Trains.com

Possibly another way for Amtrak to earn more money.

6620 views
107 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 6,449 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Sunday, December 13, 2015 9:56 PM

My observation is that sleeper space sells out long before coach, so that dialing back sleeper space is counter-productive.  I know I would not be tempted out of sleeper space by a slightly bigger coach seat and curtains.

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Friday, December 11, 2015 10:48 AM

dakotafred

C'mon, Schlimm and Milwaukee, I was speaking figuratively. My point was, the kind of extra value Milwaukee is proposing for coach is already available in the sleeper.

I think 3 price points are ample for the low volumes carried on most Amtrak routes. And my objection stands that the expense of remodeling or purchase of new equipment would never pay for itself. As if the money were there in the first place.

Not quite the same.   Sleeper added overhead cost to Amtrak for bedding, attendent, specialized car, cleaning of inside of car, etc.   So a chunk of the extra revenue to Amtrak is lost.    

Additionally, this new service by using existing coach could even result in dropping sleeping car service on some routes where patronage does not necessarily support it OR dialing sleeping car capacity on a route back a bit where via yield management the sleeping car is not performing as financially well as it could if the sleeping car was placed on another route with higher demand.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Friday, December 11, 2015 7:33 AM

I understand, Fred, but deluxe coach (used to be offered pre-Amtrak) is not at all the same as a roomette.  Check the prices.  This would be on LD trains.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    December 2009
  • 1,751 posts
Posted by dakotafred on Friday, December 11, 2015 6:25 AM

C'mon, Schlimm and Milwaukee, I was speaking figuratively. My point was, the kind of extra value Milwaukee is proposing for coach is already available in the sleeper.

I think 3 price points are ample for the low volumes carried on most Amtrak routes. And my objection stands that the expense of remodeling or purchase of new equipment would never pay for itself. As if the money were there in the first place.

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Thursday, December 10, 2015 8:17 PM

schlimm

If I read CMStP's post correctly, he was talking about something analogous to the airlines' coach seats which have a little extra leg room and better furnishings.  On American, that is called "Main Cabin Extra" with up to six inches extra legroom and priority to board and exit. On international, AA calls it Premium Economy, with more legroom and width and better food, to keeep up with non-domestic airlines' services.

So the equivalent is NOT anything with private rooms, be they roomettes or Slumbercoaches or Sleepercoaches from long ago.  Probably it would be one full car (or a half car) with better seating and meals (included in ticket price) served at your seat.  Not impossible to implement.

 

Yes exactly, I was not talking about new sleeper cars just an inexpensive mod to an existing Coach Car.     Years ago Amtrak used to have regular Coach and Long Distance Coach (seats had a fold out leg rest and reclined further).    I have no clue if they still have that or not.     The whole idea here is to give coach passengers a more expensive ticket alternative that is a lot cheaper than a bedroom or roomette without taking up whole volumes of extra space with a lie flat seat.    I think the partitions between the seat would have drawbacks in that you would only be able to see out your window and the one across the aisle when the curtains were open (unless you make the partitions slide down during the day).    However the added privacy at night would be an incentive I think passengers would pay more for.

So these accomodations would be cheaper to maintain vs roomette or sleeper for example:

1. No bedding except maybe a pillow provided with blanket.

2. No plumbing or toilet at the seat.

3. No seperate thermostat controls at the seat.

Also, think the customization would be relatively easy to add BUT I have no idea as to regulations in the area of safety, potential evacuation, etc that would need to be met.

The partitions for example could be nothing more than heavy duty cloth shades that slide up from the seat back and hook into the overhead luggage rack or they could place a bar across the aisle.........luggage rack to luggage rack and have the shades sliding out of the seat back attach to that..........then drop in the curtain rack between the cross aisle bar in front and in back of the seat.......pretty easy and over most peoples heads (they would not have to stoop).     Would be a gap at the top of the shade and car roof of 1-2 feet so that the same ventilation system could be used..........also why we would probably want to use curtains vs glass partition doors.

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • 2,515 posts
Posted by Electroliner 1935 on Thursday, December 10, 2015 4:56 PM

NYC's were rebuilds of 21 roomette Budd cars if I recall and they had a different configuration. 

Slumbercoache single rooms were similar to duplex roomettes in that they had staggered elevations so that you stepped up to every other room, the beds were made in two sections with a thin mattress that was stored behind the seat back and each roomette had its own sink & toilet, thermostat, but no shoe shine recepticle. The double rooms were at one end of the original Budd cars and were to toward the center with roomettes on either side in the rebuilt NYC cars which I think had a different (2 less rooms) space count.

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Thursday, December 10, 2015 4:38 PM

You are quite right: Budd began building slumbercoaches in the fifties.

Johnny

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • 2,515 posts
Posted by Electroliner 1935 on Thursday, December 10, 2015 4:34 PM

I rode slumbercoaches (SC) on multiple RR's and I thought they came in after Pullman transferred the sleeper service to the RR's after the Govenment said they had a conflict between MFG & Ops. Meals were never included in sleeper or SC fares until Amtrak bundled (shades of the cable companys) them for the regular sleepers. 

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Thursday, December 10, 2015 8:15 AM

ROBERT WILLISON

I should have clarified it, I thought Amtrak not Pullman offered meals with for slumbercoach passengers.

I know the Pullman co did not.

 

After Amtrak began including the cost of meals in the cost of first class travel, Slumbercoach passengers still had to pay for their meals.

