Yet Another Auto Train What If Thread

[VentureForth]

I've mentioned in the past that I believe that the Auto Train should be all sleeper service. This is the only train that has a majority of the route over night where no one can board or disembark between terminals. I emphasize that to differentiate it with something like NER's 66/67.

The whole train should only consist of sleeping accomodations. All passengers on the train are there to sleep, and as comfortable as the Superliner coaches are, there is no substitution for horizontal sleeping.

It would be ideal from a commonality standpoint to offer the same sleeper cars throughout the entire train. But that's not practical as it severly limits the number of passengers that can be carried without increasing the length of the consist. The only way to increase horizontal sleeping space is by using berths. Why not something simliar to India Rail's 2AC class? Berths at night, seats during the day. They can actually retrofit the existing fleet to do that. Keep the same price points, increase the value and comfort.

 

[rrdude]

I've mentioned in the past that I believe that the Auto Train should be all sleeper service. This is the only train that has a majority of the route over night where no one can board or disembark between terminals. I emphasize that to differentiate it with something like NER's 66/67.

The whole train should only consist of sleeping accomodations. All passengers on the train are there to sleep, and as comfortable as the Superliner coaches are, there is no substitution for horizontal sleeping.

It would be ideal from a commonality standpoint to offer the same sleeper cars throughout the entire train. But that's not practical as it severly limits the number of passengers that can be carried without increasing the length of the consist. The only way to increase horizontal sleeping space is by using berths. Why not something simliar to India Rail's 2AC class? Berths at night, seats during the day. They can actually retrofit the existing fleet to do that. Keep the same price points, increase the value and comfort.

Ahh, OK, but "Why"? If the AT is killing it right now with revenue and occupancy levels, why "spend money when the train is almost full anyways".

I agree it would be nice, but that equipment would be captive to AT.

 

[VentureForth]

Take some of that revenue and enhance the service. Enhance the service, and increase cost. Increase cost in a reasonable way, and you increase revenue.

Do it one coach at a time with an "interim" level of accomodations as the coaches are refurbished. IE: 3 coaches and a berth car, then 2 and 2, then 1 and 3 then 0 and 4. Put a $20 surcharge on the berths. If during any of that time it seems like the berths aren't selling out, then maybe there is a demand to keep the coaches. I can't imagine why anyone would want to spend the night in a chair. I believe the ONLY reason they do is because of the cost point.

 

[rrdude]

Take some of that revenue and enhance the service. Enhance the service, and increase cost. Increase cost in a reasonable way, and you increase revenue.

Do it one coach at a time with an "interim" level of accomodations as the coaches are refurbished. IE: 3 coaches and a berth car, then 2 and 2, then 1 and 3 then 0 and 4. Put a $20 surcharge on the berths. If during any of that time it seems like the berths aren't selling out, then maybe there is a demand to keep the coaches. I can't imagine why anyone would want to spend the night in a chair. I believe the ONLY reason they do is because of the cost point.

From an emotional level, I "get it". I'd like to see it all-sleeper too. However, as a successful restaurant owner once said to me, "Why give something away (he was talking about coupons) when you are selling all you can make at regular prices..."?

 

[VentureForth]

Take some of that revenue and enhance the service. Enhance the service, and increase cost. Increase cost in a reasonable way, and you increase revenue.

Do it one coach at a time with an "interim" level of accomodations as the coaches are refurbished. IE: 3 coaches and a berth car, then 2 and 2, then 1 and 3 then 0 and 4. Put a $20 surcharge on the berths. If during any of that time it seems like the berths aren't selling out, then maybe there is a demand to keep the coaches. I can't imagine why anyone would want to spend the night in a chair. I believe the ONLY reason they do is because of the cost point.

From an emotional level, I "get it". I'd like to see it all-sleeper too. However, as a successful restaurant owner once said to me, "Why give something away (he was talking about coupons) when you are selling all you can make at regular prices..."?

