Not necessarily. Imagine a middle-aged business executive and his wife. He has flown across the continent hundreds of times on business. But I suspect come retirement he would like to see what he has missed and see it comfortably.
But, of course, he has to know that option exists!
Schlimm, I have no doubt sleeper costs are more per car and per passenger, but they also have higher fares per passenger. What I was trying to get at, was whether they pay their porportional (higher) share of the costs. Those Amtrak stats don't provide the answer, however, the age and income numbers were an eye opener. It sounds like the 20th Century Ltd clientele did not abandon the Lake Shore Ltd. Nevertheless, I would liked to have seen the % of respondents who filled out the surveys. One wonders if the younger passengers didn't just toss the surveys. If the age numbers are true, I think most of ATK's passengers will die off in the near future.
blue streak 110 days ? It appears that travel is spread much more evenly over a full year.
I believe the "10 days" refers to higher demand around the Thanksgiving and Christmas/New Years holiday periods, not actual ridershop.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Electroliner 1935 I for one wonder how many potential travlers were unable to find space. I don't believe Amtrak tallies space unavailable requests. IMO the requests for standby seats needs compling by keeping standby requests. You would think that Amtrak would want to show congress how many persons could ride if space was available. As well how many people have to book coach instead of a sleeper room. One time Amtrak allowed me to standby for a room and another did not. Amtrak has a fixed consist policy partly due to equipment shortages and cost constraints that handicaps them. Of course, peak demand can be expensive to provide. The old days of owning and maintaining cars for ten days of use a year are long gone. 10 days ? It appears that travel is spread much more evenly over a full year. Now low times only appear to be early January - mid April & early September - early November. These loads are especially true already for advance sleeper reservations. Those low demand times can be used for light maintenance for a lot of cars. At high demend times have a minimum of cars in for heavy maintenence allowing for the remaining to be carrying revenue passengers.
I for one wonder how many potential travlers were unable to find space. I don't believe Amtrak tallies space unavailable requests.
IMO the requests for standby seats needs compling by keeping standby requests. You would think that Amtrak would want to show congress how many persons could ride if space was available. As well how many people have to book coach instead of a sleeper room. One time Amtrak allowed me to standby for a room and another did not.
Amtrak has a fixed consist policy partly due to equipment shortages and cost constraints that handicaps them. Of course, peak demand can be expensive to provide. The old days of owning and maintaining cars for ten days of use a year are long gone.
I for one wonder how many potential travlers were unable to find space. I don't believe Amtrak tallies space unavailable requests. Our museums' Polar Express trains sold out in 36 hours after going on line on June 1st and I'm sure we could have sold three times the seats we have. Amtrak has a fixed consist policy partly due to equipment shortages and cost constraints that handicaps them. Of course, peak demand can be expensive to provide. The old days of owning and maintaining cars for ten days of use a year are long gone.
Silver Meteor Ridership Profile Annual Ridership (FY 2010) Coach..................................... 313,334 Sleeper..................................... 38,952 Total....................................... 352,286 Average Travel Distance Coach............................................ 575 Sleeper.......................................... 944 Total.............................................. 616 Passenger Miles............. 217 million Age of Adult Passengers (children not included) 18-34...............................................6% 35-54.............................................25% 55+................................................69% Average Age.................................. 58 Gender Female .........................................69% Male .............................................31% Employment Employed....................................43% Retired.........................................43% Education College Graduates ......................... 50% Household Income Under $50K..................................... 45% $50K - $100K ................................... 36% $100K +............................................ 19% Average ..........................................$67K Travel Party Traveling Alone ............................. 58% Group Travel .................................. 42% Traveling with Family.............. 36% Traveling with Friends............... 4% With Business Assoc................... 1% Trip Purpose Business............................................. 6% Non Business .................................. 94% Visit Family/Friends ................ 52% Personal or Family Business.... 11% Vacation (1+ Weeks)................. 18% Leisure or Recreation................ 11% School............................................ 1% Shopping ...................................... 1%
Set forth below is a profile of Lake Shore Limited ridership that is based on survey data and ridership statistics. Annual Ridership (FY 2010) Coach Passengers .....................328,678 Sleeper Passengers......................35,782 Total............................................364,460 Average Travel Distance: Coach Passengers ..................483 miles Sleeper Passengers.................764 miles Total.........................................511 miles Passenger Miles.................. 186 million Age of Adult Passengers (children not included) 18-34..................................................11% 35-54..................................................34% 55+.....................................................55% Average Age.......................................54 Gender Female ..............................................62% Male ..................................................38% Employment Employed.........................................53% Retired..............................................32% Education College Graduates ......................... 65% Household Income Under $50K..................................... 33% $50K - $100K ................................... 41% $100K +............................................ 26% Average ..........................................$78K Travel Party Traveling Alone .........................61% Group Travel ..............................39% Traveling with Family..........31% Traveling with Friends...........6% With Business Assoc...............2% Trip Purpose Business........................................... 12% Non Business .................................. 88% Visit Family/Friends ................ 56% Personal or Family Business...... 8% Vacation (1+ Weeks)................. 10% Leisure or Recreation................ 10% School............................................ 2% Shopping ...................................... 1%
The formatting from the report does not transfer. Sorry.
