Yet Another Auto Train What If Thread
- Thread starter VentureForth
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
:lol:
Also, recall that the railroads saw the popularity of open section accomodations (the correct name for open berths) decline drastically and moved to eliminate them quickly. Lightweight cars with sections were often reconfigured into coaches, such as the CZ's Silver Aspen and Silver Pine, which were converted to coaches around 1960. Slumbercoachs were much more popular than the open sections. Section accomodations were retained on routes with a lot of government business, as feds would only reimburse travel no better than a lower berth. For runs without sections, the railroads and Pullman sold roomettes to government employees at a berth rate.
In the states, lightweight sleeping cars tended to be either all room cars or section cars. I don't think many lightweight sleepers were with built with the tradional 10-1-2 floorplan of standard heavyweight Pullman. The 4-6-4 like CP's Manor cars for The Canadian with 4 sections and the rest private accomodations was not common configuration for American railroads.
Berths were unpopular then, and they would be now. They provide no significant capacity improvement, since an Amtrak "roomette" is about the same footprint as a section, and sleeps 2 as well. In privacy. In fact, in many respects, you could consider an Amtrak "roomette" to be a section with a door.
Finally, the only bi-level sleepers ever build are Amtrak Superliners. Santa Fe had some on the drawing board but never built them. If built, they wouldn't have contained sections, either.
Last edited by a moderator:
VentureForth
Engineer
Yes, this was a What If thread.
Yes, I understand no new equipment will be provided.
Yes, I understand that sectionals have been obsoleted. BUT, I think many have missed the very important assumptions I have made. First, the sectionals that plied the rails deep into the last century had one difference than the Auto Train. People got on and off during all hours of the night and the trains ran a considerable amount of time during the day. Note that the sectionals are still wildly popular on The Canadian. Second, I would only refurbish an existing coach to a sectional in order to have at least a net revenue wash - ie: decrease from 75 to 65 and increase the fares by an offsetting amount, including an amortorized cost for the conversion. That would show if there is really a demand for horizontal sleeping at near-coach prices. IF it sells out before coach does, then we have a winner and a path to growth. If not, then an increase in service levels would probably be welcomed by many.
I just firmly believe that the ONLY reason why people choose coach on the Auto Train is not because of its popularity, but rather because it is the only other price point choice.
Yes, I understand no new equipment will be provided.
Yes, I understand that sectionals have been obsoleted. BUT, I think many have missed the very important assumptions I have made. First, the sectionals that plied the rails deep into the last century had one difference than the Auto Train. People got on and off during all hours of the night and the trains ran a considerable amount of time during the day. Note that the sectionals are still wildly popular on The Canadian. Second, I would only refurbish an existing coach to a sectional in order to have at least a net revenue wash - ie: decrease from 75 to 65 and increase the fares by an offsetting amount, including an amortorized cost for the conversion. That would show if there is really a demand for horizontal sleeping at near-coach prices. IF it sells out before coach does, then we have a winner and a path to growth. If not, then an increase in service levels would probably be welcomed by many.
I just firmly believe that the ONLY reason why people choose coach on the Auto Train is not because of its popularity, but rather because it is the only other price point choice.
Ziv
Conductor
I think VentureForth is right, that more options would be a better route than allowing inertia to keep Amtrak from making some new options available. Open berth cars would be my second choice after Lay Flat at an Angle chairs in large part due to the fact that putting 9 rows of LFAAA seats in the space now taken by 10 rows of coach seats would be a lot cheaper than retrofitting a coach to an open berth, but if Amtrak had the money I think trying one or the other would be worth it. In 2002 I traveled around the world by train and had a great time. The least comfortable part of the trip was the NY/DC/CHI/SEA portion because I just couldn't rationalize the cost of the roomettes. Cheap open berths in Viet Nam were more comfortable for the long haul than the Empire Builder coach seats, which kind of s****.
Amtrak can never be as cheap as a lot of the foreign rail companies, but giving travelers an option between the expense of a roomette and the uncomfortable sleeping conditions in coach, (as long as it was revenue positive in the medium to long term), seems like a great idea. But I wouldn't restrict it to the AT, I would look at which LD trains have the greatest amount of through trippers and put the LFAAA seats and possibly the open berth cars on the routes that could use them to best effect.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ryan
Court Jester
Probably a lot more conceptions happen on the train than births.