Exactly my point. If there was a successful "Superslumber", then the low bucket could be about what you are charging for a seat today. However, during peak seasons, you can probably raise the price much higher than you could a regular coach seat. But the beauty of the "low" season is that it could draw more passengers with the lure of comfortable trip. So look at it another way. Maybe the HIGH buckets could be the same, but you could sell more bunks at a lower bucket (increasing revenue) for the same draw.

 

[Joeker]

Yada yada yada. I want the Auto Train to run from the Midwest. Either Louisville or Cincinatti would be nice. I am getting to old to drive to

Lorton and I hate the Washington DC traffic!

Jk

 

[cirdan]

I can't imagine why anyone would want to spend the night in a chair. I believe the ONLY reason they do is because of the cost point.

I often think the same about airlines or Greyhound, but they still have plenty of customers.

 

[VentureForth]

Remember - Domestic flights are rarely longer than 4-5 hours. Internationl flights are a whole different issue, but note that sleeping surfaces are in HUGE demand and why most non-American carriers are trying to figure out how many beds they can get on an airplane and still make money.

Busses are a completely different issue as well, as they offer intermediate stops with not all passengers enjoying the same 18 hour ride, not to mention when converted to a sleeper can only accomodate up to around 18 passengers. Actually, though, sleeper busses are gaining popularity in India as an alternative to the train. From some photos and blogs I've seen, they could put Amtrak to shame in quality and comfort.

 

[zepherdude]

I understand your point, but i subscribe to the idea if it ain't broke don't fix it. AT is making money and no one complains about it. It is the least discussed issue here.

 

[jis]

Remember - Domestic flights are rarely longer than 4-5 hours. Internationl flights are a whole different issue, but note that sleeping surfaces are in HUGE demand and why most non-American carriers are trying to figure out how many beds they can get on an airplane and still make money.

Actually even the American carriers are busy installing lie flat seats in their international equipment. They are occasionally to be found even in domestic service when used to increase equipment utilization, rather than sit on the ground awaiting the next international leg. Both in Business and First class, while they are not quite like Singapore Airlines, they are pretty much at part with most international carriers' offering.

 

[afigg]

I understand your point, but i subscribe to the idea if it ain't broke don't fix it. AT is making money and no one complains about it. It is the least discussed issue here.

The AT is not making money. It loses the second least money per passenger mile among the LD trains, but it is NOT running at an operating surplus. According to the Route Performance report in the July 2012 monthly report, for the first 10 months of the fiscal year, the AT had $63.8 million in total revenue against $91 million in total cost including OPEBs (other post employment benefits) for a total lost of $28.2 million. Whatever changes there were to the cost allocation accounting rules with the new PRIIA mandated & agreed to rules, the AT operating costs and thus net operating loss went up.

What Amtrak needs to do with the AT is figure out to increase or improve revenue while holding the line on operating costs. What I see in VentureForth's proposal is something that is going to hurt revenue because there are many customers who are fine with sleeping in reclining seats overnight while increasing operating cost if more attendants have to be provided. The problem with any of the off-the-wall suggestions posted here about the AT is that without detailed marketing survey data, the demand patterns over the course of the year for bedrooms, roomettes, coach seats, and operating cost breakdowns, there is little to no foundation to support these suggestions.

We should have more information and Amtrak planning to discuss soon. The required PRIIA Product Improvement Plan reports for the AT, the Empire Builder, the Southwest Chief, the City of New Orleans, and Coast Starlight are due to be published by the end of this month. I expect some vigorous discussions arising from those reports.

 

[VentureForth]

afigg:

Duh.

I seriously doubt that such a study has been attempted. It would be a simple survey - would you prefer to sleep on your 16 hour overnight journey horizonatally or semi-angled?

I submit that the only reason why people CHOOSE coach is because it's cheaper than sleeper. Offer a service of horizontal sleeping facilities at near the cost of coach, and I'm sure it would be extremely popular.