Johnny

  • Member since
    September 2014
  • 1,180 posts
Posted by ROBERT WILLISON on Thursday, December 10, 2015 7:55 AM

I should have clarified it, I thought Amtrak not Pullman offered meals with for slumbercoach passengers.

I know the Pullman co did not.

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • 964 posts
Posted by gardendance on Thursday, December 10, 2015 7:54 AM

I twice rode VIA's Cavalier, the 11pm ish departure Toronto-Montreal. They had an extra fare car, which I used both trips,  with fewer seats, more legroom, more complicated footrests. I believe they called the service Club 52, or some other number that indicated how many seats in the coach.

On one of those trips there was a father, mother and 2 children under 5 who asked to have their seats swiveled to face each other. I remember one of them mentioning to the other they didn't think the seats were much more comfortable than regular, and I thought turning them to face each other probably ate into the legroom.

Patrick Boylan

Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, December 10, 2015 7:32 AM

If I read CMStP's post correctly, he was talking about something analogous to the airlines' coach seats which have a little extra leg room and better furnishings.  On American, that is called "Main Cabin Extra" with up to six inches extra legroom and priority to board and exit. On international, AA calls it Premium Economy, with more legroom and width and better food, to keeep up with non-domestic airlines' services.

So the equivalent is NOT anything with private rooms, be they roomettes or Slumbercoaches or Sleepercoaches from long ago.  Probably it would be one full car (or a half car) with better seating and meals (included in ticket price) served at your seat.  Not impossible to implement.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    December 2009
  • 1,751 posts
Posted by dakotafred on Thursday, December 10, 2015 7:08 AM

What the OP describes is a roomette. It's already available for a reasonable price. Above that is a bedroom. If you choose to economize on your trip -- save your money to spend at the other end -- you go coach. That's a pretty good range of options. Who has demonstrated the need for yet another?

Even if Amtrak could afford to expensively remodel its coaches, or purchase new, the loss of capacity for a few more dollars a seat would make it a loser. Meantime, we can't even get those paid-for sleepers and dining cars out of Amtrak.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Thursday, December 10, 2015 6:50 AM

The slumbercoach was a good idea as a coach upgrade, it generally was a coach fare plus space charge.  Unfortunately, it never seemed to catch on with any number of passenger operations as CB&Q/NP, B&O and NYC were the only major operators.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    August 2006
  • From: South Dakota
  • 1,592 posts
Posted by Dakguy201 on Thursday, December 10, 2015 6:08 AM

I'd be concerned with encountering at least 2 problems with this idea:

There is a finite number of Superliner coaches and Amtrak shows no inclination to start the process of obtaining compatible replacement.  Effectively, to implement the idea you have to canibalize current coach capacity.  Without current occupancy data, I'm concerned that is a step in the wrong direction.

The on board crew will have an additional duty -- sorting passengers out by class of coach and enforcing that segregation.  The airlines manage to do that with assigned seating, but they don't deal with many intermediate stops and multiple points of entry into their cabins. 

    

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Wednesday, December 9, 2015 8:06 PM

ROBERT WILLISON

Pullman and its predecessors, offered slumber coaches and duplex sleepers to provide lower over night accommodations. If I remember correctly slumber coach passengers meals were part of  the deal.

With that said that was a 1955 solution without all the bells and whistle's.

Many post war trains also ran 21 roomettes cars. Such a floor plan could be modified.

Of course it would involving purchasing new equipment.

 

Pullman never offered meals with sleeping accommodations in my lifetime. After Pullman ceased operating sleeping car service, some of the roads did offer meals with the sleeping accommodations. I took advantage of this on the C&O and on the N&W. 

Johnny

  • Member since
    September 2014
  • 1,180 posts
Posted by ROBERT WILLISON on Wednesday, December 9, 2015 5:58 PM

Pullman and its predecessors, offered slumber coaches and duplex sleepers to provide lower over night accommodations. If I remember correctly slumber coach passengers meals were part of  the deal.

With that said that was a 1955 solution without all the bells and whistle's.

Many post war trains also ran 21 roomettes cars. Such a floor plan could be modified.

Of course it would involving purchasing new equipment.

ccc
  • Member since
    February 2012
  • 50 posts
Posted by ccc on Wednesday, December 9, 2015 2:41 PM

Isn't what you propose effectively Business Class for the Long Distance Routes?

 

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Possibly another way for Amtrak to earn more money.
Posted by CMStPnP on Wednesday, December 9, 2015 11:44 AM

So I think it is kind of neat to float these trial balloons and see what others think.   Recently or rather, in the news today, American Airlines has decided to introduce an Economy Premium Seating type arrangement on some of it's transatlantic flights.    The Economy Premium seats would include meals, be seperated from the regular economy and business class using a partition and the seats would be all leather with extra legroom and would recline a little more that regular economy BUT they would not be the lie flat seats that American Business class offers.

I was thinking perhaps on Amtraks LD trains that in Coach something similar might be tried to jazz up the regular coach accomodations, partitions between the seats with curtains toward the aisles, seats that were wider and reclined a little more, meals paid for in the Dining Car along with seating reservations.    Perhaps Amtrak could sell these LD Coach seats with a higher price than regular coach but cheaper than a Economy Bedroom.     I don't think it would take much to modify a Superliner Coach for these new seating accomodations and maybe the extra revenue could be allocated towards both lowering the Dining Car deficit on a apportioned basis as well as increasing coach fares above what normally would be paid.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy