Apparently the Crescent is getting business class
Amtrak will offer Business class service aboard the Crescent beginning April 1, and passengers can begin making reservations for this new service on March 14.
Crescent Business class passengers can enjoy the following amenities:
For fares and reservation information, visit Amtrak.com, use our free mobile apps or call at 1-800-USA-RAIL (1-800-872-7245). Thank you for choosing Amtrak.
I think that offering falls short....
They should also include alcholic beverages, pre-boarding, and upgraded reclining seats with a recharging station for cell and laptop in my opinion.
The price of an economy room on the Crescent on May 11th is $334. A business class seat is $175.
Will business class bring in new customers or draw from the coach and first class passengers? Probably a combination!
Most of Amtrak's long distance passengers, even on the western trains, are only on the train for one night. If the seats in business class were made as comfortable as those on the airlines overseas flights, and the price spread remains as wide as it is for the Crescent, many of the first class passengers might opt for business class on the long distance trains.
If the Crescent experiment is successful - it appears Amtrak is testing the concept for wider use on the long distance trains, it could spread to other trains. If enough people opt for business class as opposed to the pricier rooms, could it portend the death of the private room sleeping car?
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
JPS1Most of Amtrak's long distance passengers, even on the western trains, are only on the train for one night. If the seats in business class were made as comfortable as those on the airlines overseas flights, and the price spread remains as wide as it is for the Crescent, many of the first class passengers might opt for business class on the long distance trains. If the Crescent experiment is successful - it appears Amtrak is testing the concept for wider use on the long distance trains, it could spread to other trains. If enough people opt for business class as opposed to the pricier rooms, could it portend the death of the private room sleeping car?
Something like this?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Or even something a bit less elaborate than shown in the pictures. Maybe a form fitting seat that reclines 60 per cent and a partial divider between the seats.
I would bet it would cost less for the one overnight trains to have a business class custom lie flat or lie almost flat seats that it does to add a compartment sleeper to the train. Using that approach Amtrak could free up more sleepers for the trains that take two nights to complete a journey in which the compartment sleepers make more sense.
CMStPnP I would bet it would cost less for the one overnight trains to have a business class custom lie flat or lie almost flat seats that it does to add a compartment sleeper to the train. Using that approach Amtrak could free up more sleepers for the trains that take two nights to complete a journey in which the compartment sleepers make more sense.
Have been hoping that someone in the know could answer a few questions.
1. What type car is the Crescent going to use ? Is to be a modified lounge or a separate car. ?
2. What will be the placement of business class in the train ? If it is a separate car will the diner be between it and the lounge car ?
3. The Heritage diners are not equipped for wi-fi pass thru there by reducing the effectiveness of reception until the V-2 diners are in service. That is one reason LD single level trains have wi-fi problems for the sleeper passengers.
4. Advanced bookings. A quick look appears to indicate more south bound booking than north bound at first. Does this mean that NEC previous Amtrak passengers are more aware of business class ? Or has Amtrak marketing just been directed to the NEC area ?
5. Will persons who book online or by phone be made aware of business class ? The web site still is lacking.
6. What is the seating pitch and is it 2x2 or 2x1 seating ?
Pullman sections were a cheaper alternative to compartment sleepers, and even had a heavy curtain. Nevertheless, they were not popular.
Anyone remember the DayNighter seats VIA had?
They are in use on trains in Australia
https://www.google.com/search?q=day+nighter+seat&espv=2&biw=1024&bih=677&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKgIus19rLAhXHSSYKHWssBQ4Q7AkIQQ#imgrc=ZGFVxWIYC31ZwM%3A.
I don't know about anybody else but it definitely looks to me like somebody is trying to reinvent the Slumbercoach.
CSSHEGEWISCH I don't know about anybody else but it definitely looks to me like somebody is trying to reinvent the Slumbercoach.
I have never been in a slumbercoach but there is a Youtube tour of one on Amtrak.