 

[Ziv]

I have to agree that some intermediate sleeper service is needed. Whether it is Lay Flat At An Angle like the airlines use, which uses just 5" more than a regular coach seat, or an even smaller Roomette, similar to a Slumbercoach sans regular rooms for an all single room car so that it would complement the regular Amtrak sleeping cars.

I am like a lot of Amtrak riders in that the roomettes are just too expensive for me. I looked at the prices on my last round the country trip and just couldn't rationalize the expense. I have ridden hard sleepers in China, Vietnam and other places and even that, with its open compartments would be better than the choice of just coach or roomettes. There has to be a way to try an intermediate price point without breaking Amtrak's bank. Whether it would be retrofitting 4 sleepers to slumbercoach and trying them on one of the LD routes or better yet, simply pulling 10 rows of coach seats on one side of a regular coach and installing 9 rows of LFAAA seats like the airlines use. Amtrak would lose 2 seats but they could make a larger profit by charging a premium for the LFAAA seats that is about half as much as an upgrade to a roomette. Trying this on one coach car for each of the longest of the LD routes wouldn't cost much and it could end up really improving the profitability of the LD routes. I bet those 18 seats would sell out very quickly, once travelers realized that there was a reasonable way to sleep comfortably on an Amtrak train.

 

[jis]

Having used both LFAAA and 180 degree lay flat, and the current Amtrak LD Coach seats, I'd choose a current Amtrak Coach seat anyday over those exceedingly uncomfortable LFAAA seats, from which you keep sliding down all the time. My order of preference would be 180 degree lay flat, current Amtrak LD seats, LFAAA. Just my personal opinion.

 

[George Harris]

First, a little history:

There were sleeper buses were tried on some routes many years ago. Obviously not successful enough if successful at all as they did not last.

Berth style sleepers were the standard for many years in the US. Only in immediate pre-WW2 and post-WW2 era did sleepers with rooms only start being built. There were some all types sleepers 4-6-4 for example, that is 4 sections, 6 roomettes, 4 bedroom sleepers were tried by several railroads, but so far as I know, none went to Amtrak.

You can go to other countries and find both two berth high and three berth high open section sleepers. How well will they go over here? I have no idea. Maybe we should lease a few three high berth cars from China and see how they go over.

As to the auto train: If the seats sell, why quit offering them? If the thought is that open section style berths can sell, fit out a car or two or lease a car or two that have them and test the market. Don't drop the coaches. Add the berths. If berths go over at a price that makes them revenue equivalent to coaches then add them. If added patronage in berths appears to be related to declining patronage in coaches, then make the transition over time. One of the dumbest things that could be done is to quit offering a product that is successful, which auto train coaches appear to be.

 

[Anderson]

George,

That's actually a very reasonable proposition (leasing a set of berth cars, putting them on a sampling of LD routes, and seeing how they sell/what prices they can command versus sleepers and/or coaches), and I'd like to see a serious attempt made there. Heck, it might even be worth calling up VIA and seeing if Amtrak could lease back a half-dozen Budd sleepers with mixed accommodations (especially with the overnight cutbacks VIA is engaging in) to run on a single route. That would give you a more limited-scope test (say, 8-16 "section seats" on a given route) versus a full car (which would be what? 12 sections with 46/64 slots?), with the rest of the train holding more or less "regular" accommodations.

Another option would be some of the pre-Amtrak long distance seats (edit: Sleepy Hollow seats), which I'm led to believe were superior to Amtrak's seats. At the very least, they had lower seating densities (40-odd folks per car versus roughly 60 now), and I think that was a result of more pitch and different seat designs. That's just something else that might be looked into in this vein if you're looking at seats rather than berths.

 

[VentureForth]

First, a little history:

There were sleeper buses were tried on some routes many years ago. Obviously not successful enough if successful at all as they did not last.

