# Cost of a roomette - are they kidding?



## Teamfour

I am looking at traveling from WAS to SDL in a couple of weeks via the Crescent. I know I am booking the trip late, but I am a little shocked at the price of a roomette. The coach fare is $125 but Amtrak then wants an extra $383 for the roomette. That's a lot of $$ for a place to sleep and a couple of meals. Is this the norm?


----------



## darien-l

Amtrak sells their tickets on a bucket system, which basically means that the more roomettes are sold on a given train, the more expensive the remaining roomettes are. To get the best price, it's best to book as far ahead as possible. The lowest bucket price for a roomette WAS to SDL is $180 (and $244 for a bedroom), which you might be able to get if you play around with your travel dates a bit.


----------



## Tony

When I had to go to FL at the last minute when my mother died, I had to pay almost twice what I usually pay ($1300 vs. $700).


----------



## Teamfour

darien-l said:


> Amtrak sells their tickets on a bucket system, which basically means that the more roomettes are sold on a given train, the more expensive the remaining roomettes are. To get the best price, it's best to book as far ahead as possible. The lowest bucket price for a roomette WAS to SDL is $180 (and $244 for a bedroom), which you might be able to get if you play around with your travel dates a bit.


Thanks. I am starting to understand the bucket system. I can't play with the dates as I am moving my daughter up to DC for a new job. I had planned on flying back, but I really want to explore travel by train. I guess coach wouldn't be bad for a single overnighter.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Teamfour said:


> darien-l said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak sells their tickets on a bucket system, which basically means that the more roomettes are sold on a given train, the more expensive the remaining roomettes are. To get the best price, it's best to book as far ahead as possible. The lowest bucket price for a roomette WAS to SDL is $180 (and $244 for a bedroom), which you might be able to get if you play around with your travel dates a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. I am starting to understand the bucket system. I can't play with the dates as I am moving my daughter up to DC for a new job. I had planned on flying back, but I really want to explore travel by train. I guess coach wouldn't be bad for a single overnighter.
Click to expand...

Book ahead.

And remember, the roomette is for two people, you don't have to pay 300 twice if you got two people.


----------



## Larry H.

This kind of problem is exactly what I have a tendency to complain about with bucket fares. In the old days you could go any day the trains ran for one price as long as rooms were available and due to running much larger consist they usually were.. If amtrak is going to provide the masses decent service they need to price for those who are not in the "bucks" and can plunk down lots of cash for the sake of a room.. that is not the way the old pullman company operated as I have often pointed out. When your faced with a quick decision or really any reason the sleepers should be affordable by most people. I pointed out not long ago that the actual cost of a room on amtrak is now running 18 times what it did in the late forties compared to coach. That is a unrealistic charge which many for some reason defend.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

If you want things to change, write to your Congresspeople asking them to fund more sleeper cars for Amtrak. Until Amtrak has enough rolling stock, sleeping compartments either have to be expensive, or sold based on some sort of lottery system (and the rules Amtrak has been operating under where they're supposed to try to make a profit seems to favor the former).


----------



## sky12065

Larry H. said:


> This kind of problem is exactly what I have a tendency to complain about with bucket fares. In the old days you could go any day the trains ran for one price as long as rooms were available and due to running much larger consist they usually were.. If amtrak is going to provide the masses decent service they need to price for those who are not in the "bucks" and can plunk down lots of cash for the sake of a room.. that is not the way the old pullman company operated as I have often pointed out. When your faced with a quick decision or really any reason the sleepers should be affordable by most people. I pointed out not long ago that the actual cost of a room on amtrak is now running 18 times what it did in the late forties compared to coach. That is a unrealistic charge which many for some reason defend.


I get it... If you and I were in the same accomodation type on the same train and I paid $500 and you paid $350 that wouldn't be fair. However, I would say that if you paid $500 and I paid $350 that would be fair! :lol:

Seriously, I can see your point. It's like going into a grocery store to buy a half gallon of milk and I was charged one dollar whereas you were charged three dollars. That's certainly not fair to you!

To some extent however, I can see the bucket system (no milk joke there) because I've seen problems where people procrastinate and don't make decisions until the last minute. In doing so they make planning and procuring very difficult for the host or managing entity when there's only a few days left to react!

So which is right and which is wrong? I don't know but I do know that they probably should have called the bucket system the TEBGTW System. TEBGTW? The Early Bird Gets the Worm! I can just imagine someone like Gilbert Gottfried walking into an Amtrak Station and inquiring as to the whereabouts of the worm!


----------



## PetalumaLoco

sky12065 said:


> .... I can just imagine someone like Gilbert Gottfried walking into an Amtrak Station and inquiring as to the whereabouts of the worm!


I think you may have something there. Amtrak needs a mascot, so how about Gilbert Gottfried? He can even keep the duck character, but this time run around saying "Amtrak!"


----------



## ralfp

sky12065 said:


> Seriously, I can see your point. It's like going into a grocery store to buy a half gallon of milk and I was charged one dollar whereas you were charged three dollars. That's certainly not fair to you!


It's like a sale where quantities are limited. The first X customers get the low price, the rest pay more.

It may suck sometimes, but it's a fair way of pricing fares. It's certainly better than a flat price. People who can/want to pay less than average can do so if they're flexible with travel dates/times and advance booking.

Honestly, looking at availability in the next few days, I can say that WAS-SDL is too cheap, it's not available at any price. The next open room is on the 20th, almost a week away. If anything this indicates that Amtrak really needs to increase fares (or increase capacity). In the short term a capacity increase is basically impossible.


----------



## amtrakmichigan

If your tickets are not printed yet, you can always recheck room prices for your trip and have them adjusted. Last month we took a trip from Toledo, Oh to Sebring, Fl via the Capital Limited / Silver Meteor and returned via the Silver Meteor / Lake Shore Ltd. I purchesed the tickets in June for travel in September. The inital purchase price was $16xx.00. A few times a week I would go on Amtrak's site and recheck the sleeper charges. The room prices decreased on 3 of the 4 trains. I ended up paying $12xx.00 for this trip. I saved over $400.00 by doing this. If you do find that the price decreased, just call Amtrak with your reservation #. Tell them you noticed that the sleeper fare decreased on your train(s) on your date of travel and you would like to rebook your reservation with the lower fare. They will credit your charge card for the full amount (within a week of travel) and then charge the card for the new reservation.


----------



## Larry H.

ralfp said:


> sky12065 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, I can see your point. It's like going into a grocery store to buy a half gallon of milk and I was charged one dollar whereas you were charged three dollars. That's certainly not fair to you!
> 
> 
> 
> It's like a sale where quantities are limited. The first X customers get the low price, the rest pay more.
> 
> It may suck sometimes, but it's a fair way of pricing fares. It's certainly better than a flat price. People who can/want to pay less than average can do so if they're flexible with travel dates/times and advance booking.
> 
> Honestly, looking at availability in the next few days, I can say that WAS-SDL is too cheap, it's not available at any price. The next open room is on the 20th, almost a week away. If anything this indicates that Amtrak really needs to increase fares (or increase capacity). In the short term a capacity increase is basically impossible.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting thought process. But if rail is to become a major part of our travel one again, then the idea that every person who would choose rail is going to know when he needs a trip would have to book six months out is nuts.. People travel in many instances due to reasons the poster of this thread mentioned. A funeral, a sickness, quick business trip, spur of the moment changes in plans, on and on.. I suppose if Amtrak were only to cater to those of us who are simply rail fans an basically touring around the country for the fun of it, then planning way out is ok. But if your in the real world and things come up quickly, then this price system is totally unfair.

On the amount of spaces, yes they indeed are limited, way too much.. But does anyone really think under the current congressional mandates for wringing every possible cent out of rail passengers who want a place to sleep in a bit of comfort would change if they had 10 sleepers running? I seriously doubt it. It might be that some more reasonable difference would be acceptable, like saving 50.00 by booking early.. But charging up to three times and even more the price of a room, it really puts all the hurt on people that this system is running for. Those who need to travel by rail often at short notice.

And none of that addresses the underlying problem that due to trying to cover all expenses, ( which rail worldwide is not expected to do), then we are pricing sleepers at prices that are much out of line with traditional charges for pullman services. The government was supposed to maintain the rail, not price it out of existence.

Maybe a compromise might be to take that total that Amtrak is trying to produce from a sleeper and instead of gouging a few would divide it by total space, allowing the normal higher comparative price for a room as opposed to a roomette. Then even it out to a realistic everyday price and sell it for that with perhaps the 50.00 savings for early booking idea. Even with that in place, the overall price range as now being used is still one that is too high for many and is used mainly by those who are easily able to afford it.. So on a trip where now the prices may show from 250 to 750 for the same roomette they could charge an everyday fare of 400. no matter when your going. It might be higher for some, but more reasonable for those who need the service quickly or at peak times. Lets recall also that at one point Amtrak basically doubled the price of a Bedroom by charging one person two fares which was not the case previous to Amtrak and congress getting there noses into it.


----------



## Teamfour

Wow! I didn't intend to start such a lively discussion regarding fares, but the reading has been informative.

I sure am glad the bucket concept doesn't apply to movie theaters! ^_^


----------



## Ispolkom

I always check my wallet when someone starts talking about fair prices. I don't think the word "fair price" has much meaning.

The way I see it, sleeper travel is luxury travel, and Amtrak should run its sleepers so that a ) they are full, and b ) Amtrak got the highest price possible for each sleeper compartment. The bucket system is certainly a rough-and-ready way of achieving this goal. If you're a last-minute traveler you have to expect to pay a higher price, and if Amtrak can find buyers for its highest-bucket roomettes, good for them.

Of course, this is easy for me to write, since I am able to plan my travel far ahead, and am able to pay for my tickets far ahead of travel. I'm one of those people who buy tickets far out, and change as necessary. Maybe Amtrak should make it more expensive for people like me to change reservations to discourage this behavior, or perhaps they'd rather have my money for 11 months.

I think the answer to high sleeper prices is more sleeper cars. It's simple supply and demand. If there were more compartments available in each bucket, the average price would go down.

Here's evidence that supports my view. I notice that coach prices seem to fluctuate far less (probably because there are so many more coach seats on each train). For example, the roomette I purchased for a trip to Washington D.C. next May has gone up about 50%, while the coach price hasn't budged.

Heck, advance Amtrak tickets have been my best-performing investments this year.

FWIW, Amtrak is hardly the only company using bucket pricing. Megabus sells tickets from Minneapolis to Chicago starting at a dollar. I'd prefer to take the train, but I'm not made of stone, and can't pass up that price.


----------



## ralfp

Teamfour said:


> I sure am glad the bucket concept doesn't apply to movie theaters! ^_^


Why not? I'm not willing to pay $10 ($20 with Mrs. ralfp) for the privilege of seeing a movie with noisy kids, no pause feature, etc. I might be willing to occupy an empty seat for $3. I'm sure there are people willing to pay $15.



Ispolkom said:


> I always check my wallet when someone starts talking about fair prices. I don't think the word "fair price" has much meaning.
> The way I see it, sleeper travel is luxury travel, and Amtrak should run its sleepers so that a) they are full, and Amtrak got the highest price possible for each sleeper compartment.
> 
> ....
> 
> I think the answer to high sleeper prices is more sleeper cars. It's simple supply and demand. If there were more compartments available in each bucket, the average price would go down.


A fair price is one that's offered and that you're willing to pay. It's one of the wonders of capitalism (which actually applies for LD Amtrak trips, as there is real competition).

If the sleepers are consistently full it means that Amtrak has not charged the highest possible price (ie. needs to raise prices).

....

The problem that Amtrak has is that adding capacity and lowering the average sleeper fare both increase losses.


----------



## Larry H.

The previous two writers prove that the situation is out of control.. Were supposed to be running a national rail system, not trying to see how much we can fleece out of the riders! Sure you can keep jacking the prices up. With 5 bedrooms per train the way amtrak has run many lately, you can no doubt find some rail fans with big wallets willing to plunk anything down to ride.. But as gasoline has finally proved, there comes a point where prices begin to be out of the reach of many and people will refuse to use it. That isn't going to happen with amtrak because so few rooms do seem on many trains to find a willing buyer..

