blue streak 1Why not as a test run some business class cars on an overnight train ? At present we have no overnight business class train cars overnight except NEC 66 & 67. The only long distanc trains that even approach overnight is the northbound Palmetto and the weekend northbound Lynchburg train to Boston with arrivals scheduled about midnight. The Cardinal might be one such test train ? Either The Star or Meteor might be another possibility?. Or how about Auto train ?
Better yet, why not take a pair of Amfleet lounge cars and put "sleeper seats" in one end and run them on 66 and 67? Just buy the things from whoever is selling them to the airlines and bolt them down.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
CSSHEGEWISCH Does anybody remember how well Slumbercoaches worked out prior to Amtrak? If I recall correctly, a passenger was charged coach (not first-class) fare plus a space charge.
Does anybody remember how well Slumbercoaches worked out prior to Amtrak? If I recall correctly, a passenger was charged coach (not first-class) fare plus a space charge.
oltmannd Paul MilenkovicDon, that was my idea. Sam1 gave use some more background on the concept as sam1 is the only one around here who has travelled business class on trans-Pacific flights and taken a ride on the overnight Australia tilt train. I get soooo confused. Bet you could get at least 40 of them in a coach. A Viewliner sleeps 30 and 14 section Pullman would only sleep 28, right? You'd only need a 50% surcharge over coach fare to yield the same revenue as a 60 seat coach.
Paul MilenkovicDon, that was my idea. Sam1 gave use some more background on the concept as sam1 is the only one around here who has travelled business class on trans-Pacific flights and taken a ride on the overnight Australia tilt train.
I get soooo confused.
Bet you could get at least 40 of them in a coach. A Viewliner sleeps 30 and 14 section Pullman would only sleep 28, right?
You'd only need a 50% surcharge over coach fare to yield the same revenue as a 60 seat coach.
Why not as a test run some business class cars on an overnight train ? At present we have no overnight business class train cars overnight except NEC 66 & 67. The only long distanc trains that even approach overnight is the northbound Palmetto and the weekend northbound Lynchburg train to Boston with arrivals scheduled about midnight. The Cardinal might be one such test train ? Either The Star or Meteor might be another possibility?. Or how about Auto train ?
Well yes. But we were talking about something comparable to the fold down seats you can sleep in on Lufthansa.
John WR I suspect you know, Oltmannd, that for many years trains operated with open sleeping cars where two seats folded down into a bed and an upper berth pulled down from the ceiling. VIA rail still uses open sleepers. I would like to see Amtrak return to them.
I suspect you know, Oltmannd, that for many years trains operated with open sleeping cars where two seats folded down into a bed and an upper berth pulled down from the ceiling. VIA rail still uses open sleepers. I would like to see Amtrak return to them.
oltmannd KCSfana sleeper is a luxury option for those willing to pay the price. Yet, sleeper revenue doesn't cover the cost operating them - they are subsidized. That doesn't seem quite fair to me. I think Sam had a pretty good idea about putting those "lie flat" cocoon style seats on LD train in lieu of sleepers. Something like this: http://www.lufthansa.com/us/en/Lufthansa-Business-Class-on-long-haul-routes Could be retrofitted to existing coaches.
KCSfana sleeper is a luxury option for those willing to pay the price.
Yet, sleeper revenue doesn't cover the cost operating them - they are subsidized. That doesn't seem quite fair to me.
I think Sam had a pretty good idea about putting those "lie flat" cocoon style seats on LD train in lieu of sleepers. Something like this: http://www.lufthansa.com/us/en/Lufthansa-Business-Class-on-long-haul-routes
Could be retrofitted to existing coaches.
Don, that was my idea. Sam1 gave use some more background on the concept as sam1 is the only one around here who has travelled business class on trans-Pacific flights and taken a ride on the overnight Australia tilt train.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Chicago to New York in 10 hours! That is what A.C. Miller, President of the Chicago-New York Electric Air Line Railroad, promised in 1906, hey-day of the electric interurban. His double-track speedway would cut straight across four states, span valleys on high fills, cross streams on lofty viaducts, penetrate hills through deep cuts and tunnel through the mountains of Pennsylvania, reducing the distance between America's two greatest cities to 750 miles.
http://www.countyhistory.com/laporte/airline.htm
Still waiting for the future to arrive.