Berth style sleepers were the standard for many years in the US. Only in immediate pre-WW2 and post-WW2 era did sleepers with rooms only start being built. There were some all types sleepers 4-6-4 for example, that is 4 sections, 6 roomettes, 4 bedroom sleepers were tried by several railroads, but so far as I know, none went to Amtrak.

You can go to other countries and find both two berth high and three berth high open section sleepers. How well will they go over here? I have no idea. Maybe we should lease a few three high berth cars from China and see how they go over.

As to the auto train: If the seats sell, why quit offering them? If the thought is that open section style berths can sell, fit out a car or two or lease a car or two that have them and test the market. Don't drop the coaches. Add the berths. If berths go over at a price that makes them revenue equivalent to coaches then add them. If added patronage in berths appears to be related to declining patronage in coaches, then make the transition over time. One of the dumbest things that could be done is to quit offering a product that is successful, which auto train coaches appear to be.

Great idea, George!

Take some of that revenue and enhance the service. Enhance the service, and increase cost. Increase cost in a reasonable way, and you increase revenue.

Do it one coach at a time with an "interim" level of accomodations as the coaches are refurbished. IE: 3 coaches and a berth car, then 2 and 2, then 1 and 3 then 0 and 4. Put a $20 surcharge on the berths. If during any of that time it seems like the berths aren't selling out, then maybe there is a demand to keep the coaches. I can't imagine why anyone would want to spend the night in a chair. I believe the ONLY reason they do is because of the cost point.

 

[dlagrua]

The Autotrain will always have coaches (and they often fill up) as some passengers don't wish to spend or do not have the means to spend more money for a sleeper. During the months of October-December (going South)and late March through early June (going North), snowbird traffic (senior citizens)accounts for the bulk of the travelers. You raise prices too high and you'll lose ridership. No matter what you do, you can't sell sleepers at coach fares and come out ahead. Sleeper passengers have a wine and cheese hour and a dinner with at least three dinner choices. Coach passengers get one choice of dinner for everyone and the quality isn't as good. Coach can accomodate about 62 passengers while the sleepers can fit only about 25-35. Amtrak does make more revcenue from the sleepers but an all sleeper train at (2x-3x the price of coach)may be hard to fill. Many people can sleep in coach and are perfectly fine sleeping in a reclining chair.

 

[haolerider]

First, a little history:

There were sleeper buses were tried on some routes many years ago. Obviously not successful enough if successful at all as they did not last.

Berth style sleepers were the standard for many years in the US. Only in immediate pre-WW2 and post-WW2 era did sleepers with rooms only start being built. There were some all types sleepers 4-6-4 for example, that is 4 sections, 6 roomettes, 4 bedroom sleepers were tried by several railroads, but so far as I know, none went to Amtrak.

You can go to other countries and find both two berth high and three berth high open section sleepers. How well will they go over here? I have no idea. Maybe we should lease a few three high berth cars from China and see how they go over.

As to the auto train: If the seats sell, why quit offering them? If the thought is that open section style berths can sell, fit out a car or two or lease a car or two that have them and test the market. Don't drop the coaches. Add the berths. If berths go over at a price that makes them revenue equivalent to coaches then add them. If added patronage in berths appears to be related to declining patronage in coaches, then make the transition over time. One of the dumbest things that could be done is to quit offering a product that is successful, which auto train coaches appear to be.

Great idea, George!

Take some of that revenue and enhance the service. Enhance the service, and increase cost. Increase cost in a reasonable way, and you increase revenue.

Do it one coach at a time with an "interim" level of accomodations as the coaches are refurbished. IE: 3 coaches and a berth car, then 2 and 2, then 1 and 3 then 0 and 4. Put a $20 surcharge on the berths. If during any of that time it seems like the berths aren't selling out, then maybe there is a demand to keep the coaches. I can't imagine why anyone would want to spend the night in a chair. I believe the ONLY reason they do is because of the cost point.