Ispolkom
Engineer
Huh? What do you base this claim on?
1) On my trip in May, almost all rooms were taken, but the sections were at best a third full. West of Jasper they were almost empty.
2) Look at Via Rail's express deals. Grabbed at random, I find that half the deals for Toronto-Saskatoon are for berths, when they make up a smaller proportion of sleeping space.
3) Via Rail is taking cars with sections and converting them to all-bedroom cars. Why would they do that if berths are popular?
4) I've been told that Via Rail's agents advise first-time passengers not to book sections, especially upper berths.
Doesn't sound wildly popular to me.
If Pullman couldn't sell sections in the 30s and 40s, when coach was much less comfortable, if Santa Fe went with all-coach long distance trains like El Capitan rather than sections in the 40s and 50s, if Milwaukee Road couldn't sell its Touralux section sleepers in the postwar era, why would Amtrak be more successful now?
I can't argue with belief. Facts, though, don't seem to back you up.
VentureForth
Engineer
Facts, though? What facts? An all sleeper Auto Train hasn't been tried. There are no facts that can back me up or prove me wrong. I understand what y'all are saying about sectionals. But thus far all disagreements have been on sectionals in general, not within the scope that the Auto Train operates which is a very specific niche. If my info for the Canadian is wrong, so be it. How many Coast - to Coasters on the Canadian are advised by agents to travel coach? Do you have any understanding of sales? You always try to upsell. ALWAYS. Trust me, when I worked at Disney, people wanted to stay at the All Star, but I had to quote prices from the Grand Floridian down before telling them their room choice wasn't available (unless they proactively asked for the All Star FIRST).
So, how many folks that travel from Toronto to Vancouver stay in coach? Can your friend tell me? And those folks would prefer coach over a berth?
Ryan
Court Jester
Considering that there are berths available for purchase and they don't, that's a pretty safe assumption.
VentureForth
Engineer
How is it a safe assumption? You can also make a safe assumption that most single coach seats are purchased by people travelling between points other than the terminii and have no need for sleeping arrangements. Again, the unique operating circumstances of the Auto Train are being ignored.
For what it's worth, on 10/9, the discounted UPPER and LOWER berths are sold out and all but the cabin for 3 are available at the discounted rate. Even more interesting is that the lower berth undiscounted is $200 more than a Cabin for 1 discounted.
For what it's worth, on 10/9, the discounted UPPER and LOWER berths are sold out and all but the cabin for 3 are available at the discounted rate. Even more interesting is that the lower berth undiscounted is $200 more than a Cabin for 1 discounted.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ryan
Court Jester
Because if they wanted a berth, they would purchase one?
Ispolkom
Engineer
I don't have any idea where the people who were not booked in the sections on my train were. Perhaps coach. Perhaps other sleeper accommodations. Perhaps they traveled some other way. I never pretended to know. All I know is that the "wildly popular" sections weren't popular, in my experience.
That's why I inquired about the basis of your claim that sections (not sectionals, those are coaches) are "wildly popular," or would be so in the future This is not my experience, and in fact has not been the experience of any railroad I know of in Canada or the United States since Hoover was president. If they are so popular, why weren't they popular on the train I was on? If they are so popular, why is Via Rail rebuilding cars with sections to only have bedrooms?
Given the problems that railroads had selling upper bunks in sections where the ceilings were significantly higher than on a Superliner, how would Amtrak sell uppers with the coffin-like headroom we all know and love? How would strangers feel about sharing a section?
It seems to me that Amtrak probably doesn't need yet another car type to keep in inventory, and probably doesn't need to experiment on an untried car format. We've still got enough CCCs from the last such tinkering.
VentureForth
Engineer
Maybe all this could be started with just a simple survey of Auto Train riders: "Would you pay 10% more than a regularly priced coach fare for a semi-private sleeping surface?" Then, show a this is now, this is the concept with beautiful CAD renderings...
Back to the Sectionals on the Canadian. There are days where the sectionals are sold out before coach OR cabins. And I didn't ask where the people who aren't in berths are. I asked how many people booked in coach are travelling the entire route. There is also a fundamental difference between the Canadian berths and what I'm recommending - 1) the cost is closer to a cabin than it is to a coach seat. 2) Meals are included. On the Auto Train, meals are included for everyone. In my proposal, I would suggest a price slightly higher than coach (until, if demand is kept up, it becomes an all sleeper train) and that they would be a part of the "coach" dining plan.