Slumbercoach is not just a seat, pretty sure there is bedding, towels, individual plumbing and thermostat controls as well as it being boxed off compartment wise. Quite a difference in maintence and operating costs. If you keep the towels and soap all at the shower or via individual shaving kits you save costs right there vs having them spread through the car at each seat. Also properly engineered seats that lie flat can be sold as regular coach if you have the option of locking out the lie flat ability and foot recliner via touch screen in the vestibule. So also potential for dual use marketing wise unlike a slumbercoach. Again, we are not talking huge costs here to retro-fit a Superliner Coach. Replacing some or all of the seats and a controller in the vestibule which potentially can be wireless if the car has wi-fi.
BTW, I am going to start a new thread on Amtrak Wi-Fi as this gives me some more ideas.
Looking at the slumbercoaches, both the originals and those built for the NYC:
Since each room had one or two berths, there was bedding--mattress(es), sheets, pillow(s) pillowcases(s), and blanket(s) in each room.
Since each room had a washbasin and toilet, the necessary appurtances (soap, washcloth(s), and towel(s) were also in each room. The berths were narrower than roomette/bedroom berths, and were definitely for one adult each.
I had opportunity (and took it) to travel in both the original and the NYC versions. My first trip was from Chicago to Washington on the B&O in 1968; my last trip was from the Peachtree Station to Trenton in an NYC version in 1984.
Johnny
Johnny, I to traveled on AQmtrak slumbercoaches. Took one of my milage building trips from Chicago to NYC, to Philly, to & from Atlantic City, thence to Miami. Chicago to NYC and Philly to Miami were booked in slumbercoaches but when I boarded in Philly, the SC was replaced by a 10-6 car and I had a full roomette for that portion of the trip. Using the All Aboard America fare, for three zones, I continued from Miami to LA, to San Jose, layed over in San Jose, thence to Porland and on to home in Chicago. Miami to Chicago was Superliners. Can't repeat that now as Amtrak doesn't go to A.C. nor does the Sunset come East of N.O. The slumbercoach sure beats sleeping in a coach seat.
They are not trying to reinvent the slumber coach, but rather the pullman section.
I think adding business class to overnight trains is another of AMTRAK's current policy to downgrade or eliminate first class service in an effort to reduce costs. With the Boaradman administration, it has been a relentless effort to reduce costs and amenities associated with the Long Distance trains. The elimination of the dining car on the Silver Star is one example.
The long distance train’s operating losses decreased from $575.6 million or 21 cents per passenger mile in 2010 to $514 million or 19 cents per passenger mile in 2015, a decrease of 10.7 per cent.
Substituting business class accommodations for private room accommodations could reduce even more the operating losses of these trains. So too could elimination of the full service dining cars. These changes could help ensure the survival of the long distance trains for the small number of patrons that depend on them or want them.
Approximately 85 per cent of the long distance train rider’s ride coach class. The average distance traveled in FY10 – latest published figures – was approximately 600 miles. Sleeping car passengers averaged approximately 1,000 miles. The FY15 numbers probably are close to these and suggest most passengers are only on the train for one night, if that, and for two or three meals.
An improved business class service could satisfy the needs of most of the overnight passengers that want better accommodations than those in coach. Also, an expanded menu in the lounge cars and quicker service could meet the needs of most long distance passengers.
Because of their complexity sleeping cars are costly to buy, maintain, and service. According to a study by the federal DOT IG in 2005, which admittedly is dated, the subsidy for sleeping car passengers, which reflects the spread between revenues and costs, was noticeably greater than the subsidy for coach passengers. Whether the same relationship exists today is unknown.
Business class cars, as opposed to room cars, probably would be less costly to purchase, maintain, and service, although how much less is unknown.
According to Amtrak’s IG, 87 per cent of Amtrak’s annual loss on food and beverage services is attributable to the long distance trains. The loss on the long distance trains in FY15 was approximately $65 million.
Sleeping cars and dining cars require more on-board employees than a business class car and a lounge car. The number of employees that could be terminated if sleeping cars and dining cars are eliminated is unknown.
According to a study dated March 6, 2015, by the Manhattan Institute, the average compensation package for an on-board Amtrak employee in 2012 was $41.19 per hour. Presumably this includes base pay, overtime, benefits and miscellaneous overheads. Whether this includes the compensation packages for the operating crew, i.e. engineer, conductor, and assistant conductor, is unclear. These numbers indicate that Amtrak’s on-board labor costs are high. Reducing the number of on-board employees could have a dramatic impact on the long distance train cost structure.