It may be that the overall price structure may be a bit of of whack. If you consider that that 1949 NY to Chicago showed coach at about 34.00 or so, then you see where today it cost about 80.00 depending on the buckets again, you see that a sleeper that cost half the price of a coach for a bedroom, 18.00 was quite a bargain. Today it cost 18 times that price in comparison to coach.. Maybe the coach fares are unreasonably low for some reason? Maybe not, just thinking.. I am not either saying that the price of a bedroom today would make any sense at 40.00 either.. But in comparison and considering how much quality and service Pullman put into there sleepers, lounges ect, then the price is indeed cheap by todays standards. Its kind of like cars.. Yes some can afford a $200,000 luxury car. But the average person is lucky to be able to pay for a $15,000 car. By the above suggestions because some could afford a high end car, then the rest of the public be dammed and you can walk.. I don't buy the idea that any price is fine as long as someone can afford it. We don't all live in 30 million dollar condos either. Should all houses cost that much because some can afford it.. Lets remember this is a national rail passenger system expected to provide the average traveler a seat or a room.. That is how those fares were set until the Government got involved. What ever happened to Family fares? On top of the higher fares we all pay, all the discounted fares have gone out the window too.. I don't buy that more cars will drop the price of rooms either.. In fact the suggested any thing goes fare structure is exactly the opposite.. you want it you pay for it.. Even if its too much..

As too the idea that adding cars and dropping fares adds to loses.. Then you could say eliminate the highway system. Its no money maker! But I don't see any in congress saying we can't build or maintain that. The idea wasn't to make money, it was to provide a service which is what Amtrak should be doing.


----------



## Ispolkom

ralfp said:


> If the sleepers are consistently full it means that Amtrak has not charged the highest possible price (ie. needs to raise prices).....
> 
> The problem that Amtrak has is that adding capacity and lowering the average sleeper fare both increase losses.


Would increasing sleeper capacity increase operating losses? I certainly can see that, if you add the cost of building the sleeping cars. If you separate out the capital budget (say the cost of the car, but not the cost of its maintenance), though, I'd think that the cost of running an extra sleeper on the Cardinal would be less than the potential sales. Or am I completely off base?

Larry H., I can't agree with you in your comparisions to 1949, when fares were set by the ICC, and bucket pricing was probably not technically possible. How was it fair that coach prices in 1949 (adjusted for inflation) were much higher then than they are today? Why should sleeping car customers get a break and the coach customers get taken? Who can afford the higher prices more?

"Lets remember this is a national rail passenger system expected to provide the average traveler a seat or a room.." And it does. It provides lots of inexpensive seats, and a few expensive rooms. You might not like the mix, but unless Amtrak gets a large capital infusion, that's the way it is.

Twenty-five years ago I had a lot less money and a greater fondness for the company of strangers. I happily traveled in coach long distances. Today I have more money and a greater aversion to people, and I am happy to pay for the comfort and privacy of a sleeping compartment. YMMV.


----------



## AlanB

Larry,

The problem/issue is that there are those in Congress who believe that the American people should not be subsidizing land cruises as they like to call them. Therefore all they want to vote money for, if any money, is for coach services. In their minds that's all that this country should be subsidizing. I'm not saying that I agree with that logic, but that is how many in Congress feel. So to prevent the loss of the sleeping car, as well as the dining car, Amtrak has had no choice but to try to maximize revenue from the sleeping cars so that they can say that the average citizen isn't subsidizing a land cruise.

And it is indeed true, that sleepers cover their above the rails cost. If you travel in a sleeper, only the railfare portion of your ticket receives any subsidy, and it receives a bit less than someone traveling in coach.


----------



## printman2000

It has been my belief that Amtrak should charge what the market is willing to pay. If they are selling out at high prices, they would be foolish not to charge it.

Going to the Gathering, I went coach because I could not pay the sleeper fare. I hated it, wanted to be in sleeper the whole time, but I do not blame Amtrak for charging that high price.

By the way, there was ONE room open on the day of travel on #4 according to the website. Had the prices been lower, that room along with ALL the rooms would have been sold out. So in your case, if rooms were a lot cheaper, there probably would not be any left for you to even have the option. Supply and demand.


----------



## ralfp

Larry H. said:


> The previous two writers prove that the situation is out of control.. Were supposed to be running a national rail system, not trying to see how much we can fleece out of the riders!...
> 
> I don't buy the idea that any price is fine as long as someone can afford it.


A rail system is worthless if you cannot buy tickets. Any price is better than no availability. A $500 roomette is a lot more useful to me than a sold out train. I'd rather have Amtrak raise fares such that one can actually buy coach seats or rooms the day before. Given how often the LD trains are sold out (even in coach), I think that Amtrak would be making the right choice in raising prices on trains that typically sell out.


----------



## Karl

Just a quick calculation based on Amtraks numbers. Amtrak 2007 had 1.7B in "passenger" revenue, 1.1B in "loss". Assuming for the sake of argument (and i do remember disecting ass_u_me) the sleeper portion and meal portion of revenue is about break even and accounts for .6B doubling the coach fare (AND magically not loosing any passengers) would have Amtrak breaking even! One and a half would allow room for capital replacement and addition of rolling stock, routes, etc. This 1.5 increase is kinda close to the numbers quoted by other posters for 1948 coach fares adjusted for inflation. Mean while we have to allow Amtrak to struggle on as best it can, and "bucket" fares seem to be a reasonable means for management to be financally responsible.


----------



## Larry H.

Isn't it a bit ironic that the airline system that basically did in rail travel as we knew it, ended up being a total bargain due to the amount of passengers that could use it.. does anyone think that if airlines had only offered extremely high rates that the business would have grown as it did until the oil price finally crimped the ability of airlines to offer cheap seats.

As to the coach, verses bedroom fare issue, the bedroom was a charge above the going coach rate as it is today.. Obviously someone thought the traveling public would like to step up to a sleeping accommodation without mortgaging the house. That held true until as Allen says the congress decided that running sleepers was a true luxury that should only be available to a few who would pay much increased rates. Even as the things that went with the sleepers such as first class lounges, personal service, and first class dining disappeared.

I am saddened to see the support for the anything goes pricing as shown in this site.. There should somehow be a reasonable price at which the general public can use the services of a Government Subsidies System.. To price it out of the reach of a large percentage of travelers is wrong and unfair. The fact that small amounts of rooms sell out proves nothing. What might be of real interest is how many people that might have liked to upgrade too a room for a more reasonable fare couldn't. That would be the real test of the value of the rooms.. A few shop at Saks, most shop at Walmart. Obviously everyone can not afford Saks.


----------



## MrFSS

Karl said:


> Just a quick calculation based on Amtrak's numbers. Amtrak 2007 had 1.7B in "passenger" revenue, 1.1B in "loss". Assuming for the sake of argument (and i do remember dissecting ass_u_me) the sleeper portion and meal portion of revenue is about break even and accounts for .6B doubling the coach fare (AND magically not loosing any passengers) would have Amtrak breaking even! One and a half would allow room for capital replacement and addition of rolling stock, routes, etc. This 1.5 increase is kinda close to the numbers quoted by other posters for 1948 coach fares adjusted for inflation. Mean while we have to allow Amtrak to struggle on as best it can, and "bucket" fares seem to be a reasonable means for management to be financially responsible.


Two questions.

I'm not a numbers person, but what would happen if Amtrak tried something like this:

Assume a route from A to B and the low bucket coach is $100 and the high bucket coach is $300.

What if they sold EVERY coach seat for $200 with no bucket system involved. everyone would pay $200 today or 11 months in advance. You would always know what it would be, no surprises.

Is there any logic to a system like that? Could they find the magic number that would be what the price should be as compared to using the bucket system?

I did work in retail many years ago and I know we would buy a widget for $1 each. 1000 widgets cost $1000.

We sold them for $10 each. When we had sold 100 of them we had our $1000 back. The cost of doing business could be met by selling another 200 widgets, leaving us with 700 widgets to sell that became profit, so to speak. We might or might not sell them all in a season, but they would start lowering the price of widgets into the season to help that process along as it was all profit, anyway.

The point is, there must be formulas for all this to figure out how to sell train tickets. Is that what the bucket system is all about?


----------



## printman2000

Larry H. said:


> I am saddened to see the support for the anything goes pricing as shown in this site.. There should somehow be a reasonable price at which the general public can use the services of a Government Subsidies System.. To price it out of the reach of a large percentage of travelers is wrong and unfair. The fact that small amounts of rooms sell out proves nothing. What might be of real interest is how many people that might have liked to upgrade too a room for a more reasonable fare couldn't. That would be the real test of the value of the rooms.. A few shop at Saks, most shop at Walmart. Obviously everyone can not afford Saks.


Airlines are subsidized, should they make first class seats affordable? Even coach seats last minute on airlines are going to be WAY more than booking in advance. At least Amtrak coach is extremely affordable almost always.

Sleepers, in my opinion, are affordable if booked far enough in advance. The later you purchase, the higher the price will be (typically). At least with Amtrak, the price is solely based on sales and not time. If no one has booked a sleeper, it does not matter if you are 11 months out or the day of, you will get the lowest bucket.

By the way, I shop at Walmart.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Larry H. said:


> The previous two writers prove that the situation is out of control.. Were supposed to be running a national rail system, not trying to see how much we can fleece out of the riders! Sure you can keep jacking the prices up. With 5 bedrooms per train the way amtrak has run many lately, you can no doubt find some rail fans with big wallets willing to plunk anything down to ride.. But as gasoline has finally proved, there comes a point where prices begin to be out of the reach of many and people will refuse to use it. That isn't going to happen with amtrak because so few rooms do seem on many trains to find a willing buyer..
> It may be that the overall price structure may be a bit of of whack. If you consider that that 1949 NY to Chicago showed coach at about 34.00 or so, then you see where today it cost about 80.00 depending on the buckets again, you see that a sleeper that cost half the price of a coach for a bedroom, 18.00 was quite a bargain. Today it cost 18 times that price in comparison to coach.. Maybe the coach fares are unreasonably low for some reason? Maybe not, just thinking.. I am not either saying that the price of a bedroom today would make any sense at 40.00 either.. ...


The word is INFLATION. By using inflation calculators from 1949 to 2007 (2008 data isn't done yet) that $34 in 1949 would be worth $292.80 today.

That's $300 dollar roomette still sound bad? Sounds about right to me... And, on the LSL mid December rail fare from NYP to CHI is around $80 and the Viewliner Roomette is $297 for a grand total of $377. That is in the middle buckets.

And I know its not much, but no need to snarf at the free meals- and, if you brought a second person the deal is even sweeter.

Still not a bad deal... inflation adjusted.


----------



## x-press

Teamfour said:


> Wow! I didn't intend to start such a lively discussion regarding fares, but the reading has been informative.
> I sure am glad the bucket concept doesn't apply to movie theaters! ^_^


Not exactly the same method, but they certainly charge different prices for the same movies at different times, based on the exact same criteria: How many people are expected to show up.


----------



## ralfp

MrFSS said:


> Assume a route from A to B and the low bucket coach is $100 and the high bucket coach is $300.
> What if they sold EVERY coach seat for $200 with no bucket system involved. everyone would pay $200 today or 11 months in advance. You would always know what it would be, no surprises.
> 
> Is there any logic to a system like that? Could they find the magic number that would be what the price should be as compared to using the bucket system?


Sure there's a logic. It's just not as good as pricing based on demand. You'd screw over the person willing to pay only $100, and not get maximum revenue from those willing to pay $300.

The trick is not to sell too many $100 seats. You have to accurately predict how many $200, $300, etc. seats you will be able to sell. In practice this means dynamically changing the number of seats in each bucket. The airlines are getting pretty good at this. Amtrak, with fixed price fare buckets with a fixed number of seats in each, could certainly learn something.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

ok how about this. may 2009 empire builder Chicago to sea. roomette is $617.


