# Please Mr. Anderson (sleeping suites in coach?)



## cocojacoby

Dear Mr. Anderson,

Before you go please initiate a Delta One Suite program on Amtrak. We need this.
I will not sleep next to a stranger on a train ever again.
Thank you.


----------



## MikefromCrete

Anderson is on his way out, he's long gone from Delta, so he's not in a position to do anything. While nice, this seating would probably cut the seating capacity of a coach in half, requiring a doubling of fares and doubling the size of the fleet. I kinda doubt we'll see anything like this on a system-wide basis.


----------



## Acela150

Amtrak does offer something like this. It's called a roomette or bedroom.


----------



## cocojacoby

Not everyone has hundreds of dollars to buy a sleeper room. This is an enhanced overnight business class between coach and sleeper. It's a missing link in the accommodation chain. Amtrak's current business class is rather inconsistent and lacking in many ways. In my last Amtrak voyage I checked out the business class on the Auto Train* and really found no reason to pay extra for nothing. If this type of accommodation was available I would not have hesitated.

*No longer available.


----------



## jiml

If you looked at it as a "niche" product, it would be perfect for whatever they call the Night Owl now and the LSL. I don't see a fit on a larger scale vs. a roomette.


----------



## zephyr17

cocojacoby said:


> Not everyone has hundreds of dollars to buy a sleeper room. This is an enhanced overnight business class between coach and sleeper. It's a missing link in the accommodation chain. Amtrak's current business class is rather inconsistent and lacking in many ways. In my last Amtrak voyage I checked out the business class on the Auto Train* and really found no reason to pay extra for nothing. If this type of accommodation was available I would not have hesitated.
> 
> *No longer available.


It appears to take up about the same space as a roomette with half the capacity. Since ultimately pricing is a reflection of capacity, in what way do you think something like this could be priced more cheaply?


----------



## Acela150

cocojacoby said:


> This is an enhanced overnight business class between coach and sleeper.



If Amtrak instituted something like this, it would potentially cut into Sleeper Revenue. BC has been put on the Coast Starlight and is very successful to my understanding.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

We’ve been around this before.... 

If you won’t pay for a roomette, you won’t pay for whatever they would charge for this.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

I like the idea of an intermediate between coach and a roomette, but this design isn't it as it takes up to much space. Returning to something similar to slumbercoaches with an open section design (allowing each bed to be sold) and meals not included could work, although I'm not confident it will ever happen. Currently, Viewliners have a capacity of 15-30, depending on whether the rooms have one or two occupants. Meanwhile, slumbercoaches could hold 40 and Amfleet IIs have a maximum capacity of 59.


----------



## Bob Dylan

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> I like the idea of an intermediate between coach and a roomette, but this design isn't it as it takes up to much space. Returning to something similar to slumbercoaches with an open section design (allowing each bed to be sold) and meals not included could work, although I'm not confident it will ever happen. Currently, Viewliners have a capacity of 15-30, depending on whether the rooms have one or two occupants. Meanwhile, slumbercoaches could hold 40 and Amfleet IIs have a maximum capacity of 59.


Slumber Coaches and Sections are Great!( No Food/Drink included)


----------



## Acela150

crescent-zephyr said:


> We’ve been around this before....
> 
> If you won’t pay for a roomette, you won’t pay for whatever they would charge for this.



Bingo!


----------



## dlagrua

Before suggesting something like this on Amtrak I would price the Delta one seat and see what it costs. Last years trip to Seattle we had to fly due to time reasons. We flew first class. The price : $1200 each ticket for one way. 
I would agree that the one seat cubicle would be nice on Amtrak but if it took up an area of 2+ seats you might not want to pay the price. Since Amtrak has no plans to do a seating scheme like this and you do not wish to sit next to anyone, just purchase two seats-problem solved.


----------



## Dakota 400

Maybe a return to the Slumbercoaches concept would be the best way to go.

Having enjoyed such a "Delta One" concept on a few Delta flights and one Singapore Airlines flight, it is surely better than Economy or Premium Economy seating. Being able to "sleep" in such a restricted space when one is not used to such is another thing. Having a seat belt strapped around me during the night is something that I have never been able to get used to. While I have had some "decent" sleep, most of my flights in this type of seats have been cat-naps at best.

It's the service, before boarding and inflight, and the additional "space" that makes such a booking worth it to me.


----------



## cocojacoby

zephyr17 said:


> It appears to take up about the same space as a roomette with half the capacity. Since ultimately pricing is a reflection of capacity, in what way do you think something like this could be priced more cheaply?



Greater capacity.


----------



## zephyr17

Superliner sleepers have a sleeping capacity of 40 (13 revenue roomettes x 2, 5 bedrooms x 2, 1 handicapped room x 2, 1 family bedroom x 2 counting only the adult berths). Viewliners have a capacity of 30 (12 roomettes x 2, 2 bedrooms x 2, 1 handicapped room x 2).

The common 10-6 of the streamliner and heritage era has a capacity of only 22. Superliners and Viewliners already have nearly the approximate capacity of Slumbercoaches. The modern Amtrak roomette is essentially the same as a Slumbercoach double.

Budd slumbercoaches had a capacity 40, and most were subsequently reduced to a capacity of 36. The main reason Amtrak does not reach quite that capacity are the full bedrooms. All roomette cars would have Slumbercoach level capacities.

As far as the accommodations are concerned, modern Amtrak roomettes ARE Slumbercoach equivalents. And they were originally called and marketed as "economy bedrooms".

Get over the Slumbercoach thing folk
s, it is a phantom. There is only so much space, price is related.

Slumbercoaches were cheaper because of the higher capacity over then existing sleepers. Amtrak designs already incorporate that higher capacity.


----------



## cocojacoby

dlagrua said:


> I would agree that the one seat cubicle would be nice on Amtrak but if it took up an area of 2+ seats you might not want to pay the price. Since Amtrak has no plans to do a seating scheme like this and you do not wish to sit next to anyone, just purchase two seats-problem solved.



I have actually heard stories of people who did exactly that but the conductor wouldn't allow them to take up two seats even though they paid for them. Need to hear people's experiences with this.


----------



## jiml

Dakota 400 said:


> Having enjoyed such a "Delta One" concept on a few Delta flights and one Singapore Airlines flight, it is surely better than Economy or Premium Economy seating. Being able to "sleep" in such a restricted space when one is not used to such is another thing. Having a seat belt strapped around me during the night is something that I have never been able to get used to. While I have had some "decent" sleep, most of my flights in this type of seats have been cat-naps at best.
> 
> It's the service, before boarding and inflight, and the additional "space" that makes such a booking worth it to me.


Nailed it.


----------



## niemi24s

cocojacoby said:


> I will not sleep next to a stranger on a train ever again.


Better stock up on some No Doz then.


----------



## zephyr17

An old thread on buying 2 seats uncovered this from the then current Service Manual ("Blue Book")


https://www.amtraktrains.com/attachments/screen-shot-2013-10-26-at-11-39-56-am-png.679/



Basically, you can't buy two seats just to sit alone. If you do, the conductor doesn't really have to honor it. If you have a disability that requires it, or are so large as to need it, then yes you can buy two seats.

Doubt that the policy has changed.


----------



## IndyLions

Here’s a thought. On long haul trips (LSL, CS) sell an enhanced BC designed for better sleeping - maybe a extra foot of room with a better seat. Keep it at 2+1, but make the seats reserved & priced like bedrooms are - selling singles & doubles. The extra foot would cause Amtrak to lose a couple of rows - so pricing would need to go up. I’d guess a single would need to be up about 25% over existing BC. A double logically would cost twice as much. There would be no restriction on an individual purchasing a double if no singles are available.

A nicer seat designed for better sleeping, a guaranteed seating situation you are comfortable with, along with the already quieter environment of BC would be a pretty good option, in my opinion. Could you get a roomette for the same price? Maybe at low bucket, but as the lower roomette buckets fill up, this BC would look very attractive.


----------



## Ziv

I agree with IndyLions, this could be very useful. It doesn't take up quite the same space as a roomette if it is done in a 1+2 layout, with a single seat on one side of the aisle and 2 seats on the other. Price it between a coach seat and a roomette. THAT is what business class ought to look like. 
A "lay flat at an angle" seat is a huge improvement over a traditional coach seat, and given what the seat pitch is in coach, it wouldn't take any more room than is currently there. Roomettes at mid-bucket and high-bucket are a bit of a reach for most of us. A middle ground on pricing for a business LFAAA seat would be an attractive option for a lot of people and if there is a modest selection of them, they would probably book up fairly quickly. Make half the business class car Business Elite with LFAAA seats.
I know it won't happen, but it would be nice if it did.


----------



## cocojacoby

Here are a few options. Leave it to the Japanese. These are on some Japanese buses so they could certainly fit in an Amfleet coach. The seats are about 23" wide.












Seat types - Reborn | WILLER - highway bus, night bus in Japan


Seat types - Reborn. To enjoy traveling through the comfortable travel, WILLER EXPRESS Bus unique seat types are lined up. The seats were invested based on the totally new concepts.




willerexpress.com


----------



## tricia

zephyr17 said:


> An old thread on buying 2 seats uncovered this from the then current Service Manual ("Blue Book")
> 
> 
> https://www.amtraktrains.com/attachments/screen-shot-2013-10-26-at-11-39-56-am-png.679/
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, you can't buy two seats just to sit alone. If you do, the conductor doesn't really have to honor it. If you have a disability that requires it, or are so large as to need it, then yes you can buy two seats.
> 
> Doubt that the policy has changed.



Perhaps actually allowing passengers to buy two adjacent seats, at double the price, on long-distance trains would "fill the niche" for single passengers who don't want to sleep next to a stranger but find roomette prices too high. It's hard for me to see how this wouldn't be a win for Amtrak--same revenue for the number of seats, fewer passengers for staff to deal with. 

There'd still be quite a gap between the cost of two coach seats and the cost of one person in a roomette.


----------



## sttom

It would be nice to have a budget option, but I personally think a Delta One style seat could work as a business class product on long distance trains or as a First class product on day trains. 

As for the pricing, you can fit 34 of them in the seating space of an Amfleet coach. A Viewliner can seat 30, assuming a maximum of 2 people per room. So there would be a higher potential number of riders. 

As for pricing it, if you're not getting food and privacy, you're not going to be paying as much for it. 

As for digging into sleeper revenue, would that really happen if there is only 1 car per train with these or sections and 2-3 sleepers? Amtrak doesn't seem to have an issue filling sleeper space and it does want to get more out of those in coach and get more people into trains in general. Since Amtrak lacks something like Delta One or a Section, it's revenue from my long distance trips is effectively $0. I would consider the train on some trips of this or a section was an option. And where there is one, there is more.


----------



## Ryan

cocojacoby said:


> Greater capacity.
> View attachment 17139




I'm having trouble parsing your diagram. If the blue color is the seat, how does one walk through the car?


----------



## cocojacoby

Ryan said:


> I'm having trouble parsing your diagram. If the blue color is the seat, how does one walk through the car?


The aisle runs straight down the center of the car as in the present Viewliner. In the enlarged drawing with the blue seats the aisle is the yellow stripe. That drawing shows only half of the car from the outer wall (upper thick black line) to the edge of the aisle (just below the "Bed Length 6.75 Feet" words).

That drawing is to show how the seats are staggered and work as beds when fully extended.


----------



## jebr

The biggest problem with doing this is that you're not effectively using the space above the seat to maximize area people can use. Thus, you're not going to get much lower than a roomette cost for one, and it'd almost certainly be more economical for two people to share a roomette.

I personally think the best model would be a modified slumbercoach. Have bathrooms and a shower at the end of the car (if they weren't there in the initial design) and ensure that at least one in each car is fully ADA accesssible. The staggered design helps a lot to maximize space, while having wider beds and a truly private experience. The capacity would be equivalent or better than an airline suite design, while offering a better experience for most passengers (if given the choice, I'm guessing most passengers would prefer a fully private room over a semi-private suite.) Berths could also be a nice middle ground, but it removes a fair amount of privacy, and it doesn't allow for flexible sleep timing - some people may want to take a nap in the middle of the day, and berth accommodations are an all-or-nothing for sleep timing.