Back to the Sectionals on the Canadian. There are days where the sectionals are sold out before coach OR cabins. And I didn't ask where the people who aren't in berths are. I asked how many people booked in coach are travelling the entire route. There is also a fundamental difference between the Canadian berths and what I'm recommending - 1) the cost is closer to a cabin than it is to a coach seat. 2) Meals are included. On the Auto Train, meals are included for everyone. In my proposal, I would suggest a price slightly higher than coach (until, if demand is kept up, it becomes an all sleeper train) and that they would be a part of the "coach" dining plan.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ryan
Court Jester
In a world where Amtrak has the resources to try new things (new for them, sections or lie flat seats obviously aren't new), you'd be on to something.
But until Amtrak is given the direction and resources to do something like this, it'll never be more than idle chatter.
But until Amtrak is given the direction and resources to do something like this, it'll never be more than idle chatter.
haolerider
Conductor
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,436
As I have stated before, Amtrak already surveys passengers and in this case, I seriously doubt if they would go to the trouble of developing CAD for this kind of possibility. I believe AT is due for a review of the train for improvements next year. Send a letter to Amtrak HQs to the attention of Product Development and make your suggestions and see what happens. Good Luck!
You are talking something very like the Milwaukee Road's Touralux sleeper, which was a section that sold for a small premium over coach fare. It was just not that popular. Also historically, meals were not included for any passenger. Amtrak started that in the 1980s and Via followed suit a long time later. So when people are making the historical comparison, they are making it based on meals not being in the equation for anyone.
Why should Amtrak provide something that has far less capacity for nearly the same fare. Especially when that product has historically proven not to be popular? In another thread you asked about differences between older, RR operated passenger trains and Amtrak. Sections were being eliminated by Pullman and the railroads wholesale in the 1950s due to lack of demand, and higher demand for coach and private rooms.
Last edited by a moderator:
VentureForth
Engineer
Sometimes I feel like I'm talking in a vacuum. I'm sure many of you think I'm listening in one. :sigh:
Why would anyone prefer to spend the night in a coach seat (which I guess I'm different than the rest of AU in thinking they're not especially comfortable) on an overnight train, with NO INTERMEDIATE STOPS? Price. Lack of other options. Hence, if horizontal sleeping berths were offered with a price increase that offset passenger count, I submit that it would make the AT even that much more successful.
Ryan
Court Jester
It would only be revenue neutral if it also included the cost of new/refurbished cars configured as open sections.
Unfortunately, including that cost would make it far more expensive than the current coach fares, and for that much of a price increase you could just get a private room.
Unfortunately, including that cost would make it far more expensive than the current coach fares, and for that much of a price increase you could just get a private room.
Price is likely the key reason why people would choose coach vs. other options. If you offer berths at a higher cost, the regular coach seat will still be cheaper.
What would the capacity be of this hypothetical Superliner-berth car? For this to even come close to making sense, the fare increase would have to cover the revenue loss from lost capacity (and, since this is the Auto Train, you're not just talking the lost rail fare, but the vehicle charge that goes with it), plus the cost of configuring and maintaining a separate fleet type.
Your arguments are, in a sense, contradicting themselves. You say that people ride coach because they're looking for a low-cost option to travel. Then you say that Amtrak could earn more by providing better accommodations and enhancing service. This comes at a cost, which then goes into the ticket price, which means it's no longer the low-cost alternative.
What would the capacity be of this hypothetical Superliner-berth car? For this to even come close to making sense, the fare increase would have to cover the revenue loss from lost capacity (and, since this is the Auto Train, you're not just talking the lost rail fare, but the vehicle charge that goes with it), plus the cost of configuring and maintaining a separate fleet type.
Your arguments are, in a sense, contradicting themselves. You say that people ride coach because they're looking for a low-cost option to travel. Then you say that Amtrak could earn more by providing better accommodations and enhancing service. This comes at a cost, which then goes into the ticket price, which means it's no longer the low-cost alternative.