----------



## Karl

MrFSS said:


> Karl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a quick calculation based on Amtrak's numbers. Amtrak 2007 had 1.7B in "passenger" revenue, 1.1B in "loss". Assuming for the sake of argument (and i do remember dissecting ass_u_me) the sleeper portion and meal portion of revenue is about break even and accounts for .6B doubling the coach fare (AND magically not loosing any passengers) would have Amtrak breaking even! One and a half would allow room for capital replacement and addition of rolling stock, routes, etc. This 1.5 increase is kinda close to the numbers quoted by other posters for 1948 coach fares adjusted for inflation. Mean while we have to allow Amtrak to struggle on as best it can, and "bucket" fares seem to be a reasonable means for management to be financially responsible.
> 
> 
> 
> Two questions.
> 
> I'm not a numbers person, but what would happen if Amtrak tried something like this:
> 
> Assume a route from A to B and the low bucket coach is $100 and the high bucket coach is $300.
> 
> What if they sold EVERY coach seat for $200 with no bucket system involved. everyone would pay $200 today or 11 months in advance. You would always know what it would be, no surprises.
> 
> Is there any logic to a system like that? Could they find the magic number that would be what the price should be as compared to using the bucket system?
> 
> I did work in retail many years ago and I know we would buy a widget for $1 each. 1000 widgets cost $1000.
> 
> We sold them for $10 each. When we had sold 100 of them we had our $1000 back. The cost of doing business could be met by selling another 200 widgets, leaving us with 700 widgets to sell that became profit, so to speak. We might or might not sell them all in a season, but they would start lowering the price of widgets into the season to help that process along as it was all profit, anyway.
> 
> The point is, there must be formulas for all this to figure out how to sell train tickets. Is that what the bucket system is all about?
Click to expand...

OK, I am only a numbers person in being a big part of a small business.

The key to your answer is right in your question "... and fill every seat...".

Amtraks challange is to try to generate the maximum amount of revenue while achieving the goal of "preserving" passenger train routes. Then try to actually be a player in the transportation jungle. While I dont like the bucket system from the stanpoint as a potential customer I dont want to second guess management (Dont second guess the Fire Chief, the buildings going to burn down whatever we do).

Many of the suggestions in this thread are to contact your congressman. This is accurate as Congress (via the subsidy) is Amtraks major customer.

It does seem counter intuitive to have the bucket pricing though. Lets look at (from the outside) at costs of running a train. Lets start with the minumum (with amenities), an engine, sleeper, diner, coach, onboard staff, maintainance support, reservations, etc. Its going to cost about the same to run from AAA to BBB whether there is 1 passenger or the train is full (40? + 80? = ~120), plus whatever costs occur directly per passenger. So the costs drop off dramatically per passenger until we are full. Then we add another car, so the cost jumps up to absorb the costs of running that one car with one passenger, again when its full cost per passenger drops (as the cost of running the train with one extra car is not that much). So the costs are zig zagging up and down (tending down) as we add cars, and eventually engines. I hope Amtrak has a model of this pattern, I expect they do as management somehow seems to make a lot of good long term decsions.

So maybe the pricing/subsidy model Congress and Amtrak should use is more of a subscription for service where Congress buys the full train, with credit for cars and engines not used if not needed for passengers. Amtrak then sells what tickets it can. Congress then should direct government agencies to use rail whenever practical "purchasing" the tickets as Congress has already paid for them. The key point here is Amtrak would then have a cost target to show an operational "profit". Of course the way it is done is most years "how much do you need, you will get half that".


----------



## Larry H.

Karl,

Your right on in my opinion.. I have no quarrel with the price quoted a few letters above for the price of the roomette NY to Chicago.. What I have an issue with is the poor person with the death in the family, or sudden reason to go.. They may be stuck paying up to nearly 800.00 for a roomette..

So in agreement here, I also have long said, and tried to point out with the airlines, that if you provide a service and plenty of space the public will come. The successful airlines such as Southwest have done quite well along these lines. The problem here is there is no one to discount Amtraks fare. So you either pay the 1,200 dollar bedroom fee when you have to go quickly on some routes or you stay home.. I don't see that as the reason we have a National Rail system. If as in the case of airlines other companies were selling tickets much lower, you would no doubt find the prices lower.

To me it would make much more sense to fill a car than run it half empty because the fare is too high.. Now we know that that is not exactly what is going on now. As I pointed out earlier, the vast rail fan base that Amtrak caters too mostly is happy to pay anything no matter how high in order to ride. But that is for a rather limited set of people.. To truly see crowds that once rode the trains I feel a more reasonable rate should be charged. I don't quite understand all these arguments about "business models".. When the government took over the passenger system I don't think any one thought they were a money making situation..

As to the airlines charging much higher rates for first class, no doubt they do.. Probably as I read supported mostly by those who can deduct it as a travel expense. Even in that case though competition probably is holding down the price somewhat. If it were government run it could charge anything it wanted by our theories. This again as I keep repeating goes back to its a government run service similar to highways, or anything else the government decides to support. We can endlessly send money to other countries that hate us, we can spend money out of site on banks, or wars, but by god don't spend it on the poor rail passenger system.. It has to cover its own expenses.. That applies to nothing else just about. So I can't support the idea to just keep raising rates when we already own the system or cars or whatever..


----------



## darien-l

KISS_ALIVE said:


> ok how about this. may 2009 empire builder Chicago to sea. roomette is $617.


Try May 21. It still shows the lowest bucket price of $206 for a roomette CHI-SEA. Basically, there are two ways of booking the lowest bucket price: 1) Book 11 months in advance or 2) Be flexible with your travel dates. The more popular the train and the closer to departure date you are, the more flexible you have to be.


----------



## Rail Freak

darien-l said:


> KISS_ALIVE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok how about this. may 2009 empire builder Chicago to sea. roomette is $617.
> 
> 
> 
> Try May 21. It still shows the lowest bucket price of $206 for a roomette CHI-SEA. Basically, there are two ways of booking the lowest bucket price: 1) Book 11 months in advance or 2) Be flexible with your travel dates. The more popular the train and the closer to departure date you are, the more flexible you have to be.
Click to expand...


Are there waiting lists for sleepers?


----------



## Tony

MrFSS said:


> What if they sold EVERY coach seat for $200 with no bucket system involved. everyone would pay $200 today or 11 months in advance. You would always know what it would be, no surprises.
> Is there any logic to a system like that? Could they find the magic number that would be what the price should be as compared to using the bucket system?


I think another way to think of it, is an example of an empty train (instead of a full train).

The $100 coach fare would catch the attention of a potential passenger. In other words, the potential passenger would weigh taking a train that might be at a more inconvenient time or on a more inconvenient day, and save themselves $200 ($300 vs $100). These way, the empty train (lowest bucket) will start to gain passengers, over the train which is already nearly full (highest bucket).

The bucket system is meant to address running trains which are empty.


----------



## Tony

Rail Freak said:


> Are there waiting lists for sleepers?


For a full train, yes.

For a low bucket fare, no.


----------



## AlanB

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The previous two writers prove that the situation is out of control.. Were supposed to be running a national rail system, not trying to see how much we can fleece out of the riders! Sure you can keep jacking the prices up. With 5 bedrooms per train the way amtrak has run many lately, you can no doubt find some rail fans with big wallets willing to plunk anything down to ride.. But as gasoline has finally proved, there comes a point where prices begin to be out of the reach of many and people will refuse to use it. That isn't going to happen with amtrak because so few rooms do seem on many trains to find a willing buyer..
> It may be that the overall price structure may be a bit of of whack. If you consider that that 1949 NY to Chicago showed coach at about 34.00 or so, then you see where today it cost about 80.00 depending on the buckets again, you see that a sleeper that cost half the price of a coach for a bedroom, 18.00 was quite a bargain. Today it cost 18 times that price in comparison to coach.. Maybe the coach fares are unreasonably low for some reason? Maybe not, just thinking.. I am not either saying that the price of a bedroom today would make any sense at 40.00 either.. ...
> 
> 
> 
> The word is INFLATION. By using inflation calculators from 1949 to 2007 (2008 data isn't done yet) that $34 in 1949 would be worth $292.80 today.
> 
> That's $300 dollar roomette still sound bad? Sounds about right to me... And, on the LSL mid December rail fare from NYP to CHI is around $80 and the Viewliner Roomette is $297 for a grand total of $377. That is in the middle buckets.
> 
> And I know its not much, but no need to snarf at the free meals- and, if you brought a second person the deal is even sweeter.
> 
> Still not a bad deal... inflation adjusted.
Click to expand...

And don't forget that the numer for 1949 does not include meals in the dining car. So that would further drive up the grand total when one feeds those costs into the inflation calculator.


----------



## AlanB

Larry H. said:


> To me it would make much more sense to fill a car than run it half empty because the fare is too high.. Now we know that that is not exactly what is going on now. As I pointed out earlier, the vast rail fan base that Amtrak caters too mostly is happy to pay anything no matter how high in order to ride. But that is for a rather limited set of people.. To truly see crowds that once rode the trains I feel a more reasonable rate should be charged. I don't quite understand all these arguments about "business models".. When the government took over the passenger system I don't think any one thought they were a money making situation..


First, the cars aren't running half empty, especially the sleepers. Sleeper occupancy is at an all time high. We actually had an extra SA in the diner both ways on the SWC because the sleepers are sold out, something that is unusual for this time of the year. Amtrak actually called in people off the extra board to add a second SA to the diner. As I type this now on the Chief, the two regular sleepers are sold out, and about half the rooms in the Trans/Dorm where I'm at are sold. And it wouldn't surprise me if we pick up still more in the dorm tonight and tomorrow.

When Greg (gswager) stepped off the train in Lamy giving up room #18, there was a couple boarding in Lamy for Chicago who had the very same room. They were a bit upset that the room wasn't exactly clean, since the attendant hadn't had anytime to do anything with the room after Greg detrained. And Greg didn't leave a messy room either, but there was a used towel and I guess some trash in the trash can.

Even coach is reasonably full, I'd say probably 80% or more.

Second, sadly that is exactly what was sold to Richard M Nixon and others to form Amtrak. The idea that it would be a profitable/money making operation. Had it not been sold that way, we probably wouldn't have Amtrak at this time. President Nixon wasn't keen on the idea at all from what I understand.

Sadly, that idea of making a profit has been shoved down our throats ever since by those opposed to subsidizing Amtrak.


----------



## sky12065

Tony said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if they sold EVERY coach seat for $200 with no bucket system involved. everyone would pay $200 today or 11 months in advance. You would always know what it would be, no surprises.
> Is there any logic to a system like that? Could they find the magic number that would be what the price should be as compared to using the bucket system?
> 
> 
> 
> I think another way to think of it, is an example of an empty train (instead of a full train).
> 
> The $100 coach fare would catch the attention of a potential passenger. In other words, the potential passenger would weigh taking a train that might be at a more inconvenient time or on a more inconvenient day, and save themselves $200 ($300 vs $100). These way, the empty train (lowest bucket) will start to gain passengers, over the train which is already nearly full (highest bucket).
> 
> The bucket system is meant to address running trains which are empty.
Click to expand...

IMHO I think that this is the best argument in favor of the bucket system. It permits one with a flexable schedule to seek out more affordable fares while at the same time it has the potential of preserving available accomodations on busier days, at least for a longer period of time; and that would be helpful for those who have less flexable schedules!


----------



## Tony

AlanB said:


> Sadly, that idea of making a profit has been shoved down our throats ever since by those opposed to subsidizing Amtrak.


Back in another century, railroads were the combination of the worse of Enron and Exxon. At least in the general public's eye. It was always a good political move, for any politician, to take any side that would be perceived as being anti-railroad. The goal was to destroy these "mean" monopolies and their "railroad barrons".