----------



## Qapla

I'm not sure I understand the drawing either ....

When positioned for sleep:

Does a person's head go into a coffin-like space?
Does a person's feet go into a confined area that would not allow one to sleep on their side without hitting their knees?
Can you "recline" the seat without it having to lay flat?
How do you carry on a conversation with the person next to you when two of you are traveling together?


----------



## sttom

jebr said:


> The biggest problem with doing this is that you're not effectively using the space above the seat to maximize area people can use. Thus, you're not going to get much lower than a roomette cost for one, and it'd almost certainly be more economical for two people to share a roomette.



The slumber coaches that were built new by Budd had 40 beds, 16 of which were in double rooms which could be used by one person. So it's not like 34 seats would be a huge loss in capacity. Berths would increase capacity by 2. 

As for pricing, it depends on what is being offered. If food is optional, that's one factor that is gone. Also, with a normal bedroom, you're also paying for privacy not just the space which is a factor no one seems to notice anytime this discussion comes up. 

A second point is, how would we be getting these new cars? If we had a new car buy, yeah a slumber coach could be a better option than a berth or Delta One seat. But if we're retrofitting Amfleet 1s or Superliners, berths and Delta Ones would be easier to implement.


----------



## railiner

zephyr17 said:


> Superliner sleepers have a sleeping capacity of 40 (13 revenue roomettes x 2, 5 bedrooms x 2, 1 handicapped room x 2, 1 family bedroom x 2 counting only the adult berths). Viewliners have a capacity of 30 (12 roomettes x 2, 2 bedrooms x 2, 1 handicapped room x 2).
> 
> The common 10-6 of the streamliner and heritage era has a capacity of only 22. Superliners and Viewliners already have nearly the approximate capacity of Slumbercoaches. The modern Amtrak roomette is essentially the same as a Slumbercoach double.
> 
> Budd slumbercoaches had a capacity 40, and most were subsequently reduced to a capacity of 36. The main reason Amtrak does not reach quite that capacity are the full bedrooms. All roomette cars would have Slumbercoach level capacities.
> 
> As far as the accommodations are concerned, modern Amtrak roomettes ARE Slumbercoach equivalents. And they were originally called and marketed as "economy bedrooms".
> 
> Get over the Slumbercoach thing folk
> s, it is a phantom. There is only so much space, price is related.
> 
> Slumbercoaches were cheaper because of the higher capacity over then existing sleepers. Amtrak designs already incorporate that higher capacity.


Except that unlike Amtrak economy bedrooms, (or roomettes as Amtrak currently markets them), Slumbercoaches offered completely private rooms for one, by utilizing the "duplex" design feature, to have more rooms.


----------



## railpost

Dakota 400 said:


> Maybe a return to the Slumbercoaches concept would be the best way to go.
> 
> Having enjoyed such a "Delta One" concept on a few Delta flights and one Singapore Airlines flight, it is surely better than Economy or Premium Economy seating. Being able to "sleep" in such a restricted space when one is not used to such is another thing. Having a seat belt strapped around me during the night is something that I have never been able to get used to. While I have had some "decent" sleep, most of my flights in this type of seats have been cat-naps at best.
> 
> It's the service, before boarding and inflight, and the additional "space" that makes such a booking worth it to me.


There is no question that we should go back using Slumbercoaches which in my opinion it was a very big mistake to take them out of service and get rid of them. They were great cars when they were around and they made traveling by sleeper much more afordable for people who were on a tight budget,

From what I understand Amtrak took them and some of the other "Heritage Fleet " Cars out of service because they were equipped with on board septic tanks so that the toilets would have to be flushed out on the "right of way" when the trains were moving. Supposedly some new "Environmental regulations" had made it illegal to have cars like that so they had to get rid of them. They had run with railroad cars with flush toilets for years and I really don't think that they damaged the environment.

They should either rescind that stupid political regulation banning flush toilets on trains or else the could perhaps build or retrofit Slumbercoaches with septic tanks.

The Slumbercoaches were one of the best ideas that the Old Budd company had come up with for the passenger railroads in the late 1950s and it is too bad that more railroads did order them however they did run originally on the 1956 Denver Zephyr, the North Coast Limited., the Missouri Pacific Eagle, the Baltimore and Ohio National Limited and the Capital Limited plus the New York Central's 20th Century Limited, New England States , Wolverine, Ohio State Limited ,Cleveland Limited. Those were before there was an Amtrak and after there was an Amtrak they ran on some of those routes and also on some New York to Florida runs as well as the Empire Builder , the Amtrak Denver Zephyr in the early years as well as the Lake Shore and Broadway Limiteds and at times other services.


----------



## railiner

Or, they could build a modern slumbercoach without individual plumbing...just public restrooms. Cheaper yet, simpler to build and maintain...


----------



## railpost

Absolutely. I really don't see why they got rid of them. They were popular and even the New York Central converted a bunch of 22 roomette sleepers into Slumbercoaches which the New York Central called "Sleepercoaches". Had the private railroads been in the passenger business a little longer perhaps more of the slumbercoaches would have been built.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

sttom said:


> As for the pricing, you can fit 34 of them in the seating space of an Amfleet coach. A Viewliner can seat 30, assuming a maximum of 2 people per room. So there would be a higher potential number of riders.



A viewliner is a mix of roomettes, bedrooms, and an ADA room. An all roomette and 1 Ada car would have similar capacity.


----------



## Palmetto

Just bring back a tried and true design. It was called the Slumbercoach.


----------



## cocojacoby

Qapla said:


> I'm not sure I understand the drawing either ....
> 
> When positioned for sleep:
> 
> Does a person's head go into a coffin-like space?
> Does a person's feet go into a confined area that would not allow one to sleep on their side without hitting their knees?
> Can you "recline" the seat without it having to lay flat?
> How do you carry on a conversation with the person next to you when two of you are traveling together?



Here, this will help: The ultimate guide to Delta One Suites

This is primarily for a single person. Two people could probably sit across the aisle from each other and converse. Interestingly the airlines had to fight for this type of accommodation. The FRA won't allow full height walls, although Amtrak could to provide better privacy, and the FRA did not want to allow doors.


----------



## Bob Dylan

railpost said:


> There is no question that we should go back using Slumbercoaches which in my opinion it was a very big mistake to take them out of service and get rid of them. They were great cars when they were around and they made traveling by sleeper much more afordable for people who were on a tight budget,
> 
> From what I understand Amtrak took them and some of the other "Heritage Fleet " Cars out of service because they were equipped with on board septic tanks so that the toilets would have to be flushed out on the "right of way" when the trains were moving. Supposedly some new "Environmental regulations" had made it illegal to have cars like that so they had to get rid of them. They had run with railroad cars with flush toilets for years and I really don't think that they damaged the environment.
> 
> They should either rescind that stupid political regulation banning flush toilets on trains or else the could perhaps build or retrofit Slumbercoaches with septic tanks.
> 
> The Slumbercoaches were one of the best ideas that the Old Budd company had come up with for the passenger railroads in the late 1950s and it is too bad that more railroads did order them however they did run originally on the 1956 Denver Zephyr, the North Coast Limited., the Missouri Pacific Eagle, the Baltimore and Ohio National Limited and the Capital Limited plus the New York Central's 20th Century Limited, New England States , Wolverine, Ohio State Limited ,Cleveland Limited. Those were before there was an Amtrak and after there was an Amtrak they ran on some of those routes and also on some New York to Florida runs as well as the Empire Builder , the Amtrak Denver Zephyr in the early years as well as the Lake Shore and Broadway Limiteds and at times other services.


They were on the Crescent also, both Southern and Amtrak. I rode many times between WAS and Atlanta! Loved them, and Paid to eat Real Food in the Diner!!!

Still the Best Deal in Rail Travel I've experienced in over 70 years of riding the Rails!


----------



## Dakota 400

cocojacoby said:


> Here, this will help: The ultimate guide to Delta One Suites
> 
> This is primarily for a single person. Two people could probably sit across the aisle from each other and converse.



It is such a set up. Not too easy, given the background noise, to converse at times. A small seat is provided for a couple to dine together in one of the Suites. But, it's not ideal. 


railiner said:


> Or, they could build a modern slumbercoach without individual plumbing...just public restrooms. Cheaper yet, simpler to build and maintain...



No disagreement with your statement. People like having their own individual facilities, I think. 

As some previous posters have said, a return to a Slumberchoach era on Amtrak is as likely as the return of Amtrak service to Dayton, Ohio in the near future.


----------



## ehbowen

tricia said:


> Perhaps actually allowing passengers to buy two adjacent seats, at double the price, on long-distance trains would "fill the niche" for single passengers who don't want to sleep next to a stranger but find roomette prices too high. It's hard for me to see how this wouldn't be a win for Amtrak--same revenue for the number of seats, fewer passengers for staff to deal with.
> 
> There'd still be quite a gap between the cost of two coach seats and the cost of one person in a roomette.



Okay. Then, what do you do when you board a westbound _California Zephyr_ in Denver on a busy day in June and find out that your two purchased seats are one seat on the aisle in car 0510, and one seat by the window in car 0512. And, no, the passengers in the adjacent seats don't feel like moving, and the conductor isn't inclined to either order one of them to move or to process a refund. "You wanted two seats; you got 'em...take your pick!"


----------



## ehbowen

Qapla said:


> I'm not sure I understand the drawing either ....
> 
> When positioned for sleep:
> 
> Does a person's head go into a coffin-like space?
> Does a person's feet go into a confined area that would not allow one to sleep on their side without hitting their knees?
> Can you "recline" the seat without it having to lay flat?
> How do you carry on a conversation with the person next to you when two of you are traveling together?


I only had one trip on a Slumbercoach (1984), but...

No, there's a cubbyhole which holds the bedding (rolled up). When the room is made up for sleeping the chair is folded down, the door of the cubby becomes a "bridge leaf" which folds down to fill up the gap, the bedding is unrolled and laid out, and you lay down with your head on the seat and your feet in the cubby.
It is a confined area, but it's not so tight that you can't roll over or sleep on your side (I almost always slept on my side in those days, and I slept fine). It's about 4-6 inches narrower than a current Superliner roomette lower...or maybe a tad wider than the "foot end" of a Viewliner roomette lower.
Yes, the chair did have some recline available. Not much.
If you're in a single? You don't; solid walls on all sides. If you're in a double Slumbercoach room, it's essentially the same as a present day Amtrak roomette.
Big problem with returning Slumbercoaches to service these days is both retention toilets (fixable, but expensive) and ADA requirements. If you install a room which meets ADA standards, you might as well include a couple of premium Bedrooms with it to maximize revenue, and then...whoops, you've got a Viewliner!

Edit To Add: If your traveling companion doesn't mind sitting on the toilet (there's a cover with a cushion), you can carry out a conversation with him/her in a Slumbercoach single...


----------



## IndyLions

Nothing gets a thread going faster than discussions regarding food or slumbercoaches! It was one of the Heritage accommodations I never got to try out.

As much as I would love a Delta One scenario on LD Business Class, I think an upgraded version of the current BC 2+1 would have a better chance of being implemented, or at least prototyped.


----------



## jiml

My most recent view of a Slumbercoach was on the short-lived overnight train Amtrak ran to Toronto on weekends.

While the sentimental thoughts of refurbishing some for current-day use is interesting, are there any still around (not scrapped) that would make this possible?


----------



## Palmetto

Does some company even hold the patent/plans to build a Slumbercoach?


----------



## ehbowen

I believe that there is a company which bought out the intellectual property of the Budd company, but it would take some time to find out who holds it now and whether they have any interest (or ability!) to return to the rail car-building business.