Mike: The PRIIA reports are not all designed using the same format or content. I looked at several, at least one or two of which gave age and income demographics for the entire train, and ridership for sleeper vs. coach and length of journey, sleeper vs. coach. Try the LSL and maybe CZ and EB ones.
As to comparative costs by class, I do not know where those are published. However, it seems reasonably logical to deduce that sleeper purchase costs, and maintenance and labor expenses would be higher per car and per passenger.
schlimm All true, but the important points seem to be these: 1. Amtrak is a service, largely subsidized, totally so for LD trains, to the tune of around 20 cents per passenger mile. 2. To get the most bang for the buck, or putting another way, to serve the most people, provide more coaches since that is what the vast majority of Amtrak passengers use. 3. Sleepers have higher costs to purchase, carry far fewer passengers per car, have much higher operating, labor and maintenance costs than coaches. 4. Sleepers are necessary for very LD trains. If you look at the PRIIA stats, you will find that those trains have a more elderly clientele with a large percentage having income in six figures. Therefore, raise the sleeper fares to cover more of the costs, since the modal passengers do not really need the subsidy and are not riding it as basic, needed transportation.
All true, but the important points seem to be these:
1. Amtrak is a service, largely subsidized, totally so for LD trains, to the tune of around 20 cents per passenger mile.
2. To get the most bang for the buck, or putting another way, to serve the most people, provide more coaches since that is what the vast majority of Amtrak passengers use.
3. Sleepers have higher costs to purchase, carry far fewer passengers per car, have much higher operating, labor and maintenance costs than coaches.
4. Sleepers are necessary for very LD trains. If you look at the PRIIA stats, you will find that those trains have a more elderly clientele with a large percentage having income in six figures. Therefore, raise the sleeper fares to cover more of the costs, since the modal passengers do not really need the subsidy and are not riding it as basic, needed transportation.
To get the most bang for the buck, apparently you need to look at Mega-bus. Sleepers have higher costs, but also higher fares. The only way to make a relative comparison with coach is with a cost brakedown between coach and sleeper. Scanning thru the PRIIA report for the Capitol Ltd, I did not see a brakedown by class. I also did not see a brakedown of passengers by age groups. I can believe that a lot of sleeper occupants are senior, but I am not sure if you are saying that the income figures are also PRIIA stats, or if it is your personal observation.
The whole point is to come up with some new way(s) to increase revenue with minimal investment and expense. Preserving the status quo doesn't advance that. And Amtrak is not known for innovation.
CMStPnP blue streak 1 Capital costs for equipment laying over at night would be raising red flags in congress. Amtrak does not have enough equipment now or for at least 10 years in the future. Remember VIA has a surplus of equipment that is fully paid for. Not really, the Skeena operates on a every other day schedule so it does not require extra equipment to conduct the overnight stay......to my knowledge.
blue streak 1 Capital costs for equipment laying over at night would be raising red flags in congress. Amtrak does not have enough equipment now or for at least 10 years in the future. Remember VIA has a surplus of equipment that is fully paid for.
Capital costs for equipment laying over at night would be raising red flags in congress. Amtrak does not have enough equipment now or for at least 10 years in the future. Remember VIA has a surplus of equipment that is fully paid for.