I doubt very much that Amtrak ia going to refurbish equipment on an experimental basis, just to see if they can lose revenue! The Auto Trainis doing about as well as can be expected and having worked with that train, I never once heard a complaint about passengers riding in coach or asking for alternate accommodations. Amtrak surveys riders and I have never seem a reference to not liking to ride in coach.....yes, would everyone like to have a sleeper, of course, but price points are important to people. Most people riding the AT are snowbirds and college students....both demographics looking for good deals and not wanting to part with hard earned cash. If the AT were faltering, then possibly some of your suggestions would have merit, but as it is,....and as has been previously stated, why fix what isn't broken?

There is a lot of brain power on this forum and I am convinced that the focus needs to be on trains/routes that need help. The Cardinal and Sunset Limited immediately come to mind. Long lost trains will probably never come back,so let's try to find improvements that can actually happen, rather than trying to re-invent the wheel!

 

[AlanB]

Sleeper passengers have a wine and cheese hour and a dinner with at least three dinner choices. Coach passengers get one choice of dinner for everyone and the quality isn't as good.

Sorry, but no, that is not correct. My brother & his family just did the AT in coach and they had several choices to select from when they go to the dining car; just like those in the sleeper had several choices. You can view the respective menus here: coach & sleeper.

Now I do agree that the quality of the food is better, more upscale in the sleeper dining car.

Coach can accomodate about 62 passengers while the sleepers can fit only about 25-35. Amtrak does make more revcenue from the sleepers but an all sleeper train at (2x-3x the price of coach)may be hard to fill. Many people can sleep in coach and are perfectly fine sleeping in a reclining chair.

The Superliner coaches on the AT, as well as all bi-level trains, hold 75 passengers. The Sleepers, when filled to room capacity, hold 44.

 

[dlagrua]

Sleeper passengers have a wine and cheese hour and a dinner with at least three dinner choices. Coach passengers get one choice of dinner for everyone and the quality isn't as good.

Sorry, but no, that is not correct. My brother & his family just did the AT in coach and they had several choices to select from when they go to the dining car; just like those in the sleeper had several choices. You can view the respective menus here: coach & sleeper.

Now I do agree that the quality of the food is better, more upscale in the sleeper dining car.

Coaaccommodateomodate about 62 passengers while the sleepers can fit only about 25-35. Amtrak does makrevenueevcenue from the sleepers but an all sleeper train at (2x-3x the price of coach)may be hard to fill. Many people can sleep in coach and are perfectly fine sleeping in a reclining chair.

The Superliner coaches on the AT, as well as all bi-level trains, hold 75 passengers. The Sleepers, when filled to room capacity, hold 44.

I guess some wrong info on my end

After taking 8 trips on the Autotrain; I should be an expert by now, but always being nestled in the bedroom sleepers towards the rear, my estimate was apparently off.

Here's the logic that I used

Deluxe Sleeper 10 bedrooms x 2 per = 20 people on level two. H room, family room, and two roomettes below on level one = 8 max.

So that's 28 not 25 but not 44.

If they ran an all roometadditionrliner (in additon to the crew dorm) then that would probably give even more the 44 that you reference. Outside of the crew dorm I've never walked through an all roomette car on the A/T but don't doubt that they exist. There are some units with bedrooms and roomettes though

Superliner coach capacity is clearly 75 passengers. I most likely didn't count that passengers can sit on two levels.

As for the menu in coach, I just went by what one passenger told us. Sounds like I got bad info.

On a point that we probably in sync on is that the A/T won't be turned into an all sleeper train anytime soon.

 

[AlanB]

Here's the logic that I used

Deluxe Sleeper 10 bedrooms x 2 per = 20 people on level two. H room, family room, and two roomettes below on level one = 8 max.

So that's 28 not 25 but not 44.

Yes, the Deluxe sleepers carry less, 34 at max capacity per room. You're correct about 20 on the upper level. However there are 4 roomettes on the lower level, so that's 8 people, 4 in the family room gets us to 12, plus 2 in the H-room takes us to 14. That added to the 20 from upstairs gets us to 34.

If they ran an all roometadditionrliner (in additon to the crew dorm) then that would probably give even more the 44 that you reference. Outside of the crew dorm I've never walked through an all roomette car on the A/T but don't doubt that they exist. There are some units with bedrooms and roomettes though

Yes, an all roomette car would certainly carry more, but no such car exists. Except for the 6 Deluxe sleepers for the AT, all other sleepers in Amtrak inventory save for the Trans/Dorms are the cars with 5 Bedrooms & 10 roomettes upstairs.

On a point that we probably in sync on is that the A/T won't be turned into an all sleeper train anytime soon.

Agreed, this train isn't going all sleeper ever. Unless by some miracle Congress gives Amtrak all the money it asks for, and even then I'm not sure that management would monkey with the current success of the AT. If they were to monkey at all, it would be to add either a Business class car with better seating or maybe some type of section sleeper. But even then I rather doubt that they would out and out drop coach seating.

One attracts more customers by offering more choices; not by replacing one choice with a different one! Three, or even four, classes of service are better than two.

 

[Nathanael]

George,

That's actually a very reasonable proposition (leasing a set of berth cars, putting them on a sampling of LD routes, and seeing how they sell/what prices they can command versus sleepers and/or coaches), and I'd like to see a serious attempt made there.

....and we're back to "Amtrak doesn't have any extra cars". For the Auto Train in particular, I don't think there ever were any bilevel berth cars, and if there were, they don't have retention toilets. The only existing legal single-level equipment is a mishmash of private cars and VIA equipment, none of which is is worth Amtrak's trouble even to maintain.

A computation worth making: If Amtrak can sell seating at the density at which it sells seating, then any car with lower density (fewer passengers per car) would have to raise prices in order to be more profitable. Is it worth it? Maybe. It depends.

But where Amtrak is currently, it's really a question of what layout of new cars to order. Ordering berth cars, absent evidence of a large demand for them, would be risky. Amtrak's management has made it clear that they think they can make net incremental profit by ordering more Viewliner sleepers for the single-level trains; presumably this will bring the room prices down somewhat, while "making it up on volume".

 

[George Harris]

George,

That's actually a very reasonable proposition (leasing a set of berth cars, putting them on a sampling of LD routes, and seeing how they sell/what prices they can command versus sleepers and/or coaches), and I'd like to see a serious attempt made there.

But where Amtrak is currently, it's really a question of what layout of new cars to order. Ordering berth cars, absent evidence of a large demand for them, would be risky. Amtrak's management has made it clear that they think they can make net incremental profit by ordering more Viewliner sleepers for the single-level trains; presumably this will bring the room prices down somewhat, while "making it up on volume".

And, yes we truely are close to back where we started in this thread. I have serious doubts that there is any real market for berth cars. They dissapeared from service 50 plus years ago because despite being higher in price given a choice the demand was for rooms. Yes there have been many changes in this country since then, but I am inclined to think that the summary of those that would be relevant to the issue would make berth sleepers less marketable rather than more marketable.

 

[dlagrua]

On the subject of a birth car and why it will never return;

1. People years back were of a different mindset than the people of today

2. A roomette is basically an upper and lower birth. Its just that it has an enclosure and a door for privacy.

3. Births won't give that much of an increase in capacity to provide any benefit. Selling at a lower cost, they would probably generate less revenue per car than what Amtrak sleepers now do.

While the thread provided some "what if" discussion, the logic behind the introduction of a new type of sleeper service is flawed. Be happy with bedrooms and roomettes. If you want to go less expensive and have more privacy; book coach, bring along a large blanket (or two), some pillows and some hangers. Hang the blankets above from the baggage rack and make it like a tent around the two seats. (Assuming that you are traveling with a partner) Recline the seats, install ear plugs, relax and enjoy some cost effective privacy.