----------



## Ryan

cocojacoby said:


> The aisle runs straight down the center of the car as in the present Viewliner. In the enlarged drawing with the blue seats the aisle is the yellow stripe. That drawing shows only half of the car from the outer wall (upper thick black line) to the edge of the aisle (just below the "Bed Length 6.75 Feet" words).
> 
> That drawing is to show how the seats are staggered and work as beds when fully extended.




Thanks, I'm tracking now.

I'm curious about what the actual dimensions are and what kind of an aisle that would leave. I suspect that you may have to go 2x1 to have a sufficient aisle space, which would kill revenue.


----------



## MARC Rider

IndyLions said:


> Here’s a thought. On long haul trips (LSL, CS) sell an enhanced BC designed for better sleeping - maybe a extra foot of room with a better seat. Keep it at 2+1, but make the seats reserved & priced like bedrooms are - selling singles & doubles. The extra foot would cause Amtrak to lose a couple of rows - so pricing would need to go up. I’d guess a single would need to be up about 25% over existing BC. A double logically would cost twice as much. There would be no restriction on an individual purchasing a double if no singles are available.
> 
> A nicer seat designed for better sleeping, a guaranteed seating situation you are comfortable with, along with the already quieter environment of BC would be a pretty good option, in my opinion. Could you get a roomette for the same price? Maybe at low bucket, but as the lower roomette buckets fill up, this BC would look very attractive.


Actually, the current 2+1 business class isn't so bad. I've used it for overnight runs on 67, and I was able to sleep OK. The seat pitch is more than adequate. (The biggest benefit, compared to the alternative Amfleet 1 coach is the window curtain, though.) When I rode the Cardinal last fall, it seemed that Business Class was pretty popular.

All they would need to do is get some full length business class cars to increase capacity and implement advance seat assignment so that single travelers, especially, can have a better chance of getting single seats. I'm not sure what the full capacity of a 2+1 business class car is compared to a sleeper, but it must surely be larger enough to allow for significantly lower fares than a roomette.


----------



## MARC Rider

MARC Rider said:


> Actually, the current 2+1 business class isn't so bad. I've used it for overnight runs on 67, and I was able to sleep OK. The seat pitch is more than adequate. (The biggest benefit, compared to the alternative Amfleet 1 coach is the window curtain, though.) When I rode the Cardinal last fall, it seemed that Business Class was pretty popular.
> 
> All they would need to do is get some full length business class cars to increase capacity and implement advance seat assignment so that single travelers, especially, can have a better chance of getting single seats. I'm not sure what the full capacity of a 2+1 business class car is compared to a sleeper, but it must surely be larger enough to allow for significantly lower fares than a roomette.


Also, when you look at the RPA numbers, it appears that long-distance business class yields about as much revenue per mile as the sleepers do, and that both yield much more than coach. It is clearly in Amtrak's financial benefit to increase the premium service offerings.


----------



## cocojacoby

Ryan said:


> Thanks, I'm tracking now.
> 
> I'm curious about what the actual dimensions are and what kind of an aisle that would leave. I suspect that you may have to go 2x1 to have a sufficient aisle space, which would kill revenue.



This will give you an idea. The Airbus 350 is a favorite for this type of seating. Here is a pic:



Now the interior width of an Airbus 350 is about 18.5 feet. As you can see the layout here is eight seats across. Simply split the plane down the middle (which would be about 9.25 feet) and you will get a good idea of how they would fit in an Amfleet coach which is 10.5 feet wide on the exterior. It would seem there would be no problem going with 4 across seating.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

cocojacoby said:


> Not everyone has hundreds of dollars to buy a sleeper room.


I agree that Amtrak should provide a better mid-range product on long haul routes, but true lie-flat business class tickets will never come cheap.



ehbowen said:


> Okay. Then, what do you do when you board a westbound _California Zephyr_ in Denver on a busy day in June and find out that your two purchased seats are one seat on the aisle in car 0510, and one seat by the window in car 0512.


I'd probably ask to sit in one of the "gotta big group coming" rows that never seem to have anyone. But even if this may not work in every possible situation that doesn't mean it's not a good suggestion for the other 99% of the time Amtrak risks throwing away extra revenue.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

cocojacoby said:


> This will give you an idea. The Airbus 350 is a favorite for this type of seating. Here is a pic:
> View attachment 17149
> 
> 
> Now the interior width of an Airbus 350 is about 18.5 feet. As you can see the layout here is eight seats across. Simply split the plane down the middle (which would be about 9.25 feet) and you will get a good idea of how they would fit in an Amfleet coach which is 10.5 feet wide on the exterior. It would seem there would be no problem going with 4 across seating.



The photo shows 4 seats across.


----------



## Qapla

If you look - there are four facing in each direction - 4 forward, 4 backward - 8 across

However, as far as I am concerned, you could simply install a "stiff curtain" that can pull down between the coach seats in a regular viewliner and not have to raise ticket prices to achieve enough privacy


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Qapla said:


> If you look - there are four facing in each direction - 4 forward, 4 backward - 8 across
> 
> However, as far as I am concerned, you could simply install a "stiff curtain" that can pull down between the coach seats in a regular viewliner and not have to raise ticket prices to achieve enough privacy



Umm.... no. There are 4 across. We are talking about the photo posted a few posts up correct?


----------



## cocojacoby

crescent-zephyr said:


> The photo shows 4 seats across.


Well the seats are staggered. This is considered a two-aisle 8 seat wide AB 350 cabin configuration.
The point is there should be plenty of room in an Amfleet coach for half of what you see here.


----------



## railiner

cocojacoby said:


> Well the seats are staggered. This is considered a two-aisle 8 seat wide AB 350 cabin configuration.
> The point is there should be plenty of room in an Amfleet coach for half of what you see here.
> View attachment 17152


Forgive me, but that doesn't sound right....you're saying in effect, that both economy and business rows are eight across the entire cabin width?
Looks to me, that the business seats are four across, with their extra features added in....

economy.... 2-4-2.....business....1-2-1....


----------



## cocojacoby

railiner said:


> Forgive me, but that doesn't sound right....you're saying in effect, that both economy and business rows are eight across the entire cabin width?
> Looks to me, that the business seats are four across, with their extra features added in....
> 
> economy.... 2-4-2.....business....1-2-1....


Again the point is that it would fit in an Amtrak coach which was the question asked.
When passengers are lying down and the beds extended there are four rows of bodies lying across the car not two. Maybe it's a little hard to visualize.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

cocojacoby said:


> Again the point is that it would fit in an Amtrak coach which was the question asked.



What would? You can’t fit 4 delta suites across in a railcar. No.


----------



## sttom

crescent-zephyr said:


> A viewliner is a mix of roomettes, bedrooms, and an ADA room. An all roomette and 1 Ada car would have similar capacity.



Based on reading the regulations for trains and the ADA, a Delta One style product could qualify as a seat. Which require that there be enough space for a wheelchair and that its next to an accessible bathroom. 



Devil's Advocate said:


> I agree that Amtrak should provide a better mid-range product on long haul routes, but true lie-flat business class tickets will never come cheap.



Cheap would be coach, people just want something that is more affordable. And a place to sleep can be made cheaper. And something like a lie flat seat would be competing with airlines, so Amtrak could price them to based on what would be the equivalent coach air fare to attract new riders.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

sttom said:


> so Amtrak could price them to based on what would be the equivalent coach air fare to attract new riders.



Amtrak already charges the equivalent of air fair coach = coach etc,


----------



## Bob Dylan

crescent-zephyr said:


> Amtrak already charges the equivalent of air fair coach = coach etc,


Not necessarily! Lots of Flights, Coach and First Class, are MUCH Cheaper than Amtrak Fares in both Coach and Sleepers for the same City Pairs.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Bob Dylan said:


> Not necessarily! Lots of Flights, Coach and First Class, are MUCH Cheaper than Amtrak Fares in both Coach and Sleepers for the same City Pairs.



True. I should have said the equivalent or more! Actually first class air is quite a bit less than a roomette on many city pairs.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

sttom said:


> Cheap would be coach, people just want something that is more affordable. And a place to sleep can be made cheaper. And something like a lie flat seat would be competing with airlines, so Amtrak could price them to based on what would be the equivalent coach air fare to attract new riders.


Lie flat business class seats cost tens-of-thousands _each_ to purchase and install in bulk. Even if Amtrak can find a way to fit them in a Viewliner or Superliner (which I honestly think is probably doable with some modifications) they'll never be able to pay for them at anywhere near coach travel prices. In my experience long haul lie flat business class tickets generally sell for thousands of dollars in a much larger and more competitive airline market. That makes it hard to imagine seeing them at less than sleeper prices on Amtrak. If anything they'd probably take the place of sleeper compartments.


----------



## PVD

At quick glance the single levels would give up 14 seats at 2 +1 in an AM-2 leaving capacity of 45, AM-1 BC would drop 15 and go from 62 to 47, if seat pitch and ADA seating remained as is.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Dakota 400 said:


> Maybe a return to the Slumbercoaches concept would be the best way to go.
> 
> Having enjoyed such a "Delta One" concept on a few Delta flights and one Singapore Airlines flight, it is surely better than Economy or Premium Economy seating. Being able to "sleep" in such a restricted space when one is not used to such is another thing. Having a seat belt strapped around me during the night is something that I have never been able to get used to. While I have had some "decent" sleep, most of my flights in this type of seats have been cat-naps at best.
> 
> It's the service, before boarding and inflight, and the additional "space" that makes such a booking worth it to me.


Back in the day when I was a Million Mile Frequent Flyer, I learned to Sleep on Planes, but of course Coach had much more Room and you got Blankets andPillows (and Food and Drink! lol,).

Being " Upgraded" to First Class was a Real Treat, even if the Seats were Leather Covered Versions of What Amtrak has in SuperLiner Coaches.Slept thru many a night on Red Eye Cross Country Flights!


----------



## Qapla

When it is all said and done - who knows what we may end up with on LD trains and Planes ... with so many planes parked and so many trains adjusted - we may be in for a "new normal" for both modes of transportation


----------



## ehbowen

Qapla said:


> When it is all said and done - who knows what we may end up with on LD trains and Planes ... with so many planes parked and so many trains adjusted - we may be in for a "new normal" for both modes of transportation


Sadly, you're right. However, if things ever return to sanity (and by that I mean that Amtrak has leadership that wants to provide a service, not just minimize costs), I'd like to see the equivalent of first-class Parlor Car service as a 2+1 business class seating section in a dedicated first class lounge car, both on Viewliner and Superliner trains. I really don't think we need to do the lay-flat airline contortions when history shows that the majority of Americans will reject a non-private sleeping accommodation and the present Roomette design is very nearly as space-efficient.

As far as pricing...it's time for Amtrak to recognize that the availability of real, quality, freshly prepared food service adds value to *all* classes of tickets, and so it's appropriate to take some amount of that ticket revenue from all classes and cross-subsidize the food service so that the price charged on board reflects the marginal cost of preparing *that* meal. Stop bundling all meals with all sleeping accommodations, but do have an upgrade option for first-class passengers (say, 'Sleeper plus' and 'Parlor plus') which will include meal coupons. All others pay (the marginal cost) for whatever meals they choose to select.

And, while you're at it, let's look at restoring real food service to day trains over a certain trip length (say, 6 hours or so).


----------



## railiner

Prior to Amtrak, the Pullman Company operated several first class 'parlor car' lines on top day trains. These cars featured the supremely comfortable, Heywood-Wakefield "Sleepy Hollow" design, rotating parlor chair's, configured in one and one per row. They had drop down table's on the adjacent walls for each seat, and a call button for the porter, who provided at seat light meal and beverage service. Some of these cars had a large drawing room that seated up to seven, for private conferences. Most of these cars only seated about 22 to 28 passenger's. To ride them, you had to pay a first class rail fare, plus a Pullman seat charge...


----------



## me_little_me

sttom said:


> It would be nice to have a budget option, but I personally think a Delta One style seat could work as a business class product on long distance trains or as a First class product on day trains.
> 
> As for the pricing, you can fit 34 of them in the seating space of an Amfleet coach. A Viewliner can seat 30, assuming a maximum of 2 people per room. So there would be a higher potential number of riders.
> 
> As for pricing it, if you're not getting food and privacy, you're not going to be paying as much for it.
> 
> As for digging into sleeper revenue, would that really happen if there is only 1 car per train with these or sections and 2-3 sleepers? Amtrak doesn't seem to have an issue filling sleeper space and it does want to get more out of those in coach and get more people into trains in general. Since Amtrak lacks something like Delta One or a Section, it's revenue from my long distance trips is effectively $0. I would consider the train on some trips of this or a section was an option. And where there is one, there is more.


One issue with your proposal that I see is that this requires yet another type of car and if this car has a problem and must be replaced, the other regular car can't substitute for it. Unlike airlines that have multiple planes and can rollout another or have another fly in or you be rebooked on a later flight, Amtrak may not have other cars available , they cannot easily rebook you on a later train with once-a-day LD trains, and the time to bring in another car from another city is prohibitive.


----------



## sttom

Devil's Advocate said:


> Lie flat business class seats cost tens-of-thousands _each_ to purchase and install in bulk. Even if Amtrak can find a way to fit them in a Viewliner or Superliner (which I honestly think is probably doable with some modifications) they'll never be able to pay for them at anywhere near coach travel prices. In my experience long haul lie flat business class tickets generally sell for thousands of dollars in a much larger and more competitive airline market. That makes it hard to imagine seeing them at less than sleeper prices on Amtrak. If anything they'd probably take the place of sleeper compartments.



Well I'm a numbers guy, so I went and found some numbers. A lie flat airline seat costs around $100,000 on average. Yes some can go up to $1 million but, we aren't talking Ethiad style seats. Assuming that you get an average of $60 (assuming a minimum $120 surcharge at 50% load factor) in additional revenue over a coach seat, and assuming a 260 work days per year, it would take 6.4 years to recover the cost. And the seats on average need to be overhauled every 9 years if you go with leather seats. Currently business class flights between the Bay Area and Portland run between $280-$300 at the low end, in August (need to factor for COVID). A $195 total one way fare would be attractive to riders, and assuming that is the lowest bucket, it would rise a bit with demand. Currently a Roomette in the same time frame is $295. It would raise more revenue than business class and take pressure off of the sleepers. 

As for the sleepers, having a budget option would also enable them to change how the currently treat sleepers. The need to at least act like they are making them economical. If there was a lower tier option on all trains, they could easily justify improving the service and raising ticket prices. I've heard that the upper beds on Superliners aren't particularly comfortable, if ticket prices can rise a bit, they would have the money for a refresh. Which would attract more tourists which is effectively what Via Rail does in Canada. 



me_little_me said:


> One issue with your proposal that I see is that this requires yet another type of car and if this car has a problem and must be replaced, the other regular car can't substitute for it. Unlike airlines that have multiple planes and can rollout another or have another fly in or you be rebooked on a later flight, Amtrak may not have other cars available , they cannot easily rebook you on a later train with once-a-day LD trains, and the time to bring in another car from another city is prohibitive.



This is still presently an issue on the few long distance trains that offer "business class". Offering extra cars would be easier on the East Coast if the Amfleets are kept around post replacement and modified with Delta One seats or berths. It would be harder for the trains using Superliners, Amtrak would need to get all of the ones presently in local service back and try to put any sidelined ones back into service. No one ever said it would be easy. If anything involving Amtrak was easy it would at least be up to Eastern European levels by now.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

ehbowen said:


> I really don't think we need to do the lay-flat airline contortions when history shows that the majority of Americans will reject a non-private sleeping accommodation and the present Roomette design is very nearly as space-efficient.


History shows that the majority of Americans are willing to fly with no beds or privacy. 



sttom said:


> Well I'm a numbers guy, so I went and found some numbers. A lie flat airline seat costs around $100,000 on average. Yes some can go up to $1 million but, we aren't talking Ethiad style seats. Assuming that you get an average of $60 (assuming a minimum $120 surcharge at 50% load factor) in additional revenue over a coach seat, and assuming a 260 work days per year, it would take 6.4 years to recover the cost. And the seats on average need to be overhauled every 9 years if you go with leather seats. Currently business class flights between the Bay Area and Portland run between $280-$300 at the low end, in August (need to factor for COVID). A $195 total one way fare would be attractive to riders, and assuming that is the lowest bucket, it would rise a bit with demand. Currently a Roomette in the same time frame is $295. It would raise more revenue than business class and take pressure off of the sleepers.


The first issue is that your theory assumes Amtrak is starting at break even when they claim to lose money on every LD trip. So far as I can tell Amtrak's LD trains have never made a profit and even in the best of times they still can't replace ancient seat designs from a half-century ago. The best I've ever seen them do is replace the outer coverings. The second issue is that you're using airfare for shorter regional flights that do not feature lie-flat seats or a flight duration long enough to truly benefit from them. The third issue is that booking for August doesn't really remove COVID from the equation. The prices I mentioned previously (thousands of dollars per seat per trip) were from regularly scheduled flights with typical yields that featured lie-flat business class seats on routes long enough to give you a real rest. To me it seems like this thread is pushing for long haul business class hardware at domestic premium economy prices.


----------



## MARC Rider

ehbowen said:


> ... history shows that the majority of Americans will reject a non-private sleeping accommodation



However, the majority of passengers on Amtrak overnight trains DO ride in coach, so I'm not sure what history is being cited here. In fact, the majority of overnight airline passengers also do not reject non-private sleeping accommodations.



> As far as pricing...it's time for Amtrak to recognize that the availability of real, quality, freshly prepared food service adds value to *all* classes of tickets



That may be true for some passengers, but not others. Most Amtrak passengers, even on long-distance trains, are traveling a relatively short distance and may not be riding through meal times. Others find it a better value proposition to bring their own food, and that was true even before Amtrak started downgrading the dining service.

And why the obsession about the need for "freshly" prepared food? Outside of 4-star expensive white tablecloth establishments and maybe some hole-in-the wall ethnic joints, most of the food sold by the American food service industry is pre-prepared. This would be especially true of on-board food service because of limited space and the general higher cost of labor involved in hauling your work force all around the country. Pre-prepared food can be good, and Amtrak food and beverage deserves criticism for the low quality of the "contemporary flex" dining, but it is possible to provide decent pre-prepared food.



> and so it's appropriate to take some amount of that ticket revenue from all classes and cross-subsidize the food service so that the price charged on board reflects the marginal cost of preparing *that* meal. Stop bundling all meals with all sleeping accommodations, but do have an upgrade option for first-class passengers (say, 'Sleeper plus' and 'Parlor plus') which will include meal coupons. All others pay (the marginal cost) for whatever meals they choose to select.
> 
> And, while you're at it, let's look at restoring real food service to day trains over a certain trip length (say, 6 hours or so).


Alas, the experience of the airlines has shown that a transportation enterprise can be successful without having *any *sort of meal service, or meal service on the order of Amtrak's "contemporary flex" dining. I found this out on my intercontinental flight to Beijing, where United Airlines served me food in coach that was the absolutely worst food I've ever had on a transportation carrier. (Not all of it was bad, the the "breakfast" they served towards the end of the PEK-IAD flight was absolutely inedible. But it was hot and it had eggs and sausage, if that's important. Yecchh, I would have preferred the Amtrak breakfast sandwich, or even the sugar-bomb oatmeal, muffin and yogurt. Heck, a Clif bar and a cup of coffee would have been better.)

I agree that Amtrak needs to pay some more attention to making its premium class service on long distance trains attractive enough to keep the premium class accommodations as full as possible. The higher revenue per mile from the premium classes does help cross-subsidize the overall service. But keep in mind that the reason for government support of long-distance trains is to provide mobility for people who can't or won't fly or drive and to serve rural communities that don't have convenient access to other forms of transportation. It's not to provide experiential rides for people nostalgic for the golden age of rail travel, at least not unless Amtrak can show that they can make a whole lot of extra *net* revenue from such service.


----------



## MARC Rider

Devil's Advocate said:


> ancient seat designs from a half-century ago.



Ahem, as a newly minted "senior citizen," I wouldn't call something 50 years old the "ancient." 

And sometimes the older designs are better quality. I definitely prefer 50 year old Amfleet seats to the modern space-saving backbreakers they've installed in today's airliners.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

MARC Rider said:


> And why the obsession about the need for "freshly" prepared food? Outside of 4-star expensive white tablecloth establishments and maybe some hole-in-the wall ethnic joints, most of the food sold by the American food service industry is pre-prepared.



Huh? 4-star? Waffle House serves freshly prepared food.


----------



## Bob Dylan

crescent-zephyr said:


> Huh? 4-star? Waffle House serves freshly prepared food.


You might want to check that out, most of the Diners serve Processed Food that is heated up with Eggs probably the only thing cooked to order,and they might even come out of a Container!


----------



## Ryan

If Waffle House served "most of the food sold by the American food service industry" there would be a point here.


----------



## sttom

Devil's Advocate said:


> The first issue is that your theory assumes Amtrak is starting at break even when they claim to lose money on every LD trip. So far as I can tell Amtrak's LD trains have never made a profit and even in the best of times they still can't replace ancient seat designs from a half-century ago. The best I've ever seen them do is replace the outer coverings. The second issue is that you're using airfare for shorter regional flights that do not feature lie-flat seats or a flight duration long enough to truly benefit from them. The third issue is that booking for August doesn't really remove COVID from the equation. The prices I mentioned previously (thousands of dollars per seat per trip) were from regularly scheduled flights with typical yields that featured lie-flat business class seats on routes long enough to give you a real rest. To me it seems like this thread is pushing for long haul business class hardware at domestic premium economy prices.



Well thank you for using the same line that is used to justify discussions of privatizing Amtrak. If you won't accept that it could be possible for Amtrak to help its bottom line, there really isn't anything to say, there is nothing but your own preconceived opinion that matters.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Bob Dylan said:


> You might want to check that out, most of the Diners serve Processed Food that is heated up with Eggs probably the only thing cooked to order,and they might even come out of a Container!



Why are you telling me to check it out if you’ve obviously never been to a Waffle House? You see the eggs, you see the food being cooked to order. You order a T-bone steak, a t-bone steak gets thrown on the grill.


----------



## Bob Dylan

crescent-zephyr said:


> Why are you telling me to check it out if you’ve obviously never been to a Waffle House? You see the eggs, you see the food being cooked to order. You order a T-bone steak, a t-bone steak gets thrown on the grill.


I've actually eaten in Many Diners all over the US, ( including Waffle Houses)and know what your saying, but the foods are NOT Fresh and of Low Quality, just like what's happening on Amtrak Trains! YMMV


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Bob Dylan said:


> I've actually eaten in Many Diners all over the US, ( including Waffle Houses)and know what your saying, but the foods are NOT Fresh and of Low Quality, just like what's happening on Amtrak Trains! YMMV



I’m super confused. If I go to a Waffle House and order 2 eggs scrambled with hash browns and toast I get exactly what I would hope to get. Why would I compare that to a re-heated breakfast sandwich on contemporary dining?

It’s not my mileage my vary. If I order an omelette and they make me an omlette fresh to order that’s an omlette made fresh to order. It’s not my opinion, it’s a fact.


----------



## Bob Dylan

crescent-zephyr said:


> I’m super confused. If I go to a Waffle House and order 2 eggs scrambled with hash browns and toast I get exactly what I would hope to get. Why would I compare that to a re-heated breakfast sandwich on contemporary dining?
> 
> It’s not my mileage my vary. If I order an omelette and they make me an omlette fresh to order that’s an omlette made fresh to order. It’s not my opinion, it’s a fact.


Gotcha ya, I'm not trying to confuse, just talking about the quality of food and the downgrading of most to order food in US Cafes and Diners.

I eat once in awhile @ Dennys, and they do it like your example! Cheers!


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Even generic chain locations like Denny's can serve you on _your_ schedule, cook eggs to _your_ order, and make changes based on _your_ requests. For whatever reason Amtrak either can't or won't do any of that. Extremely simplified restaurants like McDonald's do serve a lot of precooked food but the selection, speed, and friendliness are better than Amtrak and they never shout or snap at you for inadvertently disobeying them. Some of the freshest and tastiest food in the country is prepared in street trucks so it's hard to blame everything on space and facilities. If we ignore the cost and focus primarily on the selection and quality the current Amtrak dining service doesn't seem to be competing with restaurants so much as office function catering and limited menu stadium vendors.



sttom said:


> Well thank you for using the same line that is used to justify discussions of privatizing Amtrak. If you won't accept that it could be possible for Amtrak to help its bottom line, there really isn't anything to say, there is nothing but your own preconceived opinion that matters.


If Amtrak wanted modern lie-flat seating I _agree_ that it could be done, but it would require a massive up-front cost that would come with several revenue focused trade-offs. Due to what I perceive as the inherent limitations of installing modern aircraft focused hardware on much older trains I'd expect long haul lounging pods to be offered at or near roomette level pricing. I'd also expect this type of refurbishment to be accompanied by a much denser coach layout that makes room for more seats and levies surcharges for previously included features like free checked luggage and a relaxed carry-on policy, as well as offering a litany of premium option upgrades that allow coach travelers to buy back what was lost in the process (pitch, width, luggage) and then some (priority boarding and seat location preference). It's the idea that long haul lie-flat seating can be sold at regional upright seat pricing that confuses me.


----------



## ScouseAndy

Ive always wondered why Japanese Capsule Hotels Concept has never been used by any train company around the world (even Japan). To me this would be ideal, space saving and cheap. In a standard coach you could certainly go 3 high and potentially even increase capacity over a standard coach.


----------



## jiml

ScouseAndy said:


> Ive always wondered why Japanese Capsule Hotels Concept has never been used by any train company around the world (even Japan). To me this would be ideal, space saving and cheap. In a standard coach you could certainly go 3 high and potentially even increase capacity over a standard coach.


I would be concerned about the ability to evacuate in case of an emergency. One thing to do it from a stationary building, another entirely from a railcar on its side.


----------



## sttom

Devil's Advocate said:


> If Amtrak wanted modern lie-flat seating I _agree_ that it could be done, but it would require a massive up-front cost that would come with several revenue focused trade-offs. Due to what I perceive as the inherent limitations of installing modern aircraft focused hardware on much older trains I'd expect long haul lounging pods to be offered at or near roomette level pricing. I'd also expect this type of refurbishment to be accompanied by a much denser coach layout that makes room for more seats and levies surcharges for previously included features like free checked luggage and a relaxed carry-on policy, as well as offering a litany of premium option upgrades that allow coach travelers to buy back what was lost in the process (pitch, width, luggage) and then some (priority boarding and seat location preference). It's the idea that long haul lie-flat seating can be sold at regional upright seat pricing that confuses me.



Ok, I'll bite. There is a thing called market segmentation that all businesses do. Airline business class with lie flat seats are a different market segment than the people that would want them or a section.

Business travel tends to be less flexible than leisure travel which airlines understand and price accordingly. Also, since businesses tend to be paying for most of the lie flat seats with less flexibility, the prices are higher largely because they can be. They know a company will pay for it so they will charge it. For example, let's say a flight from two points with a lie flat seat costs $1800. I the average person couldn't afford that, but any decently sized company probably could and can write it off as a cost of doing business. Paying for nice things also helps with employee retention, so it's cheaper to pay for some nice flights than to higher a new person.

I know you'll say something about random people who think of themselves as too good for coach buying a business class ticket, they exist, but they aren't the target demographic for most airlines selling business class. They'll happily take the money and market share but that doesn't take away from who the product was originally designed and priced for. And they'll also upgrade people for free and for cheap. One rule of business Amtrak doesn't seem to care about is it's easier to retain a customer than to get a new one. So running a few freebies per flight keep people coming back and a cheap upgrade is better than making $0, or the exact opposite of Amtrak's attitude.

Even if Amtrak reduced the pitch of its seats to 33 inches from 39 for regional coach, it's only going to get 6 or so extra rows of seats per California Car and even less for a Amfleet car. And if they did it on long distance trains, they'd tank their own ridership numbers. And even if you could fill the extra seats on short distance trains, 12 extra people paying the same amount for a ticket isn't going to justify the cost even if you leave one "regular" coach and charge more for it.

Paying for baggage is about the only thing they could do to squeeze passengers for more money and I'm personally surprised they haven't done it yet.

As for the pricing, setting a price is more complicated than cost/space. Even on airlines, business class passengers generate more revenue per square foot than coach passengers do. So it's not out of the question for Amtrak to set the price of a Delta One/Section much lower than a roomette, but still covering it's cost (or at least setting the fare buckets to do that over a year) and raising revenue off of existing sleeper tickets because they'd mostly be attracting richer tourists if the more price sensitive "I'm riding this for transportation" types aren't buying as many sleeper spaces. And on top of that, still making more per square foot than a coach seat.

Amtrak doesn't have a market segment like business travelers on airlines. Which means Amtrak riders are much more price sensitive. Which means they're not going to be able to strip someone of food and privacy and still charge them the same as if they had food and privacy. 

As for the cost, I never said it would be easy or cheap, just that it's doable. And doable with exceedingly conservative numbers. Also, Amtrak did put roomette modules into Amfleet cars at one point, so its not out of the question for them to do it.


----------



## MARC Rider

There's a way to have cheap, lie-flat accommodations by packing more people into a sleeper. It's used all over the world and called a "couchette." I rode in one in Japan once. In less than the space of an Amtrak Bedroom, you have a long bench seat that turn into a triple decker bunk at night. Privacy is obtained with heavy curtains. I was a little concerned about claustrophobia when I crawled in, but it was actually pretty spacious with the clearance of the viewliner roomette, but a much wider mattress. Restrooms were down the hall. Of course, I keep reading here that this sort of accommodation wouldn't go over well with Americans, but then, nobody has ever tried it in America.


----------



## Ziv

MARC Rider, I have ridden on couchettes in Eastern Europe and in Asia, and they are pretty civilized. The ones in China have hot water dispensers at one end of the car so there is quite a bit of discussion with regards to tea and its accompaniments. The beds are firm but comfortable and I got a pretty restful sleep nearly every time I have used one.
I am not sure if they would be popular in the US, but it would be cool for Amtrak to try them on a route if they could scrape together the money to refurb a handful of cars with this arrangement.
I still like the idea of business class having a couple rows of LFAAA seats as a premium service on long haul routes, but if it is true that even an Amtrak LFAAA (vs. one built for an aircraft with tougher requirements for stress test and weight) will cost in the vicinity of $100k, it is never going to happen. I would have guessed that Amtrak could buy 90 or so LFAAA seats for $6,000 or $8,000 each, but I may be way wrong on that.



MARC Rider said:


> There's a way to have cheap, lie-flat accommodations by packing more people into a sleeper. It's used all over the world and called a "couchette." I rode in one in Japan once. In less than the space of an Amtrak Bedroom, you have a long bench seat that turn into a triple decker bunk at night. Privacy is obtained with heavy curtains. I was a little concerned about claustrophobia when I crawled in, but it was actually pretty spacious with the clearance of the viewliner roomette, but a much wider mattress. Restrooms were down the hall. Of course, I keep reading here that this sort of accommodation wouldn't go over well with Americans, but then, nobody has ever tried it in America.


----------



## IndyLions

MARC Rider said:


> Actually, the current 2+1 business class isn't so bad. I've used it for overnight runs on 67, and I was able to sleep OK. The seat pitch is more than adequate. (The biggest benefit, compared to the alternative Amfleet 1 coach is the window curtain, though.) When I rode the Cardinal last fall, it seemed that Business Class was pretty popular.
> 
> All they would need to do is get some full length business class cars to increase capacity and implement advance seat assignment so that single travelers, especially, can have a better chance of getting single seats. I'm not sure what the full capacity of a 2+1 business class car is compared to a sleeper, but it must surely be larger enough to allow for significantly lower fares than a roomette.



I’ll agree that the existing LD BC is pretty usable and already pretty roomy - but a couple of improvements could make it much better.

1. The existing seats suck for sleeping. Too much space between the wall and the seat. Improving the headrest to provide lateral support would be a start.
2. Handling reservations of BC seats as “singles” and “doubles” would give customers the peace of mind they are going to have a seating / sleeping arrangement they are comfortable with.


----------



## Qapla

To each their own ... I don't see what all the fuss is about having a lie-flat seat. I am fine with a reclined seat and can sleep quite well in one.

I do not have an issue with the current coach seats that a little extra padding wouldn't cure. If more privacy is needed, a pull down curtain could do that. Personally, I don;t want to ride in a confined box that converts to a coffin like those airline seats shown above - I want to be able to talk with the person sitting next to me without a wall or obstacle in my way.

My issue with the current Amtrak trains has nothing to do with the absence of the ability to lie-flat in coach. It is the disparity in the pricing between coach and sleepers. The increase in cost of a sleeper over coach does not seem, to me, to be warranted ... especially without high quality food. If I want to lie-flat, I can do that in a sleeper. If I am in coach I do not expect to lie-flat.

Why reinvent the wheel when the coach and roomettes already have reclining seats and lie-flat covered .... just fix the pricing to make both affordable and spend the money to buy more trains and run more times a day instead in investing in cars that don't really have anything appealing - to me.


----------



## cocojacoby

ScouseAndy said:


> Ive always wondered why Japanese Capsule Hotels Concept has never been used by any train company around the world (even Japan). To me this would be ideal, space saving and cheap. In a standard coach you could certainly go 3 high and potentially even increase capacity over a standard coach.


You might want to check this out:








Could A Bus With Sleep Pods Replace Airplanes?


A new startup wants to revolutionize how we travel long distances using pretty simple technology: a bus with beds. Only, they're called pods.




www.npr.org


----------



## railiner

cocojacoby said:


> You might want to check this out:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could A Bus With Sleep Pods Replace Airplanes?
> 
> 
> A new startup wants to revolutionize how we travel long distances using pretty simple technology: a bus with beds. Only, they're called pods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.npr.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 17172


A noble experiment...but I believe they went out of business fairly quickly...


----------



## crescent-zephyr

railiner said:


> A noble experiment...but I believe they went out of business fairly quickly...



If you meant to type they are still in business than you are correct


----------



## Qapla

The article never mentioned where you sit when you are not sleeping.

While the trip the person took was made longer to allow people to sleep ... that would not be the case for a truly long-distance trip and I would not want to have to stay in a sleeping pod from Miami to New York  let alone a trip that takes two or three days


----------



## Barb Stout

Qapla said:


> The article never mentioned where you sit when you are not sleeping.
> 
> While the trip the person took was made longer to allow people to sleep ... that would not be the case for a truly long-distance trip and I would not want to have to stay in a sleeping pod from Miami to New York  let alone a trip that takes two or three days


In the 5th paragraph, there is this sentence: "The ground floor has table seating, kind of like the dining car in a train."


----------



## railiner

crescent-zephyr said:


> If you meant to type they are still in business than you are correct


Wow...I had thought that I read that they folded....glad to hear they are still alive! 
I looked at Cabin's website, and am really intrigued by their "Cloud" active suspension beds...that's something new, I hadn't seen before....


----------



## crescent-zephyr

railiner said:


> Wow...I had thought that I read that they folded....glad to hear they are still alive!
> I looked at Cabin's website, and am really intrigued by their "Cloud" active suspension beds...that's something new, I hadn't seen before....



Yeah it sounds interesting. They probably could have saved a lot of money and just hired better drivers. I’ve traveled on a lot of tour buses for work and the driver makes a big difference.

If I’m on a crew bus vs. an artist bus.... the difference in sleep quality is huge. 

I think a better business model is the red coach / Vonlane model, which is also what I think Amtrak should do for BC. (nice, roomy, 2-1 seating).


----------



## cocojacoby

Qapla said:


> The article never mentioned where you sit when you are not sleeping.