Not really, the Skeena operates on a every other day schedule so it does not require extra equipment to conduct the overnight stay......to my knowledge.
There were four cars on the train when I traveled last fall--baggage, coach, Panorama, and Park car.
Johnny
schlimm Well, I think Tom has shown us that the idea CMStP&P had for A-T is not likely. How about his other concept (deluxe coach), which I think would have different success chances, whether on eastern LD trains vs western, one night or two.
Well, I think Tom has shown us that the idea CMStP&P had for A-T is not likely. How about his other concept (deluxe coach), which I think would have different success chances, whether on eastern LD trains vs western, one night or two.
Yes, I am still interested in how the extra fare coach service would do. A while back Amtrak used to market the AmClub red upholstered seats everywhere as Business Class and for a short period of time the Chicago to Milwaukee cooridor had business class and business class fares but it all disappeared one day.
And, since the trip would be, more-or less, all day for two days, a total of four trainsets would be necessary.
I forgot to mention the logistics of getting a couple hundred southbound passengers from the Florence station to the yet-to-be-built hotels in Florence, plus another couple hundred northbound passengers doing the same thing. A switch engine and crew would have to be employed to move the empty sleepers out of the station area for overnight storage somewhere in the Florence area (where exactly?). The train's operating schedule would have to be severely adjusted. Instead of arriving Florence around midnight southbound and around 1 am northbound (varies), the schedule would have to be advanced 3-4 hours to provide for an arrival at Florence around 9 pm. This means departure from the point of origin around noon or 1 pm. Since auto loading and checkin requires a couple hours, passengers would have to start arriving for checkin at the originating terminal early in the morning. As a result, southbound passengers would have to contend with DC rush hour traffic. Those traveling more than an hour or two (which means anybody from Wilmington, Philadelphia, NJ, NY, or New England) would have to drive down the previous day and spend the night in a hotel. I don't know what we would do to provide for the needs of those who have to go to bed very early (i.e., before arrival in Florence).
In the morning, the train would resume its trip, probably departing around 8:30 or 9:00 am. The scenery along the route is pleasant in its own way, but not particularly scenic. Therefore, I don't see any advantage to traveling in the daylight rather than the nighttime. In fact, most motorists would rather drive in daylight and rest on the train during the night. From Florence to Sanford, the running time is around 9 hours. This means arrival in Sanford around 5-6 pm. Lots of Auto Train passengers have trouble driving after dark, so they would have a hard time making it to Miami or the Keys on the same day, and would have to stay another night in a hotel. (Granted, not all are going that far, but quite a few are). The equipment would sit idle until departure next morning, which is a pretty inefficient way to schedule the use of expensive equipment.
I have not addressed the need to adjust mealtimes, but in order to get dinner served to everybody before arrival at the destination terminal, the first dinner seating would probably have to begin around 3 pm, which most passengers would find unacceptable.
I have focused on the southbound operation. Northbound, there would be slightly different factors to consider, but the general idea would be about the same.
Since the stations would have to be open early in the morning and remain open until well into the evening, the number of man hours needed for a typical day's operation would increase to about 150% of current needs (rough estimation).
I can understand tweaking an operation to improve it; but in general it's risky to try to make too many major changes to an operation that's already working pretty well.
Any more brainstorms?
Tom
CMStPnP Wonder if the passengers on Auto Train would care that much if say the train dropped all it's sleepers and halted in South Carolina for an overnight and then resumed the next morning.......similar to the Skeena. Would the 10-12 hour layover really make a huge difference in a client deciding to take that train or not?
Wonder if the passengers on Auto Train would care that much if say the train dropped all it's sleepers and halted in South Carolina for an overnight and then resumed the next morning.......similar to the Skeena. Would the 10-12 hour layover really make a huge difference in a client deciding to take that train or not?
If I am paying to take the train (with my car to get from the DC area to Florida, there is some perceived benefit to that arrangement. Such as I don't have to actually drive that whole way and since I'm traveling through the night, I still get there in decent time. If the train is going to park overnight, the trip will take a lot longer — in that case, why not just take the plane and rent a car at destination?
Last summer I needed to make a trip from Arkansas to Washington DC by myself. I could drive, which includes stopping overnight somewhere in Tennessee. I've done that. Not fun. Very tiring. I could fly. I could, but don't care for being packed like a sardine where I can't use travel time to get work done. Or I could take the train, via Chicago. Turned out the train would take just a few hours longer than driving, but I got to DC rested and had plenty of time to work on the train. So I took the train. Both the Texas Eagle and the Capitol Limited travel through the night. I slept well even in coach.
Would I have been able to take the train if it included stops in odd places to spend the night? Surely not -- way too much time wasted.
That scheme reminds me of a concept from the early days of aviation: how to get across the US faster: Coast to Coast in 48 hours - Rail and Air. By night luxurious trains.By day safe swift planes. Service started in 1929. Except of course, stopping the train overnight is to remove speed and convenience. Maybe good for a tourist train. For actual transportation not so much.
Interesting to consider. Dave has rightly pointed out the additional need for equipment. Since sleeping car passengers tend to like the idea of privacy during the daytime as well as at night, I don't think they would like the idea of making the trip in the form of two one-day coach trips interrupted by a night in a hotel. So what will their daytime accommodations look like? Unless I'm misunderstanding something, that is what is being suggested. As it is, passengers in need of special accommodations for physical/medical reasons have to leave their vehicle to enter and leave the train at the departure and arrival points. This plan means they would have to make these inconvenient (and sometimes even painful) changes twice as many times. Are you suggesting that coach passengers will also wait overnight at a midpoint such as Florence? If not, does this mean the coach portion of the train continues on to the end of the line? Does this mean the auto carriers are switched out so they will travel on the same train as their owners? If they are not switched out, and are forwarded to the end terminal to wait for their owners' arrival the next day, where will the autos be stored? Don't suggest that additional parking space should be constructed because neither terminal has any available space nearby. There are undoubtedly other considerations, not the least of which is the construction of one or two brand new hotels in downtown Florence, South Carolina to facilitate what can only be thought of as an iffy experiment.
Would this idea work? I don't have a crystal ball. If I did, it would probably tell me, "Not in a million years!" Try implementing this and I predict the Auto Train will be a thing of the past in a year or less. When you're talking about passenger service, it's not just a matter of getting the passenger from point A to point B in a certain amount of time. It's also about service, comfort, and convenience. This plan ignores all three of those.
I've been known to be wrong. There was the time when I was 10 years old and walked out on ice less than an inch thick. Fortunately, the water was only about 30 inches deep. But I digress.........
CMStPnP BTW, I would argue the VIA Rail Canada Skeena which has no sleeping cars but which halts overnight between Jasper and Prince Rupert. Produces far more revenue per passenger when it runs near full than ANY LD Amtrak train in the lower 48. How can I say that? Three classes of coach fares.......which most in this thread are saying is not feasible. Already proven feasible by VIA Rail Canada....on a Long Distance train with no sleepers attached. Amtrak already has an example to the North to look at in this respect. Another item I would be curious about is if halting the Skeena for overnight hotel accomodations really costs a lot more than running the train straight through. I am willing to bet that it is cheaper with the union contracts and the fact that the equipment can be inspected and maintained overnight during the layover..........so is it really a hit on equipment productivity for a Long Distance train to halt at night for hotel accomodations? It's a hit on schedule but how many passengers really care with a 48 hour or longer train schedule if the train stops for an overnight? Wonder if the passengers on Auto Train would care that much if say the train dropped all it's sleepers and halted in South Carolina for an overnight and then resumed the next morning.......similar to the Skeena. Would the 10-12 hour layover really make a huge difference in a client deciding to take that train or not?
BTW, I would argue the VIA Rail Canada Skeena which has no sleeping cars but which halts overnight between Jasper and Prince Rupert. Produces far more revenue per passenger when it runs near full than ANY LD Amtrak train in the lower 48. How can I say that? Three classes of coach fares.......which most in this thread are saying is not feasible. Already proven feasible by VIA Rail Canada....on a Long Distance train with no sleepers attached.
Amtrak already has an example to the North to look at in this respect.
Another item I would be curious about is if halting the Skeena for overnight hotel accomodations really costs a lot more than running the train straight through. I am willing to bet that it is cheaper with the union contracts and the fact that the equipment can be inspected and maintained overnight during the layover..........so is it really a hit on equipment productivity for a Long Distance train to halt at night for hotel accomodations? It's a hit on schedule but how many passengers really care with a 48 hour or longer train schedule if the train stops for an overnight?
Those who pay Touring fare have not only a Panorama car (with windows that curve into the roof) but also a Park car (dome observation), and two meals are provided in the fare.
I do not doubt that hotel operators in Florence would be glad to have the overnight business every night, though if Auto Train were operated in such a manner.
Another point which I and CMStP&P overlooked is the growth in passenger ridership. Most has been in the NEC and the short corridors, not LD services. Yet Amtrak's Viewliner II order provides nothing for those growth areas.
Much is made on here of a shortage of sleepers, but on today's CZ to DEN there is one coach seat but roomettes are available. Ditto thru Tuesday, and on one date, only sleeper space is available.
daveklepperAmtrak did not buy single-level sleepers
What were/are the ~50 Viewliner I sleepers then?
Stainless steel car shells have a practically indefinite life if constructed properly, and I beleive this is true of Amfleet I and II. Amtrak did not buy single-level sleepers, and simply converted heritage equipment to HEP to soldier on. The Amfleet coaches and now Horizon coaches have many years of recycling and resuing ahead of them. But Amtrak needs single-level sleepers.
ACY can probably judge what would happe to Auto Train patronage if total runnjing time including hotel layover was 34 hours instead of 22. And remember that four sets of equipment would be required, not just two, if daily serivce were to be maintained..
I would like to see a comparison of the purchased cost for a sleeper vs a coach. Perhaps Amtrak did not include any coaches in the V2 order for that reason - no comparison. The purchase cost per passenger for a sleeper is probably much, much higher than for a coach.
I think the other thing being missed in this thread is this.....
Lets say every bed is filled in a Superliner Sleeper........how many passengers is that car carrying compared to a Coach? Thats also a very unlikely scenario since it is fairly common for one person to rent a two bed roomette or one person to rend a bedroom........does single occupancy on a Amtrak sleeper cost more (as in Europe on a European sleeper)? No it does not.
Thats one big reason it is more expensive, car costs are spread over far less people. Add bedding, meals, refreshments, car attendant, additional plumbing and HVAC........significantly more costs vs. coach.
So you can argue the Sleeping car generates more revenue BUT where the argument is lost is it HAS to generate more revenue to cover it's costs. So more revenue generation of a sleeping car does not necessarily mean increased financial health for Amtrak.
schlimm MidlandMike schlimm With ratios of coach passengers to sleepers of 9 or 10:1, along with the higher labor and operating and maintenance expenses and purchase costs for a sleeper and the much smaller passenger load, worrying about enough sleeper cars on LD trains is not very sharp. I suspect the stat is for passengers (tickets sold) rather than passenger-miles. Sleeper passengers tend to ride longer segments than many coach passenger "shorts". As pointed out by others, sleeper passengers account for about half the cars and revenue per train. For Amtrak to ignore this demand and revenue would not make good business sense. Instead of suspecting, look at actual numbers from the PRIIA study of the Crescent" Annual Ridership (FY 2010) Coach Passengers ..........264,912 Sleeper Passengers...........33,776 Total.............................298,688 Average Travel Distance: Coach Passengers ................... 526 miles Sleeper Passengers.................. 755 miles So coach passenger ride a little shorter ride. If you think that 11% of the ridership generates 50% of the revenue, let's see the data. On western routes, the proportion of sleeper passengers is higher (SWC 17%). And the average distance ridden in sleepers is almost double.
MidlandMike schlimm With ratios of coach passengers to sleepers of 9 or 10:1, along with the higher labor and operating and maintenance expenses and purchase costs for a sleeper and the much smaller passenger load, worrying about enough sleeper cars on LD trains is not very sharp. I suspect the stat is for passengers (tickets sold) rather than passenger-miles. Sleeper passengers tend to ride longer segments than many coach passenger "shorts". As pointed out by others, sleeper passengers account for about half the cars and revenue per train. For Amtrak to ignore this demand and revenue would not make good business sense.
schlimm With ratios of coach passengers to sleepers of 9 or 10:1, along with the higher labor and operating and maintenance expenses and purchase costs for a sleeper and the much smaller passenger load, worrying about enough sleeper cars on LD trains is not very sharp.