That mindset lead to the political move to subsidize every and any form of alternative transportation that came along. Anything that had the potential to tare down the railroads.

That is why today, we have subsidized air travel. Subsidized marine travel. Subsidized truck/car travel. And no one thinks it is wrong.

But dare to mention subsidizing railroad travel too, and over 100 years of hatred comes to every one's mind (even if not exactly consciously). It is still policitally OK today to be an anti-railroad bigot.


----------



## printman2000

Larry H. said:


> What I have an issue with is the poor person with the death in the family, or sudden reason to go.. They may be stuck paying up to nearly 800.00 for a roomette..
> So in agreement here, I also have long said, and tried to point out with the airlines, that if you provide a service and plenty of space the public will come. The successful airlines such as Southwest have done quite well along these lines. The problem here is there is no one to discount Amtraks fare. So you either pay the 1,200 dollar bedroom fee when you have to go quickly on some routes or you stay home..


Again, if the prices were lower, there would be no empty rooms for those last minute travelers. At least now, they have the option. Also, they do not have to stay home, they can go in coach which I have found the prices to be extremely affordable. No, its not sleeper, but it is perfectly acceptable, inexpensive travel.



Larry H. said:


> To me it would make much more sense to fill a car than run it half empty because the fare is too high.. Now we know that that is not exactly what is going on now. As I pointed out earlier, the vast rail fan base that Amtrak caters too mostly is happy to pay anything no matter how high in order to ride. But that is for a rather limited set of people.. To truly see crowds that once rode the trains I feel a more reasonable rate should be charged. I don't quite understand all these arguments about "business models".. When the government took over the passenger system I don't think any one thought they were a money making situation..


Yes, many railfans are willing to pay a lot for sleepers. However, Amtrak is selling out sleepers and it is not all railfans doing it. I would say it is a very small percentage of railfans. So I come back to the fact that they are selling out sleepers (or coming close to selling out) at the rates they are now charging. If those rates were "more reasonable," that just means they would have sold them out many months earlier.

To see the crowds we once saw, cheaper sleeper fares are not going to do it. We would need a big time expansion of the passenger rail system with new (restored) routes and much more frequency. Changing the fares will never get us back to the heyday.


----------



## ralfp

darien-l said:


> KISS_ALIVE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok how about this. may 2009 empire builder Chicago to sea. roomette is $617.
> 
> 
> 
> Try May 21. It still shows the lowest bucket price of $206 for a roomette CHI-SEA. Basically, there are two ways of booking the lowest bucket price: 1) Book 11 months in advance or 2) Be flexible with your travel dates. The more popular the train and the closer to departure date you are, the more flexible you have to be.
Click to expand...

$206 ($492 total for two people)!?! That's not much more than CHI-NYP. Imagine what 2 nights in a cheap hotel and 2 days of eating in cheap restaurants would cost (certainly more than $206). $617, even for the roomette itself, is still amazingly cheap. Compare it to domestic first class airfare (which probably does not include a real meal);



Tony said:


> But dare to mention subsidizing railroad travel too, and over 100 years of hatred comes to every one's mind (even if not exactly consciously). It is still policitally OK today to be an anti-railroad bigot.


Really? I don't see how this can be the case for anyone younger than 40 - 50. We've never experienced railroad barons, so it's hard to see how younger people could have an unconscious "hatred".


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

AlanB said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The previous two writers prove that the situation is out of control.. Were supposed to be running a national rail system, not trying to see how much we can fleece out of the riders! Sure you can keep jacking the prices up. With 5 bedrooms per train the way amtrak has run many lately, you can no doubt find some rail fans with big wallets willing to plunk anything down to ride.. But as gasoline has finally proved, there comes a point where prices begin to be out of the reach of many and people will refuse to use it. That isn't going to happen with amtrak because so few rooms do seem on many trains to find a willing buyer..
> It may be that the overall price structure may be a bit of of whack. If you consider that that 1949 NY to Chicago showed coach at about 34.00 or so, then you see where today it cost about 80.00 depending on the buckets again, you see that a sleeper that cost half the price of a coach for a bedroom, 18.00 was quite a bargain. Today it cost 18 times that price in comparison to coach.. Maybe the coach fares are unreasonably low for some reason? Maybe not, just thinking.. I am not either saying that the price of a bedroom today would make any sense at 40.00 either.. ...
> 
> 
> 
> The word is INFLATION. By using inflation calculators from 1949 to 2007 (2008 data isn't done yet) that $34 in 1949 would be worth $292.80 today.
> 
> That's $300 dollar roomette still sound bad? Sounds about right to me... And, on the LSL mid December rail fare from NYP to CHI is around $80 and the Viewliner Roomette is $297 for a grand total of $377. That is in the middle buckets.
> 
> And I know its not much, but no need to snarf at the free meals- and, if you brought a second person the deal is even sweeter.
> 
> Still not a bad deal... inflation adjusted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And don't forget that the numer for 1949 does not include meals in the dining car. So that would further drive up the grand total when one feeds those costs into the inflation calculator.
Click to expand...

Exactly. These sleeper prices make perfect sense. Not only do they fit with the adjusted inflation- the Govt. shouldn't be subsidizing sleepers. If you can afford to have a sleeper you shouldn't need the govt. subsidy.


----------



## Tony

ralfp said:


> $206 ($492 total for two people)!?!


If $206 is the accommodation upgrade price, then it covers all people staying in that accommodation. In other words, for a roomette, it would be $206 total for two people.



ralfp said:


> Really? I don't see how this can be the case for anyone younger than 40 - 50. We've never experienced railroad barons, so it's hard to see how younger people could have an unconscious "hatred".


I wonder how many congresspeople are under 40? 

Besides, the root reason doesn't even have to be known anymore. If it is "tradition", then people will continue to simply go with it. For example, just how good of a harvest will you personally be having his fall, and will you base your family's celebration of Thanksgiving (or not) on it?


----------



## ralfp

Tony said:


> ralfp said:
> 
> 
> 
> $206 ($492 total for two people)!?!
> 
> 
> 
> If $206 is the accommodation upgrade price, then it covers all people staying in that accommodation. In other words, for a roomette, it would be $206 total for two people.
Click to expand...

Amtrak doesn't agree. They charge per passenger in addition to the accommodation charge (though AGR redemptions include the passengers). For the $492 I mentioned, it includes the cost of the roomette and two passengers.


----------



## GG-1

Aloha

The "Bucket" system started I believe in Hotel room prices. I have seen room charges in one hotel be 50 per night on slow nights to 700 for New Years Eve.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

GG-1 said:


> Aloha
> The "Bucket" system started I believe in Hotel room prices. I have seen room charges in one hotel be 50 per night on slow nights to 700 for New Years Eve.


If you're willing to gamble- wait until the last few weeks to book hotels. Unsold rooms go into low bucket price automatically!


----------



## AlanB

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> GG-1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aloha
> The "Bucket" system started I believe in Hotel room prices. I have seen room charges in one hotel be 50 per night on slow nights to 700 for New Years Eve.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're willing to gamble- wait until the last few weeks to book hotels. Unsold rooms go into low bucket price automatically!
Click to expand...

Or book with Hilton Family hotels and just keep checking the rates. If the price drops, modify your reservation and grab the cheaper rate. I've done this many times.  Join Hilton Honors and you'll also get 500 AGR points for your stay at most of the family hotels, in additiona to HH points.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

AlanB said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GG-1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aloha
> The "Bucket" system started I believe in Hotel room prices. I have seen room charges in one hotel be 50 per night on slow nights to 700 for New Years Eve.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're willing to gamble- wait until the last few weeks to book hotels. Unsold rooms go into low bucket price automatically!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or book with Hilton Family hotels and just keep checking the rates. If the price drops, modify your reservation and grab the cheaper rate. I've done this many times.  Join Hilton Honors and you'll also get 500 AGR points for your stay at most of the family hotels, in additiona to HH points.
Click to expand...

I don't stay in places with HH- if I go to a city, I stay with somebody I know or live outside the city. When I went to PDX, I stayed in Tualitin, OR.

I got a GREAT deal at a Best Western in SEA though.


----------



## AlanB

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> I don't stay in places with HH- if I go to a city, I stay with somebody I know or live outside the city. When I went to PDX, I stayed in Tualitin, OR.
> I got a GREAT deal at a Best Western in SEA though.


To each their own. 

Personally I like Hilton's and they've paid for one of my Amtrak trips by giving me 50,000 AGR points over the past few years.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

AlanB said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't stay in places with HH- if I go to a city, I stay with somebody I know or live outside the city. When I went to PDX, I stayed in Tualitin, OR.
> I got a GREAT deal at a Best Western in SEA though.
> 
> 
> 
> To each their own.
> 
> Personally I like Hilton's and they've paid for one of my Amtrak trips by giving me 50,000 AGR points over the past few years.
Click to expand...

I don't have much in the way of getting AGR besides traveling.

Maybe by retirement I'll have enough for a BC upgrade.


----------



## Larry H.

printman2000 said:


> (Again, if the prices were lower, there would be no empty rooms for those last minute travelers. At least now, they have the option. Also, they do not have to stay home, they can go in coach which I have found the prices to be extremely affordable. No, its not sleeper, but it is perfectly acceptable, inexpensive travel.
> Yes, many railfans are willing to pay a lot for sleepers. However, Amtrak is selling out sleepers and it is not all railfans doing it. I would say it is a very small percentage of railfans. So I come back to the fact that they are selling out sleepers (or coming close to selling out) at the rates they are now charging. If those rates were "more reasonable," that just means they would have sold them out many months earlier.
> 
> To see the crowds we once saw, cheaper sleeper fares are not going to do it. We would need a big time expansion of the passenger rail system with new (restored) routes and much more frequency. Changing the fares will never get us back to the heyday.


I would say your correct, the real issue is that to get the sleepers to a reasonable price we need many more sleepers.. I have been writing that all along if anyone is reading it? I would bet that many long distance trains hauled at least 5 sleepers, and some were all sleepers. In that case the likely hood of having rooms available at reasonable prices would be pretty good. Its the limited amount of rooms. As it is now, if only about 30 people a day want to use the exisiting trains and go bedroom, on the NY/Chicago routes that is the end of them. Now we all know that if trains continue to grow, it could sell to way more than 30 people.. So we need new cars, better diners and lounges and get back to running really useful trains, not skeletons of ones that we can say are "sold out".. Humbug..


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

> I have been writing that all along if anyone is reading it? I would bet that many long distance trains hauled at least 5 sleepers, and some were all sleepers.


Need more cars- more cars means more money. Which means raising prices or getting Congress to throw more money at them.


----------



## Larry H.

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> I have been writing that all along if anyone is reading it? I would bet that many long distance trains hauled at least 5 sleepers, and some were all sleepers.
> 
> 
> 
> Need more cars- more cars means more money. Which means raising prices or getting Congress to throw more money at them.
Click to expand...

I swore I wouldn't prolong this discussion however I changed my mind again.. I thought we were supposed to be running a national rail passenger system. How else can we run it if we don't spend any money on it.. It seems to prove that some just don't get it.. We took over a passenger system where the common thing was to run consist that were easy twice to three times as long as currently run.. We have chosen to run it on a shoe string, or no string at all for way too long. That is why we don't have cars that should never have been discontinued in the first place. Of course to maintain and expand it as is so plainly necessary today we will have to throw more money at it.. Remember the amount thrown is about one 40th the highway budget and no one questions that..


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> the Govt. shouldn't be subsidizing sleepers. If you can afford to have a sleeper you shouldn't need the govt. subsidy.