There is a lounge on the lower level. I certainly wouldn't want to be assigned pod 2B!


----------



## MARC Rider

IndyLions said:


> I’ll agree that the existing LD BC is pretty usable and already pretty roomy - but a couple of improvements could make it much better.
> 
> 1. The existing seats suck for sleeping. Too much space between the wall and the seat. Improving the headrest to provide lateral support would be a start.
> 2. Handling reservations of BC seats as “singles” and “doubles” would give customers the peace of mind they are going to have a seating / sleeping arrangement they are comfortable with.


I agree, although for (1) the problem with the space between the wall and the seat is most noticeable on the single seats. Also, in general, I've found that the back support for all the "renewed" Amfleet seats (Am 1 & 2, coach and Business) is not as good as it was in the previous (blue fabric) iteration. But then, on my last trip on the Acela, I was having problems with the back support, even in first class.


----------



## Qapla

cocojacoby said:


> There is a lounge on the lower level. I certainly wouldn't want to be assigned pod 2B!



So, does that lounge area have room for everyone in the bus - or does the bus not carry very many people?

I agree about pod 2B


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Qapla said:


> So, does that lounge area have room for everyone in the bus - or does the bus not carry very many people?
> 
> I agree about pod 2B



I don’t think it needs to, it’s a place for people to go if they don’t want to be in their bunk. Looks like there’s about 20 bunks up stairs. I’m guessing the lower bunks are only sold to guests who don’t want to climb the stairs.


----------



## Qapla

So a cross country trip could still confine you to the coffin pod for most of the trip


----------



## Devil's Advocate

2B or not 2B, that is the question. Perhaps it would be perfect for a mobile lounge lizard?



ScouseAndy said:


> Ive always wondered why Japanese Capsule Hotels Concept has never been used by any train company around the world (even Japan). To me this would be ideal, space saving and cheap. In a standard coach you could certainly go 3 high and potentially even increase capacity over a standard coach.


I believe they still have three-high sleepers in places like India. Kind of like a half-open cot version of a capsule.


----------



## jis

Devil's Advocate said:


> I believe they still have three-high sleepers in places like India. Kind of like a half-open cot version of a capsule.


Those are by far the most popular sleeping accommodation, AC or non-AC in India. A 20 car train would typically have 16 of those 3-Tier Sleepers, 3 2-Tier Sleepers and one First AC with compartments. The 3 Tier Sleepers are actually roomier than any capsule hotel that I have come across, and way less claustrophobic. In my less financially endowed student days those were the things to travel by.

Europe also had 6 berth Couchettes. I don't know if they still have them with the general downfall of overight trains. I traveled on Eurocities in 6 berth Couchettes in the '90s..


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Qapla said:


> So a cross country trip could still confine you to the coffin pod for most of the trip



That’s the downside to this model vs. the red coach / vonlane model. The bus only works for overnight trips.

But to your answer, no. This bus only operates on single overnight trips. The idea is you get on the bus, go to bed, wake up and you’re in San Francisco.


----------



## railiner

The business model for the Cabin bus is for strictly overnite trips... not cross-country. So the small lounge space is probably very adequate for that purpose.
Most passengers will probably head right to bed, for the 8 hour trip, or perhaps just have a “nightcap”, before retiring...


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

I been reading thru the pages of ideas here. Unfortunately, IMHO, many of them require developing a rail car where the interior is wider than the exterior. 

Or developing narrower Americans. Ones that can sleep comfortably in a 14" wide bed.

I wonder which breakthrough will happen first?


----------



## ehbowen

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> I been reading thru the pages of ideas here. Unfortunately, IMHO, many of them require developing a rail car where the interior is wider than the exterior.
> 
> Or developing narrower Americans. Ones that can sleep comfortably in a 14" wide bed.
> 
> I wonder which breakthrough will happen first?


The first one. Have you been to Wal-Mart lately? 'Nuff said.


----------



## ScouseAndy

jis said:


> Those are by far the most popular sleeping accommodation, AC or non-AC in India. A 20 car train would typically have 16 of those 3-Tier Sleepers, 3 2-Tier Sleepers and one First AC with compartments. The 3 Tier Sleepers are actually roomier than any capsule hotel that I have come across, and way less claustrophobic. In my less financially endowed student days those were the things to travel by.
> 
> Europe also had 6 berth Couchettes. I don't know if they still have them with the general downfall of overight trains. I traveled on Eurocities in 6 berth Couchettes in the '90s..



Yes on mainland europe there are still plenty of 6 berth couchettes plying the rails, well normally at the moment not so much!


----------



## IndyLions

I used a 6 booth couchette from Paris to Amsterdam years ago. A little disconcerting compared to a private sleeper, but a less expensive option to be sure.

That was an interesting trip. I was in Europe on business in Luxembourg. My flight home was out of Amsterdam - and I was taking the train Luxembourg City - Paris Nord and then the overnight train in the couchette to Amsterdam.

Before boarding the train to Paris, I bought a new watch at the train station in Luxembourg City. Mine had broken while in Europe, and this was 10+ years before smart phones. All they had at the station were el cheapo digital watches - but I was just looking for something to tell the time. I knew with sleeping on the train I’d want to have some idea when to get up and dressed in preparation for the arrival in Amsterdam.

As we approached the first stop on the Lux-Paris train, I was shocked to see that we’d lost nearly 15 minutes against the timetable. This is pretty rare in Europe. By the next stop scheduled for an hour later, we’d lost another 20 minutes. Then it hit me. The problem wasn’t the train but the el cheapo watch. It gained 20 minutes every hour!

As the trip progressed, I tried to calculate in my head actual time based on the display on that blasted watch, but failed miserably. When the train arrived in Amsterdam, I hadn’t even started to get up and get ready. Luckily, it terminated there so I had plenty of time to get my self together and get off the train.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

IndyLions said:


> I used a 6 booth couchette from Paris to Amsterdam years ago. A little disconcerting compared to a private sleeper, but a less expensive option to be sure.
> 
> That was an interesting trip. I was in Europe on business in Luxembourg. My flight home was out of Amsterdam - and I was taking the train Luxembourg City - Paris Nord and then the overnight train in the couchette to Amsterdam.
> 
> Before boarding the train to Paris, I bought a new watch at the train station in Luxembourg City. Mine had broken while in Europe, and this was 10+ years before smart phones. All they had at the station were el cheapo digital watches - but I was just looking for something to tell the time. I knew with sleeping on the train I’d want to have some idea when to get up and dressed in preparation for the arrival in Amsterdam.
> 
> As we approached the first stop on the Lux-Paris train, I was shocked to see that we’d lost nearly 15 minutes against the timetable. This is pretty rare in Europe. By the next stop scheduled for an hour later, we’d lost another 20 minutes. Then it hit me. The problem wasn’t the train but the el cheapo watch. It gained 20 minutes every hour!
> 
> As the trip progressed, I tried to calculate in my head actual time based on the display on that blasted watch, but failed miserably. When the train arrived in Amsterdam, I hadn’t even started to get up and get ready. Luckily, it terminated there so I had plenty of time to get my self together and get off the train.



If you had been on Amtrak or VIA you would have never known!


----------



## tgstubbs1

I've been looking at the diagram and I think the cost comparison probably hinges on whether there are two occupants or one in the roomette. 

Having something cheaper than a roomette is good for the single traveler.


----------



## ehbowen

tgstubbs1 said:


> I've been looking at the diagram and I think the cost comparison probably hinges on whether there are two occupants or one in the roomette.
> 
> Having something cheaper than a roomette is good for the single traveler.


Agreed; for many years I wouldn't consider booking a roomette because I couldn't justify the cost as a single traveler. It wasn't so much the cost of the _space_, but the cost of the (mandatory!) included meals. That's why I'm in favor of "unbundling" meals from sleeper tickets, subsidizing the fixed costs of operating and staffing the diner from all classes of ticket revenue, and offering a "premium" meals-included *option* for those who so prefer.

Even today, if I'm taking a LD sleeper trip I'll scour family and acquaintances to see if I can find someone to share the space with. Fortunately, with two nephews and six nieces...someone's usually available!


----------



## tgstubbs1

I agree with point of view that supports 'unbundling' the meal plan because although I think they do a good job with the meals they can't please everybody with such a limited menu.

I once rode on a Rock Island train (in the 60's) that had a real diner. It was just about like a JB Big Boys or Denny's. You could order almost anything and they would make it.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

The argument for unbunding seems to be based on the theory that removal of included meals will come with a substantial discount. I personally find that outcome rather unlikely. The discount on the Silver Star was a rare and unique case of two similar trains on a similar route with daily schedules. Most of the LD network has nothing like that. The service reductions which have happened since the Star was downgraded came with no obvious discount.


----------



## tgstubbs1

You are probably right. You probably are in a much better position to know and understand the pricing than I am. But it would be a good thing for me, and probably some other people as well.

I enjoyed eating in the dining car the few times I've traveled by train but these days it would not suit my diet very well because of digestive issues I have developed the last few years. 

I think it would be great if they had more options. More dining opportunities in stations, maybe even just vending machines. Plus the dining car. But I think the economic climate and Amtrak policies are pushing the other way.

Just wishful thinking on my part, unfortunately.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

tgstubbs1 said:


> I enjoyed eating in the dining car the few times I've traveled by train but these days it would not suit my diet very well because of digestive issues I have developed the last few years.



Same here. I can still do ok in the full service dining Cars, but the new contemporary dining is pretty difficult for me. The shrimp dish is the heslthiest for me to eat, but it’s pretty spicy. The beef is crazy salty and the other dishes I can’t eat because of gluten. 

But on the flip side, you don’t save money on an airline in first class If you don’t eat a meal. Or if you only check one bag when 2 are included. You’re not paying for the checked bags and the meal when you buy 1st class on delta, you’re paying for 1st class and those are things they include.


----------



## mcropod

I was hoping to depart for a trip to the pointy north bit of Queensland here in Oz next week, but covid put an end to that. My trip home from Cairns was to have its first leg on Queensland Rail's 1600km overnighter to Brisbane on the Spirit of Queensland which has a first class seat/bed capsule arrangement shown here on pages 5-10:



https://www.queenslandrailtravel.com.au/toolbox/Documents/Sales%20Presentations/SpiritofQueensland.pdf



The 'Railbed' seat comes with included set-served meals and drinks compared to the economy fare, and has about a 50% price premium compared to the economy fare.

QR runs a more traditional sleeper service in cabins, on its overnight service Longreach/Brisbane, so the truly introverted are still properly catered for  

I was so looking forward to my Railbed experience!


----------



## railiner

mcropod said:


> I was hoping to depart for a trip to the pointy north bit of Queensland here in Oz next week, but covid put an end to that. My trip home from Cairns was to have its first leg on Queensland Rail's 1600km overnighter to Brisbane on the Spirit of Queensland which has a first class seat/bed capsule arrangement shown here on pages 5-10:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.queenslandrailtravel.com.au/toolbox/Documents/Sales%20Presentations/SpiritofQueensland.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> The 'Railbed' seat comes with included set-served meals and drinks compared to the economy fare, and has about a 50% price premium compared to the economy fare.
> 
> QR runs a more traditional sleeper service in cabins, on its overnight service Longreach/Brisbane, so the truly introverted are still properly catered for
> 
> I was so looking forward to my Railbed experience!


Interesting concept...I would also like to try it...but it's certainly not as efficient as private rooms with upper and lower bunks...


----------



## MARC Rider

railiner said:


> Interesting concept...I would also like to try it...but it's certainly not as efficient as private rooms with upper and lower bunks...


I don't know. A Viewliner sleeper has 12 roomettes, 2 bedrooms and a handicap room, with a capacity of 30, but that's only if all of the rooms are occupied by 2 people. The Railbed car "C" has a capacity of 39 seats, which actually makes it more efficient. But also consider that many rooms on the Viewliner are occupied by only one passenger. A Viewliner could have every room full, but only be carrying 15 passengers. There's a reason why Amtrak sleeper fares (at least for single travelers) are so high -- there are no sleeper accommodations designed for only one passenger. 