With ratios of coach passengers to sleepers of 9 or 10:1, along with the higher labor and operating and maintenance expenses and purchase costs for a sleeper and the much smaller passenger load, worrying about enough sleeper cars on LD trains is not very sharp.
I suspect the stat is for passengers (tickets sold) rather than passenger-miles. Sleeper passengers tend to ride longer segments than many coach passenger "shorts". As pointed out by others, sleeper passengers account for about half the cars and revenue per train. For Amtrak to ignore this demand and revenue would not make good business sense.
Instead of suspecting, look at actual numbers from the PRIIA study of the Crescent"
Annual Ridership (FY 2010)
Coach Passengers ..........264,912
Sleeper Passengers...........33,776
Total.............................298,688
Average Travel Distance:
Coach Passengers ................... 526 miles
Sleeper Passengers.................. 755 miles
So coach passenger ride a little shorter ride. If you think that 11% of the ridership generates 50% of the revenue, let's see the data.
On western routes, the proportion of sleeper passengers is higher (SWC 17%). And the average distance ridden in sleepers is almost double.
Calculating using the figures you supplied:
On the Crescent the sleeper passengers are 15.5% of the passenger-miles, and if they pay twice as much as coach per psgr-mile, they will account for about 27% of the revenue.
On the SW Chief sleepers are 29% of the psgr-miles, and if they pay twice as much, they're just over 46% of revenue.
VIA HEP for Canadian runs at a higher voltage than Amtrak so more power is available to budd cars..
ACY Auto Train is a big train with a large O. B. S. crew. There are no vacant rooms in the Crew Dorm available for sale as revenue rooms on that train. I know this is commonly done on other trains which have smaller crews. R. Willison referenced the pre-Superliner consist. There were normally three 10-6's and three 11 bedroom cars in those days, plus a 10-6 or 11-bedroom car in use as a crew car. The original Viewliner sleepers were briefly used for a few months on that train, and I think they may have been used in addition to the normal consist, but my memory may be faulty. This was about 20 years ago. If they were additional, then the train had seven revenue sleepers plus a [non revenue] crew car. Johnny, I'm curious. Did a crew member open the Dorm car's lower level door for you, or did you open it yourself? As far as I know, Amtrak frowns on anybody detraining from an unattended Superliner door, although this is sometimes allowed in other areas with other types of equipment and high level platforms where the threshold and platform height are well matched. If there was nobody to attend that entrance, I suspect Amtrak would have preferred that you walk to the door of the adjacent car to detrain. Maybe they do things differently out West. Tom
Auto Train is a big train with a large O. B. S. crew. There are no vacant rooms in the Crew Dorm available for sale as revenue rooms on that train. I know this is commonly done on other trains which have smaller crews.
R. Willison referenced the pre-Superliner consist. There were normally three 10-6's and three 11 bedroom cars in those days, plus a 10-6 or 11-bedroom car in use as a crew car. The original Viewliner sleepers were briefly used for a few months on that train, and I think they may have been used in addition to the normal consist, but my memory may be faulty. This was about 20 years ago. If they were additional, then the train had seven revenue sleepers plus a [non revenue] crew car.
Johnny, I'm curious. Did a crew member open the Dorm car's lower level door for you, or did you open it yourself? As far as I know, Amtrak frowns on anybody detraining from an unattended Superliner door, although this is sometimes allowed in other areas with other types of equipment and high level platforms where the threshold and platform height are well matched. If there was nobody to attend that entrance, I suspect Amtrak would have preferred that you walk to the door of the adjacent car to detrain. Maybe they do things differently out West.
As to where I boarded and detrained, I boarded my car in Chicago--there was someone standing there, and the door was open when I got off here. As I recall, a conductor was there when I boarded, and a conductor got off in Salt Lake City (division point). When boarding, I simply told him my room number.
When boarding here, a conductor scans our tickets and gives us boarding passes; when I reach my car, I tell the attendant that this is the car I am looking for, and what my space is. They usually quickly catch on that it is not my first trip on Amtrak. I will usually compliment the attendant on his spiel that he broadcasts in the car as we leave the origin.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.