One of the issues mentioned in the presidential debate this evening was the money we're borrowing from China so that we can buy foreign oil. I believe that's a problem that affects all Americans, and that we ought to have sleepers available on electric trains that are available at prices that are no more expensive than an airplane ticket for the same distance, since I'm really not sure how we can continue to fuel air transportation without importing oil unless the demand for air transportation and automobile transportation declines dramatically.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Joel N. Weber II said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Govt. shouldn't be subsidizing sleepers. If you can afford to have a sleeper you shouldn't need the govt. subsidy.
> 
> 
> 
> One of the issues mentioned in the presidential debate this evening was the money we're borrowing from China so that we can buy foreign oil. I believe that's a problem that affects all Americans, and that we ought to have sleepers available on electric trains that are available at prices that are no more expensive than an airplane ticket for the same distance, since I'm really not sure how we can continue to fuel air transportation without importing oil unless the demand for air transportation and automobile transportation declines dramatically.
Click to expand...

Sleepers are the NEC? Are you kidding me? First class service, sure, BC, of course... but sleepers... nah uh.

Wouldn't those be put to better use... everywhere else in the country?


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Govt. shouldn't be subsidizing sleepers. If you can afford to have a sleeper you shouldn't need the govt. subsidy.
> 
> 
> 
> One of the issues mentioned in the presidential debate this evening was the money we're borrowing from China so that we can buy foreign oil. I believe that's a problem that affects all Americans, and that we ought to have sleepers available on electric trains that are available at prices that are no more expensive than an airplane ticket for the same distance, since I'm really not sure how we can continue to fuel air transportation without importing oil unless the demand for air transportation and automobile transportation declines dramatically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sleepers are the NEC? Are you kidding me? First class service, sure, BC, of course... but sleepers... nah uh.
> 
> Wouldn't those be put to better use... everywhere else in the country?
Click to expand...

To really put a dent in foreign oil consumption, we'd be talking about electrifying tracks outside of the NEC. If it were possible to take sleepers on a fully electrified route from, say, BOS to LAX, I absolutely would not want there to be an economic incentive to the individual traveler to prefer a coach airplane seat over a sleeper; providing the extra comforts of the sleeper is necessary to convince the average traveler to put up with the longer travel time.

On the other hand, until we build some true high speed track that isn't full of curves, sleepers on #66/#67 (if we had a vastly larger supply of rolling stock than we do today) may be an option that some would find a lot more appealing than Acela First Class when they're trying to decide whether to take the airplane or the train from BOS to WAS.

Amtrak's current budget is not even 1% of what it needs to be if we want to seriously reduce our dependence on foreign oil.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Joel N. Weber II said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Govt. shouldn't be subsidizing sleepers. If you can afford to have a sleeper you shouldn't need the govt. subsidy.
> 
> 
> 
> One of the issues mentioned in the presidential debate this evening was the money we're borrowing from China so that we can buy foreign oil. I believe that's a problem that affects all Americans, and that we ought to have sleepers available on electric trains that are available at prices that are no more expensive than an airplane ticket for the same distance, since I'm really not sure how we can continue to fuel air transportation without importing oil unless the demand for air transportation and automobile transportation declines dramatically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sleepers are the NEC? Are you kidding me? First class service, sure, BC, of course... but sleepers... nah uh.
> 
> Wouldn't those be put to better use... everywhere else in the country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To really put a dent in foreign oil consumption, we'd be talking about electrifying tracks outside of the NEC. If it were possible to take sleepers on a fully electrified route from, say, BOS to LAX, I absolutely would not want there to be an economic incentive to the individual traveler to prefer a coach airplane seat over a sleeper; providing the extra comforts of the sleeper is necessary to convince the average traveler to put up with the longer travel time.
> 
> On the other hand, until we build some true high speed track that isn't full of curves, sleepers on #66/#67 (if we had a vastly larger supply of rolling stock than we do today) may be an option that some would find a lot more appealing than Acela First Class when they're trying to decide whether to take the airplane or the train from BOS to WAS.
> 
> Amtrak's current budget is not even 1% of what it needs to be if we want to seriously reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Click to expand...

I don't think that Amtrak could ever put a dent in foreign oil consumption... we'd half to give them a few hundred billion and it would take about a half a century, and the electric power would have to come from "clean" sources...

I don't think we're going to do that. Sorry.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> I don't think that Amtrak could ever put a dent in foreign oil consumption... we'd half to give them a few hundred billion and it would take about a half a century, and the electric power would have to come from "clean" sources...


If your goal is merely to eliminate foreign oil consumption, you actually don't need ``clean'' sources of electricity. On the other hand, I do think the United States ought to build about 5,000 copies of Cape Wind, and I think when you consider the labor savings of not having to manually bring fuel to wind farms the way fuel needs to be brought to a coal plant, wind might actually be cheaper in the long run in addition to being cleaner. Also, building those wind farms would reduce the amount of coal on the freight tracks, freeing up some capacity to move some other goods off the highways.

I was thinking a trillion or three in intercity rail construction would actually be a lot better, and would make it possible to have all the 1.6 million+ primary census areas be a part of a national high speed rail system. If we diverted half our present military spending (an awful lot of which seems to be spent fighting wars in countries that seem to have a lot of oil, oddly enough) to intercity rail, we'd be able to spend that money within a decade. If California thinks they can convert money into high speed railroad tracks in well under 20 years, why would you think the process would take 2-3 times as long in the rest of the country?


----------



## AlanB

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Govt. shouldn't be subsidizing sleepers. If you can afford to have a sleeper you shouldn't need the govt. subsidy.
> 
> 
> 
> One of the issues mentioned in the presidential debate this evening was the money we're borrowing from China so that we can buy foreign oil. I believe that's a problem that affects all Americans, and that we ought to have sleepers available on electric trains that are available at prices that are no more expensive than an airplane ticket for the same distance, since I'm really not sure how we can continue to fuel air transportation without importing oil unless the demand for air transportation and automobile transportation declines dramatically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sleepers are the NEC? Are you kidding me? First class service, sure, BC, of course... but sleepers... nah uh.
> 
> Wouldn't those be put to better use... everywhere else in the country?
Click to expand...

Sleepers on the NEC used to be quite successful, at least on trains 66/67. I don't think that I ever took a ride on that train in the sleeper where 90% of the rooms were sold. I seem to recall reading somewhere once, back when the Twilight Shoreliner still had a sleeper, that Amtrak averaged around an 80 to 85% occupancy rate.

I'd bet that it would be even higher today with the inreased fuel costs, the hassles to ride a plane, and the nickle and dime affair that planes have become now.

This would be very attractive to business people now, board a sleeper at 9:00 PM in Boston, wake up in DC in the morning take a quick shower and head to your meeting. No hotel required, no removing your shoes, and no TSA hassles.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Govt. shouldn't be subsidizing sleepers. If you can afford to have a sleeper you shouldn't need the govt. subsidy.
> 
> 
> 
> One of the issues mentioned in the presidential debate this evening was the money we're borrowing from China so that we can buy foreign oil. I believe that's a problem that affects all Americans, and that we ought to have sleepers available on electric trains that are available at prices that are no more expensive than an airplane ticket for the same distance, since I'm really not sure how we can continue to fuel air transportation without importing oil unless the demand for air transportation and automobile transportation declines dramatically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sleepers are the NEC? Are you kidding me? First class service, sure, BC, of course... but sleepers... nah uh.
> 
> Wouldn't those be put to better use... everywhere else in the country?
Click to expand...

Consider your time as unequal. The time you spend asleep is not as valuble as the time you spend awake. So instead of spending 6:30 minutes on an Acela from Washington to Boston, awake, you go to the Thunder Grill in WUS, have a nice dinner, and board the Twilight Shoreliner at 8:25. You have a night cap, and perhaps some cheese and crackers. Go to your roomette, settle into bed, and fall asleep. You wake up at 6:30, shower, dress, and eat breakfast. Arriving in Boston at 7:52.

Where would you have spent that time of day? Sleeping in your bed at home. Now you are sleeping in the bed on the train. I admit it isn't your own bed, but so what?

The 9 hours that takes are less valuable to you than the 6:30 of waking hours the Acela takes.

Sleepers are better than high speed trains when the journey can be completed almost entirely overnight.


----------



## Tony

ralfp said:


> Tony said:
> 
> 
> 
> If $206 is the accommodation upgrade price, then it covers all people staying in that accommodation. In other words, for a roomette, it would be $206 total for two people.
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak doesn't agree.
Click to expand...

You are being charged the accommodation upgrade price, *per person*?

One roomette should be one accommodation upgrade charge.


----------



## PRR 60

AlanB said:


> ...This would be very attractive to business people now, board a sleeper at 9:00 PM in Boston, wake up in DC in the morning take a quick shower and head to your meeting. No hotel required, *no removing your shoes*, and no TSA hassles.


You sleep on Amtrak with your shoes on?


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Green Maned Lion said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Govt. shouldn't be subsidizing sleepers. If you can afford to have a sleeper you shouldn't need the govt. subsidy.
> 
> 
> 
> One of the issues mentioned in the presidential debate this evening was the money we're borrowing from China so that we can buy foreign oil. I believe that's a problem that affects all Americans, and that we ought to have sleepers available on electric trains that are available at prices that are no more expensive than an airplane ticket for the same distance, since I'm really not sure how we can continue to fuel air transportation without importing oil unless the demand for air transportation and automobile transportation declines dramatically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sleepers are the NEC? Are you kidding me? First class service, sure, BC, of course... but sleepers... nah uh.
> 
> Wouldn't those be put to better use... everywhere else in the country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Consider your time as unequal. The time you spend asleep is not as valuble as the time you spend awake. So instead of spending 6:30 minutes on an Acela from Washington to Boston, awake, you go to the Thunder Grill in WUS, have a nice dinner, and board the Twilight Shoreliner at 8:25. You have a night cap, and perhaps some cheese and crackers. Go to your roomette, settle into bed, and fall asleep. You wake up at 6:30, shower, dress, and eat breakfast. Arriving in Boston at 7:52.
> 
> Where would you have spent that time of day? Sleeping in your bed at home. Now you are sleeping in the bed on the train. I admit it isn't your own bed, but so what?
> 
> The 9 hours that takes are less valuable to you than the 6:30 of waking hours the Acela takes.
> 
> Sleepers are better than high speed trains when the journey can be completed almost entirely overnight.
Click to expand...

You're taking it awful slow to go from BOS to WAS and that's the problem. Consider:

Most people going between the two are on business of some sort. They have reports to file, emails to send, charts to make, copies done, all of which is completely pointless in attempting on a train... Not to mention thats nice for the people in BOS, but what about the people en route? We're talking about getting into NYP around, what? Between midnight and 2AM? Newark, Trenton, and every city in between gets on somewhere in the middle of the night.

Not practical, at all. Only for the people in BOS going to WAS. If you got on or off in between those two stations you're screwed.


----------



## ralfp

Tony said:


> ralfp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tony said:
> 
> 
> 
> If $206 is the accommodation upgrade price, then it covers all people staying in that accommodation. In other words, for a roomette, it would be $206 total for two people.
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak doesn't agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are being charged the accommodation upgrade price, *per person*?
> 
> One roomette should be one accommodation upgrade charge.
Click to expand...

You should have read more than the first three words: "Amtrak doesn't agree. _They charge per passenger in addition to the accommodation charge_." Accommodation + per person charge (ie. coach fare).


----------



## sky12065

ralfp said:


> Tony said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ralfp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tony said:
> 
> 
> 
> If $206 is the accommodation upgrade price, then it covers all people staying in that accommodation. In other words, for a roomette, it would be $206 total for two people.
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak doesn't agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are being charged the accommodation upgrade price, *per person*?
> 
> One roomette should be one accommodation upgrade charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should have read more than the first three words: "Amtrak doesn't agree. _They charge per passenger in addition to the accommodation charge_." Accommodation + per person charge (ie. coach fare).
Click to expand...

Not withstanding something I might have missed from an earlier post, and presuming that the upgrade occurs on board, the rail fares have already been paid and the accom upgrade charge is singular and not per passenger. I've never seen an accomodation charge showing on the second persons ticket including the tickets I have before me as I type this message.