JPS1Sleeping cars and dining cars require more on-board employees than a business class car and a lounge car. The number of employees that could be terminated if sleeping cars and dining cars are eliminated is unknown.
I'll bet union agreement would make this number "small at best" - and in my opinion not only is that the wrong word, but shows the wrong general mindset about how to go about building a 'consensus' for more efficient operations at Amtrak.
When all the waste is out of other areas of operations -- the commissary 'waste' we've discussed on other threads, for example -- and some of the new business-class amenities and plans now under consideration have shown their worth in practical terms -- AND when all the current employees have been given the shot at reassignment, or retraining, or whatever... then is the time we can start thinking about handing out the 'terminations' ... and while we're at it then, we could consider how to amend the current labor agreements so that seniority of the crabby doesn't necessarily require their retention during 'force adjustment' or whatever you want to call it.
Yes, it does; yes, it would; yes, long-term ways in which the number of on-board employees per train could be "right-sized" are likely to be important to Amtrak's operation and perhaps its survival. But you put the structures in place to 'replace' their current suboptimal utilization, busy-work, wasted time and poor working conditions or atmosphere first when deciding on reductions, otherwise you're likely to make a poor and arduous situation even poorer and more arduous for the now-victims who remain. And, I would argue, you 'lead' with incentives for early retirement or reassignment outside of train operations first, rather than coldly figuring whose heads will ... ever so regrettably, but alas! t'was necessary! ... have to roll when we get around to telling them.
I'm actually fine with the one sleeping car attendent per sleeping car and I have no issues with that labor cost because you need it for service. I would make a couple of amendments to it though:
1. Two night min train travel for sleeper usage.
2. Sleeping Car attendent must have the opportunity and motivation to sell additional items and boost his/her salary above current via commissions. Definitely would add products and services that the Sleeping Car attendent could sell to the passengers to boost revenue or service based on a commission. Also, think they should get a portion of the commission if the Conductor makes a sale for an empty sleeping car compartment in their car. They should allow on train upgrades of sleeping car compartments as well. Sleeping Car attendent should be able to upgrade a frequent Amtrak user to Bedroom from Economy, if it means more sleeping space can be sold on the train.
3. Sleeping Car attendent and union contract should permit in my view that the sleeping car attendent should be supplimented by neighboring cars via peak periods of need by passengers or Car attendent trained on how to balance the workload of the car over time. I have seen some sleeping car attendents that just sit on their backsides the whole trip waiting for the porter call button to be pushed. Thats really bad, in my opinion.
In my view the sleeping car attendent should make several rounds and schedule when best to make the beds for nightime sleep and when best to recover them from same via coordination with the passengers (most do but not all of them do). Also should periodically check in on passengers when they are awake (once a day min) to see how they are doing and if he /she can make the trip better. I do see there are peak times when the car attendent is swamped with cleaning compartments and/or making beds. I don't know why that is or why that happens but I suspect it can be mitigated somewhat or avoided with better procedures.
4. Amtrak Passengers should be reminded at the end of the trip that tipping a Sleeping Car attendent for great service and also told approx amount to tip.
Sooooo, I feel the Sleeping Car attendent if more animated during the day could sell more and offset their salary somewhat as well as provide better service. Hence I do not view them as such a bad idea or a cost that should be avoided. I just think overnight trips on most trains...........you don't really need a sleeping car.
CMStPnP 1. Two night min train travel for sleeper usage. … I just think overnight trips on most trains...........you don't really need a sleeping car.
…
I just think overnight trips on most trains...........you don't really need a sleeping car.
That's an interesting statement. So people traveling from New York, Washington DC and the like to Chicago don't "need" a sleeper, but people traveling from LA to Chicago do.
In the past year I've travelled
Little Rock - Washington DC via Chicago (so 2 nights, but change of train in Chicago),
New York - Chicago (1 night),
Chicago - Little Rock (1 night with arrival at 3:10am) a few times,
Little Rock - Los Angeles (2 nights) and
Los Angeles - Chicago (2 nights).