Oltmannd,
Perhaps not to the same extent, but in fact aren't both LD coach and sleeper tickets subsidized?
I think the type of seating shown on the Lufthansa site is an excellent idea however I wouldn't eliminate the sleepers entirely. Rather, I'd like to see the "lie flat" seating made available as an option for those willing to pay an upcharge for a more comfortable nights sleep than can be had in an coach seat. I think many passengers (my self included) would be willing to pay up to 1-1/2 time the economy coach fare for the added comfort. A seat width wider than the present coach seats might be necessary (certainly desirable) which would necessiate three across seating - two seats on one side of the aisle and a single seat on the other side. I fully agree that existing coaches (certainly the Superliners) could be retrofitted.
Mark
Sam1 If a person flies from DFW, for example, or even Shreveport, to Chicago, they don't need an sleeper. The flight from DFW takes approximately two hours. If they take the Texas Eagle, they are going to be on the train over night and, therefore, if they can afford it, they are going to upgrade to a sleeper. The comparison is valid. There is no need for a sleeper on the airplane; there is a need for the sleeper on the train.
Sam, methinks you missed my point that a sleeper is a luxury option for those willing to pay the price. Coach travel is certainly a viable option for those who don't want the added cost. When it comes to comfort, space and privacy there just is no comparison between that on a Superliner sleeper and being crammed three abreast with no legroom on a Southwest Airlines 737. We could debate this all day and probably not fully agree with one another. It's about as pointless as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Sam1 Now lets suppose a wife and spouse needs to get from DFW to Chicago to attend a half day event on October 10th. The cost of round trip coach tickets on Amtrak's Texas Eagle would be $238. Dinner, breakfast, and lunch in the dinning car, depending the menu choices, would cost in the neighborhood of $266 if they picketed from the middle of the menu and left a modest tip.
Now lets suppose a wife and spouse needs to get from DFW to Chicago to attend a half day event on October 10th. The cost of round trip coach tickets on Amtrak's Texas Eagle would be $238. Dinner, breakfast, and lunch in the dinning car, depending the menu choices, would cost in the neighborhood of $266 if they picketed from the middle of the menu and left a modest tip.
Speaking from actual recent experience you're a bit high on these meal costs. Our meal costs on the Eagle for two people including tips were: Dinner - $45 (and we both ordered the second highest priced entrees on the menu); Breakfast - $19; Lunch - $28 (we didn't eat lunch on either leg of our trip but this would have been about the cost I recall from perusing the menu). That comes to $92 one way or $184 for the round trip.
My point here, Sam, and my only point, is that we should compare first class travel with first class travel and coach travel with coach travel.
No one needs to go first class either on a plane or a train. Some people choose to.
Most folks don't need to fly first class from Shreveport to Chicago. In fact, from Shreveport to DFW, first class is not offered. They are not on the airplane overnight and, therefore, don't have to worry about getting a good night's sleep. They can get that in a hotel.
The cost of air service from a regional city to a major city or vice versa frequently is more than to or from major metropolitan communities. Approximately 75 per cent of Americans live in or within 50 miles of a major metropolitan area. This is the norm.
Now lets suppose a wife and spouse needs to get from DFW to Chicago to attend a half day event on October 10th. The cost of round trip coach tickets on Amtrak's Texas Eagle would be $238. Dinner, breakfast, and lunch in the dinning car, depending the menu choices, would cost in the neighborhood of $266 if they picketed from the middle of the menu and left a modest tip. Meals in the lounge car probably would be in the neighborhood of $100 to $125. Including the cost of means in the cost of travel, the total tab would range from $338 to $504.
To get to a 10:00 a.m. event in Chicago on October 10th, our travelers would have to leave Dallas at 3:20 p.m. on Monday, October 8th. They would arrive in Chicago Tuesday at 1:52 p.m. learly, they could not make a 10:00 a.m. event in Chicago if they departed Dallas on Tuesday, October 9th. Moreover, unless the event was held very close to Chicago's Union Station and is over pretty quick, they will need to spend another night in Chicago and depart on Thursday at 1:45 p.m., arriving back in Dallas at 11:30 a.m. on Friday.
They will need a hotel room in Chicago, unless they are bunking with family or friends, for Tuesday and Wednesday nights. A budget hotel in Chicago (Red Roof Inn) will set them back at least $276 for two nights. In addition, they will incur the cost of dinner Tuesday and Wednesday as well as breakfast on Wednesday and Thursday. This is another eight meals. If they eat these meals at a family restaurant, it will add approximately $100 to their travel bill, bringing the cost of the trip to $$714 to $880 before miscellaneous items.
The meal expense is a major factor in comparing air vs. surface travel because one is usually away from home longer when traveling by surface mode. And this means that they must eat more meals outside of the home, which are considerably more expensive than eating at home.
The cost to fly in coach would be $323.60 assuming that they had carry on bags, which would be all that is required for a short trip. Assuming they took an afternoon flight from DFW on Tuesday, returning Wednesday evening well after the event, they would need a hotel room Tuesday night. The Red Roof Inn room would cost $138. They would need dinner Tuesday and Wednesday nights as well as breakfast Wednesday morning. This would cost them in the neighborhood of $80, for a total trip cost of $542 before miscellaneous items. The most probable cost difference in favor of air travel is approximately $260.
The cost difference is significant for most people. Time is equally important for most people, who have a value that can be assigned to their time. When this is added to the cost differences outlined above, it is easy to see why most people don't even consider taking a train long distances.
And therefore the sleeper should become an income point if not a profit point for the railroad or the train, not a red number taken to the bottom line.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
KCSfan Sam1 You did not include any meal costs on the train. Also, what would your fare have been if you and your spouse had booked a roomette? My experience tells me that as soon as you book a sleeper, the fare comparison usually swings in favor of flying. We ate dinner and breakfast going north and just dinner returning. Total meal cost including tips was $100-105. Saving money was not our primary reason for taking the train but it is for lots of other passengers. Those wishing (often needing) to save money usually don't eat in the diner but brown bag it or get a burger or pizza at the food/drink bar on the lower level of the lounge car and probably spend no more than $10 each way. I disagree that the fare advantage of rail vs air disappears if you add on the cost of a sleeper. Sleeper travel is a luxury option for those able and willing to pay for comfort and privacy far in excess of what you get in either rail or air coach class. Comparing the fare in a rail sleeper to that in air coach class is an apples and oranges thing - you've got to compare it to the cost of a first class air fare to have any real meaning. In such a comparison train fares are still substantially lower than air fares. Mark
Sam1 You did not include any meal costs on the train. Also, what would your fare have been if you and your spouse had booked a roomette? My experience tells me that as soon as you book a sleeper, the fare comparison usually swings in favor of flying.
You did not include any meal costs on the train. Also, what would your fare have been if you and your spouse had booked a roomette? My experience tells me that as soon as you book a sleeper, the fare comparison usually swings in favor of flying.
Mark,
I found the question of first class travel comparisons interesting. This is what I learned for planning a trip on October 24, a little over a month away:
The cheapest individual first class air fare from Shreveport to Chicago is about (a little over) $500 or $1000 for two.
The Amtrack fare is $112 or $224 for two.
For first class fare the upgrade to a roomette big enough for 2 is $207 for a total of $411.
Upgrade to family bedroom is $314 total $528.
Upgrade to a superliner bedroom is $520 total $633.
I would not add in food. We all have to eat whether we travel by train or plane. However, if you pay a first class fare Amtrack includes meals with the fare.
KCSfan Nowhere in this discussion have I seen any mention of the fare differential between airline and train travel. It's a given that there are really bargain air fares between major cities, often lower than those on Amtrak. However lots of us live in smaller cities and towns where the airfare is a lot more pricey. I live in Shreveport, LA a city of around 350,000 population (in the metropolitan area) and we have an excellent airport and frequent flights mostly on regional carriers going to DFW or Atlanta to connect with longer distance major airlines. My wife and I just completed a round trip on Amtrak's Texas Eagle to Chicago. Our roundtrip fare was around $380 vs the cheapest air fare of about $765, a difference of $385. The rail time was about 20 hrs which included a bit over one hour on the Amtrak thruway bus between Shreveport and Longview, TX where we catch the train. Had we flown the trip would have taken about six hours (counting arrival at the airport an hour ahead of the actual flight time and 1-1/2 hrs between planes in DFW or ATL). That figures out to making (or saving if you prefer) $28.50 per hour by taking the train. There's a whole lot of people of limited means (like us) to whom the fastest time isn't a paramount consideration that find the economics a big incentive to travel by rail rathner than fly. Mark
Nowhere in this discussion have I seen any mention of the fare differential between airline and train travel. It's a given that there are really bargain air fares between major cities, often lower than those on Amtrak. However lots of us live in smaller cities and towns where the airfare is a lot more pricey. I live in Shreveport, LA a city of around 350,000 population (in the metropolitan area) and we have an excellent airport and frequent flights mostly on regional carriers going to DFW or Atlanta to connect with longer distance major airlines.
My wife and I just completed a round trip on Amtrak's Texas Eagle to Chicago. Our roundtrip fare was around $380 vs the cheapest air fare of about $765, a difference of $385. The rail time was about 20 hrs which included a bit over one hour on the Amtrak thruway bus between Shreveport and Longview, TX where we catch the train. Had we flown the trip would have taken about six hours (counting arrival at the airport an hour ahead of the actual flight time and 1-1/2 hrs between planes in DFW or ATL). That figures out to making (or saving if you prefer) $28.50 per hour by taking the train.
There's a whole lot of people of limited means (like us) to whom the fastest time isn't a paramount consideration that find the economics a big incentive to travel by rail rathner than fly.
Fare comparison has been mentioned but I don't think you can compare, it's like apples and oranges. One is a seat ride between two airports in a matter of hours; the other is a seat ride, meals, and maybe even a night's sleep. To and from airport or train terminal may be different or the same or cancel each other out.. Same with parking the car, having time at destination to do what you're there for then returning...so many factors that complicate the comparison. If you want to compare the ticket price, then compare, also, bus ticket and gas slips if you were to drive but leave off the differences of terminaling (?), of time aboard, parking or not parking, meals, doing your own driving, hotels, etc. Each is so different. So each has to be weighed on the ticket price, the other factors, and the value to you for that given trip. I forgot bicycle and walking, too.
But still, all these factors have to be weighed in planning not a LD train or an airplane, but in designing an intergrated and intermodal transportation system, not as we have known in the past, not as we have (or havn't?) in the present, but how it has to be to meet environmental, ecological, financial, fuel use, land use, labor use, and passenger use, time use, etc. of the near and distant future. We should not be talking one mode over the other but how each mode fits into the overall picture of transportating people. The same goes for freight, too, by the way.
I am not as pessimistic as some of you are about the future of LD train travel. I think of HSR as 120+ mph and, IMHO, except for some very limited number of routes, this just isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future. However I think 90-100 mph is realistically attainable on a number of routes. I admit to not being well versed on Positive Train Control but when implemented it seems to me that track speeds could be raised to those limits from the present 79 mph maximum on most routes.
In the 1950's the IC's City of New Orleans ran 921 miles in 16-1/2 hrs and made 25 intermediate stops!! The NY to Chi mileage via the old NYC route is 961 miles, roughly the same distance. At 90-95 mph a daytime coach train making say 10 intermediate stops could make the NY-Chi run in 14 hrs (Lv 8 am, Ar 10 pm). The intermediate cities must be served as they will account for much of the trains patronage. A companion overnight coach and sleeper train making say only 5-6 intermediate stops running on a 15 hr schedule would be well patronized. The slightly slower speeds would make for a more comfortable overnight trip in the sleepers.
Forget six or even four daily NY-Chi trains - they aren't needed now and aren't in the near term picture. The two reasonably fast trains I suggest offering a choice of morning or evening departure and arrival are a realistic and attainable interim until when (and if) HSR ever becomes a reality. The majority of business travelers are going to fly rather than take a LD train but there's a whole lot of other people out there who'll take the train if only the service is both good and dependable.