----------



## ralfp

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Most people going between the two are on business of some sort. They have reports to file, emails to send, charts to make, copies done, all of which is completely pointless in attempting on a train... Not to mention thats nice for the people in BOS, but what about the people en route? We're talking about getting into NYP around, what? Between midnight and 2AM? Newark, Trenton, and every city in between gets on somewhere in the middle of the night.
> Not practical, at all. Only for the people in BOS going to WAS. If you got on or off in between those two stations you're screwed.


How about {BOS,PVD,NHV} - {BAL, WAS}? 66/67, with the current schedule, but with sleepers, would be plenty useful on those pairs. Another option would be to run four sloooowww sleepers from NYP (to WAS and BOS and back). One could also have sleeper cars waiting in NYP that could be boarded at 10pm or so and which would be connected to 66/67 at 2AM (66/67 stop for at least an hour at NYP.) Amtrak did this in the past, with the Executive Sleeper NYP-WAS trains.

Many years back my dad took the Twilight Shoreliner from the NYC area to WAS. To make it work he got a ride to STM (or NHV) and boarded there. 

As far as working on the train, I'm more productive on the train than pretty much anywhere else. Modern wireless communications allows email to be sent from the train. Notebook computers can be used to create reports and charts. Much of my dissertation was written while I was on train 141.


----------



## Ispolkom

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> You're taking it awful slow to go from BOS to WAS and that's the problem. Consider:
> Most people going between the two are on business of some sort. They have reports to file, emails to send, charts to make, copies done, all of which is completely pointless in attempting on a train... Not to mention thats nice for the people in BOS, but what about the people en route? We're talking about getting into NYP around, what? Between midnight and 2AM? Newark, Trenton, and every city in between gets on somewhere in the middle of the night.
> 
> Not practical, at all. Only for the people in BOS going to WAS. If you got on or off in between those two stations you're screwed.


Didn't the Night Owl drop off a sleeper at Penn Station? Where passengers could sleep till 6-7 a.m.?

IIRC the sleepers were slumbercoaches. I'm not sure that a Night Owl would work well with a Viewliner.

I read an article that claimed that sleepers from Paris to the south of France are better than the TGV because you don't waste a day each way in transit.


----------



## Guest

Just took the 5 & 6, sleepers completely sold out almost the whole trip. So they are getting their money--people were even bunked in the transition car.


----------



## ralfp

Ispolkom said:


> IIRC the sleepers were slumbercoaches. I'm not sure that a Night Owl would work well with a Viewliner.
> I read an article that claimed that sleepers from Paris to the south of France are better than the TGV because you don't waste a day each way in transit.


Why wouldn't a Viewliner work? If you believe Wikipedia the problem Amtrak had was that the pipes would freeze (I guess when the car sat at South Station during the day). I'm sure that could be fixed. I imagine most riders would be alone, but that shouldn't be too big a deal. A $300 one-way walk-up fare would be reasonable (less than the shuttle, about as much as full-price Acela Express 1st class).

Unless the ride is less than three hours or so, a sleeper can almost always have better timing (just go slowly). Even if the Acela Express had a 2 hour NYP-WAS trip time, it would still not be great for day trips. Get up at 5AM, take a 6AM train, arrive a bit before 9AM (after a taxi ride), take a 6PM train, get home at 8:30 or 9. Works, but not too nice in the morning. Getting to NYP at 11PM and arriving at 7AM leaves much more time in WAS and would provide for a much less stressful trip.

Amtrak could even put showers in WAS, NYP, and BOS so that roomette pax could get more sleep and wouldn't have to share access to the on-board shower.

Sleepers also have a built-in economic advantage in that they save many riders a night's hotel stay.


----------



## AlanB

ralfp said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people going between the two are on business of some sort. They have reports to file, emails to send, charts to make, copies done, all of which is completely pointless in attempting on a train... Not to mention thats nice for the people in BOS, but what about the people en route? We're talking about getting into NYP around, what? Between midnight and 2AM? Newark, Trenton, and every city in between gets on somewhere in the middle of the night.
> 
> 
> 
> As far as working on the train, I'm more productive on the train than pretty much anywhere else. Modern wireless communications allows email to be sent from the train. Notebook computers can be used to create reports and charts. Much of my dissertation was written while I was on train 141.
Click to expand...

Agreed. About the only thing I can't do on the train is make copies, not that I have much need for that anyhow. As I type this reply I'm on the Lake Shore Limited coming home.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

AlanB said:


> ralfp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people going between the two are on business of some sort. They have reports to file, emails to send, charts to make, copies done, all of which is completely pointless in attempting on a train... Not to mention thats nice for the people in BOS, but what about the people en route? We're talking about getting into NYP around, what? Between midnight and 2AM? Newark, Trenton, and every city in between gets on somewhere in the middle of the night.
> 
> 
> 
> As far as working on the train, I'm more productive on the train than pretty much anywhere else. Modern wireless communications allows email to be sent from the train. Notebook computers can be used to create reports and charts. Much of my dissertation was written while I was on train 141.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. About the only thing I can't do on the train is make copies, not that I have much need for that anyhow. As I type this reply I'm on the Lake Shore Limited coming home.
Click to expand...

they'd have to leave early enough in BOS to pick up passengers at NYP at a reasonable hour- then go slow as possible through onto DC. You simply can't ignore NYC if you would want a route like this. I also venture to say that you'd need new cars too- suited for the business class passenger. No family bedrooms, just roomettes and bedrooms. As for the roomettes- many of these people are singles. Could there be a roomette option with just one bunk?

Either way, arguing this seems pointless.


----------



## AlanB

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> they'd have to leave early enough in BOS to pick up passengers at NYP at a reasonable hour- then go slow as possible through onto DC. You simply can't ignore NYC if you would want a route like this. I also venture to say that you'd need new cars too- suited for the business class passenger. No family bedrooms, just roomettes and bedrooms. As for the roomettes- many of these people are singles. Could there be a roomette option with just one bunk?


The point of the overnight train is to service Boston and DC, not NYC. NYC to either BOS or WAS is basically a reasonable distance to travel in reasonable amount of time. Now perhaps if Amtrak returned the setout sleeper to NYC, it might make some sense for the business traveler. But running slow so as to not arrive too early isn't practical.

Back when Amtrak ran the sleeper on 66/67 it's market as mentioned was Boston and DC, and as I mentioned earlier, that lone sleeper car ran pretty full most times. So it was a hit and I'm certain it would be a hit once again if they were to ever return the sleeer to the overnight run.

As for the type of bedrooms, remember that they have to use the single level Viewliners on this route. There are no family rooms, only bedrooms and roomettes. If such a service were to show up elsewhere, then one might well see a family room in the car. I'm not sure that it would make sense to eliminate it, as you're just making more work for the builder to change things.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

AlanB said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> they'd have to leave early enough in BOS to pick up passengers at NYP at a reasonable hour- then go slow as possible through onto DC. You simply can't ignore NYC if you would want a route like this. I also venture to say that you'd need new cars too- suited for the business class passenger. No family bedrooms, just roomettes and bedrooms. As for the roomettes- many of these people are singles. Could there be a roomette option with just one bunk?
> 
> 
> 
> The point of the overnight train is to service Boston and DC, not NYC. NYC to either BOS or WAS is basically a reasonable distance to travel in reasonable amount of time. Now perhaps if Amtrak returned the setout sleeper to NYC, it might make some sense for the business traveler. But running slow so as to not arrive too early isn't practical.
> 
> Back when Amtrak ran the sleeper on 66/67 it's market as mentioned was Boston and DC, and as I mentioned earlier, that lone sleeper car ran pretty full most times. So it was a hit and I'm certain it would be a hit once again if they were to ever return the sleeer to the overnight run.
> 
> As for the type of bedrooms, remember that they have to use the single level Viewliners on this route. There are no family rooms, only bedrooms and roomettes. If such a service were to show up elsewhere, then one might well see a family room in the car. I'm not sure that it would make sense to eliminate it, as you're just making more work for the builder to change things.
Click to expand...

I still say you're missing out on a lot of revenue by ignoring New York businessmen. But current service is somewhat okay, the earliest train of the day and latest train of the day are good enough if you have only a couple quick meetings.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

AlanB said:


> Sleepers on the NEC used to be quite successful, at least on trains 66/67. I don't think that I ever took a ride on that train in the sleeper where 90% of the rooms were sold. I seem to recall reading somewhere once, back when the Twilight Shoreliner still had a sleeper, that Amtrak averaged around an 80 to 85% occupancy rate.
> I'd bet that it would be even higher today with the inreased fuel costs, the hassles to ride a plane, and the nickle and dime affair that planes have become now.


The occupancy rate can be adjusted by adjusting the fares. An 80% occupancy rate might imply that the fares are too low, or that Amtrak decided they wanted roomettes to be available to walk-up customers on the day of departure, and not a lack of interest in the service.


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sleepers on the NEC used to be quite successful, at least on trains 66/67. I don't think that I ever took a ride on that train in the sleeper where 90% of the rooms were sold. I seem to recall reading somewhere once, back when the Twilight Shoreliner still had a sleeper, that Amtrak averaged around an 80 to 85% occupancy rate.
> I'd bet that it would be even higher today with the inreased fuel costs, the hassles to ride a plane, and the nickle and dime affair that planes have become now.
> 
> 
> 
> The occupancy rate can be adjusted by adjusting the fares. An 80% occupancy rate might imply that the fares are too low, or that Amtrak decided they wanted roomettes to be available to walk-up customers on the day of departure, and not a lack of interest in the service.
Click to expand...

I never suggested that there was a lack of interest in this service. To my knowledge it was very popular when it ran, and that was before the price of gas went up, the costs of flights, and even some of the newer TSA security measures at the airport.

This service was discontinued because of equipment shortages, not because of lack of ridership.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ralfp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people going between the two are on business of some sort. They have reports to file, emails to send, charts to make, copies done, all of which is completely pointless in attempting on a train... Not to mention thats nice for the people in BOS, but what about the people en route? We're talking about getting into NYP around, what? Between midnight and 2AM? Newark, Trenton, and every city in between gets on somewhere in the middle of the night.
> 
> 
> 
> As far as working on the train, I'm more productive on the train than pretty much anywhere else. Modern wireless communications allows email to be sent from the train. Notebook computers can be used to create reports and charts. Much of my dissertation was written while I was on train 141.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. About the only thing I can't do on the train is make copies, not that I have much need for that anyhow. As I type this reply I'm on the Lake Shore Limited coming home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they'd have to leave early enough in BOS to pick up passengers at NYP at a reasonable hour- then go slow as possible through onto DC. You simply can't ignore NYC if you would want a route like this. I also venture to say that you'd need new cars too- suited for the business class passenger. No family bedrooms, just roomettes and bedrooms. As for the roomettes- many of these people are singles. Could there be a roomette option with just one bunk?
> 
> Either way, arguing this seems pointless.
Click to expand...

One idea I've harbored for when I have lots of seed money is to start a new Pullman company and start running a lot of set out sleepers.

Whats a set out sleeper?

Its a sleeper that is left in a place, and picked up by a train as it passes through. If I was running this service, and had 50+ sleepers I converted from Amfleets or Comets, or whatever, I could have train 66 leaving Boston with two sleepers, picking up two more in New Haven, dropping one of the New Haven and Boston sleepers off in New York, picking up a sleeper in New York, another in Philly, and arriving in Washington with the various sleepers. There, I pick up the whole market.


----------



## PetalumaLoco

Interesting idea, GL.

It would be a lot more fun if your set out sleeper got picked up while you were sleeping, and dropped off at an unknown destination the next morning before everyone awoke. Imagine the adventure! :lol:


----------



## ralfp

Green Maned Lion said:


> Its a sleeper that is left in a place, and picked up by a train as it passes through. If I was running this service, and had 50+ sleepers I converted from Amfleets or Comets, or whatever, I could have train 66 leaving Boston with two sleepers, picking up two more in New Haven, dropping one of the New Haven and Boston sleepers off in New York, picking up a sleeper in New York, another in Philly, and arriving in Washington with the various sleepers. There, I pick up the whole market.