By choice, I did that all in coach and personally did fine. That said, I don't think that proves that sleepers aren't needed or are only needed for a certain trip duration. Obviously many of the fine people I dined with on each train who were sleeper passengers felt the need for sleeper accomodations.
I find it questionable to make a blanket statement that sleepers aren't needed for one night of travel, meaning let's drop them entirely from all trains traveling only overnight, and on trains traveling multiple nights, block passengers who would like to get a sleeper for their one night travel from doing so. That's just confusing and arbitrary as far as the passenger is concerned.
A number of your other points make sense to me.
I'll repeat this again, even though dining cars are not the main subject, but cost somehow has become mostly the topic here. Return back to cooking the food onboard and charge actual cost for the service, but include no profit...just break even. Taking the same concept to sleeping car service, because MOST of those that use sleepers are not big families or others that price would be a consideration for, charge at least break-even levels. Of course, AMTRAK could continue to use the yield pricing structure they have now, which they adopted from the airlines, it just needs to be fine tuned to be more responsive and with quicker flexibility.
You know, folks, before you dispense with sleeping cars, which in my experience usually run full -- just try to reserve a roomette nearer than months in advance -- why don't you fill up the coaches? Problem solved!
Diners are part of the LD package. Unless you're persuaded by John Mica that Amtrak's modest operating subsidy is a lot of money -- Washington spills more than that every day, before lunch -- why not stand up for the right instead of going over to the dark side?
Necessity? I think not. The SOBs haven't killed Amtrak in 45 years, and there's no prospect of them doing so now. The danger is that, with our cooperation, they'll pervert it into something that's unrecognizable to even you and me, as well as unattractive to the general public.
Who needs Greyhound or Megabus on rails (except slower, less frequent and in odd hours)?
CJtrainguy ... I find it questionable to make a blanket statement that sleepers aren't needed for one night of travel, meaning let's drop them entirely from all trains traveling only overnight, and on trains traveling multiple nights, block passengers who would like to get a sleeper for their one night travel from doing so. That's just confusing and arbitrary as far as the passenger is concerned.
...
+1. As a sleeper user, Business Class is not a substitute for a sleeper.
+1 to Dakotafred also.
CJtrainguyI find it questionable to make a blanket statement that sleepers aren't needed for one night of travel, meaning let's drop them entirely from all trains traveling only overnight, and on trains traveling multiple nights, block passengers who would like to get a sleeper for their one night travel from doing so. That's just confusing and arbitrary as far as the passenger is concerned.
So your argument is sleeping cars are needed for trains for a single overnight because of.......???? I have no problem attaching them to a train as long as they cover all their costs. The sleeper seat suggestion was a way for Amtrak to offer passengers similar comfort at far less cost than a seperate car with seperate compartments.
The logic has proven to work with just a seat for a flight of the same duration of an average overnight train. I think Emirates has compartmentalized seats but they charge a small fortune for it.....I think it's $20-25,000 to fly to Dubai in one. Not anywhere near what Amtrak charges for a bedroom. Of course a lie flat seat on a airline for overnight travel is not as cheap as an Amtrak sleeping compartment either.........that maybe part of the issue.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR I'll repeat this again, even though dining cars are not the main subject, but cost somehow has become mostly the topic here. Return back to cooking the food onboard and charge actual cost for the service, but include no profit...just break even. Taking the same concept to sleeping car service, because MOST of those that use sleepers are not big families or others that price would be a consideration for, charge at least break-even levels. Of course, AMTRAK could continue to use the yield pricing structure they have now, which they adopted from the airlines, it just needs to be fine tuned to be more responsive and with quicker flexibility.
That would reduce the dining car deficit but not eliminate it. The missing component is passengers or dining car clients. In order to get to a manageable price you have to be able to spread the fixed and variable costs over the number of clients that use the dining car. Perhaps this is possible with 600-800 passengers on the train along with other revenue enhancements but thats not a typical Amtrak load.
I agree with Schlimm that past passenger train diner food prices would be 25-30% higher today if inflation was taken into account. However, restoring prices to the levels they should be at would be just one area of service that needs to be addressed.
However, also if you remember the revenue of the diner wasn't just restricted to seatings of people back then to just eat food, there were other services. I seem to remember the conductor or porter carrying food out of the diner to different locations on the train, in exchange for a tip. Also, seem to remember that mixed drinks were a lot more prevelant back then than they are today and those were another serve at your seat item............a service that Amtrak has almost abandoned entirely......interestingly, the most profitable part of running a dining or lounge car has been almost eliminated by Amtrak. Let me know the next time you see a bartender on Amtrak that can mix drinks from full size liquor bottles. I even seem to remember when the dining car was closed you could put in a special request to the onboard chef after hours to an extent for a late night snack, also in exchange for a tip. Try that one on Amtrak......someone will female dog at or lecture you. Amtrak is more rules based than service based. Railroad carriers of old were more service based and had a whole range of revenue enhancements for services onboard. Did Santa Fe offer the Turquiose Room for free to large groups of people or was there a surcharge for it? I would suspect the latter.
The flip side of the coin of course is dining car staff in the private railway dining car days was not paid as well as they are today. In some cases they did not even have crew car accomodations. I remember reading the story from the 1930's or 1940's of a dining car steward that once the dining car was closed spread out a spacer between tables and slept on the table tops of the dining car because the railroad did not provide a sleeping car compartment for them. That practice is gone for good as well as the low pay but just mentioning it for illustration that a lot has changed. Another area Stewards in Parlor cars would depend more on the tips for compensation than what the railroad paid them......they could not survive on just the railroad base pay, they needed tips. Another area which we would never permit these days and another example on how costs have risen.
To my experience, diners and lounge cars that sold adult beverages never used full size liquor bottles. All liquor was dispensed from single serve minature bottles. Personnel also had to be aware of when they were in 'wet' or 'dry' jurisdictions in selling adult beverages - state & local inspectors would ride the trains from time to time to ensure compliance.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
1. With few exceptions, passenger operations made little or no profit even in the 'Golden Age' nor did dining cars, which lost some. All this was tolerated for the goodwill value it had for core business.
2. Amtrak is subsidized services by various taxpayers to varying degrees. Why should some patrons receive a larger subsidy to ride the same distance on the same train so they can have a private room?
3. Since goodwill is not an offsetting value on Amtrak, food services should break even, no less, no more. Ditto with services beyond coach. The deluxe services should be offered, where appropriate and priced to cover the costs.
4. Far more taxpayers would like more frequent, modern, faster services than attempting to replicate the deluxe trains from the 1950s. Times have changed.
CMStPnP CJtrainguy I find it questionable to make a blanket statement that sleepers aren't needed for one night of travel, meaning let's drop them entirely from all trains traveling only overnight, and on trains traveling multiple nights, block passengers who would like to get a sleeper for their one night travel from doing so. That's just confusing and arbitrary as far as the passenger is concerned. So your argument is sleeping cars are needed for trains for a single overnight because of.......???? I have no problem attaching them to a train as long as they cover all their costs. The sleeper seat suggestion was a way for Amtrak to offer passengers similar comfort at far less cost than a seperate car with seperate compartments.
CJtrainguy I find it questionable to make a blanket statement that sleepers aren't needed for one night of travel, meaning let's drop them entirely from all trains traveling only overnight, and on trains traveling multiple nights, block passengers who would like to get a sleeper for their one night travel from doing so. That's just confusing and arbitrary as far as the passenger is concerned.
Then where did the idea that people shouldn't be allowed to get a sleeper unless they travelled on that train for 2 nights or more come from?
I'm simply saying that from a customer perspective, that is totally arbitrary. I would have no understanding of why I would be allowed to travel in a sleeper on the California Zephyr from Chicago to Emeryville, but not if I only travelled to Denver.
And I don't see how that policy would improve the load factor, since most people traveling on the LD trains are not actually going end point to end point.
If something that costs between the least expensive sleeper compartment fare and coach and provides better rest than the coach seats can be found, I'm all for it, but don't limit access based on how many nights a passenger is on the particular train.
As for flying, that's just a miserable experience, especially at night. Coach on Amtrak is way, way better any day or night.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.