I'm not sure how many Railbeds you could fit in a standard Amtrak passenger car, as I don't know the difference between carriage sizes in Australia and those in the US, but if you could fit 40 Railbeds in a car, that would compare with 60 coach seats in an Amfleet II. You wouldn't have single passengers tying up space in private rooms, and thus you could price the Railbed seats at 50% above coach and still earn the same revenue for the same passenger load. In reality, you might want to price it a little higher to cover the additional costs of bedding and meals, if you're going to use the Queensland service as a template.


----------



## sttom

Considering that airlines budget at most $9 per passenger per meal on long haul flights, the amount you'd save unbundling meals would depend on how long your trip is. So a cross country trip, unbundling meals might save you $54 at most. But why would you want to pay for each meal individually if you're going from Chicago to the West Coast? As I have said, a budget sleeper option is likely going to appeal to people on overnight trips who can pack a meal ourselves or can live without it.


----------



## railiner

MARC Rider said:


> I don't know. A Viewliner sleeper has 12 roomettes, 2 bedrooms and a handicap room, with a capacity of 30, but that's only if all of the rooms are occupied by 2 people. The Railbed car "C" has a capacity of 39 seats, which actually makes it more efficient. But also consider that many rooms on the Viewliner are occupied by only one passenger. A Viewliner could have every room full, but only be carrying 15 passengers. There's a reason why Amtrak sleeper fares (at least for single travelers) are so high -- there are no sleeper accommodations designed for only one passenger.
> 
> I'm not sure how many Railbeds you could fit in a standard Amtrak passenger car, as I don't know the difference between carriage sizes in Australia and those in the US, but if you could fit 40 Railbeds in a car, that would compare with 60 coach seats in an Amfleet II. You wouldn't have single passengers tying up space in private rooms, and thus you could price the Railbed seats at 50% above coach and still earn the same revenue for the same passenger load. In reality, you might want to price it a little higher to cover the additional costs of bedding and meals, if you're going to use the Queensland service as a template.


Are we looking at the same diagram? I see "Railbed Car 'C'" as only having 19 seats. "Car B", which would be ADA compliant, only 16 seats...

And to make the comparison more even, An economy Viewliner would have 16 roomettes plus the H room for a total of 34 beds, or 19 all single occupancy. And in private accommodations.


----------



## railiner

sttom said:


> Considering that airlines budget at most $9 per passenger per meal on long haul flights, the amount you'd save unbundling meals would depend on how long your trip is. So a cross country trip, unbundling meals might save you $54 at most. But why would you want to pay for each meal individually if you're going from Chicago to the West Coast? As I have said, a budget sleeper option is likely going to appeal to people on overnight trips who can pack a meal ourselves or can live without it.


I'm for 'unbundling' meals. But offer a meal "package" for transcon traveler's. And a further choice of 2 or 3 daily meals...sold to coach or sleeper passenger's.


----------



## MARC Rider

railiner said:


> Are we looking at the same diagram? I see "Railbed Car 'C'" as only having 19 seats. "Car B", which would be ADA compliant, only 16 seats...
> 
> And to make the comparison more even, An economy Viewliner would have 16 roomettes plus the H room for a total of 34 beds, or 19 all single occupancy. And in private accommodations.


My apologies, you are correct about the seating capacity of the Railbed cars. 

However,
The economy (coach) cars on this train only hold 51 seats, as compared to a V-2 that holds 60 seats. I suspect that the cars are smaller than Amtrak cars, as the Queensland service is 3'6" narrow gauge. Thus, a V-2 sleeper shell would fit more than 19 Railbed seats. The problem with 2-bed private rooms is that beds are taken out of sale if you don't have enough couples to fill the rooms. Open-plan lie-flat seating allows the operator to keep every bed available for sale right up until departure.


----------



## MARC Rider

sttom said:


> Considering that airlines budget at most $9 per passenger per meal on long haul flights,



Is that coach or business/first class? The meal I was served in coach on United was so bad, it makes Amtrak contemporary flex dining look good. 

Also, how do airlines allocate labor costs for food service? The flight attendants, in addition to being OBS, are also considered operating crew. Even if they served no food, the airlines would have to have flight attendants on board. Amtrak saves costs with contemporary flex dining by actually eliminating jobs. So even with honest accounting, Amtrak meals probably cost more than $9 per passenger, including labor costs.


----------



## MARC Rider

Note this Wikipedia article about prototype roomettes for Amfleet cars that were tried in the 1970s.

"Two prototype Superliner roomette modules were installed, displacing twelve seats."

Four spaces displacing 12 spaces. Hmmm..., and we wonder why sleeper fares are 3 times that of coach.


----------



## sttom

MARC Rider said:


> Is that coach or business/first class? The meal I was served in coach on United was so bad, it makes Amtrak contemporary flex dining look good.
> 
> Also, how do airlines allocate labor costs for food service? The flight attendants, in addition to being OBS, are also considered operating crew. Even if they served no food, the airlines would have to have flight attendants on board. Amtrak saves costs with contemporary flex dining by actually eliminating jobs. So even with honest accounting, Amtrak meals probably cost more than $9 per passenger, including labor costs.



I'm not sure how the labor costs are allocated, but the cost of the food is $9 per passenger for a long haul business flight, at most. The average is closer to $7 which explains why some meals suck. If we're only talking snacks, its more like $2. 



MARC Rider said:


> Note this Wikipedia article about prototype roomettes for Amfleet cars that were tried in the 1970s.
> 
> "Two prototype Superliner roomette modules were installed, displacing twelve seats."
> 
> Four spaces displacing 12 spaces. Hmmm..., and we wonder why sleeper fares are 3 times that of coach.



Airlines do calculate their revenue based on revenue per square foot, which includes things such as the level of food service, the staff and other bonuses that come with whatever class you are in. Meaning, different classes have different revenue per square foot figures. The interesting thing is that in a 4 class configuration, business class generally generate as much revenue as coach, despite taking up a fraction of the space. The same is true (mostly, first class is an exception which is why its disappearing from airlines with business class) for the other classes. 

So in the context of Amtrak and a budget sleeper, it would need to generate more revenue per square foot than coach. It doesn't need to be equal to a sleeper, which it wouldn't if you have less privacy, food isn't included and possibly not having as nice of bedding. For example, OBB Nightjet 4 Bed Couchettes start at $59 and Single Sleepers start at $129. So its not out of the question for an all open section car to have a lesser surcharge than a full sleeper.


----------



## jimdex

I've been in favor of unbundling sleeper fares and meals for a long time. Including meals in the sleeper fare essentially forces sleeping car passengers to pay for meals whether they want them or not. I live in Atlanta, and when the northbound Crescent is running several hours late, questions arise about whether the diner will still be serving dinner as the train departs. I'd like the option of getting dinner at a restaurant before I get on the train. There's also another issue. The bundled meals essentially transfer dining car losses to the sleeping cars. Unbunding would presumably make it easier for sleepers to show a profit, which ultimately could make it easier to justify sleeper service.


----------



## railiner

MARC Rider said:


> My apologies, you are correct about the seating capacity of the Railbed cars.
> 
> However,
> The economy (coach) cars on this train only hold 51 seats, as compared to a V-2 that holds 60 seats. I suspect that the cars are smaller than Amtrak cars, as the Queensland service is 3'6" narrow gauge. Thus, a V-2 sleeper shell would fit more than 19 Railbed seats. The problem with 2-bed private rooms is that beds are taken out of sale if you don't have enough couples to fill the rooms. Open-plan lie-flat seating allows the operator to keep every bed available for sale right up until departure.


Then in that case, I would rather have open section sleepers.


----------



## Night Ranger

jimdex said:


> I've been in favor of unbundling sleeper fares and meals for a long time. Including meals in the sleeper fare essentially forces sleeping car passengers to pay for meals whether they want them or not. I live in Atlanta, and when the northbound Crescent is running several hours late, questions arise about whether the diner will still be serving dinner as the train departs. I'd like the option of getting dinner at a restaurant before I get on the train. There's also another issue. The bundled meals essentially transfer dining car losses to the sleeping cars. Unbunding would presumably make it easier for sleepers to show a profit, which ultimately could make it easier to justify sleeper service.


Your comment regarding the "iffyness" of meal service if the Crescent is running late describes exactly what happened to us years ago. (It was the Southern Crescent back then.) We were headed to NYC and the train was several hours late. No one could or would tell us for sure if dinner would be served that late so we ate a small meal just in case. Dinner was served after all. I wondered then and still do why no one in the station could tell us one way or the other. No way were we willing to gamble on an over night ride on an empty stomachs. That experience made us huge fans of unbundling sleeper fares and meal service.


----------



## ehbowen

Night Ranger said:


> Your comment regarding the "iffyness" of meal service if the Crescent is running late describes exactly what happened to us years ago. (It was the Southern Crescent back then.) We were headed to NYC and the train was several hours late. No one could or would tell us for sure if dinner would be served that late so we ate a small meal just in case. Dinner was served after all. I wondered then and still do why no one in the station could tell us one way or the other. No way were we willing to gamble on an over night ride on an empty stomachs. That experience made us huge fans of unbundling sleeper fares and meal service.


In fairness, when the _Crescent_ was still the _Southern Crescent_, there was no such thing as a cell phone. They had radios, yes, but I'm not sure that the portable walkie-talkies now carried by Amtrak conductors were universal in those days...may just have been the locomotive radio. I occasionally visited a tower in that time frame and still saw "hoops" and flimsies stashed for use if needed. Today, though...no excuse.


----------



## railiner

I'm not surprised the station agent would not say with certainty one way or the other...he or she could only quote the standard hours of diner service, and what the crew did was beyond his control or knowledge. He certainly did not want to commit one way or the other, only to be found wrong later, and possibly suffer repercussion's from an angry passenger that was assured one way or the other. Even if he could contact the crew on board, (unlikely for that type of communication), things could change after that for one reason or another.


----------



## Ziv

TGS, I don't know about the Rock Island train, but back in around 1975 I got to ride on the Empire Builder from Glasgow Montana to Seattle and I got to order whatever I wanted for dinner so I ordered the fish special. It was either roasted halibut or flounder and it was phenomenal! My Dad was a good cook and my Mom a fair one, but this fish was outstanding! I got a couple pieces of my Dad's steak and it was pretty good, as well. Breakfast was a real 3 egg omelet, western style omelet with hot rolls. Again, just a well prepared fresh meal, much like you would get at a good cafe or an excellent diner.
The wait staff was really skillful as well, I remember them coming out with all those plates as we bounced down the Hi Line of Montana wondering how they kept them from spilling.
The porter was an older black guy (in Montana in 1975 that would have been unusual) and he was on point as well, coffee for my Dad and icey cold pop for me. I think my Dad commented that some of the Builder people were Great Northern hold-overs from the days when he worked for Great Northern as well. He was a GN then a BN brakeman, but worked the freight side of the business.



tgstubbs1 said:


> I once rode on a Rock Island train (in the 60's) that had a real diner. It was just about like a JB Big Boys or Denny's. You could order almost anything and they would make it.


----------



## railiner

The diner menu on the Rio Grande Zephyr, IIRC, used to have a small blurb that stated they would prepare any dish not listed that you desired, "as long as it was available"(!)....whatever that meant...


----------



## ehbowen

railiner said:


> The diner menu on the Rio Grande Zephyr, IIRC, used to have a small blurb that stated they would prepare any dish not listed that you desired, "as long as it was available"(!)....whatever that meant...


That wasn't unusual in the streamliner era; the disclaimer usually meant "if we have suitable ingredients on board." So if you wanted ragout of lamb but no lamb was loaded at the commissary then you were out of luck, but if you had a hankering for off-menu peppercorn steak they could probably fix you up.


----------



## railiner

ehbowen said:


> That wasn't unusual in the streamliner era; the disclaimer usually meant "if we have suitable ingredients on board." So if you wanted ragout of lamb but no lamb was loaded at the commissary then you were out of luck, but if you had a hankering for off-menu peppercorn steak they could probably fix you up.


That makes sense...imagine seeing that today? Even in a restaurant...
Brings to mind that the Amtrak chef would often prepare a special delicacy, only for members of the crew, after the meal time for passenger's ended...


----------



## Bob Dylan

When the Diner Crews on the Texas Eagle used to Overnight in Austin instead of San Antonio( Last Call for Dinner in the Diner on #21/#421 was 5PM), they would shop @ Whole Foods (close to the Station) and HEB( Biggest Texas Grocery Chain) before boarding #22/#422 the Next Morning.

Then on the turn back to Chicago the Next Day, the Chef ( there were several Outstanding Veteran Diner Crews)would cook up "Specials " for the Crew and Selected Regular Passengers they knew!( I was Lucky to be one of those!)


----------



## Mailliw

cocojacoby said:


> Here are a few options. Leave it to the Japanese. These are on some Japanese buses so they could certainly fit in an Amfleet coach. The seats are about 23" wide.
> View attachment 17142
> View attachment 17143
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seat types - Reborn | WILLER - highway bus, night bus in Japan
> 
> 
> Seat types - Reborn. To enjoy traveling through the comfortable travel, WILLER EXPRESS Bus unique seat types are lined up. The seats were invested based on the totally new concepts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> willerexpress.com









 This is an example of the highest service level on Argentine sleeper buses, it's also 2:1 seating so singles were catered for. I would've killed for something like this on the overnight bus trip I took to Montreal back in March.



railiner said:


> Or, they could build a modern slumbercoach without individual plumbing...just public restrooms. Cheaper yet, simpler to build and maintain...



The Viewliner IIs don't have toilets in the rooms anymore. I think it's a good move. An unenclosed toilet, evened when it's disguised as a seat is simply disgusting. 



cocojacoby said:


> Here, this will help: The ultimate guide to Delta One Suites
> 
> This is primarily for a single person. Two people could probably sit across the aisle from each other and converse. Interestingly the airlines had to fight for this type of accommodation. The FRA won't allow full height walls, although Amtrak could to provide better privacy, and the FRA did not want to allow doors.



You mean the FAA right? I don't see how the FRA would have any problem with full walls and doors since we already have sleeping cars.




ScouseAndy said:


> Ive always wondered why Japanese Capsule Hotels Concept has never been used by any train company around the world (even Japan). To me this would be ideal, space saving and cheap. In a standard coach you could certainly go 3 high and potentially even increase capacity over a standard coach.








This is what OBB Nightjet is doing for their next generation couchette cars. This is ideal for strictly overnight travel, but unlike a traditional couchette there is no daytime mode.


----------



## cocojacoby

Mailliw said:


> You mean the FAA right? I don't see how the FRA would have any problem with full walls and doors since we already have sleeping cars.



Yes of course. Thanks for the correction.


----------



## Deni

This is what OBB Nightjet is doing for their next generation couchette cars. This is ideal for strictly overnight travel, but unlike a traditional couchette there is no daytime mode.
[/QUOTE]

Haven't seen this photo of the new ones yet. Are any in service or are they still on order?


----------



## sttom

Just doing some back of the napkin math for open section sleepers or cars with lie flat seats. An Open Section Viewliner would have 34 Beds and a Lie Flat Seat next to the ADA restroom. There would still need to be an ADA space in the car and I doubt a bathroom can be made half the size of the existing bathroom. A Lie Flat Viewliner would have 31 seats. Even including an Amfleet 2 bathroom and not much space was saved. For fun I did the Superliners, since those never seen to be done. A Superliner with Sections would have 40 beds, 7 Lie Flat Seats (I did this because I wasn't sure what to do with the Family Room) and the Accessible Room. A Lie Flat Superliner would have 37 seats and 1 Accessible Room. Also, I made these in Paint, since I don't have an Adobe license, so precision was sacrificed to make the visual. And thanks to Cocajacoby for the Viewliner with Delta One seats for the inspiration and to some extent ripping off visuals.


----------



## Mailliw

So the Zephyr seat looks interesting, but I still think open sections would be easier.


----------



## cocojacoby

Mailliw said:


> So the Zephyr seat looks interesting, but I still think open sections would be easier.



Seems many here feel this way but if I remember correctly the open section was not that popular an option when available.

I have experienced the open section once in my life. It was on the Atlantic a long long time ago. The lower berth was priced higher than the upper berth and you could even purchase the entire section if you wanted. Worked fine if you wanted to share it with family or friends. Probably not so well nowadays sitting and sleeping with strangers that close.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

cocojacoby said:


> I have experienced the open section once in my life. [...] Worked fine if you wanted to share it with family or friends. Probably not so well nowadays sitting and sleeping with strangers that close.


How is an open section worse than sharing Amtrak's reclining love seat contraption with no divider in coach? Open sections on _The Canadian_ looked confusing at first but workable on further inspection and such an option would allow more passengers to get a good night's rest and keep clean during their trip if they were priced accordingly. It's clear from posts on our forum that the fare difference between coach and sleeper travel is a major barrier for a lot of people. This was the case for most of my life as well. If it were possible I would like to see another option between coach and roomette that offered travelers a comfortable middle ground while still bringing in enough fare recovery to keep Amtrak rolling.


----------



## sttom

I've slept on planes, trains, and buses around other people. Plenty of people do and the uncomfortable part of it is sitting upright and trying to sleep, not necessarily that there are other people around. I personally don't see how some how sleeping in a seat around people is acceptable/tolerable, but once a bed is involved, absolute privacy is a must. Airlines and bus companies are starting to put beds in their vehicles and they aren't walled off and some don't even have curtains. But they still sell well enough that airlines and bus companies are keeping them around and others are jumping in with their own products. Amtrak and other rail operators should do the same thing. The primary reason I won't take on overnight trip on Amtrak is because sleepers aren't affordable and coach seats are uncomfortable. Letting me pay for just a bed would get me to ride more often.


----------



## Mailliw

I get that open sections likely wouldn't be popular with older travelers, but they would certainly would with younger ones. The market would be travelers currently riding overnight in coach or by bus. Open sections are basically the American version of the couchette pods OBBNightjet is planing, but with a day mode. If Amtrak starts some pure night trains they be even more practical since they would be in nightmode before boarding. Also during day mode you'd be left with what's essentially parlor car sitting.


----------



## DCAKen

Japan Railway Journal, one of the programs on NHK World (the international broadcast of the Japanese public media), recently had a segment on the overnight service Sunrise Seto and Sunrise Izumo. These trains have a variety of sleeper option, including the _nobi nobi _open section.









Sunrise Seto and Izumo: The Last of the Overnight Sleeper Trains - Japan Railway Journal | NHK WORLD-JAPAN On Demand


Once an icon in Japan, sleeper trains (commonly known as "blue trains") disappeared in the wake of faster and more convenient modes of transport. Sunrise Seto and Sunrise Izumo are now the only sleeper trains still in regular service. The Sunrise trains consist of private rooms and semi-private...




www3.nhk.or.jp


----------



## sttom

Mailliw said:


> I get that open sections likely wouldn't be popular with older travelers, but they would certainly would with younger ones. The market would be travelers currently riding overnight in coach or by bus. Open sections are basically the American version of the couchette pods OBBNightjet is planing, but with a day mode. If Amtrak starts some pure night trains they be even more practical since they would be in nightmode before boarding. Also during day mode you'd be left with what's essentially parlor car sitting.


Amtrak can't start convenient overnight trains due to the 750 mile rule and most trips that would be convenient would be under 750 miles.

Putting them on existing trains would also make sense. There are plenty of long distance trains that have stretches where there is an overnight portion. Pretty much all of the East Coast trains have at least one, the Starlight from Northern California to Portland is another, the Zephyr from California to Colorado, and more that I can't remember off the top of my head. I for one would take a berth to Portland or Colorado if it existed as an option.


----------



## Mailliw

I know about the 750 mile rule and it's assine. It should be dropped to 500 miles or less.


----------



## tgstubbs1

Nobody told me about the 750 mile rule.


----------



## Dakota 400

As a child, my Mother booked a section on a few trains on the PRR. We shared the lower berth. (If there was anyone in the upper berth, I was unaware of it.) I recall that it felt crowded and with the heavy curtain separating us from the hallway, it felt a bit claustrophobic. I wouldn't book such an accommodation today.


----------



## sttom

The 750 mile rule is just a lazy rule for Congress to feel good about itself. In one of the other threads, I proposed a 3 states rule or a "500 mile" rule for Interstate Corridor. If the proposed line connected two primary MSAs. Even then, I still think the 500 mile part should be more rule of thumb than a hard cut off. Along with subsidizing state corridors. But expansion is DOA thanks to the current crisis.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Devil's Advocate said:


> How is an open section worse than sharing Amtrak's reclining love seat contraption with no divider in coach? Open sections on _The Canadian_ looked confusing at first but workable on further inspection and such an option would allow more passengers to get a good night's rest and keep clean during their trip if they were priced accordingly. It's clear from posts on our forum that the fare difference between coach and sleeper travel is a major barrier for a lot of people. This was the case for most of my life as well. If it were possible I would like to see another option between coach and roomette that offered travelers a comfortable middle ground while still bringing in enough fare recovery to keep Amtrak rolling.


Slumber Coaches are still the way to go!!!


----------



## railiner

DCAKen said:


> Japan Railway Journal, one of the programs on NHK World (the international broadcast of the Japanese public media), recently had a segment on the overnight service Sunrise Seto and Sunrise Izumo. These trains have a variety of sleeper option, including the _nobi nobi _open section.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunrise Seto and Izumo: The Last of the Overnight Sleeper Trains - Japan Railway Journal | NHK WORLD-JAPAN On Demand
> 
> 
> Once an icon in Japan, sleeper trains (commonly known as "blue trains") disappeared in the wake of faster and more convenient modes of transport. Sunrise Seto and Sunrise Izumo are now the only sleeper trains still in regular service. The Sunrise trains consist of private rooms and semi-private...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www3.nhk.or.jp


What a nice video, thanks for posting it!
That looks like a brilliant operation. I really liked the variety offered, and especially the ability for keyless locking of your door, when leaving the room. Too bad they didn't at least offer vending machines in that "bistro" car, for those that didn't bring their own food...


----------



## jiml

Mailliw said:


> If Amtrak starts some pure night trains they be even more practical since they would be in nightmode before boarding.


They had them in the NEC and VIA had the same between Toronto and Montreal overnight. There was never a need to "unmake" the beds other than changing sheets, etc. The cars would make the return trip the next night. Although both railways alleged low ridership for their cancellation, I believe equipment shortages made these routes easy targets.

Check out the thread about the Night Owl.


----------



## railiner

jiml said:


> They had them in the NEC and VIA had the same between Toronto and Montreal overnight. There was never a need to "unmake" the beds other than changing sheets, etc. The cars would make the return trip the next night. Although both railways alleged low ridership for their cancellation, I believe equipment shortages made these routes easy targets.
> 
> Check out the thread about the Night Owl.


Don't forget The Northstar and The Spirit of California...


----------



## jiml

railiner said:


> Don't forget The Northstar and The Spirit of California...


I had been aware of the Spirit, although thought it had been earlier than 80's. The Northstar is a new one on me and Google is no help, referring only to a current commuter service. Please fill in the blanks at your convenience.


----------



## railiner

jiml said:


> I had been aware of the Spirit, although thought it had been earlier than 80's. The Northstar is a new one on me and Google is no help, referring only to a current commuter service. Please fill in the blanks at your convenience.











North Star (Amtrak train) - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org







The Museum of Railway Timetables (timetables.org)





The Museum of Railway Timetables (timetables.org)


----------



## jiml

railiner said:


> North Star (Amtrak train) - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Museum of Railway Timetables (timetables.org)


Fascinating. As I started to read I couldn't figure out why it was an overnight train, but it made sense in its beginning. Thanks!


----------