I mentioned this idea in an earlier post in this thread, pointing out that Amtrak supposedly did this with 66/67 in the past.


----------



## zoltan

Green Maned Lion said:


> Whats a set out sleeper?
> Its a sleeper that is left in a place, and picked up by a train as it passes through. If I was running this service, and had 50+ sleepers I converted from Amfleets or Comets, or whatever, I could have train 66 leaving Boston with two sleepers, picking up two more in New Haven, dropping one of the New Haven and Boston sleepers off in New York, picking up a sleeper in New York, another in Philly, and arriving in Washington with the various sleepers. There, I pick up the whole market.


It's a great shame that the British railway has given up completely on the idea of the set out sleeper. I live (when I'm not at University in Leeds) near Carlisle, and it used to be the case that, on the London to Glasgow/Edinburgh sleeper, a sleeper was set out at Carlisle, and passengers were left to sleep as their carriage stood at the platform until morning. Now they've given that up, and Carlisle passengers have to board at 1:39am on the way to London, and alight at 5:20am on the way back from London, and the consequence is that no one in their right mind uses the sleeper from Carlisle - including, sadly, myself. The one or two times I've used the train in this arrangement, I've seen one or two coach passengers board, and never any other sleeping car passengers.

Now, the same thing will happen to Plymouth, which is just now losing its set out sleepers.

It's a great shame, as in both cases, the sleeper fare can end up cheaper than a hotel room in London.


----------



## Tony

PetalumaLoco said:


> It would be a lot more fun if your set out sleeper got picked up while you were sleeping, and dropped off at an unknown destination the next morning before everyone awoke. Imagine the adventure! :lol:


Isn't that close to how it works now?

I never know where I will be, when I wake up. Rarely is it where the schedule says we should be, and even once, I woke up in the same place I went to sleep (we didn't move).


----------



## PetalumaLoco

Tony said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be a lot more fun if your set out sleeper got picked up while you were sleeping, and dropped off at an unknown destination the next morning before everyone awoke. Imagine the adventure! :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that close to how it works now?
> 
> I never know where I will be, when I wake up. Rarely is it where the schedule says we should be, and even once, _*I woke up in the same place I went to sleep (we didn't move)*_.
Click to expand...

That happens to me a lot!


----------



## Montanan

Ispolkom said:


> Didn't the Night Owl drop off a sleeper at Penn Station? Where passengers could sleep till 6-7 a.m.?
> IIRC the sleepers were slumbercoaches. I'm not sure that a Night Owl would work well with a Viewliner.
> 
> I read an article that claimed that sleepers from Paris to the south of France are better than the TGV because you don't waste a day each way in transit.


When I rode the night Owl back in the early 90s I was in an old Union Pacific 10&6 sleeper. They went to Viewliners after that, before ending the BOS-WAS sleeper service.


----------



## Ispolkom

ralfp said:


> Ispolkom said:
> 
> 
> 
> IIRC the sleepers were slumbercoaches. I'm not sure that a Night Owl would work well with a Viewliner.
> I read an article that claimed that sleepers from Paris to the south of France are better than the TGV because you don't waste a day each way in transit.
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't a Viewliner work? If you believe Wikipedia the problem Amtrak had was that the pipes would freeze (I guess when the car sat at South Station during the day). I'm sure that could be fixed. I imagine most riders would be alone, but that shouldn't be too big a deal. A $300 one-way walk-up fare would be reasonable (less than the shuttle, about as much as full-price Acela Express 1st class).
Click to expand...

Oh I was just thinking that the bedrooms might be hard to sell, and that a higher-density car like the slumbercoach makes more sense on a short run. But since they were using heritage 10&6 sleepers, as Montanan says, that must not have been an issue.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> they'd have to leave early enough in BOS to pick up passengers at NYP at a reasonable hour- then go slow as possible through onto DC.


I've been thinking that once the NSRL gets built through downtown Boston, the surface platforms at South Station and North Station will basically be obsolete, because each through platform will be able to serve many more trains per hour than each stub end surface platform, and if there are multiple underground stations, having as many trains as possible serve all of those undergound stations will make connections in downtown Boston easier.

If there ends up not being a set of underground platforms at North Station, the surface platforms will still be useful for special trains for events at the Garden, though.

Somewhere around 8 or 9 hours ago, it occurred to me that a good use of the South Station platforms (if they aren't seeing constant use by commuter trains) might be parking sleeping car trains for several hours. For example, if Chicago ends up being something like a 4-7 hour trip on high speed track (depending on just how high speed that track is), perhaps there could be two or three different Boston to Chicago trains each night, with different arrival times at Chicago, and they could all offer boarding at the surface platforms at South Station starting around 9:00 PM, and just stay parked at the surface platforms until their departure time. In the morning, the trains from Chicago could arrive at various early hours and allow the passengers to detrain as late as perhaps 9:00 AM. Atlanta would potentially be another good city to offer this sort of sleeper train with several hours of the train parked at South Station.


----------



## RailFanLNK

We have been planning on taking Brenda's daughters to GSC (Glenwood Springs CO) again in summer 2009. Yesterday and last night we checked sleeper prices on every single date from June until August, we finally came to the conclusion of "well maybe we will go somewhere else". The roomettes were more expensive than the bedrooms on some of the days. When we could find a "lowest bucket" fare sleeper, we were paying either up the ying-yang on railfare or the return prices were extreme! So I think today is the day we sit down with her girls and say, "we can't afford a $2000 RT train ride! :angry:

Al


----------



## p&sr

RailFanLNK said:


> So I think today is the day we sit down with her girls and say, "we can't afford a $2000 RT train ride! :angry:


Wouldn't it be fun to go Coach? Then catch up from exhaustion at a nice resort hotel that costs LESS than $2000.


----------



## ralfp

RailFanLNK said:


> When we could find a "lowest bucket" fare sleeper, we were paying either up the ying-yang on railfare or the return prices were extreme!


I thought sleeper passengers always paid the lowest railfare bucket.


----------



## PRR 60

ralfp said:


> RailFanLNK said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we could find a "lowest bucket" fare sleeper, we were paying either up the ying-yang on railfare or the return prices were extreme!
> 
> 
> 
> I thought sleeper passengers always paid the lowest railfare bucket.
Click to expand...

They do. Once you select a sleeping car accommodation upgrade, the railfare portion of your fare is reset to the lowest bucket.


----------



## gswager

PRR 60 said:


> They do. Once you select a sleeping car accommodation upgrade, the railfare portion of your fare is reset to the lowest bucket.


Ah, ah. Found a new trick- check on the lowest bucket fare for the coach class by checking the sleeper accommodation upgrade. Now, it's time to find the coach fare for the next 3 or 4 bucket levels.


----------



## RailFanLNK

Bottom line was, we were going to spend close to $2000 for a train! Now, if its going all the way to the coast, I can accept that, but when its a 14 hour trip, thats just way out of our league financially. Yes, we could take coach, but sleeping in coach overnight on a 45 year old body that has been beat to crap over a 25 year hard labor career really messes me up for the rest of the trip. I walk around looking like I have been hit by a car! :lol:


----------



## Larry H.

RailFanLNK said:


> Bottom line was, we were going to spend close to $2000 for a train! Now, if its going all the way to the coast, I can accept that, but when its a 14 hour trip, thats just way out of our league financially. Yes, we could take coach, but sleeping in coach overnight on a 45 year old body that has been beat to crap over a 25 year hard labor career really messes me up for the rest of the trip. I walk around looking like I have been hit by a car! :lol:


I sympathize with your predicament. For many "normal" people the prices Amtrak and Congress have arrived at have taken the reasonable out of rail travel that persisted until the government became involved. Unfortunately there seems to be a large amount of people here that think it should go even higher as long as a few people can afford to pay for it.. I would say the fact that trains are as busy as they are is adding to the bucket fares being raised way in advance.

The other argument will be that I and many others have "chosen" to pay these fares which make it appear that its just fine.. I don't exactly buy that. What it really means is that some of us that prefer for various reasons to travel by rail are holding our noses and paying the fare since there is no "Option". And like you I am older and my mom is 85 and going coach is not an option.. My problem is that pullman service used to be at a range everyone could afford. Not so today. For some of us that extra high fare means that money for other things is not available.. When you have lots to throw around it doesn't matter. But I see many people in sleepers that I have a feeling are also having to cut back somewhere else for the privilege of getting a good nights rest on the train.


----------



## PRR 60

Larry H. said:


> ...My problem is that pullman service used to be at a range everyone could afford. Not so today. For some of us that extra high fare means that money for other things is not available.. When you have lots to throw around it doesn't matter. But I see many people in sleepers that I have a feeling are also having to cut back somewhere else for the privilege of getting a good nights rest on the train.


I don't think that todays Amtrak sleeper fares are out of line compared to the old Pullman fares. In 1965, a Roomette from New York to Chicago on the NYC cost $84. Meals were extra. Adjusted for inflation to 2008 that is $582. Amtrak is showing a Roomette on Wednesday's (10/22) Lake Shore Limited for $434, including meals. That is the high bucket. Book six months in advance and you can get that same Roomette for $317. Compared to the historic prices for pre-Amtrak Pullman accommodations, Amtrak sleeping car fares are a bargain.


----------



## sky12065

Larry H. said:


> RailFanLNK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line was, we were going to spend close to $2000 for a train! Now, if its going all the way to the coast, I can accept that, but when its a 14 hour trip, thats just way out of our league financially. Yes, we could take coach, but sleeping in coach overnight on a 45 year old body that has been beat to crap over a 25 year hard labor career really messes me up for the rest of the trip. I walk around looking like I have been hit by a car! :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> I sympathize with your predicament. For many "normal" people the prices Amtrak and Congress have arrived at have taken the reasonable out of rail travel that persisted until the government became involved. Unfortunately there seems to be a large amount of people here that think it should go even higher as long as a few people can afford to pay for it.. I would say the fact that trains are as busy as they are is adding to the bucket fares being raised way in advance.
> 
> The other argument will be that I and many others have "chosen" to pay these fares which make it appear that its just fine.. I don't exactly buy that. What it really means is that some of us that prefer for various reasons to travel by rail are holding our noses and paying the fare since there is no "Option". And like you I am older and my mom is 85 and going coach is not an option.. My problem is that pullman service used to be at a range everyone could afford. Not so today. For some of us that extra high fare means that money for other things is not available.. When you have lots to throw around it doesn't matter. But I see many people in sleepers that I have a feeling are also having to cut back somewhere else for the privilege of getting a good nights rest on the train.
Click to expand...

In principal I agree with what you're saying. Rail travel is a historic piece of Americana and all of us should be able to afford and enjoy the benefit, pleasures and even the bumps and grinds ( :huh: ) of rail travel. But at whatever price that's not always possible for many for whatever reason.

Some people like myself are retired and on fixed income and feel that they just can't afford rail travel, but some of us in that catagory also realize that this kind of travel is not really out of the question; there is another option. You just need to save up over a longer period of time and realize that traveling half as much as you would like to is better than just putting the idea out of your head and not traveling at all. (Note that I'm thinking longer rail trips with my post and not commuter or short distant rail users!)

With that said, what I have said my not be a reasonable solution in your case, but for many of us it should be!


----------



## Larry H.

PRR 60 said:


> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...My problem is that pullman service used to be at a range everyone could afford. Not so today. For some of us that extra high fare means that money for other things is not available.. When you have lots to throw around it doesn't matter. But I see many people in sleepers that I have a feeling are also having to cut back somewhere else for the privilege of getting a good nights rest on the train.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that todays Amtrak sleeper fares are out of line compared to the old Pullman fares. In 1965, a Roomette from New York to Chicago on the NYC cost $84. Meals were extra. Adjusted for inflation to 2008 that is $582. Amtrak is showing a Roomette on Wednesday's (10/22) Lake Shore Limited for $434, including meals. That is the high bucket. Book six months in advance and you can get that same Roomette for $317. Compared to the historic prices for pre-Amtrak Pullman accommodations, Amtrak sleeping car fares are a bargain.
Click to expand...