We are going to do Next Gen, Blue Streak. The FAA has decided and we will do it. Period. The FAA already has a website up and running. No doubt it points out that our best and brightest minds have designed this and we need not worry about safety. And no doubt the government experts in charge believe that. But for all of that accidents have happened before. The Challenger disaster is only one of them. I'm sure there will be accidents here too and some will be fatal. Of course a fatal accident with a plane full of people is a little more scary than a fatal accident on a space shuttle because in the plane so many more people are involved.
As much as I like trains I have never brought into the argument that trains are safer than planes. However, I'm reconsidering that. Anything can happen anywhere but new technologies tend to me more error prone than older ones. I worked for the government for many years. While there is a lot of rhetoric from government but the practice is often different. Not all that many years ago our troops in Iraq where writing home to their wives and parents to buy then some body armor that works because the body armor the Federal Government issued just didn't work.
Ideas like Next Gen take on a life of their own once they get going. With the Federal Government backing them nothing can stop them. Eventually the kinks get worked out but before that those kinks can still cost lives. In this case a lot of lives. I hope you are wrong. I hope I am wrong. But I'm not going to bet my life on it.
schlimm Paul Milenkovic schlimm You really aren't addressing the issue. Comparing with airline and road traffic in this case is as pointless as the advocacy groups endless banter about subsidies. If the necessary infrastructure for several short to medium corridors is put in place, the amount of traffic will grow very quickly as the public becomes increasingly aware of the advantages, just as the public has in the NEC as its speed has increased and times between major nodes has decreased. Since Acela shows a net plus on revenue minus operating expenses, it is not irrational to conclude the same will gradually occur on other, well-selected corridors. How much capital spending went into Acela, what is the ridership, and how does it compare with NextGen? Let's see, does the NEC including Acela and Regional account for half Amtrak passenger miles. So we are talking about .5 percent of the passenger miles NextGen is supposed to accomodate. What is .5 percent of 50 billion dollars -- 250 million dollars? Are you telling me that the NEC capital input that enabled Acela was 250 million dollars? I do not think it is realistic to suppose that capital investment will be covered by even the most efficient passenger rail service. If that is now your new criterion, then I fail to see how you can possibly pretend you are anything other than totally opposed to passenger rail of almost any type. And continuing to compare rail with air is a pointless exercise as well as quite hypocritical since you used to assail the "rail advocacy community" for their silly modal comparisons of subsidies.
Paul Milenkovic schlimm You really aren't addressing the issue. Comparing with airline and road traffic in this case is as pointless as the advocacy groups endless banter about subsidies. If the necessary infrastructure for several short to medium corridors is put in place, the amount of traffic will grow very quickly as the public becomes increasingly aware of the advantages, just as the public has in the NEC as its speed has increased and times between major nodes has decreased. Since Acela shows a net plus on revenue minus operating expenses, it is not irrational to conclude the same will gradually occur on other, well-selected corridors. How much capital spending went into Acela, what is the ridership, and how does it compare with NextGen? Let's see, does the NEC including Acela and Regional account for half Amtrak passenger miles. So we are talking about .5 percent of the passenger miles NextGen is supposed to accomodate. What is .5 percent of 50 billion dollars -- 250 million dollars? Are you telling me that the NEC capital input that enabled Acela was 250 million dollars?
schlimm You really aren't addressing the issue. Comparing with airline and road traffic in this case is as pointless as the advocacy groups endless banter about subsidies. If the necessary infrastructure for several short to medium corridors is put in place, the amount of traffic will grow very quickly as the public becomes increasingly aware of the advantages, just as the public has in the NEC as its speed has increased and times between major nodes has decreased. Since Acela shows a net plus on revenue minus operating expenses, it is not irrational to conclude the same will gradually occur on other, well-selected corridors.
You really aren't addressing the issue. Comparing with airline and road traffic in this case is as pointless as the advocacy groups endless banter about subsidies. If the necessary infrastructure for several short to medium corridors is put in place, the amount of traffic will grow very quickly as the public becomes increasingly aware of the advantages, just as the public has in the NEC as its speed has increased and times between major nodes has decreased. Since Acela shows a net plus on revenue minus operating expenses, it is not irrational to conclude the same will gradually occur on other, well-selected corridors.