VentureForth
Engineer
Well, looking at India Rail, the best comparison would be a 3AC configuration which seats and sleeps 78. It's 3 + 1 across seating, three berths high on one side perpendicular to the sides, three high on the other side parallel to the wall. This leaves a pretty narrow aisle, but the kicker is that this is on a broad gauge train as opposed to standard gauge. I suppose the average rider could look at a 3AC India Rail and shout "Not on MY Amtrak", but perhaps it can be designed with a bit more American flair. Whatever that means... A more appropriate level of comfort would be two across, two high. This could have as much many as 48 - 54 in a single section car.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll admit I've never been inside a section sleeper before. But, in Googling up some images, I'm thinking I'd rather stick to coach. And given how sections basically died out decades before Amtrak was even created, it seems most other railroad passengers in the US felt the same way.
I guess "troop train" was my first impression of those pictures.
Also, there are a number of practical issues that would make something like that less likely to work. For one, folks with limited mobility may have trouble climbing into berths whereas seats work just fine for them. Two, they seem too closed-off. If you're traveling in a group, that may be a good thing. For people traveling alone, being enclosed in a tiny section with strangers may not go over too well.
I'm putting this one in the "solution looking for a problem" category.
I guess "troop train" was my first impression of those pictures.
Also, there are a number of practical issues that would make something like that less likely to work. For one, folks with limited mobility may have trouble climbing into berths whereas seats work just fine for them. Two, they seem too closed-off. If you're traveling in a group, that may be a good thing. For people traveling alone, being enclosed in a tiny section with strangers may not go over too well.
I'm putting this one in the "solution looking for a problem" category.
Ispolkom
Engineer
What you are describing is what the Russians call плацкартный вагон. I've taken them, long ago when I was young and the Soviet flag still waved, and I can't imagine proposing a tenement on wheels like that. Even at the time, as a young train enthusiast who was vastly enamored of Russian culture (two of those three are still true), I thought they were terrible. At the time (late 80s) I thought that I'd vastly prefer being in a nice Superliner coach, which I remembered fondly from my college years riding the Empire Builder.
Of course, my longest trip in platskartnyi was with a British Trotskyist who couldn't hold his liquor, so perhaps that clouds my memories.
Last edited by a moderator:
Unless you're putting the lowest bunk essentially on the floor, you're not getting 3 high in a Superliner. Even then it's probably going to be really, really snug to fit three bunks high. And if the low bunk is almost at floor level, I'm not sure what you do with seats then during the day.
VentureForth
Engineer
Looking on Amsnag in the month of October, there are 13 days where the sleepers are completely sold out. On one of those days, coach is sold out. Of the rest of those, one day still has coach seats at the lowest bucket, one at the next higher, three at the next higher and the rest at the highest bucket. This makes sense from a revenue management stand point. The question then is, if ALL the sleepers are sold out, why are there dates with LOW coach fares still available? There are no bedrooms available all month. Interestingly, there are days where the Family Bedroom is "N/A", other days where it's sold out and other days when it is available at $679. The roomettes are ALL at $398. In the whole month, it appears that there is only one day (10/1) where the seats are sold out but there are roomettes available.
That unscientific overview to me indicates that the Autotrain is a wildly popular train and that coach is not why people ride it. People ride the AT in spite of coach.
To AlanB's point, go with the 2AC 2-Tier scheme which holds 54. Capacity is reduced by 11, cost could be increased by 20%, it looks like revenue could easily be increased by 20%.
That unscientific overview to me indicates that the Autotrain is a wildly popular train and that coach is not why people ride it. People ride the AT in spite of coach.
To AlanB's point, go with the 2AC 2-Tier scheme which holds 54. Capacity is reduced by 11, cost could be increased by 20%, it looks like revenue could easily be increased by 20%.
Ryan
Court Jester
The Auto train also sees the most amount of changes seasonally, so looking at this month isn't a good snapshot of a years worth of ridership. Right now the (relatively wealthy) snowbirds are starting to head south, and kids are in school. If you were to look at other points of the year you'd see coach sold out more than sleepers as value conscious families traveled to Disney or the college crown heads to FL for spring break.
You're still ignoring the cost of acquiring the cars. What you're saying makes sense if Amtrak had the cars configured in that manner. They don't, and getting them would cost money. To be revenue neutral you'd have to raise fares by more than 20% and you're back into "I'll just pay for a bedroom" territory.
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
B-29 Superfortress WWII bomber set to land in the Lehigh Valley- Latest: AmtrakMaineiac
-
-
-
-