Maybe its inflation that is too high then? No one would say that compared to yesterdays medical treatment todays is reasonable amount? But yet its the charge like it or not.. I also compared that by the schedule posted here that showed the fare in 49 to indicate that a bedroom was half more than a coach ticket.. that does seem low somehow. But it is 18 times the price of a coach ticket now many times depending on the bucket. My point is that somewhere along the line the price became much higher in relationship to buying the coach fare.. Which it certainly is. Somehow a 4,000 ticket round trip seems a bit out of line, is what I am saying.. ( that would be for many two day trips). I guess if your making a reasonable salary or have lots in the bank that may not seem high, considering that executives seem to think that a 180 million dollar salary is fine! But if your making 8.00 at walmart that 4,000 is somehow a very elusive fare.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Larry H. said:


> I sympathize with your predicament. For many "normal" people the prices Amtrak and Congress have arrived at have taken the reasonable out of rail travel that persisted until the government became involved. Unfortunately there seems to be a large amount of people here that think it should go even higher as long as a few people can afford to pay for it.. I would say the fact that trains are as busy as they are is adding to the bucket fares being raised way in advance.
> The other argument will be that I and many others have "chosen" to pay these fares which make it appear that its just fine.. I don't exactly buy that. What it really means is that some of us that prefer for various reasons to travel by rail are holding our noses and paying the fare since there is no "Option". And like you I am older and my mom is 85 and going coach is not an option.. My problem is that pullman service used to be at a range everyone could afford. Not so today. For some of us that extra high fare means that money for other things is not available.. When you have lots to throw around it doesn't matter. But I see many people in sleepers that I have a feeling are also having to cut back somewhere else for the privilege of getting a good nights rest on the train.


For the next two or three years, unless you want to go to a system where only people who know their travel schedule 11 months in advance can travel by sleeper, Amtrak really doesn't have much alternative.

In the long run, more equipment would certainly be a good thing. Have you written to your Congresspeople asking them to fund this?


----------



## printman2000

Larry, I hear where you are coming from. Here is what I see may be our differences. You see train travel as public transportation and in that, it should all be affordably priced. The problem is our government has pretty much called coach train travel public transportation and anything above that is a "luxury".

I think be both agree that we would love to see Amtrak funded to the point they have tons of sleeper rooms available and because of that, the sleeper prices would be lower. That would be great.

I think you are arguing about what could be and people here (myself included) are arguing about how it is.

I think, under the current circumstances, with limited sleeper capacity, Amtrak is doing the right thing with the prices for the resources it has.

What I am hearing (correct me if I am wrong) is that you think there should be more sleepers and lower fares. If so, we agree totally. I just think that under current circumstances, the prices are where they have to be.

I could be wrong in all of this so forgive me if I am.



Larry H. said:


> I guess if your making a reasonable salary or have lots in the bank that may not seem high, considering that executives seem to think that a 180 million dollar salary is fine! But if your making 8.00 at walmart that 4,000 is somehow a very elusive fare.


Just FYI, I do not have lots in the bank nor do I make big bucks. However, my family and I have decided we like vacations with train travel so we decide to give up other things so we can do that.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Larry H. said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...My problem is that pullman service used to be at a range everyone could afford. Not so today. For some of us that extra high fare means that money for other things is not available.. When you have lots to throw around it doesn't matter. But I see many people in sleepers that I have a feeling are also having to cut back somewhere else for the privilege of getting a good nights rest on the train.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that todays Amtrak sleeper fares are out of line compared to the old Pullman fares. In 1965, a Roomette from New York to Chicago on the NYC cost $84. Meals were extra. Adjusted for inflation to 2008 that is $582. Amtrak is showing a Roomette on Wednesday's (10/22) Lake Shore Limited for $434, including meals. That is the high bucket. Book six months in advance and you can get that same Roomette for $317. Compared to the historic prices for pre-Amtrak Pullman accommodations, Amtrak sleeping car fares are a bargain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe its inflation that is too high then? No one would say that compared to yesterdays medical treatment todays is reasonable amount? But yet its the charge like it or not.. I also compared that by the schedule posted here that showed the fare in 49 to indicate that a bedroom was half more than a coach ticket.. that does seem low somehow. But it is 18 times the price of a coach ticket now many times depending on the bucket. My point is that somewhere along the line the price became much higher in relationship to buying the coach fare.. Which it certainly is. Somehow a 4,000 ticket round trip seems a bit out of line, is what I am saying.. ( that would be for many two day trips). I guess if your making a reasonable salary or have lots in the bank that may not seem high, considering that executives seem to think that a 180 million dollar salary is fine! But if your making 8.00 at walmart that 4,000 is somehow a very elusive fare.
Click to expand...

Bah. Coach fares are offered partly as a public service, subsidized and cheap. They weren't before. If you need to get from place A to place B, you can take coach. I dun care if you are 45 or 65, or 85. You can ride coach. I know its uncomfortable. I dun like it either. But I can do it. It is the minimum requirement for me to travel, and it is reasonable to provide this as a public service, subsidized.

Even your 85 year old mother can do it. Sure, she'll be in pain. Do you think us 24 year olds aren't in pain after riding coach overnight? PUH-LEAAASSSEE! Such nonsense.

Roomettes and bedrooms are a luxury. Purely, unabashedly, unequivocally. It is something someone doesn't need. Therefore, Joe Taxpayer shouldn't be paying for you to ride in luxury. To ride the train? Yes. In luxury and exceptional comfort? No. They shouldn't be subsidizing your comfy bed, and mattress, and sleeping car attendant, and flat iron steak dinner. No way. You should be paying for that yourself. Does that make it more expensive? O'course. But it's still fair.

The definition of unfair pricing, contrary to common belief, is not "Pricing people don't like."

We won't get into the rippoff nature of the medical profession. I agree with you on that stance.


----------



## sky12065

Geeze, (Comments Removed) it wouldn't do any good and it just ain't worth it! :huh:


----------



## ralfp

RailFanLNK said:


> Bottom line was, we were going to spend close to $2000 for a train! Now, if its going all the way to the coast, I can accept that, but when its a 14 hour trip, thats just way out of our league financially.


Now compare that to first class airfare for several people. The train is still cheaper.


----------



## RailFanLNK

I decided to try and book something on the EB when I was seeing the sleeper prices on CZ outrageous. The "drill" goes..."book 11 months out and you'll get the lowest bucket price". I was thinking maybe taking the EB would work. That was just as crazy.


----------



## Larry H.

sky12065 said:


> Geeze, (Comments Removed) it wouldn't do any good and it just ain't worth it! :huh:


Don't feel bad, while you were typing this I also deleted my thoughts, since its apparent they are somewhat scoffed at here.

I think it boils down to several things..

Some who are old enough to remember traveling coach, parlor car, or pullman pre amtrak. Some of us feel that the price structure is out of line. That stems from the fact that contrary to what some think, in the old system it wasn't considered a "luxury" to purchase a room, it was a way to get a good nights rest on a long trip.. Sure you could go coach and many did, but many also spent a bit more for the sake of a room.. No one thought you were "special" or privileged and so should pay huge amounts more for the service. Then the government stepped in to preserve the rail system for passengers and slowly began to change that equation. No matter that other forms of government subsides don't always pay for them selfs.

Then evidently there are those who did not experience that fare structure and though the constant drum beat to make rail something it is no where else, self sufficient, have bought in to the line that any fare, especially for those silly enough to want to ride in a sleeper should be as high as any person is willing to pay.. And they should pay since they are so well treated.. Well in fact the service is way less than what you got for the much cheaper fare in relationship, but no matter. Its almost like some have turned a simple choice of a seat or a bed for a long trip in to class warfare, which it almost seems it has become. It is not what the traditional rail travel was like, but it is now.

I don't care if its not covering every dime of the trip or how much per mile it makes or loses. When the government charges you to drive up on the highway, or though the billion dollar a mile tunnels in Boston then I will consider that maybe we should worry about the expenses. But that isn't going to happen. It shouldn't be the critera for running a decent long distance service which is not like an airplane no matter how many comparisons one makes.


----------



## sky12065

Larry H. said:


> sky12065 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geeze, (Comments Removed) it wouldn't do any good and it just ain't worth it! :huh:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't feel bad, while you were typing this I also deleted my thoughts, since its apparent they are somewhat scoffed at here.
Click to expand...

Thanks Larry! I hear what you're saying about ticket pricing.  (The rest of this message has been deleted. Again it's for the same reason as previously stated and because it will only serve to stimulate the scoffers for yet another time. Those that don't get it never will anyway! I'll send you the deleted text by PM)


----------



## RailFanLNK

I (and all of us on this forum) may be at fault here with the rise of the cost of Amtrak sleepers. Why? Cuz the Gospel of Amtrak according to Al! :lol: I just had a close friend ask for "info" on taking Amtrak to LA and SAN. I just laughed and said, "Chris, I was just there 6 days ago, what do you need to know?" His son just moved there and he and his wife usually take a nice vacation somewhere every year. So they inquired about Amtrak. I just turned on 42 people onto Amtrak a month ago. I have spread "the Gospel of Amtrak" to my girlfriends family making 3 more Amheads!  So as I (and y'all) spread the word of the Gospel of Amtrak, the world might be listening!!!!


----------



## PRR 60

One quick comment on my personal pre-Amtrak experience. Long distance travel in the 1950's and 60's was a luxury. Normal people did not jet to the coast for the weekend or take an overnight train ride just to "gather" somewhere. It was just too expensive in relation to available income. My neighbor in the 1960's was a downtown ticket agent for TWA. I vividly remember her excitement when coast-to-coast airfares dropped to $200. That was in 1965. That is like a $1400 fare today. My family took a cross-country train trip in 1963, in coach. The round trip adult fare was $128. That equals $915 today. That 1963 trip was a very, very big deal financially for my family. Sleeper was out of the question.

I think we are spoiled by how inexpensive it is to travel today. Even first class travel or Amtrak Sleeper travel is, by historical standards, a steal. The ability to hop a train or a plane and head here or there at a moment's notice without committing a huge portion of disposable income is a freedom that did not exist 40 or 50 years ago. Long distance travel in the 1950's and 60's was for the rich. Today it is open to virtually everyone.


----------



## Larry H.

Ok I get it, I have been looking at this all wrong.. If you take the 60 dollar range rail fare NY to Chicago in the 60's coach then today it should cost around 660.. Last time we went a few weeks ago the coach fare was at 80.00 base price.. Now that leads one to think that in fact the government subsidy is going to the very people that think someone else is getting the Great deal in the Sleepers.. In fact they should have their coach fares raised dramatically, maybe then we could come to a bit more agreement here!


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I have long argued that Amtrak should be offering Slumbercoach, Section, or both as a "second class" accommodation, offering a bed, but not a meal. There should be a less luxurious option between coach and private-room sleeper. Amtrak did offer Slumbercoaches for a while there. If the Amfleet Is get replaced, I bet they could be converted into some form of section sleeper. 18 sections, 36 individuals, although you could sell the sections as double-beds if you are a CLOSE party traveling together, I guess.

Viewliners hold a theoretical (2 per roomette, 3 per bedroom) maximum of 33, but its only sold to one party, so they probably on average hold more like 25 "sold out". This could offer 36-54, depending on whether you can get people to double up in lower beds. But figure that they'd hold about, oh, 40 people "sold out" verses 25.

Superliners? Lessee, you'd need an Accessible room. And then you get 6 sections on the lower floor, 20 on the upper floor. 26 sections, a maximum theoretical capacity of 80, but a realistic capacity (figuring about a quarter of the lower berths get two people) of 61 people. Versus a theoretical of 49 and realistic of 36 for the Superliner Sleeper, and 75 for coach.

As for how much that would cost, I dunno. $50/night above railfare? More like Businessclass in price.


----------