How much capital spending went into Acela, what is the ridership, and how does it compare with NextGen?
Let's see, does the NEC including Acela and Regional account for half Amtrak passenger miles. So we are talking about .5 percent of the passenger miles NextGen is supposed to accomodate. What is .5 percent of 50 billion dollars -- 250 million dollars? Are you telling me that the NEC capital input that enabled Acela was 250 million dollars?
This is a case of "free speech for me but not free speech for thee."
Who brought up NextGen as a "50 billion dollar boondogle"? It wasn't me. So bringing up the cross comparison of air and rail subsidy is OK when someone is making a pro-Amtrak argument, but answering that comparison is not OK because it shows Amtrak in a bad light?
And comparing air with rail is a pointless exercise to whom? And I am being hypocritical to say, "OK, let's use the level of spending on NextGen as a benchmark, what can be do with trains of comparable effectiveness." Hypocritical? According to what definition of the word? And it is my criterion to use NextGen as a benchmark. Someone around here called NextGen a boondoggle. I am saying that if passenger trains were as boondoggly as NextGen, we would have a case to really expand passenger service in the U.S..
And maybe I am by now totally opposed to passenger trains in the sense others measure this. I had never heard of NextGen until someone around here brought it up, but now that I have looked into it, it seems to make air travel unbeatable except in short, maybe 100-mile corridors (NY-Philly, Chicago-Milwaukee, LA-San Diego).
I mean, are passenger trains a solution to a transportation problem, or are they an end in themselves? Given the high price of oil, I used to think that there was a place for steam power on Class 1 railroads after the ACE 3000 project or maybe one of Porta, Wardale, or Chapelon's designs, but now I have some doubts. Does this mean I shouldn't comment on the Locomotive or the Steam and Preservation pages?
Sam1 NetGen is a new air traffic control system. It will serve commercial flights, general aviation flights, and military operations in civilian airspace. The biggest user will be general aviation, which accounts for approximately 60 per cent of all air traffic operations in the U.S. It is not comparable to passenger rail. It won't carry anyone.
NetGen is a new air traffic control system. It will serve commercial flights, general aviation flights, and military operations in civilian airspace. The biggest user will be general aviation, which accounts for approximately 60 per cent of all air traffic operations in the U.S. It is not comparable to passenger rail. It won't carry anyone.
Siince I brought up Next Gen as off topic I will clarify my opposition. This opposition comes from points that the 3 largest pilot's unions ALPA, Allied pilot's union, Southwest pilot's union safety units that express their concerns.
Next Gen will be a stand alone GPS system with sattelite communications. No radar, VORs , Loran, ADF beacons. Putting any system's eggs all in one basket is IMHO nuts. You cannot build a FARADY cage around every part.
What happens when the next solar flare similar to the one in the 1800s that made telegraphs esp RR go crazy? enough said------
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Anyone interested in what can be done with current rail road technology should read the item in today's Newswire Amtrak Takes Over CSX Line Nov. 5.
At the end of FY11 Amtrak had a gross investment of $15.7 billion in property, plant, and equipment, less accumulated depreciation of $5.6 billion,leaving $10.1 billion of unamortized pp&e on the books.
Amtrak does not make public the location of these investments, i.e. amounts attributable to the upgrade of the NEC, Acela and NEC regional equipment vs. other equipment, etc. Therefore, it is difficult to know how much capital investment is attributable to the Acela. However, it probably is reasonable to conclude that 75 per cent of Amtrak's depreciable assets and interest is attributable to the NEC. If I am correct, approximately $11.8 billion of Amtrak's capital assets can be attributed to the NEC.
In FY11 Amtrak carried 30.2 million passengers; the NEC had 10.9 million and of these 3.4 million or 31 per cent could be found on an Acela train.
As you have pointed out on several occasions, whatever the government plans to spend on NetGen has nothing to do with the key questions regarding passengers rail: where does it make sense; how should it look, i.e. equipment, speeds, etc., and how should it be funded.
I plead guilty to responding to comments regarding subsidies for other modes of transport. But they are irrelevant to the questions regarding the future of passenger rail.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.