fuel costs Amtrak, and the trains not over-staffed by any stretch of the imagination, I just don't know how to reduce cost appreciably. I see my conductors pretty much all day, and they do, what, 2 fourteen hour days on a two day trip? I have no idea what crew rest consists of.

Adding more cars to the busier trains would gain some revenue but the costs would rise too, though perhaps not as much.

Obviously this is something that the older hands have discussed at length in other posts and I have nothing new to add, other than about the only way I can see to add revenue is to put in slot machines! It seems to work on the reservations. LOL!

This has been discussed elsewhere...but adding LD cars (even just more coaches) is one of the things that really needs to happen. Amtrak has noted revenue possibilities here, particularly on segments of LD routes (the "Sparks Cars" suggestion, for example).

And this brings up another point: Though Boardman is right to at least some extent about not getting gobs of new LD equipment for the western routes, I don't get why he isn't willing to at least kick in for some coaches. The worst case scenario would be that they'd go through and reconfigure the seats from the LD setup to a corridor setup if a bunch of routes got axed; while that wouldn't be free, I don't think the cost would be astronomical. The other option would be to use non-LD coaches for some of these services and to split coach in two parts on the train for ticketing purposes.

 

[jis]

That is what is done on eastern trains for adding short turn capacity. No reason it couldn't already be done out west.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

With sites like kayak.com and sidestep, I can nearly always find flights that are cheaper than Amtrak coach fares . I realize people take train for many reasons, but my guess is most are ignorant of Internet tools to find cheap flights. I suppose if you had to buy a ticket last minute then Amtrak can be cheaper.

My suggestion is Amtrak needs to lower coach fares to 50% of airline fares. An example is Chicago to Washington DC which costs $156 roundtrip, which is very close to what is costs to fly that route. For me to justify spending 18 hours to get there, the fare should be half that cost.

The best price I could find on Kayak was $284 RT. Add another $50 in baggage fees which brings it to $334 and magically your wish is granted! Amtrak is less than 50% of coach airfare.

 

[Teddy]

Yea amtrak is ALMOST ALWAYS more expensive.. I'm trying to travel from Arizona to Iowa and an amtrak trip is 350 something for a 32 hour trip when i can fly the same price for a 3 hour trip hmmm let me think about that... also if i want to add a sleeping room my price just shot up another 1000.. Don't understand how they sell tickets; people must like the scenery